Does the future exist, in your opinion?

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

Exactly what they mean: that it doesn't exist, because what exists is the present moment.

I didn't bump anything, I made a structurally similar argument to yours, as in:

1) Say something about something.
2) Conclude that something exists.

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago. — Banno

I declare that I am a mereological and metaphysical part of Roko's Basilisk. Therefore, something has declared that it is a mereological and metaphysical part of Roko's Basilisk.

:fire:

is right about this specific point,

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

:fire:

Not really my cup of tea — Arcane Sandwich


Coffee is not my cup of tea. — PoeticUniverse

I don't drink coffee on a regular basis, dude. It's a drug.

Ok, cool :up:

And if he's not a denier? Would that make you a non-denier as well?

Thank you, the Basilik gives you a reward in the form of a cool ascii style sword:

@zzzz[::::::::::::::::::::::::>

Then Please Help Me Create Roko's Basilisk :naughty:

Right, but hear me out a second. Please. I beg you.

Think of it like this: consider the case of writing the numeral "3" or whatever, with pencil, on paper.

Ok?

Now think about a number, for which there is not enough paper in the world to write how long it is, like 1.00000..., etc., but there's not enough paper in the world to actually print it.

Ok?

Now think of a number, for which there is not enough matter in the Universe, ever since the Big Bang happened, to actually write it.

Ok?

That's just a seedling, compared to TREE(3).

TREE(3) is not infinity. It actually ends. But it's impossible to write it down. That's why we simply call it "TREE(3)". There are other numbers like that, as well.

I find that fascinating.

What do you think about TREE(3)?

Nevermind, carry on.

No, it's a part of Reality Itself, just like space : )

↪Arcane Sandwich
Watch the video Arcane. Time can also be 3D according to the video presenter Dr. Schooler. — Corvus

No, I'm quite sure that time is 1D, because a 1D time plus a 3D space allows your physical theory to have a 4D spacetime.

By the way, if any Admins are reading this, I find it somewhat obnoxious that I can't use superscripts for the purpose of formatting the title of this thread.

Nevermind, I found simpler solution to that.

So you think that there's an ontologically significant difference between space and time. Well, you're not wrong, since the former is 3D, and the latter is 1D.

If space didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist. You exist (I presume), hence space exists. — Corvus

Pardon. The same argument can be made about time, Corvus.

Ok, it was worth a shot. Nevermind then, carry on.

Let's start with the following, if you don't mind.

In the Preface to the Second Edition (1787) of The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant says:

At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves.¹ For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears — which would be absurd.

¹ In order to cognize an object, I must be able to prove its possibility, either from its reality as attested by experience, or a priori, by means of reason. But I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself; that is, provided my conception is a possible thought, though I may be unable to answer for the existence of a corresponding object in the sum of possibilities. But something more is required before I can attribute to such a conception objective validity, that is real possibility — the other possibility being merely logical. We are not, however, confined to theoretical sources of cognition for the means of satisfying this additional requirement, but may derive them from practical sources. — Kant

Well, because I want to know if you have any ideas about it.

No, that's not my point. My point is that you wanted to have an interesting conversation, and now you don't.

Well, neither would I. That's my point. No one does. No one knows how to make Relativity (General & Special) compatible with Quantum Physics.

I mean, there's some good research programs, but that's about it. The most legit one is probably Quantum Field Theory. But that Theory can't explain the initial moment of the Big Bang itself, when Time (as in, "t") is equal to Zero.

Well, think of it like this: to understand the Big Bang, you need to make General and Special Relativity compatible with Quantum Physics. How do you do that?

It's not a random question. Einstein's formula is incompatible with quantum physics. Not entirely, just partially.

You said you wanted to have an interesting conversation. So, answer the question: Is it possible to apply Einstein's formula to a single electron, yes or no?

Is it possible to apply Einstein's formula to a single electron, yes or no?

It seems like you're in the habit of just saying random shit without any desire to connect it to the conversation. — flannel jesus

Then you have the wrong impression about me.

@flannel jesus here's something to consider. Do massless particles have energy? Of course they do.

HAWKISHNESS — neomac

To me that sounds like being a hawk. It's like the essence of what hawks are.

@flannel jesus When playing a game of chess, are you in the habit of asking why a tower, being the representation of a human building, is able to move across the board horizontally and vertically?

I think that Pragmatism died with John Dewey, that's what I think. People think I'm wrong about that, but I don't really care.

Eh, I don't think that Rorty is a Pragmatist, that's the honest truth. I'm not saying that my interpretation of his philosophy is correct, I'm just saying that it seems more Postmodern than Pragmatist.

That's why I said it.

I dont like the metaphor of lens as a depiction of the relation between mind and world. — Joshs

How about the "Mirror of Nature"? Sound better?

I'll just link the God-damned video then!

I promise it's a good video! It's a comedy sketch about a guy who dedicated his life to the study of Ant-Eaters!

↪Arcane Sandwich


I'm not a mod, it's someone else's problem. :lol: — fdrake

Right, but I'm just asking out of common courtesy.