|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2019 14:10:27 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme.
I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists?
|
|
|
Post by anonymouse on Mar 1, 2019 17:19:55 GMT
How about this. We develop an idea of time in our historical experience. A child learns it, say, through others turning the hands of a clock. The child exhibits the right behavior and gets positive feedback, so the child is reinforced (has motivation) to exhibit acceptable behavior for time. A different child though does not appropriate any such behavior, but does notice change. Is time, then, just a way to behave change, and does not refer at all?
As an aside, I see 'change' as a word and also a behavior which does not refer either. The recognition of change is after the fact in accordance to a model in which there was something different which changed.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 1, 2019 18:15:49 GMT
Yes, time still exists. This is true because even though you pause the life on a television show when you click pause on your remote the time still continues to move outside of it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2019 20:12:28 GMT
How about this. We develop an idea of time in our historical experience. A child learns it, say, through others turning the hands of a clock. The child exhibits the right behavior and gets positive feedback, so the child is reinforced (has motivation) to exhibit acceptable behavior for time. A different child though does not appropriate any such behavior, but does notice change. Is time, then, just a way to behave change, and does not refer at all? As an aside, I see 'change' as a word and also a behavior which does not refer either. The recognition of change is after the fact in accordance to a model in which there was something different which changed. This is something I've been expected to hear, and these words warm my brain to extract something from my head. So, what's is gonna be? Alright, I think there's two important points and each of them I'll utter: a. Historical vision 1. b. Historical vision 2. Two thought and they're to be historical. I shall start with the first one. It's a vision of attempting such behaviour that gives us a tool to behave. We learn it seeing on shining stars in clear sky during long cold nights sitting in the arm-chair with a pipe in a hand. I guess the idea is becoming, 'cause many tribes all over the worlD did this. I did it, because time is something is inside my brain, like a computer program (sorry, I talk too much, I'll be shorter). The second one is historical too, but this isn't so obvious to see why the one belongs to history. Let me explain it: do we know any historical facts? (No, I should start somewhere else, but not here) do we sure what happened yesterday? I guess we don't; except those whose behaviour allows them not to take into account 'yesterdays' and 'tomorrows'. Ok, but if I found some them bones, what should I say? Was it something that had those bones, or not? I don't know, archaeologists should have killed me if I'd refuse to nod about making conclusions looking on some bone rests. I guess that's all. For now
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2019 20:46:50 GMT
Yes, time still exists. This is true because even though you pause the life on a television show when you click pause on your remote the time still continues to move outside of it. I'd like pause some important and wonderful moments of my life. How interesting would it be - to stop when you want and what you want! I hope one days our dreams come true, and we'll be able to do it. Also, while kissing time slows down. I think that we can't be sure about existing of time in some moments, but we can use it for our purposes. For example, I'm not sure what's happening at the moment when I sleep, but I can wake myself up and check it. So, our duty is to stay alert and in any moment be able to watch Christ coming from the heaven.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 1, 2019 23:05:54 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme. I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists?
Time is what enables change, but isn't change itself. So if you have a universe in which nothing changes, the question is whether its state of not changing is, itself, unchangeable. If it is changeable, for example, if there is a God, and God created this unchanging universe, then that means this universe doesn't just exists within its own framework, but has a place in God's consciousness as well. And consciousness premises time. This would also mean that the universe not changing is merely a choice by God. So this unchanging universe still exists within a framework that includes time.
So, lets take God out of the picture, and we're just left with the universe. For the reason outlined above, we must exclude the possibility of a creator, whether God, human, or Alien. So, this universe just exists. Exist where? It certainly cannot exist anywhere within our reach, since our own reality includes time, so anything within our reality is subjected to time. So it exists somewhere, outside of our observation, and not under the control of any conscious being, divine or not. So if it exists, its existence could never be verified. We could, however, show that such a universe does exist as a mathematical possibility, simply by removing the time axis. And this would be my conclusion; A "stuck universe", as you describe it, exists in the mathematical universe only.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 2, 2019 15:08:05 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme. I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists?
Time is what enables change, but isn't change itself. So if you have a universe in which nothing changes, the question is whether its state of not changing is, itself, unchangeable. If it is changeable, for example, if there is a God, and God created this unchanging universe, then that means this universe doesn't just exists within its own framework, but has a place in God's consciousness as well. And consciousness premises time. This would also mean that the universe not changing is merely a choice by God. So this unchanging universe still exists within a framework that includes time.
So, lets take God out of the picture, and we're just left with the universe. For the reason outlined above, we must exclude the possibility of a creator, whether God, human, or Alien. So, this universe just exists. Exist where? It certainly cannot exist anywhere within our reach, since our own reality includes time, so anything within our reality is subjected to time. So it exists somewhere, outside of our observation, and not under the control of any conscious being, divine or not. So if it exists, its existence could never be verified. We could, however, show that such a universe does exist as a mathematical possibility, simply by removing the time axis. And this would be my conclusion; A "stuck universe", as you describe it, exists in the mathematical universe only.
Thank you, I got much interesting points and thought from your comment. Poorly, I'm not enough good in Math to speaking through possible worlds (I'm sure you could charge me with technical side of such universe). Anyway, I do like this thought about 'taking time out' => mathematical universe. Recently, I was talking with a mathematician, and he blamed me of using 'total induction' (or 'overall induction') in my trying to prove that (I beg your pardon, I'll cut some premises) only math is a tool of Super-God: 1. Using total induction to know everything in one, or all possible worlds is impossible with any logical systems. 2. Solely using math total induction is possible to know necessities in any possible world. 3. God is the one who know everything logically, but he's the one who can't stop being himself. 4. Super-God doesn't know himself, but even without such an ability he knows everything necessities in all possible worlds knowing math. All those premises should be derived form a thesis that in logic we don't know limits of anything, including the last premises (aka conclusions), and we can't say that we know what we inference till we don't know why we stopped there or there in our conclusions... or most primy - no one knows when to stop. As long as you said that time is an ability of human (I've heard this theory, and even know the woman (phenomenologist) who charged me with it, while I was arguing with her...), and if this is true, could it mean that time and logic is something the same? And, also, something is making me to hesitate about our chances to take away 'change'. I believe that 'change' is a core, a deepest principle of any possible worlds. Here's my simple explanation of it: 1. Let imagine that something exists (it can be anything); 2. If something exists, then it exists as something, and if it's not this something: a) then something has changed; b) that was not 'something'. for case (a) - there's at least one change for case (b) - we should recheck that 'something'.
3b. If 'something' exists, then it exists as something... (if iterations would be going forever, then we could possibly say that something had changed to 'something', and 'something' had changed to ''something'', etc.) No matter what, we can't trash out change. [Also, for a dot: 1. A dot exists 2. Or a dot is all (a), or the dot is just a part (b) 3b. Something else except the dot exists -> 4b. To be a dot, the dot needs to be it, so the dot's being "must prove" that it is a dot, but not something else (I know that it's a poor one, but I can't utter it correctly in some another way) 5b. The dot (or the dot's being) "challenges" with something to prove that the dot is a dot 3a. All is a dot (swap S to P and vice versa; I forgot the name of the operation) 4a. All needs to prove that all is a dot, but not something else 5a. All (or a being of all) "challenges" that it's not something else..
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 2, 2019 18:47:33 GMT
Time is what enables change, but isn't change itself. So if you have a universe in which nothing changes, the question is whether its state of not changing is, itself, unchangeable. If it is changeable, for example, if there is a God, and God created this unchanging universe, then that means this universe doesn't just exists within its own framework, but has a place in God's consciousness as well. And consciousness premises time. This would also mean that the universe not changing is merely a choice by God. So this unchanging universe still exists within a framework that includes time.
So, lets take God out of the picture, and we're just left with the universe. For the reason outlined above, we must exclude the possibility of a creator, whether God, human, or Alien. So, this universe just exists. Exist where? It certainly cannot exist anywhere within our reach, since our own reality includes time, so anything within our reality is subjected to time. So it exists somewhere, outside of our observation, and not under the control of any conscious being, divine or not. So if it exists, its existence could never be verified. We could, however, show that such a universe does exist as a mathematical possibility, simply by removing the time axis. And this would be my conclusion; A "stuck universe", as you describe it, exists in the mathematical universe only.
Thank you, I got much interesting points and thought from your comment. Poorly, I'm not enough good in Math to speaking through possible worlds (I'm sure you could charge me with technical side of such universe). Anyway, I do like this thought about 'taking time out' => mathematical universe. Recently, I was talking with a mathematician, and he blamed me of using 'total induction' (or 'overall induction') in my trying to prove that (I beg your pardon, I'll cut some premises) only math is a tool of Super-God: 1. Using total induction to know everything in one, or all possible worlds is impossible with any logical systems. 2. Solely using math total induction is possible to know necessities in any possible world. 3. God is the one who know everything logically, but he's the one who can't stop being himself. 4. Super-God doesn't know himself, but even without such an ability he knows everything necessities in all possible worlds knowing math. All those premises should be derived form a thesis that in logic we don't know limits of anything, including the last premises (aka conclusions), and we can't say that we know what we inference till we don't know why we stopped there or there in our conclusions... or most primy - no one knows when to stop. As long as you said that time is an ability of human (I've heard this theory, and even know the woman (phenomenologist) who charged me with it, while I was arguing with her...), and if this is true, could it mean that time and logic is something the same? And, also, something is making me to hesitate about our chances to take away 'change'. I believe that 'change' is a core, a deepest principle of any possible worlds. Here's my simple explanation of it: 1. Let imagine that something exists (it can be anything); 2. If something exists, then it exists as something, and if it's not this something: a) then something has changed; b) that was not 'something'. for case (a) - there's at least one change for case (b) - we should recheck that 'something'.
3b. If 'something' exists, then it exists as something... (if iterations would be going forever, then we could possibly say that something had changed to 'something', and 'something' had changed to ''something'', etc.) No matter what, we can't trash out change. [Also, for a dot: 1. A dot exists 2. Or a dot is all (a), or the dot is just a part (b) 3b. Something else except the dot exists -> 4b. To be a dot, the dot needs to be it, so the dot's being "must prove" that it is a dot, but not something else (I know that it's a poor one, but I can't utter it correctly in some another way) 5b. The dot (or the dot's being) "challenges" with something to prove that the dot is a dot 3a. All is a dot (swap S to P and vice versa; I forgot the name of the operation) 4a. All needs to prove that all is a dot, but not something else 5a. All (or a being of all) "challenges" that it's not something else..
Given how the term "induction" is commonly used, the procedure of induction may always be expressed as an algorithm, as a series of logical steps from premise to conclusion. This represents a logical system based on natural numbers, like arithmetic or computer software. Even in regards to proving theorems in mathematics that is not based on natural numbers, like the real number system, the process of proving the theorems is nevertheless arithmetic in its procedure.
Again, it's a series a logical steps from premise to conclusion. The problem in attempting to create such a system to explain reality, lies in that we may only start off with a finite number of axioms. What the incompleteness theorem shows is that irregardless of how you construct such a system, there will be something true within the system that one cannot deduce from its axioms. So, in order to prove it, one must add axioms. This becomes a process ad infinitum, where the system remains incomplete. There is one way out, which is to allow the system to be contradictive (inconsistent), but I can't see how that solves anything.
This is all very abstract, but there is a simpler way to express it. The real problem lies in that mathematical truths aren't only limited to what's finite. There are also mathematical processes that are never ending, like, for example, the procedure for approximating the irraitonal number PI with as many decimals as possible. Despite that computers are systems based on natural numbers, the incompleteness theorem usually doesn't apply in practise, for computers omainly deal with what's finite. However, in regards to AI, it is my view that the incompleteness theorem does apply, and will set limits to how well computer intelligence may emulate conscious intelligence.
As for God not knowing himself. I don't see God as limited by algorithms, and hence not by induction. In fact, I don't see humans as limited by induction either. We are self-aware, and if God exists, so is he. In my view, the mathematics of conscious intelligence includes elements that would be infinitely complex, had they been written as algorithms, and hence, they can't.
Your reasoning about existing doesn't distinguish between existing as an idea and existing in the real world. So when you state: "Let's imagine that 'something' exists.", you've already premised that it does exist. So that excludes the possibility you then suggest, that it doesn't exist after all.
If you dig deep enough, you'll always end up with concepts that are indivisible. They are something by themselves, which we may only grasp intuitively. This is something Plato illustrated when he asked the question: What is the difference between vision and sound? And he wasn't referring to the physical processes, but our conscious experience of vision and sound. We can't explain that difference, but every one who can see and hear, knows the difference. A single point represents an abstraction, beyond what you see. You don't actually ever see a point, but rather a tiny surface in two dimensions. A point has zero dimensions, and may only be understood as an abstraction, belonging to our inner, universal conceptulised world.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 2, 2019 18:54:01 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme. I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists? Observe all phenomena as wave movements.
The child grows up (expands) and then grows old/dies (contracts).
With this process, through reproduction, observing this expansion and contraction happening simultaneously through another child.
With this process of reproduction, (population growth rate), having ups and downs through the fabric of civilizations.
etc.
All of these wave function, projecting linearly as lines in and of themselve relative to other wave lengths (the rise and false of civilization composed of the wave-function of population growth, political highs/lows, etc.)
View everything through the lense of expansion and contraction, and you will gain some valuable insights about time. Even observe how your insights about subjects expand and contract through time or your emotions have highs and lows.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 2, 2019 23:50:19 GMT
Time is what enables change, but isn't change itself. So if you have a universe in which nothing changes, the question is whether its state of not changing is, itself, unchangeable. If it is changeable, for example, if there is a God, and God created this unchanging universe, then that means this universe doesn't just exists within its own framework, but has a place in God's consciousness as well. And consciousness premises time. This would also mean that the universe not changing is merely a choice by God. So this unchanging universe still exists within a framework that includes time.
So, lets take God out of the picture, and we're just left with the universe. For the reason outlined above, we must exclude the possibility of a creator, whether God, human, or Alien. So, this universe just exists. Exist where? It certainly cannot exist anywhere within our reach, since our own reality includes time, so anything within our reality is subjected to time. So it exists somewhere, outside of our observation, and not under the control of any conscious being, divine or not. So if it exists, its existence could never be verified. We could, however, show that such a universe does exist as a mathematical possibility, simply by removing the time axis. And this would be my conclusion; A "stuck universe", as you describe it, exists in the mathematical universe only.
Thank you, I got much interesting points and thought from your comment. Poorly, I'm not enough good in Math to speaking through possible worlds (I'm sure you could charge me with technical side of such universe). Anyway, I do like this thought about 'taking time out' => mathematical universe. Recently, I was talking with a mathematician, and he blamed me of using 'total induction' (or 'overall induction') in my trying to prove that (I beg your pardon, I'll cut some premises) only math is a tool of Super-God: 1. Using total induction to know everything in one, or all possible worlds is impossible with any logical systems. 2. Solely using math total induction is possible to know necessities in any possible world. 3. God is the one who know everything logically, but he's the one who can't stop being himself. 4. Super-God doesn't know himself, but even without such an ability he knows everything necessities in all possible worlds knowing math. All those premises should be derived form a thesis that in logic we don't know limits of anything, including the last premises (aka conclusions), and we can't say that we know what we inference till we don't know why we stopped there or there in our conclusions... or most primy - no one knows when to stop. As long as you said that time is an ability of human (I've heard this theory, and even know the woman (phenomenologist) who charged me with it, while I was arguing with her...), and if this is true, could it mean that time and logic is something the same? And, also, something is making me to hesitate about our chances to take away 'change'. I believe that 'change' is a core, a deepest principle of any possible worlds. Here's my simple explanation of it: 1. Let imagine that something exists (it can be anything); 2. If something exists, then it exists as something, and if it's not this something: a) then something has changed; b) that was not 'something'. for case (a) - there's at least one change for case (b) - we should recheck that 'something'.
3b. If 'something' exists, then it exists as something... (if iterations would be going forever, then we could possibly say that something had changed to 'something', and 'something' had changed to ''something'', etc.) No matter what, we can't trash out change. [Also, for a dot: 1. A dot exists 2. Or a dot is all (a), or the dot is just a part (b) 3b. Something else except the dot exists -> 4b. To be a dot, the dot needs to be it, so the dot's being "must prove" that it is a dot, but not something else (I know that it's a poor one, but I can't utter it correctly in some another way) 5b. The dot (or the dot's being) "challenges" with something to prove that the dot is a dot 3a. All is a dot (swap S to P and vice versa; I forgot the name of the operation) 4a. All needs to prove that all is a dot, but not something else 5a. All (or a being of all) "challenges" that it's not something else..
Reading my reply made me realise one thing needs to be clarified. The incompleteness theorem only applies to arithmetic, with its full complexity.
There are logical systems that are consistent and complete, but what they all have in common is that there are truths in arithmetic that cannot be defined in these systems. For example, baby arithmetic doesn't allow for multiplication and division, and is complete and consistent, but subsequently higly limited in what questions it may answer. The real number system in its basic form (limited to first order logic) is complete and consistent, but doesn't include a way to identify integers, so you can't even ask the question: What are the integer solutions to the equation: X+1=0? If you expand the real number system to include a way to identify integers, it ceases to be complete.
|
|
|
Post by anonymouse on Mar 4, 2019 17:43:28 GMT
I did it, because time is something is inside my brain, like a computer program (sorry, I talk too much, I'll be shorter). The second one is historical too, but this isn't so obvious to see why the one belongs to history. Let me explain it: do we know any historical facts? (No, I should start somewhere else, but not here) do we sure what happened yesterday? I guess we don't; except those whose behaviour allows them not to take into account 'yesterdays' and 'tomorrows'. Ok, but if I found some them bones, what should I say? Was it something that had those bones, or not? I don't know, archaeologists should have killed me if I'd refuse to nod about making conclusions looking on some bone rests.
So in #1 a brain is asserted as if an existing thing, as is time within the brain. As a model that is very useful, but I believe we are trying to go outside of models here. You can't get around that you are behaving the word, 'brain', and 'time', and asserting referral when behavior is interactive, and not referential. We can never behave what is, we can only be what is.
#2 - say an infant finds your bones - she plays with them like legos because she has developed behavior that provides history to them. I am not demeaning archeology, but pointing out it is a useful model and nothing more.
I/you, self/other, and other dualities occur within behavioral models, but not outside of those models. I am not because I think but because I choose to behave like I am.
|
|
|
Post by anonymouse on Mar 4, 2019 17:46:26 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme. I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists? Observe all phenomena as wave movements.
The child grows up (expands) and then grows old/dies (contracts).
With this process, through reproduction, observing this expansion and contraction happening simultaneously through another child.
With this process of reproduction, (population growth rate), having ups and downs through the fabric of civilizations.
etc.
All of these wave function, projecting linearly as lines in and of themselve relative to other wave lengths (the rise and false of civilization composed of the wave-function of population growth, political highs/lows, etc.)
View everything through the lense of expansion and contraction, and you will gain some valuable insights about time. Even observe how your insights about subjects expand and contract through time or your emotions have highs and lows.
All of this refers to a model with interpretations of observations. Useful, but limited to the model.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 4, 2019 18:17:25 GMT
Observe all phenomena as wave movements.
The child grows up (expands) and then grows old/dies (contracts).
With this process, through reproduction, observing this expansion and contraction happening simultaneously through another child.
With this process of reproduction, (population growth rate), having ups and downs through the fabric of civilizations.
etc.
All of these wave function, projecting linearly as lines in and of themselve relative to other wave lengths (the rise and false of civilization composed of the wave-function of population growth, political highs/lows, etc.)
View everything through the lense of expansion and contraction, and you will gain some valuable insights about time. Even observe how your insights about subjects expand and contract through time or your emotions have highs and lows.
All of this refers to a model with interpretations of observations. Useful, but limited to the model. False all model's of linear reasoning exist because of spatial properties that justify there "progress". In simpler terms, linearism is what forms logic, and the isomorphism (alternation of thetical perspective to an antithetical one with this thesis/antithesis alternation equivalent in symbolism (if not function)) to a wave function. In simpler terms: 1) Thesis (postive/symbolic "up") is presented. 2) Antithesis (negative/symbolic "down") is presented. 3) Synthesis occurs resulting in recursion of thesis/antithesis, considering the synthesis as "existing" is always thetical...but a "new" thesis...a "fractal/fraction." of the prior thesis in the respect it contain common elements but exists through a progressive variation. The "model" itself, as a framework of interpretation, is in itself a "perspective". The "framework" occurs where certain "laws", which exist as conceptualizations through "memory", effectively contain a set of variables to observe there movements. The frameworks, bound under "laws" which exist through memory as localization of group phenomenon (ex; entropy is a localization of divergent movements), in turn direct the phenomenon in a manner which forms a series of relations. This is "thought" as "active" in the respect that through the "framework" (which is fundamentally the physicalization of conceptual memories) a series of relations are made active...which in turn form again to memories/laws. The nature of all model's, as extensions of the observer, maintain a dual thought/memory nature and as such are strictly physicalizations of consciousness. Wave-functions, strictly "up/down" alternation extended through progressive "time", are universal spatial structures applying to all phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 4, 2019 18:35:03 GMT
I'm interested to collect some mind experiments where time is a central problematic theme. I know one of such experiment (poorly, I have no name of it). To do it you need to imagine that neither a tiniest particle in the universe, nor a smallest things is moving; everything has stopped. There can't be no plainest steps, no moves, no traces, nothing at all like that. The question is: can we say that in such "stuck universe" time exists? When we imagine this universe, we implicitly suggest that such a universe is not moving compared to our own perspective. We automatically compare, the "smallest thing" to the "tiniest particle". In making these comparisons we can only imagine them not moving compared to our own moving consciousness switching between them. Its like trying to imagine there being "up" but no "down". Or dark, but no light. For somebody inside that universe, they could not say that time is not moving for them, because they need to reference such non-movement against something that is moving in order to reach this conclusion. In fact "reaching a conclusion" also implicitly suggests movement. Perhaps we need to compare this issue to the problem of an expanding universe. When we are told that space expands (or inflates) we are forced to implicitly become aware that this can only be in comparison to a geometric reference-frame that is itself not expanding. :- hence the theories on quantum foam and aether. So when we have a universe that has no time, it can only be like that when contained by a second dimension of time - which is moving. When we consider 'time-travel' scenarios, we can only do so by implicitly suggesting that there are two dimensions of time, one of which is subordinate to the other. In fact the subordinate dimension must be an illusion to make the narrative logical. Now comes my point: When relativists talk about 'relative time' when compared to 'quantum time', logic forces us to see that the two ideas are blatantly in contradiction. Because if time can dilate (relativity), then the quanta of time cease to be quanta, and must be made up of a finer dimension which itself is immaculate (in perfect quanta, that cannot dilate). So all we have done is shift the goalposts, and we are faced with an incalculable problem as quanta of time vanish and appear, and this itself just causes endless contradictions, much like we get in time-travel. So the only way these ideas can work is as illusions. If relative time is part of this universe, then this universe is an illusion. There must still be a proper non-relative "God Time" which is perfectly immaculate. A super-ordinate, logical time, is perhaps another way to explain it. Is it even meaningful to imagine that such ideas are logical? Sure, we can tell stories that have the veneer of logic, but then net result is that if our universe is logical, then time must be immaculate.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 4, 2019 19:47:18 GMT
karl I beg your pardon, that I haven't answered your comment. I'll try to do it later. Your and xxxxxxxxx's comments are required more concentration, so if you don't mind it'd be better for me to work on thought here.
|
|