What is meant by 'JUST'.

What is meant by 'Just'...

Throughout this website, and the book and videos, i am asking the question

"what if things 'just' exist, move, change and interact?" 

So to avoid confusion and ambiguity (features that are all too present in most discussions about 'time'), we should be as clear as possible as to what is meant by the word 'Just' throughout this work.

Like many words, 'just' can have different precise meanings, and these meanings can depend on the context in which it is used.

In this work, I do not mean 'just' as in that is 'all' that things do, as  'things Just exist'. Or 'I just sat down' as opposed to 'I sat down and made a phone call while reading a paper'. But instead I mean 'Just' as in 'as actually directly observed by ourselves'.

to clarify, consider the two sentences

  1. Things seem to 'just' exist.
  2. Things exist 'over an invisible, and intangible, thing called time'

Sentence 1 might not seem to be very fulfilling in a scientific way, but while sentence 2 seems to contain more of a (scientific) explanation of how things 'exist', it can be seen to actually do no such thing unless the existence of 'time' or its function, or 'components' has actually been proven elsewhere in some way.

Consider also the following 'logic'.

I cannot explain how 'things', let alone the entire universe exist... therefore... an intangible thing called 'time' must exist, and must be needed for other things to be able to exist.

Hopefully you can see that whether time exists or not, the above 'logic' is not a proof of times existence. In other words, claiming 'time', and the future and the past (or any combination) 'exists' because 'things exist' is incongruent. This is especially true, if our reason for assuming 'objects cannot just exist' is because we have an already biased view that time exists, based on other false assumptions. (For example that our 'memories' prove that time exists - see >> - 'X'-plaining away 'The past'.)

Furthermore, whether I can explain how or why the entire universe seems to exist, is ultimately irrelevant... the observed fact is that the universe seems to 'just' exist, and objects within it seem to just exist. Anyone suggesting objects must also exist 'over time' should be able to provide firstly, a valid initial reason for assuming 'time' exist, and secondly, some experimental proof of times existence, components or function.

(see>> ∆-4 The onus of proof.

and

∆ 2 Kilometres yes, Hours no..

)



xxx to add, definitons of 'actually' 'now' etc

Comments