The nature of time

[sigurdV]

I found this:

 

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_The_Nature_of_Time.pdf

 

...felt it needed to be added to this thread!

Hello phision! I decided against opening a new thread your topic suits me fine!

I hope you dont mind me confusing the issue some? Just tell me Im not wanted and

Ill search out new timetory. And thank you for bringing Julian Barbour to my attention

he really is a nice fellow thonking clear thoughts ;)

 

My opening observation is that some particles (if not all) can be considered waves!

Now aint that scandalous: HOW can something be something else?

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

What is the proof for the existence of time, or is it meerly implied? please let me know?

Trying to be polite I decided your topic question needs my answer:

 

YOU ARE!

 

Hopefully you will excuse me for shouting my answer, so to say: In your face...

But I feel ppl dont pay much attention to what I say unless I do some offense!

 

Theres two kinds of understanding, immediate and interpreted:

 

Im saying that you have immediate understanding (=proof) of time in your continued existence,

but theres deep problems in acquiring interpreted knowledge of the simple and obvious fact of continuing!

Theres seems both to be an IDENTITY and a DIFFERENCE between yourself in questioning and yourself in answering!

 

Im sort of Reality Oriented and I usually feel a need of a Model to look at while I think so here it is:

 

1 x = x (static existence)

2 x = "x" (dynamic existence)

 

My point being that in order to be a static dynamic thing, x must satisfy both equations!

[sigurdV]

Posted 04 May 2010 - 12:21 AM

 

Pyrotex said:

 

Well, it looks like Alfred Korzybski wins again. By communicating with each other, we build up a common vocabulary. It is this vocabulary with which we build up a world-view, our Map of reality. Actually, our world-view is basically complete by the time we are 8 or 10 years old. So it is not surprising to me that we should have the same illusions, the same metaphors, the same experiential icons in our Maps.

 

Rade said: (if no quoting mistake is done)

 

But, for Korzybski to reach final victory, he claims that our "maps", while the collective illusions (fiction), are not invented illusions, but a direct product of the "territory" (facts). You see, for Korzybski, the "territory" exists, it is "real"--but for DD, all is illusion--map and territory. There is no Korzybski thinking in DD--not the way I read his philosophy. It is not clear to me that DD would claim that he "exists", let alone any "territory". Now, this is not to say the I think the Fundamental Equation does not have value--I think it does--it is a sub-set of the philosophic Law of Identity A = A (this is the reason DD also claims that it is a philosophic tautology). But for me, tautology (which is the inverse of contradiction) has great value. And the tautological root of the Fundamental Equation provides a mathematical basis for the formation of "concepts" within the human mind, and that operation has importance to physics (well, all science and just being a human). But DD does not agree with me.

 

sigurdV says:

 

I dont want to drown into details, I just underlined what I want you to see above, my real target is Alfred.

He claims that "The Map Aint The Territory" and I want to prove him wrong: The crux is that I want YOU

to see that he is wrong, but will you accept my direct method of proof?

 

1 The Map Aint The Territory.

2 The Map = "The Map Aint The Territory."

3 "The Map Aint The Territory" Aint The Territory.

[watcher]

If time is a "real attribute" of the universe why can't it be measured!

The only evidence found, is that of change, not time.:phones:

Things that only exist in name, are illusions.:rolleyes:

 

Things that existed independently of us, are a more appropriate candiates for a real attributes and properties of the universe.:cheer:

 

measuring time is like measuring a meter.

time is the measure of flow or motion.

it is a quantity of motion.

time in our equation is a mathematical representation of motion.

motion is real because it exerts a force. aside from being self evident.

Edited January 22, 2014 by watcher