wrong AND interesting?


yes


yes

Yes i haven't gone far into chemistry or atoms (particle physics?), but it will always be concepts and symbols and they are limited and not the real thing.

yes these are limited like 'chemistry or atoms'.


i'm going to invoke the quote 'truth is a pathless land'


Is that what happened on days like 9/11. Seems to me people got really really stupid in many places around the world. That has to be like 1/millionth of an alien just arriving with zero warning.

Time travel arriving with zero warning would really really mess a lot of people up. But I suppose we can't debate that without really knowing the medium. But whether or not its possible I'd be quite surprised if you didn't agree the ramifications on the consciousness would be staggering (mid blowing?)

I guess we're talking about the people that 'freaked out' on 9/11


(this quote refers to 'why we can't time travel now, if in the future we could travel back to the past'). This universal truth (obv only if true) would explain why we haven't been effected by future time travel visiting us. In short if the consciousness can't or won't accept it...then it won't be here.


I'd like to know how they viewed the edge of the earth.


Mathematically I wouldn't exactly know about, but I would assume we know its not linear. However when we tackle the issue its always in a linear way, I guess I'm saying doctor who deals with it in a more practical way...but if you suggested its not practical either I'd agree too.

I'd agree with this more than conventional thinking. But it still suggest we have limiting belief we needs to break down in order to see things properly.

Of course, wrong and interesting in the same way as love and friendship and kindness are completely meaningless in the grand scale of things, but are nice things to pretend are important.

Let's not concern ourselves with the limitations of using concepts and symbols. The world works the way the world works. Our way of getting around within it and our understanding of it is not the issue.

The issue is that you are taking on a fools errand if you are seeking some greater truth. I can assure you that if you do some very deep thinking, the best you will come up with is some sort of variant of idfk.

For your sake (you seem pretty nice and for some reason I have taken a liking to you), I hope you read things a bit deeper. As Gertrude Stein said, "there is no there there."* That applies to greater truth.

Truth doesn't exist, except for when dealing with hard facts (and even then, there is difficulty). It is all ephemeral anyway, so no worries.

I watched it on TV and then went to work. Perhaps if it were 1 millionth stronger of an effect, I'd have gotten to work 5 minutes late.

You are quite surprised then. It wouldn't make a whit of difference. People would adapt.

The ones who ran around in random directions just continued doing what people do, which is run around when immediate danger presents itself. No big deal there, other than it involved slightly more people than when a bear suddenly pops up unexpectedly.

People don't really work that way. If JFC knocks on my door, and does a few godly tricks, I suddenly am not an atheist.

As leading into an abyss. Not sure how they thought of abyss, but it sounds ominous, so I think that they thought it as somewhere to not go.

Time is, for most of us, a practical thing. I know that when my blackberry makes a certain sound, that I need to head off to a meeting. It somehow knows that today is whatever day it is, so I make a few assumptions that work quite well and no one is surprised that I am where I think I should be.

If blackberry got time completely wrong, people would be surprised by my showing up when I show up. Since this rarely happens, I assume that time has something to do with reality.

*She was speaking of Oakland CA, which certainly exists, but might as well not. Truth is something that doesn't exist in any accessible way at all, so it is less there than Oakland. There is also an Oakland in Pittsburgh PA, which has some interesting museums.

Anybody want to take a swing at this? (if not, maybe a separate thread later)

Conceive of time however you like, can it ever be made so that something that actually happened didn't actually happen? If it can't be so, what sort of truth claim does that involve [that it's impossible to change that something happened in the past]; it doesn't immediately strike me as 'analytically' true (e.g. every effect has a cause), and makes it sort of interesting.

Multiple timelimes would suffice, but that would make what happened happened and only add another different thing happened (will have happened).

I have doubts that our ability to imagine a future does anything more than push us along. It seems unlikely that we are dragged along by some future, and more likely that we are pushed on by the past.

(the only reasons I hadn't taken this on is that I had little to add. The sound of people agreeing is sometimes silent)

Wanted to comment on this before it becomes too buried under layers of unintended drivel, intended sophistication, hooey, and Martian dust storms; I made the approximate same remark long ago in one of the great free will threads we had on SMP back in the old Ordovician era. It was on point then just as your comment is on point now.

In fact, considering the amount of mediocre posts and responses, not to mention the marginal political drivel and hooey spewing out of numerous threads lately in SMP, grabbing a beer from the fridge should be a standard response from the wise. That, or else suggestions for proper reading material accompanied by the appropriate firepower to keep the lower orders and swine at bay.

Shalom.

depressingly bad mistake from such a normally wise man.

Perhaps some prankster put his beer in the fridge, giving him no choice.

Just because certain people might not possess the "appropriate" qualifications, or a certain type of analytical ability, in a certain field of study or discipline, does not render them as a being of/from a lower order or swine.

Hubris.

Ya I think its ridiculous, and I think its the product of someone conditioned by his surroundings. He takes his concept of time and the affirms it by looking at it in the same we he already decided to do in the first place.

Can what happened never be undone? What if hes in the matrix? Did that happen? If we changed the past on him 1 millions times, could he ever even possibly know? How does he know this world exists outside his mind and its not some scientist working on his brain etc.


This is why I don't really believe in studying these peoples works, they are not free thinkers, they are competed shrouded by conditioning, in a way that to me is logical and obvious.

Didn't want to do the multi-quote thing cause I'm not really against the stuff you said or the way you said it.

Just wanted to point out that in this universal truth thread I think we showed that we can't prove cause and effect (not sure if i said that right). We can't tell if the hole was there and so we tripped, or if we tripped and looked back so a hole was there. To me thats clearly obvious I'm thinking that conflicts with your overall view.

Its good we straightened that out, I am under the impression that to praise is to do harm. wondered if you'd concur.

I don't think suggesting 'proper reading' will do such a thing if someone starts suggesting we should seek only unconditioned sources.

This is a separate issue, what somebody knows or thinks they know about the past isn't the same as what the past is.

Give the guy a break, this is from ~2400 years ago.

Yes but Aristotle didn't address the issue of not being able to separate the two in order to comment (maybe im misreading the context of the post)


Hes a great dude! But we can't infer info from him until we are able to separate conditioned thoughts from unconditioned ones.

As I read it, the idea in the passage is whether it's even conceivable that an event, having happened in the past, can be changed to having not happened in the past, by God (or by free will or whatever). If 'it rained on Sunday', can God (let alone a person in a time machine with a cloud bursting device) make it the case that 'it did not rain on Sunday'?