Time Has A Start
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Time Has A Start
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Time Has A Start
But you are completely and utterly WRONG, ONCE AGAIN.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 amIt applies to everyone, obviously. That doesn't imply that they agree with it/believe it, but that's irrelevant.
Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.
Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?
'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.
The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.
This is ANOTHER claim of YOURS, which is TOTALLY WRONG.
Okay great. We agree on some thing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 amFacts aren't "refutable." Facts are whatever they are. They don't hinge on persons' beliefs, their arguments, etc.Does this also mean that this is an unambiguous and irrefutable fact as well?
LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am It's a fact that's not clear to many people, oddly enough, but it's clear to some. It should be clear to everyone if they do even a smidgen of functional analysis of what's being referred to by "time."
Your predictability and consistency is remarkable.
You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am However, some of the conventions in physics tend to confuse on this end (such as the definition of motion hinging on time in a manner that makes the fact that time is motion/change seem like question-begging per that convention).
Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 11:25 am"and we can do the same with 'motion' or 'change' a la, say, 'a processual difference of position or form'"If yes, then WHERE and WHEN, exactly, did you just "give an example" in what I quoted, WHERE you, supposedly, explained 'time' more verbosely?
I don't know how you could have read that so that it wouldn't have been clear.
Also, is there absolutely ANY way at all that what you think or believe a word means could actually be WRONG?
Or is this just NOT possible, to you?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time Has A Start
Obviously just telling me that you think that I'm wrong is useless. You might as well cut that part out in the future.
Obviously I don't agree with this, but if you think I'm wrong, then you should surely think that motion/change is not identical to time.Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.
Yes. Kind of a ridiculously patronizing question that's again just a waste of time, but okay.Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?
Hence "or." Maybe you're not familiar with what "or" refers to?'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.
The fact of a belief would only apply to people with that belief. The fact that the belief corresponds to doesn't only apply to people with the belief.The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.
Again, the second part of that is not at all the case. I don't hold many normatives in general. I definitely don't hold a normative that everyone should agree with anyone, including me.LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.
I know what time is. That's not just an appearance. I explicitly say as much. It's not that it's impossible for me to be wrong, but I'm certainly not wrong just because you say I am, just because you type out a contradictory statement, or just because you wonder if I know what a word conventionally refers to.You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.
Obviously. That has no impact on me not knowing why it wouldn't be clear to you, because I can't imagine what sort of dumb-ass you'd have to be for that to not be clear to you, where that's especially mysterious given the fact that you can type complete, coherent sentences that make some sense in context here. Hence I literally do not know WHY that wouldn't be clear to you. There's something very weird going on there that a psychiatrist would be best equipped to deal with probably.Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time Has A Start
What wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.
(Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Time Has A Start
I do this to SHOW how when a person BELIEVES that they ALREADY KNOW what is true, then they are have absolutely NO interest NOR curiosity at all in what other's have to say.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amObviously just telling me that you think that I'm wrong is useless. You might as well cut that part out in the future.
You are PROVING this over and over, again and again.
Also, you are so BLINDED by your own views and BELIEFS that you can NOT see what I am ACTUALLY TELLING 'YOU'.
I am NOT telling you that I 'think' you are wrong. I am telling you that you are ACTUALLY completely and utterly WRONG.
I tell you this because I 'know' this. I KNOW this because I HAVE the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that backs up and supports this.
By the way, if you are WRONG, then I am NOT going cut that part out of TELLING YOU THIS, in the future, JUST BECAUSE you said I "might as well".
If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE true, to you, correct?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amObviously I don't agree with this, but if you think I'm wrong, then you should surely think that motion/change is not identical to time.Motion or change, OBVIOUSLY, are NOT 'identical' to 'time'.
If you did, then you would KNOW, EXACTLY, HOW 'motion/change' is NOT 'identical' to 'time'Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amYes. Kind of a ridiculously patronizing question that's again just a waste of time, but okay.Are you EVEN AWARE what the word 'identical' refers to?
Hence "or" maybe you are not familiar with what the word "nor", is said to, refer to?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amHence "or." Maybe you're not familiar with what "or" refers to?'Motion' is NOT even 'identical' to 'change', let alone to 'time'.
Because if you did, then you would be more up to date on KNOWING, EXACTLY, HOW 'motion' "nor" 'change" are both NOT 'identical' to 'time'.
But you OBVIOUSLY have YET to PROVE that the BELIEF corresponds to.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amThe fact of a belief would only apply to people with that belief. The fact that the belief corresponds to doesn't only apply to people with the belief.The fact that you think or believe they are only applies to 'you', and 'you' ONLY. This certain does NOT apply to 'everyone', as 'you' claim it does.
Until then, YOUR BELIEF remains just 'that' - A BELIEF, ONLY.
But it IS the case.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amAgain, the second part of that is not at all the case.LOL ONCE AGAIN, you are SHOWING that you BELIEVE you KNOW what is Right, and that you BELIEVE EVERYONE should AGREE with 'you' and YOUR BELIEFS.
You do NOT have to be conscious of some thing to be holding it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am I don't hold many normatives in general. I definitely don't hold a normative that everyone should agree with anyone, including me.
As ALREADY PROVEN.
If you ACTUALLY 'KNEW' what 'time' is, then you could explain what 'time' is, and have that definition and explanation fit in with absolutely EVERY thing else.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amI know what time is.You appear to BELIEVE that you KNOW what 'time' irrefutably IS. Yet many "others" are still OPEN to what 'time', itself, actually IS.
Until then, you do NOT 'know' what 'time', actually, is. You only THINK you 'know' what 'time' is, OBVIOUSLY.
So, how can you properly and correctly profess to KNOWING what 'time' is, but still possibly be WRONG.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am That's not just an appearance. I explicitly say as much. It's not that it's impossible for me to be wrong,
Surely you can NOT 'know' some thing but still be WRONG? Or, can 'you'?
You are RIGHT. You certainly are NOT wrong for those reasons.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am but I'm certainly not wrong just because you say I am, just because you type out a contradictory statement, or just because you wonder if I know what a word conventionally refers to.
You are CERTAINLY WRONG because you can be PROVEN to be WRONG.
Do you agree that if you can be PROVEN to be WRONG, then you are WRONG?
Well what you wrote, which I replied to does NOT make that OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 amObviously.Are you at all AWARE that what is "clear", to 'you', is NOT ALWAYS 'clear' to "others", AND, vice-versa?
Are you even AWARE just how many human beings, and just how many times those human beings have thought VERY SIMILAR things about 'YOU'.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am That has no impact on me not knowing why it wouldn't be clear to you, because I can't imagine what sort of dumb-ass you'd have to be for that to not be clear to you,
I have lost count of the amount of times I have queried, in regards to 'you', to just how confused and bewildered you are in regards to what is essentially PURELY just so easily straightforward CLEAR and SIMPLE.
And until you ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION, you will be none the wiser.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am where that's especially mysterious given the fact that you can type complete, coherent sentences that make some sense in context here. Hence I literally do not know WHY that wouldn't be clear to you.
That is one way to turn a discussion. Call the other a "dumb-ass" and make the claim that they need mental help, and by a serious professional at that.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:25 am There's something very weird going on there that a psychiatrist would be best equipped to deal with probably.
This seems to be one of the first rules in disputed discussions among 'you', human beings, and especially in disputed philosophical discussions. That is; turn away from the actual discussion, look at the 'other' instead, and then do the best you can to 'try to' denigrate and/or humiliate 'the other'.
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Time Has A Start
Finally. Some recognition of what I have actually been continually ALLUDING TO, but which on refection and retrospection was OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 amWhat wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.
When some one SHOWS REAL interest in me doing so, then I WILL.
One of the ACTUAL POINTS I have been SHOWING ALL ALONG is BECOMING MORE CLEARER, NOW.
But what you are 'trying to' in regards to how YOUR 'ontology of time works' is OBVIOUS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am (Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)
What is just as OBVIOUS is just HOW WRONG YOU ARE.
You are NOT WRONG in that YOUR view and perception of how 'time' works fits in well enough with your other views and perceptions, that it suits 'YOU'. You are just WRONG in that your view and perception of how 'time' works does NOT fit in at all well with what actually fits in PERFECTLY WELL with EVERY thing else.
Oh, and by the way, you MUST OF MISSED or FORGOTTEN where I have ALREADY provided arguments for WHY 'time', itself, is NOT and can NOT be simply identical to motion/change.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time Has A Start
So was that your argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change?evolution wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 11:07 amFinally. Some recognition of what I have actually been continually ALLUDING TO, but which on refection and retrospection was OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am
What wouldn't be such a waste of time, by the way, would be if you'd attempt to forward an argument as to why time isn't or can't be simply identical to motion/change.
When some one SHOWS REAL interest in me doing so, then I WILL.
One of the ACTUAL POINTS I have been SHOWING ALL ALONG is BECOMING MORE CLEARER, NOW.
But what you are 'trying to' in regards to how YOUR 'ontology of time works' is OBVIOUS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 11th, 2020, 10:37 am (Although if the argument amounts to simply presenting conventional definitions from physics, don't waste your time, but if you can't figure out how my ontology of time works in the context of those conventional definitions, I can explain it to you.)
What is just as OBVIOUS is just HOW WRONG YOU ARE.
You are NOT WRONG in that YOUR view and perception of how 'time' works fits in well enough with your other views and perceptions, that it suits 'YOU'. You are just WRONG in that your view and perception of how 'time' works does NOT fit in at all well with what actually fits in PERFECTLY WELL with EVERY thing else.
Oh, and by the way, you MUST OF MISSED or FORGOTTEN where I have ALREADY provided arguments for WHY 'time', itself, is NOT and can NOT be simply identical to motion/change.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023