get out of my thread
1 Like
Having the past leave its fingerprints (artifacts) in now, and now having the seeds of the future (possible under either A, B, or C theories), is not the same thing as “all times t in one time t” (that is actually an absurd impossibility). Remove the “all times in this time” absurdity, and as long as you think now only exists one time t at a time (even for God, whose now can only be present to all times t if A Theory is false)…then, you are an A Theorist.
You might ask… if A Theory is false, and God’s now is present to all times t, isn’t that “all times t in one time t”? No. Being present to all times t is impossible if they don’t remain distinct from each other. It would be like saying you only juggle one ball just because you’re juggling all the balls (that juggling all the balls is juggling all balls in one ball).
This is C Theory. A weaker version of it was part of my earlier thinking (linked in the OP).
I still don’t think I’m an A theorist.
We use the past and the future to measure time, but they are markers, they are not real.
The past exists only as residue in the present. The future is unresolved potential within the present. The future is a projection our minds make based on cyclic evidence, and learned tendencies.
What is a moment? A moment from which perspective? Can’t everything we decide to focus on become a moment? A moment is more like a slice of attention than just another event among infinite unfolding events, and as such, is purely subjective.
Also, I would need to know, how is “t” defined? How long does a “t” take? It’s like trying to slice a river into pieces whilst being underwater.
The past is not a place, not a set of “moments”, not a timeline behind us. It’s the trace‑state of the field as it exists now.
Reality is more like “infinite spotlights, infinite moments”.
A‑theory requires the past to have ceased, I don’t, the past exists as trace within the present. As long as it is not described as a place or somehow separated from the present, because that’s a fallacy.
There’s already a symbol for “all times t”: ∞
Now there’s just the problem of defining a “moment”, without it being purely subjective.
Can I interest you in this block of text from the original post?
The difference between quantitative time and qualitative time is that quantitative is measured according to seconds (interval: zero does not mean absence, can have negative numbers, can be measured), whereas qualitative time is measured according to “on a scale between 0 and 10, 0 being slow and 10 being fast, how slow or fast is time passing?” (ordinal). And it may be that saying time passes is like saying the sun rises. This is why this explanation of relativity/reference frames is completely unhelpful: “When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That’s relativity.” No, it really isn’t.
No, because I’m already having problems with
What is a discrete time? What you are describing is in reality fluid and inter-relational, whereas discreetness is subjective and attention based. Who decides what a discrete time “t” is? What you are describing is a cognitive artefact, a holographic signpost somewhere in a river of infinity.
The rate of causal influence determines the light cone. Do you understand that much?
If causal influence is continuous, then why are you treating “t” as discrete?
If a wave is continuous, why are you treating particles as discrete?
The wave is a field of varying density and energy that resolves to particles. The disctreetness is an emergent property of the wave (field). I treat them as discrete, because someone told me what a particle was.
Does that answer your question?
Not really. A particle forming is an event, but what about a disruption in the wave that contains the potential for that particle? Is that an event? Even a collision of galaxies, how much of an event is that in relation to the entire cosmos (if it can even be imagined in its entirety)?
All times t. No, that’s just infinity, good luck slicing it, you can pretty much slice it any way you want, but if you are trying to quantify it, then you’ll need more than luck.
An hour right where you are can be a zenfull o nada, or jampacked. Don’t bother me with silly questions.
No movement without substance, or a why behind it, and vice versa in a triangle.
But, you know, if we started with the assumption:
“No movement without substance, or a why behind it, and vice versa in a triangle.”
…I bet that’d be a more stringent way to do science tests. If you don’t have all three, the answer is incomplete.
All of secular science be gettin a D for just quessin on that function/quality “just so” part.
But I digress.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what the domain, it’s a pretty solid place to start.
1 Like
Well it’s called Aristotelianism and it’s basically what Galileo tore apart.
This is off-topic — please take it elsewhere. …unless you think quality has something to do with gravity, and other forces, of course. If you have something to say, say it.
It’s not my fault you never studyied Aristotle or why the name of the thing you described is his or that it was mainstream science in the medieval world.
I’m saying what I have to say and if you don’t like it that’s a shame.
The thing I named? If it’s Aristotle’s, then how did I name it? Where did he get it from? Why does it have to be anybody’s fault?
I have studied so much stuff, I don’t even remember it all … so it doesn’t even count anymore. I can neither confirm nor deny … and that’s not because I’m trying to lie.
Well I mean one can ostend to name things that have names.
It’s a derivation of Plato.
You have to get rid of this guilt complex.
Right, so stop asking for quotes.