4 ms·

As the philosopher's say there is no past or future only present. Nothing exists outside the present. All realities(as well as memories) can only be experienced

• skulk 2y ago
  There is no such thing as "the current moment" unless you arbitrarily choose an inertial reference frame.
  • vidarh 2y ago
    We know everything but the current moment only through the fragment of memory active in the current moment, so we don't even know if any past or future has or will ever exist for us to choose.
  • fizx 2y ago
    Most people choose themselves ;)
• yetihehe 2y ago
  Some philosophers also said that everything is made from small unsplittable parts, and even called them "atomos", meaning unsplittable in their language. Then we found them and splitted them, an then we've done that again and now we're on our third or four level of understanding world, while those philosophers try to catch up. Don't hold your breath on any particular philosophy, they are only a questions we didn't answer yet.
  • MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    The fact we jumped the gun and called the first small things we found atoms doesn't mean the philosophers were wrong... It means we were wrong to use that label for those things. We do believe there are unsplittable particles, they are just not what we called atoms. Philosophers still looking good to me.
    • yetihehe 2y ago
      Yes, they were not wrong, like Newton was not wrong about gravity. Philosophers are still usable as a generators of novel wild ideas, which we can then check if they are real. But don't mistake "philosopher's idea" for reality.
• mr_toad 2y ago
  Clearly those philosophers never studied electromagnetism.
  • fuzzfactor 2y ago
    Electrochemistry is a thing too. Chemical reactions take time. If time does not pass, chemical reactions do not proceed. This applies to all the natural elements in our universe, and then some. Unless you've got some chemical elements completely unlike anything in this universe, which would probably have to consist of particles that are not from around here either, you can rest assured that time isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You could even say that all matter in the universe itself consists only of the chemical elements in existence at any one point, at their instantaneous state of pre-reaction, ongoing-reaction, or post-reaction. What if two of these snapshots were not identical? What would the difference be attributable to? It probably goes way back, but one day I imagine a prehistoric observer recognized that it would be impossible to get something accomplished which did not happen instantly, unless some effort was invested over a period of, you guessed it, time. Doesn't require any math at all, not even a primate observer. You just can't get something done while it's still daylight unless you start a certain period of time before the sun goes down. So the most direct observation of time is as a celestial phenomenon, that's a no-brainer there. At least in this kind of universe. >time is an illusion created by <insert superstition here> Can't go forward with this since it refutes itself, the real mathematical exercise would be to back-calculate as far back as necessary to figure out where the defects arose that are incongruous with this particular universe. What kind of person could come up with equations for that detailed of back-calculation? They would have to know more than almost all university professors. And where are you going to find them these days? Maybe what's needed is another Einstein, and people don't want to admit it. Sometimes equations can get so off-target that it doesn't take any mathematical ability at all to call time on it. What if there's no mathematician remaining who can calculate their way out of it realistically? Which leaves everybody else blundering around the illogical zone :/