Is Time Just an Idea?
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
People like RJG say that 1 + 1 = 3. So they defy logic. I'm not going to quote them saying that. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Prove to me that neither you nor the vaguely defined group that I assert you belong to have ever said that 1 + 1 = 3.RJG wrote:Again, if you think I'm wrong, then prove it!
This is the kind of thing that you're asking me to prove. Do you see that?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
gater wrote:After reading the input from this group, ive concluded that I am the only one here that fully understands the Universe.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
The Universe is simple - its infinite time, space, and matter. The Universe has always been here. RJG and creation have a solid grip on its infinite nature, but most in this group do not.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
Time is not a dimension, dimensions are height, width, and depth.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
RJG, you don't appear to me to be an idiot. So you must know that you're simply re-asserting your straw man arguments and ignoring anything that challenges them. You'll repeat them again fairly soon in this topic. You'll probably underline them. The thing that interests me most is why you do that.Steve3007 wrote:I can give you a logically consistent account of what the Theory of Relativity actually says about time if you're interested. To refute your straw-man false statement "science says that time stops at the speed of light". I've already done it in this topic, and reminded you of it with a link to it. You ignored it, presumably because it didn't fit with what you wanted to claim it says.
I know it's futile, but once again, for what it's worth:
viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
Either way is petty to call others "straw men" implying they have no brain - very clever - when you are the one that doesn't get it.
- 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?
This is a philosophy board. It's not "repeat the scientific consensus or scientific status quo" board, where you're not allowed to question anything. He's arguing that on (philosophical) analysis, what's being claimed isn't coherent.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 1:59 pmQuote from a scientific theory which contains such contradictions. Otherwise: straw-man.RJG wrote:To conclude: Science has Erred. The statements "Time is a dimension", and "Time dilation exists" contradict each other. If Time is a dimension, then Time cannot dilate or change. A dimension is just a dimension. It is not something that can be manipulated or altered, by speed (motion) or anything.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
It's not a philosopher's job to contradict science - they usually don't know enough to validly do so, and natural phenomena can be complex and counter-intuitive, eg. water expands when it freezes, the black fire snake experiment.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 7:25 pmThis is a philosophy board. It's not "repeat the scientific consensus or scientific status quo" board, where you're not allowed to question anything. He's arguing that on (philosophical) analysis, what's being claimed isn't coherent.
So I think philosophers et al should treat science as the established baseline from which they can use as a foundation and a springboard for ideas. Occasionally a super genius without training will think through an issue that scientists have not considered. This is rare, though, because scientists consider their topics far more deeply and thoroughly that most realise.
Perhaps philosophy's most valid contributions to this subject lie in subjective time, that which can't be measured?
I note an issue with language here too. "Dimension" is an ambiguous term with a precise scientific definition plus some common definitions. Like many, I personally don't see our reality as being of three spatial dimensions and time, just a single thing that can be modelled as such so as to make successful predictions.
I have my own personal interpretation of "dimension" that pleases me, and hang what others think. I like to see dimensions as "break points", and they are overlaid throughout reality. My incredibly precise and scientific definition [sic] is that anything that comprises squillions of very tiny constituents will operate under different rules to the little things and, in a sense, exists in another dimension. Time would only apply to this definition in that the time scales of large celestial objects is of a different "dimension" to its little life forms.
I think that the mysteries of time and human consciousness may be closely intertwined, given that consciousness flows in time, and humans have a special relationship with time. It appears to be a situation akin to being unable to look at one's own eyes directly.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
Your implication. Not mine.gater wrote:Either way is petty to call others "straw men" implying they have no brain - very clever - when you are the one that doesn't get it.
A straw man fallacy is a form of argument in which one attempts to refute another's argument, position or proposition by attacking a distortion or misrepresentation of their position rather than a fair representation of the real position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Example:
RJG incorrectly states that a body he refers to as "Science" simply says "Time "stops" at the speed of Light." and that since when he turns on his flashlight time doesn't appear to him to stop, this body must be saying something illogical.
viewtopic.php?p=345615#p345615
Regardless of the body being referred to, this is a straw man argument. Pointing out that it is a straw man argument does not mean I worship the body in question or mindlessly defend something that others apparently call "the status quo".
I explained this. I explained a little about what The Theory of Relativity (the relevant part of Science) actually says. (If my description of what it says is wrong, tell me so, with quotes from relevant texts). All ignored, of course. Obviously I'd be more than happy for the actual proposition of that theory to be challenged because it's by challenges to what it actually says that science advances. But no takers. There are a surprisingly large number of posters who are not willing to challenge what "Science" actually says, but would rather challenge what it doesn't say and then when somebody points out what it does say, and openly invites a critique they say "you worship science". Very odd.
This is another example of a straw man. If you think that the arguments and evidence I've presented are a thing that you call "scientific consensus or scientific status quo" then that's as irrelevant as if I called your words "the Terrapin Station status quo" isn't it? Analyze the things being said not the person or body you presume to have said them. I have explicitly said many times in the past that I would love to see arguments against the things that have actually been said. If you think I've stated that nobody is allowed to question the thing that you (not me) have called the "consensus" or "status quo" quote me saying something similar to that. If you can't quote me, withdraw the remark.Terrapin Station wrote:This is a philosophy board. It's not "repeat the scientific consensus or scientific status quo" board, where you're not allowed to question anything.
If I said "This is a philosophy board. It's not 'repeat the Terrapin Station status quo' board, where you're not allowed to question anything." do you think that would be a fair and relevant comment?
No, he's arguing that something which hasn't been claimed isn't coherent. We can all do that! A bit like if he told you that you'd claimed 1 + 1 = 3 and then told you that you are claiming something illogical. In RJG's case, he also refuses to cite a place where the alleged claim was supposedly made. So it's a little bit like me telling you this:He's arguing that on (philosophical) analysis, what's being claimed isn't coherent.
"You claim that 1 +1 = 3 and it's not up to me to show where you claimed it. It's up to you to prove that you've never claimed it."
i.e prove that there are no black swans.
I would say that we're all perfectly entitled to critique the predictions and claims of science or of anyone else. And that's true regardless of whether we regard ourselves as philosophers. But the simple point I keep trying to make is that in order to critique something you first have to know what its' saying. And if somebody appears not to know what the thing they're attempting to refute is saying, simply pointing that out (and being happy to be proved wrong) is not arrogant, or condescending. It's a proposition that can be proved wrong by the poster in question showing that they do, in fact, know what they're criticizing. If it turns out that they do know it I'm happy to admit that I've misjudged them, as I've said in the past.greta wrote:It's not a philosopher's job to contradict science
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897Steve3007 wrote:I know it's futile, but once again, for what it's worth:
That's the beginning of my understanding of what the Theory of Relativity actually says about such subjects as time and clocks and people moving at constant velocity relative to each other. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe the theory says something completely different to that and I've totally misunderstood it. If you think so tell me so, quoting a relevant text in support. If you think it's roughly right, at least as a beginning, feel free to analyze it and point out any logical or evidential flaws in it.
Or, alternatively, continue attacking straw men and congratulating yourself that you've understood the universe so much better than everyone else. If clinging to that view makes you happy, fair enough.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
I disagree. I don't think anything based on empirical observation has to be treated as an established baseline. For any given set of propositions, whether or not we regard them as an established baseline, or a status quo or an establishment conspiracy or whatever, I think we should challenge them. Propositions that are not challenged are not tested. But we need to challenge the actual propositions being made, not something else. That, really, is my only point.greta wrote:So I think philosophers et al should treat science as the established baseline from which they can use as a foundation and a springboard for ideas.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is Time Just an Idea?
Failure to accept the baselines of our knowledge is how flat Earthism and Moon landing conspiracy theories took hold.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 4:28 amI disagree. I don't think anything based on empirical observation has to be treated as an established baseline. For any given set of propositions, whether or not we regard them as an established baseline, or a status quo or an establishment conspiracy or whatever, I think we should challenge them. Propositions that are not challenged are not tested. But we need to challenge the actual propositions being made, not something else. That, really, is my only point.greta wrote:So I think philosophers et al should treat science as the established baseline from which they can use as a foundation and a springboard for ideas.
When it comes to physics, physicists would seem best equipped to test existing propositions. Ideally anyone who is not an expert in a field would present their ideas on that field humbly (which too often doesn't happen). Just as ideally, those in the field would not treat those humbly put ideas with kindness (which too often doesn't happen; physics forums are tough places for newbs).
For instance, who here could sensibly critique work like this? (Summary below) https://www.papersinphysics.org/papersi ... e/view/336
We investigate, by means of a field-theory analysis combined with the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method, a theoretical model for a strongly
correlated quantum system in one dimension realizing a topologically-ordered Haldane phase ground state. The model consists of a spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain coupled to a tight-binding chain via two competing Kondo exchange couplings of different type: a s-wave'' Kondo coupling (JsK), and a less common p-wave'' (JpK) Kondo coupling. While the first coupling is the standard Kondo interaction studied in many condensed-matter systems, the latter has been recently introduced by Alexandrov and Coleman [Phys. Rev. B 90, 115147 (2014)] as a possible mechanism leading to a topological Kondo-insulating ground state in one dimension. As a result of this competition, a topological quantum phase transition (TQPT) occurs in the system for a critical value of the ratio JsK/JpK, separating a (Haldane-type) topological phase from a topologically trivial ground state where the system can be essentially described as a product of local singlets. We study and characterize the TQPT by means of the magnetization profile, the entanglement entropy and the full entanglement spectrum of the ground state. Our results might be relevant to understand how topologically-ordered phases of fermions emerge in strongly interacting quantum systems.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023