Is Time Just an Idea?

[NickGaspar]

By the way I have to see you provide anything at all for what 'time' is from your perspective.

This is because you do not have one on your own. You only look at and see things from the perspective of "others".

-Do you also want a personal perspective about gravity and germ theory? What on earth are you talking about creation???
Is this a competition on who has the most "wild-ass speculation" by ignoring what we actually observe??????????
What kind of philosophy is that sir?

[Terrapin Station]

So what is space in your ontology?

I am just a very simple and slow kid. I do not know what "your ontology" means?

Will you give me an example of what is space in 'your ontology', then I might be able to work out what it is exactly that you are asking for?

Sometimes just very simple plain and often used words say much more.

I'm other words, so what do you take space to be, exactly, as an existent?

[creation]

creation. At this point, I would scroll back through the last few posts and ask myself: is it worth it?

Yes it is worth it, from my perspective. But this is because my goal for being here is probably very different from other's goal for being here.

Why not pick a single issue from all of the things being discussed here and concentrate on that.

Why not just concentrate on all things that arise and discuss them?

How about taking this word "fact" and trying to establish what each person in the conversation understands by it.

Have I not made it clear what I understand by the word 'fact'?

From what I have established about what another person understands by the word 'fact' is any fact can change, to them. Facts are continually changing for them.

I thought this was already established.

What I am also attempting to establish is what this other actually perceives are my views and ideas, which they continually insist are mystical and magical.

See it is extremely easy to accuse that another's views or ideas are mystical and magical. But, as can be observed here, when that one making these sort of accusations are put into the position of actually having to now express what these supposed views or ideas are, which they insist are magical or mystical, they continually fail to provide absolutely anything at all.

See, one of my goals for being here is to point out and show, by exposing, exactly how people look at and see things, from their already gained preexisting thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs, which, in turn actually distorts and/or prevents thee actual truth coming to light. These people are not actually able to see and understand what another's actual views and ideas ARE exactly, because they are only seeing and understanding things from their own ideas, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera. This is being exposed here now.

I've seen some of them tell us what they understand by that word already. As far as I can gather, you use that word to mean something that is logically certain to be true, such that to deny it would be self-contradictory. So, according to your usage, facts cannot change as a result of new evidence. Is that right?

Yes.

[creation]

So, my understanding of the ways in which recent posters on this topic use the word "fact":

creation:
1) A fact is a logically certain truth (a bit like a tautology). Or:
2) A fact is a state of affairs that exists in the world, independently of our observations, towards which our observations strive.
In both of the above, facts cannot change.
Delete or replace as applicable.

A fact is a thing known or proved to be true. As such, facts cannot change.

NickGaspar:
A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true, or information used as evidence. As such, facts can change.

Terrapin Station:
Facts are states of affairs that do not depend on what anyone thinks about them or even if anyone is aware of them. They are not true (or any sort of) propositions. Facts can't change (understanding that they're relative to spatio-temporal points of reference).

Me:
I take the coward's way out and tend to avoid using the word because it tends to lead to long irrelevant arguments that really just boil down to semantic quibbles.


Even if each side sticks to these separate, different usages of that word, as long as we're all clear how each of us is using it (or not using it), can long arguments about such usage be avoided and arguments about more genuinely meaty issues continue?

To me, it was already established that to "nickgaspar" facts can change, but, to me, facts cannot change. If something can be changed, then, to me, that was not a fact at all but just a subjective view of something.

[creation]

I think he just means "According to you, what IS space?" as opposed to something like: "According to you, what is the use of the concept called 'space'?" or "According to you, how do we observe space?".

Okay. But I do not like to assume absolutely anything at all, so I will wait till that one clarifies what they actually meant.

[creation]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

We observe processes slow down in relation to gravity and speed.

Yes this is a well known and agreed upon FACT.

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.

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.

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?

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.............

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

[creation]

A descriptive definition, which could be completely and utterly false, wrong, and/or incorrect with what is the actual full and true picture of things, correct?

Confusion is caused, and helped along, because of incorrect language and fallacious reasoning.

So, not providing absolutely accurate and truthful descriptive definitions based on what is actually observed only, then confusion will continue on as it has been hitherto.



When you use the word 'ontology' in the words 'ontology of time', then what do you actually mean here?

Also, what does the words, 'That is your ontological speculation' mean here, to you?

By the way, when have I ever claimed these things, (which, hopefully, you will tell us what you actually mean here?)



Once again, you must of never actually read the words that I have written here.

Have you seriously NEVER seen me say what 'time' means to me in this thread?

If you really believe what you wrote here, then this is PRIME EVIDENCE of a human being looking at things with their own limited thinking and believing brain only.

You are being blinded by your own beliefs and assumptions.



But I do not have an "effable" concept about time.

If you ever decide to read the actual words I wrote in this thread, then you would see that my definition of time is just about the exact same as what you said about how the word time is used in science.

By the way, even if I did have an "effable" concept about time, then how could I share it with you?

Also, and by the way again, have you ever even considered to just ask me with simple clarifying questions what my views are, especially in regards to what 'time' is, for example.

If you did, then that would have saved you pages and pages of making completely false, wrong, and misleading assumptions and accusations about what I have been actually saying and meaning.

Are a Jordan Peterson's student or something?

By the way, who or what is a "jordan peterson", and what does it teach?

No. Why would you assume such a thing?

Why don't you address the actual points?

Why do you not address the actual points?

Do you know what I am actually talking about?

If not, then you know how I feel now.

But, if you do the actual points that I am talking about, then why do you not address those actual points?

Why don't you pin down your opinions....what are you scared of seriously, why all this tap dance with absolutes and double standards?

To expose and show how the human brain will make assumptions and jump to conclusions before it even knows what the actual truth is.

You have failed absolutely every time to express what my views are, which you have continually insisted are "illogical" and "mystical and magical", yet you have never even known what my actual views are to begin with.

All this time you have just been making up assumptions, and jumping to conclusions, based on your very own already held beliefs, which you currently have, without ever actually showing any curiosity at all into what my views are.

This is the reason why I have been talking the way I have here.

Only in your last post, which I responded to, have you shown any actual openness and wondered, What is "creation's" views exactly?

[NickGaspar]

So, my understanding of the ways in which recent posters on this topic use the word "fact":

creation:
1) A fact is a logically certain truth (a bit like a tautology). Or:
2) A fact is a state of affairs that exists in the world, independently of our observations, towards which our observations strive.
In both of the above, facts cannot change.
Delete or replace as applicable.

A fact is a thing known or proved to be true. As such, facts cannot change.

NickGaspar:
A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true, or information used as evidence. As such, facts can change.

Terrapin Station:
Facts are states of affairs that do not depend on what anyone thinks about them or even if anyone is aware of them. They are not true (or any sort of) propositions. Facts can't change (understanding that they're relative to spatio-temporal points of reference).

Me:
I take the coward's way out and tend to avoid using the word because it tends to lead to long irrelevant arguments that really just boil down to semantic quibbles.


Even if each side sticks to these separate, different usages of that word, as long as we're all clear how each of us is using it (or not using it), can long arguments about such usage be avoided and arguments about more genuinely meaty issues continue?

To me, it was already established that to "nickgaspar" facts can change, but, to me, facts cannot change. If something can be changed, then, to me, that was not a fact at all but just a subjective view of something.

you assume true statements do not change. Again you are arguing about a red herring and leave out human limitations in observation and understanding. Most of our positions, especially in science are our tentative positions. Modern facts are far more difficult to change due to the systematic methodology of science, but to be that arrogant and omniscient that is an absolutist fallacy.
Facts based on direct observations like allele changes over time and time dilation won't change, but that is an achievement of our technology to be able to be sure for a statement to become a fact.
Again you are making the huge childish mistake to accept our evaluations of knowledge,truth and facts as intrinsic features of reality, not as observer relevant idealistic goals.

The rest of your comments doesn't worth any of my time addressing them. Its an emotional tap dance in defense of an ideology which demands the rejection of facts.

[Steve3007]

Why not just concentrate on all things that arise and discuss them?

1. It takes too long.
2. The digressions grow exponentially.
3. You'll largely be ignored.

The term "concentrate on all things" is, arguably, a contradiction in terms.

When you write your long, detailed posts you occasionally say things like "the readers can see...". Don't be under any illusions that there are loads of people hanging on our every word and following the argument like an exciting tennis match. As a general rule, long posts are scroll-over posts. The more you write, the less the impact of each individual thing that you write. For example, I'd wager that if anybody started reading this post in the first place, most of them have stopped by this point.

[Steve3007]

A fact is a thing known or proved to be true. As such, facts cannot change.

Ok. I've previously discussed with you the observation that the word "proved" tends to be used in two distinctly different ways, and I asked you then which way you are using it.

In this post:
viewtopic.php?p=344669#p344669
You said that you use "proved" or "proven" to mean:

Demonstrated with actual evidence, through tried and tested experiments.

Are you still using it in that sense? If so, are you proposing that the results of some experiments (the tried and tested ones) yield facts, as you use that term? If so, which ones?

[creation]

Since when?

I do not really care what any so called "default" position is.

I prefer to just look at, see, and say the truth of things only.

-And here is the whole problem in your reasoning. You just take what you "see" to be true without using the tools of logic.

Talk about 'illogical thinking'. I have NEVER just taken what I "see" to be true without using the tools of logic.

Your conclusion here, based on your own assumptions and beliefs, is absolutely and totally wrong, illogical, and incorrect.

Why do you continue revealing just what you assume is true, without using the tools of logic yourself to verify if it is even true, let alone being even close to being correct, before you express them?

I suggest if you are going to make any claim at all, then you have the actual evidence and proof to back up and support that claim, 'before' you express the claim.

Your whole reasoning must be illogical or unreasonable if you have arrived at this conclusion.

By the way, do you have any actual evidence and/or proof to back up and support your claim that I just take what I "see" to be true without using the tools of logic?

If you do, then great let us see it.

But if you do not, then what is your reasoning based on if it is not your own assumptions and/or beliefs?

Is your own reasoning really logical itself, considering how many times your conclusions have been wrong so far?

This explains your whole mindset.
I don't see any value in a conversation when one of the interlocutors "sees" the truth in what he "sees"(lol) and he isn't concerned about the rules of basic logic.

And this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a brain only seeing what it wants to see, and arrives at its conclusions, based not on what is actually true but on what it, itself, assumes, believes, and sees is true, without absolutely any verification made at all.

The funny thing is that you object when I call you irrational....really strange.

Did you object when I called what you actually do irrational also?

Or do you just accept it as the truth of what you are being?

[creation]

I'm not necessarily proposing that you avoid using that word. I'm just noting that an unresolved disagreement as to how that word is being used has caused creation to go on another of his long multi-post, "and another thing..." style rants in which everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown in. I was trying to advise creation that if he wants to avoid the typing effort that it must take to produce those posts, he could just tell you what he means whenever he uses the word "fact". He seems to me to mean either (1) or (2) from my post. Maybe a combination of the two.

ok I see your perspective.
I have the some problem with creation. Its like trying to pin down Peterson...you just can't because he never provides a straight forward definition about anything.

List the words that you accuse me of not providing a straight forward definition for, and then we will see how much truth there is to what you say here or how much actually fallacy there is in it.

[creation]

But I have told you already that I can explain and describe very easily and very simple, and that I already have the proof for it.

But you were just not able to read and see this before because you are looking at this from that very limited already believing thinking brain, within that head.

Let me guess...you are not going to do it again...lol

What you do now once again 'assume' I am not going to do again?

[creation]

By the way I have to see you provide anything at all for what 'time' is from your perspective.

This is because you do not have one on your own. You only look at and see things from the perspective of "others".

-Do you also want a personal perspective about gravity and germ theory? What on earth are you talking about creation???
Is this a competition on who has the most "wild-ass speculation" by ignoring what we actually observe??????????
What kind of philosophy is that sir?

I am just reminding you that I have yet to see you provide a definition for what 'time' is, from your perspective.

[creation]

I am just a very simple and slow kid. I do not know what "your ontology" means?

Will you give me an example of what is space in 'your ontology', then I might be able to work out what it is exactly that you are asking for?

Sometimes just very simple plain and often used words say much more.

I'm other words, so what do you take space to be, exactly, as an existent?

The distance between matter.