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: one_less who wrote (19098)	1/7/2005 6:01:48 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Time is also not material" But time is necessary for experience. Mathematics is not. There is a difference between the symbolism of numbers and the inescapable experience of time. Oscar Wilde wrote a book called The Picture of Dorian Gray in which the picture took on all the ravages of time while the man remained ageless--until the picture finally disintegrated and the man turned into ashes. Time and arithmetic are different. "Right. We sort of cheat by describing time as segments or moments or instances It is not a matter of cheating. It is a matter of using absurd statements to present an argument. You said that: "We make an infinite number of movement events through an infinite number of moments in time to reach the corner." I merely pointed out that this obliterates your argument because it is both contradiction and absurdity. Events ARE separated by a finite duration of time. Nobody can walk through an infinite space or time...but people CAN and DO get from one place to another in a finite time. "one of the present issues is whether it exists without objects and changes" That is not an issue for me. The issue is whether or not experience can exist without events being separated by time. The very thinking of a thought has a duration. Feeling the air hit your face has a duration. Certainly time goes on regardless of your death or mine--or even the death of planets and suns. But does it exist when everything is dead, motionless, and without energy? I would guess that when change no longer occurs at ANY level, then it is meaningless to speak of time. "all evidence suggests that none of us have ever left the present moment in time." What evidence? I averred that moments were not eternal. I suggest to you that the moment of your birth is not the same moment as the moment of your death. So I ask you: Do you believe that time consists of ONE moment, or of MANY? That is a simple enough question which should not require any equivocation.