Is Time Just an Idea?

[Terrapin Station]

People on the spectrum who are (or at least who used to be) classified as having Asperger's syndrome have a lot of problems with implicature, literary devices, looser manners of speaking, etc. Using any of those approaches is one easy way to identify folks on the spectrum online.

It's related to autism. I'm familiar with the symptoms. So that's one of the reasons you post on this site? To find people who you deem to suffer from a spectrum developmental disorder and poke them? Would you do that if you were face to face with them?

I'm exactly the same in person as I am online.

[Steve3007]

I'm exactly the same in person as I am online.

If you're a real human being, that is not true.

In person, you almost certainly have a body, with a face that can make expressions and a voice and hands that can convey more than the words that it speaks. With eyebrows that can raise. With the hint of an ironic smile. etc.

You've said yourself that you prefer to talk face to face than to talk via text, online. A major reason for the big differences between online discussions and face-to-face discussions (the tendency for online discussions to sink into abuse) is the huge amount of information that is lost by performing the very unnatural process of reading and writing text-based messages.

[Steve3007]

By the way, you appear to have a bit of a cartoonish, 2 dimensional view of people you keep referring to as "aspies". Do you actually, personally (face to face) know anybody with Asperger's or autism? I do. So regardless of what facial expressions you might be pulling when you use that word, knock it off. Stick to the philosophy. If there's not enough of that here to keep you amused, piss off.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, you appear to have a bit of a cartoonish, 2 dimensional view of people you keep referring to as "aspies". Do you actually, personally (face to face) know anybody with Asperger's or autism? I do. So regardless of what facial expressions you might be pulling when you use that word, knock it off. Stick to the philosophy. If there's not enough of that here to keep you amused, piss off.

The unfortunate thing is that online, at least, it's often accompanied by a self-righteous arrogance, even when interpreting what others wrote, even though self-awareness should suggest caution in that regard because of well-known traits that are part of the defining symptoms.

[Steve3007]

If there's not enough of that here to keep you amused, piss off.

Can you imagine various face-to-face situations in which something like this was said? In what sense did you take it?

[Terrapin Station]

If there's not enough of that here to keep you amused, piss off.

Can you imagine various face-to-face situations in which something like this was said? In what sense did you take it?

Of course. I'm used to being around people who freely express whatever they're feeling--and I mean literally whatever. Preferably with little to no filter. My personality doesn't mesh so well with people who wouldn't do that. Of course, I have professional interaction with some people who filter themselves etc., but that's not the sort of personality I prefer for friends.

[Sy Borg]

Addams and Pratchett each captured some essential qualities of philosophers :)

...and so the conversation might irrelevantly continue. You might as well be arguing as to the percentage of scientists (or anyone else) who break their eggs at the big end and the little end. Not being a qualified philosopher, like Terrapin, perhaps I struggle with rational reasoning and need someone with that celebrated status to help me. So perhaps someone could help me ot here:

What not having much of a background in philosophy resulted in here is an inability to understand what the relevance was of pointing out that a large percentage of scientists are still religious in the context of what I was responding to.

It also contributed to you apparently missing the word "still," missing its semantic and rhetorical significance.

One does not need to be on the spectrum to gloss over lazy throwaway replies that don't address the thread topic. Also, when you become frustrated that others are not understanding you, remember that others are just as frustrated with your failure to understand their points.

So, in a nutshell - where do you think scientists have erred in their interpretations and understanding of time? You may have said so many pages ago or so, but it's a long thread.

[Terrapin Station]

Addams and Pratchett each captured some essential qualities of philosophers

What not having much of a background in philosophy resulted in here is an inability to understand what the relevance was of pointing out that a large percentage of scientists are still religious in the context of what I was responding to.

It also contributed to you apparently missing the word "still," missing its semantic and rhetorical significance.

One does not need to be on the spectrum

The post you're quoting has nothing to do with that.

to gloss over lazy throwaway replies that don't address the thread topic.

The idea that every post in a thread has to address the thread topic would require that there's nothing to quote and respond to in any post that wouldn't be addressing the thread topic.

So, in a nutshell - where do you think scientists have erred in their interpretations and understanding of time? You may have said so many pages ago or so, but it's a long thread.

The vast majority of the rambling first post of this thread is about philosophy's view of time. And the subject line asks if time is just an idea.

As I wrote in my first post in the thread:

"Time is simply change or motion (relative change).

"The way that time is thought of as a _measurement_ of change or motion in physics really amounts to taking one change or motion (of a clock, say, whether an old fashioned 'analog' clock or some very precise digital clock calibrated to oscillations of cesium isotopes or whatever) and comparing other change or motion to it."

If it wasn't clear from that response, my answer to the question posted in the subject line of the thread is "No, time is not just an idea."

[Sy Borg]

One does not need to be on the spectrum

The post you're quoting has nothing to do with that.

You intimated that we are incapable of comprehending others' comments properly, which is a stereotype akin to saying that white men can't jump. On average, white men probably don't jump as high as black men, but many white men can still jump higher than many black men. Same situation.

Some autistic people have a greater tendency towards literalism but autism manifests in many ways.

So, in a nutshell - where do you think scientists have erred in their interpretations and understanding of time? You may have said so many pages ago or so, but it's a long thread.

The vast majority of the rambling first post of this thread is about philosophy's view of time. And the subject line asks if time is just an idea.

As I wrote in my first post in the thread:

"Time is simply change or motion (relative change).

"The way that time is thought of as a _measurement_ of change or motion in physics really amounts to taking one change or motion (of a clock, say, whether an old fashioned 'analog' clock or some very precise digital clock calibrated to oscillations of cesium isotopes or whatever) and comparing other change or motion to it."

If it wasn't clear from that response, my answer to the question posted in the subject line of the thread is "No, time is not just an idea."

Your response is scientifically orthodox. If you are basing your ideas on our bodies of knowledge, why disagree when it's suggested that commentators should consult the specialist bodies of knowledge established by the geniuses of the past before deciding on such things?

It appears to me that you did not parse the nuances and implications of my post - you don't need to be autistic. Obviously I was not saying that our thoughts must always be bound by existing bodies of knowledge. That doesn't make sense because our own impressions and perceptions logically always come first and, from there, we can either check for correctness or decide that we don't need to ...

[creation]

viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897
viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949

First I make it clear that I dispute that time is what is measured by a clock and number 1, but, for the sake of this discussion I agree on the 9 numbered points above.

Understood.

You said, As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and, if they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own, correct?

Yes. It is my understanding that in experiments that are analogous to the one we're considering, this is what has been observed.

In what actual experiment could it even be physically possible for an observer to see another's clock ticking when they receding away or moving towards each other? Especially at the speeds that would be needed to see the actually discrepancies in differences of "ticking" for this alleged observation to have even occurred.

And it is my understanding that this is what is predicted by a theory which ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to.

So, if, in "everyday observations" that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to, then why do we just not do this and settle this once and for all?

How is it actually possible in "everyday observations" to observe what is alleged that happens?

Also, if this is what is predicted by a theory, or has been verified without doubt in experiments are two difference points and issues that need to be looked at separately at first, and then together. But, since the theory would have naturally come first before the actual experiments that have supposedly confirmed the theory, then I think it best we start at the beginning, and then move forward.

So, now you are saying that "what is predicted by a theory", ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe. If this is the case, and therefore explains why the theory arose, then what exactly are those "everyday observations", and let us take a look at them and see what "we ourselves, actually, observe", which is what has supposedly allowed such a theory to arise, or come about.

(As I've said many times: my understanding could be mistaken.) If we wanted to, we could gradually discuss the line of reasoning and the observations that led from everyday observations that we ourselves could observe to what I have said here. We could thereby [re-]assess whether that line of reasoning appears to either or both of us to be valid.

This would be great from my perspective. Start at the beginning and continually move forwards looking at this.

If this is correct, then you also said that the faster the relative velocities, then 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, correct?

Yes, if they're receding from each other at close to the speed of light.

If both of these are correct, then the first flaw I see, which obviously may not be with clarification, is how could a faster relative velocity towards each other each see the other's clock now tick rate tend towards stop, (meaning slower?) when at constant velocity they see each other's clock ticking faster than their own....

"(meaning slower?)" - Yes. Meaning slower.

Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.

If that is what you did actually say, then okay. But, that is not the issue I was getting at, at all, anyway. The next immediately following sentence to this one, your wrote:
As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.

Which was, I thought obviously, the actual point I was questioning. So, leaving out this main part, and the very sentence I was putting into question, obviously takes away from what I was getting at, and that is: If, when moving towards each other at constant velocity they each see each other's clock ticking faster than their own clock, then why just because the relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, still towards each other, each other now then sees the other clock's tick rate do the exact opposite and tends towards stopped (slower), when at constant velocity each other sees the other clock's tick rate faster?

Hopefully the actual sentence in question is not left out again. Also, if my question is not completely understood, then just let me know and I will word it in another way for you.

It's important to remember something that you pointed out a while ago (I think). I think you pointed out somewhere that what they directly observe, is not necessarily what we might think is "really happening". You were right to point out that critical distinction.

If you find this important to remember and to bring up, then that is perfectly fine. But finding a better time to do other than directly after you left out the most important sentence that you wrote, in regards to what I was questioning, and so the whole point of what I was questioning was completely disregarded, and then you jumped onto this supposedly important to remember point straightaway, could all to well be seen as an attempt to just detract away from what I see is far more important, that is; the actual contradiction in what I see in your writings, in regards to what is purportedly said in a theory and/or in the results of the experiments of that theory.

But in my view, as a general rule, the first thing to do is to be clear as to what is observed in experiments, and what the theory predicts would be observed (and see if the two agree).

Yes I agree. So, just to be clear, what you have said is this what was 'observed' in experiments, or what was 'predicted' before experiments, or both?

If this is what was 'observed' in experiments, then what is the name of those experiment/s?

Once we're absolutely clear on that, only then do we move onto our speculations as to what is "really happening" under the hood (as it were) which might be consistent with what is observed.

I do not jump this far ahead so quickly. I just want to concentrate on the 'predictions' and make sure that I have them clearly understood and agreed with first, before moving onto anything else just yet.

And, in so doing, we examine just what we mean when we talk about what is "really happening". We may even find ourselves questioning whether the notion of what is "really happening" makes any sense without reference to what might possibly be observed. Or we may not.

Before I get to that stage, which I see is a while off yet, I also want to get to looking at some questions I have posed and get answers about how they are answered from one's own perspective of things, which will either be in line with the predictions, and/or the results of the experiments, or they will be different than that.

And then, if the answers are in line with what is predicted or with results I want to clarify and confirm if those answers are solely because of the predictions and/or experiments, or because of some other reason.

...So, why at a constant velocity towards each other they see the other's clock tick rate is faster than their own clock but as soon as the relative velocities towards each other is faster then the other's clock tick rate slows down, than their own?

As clarified above, that's not quite what I said. Let's make sure we've got that clarified before we move on.

To clarify this I could ask you what did you actually say, or I could just copy and past what you wrote. So, did you say;
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.?

If you clarify this with a "Yes", then my question remains the same. (But maybe you meant something else. If this is the case, then what did you mean?)

But, if you clarify this with a "No", then what did you actually say, and mean?

What does "faster the relative velocities" actually refer to? Does it just mean, in lay people's terms, 'speeding up' or "going faster", relative to each other? Or, is there some whole completely different meaning that one has to be a part of some particular group to fully understand the "actual meaning of the term "relative velocity"?

No, you don't have to be part of a particular group. The word "velocity" has a standard meaning in physics that can be looked up by anyone with access to the internet or a physics textbook. It simply means "change of position with respect to time". So it has a size and a direction. It can be visualised as an arrow. Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the direction part, not the size. So if I am travelling at 60mph north, my velocity is "60mph north" and my speed is "60mph". So the term "a high velocity" means that the size of that arrow is long compared to what it would be for "a low velocity".

The significance of the word "relative" is that we're talking about the change of position of one object, as measured from the other object, with respect to time. Example: if I am on a train travelling at a speed of 60mph - a velocity of 60mph north - I'm implicitly talking about my velocity relative to the surface of the Earth. My velocity relative to my seat is zero. If somebody is walking down the aisle of the train from the front to the back at 4mph, then their velocity relative to me is 4mph south. Their velocity relative to the Earth is 56mph north.

So, none of this means my question needs to be changed at all.

I find it easier to see this more clearly if I draw a diagram.

If, and when, one is putting forward an idea, then commenting by something like; "current knowledge is sufficient", " current knowledge has already been proven, verified, or confirmed", or "current knowledge should be the baseline from which to move forward on", then obviously these people are not at all trying to be clear about what the idea actually is. They are just attacking, without ever even knowing what the idea actually is.

I agree. That's one reason why I have never said those things and why I stated to Greta that I disagree with her on that point.

In my personal view, it is a good idea to try not to conflate different posters'/people's words. Nobody has any control over what other people say.

In my personal view, it is also a mistake to rely either on appeals to authority or appeals against authority. We should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is right. But equally, we should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is wrong. Being the "status quo", or applying any other label, should be irrelevant to whether the view is deemed right or wrong. All that matters is the reproducible evidence put forward and the arguments made. Saying something like "Science says it, so, for that reason alone, it must be right" is a mistake. Equally, saying something like "Science says it, so it's part of a religious cult" is a mistake. The label we attach to the person or body of people who said something does not affect the validity or otherwise of their arguments. If somebody repeatedly fixates on such labels, without having read what the people to whom the labels have been attached actually said, then that somebody is (in my view) not making an argument. They are (to use a sporting analogy) tackling the man, not the ball.

(Note: I am not accusing you of either of the two things that I have listed above, which I believe to be mistakes. I'm just giving my view of them.)

Do the ones who make critiques of those arguments also have to be prepared to listen to critiques of their critiques?

Yes. But listening and replying takes time...

Obviously their critiques could actually be false, misleading, nonsensical, or illogical as well, correct?

...Correct. So the difficult question for all of us then becomes this: with finite time available, and an indefinitely large number of potential critiques (and critiques of critiques, and critiques of critiques of critiques...), how do we decide which critiques to address and which to leave for another day?

I guess if we knew the answer to this, then we would have addressed and solved all these issues a long time ago.

Could we think of some method of filtering critiques and concentrating most of our attention on those that have the most chance of advancing knowledge by having a genuine point to make, so that the task is manageable?

Could we explain what the goal is, or what the final point that we are trying to make is, first? And then others could decide if they could be bothered addressing anything knowing this?

In a world filled with people, all with different views, how do we decide who to talk to and who to respectfully decline to engage with?

I like to talk, and more importantly listen, to ALL people, because what I found is that the most unsuspecting ones can have the most insight and the greatest knowledge of all to share.

[creation]

Firstly, how is it possible for an object to move "freely" about?? ...Objects are NOT "free" to move about. An object at rest, remains at rest. It is not free. It cannot decide to move or to not move.

Firstly, how is it possible for an object to move "freely" about??

Space is HOW it is possible for an object to move.

You are avoiding the question. Space is not a HOW. Space is a PLACE for movement to occur.

But i am not avoiding the question at all. I am answering the actual question you are asking.

Space is how it is possible for an object to move 'freely about.

See, what you have neglected to think about and ask is in relation to what makes an object move about 'freely'?

For example, if I asked you how do fish swim, and you replied "The ocean is HOW fish swim", you would see that answer is just avoiding the question.

But I would NEVER answer such a question with such an obviously wrong and absurd answer.

See, exactly what I am saying. IF you asked, How do objects move, 'freely' about?, then this is very different from asking, How is it possible for an object to move 'freely' about?

If, for example, you asked, How is it possible for fish to swim (move 'freely' about), then I would say, The ocean. But, I would not say, The ocean, in regards to, How do fish swim? Just like I would not say, Space, in regards to, How do objects move, 'freely' about?

The reason objects move about 'freely' is because of 'cause and effect', or because 'every action has a reaction'.

But, what allows an object to move about freely, or in other words, how is it possible for an object to move about freely, which is the ACTUAL question you were asking, is because of, 'Space'. Just like what allows fish to move about freely, or in other words, how is it possible for a fish to move about freely is because of, 'The ocean'.

But, the question; How do objects move? is very different question from the one you have been asking me. (By the way, when we are finally through with all of this, then I can get to the actual point, which you have completely and utterly overlooked in all of this.)

So, can you now see that just maybe it was your question, which you continually asked, which is what was causing/creating what you perceived and assumed was an avoidance on my part?

Okay, let me try again:

1. Do you believe an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon?

No. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

But from what I have observed an object at rest remains at rest, until acted upon. (And this is the very part that you have completely and utterly overlooked in this).

2. Do you believe an object in motion remains in motion (in same direction) until acted upon?

No. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

But from what I have observed an object in motion remains in motion (in same direction) until acted upon.

3. Or do you believe an object can decide to move, or not to move, all by itself (and then move/not move accordingly)?

No. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

But from what I have observed depending on the 'object' some can and some cannot decide to move, or not move, all by itself.

The object known as "human being" can decide to move about freely. The object known as "rock", however, is not able to decide to move about, all by its self.

4. So again, how is it possible for an object to "freely" move about?

Because of the 'space' around that object and in between that object and another object. That is how it is possible for an object to 'freely' move about, to me.

5. How does movement of objects "occur"? (Look closely at the word "occur" to give you a hint).

See, this question is different.

How does movement of objects 'occur' is because objects are bumping into, or interacting with each other, 'causing an effect'. This is because for 'every action there is a reaction'.

Without the interaction of objects occurring somewhere there can be no motion. Without matter+time+space, nothing can move/change.

I KNOW this is your view. But I am still waiting for you to clarify what this 'time' thing is exactly.

See, from what I have observed there are particles of matter (otherwise known as 'objects'). These objects are able to move about freely solely because of 'space', around and between objects (particles of matter). The reason there is 'motion' particles of matter moving about freely is because there is an interaction of particles of matter with each other, which causes a reaction, and because every action causes a reaction, then every reaction is just creation, in action. Through the process of evolution every thing is created, which reacted with every other created thing, which causes the evolutionary process, which is just Creation, Itself, in action. Or, in the action-reaction process, with is just also known as 'cause-effect'.

Oh, and by the way, this has been happening, thus 'occurring' continually forever.

[Steve3007]

The unfortunate thing is that online, at least, it's often accompanied by a self-righteous arrogance, even when interpreting what others wrote, even though self-awareness should suggest caution in that regard because of well-known traits that are part of the defining symptoms.

If there's not enough of that here to keep you amused, piss off.

Can you imagine various face-to-face situations in which something like this was said? In what sense did you take it?

Of course. I'm used to being around people who freely express whatever they're feeling--and I mean literally whatever...

You've missed the point of my questions. Re-read the second question. The point is this: you saw some text on a screen which you interpreted as "self-righteous arrogance", or, more generally, as a negative comment. Imagine not reading it, but it being part of a face-to-face conversation. In that context (at least in my culture) it could mean many different things, depending on voice intonation and body language. I'm just illustrating the point from earlier that this written format loses a lot of information, and that's one reason why online conversations are so different from face to face ones in the pub.

[creation]

I will point out first that I'm simply describing my understanding of what Relativity predicts and my understanding of the reasons, in terms of experimental evidence and logical argument, why it predicts it.

When you say, "why 'it' predicts 'it', what are the two 'its' in relation to exactly?

1st 'it': The Theory of Relativity.
2nd 'it': What that theory predicts.

I would have thought that the 'experimental evidence' comes after 'the theory, which has made the predictions', and not the other way around. For if there were already existing 'experimental evidence', then there would not be a need to formulate a theory with 'predictions', correct? Or, have I gotten this wrong?

And, are they in regards to what 'relativity' predicted before the experiments were conducted, or after experiments were conducted, and the results provided that are said to confirm the predictions of 'relativity' already?

Before the experiments were conducted. The Special Theory of Relativity was invented in 1905. The General Theory in 1915. They were created as a result of the results of various previous experiments conducted by the likes of Galileo Galilei (concerning the movements of object) and Michael Faraday et al (concerning electricity and magnetism) over hundreds of years.

Okay.

But if I were to write, as a rule, and point out the obvious rather than leaving something out and be misunderstood here, then I would have to write a huge novel.

Yes, that is a problem that we all face: how much detail to give in order to be understood but not have to spend the rest of our lives writing it.

For what I intend to explain and have understood there are just way to many things, of which to point out the obviousness of them all. This would just be way too much time for one simple little philosophy forum.

I agree. Hence the problems we all face. For example. I briefly mentioned Galileo and Faraday above. These people and their actions are a small part of a much bigger historical story, spanning hundreds of years and numerous experiments/observations. To follow, in detail, the series of experiments and deductions that led from Galileo to Einstein would be the work of a huge book. That's one reason why posters like gater don't bother with it and just conclude, without having bothered looking into it, that modern physicists are "morons".

If we just started with the predictions made in the special theory of relativity first, and then proceed, then would that cause any issue here?

[creation]

I admit that should have spoken about balancing one's own judgement with the science. Obviously, first comes one's own perceptions. Then we ideally check our ideas against what other people have found out on the subject (aka "science")...

I think what this shows is simply that it's so easy to be misunderstood. I think what you were essentially saying before was that there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Unless we want to re-visit the wheel's design to see (a) why it was designed as it was and (b) whether we've all been taking its design for granted and it could actually be improved on.

This is where this can become very tricky. For some of us, me especially, I want to go back to not ''reinvent the "wheel' ", but to re-investigate 'time', itself. But because some people already believe that any issue around 'time', itself, has already been "confirmed", then they consider there is nothing actually to be "improved on", and therefore nothing actually to look at, nor even consider. The thing with 'time' is though it is not something tangible as a 'wheel' and is actually something, which its actual definition is completely in contention with, even with the so called "experts".

To me, to look at what 'time' actually is, we can not just say what 'time' is, like we can say what a 'wheel' is.

We also can not just say what 'time' is, and then question that in regards to 'relativity', because we can not come to an agreement of what 'time' is, and because of the way 'the theory of relativity' was constructed, and its predictions. So, instead of moving in that direction it looks like we will have to look at 'time' in regards to relativity, and then if we find any discrepancies or contradictions, or none at all, in relativity, then we can proceed to actually deciding what 'time' is, once and for all.

[Steve3007]

If we just started with the predictions made in the special theory of relativity first, and then proceed, then would that cause any issue here?

I haven't got time to address everything right now, although I've briefly read it. I will just address the above and go through the rest later.

Imagine (as a metaphor) building a house. First you build the foundations. Then you build the walls. Then you build the roof. You can't build the roof first. It would have to float in the air. If you said to people "look! a floating roof!" they wouldn't believe you. They'd want to see what's supporting it.

If we want to understand why Relativity makes the predictions that it does, we have to look at what it's built on. If we don't do that, we are effectively being asked to believe in a floating roof. What it's built on is about 400 years of:

experiment > theory > prediction > experiment > theory > prediction > experiment > theory > prediction > ...

starting (for our purposes) with Galileo.

It starts with experiments we could all do. Galileo, for example, did experiments where he dropped various objects to see if one of them hit the ground before the other. (He did it from, among other places, the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We perhaps can't do that. But we could do something similar.) It ends with experiments involving flying atomic clocks around the world or building huge particle accelerators. Those things are more tricky for us to do.

So we could regard that experiment of Galileo's as one of the first in a long chain which gradually built knowledge. In his time, nobody knew what electricity or magnetism was. So along the way (in the 19th Century) lots and lots of experiments were done in those fields. Those sorts of experiments are the foundations and walls on which something like Relativity is built. If we don't look at those foundations and walls and examine them for sturdiness, before looking at the roof, then we end up like gater, just mindlessly calling people "morons".

Do you see how the metaphor works?