Things cannot be simultaneous

[bahman]

What does that have to do with the question I'm asking you? Is the illumination of the power light and the signal/information going to the monitor the same thing, yes or no?

As I said there are two cables for my monitor one is for power and another for information. So there two systems.

Ah--so earlier you gave a computer as an example of a system.

So basically this is amounting to you simply telling us that you're defining "system" so that it can only be in one state at a time.

Computer has many parts and each part has different properties. But yes, you can consider your computer as one system with too many parameters, one being the current of power supply and another one the current from your graphics card.

[Skepdick]

Nice to see that you agree.

The implication of your argument is that it necessitates a discrete/digital ontology.

Which is, of course - all we can ever attain with our categorical minds.

[AlexW]

Because the system at any point is defined by a set of parameters. So the system cannot have these parameters and other parameters.

What you are doing could be compared to someone gazing at the sky, then deciding to dissect it into, lets say 8x8 squares (like a chess board), focus on one square and state that only this one "well defined, unique area" contains a direct view of the sun - then you go on and state: this square is a "closed system" and is defined by the unique parameter "sun".
You insist that this little square is a closed system, defined by certain, unique parameters, while the boundary of the square is actually non existent (it only exists inside your conceptual interpretation) and in reality there is simply boundless sky... its quite funny if you look at it this way, isn't it?

[DPMartin]

Good that you agree.

well may not, maybe so, time is measured by certain amount of energy or force acting on a certain amount of matter to move it through a certain amount of space, even electrons moving in the case of electronically measuring time, hence we think to perceive it correctly.

it seems to me that time is required for any energy, space, or matter, to exist. also there doesn't seem to be a smallest amount of time, kind of like basic geometry's concept of a point that has no dimension, no length no width no height but a series of them make a line.

I am not talking about measuring time. I am talking about time.

yea but proving time exists is like trying recreate the wheel, what's the point? all living things are aware of time in one fashion or another, so it would seem the only thing left it to understand its existence, nature, behavior, make up, so on and so forth. like matter or space or energy.

[bahman]

Nice to see that you agree.

The implication of your argument is that it necessitates a discrete/digital ontology.

Which is, of course - all we can ever attain with our categorical minds.

The reality is discrete with time between.

[bahman]

Because the system at any point is defined by a set of parameters. So the system cannot have these parameters and other parameters.

What you are doing could be compared to someone gazing at the sky, then deciding to dissect it into, lets say 8x8 squares (like a chess board), focus on one square and state that only this one "well defined, unique area" contains a direct view of the sun - then you go on and state: this square is a "closed system" and is defined by the unique parameter "sun".
You insist that this little square is a closed system, defined by certain, unique parameters, while the boundary of the square is actually non existent (it only exists inside your conceptual interpretation) and in reality there is simply boundless sky... its quite funny if you look at it this way, isn't it?

What is your point? Any particle no matter how the universe is has a set of properties. Then the universe has a set of properties.

[bahman]

well may not, maybe so, time is measured by certain amount of energy or force acting on a certain amount of matter to move it through a certain amount of space, even electrons moving in the case of electronically measuring time, hence we think to perceive it correctly.

it seems to me that time is required for any energy, space, or matter, to exist. also there doesn't seem to be a smallest amount of time, kind of like basic geometry's concept of a point that has no dimension, no length no width no height but a series of them make a line.

I am not talking about measuring time. I am talking about time.

yea but proving time exists is like trying recreate the wheel, what's the point? all living things are aware of time in one fashion or another, so it would seem the only thing left it to understand its existence, nature, behavior, make up, so on and so forth. like matter or space or energy.

You are talking about the evidence I am talking about the proof.

[AlexW]

What is your point? Any particle no matter how the universe is has a set of properties. Then the universe has a set of properties.

The point is that the universe is not made up of separate particles - and as such there is no such particle to have a set of properties.

[bahman]

What is your point? Any particle no matter how the universe is has a set of properties. Then the universe has a set of properties.

The point is that the universe is not made up of separate particles - and as such there is no such particle to have a set of properties.

So you are happy with quantum fields?

[AlexW]

So you are happy with quantum fields?

I am happy with my direct experience - which is not of particles, but also not of quantum fields.

[bahman]

So you are happy with quantum fields?

I am happy with my direct experience - which is not of particles, but also not of quantum fields.

You are talking about what do you perceive?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Consider a system that is at a given state that is defined by a set of parameters. This system however cannot be in different states at the same point. Therefore, different states of the system can only take place in different points. But there has to be a duration between different states of the system otherwise change never takes place. Therefore, time exist.

Your thinking is sequential in nature, like early tape backup cassettes. But not so long ago hard drives wrote/read data in parallel. Your thinking is not parallel in nature. In the universe, (a system) there are probably a googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, etc, etc, etc... of things such that different things can and do happen simultaneously.

[bahman]

Consider a system that is at a given state that is defined by a set of parameters. This system however cannot be in different states at the same point. Therefore, different states of the system can only take place in different points. But there has to be a duration between different states of the system otherwise change never takes place. Therefore, time exist.

Your thinking is sequential in nature, like early tape backup cassettes. But not so long ago hard drives wrote/read data in parallel. Your thinking is not parallel in nature. In the universe, (a system) there are probably a googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, etc, etc, etc... of things such that different things can and do happen simultaneously.

Add all your googolplex together. You get the whole which cannot be like this and that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Consider a system that is at a given state that is defined by a set of parameters. This system however cannot be in different states at the same point. Therefore, different states of the system can only take place in different points. But there has to be a duration between different states of the system otherwise change never takes place. Therefore, time exist.

Your thinking is sequential in nature, like early tape backup cassettes. But not so long ago hard drives wrote/read data in parallel. Your thinking is not parallel in nature. In the universe, (a system) there are probably a googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, etc, etc, etc... of things such that different things can and do happen simultaneously.

Add all your googolplex together. You get the whole which cannot be like this and that.

Did you forget what you were talking about?

In this universe things can and do happen simultaneously.

[bahman]

Your thinking is sequential in nature, like early tape backup cassettes. But not so long ago hard drives wrote/read data in parallel. Your thinking is not parallel in nature. In the universe, (a system) there are probably a googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, to the googolplex, etc, etc, etc... of things such that different things can and do happen simultaneously.

Add all your googolplex together. You get the whole which cannot be like this and that.

Did you forget what you were talking about?

In this universe things can and do happen simultaneously.

So you believe that the universe is like this and that, etc.