What is space, vaccuum, or nonexistence?

[PhysiksFreak]

I don't much care what would impress you.

You said: Yes. Time exists. Otherwise, there would be no "now".

That is faulty logic. Now exists, and a theory of time can be inferred from that, but I certainly can't prove it.

If anyone needs to prove anything, its you who claim that 'time' also exits, when it indeed could be an illusion.

The fact that 'now' exists doesn't prove that your 'theory of time' is correct, regardless of how impressed you are with yourself.

In fact, he's damn right, without time, there would be no "now", but nor would there be a tomorrow, which would mean that there would have been no past as well (I'm taking this viewpoint from time zero.). Time is also an illusion, do you know why? because no where in the world time is EXACTLY the same. Just because man made it so, it doesn't mean nature has to go along with it. Without time, there would be no date with the hot girl down the street at ten o clock, nor would there be lunch with mom at twelve, nor breakfast with dad at nine, nor going to my best friends birthday on Sunday. If we're discussing about time, we need to think outside the box, and then only we might get an idea of what time is.

 

[baywax]

In fact, he's damn right, without time, there would be no "now", but nor would there be a tomorrow, which would mean that there would have been no past as well (I'm taking this viewpoint from time zero.). Time is also an illusion, do you know why? because no where in the world time is EXACTLY the same. Just because man made it so, it doesn't mean nature has to go along with it. Without time, there would be no date with the hot girl down the street at ten o clock, nor would there be lunch with mom at twelve, nor breakfast with dad at nine, nor going to my best friends birthday on Sunday. If we're discussing about time, we need to think outside the box, and then only we might get an idea of what time is.

No so true. Without "now" there would be another name describing the same thing.

 

[MaWM]

I don't much care what would impress you.

You said: Yes. Time exists. Otherwise, there would be no "now".

That is faulty logic. Now exists, and a theory of time can be inferred from that, but I certainly can't prove it.

If anyone needs to prove anything, its you who claim that 'time' also exits, when it indeed could be an illusion.

The fact that 'now' exists doesn't prove that your 'theory of time' is correct, regardless of how impressed you are with yourself.

As I said, our theories work, and our expirements wok. These theories and expirements incorporate time explicitly. There a a few conclusions we can draw from this. "Time exists" or "Time is an illusion", for example. "Time is an illusion" says nothing about the universe. It says that time doesn't exist, but doesn't say what does. It has no predictive power. On the the other hand, "Time exists" puts very strict and specific limitations on our universe. Limitations which do indeed appear in the expirements we perform. Thus, these expirements are strong validations of our idea that time exists.

This is almost the same argument as evolution vs creationism

 

[MaWM]

Hmm.. the above post can be summarized most succintly with "Time as an illusion is not falisifiable"

 

[nandine]

same

the same question happns to come in my mind frequently.. sometims it seems to me that vacuum between two particles itself something.. nothing is also something.but i can answer this in a way like blankness or vacuum can be defined like it has no response on any event to support or oppose the event

 

[JoeDawg]

Umm, JoeDawg, You should go get some Reiki yourself. Maybe then you'll believe?

I have no interest in people who make money from selling snake oil. Masters indeed.

 

[JoeDawg]

As I said, our theories work, and our expirements wok.

Only in general... theories of time are vague at best and only descriptive.

This is not an 'empirical' issue. Its an epistemological one. I can say that now exists because I experience it 'directly'. I don't experience tomorrow or yesterday the same way. A theory of time may in fact predict lots of things, but you're really missing the point here. It is always now. You can't predict future, unless you assume that a future is there to predict. So confirming that, with predictions, is circular logic.

"Time exists" puts very strict and specific limitations on our universe.

Its a good assumption, no more. The question of whether it is an illusion however has no relevance to predictability. A good magician can fool you every time, even when you know how the trick works. Such is the nature of illusion.

This is almost the same argument as evolution vs creationism

No, the creationism argument falls down because it assumes an entity which demands an infinite regression, even though it claims the opposite. Arguments about what time is, address the nature of knowledge, and are not necessarily limited to the ontological .

 

[Ocularis]

Random comments.

If I may be so bold, time is something that is both experienced and measurable. Ask youself how do we experience time vs how do we measure time? How can you separate now from the past and future? To experience time you must make a comparison, a measurement, in order for you to "know" there is a "now" you must have something to compare to ie. past or future. Without the past or future "now" is meaningless. Can you really say that we can experience time without there taking place some form of measurement or comparison? If there were only 'now' with no past or future, there would be nothing to experience.
Any measurement we make or experience we have relies on the ability to make a comparison. In the context of time it is restricted to a comparison within the cyclical nature of events, in essence the level of predictability of the universe. A clock tics, atoms vibrate, sound resonates, every system we use to measure or experience the universe even our own biology our brain, our hearts are cyclical in nature. This is unfortunately the difficulty with time because we measure it and experience it by comparing one systems predictability with anothers. Could we experience time if the universe wasn't predictable? If there were no level of predictability in the universe would measurement even be possible? How could anything be measurable if there were no predictablity in time? Without predictibility measurment would have no meaning and as such our ability to differentiate 'now' from the past or future would dissappear. In other words, in order for us to measure or experience time the universe must in fact, be predictable.
If we accept we exist and that we experience time we must accept that a past must exists and future must exist and that there is a level of predictability to the universe, else we must question the validity of our experience. Whether or not time is an illusion comes down to whether or not you trust your experience to be a represenation of reality or just an illusion.

Just my two cents.

 

[JoeDawg]

Without the past or future "now" is meaningless. Can you really say that we can experience time without there taking place some form of measurement or comparison? If there were only 'now' with no past or future, there would be nothing to experience.

Lets pretend I'm an all powerful demon and I created you this instant. When I created you I put in a whole host of 'memories' into you. These memories gave you a sense of what the future might be like. Then, demon that I am, I annihilate you in the very same second.

Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?

 

[MaWM]

Lets pretend I'm an all powerful demon and I created you this instant. When I created you I put in a whole host of 'memories' into you. These memories gave you a sense of what the future might be like. Then, demon that I am, I annihilate you in the very same second.

Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?

Theres that reasoning again. An all-powerful demon could have created you in infinitely many ways. He chose to create you with memories that match those you would have if time existed. Since the existence of time imposes specific requirements on your memories, and the existence of an all-powerful demon does not, such memories should be taken as evidence of the existence of time given a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Again, your all powerful demon theory is unfalsifiable, the existence of time is not. Therefor, between the two, the existence of time is the default conclusion given some supporting evidence and a lack of contradicting evidence

 

[JoeDawg]

Again, your all powerful demon theory is unfalsifiable, the existence of time is not.

Its not a theory. No one is advocating it, nor believes it to be true, no one is doing experiments about it. This is reasoning, not lab work.

Its a thought experiment that demonstrates the primacy of consciousness.

Whether time exists or not, is NOT EVEN THE QUESTION. You can't even discuss that question, until you acknowledge consciousness.

Now exists, we can't avoid this, based on our experience of now and our memories we can then derive a notion of what is 'past'. From that we can infer a future. We can make connections.

But I'm repeating myself and this is phil 101 type stuff... ah well.

 

[MaWM]

Its not a theory. No one is advocating it, nor believes it to be true, no one is doing experiments about it. This is reasoning, not lab work.

Its a thought experiment that demonstrates the primacy of consciousness.

Whether time exists or not, is NOT EVEN THE QUESTION. You can't even discuss that question, until you acknowledge consciousness.

Now exists, we can't avoid this, based on our experience of now and our memories we can then derive a notion of what is 'past'. From that we can infer a future. We can make connections.

But I'm repeating myself and this is phil 101 type stuff... ah well.

Your distinction between how you know that now exists and how you know that the past exists is arbitrary. How do we know that now exists? Because of our senses? Because we can reason about it? That means by expirement; our senses are merely scientific instruments. Our senses could be tampered with, our reasoning could be tampered with just as easily as our memories could be tampered with. The way we know "now" is not significantly different than how we know the past. (And, if youre going to tell me that we know the past exclusively from memory, remember that "now" is long gone before I can process any information about it, since that processing takes time. That is to say, we know "now" entirely from memory as well.)

Without memory there could be now thought, and all data is past data.

 

[baywax]

Your distinction between how you know that now exists and how you know that the past exists is arbitrary. How do we know that now exists? Because of our senses? Because we can reason about it? That means by expirement; our senses are merely scientific instruments. Our senses could be tampered with, our reasoning could be tampered with just as easily as our memories could be tampered with. The way we know "now" is not significantly different than how we know the past. (And, if youre going to tell me that we know the past exclusively from memory, remember that "now" is long gone before I can process any information about it, since that processing takes time. That is to say, we know "now" entirely from memory as well.)

Without memory there could be now thought, and all data is past data.

Here's how to distinguish "now" from everything else. I'll use the Jello model because it is the easiest way to grasp what I'm saying.

There are two "nows".

"Now" number 1 is characterized by all the phenomena an individual experiences in their immediate environment.

"Now" number 2 is characterized by all of the phenomena taking place everywhere whether the individual experiences it or not.

"Now number 1" can be depicted as an isolated bit of jello with an event horizon of about a nanolitre.

"Now number 2" can be depicted as the infinite bowl of jello.

There's no mention of past or future. This is because those constructs are strictly subjective and relative to the position of "now number 1" as it stands in the rest of the "now number 2".

That's one aspec of "now"

 

[PhysiksFreak]

I have no interest in people who make money from selling snake oil. Masters indeed.

True Reiki masters do not sell snake oil you dolt. Why don't you read it up and then come and blabber to me?

 

[JoeDawg]

True Reiki masters do not sell snake oil you dolt. Why don't you read it up and then come and blabber to me?

So they don't charge, how noble of them. Still BS nonsense, though.

 

[Ocularis]

Lets pretend I'm an all powerful demon and I created you this instant. When I created you I put in a whole host of 'memories' into you. These memories gave you a sense of what the future might be like. Then, demon that I am, I annihilate you in the very same second.

Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?

Let me start by ensuring we have a mutual definition of 'now'.

My definition of 'now' is an infinitesimal instant in time. Applying this to your 'thought experiment' you would end up annihilating me the same instant you created me, in which case I would experience nothing Your argument becomes meaningless.

Your agument depends on the assumption that a second of time would pass. That in fact a past, a present, and future exists. That the consciousness would experience the future becoming now and the now becoming the the past.

The memories you create are irrelevant because they have no impact on the experience of the passage of time. The only important thing is that in order for the memories or anything for that matter to be experienced in the 'now' or to determine that a 'now', even exists a comparison must be made between two moments in time. You can not experience 'now' without a there existing a past and a future.

I agree that consiousness IS a starting point, but I do not believe it can be separated from time, and I do not believe that because it is a starting point that this necessarily requires it to be primary. The existence of consiousness relies on the act of a consiousness acknowledging itself. It relies on its ability to experience itself, to sense itself, to question its own existence. What is consiousness if not this? Take away 'experiencing' and 'sensing' from a consiousness and what have you got? "Poof!" Where does the consiousness go? Can we say the consiousness is primary if it in fact can not declare itself to exist without experiencing itself? And without the passage of time, where does the ability for the consiousness to experience itself go?

Yes, consiousness must exist to be able to experience or question how it experiences itself, but does that follow that it must be primary? This very act of acknowledging the consiousness relies on the predicitability of the consiousness to experience itself. i.e. everytime the consiousness asks 'Do I exist?' it is in fact making a measurment or experiencing itself to be able to declare 'I Do exist!'. In order for the consciousnes to declare itself, it must measure itself by comparing its existence at the moment of asking the question with its existence at the moment of answering the question, which brings up my argument on time with the 'now' the 'past' and the 'future'.

Simply put, I do not believe you can isolate time from consiousness, as neither can exist without the other. The concept of time requires the consiousness to experience itself, to measure itself, but without the the existence of the 'now' the 'past' and the 'future', the consiousness can not experience itself or anything for that matter. My question is how can consciousness be primary if it cannot declare itself to exist without the passage of time?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[PhysiksFreak]

So they don't charge, how noble of them. Still BS nonsense, though.

Nope. It's not. I don't know who fit that into your head, but it works. It's hard for people of science with closed minds to accept that because to them, if a certain thing cannot be explained logically, it doesn't exist. Well, go to a reiki master with some prob you're facing and he'll heal you.

 

[PhysiksFreak]

Let me start by ensuring we have a mutual definition of 'now'.

My definition of 'now' is an infinitesimal instant in time. Applying this to your 'thought experiment' you would end up annihilating me the same instant you created me, in which case I would experience nothing Your argument becomes meaningless.

Your agument depends on the assumption that a second of time would pass. That in fact a past, a present, and future exists. That the consciousness would experience the future becoming now and the now becoming the the past.

The memories you create are irrelevant because they have no impact on the experience of the passage of time. The only important thing is that in order for the memories or anything for that matter to be experienced in the 'now' or to determine that a 'now', even exists a comparison must be made between two moments in time. You can not experience 'now' without a there existing a past and a future.

I agree that consiousness IS a starting point, but I do not believe it can be separated from time, and I do not believe that because it is a starting point that this necessarily requires it to be primary. The existence of consiousness relies on the act of a consiousness acknowledging itself. It relies on its ability to experience itself, to sense itself, to question its own existence. What is consiousness if not this? Take away 'experiencing' and 'sensing' from a consiousness and what have you got? "Poof!" Where does the consiousness go? Can we say the consiousness is primary if it in fact can not declare itself to exist without experiencing itself? And without the passage of time, where does the ability for the consiousness to experience itself go?

Yes, consiousness must exist to be able to experience or question how it experiences itself, but does that follow that it must be primary? This very act of acknowledging the consiousness relies on the predicitability of the consiousness to experience itself. i.e. everytime the consiousness asks 'Do I exist?' it is in fact making a measurment or experiencing itself to be able to declare 'I Do exist!'. In order for the consciousnes to declare itself, it must measure itself by comparing its existence at the moment of asking the question with its existence at the moment of answering the question, which brings up my argument on time with the 'now' the 'past' and the 'future'.

Simply put, I do not believe you can isolate time from consiousness, as neither can exist without the other. The concept of time requires the consiousness to experience itself, to measure itself, but without the the existence of the 'now' the 'past' and the 'future', the consiousness can not experience itself or anything for that matter. My question is how can consciousness be primary if it cannot declare itself to exist without the passage of time?

Just my 2 cents.

You've got a good argument there. With this I can agree: Consciousness and time go together.

 

[JoeDawg]

Nope. It's not.

You're a true believer, then? How sad for you.

I'm always amazed by how gullible people can be.
But then, when people are desperate to believe, placebos do wonders... until they wear off.

If your Reeking masters claim they can cure people of real diseases, they are the worst kind of scum.

 

[JoeDawg]

Your agument depends on the assumption that a second of time would pass.

No, it really doesn't.

"Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?"

Would your experience of a millinanosecond be different if it was a demon created illusion?
No, it would be entirely the same.
Whether it is illusion or not, you wouldn't notice much.

 

[MaWM]

No, it really doesn't.

"Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?"

Would your experience of a millinanosecond be different if it was a demon created illusion?
No, it would be entirely the same.
Whether it is illusion or not, you wouldn't notice much.

This argument seems silly at any rate. The evidence points to time existing. Speculating on some all powerful demon is moot.

 

[PhysiksFreak]

You're a true believer, then? How sad for you.

I'm always amazed by how gullible people can be.
But then, when people are desperate to believe, placebos do wonders... until they wear off.

If your Reeking masters claim they can cure people of real diseases, they are the worst kind of scum.

On the contrary, I pity YOU, because you are an ardent believer in Science, which has only lead people to dark corners. It has never been able to give a steady answer, only theories which can be falsified.

 

[JoeDawg]

This argument seems silly at any rate. The evidence points to time existing. Speculating on some all powerful demon is moot.

Evidence is not certainty. Now is a certainty, consciousness is a certainty.
We can derive all kinds of things after we acknowledge this, even past and future.
But those are theoretical, not certain.

Its important because it shows what we can be certain about and what we can't.
Its important because it shows where we can be mistaken if we make 'common sense' assumptions.

 

[JoeDawg]

On the contrary, I pity YOU,

Yeah, I can feel that energy coming from you... oh wait... no that was just gas.

because you are an ardent believer in Science

I'm not a ardent believer in anything.
When science stops working, I will stop using it.
Its got a solid track record though, you wouldn't be able to peddle your nonsense on the internet without it.

Sorry, but your mumbo jumbo energy silliness just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's snake oil.

 

[Ocularis]

No, it really doesn't.

"Would your experience of 'now' have been any different?"

Would your experience of a millinanosecond be different if it was a demon created illusion?
No, it would be entirely the same.
Whether it is illusion or not, you wouldn't notice much.

First of all, I find it rather interesting you would rather believe in an all powerful demon that can create illusions instead of the power of the human mind being able to affect reality. Secondly, your argument is now going into the realms of physics and the "limits" of the consciousness to measure or experience itself or the universe.

You could basically make one of two assumptions.

You can assume there are no limits to what the consciosness can experience, but then if that were true I would experience the demon and know it was an illusion.

You can assume that there are limits to what the consciousness can experience and then be forced to ask yourself whether or not a millinanosecond is within those limits.

Your millinanosecond relies on some tool to measure this cycle of time, its existence in fact requires a measurement to be made. The act of defining any length of time implies it has a beginning a middle and an end. Try drawing or even conceiving of a line without any end points and you will understand my meaning. The only thing you would be able to draw with no end points is a single point. This point being representing an instant of time which brings you back my previous post.

Now you might assume that you you are creating and destroying me over a series of instantaneous points which I only perceive as spanning a millinanosecond. I ask again, how do you measure the right number of instantaneous points of time to equal a millinanosecond.

Either way, a measurement must be made. Either there would be an infinite number of them or a finite number of them. In either case my consciousness would either perceive them or not. If they were below my ability to experience them, for all intensive purposes they wouldn't exist. If there were enough of them to be perceived then how many would that take? i.e. you have just measured the limit of my consiousnesses ability to perceive time passing.

The fact that you must create a series of instants in effect would make you the creator of time but the fact is time would still exist and the fact that there is more than one instantaneious moment would require there to be a future and past. i.e. how do you determine which moment I expereince when? You have to give them to me in a specific order. If you give them to me all at once your back to a single instant, if you give them to me in any order then you have created a first instant, a middle, and last, you have in effect created a past a now and a future for me to experience but then we get into the concept of free will. If you create the future instant for me to experience than I have no free will, which would bring into question whether or I not I would really have a consciousness. If I have no free will and was created by you, than I would be nothing more than an extension of your consiousness and I would basically only exist within your consciousness, so it wouldn't really matter what I would experience or not.

It is possible that a consciousness does exist that could dicern in that milinanosecond that time is passing, but I know mine would not.

For all intensive purposes the 'now' in that nanomillisecond would not exist because it would be below my ability to measure or experience it, if my consciousness is unable to measure or experience it or its effects, it doesn't exist as far as my consciousness is concerned.

For such a consciousness that could dicern the passage of time in a millinanosecond, it would have more than enough time to recognize the now the past and the future.

On another note, I must admit that I've never experienced a Reike master, and have no opinion regarding their ability to manipulate reality, but I can acknowledge that there are more ways to manipulate reality than just those we experience directly.

You can't directly experience the air yet you experience its effects. You don't experience or measure it directly, but you experience and measure its effects because its effects are within the limit of your consciousness. Whether air exists or not is irrelevent, we experience what we perceive to be its effects because they exist within our limit to experience them.

If you have never experienced something and its effects or are unable to experience something and its effects, you can always declare it does not exist, and as far as your consciousnes is concerned there would be no way to contradict this as it would essentially exist outside your ability to perceive it.

But unlike your demon example, you have plenty of time to experience the effects of a Reike master. Whether the cause is from a placebo or not would be irrelevent. The fact is either the Reike master is affecting your external reality or your internal reality or nothing, and either your consciouness has the ability to experience such an effect or not.

The extent of the effect would be the limit of your consciousness to experience it, just like in the previous example where the experience of the now and the passage of time is limited by the ability of my consciousness to experience it.

It is quite possible the experience could exist outside your consciousness and you would simply be unable to experience any effect or limited to experiencing only a fraction of an effect. However like in my previous example others may have more advanced limits of consciousness and would be able to experience it fully, so unless you are a Demon and are the creator of everything with an unlimited consciousness you should at least acknowledge the potential for things to exist outside your limited consciousnesses ability to perceive them.

Just my two cents...

 

[JoeDawg]

First of all, I find it rather interesting you would rather believe in an all powerful demon that can create illusions instead of the power of the human mind being able to affect reality.

First, I don't believe in a powerful demon. The powerful demon is a thought experiment created by Rene Descartes. Second, he didn't believe in a powerful demon either. Third, I am not making any assumptions, that is the whole idea.

But this is getting no where.

 

[Ocularis]

First, I don't believe in a powerful demon. The powerful demon is a thought experiment created by Rene Descartes. Second, he didn't believe in a powerful demon either. Third, I am not making any assumptions, that is the whole idea.

But this is getting no where.

My apologies for incorrectly stating your belief in demons. I would like to comment though, that you are contradicting yourself because the whole thought experiment relies on you making the assumption that a demon exists in the first place or at least some sort of ominopotent deceiver whoever the culprit might be, but I must agree that it is going nowhere, though it was thought provoking while it lasted.

 

[Sean Torrebadel]

Try Aristotle's Metaphysics.

Wherein he attempts to define substance. He speaks about the matter as the underlying thing which changes from potential to actuality. That matter becomes substance, leads to a contradiction since substance is therefore matter. He was more interested in the change, the ability of matter to somehow become the form, the body.

 

[JoeDawg]

you making the assumption that a demon exists

No, I wasn't. The 'possibility' exists that I am being deceived by a demon.
So I cannot be 'certain' that reality is what I think it is.
Reality as I know it, COULD be an illusion.

Descartes wanted to know what one could be CERTAIN about.

Consciousness, that he was thinking about something and therefore was a thing that thinks, is something he could certain about. Other types of knowledge, about causes of perception: objects and 'the past and future' are not certain things, because they are a step removed from consciousness.

 

[MaWM]

Evidence is not certainty. Now is a certainty, consciousness is a certainty.
We can derive all kinds of things after we acknowledge this, even past and future.
But those are theoretical, not certain.

Its important because it shows what we can be certain about and what we can't.
Its important because it shows where we can be mistaken if we make 'common sense' assumptions.

What youre not seeing is that I don't agree with you. Now is very much not a certainty. Our experience of now requires information and processing. There is no such thing as a "direct" experience. All experiences are indirect and rely on some sort of interpretation by our minds. Our present experiences and our consciousness itself can just as easily be altered by the all powerful demon as our memories. The fact that we experience them subjectively does not somehow make them immune. This puts "now" and "five minutes ago" on almost the same footing.

 

[baywax]

Our experience of now requires information and processing. There is no such thing as a "direct" experience. All experiences are indirect and rely on some sort of interpretation by our minds.

Here's where I disagree. The "interpretation by our minds" is a direct experience. Just ask Descartes.

 

[MaWM]

Here's where I disagree. The "interpretation by our minds" is a direct experience. Just ask Descartes.

we know a lot more about the way the mind works than Descartes ever did. The mind is an essemblage of chemicals, orgainized in a very particular way, but still susseptible to mechanical tampering. As such, our subjective experiences are hardly absolute.

 

[baywax]

we know a lot more about the way the mind works than Descartes ever did. The mind is an essemblage of chemicals, orgainized in a very particular way, but still susseptible to mechanical tampering. As such, our subjective experiences are hardly absolute.

No they're not... there are no absolutes. Absolutes are as elusive as singularities.

I didn't say our subjective experiences are absolute, I said that they are experiences... and they are direct. Our interpretations are usually incorrect but the result of the interpretation is that they are direct experiences.

These direct experiences are an indication that existence is an actuality. Not an illusion. In fact illusion requires the existence of a neuronet no matter how you look at it.

 

[JoeDawg]

Our experience of now requires information and processing.

No, placing a value on that experience requires processing. You either feel pain or you don't feel pain. If its pain, you can't tell me its not.

There is no such thing as a "direct" experience.

Prove it.

All experiences are indirect and rely on some sort of interpretation by our minds.

You're distinguishing between mind and experience. How can you have a mind without experience?

 

[JoeDawg]

No they're not... there are no absolutes.

Absolutes are artificial constructs, like math, they are abstractions from reality. They exist in so far as they are 'generalizations' our minds make, but they are, quite ironically, a sign of the limitation of our minds.