Searching wisdom in Wikipedias may only lead to confusion.
Please, have a look at "TIME, AWARENESS AND EVENTS" in http://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a1_time_awareness_and_events.html It may look surprising, but it has the merit of being the first step of deriving Einstein's ontology, his "Physical Reality". Being the first step, it is not the solution, but an opening towards further complex steps and possible discussions. Georges. --- On Sat, 12/18/10, LCC <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > From: LCC <claylon...@comcast.net> > Subject: [epistemology 11802] Nature of time > To: "Epistemology" <epistemology@googlegroups.com> > Date: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 7:28 PM > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology > I just finished reading the above, and joined the group on > the offhand > that discussion might be fruitful, so please bear with me, > as I am > seriously interested in responses. > > I regard myself as a sceptic, based upon the article's > definitions. > However, some evidence in my past experience leads me to > THINK (notice > that I do not say BELIEVE) that time may not be an infinite > arrow of > events leading from the present into a deterministic future > based > solely upon the present shared situational state, > proceeding at one > second per second. For example : > > 1) Subjective personal experiences in which time slowed to > a halt, > evidenced by objects moving extremely slowly, and noise > grinding down > to the subsonic. > 2) Remembered information which disagrees with evidence at > some later > date, being noted, and then transitioning to yet another > set of > "facts" or reversion to the original state. > 3) Evidence of widespread disagreement regarding the > observed facts at > some past event, by OTHER people, not just me. Much of that > can of > course be attributed to flawed memory, but a small residue > in some > cases points to genuine observation of different versions > of past > events, converging to a shared present. To forestall acidic > inquiries, > no I will NOT give any examples of such events. > > Anyway, I am interested in whether these three observations > are shared > by anyone else. Furthermore, just to clarify the point, > this is not > one one my jokes such as I pulled on my own newsgroup and > spammed in > various places back in 2007. This is a sober 100% serious > inquiry into > whether I am deluded or have something in common with > others who > prefer unvarnished truth to slick fallacies perceived as > unalloyed > indisputable truth by the common crowd. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
