...How? I'll get to responding to the other posts in this topic soon enough, now I only have enough time for this to Rhizo.

Like I said, applying labels does not work for me because sometimes my views may expand past the boundaries of what that label is supposed to signify. So no, I am not a Temproalogical Noncognitivist.

Watson,

I'll elaborate. There is an argument that the idea of god doesn't form a meaningful impression in the mind so talking about the concept is meaningless. The argument is called theological noncognitivism and was brought to my attention on these forums by a purple rabbit from the 26th dimension and I find it highly amusing.

Read more about it here if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

This post reminded me of that argument so I asked the question in jest. As for labels, well, regardless of whether you like them or not has no bearing on their accuracy. Mostly I was just playin' around.

Rhizo

(February 13, 2010 at 8:33 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(February 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm)Watson Wrote: we are moving through the universe at the speed of light; the universe itself is moving ...

Who was your physics teacher?

Darwinian ...he was quoting him.

(February 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 13, 2010 at 8:33 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(February 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm)Watson Wrote: we are moving through the universe at the speed of light; the universe itself is moving ...

Who was your physics teacher?

Darwinian ...he was quoting him.

Actually, Darwinian was talking about time, not the universe.

Ah ok, I stand corrected.

(February 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Watson,

I'll elaborate. There is an argument that the idea of god doesn't form a meaningful impression in the mind so talking about the concept is meaningless. The argument is called theological noncognitivism and was brought to my attention on these forums by a purple rabbit from the 26th dimension and I find it highly amusing.

Read more about it here if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Interesting. I find it seems to be a very weak argument, as it's logic is essentially boiled down to thus:
'Words only have meaning because we give/assign it to them."
That's a given for any language, of course. Somewhere, back down the line many hundreds of thousands of years ago, someone assigned the word 'God' to the experience they were going through. It was then consented upon by the masses that this word, 'God', was the most appropriate, and thus phased itself into modern language.

Quote:This post reminded me of that argument so I asked the question in jest. As for labels, well, regardless of whether you like them or not has no bearing on their accuracy. Mostly I was just playin' around.

Rhizo

I pretty much figured you were just playin' with the 'Woot!' Still, labels can be accurate in terms of representing certain key features of an individual, but a person is bound to have thoughts, ideas, and take actions outside of that label at some point(it is human nature) and thus cannot be within that label any longer. As a free-thinker, I can have no term applied to me.

Okay, now back to the subject of time:
If time exists in the sense that you claim it does, I want several things:
-I want to see verifiable evidence of time
-I want a clear definition of what 'time' is.
-I want to see an example of time being demonstrated in a lab.

Please, provide, and we'll go from there.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm)Watson Wrote: That's a given for any language, of course. Somewhere, back down the line many hundreds of thousands of years ago, someone assigned the word 'God' to the experience they were going through. It was then consented upon by the masses that this word, 'God', was the most appropriate, and thus phased itself into modern language.

Yeah, it's a real pain in the ass.

(February 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm)Watson Wrote: Okay, now back to the subject of time:
If time exists in the sense that you claim it does, I want several things:
-I want to see verifiable evidence of time
-I want a clear definition of what 'time' is.
-I want to see an example of time being demonstrated in a lab.

Please, provide, and we'll go from there.

Let's see what happens if we take "t" out of the equations that undergird medical equipment in the hospital. Oh yeesh, clocks wont move, there would be no timebasis to the equipment. Medicin would be administered in one go. Death would be everywhere. It seems to me that time as an observable of humans does indeed play a crucial role on the sort of human level if that interests you at all. What evidence have you to counter that fact? Hey, and first give me a clear definition of what a clear definition is.

(February 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ah ok, I stand corrected.

Impressive, I figured you operated from a rule of creating difficulty.

Um, Watson,

"As a free-thinker, I can have no term applied to me."

Isn't, "free-thinker" a label?

(February 13, 2010 at 12:40 am)Watson Wrote: But the problem with that is that you can't prove it's not just an endless loop of the same says and same nights over and over again. Essentially all you can do is prove that the earth went around the sun one more time, not that it has been doing so for ever and ever.

We also can't prove that we aren't just a brain in a jar being fed stimuli. We can't prove that God didn't speak the universe into being last Thursday. What is your point?

I don't think time exists as a substance, but it is real. The word time simply expresses something that we can measure and those measurements prove to be useful over time(hee hee), so we know the description is functional.

In a lab you can measure time with a stopwatch.

Are you going to move on and ask that we demonstrate in a lab what an inch is next? Or prove that "width", "depth", or "height" is real?

Rhizo

(February 13, 2010 at 5:56 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Um, Watson,

"As a free-thinker, I can have no term applied to me."

Isn't, "free-thinker" a label?

Insofar as having described myself asone, yes. But that doesn't mean I can never do anything that a free-thinker wouldn't do. Think about it. To label oneself something like, say, Temporalogical Noncognitivist means that you can have no thoughts outside of that label's specific criteria. Essentially, you can't be a free-thinker since by definition a free-thinker has free thoughts.

(February 13, 2010 at 12:40 am)Watson Wrote:

Quote: But the problem with that is that you can't prove it's not just an endless loop of the same says and same nights over and over again. Essentially all you can do is prove that the earth went around the sun one more time, not that it has been doing so for ever and ever.

We also can't prove that we aren't just a brain in a jar being fed stimuli. We can't prove that God didn't speak the universe into being last Thursday. What is your point?

That is my point! Nothing at all can be proven, not really. Beyond your own mind how can you tell or rely on anything? If you're nothing but a human being with a perception, couldn't it all just be a lie?

Or do you have faith that that's not the case?

Quote:I don't think time exists as a substance, but it is real. The word time simply expresses something that we can measure and those measurements prove to be useful over time(hee hee), so we know the description is functional.

Nice word choice there.

I too believe that time is real, but it isn't a substance and obviously not a physical thing. It can't be measured technically because there is no way of looking back or forward on it. Time just exists in the present and nothing more, if we are to look at it in this way.

Quote:In a lab you can measure time with a stopwatch.

Which proves nothing but that you built a stopwatch and it is ticking.

Quote:Are you going to move on and ask that we demonstrate in a lab what an inch is next? Or prove that "width", "depth", or "height" is real?

Rhizo

Yes please.

Oh, and hey, PR? Prove to me that those clocks that stopped moving were moved by time, and not just motion, and we'll get somewhere.