So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Age wrote:
If time exists then what IS time exactly
The passing of an event or the temporal distance between events
The passing of a thought or the temporal distance between thoughts
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Age wrote:
Are you absolutely certain of this ? Where did I say any such thing ?
I do not actually believe I know the answer and never said that I did
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:47 am The passing of an event or the temporal distance between events
And you can't define "event" without alluding to the observer's interest.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:07 am You ask a question but BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW what the answer IS.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Logic wrote:
And you cannot define event without alluding to the observers interest
Well you cannot define anything without alluding to the observers interest
Because without exception all knowledge or experience is mind dependent
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

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
That's not how logic works.
I didn't claim time doesn't exist. I said "IF time doesn't exist...". It's a conditional statement. You don't seem to understand the most basic point about the conditional, about making assumptions.
Start here:
Validity 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/
EB
Age
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Eh?

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:16 am
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?
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.

Can you think of a definition for the word 'time', which does NOT allow for some thing to move?
Age
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Logik wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:27 am
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?
But I do NOT think this.

The Universe does NOT owe me an explained of any thing. The Universe explains Its Self, very simply, easily and JUSTLY, naturally.
Logik wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:27 amScience concerns itself with prediction, not explanation. The future, not the past.
And that is WHY "science" has been SO SLOW to catch up with what IS ALREADY KNOWN and HAS ALREADY been explained.
Age
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:47 am
Age wrote:
If time exists then what IS time exactly
The passing of an event or the temporal distance between events
The passing of a thought or the temporal distance between thoughts
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.
Age
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:51 am
Age wrote:
Are you absolutely certain of this ? Where did I say any such thing ?
Probably directly before I wrote that.

You wrote:
Can you demonstrate how motion can exist without time ?
Then you wrote:
No you cannot so you therefore have no argument to make

That is WHERE you said such thing.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:51 amI do not actually believe I know the answer and never said that I did
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.

You did NOT believe you ALREADY KNEW what the answer is. You just wrote as though you ALREADY KNEW what the answer is, correct?

You did, after all, ask if I could do some thing, and then immediately wrote that I can NOT. If you did NOT say that you ALREADY KNEW the answer to your question, then it certainly appeared that way to me. You even then wrote so that means that I have NO argument to make, which both are, by the way, ASSUMPTIONS that you ALREADY KNEW the answer to your own question. Which obviously you would NOT already know UNTIL you gave me an opportunity to answer your question.

If I have gotten this wrong, then please explain HOW and WHY.

I have already explained I got the 'believing' part WRONG, but I still see, from your words, that you THOUGHT you ALREADY KNEW the answer to your own question, which was directly proposed to me.
Age
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Logik wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:17 am
Age wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:07 am You ask a question but BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW what the answer IS.
No I do NOT believe that at all. But from what I have SEEN, For EVERY question there is AN answer.

Well, so far, for me this has been the case. Absolutely EVERY question can be, almost immediately, answered very simply and easily.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 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?
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

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
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 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.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU