Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael M
You assume that time is some "thing" with specific location
|
No, I stated that local time "exists" for an observer. If time isn't some thing, how do you explain your attempts to ontologise it? You have to assume it exists, though, because you have to explain that you observe, and also exist.
Quote:
|
"Ontology 101" starts with the obvious fact that everything in the universe (the real stuff) did not magically appear "out of the Void of Space." It all actually had to always be in existence. None of "it" is created or destroyed. It just constantly changes form.
|
How do you know it didn't magically appear? What evidence can you forward to support your proposition?
Or that it had to "always be in existence"? Isn't matter disappearing from view at the edge of a visible horizon, so it's changing in a way that means it has been 'destroyed' or erased, as far as our future observations are concerned? (Note how your proposition implies a permanent past and future for the entire unchanging universe).
