Infinite Past

[untermensche]

No it is expressing it's freedom in 4 dimensions.

Time does not bind a tree in any way. It is bounded by it's genetics.

It is an added freedom beyond the freedom to have length width and height.

Your understandings are upside-down.

Again, things don't actually move in spacetime....

I find this claim absurd.

And you have never supported it with anything. All you seem to be able to do is claim it.

If you can't explain it my guess is you don't understand it.

That is not true. I have tried to explain it to you twice using a 2 dimensional square, and I tried to explain it to you in the post that you just replied to.

You have merely made claims and used concepts idiosyncratically without any specific definition.

In relativity (space-time), the time dimension is like the spatial dimensions. In other words, an object has a position in x,y,z and t dimensions. Objects even have direction in the time dimension just like the other 3 dimensions.

You mean objects move through time like they move through space?

A 2d picture hanging on your wall is actually 3 dimensional.

There are no things existing in 2 dimensions. It is a concept.

All things that exist in the world exist in 4 dimensions.

Nothing exists in only one or two.

Those dimensions are imaginary.

A point and a line are imaginary.

- - - Updated - - -

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.

When I see this I realize I am dealing with some child. I'm sure others see it too.

Luckily I long ago stopped letting the ignorance of children bother me.

 

[Bronzeage]

When did time become real? Does time have mass and occupy space? There is nothing "real" about time.

As for what is allowed, or not, get real.

Does gravity have mass or occupy space?

You do understand that our current understandings are that space and time are inseparable? It is really spacetime, not time.

So if space is real so is time.

And saying "get real" is perhaps the worst argument ever written.

I can find many arguments, much worse than that. Some in this thread. False equivocation does not make an argument.

 

[bilby]

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.

When I see this I realize I am dealing with some child. I'm sure others see it too.

Luckily I long ago stopped letting the ignorance of children bother me.

Apparently not, judging by the fact that you couldn't help but respond.

You really are quite entertaining. I was going to say 'please, never change', but then I realized that that was an ironclad certainty, and went without saying.

 

[untermensche]

Apparently not, judging by the fact that you couldn't help but respond.

You really are quite entertaining. I was going to say 'please, never change', but then I realized that that was an ironclad certainty, and went without saying.

I'm not bothered by you at all.

You can't touch my ideas, because you have none, so you leave little emoticons like a child.

If you are amused you should see the show from here.

Hysterical.

 

[untermensche]

Does gravity have mass or occupy space?

You do understand that our current understandings are that space and time are inseparable? It is really spacetime, not time.

So if space is real so is time.

And saying "get real" is perhaps the worst argument ever written.

I can find many arguments, much worse than that. Some in this thread. False equivocation does not make an argument.

No you can't.

There is no possible worse argument.

It isn't an argument.

It is somebody frustrated that they do not have one.

Are you still claiming that gravity isn't real?

 

[bilby]

Apparently not, judging by the fact that you couldn't help but respond.

You really are quite entertaining. I was going to say 'please, never change', but then I realized that that was an ironclad certainty, and went without saying.

I'm not bothered by you at all.

You can't touch my ideas, because you I have none, so you leave little emoticons like a child.

If you are amused you should see the show from here.

Hysterical.

Glad to be of service

FTFY.

 

[ryan]

No it is expressing it's freedom in 4 dimensions.

Time does not bind a tree in any way. It is bounded by it's genetics.

It is an added freedom beyond the freedom to have length width and height.

Your understandings are upside-down.

Again, things don't actually move in spacetime....

I find this claim absurd.

And you have never supported it with anything. All you seem to be able to do is claim it.

If you can't explain it my guess is you don't understand it.

That is not true. I have tried to explain it to you twice using a 2 dimensional square, and I tried to explain it to you in the post that you just replied to.

You have merely made claims and used concepts idiosyncratically without any specific definition.

In relativity (space-time), the time dimension is like the spatial dimensions. In other words, an object has a position in x,y,z and t dimensions. Objects even have direction in the time dimension just like the other 3 dimensions.

You mean objects move through time like they move through space?

No, they don't move at all. A temporal length in relativity (and other philosophies of time) is just like the lengths we observe.

An electron that pops into existence for say 10 seconds, is 10 seconds long. It seems to have 0 dimension to us, but to a being that can see 4 dimensions, the electron would look like a string 10 seconds long. We can't see it turning into a 1 dimensional string because these temporal lengths are always at angle we can't see.

Now think about a 2d picture, one meter by one meter, that lasts for 10 seconds like the electron. The picture is literally 3d; its measurements are one meter by one meter by 10 seconds. The 10 seconds of depth is just like the depth we would expect with a rectangle.

When I see this I realize I am dealing with some child. I'm sure others see it too.

Luckily I long ago let the ignorance of children bother me.

I think/hope he is actually laughing at your comeback about the feces. It made me laugh.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not bothered by you at all.

You can't touch my ideas, because you I have none, so you leave little emoticons like a child.

If you are amused you should see the show from here.

Hysterical.

Glad to be of service

FTFY.

Like I said.

A child.

 

[bilby]

Glad to be of service

FTFY.

Like I said.

A child.

And like everything you say, counter-factual, despite your repeatedly asserting it.

 

[untermensche]

No, they don't move at all. A temporal length in relativity (and other philosophies of time) is just like the lengths we observe.

Even if we make the absurd claim without evidence that time is a solid it is a solid that is growing.

Growing is moving.

An electron that pops into existence for say 10 seconds, is 10 seconds long. It seems to have 0 dimension to us, but to a being that can see 4 dimensions, the electron would look like a string 10 seconds long. We can't see it turning into a 1 dimensional string because these temporal lengths are always at angle we can't see.

An electron does seem to have dimension to us.

Saying it is 10 seconds long just adds another dimension to it.

It in no way implies it is static and unmoving.

Electrons move. Some kind of "cloud" is the abstraction.

Now think about a 2d picture

You mean imagine something that has never existed? OK.

I think/hope he is actually laughing at your comeback about the feces. It made me laugh.

Read his posts.

If you find any actual substance it is a rare lucky day.

 

[untermensche]

Like I said.

A child.

And like everything you say, counter-factual, despite your repeatedly asserting it.

Yes, you're rubber.

Quite the argument.

But I can make posts with substance.

Does anybody actually believe that it is logical to apply this imaginary man-made concept, infinity, to anything real?

It is like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun.

I would love to see the argument showing how doing things like this is rational.

 

[ryan]

Even if we make the absurd claim without evidence that time is a solid it is a solid that is growing.

Growing is moving.

Growing doesn't really mean anything has to move.

But you don't have to go with the growing block universe. There are others.

Saying it is 10 seconds long just adds another dimension to it.

Yes, that is what I am saying about relativity. Instead of the electron possibly being a point particle, it is actually a string. There are one electron theories that only one electron is need to in the whole universe because it can extend through time.

 

[untermensche]

Growing doesn't really mean anything has to move.

But you don't have to go with the growing block universe. There are others.

Saying it is 10 seconds long just adds another dimension to it.

Yes, that is what I am saying about relativity. Instead of the electron possibly being a point particle, it is actually a string. There are one electron theories that only one electron is need to in the whole universe because it can extend through time.

Growing can only mean movement is taking place.

You can't use concepts as if they have no meaning.

And if it is one electron that is a lot of moving.

 

[bilby]

And like everything you say, counter-factual, despite your repeatedly asserting it.

Yes, you're rubber.

Quite the argument.

But I can make posts with substance.

Does anybody actually believe that it is logical to apply this imaginary man-made concept, infinity, to anything real?

It is like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun.

I would love to see the argument showing how doing things like this is rational.

Given that hydrogen fusion can only be accurately described using imaginary numbers, yes, it's exactly like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun - useful, logical, reasonable, and the only approach that actually works.

But feel free to ignore that, as it flies in the face of your beliefs; If something isn't simple enough for untermensche to grasp without effort, then it must be a stupid lie made up to make him look foolish.

 

[ryan]

Growing doesn't really mean anything has to move.

But you don't have to go with the growing block universe. There are others.



Yes, that is what I am saying about relativity. Instead of the electron possibly being a point particle, it is actually a string. There are one electron theories that only one electron is need to in the whole universe because it can extend through time.

Growing can only mean movement is taking place.

You can't use concepts as if they have no meaning.

The growth is more of a revealing than if particles had to stretch apart, no moving required.

And if it is one electron that is a lot of moving.

The electron wouldn't move.

This is a big concept to take in a few hours. Let it simmer.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you're rubber.

Quite the argument.

But I can make posts with substance.

Does anybody actually believe that it is logical to apply this imaginary man-made concept, infinity, to anything real?

It is like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun.

I would love to see the argument showing how doing things like this is rational.

Given that hydrogen fusion can only be accurately described using imaginary numbers, yes, it's exactly like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun - useful, logical, reasonable, and the only approach that actually works.

But feel free to ignore that, as it flies in the face of your beliefs; If something isn't simple enough for untermensche to grasp without effort, then it must be a stupid lie made up to make him look foolish.

It is modeled.

You merely make my point.

You want to say a man-made model is the same thing as the sun.

It is as irrational as trying to apply the imaginary concept of infinity to anything real.

 

[untermensche]

Growing can only mean movement is taking place.

You can't use concepts as if they have no meaning.

The growth is more of a revealing than if particles had to stretch apart, no moving required.

The more you say the less believable I find it.

Sure. All the past and the future exist frozen.

But something is moving through that frozen ice cube.

You cannot eliminate movement and still have experience.

If something is experiencing the different parts of that frozen ice cube then there is movement.

 

[bilby]

Given that hydrogen fusion can only be accurately described using imaginary numbers, yes, it's exactly like saying let's apply the concept of an imaginary number to the sun - useful, logical, reasonable, and the only approach that actually works.

But feel free to ignore that, as it flies in the face of your beliefs; If something isn't simple enough for untermensche to grasp without effort, then it must be a stupid lie made up to make him look foolish.

It is modeled.

You merely make my point.

You want to say a man-made model is the same thing as the sun.

It is as irrational as trying to apply the imaginary concept of infinity to anything real.

Yeah, you've got me; I think a man made model is the same thing as the sun.

Your assertion that infinity is an irrational concept doesn't make it so, never has, never will. Your failure to understand something is not evidence that that thing is impossible. Despite the plentiful evidence that it is impossible for you to understand this.

 

[bilby]

The growth is more of a revealing than if particles had to stretch apart, no moving required.

The more you say the less believable I find it.

Sure. All the past and the future exist frozen.

But something is moving through that frozen ice cube.

You cannot eliminate movement and still have experience.

If something is experiencing the different parts of that frozen ice cube then there is movement.

And we are back to substance dualism, which you persist in treating as axiomatic despite the fact that most people dispute it.

If you want to have a debate, then you need to start from agreed axioms. Including as axiomatic those things that are being debated renders the exercise futile.

Of course, its quite possible that you don't even realize that you are making that assumption; But that's neither an excuse for your behaviour, nor does it render discussion with you any less futile.

 

[ryan]

The growth is more of a revealing than if particles had to stretch apart, no moving required.

The more you say the less believable I find it.

Sure. All the past and the future exist frozen.

QM hurts the block universe (determinism), but it supports a growing/revealing (not actually revealing from a determined state but a random reveal) universe.

But something is moving through that frozen ice cube.

Yes, block universe really puts the mysteries of the consciousness on display. We are like ghosts traveling through this 4d structure.

You cannot eliminate movement and still have experience.

If something is experiencing the different parts of that frozen ice cube then there is movement.

It's like observing a movie film. Except we are dealing with 3d not a 2d reel.