Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Posts: 961
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » February 2nd, 2020, 4:44 am

NickGaspar wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 4:32 am
creation wrote:
January 29th, 2020, 8:29 pm

Do you see that this is completely illogical reasoning, yourself?

Firstly. you have absolutely NO clue NOR idea at all in the Universe what the 2. "do not" is in reference to.
Therefore, absolutely every assumption you have made, and/or any conclusion you have arrived at, here is based on and from absolutely nothing that I was talking about and meaning.

How many times do you need to be advised, Clarify before you start making up assumptions, especially before you make the completely absurd assumptions that you continually make here.

Tell us what do you assume the words "do not" are referring to here.

That way we will be able to see who has 'truly illogically reasoning'.

If you do not tell us what you assume the words "do not" refer to here, then some would say that implies you are to afraid to reveal what is actually happening here, and thus who is the one who is truly reasoning, illogically.

Also, if you want to make the claim that I am reasoning illogically, then it is up to you to make known what it is that you believe I am reasoning anyway. So, either way you are going to have to explain to us what it is that you believe the words "do not" that I said are in reference to anyway.

By the way I do not see any problem in my claim that 'facts do not change' at all.

I do however see a lot of issues in the way you look at and see things, that is; in the way you assume, and conclude things.

I have made my position clear enough. Remember, it is you who keeps telling me that my views and ideas are just magical thinking or mystical ideology.

I now wait for those that are truly interested. I wait to be challenged, questioned, and/or clarified on my position so far by those who are truly open.

I am only seeking those who still have some wonder left and who are truly curious.

I do not care one bit if you confuse me whatever a "peterson" is. If you are not able to distinguish the difference, then so be it.

I asked you to clarify what a "peterson" is previously, but, once again, you could not even do that. Because I really do not care what a "peterson" is I have absolutely no interest at all seeking to clarify this by continually asking you to, nor do I care or have any interest at all if you confuse my words with that 'thing' or not.

Well I know a fact does not change forever more. This is because of the definition of a 'fact' that I use, which is; a thing that is known or proved to be true. Therefore, if some thing is known or proved to be true, then that thing cannot suddenly just become not known or just not proved to be true.

Also, I said what I did here in relation to you claiming:
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.

If you lived in the times that the sun was said to revolve around the earth, then you could have just as easily said that, "Facts based on direct observations like the sun revolves around the earth won't change", as well. But, sadly and honestly, those types of so called "facts", which are based on direct observations, DO CHANGE. So, I found it quite outstanding that you would or even could know that for the rest of eternity that a so called "fact"
like 'time dilation' will not change at all.

By the way, I do not think I made a "general statement" but more of a 'specific statement', for the status of facts, as I see them, and in relation to the other statements I make.

Besides the fact that you actually believe that you know things, like time dilation, will not change forever more, because of the current technology and what is directly observed from that technology in the year known as 2020, which is about as narrowed a view one could have, you also believe you know what things are being accepted, within this head, and that I am making the mistake of accepting this thing. Even after I tell you I do not accept this thing, and so I am not making this mistake of accepting this thing, you still believe I am and will even still try and tell me that I am accepting that thing, which obviously I do not even accept.

You really do have a very high standard of your self and your ability to know things for sure, without any doubt at all, even if all the evidence in the Universe tells you otherwise.

Your beliefs,and their ability to completely blind you from even looking at what is actually true, right, and correct, let alone ever allowing you to being able to seeing the actual truth of things here, is even more outstanding and strikingly revealing than I first realized.

Thank you for exposing and showing us the true power of the belief-system to us.
I guess, comforting your self with irrational death denying ideologies is far more important than accepting well established knowledge.
You are free to accuse me of having so called "irrational death denying ideologies", but you never even knowing what my ideas actually are in the first place, some would suggest is a truly irrational thing to do.
NickGaspar wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 4:32 am
You are not convincing anybody with your pseudo Philosophical practices. You are demanding to play tennis without the bet. That is just ridiculous.
And you continuing with "pseudo" claims, but without ever providing any actual evidence, is about all you seem to be capable of.

User avatar
Posts: 6975
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » February 4th, 2020, 9:34 am

How about keeping this topic going, and perhaps getting it to 100 pages, by shifting slightly to a consideration of the "arrow of time" as was suggested by some poster or other about 30 or 40 pages ago?

Here are some thoughts:

We remember the past. We try to anticipate the future. In both cases we look at the evidence which exists in the present to do so. But we intuitively realise that these two processes are different from each other.

We've discovered various laws which appear to successfully describe some stuff that happens. One of the notable things about those laws is that some are time-reversible and some aren't. The laws of mechanics which describe the movements of individual particles bouncing off each other are reversible. But the statistical laws which describe very large numbers of those particles are not reversible. Could the arrow of time be a statistical property of complex systems?

"Phase space" is a concept that is used to describe the state of complex systems as they evolve over time. Like any other set of dimensions, it is a mathematical abstraction. But it has a dimension for every degree of freedom of every particle in a physical system. A simple point particle has 3 degrees of freedom; it takes 3 numbers to describe its position. An extended particle has 6 degrees of freedom; 3 for position and 3 for rotation. So a set of 'n' such particles has 6Xn degrees of freedom.

In this mathematical construct called a "phase space" with 6Xn dimensions, a single point in that space represents the state at a given moment in time of that entire system of n particles. The movement of that point over time represents the evolution of the system over time. A volume in that phase space represents a related set of possible states of the system.

In the statistical subject of thermodynamics, when considering the large scale statistical properties of a system, as a general rule, there is a many-to-one relationship between large scale states and small scale states. Any given large scale state corresponds to a large set of micro-states; an extended volume in phase space. The higher the entropy of the system the larger the volume in phase space that represents a given large scale state. So a system that starts in a state of low entropy (in a small volume of phase space) will tend to move into larger volumes of phase space (high entropy) simply because there are more possible ways for a point to occupy a large volume than a small volume. A random walk through phase space would naturally tend to lead to an increase in entropy.

And so on.

Post Reply