Page 7 of 7

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:07 am
bahman wrote:
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.
Okay.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
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

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.
The process is obvious.

If the process is continual, then there is NOT two actual different states.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
This is exactly NOT how I define it.

You seem to be completely MISSED, and be off, the mark here.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
Are you at all aware that it is possible to still provide arguments AND still have BELIEFS, at the exact same time?
bahman wrote:
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

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.
There can also be a distance between the 10 o'clock and the 11 o'clock on a clock for example.

This measured distance can be called a one hour "duration".
bahman wrote:
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

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?
But your definition attempts to distort the actual Truth of things.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
Are you sure it was an argument. And, if you are, then was it a sound AND valid argument? Because if it was, then it would be an unambiguous, irrefutable Truth.
bahman wrote:
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

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.
It is based on the premise that 'time' is an entity, which exists, and changes.

These things obviously have NOT been proven true nor correct yet.
bahman wrote:
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

Two states of affair like two states of a billiard ball.

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.
Then what I have been saying all along has been brought to light, by you.

That is; You have NOT argued, soundly AND validly, for your BELIEFS. You have just been expressing YOUR BELIEFS, instead.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:37 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
...
3) Therefore, time iAction 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.
JJ :) I will try to improve it: Planck's time interval is minimal time needed in order to system accommodate/accumulate change caused by action...

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:16 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:37 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
...
3) Therefore, time iAction 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.
JJ I will try to improve it: Planck's time interval is minimal time needed in order to system accommodate/accumulate change caused by action...
Is it theoretically possible to go lower than Plank time or is it as low as you can go?

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:38 pm
Spyrith wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:16 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:37 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:14 pm
...
3) Therefore, time iAction 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.
JJ I will try to improve it: Planck's time interval is minimal time needed in order to system accommodate/accumulate change caused by action...
Is it theoretically possible to go lower than Plank time or is it as low as you can go?
It is to say that Planck’s time is a time size of elementary particles... (see eg mentioned decay of neutron - there is no time between the neutron and proton)

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

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:07 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm

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.
The process is obvious.

If the process is continual, then there is NOT two actual different states.
It is two actual states. How do you define change?
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm

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.
This is exactly NOT how I define it.

You seem to be completely MISSED, and be off, the mark here.
No, I think I should have said that I understand your theory, given the definition, about motion but I cannot accept it.
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm

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.
Are you at all aware that it is possible to still provide arguments AND still have BELIEFS, at the exact same time?
No, that is meaningless.
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
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.
There can also be a distance between the 10 o'clock and the 11 o'clock on a clock for example.

This measured distance can be called a one hour "duration".
So you know that duration is related to time? If duration is related to time and distance between positions of one thing at two points is related to space then we have two motions. One motion of time and another motion of the thing.
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
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?
But your definition attempts to distort the actual Truth of things.
You cannot have a motion by your definition of motion (at one point) therefore that your theory which is wrong.
Age wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
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.
Are you sure it was an argument. And, if you are, then was it a sound AND valid argument? Because if it was, then it would be an unambiguous, irrefutable Truth.
Yes. It was a valid argument. You didn't address it. Now you are asking me the question.
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm
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.
It is based on the premise that 'time' is an entity, which exists, and changes.

These things obviously have NOT been proven true nor correct yet.
bahman wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:38 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:37 pm

lol

If you BELIEVE this is true, then it MUST BE true, correct?
Yes.
Then what I have been saying all along has been brought to light, by you.

That is; You have NOT argued, soundly AND validly, for your BELIEFS. You have just been expressing YOUR BELIEFS, instead.
You did not provide a correct theory yet.

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

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:16 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:17 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:37 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:54 am
Time is simply the measurement of change or motion between states
A state is simply a point of existence which moves seamlessly from the present to the past almost immediately
And so while the state of now is eternal it is also collectively composed of these virtually instantaneous points
Motion is change, the change of relative position. I merely reduced it to it's most common denominator, change.
Humans with such a short lifespan like to believe in the eternal, and I guess relatively there kind of is, but there is no evidence that proves anything is eternal, by definition. It's just a limited human concept with no necessary means of proof. Can you say big bang?
Hello Spheres ..welcome back.
Hey fishy, glad to see the at the end. It tends to fully sum up that which immediately preceded it.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:37 am
Eternal