|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 18, 2018 22:31:05 GMT
Lame. He should have called it "God Is Dead (And How I Killed Him)"
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 18, 2018 23:32:27 GMT
before your moral high ground went radioactive
if flying planes into large buildings
can indeed
evolve
into
the dismemberment of
journalists.
and
planting listening devices
inside
foreign embassy's
morph into
an
international social disease.
followed up
by
a chronic
never satiated need
to
plow under
select voting machines.
just
what the hell
are we
promoting anywhere
when there's
a cancerous disease
right here
in
a homeland
you still pretend
is free
as long as you can receive
two for one airfare
on your
vacation to belize.
sjw 10/18/18 inspired at this very moment in time because he tweeted it so.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 18, 2018 23:42:42 GMT
It is not obvious. Einstein showed that time and space are interrelated, and that by altering one's frame of reference there is cross talk between space and time measurements. You are making the unfounded assumption that time is static, just as Newton did. There's no shame in that (for Newton), the view was consistent with all of the experimental data available to him at the time. Einstein wasn't being modest, nor feigning it, when he overthrew the classical assumptions of space and time. In my view it is obvious. Time and space are related in that time is the ontological process of motion or change, which requires extension or extensional relations, which is what space is. Motion/change obviously isn't static--it's just the opposite, so I don't know where the heck you're getting the idea from that I'm saying that time is static. By way of Einstein's relativity it has been shown that forward (or accelerated) time travel is possible. That is, a human could board a spaceship on earth, then accelerate to very close to the speed of light and travel to the Andromeda Galaxy in a few years (spaceship time, but more than a million years earth time), then make the return journey to earth, all within a human lifespan. The human would return to earth and find the date advanced by several million years. There is more than one suggestion of how backward time travel might be accomplished. A wormhole between two black holes, or travel faster than light. Of course these ideas are highly speculative and they may turn out to be impossible, but I see no justification in claiming that the idea of backward time travel is any more "incoherent" than accelerated forward time travel. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 0:15:15 GMT
In my view it is obvious. Time and space are related in that time is the ontological process of motion or change, which requires extension or extensional relations, which is what space is. Motion/change obviously isn't static--it's just the opposite, so I don't know where the heck you're getting the idea from that I'm saying that time is static. By way of Einstein's relativity it has been shown that forward (or accelerated) time travel is possible. That is, a human could board a spaceship on earth, then accelerate to very close to the speed of light and travel to the Andromeda Galaxy in a few years (spaceship time, but more than a million years earth time), then make the return journey to earth, all within a human lifespan. The human would return to earth and find the date advanced by several million years. There is more than one suggestion of how backward time travel might be accomplished. A wormhole between two black holes, or travel faster than light. Of course these ideas are highly speculative and they may turn out to be impossible, but I see no justification in claiming that the idea of backward time travel is any more "incoherent" than accelerated forward time travel. There's nothing incoherent about motion or changes happening at different rates in different reference frames, which is all that exploiting relativistic effects is. There's something incoherent about the idea of "traveling backwards in change(s)." Say that A changes to B. You can't travel "back in change" to A. If B changes to A, it's another instantiation of A, not the very same A, a fortiori because nominalism is true. In other words, it's A/T1, B/T2, and A'/T3. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 19, 2018 0:43:14 GMT
It is not obvious. Einstein showed that time and space are interrelated, and that by altering one's frame of reference there is cross talk between space and time measurements. You are making the unfounded assumption that time is static, just as Newton did. There's no shame in that (for Newton), the view was consistent with all of the experimental data available to him at the time. Einstein wasn't being modest, nor feigning it, when he overthrew the classical assumptions of space and time. Penny for your thoughts on the grandfather paradox. Some (including Hawking) have suggested Everett's many worlds theory of quantum physics as a possibility. I wouldn't place any bets on the plausibility of that idea, and I doubt anyone alive now will live to see it resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 19, 2018 0:44:17 GMT
I wouldn't get too fixated on your axioms and use them to declare what is coherent or incoherent. The history of science shows that any of them are open to question. For example classical physicists (including Newton) thought of time as an independent attribute of reality (unaffected by space or motion) and space as something that obeyed Euclidean geometry. Einstein's theories of relativity showed that those views are untenable. I don't think it's something we need to pretend might be coherent out of some sort of feigned modesty or whatever. Exactly, because there is no forward or backwards regarding time. Too many fools think in linear terms. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 19, 2018 0:50:25 GMT
By way of Einstein's relativity it has been shown that forward (or accelerated) time travel is possible. That is, a human could board a spaceship on earth, then accelerate to very close to the speed of light and travel to the Andromeda Galaxy in a few years (spaceship time, but more than a million years earth time), then make the return journey to earth, all within a human lifespan. The human would return to earth and find the date advanced by several million years. There is more than one suggestion of how backward time travel might be accomplished. A wormhole between two black holes, or travel faster than light. Of course these ideas are highly speculative and they may turn out to be impossible, but I see no justification in claiming that the idea of backward time travel is any more "incoherent" than accelerated forward time travel. There's nothing incoherent about motion or changes happening at different rates in different reference frames, which is all that exploiting relativistic effects is. There's something incoherent about the idea of "traveling backwards in change(s)." Say that A changes to B. You can't travel "back in change" to A. If B changes to A, it's another instantiation of A, not the very same A, a fortiori because nominalism is true. In other words, it's A/T1, B/T2, and A'/T3. You're conflating time with change, which I'm not prepared to do. You're assuming that the past is immutable, and while it certainly seems to be beyond our current powers to rewind history and make alterations, it might be possible in principle (and that the past is not immutable). |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 1:49:23 GMT
There's nothing incoherent about motion or changes happening at different rates in different reference frames, which is all that exploiting relativistic effects is. There's something incoherent about the idea of "traveling backwards in change(s)." Say that A changes to B. You can't travel "back in change" to A. If B changes to A, it's another instantiation of A, not the very same A, a fortiori because nominalism is true. In other words, it's A/T1, B/T2, and A'/T3. You're conflating time with change, which I'm not prepared to do. You're assuming that the past is immutable, and while it certainly seems to be beyond our current powers to rewind history and make alterations, it might be possible in principle (and that the past is not immutable). it's no conflation, it's an identity, and an obvious one in my opinion. Time is (identical to) (the ontological process of) motion or change. It's not that the "past is (something extant that is) immutable." The past doesn't exist. It's changes that happened, motion that occurred. Those changes, that motion is no more. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 19, 2018 13:16:43 GMT
You're conflating time with change, which I'm not prepared to do. You're assuming that the past is immutable, and while it certainly seems to be beyond our current powers to rewind history and make alterations, it might be possible in principle (and that the past is not immutable). it's no conflation, it's an identity, and an obvious one in my opinion. Time is (identical to) (the ontological process of) motion or change. It's not that the "past is (something extant that is) immutable." The past doesn't exist. It's changes that happened, motion that occurred. Those changes, that motion is no more. Nope, time can pass without change. Think of a motion picture of a moving object vs one of a static object (or a blank frame). In both cases the film advances (time passes), but change only happens in one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 17:28:16 GMT
it's no conflation, it's an identity, and an obvious one in my opinion. Time is (identical to) (the ontological process of) motion or change. It's not that the "past is (something extant that is) immutable." The past doesn't exist. It's changes that happened, motion that occurred. Those changes, that motion is no more. Nope, time can pass without change. Nope. That's wrong. There are no real static objects. The notion of a "static object" is an abstraction (which is ironically dynamic as an existent--abstractions are dynamic brain states). |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 19, 2018 17:29:50 GMT
redefining win/win stratagem
as far as i can see it's a redefining of: win/win.
we receive
unlimited oil
while selling arms to both
the saudis
and the israelis.
all the while watching them
do each other
in
over their religiously tooled
belief systems.
sort of like
what's happening here with
the republicans
and their insistence on
holy war
in the states.
cultures
resolved around propagating death
are fascinating to study
to say the least
especially those whose
turn it is
to name the beast.
sjw 10/19/18 inspired at this very moment in time by a tisket, a tasket, can i make a naked pyramid out of those iraqi kids piled up in that basket.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 19, 2018 18:10:44 GMT
Nope, time can pass without change. Nope. That's wrong. There are no real static objects. The notion of a "static object" is an abstraction (which is ironically dynamic as an existent--abstractions are dynamic brain states). Yes, technically all matter is in motion, however change can be ranked and quantified (very little change or a great deal of change), yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time, therefore they cannot be equivalent. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 19, 2018 18:16:26 GMT
the topic keeps coming up
how does
the government keep track
of all the holy wars
we are
floating around the world?
let alone
the 'politically motivated' ones?
does the cia
have a special training camp
for its new recruits,
like the hitler youth?
and are
the uniforms being designed
to include the crucifix
or just
a plain cross.
my bible study
is just
dying to know.
sjw 10/19/18 inspired at this very moment in time by certain elements geared for destructive purposes.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 18:16:44 GMT
Nope. That's wrong. There are no real static objects. The notion of a "static object" is an abstraction (which is ironically dynamic as an existent--abstractions are dynamic brain states). Yes, technically all matter is in motion, however change can be ranked and quantified (very little change or a great deal of change), yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time, therefore they cannot be equivalent. "yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time"--that's purely an epistemic comment, referring to the changes/motions that we're using as a measurement base. Ontologically, all change/motion is passage of time, as an identity, and it's all different from each other. So ontologically, yes, it does imply differences in the passage of time. Epistemically, no, it doesn't necessarily, because it depends on what we're using as our measuring stick, so to speak (if we're using a particular thing as a measuring stick). Note that I'm not making a comment about how people think about time, especially when they don't think of time as being identical to change/motion. I'm talking about what time is ontologically. People can be, and many are, mistaken when it comes to how they think about that. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 19, 2018 18:54:34 GMT
Yes, technically all matter is in motion, however change can be ranked and quantified (very little change or a great deal of change), yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time, therefore they cannot be equivalent. "yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time"--that's purely an epistemic comment, referring to the changes/motions that we're using as a measurement base. Ontologically, all change/motion is passage of time, as an identity, and it's all different from each other. So ontologically, yes, it does imply differences in the passage of time. Epistemically, no, it doesn't necessarily, because it depends on what we're using as our measuring stick, so to speak (if we're using a particular thing as a measuring stick). Note that I'm not making a comment about how people think about time, especially when they don't think of time as being identical to change/motion. I'm talking about what time is ontologically. People can be, and many are, mistaken when it comes to how they think about that. You have a funny way of looking at things. What on earth do you mean by "what time is ontologically"? It sounds like a redundancy to me. When I talk about time, I'm talking about that which is measured with clocks, just as space is that which is measured with rulers. An eventful day may take longer to describe than an uneventful day, but they're both 24 hours long. I'm interested in what is observable and can be tested experimentally, and not so much in philosophical sophistry and speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 19, 2018 21:18:17 GMT
Penny for your thoughts on the grandfather paradox. Some (including Hawking) have suggested Everett's many worlds theory of quantum physics as a possibility. I wouldn't place any bets on the plausibility of that idea, and I doubt anyone alive now will live to see it resolved. When I was a kid (maybe now too) I had a theory that going back in time would only be possible one way, that is, the later time can see and hear and sense what is happening in the past but not be heard or seen by the past or influence it in any way. Another way to resolve the grandfather paradox is that all travel back in time has already happened in the sense that you can go back and do whatever because you already did anyway therefore the future will not change. A problem with that is it will confuse people about the free will versus determinism question more than they already are. Will a Canadian penny suffice? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 21:24:29 GMT
"yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time"--that's purely an epistemic comment, referring to the changes/motions that we're using as a measurement base. Ontologically, all change/motion is passage of time, as an identity, and it's all different from each other. So ontologically, yes, it does imply differences in the passage of time. Epistemically, no, it doesn't necessarily, because it depends on what we're using as our measuring stick, so to speak (if we're using a particular thing as a measuring stick). Note that I'm not making a comment about how people think about time, especially when they don't think of time as being identical to change/motion. I'm talking about what time is ontologically. People can be, and many are, mistaken when it comes to how they think about that. You have a funny way of looking at things. What on earth do you mean by "what time is ontologically"? It sounds like a redundancy to me. When I talk about time, I'm talking about that which is measured with clocks, just as space is that which is measured with rulers. An eventful day may take longer to describe than an uneventful day, but they're both 24 hours long. I'm interested in what is observable and can be tested experimentally, and not so much in philosophical sophistry and speculation. But I just explained what I meant in the comment you quoted and responded to. It began "'Yet this does not imply any difference in the passage of time'--that's purely an epistemic comment . . ." The distinction there being epistemology (how we think about things, what we know, how we know it, etc.) and ontology (what something is independent of us). And then I said, "ontologically, yes, it does imply differences in the passage of time." Clocks aren't measuring something different from themselves that is time. What clocks do is time itself. That's the same for everything moving/changing. That motion/change is time itself. That's what time is. Likewise rulers aren't measuring something different than themselves that is space. The extensionality of rulers, as well as the extensionality of everything else, and the extensional relations of everything, are space itself. "An eventful day may take longer to describe than an uneventful day, but they're both 24 hours long." - -set of motions/changes x is 24 hours long relative to set of motion/changes y, with set of motions/changes y being what we name "24 hours long" "I'm interested in what is observable and can be tested experimentally, and not so much in philosophical sophistry and speculation." And when it comes to time, what we observe are motions/changes, because that's all that time is. It's foolish to assume that time is some you-don't-know-what that you're not observing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 19, 2018 21:50:52 GMT
... ... ... "I'm interested in what is observable and can be tested experimentally, and not so much in philosophical sophistry and speculation." And when it comes to time, what we observe are motions/changes, because that's all that time is. It's foolish to assume that time is some you-don't-know-what that you're not observing. Quite many important things in life cannot be tested experimentally. Some speculation is necessary and can be productive. The only problem with speculation is that some people confuse it with known facts. I never do ... ... as far as I know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 19, 2018 21:54:09 GMT
... ... ... "I'm interested in what is observable and can be tested experimentally, and not so much in philosophical sophistry and speculation." And when it comes to time, what we observe are motions/changes, because that's all that time is. It's foolish to assume that time is some you-don't-know-what that you're not observing. Quite many important things in life cannot be tested experimentally. Some speculation is necessary and can be productive. The only problem with speculation is that some people confuse it with known facts. I never do ... ... as far as I know. While I usually hesitate to say something like this, because it's difficult to get people to not fall into the rut of assuming one buys into an entire program in an orthodox way (and that's not the case for me here), I'm basically a logical positivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 19, 2018 22:02:08 GMT
Quite many important things in life cannot be tested experimentally. Some speculation is necessary and can be productive. The only problem with speculation is that some people confuse it with known facts. I never do ... ... as far as I know. While I usually hesitate to say something like this, because it's difficult to get people to not fall into the rut of assuming one buys into an entire program in an orthodox way (and that's not the case for me here), I'm basically a logical positivist. Are you saying you have a preference for logical positivism? Whatever you call yourself you cannot go out your door in the morning without believing something because it is after all a new day. |
|
