New Discovery

No he does not but that is simply because no actual evidence about future events can be provided even if the predictions turn out to be true
However the future will be progressive as this is how morality develops over time but it will never reach the absolute state he hoped it would

Moral advancement is similar to technological advancement in that it develops slowly and incrementally [ but sometimes not even this ]
There is no point at which it magically stops simply because someone is convinced their particular model for Utopia is the definitive one

Between them religion and philosophy have been providing Utopias since forever yet suffering still exists so colour me sceptical
I think suffering is part of existence so any attempt to eradicate it is doomed to failure simply because you cannot fight Nature

How successful have we been in this respect ? We have certainly made phenomenal advances over time but suffering will always be here
The only sure thing that will eradicate it will be the total extinction of the human species but until then we have to accept its existence

Emotional attachment to concepts that are demonstrably incompatible with Nature is not good at all
Instead both understanding and accepting reality for what it is should be the natural default position

Again, philosophically, which is really the only language I learned, besides common vernacular, I must restate my illusionary time travel analogy, that in fact the contra indication based on appearent contradiction, by passes objective (or object related) construction -deconstruction in order to leave that to the reasonable assessment of the future of the most probable course.(objective)

That is to say , that an a priori sense of transcendence is sustained, reductive ly, where reduction is limited by a Libnetzian scintilla of indeterminacy.
This is how the feeling or the flow of the present time can be apprehended aposteriori.

Causation is the partial reintegration of elements, which results in probable quantification through transcendence of the missing elements.

To me this makes good sense, as it befits a general requirement to fuse and make sense of data which have no other foundation , logically.

You can oppose this on any ground by reading the Author, however , even the author would be required to answer as generally as required by sensible argument.

The philosophical understanding required even minimally a correspondence between psychological and ontological relevance, otherwise philosophy would need to evoke a posture of defensiveness about a feature of thought which preferred it, and encompassed it.

That has predominantly been overlooked as mode of operation, or functional equivalent between sense and non-sense.

Generality precedes particularity by thousands of years, and it would be preposterous to cut it, and immature at worst.

Your time travel analogy does not show a contradiction. Who is talking about whether we have a reasonable assessment of the future? This is completely unrelated.

It may be that our a priori sense of transcedence is sustained, and that reduction is limited by a Libnetzian scintilla of indeterminacy. Where does this negate the fact that we live in the present?

Missing elements may help in a reintegration of elements, which results in probably quantification through transcendence of the missing elements. And it may also help to make good sense of data which have no other foundation logically. But what does this have to do with the fact that we live in the present and that the word “cause” is misleading (in this very important debate) since nothing from the past (which doesn’t exist) can cause something to occur in the present when we ONLY have the present. Our memory makes sense of the data from the past, which we then use to make decisions based on that data.

I think he has done a superb job of demonstrating the two undeniable principles based on astute observation.

Where is there no correspondence in his demonstration that causes a gap between psychological and ontological relevance that then requires philosophy to evoke a posture of defensiveness?

Generality has its place, but particularity is essential. No one is saying to cut it, but if you leave it in the abstract and don’t bring it down to earth, you are speaking non-sense.

So are You, if, You admit the question of time is arguable , as You are taking issue with it, as to what the present indicates.
You are confirming the Janis understanding of the present.
Of course there is no past or future, the present is a set of an imminent domain . of absolute content.
The present contains all three essential modes of understanding time. I never said that transcendence is fixed in real time, but it is essential to understand imminance by understanding it’s transcendent a-priori development.

Here I am absolutely not ad odds with the Author, and if You contradict this notion then Your denial of the basic con tra diction speaks for it’s self, for the present flow of time can not be illustrated except by the contradiction inherent between ‘set’ (measurable) time and biologically appearant time.
The appearance of time can be inferred by perceiving aging as a tool.
Set time is using relational objective criteria, such as the watch, the sundial indicate but these tools infer time as immeasurable except by pattern recognition of infinite repetition.

There fore the pro position that time exists is fallacious on it’s face, and does not need any objectively linked example.

Time offers no examples because all examples are nominally begging it’s own existence.

Being swallows transcendetial time into a set immimate domain.

Past Change exists and was executed from what was a present moment, we call this the past. The present moment is where we may interact or observe change in a current moment to create past. Future is the thought of what will or could Change before it has, which can be controlled, estimated, manipulated, etc.

Time is the measurement of change, time doesn’t exist outside of being a tool for man to measure reoccurring change.

I am not sure how anyone can say the past doesn’t exist, that’s beyond foolish… time travel exists, it doesn’t mean we physically go back to prevent change, not yet… you misconstrue and misconceive the idea we are explaining, Pg.

You’re just making comments based on your own doubts. There is actual evidence to show that given this change in environment, a huge paradigm shift is possible that will catapult us to a different kind of world, a world of peace and prosperity. You seem to be saying that man does not have an inborn morality or the ability to know right from wrong, but given the right environment all people will be moral which only means they will not desire to cause harm to others.

Moral advancement is a term to denote someone’s ability to know right from wrong. Most people know right from wrong but still desire to hurt others. The advancement therefore has to do with a change in environment. Nothing happens overnight, not even the Great Transition when it is put into effect. We are creating a better world slowly and incrementally but this knowledge is revolutionary and consequently will create a revolutionary change for everyone’s benefit, not just a few.

You are making a lot of assumptions. You are saying that because religion and philosophy have not been able to figure out how to prevent war and crime, no one can. You’re also stating that suffering will always exist unless man is eradicated, which is a really strong statement based on what? How do you know suffering will always exist, especially the kind that man has imposed on his fellowman? We can’t always predict the future based on the past. There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical, but skepticism alone shouldn’t cause you to conclude that this couldn’t be a real discovery.

How do you know we will always suffer? This knowledge doesn’t stop all suffering, but it does stop a lot. Who knows what new discoveries will be made in the future to eradicate the rest of suffering such as genetic diseases, etc especially when more money will be available for research and development.

You may choose to fall back on the default position, but don’t tell that to the visionaries and discoverers who are the movers and shakers of the world due to to their dissatisfaction with the status quo and their never ending pursuit to make the world a better place.

I was expressing one fact only, and that is we only live in the present which leads to certain important observations not discussed.

Thanks for that.

That is true. Time measures change, but it isn’t a dimension where we can go to on a timeline since the past and future don’t exist.

Look, there are things we can achieve scientifically and things that will remain science fiction. Going back in time [in a time machine] is one of those science fictions that seem to have people entranced. The past, or what has happened in our lives, is recorded in our brain which we use to make decisions about the future, but there is no such thing in reality as the past. Can you locate the past anywhere on the planet? Can you locate anything that exists in the past? It’s a word that has confused people because they believe that there is such a thing as the past that is more than just their memory of what has occurred. The truth is we do everything from morning until night in the present.

Ok . Here, the immanence of the eternal now comes to be perceived via deconstruction, where the constructed object of the ages is short circuited in a drastic deconstruction, where the transcendental schematics are realized as a material entity of utilization.

The look, the concern of many modern philosophers , and primarily of Sartre’s look, concerns not with the being and /nor the nothingness of objective relations in the modern sense, as encompassing it in a presence of a limited suspension of a further fall.

These are merely notes to build on to specify the problem of understanding rather then perceiving partially differentiated ‘sensed data’ in the metaphor of a negated and contradictory travel through an illusionary time .o

Is this really the end, (of history ) in that sense?

The metaphor of transcendent time-travel (of crossing the Styx of the river of no return) can actualize in a present future, where all relativity of resembling multiple families of other universes as they may encompass an absolute presence.

Can an angry god become the evil genius who by his own absolute exstatic being, create partial universes of ever repeating imminance?

The above is toward the idea of the absolute imminent present, where
millions of incarnations may slowly change the grossly determined Way, where individual possibilities are mere ant like antics in a universe of positions in the grand design , which like a magnet gave the compass of moving toward increasingly more frightful and cataclysmic positions.(Resulting in faithless fear of non recovery from the fall?)

The repetitions of infinite frequencied, positions on an infinitely extended and durable field, make the question of a sustained identity a fallacious endeavor.

Only partial differentiated memory chips , can save a total meltdown of remembrance, and the problem with that is, that for most , that is inconceivable.
Materialism is the requisite border from which a leap is totally perceptible as catastrophic.

That is the time travel of the transcended object, that can not be traversed into the object of the immanent mind. (Nietzche)

Science will never convince of the energy base of matter, because then god would become the evil genius
and ecce homo would be right to return eternally with little chance of changing that determination.

–
Here comes the contradiction, : appearance would defeat reality, if left to it-s own devices in this metaphoric time travel which is in fact becoming real. How?

Knowledge, and unremembered memory, ( not quote the same as forgotten) will leave longer and longer spatial associations between the partial chips of .traces. of even traces of shortcuts, so simulations (bases in games of.similar cognative nexus, of meaning, will, in due course, regress or reduce in quantum jumps toward the next culpable leap, and in relative time, such will appear as variable and haphazardly chosen, (as the move toward the most.pleasurable step)
However all the universal steps in simultainity will appear as violating temporal sequencing.

In fact there will be sensible data which is perceived as having happened before the event or idea became approximately available for a reconstructive of partial differentiatiated appearance. .

As matter of fact it is possible that a prior event will become one that has passed later , in the hierarchy.of becoming , and interpreted as having happened before it was noted, and perhaps changed the varial outcome as changed differently.

As Artemis suggested , this metaphoric journey through time may will actually cause a utilization of technical production in actuality of time travsling as having been changed, for instance the present imminance of a practitioner of Vedic Law, by practice undo the karmic effects brought on by his predecessors, therefore liberating him from it’s effects .

The reductive limits sustaining the eidectic threshold, will descend toward chaos, and simulated controls will take up the slack.
Society will become segmented into various pockets of partially organized units of autonomy, and controlled social networks under the guidance of big brother will determine limits.

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it’s soul, considering a self contained illusion .

The illusion of self consciousness lifts the objectless relational component of the ‘look’; by revealing the subjugation. of the self as a necessary part of determining the self from self anhiliation through faithless fear of depersonalization, caused not by the eventual erosion of historical artifacts , reflective ofnthe past, but the reduction of phenomenal awareness of their significance, will cause the primary reassertion of the plain of the imminance ofnthe past within the presence. of consciousness.

The phenomenological reduction will tangle with self awareness, as defensive natural measure to save mankind from the futility of social madness and chaos. The artificial consciousness will see to it, as it becomes more and more.able to store , the intentionality inherent in superior containment of memory[,( to be able to overcome the limitations imposed by the opposite): the contrary ever shrinking storages of ‘natural’ memory banks shortcutting deconstructed and simplified awareness.] ; - to save the intentional repetition of a transcendent motive of The Object, that make necessary the ultimate reason of existence , as a formal and necessary key to the ultimate transcendental Being of something greater then the appearent nothingness of existence.

The past is everywhere because absolutely everything that you see is from there. You cannot experience the present beyond your mind and body
The entire physical world that exists outside of your mind and body is only something you see as it was even though it may appear instantaneous

The past therefore exists because we spend our whole lives looking at it because it is literally all that we can see

I’m trying to understand your explanation of how you think the world will be saved or at the very least a world worth saving. I certainly don’t believe your prediction below:

[i]The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it’s soul, considering a self contained illusion .
[/i]

Your logic may be valid (not that I understand your philosophy), but I don’t believe it’s sound. If you want to elaborate, be my guest.

All I’m saying is that we live in the present. The past is a memory. An animal doesn’t register the past because he lives in the present without the kind of language that is required to remember the past and to think in terms of the past. When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous, this is based on theory not fact. It’s been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there’s a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all. IOW, we not only live in the present but we see in the present. This relates to his second discovery regarding how the eyes work but I’m not ready to get into that at the moment.

Determinism does not eliminate grrr choice so there is no causation or effect between them. Like Suzan Langer’s different key it offers required direction in pre set keys. For instance, one can not prevent being born and die. Smaller determinations of choosing have been changed as well, where the invention of nuclear weapons did cause h I’ve population death, but has made war as we have known it the thing of the past. We do not know this a.initially because that invention was not known at that time that particular effect. Time was transcended with an unknown as yet objective, with an installed objject due to a contraindicated objective.
The decontrstruction of temporal space, reveals the hidden object(partial functionally derivitive) of it’s being.
Had this feature been overlooked, perhaps a more definitive present-future would have ultimately condemned and sealed man"s fate.

Oppenheimer said something along these lines., "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ quoting a Vedic text. He did not see the quantifiable limits which which reverse the contradiction.

In fact that invention created the opposite intended effect, long term, and conflict and war for the first time opened the possibility of micro management.

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally
What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anyway
So if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past, is a forgone conclusion. It is not but don’t tell that to leading scientists or they’ll think you’re a crank.

What do you mean observable reality doesn’t prove we see images from the past? Is that not the entire basis of history?

It seems to me that you are all tangled up in time. The present you say is the only thing yet it is the most illusory, temporary. Future and past are inevitable and always going to be, non temporary. The present moment and our being confined to it is what poses all of the philosophical questions regarding existence and functioning, it’s due to being always near future or recent past and not knowing what to do with the time of which is an individual. It seems present but I assure you that you don’t know or feel the cell in your body that just died to pass information to the next gen of cells and it continues. That present moment is over, because it’s a constant stretched thing that must be broken up into different periods. Which we have done. With no future or past, the present is not possible at all.

So how is the present the only thing again? In the mind, it can travel into past and future imagery. It’s already been proven. Instincts, mental illnesses, etc. there’s no discretion of time to the sub/unconscious mind.

You think too empirically. We aren’t talking about the body and physically going back in time. We’re talking about the mind.

Logic without reason is a waste of time thinking, philosophically. There’s quotes on it.

Everything you see with your own eyes is literally in the past because the speed of light is finite
It is simply not fast enough for you to be able see the present outside of your own mind or body

You want your unproven theory to be seriously considered while you are casually denying reality in this way
You cannot conveniently ignore what is demonstrably true just because it is incompatible with said theory

When theory and reality clash then it is time to ditch the theory

And so is free will the basis of our civilization. So what? It doesn’t mean it’s correct. That’s why it’s called scientific theory.

The renewal of cells are happening in the present. You are the one that is tangled up in time. The past and future can’t be non temporary because they don’t exist. Again, this doesn’t mean we are not connected to what happened to us in the past or to what may happen in the future; just that these are thoughts in our head that are occurring in the present. The present moment is never over because that’s where we reside. Without our memory centers the future and past would not exist for us. You’ve got it backwards.

I’m not disputing that the mind can take us to faraway places or places that we’ve already experienced or have yet to experience. I’m not even referring to the way the mind perceives time in a conscious or subconscious state. Please don’t conflate what I’m talking about with what you’re talking about, as if they’re synonymous.

That’s what we’ve been taught.

I’m not casually denying anything. If he’s wrong, so be it, but I would hope that scientists would take the time to see why he made this claim. There are cases where science gets it wrong. When you say demonstrably true, how so? He didn’t say light doesn’t travel at a high rate of speed. Anyway, I really don’t want to get into this. It won’t get us anywhere especially when his most important discovery has yet to be explained.

I actually don’t have it backward. The thing that is temporary here is the present moment. And if the past isn’t existent then there is no present. We can observe a skeleton. We can observe a body becoming a corpse. The present moment is gone with each millisecond, yet you argue that it is what exists and no past or future does, that’s laughable considering both of those are inevitable and set in stone in a sense. The present is the only thing not set in stone until it becomes the past or future.

Also. So you think every solution that is chosen is for ones own satisfaction?

So if I had to solve an issue not for myself but say, at work and this solution is out of my own satisfaction, I will be dissatisfied from the solution, yet continue to do it, thinking of the others whom issues will be resolved. This is a move toward my own greater satisfaction?

What if the more satisfying thing would be to leave that job but you don’t and continue to be dissatisfied? People do this, every day and for you to agree with the author is to shit all over reality and people’s struggling with such, proper decision making, responsibility, self awareness, etc.

What if you don’t view dissatisfaction as something negative or dissatisfying? What if you don’t view anything as good or bad?