Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (19088)	1/6/2005 9:59:13 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. Arthur C Clarke

To: Solon who wrote (19088)	1/6/2005 12:28:44 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Thanks. That is a very good description of the conventional and practical use of our time concept. ” To make an analogy: If walking to the corner does not require any time, then I cannot walk to the corner--because in order to walk to the corner I must move through a series of events. One cannot be two places at the same time. Yes, and in order to walk from the corner you must first go half way to the corner and that series of movement events takes half the time (if your movement is constant). Before you can move half the distance you must move half of that distance. You can keep moving in half movements and dividing your time by an infinite number. Although we perceive the movement as a fluid thing, you of course understand that at some point in our divisions the fluidity is harder to distinguish. We are limited as well by our measuring devices but you can rationally see the argument that is being made. We make an infinite number of movement events through an infinite number of moments in time to reach the corner. So, are we approaching conscious respect for the eternity of the moment?

To: Solon who wrote (19088)	1/7/2005 4:14:58 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

"because if there is no before and after there can be no experience--because nothing can be recognized as having occurred, for the simple reason that under such conditions nothing has occurred." Nothing may be the single most prolific idea ever to plop into the brain...Understanding nothing matters, because nothing is the all-important background upon which everything else happens. (K.C. Cole)

To: Solon who wrote (19088)	1/7/2005 4:27:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Thus, without time--no events can occur. Without movement relative to objects there is no time. So when the last electron comes to a stop in the universe (if it ever does)--time (which is either change--or our experience of change) STOPS. Ok as an exercise in logic, let us take three imaginary planets. Planets A, B, and C can view each other. For one year planet A is in suspended animation, nothing moves nothing changes, nothing ages, space and and events in space are frozen. Meanwhile planets B and C continue in lucid experience. The people on planet A wake up after one year and experience life as if only one moment has occurred. However, the people on planets B and C witness that one year of time has expired. Is time dependant on events or only our perception of them?

To: Solon who wrote (19088)	1/7/2005 5:16:16 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Your recollection of a past event may be based on several things. Someone else may have a different idea of what occurred in the past. Which is true? Can we be certain of about any of it? Are your predictions of the future any more than an expectation, which lacks authenticity until and unless the event actually takes place? Do you claim to be able to have a true and rich experience with a moment in the future? On the other hand do you have any doubts about the truth of your present moment?