quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"Why didn't you tell him that ?"

"I did but he refused to read the post. "

And the problem is ? I ain't got all day to argue about the argument. Then we will have to ague about the argument about the argument and then we will have......fuck all that.

quote:

Anyway : "Purely objective time has no past, present or future. It is events that give such words meaning."
 
In that you contradict yourself, I think. At one point you claim the we cannot see what you call objective time, but then it is that which gives it meaning by way of events. This is intermixing too many facets of philosophy for this argument to make any sense at all. If taken to the final conclusion, that would means that those who believe that only they are real and the world and everything else is all figmentary are correct.

quote:

 
That would mean that a seed in a vault, because it sees no events, does not experience time. And some seeds are practically immortal. Not the plant, but the seeds from which they spring. That would then follow that time would not pass for someone in suspended animation. This is a self centered view IMO.

quote:

 
What of thought ? Impelling that particular thought through logic, that would mean that when thought stops, time stops. But that actually could be true. If you are actually all figments of my imagination, when I die the universe collapses. The opposite would also be true, it would just depend on who is doing the dreaming and who is doing the acting within the dream.

quote:

 
I can't fault you for your thoughts, they are as good as anyone's when it comes to these things. It is the taking of things personally. Nobody can say that to me ! I'm insulted ! I've been called all kinds of shit here. Damn if I care.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
~FR~

I think maybe it's nap time, everyone.

Good night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Fourteen lines is not at length. You don't want to see at length. Anyway, if the topic even matters.........

quote:


"Wrong, it doesn't mean that at all. What I meant was that pure time devoid of events no past, present or future."

So then did time exist before the creation of the universe ? ... Time just started up one day ? With no energy can there be events ? If time existed before the universe that means there must "have been" some sort of energy. If there was a big bang, there was something there to go bang. From where did that come ?

quote:


If not, then time is a function of the universe. Mind you I am not a fan of Einstein when it comes to this. But if time did not exist in the void, which would be event free of course, how could there be a time before time ? Even if we are all dead, we cease to age and experience. But the planets still rotate and revolve, so there are events. But with no objects, can there be events ?

quote:


In the macro sense, it is almost beyond comprehension, it certainly is at this "time" :-) And like physics, just keep finding smaller and smaller parts of reality, to what end ? I don't mean the in the sense that it is futile, I mean it in the non-colloquial(sp) sense, where does it end. Our entire existence considered on the edge of a razor honed down to one atom. But that's not the end, so where is the end of it ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
size=2]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Clean up your own back yard first. By the looks of things it is extremely dirty.

Well let's have a look at a few things in your back yard...

You quoted half a sentence as my "opening premise".
I quoted your sentence complete (link to original).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
my reply was that he refused to read it. couldn't it be any simplier?

Not a bit. Except, of course, for the detail that I did not "refuse" to read it.

What I said was, that with an opening premise like the sentence I quoted, there was no need to read it.

You are replying to a response from Termy where I was referring to a reply to him. You did refuse to read it. A post was put up in reply to yours. The onus is on you to read it. You effectively refused to do so by stating "Given that as your opening premise, there is clearly no need to read further." It was one of your not infrequent gestures of contempt.

Secondly the first sentence was not an opening premise. It was a statement on my views which I qualified. A premise is a proposition, the first step in an argument ending in a proof. I offered an opinion to which you were free to accept or not.

quote:


But I did, of course... and the experience confirmed my impression.

LOL Nice effort to avoid answering. I must have upset you in some way for you to be behaving like this. Basically you set up a sad little game to discredit me on the other thread. Rather than engage in serious debate, you engaged in a cheap ploy. Its telling of your character. Then when it didn't work you engaged pages of abusive criticism. The truth is that you aren't remotely as sharp as you think you are, and must know that at some level to engage in such tactics.

feel free to actually take me on at an argument sometime!

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I believe that time doesn't exist in any external separate sense of the word... I assume it is a way for conscious beings to interpret sequences of events.

I don't know if you have Kant in mind, but in his view this is true of both space and time, i.e., that these do not reflect objective realities but rather the a priori structure that our mind imposes on experience in order to have it make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
feel free to actually take me on at an argument sometime!

What you do is not "argument," Anaxagoras.

Is this some sort of zen lesson in passivity! lol Gimme a break. I don't wish to disrupt this thread further as reading this must be shit for others that have an actual interest in the thread topic so I'll leave this wee fracas for now unless there are any further outrages in your replies. Do take care.

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
He testified repeatedly that Israel did not fire at the lifeboats, offered assistance etc.

That is true, but, as is typical in your conception of "argument," it is also irrelevant. The issue was whether or not he believed that the attack was deliberate. You insisted that he did not. In fact he did, and he said so both in writing and on video, which of course you ignored. Please cease your insulting accusations and be content to let a yanked thread lie.

You don't deserve to be let off the hook for deliberately destroying a perfectly fine thread. I challenged you about it at the time and you said you were enjoying yourself. Nice!

Furthermore my quote gets to the very heart of the matter, dear heart. Firstly, there was never any question that the attack was deliberate. The issue was whether it was a case of mistaken identity or not. I'm not going to resurrect this issue on this thread because you and especially Termy will blast off lengthy missives but the Wiki entry alone carries are numerous snippets of what Captain McGonagle said in testimony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident and nothing suggesting your contention even though it goes into a lot of depth over what the conspiracists claim. In actual fact conspiracists ignore or dismiss his testimony, such as the fact that Israeli flags were displayed (oh he couldn't have seen them according to James Ennes), that he thought they had attacked in error after the Liberty fired on them, and that they did offer assistance after the attack was called off. There are online articles by conspiracists saying his testimony is unreliable. A huge shitstorm would be caused if the captain of a vessel withdrew testimony from several high level inquiries. There is no record of him doing so. If you have evidence to the contrary I suggest you provide it. You didn't when I made similar assertions to the above before.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You had stated "nor can it be said that there is "only" the present." He actually said the present doesn't exist: "Yeah, I agree, the Present is the only thing that exists. By definition the Past and Future don't exist, the Past did exist, and the Future will exist, only the Present does exist...but by definition it can't exist....see the problem?" while I said it does over and above the past and future. Thus your response does not make sense in reply to Arpig.

Termy and Arpig both - in posts 2 and 3, respectively - expressed the view that the present is the only thing that exists, despite the problem with that idea that Arpig cites (I had both quotes in there, but I see that I lost one and messed up the link). Your peculiar insistence that my comment could only have been a reply to your post is incorrect.

Arpig said ultimately that the present doesn't exist by definition, whilst I said it did. My post just preceded yours so it is likely you were also alluding to my comments. I didn't say it could only be a reply to my post but that part of it seemed likely to be. The excuses about links or whatever just make you seem like you are making it up as you go along.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 7/21/2011 6:12:05 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"I don't see time as being atomised. It is a continual analogue that we divide to measure for comprehension."

Trying to digitize* an analog universe ? Have you heard of math without numbers ? It can be done, but it requires a completely different midset. To comprehend a quanitiy without enumerating it is very difficult for most because they are taught that numbers are the only way to quantify anything. This is of course untrue and I can't say whether it is intentional or not. Breaking our dependence on numbers is hard enough, let alone explaining it.

* not meant in the sense of computers, 0 - 9 are digits.