Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Can being come from Non-being ?


Forums Forums Religion and Secularism Can being come from Non-being ?

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 247 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #319122
    Sree
    Participant

    Bob: I’d say if we both stub a toe on it, its most likely physical.

    So, what you mean by physical is anything that you can detect with your sense of touch. Yes or no?

     

     

    • This reply was modified 6 days, 15 hours ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 6 days, 15 hours ago by Sree.
    #319125
    Widdershins
    Participant

    That’s not an obvious attempt to restrict the conversation to fall within specific parameters you’ve already created an argument for or anything.

    #319159
    Sree
    Participant

    Then what would be the proper gambit?

    #319175
    Write4U
    Participant

    Sree said,

    So, what you mean by physical is anything that you can detect with your sense of touch. Yes or no?

    Yes, if it is dense enough. It’s the opposite of the mind. A dense mind makes thoughts more senseless and vaporous……. 🙂

    #319203
    Bob
    Participant

    Sree:  “So, what you mean by physical is anything that you can detect with your sense of touch. Yes or no?”

    Do you think the physical existence of anything depends on our ability to detect it?

    Enough questions sans answers.  I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.

    #319235
    Lennart H (Sweden)
    Participant

    Bob, what is your take on the twin paradox?

    #319259
    Sree
    Participant

    Bob: Do you think the physical existence of anything depends on our ability to detect it?

    You are answering my question with another question. I will take that as “Checkmate!” and discount your statement “time is an artifact of memory” as non-sensical.

    Be that as it may, I am not here for one-upmanship but to participate in critical inquiry of superstition. Below is someone else’s take on time. He maintains that time exists but not physical in nature. He has thrown more light on time than you have but there is still a ways to go.

    Time and space are non-matter existences. They don’t exist in physical state. Therefore, unlike matter existence, they don’t have physical properties. And they cannot have interactions with matter existence.

    Time has no dimension. Space only has three dimensions. No more. Time cannot be incorporated into space to form a dimension.

    Time is measurable but measurable does not mean tangible — non-matter existence cannot be tangible, only matter existence is tangible.

    There is no way to prove the existence of space but the matter exists and moves within it; there is no way to prove the existence of time but the matter existence and movement process elapses with it.

    And an object moving through the spatial dimension is not the same as a process elapses through time. An object cannot move through time, while a process cannot move through space. Time only can be related to process, space only can be related to object. Use other expression: Time has nothing to do with object; space has nothing to do with process. (Ming Lou, from Australia, Quora)

     

    • This reply was modified 5 days, 6 hours ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 5 days, 6 hours ago by Sree.
    #319278
    Write4U
    Participant

    Sree, thank you for that excellent quote.

    #319283
    Bob
    Participant

    Sree:  “Time and space are non-matter existences.  …  the matter existence and movement process elapses with [time].  …  Time only can be related to process”

    Wiktionary, existence: “1.  The state of being, existing, or occurring; beinghood.  Synonym: presence  2.  Empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe.”

    Wiktionary, process:  “1.  A series of events which produce a result.  2. A set of procedures used to produce a product  3.  A path of succession of states through which a system passes.”

    Wiktionary, relate: “1.  To tell in a descriptive way.  2.  To give an association. 3. To make a connection or correlation between one thing and another.”

     

    So, the first statement fits the definition of existence?  I don’t think so.  Occurring, present, substance of the physical universe? Not.

    The second statement says movement is a process which elapses with time.  So, movement is dependent upon, is a function of, time?  Not even close.

    The third statement is nearly there.  Related, as in making a connection in the mind (unless you want to say you would make a physical connection).  And just what is the one thing and the other thing that we describe, associate, connect and correlate?  Nothing more or less than our memories (and records) of events.

     

    Sree:  “Time has nothing to do with object, …”

    Yes indeed.  In other words time is not an inherent part of objects.  The state of an object is an inherent part of the object.  We compare our memories of the states of objects and our conclusions are time; thus time is an artifact of memory, meaning not an inherent part of the states we remember.

    Wiktionary, haphazard:  “haphazard (not comparable)  1.  Random; chaotic; incomplete; not thorough, constant, or consistent.  Synonyms: random, chaotic.  Antonym: systematic.

    Language is a wonderful tool when used properly.  Used in a haphazard (inconsistent) way it only serves to confuse.  Politicians and debaters often use inconsistent terms purposely.

     

    Sree:  “Be that as it may, I am not here for one-upmanship.”

    I think your “Checkmate!”  denies that claim.

    #319284
    Bob
    Participant

    Lennart, I don’t see a paradox.  Both twins will see the other’s clock run slow while the distance between them increases, no matter whether one or both are actually moving.  Both will see the other’s clock run fast while the distance between them decreases.  The clocks will be seen to correspond when the distance between them is zero.

    The whole point of relativity is to describe what something looks like, not what it actually is.  And of course you can’t determine what actually “is” using only one point of viewing.

    #319286
    Lennart H (Sweden)
    Participant

    “The clocks will be seen to correspond when the distance between them is zero.” No, this is not the case. Unless you by correspond mean that the travellers clock runs slower, which is what happens. The twin that makes the journey will in fact be younger than his brother.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

    #319287
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    The whole point of relativity is to describe what something looks like, not what it actually is.  And of course you can’t determine what actually “is” using only one point of viewing.  –Bob

    I could break down your various logical errors and failures to support your conclusions with your data, but this is really the core of the problem. No one can determine what actually “is”. That’s where we’re at right now. We don’t know if we will ever be able to. You’ve done nothing here but restate Munchhausen’s trilemma. The only way you can find things that aren’t being effected by time is to get outside of this physical universe. You can only do that theoretically.

    • This reply was modified 4 days, 20 hours ago by Lausten.
    • This reply was modified 4 days, 20 hours ago by Lausten.
    #319289
    Lennart H (Sweden)
    Participant

    ” No one can determine what actually “is”. In this case it seems that we actually can. What “is” in this case is that the brother that made the journey is in fact younger than his brother when they meet again.

    #319292
    Lennart H (Sweden)
    Participant

    My point here is that what Bob is asking for in the following statement has its answer in the twin paradox. And that this effect is compensated for in the GPS system.

    Bob: “In order for us to say that something exists we must experience some evidence of that thing interacting with its surroundings.  I have never heard any claim that time affects anything nor that anything depends on a reaction from time for anything.  I have never heard of any cause/effect relationship between time and anything.”

    Maybe we should refrase it and say that time reacts to certain circumstances. And when time reacts and changes it affects for exampel human bodies and clocks.

    My conclusion is that something that can be affected and affects things must be said to exist.

    #319319
    Write4U
    Participant

    LennartH: My conclusion is that something that can be affected and affects things must be said to exist.

    Not necessarily.

    I believe a case can be made that time is a result, an emergent measurement of “duration” of something . Which means that without the existence of something , time does not exist for that thing at all.

    You cannot measure time itself. It is always an emergent product of change. We may say that time reacts to certain circumstances but that is always a direct result of the change in circumstances, not the cause for circumstantial change.

    There is no such thing as “future time”.  Time cannot exist unless associated with the duration of something else. It’s an emergent result of change.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 247 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.