Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.It's only impossible in your version of of a reality where one or more gawds =time. There is an instantaneous perception of "now", the present.Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.
You can invent your own version of The Physiques of Boss'ism if you wish, it just doesn't make it true.
Except, nothing about perception of any kind happens instantaneously. You perception of "now" takes time and physics happening. I can look into the sky at a distant star... now... this very moment... my perception is of the star hundreds of years ago, I can't observe the star in the actual present, it may not even exist anymore. I'm in the present, I'm looking at the star, it appears in my present but what appears is the light from hundreds of years ago.
I'm not the one trying to invent my own version of physics here, that's you, Hollie.
Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.
A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.It's only impossible in your version of of a reality where one or more gawds =time. There is an instantaneous perception of "now", the present.
You can invent your own version of The Physiques of Boss'ism if you wish, it just doesn't make it true.
Except, nothing about perception of any kind happens instantaneously. You perception of "now" takes time and physics happening. I can look into the sky at a distant star... now... this very moment... my perception is of the star hundreds of years ago, I can't observe the star in the actual present, it may not even exist anymore. I'm in the present, I'm looking at the star, it appears in my present but what appears is the light from hundreds of years ago.
I'm not the one trying to invent my own version of physics here, that's you, Hollie.
Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.
A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.
I think most people who aren't retarded or illiterate understand we have conscious perception of a physical universe in which laws of physics apply. What I am saying is, our perceptions of "present" are happening in the past and must happen in the past due to laws of physics. We can't observe the actual present anymore than we can observe the future.
The present is proven, it requires no faith.
Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done.
The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.
Youre perceiving light that happened already.
But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.
So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
"Ive never existed in the past?"You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.
I think most people who aren't retarded or illiterate understand we have conscious perception of a physical universe in which laws of physics apply. What I am saying is, our perceptions of "present" are happening in the past and must happen in the past due to laws of physics. We can't observe the actual present anymore than we can observe the future.
The present is proven, it requires no faith.
Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done.
The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.
Youre perceiving light that happened already.
But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.
So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.
I think most people who aren't retarded or illiterate understand we have conscious perception of a physical universe in which laws of physics apply. What I am saying is, our perceptions of "present" are happening in the past and must happen in the past due to laws of physics. We can't observe the actual present anymore than we can observe the future.
The present is proven, it requires no faith.
Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done.
The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.
Youre perceiving light that happened already.
But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.
So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.Except, nothing about perception of any kind happens instantaneously. You perception of "now" takes time and physics happening. I can look into the sky at a distant star... now... this very moment... my perception is of the star hundreds of years ago, I can't observe the star in the actual present, it may not even exist anymore. I'm in the present, I'm looking at the star, it appears in my present but what appears is the light from hundreds of years ago.
I'm not the one trying to invent my own version of physics here, that's you, Hollie.
Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.
A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past.
Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.
Drool tards levels of fucking dumb.Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.
Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.
A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past.
Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.
It requires faith to believe "the present" is actually as we observe it (in the past) to have been. Has to require faith because science can't evaluate what can't be observed. Even your awareness of self in the present is already history before you can perceive it.
Ah. So when your argument crumbles, retreat to the sole purpose of this thread: proselytising.Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.
Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.
A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past.
Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.
It requires faith to believe "the present" is actually as we observe it (in the past) to have been. Has to require faith because science can't evaluate what can't be observed. Even your awareness of self in the present is already history before you can perceive it.
I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..I think most people who aren't retarded or illiterate understand we have conscious perception of a physical universe in which laws of physics apply. What I am saying is, our perceptions of "present" are happening in the past and must happen in the past due to laws of physics. We can't observe the actual present anymore than we can observe the future.
The present is proven, it requires no faith.
Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done.
The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.
Youre perceiving light that happened already.
But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.
So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
Quite clearly, we cannot take a photograph now, of a moment in time that existed in the past because that time has come and gone. What we photographed was an instantaneous moment in time that is now in the past.
You don't have - not arguing religious beliefs?I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..
The present is proven, it requires no faith.
Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done.
The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.
Youre perceiving light that happened already.
But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.
So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
Quite clearly, we cannot take a photograph now, of a moment in time that existed in the past because that time has come and gone. What we photographed was an instantaneous moment in time that is now in the past.
Well I don't have any religious beliefs, nor have I argued any. You cannot make any photo without time. Sorry! We cannot take instantaneous photos, even the fastest shutter speed takes time. The moment captured was already in the past and forever part of history before the first photon of light hit the camera lens.
Drool tards levels of fucking dumb.Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!
My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past.
Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.
It requires faith to believe "the present" is actually as we observe it (in the past) to have been. Has to require faith because science can't evaluate what can't be observed. Even your awareness of self in the present is already history before you can perceive it.
WHEN do you percieve?
You don't have - not arguing religious beliefs?I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.
You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.
If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
Quite clearly, we cannot take a photograph now, of a moment in time that existed in the past because that time has come and gone. What we photographed was an instantaneous moment in time that is now in the past.
Well I don't have any religious beliefs, nor have I argued any. You cannot make any photo without time. Sorry! We cannot take instantaneous photos, even the fastest shutter speed takes time. The moment captured was already in the past and forever part of history before the first photon of light hit the camera lens.
God=time™ suggests differently. You make references to "god" when your arguments are refuted. Its a Hail Mary tactic.
I wouldn't be so quick... Oh never mind.Can you percieve your death in the past? Of course not, the dead brain doth not percieve.
Of course. Gawds have nothing to do with religion.You don't have - not arguing religious beliefs?I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything.
Your entire being has only ever been in the present.
That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present.
I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.
The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.
"your entire being has only ever been in the present." ....Stupid beyond recognition. So I've never existed in the past?
Quite clearly, we cannot take a photograph now, of a moment in time that existed in the past because that time has come and gone. What we photographed was an instantaneous moment in time that is now in the past.
Well I don't have any religious beliefs, nor have I argued any. You cannot make any photo without time. Sorry! We cannot take instantaneous photos, even the fastest shutter speed takes time. The moment captured was already in the past and forever part of history before the first photon of light hit the camera lens.
God=time™ suggests differently. You make references to "god" when your arguments are refuted. Its a Hail Mary tactic.
God is spiritual, not religious.
Perception has nothing to do with your argument that we cant percieve the present?Drool tards levels of fucking dumb.Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past.
The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time™ and like your other threads, your proselytising.
No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.
Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.
When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past.
Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.
It requires faith to believe "the present" is actually as we observe it (in the past) to have been. Has to require faith because science can't evaluate what can't be observed. Even your awareness of self in the present is already history before you can perceive it.
WHEN do you percieve?
I've repeatedly said that "perception" is not part of the debate. Perceptions vary from one individual to another and none of us have identical perceptions of reality. Perceptions can be all over the board. Some claim they have perception of the future... others might have the perception they are in the jungles of Vietnam in 1968... still others may be comatose and have no perception whatsoever.
Back to the star example.. I have perception of a star in the sky... it's there, I can see it and it's in what I define as the present... but what I have perception of may no longer exist in reality because I am seeing the star from hundreds of years ago. My perception is NOT reality of the present.
