God is timeless

[MindForgedManacle]

You tell me, can humans grab on to the future? Can humans change the past?

No.

Possibly. Modern physics does indicate time travel is technically possible. Heck, some astronauts are fractions of a millesecond younger than they would have otherwise been due to time dilation.

Therefore, does time restrict humans to the present moment (ie, we can't travel back or forwards)?

Yes.

In principle or in practice? Travelling forwards in time is very doable; we can even do it to a limited extent nowadays, such as the astronauts I mentioned a moment ago, and we know how to do so on a grander scale, though we lack the appropriate technology.

Do we stay still in one particular present moment in time (ie, does time 'stop'?), or does each moment lead to another moment?

The latter.

Assuming a particular view of time that is inconsistent with much of modern physics as you have, then sure. Under a static view of time, such as what I hold to, there is no temporal becoming.

Therefore,

Time is a restriction on humans, (we are always physically in the present moment, not in a past moment, or a future moment). It is a concept in physics.

"Therefore"? You didn't make an actual argument, so adding that there is nonsense.
And such as you're defining it, upon time travelling I would be in a 'present moment', even though relative to when I came from I would be in the past. You seem to be confusing the first-person property of conscious experience with time here.
Not sure what concept you're talking about, especially since modern physics does NOT hold to the absolute simultaneity of time.

'Time is a restriction of physics (for humans) where one moment leads on to another'

Was that a bare assertion?

Yep.

[Angrboda]

Was that a bare assertion?

Yes it was. Got any evidence that time is a "restriction" (whatever the fuck that means) ? That's no more sensible than saying that time is a static dimension of a fourfold space-time manifold, it's just an arbitrary description.


You want a counter-argument? Fine, explain Feynman's point about time reversibility of anti-particles and the behavior of the fluctuation theorem in terms of your theory.

[Medi]

Was that a bare assertion?

Yes it was.

You think Christians are silly for believing something, even when it's contrary to the evidence?

How many omelettes have you turned back into eggs today?

Do you remember that time four Christmases from now?

If you don't want me to use a worded explanation of what I perceive time to be, then what? Want me to transmit my thoughts to you via telepathy? lol

Goodness sake. your first point of contact was to try to cut me down without trying to comprehend what I was saying.

What has some obscure reference that serves to enlarge your intellectual cock got to do with the thread anyway?

[Angrboda]

Yes it was.

You think Christians are silly for believing something, even when it's contrary to the evidence?

How many omelettes have you turned back into eggs today?

Do you remember that time four Christmases from now?

If you don't want me to use a worded explanation of what I perceive time to be, then what? Want me to transmit my thoughts to you via telepathy? lol

Goodness sake. your first point of contact was to try to cut me down without trying to comprehend what I was saying.

What has some obscure reference that serves to enlarge your intellectual cock got to do with the thread anyway?

[Medi]

You tell me, can humans grab on to the future? Can humans change the past?

No.

Possibly. Modern physics does indicate time travel is technically possible. Heck, some astronauts are fractions of a millesecond younger than they would have otherwise been due to time dilation.

Therefore, does time restrict humans to the present moment (ie, we can't travel back or forwards)?

Yes.

In principle or in practice? Travelling forwards in time is very doable; we can even do it to a limited extent nowadays, such as the astronauts I mentioned a moment ago, and we know how to do so on a grander scale, though we lack the appropriate technology.

Do we stay still in one particular present moment in time (ie, does time 'stop'?), or does each moment lead to another moment?

The latter.

Assuming a particular view of time that is inconsistent with much of modern physics as you have, then sure. Under a static view of time, such as what I hold to, there is no temporal becoming.

Therefore,

Time is a restriction on humans, (we are always physically in the present moment, not in a past moment, or a future moment). It is a concept in physics.

"Therefore"? You didn't make an actual argument, so adding that there is nonsense.
And such as you're defining it, upon time travelling I would be in a 'present moment', even though relative to when I came from I would be in the past. You seem to be confusing the first-person property of conscious experience with time here.
Not sure what concept you're talking about, especially since modern physics does NOT hold to the absolute simultaneity of time.

'Time is a restriction of physics (for humans) where one moment leads on to another'

Was that a bare assertion?

Yep.

Look, to human perception, for practical reasons related to the point I was making, we perceive the present moment. Whether we can 'travel' through time, or not, doesn't negate the fact that within our minds, we are always in a 'present'.

Our perception limits us to 'experiencing' the present moment, in the physical sense. We don't 'experience' the past in the present, though we may remember it. That actual 'moment' is part of the past. And the 'future', is something that practically, we can't 'experience', since again, our physical 'place' limits us to the present momentary experience. Even if we were 'in' the future, we would be 'present' in those future moments.

The point that I made is that christians might say this 'restriction' wouldn't apply to God.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying not to conceptualize time in terms of what it is in a physics book or on paper, I'm talking from humanity's literal physical 'experience' with time, and its limitations in that context.

[Angrboda]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying not to conceptualize time in terms of what it is in a physics book or on paper, I'm talking from humanity's literal physical 'experience' with time, and its limitations in that context.

Translation: "I just pulled it out of my ass."

[Medi]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying not to conceptualize time in terms of what it is in a physics book or on paper, I'm talking from humanity's literal physical 'experience' with time, and its limitations in that context.

Translation: "I just pulled it out of my ass."

Clearly you're just being reductive and pompous. No imagination, dear.

[Angrboda]

Translation: "I just pulled it out of my ass."

Clearly you're just being reductive and pompous. No imagination, dear.

I'll take meaningless buzzwords without purpose or context for $200, Alex.

[Medi]

Clearly you're just being reductive and pompous. No imagination, dear.

I'll take meaningless buzzwords without purpose or context for $200, Alex.

Yea I like that song too.

[MindForgedManacle]

Look, to human perception, for practical reasons related to the point I was making, we perceive the present moment. Whether we can 'travel' through time, or not, doesn't negate the fact that within our minds, we are always in a 'present'.

Our perception limits us to 'experiencing' the present moment, in the physical sense. We don't 'experience' the past in the present, though we may remember it. That actual 'moment' is part of the past. And the 'future', is something that practically, we can't 'experience', since again, our physical 'place' limits us to the present momentary experience. Even if we were 'in' the future, we would be 'present' in those future moments.

The point that I made is that christians might say this 'restriction' wouldn't apply to God.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying not to conceptualize time in terms of what it is in a physics book or on paper, I'm talking from humanity's literal physical 'experience' with time, and its limitations in that context.

I'm pretty sure that I agreed that conscious experience is in a perpetual present. My point was that taking into account developments in science and philosophy of time (generally rejecting absolute simultaneity) sort of ruins that I think. And it seems to entail something bordering on incoherency, namely that there is a conscious mind who can experience things, but even before and after they happen.