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: LLCF who wrote (24327)	7/3/2006 4:42:30 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 28931

We have so far been discussing time in the classical sense, which requires observation. The idea of linear time gives us two practical scenarios, both lending themselves to some degree of exceptance, with qualifying limitations. 1) Time extends in a never ending direction into past states that we have not yet been able to explain through scientific observation. or 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 for eternity 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 life of 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 while also being wholly in it. There is a third explanation that we call the eternal moment as 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). Did time have a beginning, 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 in 1) and 2) above. 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. One thing that human beings can know for sure about time is with each passing moment of life's experience we may begin anew.