Infinity and Present Day

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

click here
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 07:46 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
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...


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.



nameless wrote:

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.


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?


nameless wrote:

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.)


hmm I think I used the wrong word.

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."
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 10:18 pm
@click here,
click here;50984 wrote:
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.

(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.

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

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'.

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

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

Quote:
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?

Proven to and by a certain Perspective.
What I might consider good evidence, another Perspective might just sniff at it an turn away. It is difficult to 'exactly' define an illusion by other than psychological and mental processes as oneself experiences it.
There are all sorts of working definitions; "see you at noon.."
"The distance between two events" etc..
All are relics of the illusion of 'motion' and 'linearity/sequence'.


Quote:
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."

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.

"There are trivial truths and there ar great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true!" - Neils Bohr
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 10:24 pm
@click here,
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.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 10:34 pm
@Pathfinder,
Nameless, I notice you always capitalize the word "Perspective". If I might ask, why? without receiving a why not in return.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 10:38 pm
@click here,
click here;48784 wrote:
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.
It is not necessary that either of these premises is true. All that's necessary is that we think we are passing linearly through time. You cannot draw any conclusions about time itself except through a human perspective.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 03:26 am
@Pathfinder,
Smile

The tick of time shuts out eturnity, time has nothing to do with eturnity, and the function of life is to experience eturnity in the here and now. Joseph Campbell

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 03:29 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;51104 wrote:
Nameless, I notice you always capitalize the word "Perspective". If I might ask, why? without receiving a why not in return.

If ever there is an appropriate noun that cuts right to the essence of who we are; it is 'Perspective' ('Conscious Perspective' aka 'Soul').
It is by Conscious Perspective of Mind that 'existence' is.
We are Consciousness. We are also one and the same as the perceived universe. So, out of respect and in reference to this 'position' and understanding, I capitalize the 'P'.
We name our illusory and fleeting bodies, we name or cars and toys and everything under the sun, but without Perspective, there would be no existence to 'name', just undifferentiated potential, Mind/Consciousness (all there ever is or can be anyway!). It is by us 'Perspectives' that Consciousness can 'know' Mind. In a sense, 'we' Perspectives are god's 'enlightenment', where Consciousness can be aware of (the potential contents of) Mind.
Worthy of a capital 'P', no?

"The complete universe, at any moment, is fully defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives." -Book of Fudd (4:20)
That in itself deserves a capital 'P'!

There is method to this madness!
*__-
 
click here
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 04:48 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
(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.


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.

It is the same as when the theist or atheist makes an arguement that 'contradicts' their being or not being a God. No matter how many arguements one side throws out it doesn't increase the probability that one side is true. You can not have one be 'more true' then the other. Only one side is right (God exists. God does not exist.) One may say "Every day we are disproving/proving the existence of God." But it is just wishful thinking.

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.


nameless wrote:

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.


Apparently my choice of the word "truth" still was not a good word to represent what I am saying.

You can not say that "The universe had no beginning, that is a fact that is undisputable as such as 1 = 1 !"
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 05:14 pm
@click here,
click here;51152 wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as an absolute proof in science. Demanding such is sure that you will not need to ever critically examine your 'beliefs'. Like in religion, automatically dismiss, on the any grounds necessary, anything that 'threatens' one's 'beliefs'. That is not philosophy, nor are your 'arguments'.

Here are some links that might help you catch up a little to current thinking on the subject;
Super clocks: More accurate than time itself
Is time an illusion?
Outside of time: The quantum gravity computer
Come back after you have read the complete articals. They are not too difficult and rather laymanlijke language. Learn what they are saying and try to be aware of some of the implications.

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

It has already been 'refuted' ('disputation' is trivial).
1=1 and at the same time 1=/=1 and at the same time 1 might = 1 while at the same time both = and =/=... QM again refutes the axioms of math and logic. Catch up.
An argumentative person can 'dispute' anything, but not necessarily 'refute'. There is a difference. Mere arguing and 'nyah, nyah' is not a 'refutation'.
That there is no beginning, no linearity, is all kinds of 'disputable' from certain Perspectives, but not 'refutable' (yet). But, due to the sloppy nature of your sentence ('indisputable' vs 'irrefutable') it cannot be rationally answered.
If it is a 'fact' that the universe has no 'beginning', then it can certainly be stated, truely, as such. Whether supportable at all, or not, is irrelevent, what would be relevent is the 'factuality/truth/reality' of the statement.
There need be no 'movement' to convince you. The information is 'out there' and available for 'critical thought' (if available).

The current issue of Scientific American magazine's main article "Was Einstein Wrong?" (and nameless right!) adds further evidence to what I am offering, and you are resisting. I think if you could attempt to understood the 'opposition' (before deny/dismissing it) you might feel different. Or not. The problem is that you seem to see conflicting Perspectives/theories as 'opposition' (to be defended against) rather than 'opportunity' for learning and growth.
Once you have read and digested the links and articles offered, we can continue this discussion, if you are still interested.
Till then...
Peace
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 05:44 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;51100 wrote:
nameless, are you talking about the laws of nature, physics?

Refering to Bohr's quote? That's 'him' talking. He is a physicist, so...

Quote:
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.

Ah, Neils Bohr's quote. I offered it as relevent to the topic. I do not condone nor condemn it.
I see what you are saying, but I also see vise versa.
Ultimate Truth!/Reality! is irrefutable and not only omniversal, but transcends the omniverse/existence, and certainly the dualistically limited 'words' that we use.
Little 'truths', perhaps, are a relic of Perspective, and are therefore available to 'interpretation' (true, false, maybe, according to Perspective...) from 'opposite' (or just 'other') Perspectives.
I never discussed this quote with him so have no surety of his intended meaning. If I try, as i did, I can 'make it work', for this Perspective. The attempt to 'translate', to 'make it work' is a sure Perspective widener, giving greater understanding of the 'whole'.
 
click here
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 06:15 am
@nameless,
[quote=nameless]There is no such thing as an absolute proof in science. Demanding such is sure that you will not need to ever critically examine your 'beliefs'. Like in religion, automatically dismiss, on the any grounds necessary, anything that 'threatens' one's 'beliefs'. That is not philosophy, nor are your 'arguments'.
[/quote]

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. Unless you are to able to search everywhere simultaneaously you can not be absolutely sure that a unicorn does not exist.

Even if everyone in the world says they have never seen a unicorn that does not change whether or not a unicorn is existent or not. For all we know there could be a unicorn colony in the center of the earth or on mars. No matter how many more people you ask you can not come closer to disproving a unicorns existence.

Even if you wish to subscribe to saying that our 'chances' of finding a unicorn decrease after every person that says no. Ok, and that gets you where? That would not allow you to disprove something to any degree. Some like to think that because no one has ever seen God with their own human eyes we can disprove his existence. 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.

[quote=nameless]
Here are some links that might help you catch up a little to current thinking on the subject;
Super clocks: More accurate than time itself
Is time an illusion?
Outside of time: The quantum gravity computer
Come back after you have read the complete articals. They are not too difficult and rather laymanlijke language. Learn what they are saying and try to be aware of some of the implications.
[/quote]

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. All these 'changes' or 'blips of accuracy' in time are not 'time' changing but the fault of the clock. A clocks purpose is to order us and create a measurement that we can all follow that logs change. Yes we created the term year, second, minute etc... but that doesn't mean that they do not have a real world value. Even though we can not accurately measure with them right now does not diminish them in the least.

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.

Article 2: I do not know much about general relativity but I would assume that it is knocking time off due to bad definitions of time. The fact that something ages differently is not a change in time simply a change in the rate of aging.

[quote=Article 2]That Rovelli's approach yields the correct probabilities in quantum mechanics seems to justify his intuition that the dynamics of the universe can be described as a network of correlations
[/quote]

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.

So far in articles 1 and 2 it talks about time changing etc...

Time is not changing it is those things which are being drawn as examples that are changing and not because of some innate 'force' of time that slows down or speeds up but because of what ever physical variables are affecting the example. I don't see how someone can say time is changeable. It would seem that by definition it isn't changeable. i.e. Absolute morals laws that are changeable... That doesn't make any sense it is purely a contradiction.

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. Take numbers for example. Yes we defined what '2' represents. When referencing like so: "there are 2 computers in that room" we define what '2' is yet the fact that their are '2' computers reflects that there is a concept that can be applied.


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


[quote=nameless]
It has already been 'refuted' ('disputation' is trivial).
1=1 and at the same time 1=/=1 and at the same time 1 might = 1 while at the same time both = and =/=... QM again refutes the axioms of math and logic. Catch up.
An argumentative person can 'dispute' anything, but not necessarily 'refute'. There is a difference. Mere arguing and 'nyah, nyah' is not a 'refutation'.
That there is no beginning, no linearity, is all kinds of 'disputable' from certain Perspectives, but not 'refutable' (yet). But, due to the sloppy nature of your sentence ('indisputable' vs 'irrefutable') it cannot be rationally answered.
If it is a 'fact' that the universe has no 'beginning', then it can certainly be stated, truely, as such. Whether supportable at all, or not, is irrelevent, what would be relevent is the 'factuality/truth/reality' of the statement.
There need be no 'movement' to convince you. The information is 'out there' and available for 'critical thought' (if available).

The current issue of Scientific American magazine's main article "Was Einstein Wrong?" (and nameless right!) adds further evidence to what I am offering, and you are resisting. I think if you could attempt to understood the 'opposition' (before deny/dismissing it) you might feel different. Or not. The problem is that you seem to see conflicting Perspectives/theories as 'opposition' (to be defended against) rather than 'opportunity' for learning and growth.
Once you have read and digested the links and articles offered, we can continue this discussion, if you are still interested.
Till then...
Peace[/quote]


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.

 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 08:15 am
@click here,
So if I draw a picture on a piece of paper of some fantastical image created from my mind, than you say there is a good reason to believe that it could possibly exist out there somewhere eating green cheese and transporting little green men, because it cannot be proven to be untrue.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 09:58 am
@Pathfinder,
YO
The only way time is real is in its effects, the effects it has upon all biology and the changing conditions or behaviours of the elements, as the gravity of the spheres dictates duration, sequence, regularity these things occur without the aid of cognitive perceptions, the changing relations of the spheres governs all other relations on the planet, even these elemental forces are governed by the greater cosmos.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:53 am
@boagie,
I stare at the screen half reading boagies post , i read it again, and again my mind wandering , pondering...Every time i read it its the same but my moments in time have changed gone forever and loosing those moments can be almost frightening like the sands of time running uncontrollably from me.Time is the precious thing we cant stop enjoying, clocks should only guide us not dictate us.Macbeth" How goeth the night?"Lady Macbeth "Near odds with morn, kind sir". Time passes with or without clocks they are just beacons from one place in time to another..
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 05:39 pm
@click here,
click here;51460 wrote:

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.

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

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

Everything exists (in context).

Quote:
...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....

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

Quote:
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.

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

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

Rather like having a bit of desert w/out having the meal.

Quote:
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.

"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."

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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'.

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

So what? Off topic.
'Physics' has no clue what 'gravity' is.

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

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

Quote:
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.

Like anything else.
You can never actually 'touch' anything.

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

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

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

You needn't accept anything. It is food for... 'critical thought'.

Quote:
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.

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.

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

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
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2009 07:25 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Saying anything doesn't necessarily make it true. What are you arguing?
Stated or not, it may, nevertheless, be true.

Of course it could be true. You have stated that it 'is' true and I remain skeptical.

nameless wrote:

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

Yes I would be quite surprised if you were talking about an example that I have yet to write here.

Of course you were not talking about my example. It is an example.. analogy...


nameless wrote:

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


I read that and I replied to that. It is not distinguishing anomalies in 'time' it is distinguishing effects from the earths geoid. Time does not flux. The effect on the clock does. Time by definition does not have changes in its 'speed'. The effect of someones head aging faster has nothing to do with time it has to do with the effects of your head as it relates to the earths geoid. We do not define time as relative to our earths geoid as there are different effects on each planet etc...


nameless wrote:

"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.


Both of these quotes are unsupported opinions. If your going to quote something make sure it is supported.


nameless wrote:

"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.


Obviously if one theory is true and the other false then ofcourse there would be changes in views etc... If the theory is true.



nameless wrote:

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."


I still don't understand the relationship with QM and time. I'm not being ignorant so don't go shouting that. I just don't understand.


nameless wrote:

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

That is because time is not a measurement system. A second is a measurement system just as is the metric system. A measurement does not flux.


nameless wrote:

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'.


woah woah what are you talking about? I read the articles with the intention of understanding. I am not dismissing something that is uncomfortable to me. This has nothing to do with 'beliefs'... Where did you get that from? Nor does the truth of what your saying have any affect on any other beliefs that I have... I have no idea why you think the theory you present somehow conflicts with some belief system that you percieve I hold.

Let me explain. I have been brought up with the knowledge that I now hold. You present a new theory which I would be foolish to accept without question. I do not choose to dismiss it because it conflicts with things I learned in the past. You haven't really even given me much to dismiss. I think you believe I hold onto some defintion of time that I acctually don't.

Let me give you an example. The price of a PS3, according to my knowledge is $400. If you come to me and tell me that it costs $350 I am going to question you for proof. It doesn't matter to me that it costs $400 or $350 as I don't plan on buying at either price point. Though what you say conflicts with what I say and if I do not choose one or the other (or something else) I may embarrass myself later finding out that the price really is $350.

Like I have said it doesn't matter to me which one is true or not. As obviously if it is acctually true then I would be ignorant to except it as anything but true. Though I would be a fool to only take your word for it.


nameless wrote:

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

I don't agree with that. Time is not variously percieved. The affects of our attempts to attach a measurement to time is variously perceived.


nameless wrote:

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


Please show me where I claim that I am so good at critical thought.

It has no value in proving something to me. Back to the PS3 example, you could write an article saying how you speculate the price drop of the PS3 yet that would not be an article that you would go to for acctual answers to a price drop on the PS3.

nameless wrote:

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.


Flatness of the earth?

I use analogies to better explain what I mean. All you are ignoring is my explanation which doesn't make much sense.

nameless wrote:

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


Again this has nothing to do with 'beliefs'. I must have missed the logically valid points that you made?

You seem to be in some sort of bad mood about this whole conversation.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 03:35 pm
@click here,
click here;48784 wrote:
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.


Hello there,

Of course the universe had a beginning. It arose from the ashes of what preceded it. That had a beginning too, and so on.

The mistake is in presuming that all things commenced with the initiation of this universe. This particular timeline did, of course, but it is merely a timeline within a more vast timeline, that is itself within a more vast timeline, and so on.

Try applying what I call (The russian doll concept) infinite interiors - and infinite exteriors.
- It all starts making sense when you stop restricting yourself to the mereness of what factual science finds measurable and safe.

Thank you and farewell

Mark...
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 06:14 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;48791 wrote:
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.
Eh? And excatly how do you know? ..you don't! ..?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:32:15