SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (19113)1/8/2005 2:02:40 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
"You, as many pragmatists do, got flustered and just determined illogically to dismiss any discussion of what time is"

What I was pointing out is what time is NOT. It is not an infinite series of moments that one crosses between point A and point B. Nobody can pass an infinite series of moments. Stating I get flustered is not argument--nor is it accurate.

"If you have an experience of the future I'd love to hear about it."

That is the whole point. You cannot experience the future in the present. Future "moments" and past "moments" and the present "moment" are all different "moments". To consider that there are no future moments would be to consider that there were no past moments. Without future and past moments there can be no future and no past. But without a future there could be no change. Thus, talk of an "eternal moment" is silly. If the moment had a duration of infinity then nothing at all would occur--because one moment is only one moment and many moments are many. It is the many moments that create experience. In other words...change is change. And death comes AFTER birth--not BEFORE...and NOT at the same "eternal moment".

"The paradox is a null argument to demonstrate how division of time is illusory"

Before and after are NOT illusions. They are distinct markers of change. If there was no before, then you were not born. But of course you have pictures, don't you?

"I thought your inference was to some existence external to the universe."

My argument was that we only experience change because of space and movement...space/time as it is known. If there were to exist a universe where time did not exist, then there would be no change because all change has duration--and duration cannot exist without time.

Conversely, if you have change, then you have time. And both change and time are conditions--which means that all that is in time is conditional. And all that is not in time is a dead universe.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News