tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post351023098864581196..comments2023-10-26T14:41:46.244+02:00Comments on What is Written...: On Metaphysics of TimeDr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-45205023016332170422013-02-09T14:56:12.489+01:002013-02-09T14:56:12.489+01:00To the Block Theory that seems nutty to me in the ...To the Block Theory that seems nutty to me in the first place, I can now present mBlock Theory/4-Block Theory with paleontology and archiology in hand too, we list it as:<br />- a three/four part theory<br />1. Pre-history writing by the old documents, that is, the time given by C-14 and scientific theories like the Big Bang Theory.<br />2. The written history as old documents.<br />3. Another block that builds up/runs with history, also today, the present time, that is, the history from O BCE to today, 2013.<br />4. The last block as prediction Block, but not... (see my resolution of Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel)<br />I do not account for the aspects of sentient life after the sentient life of human kind in case one would wish to pursue hypothetical aspects of sentient life after the eradication of human kind.Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-82080319994344187312012-11-20T20:17:15.788+01:002012-11-20T20:17:15.788+01:00Considering my Time theory of metaphysics, "T...Considering my Time theory of metaphysics, "Time slashing McTaggart-Time", I have to write to you, after a shamefully long time gone by, that George Berkeley of Canterbury is the actual inspiration to slashing McTaggart´s time-dichotomy, when I think about it, because as you know, Berkeley has had this "objective" insistence too, that his theory would fit for all and only God could "be for real". However, this does not rule out others, like Merleau-Ponty (by his friend standing on a hill)!<br /><br />(First to my Facebook profile just moments ago.)Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-33223977369122020032012-04-04T13:36:33.115+02:002012-04-04T13:36:33.115+02:00Some more notice on 13,7 Bn years of age by Univer...Some more notice on 13,7 Bn years of age by Universe:<br />Upon writing 13,7 Bn years as the age of the Universe, I now declare my own value to be 14,5627426 Bn years instead of, let's say, 16,7 or 16,4 Bn years. The foundation for this lies in...<br />24 February at 21:37<br /><br />the Hubble constant (H) that is H = (15 - 25) km/s per Million light years ... Not only this, but...<br />24 February at 21:39<br /><br />...I happen to have a book on Physics, "Rom, Stoff, Tid, 3FY by Øgrim, Ormestad, Lunde and 2 others written in 1991 and published by Cappelen! This book has a (standard) Astrophysics chapter that contains the above information. Probably all other World GCSE students share this with me so I'm not anything unique, but the above number of 14,5... ! Good?<br />24 February at 21:43<br /><br />The book itself defines the scope of valid numbers by the above constant to appx. 12 - 20 Billion years! But you can calculate the exact numbers yourself...<br />24 February at 21:45<br /><br />I'll give you some basic formula: t (time) = d (distance) / (div. on) v (speed) = d / H d = 1 / H = so and so, put in for constant scope!<br />24 February at 22:00<br /><br />...or your favourite estimate...!<br />24 February at 22:00<br /><br />In this book there are also two other notes based on estimated "life" spans of the Universe: 1. Theories on stars' life and development gives a closer scope of 15 plus/minus 3 Bn years. 2. Studies of radioactive materials in meteorites gives us the same as above...<br />24 February at 22:03<br /><br />So the scientific consensus doesn't lie at 16,7 but rather at something like 15! (Shame on you, you t*rd scientists!)<br />24 February at 22:04<br /><br />Or I'll make it 14,7 + some as my 2nd favourite...!<br />24 February at 22:36 · Like<br /><br />Again to Facebook as noted.Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-5580867829532392462012-04-04T13:33:54.739+02:002012-04-04T13:33:54.739+02:00After some "thoughts" it may be that my ...After some "thoughts" it may be that my exact launching of the Time.html of 2001 and the Time theory of metaphysics lies at 21. Jan. 2001, some eleven years ago!<br />Note: a notice made to Facebook 24. February at 22:08.Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-37318706897510775092012-04-04T13:29:37.445+02:002012-04-04T13:29:37.445+02:00Also, it is plain that the Elusive Present is not ...Also, it is plain that the Elusive Present is not so elusive as we always "stand in it" to say it with Heraclitus... Time flows itself, but we float with it as well...Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-29240661167864877212012-04-04T13:28:23.583+02:002012-04-04T13:28:23.583+02:00Regarding time as moving forward, that I write und...Regarding time as moving forward, that I write under my Time of Metaphysics, I have now added "steadily moving forward within a very small fraction of change, possibly, yet to determine, each year for our Sun time, in being Earth years from this Sun time"!<br />Note: Written to Facebook 1. March at 00:48 (CET?).Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3767439602878972356.post-54042499521455325602012-04-04T13:24:18.331+02:002012-04-04T13:24:18.331+02:00My mentioning of Block Time Theory and Eternalism ...My mentioning of Block Time Theory and Eternalism may require a definition of them that are uniquely suitable for my Time theory. It's questioned whether time stops when or if (/this/) human kind is no more and if another human kind (equivalent) arises elsewhere in the Universe and whether this /new/ human kind discovers or not that another human kind has lived (us) in the Universe... This is all theory and my time theory may not exactly fit the two concepts that are mentioned by my time theory, thus requiring this adjustment of them, not the other way around, that I change my description of my time theory!!! This is merely a notice...<br />Note: First written to Facebook, 9 March at 05:43 (CET?).Dr. Lukas F. Olsnes-Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588900299772602295noreply@blogger.com