Nonsense.
So would you measure the interval/duration as 1?
Say you have a chain of crates. You have one crate then immediately next to it another and so on. It doesn’t matter how many crates there are. If by “interval” we mean “the number of crates there are between two crates”, what is the interval between any two adjacent crates? You answer that question by looking at every pair of adjacent crates and counting how many crates there are in between. And for each such pair, you’d discover, the number is zero. So the interval is zero. Does that mean that these crates do not actually exist? Yes or no?
Does each crate contain all the matter/energy in the universe, or only one of them at a time?
I don’t remember questions that were irrelevant. No one is under any obligation to answer but we are in a discussion that becomes fruitful the more questions that are asked and the more answers that are given. No question is irrelevant if the person asking is sincere, even if at first the question doesn’t seem related or seems out of the scope of the topic being discussed. Keeping the conversation respectful is the key to any good debate.
Hey Magnus, wait till this motherfucker hears about overlapping moments, amirite?
Rude.
_
Is it?
Isn’t it?
That’s what many people think. But I think they are making a mistake. And I think they are making a mistake due to a logical fallacy known as “equivocation”.
One has to understand what the word “ability” means. “John is able to do X” means no more and no less than “Under certain condtitions, John would do X”. As an example, I can say that I am able to jump because there are conditions under which I would jump e.g. in case I decided to do so. It does no matter whether or not those conditions were caused / determined by prior events. I have the ability to jump in each case. Why? Due to the way the term “ability” is defined. The definition doesn’t tell us that the conditions must not be determined by prior events. It doesn’t give a damn about that.
The same applies to “the ability to choose”. “John is able to choose to drink alcohol on Monday” means “There exists a set of beliefs that if John adopted would force him to choose to drink alcohol on Monday”. It does not matter what he chooses to do on Monday. He might actually choose to abstinate. The point is that there is a way to make him ( i.e. cause him to ) drink alcohol on Monday – by modifying his beliefs. And whether or not his beliefs are determined by prior events is, once again, irrelevant. He possess the ability to choose regardless of whether or not the universe is deterministic.
What forced you to eat eggs for breakfast is what you chose to eat at an earlier point in time. That’s one instance of a past moment causing, or determining, a future moment.
And what forced you to make that choice is a process of reasoning that started some time before you made that choice. That’s another instance of something that occurred in the past causing, or determining, something that occurred at a later point in time.
And that process of reasoning was itself influenced by your beliefs that were themselves determined in the past ( perhaps a much more distant one. )
That already looks like one domino falling on another domino falling on another domino and so on.
How about more examples?
When I press the light switch in the present, I cause the light bulb to turn on in the immediate future ( in the next couple of milliseconds or so. )
That’s an instance of a present moment causing a future moment. But how can a present moment cause a future moment if a future moment does not exist i.e. if it is not a present moment itself?
And if it’s not possible for a present moment to cause / determine a future moment, nothing that we do can shape the future.
We discussed this particular point in another thread in great detail a year or two ago ( I can’t really remember exactly when. ) I am not sure you remember.
If a chip can make him talk, then the statement “Nothing can make us do anything against our will” is false.
And it does not have to be a chip. It can be anything that severes the connection between what we choose to do and what we do. It can be as simple as something distorting the message that is sent from our mind to our body.
The territory, in this case, would be some portion of space in the past ( e.g. New York in 1900 ) and the map would be your memory of what you saw there ( e.g. your memories of what New York looked like in 1900. )
“New York in 1900” is a reference to a city that existed in the past ( an objective thing. ) “Your memories of New York looked like in 1900” is a reference to your memories inside your head in the present moment ( a subjective thing. )
Two very different things.
That’s why you can’t say that the past is a memory.
Surely, 1900 New York no longer exists, and there are only memories of it in the present, but that does not mean the two things are the same.
Where are these mind control chips you keep talking about?
I contest the existence of these chips.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1#p2887591
Are we all in agreement that quantum atom theory is A Theory and Parmenides is B Theory?
Or could quantum atom theory work with a synthesized C Theory that merges A Theory’s actual/concrete now, and B Theory’s whole, into one C Theory, so now is concretized idea (intentional inexistence in God’s mind), and all other moments are inexistent (idea), but not yet intentional (concrete)? If so, moments are overlapped before the whole thing kicked off—finished before it started—our choices included.
Nope.
At t=0 your finger made contact with the switch. A t=.001 the switch had moved a distance but had not completed the circuit yet. At t=.010 the contacts in the switch made contact. At t=.0100000001 the current in the closed circuit was enough to start illuminating the light bulb, but was still not operating at full brightness. At t=.011 the light was fully illuminated, the voltage in the circuit was 120 volts and the bulb was drawing .5 Amps, which means the bulb was a 60 Watt light bulb. The ENERGY CONSUMED is the wattage times the time of use. So a 60 watt light bulb on for 1 hour is 60 Watt-Hours of ENERGY.
There is no “present moment” and “future moment” there are points in time, such as t=0, t=.001, t=.011.
If you think there are “moments of time” then what duration of time is a moment??
Again, when the clock strikes 1:26 PM that is a point in time. At 1:26 the future is 1:26+. At 1:26 there is no motion because that is a point in time, not a duration of time. If the light is turned on at 1:26 it has not been on for any duration of time. If you leave it on for a duration of time, say 1 hour, then the clock reads 2:26 and the light has been on for 1 hour at 2:26. At 2:26 it is not the future, it is NOW, and the light was always on IN THE PAST. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a light to be on in the future. The ONLY thing you can say is that the light WAS on in the PAST!
You should learn how to tell time and learn the difference between the past and future.
You know this whole argument is just semantic bollocks as old as Zeno’s ARROW?
Peacegirl: Everything we do shapes the future. It’s just that the future as well as the past do not exist. The past existed at one time as a present experience. The future (whatever that turns out to be) will become the present which has everything to do with our choices today.
Regardless of all this talk about time- the fact remains that shit happens and it is the necessary consequence of shit that exists already.
Not even QM can show that shit happens without a cause.
One thing leads to another in a succession of events. some depend on some things others on something else. If the hammer did not strike the pot then the pot would not get cracked.
Arguing over time’s arrow is for crackpots.