Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ensrick]

Time is a constant, the speed of light is not. light can be affected by gravity, so it's not a true Constant. Don't they claim black holes have so much gravity that light can't escape? Nothing in the Universe affects the constant rate of time.

Allow me to introduce you to 'Time Dilation'! Gravity effects time because time is relative. This has ben demonstrated by the differences in clocks on earth vs. satellites.

The space/time continuum theory is flawed, time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.
The Universe has always been here, based on that fact alone the Big Bang theory is wrong, written by a guy that didn't understand physics - he was relying on Einsteins theories being accurate - which they arent.
I recommend that you start over, and consider the true nature of time and space.

I'm aware there are competing theories and for the my part in this conversation I'll stand by General Relativity. I don't think anything you said is accurate or demonstrates anything wrong with my argument. Black holes do not effect the speed of light and I'm not sure where you got any ideas otherwise except that you personally insist that time is a constant.

Does anyone claim that some thing did not exist or does not exist when it is beyond their ability to observe?

See, you might just coincidentally start observing them, when they begin, and/or you might just coincidentally stop observing them, when they end. However, why would a question like; 'How can things you observe to exist 'not' exist prior to or after you observe them?' even come into being a question, especially in light of the question I asked you?

How can things always exist?

"things observed have always existed and only change", then I would like to see some actual evidence and proof for this.

Also, every thing else, it could be argued, does pop into and out of existence, but this is only because they transform from one named thing, and/or into another named thing..?

Whew! I'm not addressing any claim that things don't exist when we can't see them. The problem at hand seems to be asking others to prove that observed things do exist when we don't see them. If we accept that an observation of something is evidence of it's existence then we've settled the matter of attaining evidence that things observed exist. As for whether they 'always' exist or not, we can't assume that they have an origin or an end if we don't observe such an occurrence so I don't have any burden of proof. I acknowledge that things observed may pop in or out of existence when they are no longer observed but to claim that they do would be unfalsifiable.

To me, this is just semantics. Have you heard of The Ship of Theseus?

No.?

Well, the Ship of Theseus is the classic thought experiment used to demonstrate the metaphysics of entities. In short, whether an object is the same if you remove all of it's parts and replace it with identical parts. If you're claiming that an observed entity changing is evidence that it no longer exists, then that only applies to abstract definitions of entities in existence when what I'm discussing is physical. You say it could be argued that 'things' can pop in and out of existence and I presume you mean things that have been observed. This distinction is important because if we're not talking about things that physically are observed to exist then we're delving into the purely metaphysical realm.

Of course, there is One 'thing', which has actually always existed and changes, but that is the only thing, with no 's', that I know of anyway. There may be other things, with 's' that I am just yet not aware of.

I'll need some clarification here as to what this vague 'thing' vs 'things' is. I may have missed something earlier in the discussion but I'm not sure this is relevant.

[Ensrick]

Like Occam's razor but here, but consider where the evidence lies. If something is observed to exist, I'll take that as evidence of it's existence. I don't think not observing something is evidence that it no longer exists or did not exist.

I agree. I'm trying to work out whether this is essentially saying the same thing, but from a different point of view, to what I said here:
viewtopic.php?p=354287#p354287
...or whether it's completely different.

Apologies for not getting back to you. I think we are in agreement

[creation]

No. What is the point of doing that. People will only accept and believe whatever they want to accept and believe. And, as I have said, while someone is believing some thing to be true, then there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that can show them otherwise.

Also, I am not in the process of letting anyone know what is true or false. I am just in the process of learning how to explain HOW they can find what thee actual Truth of things ARE all by their own selves, and for their own selves.



But I have not posted that and I have no intention to post anything like that.

It is not my goal nor has it ever been my intention to inform people of what is false and what is not.



You said that; "space is infinite" but then you say "but there is also matter", which is a contradiction. I have asked you to clarify; How could space be infinite if there is matter also?, which you have not or could not clarify.

You also said that;
"1 Time can not stop, it can not slow down, or speed up. The rate of passing time never changes.
2 The entire Universe has the same time, it's always now, everywhere.
3 There was no beginning of time, because time can't stop or start - it's a constant. Since there was no beginning of time, there also was no beginning of the Universe.

I believe Man started labeling time with days, because of the position of the Sun. Then years, because of the pattern of the seasons. Egyptians invented the 24 hour day, no one knows for sure who invented the Sun dial, but they used one to measure and to label time. They divided daytime into 10 units, 2 units of twilight, and 12 units of night, based on the position of stars.

4 Without time there would be no movement."

I then asked you at least seven clarifying questions"
Does number 4 contradict 1 through to 3? It sure appears that way to me.

For example, If the rate of passing time never changes, anyway, then why without 'time' would there be no movement?

What exactly is 'time', that if without that 'thing' there would be 'no movement'?

If the rate of passing time, itself, never changes, then how exactly could 'time' supposedly cause movement?

If everywhere in the whole Universe has the exact same time of, always, 'now', then how could this constant cause movement?

If 'time' is just always constantly 'now', they why without this constant 'now' there would be no movement? Some might argue that 'time' would have to be changing, and not always 'now', for there to be movement. They might say something like:

For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change.

How would you overcome this argument?

Or, some might just say; 'That to say, "The rate of passing time never changes" completely contradicts "Without time there would be no movement". Again, are you able to clarify this apparent absurdity and contradiction?

By the way, the middle part of what you wrote was, to me, 'too long' as well as being just completely unnecessary. What you believe humans started doing has no actual relevance on whether what you say is true or not."

Which you have not or could not clarify.

Is that enough naming of contradictions that you made, that you could not clarify? If they are not contradictions, then explain WHY. I explained WHY they appear as contradictions, to me. And, I asked you a series of clarifying questions. So, now you can either clarify things by clearing up the apparent contradictions I see, or you cannot or will not, and so what you said here will continue to remain as contradictions to me. I have helped you out enough and about as much as I can here for now.



But I have asked. Look at just how many clarifying questions I ask, compared to anyone else here.



I am NOT looking for answers in regards to this topic. I already KNOW what the answers ARE, regarding this topic.

I really do suggest you STOP assuming things, BEFORE you ask clarifying questions, and therefore gain CLARITY, first.



Because it was not needed here now. Although, I have ALREADY explained what 'time' IS. 'Time' is just a human made up word used in relation to when the duration between agreed upon supposed events are being talked about.

See, thee Truth IS there are no actual different and separate events, with an 's', occurring. There is, however, just One event in continual change. This event happens and occurs NOW, eternally.



I KNOW, and I have KNOWN this all along in this thread and in the other threads.

Either I have led you along and making you assume things, by the way I write, which are not even here, or, you are just making up assumptions on your own, and jumping to wrong conclusions based off of those assumptions of yours. Either way, what I have sought in accomplishing I have already done, a few times already I might add.



LOL. No. One only has to look back at my writings to work out what thee actual Truth IS.

I have been saying that the Universe is infinite and eternal well before I noticed you have, and, I have informed you of WHY your explanation of time and space does not work with thee infinite and eternal Universe. You have just been assuming that I having been saying that the Universe is finite and/or began, which I have let you believe, and/or led you to believe. But what can be CLEARLY SEEN in any and all of my writings is any such thing as this.

You have informed me of WHY my explanation of time and space does not work? Remind me of what you said.

Do you actually read the words I write, and just skim over them with an underlying assumption that I have not done some thing? With a belief, further distorting you, that you are absolutely Right, and therefore there is NOTHING in the Universe that could prove you wrong?

You change very quickly. Previously you wrote:
"Name a contradiction that I made, that I couldn't clarify - if you can."

So, now that I have done this, you appear to just want to completely ignore this again, and then turn this around, AGAIN.

I informed you that 'space', itself, cannot be infinite because of physical matter.

You wrote:
"For there to be movement, then there has to be change.
If the rate of passing time never changes, then there would be no movement.
There is movement.
Therefore, time would have to change."

BUT, you also wrote:
"The rate of passing time never changes.

As I have said, this appears very contradictory, so are you able to clear this up? I also noted that until you do, then this will still appear very contradictory to me.

Where can I find your writings?

Anywhere there are words under my label.

When someone knows the truth, they want to share it.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT necessarily true at all.

Some of us KNOW thee Truth, but also KNOW that expressing It too early can do far more harm than good, which could be very detrimental to the 'final outcome'. "There is a time and a place for everything", as they say.

Also, what is the use of expressing thee Truth if and when others are not yet ready nor prepared for it?

You turn your version of truth into some sort of riddle.

EXACTLY.

Finally some one is catching on.

Instead of saying what this truth is, you just say it "can be CLEARLY SEEN in any and all of my writings"

Yes this is EXACTLY what I have been saying, and is EXACTLY what I am saying, AND meaning.

So, when thee actual words are read what I am actually saying AND meaning can be CLEARLY SEEN.

- you don't really want anyone to know what you believe,

I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is some times it does not matter how many times I say some thing in clearly written words, some people just are never able to SEE them.

because you know that you may be wrong. If there's a flaw in your logic, i'll find it.

Well you have not found them yet. And, just for your information, there are some things I write purposely WRONG and FLAWED, just to see who is actually reading and understanding Me FULLY.

If you know some truth - say it, clearly - dont hide it.

WHY?

Why do you think or believe you have the right to TELL ME what to do?

Why reveal some thing, which people believe is NOT true?

I have already informed you that there is absolutely nothing in the Universe that can be given that will change a person when they are believing some thing is true.

I'll attempt to answer your long list of confusions,

Explain how a clarifying question could exactly be a "confusion"?

Obviously a remark or statement could reveal a confusion in a human being. But, obviously, a question is not posing any thing at all. It is just asking for some thing.

as soon as you explain this TRUTH of yours.

What TRUTH are you actually talking about?

WHY do you keep forgetting that it is YOU that keeps informing us that you know the truth, and we do NOT?

By the way, thee Truth does NOT need to be told. Thee Truth speaks for Itself.

When people are ready and prepared, then they can find and SEE thee Truth all by themselves.

For example are you having any luck in "telling the Truth" that the Universe is endless and infinite? Are the one who believe it is not changing and seeing and understanding what you are saying here? Or, are they just remaining steadfast, and actually holding on firmer to belief that they now have?

What use is there in just "telling the Truth" if you do not know how to get people to see It?

[creation]

Time is a constant, the speed of light is not. light can be affected by gravity, so it's not a true Constant. Don't they claim black holes have so much gravity that light can't escape? Nothing in the Universe affects the constant rate of time.

Allow me to introduce you to 'Time Dilation'! Gravity effects time because time is relative. This has ben demonstrated by the differences in clocks on earth vs. satellites.

The space/time continuum theory is flawed, time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.
The Universe has always been here, based on that fact alone the Big Bang theory is wrong, written by a guy that didn't understand physics - he was relying on Einsteins theories being accurate - which they arent.
I recommend that you start over, and consider the true nature of time and space.

I'm aware there are competing theories and for the my part in this conversation I'll stand by General Relativity. I don't think anything you said is accurate or demonstrates anything wrong with my argument. Black holes do not effect the speed of light and I'm not sure where you got any ideas otherwise except that you personally insist that time is a constant.

Does anyone claim that some thing did not exist or does not exist when it is beyond their ability to observe?

See, you might just coincidentally start observing them, when they begin, and/or you might just coincidentally stop observing them, when they end. However, why would a question like; 'How can things you observe to exist 'not' exist prior to or after you observe them?' even come into being a question, especially in light of the question I asked you?

How can things always exist?

"things observed have always existed and only change", then I would like to see some actual evidence and proof for this.

Also, every thing else, it could be argued, does pop into and out of existence, but this is only because they transform from one named thing, and/or into another named thing..?

Whew! I'm not addressing any claim that things don't exist when we can't see them.

I do not even know of any one who has ever claimed that things do not exist when we cannot see them. So, there is nothing for you to address in that anyway. Unless of course you can and you want to name any person who says such a thing?

The actual clarifying questions I asked also did NOT have anything to do with things not existing when we cannot see them. So, again, there is nothing for you to address regarding that.

The problem at hand seems to be asking others to prove that observed things do exist when we don't see them.

Has anyone asked such a thing in this post?

If not, then there is no "problem at hand" here.

If we accept that an observation of something is evidence of it's existence then we've settled the matter of attaining evidence that things observed exist.

Why are you stuck on this issue? Was it ever even brought up in this thread before you come here or even since you been here, by anyone else?

I do not know of any human being that disagrees with what you state here anyway.

As for whether they 'always' exist or not, we can't assume that they have an origin or an end if we don't observe such an occurrence so I don't have any burden of proof.

How could you logically say, for example, a 'human being', a 'flower', a 'house', an 'airplane', a 'planet', and/or a 'star' ALWAYS exist?

If and when for example you say things like; "that things observed always existed and only change," and then you say; "this makes fewer assumptions about reality", then I would just like you to clarify how it is even possible that 'things', as I gave above in the example, could exist always?

'I acknowledge that things observed may pop in or out of existence when they are no longer observed but to claim that they do would be unfalsifiable.

You are free to acknowledge that this but considering this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I have said, then there really was no use in acknowledging this.

You missed the point here. That is; It is possible to be looking and then suddenly things pop into view and out of view, not because one has stopped looking and observing, nor not because one is looking through a narrowed perspective, that is; "a window", but because the 'thing', itself, has come into and out of existence within the observation, or field of view. But, this has never been the issue "at hand" anyway. I was just clarifying that things popping into and out of existence within a field of view is actually possible.

But what the real "issue at hand" is your claim that things 'always existed'. That is; If 'things' can exist 'always', which is what you said, then I would just like you to label what those 'things' are. Until you do that, then 'things' do not exist 'always', from my perspective.

To me, this is just semantics. Have you heard of The Ship of Theseus?

No.?

Well, the Ship of Theseus is the classic thought experiment used to demonstrate the metaphysics of entities.

When you use the word 'metaphysics', what do you actually mean?

In short, whether an object is the same if you remove all of it's parts and replace it with identical parts. If you're claiming that an observed entity changing is evidence that it no longer exists, then that only applies to abstract definitions of entities in existence when what I'm discussing is physical.

I have not and I am not claiming anything here. I am not agreeing with anything, and I am not disagreeing nor countering anything here. I have just been trying to get you to clarify how it is possible that 'things' could 'always' exist.

As for when and if 'things' change, then this just happens when human beings have 'decided' they do. Very, very SIMPLE. Absolutely everything is simpel and easy in Life. All the absolutely ridiculous things human beings argue and disagree about is absolutely absurd. Only human beings make things appear hard and complex.

You say it could be argued that 'things' can pop in and out of existence and I presume you mean things that have been observed. This distinction is important because if we're not talking about things that physically are observed to exist then we're delving into the purely metaphysical realm.

What I said was just a side note to correct things.

What I meant was when at the time an observation is being made there are things that can pop in and out of existence. This all depends on how one is actually looking and for how long.

Of course, there is One 'thing', which has actually always existed and changes, but that is the only thing, with no 's', that I know of anyway. There may be other things, with 's' that I am just yet not aware of.

I'll need some clarification here as to what this vague 'thing' vs 'things' is. I may have missed something earlier in the discussion but I'm not sure this is relevant.

You said; that "things (with s) observed always existed and only change", so I would just like to know how this is actually possible and what those things (with s) are.

To clarify, what you perceive is vague, is that the word 'thing' relates to one, whereas the word 'things' relates to more than one, and all the way up to and including all.

Now, you say; "that things observed always existed and only change". So, I was asking for some clarification as to how those 'things' observed could always exist, and what those observed 'things' are exactly?

If you incapable of clarifying this, then so be it.

[Ensrick]

[...]If 'things' can exist 'always', which is what you said, then I would just like you to label what those 'things' are. Until you do that, then 'things' do not exist 'always', from my perspective.

What things always exist? observed things because we have evidence they exist. Evidence of existence alone is evidence of eternal existence unless we know that things we observe did indeed have a beginning or will have an end. You have consistently been asking for clarification so any repetition is simply my way of trying to explain in terms you might understand. Does this sound like I'm repeating myself or does it explain why I think things observed are indefinite?

The actual clarifying questions I asked also did NOT have anything to do with things not existing when we cannot see them. So, again, there is nothing for you to address regarding that.

That's the only alternative to what I'm suggesting unless you have something to add.

[...]If you're claiming that an observed entity changing is evidence that it no longer exists, then that only applies to abstract definitions of entities in existence when what I'm discussing is physical.

I have not and I am not claiming anything here. I am not agreeing with anything, and I am not disagreeing nor countering anything here.

Oh, the following quote seems to suggest otherwise:

[…]' If 'it' is not in the shape and form of what 'it' is, then 'it' is some thing else.

I've answered your question several times despite your insistence and claim that I have not. I'm repeating myself in different terms in the futile hope that you'll get what I'm saying but you complain about how complex we're making things.

As for when and if 'things' change, then this just happens when human beings have 'decided' they do. Very, very SIMPLE. Absolutely everything is simpel and easy in Life. All the absolutely ridiculous things human beings argue and disagree about is absolutely absurd. Only human beings make things appear hard and complex.

You're careful to avoid claims but you just made a few about how simple things actually must be while playing the "why" game with other people. I don't think things are simple because if they were, then simple people would understand a lot more.

Ah, another claim:

What I meant was when at the time an observation is being made there are things that can pop in and out of existence. This all depends on how one is actually looking and for how long.

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate for permanence. Full disclosure, I do think some things can pop in and out of existence but what things do you claim can pop in and out of existence and how?

[creation]

[...]If 'things' can exist 'always', which is what you said, then I would just like you to label what those 'things' are. Until you do that, then 'things' do not exist 'always', from my perspective.

What things always exist? observed things because we have evidence they exist. Evidence of existence alone is evidence of eternal existence unless we know that things we observe did indeed have a beginning or will have an end. You have consistently been asking for clarification so any repetition is simply my way of trying to explain in terms you might understand. Does this sound like I'm repeating myself or does it explain why I think things observed are indefinite?

So, your inability to list any thing, which you say exits always leaves me with my own perspective that things do not 'always' exist.

Do you understand how long 'always' is?

If yes, then please explain to me how long that is to you, and then explain how and why you would think a house, a tree, a human being, or a planet exists forever just because you have not observed it being created from its beginning and continually observed it evolve to its end?

Just because I have not observed some thing for ALL of its life I do not then instantly jump to a conclusion that it then can 'always' exist. I remain OPEN to the fact that it may not actually exist 'always', and that it may come into existence and then exit existence.

Contrary to what you believe I do not see 'evidence of existence alone is evidence of eternal existence for things (with an 's').

And yes I have bee consistently asking for the exact same clarification, which unfortunately you still have not given.

You are failing to explain in terms I might understand, this is because you are not answering the actual clarifying question that I am asking you.

What you said here neither sounds like you are repeating yourself nor does it explain why you think that the things you have observed like human beings, rocks, buildings, cars, and/or planets exist forever and always.

Just to make it absolutely clear I understand that 'evidence of existence is evidence of the one thing (no 's') Existence being eternal, Itself. But this is just because if there is physical matter and space, then there 'has to' 'always' be physical matter and space. But my clarifying question to you has always been about you saying 'things' (with an 's') being for 'always' and how this could even be possible.

I just want you to say what 'things' could be 'always' and how this could be possible. You are now saying 'observed things' (with an 's') because we have evidence that they exist. But, obviously evidence that a human being exists is NOT evidence that that human being exists 'always'. So, until you can explain this, then, from my perspective 'things' (with an 's') do not exist forever nor always.

That's the only alternative to what I'm suggesting unless you have something to add.

There IS another alternative, and I hope you are starting to understand what that is from what I have said above.

From what you were suggesting is that things exist forever and always just because we have observed them once. What I am asking is how?

From what I see most things only exist for an amount of time and do not exist always, at all. For how long that time is that they actually do exist is some times completely unknown because that their whole existence is not observed.

Oh, the following quote seems to suggest otherwise:

I've answered your question several times despite your insistence and claim that I have not. I'm repeating myself in different terms in the futile hope that you'll get what I'm saying but you complain about how complex we're making things.

You have not answered the actual question I asked. If you did, then you would just list what 'things' you say exist always, just because you have observed them once, and then you would have explained how these things could exist always. Surely that is not that hard nor complex, that is if it is even actually true?

Your inability to answer the actual question is leading to some to come to the conclusion that it is not even true anyway.

And, if you do not agree with what I said above, then explain WHY.

If some thing is just a plain fact, then I am not claiming any thing. I am obviously just stating a fact. If what I said is not a fact in and of itself, and you see it as a claim, then you either agree or disagree with the supposed "claim", so what is it from your perspective? Do you agree or do you disagree with what I said?

You're careful to avoid claims but you just made a few about how simple things actually must be while playing the "why" game with other people. I don't think things are simple because if they were, then simple people would understand a lot more.

Well I am the most simplest and slowest one of them all, and it seems I am able to understand a bit more than some others do.

Also, if people are not able to answer the 'why' questions, then maybe better for them they do not make the claims that they do.

Ah, another claim:
I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate for permanence. Full disclosure, I do think some things can pop in and out of existence but what things do you claim can pop in and out of existence and how?

I will answer just like you do, and show you how annoying it can be. 'Things' being observed to pop in and out of existence are the things that pop in and out of existence, and how they do this is because this is how 'things' work.

Does me answering your clarifying questions like how you answer mine satisfy your inquisitiveness, or not?

[Ensrick]

[...]obviously evidence that a human being exists is NOT evidence that that human being exists 'always'. So, until you can explain this, then, from my perspective 'things' (with an 's') do not exist forever nor always.

I don't consider the human mind observable. For further clarification "things observed" is specifically "physical things observed". The matter that humans are composed of always exists. I admit

From what I see most things only exist for an amount of time and do not exist always, at all. For how long that time is that they actually do exist is some times completely unknown because that their whole existence is not observed.

This is only applicable to the metaphysical concept of things. Physical things change form but that does not constitute the idea that they come into or cease to exist.

Just because I have not observed some thing for ALL of its life I do not then instantly jump to a conclusion that it then can 'always' exist. I remain OPEN to the fact that it may not actually exist 'always', and that it may come into existence and then exit existence.

So, your inability to list any thing, which you say exits always leaves me with my own perspective that things do not 'always' exist.

You're asking for a list of things which is begging the question. I'm talking about observed things; not a specific list so there's no reason for me to provide you with a list. You're arguing on the presupposition that things observed could have a beginning or end which violates conservation of energy and is not supported by evidence. The examples you gave are of a human not always existing or physical objects changing form; that is not relevant to physical matter. The very idea that observed matter might not always exist is not rooted in empirical evidence.

Just to make it absolutely clear I understand that 'evidence of existence is evidence of the one thing (no 's') Existence being eternal, Itself.

It seems in so many posts you're alluding to the idea that the universe is one, eternal and possibly your idea of God. If you're questioning me based on other claims that you're withholding, that's probably why it's so difficult to get my point across. I recommend a holistic approach to questioning if you're looking for understanding but it seems like your line of questioning is aimed at anything that's counter to whatever it is you already think is true.

[gater]

creation - i'm glad you found a new friend to play with

[Steve3007]

Evidence of existence alone is evidence of eternal existence unless we know that things we observe did indeed have a beginning or will have an end.

So, to be clear, when you say "evidence" here you're talking about the empirical evidence that is used, via the process of Induction, to propose general laws and principles, yes?

I ask this because, as I said, some people see this not as a matter of general laws derived via induction from observation but of deductive logic. They confuse the logical certainty of such statements as "2 + 2 = 4" or "the square-root of 2 is irrational" (which are true by definition and which therefore don't need any empirical observation to be demonstrated) with statements that are not logically certain, and are based on observation, such as "all objects with mass exert a force on each other which is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" or "life on Earth evolved" or "objects cannot spontaneously pop into existence" which are based on spotting patterns in observations and assuming those patterns to be universal.

It is that misuse of logic (together with unwillingness to read in any depth about the subjects being discussed, resulting in a tendency to attack "straw men") which is at the foundation of some posters' muddled views on the concepts of time and space, and the concept of an infinite versus finite Universe, which have been discussed recently in several topics.

[creation]

[...]obviously evidence that a human being exists is NOT evidence that that human being exists 'always'. So, until you can explain this, then, from my perspective 'things' (with an 's') do not exist forever nor always.

I don't consider the human mind observable.

Okay. I am not sure of the point of you saying this, but you have now said it. I do not know of any human being who had said they consider the mind observable, but anyway. There is no "human mind", by the way. Unless evidence of such is brought forward.

For further clarification "things observed" is specifically "physical things observed". The matter that humans are composed of always exists. I admit

Well that was the very point I wanted you to see and acknowledge. The very reason I asked you the questions I have was so that you would acknowledge this.

'Things (with 's') do not exist forever and always. But obviously the one thing (no 's') called physical matter, which things (with 's') are composed of does exist forever, and always.

From what I see most things only exist for an amount of time and do not exist always, at all. For how long that time is that they actually do exist is some times completely unknown because that their whole existence is not observed.

This is only applicable to the metaphysical concept of things. Physical things change form but that does not constitute the idea that they come into or cease to exist.

You have missed the point again.

EVERY form physical matter changes into, becomes a separated form due to names or labels, given by human beings. These separate and different labels and names placed onto "things" (with 's') do not exist always. These things (with 's') come into existence, exist, and then cease to exist.

Just because I have not observed some thing for ALL of its life I do not then instantly jump to a conclusion that it then can 'always' exist. I remain OPEN to the fact that it may not actually exist 'always', and that it may come into existence and then exit existence.

So, your inability to list any thing, which you say exits always leaves me with my own perspective that things do not 'always' exist.

You're asking for a list of things which is begging the question.

You claimed some thing about "things". I am just asking you to back this claim up with a list of "things" that do what you say and claim they can do. So, then I can ask you clarifying questions to find out if those actual "things" can really do what you claim that they can do. Your refusal to list just one thing could be inferred as you are not willing to put any thing forward because then you could be proven wrong.

I'm talking about observed things; not a specific list so there's no reason for me to provide you with a list.

You do not have to provide a list. But if you do not list one observed thing, then I cannot ask to then prove how that one observed thing could exist "always".

You're arguing on the presupposition that things observed could have a beginning or end which violates conservation of energy and is not supported by evidence.

But I have not necessarily argued any thing. If you answered my clarifying questions openly and honestly, then there is nothing to be argued anyway. You would revealing the actual Truth yourself.

The examples you gave are of a human not always existing or physical objects changing form; that is not relevant to physical matter.

Well it was you who used the "things" word (with an 's'). And it was I who was giving you the opportunity to clarify what you claim with a list of "things". You never did now you want to try an put this back onto me.

The very idea that observed matter might not always exist is not rooted in empirical evidence.

Well you have certainly done a great job of twisting things around and turning them back onto me.

You claim "things" with an 's' exist always. I think you will find your list of "things" here is very short indeed.

Just to make it absolutely clear I understand that 'evidence of existence is evidence of the one thing (no 's') Existence being eternal, Itself.

It seems in so many posts you're alluding to the idea that the universe is one, eternal and possibly your idea of God. If you're questioning me based on other claims that you're withholding, that's probably why it's so difficult to get my point across.

But you have gotten your point across already. You are just failing to recognize and see and understand my point.

This is because I do not just say it. I ask the right questions, which if you were truly open and honest, then you would see what thee actual Truth is.

I recommend a holistic approach to questioning if you're looking for understanding but it seems like your line of questioning is aimed at anything that's counter to whatever it is you already think is true.

Well that is one way if looking, and assuming.

[Ensrick]

'Things (with 's') do not exist forever and always. But obviously the one thing (no 's') called physical matter, which things (with 's') are composed of does exist forever, and always.

Apparently this distinction was not only necessary but the essence of the entire discussion. From the start, I never intended the original example to be in reference to anything specific or an overgeneralization about "things". The need for clarification seems to stem from the confusion about 'which things' I'm talking about: observable physical matter.
Viewing all matter in the universe as one thing isn't something I'd disagree with in abstract but I don't think that it's fundamental. Numbers are units of measure and depending on what system of measurement we're using we can describe the amount of matter in the universe differently.

There is no "human mind", by the way. Unless evidence of such is brought forward.

The entire field of psychology is based on empirical evidence and the existence of the human mind. The Mind-Body problem is relevant here but it's another discussion entirely.

EVERY form physical matter changes into, becomes a separated form due to names or labels, given by human beings. These separate and different labels and names placed onto "things" (with 's') do not exist always. These things (with 's') come into existence, exist, and then cease to exist.

This is nothing I would disagree with but just as a person might call all matter in the universe one thing, dividing things into categories by names and labels is a cognitive function; it doesn't really say anything about their fundamental physical existence.

One can describe matter as one thing or many things but since our current understanding of the physical reality doesn't constitute an infallible way of accurately assigning numerical values. As of today, certainty about the "truth" is beyond both armchair philosophical logic and rigorous scientific investigation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that matter can't truly be determined. Abstract interpretations have limits whereas physical reality may be indefinitely complex; forever beyond our full comprehension.

[Ensrick]

So, to be clear, when you say "evidence" here you're talking about the empirical evidence that is used, via the process of Induction, to propose general laws and principles, yes?

I ask this because, as I said, some people see this not as a matter of general laws derived via induction from observation but of deductive logic. They confuse the logical certainty of such statements as "2 + 2 = 4" or "the square-root of 2 is irrational" (which are true by definition and which therefore don't need any empirical observation to be demonstrated) with statements that are not logically certain, and are based on observation, such as "all objects with mass exert a force on each other which is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" or "life on Earth evolved" or "objects cannot spontaneously pop into existence" which are based on spotting patterns in observations and assuming those patterns to be universal.

It is that misuse of logic (together with unwillingness to read in any depth about the subjects being discussed, resulting in a tendency to attack "straw men") which is at the foundation of some posters' muddled views on the concepts of time and space, and the concept of an infinite versus finite Universe, which have been discussed recently in several topics.

Absolutely in agreement. I couldn't have said it better. The heart of the issue lies in abstract interpretation of physics which are beyond comprehension.

[creation]

'Things (with 's') do not exist forever and always. But obviously the one thing (no 's') called physical matter, which things (with 's') are composed of does exist forever, and always.

Apparently this distinction was not only necessary but the essence of the entire discussion. From the start, I never intended the original example to be in reference to anything specific or an overgeneralization about "things".

Well since you said; "things observed always existed", then it appears that you were very generalizing.

I suggest if you do not mean what you say, then do not say that and only say what you do mean.

The need for clarification seems to stem from the confusion about 'which things' I'm talking about: observable physical matter.

The so called "need for clarification" does NOT stem from any so called "confusion" about 'which things' you are talking about at all.

The reason I have been asking you for clarification is because of the words that you actually wrote. I am yet to understand how observed things can have always existed. And, you have completely failed to clarify just how things could always exist. You are not even capable of naming just one thing of the supposed many observed things, which always existed.

You appear to just being trying every type of deflection that you can think of to just not admit that observed things do not have actually always existed.

Viewing all matter in the universe as one thing isn't something I'd disagree with in abstract but I don't think that it's fundamental.

It is fundamental if one wants to see what thee actual Truth IS.

Now, obviously observed things like human beings, trees, houses, planets, et cetera have NOT always existed. Although you have said that they have always existed.

Numbers are units of measure and depending on what system of measurement we're using we can describe the amount of matter in the universe differently.

So what?

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever what I have been asking you clarify, which, by the way, you still have utterly failed to do.

The entire field of psychology is based on empirical evidence and the existence of the human mind.

LOL and what is that supposed actual "empirical evidence" of the human mind?

The Mind-Body problem is relevant here but it's another discussion entirely.

That so called "problem", which only human beings have made up, was resolved ages ago.

This is nothing I would disagree with but just as a person might call all matter in the universe one thing, dividing things into categories by names and labels is a cognitive function; it doesn't really say anything about their fundamental physical existence.

This is true, this does not really say anything about their fundamental physical existence.

But you have said; "things observed always existed", which is slowly being revealed is actually not the truth at all.

One can describe matter as one thing or many things but since our current understanding of the physical reality doesn't constitute an infallible way of accurately assigning numerical values.

When you use the 'our' word, who are you referring to exactly?

And why does 'your' current understanding of the physical reality not constitute an infallible way of accurately assigning numerical values, and, what is supposedly so important about assigning numerical values anyway?

What has numbers got to do with you clarifying how "things observed have always existed".

As of today, certainty about the "truth" is beyond both armchair philosophical logic and rigorous scientific investigation.

Well your "armchair" view of things here is obviously false and wrong.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that matter can't truly be determined.

So, you will follow and accept some "uncertainty principle", but you will not accept that certainty can be known, correct?

Abstract interpretations have limits whereas physical reality may be indefinitely complex; forever beyond our full comprehension.

Abstract interpretations are just views about what IS, so of course they have limits. However, what is actual physicality is extremely inherently simplicity in nature, and can be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD very simply and very easily.

[Ensrick]

On and off work, so I may be a week or longer to respond but I'll be around till Friday.

Your inability to find a satisfactory answer doesn't constitute a need for clarity on my end anymore than it does a lack of understanding on your end; clearly your need for clarification also doesn't stem from skepticism since you readily claim to "know the Truth" with a capital T. I'm fairly convinced that your only purpose in this entire forum is to practice confirmation bias by opposing anything counter to your existing beliefs on what the "Truth" is or a universe that can be summarized as "one"; especially given your hesitence to respond to criticisms about these vague claims when compared to the sincerity with which I and others respond to your questions. Furthermore this seems evident in your phrasing; using phrases and words like "LOL", "so called" and "failed" in reference to what I'm saying purely to help get my point across exemplifies an antagonistic adversarial attitude. Before going to much further, I'd like to know how do you differentiate between what's true and not?

Well since you said; "things observed always existed", then it appears that you were very generalizing.

It's a generalization about "things observed" and more specific than simply saying "things". The only specificity necessary to my point is that were talking about "things observed" which has been clear from my original example to avoid confusion with making claims about things that can't be or are not observed.

The so called "need for clarification" does NOT stem from any so called "confusion" about 'which things' you are talking about at all.

The reason I have been asking you for clarification is because of the words that you actually wrote. I am yet to understand how observed things can have always existed. And, you have completely failed to clarify just how things could always exist. You are not even capable of naming just one thing of the supposed many observed things, which always existed.

You appear to just being trying every type of deflection that you can think of to just not admit that observed things do not have actually always existed.

I am dubious about your need for clarification on what I wrote. I believe I have successfully clarified and that you're "need" for a list or further clarification is willful ignorance. Writing a list of things is too narrow to encompass everything observed, however to satiate your need for an answer that is satisfactory yet superfluous, observed things for myself might include the mug of coffee next to my desk. Perhaps you simply need an example related to something specific because the concept of everything observed may or may not play into your existing thoughts on what does or doesn't exist indefinitely. So if 'things observed' is too general, how about my coffee mug? Does it have indefinite existence? I think it does.

Viewing all matter in the universe as one thing isn't something I'd disagree with in abstract but I don't think that it's fundamental.

It is fundamental if one wants to see what thee actual Truth IS.

Someone wanting to see the "actual Truth" doesn't support any idea all the universe is equivalent to one. This again seems like willful ignorance or wishful thinking at best. You've brought up the idea of truth many times; how do you know "truth"?

Now, obviously observed things like human beings, trees, houses, planets, et cetera have NOT always existed. Although you have said that they have always existed.

Sometimes the fundamental nature of things isn't obvious which seems to be a huge difference in how we understand the world. Take my mug again for example, it's fundamentally matter arranged in a certain form. The matter from which it is composed has always existed. It may have once been plasma or purely information when the universe was smaller than the size of a quantum particle/wave. The nature of something's existence changes, but not the fact it existed.

Numbers are units of measure and depending on what system of measurement we're using we can describe the amount of matter in the universe differently.

So what?

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever what I have been asking you clarify[...]

This is related to what you were saying about a universe that is "one". One is a numerical value and it's just a subjective quantity when applied to fundamental things like the physical world. I find the idea of the universe being "one" to be a meaningless idea.

The entire field of psychology is based on empirical evidence and the existence of the human mind.

LOL and what is that supposed actual "empirical evidence" of the human mind?

This a tangent wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. Psychology is well established as the study of the mind and since it's a scientific field of study all evidence it has is empirical; for a few examples, it's supported by behavioral and neurological evidence that are testable. If you seriously doubt that psychology gathers empirical evidence I kinda don't want to hold your hand researching the way they conduct double-blind experiments and surveys. Suffice it to say for now that we have a larger epistemological disagreement. You seem to lack the skepticism I value in what I view as a rational approach to developing an understanding of the world.

The Mind-Body problem is relevant here but it's another discussion entirely.

That so called "problem", which only human beings have made up, was resolved ages ago.

*Sigh*, one fun discussion at a time. As in the last paragraph I typed, we definately have a different perspective on what can be known.

One can describe matter as one thing or many things but since our current understanding of the physical reality doesn't constitute an infallible way of accurately assigning numerical values.

[...]why does 'your' current understanding of the physical reality not constitute an infallible way of accurately assigning numerical values, and, what is supposedly so important about assigning numerical values anyway?

What has numbers got to do with you clarifying how "things observed have always existed".

Using empirical methods, the importance of numerical values and systems of measurement is to find a way of simplifying things for practical application. For example, I can describe 2 pennies as a few trillion atoms or a few grams of pot nickel; it all depends on the practical need to desribe it as such. The quantitative amount of something can be described many different ways but the importance depends on the application.

As of today, certainty about the "truth" is beyond both armchair philosophical logic and rigorous scientific investigation.

Well your "armchair" view of things here is obviously false and wrong.

I'm advocating skepticism regarding "truth". What makes what you're saying about "truth" more credible? It seems like you don't value observational evidence much because your understanding of "truth" isn't shaped by evidence.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that matter can't truly be determined.

So, you will follow and accept some "uncertainty principle", but you will not accept that certainty can be known, correct?

This question seems worded odly. If I understand what you're asking, you seem to be wondering why I would accept the uncertainty principle if I don't thing it can be known. Accepting certainty is the opposite of being certain so it should be self-evident that I would accept a principle espousing uncertainty; in this case it's demonstrated and documented the lack of certainty regarding the application of quantum physics to all wave-like systems.

Abstract interpretations are just views about what IS, so of course they have limits. However, what is actual physicality is extremely inherently simplicity in nature, and can be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD very simply and very easily.

Abstract interpretations are more easily understood because they have limits. This idea of simplicity in nature, what do you observe in nature that can be explained simply? I almost guarantee any answers are a simple explanation for something that is vastly more complex.

[Marvin_Edwards]

As a kid I read someplace that infinity is proved by the fact that for any boundary that we can imagine, we can also imagine the outside of that boundary.