NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
To me, however, a 'fact' is a thing that is already known or proven to be true, and an 'interpretation' of what is happening or occurring is not a 'fact'.
To me, a fact cannot change just because a human being or human beings they start observing things different in nature.
Facts are of what is known or proven to be true.
-Sure, its not just you. We all axiomatically accept the content of our claims as facts about the world.
But I absolutely do not do this at all. The very reason why I separate facts, from just my view, is for this very reason.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
But the key in what I say is in your first sentence: " a thing that is already known or proven to be true"
So intelligent agents compose the statement that describes something that agents know and that agents have proven to be true.
Once again, the words 'intelligent agents' is not a fact. This is just your own obviously very subjective view of things, which is not necessarily a fact at all.
You trying to suggest that what makes a 'fact' more of a 'fact' is because when so called "intelligent agents" "compose a statement that describes something ..." just does not work.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
That doesn't change the credibility of what our statements describe in reality. Time dilation is a fact even if we discover a cosmic "timer" responsible for time.
You are free to believe absolutely anything you like. I completely understand and accept that, to you, 'time dilation' is a fact. This is all well and good, because, to you, this so called "fact" could change at any moment in the future and not be a fact anymore at all anyway.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
The issue here is that we need to be careful and accurate with what we declare as facts.
Being very careful and very accurate about what are actual facts and what are not is what I have been pointing out and making very clear. I keep providing the sun revolves around the earth so called "observable fact" example as proof of how so easily wrong what are currently called "facts" could be found out not to be facts at all. Throughout human history right up to the minute this is being written the proof of this can be clearly seen and understood.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
These things do not change just because human beings what to observe things differently in order to keep "justifying" the current "theory" is the correct one.
-I agree. Processes ticking differently when they are affected by speed and gravity IS A FACT...either you want to accept it or not.
Well I have never not accepted it. Were you under some sort of illusion that I had not accepted it?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
See, I do not do assumptions, guesses, theories, et cetera. Instead I just look at, see, and understand what is true, right, and correct from the beginning. That way, unlike you, I am not always trying to "justify" my already held beliefs and assumptions on what others have assumed and/or theorized to be true.
- This is interesting "Instead I just look at, see, and understand what is true, right, and correct from the beginning."
I was wondering how much interest this would spark in people here.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Really interesting. You show that Einstein, our GPS our stationary measurements about time dilation are wrong from the beginning. Then I am talking to a Nobel prize winner.....or not.
Have I mentioned to you before that I have absolutely no use nor no interest at all in any so called "prizes" at all. And, if anyone talks about doing things for prizes, or money even, then that just turns me off, and I do not want to continue with the discussion.
Once again, instead of just remaining completely 'open' to what I have 'yet' to even say and express, you instantly make up some assumption, and jump to some conclusion, which, once again, has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with me and what I am yet to even say and express.
By the way I can show very easily and very simply where all the confusion has come from, which has led to the inconsistencies and contradictions in and between the theories and in the current knowledge.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Again you can not see that time dilation is a fact because you hold a magical definition of time which isn't observable by any other scientist....
I do not care what so called "scientists" observe. Just like when the earth revolves around the sun was being said and expressed, there was no care what all the "others" were observing and saying either.
I do not care what "others" observe, nor if they call them "facts" or not, because as we know, some of what is being said to be "observable facts" in the days when this is being written will become obviously not facts at all.
Or, do you believe wholeheartedly that current observations and current knowledge is forever more logical, and thus any contrary points of view are totally illogical and just illogical reasoning?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
If they are not a fact now, then they NEVER were a fact, contrary to popular 'belief'.
And this is the problem with all your statement.....your epistemic absolutism.
Do you have a problem with things being absolute?
If yes, then what is the actual problem?
By the way, how are you defining the word 'problem' here?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
you don't understand that knowledge and truth evaluations change.
Of course 'knowledge' and 'truth' evaluations change within human beings. But this is part of the reason why human beings are so confused, and form things like inconsistent and contradictory theories.
Instead of just remaining open to look at, and just see, what is the actual truth, human beings form assumptions and guesses (theories) about what could possible happen and/or be the case. They base these theories on already gained and obtained so called "knowledge" and so called "truths", which, obviously might not be true, right, and correct in and of themselves, in the beginning.
By the way, 'knowledge' and 'truth' does not change, themselves, but the knowledge and the truth, which is created by human beings, does change. Human beings are experts at changing things, especially when they want to make things fit in with their already held onto beliefs and assumptions of things.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Our evaluations of right/wrong, true/not true, fact/not a fact are limited by our current knowledge and observation.
I have already WHY this happens. This is because you are looking at and seeing things from and through a very limited thing, which is commonly known as the brain. Therefore, what comes out of this brain are only going to be limited thinking or thoughts.
Depending on what one wants to look at and find or discover, then, as I suggest, keep going the way you have been. But, if you want to discover, find, see, and understand things like what the actual truth IS, then there is a much better, simpler, easy, and quicker way to do things.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
You are using hindsight to apply a current evaluation in the past.
Again I agree that most facts in our days are set on solid epistemic grounds and direct observations.
i.e. Evolution is a fact now, but it wasn't 150 before.
Time dilation is a fact now, but it wasn't 50 years before.
And, 'time dilation' could very well be discovered to not be a fact at all, very soon actually, and evolution also will be discovered not to be the only fact here. As evolution does not work on its own.
But these things are yet to be shared and expressed.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
The fact is some human beings just believe things are a fact, before the actual facts come to light and are known or proved true.
that is true but that is not in favor of your denial of a phenomenon.
Instead of these consistent accusations, how about you start telling the readers what I am supposedly denying exactly?
So, what is this 'phenomenon' exactly that you 'believe' I am denying here?
That way them, and me, will know what it is that you are alluding to but never actually are saying in words. It is like it is something to ineffable for you. But maybe one day you will work out either how to actually explain 'it', or that you never did actually know what 'it' was anyway.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
For example some people believe and say time dilation is a fact, which obviously in the not to distant future will not be any more.
-The change of the ticking of physical processes due to changes in gravity IS A FACT. We have direct empirical observations.
Well if that is a FACT, then it is a FACT. Has anyone here said that it was not?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
So, saying something is a fact, when the truth IS it may not be a fact at all is a completely idiotic and ridiculous thing to do, from my perspective.
-That is your wishful belief.
Did you MISS where I have said I do not have a belief?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
We observe processes slow down in relation to gravity and speed.
Yes this is a well known and agreed upon FACT.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Some might also say that me saying that time dilation will not be a fact any more in the future is an idiotic and ridiculous thing to do. But the fact is that they do not yet know what I already know.
It is an idiotic statement. Its like saying that Changes in allele frequencies over time (evolution) will not be true in the future.
What you will find is that it is nothing like what I am saying at all.
From what I recall so far, by the way, not one of your pre-assumed accusations of me, and my words, has been correct at all. In fact most of your assumptions are completely and utterly wrong, and some are even completely the opposite of what I am actually saying and meaning. But, do not let this stop you from continually making these assumptions, which you do.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Well we don't know if the laws of Nature change in the future, but if they stay the same, change in allele frequencies and change in the speed of processes due to gravity will be always observable ..thus facts.
Okay. If you want to believe forever more that what you say will ALWAYS be observable, forever more, then so be it. You are free to believe absolutely whatever you want to believe.
The sun revolving around the earth was also more than likely said to be "always observable" as well, and thus facts.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Some observers are just far more open or closed than others are.
you need to be open to facts that can change your ideas...not on ideas that ignore facts, that is not "open".
Is that the so called "facts" that you say "I need to be open to", which are also the so called "facts" that can change, and become not facts anymore?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Not from my perspective.
Not much has changed at all in this regard.
Obviously there are still some human beings still saying the exact same similar things like; "Your claims are irrational since they deny observable facts". which is more or less what they have been saying for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, which, by the way and again, were not facts at all.
- lol that is an evaluation made by the rules of logic...not an arbitrary principle of science.............
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am
but that doesn't prevent you from rejecting the term fact from the relative nature of all dimensions in the universe.
Facts, themselves, do not have a relative nature of all dimensions in the Universe.
Facts are facts. Irrefutable and unchanging.
Facts are what is known or proven to be true. This cannot change, from my perspective.
But if you want to continue on the path of insisting facts can change, then do not be to surprised about how and why human beings keep continuing to "justify" their wrong and distorted thinking, assumptions, and beliefs.
-Again you are describing our ideal picture of what we want from a fact to be. BUT again, this is an evaluation made by agents with limits in there observations, methods of investigation and reasoning...
You are again committing an Absolutist Fallacy. I accept many observations as facts, but you arbitrary reject observations as "interpretations"...that is an irrational behavior.
If you say so and believe so, then it MUST BE true.
Also, your assumptions about what I describing, saying and/or meaning is completely and utterly wrong.
One day you will work out how to obtain the true, right, and correct understanding of what other's are saying and meaning. But, at the moment, you are failing considerably.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
You change so called "facts" along the way to fit in with and suit your currently held assumptions and beliefs.
No I don't I just point out to you that being an absolutist means that you need to ignore the medium by which we convey facts...
But who is a so called "absolutist"?
You really do not have a clue what I am saying and meaning do you?
I know you are making a lot of assumptions, but you really have no idea at all.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
and those are human statements based on our observations. I am just pointing out the 2 types of standards you use in your definition of a "fact".
Also, you never did get around to just saying what my supposed "death denying ideology" is exactly.
That is for you to investigate.
LOL but I ALREADY KNOW what my views and ideas ARE. The only thing I have to investigate is what your assumptions and beliefs are about my views and ideas. The best, quickest, simplest and easiest way to investigate this is to ask you what are your views, assumptions, and/or beliefs on the accusations you make of my views and ideas?
I have ask you to clarify almost countless times now, but if you NEVER answer, then there is nothing I can do. I can only investigate your thoughts. I can not make you express your thoughts and views.
If you do not want to express them, or you cannot express them, then so be it. That is just the way it is.
Readers will decide WHY you do not reveal yourself here.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Your bias shows that this concept of time meshes with some of your ideologies. Why using different standards of fact evaluation if you don't have something in stake? we are humans and we have biases, that is a common behavior.
You may have biases, which are clearly obvious to me. But that is 'you'. 'I' am not 'you'.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
If you say and believe so, then okay.
I really do not care. But, feel free to explain how they are not interpretations?
Shifting the burden..not cool. An observation is not an interpretation by definition. there is nothing there to explain. You just need to stop being in denial, that's all.
But I NEVER questioned anything here about 'observations' being 'interpretations'. You really do need to STOP assuming things when you read my words. My words and question was in relation to what the 'observations' are linked to and caused from.
The 'interpreting' that the observed changes in physical processes is because of one thing, and one thing only, and that then also means that predictions are verified, is what I have been questioning and talking about here. But this has completely gone straight past you. You have consistently been looking at and thinking other things instead. For reasons I have partly already explained.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 8:13 am
A process ticking differently when elevated some cm from its previous position is not an "interpretations" its an observable fact.
"LOL who ever said it was an "interpretation" and not an "observable fact"?
You really do not have any clue at all what I have been saying here all along.
This is because you have misjudged me from the very outset, and all along have been assuming and believing I am saying things that I am not.
Now, this is either of two reasons, because of the way I write or because of the way you read.
I will let you choose which one is the right answer here?
So you can not provide a serious argument on why this is not direct evidence on time dilation.
You cannot even learn how to understand what it is that I have been saying, which is just about all cases is not what you assume in the first place.
By the way I can very easily and very simply explain why this is not direct evidence on time dilation.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Maybe because you can not describe your mystical understanding of what time is.
But I have explained it a few times already. You just missed that also.
By the way, my description does not seem that much different than the one you say is used in science.
So, if my description of what time is, is a "mystical understanding" then so to is the one used in science.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
This is the second time you have accused me of something, which you have absolutely no evidence for, yet you arrived at these conclusion, which is obviously absurd and wrong.
Although the reason why you arrived at such obviously wrong conclusions, is already known and can be proven to be true, you continually doing it is revealing who is the one actually acting irrationally.
You do not even yet know what I am writing and saying, let alone what I am actually thinking and meaning, yet I am the one supposedly acting irrationally.
I don't really want to know what you are currently writing
This is already obvious.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
because you are avoiding to write anything that would expose your mystical ideology on time.
I know. The very purpose of what I am doing is pointing out how human beings do not actually know what another is saying and meaning but will still keep talking to them and telling them that their views or ideas are just "mystical ideology" without ever even knowing what they are saying.
Human beings from the outset really do not want to know what another is currently writing, sometimes, but they will keep telling the writer that they are just "magically thinking" based on "mystical ideology", without ever even actually knowing what the writer is writing.
See, I am doing research into the way the human brain works, and the way they work, which you have been a great test subject.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
If you present a clear concept of time and why dilation is not proven by our measurements, then I would be happy to understand your reasoning..
So, after how many pages, you have worked out and just now decided to wonder what my actual concept/idea is so only now ask me, What is your concept/idea here?
And why is it only now that you would be 'happy to understand my reasoning'? Why were you not 'happy to understand my reasoning' before?
Until now you had just decided that it was just "mystical" and "illogical" anyway.
By the way, I like the way you left out the word 'time' next to the word 'dilation' here. This shows you are starting to understand, at least. Or, you just unintentionally left it out without even realizing.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
ops....we are dealing with a conspiracy theorist.
LOL Once again make and assumption, and jump to another conclusion, without both answering the actual question and/or without clarifying with me what I am saying and actually meaning first. You are so predictable and so easy to manipulate.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
Dude, the fact is that time changes with gravitational change.
Ah okay. Now that you have said it, then it must be irrefutably logically correct. So, I wonder why so many people dispute this so called "fact".
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
The theory made predictions and those are the evidence...that make the phenomenon of dilation a fact.!!! lol
What do you find so funny here?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 28th, 2020, 10:49 am
So gravity causing physical processes to slow down, as it was theorized, is not proven by experiments showing that gravity can slow down physical processes..... Man your seasoning is really weird lol!
You have once again completely misconstrued what I have been actually saying and meaning.
To make this clear, to me, I have not heard that it was theorized that physical processes would slow down with gravity, but I have heard that it was theorized that time would slow down with gravity. Now, to me, I have heard of experiments that are said to change physical processes, which is interpenetrated as proving that time slows down with gravity, which was what was predicted to happen or occur in those theories.
By the way, If I decide to present a clear concept of 'time' and why so called "time dilation" is not proven by your measurements, then I will let you know. But, doing this here, was never my purpose for being here.
There were other things that I wanted to show and expose first, before I express and reveal things like 'time', later on.