Dzen_o 8 March 2016

In the Dzen_o post below by unknown reason a section of the post’s text appeared as a strikethrough text. That must not be so. It seems in the Net some thing occur not only by unique author…
Cheers

Dzen_o 8 March 2016

A next debate about the notion “Time”, - and again both debaters cannot to prove the truth/ fallacy of their positions. In what there is nothing surprising – the notion “Time” (as well as “Space”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”, etc.) is a Meta-notion that cannot be properly defined/ understandable in framework of the mainstream philosophy (and of any mainstream science, though, including in the mainstream physics).

All Meta-notions can be understandable only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception (http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf), where it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Since any information cannot be deleted/ annihilated/ etc., the Set exists always, or “absolutely infinitely long time”, and all what exists in the Set “have happened always”, “absolutely infinitely long time ago.

But at that all what exists as a dynamical system in the Set “is happening always” also.

And in:
“…Secondly, Barbour states that he “incline to the view that one should consider all instants of time – Nows as I call them – on an equal footing as regards existence”. This entails that the change which we both take to be fundamental to our experience of time is illusory and non-existent. There is no real change on his view, there are just three-dimensional slices – the Nows – eternally coexisting, and these never change…”

- indeed, any dynamic informational system in the Set exists and changes as a cinema of “Now”. But at that this cinema always “moves”, and “moves really” – constantly and so absolutely infinite number of times.
Nonetheless, for concrete structure in this cinema this fact isn’t essential – for example a human, who lives in this cinema version, it is inessential – what happens in the others (more correctly – in the same version, but with shifted film’s shots’ order). As well the current evolution of Matter doesn’t depend on others, though all versions evolve always exactly in accordance with the same scenario.

So, for example, for those, who claims that Matter’s evolution, human’s life, etc. “illusory and non-existent” seems would be useful to attempt, for example, to move from Glasgow to London in a car, when the car’s tank, instead of gasoline, is filled by some illusion…
(See also Dzen_o post in http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper-vs-barbour-the-dance-of-time-part-4-auid-640?utm_source=Institute+of+Art+and+Ideas&utm_campaign=59caf5250a-IAI+Weekly+Newsletter+08%2F03%2F2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_33593fe9fa-59caf5250a-46979289 (The Dance of Time - part 4 ).

Cheers

Dzen_o 8 March 2016

A next debate about the notion “Time”, - and again both debaters cannot to prove the truth/ fallacy of their positions. In what there is nothing surprising – the notion “Time” (as well as “Space”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”, etc.) is a Meta-notion that cannot be properly defined/ understandable in framework of the mainstream philosophy (and of any mainstream science, though, including in the mainstream physics).

All Meta-notions can be understandable only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception (http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf), where it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Since any information cannot be deleted/ annihilated/ etc., the Set exists always, or “absolutely infinitely long time”, and all what exists in the Set “have happened always”, “absolutely infinitely long time ago.

But at that all what exists as a dynamical system in the Set “is happening always” also.

And in:
“…Secondly, Barbour states that he “incline to the view that one should consider all instants of time – Nows as I call them – on an equal footing as regards existence”. This entails that the change which we both take to be fundamental to our experience of time is illusory and non-existent. There is no real change on his view, there are just three-dimensional slices – the Nows – eternally coexisting, and these never change…”

- indeed, any dynamic informational system in the Set exists and changes as a cinema of “Now”. But at that this cinema always “moves”, and “moves really” – constantly and so absolutely infinite number of times.
Nonetheless, for concrete structure in this cinema this fact isn’t essential – for example a human, who lives in this cinema version, it is inessential – what happens in the others (more correctly – in the same version, but with shifted film’s shots’ order). As well the current evolution of Matter doesn’t depend on others, though all versions evolve always exactly in accordance with the same scenario.

So, for example, for those, who claims that Matter’s evolution, human’s life, etc. “illusory and non-existent” seems would be useful to attempt, for example, to move from Glasgow to London in a car, when the car’s tank, instead of gasoline, is filled by some illusion…
(See also Dzen_o post in http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper-vs-barbour-the-dance-of-time-part-4-auid-640?utm_source=Institute+of+Art+and+Ideas&utm_campaign=59caf5250a-IAI+Weekly+Newsletter+08%2F03%2F2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_33593fe9fa-59caf5250a-46979289 (The Dance of Time - part 4 ).

Cheers