I'm not understanding you, either, but after a couple requests for clarification where the responses were just as inscrutable to me, I resigned to figuring that I'm just not going to be able to understand you . . . for now, at least.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 am U R not under_standing me.
At the binary scale, the mechanism that are the elements of reality are not 'affected' by time - they are permitted to BE a mechanism of an element of reality. (which man eventually measures as "TIME")
Change cannot happen at now
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Definitions work like this:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:20 amFirst, I pointed this out above: all definitions are synonymous (and wind up being circular). If it's not synonymous, it can't be a definition. It might be an example or something, but it wouldn't be a definition.psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:54 pmIn other words, when there is no change, there is no time. Does the rate of change imply an increase in the rate at which time passes?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:53 pm They're the same aside from the fact that motion is a subset of change. (All motion is change, not all change is motion.)
Of course falling to the ground is a change. Re the present, again, it depends on the reference frame.
All definitions are synonymous with what they're defining. If they're not, then the definition is either adding something that shouldn't be in the definition or missing something that should be in the definition.
Then Consciousness is Mental awareness and in turn Mental awareness is consciousness? Those are circular definitions and of course cannot be considered valid.
You don't have a definition of "present" either?
Chair: a piece of furniture for one person to sit on, with a back, a seat, and four legs.
In the definitions it is not allowed to use a synonym because it makes them circular.
One can add synonyms after having correctly expressed the definition as examples that are expected to complete the concept.
What is your definition of Present? (Please no synonyms )
Do you understand that if there is no change there is no time?
Re: Change cannot happen at now
This.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:15 amThe conception of time you are using depends on the scale of your reference frame.
At quantum scale time is deemed to be universal.
At universe scale time is deemed to be relative.
At quantum scale it is entirely possible to arrest change/motion.
That obviously doesn't imply that time stops, but that's because change/motion has only stopped for the system under observation, not for the observer.
It is precisely the observer who is observing that there is "no change" (over time).
Ultimately, though, the measurement problem is a problem of scale. The system under observation is at quantum scale, but the observer is a classical system. There is parallax in the reference frame, and as every physicist is aware - no physics theory is scale invariant.
So which theory should you use to interpret the results? Flip a coin and philosophise away.
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Either the elements of reality are affected by time or they are not.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 amU R not under_standing me.psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:43 pmThrough what mechanism are elements of reality affected by time?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:20 am
..at the binary scale where events that pertain to the makeup of our reality are 'permitted' to occur, WELL of course.
At the binary scale, the mechanism that are the elements of reality are not 'affected' by time - they are permitted to BE a mechanism of an element of reality. (which man eventually measures as "TIME")
Sure, I still wear an old fashioned watch - on my left hand. (in fact I wear it because it is cool as fuck - an ex found it in the early 90s)
So.
When I look at the hair growing on my right wrist. (an example)
- that there, have I answered your quest_ion?
I am not sure what you call a binary scale. But if it is based on the assumption that time is different at the subatomic level than at the macro level, then I would ask you how is your interpretation of time? What do you call time in each case. If you consider that time is an emergent phenomenon, then time could not affect the elements of reality and it would be necessary to find a reason for what we call change. Or failing that, if you think that the change does not exist.
What or who allows this permitted ???
Is the growth of your hair an act of time or the elements of your body?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Change cannot happen at now
What is your interpretation that time is universal at the quantum level?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:15 amThe conception of time you are using depends on the scale of your reference frame.
At quantum scale time is deemed to be universal.
At universe scale time is deemed to be relative.
At quantum scale it is entirely possible to arrest change/motion.
That obviously doesn't imply that time stops, but that's because change/motion has only stopped for the system under observation, not for the observer.
It is precisely the observer who is observing that there is "no change" (over time).
Ultimately, though, the measurement problem is a problem of scale. The system under observation is at quantum scale, but the observer is a classical system. There is parallax in the reference frame, and as every physicist is aware - no physics theory is scale invariant.
So which theory should you use to interpret the results? Flip a coin and philosophise away.
Do you suppose that universal simultaneity is possible, at that level?
Isolating a system is not stopping time but avoiding change. (unless you consider them equivalent)
How do you relate the problem of extracting information from reality with determining the nature of time?
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Nope. Synonym is a different word that has the same meaning as the original.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:54 pmSo, on your view, "a piece of furniture for one person to sit on, with a back, a seat, and four legs" isn't synonymous with "chair"?
None of the words in the definition have the same meaning as chair.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Wait--you're going with the old chestnut that a synonym has to be a single word and can't be multiple words/a phrase?
So, you'd say that "french fry" isn't a synonym for "chip" (in the fish & chips sense)?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Change cannot happen at now
..i apologise, I will attempt again at getting the logic my psyche explained via psycho.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:44 pmI'm not understanding you, either, but after a couple requests for clarification where the responses were just as inscrutable to me, I resigned to figuring that I'm just not going to be able to understand you . . . for now, at least.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 am U R not under_standing me.
At the binary scale, the mechanism that are the elements of reality are not 'affected' by time - they are permitted to BE a mechanism of an element of reality. (which man eventually measures as "TIME")
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Synchronicity never ceases to amaze me. I turn the TV on - and IQ (1994) where Einstein is Meg Ryans (woof!) uncle..psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 pmEither the elements of reality are affected by time or they are not.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 amU R not under_standing me.
At the binary scale, the mechanism that are the elements of reality are not 'affected' by time - they are permitted to BE a mechanism of an element of reality. (which man eventually measures as "TIME")
Sure, I still wear an old fashioned watch - on my left hand. (in fact I wear it because it is cool as fuck - an ex found it in the early 90s)
So.
When I look at the hair growing on my right wrist. (an example)
- that there, have I answered your quest_ion?
Einstein and other scientists are playing badminton in the garden and make the point that time does not (actually) exist.
My point is, that ELEMENTS of reality are not affected by time - EVENTS (which construct what man perceives (and measures) as TIME - are what DOES affect elements.
THE MAIN POINT I am attempting to make, is that at the sub-atomic- sub-particle level of cartesian 3D space - each individual point is BINARY. Either an event occurs or it doesn't.psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 pmI am not sure what you call a binary scale. But if it is based on the assumption that time is different at the subatomic level than at the macro level, then I would ask you how is your interpretation of time? What do you call time in each case. If you consider that time is an emergent phenomenon, then time could not affect the elements of reality and it would be necessary to find a reason for what we call change. Or failing that, if you think that the change does not exist.
So until at THAT level - the switching starts PERMITTING the construct of the elements of our reality, only then can man state that time is occurring (events).
THIS DUDE:-
https://www.androcies.com
It is a measure of events (time) and THOSE events amount to the affect within my body that allow the growth of hair.
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Compound words don't prove your point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:07 pmWait--you're going with the old chestnut that a synonym has to be a single word and can't be multiple words/a phrase?
So, you'd say that "french fry" isn't a synonym for "chip" (in the fish & chips sense)?
I don't know if you're trolling or if you really don't understand how definitions work.
You should be able to understand that a synonym has no explanatory power.
An explanation does not use concepts of its same level. That makes them circular.
But you can go on assuming that: Consciousness = mental awareness. That it has explanatory power.
It is your prerogative and a discussion in that aspect seems to distance us from the present topic and I do not see it really fruitful.
Re: Change cannot happen at now
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:02 amSynchronicity never ceases to amaze me. I turn the TV on - and IQ (1994) where Einstein is Meg Ryans (woof!) uncle..psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 pmEither the elements of reality are affected by time or they are not.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 am
U R not under_standing me.
At the binary scale, the mechanism that are the elements of reality are not 'affected' by time - they are permitted to BE a mechanism of an element of reality. (which man eventually measures as "TIME")
Sure, I still wear an old fashioned watch - on my left hand. (in fact I wear it because it is cool as fuck - an ex found it in the early 90s)
So.
When I look at the hair growing on my right wrist. (an example)
- that there, have I answered your quest_ion?
Einstein and other scientists are playing badminton in the garden and make the point that time does not (actually) exist.
My point is, that ELEMENTS of reality are not affected by time - EVENTS (which construct what man perceives (and measures) as TIME - are what DOES affect elements.
THE MAIN POINT I am attempting to make, is that at the sub-atomic- sub-particle level of cartesian 3D space - each individual point is BINARY. Either an event occurs or it doesn't.psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 pmI am not sure what you call a binary scale. But if it is based on the assumption that time is different at the subatomic level than at the macro level, then I would ask you how is your interpretation of time? What do you call time in each case. If you consider that time is an emergent phenomenon, then time could not affect the elements of reality and it would be necessary to find a reason for what we call change. Or failing that, if you think that the change does not exist.
So until at THAT level - the switching starts PERMITTING the construct of the elements of our reality, only then can man state that time is occurring (events).
THIS DUDE:-
https://www.androcies.com
It is a measure of events (time) and THOSE events amount to the affect within my body that allow the growth of hair.
In other words, these events are not formed by the elements?
One cannot assume that reality occurs in a three-dimensional Cartesian space. There is no basis for it. If you separate time as a different entity then you must explain how that entity affects the elements of reality.
At the subatomic level the elements are only probable. They are not binary.
I have no idea who that "dude" is.
What is the engine of the events of your hair?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Change cannot happen at now
"French fry" is two words. Another example would be "three-toed sloth," which is synonymous with "Bradypus." "Three-toed sloth" is not just one word. Synonyms aren't limited to a single word. I'm not the person who doesn't understand something here. Hopefully I can teach you something.psycho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:51 pmCompound words don't prove your point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:07 pmWait--you're going with the old chestnut that a synonym has to be a single word and can't be multiple words/a phrase?
So, you'd say that "french fry" isn't a synonym for "chip" (in the fish & chips sense)?
I don't know if you're trolling or if you really don't understand how definitions work.
You should be able to understand that a synonym has no explanatory power.
An explanation does not use concepts of its same level. That makes them circular.
But you can go on assuming that: Consciousness = mental awareness. That it has explanatory power.
It is your prerogative and a discussion in that aspect seems to distance us from the present topic and I do not see it really fruitful.
What gives any set of words "explanatory power" in relation to any other set of words is that to the person reading/hearing the words in question, the one set is familiar to them and makes sense to them, where the other set wasn't familiar to them or didn't make sense to them.
"Levels" of concepts is complete balderdash, by the way.
Again, if a supposed definiens isn't synonymous with its definiendum, it's not actually a definition. Synonymity isn't limited to single words. Why on Earth you'd think that I don't know. For any term, we could substitute multiple terms if we wanted to. Definitions will necessarily be circular, by the way, as all words in a language will be defined by other words in that same language. That's one big thicket of circularity. The utility of a definition is when it presents words, phrases you're familiar with as synonyms for words, phrases you're not familiar with. If you read a definition and it's not helpful to you, that will be because you're not familiar with at least some of the words and phrases in the definition, and then you need to look up additional definitions to figure those our, too. In some cases this will be difficult (for example, if you attempt to look up definitions of advanced mathematical terms without any sort of background in advanced mathematics--you won't know the terms in the definiens, either. There can a prerequisite of working on the necessary background first--that is, building up from simpler mathematical concepts and slowly learning more advanced mathematics.)
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Change cannot happen at now
Yes they are, and what forms the elements is binary.psycho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 pmattofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:02 amSynchronicity never ceases to amaze me. I turn the TV on - and IQ (1994) where Einstein is Meg Ryans (woof!) uncle..
Einstein and other scientists are playing badminton in the garden and make the point that time does not (actually) exist.
My point is, that ELEMENTS of reality are not affected by time - EVENTS (which construct what man perceives (and measures) as TIME - are what DOES affect elements.
THE MAIN POINT I am attempting to make, is that at the sub-atomic- sub-particle level of cartesian 3D space - each individual point is BINARY. Either an event occurs or it doesn't.psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:47 pmI am not sure what you call a binary scale. But if it is based on the assumption that time is different at the subatomic level than at the macro level, then I would ask you how is your interpretation of time? What do you call time in each case. If you consider that time is an emergent phenomenon, then time could not affect the elements of reality and it would be necessary to find a reason for what we call change. Or failing that, if you think that the change does not exist.
So until at THAT level - the switching starts PERMITTING the construct of the elements of our reality, only then can man state that time is occurring (events).
THIS DUDE:-
https://www.androcies.com
It is a measure of events (time) and THOSE events amount to the affect within my body that allow the growth of hair.
In other words, these events are not formed by the elements?
I agree, just one of my theories in how I can conceive of our reality from 23yrs of gnosis.psycho wrote:One cannot assume that reality occurs in a three-dimensional Cartesian space. There is no basis for it.
As I keep stating, time does not affect anything, time is a man made measure of events. Certainly within the scope of a 'time' period, we can understand the elements of reality to be affected.psycho wrote:If you separate time as a different entity then you must explain how that entity affects the elements of reality.
..again, it is only a theory I have from experience of GOD, and the level of 'power' it has over what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y. (GOD is like an A.I.)psycho wrote:At the subatomic level the elements are only probable. They are not binary.
GOD. - Either divine or A.I.psycho wrote:I have no idea who that "dude" is.
..pretty sure it is biological - part of a chemical reaction - part of the physics that make up our reality.psycho wrote:What is the engine of the events of your hair?
Re: Change cannot happen at now
When you create a definition you must necessarily go from the general to the particular.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:23 am"French fry" is two words. Another example would be "three-toed sloth," which is synonymous with "Bradypus." "Three-toed sloth" is not just one word. Synonyms aren't limited to a single word. I'm not the person who doesn't understand something here. Hopefully I can teach you something.psycho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:51 pmCompound words don't prove your point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:07 pm
Wait--you're going with the old chestnut that a synonym has to be a single word and can't be multiple words/a phrase?
So, you'd say that "french fry" isn't a synonym for "chip" (in the fish & chips sense)?
I don't know if you're trolling or if you really don't understand how definitions work.
You should be able to understand that a synonym has no explanatory power.
An explanation does not use concepts of its same level. That makes them circular.
But you can go on assuming that: Consciousness = mental awareness. That it has explanatory power.
It is your prerogative and a discussion in that aspect seems to distance us from the present topic and I do not see it really fruitful.
What gives any set of words "explanatory power" in relation to any other set of words is that to the person reading/hearing the words in question, the one set is familiar to them and makes sense to them, where the other set wasn't familiar to them or didn't make sense to them.
"Levels" of concepts is complete balderdash, by the way.
Again, if a supposed definiens isn't synonymous with its definiendum, it's not actually a definition. Synonymity isn't limited to single words. Why on Earth you'd think that I don't know. For any term, we could substitute multiple terms if we wanted to. Definitions will necessarily be circular, by the way, as all words in a language will be defined by other words in that same language. That's one big thicket of circularity. The utility of a definition is when it presents words, phrases you're familiar with as synonyms for words, phrases you're not familiar with. If you read a definition and it's not helpful to you, that will be because you're not familiar with at least some of the words and phrases in the definition, and then you need to look up additional definitions to figure those our, too. In some cases this will be difficult (for example, if you attempt to look up definitions of advanced mathematical terms without any sort of background in advanced mathematics--you won't know the terms in the definiens, either. There can a prerequisite of working on the necessary background first--that is, building up from simpler mathematical concepts and slowly learning more advanced mathematics.)
That is why chair is a piece of furniture (from the general group "man-made objects"); to sit (particular within the general group of furniture); for an individual (from the general group of furniture to rest); with backrest (from the general group of individual seats); with four legs (from the group of individual furniture to sit with different number of legs).
In this way, the concept to be transmitted is specified.
When you say that X is equivalent to Y you do not define anything.
A definition has the obligation to explain in a sentence exactly and clearly the meaning of a word or a concept.
Giving a synonym is not explaining.
No. All words do not have a circular explanatory relationship between them.
Indicating the equivalences between words in different languages is not explaining the meaning of a word within its native language.
Since your understanding of the functionality of the definitions seems reasonable to you, doesn't it seem unproductive to stray so far from the subject of this post?
If you think it is necessary and interesting, you can open a thread and we will continue analyzing it there.