Meaning is subjective. Sometimes message is too, e.g. the same message can say different things to different people. So the medium must also be subjective. Got to be balance.
As applies to information travel/transfer…
Only the global (omnitemporal) can “defy” c and “send” a message to every (or more than one) time t instantaneously.
Fair do’s. I can live with that. The appearance (or simulation) of temporal inconsistency can be achieved by a bit of non-linear thinking, but actual omni-temporalism is God’s alone.
What’s that?
15 char
It’s when a sequence of events appear to be self-referential in a non-temporal way. Like those things are / were linked outside of time. It is definitely not consistent with the A series…
It’s not outside of time. You have to think of the timeline as a body. If your toe is a time t, and your eye is another time t, wiggling your toe and winking your eye does not link them outside your body.
I’ll make a comprimise and think of it as a wave of potential, one that always results in further coherence, at least from the temporary aspect of that coherence. If it’s a line, it’s like a magnetic field line or something, constantly shifting, bending, and adapting to the greater conditions and cycles that surround it, but also the myriad of internal cycles that also have at least as much effect on the persistence of the coherent entity. That’s all I use time for. Measuring cycles. Then it is used like a curve; a piece of string indicating somewhere inside a certain cycle.
Surround? Dude. I don’t think we are even on the same wavelength here.
S’okay.
I’m talking about the future, you see it as pre-dtermined, but I don’t. I see it as a fluid outcome.
Trying this again.
Ah. You can always choose to work with him, regardless of the position in any other series. Something like that?
Not sure what that means.
Ref: Proverbs 16:9
Well, I thought A and B series both imply a position in time. You seem to be saying that C series is all such positions? So, in essence, someone could have received a message from a being with an omni-temporal aspect regarding a possible future which emerged anyway, and where that message became relevant. I mean temporal recursion regardless of “position”.
The way I would explain things departs from McTaggart’s A, B, C, because the series do not line up with the theories… and he literally has 3 different ways of conceiving A.
I found it (the article itself) pretty confusing. There was a few “wait, but didn’t you say before…” moments when reading it, but it was a bit like raw cream crackers when you’re thirsty, pretty hard to get through. It was like he was on the verge of trying to express that there is an underlying non-temporal process, but never quite got there.
But hey, asking those kind of questions over a hundred years ago is pretty big, I can understand why it was published, it deserved to be.
I don’t think the first paragraph of 470 is harping on absurdity, I feel like he almost found a pulse. The underlying principle is non-temporal, it is what gives rise to cycles, and therefore time. He did say “we”, I don’t think it was so absurd.
I guess it comes down to some extent to whether you recognize God as God and You as You.
For the atheist, let’s call it, (it’s a formal rhetorical device, nobody has to get offended) everything is under you between you and the next. Forgetting, or ignoring, that God is outside of you and unimaginable to you.
So omnitemporality is the perspective of God and His creation, not you and your lucubrations of time. If you are conceiving multiple possible denouements, then there is already lack of perfection and that is not God.
If the struggle is against “lack of perfection,” then you are struggling against the unescapable fact that your scale is human and does not encompass perfection, not against God.
Ichthus wil forgive the resort to classical terms.
the three ways of seeing the terms of A series (qualities, fixed point present relations, moving point present relations) have to do with direction
this is different from C series (although you COULD still say you’re dealing with intrinsic qualities and extrinsic relations…see the grand finale absurdity), which does not determine/have direction (because it is not limited/subject to time or place—that is why it is never exhausted)
this is very related to people‘s confusion between work and force, and I do not have the capability of explaining this
see the screenshots
1 Like
The last sentence of the second paragraph in the first screenshot is exactly what Hawkins was always going on about, but personally I am bothered by it. Feels a little contrived.
Like how he says about 17, 21, etc. No, it’s not because it’s more convenient to have the end first. It’s because it’s convenient, maybe even the whole point and purpose of the series, to start from the smallest number.
Like Hawkins, it’s pretending not to see something obvious to try to say something “far out” and totally “revolutionary.”
At least with physical events, and all temporal events are physical, there is an obvious directionality that is inherent. You could even extrapolate the directionality as an element of the series, though now we may be forcing you to be more than a single line and be too “far out” for (a rhetorical) you.
I meant he used “we” in an “us humans” context.