2006-6-4 13:56:00
The argument Dean and I are having is kind of silly in my opinion and very little truth is able to come of it.
Let us take another argument that alleges an idea that is refuted by all normal common sense and approach it the way Dean is approaching this argument on time.
Person 1: The moon is made of green cheese.
Person 2: This seems like a silly statement. Why would you say such a thing?
Person 1: Why wouldn't it be true?
Person 2: Well, for one thing, we have gone to the moon and there was no green cheese.
Person 1: Maybe we didn't really go there, but just perceived that we did.
A three hour argument then ensues as to whether we went to the moon in the real reality of false reality. Maybe we just perceived it but it didn't really happen etc.
Person 1: And even if we did go to the moon we only drew samples from an extremely small part of its surface. How do we know that most of the rest of the moon is not green cheese?
Person 2: Anything is possible but it goes against all logic and evidence.
Person 1: But because anything is possible it means that in some reality the moon is made of green cheese. Since everything is happening all at one time in the greater reality this means there is green cheese on the moon in the now.
Person 2: That is so far fetched I do not even have any desire to argue against it.
Person 1: You can't prove me wrong.
Person 2: When you go outside of this reality in making an argument no one can prove anything right or wrong. If such realities exist they do not affect us directly and we do not understand them.
Person 1: You are evading my reason. We are only experiencing what our perception allows us to see. Beyond our perception perhaps we really landed on Mars rather than the moon and the moon is made of green cheese.
Person 2: Perhaps, but if you continue to dwell in Neverland you will only encounter frustration in the real world. We have to deal with reality here before we can effectively know a greater one - and there is no evidence that even in the greater reality the moon is made of green cheese.
Person 1: Lack of evidence does not mean a thing is not true.
Note that we are having a similar argument with time.
Dean:
The future is really the present.
But the future has not happened yet and cannot be the present.
Dean:
That just what you perceive and your perception is incomplete. If you could perceive the whole you would see that all is happening now.
But today is happening now and I can read today's newspaper. If tomorrow is happening now I should be able to read that also.
Dean:
You could if you knew how to perceive it.
And how do we do that?
Dean:
We haven't figured it out yet.
Maybe you haven't figured it out because it cannot be done.
Dean:
But you can't prove it cannot be done.
It is proven that some future events are predictable because we can examine present causes and project into the future, but because of free will there are many things not set which are not happening now and cannot be foretold.
Dean:
That's just your opinion. The future is set and has already happened. The New York Times of Jan 1, 2010 is already here in the present.
And where is your evidence of this?
Dean:
Where is your proof that I am wrong?
Well for one thing, of the six billion people on the planet not one has been able to read in exact detail tomorrow's paper let alone one from 2010. I'd say it is much more logical to go with the evidence rather than a view from an alternate reality that you cannot even experience.
Dean:
That fact that six billion people have not done this does not mean it cannot be done.
Sigh. Yes, but to challenge such a belief you should have some logic and reason for doing so. When Columbus thought he could sail around the world he at least had some logical basis and evidence for believing the world was not flat. There is no evidence or logic behind the idea that tomorrow's newspaper is already here.
Dean:
When tomorrow is here then the newspaper will be here and it will be in the present.
That's tomorrow. Today is today and it is not here in today.
Dean:
That is only what you perceive.
And thus we go round and round arguing about some wholeness or alternate reality which cannot be demonstrated, entered or proven by any means available.
How about the soul?, says one.
Yes the soul is a means of proof, but if two people try to reach the soul and disagree then the argument is reduced to reason, experience and logic. If two people are in the soul together they will see the principles governing reality as one and see eye to eye.
I've done a lot of contemplating about time and believe that the Trinity of time, past, present and future do compose a great whole, but this does not make the future the present or the past the future. The whole is like our body who has a left arm (the past) the right arm (future) and the torso (the present).
To say the right arm is the torso makes no sense but to say there is a greater whole (the body) does make sense.
If we cannot agree in the soul we must go by the evidence, logic and reason. This will lead us to the soul and an eventual understanding of the greater whole.
A great problem occurs in seekers when they want to live or dwell in the greater reality before they have mastered this one. We are here to master where we are now, not where we are not.
If a student who has not learned addition tries to dwell on algebra he will learn neither algebra nor addition. He must go back to his point of learning and master reality where he is. Only then can he move on.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick (1928 - 1982)
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved