Eternalism

Howcome theres no t rex at the moment then? Well because they died off in the PAST.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk

 

Thing about life, is that if you believe what you imagine as possible. Then with enough will, it is. But each action has consequence, it was Neo's fighting back against the system that created Smith... And what happened when the Oracles words came out of Smiths mouth? Why was the seventh one, different from his predecessors? What was the difference between the seventh matrix and the former ones? Determinism versus Free-will. It's spriritual warfare...

 

I've never heard it called Eternalism. That sounds kind of odd to me, like people not understanding a concept trying to turn science into a philosophy.

Any physicist will tell you though, everything is happening at once. This is why everything stops when you hit the speed of light.

 

I don't know if this is a philosophy or if it needs a nname

But yea basically that's why time is now called the 4th dimension. There is no time. Only a relative location in respect to other objects.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
So, OP didn't create this thread before you responded it, really?
 

 
Can object's move without time?

 

Objects cannot move without moving from - to. This creates a sequence of events.

Each event is a point on a line in the 4th dimension.

Anything that moves, moves through every dimension, because dimensions are just tools to measure movement.

Time is a measurement of a direction

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
 

Objects cannot move without moving from - to. This creates a sequence of events.
 
That doesn't answer my question, yuri; you're just repeating what you said in your last post. Yes, in order for an object to travel through space, there must be a space to travel through; but, what if I claim that, without time, every thing or every object in space would be frozen (and stagnated)? Space is merely a vessel for bodies, but can a body move in space, successively, without time? Yay or nay? The idea of a non-temporal or atemporal sequence is nonsensical. "Sequence" or "succession" necessitates time.
 
Each event is a point on a line in the 4th dimension.
 
Do these points on a line succeed one another?
 
Also, are you alluding to the idea that each individual point (on a line in the "4 dimension") is non-spatial? I mean, if, an object moving from - to, is to be considered as a sequence of events, and each individual point on a line in the "4 dimension" is a constiuent event in the sequence of them, then aren't you really just suggesting that each event, or each point, in a sequence of them, does not exist in space, i.e., in the domain of three dimensions?

Anything that moves, moves through every dimension, because dimensions are just tools to measure movement.
 
And "dimensions" pertain to height, length, and depth, that is to say, to space, do they not?
 
Time is a measurement of a direction
 
No, direction is a relational measurment pertaining to geometry - spatial positioning.

 

I did answer the question you.just.misunderseand.

Your last quote said it best.

"Direction is a relational measurement pertaining to gemoetry."

"Time" is just another spacial dimension things move through

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
Are you telling me that space itself possesses more dimensions than height, length, and depth?

 

Or that space and time are inextricably bound together. No space without time, no time without space. Thus space-time.

 

And both aren't possible without awareness.  

 

Re-read yuri's assertion in post #6...

 

Any form of separation implies an individual perceiving it. Individual minds collapse reality into apparently discrete and self-existing objects.

 

 
Space and time are not inextricably bound together (but it may seem that way to us in our experience); for if they truly were, they could not coherently be represented, individually, in separate terms; meaning, two realities that can be thought of as possibly being differentiated, individually, or can be representated as being differentiated and separated from one another, are indeed different and separate realities.
 
For example, I cannot possibly differentiate or separate the notion of a 'shape' from the thought of extension, or the the notion of a 'biped' from the thought of two legs, or the notion of 'running' from the thought of motion, thus, a body cannot be differentiated from extension, a biped cannot be differentiated from two legs, and running cannot be differentiated from motion, i.e., the separation (even in thought) would be incoherent. Yet, in regards to space and time, one can, in thought, coherently represent the former without latter (and vice versa); even if our causal experiences are contingent upon, and indeed we are prosaically accustomed to, their relational unity. But our personal experiences don't ultimately dictate "what's what".
 
Pure space without time can be represented as a reservoir existing without any movement occuring within it; hence, the space itself is not contingent upon time for its reality and existence, because time, in this context, is only an actual reality in relation to the movements occuring within the reservoir (and not in relation to the encompassing reservoir itself; negate the movements, the space remains). Similirally, pure time can be represented without space as eternal or ever-lasting nothingness.
 
So, imo, space and time are not inherently or inextricably bound together, and inseparable (as shape and extension are, or as a biped and two legs are, or as running and motion are), for one can coherently represent the reality of the former without the latter (and vice versa).

 

Yes sir!  It seems as though more and more is revealing itself to me every day, like a deepening.  You know truth when you know it.  Identifying with the transparent infinite awakeness that we are really changes everything.. 

 

yes. And so did Einstein

That's why we call it spacetime now. Because its one thing

Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
Prove to me, palpably and empirically, that space actually has more dimensions than height, length, and depth? And without recourse to abstract mathematics (mathematical equations which are written in 3-d space).

I bet you can't.

... and for a good reason to...

 

You can't prove empirically that a man made definition is true

Time is a measurement of the sequence of events. From a scientific empirical perspective, "time" doesn't exist. Its all reltaive to motion (order of events)

And order of events cannot happen without a "motion"

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to exclude time from space.

If an object "moves" (does anything that is something) it also "progresseses" throught the sequence of events. Said order of events is perceived as "time". Measurements of the number of events is recorded in units (seconds minutes etc.)

I'm not really sure what you are asking. This is all elementary level stuff


Also Google "spacetime" there is a reason time is considered the 4th spacial dimension and "spacetime" is now considered one word
Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app