Philosophy Now Forum

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:52 pm 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.
So, why do they stay so synchronised if time doesn't exist?

No wait, before I answer your question I need to assert your tolerance levels.

You are necessarily asserting that 1 second/24 hours drift is still "within range" and therefore even though the clocks are in fact 1 second adrift you stil CHOOSE to say that they re "in sync".

What if the clocks were 1 minute adrift per 24 hours?
1 hour adrift per 24 hours?
11 hours adrift per 24 hours?

Where is your "breaking point" at which you say "The two clocks are not synchronized"?

Never mind.
This is as good as you admitting you haven't a clue.
You don't seem to understand reality either. You're saying that scientists using synchronised clocks are not really using synchronised clocks.
That's only typical of the vacuity of all your comments.
I wonder how you get to stay synchronised with stupidity so accurately.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:15 pm Never mind.
This is as good as you admitting you haven't a clue.
You don't seem to understand reality either. You're saying that scientists using synchronised clocks are not really using synchronised clocks.
That's only typical of the vacuity of all your comments.
I wonder how you get to stay synchronised with stupidity so accurately.
EB

How much dumber than this can you get, Frenchie?

Clock A is 1 millisecond behind clock B after 24 hours. Are they still "synchronized"?
Clock A is 1 second behind clock B after 24 hours. Are they still "synchronized"?
Clock A is 1 minute behind clock B after 24 hours. Are they still "synchronized"?
Clock A is 1 hour behind clock B after 24 hours. Are they still "synchronized"?
Clock A is 11 hours behind clock B after 24 hours. Are they still "synchronized"?

I have made it so easy for you that you have to answer a yes/no question. And you still can't see your own stupidity.

You can't make up your own damn mind, can you? First you appeal to scientists, then you insult the scientist (me).

But it's par for the course: you ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:27 am And that is WHY "science" has been SO SLOW to catch up with what IS ALREADY KNOWN and HAS ALREADY been explained.

Where has it been explained and to whom?

To thee I.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:35 pm This is the most fundamental question concerning time: If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. 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?
EB

Because of energy.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:58 am To thee I.

Who explained it to you and how come you can't explain it to anybody else?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:52 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:58 pm

Speakpigeon 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?

Your logical fallacy is: Begging the questions
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.

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.
So, why do they stay so synchronised if time doesn't exist?
EB

They stay relatively "sychronized" because they are MADE to stay that way AND because of the power that HELPS them stay that way.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:58 am To thee I.

Who explained it to you and how come you can't explain it to anybody else?

For the above to be able to be explained in a way that would be understood by 'you', the 'you' would have to first understand and KNOW the correct answer to the question who/what am I? When that answer has been discovered by the 'you', or revealed to the 'you', then get back to me and I will explain.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:14 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:58 am To thee I.

Who explained it to you and how come you can't explain it to anybody else?

For the above to be able to be explained in a way that would be understood by 'you', the 'you' would have to first understand and KNOW the correct answer to the question who/what am I? When that answer has been discovered by the 'you', or revealed to the 'you', then get back to me and I will explain.

It was revealed to me. Just 3 seconds ago.

Proceed.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:14 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:04 am
Who explained it to you and how come you can't explain it to anybody else?

For the above to be able to be explained in a way that would be understood by 'you', the 'you' would have to first understand and KNOW the correct answer to the question who/what am I? When that answer has been discovered by the 'you', or revealed to the 'you', then get back to me and I will explain.

It was revealed to me. Just 3 seconds ago.

Proceed.

So can you explain to me what that correct answer is?

If yes, then please do.
If no, then who/what revealed it to you and how come you can not explain it to me, and/or any one else?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:40 am So can you explain to me what that correct answer is?

If yes, then please do.
If no, then who/what revealed it to you and how come you can not explain it to me, and/or any one else?

Sounds like you are deflecting. I wonder why?

Age wrote:
For the above to be able to be explained in a way that would be understood by you the you would have to first understand and KNOW
the correct answer to the question who / what am I ? When that answer has been discovered by the you or revealed to the you then
get back to me and I will explain

I am a biological organism with the capacity to think in abstract terms and also exercise free will
I am a being who is a tiny sub set of the Universe which is quantum at its most fundamental level

I am in this body for an infinitesimal period of time but the particles I am made from will exist for many orders of magnitude after my death

I could not exist without what came before me so in that sense I am past eternal
Equally so I will always exist in some form or another so I am future eternal also

I mean this in a strictly scientific sense although one could extend it to mean in a philosophical sense as well
This is who / what I am according to the knowledge that I have at my disposal at this particular point in time

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:40 am So can you explain to me what that correct answer is?

If yes, then please do.
If no, then who/what revealed it to you and how come you can not explain it to me, and/or any one else?

Sounds like you are deflecting. I wonder why?

What am I, supposedly, deflecting away from exactly?

Bring this back on to 'that' if you are so desperate to deflect away from what I have OBVIOUSLY just POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

Since I have already achieved what I set out to do, then let us take this back to what you, apparently, do NOT want to deflect away from. Now what was it again?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:15 am

Age wrote:
For the above to be able to be explained in a way that would be understood by you the you would have to first understand and KNOW
the correct answer to the question who / what am I ? When that answer has been discovered by the you or revealed to the you then
get back to me and I will explain

I am a biological organism with the capacity to think in abstract terms and also exercise free will
I am a being who is a tiny sub set of the Universe which is quantum at its most fundamental level

I am in this body for an infinitesimal period of time but the particles I am made from will exist for many orders of magnitude after my death

I could not exist without what came before me so in that sense I am past eternal
Equally so I will always exist in some form or another so I am future eternal also

I mean this in a strictly scientific sense although one could extend it to mean in a philosophical sense as well
This is who / what I am according to the knowledge that I have at my disposal at this particular point in time

Fair enough.

But did I give the correct answer to your question ?
And how do you know what the correct answer is ?