At the point when the bale lacks enough hay to merely be a pile of hay. When was Tony the tiger not grrrrreat?
Never. Frosted flakes are grrreat! Is it the government that governs the people or the people who govern the government?
No, your memory is a chemical mixture, once you die, it get deteriorated into the soil. If Jesus is the Lamb of God, and Mary had Jesus, did Mary have a little lamb?
Jesus is typified as a lamb because in Jewish culture a lamb is the preferred sacrifice for ones sins. The short answer is yes...I suppose...sort of. If a tree falls in the the forest and nobody is around to hear it...well damn..how the hell do we know the tree fell in the first place? Hmmm...I suppose if you came across the tree walking in the forest you would know but then, you didn't hear it at all..well... Okay, new question...is the "tree falls in the forest" just a really stupid philosophical question?
Here is the philosopher's answer: Yes and no. As an actual matter of course, if we believe in the objective reality of nature as per our senses, then there is no question that a falling tree makes noise, even if no one can hear (or otherwise sense) it. Thus, the question inherent in the "tree" scenario, is whether reality is based on our perception (or perceived perception), or if it is objective. Thus, the philosophy 101 tree scenario is not just a stupid philosopher's question. However, philosophers could have just asked whether there was an objective reality rather than cloaking the question in a stupid tree in a forest scenario. And so, yes, it really is just a stupid philosopher's question.
When you ask "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it?", you are presupposing that trees can fall without being observed, so the question really reduces to a semantic one about the meaning of "making a sound", not a "deep" metaphysical question. If by sound you mean something heard/observed, then no, it does not make a sound. Conversely, if by sound one means the physical process of producing sound waves, the very statement of the question implicitly grants the answer is yes. Now, consider the class of all classes that are not members of themselves. Is that class a member of itself?
But if the class is a member of itself, then the class contains members (namely itself) that is a member of that class. So in that case it does not fit the definition of the class as given: the class that contains classes that are not members of themselves. Good ole Russell paradox!
Time is a series of events which occur. To have happened before the year 1900 would be to say the event occurred before people changed their calendars to the year 1900
Time is an element to f the 4-dimensional space time structure of the physical world, differentiated from space by its sign in generating the Lorentz invariance. The reason we seem puzzled by time and not space is twofold...first, time is oriented in one direction in a way space is not (there is a natural before and after relationship that does not analogies well with the fluidity of left and right or forwards and backwards), and second because many processes in time are asymmetric, such as those of entropic increase, causation, agency (what we do now affects the future but not the past), radiation (waves diverge from a source but never converge on a sink), etc. To some, like Tim Maudlin, this temporal orientability is intrinsic to the nature of the physical world. To others such as David Albert, this is accounted for by a contingent low entropy boundary condition near the Big Bang. To Huw Price, it is the causal/agency asymmetry that is fundamental. Understanding the dependencies and interrelations between all these asymmetries is a major part of current philosophical research
So does individual perception of time become irrelevant or a whole other discussion in the subject of time?