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

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4963
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 5:03 pm

Age wrote:
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

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,
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.

Now define all these words, the prior words are defined of.

Also, what has defining these words exactly got to do with how you BELIEVE 'time' is an actual thing, which exists?

You will see.
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.

Good, then you can make your position clearer and define the above...but also show the sources

"Or" also means "use as a function word to indicate an alternative", "an equivalent or substitutive character of two or more words" (merriam webster) as well as a variety of other meanings.



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.

No you haven't...see the "or" example abovd.

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.

Define how you know this.

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.

Define "completely" and "entirely"...you are making assumptions.

[/color]

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?

Define, human being....you are assuming the people here are even human.


[/quote]

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 6:22 pm

The History must exist because to many physical values (eg F=m*dv/dt) and phenomena depend on speeds of changes. To “evaluate” such speed must be “accessible” the previous states:(

Age
Posts: 3233
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 11:14 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:48 pm

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.
Are you posing this as being actual fact?

Age
Posts: 3233
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 11:37 pm

bahman wrote:
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

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.
Was there a JUMP from 'one state' to the 'other state', or was there just a continuous change?
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
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.
How EXACTLY could 'one state' change INTO 'another state'?

What are the NAMES for these two supposedly "different" states"

To me, there is just ONE state, which is just the state of CHANGE.

I am just curious, Can you even recognize and see the difference between what I am saying and what you say?
bahman wrote:
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

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.
What this says enough of now is that you will say any thing to substantiate your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS here.
bahman wrote:
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
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.
So, we are now in agreement. That is; 'time' is NOT an actual real thing, other than the measuring of distance or duration between two perceived points, correct?
bahman wrote:
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

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.
Yes that is ONE definition of the word 'state'. But there are obviously other definitions.

And remember ANY configuration of things is NOT in a different state. ALL configurations happen within the ONE and ONLY state that thee ONE and ONLY Universe is in, which is; in a 'state of change'.
bahman wrote:
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
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.
LOL

'you', "bahman", are another prime example of some one STUCK in their own already held BELIEFS and thus are completely CLOSED thus completely disabled from SEEING any thing else.

That variable is relative, to one proven thing, and therefore could also be seen as subjective.

Time exists purely as a human being made up concept, which can be proven.

Change HAPPENS whether 'you', human beings, are taking 'measured accounts' or not. 'time' is ONLY thee word used to describe your own 'measured accounts'.

Therefore, there is NO such THING as 'time', which could NOR would allow change to happen. Change HAPPENS no matter what. Nothing besides 'cause' makes change happen, and 'cause' like 'effect' are ETERNAL.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
ONLY to 'you', "bahman".

In case you are unaware, you are only making so called "arguments" after the fact. The fact being your own strongly held BELIEFS.

Your "arguments" are NOT logical, valid, nor sound.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
lol

If you BELIEVE this is true, then it MUST BE true, correct?

Age
Posts: 3233
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 11:51 pm

bahman wrote:
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

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.
No you have NOT. You have just provided any thing that you think would support your own already held BELIEFS. 'time' is NOT even a "necessity" of Existence.

I am the one who has explained HOW change is necessary and HOW change HAPPENS, and thus provided what is NECESSARY for change to occur. Change is certainly NOT reliant on 'time'.

Anyway what is your argument now for what is the entity that is necessary for 'time' to exist. Obviously EVERY 'entity' MUST BE created by some thing. You INSIST that 'time' is some 'entity', of which 'change', itself, could not occur, so what is the name of the 'entity' that created the 'entity', which you BELIEVE exists, called 'time'?
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:18 pm
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.
No you have NOT. You just provided statements that you BELIEVE would support your own already held BELIEFS.

I am the one who has explained what 'time' could actually be, and thus provided examples of what 'time' actually IS.

Age
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:03 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:15 am


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,
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.

Now define all these words, the prior words are defined of.

Also, what has defining these words exactly got to do with how you BELIEVE 'time' is an actual thing, which exists?

You will see.
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.

Good, then you can make your position clearer and define the above...but also show the sources

"Or" also means "use as a function word to indicate an alternative", "an equivalent or substitutive character of two or more words" (merriam webster) as well as a variety of other meanings.



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.

No you haven't...see the "or" example abovd.

What do you mean, "No you haven't"? Of course I have, LOOK ABOVE.

Did you MISS IT?

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.

Define how you know this.

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.

Define "completely" and "entirely"...you are making assumptions.

[/color]

LOL

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?

Define, human being....you are assuming the people here are even human.

[/quote]

And, again, WHY do you always want to go down the completely worthless and useless downhill spiral of loops, assumptions, and recursion?

These things OBVIOUSLY lead to nowhere and nothing of any real significance, so WHY bother?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4963
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:29 am

Age wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:03 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:32 am

Define it since you know it,
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.

Now define all these words, the prior words are defined of.

Also, what has defining these words exactly got to do with how you BELIEVE 'time' is an actual thing, which exists?

You will see.
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.

Good, then you can make your position clearer and define the above...but also show the sources

"Or" also means "use as a function word to indicate an alternative", "an equivalent or substitutive character of two or more words" (merriam webster) as well as a variety of other meanings.



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.

No you haven't...see the "or" example abovd.

What do you mean, "No you haven't"? Of course I have, LOOK ABOVE.

Did you MISS IT?

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.

Define how you know this.

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.

Define "completely" and "entirely"...you are making assumptions.

[/color]

LOL

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?

Define, human being....you are assuming the people here are even human.

And, again, WHY do you always want to go down the completely worthless and useless downhill spiral of loops, assumptions, and recursion?

These things OBVIOUSLY lead to nowhere and nothing of any real significance, so WHY bother?
[/quote]
Who said it would lead nowhere? Let time tell.....please proceed with the definitions.

Age
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:29 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:03 pm


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.

Now define all these words, the prior words are defined of.

Also, what has defining these words exactly got to do with how you BELIEVE 'time' is an actual thing, which exists?

You will see.



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.

Good, then you can make your position clearer and define the above...but also show the sources

"Or" also means "use as a function word to indicate an alternative", "an equivalent or substitutive character of two or more words" (merriam webster) as well as a variety of other meanings.






Again, what is with the ordering?

I have ALREADY defined them.

No you haven't...see the "or" example abovd.

What do you mean, "No you haven't"? Of course I have, LOOK ABOVE.

Did you MISS IT?

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.

Define how you know this.

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.

Define "completely" and "entirely"...you are making assumptions.

[/color]

LOL

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?

Define, human being....you are assuming the people here are even human.

And, again, WHY do you always want to go down the completely worthless and useless downhill spiral of loops, assumptions, and recursion?

These things OBVIOUSLY lead to nowhere and nothing of any real significance, so WHY bother?
Who said it would lead nowhere? Let time tell.....please proceed with the definitions.
[/quote]

You have.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:25 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:14 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:48 pm

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.
Are you posing this as being actual fact?
Yes.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am

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.
Was there a JUMP from 'one state' to the 'other state', or was there just a continuous change?
The process is discrete in nature but it appears to be continuous because the time interval between two consecutive points is infinitesimal.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
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.
How EXACTLY could 'one state' change INTO 'another state'?

What are the NAMES for these two supposedly "different" states"

To me, there is just ONE state, which is just the state of CHANGE.

I am just curious, Can you even recognize and see the difference between what I am saying and what you say?
Yes. It is a matter of definition. I define a state as a configuration of things but you define it as things that exist at the spot.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
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.
What this says enough of now is that you will say any thing to substantiate your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS here.
I already provide an argument for each part. So they are not beliefs.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
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.
So, we are now in agreement. That is; 'time' is NOT an actual real thing, other than the measuring of distance or duration between two perceived points, correct?
Duration and not distance.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
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.
Yes that is ONE definition of the word 'state'. But there are obviously other definitions.

And remember ANY configuration of things is NOT in a different state. ALL configurations happen within the ONE and ONLY state that thee ONE and ONLY Universe is in, which is; in a 'state of change'.
Could we please stick to my definition for sake simplicity?
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
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.
LOL

'you', "bahman", are another prime example of some one STUCK in their own already held BELIEFS and thus are completely CLOSED thus completely disabled from SEEING any thing else.

That variable is relative, to one proven thing, and therefore could also be seen as subjective.

Time exists purely as a human being made up concept, which can be proven.

Change HAPPENS whether 'you', human beings, are taking 'measured accounts' or not. 'time' is ONLY thee word used to describe your own 'measured accounts'.

Therefore, there is NO such THING as 'time', which could NOR would allow change to happen. Change HAPPENS no matter what. Nothing besides 'cause' makes change happen, and 'cause' like 'effect' are ETERNAL.
I already provide an argument for necessity of time when there is a change.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am
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.
ONLY to 'you', "bahman".

In case you are unaware, you are only making so called "arguments" after the fact. The fact being your own strongly held BELIEFS.

Your "arguments" are NOT logical, valid, nor sound.
What is wrong with my argument.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:42 am

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

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.
lol

If you BELIEVE this is true, then it MUST BE true, correct?
Yes.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:42 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:51 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:18 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:47 am

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.
No you have NOT. You have just provided any thing that you think would support your own already held BELIEFS. 'time' is NOT even a "necessity" of Existence.

I am the one who has explained HOW change is necessary and HOW change HAPPENS, and thus provided what is NECESSARY for change to occur. Change is certainly NOT reliant on 'time'.

Anyway what is your argument now for what is the entity that is necessary for 'time' to exist. Obviously EVERY 'entity' MUST BE created by some thing. You INSIST that 'time' is some 'entity', of which 'change', itself, could not occur, so what is the name of the 'entity' that created the 'entity', which you BELIEVE exists, called 'time'?
Do you know what argument I am referring to? If yes, what is the argument and what is wrong with it?
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:51 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:18 pm
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.
No you have NOT. You just provided statements that you BELIEVE would support your own already held BELIEFS.

I am the one who has explained what 'time' could actually be, and thus provided examples of what 'time' actually IS.
Seriously?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:43 pm

Cerveny wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:22 pm
The History must exist because to many physical values (eg F=m*dv/dt) and phenomena depend on speeds of changes. To “evaluate” such speed must be “accessible” the previous states:(
Yes, history exists in infinitesimal past and no longer.

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 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:13 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:43 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:22 pm
The History must exist because to many physical values (eg F=m*dv/dt) and phenomena depend on speeds of changes. To “evaluate” such speed must be “accessible” the previous states:(
Yes, history exists in infinitesimal past and no longer.
Infinitesimal time distance gives zero difference of states. There must exist at least Planck's time interval. Sorry, but the real space, hence even the time, is grainy, I'm convinced ...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

Post by bahman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:25 pm

Cerveny wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:13 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:43 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:22 pm
The History must exist because to many physical values (eg F=m*dv/dt) and phenomena depend on speeds of changes. To “evaluate” such speed must be “accessible” the previous states:(
Yes, history exists in infinitesimal past and no longer.
Infinitesimal time distance gives zero difference of states. There must exist at least Planck's time interval. Sorry, but the real space, hence even the time, is grainy, I'm convinced ...
You have void between two states of affair which are separated by a finite time, Plank time for example. Therefore, you cannot have a process.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4963
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:08 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:24 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:29 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:15 am
And, again, WHY do you always want to go down the completely worthless and useless downhill spiral of loops, assumptions, and recursion?

These things OBVIOUSLY lead to nowhere and nothing of any real significance, so WHY bother?
Who said it would lead nowhere? Let time tell.....please proceed with the definitions.
You have.
[/quote]
So you know nothing...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests