But as an 'interloper' you can be 'tongue in cheek'? The true nature being?Metazoan wrote:...My point about English was meant to be tongue in cheek, as an interloper here I could hardly express the true nature of my frustration.
I'm unsure about how you are using "smooth" here? As I have experience via motorcycle accidents that whilst 'time' never pauses or reverses it certainly slows and accelerates.'My perceived reality' refers to what I think I perceive, that is, through the five senses.
Through those senses time appears smooth, I do not sense jumps, reversals or pauses. ...
Again I'm unsure of the "smooth" as the running action can alter with the hand passing I'd say. Its how you tell a well-made watch. Also, a common feature of all clocks is that they run down? So you have time causing events? If so where do you think time is? My take, I think, is like Hume's, there's just 'events', 'time' is because we are conscious and mortal, measured time is because we are self-conscious and maybe mortal. This does not mean that time is not real, just that it does not exist in the sense we measure it. Or something like this....All clocks I watch run smoothly at the same rate. Through direct observation I think I see time passing and so events happening.
I agree events are undeniable in the context of a perceived reality. Not sure why they have to be signposts to sometime? As I'm not sure that measuring time is the same thing as what it is to be the thing that has 'time' as its being. Or something like this....Events are undeniable in the context of my perceived reality simply due to them being the signposts by which I measure time passing.
I'm unsure what you are describing with respect to time as a classical Newtonian neighbourhood? And if it is what is it you consider to be the larger world of 'time'?In no way do I think that this is any sort of proof that time exists, simply that in the context of my unaided perception I find it difficult to refute.
In my cosy classical Newtonian neighbourhood all is well with time.
OK OK I'll tell you anything you want to know, just stop hitting me with paragraphs like that.
Like I said, from my perspective. What you and Nik get up to is your businessI thought there was, hence my misunderstanding with Nikolai.
Or you hear it as such?You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'm British, Fred in The Shed is an exemplar....Err no. Purely an amateurish garden shed type experiment.
I tried a safer version and got a whole bunch of perceptions, but three ways of doing it visually, focusing upon the thumb and finger holding the poking implement, on the finger to be poked, on a 'background' 'point' between(bound to be more). Gave some nice experiences but the 'background' one gave a visual 'disconnect' as double-image occurs before 'touch' 'settles' it. Liked that, without the pain, I could notice how 'touch' is an progessively 'even' event between the 'arms'.Similar things, latency correction shifts your perception of when something happens to a time more consistent with your expectations, event correlation makes sure you perceive events as being consistent. As an example, imagine watching yourself p**** your finger with a pin. All three events tie up, you feel yourself moving the pin towards your finger, you see it happening and you feel it touch. There is no perceptible mismatch.(Don't try this at home, it's not how I did it.)
You belted a nail through your finger?The actual incident that precipitated the experiment was where there was a sudden breakdown of this type of correlation where I was expecting a simple degradation.
You'd have to explain more? "shifted further" where?Rigorous science? Not at all, but something I am going to explore further when I get the time. The most interesting bit was that it appears that perception of when specific events occur can be shifted further than the time between perceptible events. This sounds goofy to me as if I have to hang around to wait for my perception to catch up then I'm in danger of doing things before I think about them. Somewhere I maybe be wrong, but then I only do this for fun so what does it matter?
But why? I thought that was whats called thinking?If you are going to actually think about what I write rather than just read it, I'll have be more rigorous and maybe even stop making it up as I go along.
Ah! I think these are the 'scientific blinkers' that the Germans thought could be a danger. To the "uncritical and unaided eye this world looks like" it does. Its those who have Science that think that it "looks like a cosy classical Newtonian neighbourhood". My take is that we do not use our instruments to "improve our ability to measure our perceived world" but to transform the unperceived world into perception with which we can understand our perceived world. Or some such.What I am trying to say is that with an uncritical and unaided eye this world looks like a cosy classical Newtonian neighbourhood. Aided by instruments that improve our ability to measure our perceived world, we see we are mistaken. Things to not make sense the way they used to.
Fair do's but it sounds like its based upon theories from Science? Still, you are describing to me the experience of a scientist trying to make sense of a simulation or maybe emulation? This way you get the both types of 'physical'.Ah, a direct question. It is stupidly big but not in a xyzt sense, it is not physical in any sense, and it is static. Unhelpful I know but I'm trying.
Could be, I'm not a Physicist. My understanding is mainly based upon Feynman's explanation of QED for the layman, or the "Strange Theory of Light and Matter", and from what I got its all photons and electrons. Now I agree that QM might be saying something different with respect to electrons but its as not well proved and tested as QED, and at base QM is particle maths, so I'll wait a bit I think.My, admittedly fuzzy, understanding was that QED didn't say that it was particles but that it could be interpreted physically as particles in one view and waves in another. This is what causes so much grief in the double slit experiment. In some other sense I was getting the impression that particles were being thought of as little knots in the fabric of space time. So I'm not convinced of the 'particle' bit.
NO!! Nothing is as bad as that error message that the search engine produces. I'm convinced that its been deliberately designed for philosophy forums and especially to torment those philosophers with an interest in computing.My memory has it that it was either you or Richard who was saying that there were five axioms. I never did get around to asking what they were. For sure you are not wrong about the maths. I hate maths almost as much as I hate the search engine on this forum.
I think you need to think about what "exists" means?Not sure how to say this, I don't think the universe exists, so, err, no.
Oh Well. How are you using light as this measure? Or are you partitioning Light into its theoretically smallest unit and imagining its 'length'? Or is this the smallest 'electron' but light is still small enough to measure it?Sadly not, the Planck second is simply the time it takes light to travel the Planck length. I cannot comment on anything that is going on at less than the Planck length. To me, talking about something smaller is just inserting more turtles into the soup.
Ah! So, you are an Instrumentalist with respect to Science?I get the feeling that this would be better placed in the other 'Nothing exists outside the mind' thread as basically my position on time would generally cover space and matter as well.
Ya got me! But fair do's I've always stated that its me 'mad metaphysic', but I love Fredkins Digital Philosophy and his Digital Mechanics and think that it is a logical extension of Konrad Zuse's Calculating Space with respect to Physics. Of course we could start chatting about how mathematical proofs are largely in the hands of automata now.Arising's law: Any thread that mentions Quantum Mechanics or a computer will eventually precipitate the notion