Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:15 pm
...
All one has to do is just work out and know what 'time', itself, is exactly, and then the so-called 'nature of time' is also known, and well understood.
By the way, why do adult human beings write about 'things', like; "Exploring time", but never actually define what the 'thing' is that one wants to 'explore' or 'talk about'.
IF one is not yet able to define the word that one is so-called "exploring", in public writing, then what is 'it' exactly that they are "exploring"?
The author asserted an interest in
time travel but recognized your concern exactly. That is, in order to even attempt that, (s)he realized that time itself has to be addressed.
But how does one even begin to address the unknown and/or some 'thing' that is yet defined?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
On expecting him/her to
define the term, "time", if one lacks
a prior theorem that expresses it in simpler terms, it is
assumed apriori due to DENOTING it.
Are you able to elaborate on or explain what you are saying and meaning here, exactly?
I do not understand what you are getting at here.
The word 'time', to me, by the way, has already been expressed in its simplest terms, and which, also, and by the way, appears to fit in perfectly with all other words, and what they DENOTE as well. This, in turn, has formed One Grand Unified "Theory" Of Everything. Or, in other words, the GUT and TOE have already been combined together, and when this One Unified "Theory" is proved True, Right, and Correct, which it can and will be, then the irrefutable BOW is complete.
Therefore, when one talks about "Exploring Time", I, literally, already know exactly what they are 'exploring'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
Normally denoting something is to point it out with an associated label, like a word spoken or written, in the presense of another you are teaching the meaning you want them to link the term to without defining using other symbols, words, or demonstration of the construct of the thing you are explaining.
If you say so.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
Time is precisely denoted by all of us by experience but lacks being an object we can touch and feel.
Okay. Why is this?
What is 'time', exactly, that you claim can NOT be touched NOR felt?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
I can still personally remember being two or three years old presuming that 'time' was specifially something to do with our particular wall clock's hand positions before I actually understood the intrinsic meaning.
And what is the 'intrinsic meaning' of 'time', to you, now, exactly?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
My state of mind was to recognize the term as undefined but noted its use as it associated to my parents speaking to or about me in the presense of that clock. This first experience is my 'relative absolute' to which the term, "time" would have to relate to. After many other uses of the word by others in the presense of other similar circular spinning arms, I then had 'circularity' in mind as being correlated with "time" and it adds more understanding of the term.
What is your understanding of the word or term 'time', now exactly?
And, do you think there is much more understanding of the term 'time' to add to your current understanding?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
Conjoining other people's own use based upon their own relative absolute experiences, I eventually understood the
referent reality of "time" but as an
apriori assumption ONLY.
And, as we ALL know here, ALL 'assumptions' can be False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
This is the kind of way we learn the referent of a symbol. Since they are personal experiences of which no one would have the exact set of identical experiences, "time" is learned independently; and since this phenomena, time, is real, it is nevertheless
shared by experience by everyone.....or we have to
assume so unless challenged otherwise. So "time" is an understood as being
undefined, yet real.
But as I understand, the word 'time' has already been defined, and, in a way, that works perfectly, with all other things.
By the way, how do you 'know' 'time' is even real, if 'it' is, to you,
undefined?
That would be like saying, 'God' is real, but yet
defined.
Also, there is a lot of
assuming going on here, on your part, which, by the way, you do NOT 'have to' assume absolutely ANY 'thing'.
And, as for 'time' being
shared by experience, by everyone, then if you are up for it I would like to challenge you over this ASSUMPTION of yours here?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:16 am
The article expanded upon different interpretations of significant distinct beliefs about the foundational meaning of "time", its real essence. Time related concepts are hard to be reducible beyond these denoted experiences. So this problem relates to the same issue with "consciousness" as a term about
change itself.
But when 'things' are SEEN as they REALLY ARE, and thus for HOW they REALLY ARE as well, then the
definitions for words like; 'time' and 'consciousness', for example, just fall into place, naturally, and come about very easily, very simply, and very quickly too.