• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Objects in Mirror
A classic example of... well, bovine excrement.
This guy seems to be set on the difference between "are closer" and "may be closer". He attributes this to "different realities".
But they aren't. Both are perfectly valid at the same time. It's just a different way of phrasing.

Then he mentions the Meat Loaf song... which states exactly the opposite of what this phrase says. But with all the other memes and jokes he presents, he ignores that this is a deliberate conversion of that phrase... interestingly aiming at the very phenomenon we are talking about: that memory is not precise or even true.

So, nothing in that video is "picture of an old reality"... it is just people confusing things.

What a "real" picture of an old reality would be:
One image of a rear view mirror saying one thing... and another image of the exact same mirror saying the other.
But this kind of evidence never comes up. It's always "oh, I remember it being different." But that's the question here: "is your memory correct?"
And you have constantly failed to show that the memory IS correct.

So... no points. Try again.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Objects in Mirror
Again, just "memories" and "I knew this by heart". No evidence.
And even if you could present images of the different text... it would be only evidence for a difference in THE TEXT.
In order to present evidence for a "changed reality", you would have to provide a verifiable image of the same object with the changed text... and then demonstarte that the object itself wasn't changed.

As an example: I (vaguely) remember a certain version of the first "Star Wars" movie. Many people remember a different version... because there are different versions. Reality hasn't changed... just the movie has had a new version.
If I wanted to claim that the movie that I saw has changed... the evidence I would have to present would have to be something like a photograph in my collection showing me watching the original Star Wars together with my friends... and a photograph in my friends collection from the same showing... featuring a different version of the movie.

Not some "But my memory cannot be wrong because I remember it so clearly".
Fact is: especially BECAUSE you think you remember it so clearly, it may be wrong. Because that is the way our memory works. It is not a recording... it is a reconstruction.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Remembering so clearly is remembering clearly

Not misremembering
That's false. Because that's not how memory works.
It's already problematic for very close events. But this problem is only increased by temporal distance. Memories are reconstructed, and you take elements of other things into them. Narratives, outside informations... songs... affirmations.

You don't have anything except the claim of "this memory isn't false", and you use it to construct a whole new different reality around it.
But be honest: is human error -even shared human errors - not "simpler" as an explanation that a shifting reality?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Can a shifting reality be possible?

Unlikely. Even in the multiverse hypothesis, reality doesn't "shift".
But the real question you are asking here is of course: can a shifting reality be possible that includes people who do not shift with it.
Because that version always comes down to people's perception of reality "shifting"... it is a simpler and much more likely explanation that it is indeed only the perception that is "shifting"... and not reality itself.
If that was indeed the case... it would render the term "reality" itself meaningless.



Can a time loop be possible?
No. Or if it was, it would render itself meaningless. "Time" is measured by events. Without events, there is no time. If time could "loop", it would mean that some events didn't happen... and if they didn't happen, then there was no time to loop.
And if they still happened... time didn't loop.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Anything is possible
See... this is the problem why I stopped talking to you, and why I am about to regret having started to do so again.

You have nothing of substance to offer but vague claims and memes and "people said so". And when you are confronted with some meaningful objection to your claims... you simply fall back to even more simple claims.

That's kindergarden niveau. "It's not! Is too! Is not! Is too!"

Well... if "anything is possible"... then it is also possible that shifting realities and time loops are just imaginary. And instead of the question of "what is true", it comes down to "what is more likely", "what is more in line with the other things we perceive about our world" and "what would it even mean otherwise".

In your OP here you asked what time loop would mean for me.
Well... nothing. Because as I explained in my last post... a "time loop" would mean that events didn't happen. Something that didn't happen has no meaning.
If you were to consider this, you would have to agree. Your whole view that you presented here only makes sense if these events from the "looped time" still did happen, and you could remember them. Which would mean time didn't loop.
 
Upvote 0

JohnEmmett

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2017
5,189
484
Salt Lake City
Visit site
✟147,079.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Celibate
a "time loop" would mean that events didn't happen. Something that didn't happen has no meaning.

This timeline has led to our development


We will be better for it


Like the movie Groundhog Day for example

~
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

This timeline has led to our development


We will be better for it


Like the movie Groundhog Day for example

~
The prime fact about the move "Groundhog Day" is that it is a movie. A story. Fiction.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist

Nothing compares to the difficulty of an actual time loop
Oh, there's a lot of stuff that compares to that. There's even more that you use to compare it when you realize that you have never explained how an "actual time loop" would be or how it would work or how difficult it would be.
Which means, you can state anything, literally anything, and have it much more difficult than a time loop. Because without having an idea of the one, you can simply claim the other is "more difficult".

No. The problem with all the fictional examples you cite is always: stories are not real. Stories can be strange or not... which only says something about the expectation of the audience.
But stories can contradict. They can contradict themselves. Reality never does.

The time loop - even in "Groundhog Day" - is a self-contradicting concept. They story can get away with that contradiction, because it it's just a story. It gets away with it, because it simply doesn't attempt to offer a consistent explanation.
But reality never contradicts itself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.