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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (65685)	5/15/2006 5:16:50 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I am following a rational train of thought that I have employed before and would like to see how that works out with you. You may be able to show me a flaw in the argument, if so I will be grateful. If not maybe you will benefit. "I would presume that we'll be using other dimensions as well. Agreed? Sure as long as it is sensible and not a distraction from us making any sense from the topic at all. Time has always seemed like a primary issue that gets us to the edge of where most debates bog down or fall apart completely. It could also allow us, at least conceptually, to move beyond that. =============== The idea of linear time that goes on forever has some problems. First there is no way to have a direct experience with history. We have books and other ways to recollect the past but we are always in the present moment when doing so. Similarly, there is no way to have a direct experience with the future. We can have hopes, dreams, plans and expectations of the future but they are constantly being worked out in the present. So, as a rational issue we can refer to things we call 'past' as past-present, since we experience them only as present. And, future-present for our ideas of the future. So lets look at the past-present. How do we measure what was before now? We find evidence of previous forms, right? We then find evidence of forms or states of things that existed prior to our recorded past. As we do, we determine a state of existence that was before and one that was before that and before that, etc. At some point we run out of solid evidence so we speculate based on patterns we have found that there was a before the before up until the 'beginning'. If you think we live in an eternal universe then you begin speculating what caused or came before the 'beginning' (like a bang or something). So, you lose your beginning with other beginnings that went on before the beginning on an ongoing basis. At some point with this rationale, we can accept that time is composed of unending before the before's. If not we lose the concept of eternity and we have an actual starting place in which nothing existed before and everything came from this nothing point of beginning. If you do that you have the age old assumptions to make about creation of something that we now call our universe from... nothing. In any case, you also have the paradox that is apparent between a universe which, by all evidence, is composed as a temporal realm juxtaposed with the concept of eternity, and an infinite symmetry, which defies the notion of the temporary. When you begin to figure the linear nature of time you have the additional quandary about experience only existing in the present moment. Digest this much and post whatever challenges or questions you have. Then I will attempt to answer or go on ...

To: jttmab who wrote (65685)	5/15/2006 5:19:57 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

continued... Time is associated with events and recognized by us against those events. So we can measure it in that practical manner, as a measure of events that we accept as evidence of our experience. Our experience takes place in terms of temporary circumstance. A given state of our circumstance gives way to the new state as time tics on. Time has direction that is from a past to the now, with expectations of continuing into the future. As time passes we accept that the current circumstance comes to us from a before state, which came from a state of before that, etc. etc. etc. moment to moment. This gives us two practical scenarios: 1) Time extends in a never ending direction into past states that we have not yet been able to explain through scientific observation. 2) Time extends to a first tic but not before that. The only way this can be explained is if temporal experience was kicked off at the same tic. If time did not extend further into the past than the first tic, then what ever was responsible for the kickoff was not bound by the rules of temporal experience that came as a result of the kickoff. Neither of the these rational explanations can be proven using the scientific method of practical experience. However, I note that scientific method does not disprove them and does not offer its own explanation for the extensions of time further than cause and effect of time and experience. Scientific method recognizes limitations of cause and effect temporal experience without being bound to an explanation of a before the beginnings. So in this sense, scientific method recognizes that it has limits. Limits always help to define what is outside of those limitations. For example a tree may have moisture acquired from rain. However a tree is limited, so we can, with confidence, declare that a raindrop outside the tree is not a tree at all. Likewise whatever produced the qualities of time and experience could be outside the limiting definitions of time and experience within the temporal universe. There is a third explanation that we call the eternal moment that is a complimentary rationale. Now, having said that it makes rational sense to me and I've shown how I understand that rational. I can also declare that I know something through evidence that on the one hand seems to be self evident a priori for me and on the other hand I can apply logic that also seems sensible(to me).

To: jttmab who wrote (65685)	5/15/2006 5:30:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

More... Will time have an end? Who knows? We can speculate with confidence that our unique individual experiences in time will end since we observe that condition in all creatures. Will time as a phenomenon in general end? Since all evidence in temporal existence is of beginnings and endings we could speculate that time is no different and/or apply the same rational that I used previously. What about eternal life for any one specific being? Well, it would have to be in other than a material sense which is, of course, corruptible and conditional. And what sort of "life" would not be? It likely would have no substance; therefore no thoughts arising from neuronal activity. However, if there is experience beyond what we have observed in temporal life, there may be unique qualities that we wont be able to fathom until in or of that realm. As with a rain drop, you would have to look outside the limitations of a tree to see how moisture is not dependent on its enmeshment within the tree. Since we cannot see outside our temporal experience until we have left its limitations, we are bound by patience and hope or nothing at all. There is also the multiple universe theory of eternity but lets not do that right now.