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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 4:46 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
creation wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am
Even you just said the Universe consists of 'nothing' AND 'objects'. So, if we removed the object(s) from the Universe, then what is left? Nothing, which is what some people refer to as 'space', itself.
Nothing isn't space, it's nothing.
So, how do you distinguish between 'Nothing' and 'space'?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
What is 'space' to you?
I've already explained this to you a couple times, and you even countered with an alternate but similar claim.

Space is (a) the extensional properties of matter, and (b) the extensional relations between matter. This means that if there is no matter, there is no space.
Okay, So what do you mean by "extensional properties"?

What is the property of 'space', itself?

What is 'space' made up of exactly?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
I'm guessing you didn't really understand what I said and you just Mad-Libbed the contrasting claim in one of those punky Internet moves?
I have absolutely no idea nor clue what this actually means or is referring to, but I am not really interested anyway, at the moment.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am

Do you mean here that the object is one singular piece of object
No.
without absolutely anything else within it?
Again no.
Or, do you mean it is like ALL the objects in the Universe, which are themselves made up of 'space' AND 'matter'
Again, no. Space is not a thing. It's not a container. It exists in no way "on its own." Space is a term for the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter.
I do not know what these words "extension of matter" or "extensional relations between matter" actually mean from your perspective. But, hopefully you cleared this up earlier.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
Those extensional relations obtain simply because there is matter that is separated extensionally from other matter.
Maybe if I explain what the word 'space' means to me, and let us see how different we are in definition and meaning here.

To me, 'space' is; just the distance between matter.

Is this anything somewhat like your "extensional relations"?

If yes, then what does extensional relations "obtain simply" mean? What is the words "obtain simply" in reference to exactly?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
There is literally nothing in between the separated matter.
But this is exactly what I say.

So, why do you think or believe I am saying something different here?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
An extensional relation is simply the fact that matter A is separated by 3 inches (or whatever, based on whatever arbitrary scale we'd use to reference this) from matter B, for example. That doesn't make something exist "in" that extensional relation.
Of course nothing exists "in" that extensional relation. Nothing, literally, exists in that area, space, "extensional relation".

By the way, I think I better understand your meaning of "extensional relation" now.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
'Space' is some thing, and 'nothing' can be defined as 'space' or as absolutely no thing.
I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see how blatantly contradictory this is.
Oh but I can. From one perspective this is blatantly contradictory, but from another perspective it makes perfect sense. I can just see this from both perspectives.

By the way, this is a true paradox to me. Most people, especially in the scientific community look at 'paradoxes' as something to be always avoided, but, to me, paradoxes are perfect tools to use to see and better understand the Universe actually works.

To me, a 'paradox' is; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition, which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

Even the word 'nothing' refers to some 'thing'. An area of absolute no things, or a vacuum.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
Some thing contradicts no thing, right?
In one sense, but not in another sense.

In one sense sure some thing could not be no thing. But, in another sense no thing is literally some thing. The word 'some' refers to one thing, or up to but not including ALL things, so that one thing could, literally, be nothing at all.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
"I have some candies" contradicts "I have no candies." Some x contradicts no x, whatever we plug into x.
Does any of what I have said above make any sense at all?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
So if space is some thing, space can't be no thing (it can't be defined as "absolutely no thing" as you say--not if it's some thing, as you say).
Okay, if you want to look at this, this way, then what is the "extensional relation", which separates matter A from matter B, for example, made up of exactly?

Is that separated "extensional relation" made up of some thing, or no thing?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
Space isn't nothing, but it doesn't obtain on its own. It only obtains when matter does. No matter, no space.
Maybe if I said, 'space' is made up of nothing, or no thing. Does that work at all for you. Does it make sense to you now?

I have to agree now, that because of the way I use and define the word 'space', then if there is no matter, then there is no 'space'.

Your use of the 'obtain' word is confusing to me. What do you mean by 'obtain' here.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
So, if the Universe consisted of just one object (x), then that object must be singularity in the sense of; an infinite compression of matter, (absolutely no space in between it) and if there is no 'space' or absolutely no thing around it, then that that single object would be infinite in size; spatially.
You're intuitively thinking of space as a thing, as something that exists on its own, as a container to place things in.
I have NEVER thought, intuitively or not, that space is something that exists on its own, or exists as a container to place things in. This could not be further from the truth.

Why do you assume and/or believe that I have thought 'space' as something that exists on its own, and/or as a container to place things in?

These are the very last things that I have ever thought.
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
On my view, space isn't at all a thing, something that exists on its own, or a container to place things in.
Is a 'distance' a 'thing'? Is a 'extensional relation' a thing? Is a 'separate extension' between matter a 'thing'?

Could 'space' be a thing, even if it exists in concept only? Is a 'unicorn' a 'thing'?

Could an area of 'nothing' be a 'thing'? Could a 'vacuum of space' be a 'thing'?

Is your view of 'things' the absolute true, right, and correct view of things?

Is it possible that 'space', itself, could be looked at, seen as, and/or viewed as a 'thing'?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:34 am
This is getting way too long. I hate long posts. That's why I'd prefer to chat. I want to go back and forth like a conversation, not like people "lecturing" at each other. So I'll cut this off here for now.
Okay.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 4:51 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 11:39 am
I'll just address this quickly, though,in case we don't get back to it, because it's important:
creation wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 7:58 am

Okay, so tell me I have you wrong here. You state that with change absolutely nothing can be the same, correct?
I'm not saying that as a generalization at all.

I'm saying that it's possible to have a change where we're not talking about a "unified" thing changing, so that something stays the same.

I'm not saying that that would be all change, or that it would be typical, or anything like that. I'm just saying that it's a logical possibility, and it's important to understand that logical possibility in talking about change.
This has not cleared anything up for me here.

To me, the Universe, Itself, always stays the same no matter what change is happening and occurring.

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 271
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 24th, 2020, 4:58 am

@@Steve3007
Nothing changed in here. The less qualified with the worst principles are still arguing for their views.
Steve, here is a recent event on the concept of time, hosted by Brian Green.
He has an interesting alternative description about "natural clocks". It may be more useful in conversations with magical thinker since it explains the nature of "clock" in nature.
I post you the exact point in its introduction where he defines these "clocks".
https://youtu.be/1FJWvEbeBps?t=202

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 5:21 am

Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 10:23 am


I think what this shows is simply that it's so easy to be misunderstood. I think what you were essentially saying before was that there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Unless we want to re-visit the wheel's design to see (a) why it was designed as it was and (b) whether we've all been taking its design for granted and it could actually be improved on.
Exactly. Humanity has assembled a vast body of knowledge. The observations of millions of geniuses in the past, building on each other's work over time. You have to respect that. Aside from being an incredible (continuing) achievement, our body of knowledge is a huge asset, just sitting there waiting to be used. A bottomless well of knowledge, with a great deal of it available at any time. So I struggle to understand those fighting over subject matter where it's clear they have not utilised existing bodies of knowledge.
What exactly is it that you are 'struggling to understand'? Do you not fully understand yet that the "existing bodies of knowledge" are sometimes disagreed with and/or disputed?

Therefore, it is hard to utilize any "existing body of knowledge", which is exactly what is disagreed with and/or being in dispute of, exactly.

If you do not understand nor accept this yet, then no wonder you are "struggling to understand" here.

Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
Still, I will question aspects of human knowledge in terms of interpretation (which reaches into non-science territory, such as philosophy, psychology and spirituality).
Does this mean you will not question aspects of human knowledge in terms of interpretation into science territory?

If you will not question interpretations in science territory, then why not?
Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
I also question some common unproven assumptions, eg. that qualia can only be generated by nervous systems. However, I have confidence in the execution of the science by the vast majority of scientists - far more faith than I have in myself in the same way as I will tend to trust a computer expert's view of my PC's health over my own, less informed, judgement.
It seems here you have a very narrowed, or one-sided, view of things here.
Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
Do we, as a society, value expertise and knowledge, or do we consider such things to be philosophical frippery?
I do neither.

Can the so called "expertise" and "their knowledge" ever be false, wrong, and/or incorrect?

If no, to you, then okay.

But if yes, then should society value "expertise and knowledge" undoubtedly?

Or, do you think it is better for a society to just remain OPEN always, to finding more and newer knowledge all the time, which would include not putting ALL value into such things as so called "expertise and knowledge"? Because, to me, they have been known to make mistakes.
Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
If we value expertise, then we must take what physicists say about time seriously.
So, which so called "physicists" do you suggest we "value", and which ones we do not?

Are you aware that not all "physicists" agree on 'time', itself?
Greta wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:18 pm
Not as gospel, but seriously. A quick look at the public conversation and current polities makes clear that expertise is not respected as it once was.
It appears that you want us to value "physicists" and what they say about 'time', and to value this seriously. So, how about you now tell us all here, what exactly do "physicists" say about 'time', which you believe we take "seriously"?

Let us see if you even know what the "physicists" say in regards to 'time'.

Show us how much you actually know.

If you do not clarify this, then some might see that you not saying anything at all here says more than if you did say some thing.

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 24th, 2020, 6:08 am

Greta wrote:So I struggle to understand those fighting over subject matter where it's clear they have not utilised existing bodies of knowledge.
creation wrote:What exactly is it that you are 'struggling to understand'?
She struggles to understand why some people (not necessarily you, just some people) might pass judgement on a body of knowledge without having looked to see what it says. Regardless of whether a body of knowledge is disputed, it is not rational to pass judgement on it without having read what it says. Those that dispute it, if they are rational, do so after having read what it says.

It seems to me obvious that this is the simple point she is making. And it seems to me obvious that the point is valid.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 6:10 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 3:54 am
creation wrote:If we just started with the predictions made in the special theory of relativity first, and then proceed, then would that cause any issue here?
I haven't got time to address everything right now, although I've briefly read it. I will just address the above and go through the rest later.

Imagine (as a metaphor) building a house. First you build the foundations. Then you build the walls. Then you build the roof. You can't build the roof first. It would have to float in the air. If you said to people "look! a floating roof!" they wouldn't believe you. They'd want to see what's supporting it.

If we want to understand why Relativity makes the predictions that it does, we have to look at what it's built on. If we don't do that, we are effectively being asked to believe in a floating roof. What it's built on is about 400 years of:

experiment > theory > prediction > experiment > theory > prediction > experiment > theory > prediction > ...

starting (for our purposes) with Galileo.

It starts with experiments we could all do. Galileo, for example, did experiments where he dropped various objects to see if one of them hit the ground before the other. (He did it from, among other places, the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We perhaps can't do that. But we could do something similar.) It ends with experiments involving flying atomic clocks around the world or building huge particle accelerators. Those things are more tricky for us to do.

So we could regard that experiment of Galileo's as one of the first in a long chain which gradually built knowledge. In his time, nobody knew what electricity or magnetism was. So along the way (in the 19th Century) lots and lots of experiments were done in those fields. Those sorts of experiments are the foundations and walls on which something like Relativity is built. If we don't look at those foundations and walls and examine them for sturdiness, before looking at the roof, then we end up like gater, just mindlessly calling people "morons".

Do you see how the metaphor works?
Yes. I was the one who asked you if we were to start at a particular point, then would that cause any issue for you.

Did you forget that it was you who just started at some particular point, which you thought would work?

Do not forget also that you stated: As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped (slower).

To me, this is contradictory to what you also said about: If two observers move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own.

So, will you clear up this, to me, contradiction?

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 271
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 24th, 2020, 6:16 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am
Greta wrote:So I struggle to understand those fighting over subject matter where it's clear they have not utilised existing bodies of knowledge.
creation wrote:What exactly is it that you are 'struggling to understand'?
She struggles to understand why some people (not necessarily you, just some people) might pass judgement on a body of knowledge without having looked to see what it says. Regardless of whether a body of knowledge is disputed, it is not rational to pass judgement on it without having read what it says. Those that dispute it, if they are rational, do so after having read what it says.

It seems to me obvious that this is the simple point she is making. And it seems to me obvious that the point is valid.
People don't use the same standards to evaluate knowledge and learning or understanding what a framework describes are not among them.
Their priorities are for a framework to be in agreement with their ideology.

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 24th, 2020, 6:18 am

creation wrote:So, will you clear up this, to me, contradiction?
viewtopic.php?p=346654#p346654
Steve3007 wrote:Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
Carefully read the above. A link to the post from which it was taken is provided above it.

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 24th, 2020, 6:25 am

NickGaspar wrote:...Their priorities are for a framework to be in agreement with their ideology.
In many cases, yes, so it would seem. And in many cases a related thing also happens: people assume the person or body describing the knowledge has a particular ideology. They then assume that person or body to be, in some sense, "corrupted" by the ideology that they have been assumed to have. It's a form of straw man argument.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 6:32 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am
Greta wrote:So I struggle to understand those fighting over subject matter where it's clear they have not utilised existing bodies of knowledge.
creation wrote:What exactly is it that you are 'struggling to understand'?
She struggles to understand why some people (not necessarily you, just some people) might pass judgement on a body of knowledge without having looked to see what it says.
Oh, this can be very easily explained and understood. They do this because, let us imagine it is in regards to say 'time', for example. It would not matter what body of knowledge says about 'time', itself, if, from the very start, the person is saying that there is no such thing as 'time', anyway, or that 'time' is not some actual thing, where there could even be a body of knowledge about this 'thing' that does not even exist.

This would be like not having to know the body of knowledge of a unicorn, to pass judgement that a unicorn does not exist. There is just no actual need to look at what a body of knowledge says in regards to a unicorn, to pass judgement and/or argue that a unicorn does not exist.

So, if, for example, a person knows, for sure, that 'time' does not even exist in any physical sense, or in any other sense than in concept or thought only, and that the word 'time' is just a name that describes the measurements taken of change, then there is no need to look to see what is said in a body of knowledge of 'time', itself. If 'time', like a 'unicorn' does not exist, then it does not matter what is said regarding 'time', or a 'unicorn'.

Do you think that might help that person to see and understand easier?

Or, did I just make things worse, you think?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am
Regardless of whether a body of knowledge is disputed, it is not rational to pass judgement on it without having read what it says.
But are they actually disputing the body of knowledge, or if what the body of knowledge is referring to actually exists or not?

Does "greta" even know what they are disputing? Has "greta" even looked into and seen what their body of knowledge says regarding the issue at hand here, before "greta" has passed judgement?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am
Those that dispute it, if they are rational, do so after having read what it says.
Each time I read things, or each time I watch youtube videos, I can further see where and why the current understanding, and the current confusion, comes from. But, if people are not interested in looking into and seeing what my views, or ideas, are, and they just pass judgement instead, then this is also, to me anyway, perfectly well understood.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am
It seems to me obvious that this is the simple point she is making. And it seems to me obvious that the point is valid.
I also could have made an assumption and very easily seen the "obvious point is valid". But I do not like to assume any thing. I much prefer to clarify things so that I am as clear as I can be that I have the most up to date accurate and correct knowledge as I can gather and obtain.

Does it also seem to you obvious the simple point I am making? And, does it seem to you obvious that my point is valid also?

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 6:34 am

NickGaspar wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:16 am
Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:08 am




She struggles to understand why some people (not necessarily you, just some people) might pass judgement on a body of knowledge without having looked to see what it says. Regardless of whether a body of knowledge is disputed, it is not rational to pass judgement on it without having read what it says. Those that dispute it, if they are rational, do so after having read what it says.

It seems to me obvious that this is the simple point she is making. And it seems to me obvious that the point is valid.
People don't use the same standards to evaluate knowledge and learning or understanding what a framework describes are not among them.
Their priorities are for a framework to be in agreement with their ideology.
Is that what 'people' actually do?

By the way what if the framework is already in agreement with their ideas, which, just do not happen to be in line with current scientific knowledge?

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 24th, 2020, 6:35 am

creation wrote:Or, did I just make things worse, you think?
Worse, I think.

It's really, really, really simple: If you want to decide whether you agree with what someone says, do so after reading what they said.

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 24th, 2020, 6:40 am

creation wrote:Does it also seem to you obvious the simple point I am making? And, does it seem to you obvious that my point is valid also?
If I say "yes" will that help us to concentrate on examining the foundations, walls and roof (in that order) of the metaphorical house I mentioned earlier?

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 6:52 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:18 am
creation wrote:So, will you clear up this, to me, contradiction?
viewtopic.php?p=346654#p346654
Steve3007 wrote:Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
Carefully read the above. A link to the post from which it was taken is provided above it.
Seriously you can not be this blind? Or, are you purposely deflecting away from the point that MUST BE so obviously clear by now.

You are now making what you say even more contradictory. Just please explain the contradiction. This might be very easily done, but I just cannot see this YET myself. Are you even aware of the contradiction that I can see? If no, then I will explain it further for you.

You wrote:

If two observers more towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own.

The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect.

If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.

As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.


So, how can two observers see the other's clock tick faster when moving towards each other at a constant speed, but when the velocity tends towards the speed of light the observers each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped. These two are in complete contradiction of each other. Or, am I missing something here?

If yes, then what am I missing?

You have even stipulated that: If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme, which means, to me, if the velocity is larger towards each, and the effect is more extreme, then because they each see the other's click rate faster, then at a larger velocity the effect on that tick rate being more extreme would make the tick rate even faster again, and not slower as you said would happen. So, just what is going on here exactly?

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 24th, 2020, 7:04 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 6:35 am
creation wrote:Or, did I just make things worse, you think?
Worse, I think.

It's really, really, really simple: If you want to decide whether you agree with what someone says, do so after reading what they said.
So, if anyone wants to decide whether they agree with what I, for example, say, your advice to them is do so after reading what I said, correct?

Do you think they able to pass judgment and say, for example, what I say is false, wrong, or incorrect, before they read what I said?

Also, do you think it would not just be better to never pass judgment in any way, shape, nor form, about what someone says until they have read what they said?

Post Reply