How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:47 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:00 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:06 pm

No. Time is an entity that allows change or motion. Change is different from motion. Change refers to two different states of affairs that one comes after another. Motion is the process of reaching from one state of affair to another one.
Do you have any examples of these supposed "different states of affairs"?
Like two positions of a billiard ball on a table. The ball in the first position on the table is the first state of affair and the ball in the second position is the second state of affair.
Besides the fact that there is ONLY One 'state' of 'change', which actually occurs, how could this change NOT occur if 'time' did NOT exist?

You will have to explain to us what this 'entity', which you call 'time', actually IS. Then AFTER you do that then you will have to explain HOW this 'entity' affects the change. That is if you want me to understand what it is that you are 'trying to' say is true and real.
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:00 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:06 pm
A sate is only a point of existence. It doesn't move. You get from one point of existence to another one when you move. This process is continuous.
Any examples?
Like the ball in the first position. That is one state.
Okay.

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:44 pm
Will you provide examples of these 'static forms', which you see?
Any phenomenon composed of infinite change.

Waves.
Brancning.
Spirals.
Spheres.
Angles

All found in nature.


Thus static is infinite change, change is multiple static states, static is infinite static states (infinite multiplicity as no multiplicity) and change is multiple infinite states (finite number of infinities as multiplicity).

Phenomenon are static and dynamic.
This seems a rather confusing way for you to assert that 'time' is an actual thing, which really is just another assumption of yours anyway.

Obviously ALL assumptions could be WRONG to start with anyway also.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4948
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:15 pm


Will you provide examples of these 'static forms', which you see?
Any phenomenon composed of infinite change.

Waves.
Brancning.
Spirals.
Spheres.
Angles

All found in nature.


Thus static is infinite change, change is multiple static states, static is infinite static states (infinite multiplicity as no multiplicity) and change is multiple infinite states (finite number of infinities as multiplicity).

Phenomenon are static and dynamic.
This seems a rather confusing way for you to assert that 'time' is an actual thing, which really is just another assumption of yours anyway.

Obviously ALL assumptions could be WRONG to start with anyway also.
Knowing things can be wrong to as it is subject to personal perceptions. Knowing can be false as it is subject to point of view.

Actually it is not confusing. If time exists in static states we are left questioning what static is and we are left with continual change.

If we have continual change we are left with trying to understand what it is and are left with static states.

It is circular, and both exist in some manner as assumed from nothing....they just appear as concepts, minimum. The question is seeing how they are defined.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:57 am

Eodnhoj wrote:
Thus static is infinite change - change is multiple static states - static is infinite static states ( infinite multiplicity as no multiplicity )
and change is multiple infinite states ( finite number of infinities as multiplicity )
There cannot be absolutely true static within an ever changing Universe
So some things will therefore only appear static relative to other things

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:34 pm


Any phenomenon composed of infinite change.

Waves.
Brancning.
Spirals.
Spheres.
Angles

All found in nature.


Thus static is infinite change, change is multiple static states, static is infinite static states (infinite multiplicity as no multiplicity) and change is multiple infinite states (finite number of infinities as multiplicity).

Phenomenon are static and dynamic.
This seems a rather confusing way for you to assert that 'time' is an actual thing, which really is just another assumption of yours anyway.

Obviously ALL assumptions could be WRONG to start with anyway also.
Knowing things can be wrong to as it is subject to personal perceptions. Knowing can be false as it is subject to point of view.
But, to you, there is NO such thing as knowing, as EVERY thing is just an assumption anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
Actually it is not confusing. If time exists in static states we are left questioning what static is and we are left with continual change.
You may be left questioning such things.

Let us KNOW when you find thee answer to those types of questions, which you make.

But to me it is OBVIOUS that 'time' does NOT exist in "static states", and just as OBVIOUS is there is NOT a number of "static states". There is, however, thee One OBVIOUS 'static state' of constant-change, which is OBVIOUSLY 'eternal' also. Thee Universe IS in a static state of change. It could NOT, OBVIOUSLY, be in any other way.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
If we have continual change we are left with trying to understand what it is and are left with static states.
I am NOT left trying to understand any such thing.

I ALREADY KNOW and UNDERSTAND.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
It is circular, and both exist in some manner as assumed from nothing....they just appear as concepts, minimum. The question is seeing how they are defined.
The question, about how things are defined, is WHY I continually ask 'you', people, How are you defining the particular words you use? This actual question, by the way, is rarely ever responded to.

Once the definitions are brought out in the OPEN and thus able to be LOOKED AT FULLY, and thus then FULLY understood, THEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still confused on quite a few issues, are still searching answers, and are still seeking the truth of things, will be much better understood AND KNOWN.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4948
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:59 am

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:16 am


This seems a rather confusing way for you to assert that 'time' is an actual thing, which really is just another assumption of yours anyway.

Obviously ALL assumptions could be WRONG to start with anyway also.
Knowing things can be wrong to as it is subject to personal perceptions. Knowing can be false as it is subject to point of view.
But, to you, there is NO such thing as knowing, as EVERY thing is just an assumption anyway.

I assume knowing, and assumption exists as we assume it...so yes knowing exists.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
Actually it is not confusing. If time exists in static states we are left questioning what static is and we are left with continual change.
You may be left questioning such things.

Let us KNOW when you find thee answer to those types of questions, which you make.

I already stated them, and you said it was confusing. Why is it confusing, because the argument is looped. Even if I expressed in a point by point basis we are left with points reference previous points and beginning a new loop from there. If you do not believe me then just look at a dictionary and see how definitions work....repeated loops or you could say spirals.

But to me it is OBVIOUS that 'time' does NOT exist in "static states", and just as OBVIOUS is there is NOT a number of "static states". There is, however, thee One OBVIOUS 'static state' of constant-change, which is OBVIOUSLY 'eternal' also. Thee Universe IS in a static state of change. It could NOT, OBVIOUSLY, be in any other way.

Actually if you look at a rock it is still, it is composed of movements we cannot see. If you look at the particles that form it, when they are localized, again they are composed of movements you cannot see...and we are left with point particles until the next particle is discovered.

All still phenomenon are composed of movements. Even if I took a particle and measured it in a state where it is still and everything else around it is moving (as stillness is relative) we are left with it composed of further static entities when they are localized in the same manner.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
If we have continual change we are left with trying to understand what it is and are left with static states.
I am NOT left trying to understand any such thing.

I ALREADY KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

No you don't, you think you know...but you know nothing but word games...you know images that is it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
It is circular, and both exist in some manner as assumed from nothing....they just appear as concepts, minimum. The question is seeing how they are defined.
The question, about how things are defined, is WHY I continually ask 'you', people, How are you defining the particular words you use? This actual question, by the way, is rarely ever responded to.

I made a thread about it already in the general section.

How do you define the words you use?


Once the definitions are brought out in the OPEN and thus able to be LOOKED AT FULLY, and thus then FULLY understood, THEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still confused on quite a few issues, are still searching answers, and are still seeking the truth of things, will be much better understood AND KNOWN.

No sh"t. Define "fully".

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:59 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am


Knowing things can be wrong to as it is subject to personal perceptions. Knowing can be false as it is subject to point of view.
But, to you, there is NO such thing as knowing, as EVERY thing is just an assumption anyway.

I assume knowing, and assumption exists as we assume it...so yes knowing exists.

I ALREADY KNEW that 'you', "eodnhoj7", does this sort of thing. This is WHY I stated what I did. You are just agreeing with me here, which you did NOT have to. You ASSUME that 'knowing' exists. 'you' OBVIOUSLY could NOT assert that 'knowing' exists, because 'you', "eodnhoj7", ASSUME absolutely EVERY thing. And, we all here KNOW that 'ASSUMPTIONS' can very well be completely or partly WRONG.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
Actually it is not confusing. If time exists in static states we are left questioning what static is and we are left with continual change.
You may be left questioning such things.

Let us KNOW when you find thee answer to those types of questions, which you make.

I already stated them, and you said it was confusing.

I think you have misunderstood me here, once again. I said that the way you are 'TRYING TO' assert that 'time' is an actual THING seems, to me, to be a rather confusing way to go about it.

Why NOT just explain What 'time' IS actually?

Why is it confusing, because the argument is looped.

But what is 'it', which you say is confusing?

I think you will find that that 'it' is NOT the 'it' that I was referring to.

Even if I expressed in a point by point basis we are left with points reference previous points and beginning a new loop from there. If you do not believe me then just look at a dictionary and see how definitions work....repeated loops or you could say spirals.

Why do you seemingly always WANT TO go back to EVERY thing is looped in assumptions?

What is the actual point of just expressing what you BELIEVE is the truth of things?

But to me it is OBVIOUS that 'time' does NOT exist in "static states", and just as OBVIOUS is there is NOT a number of "static states". There is, however, thee One OBVIOUS 'static state' of constant-change, which is OBVIOUSLY 'eternal' also. Thee Universe IS in a static state of change. It could NOT, OBVIOUSLY, be in any other way.

Actually if you look at a rock it is still,

LOL

You can tell us what you see when you LOOK AT some thing. But please do NOT tell me what I see when I LOOK AT things.

When I LOOK AT a 'rock' I SEE change.

As I have said a few times ALREADY: Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

it is composed of movements we cannot see.

But I actually do SEE them. This is because 'I' do NOT LOOK AT and OBSERVE things the way 'you', human beings, do.

'I' SEE what IS, whereas 'you', adult human beings, mostly SEE what you WANT TO SEE. This is sometimes known as 'confirmation bias' or just ' 'trying to' support your own already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS'.

If you look at the particles that form it, when they are localized, again they are composed of movements you cannot see...

Hang on. How do you KNOW there are movements if you can NOT see them.

Also, you saying there is 'movement' COMPLETELY contradicts your previous statement about " 'it' is still".

This contradicting yourself and NOT actually able to describe nor define the words you use, seems to be a very common occurrence with 'you', when I ask for clarify about what it IS, which you are 'trying to' argue for.

and we are left with point particles until the next particle is discovered.

That may be what 'you' are left with. BUT, it is NOT what I am left with.

All still phenomenon are composed of movements.


LOL

To me, there is NO still phenomenon. This, as already stated, is because 'I' OBSERVE and SEE things differently than 'you' do.

Even if I took a particle and measured it in a state where it is still and everything else around it is moving (as stillness is relative) we are left with it composed of further static entities when they are localized in the same manner.

Are you 'trying to' now argue that there is NOT change and there is stillness or that there is NOT stillness and there is change?

And, either way, how and when are you going to get back to 'trying to' argue that 'time' is some actual THING?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
If we have continual change we are left with trying to understand what it is and are left with static states.


I am NOT left trying to understand any such thing.

I ALREADY KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

No you don't, you think you know...but you know nothing but word games...you know images that is it.

Remember that this HAS TO BE your ASSUMPTION only, and ALL ASSUMPTIONS can be completely or partly WRONG. Therefore, this and EVERY thing else you say could be completely or partly WRONG.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
It is circular, and both exist in some manner as assumed from nothing....they just appear as concepts, minimum. The question is seeing how they are defined.


The question, about how things are defined, is WHY I continually ask 'you', people, How are you defining the particular words you use? This actual question, by the way, is rarely ever responded to.

I made a thread about it already in the general section.

How do you define the words you use?


Which particular word?

Once the definitions are brought out in the OPEN and thus able to be LOOKED AT FULLY, and thus then FULLY understood, THEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still confused on quite a few issues, are still searching answers, and are still seeking the truth of things, will be much better understood AND KNOWN.

No sh"t. Define "fully".

[/quote]

Completely or entirely; to the absolute extent.

How do you define the word 'fully'?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4948
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:50 am

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:59 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:49 am


But, to you, there is NO such thing as knowing, as EVERY thing is just an assumption anyway.

I assume knowing, and assumption exists as we assume it...so yes knowing exists.

I ALREADY KNEW that 'you', "eodnhoj7", does this sort of thing. This is WHY I stated what I did. You are just agreeing with me here, which you did NOT have to. You ASSUME that 'knowing' exists. 'you' OBVIOUSLY could NOT assert that 'knowing' exists, because 'you', "eodnhoj7", ASSUME absolutely EVERY thing. And, we all here KNOW that 'ASSUMPTIONS' can very well be completely or partly WRONG.



You may be left questioning such things.

Let us KNOW when you find thee answer to those types of questions, which you make.

I already stated them, and you said it was confusing.

I think you have misunderstood me here, once again. I said that the way you are 'TRYING TO' assert that 'time' is an actual THING seems, to me, to be a rather confusing way to go about it.

Why NOT just explain What 'time' IS actually?

Why is it confusing, because the argument is looped.

But what is 'it', which you say is confusing?

I think you will find that that 'it' is NOT the 'it' that I was referring to.

Even if I expressed in a point by point basis we are left with points reference previous points and beginning a new loop from there. If you do not believe me then just look at a dictionary and see how definitions work....repeated loops or you could say spirals.

Why do you seemingly always WANT TO go back to EVERY thing is looped in assumptions?

What is the actual point of just expressing what you BELIEVE is the truth of things?

But to me it is OBVIOUS that 'time' does NOT exist in "static states", and just as OBVIOUS is there is NOT a number of "static states". There is, however, thee One OBVIOUS 'static state' of constant-change, which is OBVIOUSLY 'eternal' also. Thee Universe IS in a static state of change. It could NOT, OBVIOUSLY, be in any other way.

Actually if you look at a rock it is still,

LOL

You can tell us what you see when you LOOK AT some thing. But please do NOT tell me what I see when I LOOK AT things.

When I LOOK AT a 'rock' I SEE change.

As I have said a few times ALREADY: Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

it is composed of movements we cannot see.

But I actually do SEE them. This is because 'I' do NOT LOOK AT and OBSERVE things the way 'you', human beings, do.

'I' SEE what IS, whereas 'you', adult human beings, mostly SEE what you WANT TO SEE. This is sometimes known as 'confirmation bias' or just ' 'trying to' support your own already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS'.

If you look at the particles that form it, when they are localized, again they are composed of movements you cannot see...

Hang on. How do you KNOW there are movements if you can NOT see them.

Also, you saying there is 'movement' COMPLETELY contradicts your previous statement about " 'it' is still".

This contradicting yourself and NOT actually able to describe nor define the words you use, seems to be a very common occurrence with 'you', when I ask for clarify about what it IS, which you are 'trying to' argue for.

and we are left with point particles until the next particle is discovered.

That may be what 'you' are left with. BUT, it is NOT what I am left with.

All still phenomenon are composed of movements.


LOL

To me, there is NO still phenomenon. This, as already stated, is because 'I' OBSERVE and SEE things differently than 'you' do.

Even if I took a particle and measured it in a state where it is still and everything else around it is moving (as stillness is relative) we are left with it composed of further static entities when they are localized in the same manner.

Are you 'trying to' now argue that there is NOT change and there is stillness or that there is NOT stillness and there is change?

And, either way, how and when are you going to get back to 'trying to' argue that 'time' is some actual THING?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
If we have continual change we are left with trying to understand what it is and are left with static states.


I am NOT left trying to understand any such thing.

I ALREADY KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

No you don't, you think you know...but you know nothing but word games...you know images that is it.

Remember that this HAS TO BE your ASSUMPTION only, and ALL ASSUMPTIONS can be completely or partly WRONG. Therefore, this and EVERY thing else you say could be completely or partly WRONG.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:52 am
It is circular, and both exist in some manner as assumed from nothing....they just appear as concepts, minimum. The question is seeing how they are defined.


The question, about how things are defined, is WHY I continually ask 'you', people, How are you defining the particular words you use? This actual question, by the way, is rarely ever responded to.

I made a thread about it already in the general section.

How do you define the words you use?


Which particular word?

Once the definitions are brought out in the OPEN and thus able to be LOOKED AT FULLY, and thus then FULLY understood, THEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still confused on quite a few issues, are still searching answers, and are still seeking the truth of things, will be much better understood AND KNOWN.

No sh"t. Define "fully".



Completely or entirely; to the absolute extent.

How do you define the word 'fully'?
[/quote]
And how do you define each word of "completely or entirely; to the absolute extent"?

And yes that includes how you define the word "or"...I mean all of them.

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:07 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:50 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:59 am


LOL

To me, there is NO still phenomenon. This, as already stated, is because 'I' OBSERVE and SEE things differently than 'you' do.

Even if I took a particle and measured it in a state where it is still and everything else around it is moving (as stillness is relative) we are left with it composed of further static entities when they are localized in the same manner.

Are you 'trying to' now argue that there is NOT change and there is stillness or that there is NOT stillness and there is change?

And, either way, how and when are you going to get back to 'trying to' argue that 'time' is some actual THING?



I am NOT left trying to understand any such thing.

I ALREADY KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

No you don't, you think you know...but you know nothing but word games...you know images that is it.

Remember that this HAS TO BE your ASSUMPTION only, and ALL ASSUMPTIONS can be completely or partly WRONG. Therefore, this and EVERY thing else you say could be completely or partly WRONG.



The question, about how things are defined, is WHY I continually ask 'you', people, How are you defining the particular words you use? This actual question, by the way, is rarely ever responded to.

I made a thread about it already in the general section.

How do you define the words you use?


Which particular word?

Once the definitions are brought out in the OPEN and thus able to be LOOKED AT FULLY, and thus then FULLY understood, THEN the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still confused on quite a few issues, are still searching answers, and are still seeking the truth of things, will be much better understood AND KNOWN.

No sh"t. Define "fully".
Completely or entirely; to the absolute extent.

How do you define the word 'fully'?
And how do you define each word of "completely or entirely; to the absolute extent"?

And yes that includes how you define the word "or"...I mean all of them.
[/quote]

After I do that; How long do you want to go for and/or how many words do you want to go through?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4948
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:15 am

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:50 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:36 am
Completely or entirely; to the absolute extent.

How do you define the word 'fully'?
And how do you define each word of "completely or entirely; to the absolute extent"?

And yes that includes how you define the word "or"...I mean all of them.
After I do that; How long do you want to go for and/or how many words do you want to go through?
[/quote]
Define it since you know it, I never said it would continue or not continue after that...I said define them...unless that is you don't know them.

Age
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Age » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:15 am
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:50 am


Completely or entirely; to the absolute extent.

How do you define the word 'fully'?
And how do you define each word of "completely or entirely; to the absolute extent"?

And yes that includes how you define the word "or"...I mean all of them.
After I do that; How long do you want to go for and/or how many words do you want to go through?
Define it since you know it, [/quote]

What is with the ordering attitude?

Also, you order me to define some things, and thus show an expectation of me to do define things, YET I asked you how do you define one word, and you have NOT done it. Some might see this as being very contradictory behavior from you.

'completely', having all parts or elements, lacking nothing.
'or', introducing a synonym of a preceding word.
'entirely', reached wholly.
'to', toward a point or a position.
'the', used to mark the noun.
'absolute', free from restriction or limitation.
'extent', the degree to some thing's furthermost point.

Also, what has defining these words exactly got to do with how you BELIEVE 'time' is an actual thing, which exists?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:15 am
I never said it would continue or not continue after that...
I KNOW you never said this. This is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS. It is, by the way, also NOT an assumption at all, to me anyway, nor an assumption made by me. It is a KNOWING, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT an ASSUMPTION at all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:15 am
I said define them...unless that is you don't know them.
Again, what is with the ordering?

I have ALREADY defined them.

Also, you NEVER used the words thus NEVER said, "define them" at all. This is just another example of another WRONG assumption, which you have made.

What you did say was, "And how do you define each word of "completely or entirely; to the absolute extent"?" This is clearly evidenced and proved and thus NOT an assumption at all. It is just some thing else that I ALREADY KNEW.

By the way, how is me defining these words in connection to the fact that there is NO such thing as 'time' other than that 'time' is just a word made up and used word by 'you', human beings, to describe when you are taking measurements of apparent differences to 'you', human beings?

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by Cerveny » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:48 pm

The time is a macroscopic entity. Quantum (micro) mechanics “works” inside the Planck’s time interval/tick only, inside the Time of Now. It “operates” on the History surface. Every quantum interaction (“measurement”) localy fixes / setles new Planck’s time layer / sediment of the History (it glues new crystal layer to the History)...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by bahman » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:48 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:55 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:54 pm
commonsense wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:03 pm
Timely time is negative time, according to the rule of double positives.
What do you mean with this statement? What are negative time and timely time?
commonsense wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:03 pm
There is no time in the past, only memories.
True.
commonsense wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:03 pm
There is no time in the future, only hopes, guesses and expectations.
True.
commonsense wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:03 pm
Time is only now. It does not move forward or backward.
Time changes but it doesn't move since it has no spaciality. Time occurs at now which is infinitesimal. Infinitesimal has a direction. Time, therefore, is continuous and has direction.
commonsense wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:03 pm
What is negative time? How does time exist in the negative? How is negative time measured? Some people speak of a good time to do something—is negative time good for not doing things? How does negative time affect the longevity of things? What happens if we speak of time times time, for example, if we say that the train is on time multiple times per day? Can negative time undo something that we remember happening in the past? Can there be negative time outs in basketball games? If a runner runs his fastest time, does he finish the race before it started? Can anytime be negative time? What if Springtime turned negative—will that mean it will snow in Summertime? Does negative time mean that the Earth’s rotation or its movement around the sun will be reversed? Isn’t it about time, or about negative time, to answer questions like these? Take your negative sweet time to think about it.
How could you deduce something about negative time, your first statement, not knowing what is negative time?
Take a look in the logic and math forum at the thread about double positives making a negative. The OP for that thread explains the Rule of Double Positives. According to this rule, 2 positives make a negative. I am sure that this rule is nonsense. However, according to the rule timely time (2 positives, similar to “goodest good” which is used as an example in the other thread) makes negative time (or makes evil in the other thread). I have no idea what negative time is. I simply applied the rule. Unless someone can adequately explain negative time, the rule fails.

I hope this helps.
I know what negative time is. We are in the universe that time is positive (as the reference). There is another universe with another time that is negative. Positive and negative time cancels each other at the origin, as two universes do, allowing to have something out of nothing.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by bahman » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:40 pm

WHY?
Because two states of affair related to a change cannot lay on one point and because any change has a duration.
What does 'two states of affair' actually mean?

What 'affair' are you talking about?
Two states of affair like a billiard ball in two positions.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
Until it is explained HOW there can be more than the one 'state', which is constantly changing, then what I observe is one state in one constant flux. I have yet to see any separation other than through a concept of defined differences.
One state by definition is one configuration of things. This is subject to change though. I mean one state turns into another state.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:40 pm
What is 'time' exactly that there could NOT be change without this thing that you call "time" but have yet to explain what 'it' IS exactly?
I explained what time is.

Time is an entity that allows change to occur.
This does NOT explain what 'time' is.

I have also asked you what is that 'entity', which you call 'time'. You have yet to do this.

Saying, "time is an entity that allows change to occur", is just like saying, "God is an entity that creates every thing". BOTH say NOTHING at all really. Unless what the 'entity' actually IS, is defined AND explained, then "others" really have NO idea of what is being talked about.
What I told to says enough. Time is an entity and has a set of properties: It changes, it allows changes, it exists at infinitesimal duration so called now.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Are you asking what time is made of?
Explaining that would help your position tremendously, but what I was asking is what is 'time'? You say, "time is an entity", so what I then asked before is, 'what is that 'entity', exactly?
Time is not made of anything.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:40 pm

When are we going to see it?
Ok, here is the argument: Consider a change in a system, A to B, A and B are two states of affair. A and B cannot coexist therefore they should lay on different points, points belong to a variable.
Okay, but you have to remember that A and B are NOT two separate things, although 'you', human beings, may see them as different things AND call them different things. A and B are NOT essentially different and separate but rather just A transforming or changing into B. There is only One state, which is changing. The two "different points", which are just points belonging to a variable, are just human being made up "points", laying on a human being made up "variable".

There should be also a duration to reach from A to B otherwise change never take place.

I agree there would be a duration to get from A to B. This is how A changed into B.
By definition a state is a configuration of things.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
We call this variable as time.
Which is EXACTLY what I am saying, which you are 'trying to' dispute. But, your argument could be helping me more than you.

That 'variable', which you are just labeling as 'time', is just a 'MEASURED' variable, which is what I say 'time' is.

'time' just being the label or the name given to the behavior of measuring between two or more perceived and recognized as different points.

If you want to keep insisting that 'time' is some thing, or some entity, that MUST exist otherwise change could NOT take place, then you will have to explain AND define what 'time', the entity, IS exactly.
That variable is not subjective. Time objectively exists. There could not be any change if there was no time.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:40 pm
This is your argument here:

P1. Time is required for change.
P2. I have an argument for that.
C. Therefore, time is different from change.
No this is my argument:
1) Time is required for change (I have an argument for that)
2) Two things which one is needed for another one are different
3) Therefore, time is different from change
But this says NOTHING at all really.

If 'time' is REQUIRED for change, then what is this THING, you call 'time'? And, what is STOPPING 'change' if this 'time' THING did NOT exist? Or, HOW exactly does this 'time' THING make 'change' happen?

What does "Two things which one is needed for another one are different" actually mean and is actually referring to? For example, what example do you have of 'two things'? How is one needed for "another one", in actual REAL terms and NOT just in human being made up language, which provides definitions and which is how human beings differentiate the One thing into many?

You say, "time is different from change". How so?
I defined time several times: Time is an entity with the following properties: It changes, It exists at infinitesimal interval so-called now, and it allows change to happens. Time, as it is argued, is needed for change. I think the second premise is obvious. Therefore my arguments follow.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:40 pm
Just to make is CLEAR this says and explains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all.

What is 'time', which 'change' NEEDS to exist?

What is your so called "argument"?

If 'time' is different from 'change', then how EXACTLY?

Answer the clarifying questions to PROVE what you are saying is even slightly true, let alone actually true.
Change is something, namely one state of affair goes to another state of affair, that happens in the stuff we experience.
Using words like "one state" to "another state", does not really explain any thing. Adding words like "affair" and "stuff" only adds more confusion to this.
Two states of affair like two states of a billiard ball.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:25 pm
Like moving a ball on pool table. Time is required for this motion.
For a ball to MOVE, on any table, an ACTION is REQUIRED. Do I NEED to explain what an 'action' IS?

You say 'time' is REQUIRED to MOVE a ball, on a pool table. Now you NEED to explain what 'time' IS.
Action and time both are needed for ball to move. Action is needed because the ball has mass, ball cannot move on its own. Time, however, is needed in order to accommodate change caused by action.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How time can only exist at now and yet has a direction?

Post by bahman » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:18 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:47 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Do you have any examples of these supposed "different states of affairs"?
Like two positions of a billiard ball on a table. The ball in the first position on the table is the first state of affair and the ball in the second position is the second state of affair.
Besides the fact that there is ONLY One 'state' of 'change', which actually occurs, how could this change NOT occur if 'time' did NOT exist?
I already provide my argument for the necessity of time in the previous post.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:47 am
You will have to explain to us what this 'entity', which you call 'time', actually IS. Then AFTER you do that then you will have to explain HOW this 'entity' affects the change. That is if you want me to understand what it is that you are 'trying to' say is true and real.
I already explained what time is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests