[Theodore]

Okay, So, you are saying that you can prove objective time exists because perception of it presupposes (take for granted or as a given; suppose beforehand;) its existence in the first place. Which would be a good example of our minds creating time, presupposing its existence and then constructing a reality in which time is an essential element, but not fundamentally true.

You've missed the point of my argument. Our minds could not exist without objective time (since something can't be the cause of the conditions for its existence).

In other words, your reality lies within your perception plus for-knowledge frame. And what things look like in your frame is different to someone elses frame, depending on how close together or far apart you are from each other, how much motion is involved, what tools of perception you have and whether you have any memory/for-knowledge to help you out. But whatever you perceive, is your reality.

This describes our subjective experience quite well. But there is also an objective reality, consisting of the unperceived causes of our perceptions.

The medieval view of the universe was a belief in crystal heavenly spheres which was so strong that they denied the existence of meteors, because how could they go through those spheres without breaking them. So even though rocks were falling all around them they simply did not exist.

Thatk you for doing my work for me. Rocks were falling, the meteors were and are objectively real; the fact that they had an incorrect explanation of their origin and nature doesn't change this simple fact.

Since quantum numbers describe specifically the energies of electrons in atoms, you are talking about a holon (a system (or phenomenon) that is a whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system.) so therefore cannot be used to describe a universe containing one fundamental particle, since it is a collection.

Eh, no, quantum numbers are something all elementary particles have, even when they aren't a part of a larger system.

[SCoopsdk]

You've missed the point of my argument. Our minds could not exist without objective time

Yes, I do understand this to be your position, I'm simply saying that our minds could not exist, or rather function without them constructing an "objective time". It doesn't make "objective time" objectively real.

(since something can't be the cause of the conditions for its existence).

This makes no sense unless you explain this comment.

As far as the rest is concerned, if you can preset to me an equation describing how time can be measured in a one fundamental/elementary particle universe model, then you'll have me hook line and sinker.

That will settle the matter of the existence of an objective thing called time, that isn't simply space and motion. (don't forget to exclude time from your calculations except in the conclusion ....oh, and since you say motion is not required, leave any form of that out too.) If you can do it, you'll deserve a nobel prize.

Conclusively prove the existence of objective time.

It's a bit like proving that God exists........its not possible

[Theodore]

This makes no sense unless you explain this comment.

What is there to explain? Did your existence cause the... eh... event leading to the creation of the zygote that developed into you (it was the only example I could think of, and, yes, I see the oedipal overtones) or was it the other way around?

As far as the rest is concerned, if you can preset to me an equation describing how time can be measured in a one fundamental/elementary particle universe model, then you'll have me hook line and sinker.

Why would this be necessary? Such an equation would presuppose a regular event, and random flavour changes definitely aren't regular, but this is besides the point. Any event, any change would do to establish the existence of time, even if a unit to measure it can't be established.

[SCoopsdk]

We're just not going to be able to agree on this, but the discussion has been worthwhile...Thanks


Oh, and just one more thing........I'm right and you're wrong

[noemon]

Yes, I do understand this to be your position, I'm simply saying that our minds could not exist, or rather function without them constructing an "objective time". It doesn't make "objective time" objectively real.

It is objectively in relation to the object that defines the point, the dot, the cyclo, it is as objective as width, or height.

Which they are not subjective but objective in relation to object matter(hyle) the notion that Jews deny ever since Christ told them to. They are objective.

What is there to explain? Did your existence cause the... eh... event leading to the creation of the zygote that developed into you (it was the only example I could think of, and, yes, I see the oedipal overtones) or was it the other way around?

Clapping

And something else, there is nothing to agree, reason, Logos is the one that has the last word.

Was it the other way around or not?

If you manage to answer that our understanding(our subjective perception) led to evolution and not the other way around, and that we just try to understand evolution and we do so objectively using the method, then you will prove your point, and that evolution exists only because we termed it so and not because it does, then and only then you will defend the position of the Jews against our scientific method, against the Hyle and Ousia, against Christ.

Since you are unable to do so, the only thing left to do is to accept your falsehood, nothing more nothing less. Now(Torah) is not 2000 years ago and torah people are not easily manipulated.

[SCoopsdk]

As a footnote, I just found an interesting article which discusses the different view points on time here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/time.htm#H1

[MB.]

The universe does not contain time, it is a world in motion. Our concepts of Time are only in mathematical space, and in your head

Failure. For things to change they need time. Time exists you're just thinking of it wrong.

I bet it will turn out that Time more specifically, change, is one of the fundamental forces.

I think the dimensional notion of time is possible, but flawed (why no time paradoxes now?)

[SCoopsdk]

Failure. For things to change they need time. Time exists you're just thinking of it wrong.

No. For us to construct a notion called time, we need change/motion. Motion and change exists....time doesn't, except as an idea in our heads.

I bet it will turn out that Time more specifically, change, is one of the fundamental forces.

Motion and change yes...a fundamental force called time? No

I think the dimensional notion of time is possible, but flawed (why no time paradoxes now?)

Then riddle me this..... Why can you not measure time unless you use time in the equation?. It will be in frequency, in wavelength, in velocity and speed. Remove time from the equation and you get a little stuck.

It's like temperature. You don't go around saying that temperature is a fundamental force in nature. We don't say that we travel through temperature, there is no up and down in temperature except as an idea of the measurement of the increased movement of molecules. It's a human construct. We don't say that in the beginning there was space and temperature, so why are we insisting on saying that there is a thing called time?

[noemon]

Time does not exists independently, it is warped, it exists because all the other dimensions exist, we taxis the dimensions and give them names, Their names do not exist themselves, they are all one, and they exist alltogether.

Fact. we call it time,and space when in fact its spacetime and when we discover m ore dimensions we will redefine it and call it spacetimexyomegawhatever, One, not each independently.

[SCoopsdk]

Time does not exists independently, ...... it exists because all the other dimensions exist,

As a form of measurement ..yes...but not anything more substantial than that (like temperature)

There is no fundamental thing called temperature in this universe and there is no fundamental thing called time.

If there was, I would have been presented with the proof and I haven't, I'm still waiting.

[Andres]

Why can you not measure time unless you use time in the equation?

You cannot measure anything if it's not 'part of the equation'.

We don't say that we travel through temperature, there is no up and down in temperature except as an idea of the measurement of the increased movement of molecules. It's a human construct.

Actually, in cosmic scales we do travel from a region of high temperature to a region of lower temperature. Temperature functions practically as a measurement of time. Also, even by your very naive definition of temperature, temperature would not be a human construct.

[SCoopsdk]

You cannot measure anything if it's not 'part of the equation'.

Then let me apologise and re-phrase the question andres. Please provide an equation where the answer (the bit after the equal sign) is time, but the bit before the equal sign (the equation, working out bit) contains no reference to time. Provide an equation for me that proves the existence of a fundamental thing called "time", and we can all go home.

Also, even by your very naive definition of temperature, temperature would not be a human construct.

Thanks for the condescending comment.....I can tell we're going to get on well

My question to you is (of course) why?

[Andres]

Please provide an equation where the answer (the bit after the equal sign) is time, but the bit before the equal sign (the equation, working out bit) contains no reference to time.

An object moving at constant non-relativistic speed v, that travels a length l, takes the following time t to do so t = l/v.

But this in no way proves that time is a fundamental object.

Thanks for the condescending comment.....I can tell we're going to get on well
My question to you is (of course) why?

Well, it is a naive definition, and not just because you limited it to molecules. A more sophisticated definition is the inverse of change of the entropy with regards to the energy. As to why it would not be a human construct, by your definition there are molecules moving which would not be a human construct. The units used to measure temperature would be a human construct, but the object being measured was not a human construct.

[Theodore]

No. For us to construct a notion called time, we need change/motion. Motion and change exists....time doesn't, except as an idea in our heads.

(1) We need change in order to perceive time, not create it ex nihilo.

(2) The notion of change without time doesn't even make bloody sense.

I bet it will turn out that Time more specifically, change, is one of the fundamental forces.

Ugh. Please tell me that wasn't a reference to the four fundamental forces of physics.

[SCoopsdk]

But this in no way proves that time is a fundamental object

Indeed, since how are you going to define a non-relativistic speed without referring to time

And how are you going to define your length without reference to time? If we use a metre as your length, a metre is defined as: the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.

Can you think of any other way to define it? I suggest not.You cannot make your calculaton without presupposing the existence of time which, I'm sorry is very bad science.

And if you yourself agree that your equation in no way proves that times is fundamental, why does there not exist an equation or something that proves the existence of such a fundamental thing, if it is such?

We need change in order to perceive time, not create it ex nihilo

Indeed, since it doesn't exist except as a perception created by our consciousness.

The notion of change without time doesn't even make bloody sense.

It doesn't make sense I grant you, but I'm not asking you to use common sense to see this since sense is created in your mind, I'm asking for pure logic to understand this.

[Theodore]

Indeed, since it doesn't exist except as a perception created by our consciousness.

This argument is going around in bloody circles because apparently you're so fond of that assertion you need to restate it over and over again. Did you even read my reply?

It doesn't make sense I grant you, but I'm not asking you to use common sense to see this since sense is created in your mind, I'm asking for pure logic to understand this.

The concept is contradictory in itself. Logic doesn't work with faulty concepts.

[SCoopsdk]

This argument is going around in bloody circles because apparently you're so fond of that assertion you need to restate it over and over again. Did you even read my reply?

Likewise my friend

The concept is contradictory in itself. Logic doesn't work with faulty concepts.

I have seen very little from you to show me the error of my ways. It should be the simplest thing. No? You cannot show me that time exists in a one fundamental particle universe, or in any other objective, concrete, fundamental sense.

You explain it all to me..I'll listen, but if you simply disagree all the time without producing the goods, well......

[Theodore]

Let me restate my proof: since our perceptions imply change they presuppose time (change without time can't be imagined, which is why it is a contradictory concept), and therefore they can't be the cause of time.

Chiaro?

[MB.]

Motion and change exists....time doesn't

Dude. Time is motion and change.

[noemon]

Likewise my friend

All of us have given a million examples,a nd you are still unable to comprehend it.

Does width exist? Does height exist? We define them in relation to an object. And we start the measurements, similarly time exists because width and height exists. The same way you see your height in the mirror every day, the same way time exists, they are all what we term dimensions and we measure them, we define them and hence they exist, not independently, but alltogether, we assign a dot, and we go on to find the WHOLE. We have already found huge chunks of the whole, and we proved that this is part of the whole through experimentation. Do not argue just for the sake of it, and try to read for once what is being said. If you are unable to define time in your mind that does not mean that time does not exist.

All the dimensions exist all together, and there are mor out there awaiting definition, when we define them all, we will know all. EXperiment proves that time exists, its measurement proves that it exists.