A or B Theory

[NaturalPhilosopher]

cuz 3d space doesn't exist.
dots to become lines is ridiculous.

space is entirely different than the length, width and depth we see it as.

 

[Kairos]

I'll start by saying that the past does indeed exist. It is a physical location within 4th dimensional space. While I understand your point that technically one has no proof it exists without observing it, which in turn alters it and becomes useless. Anyway by that logic technically nothing exists at all.

But seriously how do you believe a physical location in 4th dimensional space cannot exist?

It's not a spatial dimension at all.

I already explained why it's possible that something in the past or future does not in the present moment exist. You failed to process that statement, apparently. I would suggest you read what I posted.

As far as my belief.. you don't really understand that either. I happen to believe the past exist, but I believe that because I believe in God, not because science has proven it. Science has proven no such thing.

 

[paradox404]

It's not a spatial dimension at all.

I already explained why it's possible that something in the past or future does not in the present moment exist. You failed to process that statement, apparently. I would suggest you read what I posted.

As far as my belief.. you don't really understand that either. I happen to believe the past exist, but I believe that because I believe in God, not because science has proven it. Science has proven no such thing.

So you reject that the past exists but believe it does? Doesn't make much sense tbh. You can't simply reject something without proof and say it's always going to be correct. And yes I actually did process what you said, yiu were trying desperately to debunk the existence of the past with a pessimistic proof belief.

Anyway to understand our reality a bit better, you need to realize that we reside within the 4th dimension. What you call "time" is merely a shifting spacial dimensions where every event of our universe is occurring at the same time. We only observe a fraction of it however, as our brains only properly percieve 3 of the 4 dimensions.

 

[Kairos]

LOL, what?

 

[paradox404]

LOL, what?

I was thinking the same thing trying to understand your posts mate.

 

[Kairos]

I can't help you then. If you don't understand what I am saying, then you could try referring to the many articles on the subject. You can try reading a synopsis of the problem regarding Parminedes and Heraclitus, perhaps even read about Aristotle's solution to it.

I believe the past and future exist for philosophical reasons. I admit that no actual scientific proof that this is the case has ever been presented.

 

[paradox404]

I can't help you then. If you don't understand what I am saying, then you could try referring to the many articles on the subject. You can try reading a synopsis of the problem regarding Parminedes and Heraclitus, perhaps even read about Aristotle's solution to it.

I believe the past and future exist for philosophical reasons. I admit that no actual scientific proof that this is the case has ever been presented.

I understand exactly what you're saying. You're contradictory in saying that you believe the past exists but it doesn't.

Science is 90% guesswork and 10% fact. There's no technology currently capable of proving the past exists in the way you're describing, so you can't dismiss it's existence simply because no proof has been provided.

It's like being in the first world war and dismissing the possibility of weapons being invented that could destroy a city (Nukes.) I mean you have no proof a device could destroy an entire city, so it's impossible right? If it's impossible you should give it no consideration? Obviously we know, 100 years later that a view like that back then is considered foolish in hindsight.

Keep an open mind mate.

 

[Kairos]

The fact that you claim I believe the past exists but doesn't says you don't understand a damned thing I said.


Philosophically, you can adhere to presentisim (only the present exists), and eternalism (past, present, and future exist). Travel to the past only makes sense if eternalism is true and presentism is false. There exists no scientific proof either way. It's an interesting issue to me because so many people these take for granted that the past is real, whereas for most of history I would guess most people believed the opposite.

 

[NaturalPhilosopher]

none of you will believe this but I try each time.
matter is the 4th dimension

 

[Apri1]

The fact that you claim I believe the past exists but doesn't says you don't understand a damned thing I said.


Philosophically, you can adhere to presentisim (only the present exists), and eternalism (past, present, and future exist). Travel to the past only makes sense if eternalism is true and presentism is false. There exists no scientific proof either way. It's an interesting issue to me because so many people these take for granted that the past is real, whereas for most of history I would guess most people believed the opposite.

People also believed (and still do) that there's a powerful man in the sky and that the earth is flat. Something being popular doesn't mean it's true. As for eternalism, we already have proof of that, provided you acknowledge time dilation exists, and/or that theoretical physics is accurate.