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
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 7:12 am

Greta wrote:When it comes to physics, physicists would seem best equipped to test existing propositions. Ideally anyone who is not an expert in a field would present their ideas on that field humbly (which too often doesn't happen). Just as ideally, those in the field would not treat those humbly put ideas with kindness (which too often doesn't happen; physics forums are tough places for newbs).
Obviously being humble is good. But the humbleness or otherwise of the participants is not, in itself, relevant to the validity of their arguments. As I said, I (humbly) propose that one thing that is relevant is that those who seek to analyse an idea must be clear as to what the idea says so that they're not attacking an imaginary foe - a.k.a a straw man. This is true regardless of whether we label the participants as "physicists" or "philosophers" or anything else. I don't think the labels we pin on them matter. What matters is the arguments they make.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 7:15 am

Greta wrote:For instance, who here could sensibly critique work like this? (Summary below) https://www.papersinphysics.org/papersi ... e/view/336...
I couldn't, and I'd guess that nobody else here could either. But we all know a method that we could use to get ourselves into a position to critique that work, if we were interested enough to put in the work. Same as any other work written in a specialist language. Same as if it was written in Hungarian. So, if we haven't yet done that, would it be rational to look at that passage you quoted and declare it to be nonsense?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 7:43 am

RJG wrote:Steve, it is common knowledge that (general) Science believes "Time Dilates" and "Time is a Dimension". If you believe this is false, then please show us where it says "Time does NOT dilate" and "Time is NOT a dimension. -- I don't want to have to do your work for you.
Let's apply this technique more generally. The technique is this: Person A proposes that a large, vaguely defined body of people have said something that he/she regards as illogical or factually wrong. They refuse to quote any member of this body saying it. They propose that the only way to refute their proposition is for person B to find a quote where some member of that body has explicitly denied (on behalf of the body) having said it.

Example:

Person A: "Science claims that unicorns exist."
Person B: "Please show me a quote backing your proposition that Science claims this."
Person A: "No. I don't want to have to do your work for you. It's common knowledge that Science claims this. If you believe it is false, please show us where Science declares 'unicorns do not exist'. If you can't find that quote, then Science claims unicorns exist."

Should person B conclude that Science claims unicorns exist if he can't find a quote in which they say "unicorns do not exist'"? Is it up to the person making a proposition as to what a body says to find a quote from that body backing that proposition?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 8:07 am

Greta wrote:Failure to accept the baselines of our knowledge is how flat Earthism and Moon landing conspiracy theories took hold.
Nevertheless, we're still free to propose arguments purporting to show the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings didn't happen. So long as we're prepared to clearly and unambiguously state our evidence and arguments, and are prepared to listen to critiques of those arguments. And so long as we don't make false claims as to what other people have said.

We've argued about far more bizarre things than that here. For example, people regularly argue, here, about whether anything at all exists other then their own mind! That's surely more bizarre than merely having an argument as to whether a particular historical event happened in the way that it is claimed to have happened.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1978
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 21st, 2020, 8:22 am

Greta wrote:So I think philosophers et al should treat science as the established baseline from which they can use as a foundation and a springboard for ideas
I disagree. I think this is backwards in much the same manner as someone saying "I think scientists et al should treat christianity as the established baseline from which they can use as a foundation and springboard for ideas".

From my perspective:
- Religious truths -- are blind faith truths based on indoctrination.
- Science truths -- are subjective truths based on experiential observations (empirical evidence).

Those that get their "truths" from Science, seem to be a bit overly sensitive whenever it appears someone is disparaging their science (their foundation of truth!). A similar reaction can be seen by those in the religious community when it appears someone is disparaging their foundation of truth.

I suppose it is noble, and normal, to defend one's foundation of truth. But if you are truly searching for 'objective' truths, then you've got to set aside your religious and scientific beliefs, so as to look at reality from a non-biased perspective.

And as Terrapin correctly pointed out "this is a philosophy forum" where 'logic' is the primary form of reasoning. If we were arguing in a Science (or Religion) forum, then I would expect to be "bashed" for my views. But here, in this forum, I think it is Logic (more than Science or Religion) that should be respected.

Final comment. Logic trumps Science. Science trumps Religion. If something is logically impossibie, no amount of Science (or Religion) can make the impossible, possible. -- if you believe the logic is flawed, then you've got to use 'logic' (not 'more' Science!) to disprove it. This is the same with math. If a math error exists, then you've got to use math (not Science/Religion!) to show the error.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2995
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 21st, 2020, 8:29 am

Greta wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 12:52 am
It's not a philosopher's job to contradict science - they usually don't know enough to validly do so, and natural phenomena can be complex and counter-intuitive, eg. water expands when it freezes, the black fire snake experiment.
It's a philosopher's job to challenge assumptions and to ferret out the implications of various assumptions, including assumptions made in the sciences. When it comes to an issue such as "How do we know that x," and "What would justify the claim that we know that x," philosophers are the experts, because we're talking about epistemology. Likewise with metaphysics/ontology, ethics, aesthetics, ethics (and axiology in general), philosophical logic, etc.

No claim is--or at least no claim should be sacred (in other words off-limits to challenges) for philosophers, and likewise for scientists.

This doesn't imply that philosophers are infallible or that they always non-ignorantly challenge something, and of course their own assumptions are always open for challenges--both by others and ideally by themselves.

But another thing that's important to keep in mind is that for some reason, many folks participating on boards, in chat rooms, etc. such as this board base most of their conclusions about what philosophers do on what posters, chatters, etc. do, without realizing that only a small percentage of participants have either a philosophy degree or the equivalent knowledge and experience of someone with a philosophy degree, and a much smaller percentage has a graduate degree or equivalent knowledge/experience.
Perhaps philosophy's most valid contributions to this subject lie in subjective time, that which can't be measured?
It's as if you have no idea what we do in ontology, and no familiarity with philosophy of science.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 21st, 2020, 8:48 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
creation wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:11 am

I NEVER said any 'thing' existed.
I just quoted you saying "If ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is some 'thing'"

No. It is not some thing. It is no thing.
You have MISSED THE MARK.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
I said the 'Universe' is ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, if ALL-THERE-IS is 'nothing', then that is the Universe, how 'It' IS.
The universe is all there is. You don't have an "all there is" if there is no thing that exists. So there is no universe in that case.
You have MISSED THE MARK.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
No. Not at all. Space isn't a thing or container or anything like that. Again, space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter.

That means that if there is no matter, there is no space.
You have MISSED THE MARK.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
They could say that, but they'd be wrong. And "singularities" are mathematical constructions, not real things.
Okay, when you talk about the Universe consisting ONLY of an object (x).

Then what size is object (x)?

What is around object (x)?

And, what is in between object (x)?

Also, what does a 'singularity' refer to, to you?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
Incoherent. It would need to be some sort of thing that has extension, which would make it matter.
Obviously, then, if 'space' is not some sort of thing, to you, then matter is needed that has extension of matter, then the size of the matter would just get larger.

You really have MISSED THE MARK here completely.

Or, am I MISSING something here?

What is it that you are trying to say and/or prove here?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
Logical impossibility only obtains when we have a non-equivocated contradiction (and we're not using paraconsistent logic).
Once you start showing how smart and clever you are with words that I have never even seen before, and thus I have absolutely no idea nor clue about, then I obviously can not understand what you are saying. I am just a very slow and very simple kid in Life.

What is a 'non-equivocated contradiction'?

And, what is 'paraconsistent logic'?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
What is P in this case (for our P & ~P that you're claiming?)
Instead of using symbols, which we then have to decipher what 'word' they are in relation to, and then decipher how that 'word' is being defined in that sentence, and then decipher what that 'definition' actually 'means' in that context, why do we not just use words, and their actual meanings, instead?

You claim: That something simply appeared for no reason, with no mechanism behind or proceeding it.

So, are you now able to explain how it is logically possible for 'something' to simply appear with no mechanism behind or proceeding that 'thing'?

If every action causes a reaction, then there must of been some 'thing' that was a mechanism behind or proceeding the "something" that simply appeared, obviously.

Do you know of any reaction that could just simply appear from absolutely no mechanism?

Do you know how something from nothing could even be logically possible?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2995
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 21st, 2020, 8:48 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 3:53 am
This is another example of a straw man.
You're making a fool out of yourself. Learn what fallacies are and specifically what a straw man is before writing something like that.

Fallacies only obtain when (a) someone is presenting an argument, formal or informal, where they're stating premises of some sort and saying that those premises imply a conclusion that they're also stating, but (b) the argument, as presented, does not guarantee validity (for reasons specific to specific fallacies).

The straw man fallacy occurs when someone presents something as someone's argument, but it's not actually their argument, and then they argumentatively attack what they've misrepresented as the person's argument.

Me sarcastically characterizing attitudes hardly counts as any of that.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 8:56 am

Terrapin Station wrote:You're making a fool out of yourself.
Irrelevant ad hominem.
Learn what fallacies are and specifically what a straw man is before writing something like that.
See definition of straw man given at start of the post, from which you quoted, after the part where gater showed that he'd been watching the "The Wizard of Oz".
Fallacies only obtain when (a) someone is presenting an argument, formal or informal, where they're stating premises of some sort and saying that those premises imply a conclusion that they're also stating, but (b) the argument, as presented, does not guarantee validity (for reasons specific to specific fallacies)
(a) is a begging the question fallacy.
(b) is a general description of a logical fallacy.
The straw man fallacy occurs when someone presents something as someone's argument, but it's not actually their argument, and then they argumentatively attack what they've misrepresented as the person's argument.
Correct.
Me sarcastically characterizing attitudes hardly counts as any of that.
If you want to be understood clearly, avoid sarcasm. Say what you mean.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2995
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 21st, 2020, 9:13 am

creation wrote:
January 21st, 2020, 8:48 am
You have MISSED THE MARK.
This is equivalent to a "No" reply, which is supposed to be avoided here.
Okay, when you talk about the Universe consisting ONLY of an object (x).

Then what size is object (x)?

What is around object (x)?

And, what is in between object (x)?

Also, what does a 'singularity' refer to, to you?
Size--depends on just what the object is. The size would be a matter of the object's extension, which depends solely on the object itself.

What's around it? Nothing. Otherwise the universe wouldn't consist solely of that object.

What's "in between it"--again, nothing.

Singularities are mathematical concepts. They're the point at which a mathematical function takes on an infinite value.
Obviously, then, if 'space' is not some sort of thing, to you, then matter is needed that has extension of matter, then the size of the matter would just get larger.
I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say there.
What is it that you are trying to say and/or prove here?
I don't know how I could type this stuff any more simply/straightforwardly than I am. The idea is not a "proof" by the way. My point is, as always, simply what I'm typing. Otherwise I'd type something else instead.
Once you start showing how smart and clever you are with words that I have never even seen before, and thus I have absolutely no idea nor clue about, then I obviously can not understand what you are saying. I am just a very slow and very simple kid in Life.
Aren't you here because you're interested in philosophy? Why not look up philosophical terms you're not familiar with? It's tough to talk about philosophy without using any terms of art. And attempting to do that would just make things murkier.
What is a 'non-equivocated contradiction'?
Equivocation occurs when you use a term in two or more instances with two or more different senses--to refer to at least slightly different things.

For example, if you say, "It's a contradiction to say that you're free to go to the movies--it will cost you $20, and that's not free." That's using two different senses of the word "free."

We only have a contradiction when we don't equivocate--when the terms in the contradiction are used to refer to exactly the same thing, in the same sense/the same respect, at the same time, the same context, etc.

Contradictions are in the form of P & ~P (P being a proposition, "~" being one common symbol for "not"--so claiming that some proposition is the case AND claiming that the very same proposition is not the case). If we say, "That's a contradiction, it's stating that x is y and x is not y (or not-x is y)." In order for it to be a contradiction, we have to be using x and y exactly the same on both sides of that--the same senses/respects, the same time, the same context, etc.

So for example, (P) The cat is on the mat, and (~P) The cat is not on the mat. If for P we mean that the front half of the cat's body is on the mat, and for ~P we mean that the back half of the cat's body is not on the mat, we're equivocating. We're referring to different parts of the cat's body in each case. For contradictions, we can not do this. It's not a contradiction if we equivocate.
And, what is 'paraconsistent logic'?
There are different, often-incompatible species of logic. Because logic is something we construct, as ways to think abstractly about relations. Paraconsistent logic is a general term for species of logics where contradictions are not automatically false. In paraconsistent logics, at least some contradictions are allowed, or in other words, some contradictions are assigned "T" (true). This is due to the definitions and basic rules of the logic that are set up from the outset.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:18 am
What is P in this case (for our P & ~P that you're claiming?)
Instead of using symbols, which we then have to decipher what 'word' they are in relation to, and then decipher how that 'word' is being defined in that sentence, and then decipher what that 'definition' actually 'means' in that context, why do we not just use words, and their actual meanings, instead?

[/quote]

The whole point of symbolic logic is that the things that we plug into the variables do not matter. Symbolic logic is about the relations, in a general, abstract way, of statements (or objects, or whatever we might be dealing with). It's similar to algebra, or more generally to the usage of variables in mathematics. When we state the Pythagorean theorem we state it as a2 + b2 = c2 (the 2s should be superscripts, they're squared numbers). We state it that way because it doesn't matter what numbers we plug into the variables. The relationship holds.

If we're focusing on the logic of something, plugging a specific thing into a variable is often distracting, because people focus on that specific thing instead, and it's irrelevant. If we're focusing on the logic of something, we talking about relations, in a more general, abstract manner.
So, are you now able to explain how it is logically possible for 'something' to simply appear with no mechanism behind or proceeding that 'thing'?
Yes, very simply. if something isn't logically impossible then it's logically possible. What it means for something to be logically impossible is that it is or entails a logical contradiction (which has to be non-equivocated--as I explained above). "X 'came from nothing'" is not and does not entail a contradiction. Therefore, it's logically possible.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 21st, 2020, 9:39 am

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
RJG wrote:Truth Hierarchy:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities
RJG wrote:An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.
creation wrote:Okay, but will you provide an example of an "Absolute Truth"?
"Experiencing/experiences exist" --- is an absolute undeniable truth, for any attempt to deny this truth only affirms it. Any experience of denying is affirmation of the truthfulness of experiencing.
Great, this is PERFECT.

We have a bases from which to work from.

By the way, you neglected to answer my clarifying question regarding 'your' "truth hierarchy".

You also did not provide an example for all of them, why is this?
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
creation wrote:Are you also aware that what is undeniable/undoubtable to one person may well be very deniable and doubtable to another person?
Not so. No one is capable of defying an absolute truth.
What do you mean by "Not so"? Absolutely any one can defy absolutely any thing, if they so choose to.

Anyone could even try to refute an 'absolute truth', if they so choose to, but obviously the absolute truth is that they could not actually refute an absolutely truth. (Unless of course if they did, and then obviously they also could have.) But are you aware of when an 'absolute truth' is actually decided, and, how an 'absolute truth' is decided?

But as long as we agree that there are absolute truths, then we have a bases to start from.
RJG wrote:Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.
creation wrote:Again, are you aware that what is "logical" to one person may well not be logical at all to another person?
By "logic", I mean Simple Logic; i.e. simple 'deductive' logic. Examples: X does not equal not-X, and X<X is logically impossible. No one is capable of defying an objective (logical) truth.

But what you call an "objective (logical) truth" others "defy" it. This is because to us, or well me anyway, YOUR "objective (logical) truth" is NOT objective (nor logical) truth at all.

You obviously have not shown any attempt to understand what I have said in regards to this previously. And, you have not yet answered my clarifying questions regarding what you say regarding this, so how do we overcome this?

If it not possible, as you imply here, for "objective truths" to 'not be true' at all, then, if what I say is illogical, to you, in regards to what you say is 'logically true, then how can we proceed forwards from this?

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
RJG wrote:Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge.
creation wrote:Yet the ones who propose these, trust they are true (real and certain) knowledge.
If their trust is irrationally placed, then their position is likewise irrational.

So, if your trust is irrationally placed, which it is obviously, to me, then your position is likewise irrational, correct?

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
RJG wrote:Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
creation wrote:Are you aware that what one person may have experienced could actually be real and certain knowledge or truth, whereas you are proposing here that they can never be certain nor known as truthful?
Correct. The "inability to know with certainty" is NOT related to the truthful certainty/non-certainty of what's known. E.g. the inability to know with certainty that ghosts exist/don't exist, does NOT mean ghosts in fact truthfully do/don't exist.
So, are you certain that 'time' is a dimension?

Is there absolutely anyway known that you might just be incorrect in this at all?

Or, are you 100% certain without doubt that 'time' is a dimension? And, if you are, then that means you could prove this with "objective (logical) truth" as well as the fact that absolutely no human being could defy that 'time' is a dimension, and absolutely no human being forever more could actually refute your claim here, correct?

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
creation wrote:Just because you say something is not truthful, or cannot be known as truthful, does not mean you are expressing a truth at all here. In fact it may well be just your 'subjective truth' only that you are expressing here, which, by your own "logic" would not be trustworthy anyway, correct?

Or does the 'trustworthiness' of 'subjective truth' only relate to other people and not to you and your subjectivity?
Be careful not to confuse/conflate the 'subjective' knowing of 'objective' truths as "subjective truth".
Okay I will not, and I did not.
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 9:55 am
We can all subjectively know objective truths. For example, our subjective knowing of math/logic, does NOT mean math/logic is therefore "subjective truth".
Talk about confusing and conflating things here. None of this was in relation to what I was pointing out, and asking you to clarify. But you may also just be purposely trying to deflect away from the actual clarifying question that I asked you.

But anyway, considering we are in disagreement with the last four of 'you' truths and in agreement with the first and absolute truth, then how about we just stick with that one from now on, agreed?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 10:10 am

Terrapin Station wrote:LOL
Obviously content free.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 21st, 2020, 10:26 am

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
RJG wrote:It is not "space" (by itself) that allows objects to "move".
creation wrote:Well 'space', by itself, is not preventing nor stopping objects to 'move', correct?
Correct.

creation wrote:From my perspective all that is needed for objects to 'move' is space.
RJG wrote:Not so. Without matter+time+space (something-happening-somewhere), there can be no movement, or change whatsoever. Without TIME, MATTER cannot move ("occur" or happen) throughout SPACE.
creation wrote:I have already asked you previous, WHY is 'time' NEEDED for objects to move?
And I have already told you - without a "means to move", there can be no movement.
And I have already asked you, what is the actual "means" in 'time', which you say allows objects to move?

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
Without a spatial direction/dimension in which to move, there can be no movement into that direction/dimension.
Yes I agree without 'space', there can be no movement. Full stop.

The distance between objects being measured in any direction, is what is called and known as "3 dimensions".
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
Without a 2nd dimension, 1D lines cannot move/extend into 2D planes.
Without a 3rd dimension, 2D planes cannot move/extend into 3D objects.

If 2 dimensional planes have already moved/extended into 3 dimensional objects, then there is already movement/extension.

Do we agree there are 3 dimensional objects?
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
Without a 4th dimension, 3D objects cannot move/extend into 4D motion.
But this is not logical, to me.

You just saying this does not make it real, true, nor correct. You just saying this also does not make it an "objective (logical) truth).

You can keep repeating the same things over and over again. But until you prove, with evidence, what actually happens, then you really are not saying anything other than your own subjective truth, and/or your own belief on this matter.

Explain to us, in a logically reasoned way, just HOW 'time', a supposed actual dimension, actually exists, and HOW time actually existed BEFORE 3 dimensional objects started moving/extending.
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
creation wrote:What is 'time' exactly which allows objects to move?
Again, and again, Time is a "dimension" which allows 3D objects to move/change.

You are completely MISSING THE MARK.

Okay, let me see if I have this correct, because "rjg" says, "Time (capital T) is a "dimension", which allows 3 dimensional object to move/change", then that is what 'time' is, correct?

Will you ever tell us exactly HOW 'time' actually ALLOWS objects to move/change?

What is in this "dimension" exactly, which you call "Time", is this secret thing that ALLOWS 3 dimensional objects to move/change?
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
creation wrote:To me, the 4th dimension you talk about exists only because of movement, or change.
And so then, how does this "movement" (or change) happen/occur?
Because of space.

Obviously, if there was NO space, then objects of matter could not move.
If every action causes a reaction, then there has never been a start nor a beginning to any thing.
Considering space AND matter have always co-existed together, then so to has 'movement' (or change) has also happened/occurred.
Therefore, because movement/change of 3 dimensional objects of matter is in continual flux, then so to has what is called "Time", or "time".

As I have previously stated, Until you can show how 'time' could have existed prior to 3 dimensional objects moving/changing, what started the initial process of moving/change, and/or, show what is the actual thing ( of matter?) within "time" (or that makes up "time"), which ALLOWS movement/change of 3 dimensional objects, then what you have said so far does not make logical sense to me.

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
RJG wrote:The first 3 dimensions ONLY provides a means for 3D objects to EXIST. It does not provide a means for them to MOVE/CHANGE.
creation wrote:If 3 dimensional space does ONLY provides a means for objects to EXIST, from your perspective, and 3 dimensional space does not allow objects to move freely about, from your perspective, then so be it. I find it very illogical that without 3 dimensional space any object could move at all.
Firstly, how is it possible for an object to move "freely" about??
Because without 'space', then there is no where to move freely about.

Space is HOW it is possible for an object to move.

Also, where you are actually stuck I have alluded to previously. I am just waiting for you to find it and see it for yourself.
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
...Does it have its own mind?
You can go down the ridiculous path and ask as many absurd questions as you like. But even you KNOW that that will not help us here.
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
...Can it "decide" when to move and where to move?
This depends on the actual 3 dimensional object in question.
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
-- NO, is the answer. Objects are NOT "free" to move about. An object at rest, remains at rest. It is not free. It cannot decide to move or to not move.
If you say so, then it must be true, correct?

Have you ever considered that just maybe there could be something wrong in the way you are looking at and seeing this?

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
Agreed. Logically, without ALL the ingredients; matter+time+space, there could be NO movement whatsoever!

Obviously you are not really interested in looking at this, nor seeing this, from any other perspective than yours only, correct?
RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
My statement above is a "logical truth" based on the following "logical proof":
  • P1. From a geometric perspective:
    • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
      A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
      A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
      A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
    P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".
    C1. Therefore, the 4th dimension (called "Time") is the means by which 3D objects can move/change.
And as I have already pointed out previously, what is so called "logical" to some, can be completely 'illogical', to others.

This here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of this happening and occurring right here and now.

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm

If you believe that 'Time' itself does not exist, then WHAT is this 4th dimension that you now claim exists?
This dimension is just like 'time' itself. Both 'time' and 'dimension' exist in thought, or concept only.

RJG wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 1:52 pm
*****
To conclude: Science has Erred. The statements "Time is a dimension", and "Time dilation exists" contradict each other. If Time is a dimension, then Time cannot dilate or change. A dimension is just a dimension. It is not something that can be manipulated or altered, by speed (motion) or anything.
You conclude 'science has erred'.

I conclude you, and others, have erred.

But I am just waiting for you, and them, to work out how to find out where you, and them, have erred, and where you, and them, have not.

There are truths and falsehoods in what you, and them, say, which are obvious to me. I just wait for those that are Truly interested in discovering how to SEE these also.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7316
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 21st, 2020, 10:37 am

Terrapin Station wrote:Are you an Aspie or are you just one of those folks who plays one online?
Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. If you've got no argument to make, say nothing. Thank you.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 21st, 2020, 10:38 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 3:34 pm
RJG wrote:It doesn't agree with logic (my view). Hence the problem.
Back up the above assertion.

I can give you a logically consistent account of what the Theory of Relativity actually says about time if you're interested.
I am extremely interested in 'you' providing 'your', so called, "logically consistent account of what the Theory of Relativity actually says about time", then I have something to work on which I could then show where the errors have been made in 'your' version, if I do see any.

You do not then have to respond to what I write, but, at least, I would now have something to work with.

Every other time I have tried to show errors I was always shut down for using "wrong" words or language. At least if you were to put something forward, then I would have only the correct words and language to use.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 20th, 2020, 3:34 pm
To refute your straw-man false statement "science says that time stops at the speed of light". I've already done it in this topic, and reminded you of it with a link to it. You ignored it, presumably because it didn't fit with what you wanted to claim it says.

Post Reply