Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

It's usually quite difficult to measure something if it doesn't exist.

The concept of time is the measuring of the continuity of existence, look at your finger, see how it continues to exist, look at the clock and simultaneously look at your finger for one minute, see how it continues in time to exist. What was this one minute of time you think the clock detected while you were looking at your finger?

 

[shunyadragon]

If we don't have the time/space physical universe, the continuous directional arrow does not exist. Space is only observed when we have an observable measurable separation. Space is only directional, get it.

You didn't answer my question: in what sense is time NOT physical?

I answered it

It we do not have the time/space physical universe the continuous time arrow does not exist. Time is only observed when we have an observable measurable change. Time is only temporal, get it. I do not consider this a meaningful discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Precisely, that is how one is aware that time is a human concept. There is no cosmic entity on the other side of the concept. When the mind is still, the concepts of the ego mind are seen for what they are, thought bubbles that are meant to represent something real.

Yeah and yet time passes anyway.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah and yet time passes anyway.

You mean how existence doesn't stop existing for a moment, it just keeps on existing, time is amazing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean how existence doesn't stop existing for a moment, it just keeps on existing, time is amazing.

Yeah and it is all in your mind, so you can control it and yet you can't. That is the mark of objective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah and it is all in your mind, so you can control it and yet you can't. That is the mark of objective.

I beg your pardon, the concept of the continuity of existence may be mental, but the reality represented by the conceptualization is real. Existence continues to exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I beg your pardon, the concept of the continuity of existence may be mental, but the reality represented by the conceptualization is real. Existence continues to exist.

Real has no objective referent, it is mental. Learn to check your words for mental or not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Real has no objective referent, it is mental. Learn to check your words for mental or not.

The concept of real is mental, the reality represented by the concept is real. Now if you want to play games and say everything said or written is mental, fine, but by my specifically making the distinction between the concept real and that represented by the concept real, I was hoping you would understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The concept of real is mental, the reality represented by the concept is real. Now if you want to play games and say everything said or written is mental, fine, but by my specifically making the distinction between the concept real and that represented by the concept real, I was hoping you would understand.

You can't show that. That is an idea in your mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't show that. That is an idea in your mind.

I shouldn't have to, in conveying the idea of real to you, I have made it clear I am not talking about the concept 'real', but that which the concept represents. You now appear to want objective evidence of the realness of the meaning of real.

Ok, you choose an object near you that you know to be real and tell me what it is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I shouldn't have to, in conveying the idea of real to you, I have made it clear I am not talking about the concept 'real', but that which the concept represents. You now appear to want objective evidence of the realness of the meaning of real.

Ok, you choose an object near you that you know to be real and tell me what it is?

Well, we are doing philosophy and the joke is that it is real, that I can get away with doing that differently than you. Now explain that without explain me away as unreal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, we are doing philosophy and the joke is that it is real, that I can get away with doing that differently than you. Now explain that without explain me away as unreal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really have to consider how you handle this. In effect I am explaining to you limited cognitive relativism and you are a non-relativist. Hence you experience

 

[joelr]

You and others may think so. I don't.

Why is that? Basic compounds are all over space, amino acids and such. There are trillions of planets and billions of years. We know basic organic compounds organize to form nucleobase structures and things of that nature. A basic replication isn't impossible and a RNA pre-cursor also isn't impossible. Rare but there are so many planets and so much time that it becomes reasonable.

What part of life formation hangs you up and makes you feel it's not probable.

Another thing is anything with any probability will happen given enough time and area, that is built into physics.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ultimately there was a pre-BB.

That's a bold claim - how do you know? The classical model based on General Relativity suggests that there wasn't and time started at the BB. It may be modified by some future theory that combines GR with Quantum Field Theory, but we haven't got that yet. There are hypotheses and some of them suggest a pre-BB and some not. There are even stranger suggestions like time going forward in both directions from the BB.

 

[ratiocinator]

It we do not have the time/space physical universe the continuous time arrow does not exist.

So you're disagreeing current physics. What's your justification?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a bold claim - how do you know? The classical model based on General Relativity suggests that there wasn't and time started at the BB. It may be modified by some future theory that combines GR with Quantum Field Theory, but we haven't got that yet. There are hypotheses and some of them suggest a pre-BB and some not. There are even stranger suggestions like time going forward in both directions from the BB.

All that are silly and pointless mind games. None of it is useful as we decide what is useful, not you.

I enjoy science as much as I enjoy philosophy and I accept that you do it different even to the point that you declare a we. Then I just do the same.

 

[ratiocinator]

All that are silly and pointless mind games.

Physics and cosmology are things that can be investigated and progress can be made. There is evidence to consider and we have tested theories and speculative hypotheses to discuss.

Your musings about reality not being real, simulations and so on, are not. Once you've said it, that's it, dead-end. After the first time you've heard it, it's just boring and irrelevant - and you bringing it up all the time and everywhere is tedious. If you want to spend your time fantasising about these things, then fine, but it's not on-topic to bring it up in every conversation. I already know that it's possible that what we think is reality isn't as it seems and may be a simulation or whatever. It is, however, knowledge that is of no practical or theoretical use. I don't need to discuss it further. I will therefore ignore any further posts from you along these lines.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physics and cosmology are things that can be investigated and progress can be made. There is evidence to consider and we have tested theories and speculative hypotheses to discuss.

Your musings about reality not being real, simulations and so on, are not. Once you've said it, that's it, dead-end. After the first time you've heard it, it's just boring and irrelevant - and you bringing it up all the time and everywhere is tedious. If you want to spend your time fantasising about these things, then fine, but it's not on-topic to bring it up in every conversation. I already know that it's possible that what we think is reality isn't as it seems and may be a simulation or whatever. It is, however, knowledge that is of no practical or theoretical use. I don't need to discuss it further. I will therefore ignore any further posts from you along these lines.

Yeah, so many feelings. At least this time you didn't claim to be a we in the same sense. So that is progress. And yes, you have your stick and I have mine. So I get how you are going to ignore it, but thanks for being honest.

 

[shunyadragon]

If we don't have the time/space physical universe, the continuous directional arrow does not exist. Space is only observed when we have an observable measurable separation. Space is only directional, get it.

You didn't answer my question: in what sense is time NOT physical?

To add; time is only an observation of change in the physical existence. When there is no change there is no time.