Does Man Exist?

riddle me this batman, then how come after giving them all the pertinent information to conclude a proper diagnosis I was wrongly diagnosed 4 times, wait now its 5 times in the last 7 years? Hmmm? I had to correct them and made damn sure their incompetence went into my health record! They work for pharma. It would be nice to see some reality on occasion, rather than these idealistic pipe dreams

 

There have been 9 passenger airline crashes this year, too.

 

Well I don’t know about you but a lot of my thinking is in the English language. The language evolved over thousands of years as a result of contributions from countless other people. The fact that I am wondering if the outside world exists in a language that came from outside of me kind of makes me feel like the outside world exists.


I can’t remember the philosopher who said this. Wittgenstein? Whoever it was I am sure they said it better, although it doesn’t really “prove” anything. It’s an interesting idea though.

 

I guess it makes sense that you would know more about this topic, as well, after all, I've been in medical practice for over 40 years and have seen a couple of hundred thousand patients. But what do I know?

 

Because it points to the non-intellectual.

 

Prove that (since you state it, as if it is were a fact).

 

I didn't suggest you are some sort compromised doctor.

 

Nothing exists and this isn't here.

"Just a mathematical abstraction, my dear" Robert A Heinlein 'Time Enough for Love'

 

Of course man exists.
Who else would keep creating new gods in order to control other men?

 

This is an odd contradiction.
Does Man exist?
No.
Then says Man is already gone due to your own interpretation of time. All time exists at the same time? Says who?
And them answers your own conundrum by saying our existence is so comparatively short that we don't count.
Which accepts of course that we do exist.
Certainly enough to ask convoluted questions like this.
So I suspect this thread is a troll to prompt another comparison of the nature of everyone's God. About which no one can agree, because no one really knows and we all have different needs around which we create our own gods.
Because Man exists.
If Man didn't exist there would be no point in a God. Why should a god exist to control a universe of inanimate objects, like playing marbles all day?

 

It's amazing how sensitive someone can be when they're espousing the idea that they're just delivering different perspectives.

 

If you ignore a member, do they exist?

 

The notion that all things knowable are impermanent sort of precludes one from proving anything, but let's have some fun. Consider the following...

...if you'll agree that time is closely related to distance, then the distance you are from a reference object determines when that object exists [or existed, or, for that matter, will exist]. If you are x meters from the object and the light emanating from that object took y seconds to reach your visual cortex, then you can say that the object existed y' seconds ago [y times c, at your particular location in the Universe]. But what's going on at every other place in the Universe?

Light emanating from the same object will reach each place in the Universe at a different time [except those at the same distance as you]. If you could take a step outside of the Universe and observe all the points, you would find that all of these "times" are going on at the same time, the variable being the distance of the reference object from each point in the Universe.

The same holds true for our personal universe. Take the room you are sitting in right now. There are an infinite number of points representing your space. If there is an ambient light source, then the light coming from each point [at a different distance from you] is in a different time, but ONLY relative to your position. Therefore, each position in your universe [or the actual Universe] has a different time. All time is going on at the same time, and there are an infinite number of times that correspond to the infinite number of points.

When it gets tricky is when you consider movement. Let's say you are taking a stroll down the street enjoying a beautiful day. Now you are changing your position with each moment. Time is all over the place. This is what our brains have to deal with...an overwhelming amount of information that it simply cannot process. Therefore, it does the best it can by constructing the reality we all know and live in. But this reality is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. It is also why we cannot really know anything. Of the whole, we're lucky if we can figure very much at all.

People figured this out thousands of years ago and decided to explore different ways to approach this thing we call reality. It is all the great questions in one and from where religion and spirituality emanate.

 

On the one hand, you are cheer-leading for empiricism and the scientific method [actual experience], but when I tell you that I have the experience, you drop back to your narrative.

Get rid of the narratives and consider all things because all things are going on simultaneously [within everything exists everything].

 

Perhaps you might just want to enjoy the thread instead of trying to figure out how to have a problem with it.

I am going to coin a new word...miseration...the bringing of everything into a state of misery.

 

Miseration is a Swedish death metal band formed in 2006. Their lyrics primarily deal with themes of inner struggles and religious conflict.

By the way, it might be nice if you actually allow people to voice their own opinion without chastising them. It is a forum after all.

 

Here comes the emotional and psychological tactics.

Sorry, I've already got a wife who has honed her skills at such.

 

I can’t fathom why (sarcasm).

 

There's actually a genre called death-metal? What an interesting crowd that would make at a concert!

 

You have to serve up a softball right down the middle of plate once in a while.

 

It isn't every day that I agree with you, but yes, physicists broadly agree (and experimentation shows) that time is relative, which implies there is no such thing as a universal "present" and that past/present/future are equally real. I've heard rumors that there are a couple of physicists who disagree with this, but the B-Theory of time/eternalism is just kind of the norm among physicists these days, and for good reason.

 

This happened on Earth before radio. Notifications from America didn't reach King George for a long time, because of the speed of ships. So, England had a delayed view of what was going on in America - and pretty much everywhere else on Earth. Australia, China, and everywhere else also got their news with some delay.

Time is still progressing at the rate of one second per second at each point in the universe. It's just that the news we get is delayed, because of distance and the speed of messaging.

You need to be far more specific about what you think our brains can't do. People successfully walk down our streets without incident.

And, your extrapolation from there is also without justification.

I would point out that "religion and spirituality" have not been very successful at answering how this universe works. Those who figured out what the heart does, early medicine, how large the Earth is, what stars are, gravity, etc., were often quite religious, but didn't use their religion to figure out how things work.

 

Well, I think some of that post does match general relativity, but then it goes off toward his previously stated idea that everything is actually going on at the same time, collapsing the past and the future into one time - as I understand what he has said.

(I'd love it if he could tell me I'm not correctly interpreting what he said.)

He sets the table with this:
"Therefore, each position in your universe [or the actual Universe] has a different time. All time is going on at the same time, and there are an infinite number of times that correspond to the infinite number of points."

 

No, I'm not "dropping back". And no, science is not a "narrative".

I'm saying that you are rejecting empiricism when you suggest that testing isn't required and that you somehow use the supernatural - which I would suggest you better not include in your documentation of care.

And, that is a dangerous direction for medicine, obviously. In fact, ignoring testing is how we get homeopathy.

If you want to complain about too much testing being done during patient care, fine. But, a good percentage of that is caused by issues like insurance companies and our legal system.

 

*past tense.

That is already, completely incorrect. You are talking about when a viewer perceives something, not when it actually exists. So the most you can say, is that we can, in effect, see into the past, while in the present. In fact, everything we perceive, is "past"-- albeit, for the most part, usually only microseconds into that past. That does not mean that this past, in that same state, is extant (anywhere but within our minds).

You appropriately put the first "times," in quotation marks, because they are not separate periods of time; as you go in to say, they only simultaneously occuring perceptions, of something, at any given point in time. So, still, all you are talking about is the differences in perceptions, as they would exist, in different places.

One need not even "step outside of the universe," in order to see this: if you are standing among plants, for example, they are perceiving that moment, that "time," differently than you are. As also, would be any insects (which are usually in any vicinity). For that matter, even two people, because of their different thoughts, and ways of translating reality, can develop very different concepts of any given moment. That is not what the concept of time refers to; and your way of depicting it, does not advance your OP's argument, that "time," itself, is an illusion. The illusions exist, within the framework of Time.

As you go on to say, you are only talking about our "personal universe," which is one of perception, not "reality." If this is your argument, you would need prove that whatever exists in a person's mind, represents "reality." In fact, it is only a part of a kaleidoscopic truth. But it still does not show ALL "times," existing simultaneously, just because, with an unending number of viewers, spaced appropriately, through an infinite amount of space, you could theoretically have them all observing a particular event, at an infinite number of points, in time.



EDIT: You should stick to your "argument"-- though I know of none who would try to contest it-- that none of us can understand all of what is happening, of what is "real," in any given moment.