Philosophy Discussion Forums

I was recently thinking of rocket launching. -10, -9…ignition. Well, if the universe had a start and the Standard theory holds then the Periodic spacetime started a 0. It was the Universe of particles. Our Universe is the Universe of the Periodic. But was there change at minus 10? Was it minus 9? Would that change be in another Spacetime? Well, -10, -9… I was born. Was there another spacetime I am not aware off? I was checking my internal clock and I noticed that my thoughts are not in the same spacetime as my body. Does anyone?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am

evolution wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:17 am Does this apply for EVERY one, or just for you? And,

It applies to everyone, obviously. That doesn't imply that they agree with it/believe it, but that's irrelevant.

But you are completely and utterly WRONG, ONCE AGAIN.

Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.

Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?

'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.

The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.

This is ANOTHER claim of YOURS, which is TOTALLY WRONG.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am

Does this also mean that this is an unambiguous and irrefutable fact as well?

Facts aren't "refutable." Facts are whatever they are. They don't hinge on persons' beliefs, their arguments, etc.

Okay great. We agree on some thing.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am It's a fact that's not clear to many people, oddly enough, but it's clear to some. It should be clear to everyone if they do even a smidgen of functional analysis of what's being referred to by "time."

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.

Your predictability and consistency is remarkable.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am However, some of the conventions in physics tend to confuse on this end (such as the definition of motion hinging on time in a manner that makes the fact that time is motion/change seem like question-begging per that convention).

You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am

If yes, then WHERE and WHEN, exactly, did you just "give an example" in what I quoted, WHERE you, supposedly, explained 'time' more verbosely?

"and we can do the same with 'motion' or 'change' a la, say, 'a processual difference of position or form'"

I don't know how you could have read that so that it wouldn't have been clear.

Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?

Also, is there absolutely ANY way at all that what you think or believe a word means could actually be WRONG?

Or is this just NOT possible, to you?

evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:14 am But you are completely and utterly WRONG, ONCE AGAIN.

Obviously just telling me that you think that I'm wrong is useless. You might as well cut that part out in the future.

Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.

Obviously I don't agree with this, but if you think I'm wrong, then you should surely think that motion/change is not identical to time.

Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?

Yes. Kind of a ridiculously patronizing question that's again just a waste of time, but okay.

'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.

Hence "or." Maybe you're not familiar with what "or" refers to?

The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.

The fact of a belief would only apply to people with that belief. The fact that the belief corresponds to doesn't only apply to people with the belief.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.

Again, the second part of that is not at all the case. I don't hold many normatives in general. I definitely don't hold a normative that everyone should agree with anyone, including me.

You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.

I know what time is. That's not just an appearance. I explicitly say as much. It's not that it's impossible for me to be wrong, but I'm certainly not wrong just because you say I am, just because you type out a contradictory statement, or just because you wonder if I know what a word conventionally refers to.

Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?

Obviously. That has no impact on me not knowing why it wouldn't be clear to you, because I can't imagine what sort of dumb-ass you'd have to be for that to not be clear to you, where that's especially mysterious given the fact that you can type complete, coherent sentences that make some sense in context here. Hence I literally do not know WHY that wouldn't be clear to you. There's something very weird going on there that a psychiatrist would be best equipped to deal with probably.

evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:14 am

What wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.

(Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:14 am But you are completely and utterly WRONG, ONCE AGAIN.

Obviously just telling me that you think that I'm wrong is useless. You might as well cut that part out in the future.

I do this to SHOW how when a person BELIEVES that they ALREADY KNOW what is true, then they are have absolutely NO interest NOR curiosity at all in what other's have to say.

You are PROVING this over and over, again and again.

Also, you are so BLINDED by your own views and BELIEFS that you can NOT see what I am ACTUALLY TELLING 'YOU'.

I am NOT telling you that I 'think' you are wrong. I am telling you that you are ACTUALLY completely and utterly WRONG.

I tell you this because I 'know' this. I KNOW this because I HAVE the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that backs up and supports this.

By the way, if you are WRONG, then I am NOT going cut that part out of TELLING YOU THIS, in the future, JUST BECAUSE you said I "might as well".

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.

Obviously I don't agree with this, but if you think I'm wrong, then you should surely think that motion/change is not identical to time.

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE true, to you, correct?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?

Yes. Kind of a ridiculously patronizing question that's again just a waste of time, but okay.

If you did, then you would KNOW, EXACTLY, HOW 'motion/change' is NOT 'identical' to 'time'

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.

Hence "or." Maybe you're not familiar with what "or" refers to?

Hence "or" maybe you are not familiar with what the word "nor", is said to, refer to?

Because if you did, then you would be more up to date on KNOWING, EXACTLY, HOW 'motion' "nor" 'change" are both NOT 'identical' to 'time'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.

The fact of a belief would only apply to people with that belief. The fact that the belief corresponds to doesn't only apply to people with the belief.

But you OBVIOUSLY have YET to PROVE that the BELIEF corresponds to.

Until then, YOUR BELIEF remains just 'that' - A BELIEF, ONLY.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.

Again, the second part of that is not at all the case.

But it IS the case.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am I don't hold many normatives in general. I definitely don't hold a normative that everyone should agree with anyone, including me.

You do NOT have to be conscious of some thing to be holding it.

As ALREADY PROVEN.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.

I know what time is.

If you ACTUALLY 'KNEW' what 'time' is, then you could explain what 'time' is, and have that definition and explanation fit in with absolutely EVERY thing else.

Until then, you do NOT 'know' what 'time', actually, is. You only THINK you 'know' what 'time' is, OBVIOUSLY.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am That's not just an appearance. I explicitly say as much. It's not that it's impossible for me to be wrong,

So, how can you properly and correctly profess to KNOWING what 'time' is, but still possibly be WRONG.

Surely you can NOT 'know' some thing but still be WRONG? Or, can 'you'?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am but I'm certainly not wrong just because you say I am, just because you type out a contradictory statement, or just because you wonder if I know what a word conventionally refers to.

You are RIGHT. You certainly are NOT wrong for those reasons.

You are CERTAINLY WRONG because you can be PROVEN to be WRONG.

Do you agree that if you can be PROVEN to be WRONG, then you are WRONG?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?

Obviously.

Well what you wrote, which I replied to does NOT make that OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am That has no impact on me not knowing why it wouldn't be clear to you, because I can't imagine what sort of dumb-ass you'd have to be for that to not be clear to you,

Are you even AWARE just how many human beings, and just how many times those human beings have thought VERY SIMILAR things about 'YOU'.

I have lost count of the amount of times I have queried, in regards to 'you', to just how confused and bewildered you are in regards to what is essentially PURELY just so easily straightforward CLEAR and SIMPLE.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am where that's especially mysterious given the fact that you can type complete, coherent sentences that make some sense in context here. Hence I literally do not know WHY that wouldn't be clear to you.

And until you ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION, you will be none the wiser.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am There's something very weird going on there that a psychiatrist would be best equipped to deal with probably.

That is one way to turn a discussion. Call the other a "dumb-ass" and make the claim that they need mental help, and by a serious professional at that.

This seems to be one of the first rules in disputed discussions among 'you', human beings, and especially in disputed philosophical discussions. That is; turn away from the actual discussion, look at the 'other' instead, and then do the best you can to 'try to' denigrate and/or humiliate 'the other'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am

evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:14 am

What wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.

Finally. Some recognition of what I have actually been continually ALLUDING TO, but which on refection and retrospection was OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.

When some one SHOWS REAL interest in me doing so, then I WILL.

One of the ACTUAL POINTS I have been SHOWING ALL ALONG is BECOMING MORE CLEARER, NOW.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am (Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)

But what you are 'trying to' in regards to how YOUR 'ontology of time works' is OBVIOUS.

What is just as OBVIOUS is just HOW WRONG YOU ARE.

You are NOT WRONG in that YOUR view and perception of how 'time' works fits in well enough with your other views and perceptions, that it suits 'YOU'. You are just WRONG in that your view and perception of how 'time' works does NOT fit in at all well with what actually fits in PERFECTLY WELL with EVERY thing else.

Oh, and by the way, you MUST OF MISSED or FORGOTTEN where I have ALREADY provided arguments for WHY 'time', itself, is NOT and can NOT be simply identical to motion/change.

evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 11:07 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am

What wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.

Finally. Some recognition of what I have actually been continually ALLUDING TO, but which on refection and retrospection was OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.

When some one SHOWS REAL interest in me doing so, then I WILL.

One of the ACTUAL POINTS I have been SHOWING ALL ALONG is BECOMING MORE CLEARER, NOW.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am (Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)

But what you are 'trying to' in regards to how YOUR 'ontology of time works' is OBVIOUS.

What is just as OBVIOUS is just HOW WRONG YOU ARE.

You are NOT WRONG in that YOUR view and perception of how 'time' works fits in well enough with your other views and perceptions, that it suits 'YOU'. You are just WRONG in that your view and perception of how 'time' works does NOT fit in at all well with what actually fits in PERFECTLY WELL with EVERY thing else.

Oh, and by the way, you MUST OF MISSED or FORGOTTEN where I have ALREADY provided arguments for WHY 'time', itself, is NOT and can NOT be simply identical to motion/change.

So was that your argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change?