How time does change?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: How time does change?

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:34 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:10 am

Could you please follow my discussion with henry quirk. Time, as I explained, is necessary for change. I also argue that time is subject to changes. We are not living in a timeless universe when everything is simultaneous. The only other option than timeless universe is the temporal universe, our universe for example.
No, not necessarily. You might as well say that change is necessary for time, as time is necessary for change.
I can experience time when there is no change.
No you cannot.
Your body is in constant change, and so is the world all around you.
-- Unless you do not have a heart, or can live without air.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
I have an argument for "time changes". Events are synced but they are not simultaneous since we experience changes. I think that is evident. This means that we are living in a temporal universe where events happens in a specific direction, the direction of change of time, past now and future. I argue that for any change you need time. We experience changes. Therefore, time exists and changes.
Like I said:
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
Repeating the fallacy gets you no points.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
And it matters not a jot how many times you say it: the nature of time is not changing.
I didn't say that the nature of time doesn't change.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
If there seems a paradox, it is with your perception, not with time or the universe.
I am providing my reason which is based on facts, consistent observations.
Like I said:
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
Repeating the fallacy gets you no points.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Actually everything is simultaneous.
That is not true. We know that change exists. That means that events occur on different stances of time. [NON SEQUITUR]Therefore, our universe is temporal.
In an instant all is simultaneous, by definition.
You contradict yourself here. Above you say that you can experience time without change.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
That much is obvious, but time moves on and empowers movement of matter. But for any given moment everything is in fact simultaneous. Things cannot exist in different times, when at rest.
We are living in a temporal universe.
Nothing I say denies that
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Time frames do in fact exist, but they are strictly governed by velocity, and their differences are so minor unless the velocities are some significant proportion of the Speed of Light, which is constant.
True.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Your other option is not an option.
What is other option?
Try to keep up with the thread
[/quote]
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm
Whilst out perception of time is a subject of our experience, time objectively is not.
Without psychological time we cannot even have a sense of motion/changes.
tautology

So what? This is not relevant.

It is very relevant. Time is need for any change whether the subject of change is internal/subjective/psycological or external/objective/physical.
[/quote]tautology
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm

Yes, objective time is important for things that happen outside your mind.
Since humans exist in the same universe, we are all in objective time, including our "mind" whatever that might be.
True.
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm

I will try to help you to understand my thoughts.
Not unless you address the numerous problems with them.

You need to look at the solutions to Zeno's arrow and his apparent time paradoxes. This has all been done before. - and solved
Ok, I hope things are more clear now.
Have you looked at Zeno's arrow paradox?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How time does change?

Post by bahman » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:58 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:34 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm

No, not necessarily. You might as well say that change is necessary for time, as time is necessary for change.
I can experience time when there is no change.
No you cannot.
Your body is in constant change, and so is the world all around you.
-- Unless you do not have a heart, or can live without air.
Of course I can.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
I have an argument for "time changes". Events are synced but they are not simultaneous since we experience changes. I think that is evident. This means that we are living in a temporal universe where events happens in a specific direction, the direction of change of time, past now and future. I argue that for any change you need time. We experience changes. Therefore, time exists and changes.
Like I said:
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
Repeating the fallacy gets you no points.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
And it matters not a jot how many times you say it: the nature of time is not changing.
I didn't say that the nature of time doesn't change.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
If there seems a paradox, it is with your perception, not with time or the universe.
I am providing my reason which is based on facts, consistent observations.
Like I said:
You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so.
Repeating the fallacy gets you no points.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Actually everything is simultaneous.
That is not true. We know that change exists. That means that events occur on different stances of time. [NON SEQUITUR]Therefore, our universe is temporal.
In an instant all is simultaneous, by definition.
You contradict yourself here. Above you say that you can experience time without change.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
That much is obvious, but time moves on and empowers movement of matter. But for any given moment everything is in fact simultaneous. Things cannot exist in different times, when at rest.
We are living in a temporal universe.
Nothing I say denies that
If you agree then we are dealing with a regress, time needed for any change and time changes.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Time frames do in fact exist, but they are strictly governed by velocity, and their differences are so minor unless the velocities are some significant proportion of the Speed of Light, which is constant.
True.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm
Your other option is not an option.
What is other option?
Try to keep up with the thread
Ok.
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:34 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm
tautology
So what? This is not relevant.

It is very relevant. Time is need for any change whether the subject of change is internal/subjective/psycological or external/objective/physical.
tautology
Ok.
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm
Since humans exist in the same universe, we are all in objective time, including our "mind" whatever that might be.
True.
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm

Not unless you address the numerous problems with them.

You need to look at the solutions to Zeno's arrow and his apparent time paradoxes. This has all been done before. - and solved
Ok, I hope things are more clear now.
Have you looked at Zeno's arrow paradox?
Sure. I know what is he missing. He doesn't consider the fact that the time for moving a smaller interval is also smaller.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: How time does change?

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:52 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:58 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:34 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm

I can experience time when there is no change.
No you cannot.
Your body is in constant change, and so is the world all around you.
-- Unless you do not have a heart, or can live without air.
Of course I can.
Don't be stupid. There is never a time with no change.
If you are going to be silly. I'm not going to read the rest of your stuff.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm

I have an argument for "time changes". Events are synced but they are not simultaneous since we experience changes. I think that is evident. This means that we are living in a temporal universe where events happens in a specific direction, the direction of change of time, past now and future. I argue that for any change you need time. We experience changes. Therefore, time exists and changes.


I didn't say that the nature of time doesn't change.

I am providing my reason which is based on facts, consistent observations.


That is not true. We know that change exists. That means that events occur on different stances of time. [NON SEQUITUR]Therefore, our universe is temporal.


We are living in a temporal universe.
Nothing I say denies that
If you agree then we are dealing with a regress, time needed for any change and time changes.
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pm

True.

What is other option?
Try to keep up with the thread
Ok.
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:34 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm

It is very relevant. Time is need for any change whether the subject of change is internal/subjective/psycological or external/objective/physical.
tautology
Ok.
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:11 pm

True.


Ok, I hope things are more clear now.
Have you looked at Zeno's arrow paradox?
Sure. I know what is he missing. He doesn't consider the fact that the time for moving a smaller interval is also smaller.
HEADSLAP!
Cherrio.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests