@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;28753 wrote:From a philosophical perspective but not from the perspective of Physics.
Again incorrect. Do a search on 'the impossibility of time' and 'time is impossible'.. that sort of thing. You'll see what some top physicists are thinking
these days about time.
The following links are from some different, yet convergent Perspectives;
This
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Bur****.html
(Where you see stars in the above address, you need to replace them with the diminutive form of 'Richard' that begins with a 'd'. For some pathetic reason, this site idiotically censors the word d*i*c*k ... his name is Burd*i*c*k (without the stars)! Sheesh!)
And here
Or perhaps here
Or maybe this
am I wasting my 'time'?
If not,
here's another on the impossibility of motion
And another
And a
bit more about 'time' if you wish to go a mathematical route...
That aught to be some food for thought if you are interested.
Bye the bye, science is a (-n informing)
branch of philosophy.
Logic trumps empiricism, and so does praxeology. If someone came up to you and said, "I just observed something that is A and not A at the same time," you wouldn't chuck out logic. You'd probably think the person was crazy, or look for some basic error in their assumptions (e.g. an fallacy of equivocation, one of their A's is not really identical to the other.) If someone told you that they saw water running uphill, you wouldn't say, "Oh well, the law of gravity doesn't hold." Again, you'd look for errors in assumptions related to the law of gravity. Was it an optical illusion? Was energy added (a hand pump?) Did it occur in a space capsule? Similarly, if someone says a rise in price, of apples, gold, iPods, or labor, didn't result in lowering sales, you don't chuck out the praxeological law that people prefer more to less. You look for assumptions that don't hold. Was it really ceterus paribus, or unconsidered factors effect it?
It's a whole new game now...
You're welcome.
Enjoy the links.
Later...
****
update;
2 days later and not a word, Binyamin. I imagine that you didn't read any of the links that I generously provided. I imagine that someone found some food for thought.
That shows me (and any perceptive lurker) that you aren't interested in 'truth' or 'learning' or 'evolving', but merely in propagating your pet thoughts/beliefs; part of the mental ossification process.
oh well
carry on
nameless out
