Understood. Translated in this Perspective would be as follows; When one's Perspective is linear, 'motion' and thus 'time' is a feature of that Perspective.


'Time' = linear (sequential) Perspective + the perception of 'motion'. Time as we define/know it can only be linear (the fabled 'arrow of time'), even in 'reverse'.


Fair enough... well, there are also those who see time (linearity) as stretching off infinitely in all 'both' directions of the observed 'linearity'. So, from that Perspective, one can say thus and still subscribe...

Whoah! (Sound of screetching train wheels) First, 'linear time' has not been 'proven' as anything more than a feature of a local phenomenal appearance. It is an 'observation'. And science is disproving it every day as a quick search would reveal. of existence/universe, not inherent (other than as a particular Perspective) to the basic nature of existence. In 'reality', nothing moves. As motion is actually impossible, the notion of 'motion' and thus 'time' are personally Perspectival illusions.
Nice to see science catching up.

Have we missed the part where i informed you that 'empiricism' is flawed and thus refuted. It still has a few local pragmatic applications, like the pedal powered grinding wheel out behind the barn...
Arguing 'empiricism' with me merely tells me that you have a bit of catching up to do on the subject.
Logic trumps empiricism, and so does praxeology.
If someone came up to you and said, "I just observed something that is A and not A at the same time," you wouldn't chuck out logic. You'd probably think the person was crazy, or look for some basic error in their assumptions (e.g. an fallacy of equivocation, one of their A's is not really identical to the other.)

No they can not say that time is linear and stretches off infinitely in both directions while agreeing that the universe had no beginning. If you believe that time is linear and the universe had no beginning then you would never 'arrive' at present day as my OP said.

I could have just as easily said linear time can not be proven. It has neither been proven nor disproven as you would agree?

So what is wrong with me stating that it can not be disproven?

I'm sure it also has alot to do with how you define "time" for you can modify it and disprove or prove it one way or another. If you define it as a measurement system to gauge your day could that not be proven?

maybe this would be better wording "then you can not state that the universe having no beginning is the absolute truth, no if's and's or but's."

Premise 1: All future dates in time are attainable only through the passing of those before.
Premise 2: You can not arrive at a specific date in time without first starting somewhere in history before that.

Nameless, I notice you always capitalize the word "Perspective". If I might ask, why? without receiving a why not in return.

(Ahhh, we're talking about 'beliefs'?)
No matter what we 'believe', or not, we can never be anywhere but 'Here!'/'Now!'
We don't 'arive' 'Here/Now'! It is an inherency of existence. We can be nowhere else.

Oh, it is being 'disproven' (from a scientific Perspective) every day.
Linear time is a redundancy. 'Time' is an emergent notion of the perception of motion. Actual 'motion' is not possible, neither is 'time'.

Nothing at all, though, from a scientific Perspective, that would be an incorrect statement.

Sure you can, but you can never know if true always, as 'time' might alter the data, sometime in the 'future', requiring a new theory.
Depending on what you mean by 'absolute truth'... If I said that I enjoyed the dinner, that could be considered an 'absolute truth'.
A common 'absolute truth' is 'monism, One!' Absolute symmetry! 'Words', and all else existent, is contextual, dualistic, and cannot ever speak accurately of the Monism. All that can be said of that 'ultimate truth' is what it is not. There are no positive features or qualities of a perfect symmetry. So words can be no more than a metaphoric and poetic 'impression' and 'pointing finger'. Words can only describe/define existence.

Generally, I do not use such a tortured and baggage laden term as 'truth'. I try to find more accurate ways to define what i mean. I can say 'reality', as everyone knows what 'reality' is, we all live it. But ask what is truth, as so often on these forums, and all one gets is argument, as most often truth is a religious- emotional- egoic term, not scientific (which is closer to 'this' Perspective) and discord and a multitude of opinions follow. Very 'subjective'. In this sense, however, everyone's 'truths' are a feature of the greater 'Truth'.
There are 'truths' of/in/regarding existence that are 'universal', but is that to be considered 'ultimate'?
Not to me.

You can not half disprove something. The fact that you haven't disproven it means that it still has the potentiality of being correct. Nor do you 'increase' the 'probability' of it being potentially false by tossing a potential contradiction at it.
Saying that "it is being 'disproven' (from a scientific Perspective) every day." are just words lost in the wind until an absolute proof can be found.

You can not say that "The universe had no beginning, that is a fact that is undisputable as such as 1 = 1 !"

nameless, are you talking about the laws of nature, physics?

Are you saying that the greater truths are merely our speculations and therefore are always arguable, whereas the simpler truths are those natural laws that cannot be changed.

You may seem to come to the conclusion that with the data that you have that what you percieve is more likely to be true then false. When you say this though you do not actually increase the likelyhood of something being true or false.

For example: Existence of a unicorn.
Either a unicorn exists or it does not exist.

...You can not get to a proof of nonexistence from that and its pointless to even relate the two as visual representation has no relation to existence or non existence....

Article 1: It talks of the clock being effected at different heights in relation to the earths geoid because of gravitational pull. All that means is that the clock mechanically is not perfect in doing its job as it is being affected by outside variables. So it is not talking about 'time' changing but the clocks inaccuracy of measuring time.

I like the quote on the first page "time is what you measure in seconds."

I do not see the relevance in the article to this topic. Nothing that this article says even implies that linear time is not existent or existent.

A second will only ever have the length of another second. Saying that in space a second is longer then a second on earth is foolish as the only problem is the clock not the unit of measurement. A unit of measurement can not change unless you have poorly defined that unit of measurement. 1 meter will always be 1 meter.

I'm not sure where he gets this justification for his intuition. I'm not sure how using this measuring device with in the measurement some how gets rid of time.

There are concepts which I learned in physics that do not have any relation to time. For example calculating gravitational force between 2 objects.

I don't see how someone can say time is changeable.

Time is not a physical entity that will ever been seen or touched it is something that exists in a concept form and which we have applied values to.

Article 3: This just seems speculative and informative for future investigations.

I am more then happy to hear the 'opposition' what I am not ready to do is except it without questioning.

Picking apart my anaologies gets you and I no where infact it makes advancing this conversation more difficult as I've had to restated what I mean 3 times. I think you know what I am saying yet you decide to ignore it until I get my analogies to be understood by you.

Saying anything doesn't necessarily make it true. What are you arguing?
Stated or not, it may, nevertheless, be true.

Trivial. I wasn't talking of this...

If you read a bit more carefully, the clock was super-hyper-accurate and thus able to distinguish these anomalies in 'time'.

"It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."
It is not reality that has a time flow, but our very approximate knowledge of reality. Time is the effect of our ignorance "

"At reality's deepest level, then, it remains unknown whether time will hold strong or melt away like a Salvador Dali clock. Perhaps, as Rovelli and others suggest, time is all a matter of perspective - not a feature of reality but a result of your missing information about reality." As I have been saying.

"A fuzzy causality is almost inevitable in quantum gravity, says Hardy. After all, even the theories that it will replace show hints of causal confusion. According to Einstein's theories of relativity, if two people are moving relative to one another, it is sometimes impossible for them to tell whether one event happens before another. Einstein's universe has no universal past, present and future.

Cosmic anarchy

In quantum theory there are many things that are impossible to measure precisely, such as a particle's position and momentum. Put the two theories together to make a quantum theory of gravity and it is almost inevitable that we are going to have trouble with notions of cause and effect: the logic of tock following tick or output following input just won't apply in the quantum-gravity universe.
The logic of tock following tick just doesn't apply at the smallest scales in the universe "

"The kind of nonlocality one encounters in quantum mechanics seems to call for an absolute simultaneity, which would pose a very real and ominous threat to special relativity."

You make it seem like you actually read the articles, yet you say something like this. Sigh...

If you reread the articles with the intention of understanding, rather than automatically dismissing what is uncomfortable and defending your beliefs, we might be able to continue the convo rather than interminably circling your 'beliefs'.

It is not 'changeable. Nothing 'changes'. It is variously perceived, a matter of PERSPECTIVE!

And of no value to you? Isn't this the place for 'critical thought' application? You claim to be so good at it, yet...

All the analogies in the world about the flatness of the earth renders the faulty premise no truer.
That is why i ignore them; trivial.

And you completely ignore the logically valid points that I make (other than the triviality of "saying it don't make it so" kind of stuff), knee-jerkishly glissanding on to your pet 'beliefs', again failing to respond to my specific points.

At this point, I feel that this convo is fruitless and repetitively boring, and I am going to unsubscribe now.
Believe as you must. It's not like you have any 'choice'...
Peace

This is my first sylogism so I may not have the concept right.


Premise 1: All future dates in time are attainable only through the passing of those before.
Premise 2: You can not arrive at a specific date in time without first starting somewhere in history before that.
Conclusion: The universe had a beginning or present day doesn't exist.

Please help me structure my arguement a little better though I think I am going to explain it more below.

Many seem to say on this forum that the universe had no beginning. I don't see the logic in this. For if the universe had no beginning then we would not be here right now at present day.

Here is my example.

1 billion = present day

If I ask you to count to 1 billion you will start from 1 and begin to count. You will get there after a while but you will eventually get there. So present day can be obtained if there is a start.

But if I ask you to count to 1 billion but you can not start at 1. For this time you have to get to 1 billion while counting all the way from negative infinity. The problem is you will never get to 1 billion for to count to 1 billion you need to acctually start somewhere.

Well time does not flow, it is always in a state of 'infinity', limited to syntax that is.

If each point in time were intrinsically connected, then ok.