On Jan 6, 11:56*am, Immortalist wrote:


Do you mean concepts of time are necessarily dependent upon other
concepts of matter?

Nope, I mean that ideas concepts theories of knowledge, which means,
ideas concepts theories claimed to be of or about reality, must be
able to be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level
of perception IN THEIR ORIGIN, why?

Because if or when they aint, then they have originated in the mind,
thats where the god stuff comes from Mortal.

The mind forming concepts originating from inside the mind, is the
mind eating itself to death, its the hungry retard chewing its hands
off.

Man's concepts must be formed (originate) from existence external of
his mind, just as man's energy must be derived from food existing
outside, external of its body.

When both the mind and the body are feeding on themselves death
eventuates, I cant help that Mortal, its called reality.

Thats like saying water is ice cube dependent,

No its not, it IS saying, feed your mind your mind then your death is
imminent.

See how long your body lasts chewing on your fingers when hunger aches
your belly!

If you want to talk about the sensory matter required for the concept
"time", then its an "event" (which requires matter) is the next
concept heading back down the trail heading in the right direction,
"the right direction"? which is? towards the sensory evidence existing
OUTSIDE of the mind!
Then you need to go a little deeper, ask, what event can be sensed
that the concept time originates from, where time can be applied?
Answer; matter in motion, the sensing of a physical non-constant
relationship between two or more existing entites of matter.
Where do these entities exist which time is applied to? Outside of the
mind of course? Why must they be there? How long do you want you mind
to last?


Michael Gordge

On Jan 5, 11:16 am, MobyDikc wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:56 am, Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent wrote:

There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.

Motion of what? Dont be silly.

This conversation first took place 3000 years ago.

It's different schools of Greek thought.

I think I've taken Greek Monism and brought it into our current
century, just as Leibniz had done in the 1700s.

Now take a physics course so you have something relevant to contribute
to physics newsgroups.


Check this out:

http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

On Jan 6, 8:46 am, Traveler wrote:
[...]

You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.

Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind. You live in your
own brain, the imagination of yourself. One could say a conspiracy
waged by the subconcious mind against the concious. The subconcious
layers extend into and become the physical universe that the concious
mind thinks it observes and is separate to. Once you expand your
awareness it becomes pretty obvious. Reality is just a trick.

[...]

On Jan 6, 6:31*am, "Androcles" wrote:

Go get some matter-less sunshine,

The sun is matter-less energy? Have ewe had your medication today?

MG

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:36:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.

Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
I knew that. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Jan 6, 4:35 pm, Traveler wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:36:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.

Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
I knew that. ahahaha...

Know your enemy, know yourself.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.

Interesting metaphysics / philosophical idea .. and certainly possible ..
all we really know about 'reality' (whatever the means) is our perceptions
and of space and time .. but we do know that whatever it is, it works in a
certain ways for everybody (and that we are discovering more about them as
we advance). What the reality is behind what we measure is really unknown.

It is easy to prove logically that neither space not time can possibly
exist.

No .. it isn't .. as everything we can determine about them implies that
they do.

Most people think that nothing can move without time.

It can't .. by what we describe as time. Without time there could be only a
single state and so there could not be any change in that state and so no
motion. Its pretty basic stuff.

The astonishing
truth is that nothing can move *with* time.

Well .. that is just nonsense .. as ther is 'something' that we call time,
and things move, hence proving your assertion wrong

Why? Because changing time is an oxymoron.

Who said you have to change time? Motion refers to spatial movement.

A time dimension makes it impossible for anything to
move.

Utter nonsense .. as the reality we measure proves

Nothing can move in spacetime!

Aha .. now you are saying something different. Yes .. there is no
'movement' in space time . .there is only existence. And hence you've just
proved your earlier statements wrong.

It is what we call 'time' that allows for what we called 'motion'. The
exact opposite of what you earlier claimed.

This is the reason that Sir Karl
Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block
universe in which nothing happens".

Everything happens.

This gives new meaning to the
expression "frozen in time". ahahaha...

Not really .. no

Space too is abstract. I've explained why many times before.

Yes .. when you look at it metaphysically .. it is.

You can read the simple arguments for the non-existence of space he
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space

I've read it .. the arguments are quite flawed. Just because you're talking
metaphysics doesn't mean you can talk nonsense and be logically invalid.
I'm sure I've pointed out the problems before .. certainly others would
have.

Louis Savain

PS. Here's what Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the
University of Central Arkansas had to say about time:

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will
be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even
fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical
systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or
that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the
objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of
time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one
"way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result
of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one
might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual
disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a
change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.
From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?"
Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994

Nicely put

Rosen was a firm believer in both nontemporality and nonspatiality.
But this stuff is not new though. Leibniz was saying essentially the
same thing centuries ago. This is the kind of stuff that goes over
the heads of people like John Baez, Uncle Al and the other ass kissers
on the physics newsgroups. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Indeed . .because its really metaphysics and philosophy .. not physics. Its
not so much over the heads of people who do physics .. but simply orthogonal
to it .. and is a distraction from the physics. That doesn't mean it isn't
interesting in and of itself, of course.

Good luck in your work.

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:36:08 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.

Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
I knew that. ahahaha...

Aren't you now arguing against what you were just saying .. the space and
time are not real. If they are not real, then they must be illusions ..
yes?

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:14:57 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

[snip crap]

ahahaha... You're an idiot, Jackal. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... hahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:14:57 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

[snip crap]

ahahaha... You're an idiot, Jackal. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... hahahaha...

I thought I might get a better response .. seeing I gave a sensible and
intelligent response to you. I should have known better .. you're nothing
but a rude little troll.