[SCoopsdk]

Apologies for the double-post but I read through this comment.


Referring to the use of a second, or throwing beans in a bucket as ways to measure time, Theodore wrote:

In both cases a unit of measurement is established on the basis of motion. But even this is misleading; one does not need motion to measure time; a change in some sensible or measurable quality would do.

I suggest that you do. Can you think of just one example where what you say is true? I would be interested if you could find one.

[Theodore]

Any regular, periodical change of something sensible would do. Consider a flashing light: you could measure time by it even though no perceived motion is involved.

[SCoopsdk]

Come on Theodore. You can do better than this.

Earlier You said:

Time neither depends on motion in space nor our perception of it.

So why do you suddenly state:

Consider a flashing light: you could measure time by it even though no perceived motion is involved.

So, if we remove your reference to perception, we are left with:

Consider a flashing light: you could measure time by it

The answer is: Yeah, sure you can, but a flashing light can only be used to measure time if you define light which is:

electromagnetic radiation

which exhibits three main properties, one of which is

Frequency, or alternatively wavelength

And the fact that the light flashes introduces another frequency.

Remember: Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

And wavelength: We know that a wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre: and

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...


Can you see that a remarkable similarity is starting to appear with regards to the circular argument you enter into when you try using your new system of a flashing light? It's the same argument as using a second as a term of measurement of time. Read through the stuff I posted before, it might make more sense to you.

[Theodore]

Yes, I said that, and I stand by my statement. Objective time doesn't depend on observers. You confuse time, which is objective and external, with our perception of time, which is neither.

And it is odd to see you refer to things like frequency of electromagnetic radiation, deduced using a framework that includes the objectivity of time, while essentially denying the framework.

[SCoopsdk]

Yes, I said that, and I stand by my statement. Objective time doesn't depend on observers. You confuse time, which is objective and external, with our perception of time, which is neither.

Then you will need to supply a way of measuring "objective time" which isn't beholden to motion.

How can you measure time in a one particle universe for example? If objective time is so "real" and objectively true, then where is it in this example? If you say it's not there, why would that be the case? Where is motion in a one particle universe? Where is time?

And it is odd to see you refer to things like frequency of electromagnetic radiation, deduced using a framework that includes the objectivity of time, while essentially denying the framework.

I think you will find that introduces implied problems with the validity of the framework rather than with the logic used to make my argument, but that's a matter of opinion.

[Theodore]

Then you will need to supply a way of measuring "objective time" which isn't beholden to motion.

Since our brains work on the basis of motion of electrons, that would be most difficult. But just because we measure something using motion doesn't mean it depends on motion.

How can you measure time in a one particle universe for example? If objective time is so "real" and objectively true, then where is it in this example? If you say it's not there, why would that be the case? Where is motion in a one particle universe? Where is time?

There is always a chance that the particle would do something odd, such as decay or change flavour. This is change, which implies duration, which implies time.

[noemon]

The measurment of time is cyclical(approximate to the circle), the measurement, not time(kronos) itself, kronos is linear from 1 to apeiron, the measurement is cyclical.

The ora/hour is cyclical and tomorrows full moon is the justification for it, because it is in relation to our planetary system. It is in relation to this particular which is cyclical fro the earth spins around itself, and hence the cyclo even though the cyclo is imperfect, our approximation can be perfect to the imperfection.

One thing we owe to the Jews, is the Torah, the definition of now, this exact moment, which just passed by the way, and now is another now.

The Greeks defined time always in relation e.g. (Now)This crono-time is between June and July, they defined their boundaries of time, they defined the constraints which define now.

The Jews said now is Torah. This exact moment, and in this sense, this exact moment is always.

Theodore the Jews deny the above framework inherently.

[Theodore]

This is more a question of the exact nature of time than its objectivity. I would say that what you ascribe to the Jews is time as we experience it (I'm not acquainted with pre-modern Jewish thought, but Bergson proposes something that is essentially the same), and what you ascribe to the Greeks is a definite measurement of objective time.

[noemon]

Theodore, i dont know about Bergson, in fact i neglect all the modern philosophy, i only know of science and Greek conceptual thinking, nothing else.

What we discuss has been discussed for ever.

The nature of time is the only thing we can discuss, its objectivity, is a feature of its nature.

One thing i want to tell you guys, is that instead of moving forward that is exlpain and reason combinations of the concepts, like Aristotle you should reason its divisions, its Hypothesis, each Hypothesis is able to produce massive amounts of statements. And what i experience is just the assignment of these massive statements trying to reach to the opposite way of telos, not the Arche.

Find the Arche first that is the Hypothesis and the telos is assigned automatically, divide first, once the division is complete we will have a computer to combine the effects for it is very confusing.

Use Socrates/Plato, not Aristotle.

I say this and hence this. Not hence this is this, except for romse easy subjects like History for example.

First Hypothesis, then constraints, not constraints first and then Hypothesis.

We first draw a circle and then the lines, not make a polygon and unite/combine its corners.

Modern Philosophy in order to acquire Status of invention did exactly that, took the lines and combined them in confusion to define a circle which they saw as their own circle, and one separate from the Ancient Hypothesis, and this resulted to the atheism problem.

Their confused circle is more like a whatever schema aiming to be unique and Hypothesis free, atheistic.

This has resulted to the definition problem, which leads to confusion. I see many people saying the exact same thing and disaggreeing, for they have both assigned a different telos.

While the Arche of their arguments are similar and are unable to recognize it.

One arche has one telos and the telos has one arche.

Both are valid, but starting from the telos results to confusion for the human brain and our education is not very good in calculations and somewhere along the way, it loses the syllogism.

State the Hypothesis define the boundaries and the telos will come about, at least subconciously it will.

I prefer this way cause i am not that smart, and see it as easier. I dont know, this is a matter of opinion.
EDIT: Hmm,
How do i reason this?

If i take a circle and assign lines to it, first the lines all of them will be harmonious and equal to each other.

If i take the lines, which are plenty, numerous and in different metron, i might pick up lines that are not equal to each other for the concepts have been corrupted, and my circle will look like a turd.

But assigning the circle first, i will certainly come up with the lines that fit the circle.

As another Great Hellinic guy said, "the best way to win an argument is to start-arche by being right.

[wonder cow]

Time is a force? No.

Time is a substance or matter? No.

Time is energy? No.

Time exists because we exist. Without intelligence, there is no delineation between one state and the next. Without perception, there are no markers for the begging and ending of events.

Human existence is immersed in the concept of time, and humans can hardly understand their world or universe without it.

So does it exist? As an idea, yes. Is it a physical reality of the universe? No.

[SCoopsdk]

Since our brains work on the basis of motion of electrons, that would be most difficult. But just because we measure something using motion doesn't mean it depends on motion.

You keep saying this like it is an illogical belief in some God in which case, there may be some validity in viewing science as a religion.If you insist this to be the case, then please prove it.
Regarding the question "where is time in a one particle universe?" You replied:

There is always a chance that the particle would do something odd, such as decay or change flavour. This is change, which implies duration, which implies time.

I could be whizzing along at 1000km per second, jumping up and down,.......but would I? How would I know if were the only particle.In fact i could only be doing those things if i were not alone. There is no frame of reference until a second particle in introduced.
Regarding flavour, I refer you to my earlier entry:

Taste is chemical in nature, and primitive. Most of your sense of taste is really your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a guy called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, not shape, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

And what does decay imply? To break down into component parts, which means that you are not in fact the only particle in the universe, but rather a collection to start with, and therefore it would not be a one particle universe to start with.

So if objective time exists as you insist it does, where is it?

Let me state this as simply as I can:

Nothing can happen, (not even time), without the minimum of two fundamental elements.
Thus, any single fundamental element can contain no measureable certainty, no specific event, no reasoning and no time, in which case, time does not exist in and of itself, it's simply a form of measurement of motion with a reference of memory.

Wonder cow wrote:So does it exist? As an idea, yes. Is it a physical reality of the universe? No.

Thankyou. QFT

[noemon]

Time is the energy produced by the interaction of matter.

Matter makes times and yes, time is produced. Time can change.

The example of the space ship travelling on the same distance, but on different courses and coming back at a differrent time even though it has travelled the same distance is the proof.

Time is in relation of matter. The interaction of material beings produces time, and it depends on those beings. It is in relation. It is energy, and it can be measured.

I take a spaceship, set my course to north, and travel for 10 days. You take the same spaceship set your course to south and travel for approximatelly the same distance at the same speed. We reach, we turn around and come back. I will reach in back in X time and you will reach back in Y time. Different time for your course is different than mine and your route has interacted you with different material beings.

Easy.

[Theodore]

You keep saying this like it is an illogical belief in some God in which case, there may be some validity in viewing science as a religion.If you insist this to be the case, then please prove it.

An entity exists objectively if and only if it exists independently of our perception of it.

If time did not exist objectively, it could not exist outside our perception. But perception, being a process, presupposes duration, a time in which the process takes place. Therefore, time necessarily exists before our perception, and is therefore necessarily objective.

I could be whizzing along at 1000km per second, jumping up and down,.......but would I? How would I know if were the only particle.In fact i could only be doing those things if i were not alone. There is no frame of reference until a second particle in introduced.

Well, your question makes no sense without an external observer. This is an impossibility, but it would be in a two-particle universe as well.

Regarding flavour, I refer you to my earlier entry:

I was talking about the quantum number, not taste.

Nothing can happen, (not even time), without the minimum of two fundamental elements.

Time doesn't "happen", time is. It is a medium in which events happen.

Thus, any single fundamental element can contain no measureable certainty

It can indeed, despite there being noone to measure it.

no reasoning

Why is this relevant? Of course only highly complex systems can exhibit mental operations.

[SCoopsdk]

Regarding the existence/reality of "objective time" I wrote:

If you insist this to be the case, then please prove it.

to which your reply:

An entity exists objectively if and only if it exists independently of our perception of it.

If time did not exist objectively, it could not exist outside our perception. But perception, being a process, presupposes duration, a time in which the process takes place. Therefore, time necessarily exists before our perception, and is therefore necessarily objective.

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. It would be an illusion because there would be no objective truth of the existence of "objective time" other than that presupposition created by us in the first place. That cannot be proof of the existence of "objective time"

What I am trying to say is (and I'm rewording your first sentence here):
An entity exists objectively if and only if it exists dependently of our perception of it, and/or through our for-knowledge of it due to the perceptions of others.


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.

And I'll give you an example:

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.

Their belief in a solid, unchangeable sphere of stars was so strong that new stars just couldn't fit into that picture. So even though observations of a supernova so bright that it could be seen during the day are made in China and other places, for European astronomers it simply didn't exist.

You can say "of course it did", but then you are not a medieval astronomer and have the benefit of for-knowledge and better tools of perception to re-adjust your reality. But to them, this was reality.

Other examples (and there are many) would include flat Earth, The Earth as the centre of the universe, the universe being endless, intelligent design etc. etc. These are all realities for those that perceive or perceived them. That's why you have so much difficulty telling a Christian or a Muslim that God doesn't exist in reality and is one of the reasons why I am having so much trouble telling you that Time doesn't exist in reality.

Our ability to create reality is bound only upon our ability to perceive it. Parallel universes don't exist at present, they truly don't because we have no tool to perceive them, but maybe one day, we will invent that tool and "hey presto" they will exist, purely because we have the tool, not because they existed beforehand.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic.

I was talking about the quantum number, not taste.

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.

Time doesn't "happen", time is. It is a medium in which events happen.

It can indeed, despite there being no-one to measure it.

Then I still ask you for your proof.

[noemon]

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.

Come again, clarify. The substance is the same, even in the specific particle, and in the holon. It can be used to describe.

Then I still ask you for your proof.

I gave it to you. See above example.

It would be an illusion because there would be no objective truth of the existence of "objective time" other than that presupposition created by us in the first place. That cannot be proof of the existence of "objective time"

And hence the sciintific method, experimentation, see above example.

But whatever you perceive, is your reality.

See above, the fundemantal laws can be objective, and the scientific method is objective, the method is, do not confuse it with science herself as you do in your whole post. One thing is the various conclusions and nother the method used to reach to the conclusions.

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.

Their belief in a solid, unchangeable sphere of stars was so strong that new stars just couldn't fit into that picture. So even though observations of a supernova so bright that it could be seen during the day are made in China and other places, for European astronomers it simply didn't exist.

You can say "of course it did", but then you are not a medieval astronomer and have the benefit of for-knowledge and better tools of perception to re-adjust your reality. But to them, this was reality.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.

Their belief in a solid, unchangeable sphere of stars was so strong that new stars just couldn't fit into that picture. So even though observations of a supernova so bright that it could be seen during the day are made in China and other places, for European astronomers it simply didn't exist.

You can say "of course it did", but then you are not a medieval astronomer and have the benefit of for-knowledge and better tools of perception to re-adjust your reality. But to them, this was reality.

False example, and vast generalizition. First specify medieval Europe.

Second, this is the conclusion of a people which used the sceintific method but not succesfully. t is their fault, not of the objectivity of the method, nor does it cancel the objectivity of our scientific perception of time, becuase they happened to be pressupose something that led them to invalidity.

Other examples (and there are many) would include flat Earth, The Earth as the centre of the universe, the universe being endless, intelligent design etc. etc. These are all realities for those that perceive or perceived them. That's why you have so much difficulty telling a Christian or a Muslim that God doesn't exist in reality and is one of the reasons why I am having so much trouble telling you that Time doesn't exist in reality.

this is for the mediocre little children, that this cancels God, when in fact it doesnt. The Christians are not scared of these assumptions.

And this does not prove that the scientific method is subjective.

Our ability to create reality is bound only upon our ability to perceive it. Parallel universes don't exist at present, they truly don't because we have no tool to perceive them, but maybe one day, we will invent that tool and "hey presto" they will exist, purely because we have the tool, not because they existed beforehand.

And if they do, they will become part of the whole and the whole will be reassigned, and hence the objectivity of the method.

Its very simple, yet so hard.

[SCoopsdk]

Noemon:

Come again, clarify. The substance is the same, even in the specific particle, and in the holon. It can be used to describe.

Theodore is stating that a fundamental particle in single particle universe would be able to experience "objective time" through "changing flavour" by which he meant quantum number. However, an electron can only experience this if it is part of a holon, an atom. If the electron were the fundamental particle, it would have no reference (other electrons or the atom as a whole)from which to measure its change.

Imagine you are floating around in a vacuum, an ultimate sensory deprivation chamber. You are the only one there. You can't feel, you can't see, you can't hear, you have no sense of perception with which to obtain a reference. Are you travelling at 1000km/hour, up or down, north or south or just floating still? Is there a sense of time for you, or not? You can't look at your watch because there is no second object clock and your blind anyway, so you can't see it. There is no objective, fundamental thing called "Time". It's just a form of measurement of motion with memory thrown in. There is no past, there is no future, there is only a constant stream of ever changing nows.

Space and Time?
Space-Time?
No, the closer reality is that there is just space


but that's moving a little too far off topic again

[noemon]

It's just a form of measurement of motion with memory thrown in. There is no past, there is no future, there is only a constant stream of ever changing nows.

And we define these nows in order to be able to express it. And the definition, the assignment of the point, we define it as the time, in order to understand it and taxis it, and we use the good old method, which is objective.

The Hypothesis is objective and useful. The conclusion if there is or not, might not be either, ofc this is true.

The fact everything is a stream is a fact. Kronos(Time) is linear, one thread, one stream, always...As humans we need to measure the stream, the nows, and the method we use to do so is certainly objective.

Since you deny the method, why dont you find another method and make it more succesful, instead of denying the only one method we got to measure, without even offering a substitute?

[noemon]

If i want to draw the perfect line and align my drawers on the wall, what do i do?

I specify a point, a particle.

Once i specify the point, i go on to measure the distance from X, to Y and thus i am able to find the unknown second point which will align perfectly my drawers on the wall.

I assign a dot, a circle, a point of reference. This is the method, and this is the only method we got, and this method is objective in terms and also subjective in other terms. It depends on the dimensions, on the constraints and stuff.
Everything relative, and the absolute is in specific terms.

OK, granted this method is impefect in regards to our knowledge, it is imperfect because we got more unknowns, undiscovered unknowns, that is our fault, not the methods fault. Name another method more objective, more succesful.

[SCoopsdk]

noemon:

Since you deny the method,.....

I'm not denying the method at all, in fact I'm saying that its just that....a method

A means or manner of procedure, an approach used to do something.

It's a human construct, not based in fundamental reality. There is no fabric of space and time because there is no fundamental time, it doesn't exist. It is just a method.

[noemon]

Exactly, and something else i would like to add.

First we defined length, width and height, and we termed this as space, later, we assigned depth, time and on and on.

These concepts do not exist themselves independently, they are all one, its more like, widthheightdepthtime and not width-height-time, all this together is Chaos.

Archimedes used this method and he termed it as "the method" and he went on to solve an 11 unknown equation that is eleven dimensions with only one known. We discovered this in 1999 in the Archimedes Palimpset(Codex C) which was rotting in Orthodox churches. The codex C now/tora is in Baltimore's Museum.

When Da Vinci picked up Archimedes he took the known 3 dimensions that he found in Archimedes codex A and he made them 4 or 5 i do not remember correctly. Newton more, Einstein more and now the string theory aims to make them eleven in order to unify quantum mechanic with relativity theory by assigning the domain where these 2 are able to co-exist for now they are unable to in our mediocre simplistic minds. Something that Archimedes had already done some 25 centuries ago. Imagine where we would be know had the Codex C which contains the formula for 11 unknowns be known to the public.

The reason that religion kept this information to herself, is because the mediocre demo(public) thinks that this assignment comes in contrast to God, ofc the philosophers know that they do not, and the major priests themselves know they do not, and hence why they kept them, but the average human does think so, because he thinks in very relative and simplistic terms the notions and denies or would deny the social engineering which in essense is good cause it puts the mediocre idiot into constraints, also English with all the corruption is a very whatever language, it needs cleansing from the corruption of the terms, not cleansing the terms that is deleting them, but cleansing the terms themselves. The Vavel curse. These concepts or dimensions do not cancel the stream of God, they just explain sectors of it in relative terms, and do cancel some religious invalid conclusions, but never the ultimate hypothesis, that is Chaos or whatever or Theos.