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
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am
btw It seems like you missed my last post.
I will copy it once more.(my answer are in quotes)

by NickGaspar » Yesterday, 7:59 pm

creation wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 7:05 pm

NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm

it depends on the process. In the case of an atomic clock one of them is the electron's transition frequency which we happen to measure in a specific electromagnetic region.

So, human beings put their relative perspective onto this, and take measurements of some frequency?
In the case of an atomic clock yes

But what is the actual 'process', itself, which you say is "time"?
We are doing this again? We label time the observable phenomenon of things happening not all at once, on their pace and according to their natural pacekeeping "mechanisms" .We also label time the measurements we do on those natural clocks. i.e An natural clock is the" motion" of the sun around the sky.
A 'frequency' is a 'frequency' or are you saying that 'frequency' is 'time', itself?
-A frequency of an electron's transition is a measurable function in a process we understand as "atom". We can use it to see how gravity can affect this function(changes its frequency)..
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
If it is our ticking, we are talking about the ticking of our atoms ,our molecules,our biological clocks etc.

'We' are not talking about anything. I asked you a question. 'You' are trying your hardest to answer it.
But where and what is the actual ticking 'process', itself, of atoms and molecules, which is what you call "time"?
its a hyperfine transition frequency in the optical or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms
Obviously the phrase "biological clock" is just some made up term to describe some thing, unless of course you can pinpoint where is and what this "biological clock" is exactly?
Try googling circadia , diurnal, ultrdian, infradian rhythms. And no...they are not "made up term". they are thousands of biological clocks in our body.
here is a peer reviewed publication on Chronobiology.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/circad ... onobiology
The heart pumps blood and this is a process, so is the "ticking" process of the human heart "time" also?
The heart's cells are controlled by an internal biological clock. If you know your heart rate at rest then you can count the exact numbers of beats to measure a minute....cool fact! So you can time this biological clock in relation to our made up clocks.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
When one of those processes experiences a change in the gravitational pull, that clicking changes too.

Is this absolutely true and correct? Or, just what is said to happen?
Just expressing what is said to happen and which is just the current knowledge, to you, is very different from proposing what does actually happen.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... y-of-time/
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... -your-feet
This is the scientific consensus for decades. If you want to be unreasonable and talk about "absolutes" instead of "current knowledge" its up to you.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
This is how we found out natural clocks are not fixed but relative to the effects of gravity and motion.

What are "natural clocks"?
Atoms's frequencies, Radioactivity, pulsating Cepheid stars, planets circling their stars...if you have an internet connection you can find more about these things.
And, how does motion supposedly affect these"natural clocks"?
I am sure that online you can find something on this topic .
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:16 pm

Are we doing that again?
Yes we are.

I ask you clarifying questions. You, once again, prove you are incapable to answer.

Why is it the ones who insist the predictions of relativity have already been verified correct are the same ones who are incapable of answering my questions? Does the obvious fact that if they did answer my questions honestly, then that would show that what they believe is correct is not correct at all?
If you are unable to address my question (when did you stop beating your wife), its because it shares the same "qualities" with your question.
As Sculptor1 pointed out to you, some questions are just silly.
Those sentences you presented with a question mark are not questions. They are fallacious statements "formed" to look as such
Now why is so important for you to reject or cherry pick from our scientific understanding of time and subscribe to an unfounded one?
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
creation wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:05 pm
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm
it depends on the process. In the case of an atomic clock one of them is the electron's transition frequency which we happen to measure in a specific electromagnetic region.
So, human beings put their relative perspective onto this, and take measurements of some frequency?
In the case of an atomic clock yes
But what is the actual 'process', itself, which you say is "time"?
We are doing this again?
Yes 'we' are. I once again ask you questions, and you once again show if you are able to or unable to answer them.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm We label time the observable phenomenon of things happening not all at once,
Once again you are immediately using the 'we' word as though it is true and correct. Unfortunately though it is not true and not correct at all. Are you capable of comprehending that 'we' are NOT doing what you say 'we' are here?

What you say here is obviously wrong, as 'we' do not do this at all.

The Truth is 'you' and maybe some others do that, but I certainly do not.

By the way, "things happening not all at once" is just described and labeled by the word 'change', by me. See, using this description fits in with and helps in explaining the big and whole true picture of things.

Are you able to fit your description with ALL things to form one crystal clear explanation and true picture of things? If so, then great. I hope you reveal it soon.

Also, the definition is usually labeled by a word, and not the other way around. But each to their own.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm on their pace and according to their natural pacekeeping "mechanisms" .
And what are things "natural pacekeeping "mechanisms" " exactly?

You did not or could not answer this last time I asked you the question.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm We also label time the measurements we do on those natural clocks.i.e An natural clock is the" motion" of the sun around the sky.
So, 'you' have two different definitions for the word 'time'. This helps in explaining why there is such a confusion in your community.

Also, does the sun actually have "motion" "around the sky"? Or, is that just one of those wrong and incorrect interpretations of what is observed by some people?

That interpretation appears to be like the one about how the sun revolves around the earth. Obviously, a totally wrong and incorrect interpretation, although it is one that was believed to be true and so was very strongly held onto as being true.

By the way, what is the actual "ticking" processes of the sun, which you are measuring here? What 'processes' in the sun are you actually measuring?
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
A 'frequency' is a 'frequency' or are you saying that 'frequency' is 'time', itself?
-A frequency of an electron's transition is a measurable function in a process we understand as "atom".
You are making less sense the further we delve into this.

Since when has a 'process' been understood as "atom"?

Also, what do you measure the frequency of an electron's transition with exactly?

Again, what is the actual process, itself, which you understand to be 'time', and, what do you measure this function with?

See, ALL-OF-THIS can be explained in very simple and very easy terms. That is once you know how to look at and see what is actually true, right, and correct here, which obviously you are still a long way of learning.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm We can use it to see how gravity can affect this function(changes its frequency)..
So, you measure the frequency with some thing, which you have yet to say what that thing is, and then you use, probably that same thing, to measure the frequency when it is at different heights.

And where is time actually involved in this again?

Let us remove your third definition of 'time', the measuring definition, and stick to the first two;
1. the observable phenomenon of things happening not all at once, on their pace and according to their natural pacekeeping "mechanisms".
2. the ticking of a process.

1. Using 'time' as a label for this, will not work in with other things.
2. If you need to measure the "ticking" of this "process" (whatever that "process" actually is) with a clock, then obviously that process is not 'time' itself.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pmIf it is our ticking, we are talking about the ticking of our atoms ,our molecules,our biological clocks etc.
'We' are not talking about anything. I asked you a question. 'You' are trying your hardest to answer it.
But where and what is the actual ticking 'process', itself, of atoms and molecules, which is what you call "time"?
its a hyperfine transition frequency in the optical or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms
But it does not matter if it is hyperfine or hyperthick "transition frequency" nor does it matter where it is, nor does it matter of what it is.

How exactly do understand a "transition frequency" to be 'time', itself?
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
Obviously the phrase "biological clock" is just some made up term to describe some thing, unless of course you can pinpoint where is and what this "biological clock" is exactly?
Try googling circadia , diurnal, ultrdian, infradian rhythms.
A typical response from a person who obviously does NOT know what they are talking about.

This is because what they are saying, when we get down to it, with and from the right questions, does not make sense, itself.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm And no...they are not "made up term". they are thousands of biological clocks in our body.
Are they?

And what are ALL of these "thousands" of clocks measuring exactly?

I also think you will find that ALL terms are made up terms.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm here is a peer reviewed publication on Chronobiology.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/circad ... onobiology
Okay, thank you.

Obviously you are completely incapable of answering the question. But this does not surprise me at all. I KNEW you could not before. This is because of what 'time' actually IS.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
The heart pumps blood and this is a process, so is the "ticking" process of the human heart "time" also?
The heart's cells are controlled by an internal biological clock.
And where precisely is, and what exactly is, this "internal biological clock"?
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm If you know your heart rate at rest then you can count the exact numbers of beats to measure a minute....cool fact!
But how do you know if your heart is exactly at rest for the whole minute? ... interesting question!
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm So you can time this biological clock in relation to our made up clocks.
But you said you can use your heart to measure the made up minute.

How does one time a "biological clock"?

You said you understand 'time' to be the "ticking" of a "process", which 'process' exactly is what I am trying to gather from you is 'time' exactly?

Also, of course it is possible to measure heart, or not a biological clock's, beats in relation to the human devised up and made clocks, but what are these actually in relation to exactly?

What exactly do human beings set the rate of their created contraptions called clocks, which are said to measure 'time', which you say you understand is the "ticking" of a "process"?
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pmWhen one of those processes experiences a change in the gravitational pull, that clicking changes too.
Is this absolutely true and correct? Or, just what is said to happen?
Just expressing what is said to happen and which is just the current knowledge, to you, is very different from proposing what does actually happen.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... y-of-time/
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... -your-feet
This is the scientific consensus for decades. If you want to be unreasonable and talk about "absolutes" instead of "current knowledge" its up to you.
I just asked you ANOTHER question. That is all I did. This is obviously ANOTHER question you are incapable of answering.

The sun revolved around the earth was a consensus for decades also. But that obviously did and does not prove anything as well.
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pmThis is how we found out natural clocks are not fixed but relative to the effects of gravity and motion.
What are "natural clocks"?
Atoms's frequencies, Radioactivity, pulsating Cepheid stars, planets circling their stars...if you have an internet connection you can find more about these things.
So more or less absolutely any thing that moves or changes is a natural clock, to you, correct?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then what is correct?
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm
And, how does motion supposedly affect these"natural clocks"?
I am sure that online you can find something on this topic .
Considering you are, once again, completely incapable of answering this also yourself. I found something. I also found where and why this is false, wrong, and incorrect.

So, thank you for your help here. You have revealed a lot, for me.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: January 14th, 2020, 2:22 am
Greta wrote:If your "world" is small enough, you can discard abstract concepts.
And it's interesting to see how when our "world" reaches a certain size we reify those abstract concepts - tell ourselves that they pre-exist the things that we created them to describe.
That is interesting. So, at small scales everything is particular, a proper noun.

At middle scales there is a blend of the particular and the abstract.

At large scales the particular loses meaning (like an individual in a city) and the abstractions become the particulars of a larger playing field.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

Greta wrote: January 13th, 2020, 5:19 pm
Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 7:21 am



It's an interesting thought experiment isn't it? As Nick says, if they already have that history of using natural, celestial clocks then they could probably abstract from that and retain their notion of time. They could then, no doubt, devise other clocks. But if those other clocks gradually drifted out from synchronisation with celestial (natural) clocks (as our clocks and calendars do) they'd have no way of knowing that and, arguably, it wouldn't matter. Unless they emerge again one day.

It's also interesting to consider the extent to which human development of notions like time has been driven by our constant, very direct exposure to that vast clock in the sky: the heavenly bodies moving overhead with quite precise regularity. Through the vast majority of our history, when we set up camp for the night with nothing but firelight, that natural clock would have been un-ignorable. And archaeology suggests that we certainly didn't ignore it.

If it were possible for intelligent life to develop without ever having been exposed to that, at any point in their evolutionary history, I wonder what conceptions of time would it have.
As Nick noted, being not technological, their own body clocks would be about all they could use.

They would not be able to develop the kind of precise "time technology" that we have with Caesium atom decay, so it would be hard to imagine them having the ability to progress. However, in the absence of time synced to other natural phenomena, their circadian rhythm might become more precise.

Then again, even with celestial cues, there is (was? It's hard to know these days) an Amazonian tribe with a completely different approach to time https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13452711
Was human beings only living in the 'present', like all animals do, and not having some made up construct of 'time' not obviously already KNOWN?

No one has to look to far at all to observe this happening and SEE this obvious fact.

The word 'time' and what most people associated that word to is just a made up construct, which is held in concept or thought only. The human made up word 'time' only actually refers to measurements taken by human beings, by the human made up increments, on the human made contraptions like those called "clocks".

Duration is just a construct and NOT some actual real thing. But most human beings in this day and age, when this is written, are still a long way of learning and understanding this.
Greta wrote: January 13th, 2020, 5:19 pmIf your "world" is small enough, you can discard abstract concepts. In a way it's more realistic, because X in the future is not the same as X in the past. It's something new, that can be given any label.
Living in the present is all there really is.

The rest is just an abstract construct. The fact and truth of this is understood and known when seeing the whole 'Universe' in the way that It really IS, or, if your "world" is big enough.
Greta wrote: January 13th, 2020, 5:19 pmGiven that people on the same planet and the same species can come up with such different models (or lack) it boggles the mind to imagine how any intelligent species in other parts of the universe might conceptualise time.
This is not "boggling" at all. If the WHOLE is look at and seen on the continuum, instead of looking from the very small "world" view, then the reasons WHY ALL human beings come up with and see things differently is really rather very obvious.
Greta wrote: January 13th, 2020, 5:19 pmA binary star system, no moons, multiple moons and differing rotation rates would throw our everyday assumptions about time out the window.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:At large scales the particular loses meaning (like an individual in a city) and the abstractions become the particulars of a larger playing field.
Yes, and that's particularly apparent in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The laws of thermodynamics (particularly the 2nd law) have often been said to be among the least likely ever to be falsified. Yet they are statistical; they are averages of the behaviours of huge numbers of individual particles. And yet, from these statistical laws we get the concept of the arrow of time; the sense that the future is fundamentally different from the past; the concept of irreversible processes. At the individual particle scale no such arrow exists. The laws work equally well in both temporal directions. The bouncing around of those particles is reversible.

So there is a sense in which the arrow of time is a statistical property which vanishes as the scale reduces. In an earlier post, many pages back in this topic, someone brought that up. But it's a subject that has been more specifically covered in other topics a few times before. I'm sure we've discussed it ourselves at some point.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:02 pm
Greta wrote: January 13th, 2020, 5:19 pm
As Nick noted, being not technological, their own body clocks would be about all they could use.

They would not be able to develop the kind of precise "time technology" that we have with Caesium atom decay, so it would be hard to imagine them having the ability to progress. However, in the absence of time synced to other natural phenomena, their circadian rhythm might become more precise.

Then again, even with celestial cues, there is (was? It's hard to know these days) an Amazonian tribe with a completely different approach to time https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13452711

If your "world" is small enough, you can discard abstract concepts. In a way it's more realistic, because X in the future is not the same as X in the past. It's something new, that can be given any label.

Given that people on the same planet and the same species can come up with such different models (or lack) it boggles the mind to imagine how any intelligent species in other parts of the universe might conceptualise time. A binary star system, no moons, multiple moons and differing rotation rates would throw our everyday assumptions about time out the window.
That is a really interesting article. Their environment and way of life must be the reason why those people didn't have the need to time different moments in their lives.
NO one has the 'need' to do such things, and NO one previously did. The environment is no different anywhere, where there is a need to do such things.

The way some human beings live and are truly greedy, however, and living that way of life, then using time helps them in being able to take and obtain as much as they can from others, more efficiently and more successfully.

Also, labeling and naming absolutely every thing, as well as compartmentalizing every thing into separated groups, which can be measured, like "time" and "space" also helps people in learning, knowing, and better understanding the Universe that we actually live in.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 »

creation wrote:Was human beings only living in the 'present', like all animals do, and not having some made up construct of 'time' not obviously already KNOWN?

No one has to look to far at all to observe this happening and SEE this obvious fact...

...This is not "boggling" at all. If the WHOLE is look at and seen on the continuum, instead of looking from the very small "world" view, then the reasons WHY ALL human beings come up with and see things differently is really rather very obvious.
It may be obvious to you, but be patient with us, your slow-witted pupils. We are not as far-sighted as you. We do not have your unique ability to see what is true, right, and correct.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:07 pm
Greta wrote:As Nick noted, being not technological, their own body clocks would be about all they could use.
Yes, and I suppose those body clocks would be a distant, imprecise echo of the celestial clocks that they left behind, in the presence of which they evolved. As ours are.
How exactly could an underground race use so called "body clocks"?

Think about exactly how they could be used, and what for?

"Body clocks" are not accurate for nothing that I can see, at first glance here now.

Without human made clocks, which are created to tick at a certain pace, then are "bodies" really good for anything that we use clocks for?
Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:07 pm
Then again, even with celestial cues, there is (was? It's hard to know these days) an Amazonian tribe with a completely different approach to time https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13452711

If your "world" is small enough, you can discard abstract concepts. In a way it's more realistic, because X in the future is not the same as X in the past. It's something new, that can be given any label.

Given that people on the same planet and the same species can come up with such different models (or lack) it boggles the mind to imagine how any intelligent species in other parts of the universe might conceptualise time.
Interesting article. I think this also illustrates the pitfalls of abstraction and extrapolation. They're essential tools for helping us make predictions beyond our immediate, everyday experience. But it's sometimes forgotten that when we create abstractions, such as the concept of time, from observed phenomena, such as the concept of (natural) clocks,
What do you call natural clocks?
Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:07 pm it is not a logical certainty that this concept will stay consistent and meaningful beyond the sensations from which they grew. It is only the process of Induction that makes us think that they will. In terms of time, the ultimate extrapolation is the Newtonian concept of a single, universal Time - the notion that there are the measurements made by clocks and that there is somehow some "real" time that exists independently of all those clocks - a Platonic Form of Time. This appears not to be the case.
Thank you for using the 'appear' word here.
Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:07 pm So maybe that tribe has a point.
Which might be?
Steve3007 wrote: January 13th, 2020, 6:07 pm
A binary star system, no moons, multiple moons and differing rotation rates would throw our everyday assumptions about time out the window.
Yes, a relatively complex orbit might mean that a species similar to ours might take longer to reach the stage of Kepler and Newton because the orbital maths would be more complicated. Assuming, of course, they could evolve at all.
Or, they might be more advanced and have already gone through the processes of throwing away and discarding all of the old previous knowledge and realizing that there really is NO 'time' at all relative to the Universe, Itself. And, that 'time' itself is just what is used to describe the measured duration between change, itself.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar »

creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 7:47 am
NickGaspar wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm

I guess we are dealing with sophistry as a protective mechanism for a pseudo philosophical view. Interesting!
I am addressing "how and what" questions while you are demanding answers for "why" questions!
Asking "why" physical phenomena act the way they do is a pseudo philosophical practice.
i.e "Why an exited electron releases "light" while returning to his initial state" ?The answer to this question is "Because it does".
Assuming unjustified reasons is just an irrational practice.

I understand that this belief must be really important for you then. I get it, worldviews are generally more important for people than knowledge is .
Facts that shake worldviews also tend to rise people's epistemic anxiety.
Either way , they get to enjoy the fruits of knowledge through technology but without having to surrender their beliefs(cognitive dissonance).

Well, It was nice talking to you again. Take care.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Time does not "cause" motion, any more than Space causes matter. Motion is caused by interacting matter. Time is just the substrate; i.e. the place where motion occurs.
creation wrote:So, time, the dimension, is the place where motion occurs. But, if motion is caused by interacting matter, then the place where motion, or interacting matter, occurs is just the Universe, Itself, correct?
Yes, the 4D universe. The 4D universe is where 3D objects interact (and motion occurs).

RJG wrote:I mean Motion is only possible because of Time in the same respect that Matter is only possible because of Space.
creation wrote:I am still not understanding where nor what this dimension is, which is Time, and which motion is not possible without.
If you can understand 3D space, then you can understand 4D space (i.e. spacetime). -- Can you imagine the dimensions of 3D space? If so, now add a 4th axis which allows a new spatial direction for this 3D space and the material (matter) within it.

RJG wrote:Time is not an "activity". Time is just a spatial Dimension; a 'place' for activity (i.e. the interaction of matter) to happen.
creation wrote:Well the Universe, Itself, is a place, or a spatial dimension, for the interaction of matter to happen, correct?
The Universe is formed/structured by 4 spatial dimensions. It is the place where 3D objects move. Without the 4th axis, there could be no movement of 3D objects.

RJG wrote:Look at it this way, without the 3 dimensions of space there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to exist. And without Time (the 4th dimension) there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to interact (move/motion).
creation wrote:But, to me, space is literally the place where matter is able to move and interact. Because of space, matter is able to freely move.
3D Matter is only "free to move" in 4D Space. Without a 'means' to move; or a pathway (i.e. the "dimension of Time") there could be no movement whatsoever. Nothing can move or happen (or occur) in a 'timeless' state.

RJG wrote:Space (3D Space) only allows the existence of matter. Spacetime (4D Space) allows motion of matter (of 3D objects).
creation wrote:To me matter can exist without space.
This is not logically possible. Firstly, matter itself is formed of 3D Space. Matter without dimensions is not matter, it is nothing. Secondly, if there is no 'place' for this matter to exist, there is no existence. For matter to exist, it must exist some-'where'. If it exists no-where, then it does not exist.

creation wrote:But matter cannot move and interact without space.
Correct, ...without 4D Space.

creation wrote:Matter moving, and interacting, is just motion, or change.
Correct. But for matter to move/interact, it must have a means (pathway) to do so -- The dimension of Time is that pathway. Without Time, nothing happens/occurs.

creation wrote:The measuring of the duration of this change is just what the word 'time' describes.
That's just the man-made relative 'measurement of objects' that is being confused and conflated as Time itself (the dimension), and is the source of errors/confusion here. That is why I posted these multiple interpretations that are being falsely conflated as one another:

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

creation wrote:So, we just see things differently. I cannot yet see where this "other" place or dimension is where you say is what time is.
Again, if you can conceptualize 3D Space, then you can conceptualize 4D Space (aka Spacetime).
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

Sculptor1 wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am
creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am

Yes we are.

I ask you clarifying questions. You, once again, prove you are incapable to answer.

Why is it the ones who insist the predictions of relativity have already been verified correct are the same ones who are incapable of answering my questions? Does the obvious fact that if they did answer my questions honestly, then that would show that what they believe is correct is not correct at all?
No.
Just like that. No questioning, no wondering, no considering. The answer is just a flat out "No".

If you say so, then it must be true, correct?
Sculptor1 wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:35 amI think it is because they are just fed up with your silly questions.
Be as fed as wanted to be.

The more my questions are dismissed and rejected here. The more evidence and proof I am gaining and obtaining for my real purpose here.
Sculptor1 wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am Relativity is well established. Next time you use your sat-nav, you unknowingly rely on Einstein's theory.
Here we go again. Is this ALL anyone has, who believes the current knowledge is correct?

Instead of answering my questions, they feed me with the same over and over again. And, assuming "unknowingly" just makes this even more hilarious.

Again, not one mention of what I have said in relation to the obvious fact that the results of the hafele-keating experiment oppose einstein's theory and predictions.

Of course 'relativity' is well established. I am the very first one to recognize and say this. What you and others do not recognize is what I am saying and meaning in 'relation' to this.

Every time anyone refuses to answer my questions, then they are confirming what I have predicted. The results are becoming clearer and verified all the time in this experiment.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 14th, 2020, 7:19 am
creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am

Yes we are.

I ask you clarifying questions. You, once again, prove you are incapable to answer.

Why is it the ones who insist the predictions of relativity have already been verified correct are the same ones who are incapable of answering my questions? Does the obvious fact that if they did answer my questions honestly, then that would show that what they believe is correct is not correct at all?
Even if I think you are on purpose being dishonest here, I will give you an example, for the sake of by standers.

Here is a question for you and I will need an answer from you.(its a classical example btw).

So. When did you stop beating your wife?

Again I will need your answer on that.
I NEVER started beating her.

This does not deflect away from the truth that you have shown that you are incapable of answering my very simple straightforward clarifying questions, asked in direct relation to what you have actually written.

By the way, for the sake of the readers the obvious fact that the questions I pose to you is VERY different from what you are doing here now.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation »

NickGaspar wrote: January 14th, 2020, 7:28 am
creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am
btw It seems like you missed my last post.
I will copy it once more.(my answer are in quotes)

by NickGaspar » Yesterday, 7:59 pm

creation wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 7:05 pm

NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm

it depends on the process. In the case of an atomic clock one of them is the electron's transition frequency which we happen to measure in a specific electromagnetic region.

So, human beings put their relative perspective onto this, and take measurements of some frequency?
In the case of an atomic clock yes

But what is the actual 'process', itself, which you say is "time"?
We are doing this again? We label time the observable phenomenon of things happening not all at once, on their pace and according to their natural pacekeeping "mechanisms" .We also label time the measurements we do on those natural clocks. i.e An natural clock is the" motion" of the sun around the sky.
A 'frequency' is a 'frequency' or are you saying that 'frequency' is 'time', itself?
-A frequency of an electron's transition is a measurable function in a process we understand as "atom". We can use it to see how gravity can affect this function(changes its frequency)..
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
If it is our ticking, we are talking about the ticking of our atoms ,our molecules,our biological clocks etc.

'We' are not talking about anything. I asked you a question. 'You' are trying your hardest to answer it.
But where and what is the actual ticking 'process', itself, of atoms and molecules, which is what you call "time"?
its a hyperfine transition frequency in the optical or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms
Obviously the phrase "biological clock" is just some made up term to describe some thing, unless of course you can pinpoint where is and what this "biological clock" is exactly?
Try googling circadia , diurnal, ultrdian, infradian rhythms. And no...they are not "made up term". they are thousands of biological clocks in our body.
here is a peer reviewed publication on Chronobiology.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/circad ... onobiology
The heart pumps blood and this is a process, so is the "ticking" process of the human heart "time" also?
The heart's cells are controlled by an internal biological clock. If you know your heart rate at rest then you can count the exact numbers of beats to measure a minute....cool fact! So you can time this biological clock in relation to our made up clocks.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
When one of those processes experiences a change in the gravitational pull, that clicking changes too.

Is this absolutely true and correct? Or, just what is said to happen?
Just expressing what is said to happen and which is just the current knowledge, to you, is very different from proposing what does actually happen.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... y-of-time/
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... -your-feet
This is the scientific consensus for decades. If you want to be unreasonable and talk about "absolutes" instead of "current knowledge" its up to you.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:19 pm
This is how we found out natural clocks are not fixed but relative to the effects of gravity and motion.

What are "natural clocks"?
Atoms's frequencies, Radioactivity, pulsating Cepheid stars, planets circling their stars...if you have an internet connection you can find more about these things.
And, how does motion supposedly affect these"natural clocks"?
I am sure that online you can find something on this topic .
You obviously have missed what I have said and meant, or you are completely incapable of understanding me, which is fine. The reason for this is already completely understood.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
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 »

creation wrote: January 14th, 2020, 6:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: January 13th, 2020, 1:38 pm

Which is a crazy thing you'd think because?
I did not write that.

And I cannot find an edit button in this forum.
I thought it was weird you were repeating that.

Yeah, it's frustrating that we can't edit posts once we hit "submit," especially because I tend to be a typo king . . . and that's not helped by often posting from my kindle, where the autocorrect often makes inexplicable changes. (But I keep it on because overall it helps me type on touchscreen keyboards.)
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021