Exploring Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:34 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:20 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm


Absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'created' was once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible, and just about absolutely every 'thing' human beings have 'done' was also once 'thought of' as being absolutely impossible. But yet it was everyone of these 'thoughts' which was absolutely wrong, instead. What is called 'time travel' is not just possible but can be done very simply and very easily.


If you know what time is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past.
You say and write this like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?
You say EVERYTHING like you have some spooky comprehension about things that we are not privy to. Like about you state time travel can be done very simply and easily!!!

Yes, very easy, we are all doing it right now at clock ticks..tock-tick-tock.. I've explained what time is countless times on this forum.

You first, explain what time is. (and when you are done, pop forward in time and then back again so that we all have next weeks lottery numbers :P )
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:13 pm See, because what is called 'time travel' is POSSIBLE, and let us say I went for a trip. When I came 'back', then I could say, 'I was in the past'. Now, one might just say, 'Okay', knowing EXACTLY what I was referring to. Whereas, another one might be somewhat confused and so then just ask some clarifying questions, to find out what I was ACTUALLY meaning.
So, if you travel back in time, say ten minutes ago, would you recognize yourself? You were already there ten minutes ago, are there two of you then? And if you traveled back ten minutes, how come ten minutes ago you did notice when you showed up from the future?

You are not thinking this through, are you?
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:34 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:20 pm

If you know what time is, then you will understand that one can only travel toward the future, not the past.
You say and write this like you know what 'time' is, irrefutably. So, would you like to now explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?
You say EVERYTHING like you have some spooky comprehension about things that we are not privy to.
This is because I HAVE. That is; if you removed the 'spooky' word, and added the YET word to the end.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am Like about you state time travel can be done very simply and easily!!!
I SAY and STATE 'this' BECAUSE I can back up and support 'this' with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am Yes, very easy, we are all doing it right now at clock ticks..tock-tick-tock..
This is absolutely NOTHING what I have been talking about, saying, and STATING.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am I've explained what time is countless times on this forum.
I REALLY do NOT care HOW MANY 'times' you have explained what 'time' is, ANYWHERE.

I just asked 'you', here in this thread, Would you like to 'now' explain to the rest of us what 'time' is, exactly?

We STILL WAIT your answer, to this, "Yes" or "No" question.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am You first, explain what time is.
Well talk about 'TRYING TO' be the ONE who KNOWS what the Truth IS, EXACTLY, BUT, as soon as 'you' were CHALLENGED 'you' CRUMBLED and FAILED, and FELL to PIECES.

Now, because 'you' are NOT BRAVE, NOR STRONG, ENOUGH to PUT ANY 'thing' FORWARD to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here, then I will tell you what 'time' is, to me.

'Time', to me, is just the word used to describe the length of duration between perceived events.

Now, are 'you BRAVE ENOUGH to INFORM the rest of 'us' what 'time' is, EXACTLY, to you?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am (and when you are done, pop forward in time and then back again so that we all have next weeks lottery numbers :P )
Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how GREEDY and SELFISH the adult human being REALLY WAS, that is; BACK IN those 'OLDEN DAYS', when this WAS being written.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:36 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:13 pm See, because what is called 'time travel' is POSSIBLE, and let us say I went for a trip. When I came 'back', then I could say, 'I was in the past'. Now, one might just say, 'Okay', knowing EXACTLY what I was referring to. Whereas, another one might be somewhat confused and so then just ask some clarifying questions, to find out what I was ACTUALLY meaning.
So, if you travel back in time, say ten minutes ago, would you recognize yourself?
What do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN by the word "yourself" here?

If I, what is called, "traveled back in time", say to ANY moment, then 'I' would recognize, 'Who 'I' am'.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:36 am You were already there ten minutes ago, are there two of you then?
What do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN by the word "you" here"?

See, when 'one' KNOWS the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who, and what, is the 'I'?', and to the question, 'Who, and what, is the 'you'?', then if there could EVEN BE "two of you", at ANY 'time', IS ALREADY KNOWN.

Also, going to what is called, "back in time" does NOT mean that one HAS TO BE in the EXACT SAME 'position' that 'one' had previously been in, at ANY particular 'time'.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:36 am And if you traveled back ten minutes, how come ten minutes ago you did notice when you showed up from the future?
You are REALLY TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' around here, BEFORE 'you' even BEGAN to GAIN CLARITY, FIRST.

What made you ASSUME that I would NOT notice when I showed up from the future?

AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, who ever said that I HAD TO go back to some EXACT 'place', or 'position', ten minutes ago or ANY 'time' previously?

In case you are NOT YET AWARE, one ONLY 'goes back' to a 'place' where 'they' would be RECOGNIZED IF 'they' WANT to CHANGE some 'thing'.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:36 am You are not thinking this through, are you?
LOL
LOL
LOL

If only 'you' KNEW.

LOOK, I have ALREADY STATED and CLAIMED, in this forum, that I CAN and WILL back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here. I have even CLAIMED that what I SAY and CLAIM IS and WILL BE IRREFUTABLE, so if you REALLY think or BELIEVE that I have NOT "thought this, (or ANY 'thing' ELSE), through", then it could be a POSSIBILITY that 'you' have NOT ACTUALLY 'thought through', FULLY, this CLAIM of 'yours' here?

SEE, are you BRAVE ENOUGH to CLAIM that what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, in this forum, you COULD and WOULD be ABLE to back up and support with IRREFUTABLE PROOF?

If no, then maybe you KNOW, internally, that 'you' have NOT 'thought through' 'things' thoroughly enough YET.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
...
All one has to do is just work out and know what 'time', itself, is exactly, and then the so-called 'nature of time' is also known, and well understood.

By the way, why do adult human beings write about 'things', like; "Exploring time", but never actually define what the 'thing' is that one wants to 'explore' or 'talk about'.

IF one is not yet able to define the word that one is so-called "exploring", in public writing, then what is 'it' exactly that they are "exploring"?
The author asserted an interest in time travel but recognized your concern exactly. That is, in order to even attempt that, (s)he realized that time itself has to be addressed.

On expecting him/her to define the term, "time", if one lacks a prior theorem that expresses it in simpler terms, it is assumed apriori due to DENOTING it. Normally denoting something is to point it out with an associated label, like a word spoken or written, in the presense of another you are teaching the meaning you want them to link the term to without defining using other symbols, words, or demonstration of the construct of the thing you are explaining.

Time is precisely denoted by all of us by experience but lacks being an object we can touch and feel. I can still personally remember being two or three years old presuming that 'time' was specifially something to do with our particular wall clock's hand positions before I actually understood the intrinsic meaning. My state of mind was to recognize the term as undefined but noted its use as it associated to my parents speaking to or about me in the presense of that clock. This first experience is my 'relative absolute' to which the term, "time" would have to relate to. After many other uses of the word by others in the presense of other similar circular spinning arms, I then had 'circularity' in mind as being correlated with "time" and it adds more understanding of the term. Conjoining other people's own use based upon their own relative absolute experiences, I eventually understood the referent reality of "time" but as an apriori assumption ONLY.

This is the kind of way we learn the referent of a symbol. Since they are personal experiences of which no one would have the exact set of identical experiences, "time" is learned independently; and since this phenomena, time, is real, it is nevertheless shared by experience by everyone.....or we have to assume so unless challenged otherwise. So "time" is an understood as being undefined, yet real.

The article expanded upon different interpretations of significant distinct beliefs about the foundational meaning of "time", its real essence. Time related concepts are hard to be reducible beyond these denoted experiences. So this problem relates to the same issue with "consciousness" as a term about change itself.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:35 am SEE, are you BRAVE ENOUGH ...
I'm not brave (or foolish) enough to waste my time attempting a rational discussion with an idiot. Run along and blow kisses to yourself thinking you a winner.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:20 am Nurana Rajabova looks for a way of seeing time as if from the outside.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/147/Exploring_Time
...
All one has to do is just work out and know what 'time', itself, is exactly, and then the so-called 'nature of time' is also known, and well understood.

By the way, why do adult human beings write about 'things', like; "Exploring time", but never actually define what the 'thing' is that one wants to 'explore' or 'talk about'.

IF one is not yet able to define the word that one is so-called "exploring", in public writing, then what is 'it' exactly that they are "exploring"?
The author asserted an interest in time travel but recognized your concern exactly. That is, in order to even attempt that, (s)he realized that time itself has to be addressed.
But how does one even begin to address the unknown and/or some 'thing' that is yet defined?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am On expecting him/her to define the term, "time", if one lacks a prior theorem that expresses it in simpler terms, it is assumed apriori due to DENOTING it.
Are you able to elaborate on or explain what you are saying and meaning here, exactly?

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

The word 'time', to me, by the way, has already been expressed in its simplest terms, and which, also, and by the way, appears to fit in perfectly with all other words, and what they DENOTE as well. This, in turn, has formed One Grand Unified "Theory" Of Everything. Or, in other words, the GUT and TOE have already been combined together, and when this One Unified "Theory" is proved True, Right, and Correct, which it can and will be, then the irrefutable BOW is complete.

Therefore, when one talks about "Exploring Time", I, literally, already know exactly what they are 'exploring'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am Normally denoting something is to point it out with an associated label, like a word spoken or written, in the presense of another you are teaching the meaning you want them to link the term to without defining using other symbols, words, or demonstration of the construct of the thing you are explaining.
If you say so.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am Time is precisely denoted by all of us by experience but lacks being an object we can touch and feel.
Okay. Why is this?

What is 'time', exactly, that you claim can NOT be touched NOR felt?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am I can still personally remember being two or three years old presuming that 'time' was specifially something to do with our particular wall clock's hand positions before I actually understood the intrinsic meaning.
And what is the 'intrinsic meaning' of 'time', to you, now, exactly?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am My state of mind was to recognize the term as undefined but noted its use as it associated to my parents speaking to or about me in the presense of that clock. This first experience is my 'relative absolute' to which the term, "time" would have to relate to. After many other uses of the word by others in the presense of other similar circular spinning arms, I then had 'circularity' in mind as being correlated with "time" and it adds more understanding of the term.
What is your understanding of the word or term 'time', now exactly?

And, do you think there is much more understanding of the term 'time' to add to your current understanding?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am Conjoining other people's own use based upon their own relative absolute experiences, I eventually understood the referent reality of "time" but as an apriori assumption ONLY.
And, as we ALL know here, ALL 'assumptions' can be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am This is the kind of way we learn the referent of a symbol. Since they are personal experiences of which no one would have the exact set of identical experiences, "time" is learned independently; and since this phenomena, time, is real, it is nevertheless shared by experience by everyone.....or we have to assume so unless challenged otherwise. So "time" is an understood as being undefined, yet real.
But as I understand, the word 'time' has already been defined, and, in a way, that works perfectly, with all other things.

By the way, how do you 'know' 'time' is even real, if 'it' is, to you, undefined?

That would be like saying, 'God' is real, but yet defined.

Also, there is a lot of assuming going on here, on your part, which, by the way, you do NOT 'have to' assume absolutely ANY 'thing'.

And, as for 'time' being shared by experience, by everyone, then if you are up for it I would like to challenge you over this ASSUMPTION of yours here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am The article expanded upon different interpretations of significant distinct beliefs about the foundational meaning of "time", its real essence. Time related concepts are hard to be reducible beyond these denoted experiences. So this problem relates to the same issue with "consciousness" as a term about change itself.
But when 'things' are SEEN as they REALLY ARE, and thus for HOW they REALLY ARE as well, then the definitions for words like; 'time' and 'consciousness', for example, just fall into place, naturally, and come about very easily, very simply, and very quickly too.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:15 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:35 am SEE, are you BRAVE ENOUGH ...
I'm not brave (or foolish) enough to waste my time attempting a rational discussion with an idiot. Run along and blow kisses to yourself thinking you a winner.
LOL Just as I suspected. You REALLY had NOT YET 'thought through' AT ALL what you had ALREADY ASSUMED was the case.

Making the ABSURD ASSUMPTION that if and WHEN one "goes back in time" that they WOULD 'have to' BE at some EXACT PARTICULAR 'place' speaks VOLUMES of NOT 'thinking through' 'this' AT ALL.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:15 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:35 am SEE, are you BRAVE ENOUGH ...
I'm not brave (or foolish) enough to waste my time attempting a rational discussion with an idiot. Run along and blow kisses to yourself thinking you a winner.
LOL Just as I suspected. You REALLY had NOT YET 'thought through' AT ALL what you had ALREADY ASSUMED was the case.

Making the ABSURD ASSUMPTION that if and WHEN one "goes back in time" that they WOULD 'have to' BE at some EXACT PARTICULAR 'place' speaks VOLUMES of NOT 'thinking through' 'this' AT ALL.
Bye! Have a nice day!
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Exploring Time

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm

So, to the one known as "bahman" here, if there was NOT some 'substance' in the Universe, then the Universe would just STOP.
Yes. In higher-level one also can question the existence of the universe since time and space are intertwined.
How could the WHOLE Universe just STOP?

This YET TO BE EXPLAINED, and SUPPOSED, "substance" MUST BE some VERY HEAVY DUTY "stuff".

Also, what are these "levels", which 'you' now speak of?

WHAT are these 'levels' made of, WHERE are these "levels", HOW does one DIFFERENTIATE a so-called "higher level" from a "lower level", WHAT "level" are 'you' on, and/or can you tell us ANY 'thing' MORE about these, SUPPOSED, "levels"?

Oh, and by the way, absolutely ANY one, (on ANY so-called "level"), can question the existence of the Universe, (or ANY OTHER 'thing'). And, as for 'time' and 'space' being intertwined, what has 'this' got to do with ANY 'thing' that I have SAID or ASKED so far?

By the way, since 'you' have MENTIONED 'it', what is 'time' AND 'space', to 'you', EXACTLY?
Special relativity. Time and space are interwined.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm Is the one known as "bahman", or is there absolutely ANY one, who can INFORM the rest of 'us' what this, supposed AND alleged, 'substance' is EXACTLY?
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.
'you', "bahman", are EITHER a COMPLETE IMBECILE, OR, the MOST DECEPTIVE and DEVIOUS 'person' there is in this forum.

'you' WANT to MAKE THE CLAIM, "the Universe WILL STOP without the 'substance', which is called 'time'. But, EVERY 'TIME' I have QUESTIONED 'you' about 'your CLAIM', 'you' WEASEL your way out of PROVIDING ANY 'substantial' ANSWER.

Your response here is the MOST STUPID one you could have given.

I have lost count of how many times I have gone through this exact same scenario with you. That is;

You make a CLAIM.

I question you on your CLAIM.

You FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to substantiate YOUR CLAIM.

Just so EVERY one CLEARLY KNOWS what YOU DID this 'time', I will EXPLAIN through A DEMONSTRATION.

"bahman": "Time is a 'substance', that allows changes."

'Me': 'What is that 'substance', EXACTLY, "bahman"?'

"bahman": "A 'substance' is SOME 'thing', that exists, and which has a set of properties".

AGAIN, 'you', "bahman", ARE a COMPLETE IDIOT, or, a ROBOT.

Now, if it is the 'former', then it is 'your' BELIEFS that are making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses.

Or, if it is the 'latter', then it is 'you' PROGRAMMER that is making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses. (Which, by the way, would AGAIN be because of the 'programmer's' BELIEFS.

Now, these BELIEFS revolve around;

1. The WHOLE Universe is 'materialistic'.

2. The Universe 'changes' because of 'time'.

3. 'Time' MUST therefore be a 'material' or 'matter', and so MUST therefore BE, at least, a 'substance'.

4. If I have absolutely ANY PROOF AT ALL for ANY of these BELIEFS, I do NOT KNOW, but what I BELIEVE and SAY is true, MUST BE TRUE. So, I will say just about ANY 'thing', (no matter how STUPID, ILLOGICAL, or DECEPTIVE it is).

LOOK, I asked you; What is THE 'substance', EXACTLY, which you SAY and CLAIM is 'time'. I did NOT ask you; What is 'substance'?

And, if I did ask you the latter, then you could NOT HAVE provided a MORE IDIOTIC and STUPID response than; "A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties"

OF COURSE, A 'substance' is:

SOME 'thing',

which 'exists', and

has a set of 'properties'.

But, this REALLY, literally, says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

"bahmna" what would 'you' think of an 'adult human being' who SAID; "Vegetables are 'a plant'," and 'you' asked them, "What is 'plant', EXACTLY?" and then they responded with:

"A plant is some 'thing', which exists, and which has a set of properties."

Seriously, what would 'you' think of 'that person' who responded, to 'you', in that way?
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm If no, then WHERE did this ASSUMPTION that 'time' is a 'substance' COME FROM, EXACTLY?
It is not an assumption. I proved it.
LOL
LOL
LOL
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm Read my argument again: The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists.
I read 'your' SO-CALLED "argument" AGAIN.
Well, if you cannot understand this simple argument then I cannot help you any further. In here I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm WHY do you call 'this' argument "the argument"?

And, is 'this argument' 'your argument' or 'someone else's argument'?
It is my argument.
So, when "bahman" refers to, 'the argument' it is REALLY "bahman's argument".

And, as long as 'you' are AWARE of 'this', then 'you' will come to UNDERSTAND WHY 'it' is 'your argument', and 'an argument', which NO one ELSE will ACCEPT.
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm

ONLY 'you' call that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time'. Or, if there is a 'we', then WHO is in this 'we' EXACTLY, "bahman"?
Yes. I call it time.
And, considering I just ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY 'who else' calls that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time', and 'you' provides 'us' with NO one else, then I will take 'this' as 'your' ANSWER.

And, what is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS to OBSERVE here is 'you' SAYING; "I call 'it' time".
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm

Are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'trying to' SAY here?
I am saying that traveling into the past is possible but if you undo things then you will live in another universe forever.
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did 'you' just NOT SAY 'this', literally, to BEGIN WITH?
Ok, now you know.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am Like about you state time travel can be done very simply and easily!!!
I SAY and STATE 'this' BECAUSE I can back up and support 'this' with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
LMAO! Please provide your proof, indeed with such power to traverse the four dimensions at will, surely you could pop into my study and explain it personally (since you might want to keep it secret to just us, hey!?)
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:59 pm
Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:15 pm
I'm not brave (or foolish) enough to waste my time attempting a rational discussion with an idiot. Run along and blow kisses to yourself thinking you a winner.
LOL Just as I suspected. You REALLY had NOT YET 'thought through' AT ALL what you had ALREADY ASSUMED was the case.

Making the ABSURD ASSUMPTION that if and WHEN one "goes back in time" that they WOULD 'have to' BE at some EXACT PARTICULAR 'place' speaks VOLUMES of NOT 'thinking through' 'this' AT ALL.
Bye! Have a nice day!
You came into this thread, made some CLAIMS and ACCUSATIONS, based on your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, and then had the hide to CALL 'me' the "idiot". Let us NOT FORGET that it was 'I' who SHOWED and PROVED your CLAIMS and ACCUSATIONS were False, Wrong, or Incorrect, and 'I' just asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS as well.

Now, instead of just answering those CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I asked you, you have CHOSEN to just RUN AWAY.

The reason you CHOSE to RUN AWAY is because what you were CLAIMING and ACCUSING me of was, when LOOKED INTO, so OBVIOUSLY Wrong and False, and that it was ACTUALLY 'you', "rcsaunders" who had ACTUALLY been doing what 'you' were ACCUSING me of doing here.

So, if you REALLY are this SCARED and AFRAID, and want TO GO, then so be 'it'.

But as can be CLEARLY SEEN above, most of what you SAID and WROTE was just PURE NONSENSE anyway. But this is what can happen when ASSUMPTIONS are NOT being based on ACTUAL Facts.
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Yes. In higher-level one also can question the existence of the universe since time and space are intertwined.
How could the WHOLE Universe just STOP?

This YET TO BE EXPLAINED, and SUPPOSED, "substance" MUST BE some VERY HEAVY DUTY "stuff".

Also, what are these "levels", which 'you' now speak of?

WHAT are these 'levels' made of, WHERE are these "levels", HOW does one DIFFERENTIATE a so-called "higher level" from a "lower level", WHAT "level" are 'you' on, and/or can you tell us ANY 'thing' MORE about these, SUPPOSED, "levels"?

Oh, and by the way, absolutely ANY one, (on ANY so-called "level"), can question the existence of the Universe, (or ANY OTHER 'thing'). And, as for 'time' and 'space' being intertwined, what has 'this' got to do with ANY 'thing' that I have SAID or ASKED so far?

By the way, since 'you' have MENTIONED 'it', what is 'time' AND 'space', to 'you', EXACTLY?
Special relativity. Time and space are interwined.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you are NOT able to just CLARIFY what some of the 'things' you say ACTUALLY MEAN, to you.

And, this is WHY so much of what you SAY and CLAIM is just plain Wrong, False, AND Incorrect, as well as WHY 'your' so-called "arguments" FAIL so often.
bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.
'you', "bahman", are EITHER a COMPLETE IMBECILE, OR, the MOST DECEPTIVE and DEVIOUS 'person' there is in this forum.

'you' WANT to MAKE THE CLAIM, "the Universe WILL STOP without the 'substance', which is called 'time'. But, EVERY 'TIME' I have QUESTIONED 'you' about 'your CLAIM', 'you' WEASEL your way out of PROVIDING ANY 'substantial' ANSWER.

Your response here is the MOST STUPID one you could have given.

I have lost count of how many times I have gone through this exact same scenario with you. That is;

You make a CLAIM.

I question you on your CLAIM.

You FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to substantiate YOUR CLAIM.

Just so EVERY one CLEARLY KNOWS what YOU DID this 'time', I will EXPLAIN through A DEMONSTRATION.

"bahman": "Time is a 'substance', that allows changes."

'Me': 'What is that 'substance', EXACTLY, "bahman"?'

"bahman": "A 'substance' is SOME 'thing', that exists, and which has a set of properties".

AGAIN, 'you', "bahman", ARE a COMPLETE IDIOT, or, a ROBOT.

Now, if it is the 'former', then it is 'your' BELIEFS that are making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses.

Or, if it is the 'latter', then it is 'you' PROGRAMMER that is making 'you' SAY and EXPRESS these MOST IDIOTIC and STUPID responses. (Which, by the way, would AGAIN be because of the 'programmer's' BELIEFS.

Now, these BELIEFS revolve around;

1. The WHOLE Universe is 'materialistic'.

2. The Universe 'changes' because of 'time'.

3. 'Time' MUST therefore be a 'material' or 'matter', and so MUST therefore BE, at least, a 'substance'.

4. If I have absolutely ANY PROOF AT ALL for ANY of these BELIEFS, I do NOT KNOW, but what I BELIEVE and SAY is true, MUST BE TRUE. So, I will say just about ANY 'thing', (no matter how STUPID, ILLOGICAL, or DECEPTIVE it is).

LOOK, I asked you; What is THE 'substance', EXACTLY, which you SAY and CLAIM is 'time'. I did NOT ask you; What is 'substance'?

And, if I did ask you the latter, then you could NOT HAVE provided a MORE IDIOTIC and STUPID response than; "A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties"

OF COURSE, A 'substance' is:

SOME 'thing',

which 'exists', and

has a set of 'properties'.

But, this REALLY, literally, says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

"bahmna" what would 'you' think of an 'adult human being' who SAID; "Vegetables are 'a plant'," and 'you' asked them, "What is 'plant', EXACTLY?" and then they responded with:

"A plant is some 'thing', which exists, and which has a set of properties."

Seriously, what would 'you' think of 'that person' who responded, to 'you', in that way?
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
It is not an assumption. I proved it.
LOL
LOL
LOL
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm Read my argument again: The now is when we are either at point t_a or t_b. If we are at t_a then t_b should exist otherwise change is not possible. This means that future time exists.
I read 'your' SO-CALLED "argument" AGAIN.
Well, if you cannot understand this simple argument then I cannot help you any further. In here I argue that t_b must exist in future in order to move from t_a which is now.
ONCE AGAIN, you MISSED the WHOLE POINT. Either because:

'you' are a complete IMBECILE, one of the MOST DECEPTIVE, or 'you' REALLY ARE just a 'robot', and thus know NO better. Of, if 'you' are some 'thing' ELSE, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?


bahman wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:46 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:18 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
It is my argument.
So, when "bahman" refers to, 'the argument' it is REALLY "bahman's argument".

And, as long as 'you' are AWARE of 'this', then 'you' will come to UNDERSTAND WHY 'it' is 'your argument', and 'an argument', which NO one ELSE will ACCEPT.
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
Yes. I call it time.
And, considering I just ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY 'who else' calls that IMPOSSIBLE 'variable' 'time', and 'you' provides 'us' with NO one else, then I will take 'this' as 'your' ANSWER.

And, what is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS to OBSERVE here is 'you' SAYING; "I call 'it' time".
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 6:02 pm
I am saying that traveling into the past is possible but if you undo things then you will live in another universe forever.
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHY did 'you' just NOT SAY 'this', literally, to BEGIN WITH?
Ok, now you know.
Are you AWARE that 'now I know' that that view exists within that body, does NOT make that view true, right NOR correct AT ALL?
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Exploring Time

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:49 am Like about you state time travel can be done very simply and easily!!!
I SAY and STATE 'this' BECAUSE I can back up and support 'this' with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
LMAO! Please provide your proof, indeed with such power to traverse the four dimensions at will,
WHY did 'you' use the 'will' word for?

I NEVER have and NEVER 'will'. So, what you asked for here has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANY 'thing' I have SAID, NOR WILL.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am surely you could pop into my study and explain it personally (since you might want to keep it secret to just us, hey!?)
Traveling to the moon could be done, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, as ALREADY PROVED True. BUT, this could NOT be done UNTIL the 'right time', as some might say.

'Things' NEEDED to be made and created BEFORE traveling to the moon, and BEFORE traveling in 'what is called' 'time', could have been ACHIEVED.

WHEN 'you' START LOOKING and LISTENING from the Truly OPEN perspective, instead of from those LITTLE BELIEFS within that head, then 'you' WILL be ABLE to START SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

In the day and age when this is being written do you KNOW of ANY one travelling in 'what is called' 'time' YET?

And, REMEMBER, absolutely EVERY 'thing' that human beings have created and made to exist, so far, was once SEEN AS, and BELIEVED TO BE, absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. What is called 'time travel' is NO different.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Exploring Time

Post by attofishpi »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:15 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am
Age wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:02 am

I SAY and STATE 'this' BECAUSE I can back up and support 'this' with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
LMAO! Please provide your proof, indeed with such power to traverse the four dimensions at will,
WHY did 'you' use the 'will' word for?

I NEVER have and NEVER 'will'. So, what you asked for here has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANY 'thing' I have SAID, NOR WILL.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:17 am surely you could pop into my study and explain it personally (since you might want to keep it secret to just us, hey!?)
Traveling to the moon could be done, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, as ALREADY PROVED True. BUT, this could NOT be done UNTIL the 'right time', as some might say.

'Things' NEEDED to be made and created BEFORE traveling to the moon, and BEFORE traveling in 'what is called' 'time', could have been ACHIEVED.

WHEN 'you' START LOOKING and LISTENING from the Truly OPEN perspective, instead of from those LITTLE BELIEFS within that head, then 'you' WILL be ABLE to START SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

In the day and age when this is being written do you KNOW of ANY one travelling in 'what is called' 'time' YET?

And, REMEMBER, absolutely EVERY 'thing' that human beings have created and made to exist, so far, was once SEEN AS, and BELIEVED TO BE, absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. What is called 'time travel' is NO different.
You stated it...provide your proof that you can easily travel through time (past and future) :D
Post Reply