Existence of Time and God.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
. Your definition of God begs the question and is simply a false premise by a materialist I'm assuming.
"Observed time= frequency" rr6..
.Is there a difference between time and observed time. If not, prove time can be observed. If so, explain the difference.
....its begging the question anyway. Observed by whom? What does it look like? How much of it is observed? More importantly prove there even is something called observed time in existence.
"Observed time= beginning and endings as defined by directional change of trajectory"
..time is change in a particular direction? "
Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm willing to accept one example of something exhibiting directional change and it's time causing it. Simply attempting to define time this way leads to your circular argument because of the ambiguity of it.
Are you merely saying things change therefore we observe time. Or time is the observing of things changing?
this is begging the question.
Prove Space time exists.
"Observed time is connected intimately to the two diametrical opposite properties of space-time gravity and dark energy."..rr6
Prove it, simply begging the question
"To be clear, only gravity is conventionally accepted as a property of space-time." Rr6
Conventionally accepted is an appeal to authority. Physicists aren't authorities on time.....nothing but begging the question unless you can prove Space time has "properties"
You simply are using the same argument in a circular way to assert Space time is what you can't prove it is. Gravity is connected via your baseless assertions.
Anyone can claim they believe what things are, its another story proving it. The God definition is where I should have stopped because the rest is typical begging the question just like your definition of God. You're simply parading out a materialists attempt at justifying unproven assertions. If I'm wrong.....try not making up unsupportable definitions or site an actual example that demonstrates the definitions as true.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Existence of Time and God.
As is your comment above. Please when you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate statements by your concerned with, and do offer why you believe to be more concise, rational, logical common sense defintions. Mine also have some relevance to dictionary definitions.JamesCaanNothing but bare assertions Rr6. Your definition of God begs the question and is simply a false premise by a materialist I'm assuming.
I use the texticon ^v to represent a sine-wave pattern. Many if not most or all particles can be shown to exhibit this pattern. A sine-wave pattern is specific to various frequencies and amplitudes. Ergo, the basic atoms of all our observed experience is observed time / frequency / physical/energy / reality i.e. think of those five as synonyms."Observed time= frequency" rr6..
.Is there a difference between time and observed time. If not, prove time can be observed. If so, explain the difference.
Humans observe with 5 senses-- temporal ---and via instrumentation along with senses. Observed time = frequency = phyiscal/energy = reality that, is always combined ergo inherent to space/spacial/spatial attributes.....its begging the question anyway. Observed by whom? What does it look like? How much of it is observed? More importantly prove there even is something called observed time in existence.
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual time is without spatial attributes
You can not have physical/energy reality without time and space. Any physical/energetic reality is going to have a trajectory, frequency, spin and change of direction is inherent to any sine-wave topology. See my Space-Time-Space bottom-to-top cosmic hierarchy for more specific information in these regards."Observed time= beginning and endings as defined by directional change of trajectory"
..time is change in a particular direction? "
Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm willing to accept one example of something exhibiting directional change and it's time causing it. Simply attempting to define time this way leads to your circular argument because of the ambiguity of it.
All physical/energy frequencies have a trajectory over space and time ergo in association with conventional understanding of space-time. I take this understanding to the level of comprehending UniVerse with my Space-Time-Space scenarios. See my bottom-to-top hierarchy.Are you merely saying things change therefore we observe time. Or time is the observing of things changing?
this is begging the question.
I have no proofs to offer you. I have offered for many years, clear--- except for bad grammar ---concise, rational, logical common sense explanations and advise other to use dictionary to help validate my definitions, to whatever degree of overlap exists. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.Prove Space time exists.
Again, I offer no proofs, only many years of clear, concise, rational, logical common sense explanations that are for most part corroborated by dictionary definitions to some degree. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share."Observed time is connected intimately to the two diametrical opposite properties of space-time gravity and dark energy."..rr6
Prove it, simply begging the question
I offer you no proofs, I offer you some information that is commonly accepted truths as known to most cosmologists and physicists. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share."To be clear, only gravity is conventionally accepted as a property of space-time." Rr6
Conventionally accepted is an appeal to authority. Physicists aren't authorities on time.....nothing but begging the question unless you can prove Space time has "properties"
I also offer my speculations, based on those accepted known truths, that are rational, logical common sense. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.
Scientists have not quantized nor quantified gravity, ergo they have not found the missing link between our observed { quantized and quantified } phyiscal/energy reality, however, they have clock-a-ffied gravity via lasers at LIGO.You simply are using the same argument in a circular way to assert Space time is what you can't prove it is. Gravity is connected via your baseless assertions.
Again, I never ever offered any proofs. I have offeredfor many years;Anyone can claim they believe what things are, its another story proving it.
1) accepted information in scientific community ergo;
........1a) cosmological facts,
........1b) physic facts,
.........1c) mathematical facts, that, may or may not correlate directly those facts 1a and 1b above.
2) rational, logical common sense speculative scenarios based on those facts, if not also truths, above.
If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.
Again, I offer no proofs and never have. I offer clear, concise definitions that many of which are accepted by many individuals, to whatever degree, and overlap with dictionary definitions to whatever degree. If you cannot accept overlap with dictionary definitions, commonly understood definitions and my particular need for getting even close to the truth then most others do, then you may need to focus on others post who are less interested in truth.The God definition is where I should have stopped because the rest is typical begging the question just like your definition of God. You're simply parading out a materialists attempt at justifying unproven assertions.
If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.If I'm wrong.....try not making up unsupportable definitions or site an actual example that demonstrates the definitions as true.
If you want to be considerate of my definitions of God-"G"od, then you need to evaluate them within context of the whole cosmic hierarchy and I see no evidence of your having done either of those. So that leads me to believe, that your not interested in having a considerate, respectful, rational, logical common sense discussion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
"1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"
Also James you need to read definitions of spirit and understand how physical/energy is spirit-2. Again, I think you done little consideration my cosmic hierarchy to understand truth or have a rational, logical common sense and respectful discussion. Time will tell.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/god
"1. God [singular] : the perfect and all-powerful spirit"
My mother, a quasi-christian scientist always told me god is everything ergo Universe ergo "U"niverse wherein we have existence of occupied space things and non-occupied space existence. Again reference the whole cosmic hierarchy if you want to have more comprehensively considerate disscussion regarding my definitions or anything else in my hierarchy.
Here is link to B. Fullers proof of God via his 'Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer'.
brainpickings.org/2013/07/12/buckminste ... ds-prayer/
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
This extended logic of the assertions to what is referred to when universe is defined and God is defined is a fallacy of equivocation. Saying God is everything ergo Universe is where the logical fallacy of equivocation occurs. The universe ,as the word is defined, merely applies to the things that are in physical existence. God of course is not limited only to that. You simply are misrepresenting what the phrase "god is everything" means.
And as far as my other assertions, I'm fine with that being your counter. But suffice to say claiming time and space are necessary for existence is simply how you set up your circular reasoning. Its self evident that physical bodies need a space to occupy. Injecting time into it is begging the question plain and simple. Bare assertion and it simply doesn't follow the logical progression of how the concept of time began.
Time is a language. It merely has been simplified for a more convenient and accurate way for people to plan interactions among ourselves.
We no longer say...(hypothetical not meant to accurately represent how to read a sundial)
"Hey Bob, stick a stick into the ground and the determine true north. When the shadow cast by the stick points directly opposite of due north meet me at the river." The current language we apply that is a logical extension to this is simply...
"Hey Bob, meet me at the river at 6pm." Same result. Logically consistent with the initial idea of time as it was introduced into humanity
The idea that we went from that to "observed time is atoms, energy, physicality," and all all those other self proclaimed synonyms is simply unsupported assertions. Associate time with something that will support a materialistic view is all you're doing. Physicists simply believe they can hijack the concept of time for there own agenda.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.Rr6 wrote:As is your comment above. Please when you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate statements by your concerned with, and do offer why you believe to be more concise, rational, logical common sense defintions. Mine also have some relevance to dictionary definitions.JamesCaanNothing but bare assertions Rr6. Your definition of God begs the question and is simply a false premise by a materialist I'm assuming.
God equals the universe is a fallacy of ambiguity.I use the texticon ^v to represent a sine-wave pattern. Many if not most or all particles can be shown to exhibit this pattern. A sine-wave pattern is specific to various frequencies and amplitudes. Ergo, the basic atoms of all our observed experience is observed time / frequency / physical/energy / reality i.e. think of those five as synonyms."Observed time= frequency" rr6..
.Is there a difference between time and observed time. If not, prove time can be observed. If so, explain the difference.
Humans observe with 5 senses-- temporal ---and via instrumentation along with senses. Observed time = frequency = phyiscal/energy = reality that, is always combined ergo inherent to space/spacial/spatial attributes.....its begging the question anyway. Observed by whom? What does it look like? How much of it is observed? More importantly prove there even is something called observed time in existence.
More begging the question. Simply saying atoms are synonymous with time is in itself a statement to use circular reasoning
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual time is without spatial attributesYou can not have physical/energy reality without time and space"Observed time= beginning and endings as defined by directional change of trajectory"
..time is change in a particular direction? "
Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm willing to accept one example of something exhibiting directional change and it's time causing it. Simply attempting to define time this way leads to your circular argument because of the ambiguity of it.
Once again premise rejected unless you can prove this statement as fact.
. Any physical/energetic reality is going to have a trajectory, frequency, spin and change of direction is inherent to any sine-wave topology. See my Space-Time-Space bottom-to-top cosmic hierarchy for more specific information in these regards.All physical/energy frequencies have a trajectory over space and time ergo in association with conventional understanding of space-time. I take this understanding to the level of comprehending UniVerse with my Space-Time-Space scenarios. See my bottom-to-top hierarchy.
Are you merely saying things change therefore we observe time. Or time is the observing of things changing?
this is begging the question.I have no proofs to offer you. I have offered for many years, clear--- except for bad grammar ---concise, rational, logical common sense explanations and advise other to use dictionary to help validate my definitions, to whatever degree of overlap exists. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.Prove Space time exists.Again, I offer no proofs, only many years of clear, concise, rational, logical common sense explanations that are for most part corroborated by dictionary definitions to some degree. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.That's an argument from ignorance. Me simply not offering something to invalidate your assertions is irrelevant.
"Observed time is connected intimately to the two diametrical opposite properties of space-time gravity and dark energy."..rr6
Prove it, simply begging the question
Common sense is not proof of reasoned rejoinder. The reason why is you simply are arguing from an equivocation fallacy by defining time as synonymous with atoms. Mere utterance and you believe your explanation is logically sound doesn't make it so. More argumentum ad nauseum.I "offer you no proofs, I offer you some information that is commonly accepted truths as known to most cosmologists and physicists. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share. ""To be clear, only gravity is conventionally accepted as a property of space-time." Rr6
Conventionally accepted is an appeal to authority. Physicists aren't authorities on time.....nothing but begging the question unless you can prove Space time has "properties"
You have no proof. I agree, more argumentum ad nauseum.
"I also offer my speculations, based on those accepted known truths, that are rational, logical common sense. If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share."
Known truths. Premise rejected. You have no logical basis to assert " time" is synonymous with atoms. That by definition would mean the eqyptian who devised time as a concept was addressing something at the atomic level. Time merely was a way of describing where a specific point was on the Earth during daylight, the shadowthat was cast by an upright obelisk,, how the shadow moved,and the arbitrary placement of a circle(basically) that tracked the shadow. Increments were added to the circle that encircled the shadow. Jump forward to a clock , the hands of a clock move in essentially a circle because they represent the fact that the shadow moves in essentially a circle because of the Earths rotation. Time simply originated to describe where a person was on Earth, where the Earth was in its rotation and how those two variables related to the Sun as far as position Actually nothing more than an expression of a particular type of language. We no longer say Bob put a stick in the ground. Determine where north is. When the shadow points completely opposite of North meet me at the river. We now simply say....Bob meet me at the fiver at 6pm. (This is a rpresentation. Its not to be taken as how to accurately read a sundial)Scientists have not quantized nor quantified gravity, ergo they have not found the missing link between our observed { quantized and quantified } phyiscal/energy reality, however, they have clock-a-ffied gravity via lasers at LIGO.You simply are using the same argument in a circular way to assert Space time is what you can't prove it is. Gravity is connected via your baseless assertions.Again, I never ever offered any proofs. I have offeredfor many years;Assuming they have clock ified gravity. Prove time has a causal Nexus with clocks.
Anyone can claim they believe what things are, its another story proving it.
1) accepted information in scientific community ergo;
........1a) cosmological facts,
........1b) physic facts,
Time being synonymous with atoms isnt a fact of physics if thats what you imply ,
.........1c) mathematical facts, that, may or may not correlate directly those facts 1a and 1b above.
2) rational, logical common sense speculative scenarios based on those facts, if not also truths, above.
No. Speculation based on your own accepted speculations of someone else. You merely need for time to be associated with the physical properties of the universe
If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.
Again, I offer no proofs and never have. I offer clear, concise definitions that many of which are accepted by many individuals, to whatever degree, and overlap with dictionary definitions to whatever degree.The God definition is where I should have stopped because the rest is typical begging the question just like your definition of God. You're simply parading out a materialists attempt at justifying unproven assertions.
This is an ad populum fallacy. And it's obvious some definitions in a dictionary could be manipulated to make your case. Perfect example would be how the word "spirit" is used in the phrase the "spirit of the contract".
"If you cannot accept overlap with dictionary definitions, commonly understood definitions and my particular need for getting even close to the truth then most others do, then you may need to focus on others post who are less interested in truth."
And you know you are interested in "the truth" how? It presupposes your process will lead to truth, prove it.If I'm wrong.....try not making up unsupportable definitions or site an actual example that demonstrates the definitions as true.
I don't need to invalidate your circular reasoning that's based on definitions which allow you to misrepresent things without proof. You saying "Just think of these things as synonymous " isn't a position of logic it's a position of "accept my premises" don't disagree.
If you want to be considerate of my definitions of God-"G"od, then you need to evaluate them within context of the whole cosmic hierarchy and I see no evidence of your having done either of those. So that leads me to believe, that your not interested in having a considerate, respectful, rational, logical common sense discussion.
Prove there is a cosmic hierarchy. And you keep using the same argumentum ad nauseam. You simply argue from a false premise that we should arbitrarily accept time is synonymous with atoms. Etc...
[url]
"1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"
Also James you need to read definitions of spirit and understand how physical/energy is spirit-2. Again, I think you done little consideration my cosmic hierarchy to understand truth or have a rational, logical common sense and respectful discussion. Time will tell.
Physical energy is spirit is more begging the question and contradicts the historical definition of "spirit" . You keep claiming I somehow need to offer alternate definitions. That's an argument from ignorance. I do not dispute that you can logically deduce what you have offered, but it's based on false premises. You're more than able to define things in such a way to use a circular argument to justify your associations of those things, it doesn't mean it's true, it's doesn't mean it's logically sound. It's simply ambiguos definitions to present a circular argument.
"1. God [singular] : the perfect and all-powerful spirit"
Thought you said that God was the universe?. By definition nothing in the universe that we observe and test is spirit, it's physical.
"My mother, a quasi-christian scientist always told me god is everything ergo Universe ergo "U"niverse wherein we have existence of occupied space things and non-occupied space existence. Again reference the whole cosmic hierarchy if you want to have more comprehensively considerate disscussion regarding my definitions or anything else in my hierarchy"
My mother said she once saw God during a near death experience. Are mothers relevant?.
You are more than welcome to have a hierarchy, it's just more circular reasoning. You simply assert that the hierarchy is valid.
"Here is link to B. Fullers proof of God via his 'Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer'."
Don't need to rethink the Lords prayer, I understand it.
I'm new on this forum and as of yet haven't exactly found the process of separating each assertion and addressing it separately. So sorry if my rebuttals aren't highlighted.
Your whole reasoning relies on the ambiguous definitions and relationships you claim "we should think synonymous terms are valid reasoning".....blah blah blah" Why don't you just say Jesus is synonymous with the Earth therefore we all get life from Jesus.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Existence of Time and God.
Ive been very clear in many places with my definitions, Your above is reponse tmy quoting my mother, with defining of the word everything.JamesCaan--- The universe ,as the word is defined, merely applies to the things that are in physical existence. God of course is not limited only to that. You simply are misrepresenting what the phrase "god is everything" means.
"U"niverse-1/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Universe/UniVerse/God
This above is the cosmic trinity as three kinds of existence. If we want to agree to word thing or everything as occupied space, however, people often use word thing for metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts also.
Circular? Our finite, occupied space Universe is a closed system ergo it is eternally looping/recycling/regurgitating/regenerating itself. See 1sst law of thermodynamics. Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent. Please offer quote of my statement, and your rational logical common sense explanation, if you feel my comments are invalid or if you want to add to them.But suffice to say claiming time and space are necessary for existence is simply how you set up your circular reasoning.
"Need" is irrelevant existence of our finite, occupied space UniVerse.Its self evident that physical bodies need a space to occupy.
You appear to be asking who was first person to have concept of time. Waste of time. imho. Fuller states, that, human must have been in dire need, to invoke the first word ex. human is sinking in quicksand, as another walks by so they yell out to them,..'hey!, you, could please help me outta here?".....Injecting time into it is begging the question plain and simple. Bare assertion and it simply doesn't follow the logical progression of how the concept of time began.
Time is a language. It merely has been simplified for a more convenient and accurate way for people to plan interactions among ourselves.
Time is more than just language. Language can be metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts expressed via visual symbols, sound or actions.
Your in error. Observed time/reality/physical/energy/frequency ^v interfere and combine as molecules that we then combine to create my above givens so I have to repeat to help you grasp the this simple set for communicating metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts via visual symbols, sound or actions ergo observed reality/time.The idea that we went from that to "observed time is atoms, energy, physicality," and all all those other self proclaimed synonyms is simply unsupported assertions.
Our observed reality as experience precedes thought. No brain/nervous system then no thought. I think about a something ( occupied space ) ergo I exist as a something ( an occupied space ). Simple concept to grasp. imho
If you have rational, logical common sense statement that invalidates my givens please share. Ive not seen that from you yet.Associate time with something that will support a materialistic view is all you're doing. Physicists simply believe they can hijack the concept of time for there own agenda.
r6
-- Updated May 10th, 2016, 8:28 pm to add the following --
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/time time ergo lag rates of brain/consciousness i.e. mental/conceptual space-of-time between now and then ergo clockafied measurement of time, or ruler measurement of time in abstract meters, inhes etc.....all conceptual complements of occupied space or mental space-of-time.JamesCaan--Is there a difference between time and observed time. If not, prove time can be observed. If so, explain the difference.
Humans and to whatever degree other animals as lag rates of brain/consciousness with the concept of a word to represent those lag rates of brain/consciousness. Observed time looks reality/physical/energy/frequency ^v etc.....we already been over this. You appear not to grasp that line of text Ive given previously and again. Simple not complex.....its begging the question anyway. Observed by whom? What does it look like? How much of it is observed? More importantly prove there even is something called observed time in existence.
I think your confusing synonyms with the word circular.More begging the question. Simply saying atoms are synonymous with time is in itself a statement to use circular reasoning
I use slash marks between words to represent words are synonyms. Observed time/physical/energy/reality/frequency ^v. Simple not complex to grasp. imho
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual time is without spatial attributes
HuH? James I offer no proofs. If you need a proof that that physical/energy/reality or one and the same as observed time and occupied space, then your not accessing rational, logical common sense. PINCH!, BANG!, PING!, SWEET! etc exist as occupied space, if you need proof of realities existence then your not interested in having rational, logical common sense discussion with me. That is becoming self-evident the more I read your stuff.
r6---"Observed time= beginning and endings as defined by directional change of trajectory"
..time is change in a particular direction? "
1) Observed time ^v^v^vor \/\/\/\/ is sybolic representation of frequency and all of quanta of our occupied space Universe have frequency and trajectory,Fallacy of ambiguity. I'm willing to accept one example of something exhibiting directional change and it's time causing it. Simply attempting to define time this way leads to your circular argument because of the ambiguity of it.
2) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of time as measured in space-of-time meters, seconds, feet, hours etc......we do no observe those we construct those abstractions.
You dont yet seem to grasp two kinds of time, just as ever aspect of occupied space and non-occupied space have metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept complementation them. Both eternally complement each other. Cant have occupied space without a complementary shape/geometry/math.
r6
You can not have physical/energy reality without time and space
Occupied space is in constant motion/energetic ergo change of relationships in space, over time ( measured ), quantized and quantified.
Huh? Your not thinking rationally James if dont think space and time exist. PING! BANG! PINCH! SWEET! etc all exist and if you need a proof they exist.....irrationality on your part. I know your not in coma so you have no excuse for such irrational comments.
Your incorrect again. I'm going to have to stop because you dont want to have a rational, logical common sense discussion.
Irrational circular nauseum is what you have to offer James. Not worth the time. imho
Again, I never ever offered any proofs. I have offered for many years;
1) accepted information in scientific community ergo;
........1a) cosmological facts,
........1b) physic facts,
.........1c) mathematical facts, that, may or may not correlate directly those facts 1a and 1b above.
2) rational, logical common sense speculative scenarios based on those facts, if not also truths, above.
No. Speculation based on your own accepted speculations of someone else. You merely need for time to be associated with the physical properties of the universe
If you have rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments as stated, please share.
If you want to be considerate of my definitions of God-"G"od, then you need to evaluate them within context of the whole cosmic hierarchy and I see no evidence of your having done either of those. So that leads me to believe, that your not interested in having a considerate, respectful, rational, logical common sense discussion.
Huh? Ive posted my cosmic hierarchy in many places here at Philo. Your the only one offering circular nauseum. imho I cant do this irrational stuff with you any more james. Universe exists and have not proofs to offer you. Your just being difficult for not particular reason that I can see. Wast of time as you have not shred of interest in rational logical common sense discussion.
I'm sorry Jame Caan, I see no reason to have further contact with you. A complete lack of rational, logical common sense discussion is all you have to offer, as far as I can see and I can some pretty far away stars with my naked eye. Bye James and better luck with somebody else.
r6
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13815
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Existence of Time and God.
I don't try any more to understand Rr6. There are others including yourself who seem to understand what Rr6 is talking about , but I cannot. However I do ask you this about Rr6's argument about universe and God; can Rr6 believe in the pantheist God? I don't mean does Rr6 claim to do so, but I do mean to ask if in your opinion his beliefs about universe and God are pantheistic.The universe ,as the word is defined, merely applies to the things that are in physical existence. God of course is not limited only to that. You simply are misrepresenting what the phrase "god is everything" means.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Existence of Time and God.
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Universe/UniVerse/God
=============================================================
^v^v^v or as \/\/\/\/ = frequency / observed time / reality / physical / energy / spirit-2 ergo fermions, bosons and any combination thereof.
Spirit-3 is gravity is positive shaped geodesic arcs of space
Spirit-4 is dark energy negative shaped geodesic arcs of space
Spirit-1 is spirit-of-intent as it stems from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
I guess it would be futile to point out that there is absolutely no conceivable sense in which the terms "observed time", "physical", "energy", "reality" and "frequency" are synonyms.I use slash marks between words to represent words are synonyms. Observed time/physical/energy/reality/frequency ^v.
You use a phrase very similar to the above in a lot of your posts. Given the fact that nobody, as far as I can see, agrees with you on this point, do you conclude that the only possible explanation is that all other English speaking people in the world are, for some reason, incapable of understanding simple, clearly worded English sentences like yours?Simple not complex to grasp. imho
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
Rr6 wrote:"U"niverse-1/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Universe/UniVerse/God
=============================================================
^v^v^v or as \/\/\/\/ = frequency / observed time / reality / physical / energy / spirit-2 ergo fermions, bosons and any combination thereof.
Premise rejected. Will need to see evidence that these things can be combined. If atoms, which are detectable by our senses via instrumentation are synonymous with time, when did we use time to make a weapon that could explode. How much time was part of the scientific method that was used to prove time is synonymous with an atom? What are the physical properties of time? Name one thing time has a causal Nexus with in reality.
Spirit-3 is gravity is positive shaped geodesic arcs of space
Spirit-4 is dark energy negative shaped geodesic arcs of space
Spirit-1 is spirit-of-intent as it stems from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept
You want reasoned rejoinder in the face of absurd associations that you claim, first give a scientific foundation for them. We detect atoms. We detect energy.We detect reality. When did a scientist ever detect time? You simply want to place an internally circular definition on these concepts to support your premises. You haven't explained anything other than someone has the ability to randomly make argumentation seem explanatory, it's not.If time is synonymous with those things you listed then time is a known observed and detected thing via human senses or devices that enhance them. Please state one example of anyone ever seeing or detecting time. Cite what time looks like. Cite what the physical properties of time are. Atoms can and have been used via the scientific method therefore time could also be used by scientists for something in order for it to be synonymous
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Existence of Time and God.
If you have rational, logical common sense explanation of your thoughts please share. Ive yet to see you offer many of those, if any.Steve3007---I guess it would be futile to point out that there is absolutely no conceivable sense in which the terms "observed time", "physical", "energy", "reality" and "frequency" are synonyms.
Belinda got all high mighty about me not answer some questions of yours, yet she refused to answer my questions of her in another thread, or maybe it was this one. Later on I begin to realize there were questions I posed to you in others posts that you never answered either.
I'll offer you this for now. Why you put each word in quotes invidiaully makes no sense to me. Of those 5 you quote, physical/energy is the one I've been using for years.
Tell me Steve, why physical and energy cannot be synonyms?
You use a phrase very similar to the above in a lot of your posts. Given the fact that nobody, as far as I can see, agrees with you on this point, do you conclude that the only possible explanation is that all other English speaking people in the world are, for some reason, incapable of understanding simple, clearly worded English sentences like yours?
I conclude that some lack the ability to comprehend one or more words found in English dictionary.
Ex, 'Read the following as if a table of contents of a book titled "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy.'
If you cannot and some others cannot understand any of those words, then you need to read and reread them in a dictionary for starters, until you can grasp that sentence. If you still cannot grasp, then you can ask what does the word 'read' mean....etc.......
Relatively simple stuff Steve, for those who want to play fair ( moral integrity ), have the intellectual aptitude ( knowledge base ), intellectual integrity ( less ego involvement ).
As I recall the need to tell you a few times in other threads, to get real Steve. As well as please pay fair and other remarks in attempts to on track and the intellectual field i'm playing in.
r6
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
In the English language, when referencing a word itself as opposed to the concept referred to by that word, it is standard practice to place the word in quotes.Why you put each word in quotes invidiaully makes no sense to me.
Rr6:
A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. The reason why the two words "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms is because they mean two different things. They do not mean exactly or nearly the same thing. Replacing one with the other in a sentence would generally render the sentence meaningless.Tell me Steve, why physical and energy cannot be synonyms?
For example: as you know, the classical kinetic energy of a moving object is given by the equation 1/2mv2, where m is its mass and v is its velocity.
The sentence: "the classical kinetic physical of a moving object is given by the equation 1/2mv2, where m is its mass and v is its velocity." makes no sense. Let's try another one:
In an elastic collision, both energy and momentum are conserved. In an inelastic collision momentum is conserved but energy is not.
Now let's try replacing the word "energy" with the word "physical":
In an elastic collision, both physical and momentum are conserved. In an inelastic collision momentum is conserved but physical is not.
The sentences are now meaningless, therefore "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms.
Let's think of some other sentences that use some more of those words that you regard as synonyms (I've highlighted those words in bold so that we can see them more easily):
The energy transported by a classical wave is related to its amplitude. Its speed is equal to its frequency multiplied by its wavelength. The medium of the wave is the physical substance through which it moves. The frequency of the wave is the number of peaks passing a given position per unit time and is measured in units of Hertz.
Now, if those words are synonyms, we should be able to replace all of them with the same word without destroying the meaning. Let's try it by replacing all of them with one of the alleged synonyms. Let's try "reality":
The reality transported by a classical wave is related to its amplitude. Its speed is equal to its reality multiplied by its wavelength. The medium of the wave is the reality substance through which it moves. The reality of the wave is the number of peaks passing a given position per unit time and is measured in units of Hertz.
The passage is now gibberish. Therefore those words are not synonyms. (Obviously we already knew that they are not synonyms. But I guess it had to be demonstrated.)
-- Updated Thu May 12, 2016 4:52 am to add the following --
---
Rr6:
Steve3007:Simple not complex to grasp. imho
Rr6:You use a phrase very similar to the above in a lot of your posts. Given the fact that nobody, as far as I can see, agrees with you on this point, do you conclude that the only possible explanation is that all other English speaking people in the world are, for some reason, incapable of understanding simple, clearly worded English sentences like yours?
So, to be absolutely clear: Nobody seems to understand most of what you are trying to say. You conclude from this that the reason why all of these people fail to understand you is not because of your inability to write coherent, meaningful English sentences which make propositions that can be challenged. You conclude that it is because they all lack comprehension of the English language?I conclude that some lack the ability to comprehend one or more words found in English dictionary.
Do you remember what I said earlier about self-criticism? Try going back to one of the posts in which you explain something about your cosmic hierarchy and try to read it with the critical eye of somebody who is not you and who doesn't already know what you are thinking. In order to see whether your words would make any sense to another person you have to attempt to put yourself in their place. I presume that one reason why you post words on a public forum is to communicate your ideas to others. You will never achieve that if whenever somebody fails to understand you, you assume that it is because they do not understand English!
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
Prove it.Rr6 wrote:Ive been very clear in many places with my definitions, Your above is reponse tmy quoting my mother, with defining of the word everything.JamesCaan--- The universe ,as the word is defined, merely applies to the things that are in physical existence. God of course is not limited only to that. You simply are misrepresenting what the phrase "god is everything" means.
"U"niverse-1/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Universe/UniVerse/God
This above is the cosmic trinity as three kinds of existence. If we want to agree to word thing or everything as occupied space, however, people often use word thing for metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts also.Circular? Our finite, occupied space Universe is a closed system ergo it is eternally looping/recycling/regurgitating/regenerating itself. See 1sst law of thermodynamics. Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally existent.But suffice to say claiming time and space are necessary for existence is simply how you set up your circular reasoning.non sequitur. The assertion that matter and or physical energy cannot be destroyed is a finding of current ability not a finding of fact. Humans cannot create or destroy matter or energy. It does not therefore follow that they CAN'T be. It only follows humans currently can't."Need" is irrelevant existence of our finite, occupied space UniVerse.Its self evident that physical bodies need a space to occupy.
You appear to be asking who was first person to have concept of time. Waste of time. imho. Fuller states, that, human must have been in dire need, to invoke the first word ex. human is sinking in quicksand, as another walks by so they yell out to them,..'hey!, you, could please help me outta here?".....Injecting time into it is begging the question plain and simple. Bare assertion and it simply doesn't follow the logical progression of how the concept of time began.
Time is a language. It merely has been simplified for a more convenient and accurate way for people to plan interactions among ourselves.Sorry but this simply contradicts every known scientific proof about acquiring language. Feral children have no language skills because they were completely absent from an intelligent mind that possessed it. Scientific conclusion and as close to a scientific "fact" as one can get determines language couldn't arise from dire need. Language is adopted from a source that already has it. The human brain couldn't be less evolved now than in the distant past via the evolutionary paradigm, therefore language couldn't have been a result of "dire need."
Time is more than just language. Language can be metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts expressed via visual symbols, sound or actions.
Your in error. Observed time/reality/physical/energy/frequency ^v interfere and combine as molecules that we then combine to create my above givens so I have to repeat to help you grasp the this simple set for communicating metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts via visual symbols, sound or actions ergo observed reality/time.The idea that we went from that to "observed time is atoms, energy, physicality," and all all those other self proclaimed synonyms is simply unsupported assertions.
-- Updated May 10th, 2016, 8:28 pm to add the following --And now you finally make another blatant circular argument. Time is synonymous with an atom therefore they can combine to make molecules. Another conclusion based on a false premise. You simply keep arguing from your false premise of what you say everyone should THINK is synonymous with time. Reality isn't. Atoms aren't. Energy isn't. Physical isn't. None are synonymous with time.
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/time time ergo lag rates of brain/consciousness i.e. mental/conceptual space-of-time between now and then ergo clockafied measurement of time, or ruler measurement of time in abstract meters, inhes etc.....all conceptual complements of occupied space or mental space-of-time.JamesCaan--Is there a difference between time and observed time. If not, prove time can be observed. If so, explain the difference.]You cannot use a ruler to express time in terms of the applied abstract "words" that describe measurement. Meter, foot, inches, etc.Humans and to whatever degree other animals as lag rates of brain/consciousness with the concept of a word to represent those lag rates of brain/consciousness. Observed time looks reality/physical/energy/frequency ^v etc.....we already been over this. You appear not to grasp that line of text Ive given previously and again. Simple not complex.....its begging the question anyway. Observed by whom? What does it look like? How much of it is observed? More importantly prove there even is something called observed time in existence.I think your confusing synonyms with the word circular.More begging the question. Simply saying atoms are synonymous with time is in itself a statement to use circular reasoningI use slash marks between words to represent words are synonyms. Observed time/physical/energy/reality/frequency ^v. Simple not complex to grasp. imhoNo, you're confusing the fact that your bare assertion as to what people should think are words that are synonymous is what makes for a circular argument. I make no argument. I merely have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning via the premise of what you want everyone to think is synonymous with the word time.
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual time is without spatial attr
" time is not change, period. Unless you are referring to the change of a point on Earth. How that point relates to the Sun, and how the Earths rotation changes the relationship of the point in regards to the Sun. Other than that being the "time is change" assertion. Your assertions are more circular reasoning based on your ridiculous time is synonymous with premise. Which is demonstrably a false premise.1) Observed time ^v^v^vor \/\/\/\/ is sybolic representation of frequency and all of quanta of our occupied space Universe have frequency and trajectorFallacy of ambiguity. I'm willing to accept one example of something exhibiting directional change and it's time causing it. Simply attempting to define time this way leads to your circular argument because of the ambiguity of it.
More circular reasoning. Time is energy. Time is a frequency. Time is a wave. Time is physical. Time is a frequency that has trajectory. No substantial argument or idea here other than circularity based on the bare assertions there are two kinds of time, and time is synonymous......etc.
You dont yet seem to grasp two kinds of time, just as ever aspect of occupied space and non-occupied space have metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept complementation them. Both eternally complement each other. Cant have occupied space without a complementary shape/geometry/math."two kinds of time" sorry no. Premise rejected. I will need to see scientific proof of that assertion in order for me "grasping something" becomes a relevant point.[quite/]
(Nested quote removed.)
Occupied space is in constant motion/energetic ergo change of relationships in space, over time ( measured ), quantized and quantified.
"over time" is a fallacy of ambiguity. Just because something in space moves and can be "timed" as to how fast it moves, for example, is irrelevant to the fact of your claim we need "time" to have physical reality or energy. And via your own argument that time is synonymous with "physical and, energy". Your statement is merely reduced to "we cannot have physical, energy (which according to you is time),without time. So we can't have time without time and (space). circular reasoning plain and simple.Huh? Your acting irrational if yo don't think space and time exist...[quote/]
Nice straw man. I never said or implied space doesn't exist. I merely say that you have no evidence to prove their is such an existent thing as "space-time" Irrational circular nauseum is what you have to offer James. Not worth the time. imh
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: Existence of Time and God.
Belinda wrote:JamesCaan wrote:
I don't try any more to understand Rr6. There are others including yourself who seem to understand what Rr6 is talking about , but I cannot. However I do ask you this about Rr6's argument about universe and God; can Rr6 believe in the pantheist God? I don't mean does Rr6 claim to do so, but I do mean to ask if in your opinion his beliefs about universe and God are pantheistic.The universe ,as the word is defined, merely applies to the things that are in physical existence. God of course is not limited only to that. You simply are misrepresenting what the phrase "god is everything" means.
If he argues from pantheism then his argument becomes incoherent because he would simply be arguing in a circle everytime he uses the word time to describe an existent thing in nature. As according to pantheism God would be time. God would be atoms. God would be energy. God would be physical reality. God would be every thing in nature including space. Therefore his position and his argument would merely be reduced to "You cannot have God (energy, space,time ,reality) without God. Circular reasoning with no explanatory value. And since he didn't list God as being synonymous with time, then he isn't arguing pantheism from where I see it.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13815
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Existence of Time and God.
Steve3007---The reason why the two words "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms is because they mean two different things. They do not mean exactly or nearly the same thing.
Then you need to read dictionary definition and re-assess the aspect where they do share same meaning.
We live in a finite, physical Universe. TruthNow let's try replacing the word "energy" with the word "physical":
The sentences are now meaningless, therefore "physical" and "energy" are not synonyms.
We live in a finite, energy Universe. Truth
------------------------------------------------
An atom is physiical. truth
An atom is energy. truth
----------------------------------------
Fermions are physical. truth
Fermions are energy. truth
-------------------------------------------
Bosons are physical. truth
Bosons are energy. truth
Do I need to to above and do what Ive already done in the cosmic hiearchy? Steve, you need to broaden your narrow mind-set dude.Now, if those words are synonyms, we should be able to replace all of them with the same word without destroying the meaning. Let's try it by replacing all of them with one of the alleged synonyms. Let's try "reality":
phyiscal/energy/reality/frequency/observed time are rather simple to grasp synonyms.
A chair is energy. truth
A chair is physical. truth
A chair is reality. truth
A chair is composed of many frequencies ( truth ) and if struck with another physical/energy/reality/observed time object, will vibrate at some frequencies that are audible, i some cases.
A chair exists as our observed time i.e. motion, and in state of gradual entropy ergo change.
Observed time is motion/change/energy/physical/reality etc......
Ergo I demontrate for those who have narrow mind-set. A narrow-mind set is likened to the restrictor plates on the racing cars at some reacing events where all of the cars are regulated so as to be exactly equal to one another and no car and driver will have advantage over another in speed. Only driving skill and luck ( set of unpredicted events ) comes into play.The passage is now gibberish. Therefore those words are not synonyms. (Obviously we already knew that they are not synonyms. But I guess it had to be demonstrated.)
Retrictor plates are like a governor on a motor. You restrict/govern your self only see a narrow set of ideas.
If you take off your mental restrictor plate you may begin to grasp existence in a much broader context.
Universe is occupied space. Universe is one becuase gravity unifies all parts of Universe.
Rr6:
I conclude that some lack the ability to comprehend one or more words found in English dictionary.
I said some you keep acting like your one of those who can understand nothing Ive stated. Not true/absurd imho.So, to be absolutely clear: Nobody seems to understand most of what you are trying to say.
Reread any of my versions or cosmic hierarchy and lets see if you can get past the first word Steve.You conclude that it is because they all lack comprehension of the English language?
1) "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe/UniVerse
1) "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy.
...1c) finite, occupied space Universe/God
Better pull out your dictionary Steve, those look like some really tough words even for some one of your intellect. Belinda could not acknowledge a single word much less acknowledge she understands a single word Ive stated. Mor absurdity and lack of intellectual integrity. This forum has some of that going on plus other nonsense.
Ive been doing that for many years. When you want to have rational, logical common sense discussion of my comments, as stated please share. My door is always open to rational, logical, common sense, fair play etc.......Do you remember what I said earlier about self-criticism? Try going back to one of the posts in which you explain something about your cosmic hierarchy and try to read it with the critical eye of somebody who is not you and who doesn't already know what you are thinking. In order to see whether your words would make any sense to another person you have to attempt to put yourself in their place. I presume that one reason why you post words on a public forum is to communicate your ideas to others. You will never achieve that if whenever somebody fails to understand you, you assume that it is because they do not understand English!
r6
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