Do you know this? Or are you assuming your senses are correct?
Do you experience time when there is no change?
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Do I know what?
I am just asking you a question, which it appears that you can not or do not want to answer. Just like the many other ones you can not or do not answer.
Did you say that every thing is assumed?
If yes, then you assume every thing.
If no, then what do you say?
What is your whole argument about every thing is assumed based upon and around if you are NOT assuming every thing, then your whole argument and BELIEF is a complete contradiction in and of itself.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
AssumptionsAge wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:20 amDo I know what?
I am just asking you a question, which it appears that you can not or do not want to answer. Just like the many other ones you can not or do not answer.
Did you say that every thing is assumed?
If yes, then you assume every thing.
If no, then what do you say?
What is your whole argument about every thing is assumed based upon and around if you are NOT assuming every thing, then your whole argument and BELIEF is a complete contradiction in and of itself.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Motion is a sort of change. That is true that any change cannot take place without time.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:44 amAny motion causes change but it cannot happen without timebahman wrote:
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change
Have you ever experienced waiting? You wouldn't say that if you ever did so.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:44 am Only when there is no motion anywhere can there be no time
-
- Posts: 5116
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
motion of atoms above needed for your voice to carry,commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
so time is motion literally.
no motion no time.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
So, to you, there is absolutely no distinction between 'time' and 'motion', correct?gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:07 ammotion of atoms above needed for your voice to carry,commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
so time is motion literally.
no motion no time.
If yes, then, to you, are they the exact same thing?
-
- Posts: 5116
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Motion, or change, is interdependent with time. When I speak of one, I speak of the other.Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:33 pmSo, to you, there is absolutely no distinction between 'time' and 'motion', correct?gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:07 ammotion of atoms above needed for your voice to carry,commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
so time is motion literally.
no motion no time.
If yes, then, to you, are they the exact same thing?
Are they 2 words for the same thing, identical? I don’t know, but I am inclined to think so.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Time is an entity that allows change to occur. Time has to exist exactly because of the fact that two and more states cannot coexist together.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
So in the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg: the chicken with an egg inside of it is false?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:10 pmTime is an entity that allows change to occur. Time has to exist exactly because of the fact that two and more states cannot coexist together.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
IF 'time' is some 'entity', which allows some thing to occur, then what IS that 'entity' exactly?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:10 pmTime is an entity that allows change to occur.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
LOL
The word used when describing the measuring of things, which is just the word 'time', does NOT have to exist BECAUSE two and more, so called, "states" did NOT exist together BEFORE 'you', human beings, started measuring change, itself, and so introduced the word 'time' to describe just this measuring process.
When you STOP believing things like "time HAS TO EXIST", then I could explain to you FULLY in very simple and easy to understand terms just HOW 'time' does NOT necessarily "HAVE TO EXIST".
Until then that is absolutely NO purpose in me really saying any thing in regards to 'time'. This is because you have ALREADY decided what the truth is, correct?
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Time has to exist in order to allow that change to happen, nothing to something.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:27 amSo in the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg: the chicken with an egg inside of it is false?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:10 pmTime is an entity that allows change to occur. Time has to exist exactly because of the fact that two and more states cannot coexist together.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Time is elementary. It simply exists such as other elementary things.Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:49 amIF 'time' is some 'entity', which allows some thing to occur, then what IS that 'entity' exactly?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:10 pmTime is an entity that allows change to occur.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm surreptitious57, Age, bahman & gaffo,
You’ve contributed a number of interesting remarks to the discussion about time.
To my way of thinking, time is imaginary. Time is a construct created by humans in order to comprehend change. I say this because there’s no reason that more than one change can’t happen together.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that I speak just one syllable. A sound emanates from my vocal chords while air makes the chords vibrate and the tongue, lips and facial muscles are configured in a specific arrangement together with some molecules of oxygen being taken up by my lungs and some amount of blood being pushed by a heartbeat, just to name a few of the changes that can take place simultaneously.
And I know that unless there’s a limit to the number of changes that can occur together, all change could happen at once. Surely if, say, a lot of changes, or all change, happened at once, the experience would be confusing or incomprehensible to humans.
I believe change must be split into manageable sequences in order for us to understand our experiences. If we could not create time, our experiences would be chaos.
The measure of change is speed, not time.commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pmLOL
The word used when describing the measuring of things, which is just the word 'time', does NOT have to exist BECAUSE two and more, so called, "states" did NOT exist together BEFORE 'you', human beings, started measuring change, itself, and so introduced the word 'time' to describe just this measuring process.
When you STOP believing things like "time HAS TO EXIST", then I could explain to you FULLY in very simple and easy to understand terms just HOW 'time' does NOT necessarily "HAVE TO EXIST".
Until then that is absolutely NO purpose in me really saying any thing in regards to 'time'. This is because you have ALREADY decided what the truth is, correct?
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
You can KEEP INSISTING 'time' is some actually thing BUT if you NEVER tell us what that thing actually IS, then REALLY what are you saying exactly?
What does " 'time' is 'elementary' " actually mean, to you?
And, IF 'time' simply exists such as other elementary things, then what elementary thing is 'time' exactly?
If you do NOT answer these clarifying questions, then you are only delaying the inevitable.
Are you saying a clock and watch measure speed?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:13 pmThe measure of change is speed, not time.age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pmLOL
The word used when describing the measuring of things, which is just the word 'time', does NOT have to exist BECAUSE two and more, so called, "states" did NOT exist together BEFORE 'you', human beings, started measuring change, itself, and so introduced the word 'time' to describe just this measuring process.
When you STOP believing things like "time HAS TO EXIST", then I could explain to you FULLY in very simple and easy to understand terms just HOW 'time' does NOT necessarily "HAVE TO EXIST".
Until then that is absolutely NO purpose in me really saying any thing in regards to 'time'. This is because you have ALREADY decided what the truth is, correct?
If yes, then okay.
If no, then what are you 'trying to' say?
How about you first TELL US what exactly is 'time', and then proceed from there?
If you can NOT explain what 'time' IS exactly, then that say more about what 'time' is NOT.
Also, and by the way, you somehow mixed what I have said and mis/quoted that to that one known as "commonsense", so I fixed this up.
Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?
Time is a fundamental entity with the following properties: It exists at an infinitesimal interval so-called now, It changes, it allows change to occurs.
It means that it is not made of something else. It simply exists.
Time is an entity that allows change to occur. Change means that one state of affair turns into another state of affair.
I hope things are more clear now.
What we experience on a clock is motion in two states of affair. A system simply changes. Time, however, cannot be measured by any instrument since there is no way that an instrument can interact with time.Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:27 pmAre you saying a clock and watch measure speed?bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:13 pmThe measure of change is speed, not time.age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:57 pm
LOL
The word used when describing the measuring of things, which is just the word 'time', does NOT have to exist BECAUSE two and more, so called, "states" did NOT exist together BEFORE 'you', human beings, started measuring change, itself, and so introduced the word 'time' to describe just this measuring process.
When you STOP believing things like "time HAS TO EXIST", then I could explain to you FULLY in very simple and easy to understand terms just HOW 'time' does NOT necessarily "HAVE TO EXIST".
Until then that is absolutely NO purpose in me really saying any thing in regards to 'time'. This is because you have ALREADY decided what the truth is, correct?
Time is an entity that allows change to occur. It is this thing which I am describing.Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:27 pm If yes, then okay.
If no, then what are you 'trying to' say?
How about you first TELL US what exactly is 'time', and then proceed from there?
If you can NOT explain what 'time' IS exactly, then that say more about what 'time' is NOT.
Also, and by the way, you somehow mixed what I have said and mis/quoted that to that one known as "commonsense", so I fixed this up.