What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 32

New comment
 
Techno:
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 ?
You already mentioned - it's an image on the monitor, a mouse pointer for example than a flat 2 dimensional object, you want a 1 dimensional object look at the monitor at zero angle )))
 
sanyooooook 09.01.2011 20:12

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 ?

You already mentioned - it's an image on the monitor, a mouse pointer for example than a flat 2 dimensional object, you want a 1 dimensional object look at the monitor at zero angle )))
A real object can be neither ONE-dimensional, nor TWO-dimensional, nor THREE-dimensional.
 
DhP:
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?
 
drknn:
I don't understand what the argument is about? Can you clearly outline the subject of your argument?
What is the form of time )))
 
sanyooooook:
what shape time takes )))

How many blunt angles time has...
 
sanyooooook:
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.
 
drknn:

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.

 
It is not always necessary to get to the bottom of things. This is exactly the case here - it is better to give up trying and do something else. I want to illustrate this point. There is a very instructive case in the history of cryptography. An innkeeper had a guest. On leaving in the morning he left a metal corkscrew with a promise that if he didn't come back in a certain period of time, the contents of the box would be his. The landlord waited longer than necessary and then opened the box. In it there were three sheets of paper, scribbled with numbers. The innkeeper and his friend deciphered only 1 leaf - it said exactly what treasure was hidden. The coordinates of the treasure were on the other two sheets. The innkeeper and his friend spent their lives trying to decipher the other 2 leaves, but never got anywhere. As a result and now there is an official bonus for whoever can decipher the 2 sheets. If you want more information - write to me - I will give you the exact history and the cryptograms themselves. What did I tell you about it? This story well illustrates the fact that it is not always necessary to get to the truth - sometimes it is necessary to refuse such attempts.
 
sanyooooook:

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.

1...252627282930313233343536373839...67
New comment