B Theory Of Time...

[JimL]

You were "always" eating it because you always freely chose to do it. If you had freely chosen something else, then that would be what you have "always" eaten at that point in time. Same as the past.

Yesterday you ate something for lunch most likely. It was your free will choice. It always will be your choice and nothing can change it. Doesn't mean it wasn't because of free will. If you ate a banana on 6/1/2020 at 3PM, then you will always have done so. You can't change it. You can't suddenly have eaten an apple instead. You ate a banana because that is what you chose to eat at that moment.

Why do you keep refrencing the past, Sparko. That we could freely have chosen to do A over B in the past is a given. A god could obviously know that, just like you do, it already took place. What you need to explain is how has the present you already freely chosen to do A over B 10 years from now?

[Sparko]

Why do you keep refrencing the past, Sparko. That we could freely have chosen to do A over B in the past is a given. A god could obviously know that, just like you do, it already took place. What you need to explain is how has the present you already freely chosen to do A over B 10 years from now?

Because your future is just your past if you are farther in the future. Looking at how we see the past is a good analogy to how the future works. Time is time.

and 10 years from now is not the present. It is 10 years from now.

I am done trying to explain this to you Jim. You simply don't have the faculties to grasp it. It is like trying to explain algebra to a two year old.

[JimL]

Because your future is just your past if you are farther in the future. Looking at how we see the past is a good analogy to how the future works. Time is time.

and 10 years from now is not the present. It is 10 years from now.

I am done trying to explain this to you Jim. You simply don't have the faculties to grasp it. It is like trying to explain algebra to a two year old.

And is there a "you" in your future along with the "you" that is in the here and now? And have you always been both here in the present and there in the future? If you've ]always been at every location in time encompassing the totality of your life span, so that a god could see it, then when did you choose to do the things you've done. Remember, your point is that you have always been there, right?

[Sparko]

And is there a "you" in your future along with the "you" that is in the here and now? And have you always been both here in the present and there in the future? If you've ]always been at every location in time encompassing the totality of your life span, so that a god could see it, then when did you choose to do the things you've done. Remember, your point is that you have always been there, right?

Further misunderstanding by JimL as he repeats himself again.

[JimL]

Further misunderstanding by JimL as he repeats himself again.

I will take that as conceding to my point, i.e. that you can not answer the question. Always means always, Sparko. You can't freely choose that which has always been. If that's not what you meant to say, then perhaps you could clear that up?

[Sparko]

I will take that as conceding to my point, i.e. that you can not answer the question. Always means always, Sparko. You can't freely choose that which has always been. If that's not what you meant to say, then perhaps you could clear that up?

Jim, repeating yourself after I said I am done discussing the topic with you because you clearly don't understand the theory isn't "conceding the point"

I explained the point to you multiple times now. And you merely repeat yourself. I tried various analogies to simplify it for you and you can't even understand them correctly. This is getting almost as bad as the time you insisted that if you were on a planet a few light years from Earth and you walked away from the Earth you would go back in time and if you walked toward the Earth you would walk forward in time.

Your ignorance of the subject is impenetrable.

[JimL]

Jim, repeating yourself after I said I am done discussing the topic with you because you clearly don't understand the theory isn't "conceding the point"

I explained the point to you multiple times now. And you merely repeat yourself. I tried various analogies to simplify it for you and you can't even understand them correctly. This is getting almost as bad as the time you insisted that if you were on a planet a few light years from Earth and you walked away from the Earth you would go back in time and if you walked toward the Earth you would walk forward in time.

Your ignorance of the subject is impenetrable.

Yes, it is a concession if you can't explain what you mean by always. If your choices have always been, which was your explanation as anyone can read, then how did you choose them? Have you always been? I've tried to explain this to you a hundred times as well, and you don't get it, but I'm not running away calling you an idiot because you don't get it. You just don't get it, that's all.

[Sparko]

Yes, it is a concession if you can't explain what you mean by always. If your choices have always been, which was your explanation as anyone can read, then how did you choose them? Have you always been? I've tried to explain this to you a hundred times as well, and you don't get it, but I'm not running away calling you an idiot because you don't get it. You just don't get it, that's all.

Right, Jimmy. You go girl.


Hint: I put "always" in quotes for a reason.

[JimL]

Right, Jimmy. You go girl.


Hint: I put "always" in quotes for a reason.

Well, lets hear it then. What do you mean by always, because if you have no other explanation then it's a completely illogical argument. As an argument it makes no sense whatsover in it's current form.

[Sparko]

Well, lets hear it then. What do you mean by always, because if you have no other explanation then it's a completely illogical argument. As an argument it makes no sense whatsover in it's current form.

Sure. I said "always" because I was speaking about a timeless continuum but there are no adjectives to represent the concept we were discussing that are not inherently time-based. You are not "always" eating a sandwich tomorrow at noon (assuming you will do so). You are eating a sandwich on June 11, 2020 at 12:10. That is the only time you are doing that specific action. It only happens that one "time" - but looking at it from a 5 dimensional perspective looking at the 4 dimensions of space-time, that particular event exists at that specific coordinate.

But I don't expect it to make sense to you. It's like explaining math to a chimp. He wouldn't understand either.

[JimL]

Sure. I said "always" because I was speaking about a timeless continuum but there are no adjectives to represent the concept we were discussing that are not inherently time-based. You are not "always" eating a sandwich tomorrow at noon (assuming you will do so). You are eating a sandwich on June 11, 2020 at 12:10. That is the only time you are doing that specific action. It only happens that one "time" - but looking at it from a 5 dimensional perspective looking at the 4 dimensions of space-time, that particular event exists at that specific coordinate.

But I don't expect it to make sense to you. It's like explaining math to a chimp. He wouldn't understand either.

So, your asserting that looking at it from an outside of time perspective, a god can already see you eating a sandwich in the year 2022, even though your experience is of a one that is here in the year 2020. Did you actually live your whole life already, and therefore it can be seen from outside of time, or can an outside of time god see your whole life even though you haven't lived it yet? You should be careful in calling people idiots unless you can make sense yourself, Sparko. Being in a timeless continuum doesn't explain how the future of time can be seen if no such future has taken place. Has the future taken place, are you already in the future so that a god can see you there or not?

[Sparko]

So, your asserting that looking at it from an outside of time perspective, a god can already see you eating a sandwich in the year 2022, even though your experience is of a one that is here in the year 2020. Did you actually live your whole life already, and therefore it can be seen from outside of time, or can an outside of time god see your whole life even though you haven't lived it yet? You should be careful in calling people idiots unless you can make sense yourself, Sparko. Being in a timeless continuum doesn't explain how the future of time can be seen if no such future has taken place. Has the future taken place, are you already in the future so that a god can see you there or not?

I already said I am done talking about it with you because you don't understand it. You are just repeating yourself yet again.

[JimL]

I already said I am done talking about it with you because you don't understand it. You are just repeating yourself yet again.

I think your inability to answer makes it obvious who it is that doesn't understand.

[Sparko]

I think your inability to answer makes it obvious who it is that doesn't understand.

It does. YOU are the one who doesn't understand.

I did answer you. Multiple times and in multiple ways. You just keep asking the same thing over and over because you don't understand the answers.

Teacher: 5+5=10

JimL: It's 55!

Teacher: No, it's 10. If you have 5 apples and add 5 more, you have 10 apples

JimL: No, if you have 5 and put another 5 next to it, you have 55!

Teacher: No. That's not how addition works

JimL: Why wouldn't you have 55 if you put two 5's next to each other?

Teacher: You just don't understand math. Count the apples.

JimL: You didn't answer me!

Teacher: I did. I even gave you an example.

JimL: I don't see any "apples" in "5+5"

Teacher: It's an example, an analogy. The apples represent numbers.

JimL: Obviously you are wrong because you can't answer my question!

Teacher: Your question just shows you don't understand math. I already showed you how it really works. I am done trying to explain it to you if you are just going to repeat yourself.

JimL: I think your inability to answer makes it obvious who it is that doesn't understand.

Teacher: yeah, YOU.

[JimL]

It does. YOU are the one who doesn't understand.

I did answer you. Multiple times and in multiple ways. You just keep asking the same thing over and over because you don't understand the answers.

Teacher: 5+5=10

JimL: It's 55!

Teacher: No, it's 10. If you have 5 apples and add 5 more, you have 10 apples

JimL: No, if you have 5 and put another 5 next to it, you have 55!

Teacher: No. That's not how addition works

JimL: Why wouldn't you have 55 if you put two 5's next to each other?

Teacher: You just don't understand math. Count the apples.

JimL: You didn't answer me!

Teacher: I did. I even gave you an example.

JimL: I don't see any "apples" in "5+5"

Teacher: It's an example, an analogy. The apples represent numbers.

JimL: Obviously you are wrong because you can't answer my question!

Teacher: Your question just shows you don't understand math. I already showed you how it really works. I am done trying to explain it to you if you are just going to repeat yourself.

JimL: I think your inability to answer makes it obvious who it is that doesn't understand.

Teacher: yeah, YOU.

Wrong. You showed no such thing, because you can't, so you are running away. Anyone reading your explanation knows it makes no sense, and I have a feeling you know it as well. Your argument is more in the form of 2+2=3 because I said so and if you can't understand that it's because you're an idiot. Or more to the point, 'Even though I'm in the present, god can see me in the future because I said so, and if you can't understand that it's because you're an idiot.' An outside of time observer can no more see the future than you can, unless it actually exists, and if it actually exists, if you've already lived out your future, then what are you doing in the here present? To that you answer, well the future exist, my future choices exist, just like my past choices do, because they've always existed. Well, if your future choices have always existed in time, then obviously they weren't free choices. Your argument isn't logically grounded.