RE: Is time travel Impossible Because time Doesn't Exist?
August 27, 2017 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 27, 2017 at 2:03 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I am so bored. Continue to spout nonsense if you so wish, such as the past still existing now or time travel working backwards after already saying that I "understand" when I speak of how science only deals with observations of phenomena (our mere perceptions of things as opposed to things in themselves), but despite the fact that there is unfortunately no prize for my understanding, I do understand, as you said, and yet you certainly do not.
Telling me to prove my premise when it's my premise makes no sense. The premise is the starting point, and everyone must have one. What's your premise? Oh wait it's unstated because you're constantly switching back and forth and contradicting yourself (you said I understood and then you went on to contradict it).
Either you have a definition and a premise to start with or you don't, and you clearly don't.
That's irrelevant. If something happens in the future that is identical to how it happened in the past, that's not the same thing as travelling to the past. Can you not even do better than that?!
If you meet my identical twin, that isn't meeting me now is it? If you travel to an exact replica of Mars, you haven't travelled to Mars now have you?
This is the whole point. When it comes to something true by definition, like squares NOT being circular or the future being what is YET to arrived and HASN'T arrived yet, or the past being what HAS passed.... the only way you can attempt to argue against this is by changing the definitions. But you're not giving any clear definitions, only I am, hence why you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. And even if you do that, you state your definitions, you can't actually argue against my definitions because when you redefine things you change the subject. Science is NOT talking about the normal sense of time and hence isn't talking about the normal sense of time travel. Science is NOT talking about indivisible atoms as per the original definition. Lawrence Krauss isn't (or shouldn't) be talking about actually "nothing" when he says the universe came from "Nothing."
Your questions and logic are very subpar and the only reason your premises and definitions aren't similarly as poorly explicated is because you haven't even bothered to state them, you just attack mine. Although it's not really much of an "attack" if all you're doing is the equivalent of asking me to prove that there are no square circles.
And the other really pathetic thing about what you said here is:
Regarding the part I bolded.
So now you're saying the past doesn't exist. Make your mind up! If that's your premise then you agree with me that the past existed but no longer exists. What is your premise? You're not going to state it are you? You are too confused to even know what you're talking about, you're interested in arguing with me but you have to start by actually having an argument. Go play in the sandpit with the rest of the kiddies.
Telling me to prove my premise when it's my premise makes no sense. The premise is the starting point, and everyone must have one. What's your premise? Oh wait it's unstated because you're constantly switching back and forth and contradicting yourself (you said I understood and then you went on to contradict it).
Either you have a definition and a premise to start with or you don't, and you clearly don't.
(August 27, 2017 at 10:32 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Prove all the presents of the pasts that existed, but do not exist in the present of now, could not be indistinguishable some present yet to come.
That's irrelevant. If something happens in the future that is identical to how it happened in the past, that's not the same thing as travelling to the past. Can you not even do better than that?!
If you meet my identical twin, that isn't meeting me now is it? If you travel to an exact replica of Mars, you haven't travelled to Mars now have you?
This is the whole point. When it comes to something true by definition, like squares NOT being circular or the future being what is YET to arrived and HASN'T arrived yet, or the past being what HAS passed.... the only way you can attempt to argue against this is by changing the definitions. But you're not giving any clear definitions, only I am, hence why you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. And even if you do that, you state your definitions, you can't actually argue against my definitions because when you redefine things you change the subject. Science is NOT talking about the normal sense of time and hence isn't talking about the normal sense of time travel. Science is NOT talking about indivisible atoms as per the original definition. Lawrence Krauss isn't (or shouldn't) be talking about actually "nothing" when he says the universe came from "Nothing."
Your questions and logic are very subpar and the only reason your premises and definitions aren't similarly as poorly explicated is because you haven't even bothered to state them, you just attack mine. Although it's not really much of an "attack" if all you're doing is the equivalent of asking me to prove that there are no square circles.
And the other really pathetic thing about what you said here is:
(August 27, 2017 at 10:32 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Prove all the presents of the pasts that existed, but do not exist in the present of now, could not be indistinguishable some present yet to come.
Regarding the part I bolded.
So now you're saying the past doesn't exist. Make your mind up! If that's your premise then you agree with me that the past existed but no longer exists. What is your premise? You're not going to state it are you? You are too confused to even know what you're talking about, you're interested in arguing with me but you have to start by actually having an argument. Go play in the sandpit with the rest of the kiddies.
