Originally posted by twhiteheadI would rather say "we are stationary in a mind-only reality and observing the projections of our own mind according to our collective subjectivity alone". And I would add that "we see the past because, during our collapsing of the wavefunction history, we happened to establish specific events (that they took place solely because we happen to establish them as such) and then we extrapolated them into a string of events within a realm of a mind-only reality that, due to our dualist approach, appear as if it was inherently existent and separated from our own perception".
Interestingly I am a follower of Justnowism. I believe quantum mechanics implies that the flow of time is an illusion and we are stationary in time and observing both past and future. We see the past as more solid due to certain properties of the time dimension.
To me, time itself and the time dimensions are merely an invention we brought up for our convenience because we grasp the ever-changing “reality” (I evaluate “reality” as nothing but all the observed by us observers that are consisted of elements of reality that establish the plexus of the whole “reality” the very way we perceive it thanks to our awareness alone) as a change within time -but this is false. In fact all the ever-changing observers are causal fields in constant interaction to each other. This huge and total change is perceived by us in the context of the convention known as directional time, however it takes place solely in the context of the phenomena-in-flux that we mistakenly evaluate as flux-in-phenomena (time). So over here this Greek Jock joins hands with our rabbie oh the horror who stated that “reality can exist solely in the mind” -but I would go a click further: reality is nothing but an illusion that has to be taken seriously
😵
Originally posted by black beetleAnd it is my claim that both past and future 'collapse', but neither collapses fully (the uncertainty principle). So although we may be more certain of the past (due to entropy), we can never tie it down to one exact past. The future is harder to 'remember' but nevertheless is a real as the past. Both past and future consist of things we know happened/will happen and things we can never know happened/will happen (because we lack the information). The illusion is that we see ourselves travelling from the past to the future because we know much more about the past than the future.
And I would add that "we see the past because, during our collapsing of the wavefunction history, we happened to establish specific events (that they took place solely because we happen to establish them as such) and then we extrapolated them into a string of events within a realm of a mind-only reality that, due to our dualist approach, appear as if it was inherently existent and separated from our own perception".
If we could predict the future better, the illusion of time flowing would disappear.
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: "And... ...than the future."
And it is my claim that both past and future 'collapse', but neither collapses fully (the uncertainty principle). So although we may be more certain of the past (due to entropy), we can never tie it down to one exact past. The future is harder to 'remember' but nevertheless is a real as the past. Both past and future consist of things we know happened/wil ...[text shortened]... ture.
If we could predict the future better, the illusion of time flowing would disappear.
Yes.
Edit: "If we could predict the future better, the illusion of time flowing would disappear."
No. Since prediction is related to elements of reality that are not yet established (and therefore are not emerging strictly out of a given and/ or known or unknown to us karmic pool of probabilities due to the chaotic structure of the nexus of the constantly-in-flux nature of the observers/ causal fields from which our reality is made of), the prediction per se does not reveal the illusion of time flowing because the outcome still evolves stricktly through time. Therefore, methinks the illusion of time flowing fades away solely when we are aware of the constantly-in-flux nature of the reality that takes place regardless of the non-inherently existent time and its dimensions
😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieaccelerate towards the earth at a speed of 9.81 meters per second
most probably you shall come under the influence of gravity and accelerate towards
the earth at a speed of 9.81 meters per second and as the energy dissipates on the
ground, you may more than likely feel a little queasy as a consequence.
<pedant>accelerate towards the earth at a rate of approximately 9.81 meters per second per second, until reaching terminal velocity because of air resistance (assuming far enough drop)</pedant>
Originally posted by black beetleAs always, I am not certain what you are saying exactly. However, it appears you are suggesting the future is less 'real' than the past. And that is what I am saying is not the case.
No. Since prediction is related to elements of reality that are not yet established (and therefore are not emerging strictly out of a given and/ or known or unknown to us karmic pool of probabilities due to the chaotic structure of the nexus of the constantly-in-flux nature of the observers/ causal fields from which our reality is made of), the predicti ...[text shortened]... ot reveal the illusion of time flowing because the outcome still evolves stricktly through time.
If the future was more predictable, then it would be as solid to us as the past. It is, even now, possible to know something about the future, just as it is possible to know something about the past. When I said 'predictable' I did not mean 'related to elements of reality that are not yet established', but rather 'knowledge of future events that will take place' and therefore could be considered 'elements of reality that are established'.
It is my claim that if more such elements existed in the future to the extent that they do in the past, then the illusion of time would disappear.
It is not that the future is not 'fixed' but rather the future is not known. There is a subtle difference. The past appears to be fixed because it is largely known. When it is unknowable (as in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle), we suddenly find ourselves confused about the past and not sure whether it is fixed or includes all possible pasts, or some other strange phenomena.
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergyou have yet to prove x which is itself a negation so to put into proper perspective: let x=-y. Now you are saying that you have a negative proof.
not sure I'm parsing what you're saying correctly...
Basically in my OP, I affirm X and you responded by saying one cannot prove ¬X
Firstly let X be the statement I know of a positive integer which is both odd and is a multiple of 2; whether this is a lie is irrelevant since to prove (in painful detail) I don't know of such a number you'd merely argue alon Now let X be the proposition "I have a proof that God doesn't exist"
Can you prove ¬X ?
or you are disproving lxl, and thast the absolute value of existance or non existance does not occur= illogical
Originally posted by DowardI have proven it, I told you about this in the OP
you have yet to prove x which is itself a negation so to put into proper perspective: let x=-y. Now you are saying that you have a negative proof.
or you are disproving lxl, and thast the absolute value of existance or non existance does not occur= illogical
3 edits
Originally posted by DowardIndeed, and as per the fundie mantra (not so sure you're a fundie), the burden rests upon you to prove/demonstrate/show I haven't proven it* (it might contain a mistake but I doubt it - I checked it and it looks ok) :]
you [b]say you have proven it.[/b]
*just like we atheists have to prove "God" doesn't exist (so I did)
Originally posted by Agergif you would so kind as to share your proof, perhaps the rest of us could become enlightened
Indeed, and as per the fundie mantra (not so sure you're a fundie), the burden rests upon you to prove/demonstrate/show I haven't proven it* (it might contain a mistake but I doubt it - I checked it and it looks ok) :]
*just like we atheists have to prove "God" doesn't exist (so I did)
5 edits
Originally posted by DowardI cannot be sure that upon reading it, and the consequent trauma it would inflict upon your world view that you will not seek the counsel of others, referencing the important details of this proof of mine. For this reason I must decline your offer.
pm me the particulars, I promise upon my honor that I will not reveal it to a soul😉
Moreover, revealing it to the entire world would not abuse the constraint of failing to share it with souls (in a vacuous sense since they are also shown not to exist!)
Originally posted by Agerg:'(
I cannot be sure that upon reading it, and the consequent trauma it would inflict upon your world view that you will not seek the counsel of others, referencing the important details of this proof of mine. For this reason I must decline your offer.
Moreover, revealing it to the entire world would not abuse the constraint of failing to share it with souls (in a vacuous sense since they are also shown not to exist!)
5 edits
Originally posted by JS357It does sound very plausible! The fact that nobody has disproven it is a big plus too! As further support for this position, given that everything has been created just NOW, it follows that justnowism must be true! otherwise it wouldn't have been created just now (which is impossible because it *was* all created just now, and nobody has shown it wasn't!!!) :]
There is an alternative called Lastthurisdayism, (which which might have to be parsed apart to Google) and an even more severe alternative which I thought I invented or at least advanced, about 8 years ago, on alt.atheism, called Justnowism. But it might not be an original idea.
Justnowism is the unassailable position that all that is, came to be just now. ...[text shortened]... ight shall we give unfalsifiable conjectures?
This may sound frivolous, but it's really not.