I take it you've read McTaggart? — Bartricks
Such false impressions are not universal but relative from person to person.We have sensations of time. They are 'of' time, but do not constitute it. . Hence why we can have false impressions - something can appear more past than it is, etc. — Bartricks
But what they are sensations of, will themselves be sensations, for sensations resemble sensations and nothing else. — Bartricks
And thus though time is not made of our temporal sensations, it is made of someone's. — Bartricks
for a contradiction to be true, then it is true. — Bartricks
This unstoppable character of light, lies at the bottom of SR (and GR, for that matter, which is nothing more than accelerated SR). In a sense you could say that interaction by light is instantaneous, as there is no time passage for light. So in a sense, all thing happen at the same time. Luckily there is space to prevent this.
Note that I use entropic time as the ingredient of this vision. A value can be assigned to it, it's entropic time quantified.
So in this light, can time (so not our subjective experience of it) be assigned to God? It depends. If he is part of this universe, then obviously yes. If they are outside of it? Maybe. It could be that there is a higher dimensional realm, of which our universe is an intersection. While time out there continues, the time at the big bang could have been fluctuating, giving rise to the big bang at their time-like command. — GraveItty
But this, I think, is a result of thinking that change essentially involves time. Which it doesn't — Bartricks
He isn't 'beyond time'. See OP. — Bartricks
He thinks that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it is true.
— Bartricks
Where did I say anything even approximating this? — Banno
So you accept, do you, that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it does not follow that it is? — Bartricks
And so you accept, do you, that it is entirely consistent with it being possible for a contradiction being true, that none actually is? — Bartricks
I don't accept Dialetheism. There are too many problems. The main issue is that Dialetheism does not give grounds for excluding anything. Now Dialetheism functions by denying the law of noncontradiction. But perversely, you insist that LNC is true, while also insisting that it is only contingent.And so you accept, do you, that my position - that it is possible for there to be a true contradiction, but in fact there are not any - is coherent and does not generate a contradiction? — Bartricks
Actually explain. — Bartricks
And so you accept, do you, that it is entirely consistent with it being possible for a contradiction being true, that none actually is?
— Bartricks
No. Contradictions cannot be true, even in paraconsistent logic. This is some weird invention of your own, that mixes Dialetheism with modality without much by way of explication. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.