Danneskjöld

Never heard of this one either. Have to check, what you are talking about. I do not see any part, that would reject anything I have written.

What I learned in the past weeks investigating philosophy, I do have to take it by word. So an entity A is A. That includes all its matter and its properties. Therefore, a concrete chair having a free electron on the north side around atom x is this chair having a free electron on the north side around atom x. If an instant later the electron has moved to the western side of atom x, the entity is this chair having a free electron on the western side around atom x and therefore IS NOT the same entity as before, i.e. IS NOT A anymore. Exactly. And what I am trying to do is to apply this universal in relation to time. Never heard of this one, I will investigate. Cheers

A is A. More precisely, A is now and only now A. Observe an entity A in the last 3 seconds, each second taking a complete picture of it. Even if there is no interaction with non-A (non-A being a positive, meaning everything, that is, which is not A, i.e. its surrounding), there is still the change within itself, e.g. movements of particles and/or waves. So each picture is showing a different state A(1), A(2) and A(3) preceding the current state A. The higher the picturing frequency, the more different states A(1), A(2),…, A(x) are observed. Furthermore, when the time span between two states A(i) and A(i+1) approaches zero, there exists in every chosen period an infinite number of different states. Therefore A was never and will never be A again apart from this very moment. That does not imply that A has emerged from non-A, but from a specific set of concrete non-A’s (A(i)), i.e. from which A was before. Thoughts? [edited for spelling]

Ok, if this is the case, my scenario is wrong anyway. Then I have to get rid of my thoughts and figure out, what to think. Obviously you are right, time exists anyway, there does not need to be a perceiver. But as matter exists and is moving, time does exist with all its attributes (such as its changing with speed). My conclusion here was, when matter exists eternally, then so does time. But as it seems, universe is expanding faster than in the past, so I have to rethink the whole issue. I cannot believe, that all of it startet out of nothing and is going into nothing... But still you cannot detach your conclusions from reality. If you are claiming, that universe is eternal, there HAS TO BE prove of it in reality, i.e. a physical explanation. I just made this bridge by my conclusions. It seems though that I am wrong, so there must be another explanation. Hm. All in all we still do have a big mess explaining the fundamentals of universe. I guess my physical explanations will have to wait. Thanx for the inputs, I will think it all over...

I do not see, why the concept of time is relevant, if I try to explain that "the" Big Bang and the "creation" of universe never happend. But that there is instead an endless chain of Big Bangs over and over again. But if you wish: Time as such does not exist, it is only perceivable through other entities. Through the change of an attribut in entities, to be exact. So if this physical explanation is correct, there would be endless movements in/of universe, therefore with the universe time itself exists enternally.

I am neither a physicist nor a "full-grown" philosopher, so in case I am wrong in my assumptions and conclusions, just show it and I will adapt my thinking. Assumptions (which I heard once in high-school and still think to be true): a) all matter of universe has emerged from a single starting point matter is spreading away from this point c) matter is spreading slower today than in the past My scenario for the future: As the speed of spreading is decreasing, the forces of gravity will have an increasing impact until matter stops moving away. This system will have a center of gravity which will pull matter back. As a result, in the far future, when galaxies are banging constantly into this mass in the center, the increasing energy results finally in a "Big Bang", and matter is spreading away again. That has been my physical explanation of eternity of universe for years. Thoughts? Ragnar

Well, I cannot call myself an Objectivist yet (because I do not fully understand all parts of the philosophical system yet), but I do have an answer of my own. Everything which exists is potentially knowable to human beings. As it exists, we can find out (through observation, mathematical terms, technical means) what it is and how it "behaves" (its identity). Universe is logical and non-contradictional. So yes, theoretically we would be able to understand finally reality in full. But that does not imply, that one day we will be at this point. Human knowledge has always been an approximation to reality, not reality itself. For example, Newton was able to describe the laws of Gravity on earth. It works and is a good description of reality. But Einstein's theory of relativity shows us, that it was only an approximation, that wheights change with speed. And that opened a whole new spectrum of reality to investigate... This kind of knowledge-growing has and will be going on until the end of the human race... With every bit of knowledge we come closer to understand reality, but what percentage we have reached so far, no-one can tell... There are a lot of riddles left to solve, but there is no doubt, that they can be solved.

No, this Job WAS not essential to pay for university. My parents are borrowing me some money to pay for the expenses. Whether I need some months more or less to pay it back is irrelevant. It would have been money to enjoy holidays abroad in winter. Actually, I find the Job intolerable BECAUSE of this ratinalistic principle. If it's avoidable than there's no reason to accept government employment apart from taking unearned benefits... and THIS is a reason which is intolerable. However, I finally quit the job. Instead I'm going to work in a public swimming pool area, where I'll sell food and drinks behind a counter. Sure, I earn less money than I did in the government job, but it's more a honest work and the people come and spend their money willingly and freely to their enjoyment. Whether or not to continue university I have not decided yet. Thanx for the thoughts anyway. Cheers Ragnar

Actually, my post is some kind of nonsense. How could anyone (including myself) approve of what I'm doing? I already knew the answers before... Well, I've been thinking about it for a couple of days and today I made the final decision to quit the job tomorrow morning. I even start to question university itself. But I need more time, so I guess I'll do another semester at university before I definitely decide whether to continue or not. But the more I think about it, the more going on strike (refusing to study and accept these professors and mindless learning-by-heart students as equals,refusing to use my mind to maintain the Swiss system directly or indirectly) is an option... Ragnar

I started university a year ago and I now got kind of an apprenticeship (for 3 months) in the State Office of Environment besides the studies. My job: Measure the watermasses in rivers and creeks. It's a typical office. Wasting time, talking nonsense, complain about everything and everyone. Somehow I feel like steeling money... This money comes from taxes, so the whole population of that part of Switzerland is paying me for working neither as much nor as fast nor as good as it would be possible. It is not asked (probably not even wished) from my employer. Furthermore, I don't really see the sense of my work. Sure, you can forecast a flood half an hour before it happens... But in the long run, is it worth spending thousands of dollars every month? Especially, because it is impossible, to get "real" results, always only some kind of approximations? On the other hand, I'm "working" 8 hours a day. So in some respect it IS earned money from my part. What do you think of it? Cheers Danneskjöld