"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b][]_ [[]] []_

As much as I hate to admit it, I have no trouble understanding what that means. Whereas at one time when I did worship myself as a self-made man, I would have found that statement to be utterly absurd. I often remind myself of something Shakespeare said in one of his plays, and it always seems as though he is speaking directl ...[text shortened]... sh right now.[/i]



Sir Lemon Lime is currently available for product endorsements[/b]

"The more I learn the less I know, the less I know the more I wonder."

I should have googled this before taking credit for it. The first part of it is already credited to someone else. Nothing new under the sun... it's all been said before and by someone else.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you take a snapshot of the universe today, you will not find Hitler in it. He won't exist. You claimed that objects require spatial dimensions to exist, but not time. I claim that Hitler requires time to exist.

And where pray tell can you show where Hitler is currently existing? I know at one time he existed, but that time has long come and gone.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A slice through the universe. What do you see? Get to your point.

[b]I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else?
That is what freezing time means. It means choose a constant on the time axis and only consider points of the universe in that plane.

It's not like time is an object that can be [i]litera ...[text shortened]... ial dimensions cease to exist? If not, why not? If it did, then why is it different from time?

A slice through the universe. What do you see? Get to your point.

I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 90 is so dim witted they will consistently get it wrong, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply playing dumb on purpose.

I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else?
That is what freezing time means. It means choose a constant on the time axis and only consider points of the universe in that plane.

How does an abstract of time (shown as points on a chart) have anything to do with what I was talking about?

It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect stopping and all motion ceasing.
Now I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean consider the universe at a given point in time, or do you mean pretend time is moving but nothing is happening?

If literally nothing is happening, then how would you define what time is? How could time be moving and yet nothing is happening?

In that scenario time can not be a constant because it literally ceases to exist.
Why does it cease to exist? When you did you slicing above, did one of the spatial dimensions cease to exist? If not, why not? If it did, then why is it different from time?

The slicing part had only to do with my example of why a two dimensional object cannot exist as a physcial reality, and you did not answer my question about what you would see when that last layer is removed.

When you mix and match up the ideas I've presented, then try to make it appear as though you are responding to anything I've actually said, are you doing this on purpose to string me along? Or are you literally unable to understand what I'm saying?

Originally posted by lemon lime
There are products I would probably endorse, but at the moment none come to mind. If I happen to think of one I'll get back to you and let you know. I've never thought about endorsing a product because I'm not a celebrity or someone many people know. But maybe I could gain celebrity status by first endorsing a product, and then wait for the ...[text shortened]... to my gob, but it's too late for that now. Hoo boy, what a day this has been!

Share your 'pain'. Frank (a world class nano numbers wonk and Colgate Palmolive Executive/boss in Chicago, decades ago) actually had a file folder labeled, "To Do Some Day". He and Lorn (a Box-Jenkins Modeling/Operations Research Expert) were enraptured with endless revisions and indecisions. Such was their Modus Operandi and it worked. Give differing styles a wide berth. Truism: Know what you want and learn how to ask for it (without becoming an obstacle to kindred spirits).

Your " but I can tell you this... I am strictly a purist, and would never resort to crass commercialism by endorsing a product containing one or both of my fragrant essences. I'm just plain old lemon lime, and you will never find me hobnobbing with just any old gelatinous goop in a bowl of Jello." serves as an excellent metaphor for your refusal to brook any "old gelatinous goop" nonsense in the formulation and exchange of thought. Call Bic: suggest and endorse a new line of ball point pens. Win their confidence by demonstrating the Nimble Lemon/Lime Bic's effortless delineation of virgin thought and full term delivery of its veracity from the caul in which it's been kept. Why does this have the feel of a phone call? lol Time for sleep, Bob

Originally posted by lemon lime
And where pray tell can you show where Hitler is currently existing? I know at one time he existed, but that time has long come and gone.

My point exactly.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 90 is so dim witted they will consistently get it wrong, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply playing dumb on purpose.

So I am too dumb to get it without explanation? Then why didn't you explain it? Are you too dumb to explain it?

How does an abstract of time (shown as points on a chart) have anything to do with what I was talking about?
I don't know exactly what you were talking about, hence my request for clarification. Merely saying 'what has that got to do with it' is not helping. Explain your original scenario in more details so I can understand what you meant.

If literally nothing is happening, then how would you define what time is? How could time be moving and yet nothing is happening?
Its your scenario, you explain what you meant.

The slicing part had only to do with my example of why a two dimensional object cannot exist as a physcial reality, and you did not answer my question about what you would see when that last layer is removed.
Yes I did answer your question. I then asked why you would think anything else, and you have not answered, instead you were rude.

When you mix and match up the ideas I've presented, then try to make it appear as though you are responding to anything I've actually said, are you doing this on purpose to string me along? Or are you literally unable to understand what I'm saying?
Yes, I am literally unable to understand what you are saying. In my defense I am not the only one who typically cannot understand much of what you say, others have complained of the same problem.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"an ancient dilemma..."

Let's say there's an ancient dilemma facing us all in present time. If there is an alive and powerful, eternal entity who/which has offered each of us the unearned and undeserved gift of permanent relationship which we individually reject [and repeatedly reject], isn't it reasonable to expect eternal separation as the only viable alternative? Your comments. (gb)[/b]

Why do you think relationship with God is undeserved and a gift.

Our relationship with God is eternal and nothing can change about that.

However.....What can change is that we can have no knowledge of that relationship but the fact and truth is that the relationship is always there eternally and it will always be there eternally because it has always been there eternally.

True relgion will allows us to develop our forgotten relationship with God and if we do not because we have no desire to......then we shall simply take birth in this world of suffering over and over and over again until such time as we come to our senses and pursue true spirituality and develop that relationship.

The relationship is eternal and cannot be broken under any circumstances but we may forget that relationship for a very very long time.

A trillion years for us is a long time but for God it is a blink of the eye.

Our very existence is rooted in the existence of God. just like the sun beams existence is rooted in the existence of the sun.........and this is why God shall wait till the end of eternity for us to wake up from this illusionary dream world.

The soul which is the living principle within this material body and animates the body to life is eternal and indestructible and has an eternal loving relationship with Krsna.....the Lord and that will never ever change.

There are no undeserved gifts ..............because reviving our forgotten relationship with God requires self actualization in the direction of pursuing our true pure love of God and that requires us to embrace true relgion and raise the consciousness to the transcendental spiritual platform and out of ignorance.

There are no undeserved free gifts.

Originally posted by Dasa
Why do you think relationship with God is undeserved and a gift.

Our relationship with God is eternal and nothing can change about that.

However.....What can change is that we can have no knowledge of that relationship but the fact and truth is that the relationship is always there eternally and it will always be there eternally because it has always been ...[text shortened]... e transcendental spiritual platform and out of ignorance.

There are no undeserved free gifts.

If there is this god you speak of, we can no more control our connection to that god than a fish can control whether it needs oxygen. This god would never let anyone out of it's care, whether you are a saint or Hitler.

It is just the man made view of what we think a god SHOULD be like, not what a god really is.

This whole artifice of religion, ALL religions are ALL just in the eyes of the beholder and NO MORE.

If there is such a god, it is clear this god has a strictly hands off approach to humanity.

If we off ourselves, which we certainly can, that god will just say to itself, nice experiment but I can do better next time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So I am too dumb to get it without explanation? Then why didn't you explain it? Are you too dumb to explain it?

[b]How does an abstract of time (shown as points on a chart) have anything to do with what I was talking about?
I don't know exactly what you were talking about, hence my request for clarification. Merely saying 'what has that got to do ...[text shortened]... cally cannot understand much of what you say, others have complained of the same problem.[/b]

So I am too dumb to get it without explanation? Then why didn't you explain it? Are you too dumb to explain it?

The example I gave also served as a test. I wanted to see what you would do with it. You either cannot understand a simple explanation without seemingly further (endless) explanations, or if faced with something you cannot dispute you will pretend your ability to undertand is severely limited. So which is it?

How does an abstract of time (shown as points on a chart) have anything to do with what I was talking about?
I don't know exactly what you were talking about, hence my request for clarification. Merely saying 'what has that got to do with it' is not helping. Explain your original scenario in more details so I can understand what you meant.

The original scenario speaks for itself. Again, it was very simple to understand and clearly shows how time is not a true physical dimension. And btw spatial dimension is just another way of saying physical dimension, so googlyfudgepops attempt to redefine my terms didn't quite work to undermine that example either.

If literally nothing is happening, then how would you define what time is? How could time be moving and yet nothing is happening?
Its your scenario, you explain what you meant.

No, that was your revision of my scenario, and as per usual your strawmen versions bear little resemblance to anything I've actually said.

The slicing part had only to do with my example of why a two dimensional object cannot exist as a physcial reality, and you did not answer my question about what you would see when that last layer is removed.
Yes I did answer your question. I then asked why you would think anything else, and you have not answered, instead you were rude.

If I'm rude because you are intentionally being less than honest then so what? But if I'm being rude to someone who is mentally deficient then I feel just awful for being so rude to you!

When you mix and match up the ideas I've presented, then try to make it appear as though you are responding to anything I've actually said, are you doing this on purpose to string me along? Or are you literally unable to understand what I'm saying?
Yes, I am literally unable to understand what you are saying. In my defense I am not the only one who typically cannot understand much of what you say, others have complained of the same problem.

Not much of a defense. And I'm not so sure those others would want to be characterized as being either dishonest or dumb. We will know soon enough if any jump in to defend you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The example I gave also served as a test. I wanted to see what you would do with it. You either cannot understand a simple explanation without seemingly further (endless) explanations, or if faced with something you cannot dispute you will pretend your ability to undertand is severely limited. So which is it?

Are you going to continue totally avoiding giving any sort of explanation? I can play at psychology too you know. I think that you realised how stupid your original scenario was, so now you want to pretend I am too dumb to 'get it', rather than admit your mistake.
You always blame other posters for not understanding you, yet when asked for clarification you fail to give any.

The original scenario speaks for itself.
Clearly it doesn't, or I would have got it. I want you to speak for it, not let it 'speak for itself'. If it is so simple, you should have no problems explaining it, yet all you seem to do is run round in circles trying to avoid giving any explanations.

Again, it was very simple to understand and clearly shows how time is not a true physical dimension.
Do you even know what a dimension is? Can you give us your definition of a dimension?

No, that was your revision of my scenario, and as per usual your strawmen versions bear little resemblance to anything I've actually said.
So you still won't clarify?

If I'm rude because you are intentionally being less than honest then so what? But if I'm being rude to someone who is mentally deficient then I feel just awful for being so rude to you!
I am neither mentally deficient nor less than honest. Your are simply failing to explain your scenario and blaming it on me.

Not much of a defense. And I'm not so sure those others would want to be characterized as being either dishonest or dumb. We will know soon enough if any jump in to defend you.
Only when you set up a false dichotomy would they be dishonest or dumb. And I am sure they couldn't care less how you characterise them using such false logic.

So can I take it that you simply cannot give a proper explanation for your original scenario and will spend the rest of the thread trying to sidetrack the conversation rather than admitting you were wrong?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Share your 'pain'. Frank (a world class nano numbers wonk and Colgate Palmolive Executive/boss in Chicago, decades ago) actually had a file folder labeled, [b]"To Do Some Day". He and Lorn (a Box-Jenkins Modeling/Operations Research Expert) were enraptured with endless revisions and indecisions. Such was their Modus Operandi and it worked. Give diff ...[text shortened]... it's been kept. Why does this have the feel of a phone call? lol Time for sleep, Bob[/b]

Call Bic: suggest and endorse a new line of ball point pens. Win their confidence by demonstrating the Nimble Lemon/Lime Bic's effortless delineation of virgin thought and full term delivery of its veracity from the caul in which it's been kept.

Now that is something I can use! I like that, and partly because I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn't a backhanded compliment. I can stratch hiring an agent off my list. If I'm able to coax free ideas like this one from people on the internet I'll be well on my way to fame and fortune, minus the fame... I don't need any of that.

Why does this have the feel of a phone call? lol

I don't know. I don't do phone calls very well, because I have a tendency to back up and do a lot of editing. Editing doesn't have that same awkward feel in a posted message as it does when talking on the phone.

Time for sleep, Bob

Sleep is always a good thing, but for some reason it has been eluding me since last Tuesday.

I was riding on a transit bus a few weeks ago and spied a button pin on the floor, so I picked it up to see what the message was. It said YOU SNOOZE YOU LOSE. I wondered if the person who lost that button pin was snoozing on the bus, or if sleep deprivation had made him careless and prone to losing things.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I went back to read from the beginning and ran into something which is often misunderstood.

Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th [i]dimension[/ ...[text shortened]... as being another 4th (physical) dimension that can literally be added to a 3 dimensional object.

The idea that if you "freeze" everything time will cease to exist only holds under some reductionist view of time. Not everyone agrees and this has been a source of debate for generations. So, as usual, you're declaiming on a topic, pretending like it's black and white, without having done your homework first. Below is a very cursory entry that discusses this.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you going to continue totally avoiding giving any sort of explanation? I can play at psychology too you know. I think that you realised how stupid your original scenario was, so now you want to pretend I am too dumb to 'get it', rather than admit your mistake.
You always blame other posters for not understanding you, yet when asked for clarification the thread trying to sidetrack the conversation rather than admitting you were wrong?

Again, it was very simple to understand and clearly shows how time is not a true physical dimension.
Do you even know what a dimension is? Can you give us your definition of a dimension?

Words can have different shades of meaning. If you insist on ignoring context and believe my words only mean what you want them to mean, then misunderstanding messages is inevitable. I am not convinced these 'misunderstandings' are not intentional. It's my responsibility to be as clear as possible, but this in no way excuses you from any responsibility to honestly discern what is being said. I've already handed you a simple to understand explanation... I don't intend to grind it up into baby food for you to disgest.

No, that was your revision of my scenario, and as per usual your strawmen versions bear little resemblance to anything I've actually said.
So you still won't clarify?

Why should I clarify your misleading revision? My original statements were simple enough to understand... can they be clarified by making them less easy to understand?

I am neither mentally deficient nor less than honest. Your are simply failing to explain your scenario and blaming it on me.

It's my responsibility to be as clear as possible, but this in no way excuses you from any responsibility to honestly discern what is being said. I've already handed you a simple to understand explanation... I don't intend to grind it up into baby food for you to disgest.

So can I take it that you simply cannot give a proper explanation for your original scenario and will spend the rest of the thread trying to sidetrack the conversation rather than admitting you were wrong?

This is what you live for, isn't it? You really aren't concerned about anything here except for appearing to be right, and getting someone else to admit they are wrong. You are living in a fool's paradise where nothing you say is wrong, and the only people who are right are those who agree with you.



You've wasted enough of my time.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You've wasted enough of my time.

It is remarkable just how much time you did waste just to avoid actually addressing the problems with your claim. You have made a number of very lengthy posts essentially refusing to discuss your original claim because you say it is all self evident.
Did your claim get a response of 'oohs' and 'aahs' from all the amazed posters who on reading your claim that 'spoke for itself' suddenly realized that Einstein had it all wrong and all those stupid mathematicians haven't got a clue, and it turns out that time isn't really a dimension at all!
No, not one single poster found it self evident. Not one single poster agrees with your claim.
You're just not honest enough to admit when you're wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is remarkable just how much time you did waste just to avoid actually addressing the problems with your claim. You have made a number of very lengthy posts essentially refusing to discuss your original claim because you say it is all self evident.
Did your claim get a response of 'oohs' and 'aahs' from all the amazed posters who on reading your claim ...[text shortened]... ter agrees with your claim.
You're just not honest enough to admit when you're wrong.

How about this time you actually look at what I said without the revisions, and not add to or subtract from it. Take it apart piece by little piece (within reason) if you want, and tell me what you believe is not true. This isn't a contest, so it doesn't need to be treated as such.

"In your minds eye take any real three dimensional object (like a board) and start shaving away one of those dimensions until it is only one atom thick. Then shave the last remaining (third dimensional) atom thick layer off and look at what you have left... what do you see?"

"I don't know how freezing time can make it a constant, or did you mean something else? It's not like time is an object that can be literally frozen, I simply meant imagining cause and effect stopping and all motion ceasing. In that scenario time can not be a constant because it literally ceases to exist."