T
Tomdstone
Guest
So it is an illusion that we are first born and then get old and die?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vico
Guest
We experience in order, but it does not mean that the flow of time is real.So it is an illusion that we are first born and then get old and die?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is the flow of time except the experience of real events in orderly progression, which most people will regard as real.We experience in order, but it does not mean that the flow of time is real.
V
Vico
Guest
An illusion of perception.What is the flow of time except the experience of real events in orderly progression, which most people will regard as real.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
If reality is an illusion, we are back to solipsism which I reject. I don’t think that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are an illusion of perception.An illusion of perception.
I don’t see your proof that time is an illusion of perception. Someone can say that reality is an illusion of perception, but no one is going to take her seriously.
V
Vico
Guest
The flow of time is an illusion. Reality is not an illusion.If reality is an illusion, we are back to solipsism which I reject. I don’t think that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are an illusion of perception.
I don’t see your proof that time is an illusion of perception. Someone can say that reality is an illusion of perception, but no one is going to take her seriously.
B
Bahman
Guest
We perceive motion not time.An illusion of perception.
A
Aloysium
Guest
As much as we may argue about other things, I’m with you here.We perceive motion not time.
And, motion is not an illusion.
As relativity shows in physics, there’s no standing still, the constant is the speed of light.
Everything is in motion.
Paradoxically, our personal now does not change, but is where we always are.
We are grounded outside time.
V
Vico
Guest
The idea is that the apparent passage of time is a feature of our perceptual situation rather than of the objective world itself.We perceive motion not time.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I would say it results from the interface of change and eternity, motion from a primary cause to a final cause within the context of the timeless, albeit finite now of the person, all moments present to God.The idea is that the apparent passage of time is a feature of our perceptual situation rather than of the objective world itself.
Y
yppop
Guest
Time is real; the flow of time is an illusion!
The “flow” of time implies continuity. The continuous is infinitely divisible meaning that when time is divided into intervals an infinite.number of times the interval becomes zero. In other words the present disappears which means the present doesn’t exist.
However, we know the past has existed and the future immediately occurs and to go from past to future we must go thru the present (by definition) so the present must exist. Therefore, time does not “flow”; it must increment. To increment means that there is some minimum duration (an interval) between the past and the future; the present is the duration of the interval.
I suggest it might just be the Planck era, so the present lasts = 10^-43 seconds after the past becomes the present and before the future shows up.
Yppop
The “flow” of time implies continuity. The continuous is infinitely divisible meaning that when time is divided into intervals an infinite.number of times the interval becomes zero. In other words the present disappears which means the present doesn’t exist.
However, we know the past has existed and the future immediately occurs and to go from past to future we must go thru the present (by definition) so the present must exist. Therefore, time does not “flow”; it must increment. To increment means that there is some minimum duration (an interval) between the past and the future; the present is the duration of the interval.
I suggest it might just be the Planck era, so the present lasts = 10^-43 seconds after the past becomes the present and before the future shows up.
Yppop
T
Tomdstone
Guest
QED depends on continuous time and its predictions have been extremely accurate. Lattice field theory which depends on discrete quantities has problems.Time is real; the flow of time is an illusion!
The “flow” of time implies continuity. The continuous is infinitely divisible meaning that when time is divided into intervals an infinite.number of times the interval becomes zero. In other words the present disappears which means the present doesn’t exist.
However, we know the past has existed and the future immediately occurs and to go from past to future we must go thru the present (by definition) so the present must exist. Therefore, time does not “flow”; it must increment. To increment means that there is some minimum duration (an interval) between the past and the future; the present is the duration of the interval.
I suggest it might just be the Planck era, so the present lasts = 10^-43 seconds after the past becomes the present and before the future shows up.
Yppop
Y
yppop
Guest
Lattice field does not go far enough; we need to go to single points of discrete space and as as Dedekind pointed out:QED depends on continuous time and its predictions have been extremely accurate. Lattice field theory which depends on discrete quantities has problems.
"If physical space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even if it were discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that physical space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we were so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle. (World of Mathematics, pg 530).
The above principle he is referring to is his use of the “cut” to define real numbers usingn the rational numbers.
I don’t believe “extremely accurate” would even do justice to an interval of time of 10^-43 seconds.
Yppop
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What do you see as inadequate about lattice field theory if the lattice width is say less than 10^-43 units.Lattice field does not go far enough; we need to go to single points of discrete space and as as Dedekind pointed out:
"If physical space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even if it were discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that physical space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we were so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle. (World of Mathematics, pg 530).
The above principle he is referring to is his use of the “cut” to define real numbers usingn the rational numbers.
I don’t believe “extremely accurate” would even do justice to an interval of time of 10^-43 seconds.
Yppop
I am not sure why you would want to talk about Dedekind cuts and real numbers, because real numbers are not granular because between any two, you can always find an infinite number. For example, in the interval between minus 10^-43 and plus 10^-43, you can always find an infinite number of real numbers by the method of Dedekind cuts.
Y
yppop
Guest
I am suggesting that the foundation from which object reality is built is discrete space, so no matter how much smaller you make the lattice it would never be as small as a single point of discrete space.What do you see as inadequate about lattice field theory if the lattice width is say less than 10^-43 units.
Come on Tom; I give you more credit for perspicacity than this response warrants. The reference to the cut was merely to inform what principle Dedekind was referring to in the quotation. The main message I wanted to convey was simply discrete space is not some loony tune idea that I thought up.but was something Dedekind thought about.I am not sure why you would want to talk about Dedekind cuts and real numbers, because real numbers are not granular because between any two, you can always find an infinite number. For example, in the interval between minus 10^-43 and plus 10^-43, you can always find an infinite number of real numbers by the method of Dedekind cuts.
Yppop
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The discrete granular points have a space between them, which serve as the spacing of the lattice.I am suggesting that the foundation from which object reality is built is discrete space, so no matter how much smaller you make the lattice it would never be as small as a single point of discrete space.
Y
yppop
Guest
The discrete points aren’t connected so there are no lattices and the space that fills up the gaps is continuous space. Matter is composed of configurations of discrete space that is immersed in the continuous space. This is a hylomorphic construction; the material world is formed from configurations of points of discrete space as referenced by rational numbers and the spiritual is provided by the continuous space as referenced by the real numbers. How else could God be omnipresent? I don’t really want to get in a discussion where you find nothing of interest or worthwhile unless you have a pertinent question.I am willing to engage in a discussion but not a disputation. If you prefer a dispute, you can have the last word.The discrete granular points have a space between them, which serve as the spacing of the lattice.
Yppop
- Status
- Not open for further replies.