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.
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2001
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

RJG wrote:
• 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, "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)" is logically TRUE.
C2. Therefore, "Without Motion, there can be no Time" is logically FALSE.
Thomyum2 wrote:By that same logic:

P1. An Egg cannot be laid without a Chicken.
P2. An Egg-laying Chicken is called a "Hen".
C1. Therefore, "Without Hens, there can be no Eggs" is logically TRUE.
C2. Therefore, "Without Eggs, there can be no Hens" is logically FALSE.
Firstly, this is NOT the "same" logic. If you wish to use the "same" logic, then you gotta re-write your syllogism to match the terms accordingly:
• "3D Object" = "Egg"
"Motion" = "Laid/laying"
"4th Dimension" = "Chicken"
"Time" = "Hen"
Secondly, and even if you make the structural corrections, your Premise 1 is still false (e.g. turtles can lay eggs too), which invalidates your argument (making it unsound).

Terrapin Station
Posts: 4379
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 4:08 pm
gater wrote:RJB - I find it interesting that you think of time as a 4th dimension. Dimensions are height, width, and depth - I count 3. Time is not a dimension.
If you look at it through the lens of geometry, it will become very obvious. Objects can't move without it!
• 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".
Mathematics is simply an abstract mental representation of relations, and then we extrapolate for more complex relations. It seems like you're reifying the abstraction.

Greta
Posts: 9484
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Creation, my response to your reply is a Rick quote - "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer".

Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:17 am
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.
So the arrow of time is the average of countless smaller arrows.

This brings me to the hypothetical period/s before the universe inflated. It is said that time began with the big bang. This was seemingly because, after the big bang, organisation of stuff was possible. The pre-big bang state of the universe is hypothesis to be just space, which Lawrence Krauss infamously posited was "something" rather than nothing, while teasing the opposite with his book title, "A Universe from Nothing".

As you know, that "something" comes in the form of countless virtual particles, infinitesimally small bursts of energy that disappear as soon as they emerge. What I wonder about is whether these fluctuations in the fabric of reality are all the same, or are there slight variances, where a fluctuation is larger or smaller, or dies out more or less quickly. As far as I can tell, each fluctuation is prevented from persisting and expanding by others, like waves cancelling each other out. That leaves the possibility of a slightly larger virtual particle that was strong enough to push past the resistance of others and then exponentially expanding, "eating" rather than being stymied by new virtual particles, increasing the expansion rate even more.

If Krauss is right about space and virtual particles then, before the BB, time would have been 100% subjective (and subjective time has rightly been discussed here) - only applying to any particular virtual particle for an infinitesimal slice of time before it goes. So it seems to me, while objective time (that can be measured) did not exist before the BB, if space is always seething with virtual particles, then subjective time is logically both ubiquitous and eternal.

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 9:31 pm
Creation, my response to your reply is a Rick quote - "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer".
Is this all you have got to say in reply to what I have responded to you with?

You appear to be another one who does not even question me nor challenge me and just completely misunderstands everything about what I am actually saying and meaning.

Who, or what, is a 'rick'?

What have you observed, which supposedly makes me cheer?

I think we will find that what you are assuming is completely and utterly wrong.

Greta
Posts: 9484
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Your name is "creation". You are really aggressive. And you ask questions that could be answered by a quick search. That all suggests to me that you are a creationist who has come here to fight with secularists. Thus, it would seem to me that you "cheer" for aggressive theism. If my assumption is "completely wrong", then I apologise.

Due to your uncivil approach, though, I have largely avoided interacting with you so as to not distract from chats I am enjoying, but if you insist:
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.
If that was the case, they would struggle with temporal terminology in the Portuguese language, which more of them are learning. However, the tribal people apparently pick up the concepts quickly. That suggests that they already did have a concept of time, just a different one.

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.
What makes you think that you are the only one to perceive this? Have you not read others' postings? Time-as-a-construct has been discussed numerous times in this thread, and others.

Also note that natural "clocks" exist, not just the human variety (orbits, rotations and radioactive decay), just mostly not measured by anyone.

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
In this and related topics, numerous incorrect or muddled assertions have been made as to what "science" says (where "science" in this context means the Special and General Theories of Relativity). Therefore numerous straw-men have been attacked and held up as alleged evidence of various propositions, such that scientists don't understand logic, science is illogical, people who believe it worship it, etc. etc.

I'd like to deal with just one of those assertions (for now) here. It is this:

"According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light."

Science does not say this.

---

This is a non-exhaustive account of what the Special Theory of Relativity actually predicts about observers with non-zero mass moving at constant velocity relative to each other.

First we make it clear that even if one disputes that time is what is measured by a clock, hopefully we can agree on the following:

1. It is possible to look at other observers.

2. When we look at them we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from them.

3. It is possible to look at clocks and see them ticking.

4. When we look at a clock we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from that clock.

5. It is possible for an observer to carry a clock and look at it. That can be called a "local clock". (Anything that is stationary with respect to an observer can be referred to as "local" to that observer.)

6. When looking at a local clock we can arrange things such that the time taken for light to reach us from our local clock is negligible, compared to non-local clocks, and can therefore be regarded as zero.

7. When we refer to a "clock" we can be using the word in the most general possible sense to mean any process that changes in such a way that it marks the passage of time. For this thought experiment, it needs to be a process that can be duplicated for other observers. i.e. all observers need to be able to carry similar clocks that can, when they are local to each other, be synchronised such that they tick at the same rate in those circumstances.

8. The accuracy of any given type of clock obviously dictates the tolerance/error in any measurements we take. So, for example, the ageing process of a human being is (compared to, say, a wristwatch) an extremely inaccurate form of clock. But this doesn't change the principle of what is being discussed. It just means that any measured tick-rate differences would have to be correspondingly large in order to be admissible.

9. We can assume that all clocks continue to function in the same way indefinitely. i.e. we are not concerned with clocks breaking down or changing their tick rates due to mechanical reasons.

---
To me, this is all good.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
Given those clarifications of terminology and setup, this is what is predicted by SR:

As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.

The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.

This is sometimes referred to as the Relativistic Doppler Effect.

If each observer makes observations of the other to determine the other's spatial dimensions, each will observe the other to be shortened in the direction of motion.
From my perspective, this is NOT what I observe.

But as I say, I do see things very differently from what most other people do.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
A specific example of this phenomenon, with numerical measurements given, can be seen here:

viewtopic.php?p=321015#p321015

That example goes on to make the distinction between what is observed directly and what might be calculated, by each observer, from those observations. It also briefly mentions the treatment of this problem in General Relativity (as opposed to Special Relativity.)
Sounds like all of this has been confirmed and verified already, and so there is really nothing more to discuss, right?

But if there is anyone willing to answer some clarifying questions of mine regarding what they would observe and experience when traveling at the speed of light if it was possible, then feel free to let me know and then we can chat.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

@Steve3007
@Greta
@Terrapin Station
@Sculptor1
Since this is a philosophical platform and many of us have to put up with people who don't respect specific values of philosophy, like epistemology or logic, I find useful to post this talk on Philosophical Demarcation (Philosophy from Pseudo Philosophy) and the role of science.
I hope you'll enjoy it and find it useful for your discussions with all those pseudo philosophers.

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Your name is "creation". You are really aggressive. And you ask questions that could be answered by a quick search.

That all suggests to me that you are a creationist who has come here to fight with secularists. Thus, it would seem to me that you "cheer" for aggressive theism. If my assumption is "completely wrong", then I apologise.
There is absolutely NO need to apologize, but your assumptions could not be more completely wrong.

I am as far removed from theism as could be, so making assumptions of just one word can lead people so far removed from the truth that they start believing the exact opposite is true. If you see me as being really aggressive, then I must be writing in some particular way that I am completely unaware of. So, because I do not see this aggressiveness at all in anything I write, then providing examples of where I appear 'really aggressive' to you, then I will be able to change my writing in a way so that I do not appear as so aggressive to you again. But the main reason I directly ask people questions here is because of what they, themselves, have usually said. By the way, if and when I read answers, by a quick search, and I see the flaws, faults, falsehoods, inaccuracies, contradictions, and/or incompatibilities in them, and I begin to point them out here, I am usually instantly informed that I do not know what I am talking about and/or that that is not what is purported.

So, anything I try to do is just plain WRONG anyway.
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Due to your aggressive patronising, though, I have largely avoided interacting with you so as to not distract from more substantial chats, but if you insist:
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.
If that was the case, they would struggle with temporal terminology in the Portuguese language, which more of them are learning. However, the tribal people apparently pick up the concepts quickly. That suggests that they already did have a concept of time, just a different one.
I think it will be found that ALL, what are classed as, aboriginal or "tribal" cultures do not have a perception of 'time', as there is absolutely no need for one. We had no need for 'things', like most peoples, in the year known as 2020, think they have a 'need' for things. We just more or less live like all other animals do. This not caring about the past and not worrying about the future can still be clearly seen in societies/cultures that have a more basic way of living, or have a not so much of a separated from our original way of life, lifestyle. We tend to live 'in the moment' far more than those who are so far removed from the natural way and truth of things.

Are you aware that, if you could transport a tribe of people from say 10,000 years ago to the days of when this is written, then you could very easily teach them absolutely any language at all, and have them driving planes, trains, and/or automobiles, and have them understanding the same concept of "time", which most people have in the year known as 2020, in relatively no time at all, and so very quickly in relative terms? Within a generation or two, besides physical features, you may even not be able to recognize where they actually came from. The way they talk and THINK would be more or less the exact same as all the others around them.

Besides all of these, what I call, obvious facts. What I was actually meaning, which I did purposely wrote it the way I did, (because I want to make it absolutely clear how far people can stray from what I am actually talking about and meaning when they do not clarify with me BEFORE they start making assumptions), was in relation to you, yourself, when you were a very young child.

You and ALL children are born without any concept of "time" and could not care less about any such thing as before or after, and earlier or later. ALL young children think about or live in is the NOW.

The very reason babies and young children can cry so much when they want something, is because, to them, that is literally their WHOLE world. If they do not get what they want NOW, or what they want is taken from them NOW, then, to them, their whole world is literally shattered.

So, Was (VERY YOUNG) 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.

Just may have been in reference to something that was NOT what you were first were assuming and believing it was? But because very young human beings, individually, are absolutely no different from very young human beings, collectively, I was meaning in both ways. That is; Humanity as a whole and each human being individually.

One of them is obviously just far easy to observe, and SEE.
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
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.
What makes you think that you are the only one to perceive this?
I do not.

I used the 'most' word here in relation to human beings, so that was to show that I do NOT think that I am the only one to perceive this.
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Have you not read others' postings?
No.

Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Time-as-a-construct has been discussed numerous times in this thread, and others.
True.

And what is your view, what is 'time', to you?
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Also note that natural "clocks" exist, not just the human variety (orbits, rotations and radioactive decay), just mostly not measured by anyone.
Okay, so when people say "natural clocks" am I wrong in thinking that people are talking about absolutely every physical action?

If yes, then what exactly are they talking about and referring to? How does one separate a "natural clock" from what is not a "natural clock"? And, is one rotation of the earth around the sun 1 "tick" or many "ticks"? What makes a "natural clock" a 'natural clock', and, what exactly is 'it' that makes something a "natural clock"?

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:43 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am

No.
I think it is because they are just fed up with your silly questions.
Relativity is well established. Next time you use your sat-nav, you unknowingly rely on Einstein's theory.
This thread has become a portal for new age ideologies.

Is time just an idea?

Were you expecting only those with the very old ideology that time is some actual thing, which could actually change, relative to where an observer is, to be the only ones to discuss this?

Why is it that the ones who are so firmly steadfast and so more closed, because of their already held beliefs, are also the ones who do not like anyone saying anything at all that opposes their beliefs?

Why are they so quick to shut anyone down who says anything opposing their belief instead of just looking at and talking about the "new" idea instead?
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:43 pm
I bet most of them reject more than one theory.
Okay.

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:24 pm
creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 9:01 am

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?

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.

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.
You've had plenty of evidence directed towards you, and you have countered with NOTHING.
This is because, to you, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Universe that could counter the so called "evidence", correct?

What you call "evidence" is just re-repeating what you have read or been told, which is what I am saying is WRONG and/or FALSE.

I have already told you WHY I say the interpretation of the results, which is what you are calling "evidence" is WRONG and FALSE. But you are so CLOSED to accept this and/or you are so BLIND that you are unable to see this. Either way you have shown absolutely NO interest in what I have said here so far.

So, although I have actually countered what you call "evidence", you are just so blind to it that you cannot even see where I have.
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:24 pm
So, yes, people are fed up with you being silly.
Call it whatever you like, and I have absolutely NO care of what people are fed up with. That will NOT change the facts of what I have been pointing out and showing here. ALL people get quickly get fed up with others when they are pointing out and showing the falsehoods and wrongness in their beliefs about what is actually true, right, and correct.
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:24 pm
You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
What does the word 'facts' mean to you?

I am unable to get a clarifying answer out of another poster here to the same question. I will see I can get one from you?
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:24 pm
What you believe is meaningless, without backup, and you have none.
You are so BLINDED by your own beliefs that you have absolutely NO idea what my views are. I have written the same thing more than four times I would say now and you are STILL incapable of seeing it.

I have also made the claim that I can back up what I say and claim, which is the very opposite of what I have encountered in this forum, but because most of the people here do not even know what my actual views are, they are completely incapable of even challenging or questioning me. They fear that I may have some actual evidence, proofs, and facts that will completely discredit what they believe is correct, that they are not even open to the idea that I might actually have some, let alone ever doing anything at all into delving into this fact.

I will say it again OBVIOUSLY 'time' does not do what was predicted in special relativity, for the very simple FACT of what the results were from the actual experiment done, which is believed by most in the scientific community has already confirmed and verified the predictions.

See, assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases have made some very severely distorted interpretations here.

This can ALL be backed up and supported if anyone here is able to challenge me on this?

I have sent out an invitation a few times already, but no one has taken up this invite.

creation
Posts: 1133
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Tamminen wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:39 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.
To avoid confusion, this is indeed the relativistic Doppler effect, but not time dilation. Time dilation is the same whether those two observers recede or approach if their relative velocity is the same, which can be seen in my geometrical proof a few posts ago. Just turn the triangle upside down. I also suggest that @creation takes a good look at that proof to get an answer to the question of how one can make a 5 year trip in 3 years.
I asked HOW can you make a 5 year trip in 3 years? Either you can explain HOW, or you cannot.

Obviously, you are only showing the latter.

Telling me to look at the proof is about the most arrogant and absurd comment to make.

I could tell you to take a good look at the PROOF that it cannot be done, from my perspective, but I am not that arrogant and absurd to do so. I can and would instead provide the actual proof and the explanation needed, but that is only to those who have the ability to question and challenge me on this.
Tamminen wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:39 pm
Needs some insight into the principle of relativity though. And remember the constancy of light speed.
The former is what I in CONTENTION with, if this has been LOST in this thread, and, I have NOT forgotten the latter, and is what I use to PROVE what I say and claim.

Even the OBVIOUS faults and flaws in "steve's" quote above here has not been able to be clarified and answered by anyone here.

I could now say but there needs to be some insight into the OBVIOUS flaws and faults for them to be cleared up, but I will NOT.

Because OBVIOUSLY some people do not yet see them, just like I do not YET see the PROOF, which you see.

If you cannot see what is obvious to me, and I cannot see what is obvious to you, then telling the other to "have a good look at 'it' " is beyond ridiculous.

If you cannot tell me where the proof is, what the proof is, and explain all of that to me in a simple and easy way, then that might say more about what is actually known and the so called "proof".

I am in the exact same position. That is, If you cannot see the obvious to me flaws, then, if you want to be informed of them, then you will ask me some clarifying questions, and then challenge me on my answers/responses.
Tamminen wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 2:39 pm
But the real twin paradox is that both twins get younger than the other twin whether they are receding or approaching. This may look a bit embarrassing to someone.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:58 am
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:43 pm

This thread has become a portal for new age ideologies.

Is time just an idea?

Were you expecting only those with the very old ideology that time is some actual thing, which could actually change, relative to where an observer is, to be the only ones to discuss this?
1.Verified observations, with epistemic connectedness and technical applications are not ideologies.
2. I am expecting objective,verifiable facts supportive of your ideas...not to ignore established ones.
3. Your inability to understand our current epistemology or you plane ignorace of it is jaw dropping .

Why is it that the ones who are so firmly steadfast and so more closed, because of their already held beliefs, are also the ones who do not like anyone saying anything at all that opposes their beliefs?
-You can say anything you want while drinking in a bar , or while writing literature or poems or while talking to other magical thinkers or to your self.
But you are not allowed to claim that you practice philosophy while you are distorting or ignoring well established facts. You are entitled to your opinion...not to your own facts.
-You are not entitled to your own rules of logic.
-You are not entitled to change the criteria science uses in its evaluation and definition of knowledge and truth.

Nobody can come up with your conclusions without being guilty of those shenanigans of yours...
Why are they so quick to shut anyone down who says anything opposing their belief instead of just looking at and talking about the "new" idea instead?
Because ignorance, low standards of evidence, dishonesty, stupidity, "I know it all" mentality and irrationality are easy to spot. Unfalsifiable ideas based on distorted or ignored facts do not qualify as "new ideas" but as magical thinking.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:43 pm
I bet most of them reject more than one theory.

Okay.
The creationist agreed....

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

*3. Your inability to understand our current epistemology or your plain ignorance on the subject is jaw dropping .

Greta
Posts: 9484
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Sorry for assuming you were a creationist. As a matter of interest, why did you choose "creation" as a forum name?
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:46 am
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Time-as-a-construct has been discussed numerous times in this thread, and others.
True.

And what is your view, what is 'time', to you?
Like most of the world, I don't know.

To me, personally, in one sense Greenwich Mean Time time rules my life, broadly deciding when I do things. In another sense, time does not exist for me because I'm too busy finding novel ways of messing up the present.
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:46 am
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
Also note that natural "clocks" exist, not just the human variety (orbits, rotations and radioactive decay), just mostly not measured by anyone.
Okay, so when people say "natural clocks" am I wrong in thinking that people are talking about absolutely every physical action?

If yes, then what exactly are they talking about and referring to? How does one separate a "natural clock" from what is not a "natural clock"? And, is one rotation of the earth around the sun 1 "tick" or many "ticks"? What makes a "natural clock" a 'natural clock', and, what exactly is 'it' that makes something a "natural clock"?
Not every action, just cyclical ones. Cyclical actions make natural clocks.

In an earlier thought experiment, we considered what time would be to us if the Earth was thrown from its orbit and was given an unstable rotation. At that point, the Earth would no longer operate as a natural clock because its motions would not be cyclical. There would be no more years with four seasons, and no more days and nights.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:46 am
Greta wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 11:12 pm
I am as far removed from theism as could be, so making assumptions of just one word can lead people so far removed from the truth that they start believing the exact opposite is true. If you see me as being really aggressive, then I must be writing in some particular way that I am completely unaware of. So, because I do not see this aggressiveness at all in anything I write, then providing examples of where I appear 'really aggressive' to you, then I will be able to change my writing in a way so that I do not appear as so aggressive to you again. But the main reason I directly ask people questions here is because of what they, themselves, have usually said. By the way, if and when I read answers, by a quick search, and I see the flaws, faults, falsehoods, inaccuracies, contradictions, and/or incompatibilities in them, and I begin to point them out here, I am usually instantly informed that I do not know what I am talking about and/or that that is not what is purported.
Finally we identify the problem. You are the "quick search" guy. That explains everything.
Your confusing on why GPS work is based on your "quick search" system...ok.