Speed Of Time - Page 3

I am not sure if this is the complete reconstruction but...

Rschulz, I get the drift of your three conditions of the proof of causality. But I disagree that the first one is the condition that is problematic. For me, I think that it is the third condition that will never be met. It is precisely the 'ability' of the substance that is dubious. I honestly kan't (sorry for the pun) see how we could ever determine the ability. Since, for me, seeing the ability of the substance to cause something would be tantamount to knowing how exactly one thing MUST follow another, and seeing this connection without a doubt. In other words, if X causes Y, would have to 'see' how this happens and be able to explain it, and know that every single time that X happens Y must. And I guess that I am not saying new that Hume didn't already say.

Secondly, I just noticed that you use 'final' cause to be the step previous to any effect. I don't really have a problem with this, it is just that Aristotle has a very specific meaning of 'final' cause and I didn't know if that is they way you meant it to be taken. For Aristotle, final cause is the purpose of the effect. So, the reason why there is a chair is because somebody needed it to sit on, which is its 'final' cause according to the A-man.

Also, in reference to what Angel of Death said, there is the law of proximate and remote causes. Where remote causes are sequentially distant from an effect, although, without them, there wouldn't be a cause. So, although Doofy, the guy who presses the button to get the conveyor belt running at the Ford plant in Dearborn michigan, doesn't exactly cause your kickass Escort, which is in Savannah, Georgia, to start every morning, it does play a role in you having it to start in the first place. Pretty remote, but necessary in the chain of things. (I don't know if you drive an escort or not, its just an example, please don't take any offense.) The proximate cause is the closest a cause can be to the effect. So, the actual starter in your car is the proximate cause, and doofy, well he is just a remote cause.

There is also necessary and sufficient causes. Necessary causes state that once those conditions are met an effect must happen. Sufficient causes state that once certain conditions are met an effect could happen.

I am not asserting anything, other than these uses of cause weren't really present in the discussion.

As for Nietzsche, I haven't read anything of his. I really want to, but have not found the time. In fact, I have some of his basic writings.. What I have heard of him is some really good stuff. Heidegger wrote four volumes commenting on Nietzsche. What's your connection Nietzsche?

As for the comment on Kant, well...I couldn't agree more. But I would keep his writings. 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' I couldn't imagine some goof sitting around dreaming up Kant's morality all over again. The thought makes me cringe.

Peace and brilliant thoughts to all

Concerning the first condition, how can you be sure that the substance you perceive and have an idea of truly exists?

You are correct. My meaning of final cause is not the same as Aristotle's...or is it... I am referring to the step previous to the effect, i.e. - thee cause. Sorry for any confusion that was my mistake.

Nietzsche was an immoralist. I guess I would say that the philosophy of immoralism is fitting in nicely with my ideas about good and evil, right and wrong, value/worth, and that is that none of them truly exist. A lot of my philosophy's rest on that fact that man is the sole interpreter of everything we know and therefore created the ideas of anything and everything we know.

That is why most of my arguments tend to break things down to their "subject's" non-existence. I guess if man is not actually the sole interpreter and creator for all we know then at least by breaking things down to their non-existence I have a place to begin when I try to understand them.

You and I, my friend, may have to part company at this point. When you put into question the existence of things you may intentionally, or not, be perpetuating Descartes' dualism. If that is the case, I can't, and won't, argue. I guess you could doubt the existence of the external world, but last time I checked, the epistemologists didn't get anywhere by doing that.

Proofs for and against the external world are interesting to me, but that is it. To put it another way, if someone else were to walk up to you and say "Dude, I am going to kick you in the nuts." What are you going to do? On the one hand, you could run quickly. (Highly advisable) Or, you could close your eyes and ponder existence of the man's boot. (not advisable, but still your choice) Maybe substantiality does or doesn't exist, but a boot to the nuts hurts, real or not. Moreover, proving that a substance doesn't exist doesn't make the pain go away.

This was the idea behind my first premise of the last post. Maybe this is not the right place to determine if things exist outside our mind. Maybe it is not worth the time either. I just thought it might be a starting point. Though it could be at least interesting to 'randomly' test your boot to the nuts theory for consistency.

Well, regarding the third cause condition, I don't see why it is imposible for us to understand. It is simply instinct, like babies knowing where to find milk etc, and all ths is embedded into our genes. As for the first cause condition, yes we don't have the 'equipment' to understand the final cause in detail, but we do know that the final cause is the creater

Hmm, regarding what rschulz said about kant, it's similar to the question that if you do something at 5 59 and 6 01, and nothing at 6 00, then does that mean that 6 00 does not exist? But of course, the fact is that somewhere, something is always happening. Yes, I agree with everything jali said about cause. I mean even if an atom had been out of place, then perhaps einstein wouldn't have been born.
Hmm, so the purpose of the chair is that someone has to sit, that is the final cause?No I dont think so. Why then, does the person want to sit on the chair? To get rest? but why does he need to get rest? to function properly. But why does he need to function properly? To live. But why does he need to live? And so on. The final cause I think is God himself or something like that.
Oh, and I agree with every thing rschulz said about remote causes etc.

Anyway, coming back to the original topic, we now know that different things perceive time differently, so what really is the 'real' speed at which things(or time) go? Perhaps God(or something) knows that.

Hmm, well, , many a man has wondered if things in reality exist externally (or exist at all), and believe me, if you go deep enough, it gets quite disturbing!

Hmm, well I just thought of something.

Now, imajine that some one told u directions like this: ' turn left before the shopping mall'. Now, over here, we can only turn left(and change our present) if we know where the shopping mall is(the future).
So thus we can see that unless we know the future, we can't affect our present state, and we will not be able to know wheather we are in control of our lives.

Another example of us not being able to affect our present is this: Now suppose that you time travel to your future, maybe to change your present. However, once you reach your future, it will no longer be a future, it will become your present, so thus again you will not be able to affect your present.

So this means that we can only change our 'destiny' if we know it.
Am I wrong?

thats what i think.....ppl always ask "can I change my destiny"
and an answer will come.." yes you make the choices in your life."
Well if you changed it how the heck would you know anyway? Unless you could see your original destiny, or someone told you.

Right.

Btw, I was seeing the powerpuff girls(DON'T LAUGH) the other day, in which a time portal is invented, and the professor reaches out and grabs from his yesterday a set of his car keys, and then realizes that thats where his car keys went yesterday!
I think that if time travel was possible, then that would mean that our lives are pre-planned.

or if life is pre planned ...then time travel might be possible??

Time Travel is DEFINATELY not possible

Well, We can travel to the future only if life is pre-panned, but we still can travel to the past regardless of life being planned or not. Of course, many people think that traveling to the past is imposible, because what would happen if you killed your own grand mother!
However, it isn't neccesary that it will affect you. Perhaps nothing will happen. Because I don't thik that if time travel was possible, we would be able to affect the past.

Anyway, my basic argument for time's existence was that why is there a cause and affect, why does time 'flow' foward and not backward. But now that you come to think of it it won't make a difference wheather time flows foward or backward!
In my opening post, rememebr I said that if time slows down, then our brain would also be affected. Well, if time flows backwards, then our brain activity would also flow backward, so to us, it would seem that everything is normal!

Anyway, I think rschulzsaid that he though that God viewed everything as a single point. It's like seeing a ruler. We are bound by time, so we veiw each piont of it, but as God is not bound by time and space, he views it from the top, as a whole, from beggining to end. Now, it is believed that God veiws everthing as a past, i.e for God time has ended, for him the universe has already contracted and is finished.Does everybody agree with this?( I actually read this in lots of books).
Now is that is true, then this means that my crack pot theory of god viewing an infinite amount of time as 0 seconds is true, and proves the theory of God viewig everything as a past :
Now as I had said before, that the longer a person lives, the shorter time seems to him. Now to God, 5000000000 years or something migt seem as 1 second. But why one second? and why 50000000000 years? Why not 0.00000000001 seconds and 99999999999999999 years? But as he has lived forever, then an infinite amount of time(i.e till the end of the universe) must see as 0 seconds to him, i.e the present.
This is where I finished the last time. Now, why should an infinite amount of time even seem as 0 seconds to Him?! W hy not MINUS 1 seconds, - 2, - 8 years, - 100000000 years?!
Now, this means that God vewis an infinte amount of time( meaning the duration of the universe) as a PAST.

Thoughts anyone?

If you were to "speed up" or "slow down" time, everything would remain the same "speed". All events would occur relative to each other at the same "speed". It all boils down to relativity.

Thats what I said in my opening post, it won't make a difference if time slows down or speeds up, it all depends on our perceptions.

I also think that time seems to be relative according to our perceptions. However this does not explain the 'speed of time.' It only explains human beings and their relative perspectives. The problem is that we have no frame of reference on which we can base the relativity except through our differing perceptions. So if relative perceptions are only relevant to themselves, and then as you guys say, the "Speed of Time" is relative, I ask, relative to what?

I recall reading one time where Einstien actually caused time travel to occur.
The men who went on the voyage all returned insane.

So, it seems it is NOT a good thing to do....and BTW, he destroyed the 'paperwork' on that project. Thank goodness.

Anyway, learned that in high school. So, who knows...

In fact...I believe we are very very very slow in comparison to the spiritual world. Just a thought.

Has anyone else heard this?