3
   

What happens when time stop?

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
…. precisely ! This is at the core of my all philosophy...all would crumble n fall apart if I come to think this is wrong...
Interesting Fil you should so assert. A "proof" of determinism would surely make everyone else's world so disintegrate

Quote:
That's why I say things like "God" does not grow,
Now here is where we differ, as the pantheist maintains that the Universe does in fact grow. But perhaps you're again employing metaphor

Quote:
or does not think,
But She does. All the activity herein is Her thinking

Quote:
or it cannot change its own process...the all thing is already complete done n over with. Its self trapped self enclosed !
My view, not worth much hereabout: the entire issue will eventually prove not one of physics but only semantics
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Matter is an easy one...once matter is energy, remember E=MC2 ?
Okay but that doesn't make matter digital too, especially not all of it at once as you seem to suggest

Quote:
Now digital Universe theories in fact all the modern cosmology like M-Theory, also assumes a quantized space at plank scale...time is the 4 dimension intertwined with space...it follows !
Too much for me

I think we've been abandoned. Maybe because the others consider all of this nonsensical
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 06:50 pm
@dalehileman,
What you call "activity" is bound with spacetime, like a film...imagine picture it, like someone inside a film you are watching in the TV saying:
"I am real..." ..."Time is moving forwards within this reality I am in..."
...and yet you damn well know the actor is framed n frozen in the god damned tape...

...oh by the way on my world "matter" is just info inside a quantized space...I am no more a materialist then Morpheus saying to Neo "Do you think this is air you breathing now ?"

Matter is info within a system of rules that make up for experiencing like "solidity", "softness","roughtness", "heat", "cold" n such...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 07:06 pm
@dalehileman,
It should be pretty clear by now I don't care a rats azz on what others think...most of them don't even think if you want my very open blunt opinion. They hide in pompous vacuous old thinking, but very rarely do they come out, for open, all bets are off, willing full, honest debating...they hide in "languaging" or the establishment !
In turn I do care with what some of the most brilliant man in this planet think instead...my ideas unfortunately are not novelty !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 07:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
What I am saying is that although "properties" exist, they operate as functions within relational sets...they are as much relative as experiencing space time from different points of view or with different observer frames of reference..."observer" in here does not require any such things as awareness or control...just exchange of information within relative relating sets.

The properties effect is per se real and given, but the how these properties come to manifest is dependent on certain relative relational parameters...for instance I suspect water might feel almost "solid" for an insect and earth almost "liquid" to a falling asteroid...this speaking in terms as how they exchange information n affect each other.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 02:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
What I am saying is that although "properties" exist, they operate as functions within relational sets...they are as much relative as experiencing space time from different points of view
Without insisting upon dualism, rife with contradiction and paradox, I'd describe them in two general kinds of pattern, that is, abstract and concrete. Within the latter lie constants and other measurable "physical" relationships within which, as you infer, certain dependencies lie and from which accurate prediction is often made

Recent studies suggest these constants are independent, suggesting the world is the way it it is not because God adjusted it that way but because it simply can't be any other way. You, Fil, might take this to buttress your determinism

But Fil if that's so, why spend so much time and effort fielding your point of view, which in effect maintains that nothing at all matters in any way whatever

Or do I misinterpret your concept of determinism
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 02:24 pm
@dalehileman,
Of course it matters for what it is...what it is is all we have after all...I enjoy my ride as anyone to the possible extent should enjoy his. For coherence sake I do agree that even this "enjoying" is not up to anyone to decide but if causally speaking I can somehow raise some level of awareness on how the world works and that we should take it for what it is then I am already fulfilling one of mine purposes. Whether people are fated to get it or to miss it is beyond me, but I have to try anyway. It is my believe we don't need anything else other then understanding, as far as I am concerned the world is complete as is.

What matters is what we need to do, and it doesn't much matter that what we need to do was not settled by us. Unlike others around the forum, for instance the mind gang, I don't feel I have to be in control of my reality. If anything I am glad reality is no more mine then anyone else's...this is not to mean or to take in the sense that we all build our own realities like some folk would like it to be...on the contrary not having control upon reality ends up bounding the all of reality to itself.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 02:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I enjoy my ride as anyone to the possible extent should enjoy his
Incidentally interesting Fil I've heard this philo expressed just once 60 years ago by another determinist. If you're right about the inevitability of it all, of course nothing I'm saying nor any response you might come up with matters in any way whatever. However if you're wrong, when it comes to matters I might for instance find important aren't you likely to make what I'd consider the wrong choice, say, following the path of lesser resistance or more immediate returns; thus affording me an advantage
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 03:09 pm
@dalehileman,
We are programmed to work not to follow the path of least resistance...ironically that is exactly the reason why we all assume free will by default. Having the illusion of a personnel purpose might have well been the evolutionary advantage to push reasoning forward in human beings. We like to think we matter in our own right. But as I see it now, we matter in the big picture. As anything else that exists we are here because we are part of the puzzle. I don't need authorship of reason to feel entitled to use reason. Reason is compelling in itself.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 03:37 pm
@5D,
5D wrote:

If time stops, then air molecules would refuse to move or at an atomic level, energy will vibrate at a slower frequency. If I'm a time stopper, then the earth would've stop spinning and does it mean I will be floating, no gravity?

I was thinking about the science behind this after watching a short film from youtube: http://youtu.be/1xRjIGcIL9c



You'll get minimal amount of entropy (S greater than or equal to zero) and everything around you will presumably cease to change.

And time itself does not exist; it's not a container in which events happen. It is given rise to by various changes in intensive properties. You can thank the second law of thermodynamics for this.

Thread closed.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 03:57 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 04:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
For what it's worth Fil, because nothing is entirely anything and everything is partly something else I don't find freewill and determinism to be absolutes but instead only the two "ends" of a spectrum. I place it in quotes to confirm neither is absolute
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2013 08:48 pm
@dalehileman,
I understand and respect your position dalehilemen, but soft determinism, which seams more or less to be what you are advocating, sounds like politics to me...and although I love political games for entirely different reasons I never mix politics with Philosophy (some people would immediately reason I am naive for thinking like that, but hey, its my own game). In any case it was a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. Thank you so much for couple of pleasant evenings going on about each others perceptions on the subject ! Wink
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 01:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I understand and respect your position dalehilemen, but soft determinism, which seams more or less to be what you are advocating, sounds like politics to me
Ok Phil but I had always considered it phys/philo, if not merely semantics. If it's no trouble you might explain why poli

Quote:
In any case it was a pleasure to exchange ideas with you.
Thank you for renewing my hope for reasonable chat
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 03:57 pm
@dalehileman,
Soft Determinism is like wanting rain upon the fields n sun over the house, a bag of tricks used by philosophers so to keep the best of both worlds, yes to my view it is politics...
The fact of the matter is that determinism either is true or not true, there is no possible attainable logical middle ground. Human beings are made of matter and if matter is subjected to cause and effect then human beings are just the same subjected to cause and effect like anything else. Unless of course you believe there is some kind of special force out of physics, out of this world, like a soul or a spirit, that allows you to interrupt the chain of cause and effect n still be able to cause n effect on a one way direction.
(not 1 but 2 problems in a row)

Yes it is true that minds think, it is true that minds make calculations and weight the pros n cons in deciding, but the core question, the point is to ask if a given mind could in a X situation have decided otherwise? I think not. A more complex system might appear to be free because its acting and taking decisions, but on a deep down level, is just hiding the process of cause and effect onto a thinner, more subtle layer of processes. Bottom line, the inherent physics, is just the same !

When we act we have reasons to act...compelling reasons are compelling reasons, and compelling, even when we don't know what the actual reasons were. Studies have shown human beings are perfect in finding patterns and justifications so to explain their decisions when they often don't really know what motivated the decision making, its quite laughable, they make up anything, and they really believe it. But even when the reason you present is the correct reason (which by the way is so rare) the very underlying problem remains, could you have acted otherwise ? Well, either people believe in physics or they don't, there is no half way in there !
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 05:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that determinism either is true or not true, there is no possible attainable logical middle ground.
Sure there is. At one end unfathomable; in the center fairly predictable and at the other end absolutely predetermined

(Granting my supposition isn't rigorously logical. However according to the well-established principle that nothing is entirely anything….., I claim certain valid insight)

Or "true," and "not true" simply might not apply; as in a case where the entire issue proves only semantic

Quote:
….human beings are just the same subjected to cause and effect like anything else
Oh indeed and I can't deny it. The more carefully we can control the conditions of an experiment, the more surely the same result, it's very convincing. I can only guess that determinism somehow fails if the number of those external influences is infinite. Acceded, by no means would such a finding ensure freewill, I can't propose a resolution one way or t'other

Meanwhile however the determinists themselves act as if they don't very strongly believe in it; while there's no way to demonstrate its truth. Intuitively these observations taken together might serve as at least preliminary evidence of loose ends, perhaps as I mentioned, a purely semantic character

One of the prime difficulties thus being our unwillingness to admit the present limitations of our languages

And don't dismiss intuition, it's very valuable. Many attribute Einstein's preliminary guesses to it


Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 06:31 pm
@dalehileman,
As I have said this is a matter of accepting or not accepting physics...arguing for free will it is not different from arguing when I kick a rock is the rock which decides to move. Rocks and people both are made of matter and matter works just the same under the laws of physics. I respect your position dalehileman but I beg to disagree.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 07:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I beg to disagree
Yea Phil but how strongly. Somewhere above you admitted that your actions seem guided as if freewill. I detect very strong subliminal doubt
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 08:59 pm
@dalehileman,
...I have space left for a very small maybe...Wink
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 11:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
small maybe...
Once more Fil you've made my day
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 11:44:51