|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 19, 2022 23:16:26 GMT
1. There is time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 20, 2022 14:46:26 GMT
If there's time, it must be able to change.
Anything that can be changing doesn't exist: when it is present - it is not the changing, when it is changing it also doesn't exist.
Why the changing doesn't exist? Let's imagine something that change is A that becomes B. When it is A, it is not B, so there's no changing, so A is not the chaning. When it is B the changing has happened, and there is no changing no more, so when it is B - there is no changing either. So, nothing changes.
Therefore, time doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 20, 2022 19:46:28 GMT
Thats a good piece of writing,
except that its not a contradiction.
Yuo really need to get to grips with the difference between the terms
contradiction, paradox, juxtaposition, opposition
But the last point you make is most interesting.
"There is no time for time."
Think of the universe as a computer game algorithm.
The logical part of the code is static, it never changes.
But the data the comes into it from the player,
is virtually infinite, and the data that the algorithm emits
is also virtually infinite.
Another way is to see it as a book.
The order that author writes the book
is not the same time-line as the order in which the reader reads it.
So our time is linear. But God's time is like the author's time.
Two different dimensions of time ; intersecting.
The book analogy is a bit simplistic and deterministic,
so the computer game analogy is better ;
although it takes more TIME to comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 21, 2022 17:32:32 GMT
1. There is time. 2. Time is continuous. 3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time. 4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time. 5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change. 6. This thing which does not change is intemporal. 7. There is no time for time. There is a concept called time but the claim made by this concept doesn't actually exist It only has the elusion of existing because of it's conceptual trickery What I mean is that we have change everything everywhere has and is changing and some more then others and we all experience this as well as observe it Then this concept called time was made and overlaid on top of change and has distorted are understanding of reality because it has a deceptive nature |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:30:39 GMT
Thats a good piece of writing, except that its not a contradiction. Yuo really need to get to grips with the difference between the terms contradiction, paradox, juxtaposition, opposition But the last point you make is most interesting. "There is no time for time." Think of the universe as a computer game algorithm. The logical part of the code is static, it never changes. But the data the comes into it from the player, is virtually infinite, and the data that the algorithm emits is also virtually infinite. Another way is to see it as a book. The order that author writes the book is not the same time-line as the order in which the reader reads it. So our time is linear. But God's time is like the author's time. Two different dimensions of time ; intersecting. The book analogy is a bit simplistic and deterministic, so the computer game analogy is better ; although it takes more TIME to comprehend it. Timeless time is a contradiction as a paradox is a form of contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:32:23 GMT
1. There is time. 2. Time is continuous. 3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time. 4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time. 5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change. 6. This thing which does not change is intemporal. 7. There is no time for time. There is a concept called time but the claim made by this concept doesn't actually exist It only has the elusion of existing because of it's conceptual trickery What I mean is that we have change everything everywhere has and is changing and some more then others and we all experience this as well as observe it Then this concept called time was made and overlaid on top of change and has distorted are understanding of reality because it has a deceptive nature Concepts exist as phenomenon as they are emergences from being itself. Concepts affect what is empirical, such as a set of schematics form a building, and the empirical affect what is conceptual, such as a set of apples resulting in a number. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:33:19 GMT
If there's time, it must be able to change. Anything that can be changing doesn't exist: when it is present - it is not the changing, when it is changing it also doesn't exist. Why the changing doesn't exist? Let's imagine something that change is A that becomes B. When it is A, it is not B, so there's no changing, so A is not the chaning. When it is B the changing has happened, and there is no changing no more, so when it is B - there is no changing either. So, nothing changes. Therefore, time doesn't exist. A point does not change yet it exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 27, 2022 6:58:05 GMT
If there's time, it must be able to change. Anything that can be changing doesn't exist: when it is present - it is not the changing, when it is changing it also doesn't exist. Why the changing doesn't exist? Let's imagine something that change is A that becomes B. When it is A, it is not B, so there's no changing, so A is not the chaning. When it is B the changing has happened, and there is no changing no more, so when it is B - there is no changing either. So, nothing changes. Therefore, time doesn't exist. A point does not change yet it exists. If there's something that doesn't change it doesn't exist. A point that never changing is presented in nowhere and no-time, since time is changing, and the space is too |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 2, 2022 20:19:34 GMT
A point does not change yet it exists. If there's something that doesn't change it doesn't exist. A point that never changing is presented in nowhere and no-time, since time is changing, and the space is too If something changes then it ceases to exist at some point thus your stance is self-defeating. The totality of being does not change yet it exists. If it does change it changes to another totality and then another totality so on and so forth; this change from one totality to another necessitates each totality as not a totality, given there is something beyond it which is not part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 2, 2022 20:44:16 GMT
If there's something that doesn't change it doesn't exist. A point that never changing is presented in nowhere and no-time, since time is changing, and the space is too If something changes then it ceases to exist at some point thus your stance is self-defeating. The totality of being does not change yet it exists. If it does change it changes to another totality and then another totality so on and so forth; this change from one totality to another necessitates each totality as not a totality, given there is something beyond it which is not part of it. It is absolutely impossible even for the totality of being to not change. If it had have been so, it wouldn't have been that the totality of all being were the totality of all being. Let's say, if A is A, then there's somethig else, than A, that allows that A to be A, or else, why this A is A, not somethign else? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 2, 2022 20:51:25 GMT
If something changes then it ceases to exist at some point thus your stance is self-defeating. The totality of being does not change yet it exists. If it does change it changes to another totality and then another totality so on and so forth; this change from one totality to another necessitates each totality as not a totality, given there is something beyond it which is not part of it. It is absolutely impossible even for the totality of being to not change. If it had have been so, it wouldn't have been that the totality of all being were the totality of all being. Let's say, if A is A, then there's somethig else, than A, that allows that A to be A, or else, why this A is A, not somethign else? If the totality changes then it is not the totality as something is beyond it, the totality is everything....your arguments self-negate. |
|
