RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
RJG wrote:It seems that you no longer believe Time is a dimension. -- Is Time a dimension? [YES/NO]
creation wrote:And, when did I ever even think that time is a dimension? Why did you assume such a thing as "I believe Time is a dimension" in the first place?
From this string in the discussion:
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?
RJG wrote:Yes, the 4D universe. The 4D universe is where 3D objects interact (and motion occurs).
creation wrote:Does anyone here in this thread not know this, or dispute this?
It appears here (in this discussion string) that you agree "Time is a dimension" (the
4th dimension). -- And now it appears that you believe "Time is NOT a dimension". My apologies if I misinterpreted your words.
When I wrote; "So, time, the dimension, is the place where motion occurs", I was solely meaning that that is your interpretation, from your perspective only. I did not mean that it was my interpretation, as I thought I had made my interpretation clear already, this is; 'time', to me, is just a word that describes the measurements we make in relation to change, and nothing else. Which is why I wrote the next sentence after, in the quote above.
As for asking does anyone not know of the 4 dimensional Universe, or do they dispute this, then I was just asking anyone here in this forum if they do not know of the 4 dimensional Universe version, with 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, or if you know of anyone in this forum who does not know of this version, or dispute this?
As someone has already pointed out the word 'dimension' can just be a concept only, and I think most people in this forum if not all would have a concept of the Universe being of 3 dimensions spatially and 1 dimension temporally, thus would know of the version of a 4 dimensional Universe.
If anyone disputes this concept of the Universe, then I would be interested in why they do.
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
RJG wrote:Is Time a dimension? [YES/NO] ...2. If you say NO, then this is the root of our misunderstanding.
But why would it be the root of 'our' misunderstanding?
I think I know exactly what your understanding is, and even why you have your understanding.
I thought I already made it clear that we use the word 'time' from two different definitions and meanings.
To me, from what I have observed is there is 'change', and to some people this change is just what the 4th dimension of the 4 dimension model of the Universe is, which they see as and call "time". You call this 4th dimension "Time", and what I do not yet fully understand is why you use a capital 'T', I did ask you previously why? But either you did not clarify this, or, I missed your answer.
By the way for me to answer "Yes" or "No" to your question here, then I would need to have a full understanding of what you actually mean when you use the 'dimension' word here.
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
So then your answer appears to be "
NO", ...correct?
Not really, YET. But at the moment I would currently suggest that might answer could more likely be a "No". But I still need to know your full understanding and definition of the word 'dimension' in regards to this topic before I provide an informed answer.
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
And if so, then we are talking about 'different' things. Hence the root of our misunderstanding.
But I have no misunderstanding, as far as I can see anyway.
What misunderstanding do you currently have? I can clear up any misunderstanding you have, if you just ask me some specific clarifying questions.
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
-- If we cannot agree that "Time is a dimension", then no need for us to further discuss anything based on this fact/non-fact.
If you say so.
But what you just wrote implies or more so infers that your "side" or perspective of things is the absolutely true, right, and correct version, and anyone's views are not worth even looking at, let alone discussing and understanding, correct?
Or, have I misunderstood you here now?
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
If dimensions are just figments of our imagination (i.e. "concepts we invented"), then those stationary and moving objects that we observe out in the world, are also just figments of our imagination. For only imaginary (non-real) objects can be constructed from 'imagination'. If dimensions are not real, then neither are its constructions.
There was a poster here who used to say something like that actually there is no 3 dimensional space, but what only existed is the dimension of 'time'. I do not know about others but for me, when that was first proposed it seemed completely absurd and contradictory. But, instead of just dismissing it I read what that poster had to say on the topic, and what they said made sense, eventually. When I thought about it in relation to my current views of things it made perfect sense, and even backed up and support my currently, at that time, views with more evidence and support. But when I proposed to that poster, who insisted that a 'person' was the body, then how could a 3 dimensional body exist if there was NO 3 dimensional space? I was provided the same sort of conclusion as you have made, that is; If we cannot agree, then there is no need for us to further discuss this.
As someone has already pointed out to you, to consider, just maybe 'dimensions' are just concepts, which help human beings make sense of the Universe in which they exist in. That is; If human beings did not have the capacity to separate, compartmentalize, and take measurements of the One Universe into apparent separate things, then they would might never be able to make sense of 'It'.
So, if you want to insist that 'Time' is a dimension and physical objects could not move without 'Time', then you are free to think or believe that is true, but if you are not open to looking at and discussing anything else, then so be it. End of discussion, and story.
RJG wrote: ↑January 17th, 2020, 9:19 am
If dimensions are not real, and Time is a dimension, then Time is not real.
This may well be very accurate and true.
Are you aware that some people say that 'time' and 'space' are real, some say that 'space' is real but not 'time', some say 'space' is not real but 'time' is real, and some say that 'space' and 'time' are both not real. Now, when some these things are 'not real' they might not be meaning that they are figments of imagination but rather the apparent 'dimension' itself is not an actual thing that exists, and that when ALL-OF-THIS is looked at from a particular perspective, then the truth of ALL-OF-THIS can be revealed. But one has to first be open things other than the ones that they currently think or believe is already what is true, right, and correct.
For all I know your view that 'time' is a dimension and objects cannot move without time may well be 100% absolutely true, right, AND correct, but until you are able to explain, logically and reasonably, HOW this could even possibly be true, then do not expect I, and some others, to see and understand the "logic" that you do. For one example, HOW could 'time' exist BEFORE objects even started moving?