The passing of an event or the temporal distance between eventsAge wrote:
If time exists then what IS time exactly
The passing of a thought or the temporal distance between thoughts
The passing of an event or the temporal distance between eventsAge wrote:
If time exists then what IS time exactly
Are you absolutely certain of this ? Where did I say any such thing ?Age wrote:
You ask a question but BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW what the answer IS
And you can't define "event" without alluding to the observer's interest.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:47 am The passing of an event or the temporal distance between events
Well you cannot define anything without alluding to the observers interestLogic wrote:
And you cannot define event without alluding to the observers interest
That's not how logic works.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:05 am It is entirely relevant as your argument rests on the assumption that time does not exist so
if it can be demonstrated that it does exist [ which I have ] your argument becomes invalid
Can you demonstrate how motion can exist without time ?
No you cannot so you therefore have no argument to make
EBValidity and soundness
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:
All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
The word 'time' is just used by human beings to differentiate between events. For example, "It took this much 'time' for the train to get from this point to another point". There is NO actual thing as 'time', but the word 'time' was thought up and devised just for the use as a measuring tool to explain the distance between events.
But I do NOT think this.
And that is WHY "science" has been SO SLOW to catch up with what IS ALREADY KNOWN and HAS ALREADY been explained.
If you WANT to use a name to the 'passing of thoughts/events or the distance between events' and that used name is 'time', then that is fair enough. But there is NO actual thing as time, itself. There is, however, an actual thing of 'events passing'. The Universe after all IS in constant-change and this can only happen with matter moving around, which is just what the 'passing of events' is. And, IF you want to call that 'passing of events', when matter passes by and interacts with each other, 'time', then you are free to do so.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:47 amThe passing of an event or the temporal distance between eventsAge wrote:
If time exists then what IS time exactly
The passing of a thought or the temporal distance between thoughts
Probably directly before I wrote that.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:51 amAre you absolutely certain of this ? Where did I say any such thing ?Age wrote:
You ask a question but BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW what the answer IS
My apologies I forgot that you are one of those who do NOT believe. Again, sorry. This would have been much more accurate if I did NOT use the 'believe' word and used the 'THINK' instead.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:51 amI do not actually believe I know the answer and never said that I did
No I do NOT believe that at all. But from what I have SEEN, For EVERY question there is AN answer.
Your logical fallacy is: Begging the questionsSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:35 pm Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
It does't matter. Take if you like clocks that stay synchronised with the master clock within plus or minus 1 second per 24 hours.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:58 pmYour logical fallacy is: Begging the questionsSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:35 pm Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
Do clocks stay synchronized? It depends on your standards for precision.
Using digital protocols like NTP you can have two devices synchronize their clocks to a a degree of precision of UP TO 1 milisecond.
Would you say that two clocks which are 1 milisecond apart are "in sync" ?
Atomic clocks go out of sync by 1 tick every 15 billion years.