Generic Business Oriented Website

How can there still be debate over the existence of time, since we discovered hard evidence of time dilation and stuff?

Like wouldn't any position treating time as an illusory function of perception be completely squashed by a successful presentation of time as a external, physical function of nature?

So if you're hanging out with that one annoying guy at the party who smokes weed and says everything is happening at once, and everything that will happen and has happened still exists in simultaneity, and then you go "Fuck you, come to my private airport" and put two atomic clocks on two different jets and fly them all around the planet at different rates and then land them, and show him that they aren't in synch anymore and he drops his bong in suprise, is he still allowed to say that those events happened in a static state of happeningness and that that is no different than anything else you've ever considered about a linear procession of events?

And then you have to smoke weed too and become a rasta solipsist god of the universe?

I hate everything

James I have no idea what you're talking about

abyss

I think this kind of thing can wait until we can manage to convince everybody that dinosaurs were real and that the bones weren't put there by satan to test our faith in god

no debate here - rules

Isn't the fact that both clocks are reading different times at the smae time evidence that time is an artificial construct moreso than it's evidence of the opposite.. ? Not trying to start an awesome musclebound brainiacs vs. weird tragic self-aware juggahoez war here so all due respect

Fucking lock this before my brain explodes

riley-o wrote:Not trying to start an awesome musclebound brainiacs vs. weird tragic self-aware juggahoez war here so all due respect

thanks a lot dickhead

riley-o wrote:at the smae time

hahaha

I am generally agreeing with that post though

riley-o wrote:Isn't the fact that both clocks are reading different times at the smae time evidence that time is an artificial construct moreso than it's evidence of the opposite.. ?t

In fact quite the contrary??? All you've done is proven that clocks aren't perfect tools??

If you can produce evidence of change in time by physically manipulating things in the real world, can't you say that time must be an existent material thing?

Like if time can be shown to be relative

then something is relative

and so that thing is definitely actually there?

I'm sure there must be a really good answer to why this isn't true because the argument hasn't been settled yet, I was just wondering things

WILLOW: I mean, time for me, I can make it go slow or fast, however I please, and that’s how I know it doesn’t exist.

JADEN: It’s proven that how time moves for you depends on where you are in the universe. It’s relative to beings and other places. But on the level of being here on earth, if you are aware in a moment, one second can last a year. And if you are unaware, your whole childhood, your whole life can pass by in six seconds. But it’s also such a thing that you can get lost in.

WILLOW: Because living.

JADEN: Right, because you have to live. There’s a theoretical physicist inside all of our minds, and you can talk and talk, but it’s living.

WILLOW: It’s the action of it.

bland ed wrote:WILLOW: I mean, time for me, I can make it go slow or fast, however I please, and that’s how I know it doesn’t exist.

JADEN: It’s proven that how time moves for you depends on where you are in the universe. It’s relative to beings and other places. But on the level of being here on earth, if you are aware in a moment, one second can last a year. And if you are unaware, your whole childhood, your whole life can pass by in six seconds. But it’s also such a thing that you can get lost in.

WILLOW: Because living.

JADEN: Right, because you have to live. There’s a theoretical physicist inside all of our minds, and you can talk and talk, but it’s living.

WILLOW: It’s the action of it.

fart on tits

Twitter shaman Jaden Smith

james wrote: If you can produce evidence of change in time by physically manipulating things in the real world, can't you say that time must be an existent material thing?

I think the disagreement is more about whether time is what we perceive it to be or something more like a dimension of space, which to me sounds pretty plausible if it's relative to your movement speed.

I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that any sort of experiment provides insight into an "objective" universe that's underlying your argument here, but I don't know if I want to have this discussion right now. Intersubjectivity is not objectivity, is what I'm sayin', feel me?

Quite sure I'm talking out of my ass here, but the thing that bugs me about statements like "it's all just one eternal moment" is the implication that there are no real choices and above all that there's no chance. Quantum physics postulates essential chance in quantum events eg when you check whether a particle is where you think it is. It looks to me as if these two ideas exclude each other.

moments, feelings, instantaneous things exist...in a mind-bogglingly cold void. it is clear to me that time is an illusion, and that surges of Truth we feel here are sparks of a blinding blissful eternity, cracking through to us in a plane of demons, lies, history, and body-shells.

calling us to timelessness, to eternity, to death and away...far, far away from this life.

it's why we love God and girls and drugs and alcohol

THE KILL wrote:Quantum physics postulates essential chance in quantum events eg when you check whether a particle is where you think it is.

does it really say that, or maybe does it say there are some things we are infinitely bad at predicting?

THE KILL wrote:there are no real choices and above all that there's no chance.

a lot of people think this and it bugs me the fuck out