So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

attofishpi
Posts: 4660
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:06 pm You haven't addressed the question. Your comments are irrelevant. The question is simple. Read again.
EB
What this?
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:09 pmI think it's phrased clearly and the question is straightforward: What keeps clocks ticking together if not time itself?
Please answer the question as asked. And if you don't know the answer, fair enough but please don't post irrelevancies. 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?
- Time DOES exist.
- TIME does NOT keep a clock ticking.
- The events that occur within matter are what IS time.
- Time is purely a man made measurement of events.
- Clocks no matter how synchronised with a 'master' clock will eventually never read the same.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:06 pm You haven't addressed the question. Your comments are irrelevant. The question is simple. Read again.
EB
Is the question simple; or is the asker a simpleton?

I'd bet on the latter.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

attofishpi wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:49 pm - Time DOES exist.
- TIME does NOT keep a clock ticking.
- The events that occur within matter are what IS time.
- Time is purely a man made measurement of events.
- Clocks no matter how synchronised with a 'master' clock will eventually never read the same.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:49 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
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:49 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
The reason clocks stay synchronized, if they do, is because they are made to do that.

Clocks only stay sychronized, if they do, because that is what they are created to do, by human beings. There is NO other outside influence that keeps clocks sychronized other than human beings themselves.

If clocks were made to tick, at say 1 tick per any amount, then that is what they would do, and, if they were sychronized that way, then they would stay sychronized that way, depending on how well they are made, of course.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

If time did not exist then neither would motion and so clocks would be static just like everything else would be
But because the hands of a clock can move and be seen to move as well it is evidence that time actually exists
So the assumption that time does not exist is falsified by the movement of clock hands and everything else too
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:21 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:49 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?
The reason clocks stay synchronized, if they do, is because they are made to do that. Clocks only stay sychronized, if they do, because that is what they are created to do, by human beings. There is NO other outside influence that keeps clocks sychronized other than human beings themselves. If clocks were made to tick, at say 1 tick per any amount, then that is what they would do, and, if they were sychronized that way, then they would stay sychronized that way, depending on how well they are made, of course.
Clocks stay synchronised. Our influence on clocks is only when we build them and when we synchronise them. Then we let them tick away. The question then is, if time doesn't exist as such, if time is an epiphenomenon, an appearance, then what is it that keeps clocks synchronised?
EB
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:33 am If time did not exist then neither would motion and so clocks would be static just like everything else would be But because the hands of a clock can move and be seen to move as well it is evidence that time actually exists So the assumption that time does not exist is falsified by the movement of clock hands and everything else too
Irrelevant. That's not the question.
EB
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

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
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:33 am If time did not exist then neither would motion and so clocks would be static just like everything else would be
But because the hands of a clock can move and be seen to move as well it is evidence that time actually exists
So the assumption that time does not exist is falsified by the movement of clock hands and everything else too
If time exists, then what IS 'time', exactly?
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Speakpigeon wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:39 am
Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:21 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:49 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?
The reason clocks stay synchronized, if they do, is because they are made to do that. Clocks only stay sychronized, if they do, because that is what they are created to do, by human beings. There is NO other outside influence that keeps clocks sychronized other than human beings themselves. If clocks were made to tick, at say 1 tick per any amount, then that is what they would do, and, if they were sychronized that way, then they would stay sychronized that way, depending on how well they are made, of course.
Clocks stay synchronised. Our influence on clocks is only when we build them and when we synchronise them. Then we let them tick away. The question then is, if time doesn't exist as such, if time is an epiphenomenon, an appearance, then what is it that keeps clocks synchronised?
EB
The human beings who designed the clocks, and the human beings who created them, to keep sychronized.

The power that allows them to run also keeps them synchronized. Without some sort if power they would NOT tick.

There is NO such thing as 'time', which keeps clocks, running, ticking, nor sychronized. This is obvious because clocks stop, slow down, or become unsychronized without a power source.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:51 am If time exists, then what IS 'time', exactly?
What IS X is a stupid metaphysical question.

Time is grobmunf.

What is grobmunf?

Grobmunf is rigpeft.

What is rigpeft?

Rigpeft is podramp.

What is podramp?

Podramp is urgeflond.

Turtles all the way down.

How does time BEHAVE? Well - it seems to flow in only one direction. THEN you can say "Time is like an arrow".
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

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 ?
Yes, AFTER I KNOW what your definition of what 'time' IS.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:05 amNo you cannot so you therefore have no argument to make

Motion can and does exist and happen without time, but of course this all depends on how 'time' is being defined.
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Logik wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:01 am
Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:51 am If time exists, then what IS 'time', exactly?
What IS X is a stupid metaphysical question.

Time is grobmunf.

What is grobmunf?

Grobmunf is rigpeft.

What is rigpeft?

Rigpeft is podramp.

What is podramp?

Podramp is urgeflond.

Turtles all the way down.

How does time BEHAVE? Well - it seems to flow in only one direction. THEN you can say "Time is like an arrow".
So, from the perspective of "logik", grobmunf seems to flow in one direction. Therefore, "logik" can say "Grobmunf is like an arrow", which says and explains nothing at all REALLY.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Eh?

Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:07 amMotion can and does exist and happen without time, but of course this all depends on how 'time' is being defined.
Can you think of a definition of time which allows for something to move, but it doesn't take any time?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:12 am So, from the perspective of "logik", grobmunf seems to flow in one direction. Therefore, "logik" can say "Grobmunf is like an arrow", which says and explains nothing at all REALLY.
Why do you think the universe owes you an explanation of any kind?

Science concerns itself with prediction, not explanation. The future, not the past.