watcher Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. - Neil Bohr doing the math is just being logical but not necessarily thinking.mathematics is overrated. einstein did thought experiments first (thinking). the math just follows. it's not even his Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Mooney Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 CraigD,I think I understand your post above perfectly well, yet I don't think you even addressed my most basic premise in the context of " philosophy of science" which puts math in proper perspective, as follows: Math is not prior and superior to the concepts which it quantifies.I came to this forum disclaiming math expertise but still challenging the ontology of "spacetime" the concept as having no referent in "the cosmos"... like a malleable medium/"fabric", etc.But the "go to evidence" is always presented as math/physics, ignoring said ontology and conceptual challenge. And I'm sure by now you are familiar with my take on the ontology of time per-se ...my signature post/essay on it up front as I jumped into this thread. (Post 584, page 59)* So, I'm pretty well fed up with the old math superiority card being pulled, as you have never even addressed the very specific points I made in the above "signature post" or my last brief statement on the place of math in the philosophical discussion of time. Oh, and how 'bout all my references to subjective idealism and its variations as both implicit in the assumptions of relativity vis-a-vis time, and explicitly stated in the form of the belief that earth's spin and orbit speed up and slow down relative to our observations and "clocking" or measuring of them. Very basic philosophical absurdity to actually believe that there is no cosmos... no movement even *in and of itself* independent of our observation.How arrogant and silly ( a human-centric cosmos) of science to assert the above! I'll leave it there for now. This is not a dialogue on what time is. * http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/3650-what-is-time-59.html Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rade Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Here is where it gets tricky: Is each moment really related to a "thing" that has potential for motion? Can a moment be related to something that has no potential for motion? Or is it simply that everything has potential for motion? How about concepts, like historical interpretation: Can time be related to the concept of Historical interpretation? For example, at this "moment A" we interpret history this way, but at "moment B" we interpret it another way? I think so. And if so, is historical interpretation subject to motion or merely change of state, whatever the nature of the state of the thing or concept is?Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I would argue that every"thing" has potential for motion of some kind, and that a mental concept is a type of "mental thing" derived from perception of a "physical thing". So, I find two types of things, those inside the mind (let us call them mental concepts) and those outside the mind (let us call them physical existence). I do not see how it is possible to have a change in state of a thing without motion, so I would think that the mental process of "historical interpretation" is a good example of time, that is, that which is counted as a change in mental concept between interpretation of some event at moment A relative to moment B. ... EVEN MOMENTS CHANGE STATE, therefore they are subject to counts. No?Yes, this would be how I see it. The change of states of moments we call the past and future. But, see then that this is why the "moment" cannot ONLY be = count (which is a number), for as you say, moments are "subject" to counts (and this is what we call time = what is counted between moments, not that by which we count). Recall from above, the two aspects of the moment, that which divides and that which limits...thus see below.... ...I call moments counts....Time is what is "counted" that is intermediate between the moments we call past and future...the counting must then occur within the moment = present. I think this would follow from your comment. ..The reason is that moments have physical connotation. Counts do not. Counts are a constructs of our mind See above comment, thus, the physical reality of the moment is relative to past and future motion of things, the "non-physical" reality of the moment is relative to the present = the count constructs of our mind. So, again, the two aspects of "moment"--that which limits and that which divides. ...The limit of the intermediate is in our mind, but not in physical reality....Yes, must be so from my perspective of what is time, the limit of what has been (past), relative to what has yet to be (future), i.e, the present. Please do let me know where our thinking is not in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Time is what is "counted" that is intermediate between the moments we call past and future...the counting must then occur within the moment = present. I think this would follow from your comment. perhaps this is how it is done.... now is 1,now is 2,now is 3, now is 4, now is 5, etc etc ad infinitum. in counting, there must be an implicit point of reference. if we would call this reference now or present, then this "present" is a special kind of entity. this present represent matter itself in its present state (what exists now) and time (past, present, future = the moments/counts of time ) as its parameter. See above comment, thus, the physical reality of the moment is relative to past and future motion of things, i agree with the concept, but i wouldn't ascribed physical reality to these "moments", though i agree that past and futures are motion dependents. the "non-physical" reality of the moment is relative to the present = the count constructs of our mind. the non-physical reality of the moments are related to the information carried by the motion of quantum waves as the waves go back and forth (the action at the distant linked ) between matter to maintain its interconnectedness (causality) and ascertain the coherent state of all matter in the universe in every instant of now. that is why past and future are said to be mind constructs as they were perceived as memories (past) and expectations(future). they are information based w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCP/CRT/RRT Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Am I overly simplifying by just asking how, if not for relativity, ie, time dilation, that all observers can calculate light speed as C (186 mps) despite any apparent relative velocity of the source? Isn't this core of the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Am I overly simplifying by just asking how, if not for relativity, ie, time dilation, that all observers can calculate light speed as C (186 mps) despite any apparent relative velocity of the source? Isn't this core of the issue? It seems mighty strange, but whatever speed two objects are travelling at relative to each other, the speed of light will measure exactly the same for both. If object A was transmitting a beam of light towards object B, and they were travelling towards each other at half the speed of light, object B will see the light arrive from object A at exactly the speed of light. It will merely be blueshifted - or redshifted, if object A was receding instead of approaching. But it matter not if you're travelling at 99.9% the speed of light (relative to your point of origin) or standing dead still, c will always measure exactly the same, in all directions, for all observers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctordick Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Okay Mikey - for once I agree with you. This thread should be closed - it's pointless arguing the same thing over and over with you, when you're set on your view. But the question, "What is time?", has simply not been actually answered. This is a request for a definition, not for emotional responses. Are there no people on this forum capable of intellegently discussing the question? Of course there are; the real problem is the overwhelming number of thoughtless spoutings interfering with any intelligent discussion. In my opinion, this definition is central to understanding anything and needs some logical clarity. What this thread really points out is that the structure of current forums simply lack any mechanism capable of separating logical coherent discussion from trash. It needs a mechanism for establishing coherent threads through incoherent noise. An intelligent forum needs the ability to create internal connections capable of establishing internal consistency. A flow of sensible exchange. If anybody is interested in such a theme I would be willing to discuss how such a thing might be achieved. Start a thread if you are interested. Have fun -- Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 the real problem is the overwhelming number of thoughtless spoutings interfering with any intelligent discussion.The real problem is especially the frequent exchange of insults. Let's try to keep in line everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 . Moderation Note: 111 posts of previous discussion have been moved to: 21248 Let's stay on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 If anybody is interested in such a theme I would be willing to discuss how such a thing might be achieved. Start a thread if you are interested. - Dick can you apply the theme as to how you can achieved a definitive answer to the question ... " what time is it?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rade Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 But the question, "What is time?", has simply not been actually answered. This is a request for a definition, ....?? Did you not submit a "definition of time" many posts ago ? Here is the definition (that has been discussed in numerous places in this thread with all terms defined) that I find to be internally consistent and flaw free....time is that which is intermediate between moments. Given that it cannot be explained by your fundamental equation means one of two things (1) it is incorrect (2) your fundamental equation is not fundamental. So, perhaps you can explain logically why (1) is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Here is the definition (that has been discussed in numerous places in this thread with all terms defined) that I find to be internally consistent and flaw free....time is that which is intermediate between moments. A couple quick questions: do they have to be adjacent moments (i.e. could it be a moment today and a moment tomorrow)? Is a moment that which is intermediate between times? If not, what is a moment? ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedaisoul Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 But the question, "What is time?", has simply not been actually answered. This is a request for a definition, not for emotional responses.I've previously resisted putting my views on this topic, in view of the 800+ previous contributions which I have not, and have no intention of, familiarizing myself with. I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to plow through that much before contributing. So I'd suggest that this thread should have been closed long ago, and a new thread started. But it hasn't and I want to contribute, so I will, but with apologies to anyone who HAS followed the whole of this thread if I'm merely repeating ideas that have already been put (and discarded?)... I think that part of the problem with defining time is that it does not exist as a physical entity or medium. We do not live in a space-time universe, space and time are defined by the universe. I.e. Time is an abstraction from the change that happens to the physical world, and space is no more than the distance between objects. Without the physical world, and change, there would be no time nor space. The reasons that make this view appealing to me are:a) All measures of time are purely arbitrary. There is nothing, apart from the planck time, to base a measure of time on, and the planck time is linked to change.;) According to the best science we have, the universe started with a big bang. Before that there was no universe, nor time and space. If so, it could end in a big crunch, after which it would entirely cease to exist. The idea of time (and space) continuing to exist after the big crunch (if it happens) seems unreasonable. So this view is not particularly original, but since Dr D indicated that the question "What is time" had not been answered, I felt obliged to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Mooney Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 DD:But the question, "What is time?", has simply not been actually answered. This is a request for a definition, not for emotional responses. Are there no people on this forum capable of intellegently discussing the question? I gave it my best shot in post 584, p. 59. What did you find unintelligent about my answer to "What is time?" Btw, I agree with jedaisoul as follows with one reservation: "I think that part of the problem with defining time is that it does not exist as a physical entity or medium. We do not live in a space-time universe, space and time are defined by the universe. I.e. Time is an abstraction from the change that happens to the physical world, and space is no more than the distance between objects. Without the physical world, and change, there would be no time nor space." Without the physical world and change there would be only empty space. (Infinite, unbounded space/emptiness.) Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedaisoul Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Without the physical world and change there would be only empty space. (Infinite, unbounded space/emptiness.)Well thanks for the general agreement, but why would space continue to exist if there were no universe? No matter, no energy. Just nothing. Nothing is, by definition, no thing. It does not exist. In the absence of everything that exists, there would be no thing. Nothing. Not even "empty" space. So to exist when everything else had gone, space would have to be something. So "empty" space would not be empty. There would be "space" there. So do you believe in an aether, a material space? If not, what is this space made of, if it is not material, but not nothing either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rade Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 A couple quick questions: do they have to be adjacent moments (i.e. could it be a moment today and a moment tomorrow)? Is a moment that which is intermediate between times? If not, what is a moment?I'll do my best. Moments may or may not be adjacent, the only rule is that something must always be intermediate between them, and that is what is called 'time'. Next, there are different types of moments, past, present (now), future. The end of past time and the beginning of future time are within the present (now). So, yes, as time is intermediate between moments, then moments are intermediate between times...see below ....[moment A]---> time 1---> [moment B] ---> time 2 ---> [moment C] ---> time 3 ---> [moment D].... Take for example time 2--it is intermediate between moments B and C. Yet, it also is between moments A and D. Likewise, [moment B] is intermediate between times 1 and 2. Moment B is where the end limit of the past of time 1 meets the beginning limit of future time 2. Think of it as [moment B] being a type of singularity where all future possible events (all disconnected) of time 2 are transformed into the past of time 1 (all connected). It is the present (now) moment where the connection between future time and past time occurs. All of the above depends on the potential for some thing that exists to have motion. Thus, this model of time is relativistic, it is relative to motion, which comes in different forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Mooney Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Post moved to "relativity of motion... " thread, as per CC's prompt below.M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.