Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am

creation wrote:And from the outset I have been saying, to me, it is the interpretations of the observed results, of the experiments that are said to have confirmed or verified the predictions, is what I am in contention with.
When you say "from the outset" if you mean "from the first time we spoke" then that is not what you said on that occasion. On that occasion you block-quoted an entire post of mine consisting of several paragraphs and then block-declared it to to be "wrong", offering no analysis of its actual contents. I've re-quoted that first encounter relatively recently.

Now, I know that your standard answer to this type of observation, by me and other people, is to berate us with the claim that we have not understood you and that we should ask for clarification of every single thing that you say, and only then would we see how "true, right and correct" you are and how mistaken everyone else is. But that's not the only method by which one can try to be better understood by others. Another method is to note that almost nobody seems to understand, first time, what one is saying and use that as an opportunity for self-reflection. Look back at some of your own posts with a self-critical eye, trying to put yourself in the position of a reader. See if you can use the process of talking on this forum to try to improve the clarity of what you're saying from the outset, so that people have less need to continuously ask you for clarification, and you get less frustrated by them. (Please don't claim that you don't get frustrated. Your immensely long posts, berating other posters with liberal use of CAPITALISATION says otherwise.)

That's one of the uses I find for a forum like this. If you don't want to do that, fine. Keep berating people.
To be clear about simply what is 'directly' observed obviously needs clear direct answers from the people, themselves, and what they observe, and NOT what they have been told that they would observe.
Here we fundamentally disagree. To use an example that I have used with you before: I have never visited Australia. If someone were to tell me that various actions involving aeroplane trips would result in me observing Australia, I would accept that and I would not reserve judgment until I have actually observed Australia personally.

Obviously you can, if you wish, only trust observations that you have personally made. (You can do whatever you like.) It would still be possible to build from that an understanding of the predictions of SR or GR. But it would take much, much longer and probably require years of learning. It is, essentially, what one does when one studies physics from high school level to University. The high school student personally conducts experiments and then follows the logical consequences of their personal findings of those experiments. The reason why high school physics lessons involve conducting experiments (even thought they're often difficult to arrange for practical reasons) is to impress on the students that they are not being asked to simply take things on trust, or faith. That is not the scientific method.

I've seen no evidence so far that you're willing to make that effort. A short-cut, if you want to take it, is to at least provisionally believe people when they say such things as: "Australia exits", "it is raining outside", "the thing that causes the light to switch on is electricity" or "it takes X minutes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth". You've made it clear that you don't favour that approach either.

But, as I said, do whatever you want.

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 181
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Thomyum2 » January 15th, 2020, 9:55 am

Greta wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 5:50 am
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.
Actually it doesn't have to be cyclical - anything of a fixed duration can be used to constitute a unit of time measurement, just as any object can be used to measure a unit of length, such as a cubit. The earliest clocks (which today we'd probably refer to as 'timers') were water clocks and hourglasses where a given amount of time was measured against how long it would take the water or sand to run out of a given sized container. A cyclical feature is really just a convenience in that the clock that continues to repeat the same fixed segment of time over and over without having to be reset.

The real advantage of having the sun, moon and stars is that these provide a very regular 'clock' that is universally shared by everyone on the planet and to which all humans can easily reference. But without these, we still would have ways of breaking up and measuring segments of time. It's of note here that astronomical observations allowed for early development of calendars, but not universal 'clocks' that could accurately calibrate the time of day. It wasn't really until about 500 years ago that humans began to develop the technology that allowed us to coordinate our clocks that break up the day into hours and minutes to a degree of precision to where we can now identify and communicate a specific simultaneous moment within a day across almost all of the world's regions and populations.

So as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think that units of measurement function similarly to words in language - they provide a shared means of communication and, from a standpoint of time, are a tool that allow us to coordinate activities by giving us common reference points.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 10:08 am

Thomyum2 wrote:Actually it doesn't have to be cyclical - anything of a fixed duration can be used to constitute a unit of time measurement, just as any object can be used to measure a unit of length, such as a cubit. The earliest clocks (which today we'd probably refer to as 'timers') were water clocks and hourglasses where a given amount of time was measured against how long it would take the water or sand to run out of a given sized container. A cyclical feature is really just a convenience in that the clock that continues to repeat the same fixed segment of time over and over without having to be reset.
On reflection, I think this is a good point.

It doesn't have to be cyclical, but I guess the underlying value of cyclical/repeating processes is that they allow us to apply abstract mathematics - to count the cycles. And that allows us to extrapolate beyond those cycles. So, for example, we can count the number of times that the Earth orbits the Sun (and call it a year) then we can extrapolate indefinitely. We can, for example, speculate as to what happened/happens billions of years before or after this particular cyclical process was in place. Therein also lies the danger. Because extrapolation, powerful as it is as a tool, doesn't lead to certainty.

I think this is one of the reasons why some people find the concept of a finite Universe so difficult to accept. They assume that the process of temporal and spatial extrapolation from the here and now leads to certainty.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 10:16 am

By the way, in what country do these people come from that use the phrase "scare-quotes"?
Type the term "scare quotes" into Google.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 15th, 2020, 10:28 am

Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 5:39 am
I asked HOW can you make a 5 year trip in 3 years? Either you can explain HOW, or you cannot.
I did not mean to be arrogant, I just thought that I cannot explain it better than I already did.

But I try. So here is the original proof:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16368&start=525#p345413
I did respond to that post.

For me that is not proof.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
So a rocket takes off from the Earth and travels to a planet 4 light years from the Earth with the speed of 80% of light speed. You are the traveler in the rocket. At the moment the rocket starts its journey you launch a photon out into space horizontally, not in the direction of the journey.
What happens if I "launch" a photon out into space in the exact same direction of the journey?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
Nothing tells you that you move,
Except for the rumbling of the rocket, and when I look out the window.

Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
so the photon travels in your reference frame, in the same way that it would travel if you had launced it on the ground.
I do not understand this at all.

How is the photon traveling in my reference frame, when I am travelling at 80% the speed of the photon, and we are also going in different directions?

And, what has launching the photon on the ground have some bearing on it would travel in the same way? The same way to what exactly?

Where was the photon launched if it is not on the ground the first time?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
This is the general classical principle of relativity.
Does everyone here at least agree that this is the "general classical principle of relativity"? If not, then we are stuck again. But, if yes, then great. We are all in agreement, including me, after my clarifying questions above are resolved first.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
Now let us say that it takes 3 years from the photon to travel a distance of 3 light years during your trip to the planet. This is the time your trip takes according to your clocks in the rocket, and this is also how much older you are when you arrive on the planet.
This is what is said, and this is what I have contention with.

If I am ever allowed to ask questions, which someone wants to answer, then they might clarify how this could actually take place. But until then I do not understand this at all, and if I cannot ask questions for clarification, I may never will understand. Everything I have read or heard to me does not make sense, and not just because it initially seem counter intuitive, but because of other reasons.

Also, when you say " 'from' the photon to travel ..." do you mean " 'for' the photon to travel ..."?

I do not recall now but I think it was you who used the "from" word before, and if it was, then doing it once I can let go but if it is twice, then it is just a two time typo, or you actually mean it that way, and if you do, then what do you actually mean? What does "it takes 3 years from the photon to travel a distance of 3 light years?

See, the very reason why I am so slow to learn and understand what all of you people here appear to know and understand already might be because I do not understand what these terms and phrases actually mean.

Also, the second sentence seems to completely and utterly contradict the first sentence.

1. I can fully understand and fully accept: that it takes 3 years 'for' the photon to travel a distance of 3 light years, (during your trip to the planet).
I am not sure why the part in brackets was added or needed but if it just because it is in relation to "launching" a photon at the same time I left for my travels, then that is understandable.

However,

2. How does the first sentence work in relation with this second sentence here: This is the time your trip takes according to your clocks in the rocket, and this is also how much older you are when you arrive on the planet.

a) What is the time my trip takes?
b) How is that time my trip takes, in accordance to my clocks in the rocket?
c) And how much older am I when I arrive on the planet?

Are you saying I travel 3 years when I arrive at the planet and I am 3 years older? Or, what?

I really have absolutely NO idea what you are saying and meaning here.

Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
But when your twin brother on Earth measures the trip of the same photon, he must take into account that the rocket is 4 light years away from the Earth now at the end of the trip.
Why 'MUST' my brother take into account that the rocket has arrived at the planet?

If I was my brother on earth and I measure the trip then the rocket would be 80% of 3 light years away with 2 more years to travel. But I am not on the earth because you said I am in the rocket, and from my calculations I am 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to go to my destination. If and when I put myself in my brother's perspective (or reference frame, or reference point) on earth also, I still observe that the rocket is 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to destination.

When I reach destination, and if I and my brother have powerful enough telescopes, then I and my brother could also verify how long the trip actually took.

That is when I land and look back at earth it would look like I only just left a few seconds ago, and to my brother he would have to wait another 5 more years (or 10 years from when I left) to see me land on the planet. But as I say, I do observe and see things differently than most people do.

What I really cannot understand here is HOW could I, in the rocket, have traveled further than light could have in the exact same time? But this will all depend on how long you say my trip took.

When this is explained to me logically and reasonably, then I will start seeing and understanding, hopefully, what it is that you and others observe and see here.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
But the speed of light is the same in both reference frames. The only logically possible conclusion is that the trip has taken a much longer time measured with a clock in the reference frame of the Earth, in this case 5 years. This is the hypotenuse of the triangle.
But this is certainly NOT the logical possible conclusion that I arrive at.

If the only "logically possible conclusion", to you, is if he trip has taken a much 'longer' time measured with a clock in the reference from of the earth, in this case 5 years, then is the '5 years' the longer time, or the measured with a clock in earth's frame of reference time?

If the 5 years is the longer time, then what is the earth's measured time? Or, if the earth's measured time is the 5 years, then what is the longer time?

What does my clock read?

Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
Note that 'year' here is not defined by the Earth revolving around the Sun, but as so and so many seconds.
Oh okay.

But how many of these so and so many seconds are there in one of those 'years' that you are referring to here?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:12 am
I think this is all I can say about this.
Okay, fair enough.

But if I was to provide a examples or a thought experiment not to much different to the above, then would anyone like to question, (and/or challenge), me on what I write, like I have just here?

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 15th, 2020, 10:29 am

Terrapin Station wrote: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.
But unfortunately (or fortunately?), the truths of Math/Logic always trump the truths of Science (...and the truths of Science always trump the truths of Religion).

Objective Truths vs Observational (subjective) Truths vs Blind Faith Truths

And unfortunately, it appears to me, that there is way too much "clinging to Science" in these "Philosophy" forum discussions, while "closing eyes to Simple Logic (and Math)".

This is a "philosophy" forum, not a "science" forum. If you want to "preach science", go to a science forum. If you want to "preach religion", go to a religion forum.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 15th, 2020, 10:34 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:39 am
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:25 am
The whole point of what I will eventually get to, that is; if anyone is willing to challenge and question me, is what are clocks actually set relative to? When this is realized, with other things, then what 'time' actually is becomes KNOWN.
They're ultimately set to the sun's position in the sky on certain dates and they're calibrated so that one rotation of the Earth equals 24 hours (which for precision purposes we worked out that a second equals the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom).


Setting and calibrating to the sun and Earth are of course pretty arbitrary things, but it does as well as anything else, and it works for practical purposes for us, situated as we are on the Earth.

Since time is simply motion or change, we could use any motion or change as the measure, as the calibration, etc., but of course we prefer apparently regular motions/changes, and the motion and change of the Earth on its axis and the sun's motion in the sky relative to our rotation and revolution has practical benefits for us (since we're biologically adapted to this particular cycle).
I think you might find that the answer is a little bit different to this.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 15th, 2020, 10:36 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
By the way, since the Earth's rotation is slowing, we add "leap seconds" to coordinated universal time every so often. We've added 27 leap seconds so far in just under 50 years.
Well this is a much better response, as it is a much closer answer to the one I have.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 10:54 am

RJG wrote:And unfortunately, it appears to me, that there is way too much "clinging to Science" in these "Philosophy" forum discussions, while "closing eyes to Simple Logic (and Math)".

This is a "philosophy" forum, not a "science" forum. If you want to "preach science", go to a science forum. If you want to "preach religion", go to a religion forum.
In your view:

Where do you go if you want to make assertions, which turn out to be false, as to what "science" says in order to claim that it defies logic?
What should others do if they see somebody apparently "clinging" to those false assertions?
If the person making those assertions refuses to back them with evidence when challenged, but just repeats them, underlined, would you describe that as "preaching" the false assertions?

Reference.
viewtopic.php?p=345615#p345615
viewtopic.php?p=345638#p345638
viewtopic.php?p=345641#p345641
viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4192
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am

creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 10:34 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:39 am


They're ultimately set to the sun's position in the sky on certain dates and they're calibrated so that one rotation of the Earth equals 24 hours (which for precision purposes we worked out that a second equals the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom).


Setting and calibrating to the sun and Earth are of course pretty arbitrary things, but it does as well as anything else, and it works for practical purposes for us, situated as we are on the Earth.

Since time is simply motion or change, we could use any motion or change as the measure, as the calibration, etc., but of course we prefer apparently regular motions/changes, and the motion and change of the Earth on its axis and the sun's motion in the sky relative to our rotation and revolution has practical benefits for us (since we're biologically adapted to this particular cycle).
I think you might find that the answer is a little bit different to this.
Nothing like saying something like that and then being coy about it.

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 181
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Thomyum2 » January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 5:01 pm
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).
We could replace 'egg' with 'chicken egg' to correct that premise, but my point certainly wasn't to try to prove something here but to illustrate my take on the arguments. Maybe it was a lame attempt at humor. But notions such as time, space, motion, change, dimensions, etc. are all intertwined - they aren't parts of an object that you can take apart and put back together, so I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about 'Time' this way - it's not like gas that you put in a car to enable it to move, or an ingredient you add to make a cake, so it just seems a little odd to put truth values on these conclusions, and in this way it reminded me of the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

In any case, taking a step back - I think it is interesting in these discussions to see the different ways we all have of conceptualizing time and space, yet which are both such fundamental and universal concepts that we normally don't have any trouble with in our daily lives - so why such disagreement when we try to describe them abstractly? We can communicate information about time and space back and forth so easily and with so little confusion - I can make statements such as 'he was born in 1960'; 'I will pick you up at 7 AM'; 'it takes a half hour to get to the airport' or 'the plane leaves New York at noon for a six-hour flight and arrives in Los Angeles at 3 PM local time', etc. And while any of these might be empirically true or false, there likely would be no confusion about what any of these mean.

So then then why an argument about what Time 'is' if it's something we use so effortlessly? My sense is that we have different underlying assumptions and unspoken understandings about the nature of our fundamental existence which have implications for how we explain our inner experiences. I think that perhaps when we try to explain the concepts abstractly without first laying out the foundations we place underneath them, we're talking past each other because we're not speaking from a shared point of understanding.

For example, it seems to me after following various posts here (and any of you please correct me if I'm mistaken or word this poorly), that, for some, C1 is true and C2 is false because they're approaching time and space as the foundation, the 'pre-existing' or fundamental reality, within which events such as motion take place, which we then observe. But for others, C2 is true and C1 is false because that fundamental component is the observation we make (e.g. of an object in motion), and the ideas of time and space are 'subsequently' created by the mind to describe that observation once it has been made. So again, this seems to me to be a 'chicken and egg' difference because I don't think the two can ever be separated. But our different angles in looking at the universe and our experience in it can be manifested as thinking one way or the other. Does this make sense to anyone?

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 15th, 2020, 11:09 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
creation wrote:And from the outset I have been saying, to me, it is the interpretations of the observed results, of the experiments that are said to have confirmed or verified the predictions, is what I am in contention with.
When you say "from the outset" if you mean "from the first time we spoke" then that is not what you said on that occasion. On that occasion you block-quoted an entire post of mine consisting of several paragraphs and then block-declared it to to be "wrong", offering no analysis of its actual contents. I've re-quoted that first encounter relatively recently.
Okay, if this is correct, then thank you so much for highlighting my errors and for correcting me.

From just about the outset ....
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
Now, I know that your standard answer to this type of observation, by me and other people, is to berate us with the claim that we have not understood you and that we should ask for clarification of every single thing that you say, and only then would we see how "true, right and correct" you are and how mistaken everyone else is.
But obviously you do not know my "standard" answer. Because;

1. I do not have a "standard" answer.

2. I just provided you with my answer/response, and as far as I can tell it is NOTHING like what your presumed "standard" answer of mine would be like.

Unless of course what you meant by "standard" answer would be a truly open and honest answer, then you would be right. But is this what you meant?

I think what you will find is what you thought or believed is right and true here could not be more wrong and false.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
But that's not the only method by which one can try to be better understood by others. Another method is to note that almost nobody seems to understand, first time, what one is saying and use that as an opportunity for self-reflection. Look back at some of your own posts with a self-critical eye, trying to put yourself in the position of a reader. See if you can use the process of talking on this forum to try to improve the clarity of what you're saying from the outset, so that people have less need to continuously ask you for clarification, and you get less frustrated by them.
But I am NOT frustrated at all, regarding this.

I actually have somewhere previously mentioned I write in particulars ways so that not necessarily what I truly mean is understood. What is happening now is perfectly fine with me.

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
(Please don't claim that you don't get frustrated.)
To late.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
(Your immensely long posts, berating other posters with liberal use of CAPITALISATION says otherwise.)
Does it?

Could it absolutely in any way be possibly different than what you are ASSUMING here?

For your information, I have NEVER used capitalization for any other reason than just emphasizing.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
That's one of the uses I find for a forum like this. If you don't want to do that, fine. Keep berating people.
By the way, and for your information, I have NEVER once berated anyone here.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
To be clear about simply what is 'directly' observed obviously needs clear direct answers from the people, themselves, and what they observe, and NOT what they have been told that they would observe.
Here we fundamentally disagree. To use an example that I have used with you before: I have never visited Australia. If someone were to tell me that various actions involving aeroplane trips would result in me observing Australia, I would accept that and I would not reserve judgment until I have actually observed Australia personally.
Do you think I care?

I have responded to this example you used last time.

And considering you have NEVER wanted to discuss my thought experiment YET, then there is NO use you worrying about fundamental disagreement here. You are NEVER going to tell me what you directly observe any way.

If all it is that you want to tell me is I am WRONG, because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly what you are told by certain people and groups of society, and you will keep telling me that what they told you would observe is CORRECT, then so be it. I am WRONG.

End of story.

So, what is your actual point for conversing with me?

If you have some other reason for conversing with me than just telling me I am WRONG, then what is IT?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
Obviously you can, if you wish, only trust observations that you have personally made. (You can do whatever you like.) It would still be possible to build from that an understanding of the predictions of SR or GR. But it would take much, much longer and probably require years of learning. It is, essentially, what one does when one studies physics from high school level to University. The high school student personally conducts experiments and then follows the logical consequences of their personal findings of those experiments. The reason why high school physics lessons involve conducting experiments (even thought they're often difficult to arrange for practical reasons) is to impress on the students that they are not being asked to simply take things on trust, or faith. That is not the scientific method.
Yet no matter how many times I have been saying the experiments have ALREADY been done AND the results are ALREADY in, this is still of no importance, because, to you, and others I am just, once again, WRONG.

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
I've seen no evidence so far that you're willing to make that effort. A short-cut, if you want to take it, is to at least provisionally believe people when they say such things as: "Australia exits", "it is raining outside", "the thing that causes the light to switch on is electricity" or "it takes X minutes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth". You've made it clear that you don't favour that approach either.
And you have proven that you do NOT answer my questions posed to you, for your FEAR of being shown that you are WRONG.

A DIRECT result of going through the "education system".

LOL you want me to believe people when they tell me that it takes X minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth, but even you cannot tell us what that X amount is.

Also, the main point I am here is to SHOW and REVEAL the actual damage that is done from BELIEF, itself, so if you actually think or believe that I am "at least provisionally" going to start BELIEVING people, then you are very sadly mistaken.

The WHOLE reason you and others cannot see past your own DISTORTED and WRONG views now and are STUCK in the position that you are now is simply because of the belief-system, itself.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:43 am
But, as I said, do whatever you want.
Okay. I am NOT going to believe nor disbelieve anything here.

And as I say you are free to choose to do whatever it is that you want to do. So, keep BELIEVING absolutely anything you want to believe.

The more you do, then the more evidence and proof you are providing me.

The reason WHY generations of human beings cannot progress and move on is because they are STUCK in their own self-made BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 181
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Thomyum2 » January 15th, 2020, 11:11 am

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 10:29 am
Terrapin Station wrote: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.
But unfortunately (or fortunately?), the truths of Math/Logic always trump the truths of Science (...and the truths of Science always trump the truths of Religion).

Objective Truths vs Observational (subjective) Truths vs Blind Faith Truths
I generally agree, but I think that's only part of the story. All of the truths of Math/Logic, unlike observations and faith, are built off of premises. Logic cannot create truth - it can only derive it from accepted premises, and those come from one of the other two. So if logical truth is in that sense dependent on the others, it can't be said to be to 'trump' them. And also, as we know from Gödel's work, all logical systems are necessarily incomplete.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 11:13 am

creation wrote:By the way, and for your information, I have NEVER once berated anyone here.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8004
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 15th, 2020, 11:20 am

Thomyum2 wrote:I generally agree, but I think that's only part of the story. All of the truths of Math/Logic, unlike observations and faith, are built off of premises. Logic cannot create truth - it can only derive it from accepted premises, and those come from one of the other two. So if logical truth is in that sense dependent on the others, it can't be said to be to 'trump' them. And also, as we know from Gödel's work, all logical systems are necessarily incomplete.
At this point, if you haven't already, I think it would be useful to visit topics in which RJG has (over several years) set out his central thesis. It is a quasi-Cartesian notion of building a system of logically certain knowledge from logically undeniable axioms (things that it would be logically self-contradictory to deny). It is based on an axiom which is similar in form to Descartes's "cogito" but not identical, and which RJG proposes to be superior to Descartes'. This central thesis is, I think, largely what informs the endless "logic trumps science" stuff and all of the misrepresentations of science to try to demonstrate that it defies logic. I think it also explains his reification of the concept of dimension.

Post Reply