It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eureka! I think Ifinally understand why people say there is no objective reality only subjective rea

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Right, you didn´t agree with my comment that time does not exist outside of human perception. Your argumentation was completely based from a human perception standpoint. Therefore your argument is flawed.

Please debunk me and tell me what Law of Physics is bound by time, how does time exist in physics?




You didn't grasp the implication of what I posted, and you have embraced the idea that no implication or inference exists in connection with the statement itself. That indicates that you were not able to grasp the inference that was presented, and if you can't grasp it, then there's no possible way to teach you what it is that you'd need to know for that inference to become clear to you. If you were a child, then I'd have some optimism (since the human intellect is much more supple and flexible at that stage of development) but as a fully matured adult, if that level of conceptualization is beyond you, then breaking through with a workable alternate presentation is out of my realm of expertise


Talk with bravoure and arrogance all you want if it makes you feel important, but you ain´t sayin nuthin´.

Please answer my question and show how smart you really are.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bastardo
 


Is is perfect.


It is, isn´t it?



Btw, cool to see that we have reached a level of understanding that was acceptable to both of us.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bastardo
 


Being Is is onederful.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Right, you didn´t agree with my comment that time does not exist outside of human perception. Your argumentation was completely based from a human perception standpoint. Therefore your argument is flawed.

Please debunk me and tell me what Law of Physics is bound by time, how does time exist in physics?


Look up Planck's Constant. Then look up the word "inference".





You didn't grasp the implication of what I posted, and you have embraced the idea that no implication or inference exists in connection with the statement itself. That indicates that you were not able to grasp the inference that was presented, and if you can't grasp it, then there's no possible way to teach you what it is that you'd need to know for that inference to become clear to you. If you were a child, then I'd have some optimism (since the human intellect is much more supple and flexible at that stage of development) but as a fully matured adult, if that level of conceptualization is beyond you, then breaking through with a workable alternate presentation is out of my realm of expertise


Talk with bravoure and arrogance all you want if it makes you feel important, but you ain´t sayin nuthin´.

Please answer my question and show how smart you really are.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)


I did answer your question. I can't make you understand the answer.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?

Still not saying anything....

Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.


edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?

Still not saying anything....

Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.


edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)


I'll indulge you just this once again.

Planck's Constant suggests that all action is based on indivisible and identical units of presence that each have an initiation, a span of existence and then a completion. It goes on to assert that each of these units are identical and cannot be variable in any way. The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events). This physics theory (peer reviewed and universally accepted to the degree that Einstein's speed of light theory depends on it) explicitly implies that Time is an existential fact and that it is constant and immutable as far as its presence as an objective rate exchange from one state of "now" to the next.

That's as good as I can do for you. I can't force you to become educated about the entire existential infrastructure that completely depends on the truth of what this theory infers. If this doesn't do it for you, then nothing can. In the end, you asked for a physics theory that details time as a rigid structure, and I just gave you one.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
 





The past and future don't exist because existence happens in the present.


If past and future don´t exist, how can the present exist. Present would be the result of the past en the cause of the future. They either all exist or none of them exist.


The past doesn't exist. It may have existed, but it doesn't anymore. Back when 30 seconds ago happened, it happened presently, but now, 30 seconds ago doesn't exist anymore except as a memory. There is a physical imprint on the brain of it having occured, but that biological imprint is here now, not then.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Please read my last posts before you rip things out of context.

There is no past, no now, no present and no future. Time does not exist anywhere but in our minds.

All there is is existence. All there is is IS.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Planck's Constant suggests that all action is based on indivisible and identical units of presence that each have an initiation, a span of existence and then a completion. It goes on to assert that each of these units are identical and cannot be variable in any way. The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events).


It may relate to our concept of time, but it could also be measured in size and distance. Nowhere is the existence e of time infered, only in the translation to our perception.


The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


It´s about size, it says nothing about time.



edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?

Still not saying anything....

Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.


edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)


The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events)




That's entropy, not Time.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The past doesn't exist. It may have existed, but it doesn't anymore. Back when 30 seconds ago happened, it happened presently, but now, 30 seconds ago doesn't exist anymore except as a memory. There is a physical imprint on the brain of it having occured, but that biological imprint is here now, not then.



There's a thing called the Informational Continuum, and it persists permanently as it continues to be added to directly with each fact cluster that emerges to represent the occurrences that exist as "now" - featuring all events that exist within each "now" across the entire reality confine that has gathered as a result of the time sync of Planck's Constant providing a substructural contextual commonality. That Informational Continuum exists and creates the matrix of "avenues of progressive potential" that science refers to as "natural law", and lays the structural foundation for literally everything that exists, has existed, did exist and will exist. The human mind (consciousness) is the only wild card in the whole arrangement, but that's because it's an uber-sophisticated epitome development. If it were primordial, there'd be no stability in existence for anything else to build upon. The Informational Continuum provides all the progressive development management by way of logical default (simple "yes it proceeds" and/or "no it doesn't proceed"). Reality is intricate, but it's not complicated.
edit on 3/14/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
 



The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?

Still not saying anything....

Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.


edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)


The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events)




That's entropy, not Time.


um....no it's not.


In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. In this context, the term usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies the expected value of the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. In this context, a 'message' means a specific realization of the random variable.


en.wikipedia.org...(information_theory)

Did you think I wouldn't Google it? Seriously. And entropy as it relates to thermodynamics is even less applicable to what I detailed.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Planck's Constant suggests that all action is based on indivisible and identical units of presence that each have an initiation, a span of existence and then a completion. It goes on to assert that each of these units are identical and cannot be variable in any way. The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events).


It may relate to our concept of time, but it could also be measured in size and distance. Nowhere is the existence e of time infered, only in the translation to our perception.


The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.


It´s about size, it says nothing about time.



edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)


Again, you have no understanding of what inference is, and so I won't bother with any further explanations. It's clear that you don't even realize how your own comments are coming across in this exchange, so let's just call it a draw and not concern over it. It's sunny and warm out there right now. I'm going to go out and enjoy it for a while.

Have a good afternoon.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
This thread has become ridiculous and irrelevant.

I thought it was about objective reality and subjective reality. That's what I came here to talk about.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Uh... yes it is.

The Thermodynamic arrow of time is distinguished by the growth of entropy.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
This thread has become ridiculous and irrelevant.

I thought it was about objective reality and subjective reality. That's what I came here to talk about.


That's your perception.... and not necessarily reality.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Classic.....didn´t see that coming.....


Infered,


: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty 2 : something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence


I don´t see what the definition of inference has to do with it.

The definiton of your examples does not infer the existence of time....at alll.

You are just a bad loser, why not destroy me in a fatal debunk, instead wimpin out because the weather is good outside.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Ironic that you can´t see that this is exactly what we´re talking about.

Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Ironic that you can´t see that this is exactly what we´re talking about.

Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.


Maybe you should go ____ your____. Fill in the blanks however you'd like.

The point of this thread is not whether or not the past and future exists, its about which form of reality (objective or subjective) is more true, or if there is even a such thing as objective reality.

I don't see how talking about time is going to solve that riddle.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Ironic that you can´t see that this is exactly what we´re talking about.

Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.


Maybe you should go ____ your____. Fill in the blanks however you'd like.

The point of this thread is not whether or not the past and future exists, its about which form of reality (objective or subjective) is more true, or if there is even a such thing as objective reality.

I don't see how talking about time is going to solve that riddle.


Listen... you're way out of line.

The first sentence of this thread and the premise of the argument is this: "The only time that exists is NOW"

There are plenty of people, including myself that do not accept that premise as being valid.

If you have a problem with it then GO AWAY!

edit on 14-3-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join