Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Nature of Time Settled Once and For All

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    The choice gives less meaning to a philosophical/religious view of the nature of time. Regardless of the choice the theme is a theistic basis for the choice as presented in your first post when you stated the subjective Theistic assumption: 'God is temporal to preserve His Omniscience.'
    Are you dense? That was not my post. And like Sparko said you have no idea what is being discussed, you thought B-theory was Newtonian...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post

      Are you dense? That was not my post. And like Sparko said you have no idea what is being discussed, you thought B-theory was Newtonian...
      I did not think anything of the sort I asked a question.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .


      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post

        Agreed, but why do so many physicists hold to B theory?
        That's the way it's taught at the Universities. They're basically taught an overly simplistic view of Lorentz, how his view is ad hoc, and it's glossed over in a couple of seconds during the lectures, or a couple of paragraphs in books and papers, and then it's just assumed that the only way to interpret the mathematical formalism of SR/GR is geometrically, and the gatekeepers at the universities keep it that way. It has to do with not wanting to admit that the way you've been trained to do SR/GR your whole life is not necessarily the way to go, or that the other options are just so silly they don't want to waste their time considering them. Views become settled and orthodox for a variety of sociological reasons.

        Don't get me wrong. Geometrical presentations of SR/GR 'work', are very illuminating and help make 'visual' sense of extremely difficult mathematics. But then these physicists can't seem to understand that there are other relationships that visual representations have to Reality than plain ole', flatfooted, one-for-one correspondence 'imaging' or 'mirroring'. They can't seem to comprehend that it's totally coherent for a four-dimensional graph to 'represent' a three-dimensional phenomenon persisting through one dimension of time. And the success of that representation doesn't at all depend on the fact of that four-dimensional representation 'imaging' a four-dimensional Reality.
        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
        George Horne


        Related Threads


        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seer, 11-07-2022, 07:56 AM
        25 responses
        1 like
        Last Post seer
        by seer
        Started by seer, 08-03-2022, 12:33 PM
        780 responses
        Last Post Machinist