Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality. — aletheist

Not true. Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.

If the universe was just a black hole there would still be time.

But if there was ever a time when matter was 0 degrees kelvin or if matter didn't exist then yes there would be no time.

To some extent light is matter because it is altered by gravity, i would imagine if there is light then there is heat and thus there is movement and thus if light exists then there is time.

Special relativity dictates for various reasons that time is very hard to measure accurately but it does not say it doesn't exist at all. Time is the iteration of events.

if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this.

messed up.

or if you like that hypothetical clock is apart of the other very dense part far away, but that hypothetical clock just happens to be a piece that is trillions of miles away from the very dense part.

I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.

ts hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.
— christian2017

I don't think those terms, "far away", and "slow velocity" have any meaning outside the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

universe is just another phrase for the known matter and energy, so if you have an extremely condensed universe one end and then trillions of miles away you have the clock that "mad_guy" was talking about, yes these terms do have meaning.

We are both ignorant arm chair physicists. Don't pretend otherwise.

I have come to the conclusion that America has too many intelligence and other agencies that are operating in isolation from one another.

It seems to me, that there is a lack of oversight between said agencies. What would be required may be called a return to some unifying central command that would make all these (16) intelligence agencies operate in unison.

I call this 'Project Oversight'. A self-policing type of agency that would control, audit, and monitor the activities of subordinate agencies.

Just recently, Trump authorized Homeland Security to gain new powers beyond belief.

Does America need an oversight agency, why or why not? — Shawn

You would know better than any of us.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term deep state.

To some extent the executive branch does this atleast to a small measure.

But to watch over all the different CIA & CIA clones would require beaurocracy, and who is going to watch that central beaurocracy?

I know i spelled beaurocracy wrong.

I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.

I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.

This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself. — JacobPhilosophy

I"m apart of a political party called, Shark Fighter Nation

#Shark_Fighter_Nation

this includes:

fighting a rattle snake with pair of garden shears

bears, alligators, Bobcats, poisonous snakes and ofcourse sky diving.

There are alternatives to suicide.

Whether there is a after life or not, there is no reason to commit suicide.

Every last suicide tears a huge hole in society. Mothers get real up set when such things happen too.

There are alternatives to suicide.

So you are saying any from of prostitution is alright?
— christian2017

I am not interested in reversing all your asinine assumption, especially when you associate me with a religion other than my own.
.
I am also not interested in your lies or attempts to justify your a hole god's genocides based on faith instead of morals.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I am not interested in reversing all your asinine assumptions, especially when you associate me with a concept of a religion other than my own.

I am also not interested in your banal thinking that sounds like an 18 years old view of all religions, to justify abortion, rape, and temple prostitution based on semi-post-modernist concept of right and wrong.

The clock runs normally but the universe is traveling back in time. When the universe reached the Big Bang singularity, the clock reads 13.8 billion years and vanishes into the singularity. That the clock is no longer there is of no concern for even if we destroy all the clocks in the world, time will still flow. Does time stop? No, it'll continue on to before the Big Bang and beyond and had the clock survived, it would've given us pre-Big Bang time.
— TheMadFool

Is the clock outside the universe then? If it continues on, it must be. But how is that possible? You are assuming a thing (the clock) which is outside the "universe", which by definition includes all things. — Metaphysician Undercover

its hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.

But yes in short i agree with you. I understand we base our reality on what is happening in the present and what we percieve as having happened in the past or past presents.
— christian2017

Not only that, but there is an intuitional, instinctual, built in, or hardwired perspective of what the present is. Look at it like we have a window of observation onto the passing of time, and we call this observational perspective "the present". This, what we call "the present", must be a length of time, perhaps a couple hundredths of a second or something like that. Now imagine if that window was just a nanosecond, or if the window was a million years. The world we perceive would be completely different if this were the case. So, the world we perceive, what we sense, is very much shaped by that temporal perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

i agree.

1. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient Iraq.
— christian2017

They were a major part of the economy and had their a great value and the respect of the people.

2. Are you aware Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were plenty of Amorite cities in ancient Iraq at the time of Joshua. ~1300 BC.
— christian2017

Genocide need not be a complete decimation of a people. Jews were never close to full extinction but we use genocide to express what happened to them. Jews see Yahweh as evil for some of his instruction to cause destruction.

3. If you killed someone's parents (Amorite/Canaanite) are you supposed to tell the surviving child "i murdered your parents, when you are a teenager you'll understand these adult things"
— christian2017

Only if you are stupid.

4. were there adoption agencies in the 2nd millenium?
— christian2017

Sure.

5. Would you argue some behavior is worthy of capital punishment?
— christian2017

Yes, but only if it is to prevent murder. I do not believe in capital punishment as a nation cannot be seen as revering life if they are taking it. Saving some via murder shows the veneration of life. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

6. Were you aware that the Amorites were known for child sacrifice? The later Jews were too and i understand that . The Bible speaks against that.
— christian2017

Where city states had finite resources, it was either kill the new babies or kill the workers who were more important than another hungry mouth that could not feed itself. Baby sacrifices were kept to a minimum and that was helped along by the Temple Prostitutes and the religions that tried to sanctify sex between men and their wives so as to keep pregnancies to a minimum. History has overblown the numbers as most nations did not have to do much of it. Killing babies is revolting to all people and it was only done in dire times.

7. Would you say the Amorite children (non-adults) went to heaven
— christian2017

There was no heaven at that time. Just shoal, the grave, if I recall correctly. Christianity invented heaven and hell only much latter.

How does genocide directly (as opposed to indirectly) relate to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Is the Roman Papacy a good way to judge Christianity?
— christian2017

Christianity, like all entities, are to be judged on their moral thinking and ethical actions, regardless of their belief in imaginary gods.

As to Jesus and his return, I adlib. Choose me as god or die. That is genocide of all non-believers.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

All your answers point to these questions indicate you are apart of a messed up religion. Lets go through them one at a time.

So you are saying any from of prostitution is alright? Or just temple prostitution if it helps the economy?

You have no reason whatsoever to accuse all christians of being satanic. Based on your answers (because you accused me of being satanic many times), you are every bit as Satanic as any Roman Pope supporter.

If Amorites engaged in Temple Prostitution that justifies their nation in getting destroyed. Where there is temple prostitution there very often is pedaphilia just in case you didn't know. And you said you are against pedaphilia. Temple prostitution in and of itself is bad enough.

Many Many Many times have you said bad stuff about the Roman Papacy. I agree with you the Roman Papacy has many problems.

2. When Joshua killed the Amorites in Canaan the goal was not to kill all the Amorites but specific city states due to their excessive wickedness. This was actually very common among all peoples of the ancient world". Are you familiar with the "Irish book of Invastions"?

your response below:
"Are you aware Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were plenty of Amorite cities in ancient Iraq at the time of Joshua. ~1300 BC.
— christian2017

Genocide need not be a complete decimation of a people. Jews were never close to full extinction but we use genocide to express what happened to them. Jews see Yahweh as evil for some of his instruction to cause destruction."

3. the point of number 3 is you can't raise someone elses to teenager hood if you killed their parents.

4. What makes you think their were adoption agencies in ~1300 bc.

5. So you are saying war is never justified. Joshua didn't commit genocide, he attacked specific city states.

6. you answer to number 6 tells me in my mind that you are in line with the Roman Papacy which you claim you are against. I have no reason to believe your ethics are better than the ethics of a typical christian. But since this is an online forum we'll both continue to go back and forth discussing your crap.

7. "Would you say the Amorite children (non-adults) went to heaven
— christian2017

There was no heaven at that time. Just shoal, the grave, if I recall correctly. Christianity invented heaven and hell only much latter.

How does genocide directly (as opposed to indirectly) relate to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Is the Roman Papacy a good way to judge Christianity?"

Chrisianity didn't make up hell, it dates back to the time "the epic of gilgamesh" was written if not before. Alot of what you believe about Christianity is common unproven crap said on college campuses. Heaven is talked about in the later books of the old testament including the book of Isaiah.

I get your point that relativity may play a significant role but I'm basing my arguments on the same facts that show the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. Thanks — TheMadFool

I was responding to what someone else said in terms of why a universal clock wouldn't work, thats why i mentioned special relativity in the comment.

You lost me. :roll:
— 180 Proof

Make that two of us.

The clock thought experiment makes sense. If we could reverse time i.e. make the universe travel backwards in time and have a special clock to record the passage if timd in reverse then in 13.8 billion years into the past we will reach the Big Bang singularity, the clock will read 13.8 billion years. Now, what stops the clock from continuing to give time beyond the Big Bang singularity? It matters not that the clock may disappear in the singularity for the purpose of a clock is just to keep track of time and even if there were no clocks time would still flow, backwards in my thought experiment. — TheMadFool

Even though time told on a clock is relative to how fast the clock is moving (velocity or speed) (a clock moving 5 mph is going to tell time faster than a clock moving 100,000mph), if you did have one clock in the whole universe that is treated as the universal clock regardless of whether it matches all the other clocks in the universe. There is a philosophical concept associated with a universal clock, i'll have to look it up because it dates back several 100 years.

From a secular perspective this hypothetical clock doesn't exist. But considering hypothetical means "for the sake of argument", people should be able to understand the basic premise.

The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present.
— christian2017

I think you have this backward. The present is what gives context. Without the present there is no context to time. You might like to think that you could point to any random point in time, to give temporal context, but it would be you, living in the present doing that. Take away beings living in the present, and there would be absolutely no temporal context whatsoever. — Metaphysician Undercover

i agree with this. You would have to see what i referring too. In short i agree with you. Perhaps i took the OP out of context. I don't feel like writing a 5 page essay about why i put that phrase in with what i said.

But yes in short i agree with you. I understand we base our reality on what is happening in the present and what we percieve as having happened in the past or past presents.

If the Big Bang was in the future, there must be a past, a time before the Big Bang to which the Big Bang was in the future of.
— TheMadFool

Can I ask about your knowledge of physics? You seem to cling to an pre-scientific concept of time which is strictly linear, unending, outside and beyond the other forces in the universe; and, if you believe the claims of relativity, wrong.

How does your understanding square with the observed fact that time slows down depending on your speed and the gravity acting upon you? If, like a light beam, you travel at the 186,000 miles per second time stands still - it effectively ceases to exist. For a light beam there is no past and no future. But for others observing it 'time' continues as 'normal'. Time is no longer seen as a set-in-stone governing property of the universe. As I understand the Big Bang theory it was born in the Big Bang, along with space, matter and energy. The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds. — Tim3003

i'm not sure you understand either. Most scientists don't claim to know what the universe was prior to the big bang explosion. And time does exist according to most physicists, but it is hard to measure accurately similar to the reason you described. Time ofcourse at the very least exists as an "iteration of events". Once again measuring time "accurately" can be problematic, but that is not to say it doesn't exist.

The way Stephen Hawking put it in "A brief history of time" if over X time you roll a trillion sided die a trillion times you'll eventually roll an 18 if you desired to roll an 18.

I don't think probability is the best way to argue for religion.
— christian2017
Lots of people think the FTA is the very best way to prove God. I don't think so, and that's why I'm pondering this issue.

Hawking's right, but for the sake of discussion, I'm assuming there is exactly one roll of the dice - where each die represents a fundamental constant, whose many sides are the possible values it can take. My take on it is that there are no preexisting players who "win". Each roll is as likely as any other, and the consequences of a roll are irrelevant. The consequences are the sorts of thing that exist in the universe. These consequent existents weren't players, any more than were WE players in the procreation lottery. — Relativist

thats fair.

Some versions of the Fine Tuning Argument for God's existence remark that our existence is too improbable to be the product of chance - that it's absurd to attribute it to luck. Is it? Consider how these two cases differ:

1. Mary is lucky to be alive! She was on a flight to Detroit, and the plane crashed killing 98 of the 100 people on board.

2. John is lucky to be alive! Had his parents not had sex on that particular day, uniting that specific sperm and ovum - he wouldn't be here. The same is true of each of his parents, as well as every pair of ancestors throughout biological history. Consider the odds that JOHN would come to be!

Mary beat the odds, a 98% mortality rate. The reason she happened to live could be analyzed in terms of exactly where she was seated, the nature of the crash, the planes structural differences from one part to another, etc. Similarly, the 98 people who died were unlucky that they weren't sitting in the exact right spot.

Did John beat some odds? If he did, they were astronomical: consider how many potential sperm-egg combinations could possibly have occurred over the course of history. Can we say that the people that DIDN'T emerge are unlucky? It seems to me that something that doesn't exist can't be considered to be lucky or not-lucky. It seems therefore that John couldn't lose, because losing means not existing.

We could say that John is lucky in some sense, but not in any analyzable sense. Therefore no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it. This seems similar to the "luck" of our improbable existence that is the result of the (presumed) low probability fact that the structure of the universe happens to be life permitting.

Thoughts? — Relativist

The way Stephen Hawking put it in "A brief history of time" if over X time you roll a trillion sided die a trillion times you'll eventually roll an 18 if you desired to roll an 18.

I don't think probability is the best way to argue for religion.

The gist of the commments in this thread is that a time before the alleged beginning (the Big Bang) is incoherent. The all-time favorite response "there is no north of the north pole" is clearly visible in the responses so far.

This however isn't a satisfactory answer. Why? Take the oldest idea about the structure of time viz. past, present, future. These 3 divisions of time are inseparable in that the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and none of them make sense if considered to the exclusion of the other two. Since the Big Bang was, at some point in time, a present (now), there must be a time before it, the past, just as it had a future which we're currently experiencing. — TheMadFool

I suppose to some extent (and you would agree) these questions don't matter. My biggest problem with the big bang being the beginning is it is possible that dense mass in the beginning sat for X (?trillion years?) time prior to exploding.

On a different note i don't have a problem with eternal matter, eternal heat, eternal pressure, eternal movement, eternal time but maybe i'm just stupid.

Are you aware genocide was very common among all cultures in ancient society's assuming Joshua commited genocide?

How does genocide directly (as opposed to indirectly) relate to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Is the Roman Papacy a good way to judge Christianity?

How do you know how i act outside this forum?
— christian2017

I did not speak of that.

How would i prove if you are ethical and how would i prove if im ethical.
— christian2017

I would know your moral thinking by what you say. You could lie, sure, but your words are what I would be evaluating.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Your two quotes above contradict each other in light of the fact that, what people say isn't always what they do. This is a commonly understood concept in our society. Whence when i said earlier "lip service".

How do you know how i act outside this forum?
— christian2017

I did not speak of that.

How would i prove if you are ethical and how would i prove if im ethical.
— christian2017

I would know your moral thinking by what you say. You could lie, sure, but your words are what I would be evaluating.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I asked you these questions earlier but you accused me with your age old phrase "your spew"

Would you like to answer these questions. Here they are once again?

You said you like a challenge many times. Can you answer these questions.

1. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient Iraq.

2. Are you aware Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were plenty of Amorite cities in ancient Iraq at the time of Joshua. ~1300 BC.

3. If you killed someone's parents (Amorite/Canaanite) are you supposed to tell the surviving child "i murdered your parents, when you are a teenager you'll understand these adult things"

4. were there adoption agencies in the 2nd millenium?

5. Would you argue some behavior is worthy of capital punishment?

6. Were you aware that the Amorites were known for child sacrifice? The later Jews were too and i understand that . The Bible speaks against that.

7. Would you say the Amorite children (non-adults) went to heaven (assuming there is a heaven) after they were killed by the Israelites? I would say they would considering there is no explicit statement saying the children did anything relatively wrong nor does it say they suffered after they died. No explicit statement nor implied statement either.

Prove an object moves without referring to its change in position relative to something else, like a point in space. — Harry Hindu

In the sense that for an object to move, or to prove that it moved that it requires an observer, yes in that sense you could say movement is relative. However many people go beyond that when they say movement is relative and imply other non scientifically proven things regarding the phrase "movement is relative". If you would like to imply further implications regarding "movement is relative", you'll have to show an article showing scientific studies/tests.

How does "movement is relative" the way you just described it apply to the OP?

Metaphysician Undercover@tim wood@Tim3003@180 Proof@jorndoe@christian2017@3017amen

Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. From our vantage point, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago; this beginning can be thought of as 12 midnight (0000 hours military time) by that clock. It is not impossible to imagine winding back this universe clock to another time like 11 PM or 6 PM before 12 midnight (when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred). — TheMadFool

Some argue the condensed universe (similar to a black hole) could only break free of gravity under wierd circumstances involving alignment of something (like most theories going back this far its a Pop sci article for the most part). Perhaps the universe always existed (heat & movement) but for much of its history it was just a really dense and small thing of matter/mass (alot of stuff in a small space). Time goes back forever possibly but some areas of history just don't matter that much (pardon the pun).

i'm sorry Christian Bishop, can you tell Jesus for me?
— christian2017

I'm not surprised you do not know him.

Scriptures show you how to know him but you are not interested in following the dictates of a moral man.

Too much of it goes against Christian beliefs.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

this is an online forum. How do you know how i act outside this forum? How would i prove if you are ethical and how would i prove if im ethical. Have you ever heard the phrase "lip service"?

What do you mean by movement is relative? Time is relative in that is really an iteration of events, and is hard to accurately measure unless it is a small subset of the universe (special relativity). But two objects can pass through and gauge their velocity based on the same point in 3d space. Next thing you are going to tell me is two objects can't pass through the same "point" in 3d space.
— christian2017
Looks like movement is relative, whether relative to another object, or a point in space (a point in space seems to qualify as an object in space). The mind has this habit of quantifying (or objectifying) space/change. — Harry Hindu

Einstein admitted he was wrong about some things. The idea that time is relative has been proven with P-3 flights over the Chesapeake bay. When has it been proven with scientific tests that movement is relative. Visual perspectives & flawed human perspectives are relative, but has it been proven with scientific tests that movement is relative?

Does it make sense to ask whether time had a beginning or not? Suppose for the moment that it does. So, does time have a beginning?

Suppose time did have a beginning and it was 13.8 billion years ago with the so-called Big Bang. Although some have said to ask what happened before the Big Bang? is akin to asking what is north of the north pole? it seems reasonable to consider not space-matter-energy but a time before the Big Bang. In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite?

Ergo,

1. Time has no beginning i.e. the past is infinite

The problem with an infinite past is that the present then becomes impossible for it requires infinite time to have gone by and that is an impossibility. Infinity can't be completed for it is, by definition, something that has no end and the end, if the past is infinite, is now, the present. So, the past can't be infinite.

Ergo,

2. The past can't be infinite i.e. time has to have a beginning

1 & 2 is a contradiction.

What gives? — TheMadFool

I think the problem with this is we assume that the present is important atleast when thinking about reality. I'm not trying to depress you, but i'm sitting in my house right now (present), ten minutes from now i could walk outside and get bitten by a copper head snake or i could get in a serious car accident.

I think your theory is too contigent on whether the "present" is important.

If something always existed or if matter & mass always existed, then heat & movement always existed.

If a creature always existed even if it was "spiritual" creature, it would probably have thoughts or feelings if it was creature. Perhaps these thoughts are just connected visual representations of reality.

Either way i don't think it is entirely implausible for movement, heat, matter & time to have always existed. The matter of whether there is a present doesn't matter. The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present. What i mean by like is if that person has positive feelings associated with being in the "present". If a person has negative feelings associated with being in the "present", they not see the "present" as so important.

Currently i enjoy not working, so i like being in the "present". I'm not trying to make you feel bad.

Time is not composed of instances. Time is relative change. Movement is relative.

An interval is simply a string of instances - each a particular snapshot of time in the mind. Instances and intervals only exist in minds. Time exists everywhere there is relative change. The mind breaks up time into instances, just like it breaks processes into objects. The mind is converting the analog signal of the world into binary bits - objects of thought (instances in time and objects in space). — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by movement is relative? Time is relative in that is really an iteration of events, and is hard to accurately measure unless it is a small subset of the universe (special relativity). But two objects can pass through and gauge their velocity based on the same point in 3d space. Next thing you are going to tell me is two objects can't pass through the same "point" in 3d space.

I agree. If for people who like to find this paradoxical in this modern age (and i have met some) find the idea of instant confusing, instead say "an interval so small that it has similarities to an instant". So we might say a 1/10,000th of a second. Then explain that with some stipulations we can make this very tiny interval the same effectiveness as the normal age old instant of time.

We can even attach wierd symbols to this very tiny interval and give it a latin name. And when people go to look up this latin name they'll see a detailed explanation that this very tiny time interval is really just a substitute for a instant in time for people in this modern age who like to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Well thats what we philosophers do, we make a mountain out of a mole hill.
— christian2017

I wouldn't say that the arrow paradox is something philosophers are making a mountain out of a molehill of. If Zeno is right, motion would be impossible and all that we see around us would be an illusion. Isn't that something to worry about?

As for infinitesimal calculus, I think it's a clever way around the problem of instantaneous velocity. — TheMadFool

thats fair.

i agree with you.
— christian2017

Yes I think we're in agreement.

Wasn't Rand a russian lady who came out of Communist Russia? Or is that someone else
— christian2017

On this forum I'd like to maintain my anonymity. There's a good and a bad side to everything, including a good side to false god complexes ;) — Rand

false god complexes? who has a false god complex? lol

Where would the heat have come from in a (presumably) empty universe, prior to the BB? — Bitter Crank

Not all Physicists agree. If there is matter (very dense matter) there is heat, and the thus the universe is not empty but the universe is very small. If there is heat or pressure, then there is movment & if there is movement then there is time. Just like a black hole has movement inside of the black hole. A black hole is like a really dense universe but is not as dense as the early universe.

i didn't cuss but it was a little too mean so i deleted it.
— christian2017

If you thought it, you sinned. So says Jesus. Repent foul sinner. ;-)

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

i'm sorry Christian Bishop, can you tell Jesus for me?

If the primary value of existentialism is authenticity and if it's primarily associated with 19th and 20th century European philosophers, then it fails. Cultural claims of the absurdness of values associated with western culture have increased since the 19th century. Existentialists failed to bridge the gap between their individual angst and the concrete human experience, which is partly attributed to abstract systematic or academic philosophies. Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

One thing i've found in our modern culture is the people who say "they're sheeple" or "i don't conform", for whatever reason always seem to be the people who blend in the best, and you can't tell their personality from everyone elses.

To be honest i try to conform as much as possible and if i disagree with someone out in public prior to a confrontation, i'll just try to blend in to avoid a confrontation. In the rare instance a controntation takes place i'll act normal, whatever normal means.

I think people should try to be themselves, but i don't think being ourselves is the only reason we are alive. Some conformity is absolutely neccesary to be a healthy and productive adult.

So in short, i agree with you.

If the primary value of existentialism is authenticity and if it's primarily associated with 19th and 20th century European philosophers, then it fails. Cultural claims of the absurdness of values associated with western culture have increased since the 19th century. Existentialists failed to bridge the gap between their individual angst and the concrete human experience, which is partly attributed to abstract systematic or academic philosophies. Subsequently, existential philosophical discussions result in the erosion of will power with no associated benefits for gaining insight and emotion becomes the driving motivation for discussions instead of reason. It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

Wasn't Rand a russian lady who came out of Communist Russia? Or is that someone else?

Interesting forum topic. I'll have to look up exactly what existentialism is. I can only make assumptions about what it is at this point.

Gotta love a great paradox!

But...

In a frozen universe where there was no movement, would time exist?

In this frozen timeless universe, should the archer release the arrow, then time would begin. It isn't 'time' which prevents the arrow from moving -- it is the motionless arrow that prevents time from passing.

There was no time before the Big Bang, and there will be no time again when (and if) the universe cools to absolute zero. — Bitter Crank

Some say there is movement in a black hole even though light can't escape. Wherever there is heat there is movement. If the early universe prior to the big bang had heat then it had movement and if there is movement then there is time.

I'm certain that Zeno's Arrow Paradox has been dealt with effectively i.e. a solution has been found; nevertheless, I'd like your views on my take of the paradox.

Zeno's arrow paradox basically states that, IF time can be considered as composed of instants, an arrow, being unable to move at any one instant since no time has elapsed for any motion to occur, too wouldn't be able to move. No motion at any instant; ergo, no motion at all.

It seems Zeno agrees that, if, for the arrow, one takes an non-zero interval of time, there can be motion; after all, that's why the great Zeno speaks of instants/moments. His argument would fail if we use time intervals because motion is possible if non-zero time is allowed.

The first problem Zeno faces is with the definition of the unit of time. Take the second for instance; whatever physical phenomenon is used to define the second, it is essentialy an interval and not an instant. This is probably the one big clue to what I'm about to say.

To illustrate my point, I would like you to take length for example, say in the units centimetere (cm). A ruler that measures length has length markings on it - begins at 0 cm and goes on to, suppose, 30 cm. The length markings on the ruler read off lengths which are intervals in space. Consider now, what a point on this ruler means? A point, by definition, has no size; being thus, a point can't be a length. Being zero cm in length is the same thing as not being length: zero apples are not apples :smile:

Now consider the notion of instants in time. Just as zero cm in length is not length and zero apples are not apples, zero seconds, instants/moments, isn't time at all. It seems, therefore, that time can't be considered as composed of size-zero instants for it's like saying zero cm is a length and we know that to say something has a length of zero cm is exactly the same as saying that thing has no length. Likewise when we speak of zero units of time, we're not talking about time anymore.

So, Zeno, by thinking zero-sized instants/moments as time is making the same mistake as someone who thinks zero apples are apples. The arrow can move because time is not made up of zero-sized instances/moments; instead time is essentially an interval and so, the arrow can move. — TheMadFool

I agree. If for people who like to find this paradoxical in this modern age (and i have met some) find the idea of instant confusing, instead say "an interval so small that it has similarities to an instant". So we might say a 1/10,000th of a second. Then explain that with some stipulations we can make this very tiny interval the same effectiveness as the normal age old instant of time.

We can even attach wierd symbols to this very tiny interval and give it a latin name. And when people go to look up this latin name they'll see a detailed explanation that this very tiny time interval is really just a substitute for a instant in time for people in this modern age who like to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Well thats what we philosophers do, we make a mountain out of a mole hill.

i didn't cuss but it was a little too mean so i deleted it.

Its a clever story, but if that story was instead written as a mathematical proof we could all get to the bottom of it real quick. Like i said before deductive reasoning only fails when not all variables or not all important variables are known to answer the question.

Perhaps next time you should show the story like you did but then place the mathematical proof next to it. Otherwise you are only going to fool uninformed people, which you may have succeeded in doing that.

I'd say we're using simple questioning to argue that deductive logic is flawed. However, if deductive logic shows that deductive logic is flawed, then deductive logic is flawed. — 83nt0n

Hypothetically if deductive logic was flawed, what would you replace it with? The most you could say against deductive logic is that out of the trillions variables that reality deals with, not all those variables are known to apply to the overall equation. In other words deductive logic isn't flawed, however people only have so much information at their disposal.

Wholistic logic can be quantified to some measure using linear logic. Even though it is extremely hard to quantify feelings, it is technically possible.

Extremely complex systems (such as wholistic logic) can be sampled (such as the sampling rate used to digitize sound so that it can be put on a compact disc for music) and have equations applied using mathematical subjects like linear equations.

In some ways wholistic logic has similarities to post-modernism.

The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic. One could almost say once someone embraces wholistic logic, why not just discuss wholistic logic with only people who believe strongly (strongly) in it. Or you can evangelize people to it.

All decisions people make are based on alot of information or a little bit of information but never a complete set of information, so the winners of history are not always the people who were the most rational.

Its one of those things, "only time will tell"
— christian2017

What leaps out at me is "The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic" Yes :party: Exactly! And how might a society that thinks that way be different from the one we have? I have an old logic book that explains why we should never be too sure of ourselves, and since education for technology, we are very sure of ourselves and could not possibly be more divided! Something as gone terribly wrong. I could be wrong but this wrongness seems very male and militant and that is why I question the good of the feminine and the problem of making it taboo. — Athena

Here in America we have alot of Post-Modernists. How does post-modernism relate to Wholistic logic? I actually did google/bing search for Wholistic logic but couldn't find a real definition for it. How would you define it? I actually find alot of Women in my area to be just as confident if not more confident than men.

So I've come across a story (What the Tortoise Said to Achilles) that may pose some problems for deductive logic. I'm actually tempted to call it the 'problem of deduction'. I'm curious to see what some other people think about this. https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/Carroll — 83nt0n

Are we trying to use deductive logic to prove that we shouldn't use deductive logic in this story?

Absolute truth exists, but it is very often hard to obtain.