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 (19109)	1/7/2005 7:43:01 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Instead of attempting to determine how infinitesimally small the measurable aspects of time could be, we simply resort to terms like ‘moment’ or ‘instance’, not that scientific but practically useful."" That is not the critical issue here. You said there were "INFINITE number of movement events through an infinite number of moments in time to reach the corner." That is NOT "practically useful". It is a false and misleading statement pretending to be profound and supportive of your argument. It is neither. "It both clarifies that we separate time into pieces to explain our experiences and that time is not logically made up of separatable pieces." It doesn't matter what time is. What matters is that time separates the past, the present, and the future. There is before...and there is after. My discussion started with my assertion that any "afterlife" would require events if there were to be experience...and events require separation in time. "I will remind you that if you begin misrepresenting my end of the discussion, I will consider the thing done and you as having failed to hold up your end" Watch your lip. I respond to quotes. I do not misrepresent. I responded directly to your points and confuted them. Your responses are generally evasive or antagonistic (as in the above). That is your prerogative, of course. I don't have any control over your behavior; nor do I try to coerce you by holding my breath. You are free to express both the depth of your intelligence and the height of your maturity. But I would prefer that you make an effort to argue like a gentleman--and put the insults, misrepresentations, and threats on the back burner. "I agree with you that under the infinity of division premise you could not have a time driven blink that involves a past present and future progression" I am not sure you understand me. When you presented Zeno's paradox as a lead-in to your assertion that "We make an infinite number of movement events through an infinite number of moments in time to reach the corner." it was necessary that I correct you. Thus, I was defending my original assertion that it required a finite time to go to the corner and that events were separated by finite time, and that separation in time was necessary for experience. I was making the point that if there were such a place where time did not exist, then neither could experience logically exist. If you have an argument that experience can obtain without the occurrence of finite events separated by finite durations of time...I would be happy to entertain it. But Zeno's paradox fails the point miserably.