Philosophy Now Forum

jayjacobus wrote:
One cannot teach without using words and words have definitions

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:11 am

jayjacobus wrote:
One cannot teach without using words and words have definitions

Yes but using a word to define a word is confusing and contradictory which is why its not done
A word can only be defined by other words because the definition may not be fully understood

Richardmc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:04 am 'Commonsense' and others talk about "future reality", while I have maintained that reality occurs only in the present or has occurred in the past."Real" is defined as "occurring or existing in actuality", and "actual" as "existing or occurring at the time." Time always starts now and does not yet exist in the future. There are some realities or facts that are timelessly true, such as those on which sciences are based. There are myriads of simple facts that are also timeless- all living things die, humans must breathe and eat in order to live, etc. But- manifestations of these timeless truths must happen before they exist in time. For instance, I know that I will die at some time, but I do not know when or how- that is in the unknown future, which does not yet exist. I persist in trying to get these ideas across because it gives one a logical perspective in living and reasoning, which I believe can be helpful to others. As usual, thoughtful and pertinent postings are welcome.

Richardmc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:04 am 'Commonsense' and others talk about "future reality", while I have maintained that reality occurs only in the present or has occurred in the past."Real" is defined as "occurring or existing in actuality", and "actual" as "existing or occurring at the time." Time always starts now and does not yet exist in the future. There are some realities or facts that are timelessly true, such as those on which sciences are based. There are myriads of simple facts that are also timeless- all living things die, humans must breathe and eat in order to live, etc. But- manifestations of these timeless truths must happen before they exist in time. For instance, I know that I will die at some time, but I do not know when or how- that is in the unknown future, which does not yet exist. I persist in trying to get these ideas across because it gives one a logical perspective in living and reasoning, which I believe can be helpful to others. As usual, thoughtful and pertinent postings are welcome.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:46 pm

Richardmc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:04 am 'Commonsense' and others talk about "future reality", while I have maintained that reality occurs only in the present or has occurred in the past."Real" is defined as "occurring or existing in actuality", and "actual" as "existing or occurring at the time." Time always starts now and does not yet exist in the future. There are some realities or facts that are timelessly true, such as those on which sciences are based. There are myriads of simple facts that are also timeless- all living things die, humans must breathe and eat in order to live, etc. But- manifestations of these timeless truths must happen before they exist in time. For instance, I know that I will die at some time, but I do not know when or how- that is in the unknown future, which does not yet exist. I persist in trying to get these ideas across because it gives one a logical perspective in living and reasoning, which I believe can be helpful to others. As usual, thoughtful and pertinent postings are welcome.

I'll try one more time.
The future is just as real as the past, and the future has 'already happened'. You just can't remember it. And time doesn't 'start now' because time doesn't start at all. Past present and future are all the 'now'.

Now is subject to context of awareness. The now in one position observes only so much compared to a universal position above time where everything happens in one moment. Now exists in multiple superpositioned states and is subject to the point of view of the observer.

Now is subject to both a state of unity and multiplicity.

From a universal consciousness, now observes the future and past as present, and the average person sees the future through the past, but time itself is finiteness as the relation of parts of changes through itself and subject to its own nature.

Time can grow old metaphorically speaking.

(That's also why quantum effects are timeless, so it's perfectly normal for the future to correlate with the present, or what you do right now to correlate with what happened 10 billion years ago.)

You spent years on confusing "I don't remember the future" with "the future hasn't happened yet"? And there's nothing logical about introducing fundamental asymmetries to nature.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:22 am Now is subject to context of awareness. The now in one position observes only so much compared to a universal position above time where everything happens in one moment. Now exists in multiple superpositioned states and is subject to the point of view of the observer.

Now is subject to both a state of unity and multiplicity.

From a universal consciousness, now observes the future and past as present, and the average person sees the future through the past, but time itself is finiteness as the relation of parts of changes through itself and subject to its own nature.

Time can grow old metaphorically speaking.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:22 am Now is subject to context of awareness. The now in one position observes only so much compared to a universal position above time where everything happens in one moment. Now exists in multiple superpositioned states and is subject to the point of view of the observer.

Now is subject to both a state of unity and multiplicity.

From a universal consciousness, now observes the future and past as present, and the average person sees the future through the past, but time itself is finiteness as the relation of parts of changes through itself and subject to its own nature.

Time can grow old metaphorically speaking.

Even if there are a few correct insights here and there in your word salad, you are unable to articulate it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:34 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:22 am Now is subject to context of awareness. The now in one position observes only so much compared to a universal position above time where everything happens in one moment. Now exists in multiple superpositioned states and is subject to the point of view of the observer.

Now is subject to both a state of unity and multiplicity.

From a universal consciousness, now observes the future and past as present, and the average person sees the future through the past, but time itself is finiteness as the relation of parts of changes through itself and subject to its own nature.

Time can grow old metaphorically speaking.

Even if there are a few correct insights here and there in your word salad, you are unable to articulate it.

Actually I can articulate it, and that is the agrippas fallacy. Your point of view makes it relative, thus always you will not be able to interpret it fully.

It is really simple.

If everything exists as one, then the future and past are already written.

If in a state of multiple viewpoints than it is relative to point of view and not completely determined from specific "nows"

Considering the one contains the many and the many relate through the one, it is both written and not written.

Your answer isn't even wrong...

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:38 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:34 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:29 am
Even if there are a few correct insights here and there in your word salad, you are unable to articulate it.

Actually I can articulate it, and that is the agrippas fallacy. Your point of view makes it relative, thus always you will not be able to interpret it fully.

It is really simple.

If everything exists as one, then the future and past are already written.

If in a state of multiple viewpoints than it is relative to point of view and not completely determined from specific "nows"

Considering the one contains the many and the many relate through the one, it is both written and not written.

Your answer isn't even wrong...

You haven't actually addressed the question of time by just throwing out the relative point of view. You need to be able to think about time in like 4 different ways and figure out how they can fit together.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:38 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:34 am
Actually I can articulate it, and that is the agrippas fallacy. Your point of view makes it relative, thus always you will not be able to interpret it fully.

It is really simple.

If everything exists as one, then the future and past are already written.

If in a state of multiple viewpoints than it is relative to point of view and not completely determined from specific "nows"

Considering the one contains the many and the many relate through the one, it is both written and not written.

Your answer isn't even wrong...

You haven't actually addressed the question of time by just throwing out the relative point of view. You need to be able to think about time in like 4 different ways and figure out how they can fit together.

Actually you dont have to think about it in four different ways. If time is relative to the point of view then there are multiple timezones.

Time is subjective and as subjective it is not limited to any preconceived past or future as any preconceptions are again further subject to recursive subjective.

Time is change as the relation of parts, thus time is multiplicity of phenomenon through a convergence and divergence. It is entropy and negentropy of everything physical and abstract.

This entropy and negentropy, while above time, is still subject to it as it cycles through it self.

Being is one and many.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:38 am
You haven't actually addressed the question of time by just throwing out the relative point of view. You need to be able to think about time in like 4 different ways and figure out how they can fit together.

Actually you dont have to think about it in four different ways. If time is relative to the point of view then there are multiple timezones.

Time is subjective and as subjective it is not limited to any preconceived past or future as any preconceptions are again further subject to recursive subjective.

Time is change as the relation of parts, thus time is multiplicity of phenomenon through a convergence and divergence. It is entropy and negentropy of everything physical and abstract.

This entropy and negentropy, while above time, is still subject to it as it cycles through it self.

Being is one and many.

As I said, you haven't even addressed the issue of time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:43 am
Actually you dont have to think about it in four different ways. If time is relative to the point of view then there are multiple timezones.

Time is subjective and as subjective it is not limited to any preconceived past or future as any preconceptions are again further subject to recursive subjective.

Time is change as the relation of parts, thus time is multiplicity of phenomenon through a convergence and divergence. It is entropy and negentropy of everything physical and abstract.

This entropy and negentropy, while above time, is still subject to it as it cycles through it self.

Being is one and many.

As I said, you haven't even addressed the issue of time.

As I have said, your stance is loaded with contradictions and you haven't even given a definition not subject to a fallacy.

Time is the relation of parts.

The rate of movement of one part relative to another fixed part determines time.

But this fixed point is not just subject to choice and the observer, but is moving as well.

The movements are strictly multiple states.

It is movements within movements and is a ratio.

The "algebraic expression for time" a few pages back in the math session addresses this.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:45 am
As I said, you haven't even addressed the issue of time.

As I have said, your stance is loaded with contradictions and you haven't even given a definition not subject to a fallacy.

Time is the relation of parts.

The rate of movement of one part relative to another fixed part determines time.

But this fixed point is not just subject to choice and the observer, but is moving as well.

The movements are strictly multiple states.

It is movements within movements and is a ratio.

The "algebraic expression for time" a few pages back in the math session addresses this.

Time is a change in a certain direction, not just relative movement in general.
As I said, you haven't even addressed the issue of time.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:07 pm There seems to be the sense that there is future time that can exist. There isn't. There is no place in the past that can exist either.

Notice there is a sense that the past and future can be visited - But past and future are ideas appearing here now the only real place.

HERE NOW is a place that never moves or happens. Happenings only exist in the past and future that is here and now the only place you NOTICE the happenings that are not happening.

What seems to be moving from past to future in linear time is actually standing perfectly still.

.