Space Time Continuum

Blame Wittgenstein, not me.

A certain type of self righteous, cheap, pro scientific authoritarian talk, besides pointing on how language divergence does its natural way also in formal institutions, and unfortunately up to the breaking point, also reminds me that "Civilizational retrocess" is in vogue again...God bless...

You people just found in your backyard a new "civil war" to fight for concerning religion and science, mostly due to your classic inability to teach philosophy to your kids in the first place, and now in the call to arms you think everybody must pick sides or go to hell...give me a break !

You need clarity like water in the desert...not confrontation...
(You are elevating those idiots to a standard they don´t deserve, to much publicity out of place...)

I think you have figured out how to take up space, but you haven't got the time...

life comes at you pretty fast... The hard times linger, and the good won't last, if you don't expect to go down in defeat you will have to learn to pick up both feet at once

And I know how to make time fly, just kiss my girl, or close my eyes...

What I am trying to reference is that the concept of time is an actual existence. Point in case though as was referenced in a previous reply we can only define Time on the basis of measurement of motion in space. This true but there has to be a preceding force to this motion in order for it to have any reference towards time. In order to understand the Space and Time relationship subjectively referenced to us in the material world under certain expressions and such it is necessary to have a general impression that these object exist outside of space and this Space exist outside itself in Time that is without Time.

I like to reference to Heidelberg's uncertainy principle as soon as we have indentfied a specific location in Space and Identified it within a certain word structure or identified the reference contained within we lose all certainity of the other descriptions contained within any given structure. All reference to any particular word structure becomes closed and undefined but contains all definitions. This is the contradiction of trying to become dependent on any certain word structure as such. This all shows that in essence all reference towards object in space and the space of the object is contradicted in the mind because the mind contains all references without it referencing anything. Language is reduced to a very abstract symbolism that does not contain any references whatsoever but all of them under one Symbol.

Essentially for us to define Time at all is impossible it is not necessary either. If it was a necesssity and if it was defined by motion we would lose the concept of motion as well as the reference to motion so how could we define motion as the state of being in time or that which gives us a definition of time in so far as it is not "motion."

The best thing is to keep the definitions seperate that from the concept of Time in order to be able to come to a firm understanding which is possible as long as we continue to define the space of the object and the object contained outside this given structure. Time is a sort of dark matter we know it exist in everything we give reference to we shall not be positive though that these reference point in case reference all that is within Time. The fact that people can reference an end of time is conceptual and does not apply to any given space at a given time but that Time itself is entagled with the object and space in conceptual form and in order for it continue it must continue to operate continually under certain references towards it that is taking place in Space-Time

Movement and Space if you want...Time as you conceive it, as a thing, does not exist...

So if you want to question something, question movement itself, through hard deterministic approach on events unfolding...and try to imagine a 3 dimensional collection of frozen pictures, like a film frame of our Universe and its processes all in a big ensemble.

Yes, time is an aspect of an event in two ways.

1. When is part of the description of an event, as length is part of the description of an object. Just as the space taken up by the object is known by distance from other objects.... when is known by distance from other events.

2. We can think of time an space abstractly as the stage upon which all events appear. In this, we are thinking of time as something separate from any object (although we may also be aware that this makes no sense.) There is still meaning in it as we are looking abstractly at aspects that all events and objects have in common. Like all trees have something in common, so we speak of bark and leaves ideally. The only tree which has the ideal leaf is the ideal tree.

Before we say that ideal time (no particular when, but all of them) is a case of absurdity... we might note that as our gaze wanders over a landscape and brown and green shapes come into view... the ideal tree has made its appearance in the mind as we consider what we're seeing.

It's an oak. It's this oak. When it was born it was just an acorn. At that point a multitude of possibilities seemed to be before it. If it hadn't rolled down to this certain spot, it would have ended up on a rock and never rooted at all. If the lightening hadn't blown up that limb, it would be shaped differently now. And if the earth had formed differently so that it didn't spin in just such a way at just such a distance from the sun... there never would have been an acorn. This unique oak contains everything everywhere everywhen. It must have been in potential at the beginning of time and will leave its traces on all events until the end of time.

The end of time is a concept peculiar to cultures where people tend to think very abstractly. It's placing an x-y axis over a circle so the points can be distinguished. Now we have beginning and end. An event is an arc.

Time as a thing does not exist you are right in that regard but it is impossible to come to an understanding of it without a frame of reference. Once we lose reference to the frame of the event that is as it takes place in Space as we observe it historically then we tend to lose distinction between the concept of being Time and the definition that we give it through movement.

The questioning of movement causes us to call into question Time and ultimately calls in the existence of sense references towards motion within Space itself. Once we try to answer the question of movement we ultimately dissemble the three dimensional description of space and leave it void of any subjectivity or word structure to define the given space that an object exist in but declare Space to be a given a priori of Time itself which altogether abolishes the Time-Space distinction.

The Concept of Time and Space being define along a certain point within Space as the End of Time ending with that Space in Time is totally undefined and thus nothing but a process of the imagination and non existent what soever. There will be no end of time as we know it as it relates to motion. Motion is a constant variable which continues to progress almost to infinity.

Not if a chain of events is self circular...if motion works into a pattern process, in its repeating defines Being for what it truly is...so you can see that you can have infinite motion in a finite Nature and in a confined Space...
LAW is about that...

Heidegger's point is that existence (Existenz) requires time (Zeit) as a substrate, but also that existence only applies to Daseins (self observing conscious beings). Now it may be that such "considerations" include "relationships with the world" and that such relationships involve a time dimension. I extrapolate that point by arguing that "properties of objects" are predictions about hypothetical future relationships of Dasein...."science" being a specialized communal attempt at prediction and control. (Note that retrodictions are equivalent to predictions by discarding "past and future" in favour of "now and not now").

The question continue and yet we have not even come to but the corpse of the being the actual being is still curved in the heavens. A chain of events is self circular if Time itself is the mode upon which all events are dependent on for existing within and without the mode that determines it. Time is the constant divisor of motion it gives the limits and laws of Space and object to a finite nature.

The question asked when regarding motion as the determination of all definitions of time is the fact that all definitions in Space do not exist at all in Time per se and it must be concluded that Space is non determinant and not self circular it exist only in the presence of a limited object which will become ill defined if an infinite motion takes its place in Time and Space. If so then it is impossible to define which came first at all or what question we are asking.

We lose all concepts whatsoever of time being anything other then motion and at the same time we lose the very function of motion. So is Motion just a dead space where all voids are filled in with things that stand for ideas and concepts and concepts which are thus replaced with these things. If this is the case what is this thing? And if so is this thing nothing at all but a refraction of our imagination thus a myth and an illusion.

The Why Time exist should be replaced with the Being of Time for itself a Pheomenonal Object which we stand in the presence of its being not determining it in our questions but letting the question just simply be What it is without trying to dissect Being itself and transition it into a position and location within space and object. This results in the "Why" being answered and brought simply into question as a result of Being that is Time.

The only valid "visual" conception of Being if to remove time and movement out of the picture would be an Axis of a huge 2 dimensional Information String in the form of a Ring, which I call the "Axis of Order".
In this Axis you would be able to simulate as many dimension you want in Binary code for instance...you would do the whole World just as easily.

So as I see it, "THE THING" its a repeating pattern , its infinitely self circular, and its bound into LAW, it own self as the measure against nothingness...

Could not have said it better I agree with you completely. The problem here is this idea is still very conceptual but at some point we have to settle on something or we will just be running around circles with nowhere to go

Doesn't Dasein mean "being there" or "there being."

Dasein refers to self and world as inextricible. Like male and female are aspects of Human... each exists relative to the other within the one Thing.

Any idea is like that. It's like a parcel of meaning (which requires leaving something out so something can appear highlighted in consciousness...in the same way you hold back some fingers and drop others to play a meaningful chord on a piano). So the negative of Dasein would be lack of consciousness... basically the void or meaningless stuff... without any self or world.

Checkity check.

(that means: yes, like checking something off a list)

Thanks for explaining that away I would n´t get it to the full at first glance.

Well put !

Note that the later Heidegger moved away from Sein und Zeit towards "language" as the fundamental substrate ("language speaks the man"). I see this as a shift in line with a view of "self" as being an epiphenomenon of social interaction conveyed within the grammar of language, self being an "actor" amongst others.
(See also Dennett). And "self" and "thing" are ontological complements...the shift being towards focus on "a communicative field" which some might see as "collective consciousness".

One of the major problems with 'time' is our unavoidable tendency to equate 'time' (the ding-an-sich) with 'earth-time.' In a very real sense it is meaningless -- even absurd -- to maintain that the so-called Big Bang occurred so many billions of years ago. The Big Bang is occurring right now. The concept of 'year' as a measurement loses all validity once you're no longer on this particular planet.

agreed