Page 11 of 12

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 18th, 2017, 10:32 pm
Hi RoccoR,
Everything in the universe is in relative motion. There is no motion unless compared with something else.
Cepheid stars are not all that accurate clocks for measuring duration.
"The formula is Time is equal to Distance divided by Speed" only holds good at speeds far less than c. Both time and distance dilate at higher speeds. And besides velocity you also have acceleration and gravity.
Time does not cause the order of events, but the order of events is the phenomenon known as Time. (Different from durational time).
Einstein was right and Bohr was wrong. Einstein never gave a reason for it, and Bohr's reasoning was false. He never defined what was an "observation". It does not require a conscious observer. It is simply an interaction. Nothing exists in isolation. There are a vast amount of interactions between the moon and other matter every second, which confirms its existence. The conscious human observers of the double slit experiment merely confirm the interactions recorded on the screen or detector.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 19th, 2017, 9:07 am
Ref: Is time real?
rajnz00, et al,

The OP question centers is over the extended issue about: The "distinction between past, present, and future." Is it an "illusion? Is it a "hypothesis?" Is it highly/medium/low "probably?"

rajnz00 wrote:Everything in the universe is in relative motion. There is no motion unless compared with something else.

(COMMENT)

Well that is one aspect of the arguments.

IF space-time is a single fabric, THEN Combined with the "X", "Y" and "Z" axis and planes it becomes a single, indivisible, four dimensional, reality for any event on a continuum.

You concept (supra) of motion is "almost" correct. Space-time for the entire universe, limited to as we understand it today, (not all things being equal) is expanding at an accelerated rate.

THUS everything in the universe is in motion in both space and time. Only in the local area does a comparison need to be made. Time, does not cease existence or go backwards. The universe is expanding in on direction.

•• The math my work backwards and forwards, it does not mean that the solution actually matches reality... The SQRT of a negative number is imaginary.

Math is a man-made language to describe observation such that they can be observable to any nation. Just like the fact that language fails us in describing a supernatural event or a deity, does not mean there is --- or is not a deity.

rajnz00 wrote:Cepheid stars are not all that accurate clocks for measuring duration.

(COMMENT)

Whether you (we, them) use a Cepheid, a Mira, Pulsar, an Eclipsing binary, or one of the regularly pulsating really makes no difference. Accuracy in this case is not the issue. The use of these pulsating marvels does not set the definition for time; but like in any other craft, it is a tool to measure time. The direction of time and the fact that time does not stop is the important piece. The universe is expanding and accelerating in an outward direction. Whether we have a clock is unimportant (although advantageous).

rajnz00 wrote: From the "Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe”, Lee Smolin argues that time is "real”

He defines that to mean that:

1. Whatever is real in our universe is real in a moment of time, which is one of a succession of moments.

2. The past was real but is no longer real. We interpret and analyse the past, from evidence in the present.

3. The future does not yet exist and is open. We can infer some predictions, but we cannot predict the future completely and the future can produce phenomena that are novel, no knowledge of the past could have anticipated them.

4. Nothing transcends time, not even the laws of nature. Laws are not timeless. Like everything else, they are features of the present, and they can evolve over time.

(COMMENT)
•∆• Response to #1: By definition --- the observation of a "succession of moments" is duration; measured in time intervals.

•∆• Response to #2: The "past" is a cascaded of events that is successively overtaken; being anything that came before now. Now is the reality.

•∆• Response to #3: The future is an unknown; which can be described "now" as a predictive probability.

•∆• Response to #4: I believe this is mixed up.
ø Transcending time is an unknown.

ø The laws of nature are man-made constructs to describe reality as it is observed.

ø Laws are just one form of tools within science which are constantly changing to incorporate new knowledge.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 19th, 2017, 6:41 pm
RoccoR » February 19th, 2017, 9:07 am wrote: IF space-time is a single fabric, THEN Combined with the "X", "Y" and "Z" axis and planes it becomes a single, indivisible, four dimensional, reality for any event on a continuum.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I agree that space and time are related and intertwined like a fabric but I do not believe it is one indivisible thing. I think that it may be discrete at very small quantities. And even on a macro-scale I do not believe it is one indivisible thing. If you bang a metal plate it will vibrate but it is not one indivisible thing. It can be divided, even if not easily divided.
I think everything is subject to change. Even a rock crystal, which is subject to very little change between the arrangement of its own atoms over time, still is in constant change over its spacial and temporal position in the universe.
I agree that not all solutions of a mathematical equation reflect reality. The argument that Einstein had, and many over here argue is, that the past still exists. As someone put it one would never say "there" does not exist, but I think that is an illusion. Space itself only exists in the now I think. We get the illusion of the permanence of space because we are carried along into the future along with everything else around us at the rate rate.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 4:55 am
Hi RoccoR,

As Raj has said, I'm one of the folks that believe the past still exists. But I question whether or not, if it is a static Geometry or.. is it still as dynamic as our present. I mean.. if our history is under constant revision, how would we know (food for thought)?

I adopted the Expanding Block Model long ago and see the Universe as a Quantum Computer, perhaps even self aware. My primary tool is Logic rather than Math (Professional Programmer) and I'm a bit lazy.. old.. and prone to stupid errors.. which Raj has a lot of fun poking at.. lol.

I don't see Time in the conventional sense. I see Time as Physical Distance only. That Time, as we experience it, is created by the Expansion of the Universe. That we Exist (our now) on the 3D surface of a 4D Growing Hyper-sphere Quantum Universe.

I work long hours prepping to retire soon.. so not able to fully engage here as much as I like to.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 9:09 am
Good Morning Dave, (et al),

You are not alone in this belief that the "past", "present" and "future" all coexist simultaneously. In fact, some Philosophers use this theory to explain the omnipresent characteristic of the Supreme Being/Ultimate Cosmic Creator. It is used as intangible evidence that explain how the "free-will" can work.

NOW, we do have the ability to look back in time.

Dr Brian Greene narrates a video on the subject ( http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=past+present+future+all+coexists&&view=detail&mid=84C78B5680231302A82684C78B5680231302A826&FORM=VRDGAR ) And that video explains the relationship between and the quandary of entropy (the arrow of time in the movement from order to disorder). Even - IF - we agree that physics (mathematics in the Laws of Physics) allow for the movement in reverse - THEN - we have to determine if this is Science or Philosophy (testable or untestable).

We agree that we can see the formation of light that depicts an image of the past; but, it is not evidence that the image is actually that a physically past exists.

We simply (in my opinion) do not know.

On the Philosophical level; on the issue of "Free-Will." Can man truly have free-will if the future has already occurred and exists? IF the future already exists, THEN any action I take now was already predestine and written in time. (I cannot change my action because my future self already sees it in the past.)...

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 12:33 pm
Rocco,

A future state or condition of all collective existence existing everywhere(the future) cannot literally exist anywhere in physical Objective Reality today because this of course has not yet occurred(People who talk about attempting to "visit" the future by using some form of impossible "time travel" do not understand what they are actually trying to "visit" here: Or again, a future state or condition of all collective existence existing everywhere. Or in other words, there is only what is called "now" actually occurring always)

Despite this, the same future state or condition of all collective existence may already exist in at least one other place, or the mind of God, but that is of course strictly a religious type of belief not a scientific belief.

If it is true that this future state or condition of all collective existence already exists in the mind of God, does that mean that none of us actually has free will? No, it doesn't;

God now being possibly aware of everything we will eventually do in our lives does not in any way actually force us to do anything today, and we still have the free will to at least attempt to do almost anything we want to do today. God just knows today (or already) all the choices that we will eventually make in our lives.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 1:07 pm
Hi RoccoR,
Of the 4 postulates of Lee Smolin you have reproduced above, 1 to 3 I absolutely believe are true. Number 4 I am not sure about but it makes sense. The laws should evolve just as the universe does.
As for that video that you have pointed to, are these wise scientists making a very basic mistake in their assumption? They say we can move backwards and forwards in space but not time. We can travel to some place and then return to the place we started from, apparently. But can we really? If while typing this message on my computer I get up drink a glass of water and return to my computer, have I travelled back in space? Not really. The space that was there before has gone into the past. I get the illusion it is the same because everything is travelling along with me in time, at the same rate, just like the illusion of stillness because we are all travelling along with the earth.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 1:19 pm
Hi all,

I use a simple piece of logic. If we take 10 and divide it by 3.. what is the answer? Of course it it 3.3333333.. etc.
Obviously one can predict pretty quickly what the future calculations will be (endless three's).

But, logically, you can't get to the 100th three without passing through (computing) all the previous threes. This is in effect the "Arrow of Time". Thus at whatever position the current calculation is working on, that would be the Present or Now. From that perspective history Exists and the current Now Exists but the future doesn't Exist yet, even if it is predictable.

Two possibilities exist relative to "Now".
1. That "Now" is built on a growing foundation and history (the foundation) is never erased.
2. That "Now" is an evolving growing shell and history is erased.

Of the two, I prefer View #1 because I can't define an Eraser. Try it yourself. Grab some paper and calculate 10/3. Did you erase each answer before going to the next one or did you use many sheets of paper before coming to an end (Now)?

Besides, if the Quantum Universe is the Mind of God, I'd rather think of God as being a full bodied 4D Being and not just the 3D shell of a God.. lol.

In both views above, the Future doesn't Exist from any point defined as "Now" (even if it is fully determined).

As far as Freewill goes, the only element that can deviate from Determined is that of being Random. I'd rather believe my Future is Determined by myself.. than believe my Will has a Random element to it.

Regards all,
Dave :^)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 1:58 pm
Hi Dave,
You are back to numbers. Unless one untangles oneself from confused thoughts, one will be perpetually stuck in a recurring (or non-recurring) set of numbers.
"Erased" is not a good word here as it leads you to your paradox in your mind. Real is better. The past was real but now exists in your memory.
"The past was real but is no longer real. We interpret and analyse the past, from evidence in the present." We can piece it together using forensic science.
And yes we have free will because the future is open.
Keep it simple, dont confuse yourself.
Regards,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 4:30 pm
Re: Is Time Real?

Yes, Good Afternoon "ronjanec." et al:

This is one of those issues that, (with a high) probability --- never to be solved.

ronjanec » February 20th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:
A future state or condition of all collective existence existing everywhere(the future) cannot literally exist anywhere in physical Objective Reality today because this of course has not yet occurred...

(COMMENT)

I personally agree to this much. BUT my experience shows that I am in the minority in the set of theoretical physicists. This is in the realm of those that suppose a slice of the "Time Continuum" straight (the now) or vectored to the past --- and just as easily --- the slice may be vectored to the future. (But then it really does not matter as I will be long gone and designated before the truth be known.)

ronjanec » February 20th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:Or in other words, there is only what is called "now" actually occurring always)

(COMMENT)

Remember, that IF time is a true "continuum," THEN we could never detect "now" in the reality of a "NOW." The "now" would only exist as an imaginary boundary between the past and future. Any specific "x" by "y" by "z" by "t" (before you could even envision it, the now is in the past). In the reality, you may only speak of the past and present. Time (t) zero (or now) is a theoretical construct just like the initial conditions of the Special Theory are not real. Time, for the purpose of mathematics, is like most math --- quantized. and we speak of time in terms of successive approximations of smaller and smaller duration.

ronjanec » February 20th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:Despite this, the same future state or condition of all collective existence may already exist in at least one other place, or the mind of God, but that is of course strictly a religious type of belief not a scientific belief. If it is true that this future state or condition of all collective existence already exists in the mind of God, does that mean that none of us actually has free will? No, it doesn't;

(COMMENT)

While we may or may not agree on the determination on this question; it is not something science can answer. The meaning of a Supreme Being (SB) or Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC) is undefined by any universally accepted standard. No set of characteristics in reality can be assembled and mutually agreed upon as an SB or UCC. Even the characteristics of lesser deities are undefined.

ronjanec » February 20th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:God now being possibly aware of everything we will eventually do in our lives does not in any way actually force us to do anything today, and we still have the free will to at least attempt to do almost anything we want to do today. God just knows today (or already) all the choices that we will eventually make in our lives.

I suppose the fascination the Pythagoreans had in geometry was that it seemed almost divinely inspired; that every geometry proof is a sequence of deductions that use IF --- THEN logic. Sometimes we settle for the theoretical answer; refined using the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz):
ab
("if a then b")
("b only if a")
IF the SB is perfect --- THEN the SB cannot know something that is untrue.

IF the SB the quality of having unlimited power AND able to extend into the property of being present everywhere --- THEN the SB can see into the future.

IF the SB knows "now" that two days from "now" (into the future) you will ask me to lunch and I will accept --- THEN in two days from now I will have no choice by to accept.

• The SB knows today that I will accept.
• The SB knowledge of future events is prefect.
• Then two days from now I must accept because the SB cannot be wrong today.
• The SB cannot be wrong today about a future event.
Therefore: I have no free will.
HOWEVER: if as some believe that the SB is everywhere along the "Space-Time Continuum" at once, then it is possible that the SB/UCC would know today, what you will do two days from now because from the perspective of the SB/UCC, it was knowledge of the "past."

Using this hypothesis, the SB/UCC is neither good nor evil, moral or immoral, acting in the best interest of humanity.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 20th, 2017, 5:20 pm
Rocco, I agree(poor choice of wording on my part by posting too quickly);

"Now" basically exists in Objective Reality as an observation man makes when observing everything and everyone existing all around him in the particular state or condition of all existence existing everywhere that he is living in, and he also uses the word "now" to describe the same (observed) present day conditions.

And like you basically said in your post, the same "now" does not actually exist as "a something" you could actually isolate or detect in Objective Reality independent of the word or observation, or exist as an actual point or boundary between what is called the past and what is called the future.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 12:56 am
Rocco,

The Supreme Being knows today that in two days time you will accept my offer for lunch, and since the SB cannot be wrong about this today, you "must" choose to accept my offer for lunch in two days time and do not have free will in this or any other matter?

The SB just knowing your choice today does not mean that you "must" accept my offer for lunch two days from now. In two days you will still have the choice or the free will to do whatever you want here: The SB just knowing ahead of time what your free will choice will be in the future does not in any way "force" you to make that particular choice. You could just as easily reject my offer for lunch in two days time, and then that would (instead) be what the SB already knows today .

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 11:22 am
ronjanec, et al,

Well --- we have to decided the characteristics of the deity: The Supreme Being (SB) and Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC).

ronjanec » February 21st, 2017, 12:56 am wrote:The SB just knowing your choice today does not mean that you "must" accept my offer for lunch two days from now. In two days you will still have the choice or the free will to do whatever you want here: The SB just knowing ahead of time what your free will choice will be in the future does not in any way "force" you to make that particular choice. You could just as easily reject my offer for lunch in two days time, and then that would (instead) be what the SB already knows today .

(COMMENT)

The SB/UCC has (by definition) prefect knowledge. Whatever the SB/UCC knows today about the events of tomorrow or the next day MUST come to pass.

IF the SB/UCC knows today that I will accept your lunch invitation -- THEN -- two day hence, I must accept; I cannot decline. Otherwise the SB/UCC would be imperfect and NOT be omniscient;establishing an apparent contradiction to omniscience. Whatever the SB/UCC knows about the past, the present and the future, must be true.

IF I had declined, THEN the SB/UCC would have been wrong (a contradiction to omniscience); two days prior.

ronjanec » February 21st, 2017, 12:56 am wrote:You could just as easily reject my offer for lunch in two days time, and then that would (instead) be what the SB already knows today .

(COMMENT)

This is rooted in the belief that it is possible for the mortal to change the past and reorient the knowledge of the SB/UCC. In this defense, you present a fallacy known as a complex form "Denying the Antecedent."

What is know today, about the future --- drives the events of future. The events of future do not drive the historical record of the past.

OR --- said another way: Your choices in the future cannot reach back into the past and alter what the SB/UCC knows in those historical moments.

The choice of a mortal may not have an impact on the will of the SB/UCC. It is the will of the SB/UCC that determines the choice and outcomes based on the cascade series of events that lead up to any decision point.

Whatever I choose (accept or reject) cannot contradict the Omniscient.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 3:07 pm
Hi RoccoR,
Correct.
If one assumes an omniscient being, who knows everything about your past and future, you cannot have free will. Because if you do then it does not know what you are going to do and hence it is not omniscient.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 5:33 pm
rajnz00 » February 11th, 2017, 3:28 pm wrote:That doesn’t mean that that this guy mitchellmckain can come charging in and get away with spouting loads of garbage. Claptrap such as “Yes there is. It is what a non-equilibrium state means!”. A non-equilibrium state is simply one where energy flows from one direction to another. It can flow in or out. Fellow makes out like he’s Einstein, unfortunately he doesn't appear to be so.

To my saying that “1. the molecules in crystals of quartz are not in a ground state and 2. not in perpetual motion without an external power source.” Which is precisely correct. He responded “that is the difference between a quartz crystal vibrating due other things [what “other things”??] and the driven vibration in the quartz used in a applications like a watch.” What claptrap. Somewhere else he claimed he could work out that the apparent diameter of the Sun was 1/720 that of a circle using his naked eye and lines on the ground for counting, or some such thing. The guy must be a genius.

First he says "Frankly this discovery does not look very extraordinary to me. It looks like a pretty simple extension of some very basic physics of simple harmonic oscillators." Simple harmonic oscillators! Then after having shot his mouth off with that garbage, he must have read further and comes out with "a significant scientific breakthrough". Indeed!

Mine eyes have been opened to a whole new garbagey side of mitchellmckain. Considering this science is tinkering between the quantum/classical boundary, and that part of the world is really not understood by anybody, I don't get this claim by mitchell of a "simple harmonic oscillator".

rajnz00 , I retract my earlier statement. I think I prefer your emotional fireworks now.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 6:02 pm
Rocco and Raj,

God knows in advance exactly what I will do tonight. And yes, I now agree that this all must come true because God can't be wrong about anything.

I am sitting here thinking about whether or not I should go out tonight and murder the dirty rat who stole my girlfriend(this is of course just an example people): My Irish temper gets the best of me and I go out and do exactly that tonight;

So because God already knew in advance that I would do this tonight, and that this must happen tonight because God again can't be wrong about anything, and then according to both of you, I had no choice or free will in the same matter because this still must happen irrespective of whatever choice I will make later on tonight...

So after I die, how can a supposedly just and fair God judge me for the terrible sin of murder when his knowing about this in advance eliminated all my personal choice in the matter and my free will?(or at least according to both of you) This kind of thinking cannot be right gentlemen.

Yeah, this is a really tough one here, and I believe we are all missing something really important here(or a very hard to see distinction somewhere)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 6:29 pm
Hi all,

Funny thing about the SB/UCC is that, with all his Power, He has no Freewill. If He knows everything that will happen then He also knows His own future. If He knows his own future then He can't change it. If He did change His future.. then He is not an omniscient Being or He would have seen the change before He committed to it. If He can't change His own Future then He is not All Powerful.

Thus a SB/UCC cannot be both All-Powerful and All-Knowing in the same package.

Personally, I would lean towards All-Powerful and let Him make a few unforeseen mistakes.

Please excuse my Gender references, done only for clarity of communication and not any specific beliefs.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 6:34 pm
Topic review: Is Time Real?
Good Evening rajnz00, et al,

Yes, but I cannot claim that my solution is correct in every sense. This is because that the solution is dependent on the attributes and characteristics assigned to the Supreme Being (SB) or Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC).

Section 6. The Attributes of God wrote: Monotheistic definitions

Monotheism is the view that only one God exists (as opposed to multiple gods). In Western (Christian) thought, God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omni-benevolence (supremely good). In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good. Many other properties (e.g., omnipresence) have been alleged to be necessary properties of a God; however, these are the three most uncontroversial and dominant in Christian tradition.

(COMMENT)

The Summary of Meditations III-V I. THIRD MEDITATION: The existence of God cosmological proof, the aspect of evil, and Descartes’s ontological proof for the existence of God within the Fifth Meditation.

But we are generally in agreement; yet the argument has raged since before the time of Moses; three and a half millennium ago. The Theologians and Great Philosophers call them proofs; but, in my opinion, they are far from it.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 21st, 2017, 6:57 pm
Re: Is Time Real?

Yes, an Argument of the Third Order (Conflict in Powers).

Dave_Oblad » February 21st, 2017, 6:29 pm wrote:Hi all,

Funny thing about the SB/UCC is that, with all his Power, He has no Freewill. If He knows everything that will happen then He also knows His own future. If He knows his own future then He can't change it. If He did change His future.. then He is not an omniscient Being or He would have seen the change before He committed to it. If He can't change His own Future then He is not All Powerful.

Thus a SB/UCC cannot be both All-Powerful and All-Knowing in the same package.

Personally, I would lean towards All-Powerful and let Him make a few unforeseen mistakes.

Please excuse my Gender references, done only for clarity of communication and not any specific beliefs.

(COMMENT)

And this brings us back to the Section 6. The Attributes of God wrote: Monotheistic definitions...

Meditation 103
The existence of a Supreme Being is both unknown and unknowable...

The weakness in these types of arguments is that it assumes the "mortals" either: (i) have a clear and concise understanding of the intentions and powers of a SB/UCC; or, (ii) understand the nature of the forces that disprove the existence of a SB/UCC.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 3:20 pm
hyksos, yep certainly not simple harmonic oscillators. I regret the strong language though. Another thing that plays on the edge of physics are the sonic black holes being created by Jeff Steinhauer at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. Positive energy of particles flying outside the hole and negative going inside as predicted by Stephen Hawking.
Exciting news about Tappist 1 and its planets.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 3:35 pm
God's 100% always accurate foreknowledge or prediction of what will happen in regards to the outcome of someone making a personal choice in what is called the future(or predicted event of any kind) cannot possibly have any direct or actual effect on someone making the same personal free will choice in the future, because the future does not of course exist yet in Objective Reality;

Instead of using the word "must"(or must choose in this particular context) to again describe the outcome of someone's already predicted personal free will choice occurring sometime in the future(implying directly causing or determining the outcome of same personal choice), we should more accurately be using the word "will" to describe what personal choice will be made in "the future", in regards to again God's 100% always accurate foreknowledge or prediction of the same(simply predictive in nature and not again implying directly causing);

Or in other words, despite God already knowing in advance the actual outcome of any personal free will choices anyone will make in the future, his foreknowledge of the same personal free will choices before they occur does not directly effect or actually cause the outcome of the same free will choices that anyone will make any time in what is called the future because the future still does not yet exist anywhere in Objective Reality;

So in conclusion, every man definitely has the ability during his lifetime to at least attempt to make any personal choices he so pleases, or again has the free will to at least attempt to do anything he so chooses.

("The same personal choices must still be chosen in the future because of God's 100% always accurate foreknowledge and prediction of future free will choices?" Again, yes they must. But if you actually understood what I was trying to explain here, you should also understand that I am saying that the word must here should only be used in a predictive tense, and not a causal tense)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 5:32 pm
Re: Is Time Real?
New post by ronjanec on February 22nd, 2017, 3:35 pm

ronjanec, et al,

We see this slightly different. And in the tradition of the Great Philosophers, the question is timeless. I cannot prove your contemplation wrong; therefore, I must acknowledge the perspective.

(SIDEBAR)

Yes, "the future still does not yet exist anywhere in Objective Reality."

As noted by Ms Barbara Anne Stock (Associate Professor, Gaullaudet University) "Philosophers call the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which states that there is a rational explanation for every event. You might not know what the true explanation is, but there always is one."

In the realm of a reality in which a deity is a given, then the mortal's acceptance of an "Objective Reality" is questionable; in fact of the laws of the universe is questionable. That would be --- because the universe and all its laws (including both latent and tangible) is subject to the whim of the divine.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 22nd, 2017, 6:24 pm
Rocco,

Point granted. Yes, I had to be very careful how I actually worded this, because I don't know exactly what God is willing to do, or is actually capable of doing, in regards to just about anything including what is called "the future";

But I am still pleased with myself, that I was able to finally figure out a very important and very difficult distinction again involving the word "must" here in this particular context that has been really bothering me for the last day or so.

And I still believe that my answer to the free will question here is correct, despite my again uncertainty about what God is willing to do, or actually capable of doing, in regards to just about anything including what is called "the future"

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 23rd, 2017, 12:17 am
Hi all,

Funny thing about God is I always Imagined such as being an impartial observer and never interacting in our affairs. Thus God remains innocent of any Sins. I don't see a God as being able to answer Prayers as doing so may have undesirable consequences further down the road.

But I swear there exists a force/intelligence that deliberately impedes my progress.

I have project deadlines to meet. Unexplainable events always occur to obstruct my progress. Really weird events of improbability. For example: I have a deadline.. I go into my shop to complete a task in the 1 hour available.. I flip on the light and it blows. Of course I have no replacement bulb at that time, so I rush to the store. Along the way I get a flat tire. I have to call for help because my spare is flat too. By the time I get my Tire fixed and the Bulb for my shop.. 3 hours have passed.

The odds of such occurring under my time constraint is ridiculous, but it happens.

But I eventually get back on track, boot my computer and now my Mouse fails. But luckily I have a spare USB mouse but it needs a special driver installed, so without a Mouse I search the Internet for the proper driver and get it installed. Now the new driver is interfering with my USB keyboard. So I update the driver on my Keyboard from the Net and the Icons on my computer display become enlarged.. I finally find the solution after an hour of searching and try it. Now my computer is locked up.

This series of impossible events has taken over 6 hours to resolve. And I haven even started on my Primary Goal yet. So I give up and start again the next day. Again, a series of improbable events take place and I make no progress. This is my life sometimes.

Whatever evil intelligence is slowing me down is freaking smart when it comes to technical skills and clever strategies.

This happens so often, I've come to expect it. Perhaps if I sacrifice a goat.. it will leave me alone.. lol.

Is this common? Hasn't just about everyone had such an experience? That sometimes Nature deliberately interferes with your schedules in the most strange and creative ways?

If I wanted proof of the paranormal, the statistically unlikely odds of the events in my life would surely apply.

Ok, I have to get back to work again. My next task should take 1 hour and I have 4 hours. I'm betting it will take 10 hours.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 23rd, 2017, 1:35 am
Dave,
You could try praying to God and asking for the latest computer, but you know prayer doesn’t work like that. The best way is to steal one and ask for his forgiveness.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 23rd, 2017, 11:32 am
Metaphysics & Epistemology • Re: Is Time Real?

This is the peculiar thing.

Dave_Oblad » February 23rd, 2017, 12:17 am wrote:Thus God remains innocent of any Sins.

(COMMENT)

This we have to set aside until such time that we know whether or not we assign the extent to which benevolence, honesty integrity, and which moral judgements are characteristic of the Supreme Being (SB)/Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC); if indeed there is an SB/UCC.

Remember, most of the faith-based deities are responsible for the encouragement of many conflicts. Many warriors and combatants marched to the claim "Gott mit Uns" or "Allah Akbar." The SB/UCC has, many times in the past, participated in mass extinction events and genocide. The traditional tale goes that the SB/UCC commanded the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites --- men, women and children.

We do not know what role "sin" plays in the development of man. However, it does raise the question that if the SB/UCC defines "Good and Evil" --- "Right and Wrong" and the SB/UCC did not want such to exist, then why create it. Why would the SB/UCC set the conditions for "Good and Evil" --- "Right and Wrong" to arise?

Unknown...

Dave_Oblad » February 23rd, 2017, 12:17 am wrote:I don't see a God as being able to answer Prayers as doing so may have undesirable consequences further down the road.

(COMMENT)

IF the SB/UCC all knowing, all powerful, all everything, etc etc, THEN Why??? It cannot be the case that the SB/UCC and still NOT being able to answer Prayers."

This is a whole new controversy in itself.. Is the SB/UCC (assuming it exists) benevolent towards humanity?

Dave_Oblad » February 23rd, 2017, 12:17 am wrote:But I swear there exists a force/intelligence that deliberately impedes my progress.

(COMMENT)

UMMMmmm,,, Or, it just could be that we do not have sufficient evidence and reasoning in which to formulate a solution.

Most Respectfully,
R

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 3:01 pm
Dave if you are online, I want to ask you a question in "real time". To carry out a little experiment. In fact if more are online the experiment would be better still

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 7:08 pm
OK Dave, and anyone else - here is the question. It's not a trick question but you have to answer honestly, without cheating.

It is a question about estimation.

The circumference of the Earth is approximately 40,000 kms (or 25,000 miles). Now suppose the Earth is a perfect sphere with a circumference of exactly 40,000 Kms (or 25,000 miles).

Suppose also you have a string to measure the circumference of the Earth, but it so happens the string is 1 metre, (or about 39.4 inches), too long, that is, it is exactly 40,000.001 kms long

Now suppose you make a perfect circle with this string of yours and place it around the diameter of the Earth.

The question is- How many millimetres or inches above the surface of the Earth will the string be?

Without using your calculators, computers or the internet, give me your estimates of this distance.

The answer should be a simple number with the units. For Example 0.1 millimetres or 0.01 inches.

Remember, and this is important, a quick estimate, in your mind, without calculation.

Regards to all.

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 8:54 pm
Hi Raj,

Guess? Kidding? Ok, I'll guess about a 100 mm.

I'm probably way off, don't do math well in my head, or even with a calculator for that matter...lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)

### Re: Is Time Real?

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 10:52 pm
Dave, and everyone else:
Here are the rules. You are allowed 2-4 minutes to understand the question and 30 seconds to provide your answer. I saw you brooding over it for hours.
It is meant to be a fun exercise. Without calculation but relying solely on your hunch. Like guessing the number of marbles in a jar. I should have made that clear to you.