Does Man Exist?

Indeed you did.

Yes, time is change. This is why all things knowable [in any sense] are really not knowable [because by the time you perceive, they have already changed...moment after moment after moment].

At least my made up theories make sense. All human intellectualism is made up. How can it be any other way? Perhaps a higher being passed on some tasty morsels?

 

Stars like ours gradually grow in diameter. Our sun's diameter will grow out to the point that Earth would be on its surface.

What do you think humans are going to do about that?

 

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by "reality" that would justify you discarding the observation we have accumulated.

Your conclusion that there is a point in the universe that is "every time" is just plain unsupportable. Plus, you declared that idea to be an "intellectual exercise" - which certainly doesn't add any justification for it being a serious consideration.

 

To my mind, you are confusing our system, for measuring time, with the actual, temporal sequence of events, which is demonstrative of time's progression.

Showing how inconsequential we appear to be, in universal terms, doesn't prove that we don't exist. Perhaps I missed part of your argument, so am only reacting to this point you've just raised, about our relative brevity and I insubstantiality.

There is a line from a song, which I think well captures that sentiment, from the Youngbloods' Let's Get Together: "we are only moments-- sunlight, fading in the grass." I had always assumed that poetic image had been borrowed from the Bible (as perhaps from the Book of Psalms), but I just failed in an attempted search of the line; it wouldn't be the only nice imagery, from that group.

Here, for example, is their song about "Sunlight"-- really Nature, I think, or even "Life," itself, though poetry is always open to multiple interpretations (and may have been intended to have multiple meanings; much as I see that multiplicity, to be a feature of reality).

The first is a good, studio version, from back in the day. In the second one, the group's leader, in middle age, does the song, along with some (quiet) commentary.

 

There are two realities, the first...actual Reality, something we humans have no access to for many of the reasons previously discussed. The second is each person's personal reality (PR) [or each coordinate point's reality].

Each person has their own reality for all kinds of reasons that should be obvious to all. And although our PR is what gives us our unique take on the world, it becomes critical to understand the limitations of this view [and there are many]. The most important one is realizing that the best we can do is becoming part of the flow instead of taking a step out of the stream so we can attach to whatever caught our attention. By making this error, the flow keeps going while we obsess.

You never know, maybe one of these days everybody will buy into my way of thinking. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that current thinking is producing a better life for the majority. For example...

If I [similar to George Carlin] believe that the Sun is a most worthy object to worship. After all, what gives us more in this life than the sun? And being a sun worshiper is really easy...just go outside [make sure it's during the day] and there you are. So simple that even we humans have not been able to screw it up. And what's better than [fill in the blank] on a beautiful sunny day?

 

Out temporal sequence of events [as you put it] is different for each coordinate point in the Universe. So, how does that work [especially considering that you are constantly transitioning through an infinite number of these points each and every moment?

That was simply to demonstrate such mathematically. We live in a world where Science [and it's language...mathematics] uses all kinds of sleight of hand in an attempt to make sense of itself. If time is the glue that holds all of this together, it appears as if we are in a bit of a pickle.

All things both are and are not [it is the duality of all things knowable]. One cannot exist without the other, so we can exist and not exist [as a matter of "fact," we have to in order to make sense in this [dual] system]. It is only in actual Reality [which we cannot access] where existence neither exists nor non-exists. It just is.

 

If I had to bet the farm on it, I would say that it looks like our time on this planet is seriously winding down.

On dry land, the insects and the weeds will be battling it out hundreds of millions of years after our sorry asses are extinct.

 

This is total nonsense. Our observations absolutely ARE observations of reality.

You haven't given reasons for your rejection of this fact.

This is still just a rejection of all observation, made without justification.

 

This is obviously completely off topic.

If you DO want to discuss human futures, you might consider that our sun is scheduled to kill Earth.

But, the end of human life or the end of this planet does not mean that our observations can simply be ignored. It also doesn't threaten other life that could exist in this universe, doesn't change physics, and more specifically doesn't change how time works.

 

I think your contention is patently false. For example, I just edited my previous post, then returned to answer your post. At what coordinate, in the universe, did those two things not occur, in that order? You are basically denying the principle, of cause and effect.

 

There is a lot of difference between hypothesis and discovery as the source of knowledge.
Things are only knowable relative to the conditions one is in. But that merely limits what we know up to now. It does not change what we don't know yet.

 

No. The POTENTIAL for existing or not existing is reality. They cannot happen at the same time if one is the inverse of the other.

This was discussed earlier this year when I proposed that if reality is a duality, then what IS can flip to what ISNT, or IOW, the something we know can become the opposite, complete nothing, with the potential to become something.
There have been ideas that other universes exist in different dimensions, where their "something" is unrecognisable from our "something".

 

Our observations are personalized not universal. Everybody perceives something different.

 

According to the leftist political brain trust, we might not make it out of this decade, so no worries!

 

Again, if we are constantly moving through coordinates [infinitely], then how are we to know? We can't even understand the simplest of things yet something with infinite complexity.

It's not that cause and effect can be denied, instead, there is no way you can actually follow the progression of events. If all things are moving through an infinite number of coordinates each moment, how could you possible keep track of what's what? After all, it is a challenge for many of us to keep track of our car keys yet understand the implications of what infinity to the infinite power might imply each and every moment.

 

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you mean?

 

I think you are forgetting that what we discover about this universe isn't agreed without corroboration by scientists around the world, using multiple different methods of observation.

This is NOT about personal observations or by detection using human senses.

 

That's a silly attempt to make this political.

How our universe works is NOT a political issue. Whether humans survive is also not the issue.

 

Au contraire. Not only do they exist coincidentally, but within everything exists everything.

Our personal reality [all things intellectual] is a duality. Actual Reality is not. Does up exist without down? Can't you say that, "It's a little bit more up," or, "A little bit more down?" All things work the same way.

Sounds good to me.

 

You have zero evidence.

Please refrain from suggesting that your religious platitudes have some relationship to physics, as your attempts in that direction are seriously lacking.

 

Yet again, there is no argument, in what you write, denying the existence of Time, which is what I thought we have been discussing. I'd initiated our debate, by challenging you to prove your statement:

impermanence said: ↑
After all, all time exists at the same time.

Now there are different ways a person may interpret that, but you seemed not to be content with the more arguable contention, along the lines of there being a record of the past, that can be at least partially deciphered, which still exists in the present. Instead you had come back with trying to equate light, arriving from some distant source, with some event "happening," at that source, at that time it is being perceived, which is false. I had tried to get you to better define, what you thought you were proving, but you always seemed to come back to this notion of collapsible time, all occurring simultaneously. If that were true, then I would be writing this sentence, in the same moment as I'd begun this reply, as well as in the same moment in which you had begun your own reply, which I am now-- or, would have been, then-- answering, here. More accurately, in your terms, there would have been no "then"-- only "now," in which all things are happening, at once, together. This is the concept which I was (or am) still trying to debate, in my latest post which you've currently answered (at top):

DEFinning said: ↑
I think your contention is patently false. For example, I just edited my previous post, then returned to answer your post. At what coordinate, in the universe, did those two things not occur, in that order? You are basically denying the principle, of cause and effect.


Your answer seems to be that we cannot know all causes or effects which, obviously, is a true statement. However, just as obviously, it doesn't belie the idea of one thing following another-- seqentiality-- which is the essential proof of the dimension of Time. IOW, without Time, there would be NO past, and no "future." All would have already occurred or, more accurately, would be occurring, which is a very problematic thing to explain: how you are currently writing your answer to what I am writing at this moment; and how, at the same "time," I am right now reading your reply, to what I have still yet to send. Naturally, this would also be the moment, in which you begin this thread (which has, of course, already run its course, as it is simultaneously ongoing).


It might have been an interesting explanation, had you endeavored to put one forth. Instead you are still "proving" something else, which you are inaccurately calling, all time existing, "at the same time." I follow what you are saying, but the way you are describing it, IMO, is misphrased.

 

What a lovely compliment. Doing anything ‘like a girl’ is awesome, amazing, incredible and strong. Thank you.!

 

Of course actuality is a duality.
Reality is what we recognise. Let's call it Positive.
The duality, opposition, is that the positive is not there. Let's call it negative.
Either our reality is or is not there. There can be no other state of being. Think of a coin. There are two sides. Each side depends on and defines the being of the existence of the other side. You cannot have just one side/reality of anything. Either it is there or it is not. There is no state of reality between the two. If you destroy one, the other disappears. It is the ultimate symbiotic relationship.
A little bit up or down is just a comparative within the accepted reality. It is the actual Reality I am speaking about.
I happen to think our positive reality can flip and we can enter a state of not existing but this is purely a mind game.
Of course I cannot speak for other realities.
Spiritual people believe there is a third aspect to our reality...this spiritual universe with reality operating outside what we can recognise. Either you see this universe as having three realities is a personal thing.

 

Really. And on which planet is this taking place?

You ever notice that it is almost all men who participate in these discussion forums? Do you know why that is? It's because guys enjoy doing this, and the ones who get pretty good at it either have a natural penchant for debate and/or have had a lot of practice. These are the same guys who have most likely spent a great deal of time educating themselves in a variety of subject-matter.

I've been doing this [on and off] since the early 90's use-groups and have met just a handful of women who could keep up with the guys. This isn't because women are inferior...it's just because they probably have better things to do with their free time or they simply lack interest.

To carry the flag for women's rights at this point makes you look really weak as that ship sailed decades ago. If you wish to participate, leave the victim narratives at home and bring your best arguments. People are sick and tired of hearing about how everybody is a victim. You have to play the hand you're dealt the best you can.

I would love if more women would participate because many bring a very different perspective which is often interesting and helps move the discussion along...BUT, you have to know what you are talking about and desist from what so many women do when they argue...get emotional and start with the personal insults. Of course, there are a lot of feminized men who unfortunately do similar things but this is what our society has produced over the past couple of generations.

People are brutal in these forums, many just laying in wait for somebody to mess up or mis-speak. Then they pounce like a bunch of wild hyenas. But this is what guys like and it keeps you sharp. Go figure...

Anyway, you need to throw like a guy. Speak with confidence and back up what you say with some serious bullsh!t. That's what the best have always done.

 

I hate to be the one to tell you this but nobody has any real evidence of anything.

Do you really believe there is a difference between religion and science? Seems to me that if one of these institutions is tax exempt and the other isn't...well, that should tell you who still has the real power in the West.