This man Jeff Grutt or whatever tries to argue the non-existence of past and future, and terms his theory as the present replacing itself, which if argued correctly holds credence, but what is its use? its purpose? This concept does not contradict our theory of time, it just redefines it. As i said the stream is factual, if you say the past is past, the present is now and the future is afterwards, and then go on to say the present replaces itself creating a past and therefore a future, you have not proven the theory of time wrong, you have just redefined it. This man, misquoting various philosophers he goes on trying to cancel our notion of past and future, and redefines the present as a present that changes accepts the notion of motion and change, but still remains present....because he assumes misquoting Buddha and states: that the current perception of time....."This is not the Buddhist position since it could violate the logic of Buddhist momentariness" this could, not this would cancel it for sure, which means that he has not even clarified in his head whether our notion of time actually cancels the Buddhist position, it could he says not that it actually does another LOL. He states that there is absolutely no relation between 10 o clock and 11 oclock, he sees them as different entities that each exists in itself, and that each is completely independent with the next, not that the one replaces the next, but that one is cancelled and the next is born by itself not by interactivity of matter, and that is there is no stream, no relation, while he and you, yourself accept that there is a stream, a stream like a river, is like a fluid, it is connected, each unit of water is related to the next unit of water, each unit of water replaces the next unit of water, because it touches the next unit of water, each unit of water is not in no relation with the next or the previous, they collide with each other and hence the replacement of one with the next, they do not exist themsleves independently just like the dimensions, the give way to the next they exist alltogether. He just fails to see what he discusses about....totally LOL. And i ask you and this man as well, with his totally contradictory and misquoted definition of time where he sees every moment with absolutely no relation with the previous or the next, that they do not touch each other, even though he considers the whole thing a stream whereas in a stream everything is united in fact and that is why its a thread, a stream, a line, lets assume that he is correct and that the units of time are in no relation absolutely with one another, has he also found a method to measure these units? or is he babbling non-sense that himself is unable to reason, his redefinition, does it serve any scientific purpose? Or is he simply trying to be smart?
Let us see what this man says:
The second name I give to the Buddhist theory of time is replacement presentism. I use the term “presentism†since, according to Buddhism and the doctrine of momentariness, only the present exists due to the fact that only one moment ever exists. The reason there are no moments before or after the present is because, in a theory of time and change based on momentariness, where moments are destroyed and copies of moments come into being, the destruction of one moment and the creation of another indicates that there can
only ever be one moment. I argue why this is the case in much more detail in this subsection.
I use the word “replacement†because if there is no persistence, there cannot be two moments side-by-side in time lest there be a possibility that in some pair of moments that are side-by-side somehow the same object shows up in each moment and thus persists. If there were, for example, two moments next to one another, this would mean that a given moment is not destroyed when a following moment comes into being, and instead when one moment comes into being, there is a moment before it that has not been destroyed. This is not the Buddhist position since it could violate the logic of Buddhist momentariness. But if it were instead that case that there is only one moment that ever exists, and two moments can never exist side-by-side, then it can only be the case that one present moment (p1) is completely replaced by another (p2). If only one moment ever exists it can only be a present since it is a now, and since there are no moments before or after it to make it a past or future.
LOL, IF, key word, secondly, how does he define the moment that just got cancelled and gave its place to the present moment and how does he define the next? non existant units, Basically he says that its not 1+1+1+1 moments but that each moment is cancelled and stops to exist, when the next moment comes about. He attacks the notion of measurement not just time but of everything, he attacks the notion of mathematics, the notion that 1+1=2.
This is what he argues about, and he offers no proof, only some metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
You argue that Time exists because we perceive it and hence we make it be, similar to this mans notions. False by definition.
You, me we are all units/moments and we do not exist because we are able to measure you or me or the unit, in width, height, time, space and volume terms. You exist because you do, we measure you because you exist, the fact that we measure you is the proof that you exist, you do not exist because we measure you. Unless you seriously belive that you do not actually exist, and that you are just an illusion.
Do you understand? When we measure energy, it means that energy exists, and thus we are able to measure it, it doesnot exist because we measure it. Your height is the distance between your level to the ground and your head, but because this is in relation to the ground, if you put this in relation to the Sun, or to another universe, then width and height are not enough to measure your position from the Sun to your head, The sun exists we see it everyday, we assign the sun as the point of reference, as an object as a unit and go find the distance between the sun and the moon, then we go measure more distance and more and more using objects that exist. And more dimensions to be taken into account, in relation to non-matter again more dimensions, and everytime we get stuck, we experiment and through experiment we see it happening and hence its existence, we see it we dont simply assume it, and we assign more dimensions in relation with the larger distances every/time we find in front of us, and thus energy exists. Do you seriously believe that you will disprove our scientific method, or that this mr Gutt or whatever did so, that he disproved Hopkins?
LOL.
Do you believe that without answering and without offering any reason, as to why you or him reject the notion of Hopkins, of my example and the spaceship, of Theodores example of evolution and the zygote. You dismissed them and you offered no reason as to why you dismissed them, and you still continue quoting a guy, who thinks he discovered the Sun. With his definition of the moment, we become unable to measure, and thus what is the bloody use of it? What is its purpose?
One can redefine the terms as he wishes, after all everything is relative indeed, but if i argue for something that serves absolutely no purpose, what is the use of it?
Also he claims that this theory is the Buddhist theory when in fact this is the Jewish theory of the torah:
See here the philosophical proof agsint the non assignment of a cyclo, of a point of reference, of a dot. The dot becomes the point of reference and it gives us a known X, once we got the known X, we can find all the unknows, it is up to us, with no known X we are able to do nothing, and use no Logic, and hence we become animals, not noemon Humans.
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... 9&start=50The stream is a stream of ever changing nows, indeed, noone denies this(in fact this man is the one who does, and you who quote him contradict yourself for you have already accepted the notion of the stream), it is linear, however assigning a dot, a point zero, we become able to measure the stream, by staying into the torah, we stay ignorant, we become unable to measure, and this serves no purpose at all. And hence philosophically and practically it becomes invalid, for philosophy presupposes a purpose. What is this purpose? Oh and something else, this man calls his theory the theory of TIME, which means that he accepts a priori that time actually exists.
And the ultimate LOL:
In the beginning of his discourse he states that this philosophy is tottaly incompatibe with Western Philosophy and that it cancels Western Philosophy and their perception of time, at the end if his discourse he states:
According to the philosophy of abstract Buddhist atomism, the basic building blocks—which are atoms of energy, irreducible momentary pieces of existence—emerge in a lawless manner from the void. This also appears to possibly be in accord with the description of the quantum foam, as it is occasionally refereed to, that physicists have theorized makes up all of reality. In writing about the very tiniest levels of reality that physicists discuss, the physicist Brian Greene shows that the nature of reality described by physicists may appear similar to the reality of abstract Buddhist atomism:
As gravitational fields are reflected by curvature, these quantum fluctuations manifest themselves as increasingly violent distortions of the surrounding space… By probing to even smaller scales,… we see that the random quantum mechanical undulations in the gravitational field correspond to such severe warpings of space that it no longer resembles a gently geometrical objects… Rather, it takes on… frothing, turbulent, twisted form. John Wheeler coined the term quantum foam to describe the frenzy revealed by such an ultramicroscopic examination of space (and time)—it describes an unfamiliar arena of the universe in which the conventional notions of left and right, back and forth, up and down (and even before and after) lose their meaning… [The ultramicroscopic level is a] roiling frenzy of quantum foam… [A]s we recede to more ordinary distances…, the random, violent small-scale undulations cancel each other out… [T]he fabric of space-time appears to be smooth except when examined with ultramicroscopic precision (Greene, 1999 : 127-29).
Which the above, the Void is the basis of all Western philosophy the Chaotic apeiron, the Void, the Holon, and the space time assignment conclusion has been reached through our current Western philosophical Hypothesis of the Void, which were eventually proven correct through experiment and the scientific method. Quantum mechanics do not cancel Einstein's space-time nor vice versa, they simply deal with different stories, we shall assign more dimensions that is 11 and we shall make these 2 theories to co-exist once we assign the domain that they are able to co-exist. If we cancel the dimension of time, as you say Scoops then we are moving backwards, and not forward in assigning more dimensions and this assignment of a domain that contains more of the Void, of the Holon.
Quantum mechanics theory are in accord with the Western philosophical concepts that he fights against, and not only in accord, this is their Hypothesis, and thus proving himself, his own invalidity. The concept of the Void(Chaotic apeiron) created the notion of the manifestations of the Void that we term as spacetime and that we term yet and now, as structured for we have not assigned all the dimensions. It is this Hypothesis of the Void we used to reach to these conclusion adn it is this Hypothesis that our scince uses, it is this Hypothesis that einstein used and defined one more characteristic of the Void, and this man, uses our conclusions that derive from this Hypothesis and aim to explain the Void by building the block case by case to fight our conclusion and then goes on to claim his accord just because of the abstractness with our own notion of the Void. LOL's. We figured out everything comes from the Void, and we try to find the dimensions of the void, in order to do so, we assign a perfect circle, a structured entity, a moment that functions as a point of reference in order to create a known X, and thus become able to explain the unknowns through the linear mathematics, and by finding the unknowns the assignement of dimensions(time included) comes by default, that will eventually explain the Void. He thinks that he will explain the Void, without the assignment of a structured point of reference, but abstractly. He tries to go the other way around....May God be with him.
Fact is that Einsteins theory is unable to explain the movement of the atom in quantum mechanics, because the dimensions are not enough, spacetime is truly not enough, we need more dimensions, not cancel the ones that we sweated to locate and reason. Another fact is that the theory of Einstein is a result of our Hypothesis of the abstract movement of the atom in the molecule, see Atomic theory and the first Atomists,
Democritus, the ones that he actually fights against.