Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Show me this thing you claim exists.

If a man says a thing exists but can't show me any evidence of its existence I say the man is deluded.

What do you say about a man who argues with a person who he is certain does not exist? Delusion seems like the least of his problems.

 

[Juma]

You are very vague. I guess that what you try to express is this:

1) the size of an infinite set is the same even if we remove some (finite) part of the set.

2) we cannot remove part of history without changing history.

But from this it does not follow that time cannot be infinite.

I don't think that it makes sense to assign a number that is not unique to something that is unique. It would be like saying that there are 11 days in the last 7 days.

Anyways, I don't care about that argument as much as I do the next argument.

So you agree that that argument is flawed?

 

[untermensche]

You experienced the present. You never experienced the past.

I experience the present. Present tense.

I exprienced the past. Past tense.

You experienced the present IN the past. You never experienced the past itself.

What is called the past is prior present moments. To say you have experienced the past means you experienced present moments IN the past.

All that can be experienced is the present.

If not show me how to experience the past.

According to you, the present comes before the past, so you'll be experiencing it in a second.

According to me I'm experiencing the present.

And I know the difference between the present and what was the present in the past.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Stop jerking off. Show me the evidence of this thing you claim exists.

 

[bilby]

The light that hits my eye from the sun hits it in the present.

The light left the sun in the past.

Seeing the light in the present that left in the past is not looking at the past.

To think so is not to think very well.

But how do you know the sun is real, or your keyboard, or anything else? All the information you get is from the past and the past does not exist, according to you.

I think you nailed it:

Yup, philosophy comes up with some weird shit. I expect to be confronted with an argument from solipsism any time now in this thread.

Of course, you made that prediction about the future, which doesn't exist; in the past, which also doesn't exist. So you never made it at all. Apparently.

I can't give you any reputation for this prediction, because the TFT servers insist that I have recently done so, and must spread some reputation around; Of course, that is rubbish, as the past is nonexistent, so there is no such thing as 'recently'.

 

[untermensche]

The light that hits my eye from the sun hits it in the present.

The light left the sun in the past.

Seeing the light in the present that left in the past is not looking at the past.

To think so is not to think very well.

But how do you know the sun is real, or your keyboard, or anything else? All the information you get is from the past and the past does not exist, according to you.

I get the information in the present. If I get evidence in the present of something I assume that something is real until some reason to assume it isn't is presented.

 

[Mageth]

Look at the Sun. What you see happened eight minutes ago. The keyboard that you see in front of you is your keyboard some time ago in the past. Everything you see in what it was in the past. You seem to be sliding toward the solipsism argument sooner than I expected.

The light that hits my eye from the sun hits it in the present.

The light left the sun in the past.

Seeing the light in the present that left in the past is not looking at the past.

To think so is not to think very well.

The sunlight that hit my eye in the present left the sun in the past, which comes after the present. But the past isn't real, because there's no evidence for it.

WTF???

 

[untermensche]

The light that hits my eye from the sun hits it in the present.

The light left the sun in the past.

Seeing the light in the present that left in the past is not looking at the past.

To think so is not to think very well.

The sunlight that hit my eye in the present left the sun in the past, which comes after the present. But the past isn't real, because there's no evidence for it.

WTF???

The light left the sun at the present, which is real.

When it hit my eye, the present that existed when the light left the sun doesn't exist anymore. That present isn't what is real now.

The past had existence. It no longer does.

Is your argument the incredible; If something exists it always exists?

 

[skepticalbip]

But how do you know the sun is real, or your keyboard, or anything else? All the information you get is from the past and the past does not exist, according to you.

I get the information in the present. If I get evidence in the present of something I assume that something is real until some reason to assume it isn't is presented.

That information comes from the past. You say the past does not exist. Therefore there could be no real information, you are only imagining it. It is all in your mind.

You even said "The light left the sun in the past". Since there is no past, the light couldn't have left the sun.

Hey man, you can't argue with logic.

 

[untermensche]

I get the information in the present. If I get evidence in the present of something I assume that something is real until some reason to assume it isn't is presented.

That information comes from the past. You say the past does not exist. Therefore there could be no real information, you are only imagining it. It is all in your mind.

You even said "The light left the sun in the past". Since there is no past, the light couldn't have left the sun.

The only light that can hit my eye is light that hits it in the present.

The information and ALL the information I get is from the light hitting my eye in the present.

That this light left the sun in the past doesn't mean I should distrust what hits my eye in the present.

NOW, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THE PAST.

Show me the evidence of this thing you claim exists. When people can't produce evidence of what they claim exists those people should be distrusted.

And I did not say there is no past. I said the past is not a real entity. It is an imaginary conception of prior present moments.

 

[Juma]

If I freeze the entire universe then it is just one thing. That one thing is labeled as "now".

This is a circular definition of "now".
To freeze the universe at a certain time there need to be a time that everyone follows. This is not true, each reference frame has its own time.

 

[skepticalbip]

That information comes from the past. You say the past does not exist. Therefore there could be no real information, you are only imagining it. It is all in your mind.

You even said "The light left the sun in the past". Since there is no past, the light couldn't have left the sun.

The only light that can hit my eye is light that hits it in the present.

The information and ALL the information I get is from the light hitting my eye in the present.

That this light left the sun in the past doesn't mean I should distrust what hits my eye in the present.

NOW, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THE PAST.

Show me the evidence of this thing you claim exists. When people can't produce evidence of what they claim exists those people should be distrusted.

And I did not say there is no past. I said the past is not a real entity. It is an imaginary conception of prior present moments.

I gave you a logical argument based on your claims that the past does not exist.

The logical argument leads to the fact that "the universe" is just all in your mind.

Show me the logical fallacy.

I was obliging enough to point out and describe dozens and dozens of fallacies in your arguments. I think I deserve the same consideration.

 

[untermensche]

If I freeze the entire universe then it is just one thing. That one thing is labeled as "now".

This is a circular definition of "now".
To freeze the universe at a certain time there need to be a time that everyone follows. This is not true, each reference frame has its own time.

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

 

[untermensche]

The only light that can hit my eye is light that hits it in the present.

The information and ALL the information I get is from the light hitting my eye in the present.

That this light left the sun in the past doesn't mean I should distrust what hits my eye in the present.

NOW, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THE PAST.

Show me the evidence of this thing you claim exists. When people can't produce evidence of what they claim exists those people should be distrusted.

And I did not say there is no past. I said the past is not a real entity. It is an imaginary conception of prior present moments.

I gave you a logical argument based on your claims that the past does not exist.

The logical argument leads to the fact that "reality" is just all in your mind.

Show me the logical fallacy.

The problems with your argument are in what you quoted yet didn't bother to read.

You are tiresome. You are a religious fanatic.

Claiming that something exists yet you don't have a shred of evidence.

Your rantings about things that exist don't interest me much.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

I am a man of science. Show me the evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gave you a logical argument based on your claims that the past does not exist.

The logical argument leads to the fact that "reality" is just all in your mind.

Show me the logical fallacy.

The problems with your argument are in what you quoted yet didn't bother to read.

If there is a flaw in my logic then point out the fallacy and embarass me. I was kind enough to not only point out but explain many, many of your fallacies. I think I deserve the same consideration.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

I am a man of science. Show me the evidence.

Just bedamned dude.

That one made me spray coffee through my nose. Many thinks, I do love a good laugh.

 

[bilby]

That information comes from the past. You say the past does not exist. Therefore there could be no real information, you are only imagining it. It is all in your mind.

You even said "The light left the sun in the past". Since there is no past, the light couldn't have left the sun.

The only light that can hit my eye is light that hits it in the present.

The information and ALL the information I get is from the light hitting my eye in the present.

That this light left the sun in the past doesn't mean I should distrust what hits my eye in the present.

So you trust it. It is, in your opinion, good evidence of the past.

NOW, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THE PAST.

Hmmm.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=067ZRcsrdeM[/youtube]

 

[Mageth]

The more you say, the more WTF it gets.

I experience the present. Present tense.

I exprienced the past. Past tense.

You experienced the present IN the past. You never experienced the past itself.

So now the present isn't my experiencing time happening now but is instead what I experienced in the past that doesn't exist?

And you assert the past isn't real. So how could I have experienced the present in a past that isn't real? And if I experienced the present which is real in the past then how can the past not be real?

What is called the past is prior present moments.

Prior present moments? LOL. Simplify and call them past moments.

But if prior present moments are real, then why is the past not real?

To say you have experienced the past means you experienced present moments IN the past.

But according to you the past isn't real. How could I have experienced present moments which are real in a past which is not real? How could the past not be real if it's composed of present moments which are real?

All that can be experienced is the present.

And the present is in the past, according to you.

If not show me how to experience the past.

According to you, the past is composed of prior present moments, and according to you present moments are experienced. QED on yourself.

According to me I'm experiencing the present.

Which according to you happens IN the past. See above. ("You experienced the present IN the past.")

And I know the difference between the present and what was the present in the past.

The present comes before what was the present in the past.

That's the sort of nonsense your random walk through time is churning out.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Stop jerking off. Show me the evidence of this thing you claim exists.

If the past doesn't exist, then WTF was all that you were saying about present moments that you experience and that therefore exist and that happened IN the past? (E.g., "You experienced the present IN the past.")

 

[Juma]

[Ah ha, ryan made a mistake; now I can weasel my way out.]

This is your biggest fault: you doesnt really acknowledge your own errors, you just gloss them over and blame the result on the other part.

You should take full responsibility for your posts.

 

[Mageth]

This is a circular definition of "now".
To freeze the universe at a certain time there need to be a time that everyone follows. This is not true, each reference frame has its own time.

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

Might I suggest brain condoms?

 

[Juma]

This is a circular definition of "now".
To freeze the universe at a certain time there need to be a time that everyone follows. This is not true, each reference frame has its own time.

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

 

[Mageth]

[Ah ha, ryan made a mistake; now I can weasel my way out.]

This is your biggest fault: you doesnt really acknowledge your own errors, you just gloss them over and blame the result on the other part.

You should take full responsibility for your posts.

In ryan's defense, I've seen him acknowledge errors and change his position in response to reason several times in the past.