Page 8 of 12
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:49 pm
by jayjacobus
In the course of posting some people misconstrue other posts or they ignore the main point or they go off on a tangent or they write something beside the point or they nitpick or they change their own argument to contradict some point or they use some other trick of logic. I hope that I don't do that. I want my logic to stand up to challenges but I do not want to resort to trickery.
The reason I say that is because my challengers are unlike me in that regard. Their posts will go on forever because they will never give me a fair chance.
Not one person is working with me to improve my logic. All challengers are aiming to shoot holes in my logic. Why is that? Don't they like that I am thinking outside their box? Or is it because I am not an authority in philosophy?
Someone, someday will duplicate my logic and, if he or she is a recognized authority, he/she will be supported. But I won't be.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:07 pm
by jayjacobus
When searching for fallacies in my logic, don't assume I am a pot just because my challengers are black. You might note that I have not dodged their fallacies but taken them head on.
"You are not cogent" is a fact, an opinion, an insult or a fallacy that can't be proven?
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:23 pm
by attofishpi
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:57 pm
attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:05 pm
What is TIME?
What then is a moment in time? In the true sense of the word, in a single moment in time there is nothing moving.
For isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
TIME...reversed...EMIT
www.androcies.com
If there are frames in a movie and each frame is not moving, does that mean the movie does not exist? If there isn't time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no time. But I suggest that there are two (or more) meanings of the word time and thinking there is only one leads to circular reasoning.
In the sentence, " If there isn't time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no time." there is no sense unless the first time is time1 and the second time is time2 or vice versus. Time1 and time2 are not the same time at different points but instead two different connotations of the word time.
Sorry for delay had missed this thread entirely.
Yes movement could be an incorrect word to use here since we are talking about events at the most finite scale within the sub-atomic 'matter'.
You do understand my point:-
..isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:32 pm
by surreptitious57
One of the definitions of time is indeed the passing of an event so this is true
An other is the distance between events and those are the two standard ones
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:37 pm
by jayjacobus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:23 pm
Sorry for delay had missed this thread entirely.
Yes movement could be an incorrect word to use here since we are talking about events at the most finite scale within the sub-atomic 'matter'.
You do understand my point:-
..isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
That would be relational time.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:42 pm
by jayjacobus
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:32 pm
One of the definitions of time is indeed the passing of an event so this is true
An other is the distance between events and those are the two standard ones
If time only has one definition, the discussion is limited and the subject is clear. But time has other definitions and the subject is not clear.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:55 pm
by jayjacobus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:23 pm
Sorry for delay had missed this thread entirely.
Yes movement could be an incorrect word to use here since we are talking about events at the most finite scale within the sub-atomic 'matter'.
You do understand my point:-
..isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
Relational time is related to movement and consequentially to events.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:45 pm
by jayjacobus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:23 pm
Sorry for delay had missed this thread entirely.
Yes movement could be an incorrect word to use here since we are talking about events at the most finite scale within the sub-atomic 'matter'.
You do understand my point:-
..isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
Time is not the occurrence of events in the sense of dates. Time is a frame of reference. Time refers to events but is not events themselves.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:47 pm
by jayjacobus
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:23 pm
Sorry for delay had missed this thread entirely.
Yes movement could be an incorrect word to use here since we are talking about events at the most finite scale within the sub-atomic 'matter'.
You do understand my point:-
..isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc
Time is not the occurrence of events in the sense of dates. Time is a frame of reference. Time refers to events but is not events themselves. It is possible to confuse time as a reference with time passing but they are not the same definition.
If I didn't point this out at first, it is because their are two misconceptions and I wanted to address each separately. Events are related to time because of motion and time, as a different definition, is related to events by reference. Events, once they occur don't move.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:57 pm
by jayjacobus
Perhaps I can make myself clear by discussing reference.
A distance exists and can be seen but the amount of distance is not seen. A feet is not a distance itself by the reference to a distance. Distance is defined as an amount of space between two objects but that is indefinite without some way of specifying what the amount of space is. So we REFER to amount of space with feet, yards and miles.
The same is true of money. I can have an amount of dollars but not refer to them with a number. Saying 7 dollars doesn't effect the amount. It only enumerates the amount. 7 is for reference. 7 isn't a substance nor is it an amount. But it often does refer to an amount and an object (which has substance). But 7 doesn't have to refer to money. It can refer to many other things So 7 is a reference point, not an object and although it seems like an amount it only refers to an amount.
An event occurs without a date. But assigning (or noting) a date refers to a point in a sequence of points. But it isn't the actual point (event). It is a reference to the event. Dates form a frame of reference for events. It is possible to devise a different frame of reference which only shows that a frame of reference is devised not natural.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:31 pm
by jayjacobus
All frames of reference must make sense and they do except for one. The frame of reference for time makes sense. But you cannot change the frame of reference and say you have changed time. But that is exactly what the physicists have done with block time. They have changed time by changing the frame of reference. They cannot prove their wild guess.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:23 pm
by jayjacobus
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:57 pm
Perhaps I can make myself clear by discussing reference.
A distance exists and can be seen but the amount of distance is not seen. A feet is not a distance itself by the reference to a distance. Distance is defined as an amount of space between two objects but that is indefinite without some way of specifying what the amount of space is. So we REFER to amount of space with feet, yards and miles.
The same is true of money. I can have an amount of dollars but not refer to them with a number. Saying 7 dollars doesn't effect the amount. It only enumerates the amount. 7 is for reference. 7 isn't a substance nor is it an amount. But it often does refer to an amount and an object (which has substance). But 7 doesn't have to refer to money. It can refer to many other things So 7 is a reference point, not an object and although it seems like an amount it only refers to an amount.
An event occurs without a date. But assigning (or noting) a date refers to a point in a sequence of points. But it isn't the actual point (event). It is a reference to the event. Dates form a frame of reference for events. It is possible to devise a different frame of reference which only shows that a frame of reference is devised not natural.
Color is not an object nor is it an energy. Colors are appearances. Red is an appearance. Without the appearance of red, the apple would still exist and light waves would still exist but red wouldn't because red is only an appearance. The appearance of red is for reference and colors form a fame of reference. If this is a device, it is a natural device.
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:35 pm
by surreptitious57
Colour is referenced by particular wavelength frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum
Altogether there are seven different ones which make up white light and one of them is red
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:44 pm
by jayjacobus
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:35 pm
Colour is referenced by particular wavelength frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum
Altogether there are seven different ones which make up white light and one of them is red
Wavelengths might be thought of as a reference for some instruments but they are not detected by people. Appearances are seen by people. Colors are appearances. Saying that wavelengths appear to be colors is not true. Wavelengths don't have appearances. This is not to say that there isn't a correlation between wavelengths and colors but they are not synonyms. If they are not synonyms as I propose, can you differentiate between the two terms?
Re: Seeing Time
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:57 pm
by jayjacobus
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:44 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:35 pm
Colour is referenced by particular wavelength frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum
Altogether there are seven different ones which make up white light and one of them is red
Wavelengths might be thought of as a reference for some instruments but they are not detected by people. Appearances are seen by people. Colors are appearances. Saying that wavelengths appear to be colors is not true. Wavelengths don't have appearances. This is not to say that there isn't a correlation between wavelengths and colors but they are not synonyms. If they are not synonyms as I propose, can you differentiate between the two terms?
Animals use colors as a frame of reference and no other way. Humans have other ways to use colors but they still use colors as a frame of reference.
Animals don't use wavelengths in any way. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Calling the effect by the causes name (or vice versus) is a fallacy in your logic.