bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:40 pm
We used to experience time since the time we could experience motion of a tiny thing.
You never really "experience time". All you ever experience is a thought about a state of affairs that states that something has once been different compared to how things are now.
I do experience time when I focus to don't think at all.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:42 am
This thought happens now, it only references a previous now, and by doing so it seems to create something called "time". But just like a word is not the thing - and furthermore: it cannot create a real thing, it can only create the idea of a thing - also the thought can and will never create a real experience.
Any single thought I have ever had had a duration. Thought is like a steam for me.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:42 am
The "experience of motion of a tiny thing" is as such not primary to the "experience of time" - it is the memory/thought of such a previous state that is primary and as such the mother of time.
Does experience of motion of a tiny thing has a duration to you? I think time is our background experience. You can find it when you focus on it.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:42 am
Now ask yourself:
Can something that is purely based on thought (on memory) be eternal? No!
Can it be a "fundamental variable of any dynamical theory"? Yes! As any "dynamical theory" is again only possible when thought is at play. Remove thought and all theories as well as time simply vanish - poooof - gone
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:53 am
You can't play God here and insist you are omniscient.
The reality is we should start with everything we have on hand and work backward to the point of knowledge our experience and reason can substantiate it.
The point is;
-'beginning' is a linguistic matter.
-Linguistic system are invented by humans.
-there is no absolute meaning of words independent of humans.
- the term 'beginning' cannot represent anything absolute.
-therefore it would be more realistic to start with the real and work inward to the most subtlest real.
To start with 'what is the beginning of time' is unrealistic and thus moot.
To be realistic we have to start with the reality that humans are dealing with time.
So realistically we need to establish the most realistic ground for time by exploring real time as understood in the present reality.
Was there a point that there was no human and things were in motion?
No.
No humans = no "things" and no "motion" which are supposedly human realizations.
To be realistic we have to start with the real, i.e. whence humans cognize reality.
Note Meno's 'how can you know something when you do not know what it is in the first place'
The most efficient is to start from "Know Thyself" and from what the self knows.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.
So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
No. There should be a starting point on the circle or the initial point is in infinite cycles in the past, so called eternal.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.
So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
No. There should be a starting point on the circle or the initial point is in infinite cycles in the past, so called eternal.
There is no starting point on a loop, that's the point.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:31 pm
I try to think in 7D but to understand circular time 4D is enough, now fuck off.
Tsk tsk. Somebody didn't pay attention in geometry class.
To understand circular anything you need only 2 dimensions.
I already explained this to you Timeseeker but since you're an idiot it went over your head that spacetime is 4-dimensional, and its circularity here means that it forms a closed loop.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:42 pm
I already explained this to you Timeseeker but since you're an idiot it went over your head that spacetime is 4-dimensional, and its circularity here means that it forms a closed loop.
1. You and VA keep confusing me for Timeseeker. I'd love to convince you that I am not TimeSeeker, but it's beyond me to prove negatives.
2. A circle is 2-dimensional. A 4-dimensional circularity is an oxymoron.
Then again. You don't seem like the kind of person with whom to have a constructive conversation on homotopy, so whatever.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:42 pm
I already explained this to you Timeseeker but since you're an idiot it went over your head that spacetime is 4-dimensional, and its circularity here means that it forms a closed loop.
1. You and VA keep confusing me for Timeseeker. I'd love to convince you that I am not TimeSeeker, but it's beyond me to prove negatives.
2. A circle is 2-dimensional. A 4-dimensional circularity is an oxymoron.
Then again. You don't seem like the kind of person with whom to have a constructive conversation on homotopy, so whatever.
