First principles

[uruk]

The point that I made about everything being the subset of the moment is very clear. Now, is this direct evidence that says God exists? Of course not. However, it is supportive evidence, which must in fact be there, if He did. So, if you are incapable of recognizing 1 + 1 = 2, how will you ever get to E=MC2?

I seriously doubt that you know what the meaning of E-MC2 is from you previous posts. But again, true to your nature, you continue to evade and misdirect. (Were you once a practizing magician?) You fail to explain clearly how a segment of time is supportive evidence for the existance of a god. The confusion is that you do not clearly give your particular definition of the term "the moment".

Are you, in your usual obtuse round about manner, saying that the very fact of our existance is evidence for the existance of god? in reference to your usage of the term "Now"?
If you are, then why not just clearly say so? Perhaps you are trying to express and old argument in a flashy, "new-age" kind of way. Well that old argument doesn't hold up now any more than it did back then no matter how you try to gussy it up with that "new age" flare. And I'm sure your finding out that all your 'New-Age" razzle dazzle is'nt being appreciated too much here either.
Hey, I can understand 1+1=2 just as well as the next guy, but not when it is being purposefully cluttered up and hidden in a bunch of junk.

 

[Iacchus]

I seriously doubt that you know what the meaning of E-MC2 is from you previous posts.

That's about it I'm afraid. About all you can hope to claim is that I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Gestahl]

Sorry,

<snip S-T diagram>

If I may get metaphorical; think of a can of motion picture film sitting on a table in front of you. The existence of the movie derives entirely from a certain perception of a completely static and unchanging object.

Nope. The existence of the movie is not from a completely static object... I think the reels need to move and the film pass in front of a light for the movie to "happen".

 

[Gestahl]

Back on topic

In a (probably vain) attempt to put this thread back on track (thanks Radrook), here is a recap:

1) Change is the fundamental monism.
2) Space, energy, time, and matter can all be understood within this paradigm.

Now, second principles:

1) Change affects change itself. This is a key point that is the recursive base of the turtles, so to speak.

2) Inevitably, change can be made to setup feedback cycles (whether negative or positive), as long as we provide a closed system. For example, pure energy can be modified by the strong force to setup a self-propagating proton... a (mostly... up to 10^30 years) particle. The strong force is itself a by-product of the distribution of energy of the system.

3) We will denote a situation such as 2 to be a "pattern".

4) Patterns may modify each other and themselves(?! - see weak force for example). Patterns may also be destroyed to yield pure change (particle/anti-particle annhilation).

5) Closed systems by definition are a pattern, as are all coherent objects (quantum foam is the only example of a non-pattern I can think of).

6) A we will define pattern1 to be a lesser-level pattern in relation to pattern2 when pattern1 has less total potential for change (energy) than pattern2, and is part of the feedback cycle for that pattern. The converse is also true.

7) The totality of reality (the universe) is therefore the highest-level pattern. The absence of a pattern is denoted as the trivially lowest-level pattern.

8) Patterns will arise spontaneously given any system with the capability for change (energy). This can be shown with turbulent flow models or the spontaneous creation of virtual particles.

and lastly

9) Patterns and their interactions induce the creation of both higher-level and lower-level patterns. I.e. quantum foam creates particles, two particles interacting can create 3 lower-level patterns.

 

[uruk]

That's about it I'm afraid. About all you can hope to claim is that I don't know what you're talking about.

How odd. that seems to be your reply to almost all rebuttals to your rambling, circuitus statements.

But hey we can wait until you become honest and to the point with your debates.
But if it helps your ego and world view that I am incapable of understanding or seeing through your "new-age" retreads of long dead arguments be my guest.

 

[phildonnia]

Nope. The existence of the movie is not from a completely static object... I think the reels need to move and the film pass in front of a light for the movie to "happen".

That's a matter of opinion I suppose, a semantic argument about what it means to exist. Or maybe it was just a bad metaphor.

I believe instead that the movie does exist without being spread out over time. Sean Penn shoots Tim Robbins at the end, whether or not the movie is playing, whether or not I've even seen it.

Likewise, if event A leads to event B according to the law of gravity, then it happens that way, whether or not anyone's attention focus happens to be moving through time.

 

[Iacchus]

How odd. that seems to be your reply to almost all rebuttals to your rambling, circuitus statements.

But hey we can wait until you become honest and to the point with your debates.
But if it helps your ego and world view that I am incapable of understanding or seeing through your "new-age" retreads of long dead arguments be my guest.

Hey, I'm not the author of reality. It's not up to me to make anybody see anything. So, just pretend like I didn't say anything, Okay? That's the way I look at it anyway.

 

[Gestahl]

I believe instead that the movie does exist without being spread out over time. Sean Penn shoots Tim Robbins at the end, whether or not the movie is playing, whether or not I've even seen it.

Likewise, if event A leads to event B according to the law of gravity, then it happens that way, whether or not anyone's attention focus happens to be moving through time.

Ah, but change defines existence. Sean Penn shoots Tim Robbins, as you replay it in your mind, still requiring change. Even when you are not replaying it, it is evident in the organization of your mind, which is a pattern, which is based upon change (your neuron patterns imply energy and storage).

I do not understand your last statement... of course this is true. Therefore, time is not a human mental construct. Even the use of leads implies gravity requires time as a parameter (and its output, neat enough). And time is, of course, just change ;-).

 

[phildonnia]

Ah, but change defines existence. Sean Penn shoots Tim Robbins, as you replay it in your mind, still requiring change. Even when you are not replaying it, it is evident in the organization of your mind, which is a pattern, which is based upon change (your neuron patterns imply energy and storage).]

So here you are saying that the existence of the movie is dependent on its representation in my mind...

I do not understand your last statement... of course this is true. Therefore, time is not a human mental construct. Even the use of leads implies gravity requires time as a parameter (and its output, neat enough). And time is, of course, just change ;-).

...And here it is independent of the mind. As I said, it was probably a bad metaphor.

Anyway, I think that while time itself is not a human mental construct, the passage of time (and thus, the phenomenon of change) may be.