Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
- Status
No one suggests that they aren't connected. They are connected by the present. A cause doesn't coexist with it's effect. If you mix two reactive agents together in a test tube, do you have the resulting chemestry before the mixing was done or after? And when the reaction is complete do you know how three components in the test tube or only one? Of course you only have the one resulting chemical.taoist said:
If I perform an experiment where I take a helium atom and do whatever it takes to remove one of its electrons I end up with a hydrogen atom, not an atom of hydrogen AND helium but just hydrogen. I didn't have the hydrogen before the exeriment and I dont have the helium after and the experiement which cause the change is over and done with.
This seems like a realy simple and straight forward concept to me. You will have to show me the syllogism that demonstrates in formal logical terminology the necessity for anything but the present to currently exist. Even stating the problem is sufficient to prove my case. How can anything but the present exist currently?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elohiym
Well-known member
It sounds to me like you are looking for experimental evidence that the future exists. For example, you just asked Jesse: "How can anything but the present exist currently?"Clete said:
Perhaps you should check out if the research "is even real" because it suggests that a person has knowledge of an event that you claim doesn't exist yet.
Peace
taoist
New member
I'm gonna have to break this up, as much as I hate interrupting the flow of your post, Clete. Sorry if it looks too much like a sparring match. My intentions are good, cross my heart!
Jumping this gap, there's a greater chasm ahead. Let's look at it. If the present is doing its own linking ... what is it linking to. What else but the past and future. They are then either continuous -- that is, coexistent -- or separated. If they are separated, there is no effect that can jump the gap. If there were such an effect, they would then be forced into coexistence by the operator relation.
:chuckle:
Formal logical teminology?! Clete! I'm writing on a vB board, not formatting in LaTeX! I'd love to, but it's not possible. I can't write the symbols. But as far as a syllogism goes, sure.
The past effects the present.
The present effects the future.
The past, present, and future are connected.
We need a name for this connection. We call it time.
In peace, Jesse
Formal logic must separate objects and the operators which effect them. What this statement implies is that the present is acting as its own operator, effectively the present is then a mix between the physical and the metaphysical.Clete said:
Jumping this gap, there's a greater chasm ahead. Let's look at it. If the present is doing its own linking ... what is it linking to. What else but the past and future. They are then either continuous -- that is, coexistent -- or separated. If they are separated, there is no effect that can jump the gap. If there were such an effect, they would then be forced into coexistence by the operator relation.
The underlying chemistry existed before the reaction and continues to exist after the mixing is done. Which is fortunate, as it allows us to test the reaction repeatedly.
This is incorrect. In fact, all three components will be physically present in the test tube when the reaction has come into equilibrium. The speed of the reaction and equilibrium concentrations for common reactions can be found in tables in most chemistry books.
This is a much better example, Clete. You can accomplish this by neutron bombardment. Before the transformation, however, you had all of the constituent parts. After the reaction, you still have all the constituent parts. This transformation does not actually involve gross nucleon decay, though a certain amount of binding energy must come from outside the system to make up the change in mass. Don't ask, you don't want to know. The individual nucleons involved are still distinguishably present, though bound to different particles in gross. Only their spatial arrangement has been changed.
To answer your question -- by inference, of course.
:chuckle:
Formal logical teminology?! Clete! I'm writing on a vB board, not formatting in LaTeX! I'd love to, but it's not possible. I can't write the symbols. But as far as a syllogism goes, sure.
The past effects the present.
The present effects the future.
The past, present, and future are connected.
We need a name for this connection. We call it time.
I'm always afraid some wit will connect my tagline with yours and leave us both resting ...
In peace, Jesse
taoist
New member
Greetings to you, freelight,freelight said:
As per my PM reply, I'm responding while I've a moment free from preparing for debate on another board. You should be aware, however, that the comments you're quoting are atypical from me, merely a way of asking Clete to justify his stance on the non-existence of time with his belief in the need for repentance.
I would recommend another choice of description emphasising the continuity of time by using a term such as "region" in distinction to your references to "place". More, theoretically or philosophically based spiritual beliefs are unreasonably constrained by restricting them to the theological and leaving them to shape a theosophy. These terms beg the question by denying spiritual frameworks in which theism itself is merely a special case. Further, our cosmological conceptions are naturally constrained by the physical form that makes up our beings to an extent that places firm limits on our philosophy.
Whoa. I'm unfamiliar with the Aiken you're referencing, and unlike Pastor Bob, that's sufficient reason for me to withhold comment on his views.
Separation, to me, as a mathematician, is a multiply refined topological construct, with a firm theory built up from the fundamentals of set theory and rigorously studied within its own algebraic subspecialty. Identification of two discrete structures by placing them into an "all" is then analogous to the homomorphic projection of a space containing these discrete structures into a new space more coursely divided by the effectively expanded kernel. Identification of "all there is" effectively expands the kernel into the entire space, resulting in a degenerate topology in which no separation is possible.
I think you can see that without closely defining the terms, communication is hindered.
I find nothing in this with which I can disagree. But, as I argued above, the removal of distinguishing characteristics has the effect of creating a degenerate topology. In a degenerate topology, there is no meaningful description possible. Thus, considering the infinite ALL from outside the infinite ALL is tantamount to nihilism.
With compassionate apologies, see above.
Once again, this is equivalent to an absolutely degenerate truth that forces the purveyor to be restricted to ...
... because there is no depth to such a world view.
As ever, Jesse
Agape4Robin
Member
You? You're lost................fool said:
The only thing relative about time is how we experience it.
Thy name suits thee well.
He asked a stupid question. What do you think I should have said?Mr. 5020 said:
Okay:
fool, you're an idiot.
fool, you're an idiot.
Quit whining, fool.
- Status