God... Is Time.

[theword]

I know what you're trying to say but what you don't understand is that there's no such thing as time. Time is only observed as each picture is observed that gives us the sense of motion. All we ever see is one picture at any given moment, which is always the present. We can't possibly observe the past or present unless our Creator gives us some past or present pictures to observe, which is something I have experienced many times.

Think of us watching a movie from film, which are still pictures strung together and observed at 24 frames per second. This gives us the sense of motion as we observe the movie, even though all those pictures were filmed in the past. However, the past, present and future all exist in that film that you can store on a shelf. As you watch that movie, all you can observe is the present picture, even though it is also the past and present as it sits on that shelf. You don't even need a projector to look at the pics on film. You can observe the pictures backwards or forwards but only one picture at a time. This means you can only observe the present picture, no matter how long ago it was formed on film.

What we observe in this world isn't something outside of us, meaning there is no real universe. Everything we observe has already been programmed long before we observe it and contained as waves ( stored information ). The past, present and future exists in these waves ( information ), which can't be observed until this information is processed for us to observe a picture. If it would be possible for us to stop this flow of information like we can with a movie projector, you would be observing one picture, which would be the present picture. It would be impossible to see the next picture or the one before it, which would be the past picture.

This means we're always observing the present picture despite all the rest of the pictures that exist in that program that contains the past, present and future pictures as only information.

Why do you keep explaining this like I don't get it? I fully understand the concept you're talking about and it has nothing to do with my argument... this makes the third time I've tried to explain that to you. I am not contradicting what you're saying here but it just doesn't relate to what I am saying.

The "present picture" you're observing has already happened and you couldn't possibly observe it when it happened because physics and time had to transpire first. Just as you don't see a movie or film until light travels through the film and gets projected on the screen, bounces off the screen and travels to your eyes, then is computed by your brain... all that didn't happen instantly. It took time for light to travel.. it seemed like "now" to you, but it wasn't.

The physical fact is, we are NOT always observing the present, we can't observe the present. We have a perception which relies on faith.

We are not observing light bouncing off of objects. We are observing processed information which includes light information to give us the illusion of an object being illuminated. We can simulate this with computers today. Light is only information and nothing else.

 

[Boss]

I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

But physicists know that time is independent of sight, as was already pointed out to you.

Where the fuck did I say sight and time aren't independent? This sounds like your classic tactic of trying to twist my argument around intp yours and claim you are making the argument I presented. You know I don't let you get away with that, Eddy.

Yes, all we can ever see is the result of time passed. We cannot see the present.

 

[Boss]

I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

 

[Mr. H.]

Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space.

d (distance) = r (rate) times t (time) i.e.. d=rt

t = d/r

Clapton is God. Therefor, C (Clapton) = d/r

and C=t

LOLz

Clapton is highly overrated.



It's 5:30 which is probably greater than the sum of all of Clapton's great solos. If you only have a 40 second attention span skip to 2:40-3:20

Hey! do you know what you are?
You're an asshole!

Ram it up yer poop chute.

 

[Boss]

I know what you're trying to say but what you don't understand is that there's no such thing as time. Time is only observed as each picture is observed that gives us the sense of motion. All we ever see is one picture at any given moment, which is always the present. We can't possibly observe the past or present unless our Creator gives us some past or present pictures to observe, which is something I have experienced many times.

Think of us watching a movie from film, which are still pictures strung together and observed at 24 frames per second. This gives us the sense of motion as we observe the movie, even though all those pictures were filmed in the past. However, the past, present and future all exist in that film that you can store on a shelf. As you watch that movie, all you can observe is the present picture, even though it is also the past and present as it sits on that shelf. You don't even need a projector to look at the pics on film. You can observe the pictures backwards or forwards but only one picture at a time. This means you can only observe the present picture, no matter how long ago it was formed on film.

What we observe in this world isn't something outside of us, meaning there is no real universe. Everything we observe has already been programmed long before we observe it and contained as waves ( stored information ). The past, present and future exists in these waves ( information ), which can't be observed until this information is processed for us to observe a picture. If it would be possible for us to stop this flow of information like we can with a movie projector, you would be observing one picture, which would be the present picture. It would be impossible to see the next picture or the one before it, which would be the past picture.

This means we're always observing the present picture despite all the rest of the pictures that exist in that program that contains the past, present and future pictures as only information.

Why do you keep explaining this like I don't get it? I fully understand the concept you're talking about and it has nothing to do with my argument... this makes the third time I've tried to explain that to you. I am not contradicting what you're saying here but it just doesn't relate to what I am saying.

The "present picture" you're observing has already happened and you couldn't possibly observe it when it happened because physics and time had to transpire first. Just as you don't see a movie or film until light travels through the film and gets projected on the screen, bounces off the screen and travels to your eyes, then is computed by your brain... all that didn't happen instantly. It took time for light to travel.. it seemed like "now" to you, but it wasn't.

The physical fact is, we are NOT always observing the present, we can't observe the present. We have a perception which relies on faith.

We are not observing light bouncing off of objects. We are observing processed information which includes light information to give us the illusion of an object being illuminated. We can simulate this with computers today. Light is only information and nothing else.

Well, I disagree with you but still.. information has to travel and be received then processed. The "illusion" is already part of history before your brain is aware of it. You aren't explaining anything that refutes my point.

 

[edthecynic]

We cannot see the present.

As pointed out over and over, the present does not require that it is seen to exist.

 

[Boss]

We cannot see the present.

As pointed out over and over, the present does not require that it is seen to exist.

Exactly. But many things exist without being seen. If it cannot be directly observed, it can't be tested, evaluated or measured. It's impossible to observe the present. The very best we can ever accomplish as physical beings is perception of time which has already passed. The laws of physics can't be denied.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is only one thing that cannot be denied, consciousness.

 

[Boss]

I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

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.

 

[Boss]

There is only one thing that cannot be denied, consciousness.

This has nothing to do with the OP argument. You are merely substituting 'consciousness' for 'perception' as if changing the words somehow lends credibility. Your consciousness is dependent upon time and physics happening first.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

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.

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.

 

[Boss]

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

 

[Boss]

Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

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.

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.

 

[Boss]

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.

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.

 

[Hollie]

We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast en rnot to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.

Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.

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.

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

".... 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 andpuff, hiss and snort..."

Gawds be praised. The above describes the behavior of the religious fundamentalist - god=time™ (what a gawd-awful argument), who is not winning converts.