What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 32
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Is price space one of those adjacent spaces?) In general I can tell that you take abstraction as reality, it loads your judgement with superfluous things. Name at least 2 real 2 dimensional objects ?
Techno:
Is price space one of those adjacent spaces?) In general I can tell that you take abstraction as reality, it loads your judgement unnecessarily. Name at least 2 real 2 dimensional objects ?
A real object cannot be ONE-dimensional or TWO-dimensional or THREE-dimensional.
If it can be felt, it is there (even if it is 100-dimensional), I don't know how many dimensions, and it's not interesting in principle.
ZS: the topic is about the shape of time %)
I don't understand what the argument is about? Can you clearly outline the subject of your argument?
what shape time takes )))
How many blunt angles time has...
what shape time takes )))
I think it is impossible to answer this question unambiguously from the perspective of our everyday world. We can sketch a process - for example the movement of water in a river bed. But to have an idea of the whole process, you have to get out of the river and look at it from the side. That is to be outside the stream (outside the process). So also here, in order to outline the form in which time as a process runs, it is necessary to step out of the flow of time. From the position of perception of the everyday world it is impossible, because trying to stop time will move a person to a position of awareness, different from the perception of the everyday world. Words are not needed in this position - one perceives knowledge directly, perceives without the intervention of words. This means that we in the everyday world can only bring a semblance of the form being sought. Just now I said that the flow of the river is like the flow of time. And what has that changed - yes nothing - we are treading water again. Not everything a person perceives can be described in words. But then how do we know? Very simply - we simply have to confront the person with the object in question directly - extensive definition. There is no other way. Give up this argument - it is not solvable from the position of perception of the everyday world of everyday life.
I think it is impossible to answer this question unambiguously from the perspective of our everyday world. We can outline a process - for example the movement of water in a river bed. But to have an idea of the whole process, you have to get out of the river and look at it from the side. That is to be outside the stream (outside the process). So also here, in order to outline the form in which time as a process runs, it is necessary to step out of the flow of time. From the position of perception of the everyday world it is impossible, because trying to stop time will move a person to a position of awareness, different from the perception of the everyday world. Words are not needed in this position - one perceives knowledge directly, perceives without the intervention of words. This means that we in the everyday world can only bring a semblance of the form being sought. Just now I said that the flow of the river is like the flow of time. And what has that changed - yes nothing - we are treading water again. Not everything a person perceives can be described in words. But then how do we know? Very simply - we simply have to confront the person with the object in question directly - extensive definition. There is no other way. Give up this argument, it is not solvable from the point of view of the perception of the everyday world of everyday life.
Truth is born in argument (c) )
SZZY: There is only a clash of opinions, whose is more thorough there and is a truth.)
ZZZY: I once saw a deaf-mute man talking to a deaf-blind man.
Truth is born in argument (c) )
ZZZY: here only a clash of opinions, whose one is more thorough there is a truth.)
ZZZY: I once saw a deaf-mute man talking to a deaf-blind man.
If we manage to prove in this "argument" that the past does not exist,
because it is already "long gone" and the future does not exist (it has not yet been built for us),
then we can consider that the existence of time has been proven, and we'll give it a shape (at least a soldier's shape).
The difficulty is in proving the non-existence of the past and the future.