Guide wrote:Why not space? What is the reason to make time preeminent. Please do not stupidly say, because I can find a section in the dictionary that says so. One must point to the datum of being, bite (DO IT ASSHOLE!).
Datum of being = "experience" as, what is "there", and such like. We want to see the underwear of the lady with eyes now narrowing, now blurring, now vacant, or evidence for ourselves.
guide wrote:will speak with you in the course of my imminent departure, already underway
Meno_ wrote:The whole dynamism of time has to include the defining functional derivitive of spatial temporal relativity of change. The fact that there is no defining moment of rates of change within relative sets, entail the conclusion that only an absolute set exists in so far, as to create it as an emerging property.
Therefore , only relative definitions of space time can be functionally defined
That however does not invalidate an absolute set wherein emergence of nonfunctional spatial and temporal sets may occur.
In other words, there may be a set of embedded spatial arrangements which are totally motionless, as Parmenedies concluded, while another set of constant movement may also. exist. per Heraclitus Leibnitz.suggested as such.
These signs may have time and soaceless signidications in a matrix .
Meno_ wrote:The two spheres is exactly pointed as a re-flection of Leibnitz toward a reverse apprehension between Parmenides and Heraclitus.
Meno_ wrote:Its possible to infer a connection to the idea of not nullification, but an overlap of some processes and still processing of information on a level not yet accessible .
bahman wrote:
So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal
surreptitious75 wrote:bahman wrote:So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal
This is a hypothetical paradox rather than an actual paradox because actual ones cannot exist in reality
You are using logic to explain your position but your logic isnt actually based on any empirical evidence
There are plenty of things in the Universe that dont make sense to us but still exist anyway
And the finite / infinite nature of time [ whichever one it is ] is simply one of those things
Santiago wrote:What I find rather amusing is how physicists will speak of time as if it were a physical property. The same thing occurs with the concept of space; they refer to it as a "fabric".
Space is not a tangible substance - it is literally the emptiness between objects. Likewise with time, it is not some independent, physical property that you can touch - time is an abstraction congruent with movement and changing states of being. If nothing is moving or changing, then there is no time.
Faust wrote:OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.
Dan~ wrote:Faust wrote:OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.
Existence/Movement > Measurement > Experience > Existence
These 4 ideas make up a loop where we basically see the world through our eyes instead of through the reality itself.
Truth can be related to light, due to its illuminating qualities.
Basically we're a lense made of lenses, when it comes to the matter of human minds.
Meno_ wrote:Faust wrote:OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.
Meno_ wrote:Meno_ wrote:Faust wrote:OP is making an understandable but monumental category error. Time does not exist in time, so it cannot have a beginning. It is not eternal, it is non temporal.
It's a measurement. It's not something that is, it's something we do. Time does not exist in the empirical world. Any more than a circle or an inch does.
The example of aupermassive black holes which do not emit light, show the value of effects of spatial objective relationships without the necessary perceptive validation. As such, the temporal conjunction may only be a post facto inductive reasoning.
However, if so, the non temporal awareness of animals may not lead to such reasoning, without an evolutionary sense , without making such an inference.
If Darwin's pre-supposition to hold water, such very large objects may curve light, but not to the degree that it nihilizes it's effect. For such an effect to occur, is, to create a perfect circularity of light , with the object disappearing.
In such a scenario, both, the beginning and the end of time persist in Silmultaniety. Or, perpetual beginning and end.
And that can occur if there is an immediate relation of both the absolute micro and macro vibration of the minimal and maximal structure of spacetime, with no measurable gap .
It creates the illusion of separability creating variable intervals.
At absolute levels such projections become objective criteria by which such can even be imagined.
Cyclical ideas around the perfect circle demand it. At least in my mind.
bahman wrote:We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.
So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users