Originally posted by Omega Vision
A hardcore skeptic doesn't even believe that atoms exist in a provable sense.
Thinking about it...the uncertainty principle makes them right. You can measure position or velocity, but not both perfectly. So good luck proving they exist as real as ... your hand in front of your face.
But that may be just a logical cartwheel. We can indirectly prove they exist in others ways.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thinking about it...the uncertainty principle makes them right. You can measure position or velocity, but not both perfectly. So good luck proving they exist as real as ... your hand in front of your face.But that may be just a logical cartwheel. We can indirectly prove they exist in others ways.
Every time I look at this post, the time (in general) is now. I know that this post was made in the past, but I can't tell the difference because it is always now when I read it. If I didn't have memory, I would not know that I looked at it before.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, define exist.
That said -- looking back at my master's thesis -- the current model of physics would transcend existence if we decided not to include the past in the definition of it.
Originally posted by Astner
Why? I'm not the one who asked the question. While it would be nonsensical to define existence solely as the present it's fully possible. That's why I don't like philosophy, because we're dealing with undefined boundary conditions making it impossible to come to a logical conclusion without assumptions.That said -- looking back at my master's thesis -- the current model of physics would transcend existence if we decided not to include the past in the definition of it.
Why? Because a good definition will help in the topic. I wasn't trying to pin you down, just pointing out that you are correct, without a definition of exist, nothing useful can come of the discussion.
So, please define...
If we do indeed live within a multi-verse, an infinite cascade of realities that blend and flow from one another, time itself is likely an illusion. Our perception of time is like a shadow cast by higher dimensional forms. We see time ticking by moment by moment because we are inherently unable to perceive reality's true nature. There is a school of thought that sees time as having unfolded all at once in the higher dimension but that we are forced to march through it moment by moment because our perception is limited.
There are only 2 days in your life that you can never change yourself or your circumstances, yesterday and tomorrow. (paraphrase the Dali llama)
Originally posted by MajinGogeta
If we do indeed live within a multi-verse, an infinite cascade of realities that blend and flow from one another, time itself is likely an illusion. Our perception of time is like a shadow cast by higher dimensional forms. We see time ticking by moment by moment because we are inherently unable to perceive reality's true nature. There is a school of thought that sees time as having unfolded all at once in the higher dimension but that we are forced to march through it moment by moment because our perception is limited.There are only 2 days in your life that you can never change yourself or your circumstances, yesterday and tomorrow. (paraphrase the Dali llama)
👆
Also, look into time dilation. There is more then one now.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More than one kind of time dilation? As in SR vs GR? That's not new.
If you really wanted to highlight on different models -- not phenomena -- then you should've brought up some of the beyond the standard model models.
Originally posted by Astner
The only difference is that in special relativity gravity isn't taken into account. Because it's a special case of a general model, hence the name. That said, there's only one kind of time dilation.If you really wanted to highlight on different models -- not phenomena -- then you should've brought up some of the beyond the standard model models.
Were did he get the idea there was two types of time dilation. If it was from what I said, then he didn't read it.
The past does not exist. Well it doesn't exist in the way that you mean. If something exists it is real. Real in this sense means a physical object something you can see and touch or smell or taste, it is able to be sensed.
In other words, the past does exist in your mind in the form of real neurons and electrons that are information (in formation). The past does not exist.