Question: Do You Have The Time?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by allaboutthevapors, Sep 24, 2014.

  1. If you took it as patronizing that's not how it was intended. "Think about it" is hardly an insult, that's what we're supposed to do especially in a philosophy forum, and I ended the post saying that you were welcome to your opinion and I didn't feel the need to argue about it. Nobody has called you a fool or anything else of the sort but you feel the need to get angry and say it about others. And in the end that's why I said this was a thread with a nice premise to start with and I don't want to hijack it. These debates, when they get heated instead of conversational, always get out of hand.
     
    I don't see how things which are part of reliable, predictable and working laws can not be real. You say you do, an effort was made to get you to explain but it's not a productive one so at this point I'm out. That's not a lack of respect, it's a lack of willingness to sidetrack and shit on an otherwise nice thread.

     
  2. #22 gumisgood, Oct 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2014
    i wasn't angry...i was amused. where'd you get anger from? lol
     
    i mean, it's just funny to me to see people linking me to material i was learning about 10/15 years ago...when i was 10 or 15. telling me to consider the scientific method as if it is some new or novel idea is just funny. or to consider the laws of physics as if i was writing from a position ignorant of them.
     
    however, i did explain...there was no refutation of my explanation. just confusion. what is time to a jellyfish that can grow backwards? what is time to an entity that is unconscious (a rock, or a dead person)? what is the nature of time when time has no set nature? when it is relative to the perceiver, as demonstrated by the scientific method, and otherwise obviously? time as i perceive it can be, and is, different from how you perceive it. it's why i feel like i'm already too damn old even though i'm relatively young. i feel like i've lived forever, and in a sense, i have...
     
    forever as i know it.
     
    again, i ask, what is time to an immortal being? time is of this earth, it is not inherent in nature. time is the human expression of life and death. if i could grow back into a fetus, then to an adult...and back and forth...at my will...and then you told me about your notion of time, i'd look at you as if you're nuts. 
     
    another way of saying this is...explain time to a God ignorant of time? to that God, time is just you counting down to your death or from your life.
     
    time is very relative. different cultures think about time differently. there's linear time. there's seasonal time. there are native tribes, even, that think about time in what we think of as reverse. time in the west is different from time in africa. in africa, there's a saying...there's no hurry in africa. time in africa is different...as a social consequence. in the west, it's always just "go, go, go!". aboriginal australians have weird notions of time too, maybe you should look into how different people have conceptualized time throughout history?
     
    like they say something like, you've already lived your life, you're just going through with the actual living of it. it gets into arguments of determinism and fate.
     
    so, getting this back on track...
     
    the nature of time has been debated forever, is still being debated today, and will be debated long into the future. that's the nature of the debate of time lol. i feel like there are no "established" answers, it's still a wide open field. 
     
    you can't tell me i'm wrong because there is no established right yet, i feel. 
     
    we're still going. 
     
  3.  
    Not exactly, though I will try to end this on a better note ;)
     
    While questions of what time is to something that can devolve, or to a God, or whatever are interesting questions as to perspective they don't touch (to me at least) on the reality of the phenomena in question. They instead deal with what it means to an individual circumstance.
     
    Yes, time is relative, that was already pointed out with the particle and time dilation bit. All of that is also interesting but also doesn't argue that it isn't a real phenomena in question.
     
    I never said a thing about education, qualification, or anything of the sort. This is a philosophy forum and we're all entitled to opinions, no degree needed or asked for. Posting a link to the method was a courtesy not just to you but to anyone reading who might want to know what I meant by the statement. Not an insult or assumption, about you or anything else.
     
    Why would I assume anger? Oh, I don't know, the fool comment and a couple of other tidbits such as patronizing and "respect" might have led to the conclusion that you seemed annoyed.
     
    In the end I think we just approach things from a different perspective and while we might in the end find some agreement (or not) a simple question about how something which comprises a decent part of a working set of laws isn't real has turned into a more complex discussion not about if it's real but about what it means to us as individuals. Worthwhile perhaps but not a debate I'm especially interested in even if I did think this was the right thread for it, which personally I don't.
     
    If you took offense to any of it that wasn't the intent. Later.
     
  4. So it is safe to say, then, that you have exhausted all thought on this, explored every facet of it, and are now enlightened fully to the point that you could not possibly gain anything through further consideration? Am I to understand that this should be an entirely one sided discussion through which wisdom will flow only in one direction since there are many ideas that we have not yet considered, but none that you haven't already thoroughly examined?

    If I am correctly grasping what you have said, then I certainly think that we owe you great thanks for choosing to impart a portion of your vast knowledge to us, and that I should congratulate you for completing what must have been near an eternity's worth of work on the subject. It's unfortunate that some others might not recognize or respect your brilliance for what it is, and try to engage you in conversation as if you were non-omnipotent like the rest of us. I apologize for the confusion, the subject you have so thoroughly examined is complex and difficult to grasp to us feeble minded mortals.
     
  5. #25 gumisgood, Oct 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2014
     
    That's not what I meant...
    And it's disruptive of the thread for me to go any further into that. If you feel you must continue this..you're more than welcome to pm me.
     
    My overall point stands, though in hindsight I could have made it while being more polite, yes...
     
    That is; the physical (physicist's) conception of time is not the sole standard from which to consider it. (or from which it is to be considered...blah blah blah..). Also pertinent are biological considerations (life or death), cultural/historical/sociological considerations, metaphysical (philosophical) considerations and whatever else...
     
    Time is no discipline's domain...indeed, I've often thought that time deserves its own academic category.
     
  6. What if age didn't exist? Would people "age" slower?
     
  7. IMO time is merely the rate of decay of everything


    Sent from Neptune
     

Share This Page