Philosophy Now Forum

A new theory is put forth saying we can remember the past, but not the future (I haven't formed an opinion yet):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091946.htm

PhilX

Tosspot physics at its worst. We can't remember the future because it hasn't fucking happened yet. What a pack of wankers.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:A new theory is put forth saying we can remember the past, but not the future (I haven't formed an opinion yet):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091946.htm

PhilX

Duh.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:A new theory is put forth saying we can remember the past, but not the future (I haven't formed an opinion yet):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091946.htm

PhilX

Duh. Stop wasting disk drive space with this nonsense.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:A new theory is put forth saying we can remember the past, but not the future (I haven't formed an opinion yet):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091946.htm

PhilX

Duh. Stop wasting disk drive space with this nonsense.

Do you presume to speak on behalf of this website's administration so I can ignore your stupid remark and you can't tell me what to do.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:A new theory is put forth saying we can remember the past, but not the future (I haven't formed an opinion yet):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091946.htm

PhilX

Duh. Stop wasting disk drive space with this nonsense.

Do you presume to speak on behalf of this website's administration so I can ignore your stupid remark and you can't tell me what to do.

PhilX

I presume nothing. I'm just fed up of having to wade through your shit to get to an ever diminishing list of threads that are actually on "Philosophy".

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I presume nothing. I'm just fed up of having to wade through your shit to get to an ever diminishing list of threads that are actually on "Philosophy".

And I'm tired of wading through your shit. Why not put me on your ignore list?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I presume nothing. I'm just fed up of having to wade through your shit to get to an ever diminishing list of threads that are actually on "Philosophy".

And I'm tired of wading through your shit. Why not put me on your ignore list?

PhilX

Because shit sticks and I can still be caught out by your threads that clog up the lists.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I presume nothing. I'm just fed up of having to wade through your shit to get to an ever diminishing list of threads that are actually on "Philosophy".

And I'm tired of wading through your shit. Why not put me on your ignore list?

PhilX

Because shit sticks and I can still be caught out by your threads that clog up the lists.

Your tough luck then.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: And I'm tired of wading through your shit. Why not put me on your ignore list?

PhilX

Because shit sticks and I can still be caught out by your threads that clog up the lists.

Your tough luck then.

PhilX

So do you even know what the arrow of time is?

Hobbes'Choice wrote:
So do you even know what the arrow of time is?

Of course. Don't you?

PhilX

In fact the spacetime paradigm of physics is unable to explain the arrow of time because time is represented in the Minkowski continuum as a Cartesian dimension. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional which means that most of the so-called "laws of physics" are time invariant. Interestingly this is not true of all of them which is another huge mystery for this confused paradigm. As they stand at present these so-called "laws of physics" deny the arrow of time and thus deny that effects must be preceded by a cause. In fact they make no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future at all and model the universe as a single timeless block. According to this paradigm we should be able to remember the future so any philosopher worthy of the name is obliged to reject it out of hand.