Does Man Exist?

@impermanence

Two other points, I should have included:

1) To set up such a situation-- of endless viewers, spaced throughout infinity, all observing a given thing, but at different points in time-- of course, would first require, the passage of all those points of time.


2) It is problematic to to argue that our beings do not exist, if part of your argument is predicated on the notion, that whatever WE perceive, IS reality (which seemed to be how you were demonstrating that all "Time" is occurring, simultaneously).

 

The last thing you want to do is agree with me!

What's interesting about this sort of thing is that the best any of us can do is can make a case for something that appropriately stays within the confines of the currently accepted doctrine or dogma. IOW, even if I [or whomever] was able to elucidate a principle with such insight that it blew everybody away, e.g., how you can picture something in your mind, it has a very short shelf-life [one getting shorter and shorter with advancing technology].

Time is interesting because it is really simple to demonstrate its plethora of contradictions and paradoxes, the take home message being that all things are the same way.

 

I don't believe you have the evidence to counter what physicists know about time.

 

We are just using very limited information to create our reality. Our brain is like a tv with just a few pixels v. one [Reality] with infinite pixels. We get a picture but it's not very clear [enough for most people to make it down the street without incident].

You ever observe almost any other species get around? Or brains are woeful on the locomotion front.

 

I don't believe that shows anything like your central thesis.

It absolutely IS true that our brains manufacture a view of surroundings that is not perfectly accurate. For example, it takes time for data from retinas to reach processing centers. One can see this when catching a ball, when looking at diagrams that trick our visual capability, when noticing the differences between peripheral vision compared to central vision, etc. Our visual capability was created a very long time ago in Africa, where the requirements weren't always the same as what we might want today.

But, that is NOT what physicists are using to gather evidence.

And, it doesn't affect our ability analyze the data collected.

 

This, I am relatively sure, is different from the theories being postulated by the thread creator. The way that your statement about "time" being relative, agrees with your understanding of impermanence's thesis, is not at all explained. Are you able to do that, so that your post may be interpreted, by the rest of us?

EDIT: To simplify what could easily become nothing but a lot of meaningless semantics, let us think of Time as the dimension which allows for a Progression of events. As @impermanence has claimed that all time is occurring simultaneously, he would appear to be saying that all progressions are nothing but illusions. You are not saying, that physicists would generally agree with that, are you? If this is the way you understand things, please explain.

 

He just doesn't like being rumbled for starting a pointless repetitive thread.
Quite a misery in fact.

 

Not really.
That something takes a different Time to reach different places does not deny the constancy of Time.
Anymore than it takes three metres to cross your room and ten metres to cross in front of your house. The METRE is still the constant measure.
Time is how we calculate change. It is devised as a measurement applicable to the universe as we know it by man and when everything stops changing, Time will also stop.
If Time is related to anything it is related to speed. So that if you travel fast enough, Time speeds up relative to where you started.(or is it that time slows down...I can never remember). So astronauts are older or younger than they would be if they had never left the earth. But that is a function of speed, not distance.
The speed of light is the constant. Not how far away from a source of light we are.

 

On the other hand.....
if the most ancient Intelligence plans to make this little earth their eternal home......
then the most ancient Intelligence could easily make human life PERMANENT!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel 37&version=KJV


22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

28 And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.


https://near-death.com/mellen-thomas-benedict/

 

Yes, the difference between an Earth clock and an ISS clock is caused by the difference in path taken through space-time. There is a difference even thought the clocks run at exactly 1 second per second. This effect comes from a combination of velocity and gravity.

Every point in the universe is running at 1 second per second. Differences have to do with comparing two points that aren't taking identical paths through space-time.

This is verified by a number of different methods of observation.

When impermanence takes off in other directions on time, I don't know of ANY actual observations that support his attempt to invalidate the theory of relativity.

 

I kind of assumed that those paying attention were aware of this lag.

Yes, we have no access to Reality for many reasons, but this one too.

Time is simply a way to make sense of our reality. It's no different that anything else, really. You can pick apart anything you like.

The reference to a personal universe was to demonstrate that time is a unique to each universal coordinate. This has nothing to do with actual Reality, something [again] we cannot access. Our personal reality, though, is completely intertwined with time.

All time existing at the same time is only an intellectual exercise. Although each coordinate point has a different time, they are all on-going, therefore there is a point in the Universe where it is every time [let's say from the Big Bang for a reference] that has ever been. It's just a matter of where it happens to be.

My original argument was that man does not exist but God does.

God is unknowable and permanent. Man is knowable and impermanent. There are an infinitesimally small number of places in the Universe where man has ever existed [going to zero], but God neither exists nor does not exist [a default winner].

 

Again, we exist [personally and intellectually], but we really don't exist fundamentally. Again, there are so few places in the Universe that we exist, that mathematically, it is zero, that is .00... 10 to the infinity.

 

The meter is anything but constant. All things knowable are in constant flux. In theory, a meter can be constant, but not en praxis. This is a fundamental principle of human reality.

So I hear that it takes about seven minutes for light emanating from the Sun to make it to Earth. Is that a product of a constant speed or a distance?

As well, light having a constant speed doesn't make a lot of sense [outside of the fact that it makes our science work]. Why would light so special that it would have a constant speed?

 

Like you were probably taught in kindergarten, if you are not very nice to other people, you are going to hear about it.

And why participate in my threads if you don't like me or what I have to say very much? Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid all this drama?

 

Thanks for clarifying your meaning. But this is not at all the same as saying that time does not exist (which you may not have been implying), nor that all time is happening simultaneously, in the implications that statement, on its face, would seem to have. Time is most easily appreciated, as a sequence of events. As you explain it here: in any given location, action "B" still follows action "A." This is not changed by when any particular star's light, reaches that point. You seem, rather, to be associating more the light, itself, with time, rather than whatever is happening, progressing, within that light (or shaded from it).

I do not see the logic of making "existence" contingent upon the number of places, in which one exists. I can make out the vague outlines of an argument, there, contrasting "God," with we specs of human life, but I think that your measuring that difference, with the concept of existing, is a mistake. Why not just refer to us (at least to our physical selves) as some rare ephemera, in universal terms?

 

Time is simply something human beings made up. Of course it does not exist. No more than any of the other things we made really exist [everything].

It's the same as our ancestors did when they came up with their systems and explanations for how everything works. It's just that ours is a bit more sophisticated [but not nearly as complex as what our descendants will cook up].

I just wanted to demonstrate that you can pretty much disprove anything [mathematically], even our existence!

 

Well if you are going to reject known science, there is no discussion.

 

Well you haven't done that except by eliminating those things which damage your thought experiment. A metre is a legal measurement and the speed of light is constant. That is what you yourself rely on elsewhere to calculate distance.
Rejecting reality is tantamount to madness.

 

When the last christian dies God dies with them.

 

Poppycock.
You throw out all these "facts" and hope one makes sense.
In fact none of them makes sense.
First you have to know what time is. It is the measure of change, as I told you.

"In physics, the definition of time is simple—time is change, or the interval over which change occurs. It is impossible to know that time has passed unless something changes. The amount of time or change is calibrated by comparison with a standard. The SI unit for time is the second, abbreviated s.Feb 20, 2022

https://phys.libretexts.org › 2.03:_T...
2.3: Time, Velocity, and Speed - Physics LibreTexts"

The rest of your theories rely on your made up understanding of time.
Whether time is constant depends on whether the changes in the nature of the universe is constant or not...ie is the creation or changes in its nature...forces, matter, gases etc balanced with its destruction. The answer so far never disproven is that matter is neither created or destroyed, (Lavoisier) describing a constant universe even if the composition changes, which means a constant time. Because time is a description of change. Not a function, but a description that recognises and defines all change.

 

So stop being so rude.

l am actually a little amused by your lack of understanding of known science and then watching the train wreck of members correcting you with the result of you acting arrogantly like you know everything. Sorry, there are others on this thread that make perfect sense, you don’t. Despite all that, I find it quite interesting and I read whatever catches my on this forum.

 

Did you used to live in the Vatican about 5-600 years ago?

 

You throw like a girl.

 

God's not just like a Christian notion.

 

If it's a legal matter, then that's a different story.

Who's reality? I could just as easily suggest that accepting another's reality is the very same.