If Time does not exist, how can Eternity, the past, the present, the future exists?

[andrewpkyap]

The concept of Eternity...

Eternity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other senses of the word "eternity", see eternity (disambiguation).

While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existing for an infinite, i.e., limitless, amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time. There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally.

"limitless, amount of time,"
"a timeless existence"
"outside of time"
"matter, motion, and time"

so what do all these phrases, with the word time embedded, mean, if anything?

[Chuck Rightmire]

The concept of Eternity...

Eternity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other senses of the word "eternity", see eternity (disambiguation).

While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existing for an infinite, i.e., limitless, amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time. There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally.

"limitless, amount of time,"
"a timeless existence"
"outside of time"
"matter, motion, and time"

so what do all these phrases, with the word time embedded, mean, if anything?

I think that time does no exist in itself as an entity separate from change. We have a past, a present (maybe) and a future because we exist in awareness of change in the universe and in ourselves. I say maybe for the present because our perception of what's around us may only exist in the past, as it may take a tiny fraction of a second for us to perceive the change. So time exists only because we exist and change exists and we have reasons to want to measure the rate of change.:cool:

[andrewpkyap]

I think that time does no exist in itself as an entity separate from change. We have a past, a present (maybe) and a future because we exist in awareness of change in the universe and in ourselves. I say maybe for the present because our perception of what's around us may only exist in the past, as it may take a tiny fraction of a second for us to perceive the change. So time exists only because we exist and change exists and we have reasons to want to measure the rate of change.:cool:What we have then is "awareness" and what in the world is "awareness" ??? :banghead:

[Octavia]

Please note that I have moved the link to another website (and the subsequent reply) to storage due the fact that the link was being spammed multiple times over IIDB.

[Draconis]

I'm still to be convinced that eternal existence necessitates an absence of time, and also not convinced that in a given time continuum, time cannot be infinite.

[andrewpkyap]

I'm still to be convinced that eternal existence necessitates an absence of time, and also not convinced that in a given time continuum, time cannot be infinite.how can something that does not exists be "infinite"

If it is simply a concept in humanity's head, then the concept disappears with humanity...

[kennethamy]

The concept of Eternity...

Eternity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other senses of the word "eternity", see eternity (disambiguation).

While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existing for an infinite, i.e., limitless, amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time. There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally.

"limitless, amount of time,"
"a timeless existence"
"outside of time"
"matter, motion, and time"

so what do all these phrases, with the word time embedded, mean, if anything?

A simpler question would be, if time does not exist, then how could I have had breakfast before I had lunch, today?

[andrewpkyap]

A simpler question would be, if time does not exist, then how could I have had breakfast before I had lunch, today?and just because you say that you had "breakfast" and "lunch" you did?

Now, how did breakfast taste? How does a word like "breakfast" taste? How does a word like "lunch" taste?

You don't like the idea that "breakfast" is simply a word? OK then how does the concept "breakfast" taste?

Sorry, but do you understand what a fallacy is?

[kennethamy]

and just because you say that you had "breakfast" and "lunch" you did?

Now, how did breakfast taste? How does a word like "breakfast" taste? How does a word like "lunch" taste?

You don't like the idea that "breakfast" is simply a word? OK then how does the concept "breakfast" taste?

Sorry, but do you understand what a fallacy is?

The word "breakfast" is a word. But breakfast is not a word. Nor is it a concept. It is the meal I have most days before I have lunch. And lunch is not a word, although the word "lunch" is a word. People don't ride on the word "horse", but they do ride on horses. And people don't eat the word. "breakfast" although they eat breakfast. So why would you think that I was saying that the word "breakfast" came before the word, "lunch", when I said that breakfast came before lunch? And yes, I know what a fallacy is. And a good example of a fallacy is confusing a word with what the word refers to. That is what I think you were doing.

[andrewpkyap]

The word "breakfast" is a word. But breakfast is not a word. Nor is it a concept. It is the meal I have most days before I have lunch. And lunch is not a word, although the word "lunch" is a word. People don't ride on the word "horse", but they do ride on horses. And people don't eat the word. "breakfast" although they eat breakfast. So why would you think that I was saying that the word "breakfast" came before the word, "lunch", when I said that breakfast came before lunch? And yes, I know what a fallacy is. And a good example of a fallacy is confusing a word with what the word refers to. That is what I think you were doing. you eat food... just like you ride on horses... you cannot eat "lunch" and "breakfast"...

You ate your food when they earth was at a certain point in its axis in relation to the sun and you (create a concept in your head) and you call that lunch or dinner...

Where was time while you were having your breakfast and lunch? :huh:

[kennethamy]

you eat food... just like you ride on horses... you cannot eat "lunch" and "breakfast"...

You ate your food when they earth was at a certain point in its axis in relation to the sun and you (create a concept in your head) and you call that lunch or dinner...

Where was time while you were having your breakfast and lunch? :huh:

Now why don't I eat food when I eat breakfast? Breakfast is my morning meal, and I eat food (often eggs) when I eat breakfast.

But you are right when you say I cannot eat "lunch" or "breakfast", because "lunch" and "breakfast" are words which refer to lunch and to breakfast, and I cannot eat words, just as I cannot ride on the word, "horse". And you are right, I call the animal I ride on, "horse", just as I call my morning meal, "breakfast", and I call my afternoon meal, "lunch". And I call the country/city at the southern tip of the Malay peninsular, Singapore". But I would never say that you live in "Singapore" although, according to your profile, you live in Singapore. (I am sorry, but I don't understand your question about where time was, or is. I never thought that time was any place. What place is time supposed to be at?). But I do think you should not confuse words with what they refer to.

[andrewpkyap]

Now why don't I eat food when I eat breakfast? Breakfast is my morning meal, and I eat food (often eggs) when I eat breakfast.

But you are right when you say I cannot eat "lunch" or "breakfast", because "lunch" and "breakfast" are words which refer to lunch and to breakfast, and I cannot eat words, just as I cannot ride on the word, "horse". And you are right, I call the animal I ride on, "horse", just as I call my morning meal, "breakfast", and I call my afternoon meal, "lunch". And I call the country/city at the southern tip of the Malay peninsular, Singapore". But I would never say that you live in "Singapore" although, according to your profile, you live in Singapore. (I am sorry, but I don't understand your question about where time was, or is. I never thought that time was any place. What place is time supposed to be at?). But I do think you should not confuse words with what they refer to."breakfast" and "lunch" are not only "meals"... "breakfast" and "lunch" includes the concept of "Time" in it.

If I ask you to prove that you exists and you tell me ""kennethamy" exists and therefore I exists"?:huh:

and you tell me "breakfast and lunch" exists therefore time exists?:huh:

[kennethamy]

"breakfast" and "lunch" are not only "meals"... "breakfast" and "lunch" includes the concept of "Time" in it.

If I ask you to prove that you exists and you tell me ""kennethamy" exists and therefore I exists"?:huh:

and you tell me "breakfast and lunch" exists therefore time exists?:huh:

I did not say that breakfast and lunch exist before time exists. Nothing exists before time exists. Breakfast (not "breakfast" which is a word) but breakfast is what people eat in the morning, whatever they happen to call it, and lunch (not "lunch" which is a word) is the mean people eat in the afternoon, whatever they happen to call it. And, indeed, the term "breakfast" does imply that what it refers to is the first meal of the day. But so what?

Do you have a problem with my switching the example and saying that unless time exists, I could not put on my socks before I put on my shoes?

I don't see how the bit about "kennethamy" is relevant. But it is true that if I am kennethamy, and kennethamy exists, then I exist. Why wouldn't it be true? Of course, Of course that does not mean that if the word, "kennethamy" exists, then I exist. But that's different. Again, you have to distinguish between the word and the thing.

[Chuck Rightmire]

A simpler question would be, if time does not exist, then how could I have had breakfast before I had lunch, today?

You didn't. It is impossible because the words mean certain things. If you had steak with baked potato and salad to break your fast after you woke up, it is still breakfast by the definition of the word. And if you had pancakes at noon and it was your second meal of the day it was either lunch or dinner (or supper in some cases). The terms are placed in terms of our measurement of changes as to when they occur, not because we normally think of breakfast as a morning meal and lunch as the midday meal. When we think in terms of what we call the changes, there is no question involved.

[Garrett]

andrewpkyap
"breakfast" and "lunch" are not only "meals"... "breakfast" and "lunch" includes the concept of "Time" in it.
Yes.

breakfast (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=breakfast&gwp=13)
the first meal of the day, preceding lunch

lunch (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=lunch&gwp=13)
A meal eaten at midday

He argues against the claim that time is an idea by using the idea of time. If time is a concept, he thinks, then we can't eat the meal preceding lunch before we eat lunch.

Time is not a force. So what does the idea of time refer to?

[andrewpkyap]

I did not say that breakfast and lunch exist before time exists. Nothing exists before time exists. Breakfast (not "breakfast" which is a word) but breakfast is what people eat in the morning, whatever they happen to call it, and lunch (not "lunch" which is a word) is the mean people eat in the afternoon, whatever they happen to call it. And, indeed, the term "breakfast" does imply that what it refers to is the first meal of the day. But so what?

Do you have a problem with my switching the example and saying that unless time exists, I could not put on my socks before I put on my shoes?

I don't see how the bit about "kennethamy" is relevant. But it is true that if I am kennethamy, and kennethamy exists, then I exist. Why wouldn't it be true? Of course, Of course that does not mean that if the word, "kennethamy" exists, then I exist. But that's different. Again, you have to distinguish between the word and the thing.I have tried ignoring you for a long time and I am beginning to realize why... where did I say "before time exists" as in nothing exists before time exists????:rolleyes:

If you mean that I am saying that the concepts "breakfast" and "lunch" could not have existed unless the concept of time existed... you would have been right. You have a mental block.

[andrewpkyap]

Yes.

breakfast (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=breakfast&gwp=13)
the first meal of the day, preceding lunch

lunch (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=lunch&gwp=13)
A meal eaten at midday

He argues against the claim that time is an idea by using the idea of time. If time is a concept, he thinks, then we can't eat the meal preceding lunch before we eat lunch.

Time is not a force. So what does the idea of time refer to?1st of all he thinks that there are "units" of time like "units" of humans like you and I... a "day" for example... a minute or a nanosecond... where there is none.

"a day", "a minute" or a "nano-second" are not individual units like you and I are but concepts of "units of time"...

That is not my problem with him.... my problem with him is when he tries to tell me that God exists because "the Son of God" exists...

It is like telling me, "How can you say that God does not exists when Jesus, the Son of God exists?" Which is why I say that he has a mental block. If he is willing to discard his stubborn idea that time exists, then he would have realized the fallacy of all his arguments...

[Dupesh]

Time only exists when you think linear and three fold at the same time, past present and future, or commence, endure, and end. It's much more of a cyclical device that i find to be best understood through a good understanding of reciprocital(<=.....) allowances. Qualia! The only place this type of spacial temporal kind of nonsense we call "time" really becomes and issue is in the active aware imagination and that's a pretty amazing thing.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

andrewpkyap: ...so what do all these phrases, with the word time embedded, mean, if anything?

Let's see. Since we attribute meaning and all....

"limitless, amount of time,"

That would mean that time is without any limits.

"a timeless existence"

That would mean a contradictory and therefore impossible state of existence; as in, "that existence is not possible." See: possible.

"outside of time"

That would mean a paradox. "Outside of time" necessarily mandates that there be a "time X" outside of "time" in order to infer that one is "outside" of time. Time is a measurement, not a construct.

MORE: "matter, motion, and time"

Try mattermotiontime and you're close.

[andrewpkyap]

Let's see. Since we attribute meaning and all....

That would mean that time is without any limits.How can something that does not exist have limits? Are there limits to non existence?

[kennethamy]

I have tried ignoring you for a long time and I am beginning to realize why... where did I say "before time exists" as in nothing exists before time exists????:rolleyes:

If you mean that I am saying that the concepts "breakfast" and "lunch" could not have existed unless the concept of time existed... you would have been right. You have a mental block.

Don't understand what you mean, but I don't see how, to switch the example, it is possible for one event to occur before another event occurs, if there is no such thing as time. So, how would it be possible for the American Civil War to have occurred before the Second World War occurred if there was not such think as time. "Before" is a temporal term. Are you saying that the American Civil War did not occur before the Second World War? As for me, I am much surer that the American Civil War happened before the Second World War, than that there is no time. How about you. Or are you going to ignore the fact that one event occurred before the other event? So my conclusion is either I have a mental block, or you know no history.Don't you know that the American Civil War occurred before the Second World War. And if you do know that, then how could you believe, at the same time (!) that time does not exist?

[Dante Alighieri]

Is the following proposition coherent?
Things can precede other things atemporally

[andrewpkyap]

Don't understand what you mean, but I don't see how, to switch the example, it is possible for one event to occur before another event occurs, if there is no such thing as time. So, how would it be possible for the American Civil War to have occurred before the Second World War occurred if there was not such think as time. "Before" is a temporal term. Are you saying that the American Civil War did not occur before the Second World War? As for me, I am much surer that the American Civil War happened before the Second World War, than that there is no time. How about you. Or are you going to ignore the fact that one event occurred before the other event? So my conclusion is either I have a mental block, or you know no history.Don't you know that the American Civil War occurred before the Second World War. And if you do know that, then how could you believe, at the same time (!) that time does not exist?Imagine an ant walking from point a to point b.

Why would an ant need time to exist to walk from point a to b?

American Civil War occurred and the Second world war erupted... and so? What has that got to do with time?

But man developed a concept of time to... to do what? Think....:banghead:

[35Kas]

However, time exists.

It is noticeable as entropy increases.

Thats how the past present and future exist.

[andrewpkyap]

However, time exists.

It is noticeable as entropy increases.

Thats how the past present and future exist.This thread assumes the nonexistence of Time... the reply is moved to "The concept of time exists... but does time exists?" (click to link) (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4449111#post4449111)

[kennethamy]

Imagine an ant walking from point a to point b.

Why would an ant need time to exist to walk from point a to b?

American Civil War occurred and the Second world war erupted... and so? What has that got to do with time?

But man developed a concept of time to... to do what? Think....:banghead:

How could one event occur after another event occurred unless time exists? (When you said that the American Civil War occurred, and the Second World War erupted, I think you omitted one word. The word was "then", and it should occur between the term "and" and the term, "the Second world war". Thus the correct sentence is, "the American Civil War occurred and then the Second world war erupted". Man may have developed the concept of time, but the thread question is whether time exists as well as the concept of time. Man, without doubt, developed the concept of time, but did Man decide whether the American Civil War would occur before the Second World War, or after the Second World War?

[Chuck Rightmire]

How could one event occur after another event occurred unless time exists? (When you said that the American Civil War occurred, and the Second World War erupted, I think you omitted one word. The word was "then", and it should occur between the term "and" and the term, "the Second world war". Thus the correct sentence is, "the American Civil War occurred and then the Second world war erupted". Man may have developed the concept of time, but the thread question is whether time exists as well as the concept of time. Man, without doubt, developed the concept of time, but did Man decide whether the American Civil War would occur before the Second World War, or after the Second World War?

Once again this approach begs the question. The fact that the events occurred in a certain sequence says nothing about time. It only says that changed occurred in this way. The time is how we measured it, not how the change occurred. Change follows a path with one thing following another, perhaps the second caused by the first but not necessarily. Time does not have to exist to create a sequence of events. It just means that change continues to occur as it has the Big Bang.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How can something that does not exist have limits?

I guess I'll have to repeat what I wrote and you quoted, but did not understand, apparently: Let's see. Since we attribute meaning and all....

"limitless amount of time"

That would mean that time is without any limits.

If you are the one attributing meaning and you use the phrase "limitless amount of time," then that would mean that time is without any limits.

The key to it all is the precursor "since we attribute meaning..."

The word "time" is what we use to explain the continuity of existence that we all experience. Yes, you can look really close at a photograph in a newspaper and reduce it all to just individual tiny black dots. Congratulations. You've discovered the difference between the micro and the macro.

Same with "time." Slice a moment in time and that's what you've done. The problem is that you can't slice a moment in actual time, so while the abstraction allows you to do something in your head, the construction does not allow you do the same thing outside of your head.

So what would be the point of entertaining an irrelevant, trivial abstraction that has no possibility of being applied in the concrete?

[kennethamy]

Once again this approach begs the question. The fact that the events occurred in a certain sequence says nothing about time. It only says that changed occurred in this way. The time is how we measured it, not how the change occurred. Change follows a path with one thing following another, perhaps the second caused by the first but not necessarily. Time does not have to exist to create a sequence of events. It just means that change continues to occur as it has the Big Bang.

If there is a sequence, then doesn't one member of the sequence have to occur after (or before) another member?

[premjan]

There is no necessity for eternity at all. It is purely conceptual and I bet there are physical paradoxes involved in a true eternity or infinity of space (e.g. Olbers paradox).

Your own past and future probably do not really exist in that there is no way to access them once they are past, other than from the side effects they left behind / the ability to influence them from the here and now. However there is a sense in which other points in space could have a past, rather information about them that reaches us is always in their past relative to us. Though I am not sure simultaneity means anything outside the quantum realm anyway, where a wave function can collapse instantaneously throughout the breadth of known space and also instantaneously affect so-called state of particles at the very start or end of time (though we could argue such state never actually existed to begin with). I am not sure how to get past the fact that QM basically denies the reality of both space and time - argues for possibly a holographic universe.

[Chuck Rightmire]

If there is a sequence, then doesn't one member of the sequence have to occur after (or before) another member?

Yes, it does. But that still doesn't say anything about the existence of time, only about the consideration of change. Time is the artificial construct by which we refer to the sequences.

[andrewpkyap]

I guess I'll have to repeat what I wrote and you quoted, but did not understand, apparently:

If you are the one attributing meaning and you use the phrase "limitless amount of time," then that would mean that time is without any limits.

The key to it all is the precursor "since we attribute meaning..."

The word "time" is what we use to explain the continuity of existence that we all experience. Yes, you can look really close at a photograph in a newspaper and reduce it all to just individual tiny black dots. Congratulations. You've discovered the difference between the micro and the macro.

Same with "time." Slice a moment in time and that's what you've done. The problem is that you can't slice a moment in actual time, so while the abstraction allows you to do something in your head, the construction does not allow you do the same thing outside of your head.

So what would be the point of entertaining an irrelevant, trivial abstraction that has no possibility of being applied in the concrete?Well, some have suggested the term: "mental masturbation"

Others suggested that looking at something with the sheer brutality of "truth"; looking at the facts "coldly"; is in itself desirable.

This would then remove "fallacies" in one's head.

If we know that "time" does not exists outside our heads, that knowledge will enable us not to make the mistake of assuming and thinking as if time does.

The sentence, "That you might have eternal life" means what? We understand it as "that the processes of living does not stop for you" or "that you keep on changing and do not stop".

Obviously it does not mean that or does it?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

andrewpkyap: Well, some have suggested the term: "mental masturbation"

Others suggested that looking at something with the sheer brutality of "truth"; looking at the facts "coldly"; is in itself desirable.

What facts? The lack of time is the only thing that exists in your head as an abstraction; as a product of the ability to abstract. Change is constant and dynamic; measuring that change is abstract.

MORE: If we know that "time" does not exists outside our heads

Let's make this simple. Don't use the word "time" in this context; simply say "since we know that measuring change does not exsit outside of our heads" and all paradox is gone. Change is constant and dynamic; measuring that change is the abstraction we perform in our heads and we label that process "time."

Clear now?

Take your birthday, for example. I don't knwo how old you are, but let's say you're 30. What does that actually mean in the real world? It means you've orbitted around our sun 30 times since being born.

MORE: The sentence, "That you might have eternal life" means what?

Well, considering that matterenergy cannot be created or destroyed, merely released or diverted, it means that the particles making up your body will eternally exist in one state or another.

As for your personality; your consciousness? That will also dissipate once your body decays enough for that process to begin. We typically call the beginning of that particular decay phase "death," which is a misnomer, since the second you are born, you are dying.

MORE: We understand it as "that the processes of living does not stop for you" or "that you keep on changing and do not stop".

Obviously it does not mean that or does it?

Again, the distinction is whether or not the "I" of the psyche will continue to perceive. Since that "I" is dependent upon the structure of the brain and the brain is a tangible, fragile organ that can not only be damaged, but will eventually decay beyond functionality, all of the evidence says, "What you consider 'you' will cease to exist. What you consider your body will dynamically transform (aka, "decompose") into the dynamic swirl of the universe."

IOW, "you" cease to exist; your body's matterenergy gets recycled.

And since we know that there is no consistency in the psyche while alive (it too is a dynamic that is ever changing, unlike cult member claims of a changeless eternal soul using meat like vehicles), again the evidence all points to no coherent retention of "youness" beyond a certain decay point of no return. Currently for humans in the Western world, that's usually around their 85th-90th orbit of our sun, so you'd better get out there and enjoy it, because you have a finite number of orbits before nothingness.

[andrewpkyap]

And since we know that there is no consistency in the psyche while alive (it too is a dynamic that is ever changing, unlike cult member claims of a changeless eternal soul using meat like vehicles), again the evidence all points to no coherent retention of "youness" beyond a certain decay point of no return. Currently for humans in the Western world, that's usually around their 85th-90th orbit of our sun, so you'd better get out there and enjoy it, because you have a finite number of orbits before nothingness.This, in a nut-shell was what I was getting at... whether or not we should "better get out there and enjoy it, because you have a finite number of orbits".

The word eternity gets in the way. It speaks of "permanence" and worse of all, and worse of all... it speaks of "perpetuation" and particularly, the "perpetuation" of human life, even after death.

If "time" does not exists, then "eternity" does not exists. There is no point looking forward to "eternity".

The ancients seem to have solved this dilemma and claim an existence outside this universe. The spirit world. "The Spirit", an entity that inherently does not change in some ways (instead of the observable reality) and "The Spirit World" where somethings inherently exists (does not change in some ways).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"The Spirit", an entity that inherently does not change in some ways (instead of the observable reality) and "The Spirit World" where somethings inherently exists (does not change in some ways).

Well, see, that's where ignorance is bliss, because the same psyche that we all experience thanks in no small part to our neocortex being capable of "digitally" projecting itself into the future due it it's equal ability to cull from the past has the luxury (thanks to our predatorially evolved pattern solving/abstracting processes) to misconstrue that "we" are unchanging.

The "now" is, quite literally, the only "thing" that exists. That we have the ability to do an instantaneous "replay" of the experienced "now" in just one of our primary cognitive processors does not give us license to self-proclaim that processor to be "meta;" quite the contrary. The "I" we all comfortably chummy up to is actually an objective fraud, for its tools are only inference and deduction, but it cannot (through evolutionary necessity) directly process the "now;" the direct physical experience. And as a result, it is "vulnerable" to manipulation; to coercion and operant conditioning to use its abstracting ability to self-aggrandize. The "real" isn't supreme to this processor; only the "super" real is supreme; i.e., only the abstract is real. A paradox that only "it" can entertain. Why? Because it doesn't have to deal with direct experience; only indirect experience; experience "sense data" that has been relayed through hundreds of trillions of tiny, tiny relay stations all putting their on "spin" on the information being relayed. Literally on the micro level.

Quintillion times per nano second. No wonder "it" doesn't seem to think it changes; all it does is measure what has already changed.

:huh:

It's our own "brain in a jar" and it evolved there in order to pattern solve so we could fuck and eat. You'll notice, btw, that "it" pretty much shuts the fuck up whenever we are eating or fucking. Then it got stoned one night thousands of years ago and figured out fire and how to trick Grog into sharing his meal (and his mate) and thought of the Zero and until Freud it ruled supreme (and still does to a large degree).

Consider this regressive psychoproto numerology: Id, Ego, Superego; Father, Son, Holy Ghost; Electron Neutrino, Muon Neutrino, Tau Neutrino, the three "flavors" of neutrinos that, along with their equal and opposing "anti" neutrinos, supposedly comprise all matterenergy as we know it from the big kabang forward.

EMT is where it all came from and that--for millions of desperate people, unfortunately--spells, "Emergency Medical Technicians."

To me it spells, "Holy Fucking Shit," but then I too have the ability to irrationally transpose thanks to my neocortex. :D

[untermensche]

Once again this approach begs the question. The fact that the events occurred in a certain sequence says nothing about time. It only says that changed occurred in this way. The time is how we measured it, not how the change occurred. Change follows a path with one thing following another, perhaps the second caused by the first but not necessarily. Time does not have to exist to create a sequence of events. It just means that change continues to occur as it has the Big Bang.
Time dictates how change occurs. If change were not constrained by time then all changes would be completely reverseable.

The house can burn down then un-burn down.

Of course you would never have a house.

The Big Bang would occur and then un-occur, forever, if there were not time to stop that nonsense.

[andrewpkyap]

Well, see, that's where ignorance is bliss, because the same psyche that we all experience thanks in no small part to our neocortex being capable of "digitally" projecting itself into the future due it it's equal ability to cull from the past has the luxury (thanks to our predatorially evolved pattern solving/abstracting processes) to misconstrue that "we" are unchanging.

The "now" is, quite literally, the only "thing" that exists. That we have the ability to do an instantaneous "replay" of the experienced "now" in just one of our primary cognitive processors does not give us license to self-proclaim that processor to be "meta;" quite the contrary. The "I" we all comfortably chummy up to is actually an objective fraud, for its tools are only inference and deduction, but it cannot (through evolutionary necessity) directly process the "now;" the direct physical experience. And as a result, it is "vulnerable" to manipulation; to coercion and operant conditioning to use its abstracting ability to self-aggrandize. The "real" isn't supreme to this processor; only the "super" real is supreme; i.e., only the abstract is real. A paradox that only "it" can entertain. Why? Because it doesn't have to deal with direct experience; only indirect experience; experience "sense data" that has been relayed through hundreds of trillions of tiny, tiny relay stations all putting their on "spin" on the information being relayed. Literally on the micro level.

Quintillion times per nano second. No wonder "it" doesn't seem to think it changes; all it does is measure what has already changed.

:huh:

It's our own "brain in a jar" and it evolved there in order to pattern solve so we could fuck and eat. You'll notice, btw, that "it" pretty much shuts the fuck up whenever we are eating or fucking. Then it got stoned one night thousands of years ago and figured out fire and how to trick Grog into sharing his meal (and his mate) and thought of the Zero and until Freud it ruled supreme (and still does to a large degree).

Consider this regressive psychoproto numerology: Id, Ego, Superego; Father, Son, Holy Ghost; Electron Neutrino, Muon Neutrino, Tau Neutrino, the three "flavors" of neutrinos that, along with their equal and opposing "anti" neutrinos, supposedly comprise all matterenergy as we know it from the big kabang forward.

EMT is where it all came from and that--for millions of desperate people, unfortunately--spells, "Emergency Medical Technicians."

To me it spells, "Holy Fucking Shit," but then I too have the ability to irrationally transpose thanks to my neocortex. :DThat's just so sad... :cool:

I am beginning to think that many, if not most, cannot deal with/accept reality and if you leave them out in the real world, they cannot survive...

they are so in need of a savior...

so basically I nowadays encourage people to "accept ...(fill in the blank) as their savior" and live their lives according to the "rules" or "secret formula", if you wish... :)

It is such a waste of time to try to talk to some people...

[Chuck Rightmire]

Time dictates how change occurs. If change were not constrained by time then all changes would be completely reverseable.

The house can burn down then un-burn down.

Of course you would never have a house.

The Big Bang would occur and then un-occur, forever, if there were not time to stop that nonsense.

Sequences of change which we measure with something we call time mean that this is incorrect. Change started with the Big Bang and all changes since then have occurred one upon the other since no change can occur until the conditions are right for it to occur. Thus it is impossible to go back and unburn a house or undo the Big Bang. Change is ongoing, which is why it would be impossible to go back and unburn a house. It is no reversible since going back would be another change and would not be the same house or the same Big Bang.

[jgh3115]

the "past" and "future" dont actually exist-they are just terms humans use to refer to particular periods of the measurment of time. the "present" is an illusion-it is constantly becoming the past. you can never truly be in the present, for in order to form a stance or opinion on something you have to see it, relate it to past experiences, then form that stance. thus all you are doing is reflecting on a past memory. so its all an illusion.

[andrewpkyap]

the "past" and "future" dont actually exist-they are just terms humans use to refer to particular periods of the measurment of time. the "present" is an illusion-it is constantly becoming the past. you can never truly be in the present, for in order to form a stance or opinion on something you have to see it, relate it to past experiences, then form that stance. thus all you are doing is reflecting on a past memory. so its all an illusion.so what does "it is all an illusion" *mean*?

[alienrodeoclown]

If Time does not exist, how can Eternity, the past, the present, the future exist?

Regardless of whether or not time exists your question can be answered simply by examining its grammar. Exist (that extra "s" was obviously unintended) is in the present tense. Therefore only the present exists. The past does not exist, it existed. The present did not exist and it wont exist. The future will exist but it doesn't exist, and it didn't exist.

Of course if we did not have the concepts of past and future it seems we would not have the concept of the present, and if we did not have the concept of time how would we have the concepts of past, present, and future. Regardless of whether or not time "actually exists" the concept of it would have to exist for other concepts based on it to do so. At least thats how i see it.

As far as eternity goes, the wikipedia definitions you gave us include both infinite time and no time. It seems that should answer the question. Of course both of those definitions required the "concept" of time to exist.

Since all of these things are just concepts shouldn't we analyze them as such?

[andrewpkyap]

Regardless of whether or not time exists your question can be answered simply by examining its grammar. Exist (that extra "s" was obviously unintended) is in the present tense. Therefore only the present exists. The past does not exist, it existed. The present did not exist and it wont exist. The future will exist but it doesn't exist, and it didn't exist.

Of course if we did not have the concepts of past and future it seems we would not have the concept of the present, and if we did not have the concept of time how would we have the concepts of past, present, and future. Regardless of whether or not time "actually exists" the concept of it would have to exist for other concepts based on it to do so. At least thats how i see it.

As far as eternity goes, the wikipedia definitions you gave us include both infinite time and no time. It seems that should answer the question. Of course both of those definitions required the "concept" of time to exist.

Since all of these things are just concepts shouldn't we analyze them as such?This thread was split from here: The concept of time exists but does Time exists? (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=201011)

Don't you find it rather eerie? The more we look at it, the more our existence and the existence of the known universe seems less and less likely, other than as a concept.