Is Time Just an Idea?

[creation]

A fact is a thing known or proved to be true. As such, facts cannot change.



To me, it was already established that to "nickgaspar" facts can change, but, to me, facts cannot change. If something can be changed, then, to me, that was not a fact at all but just a subjective view of something.

you assume true statements do not change.

I do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning.

Again you are arguing about a red herring and leave out human limitations in observation and understanding.

You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are.

Most of our positions, especially in science are our tentative positions. Modern facts are far more difficult to change due to the systematic methodology of science, but to be that arrogant and omniscient that is an absolutist fallacy.
Facts based on direct observations like allele changes over time and time dilation won't change, but that is an achievement of our technology to be able to be sure for a statement to become a fact.

Your ability to know things that will or will not happen for the rest of eternity is quite outstanding.

Are you at all able to explain how you know things forever more?

Again you are making the huge childish mistake to accept our evaluations of knowledge,truth and facts as intrinsic features of reality, not as observer relevant idealistic goals.

I am not making any such things, so you are once again looking at this from your own distorted and absolutely wrong assumptions and beliefs.

The rest of your comments doesn't worth any of my time addressing them. Its an emotional tap dance in defense of an ideology which demands the rejection of facts.

If this is what you believe, then this is what it MUST BE, to you anyway.

[creation]

Why not just concentrate on all things that arise and discuss them?

1. It takes too long.

It does not take to long for me. This is because I know how to explain them very simply and very easily.

2. The digressions grow exponentially.

That is if you make them or allow them to.

3. You'll largely be ignored.

Then as soon as no one responses, then there is nothing to talk about.

The term "concentrate on all things" is, arguably, a contradiction in terms.

Do you find it impossible to concentrate on all the things that you are having in a discussion?

What would be found if anyone was to truly challenge me and/or question me in regards to absolutely every word in everything I say here, then I could and would show why I have chosen absolutely every word.

I pick the specific words I do because I concentrate not just on all the things in the discussion, but I am also concentrating on what is needed to achieve my final goal and outcome.

When you write your long, detailed posts you occasionally say things like "the readers can see...". Don't be under any illusions that there are loads of people hanging on our every word and following the argument like an exciting tennis match.

But I do not have this illusion, well in regards to the readers, in the days of when this is written. Besides the actual two involved directly in a discussion, and maybe just a very few others, then no else, in this day and age, is really interested in what is being said here at all.

As a general rule, long posts are scroll-over posts.

Yes I have already made that same point.

The more you write, the less the impact of each individual thing that you write. For example, I'd wager that if anybody started reading this post in the first place, most of them have stopped by this point.

I totally agree, this is what is happening in the year known as 2020.

But just like if we had access to the people in the days of when the earth revolves around the sun discussing started taking, instead of the other way around belief, which was being held by just about everyone, who were also saying this is the "observable facts", which must be true, and which could not be logically disputed nor refuted, then to some of us, in the future to them, we would be interested in discovering and learning just why it could so long for this actual fact to be commonly known, accepted, and agreed with.

Make of this in anyway you like.

[Steve3007]

It does not take to long for me. This is because I know how to explain them very simply and very easily.

If your purpose in writing is to communicate your thoughts to others, then the test of the above proposition is whether other people follow and understand the many, many, many things that you say in your long posts. Do you see evidence that this is the case? Do you regard yourself as having communicated the various points you wish to make quickly, succinctly and unambiguously? If not, is it all everybody else's fault?

[creation]

A fact is a thing known or proved to be true. As such, facts cannot change.

Ok. I've previously discussed with you the observation that the word "proved" tends to be used in two distinctly different ways, and I asked you then which way you are using it.

In this post:
viewtopic.php?p=344669#p344669
You said that you use "proved" or "proven" to mean:

Demonstrated with actual evidence, through tried and tested experiments.

Are you still using it in that sense?

That was in relation to the word 'proven', and not the word 'proved', but I could be using in that, sort of, sense. It all depends on what we are referring to exactly?

If so, are you proposing that the results of some experiments (the tried and tested ones) yield facts, as you use that term? If so, which ones?

You appear to have assumed something and jumped to some conclusion before you actually clarified what I actually was saying and meaning.

Facts are the actually accuracy of a statement or proposition.

[Steve3007]

That was in relation to the word 'proven', and not the word 'proved', but I could be using in that, sort of, sense. It all depends on what we are referring to exactly?

I'm referring to your use of the word "proved" in your definition of your usage of the word "fact". That's why I quoted it. In order to understand exactly how you are using the word "fact" I need to try to understand how you are using the words in your definition of that word - particularly those that have two oft-used but distinctly different meanings.

If you're also now saying that you use the words "proved" and "proven" in different senses, please state those two senses.

You appear to have assumed something and jumped to some conclusion before you actually clarified what I actually was saying and meaning.

You appear to be assuming that I'm assuming something. What do I appear to be assuming?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm other words, so what do you take space to be, exactly, as an existent?

The distance between matter.

So for one, if there's no matter, then you'd say there's no space, right?

[creation]

It does not take to long for me. This is because I know how to explain them very simply and very easily.

If your purpose in writing is to communicate your thoughts to others, then the test of the above proposition is whether other people follow and understand the many, many, many things that you say in your long posts.

But my purpose in writing here in this thread is not to communicate my thoughts to the ones that I am replying to.

My inability to communicate my thoughts is being proven here. I am absolutely totally incapable of communicating my thoughts to the posters in this thread. This can be clearly seen in the responses I get.

See I cannot even begin to communicate the idea that, "It is not time that is dilating because .... " Before I am told things like, "But this has already been proven and confirmed", "My views are just magical and mystical thinking or just illogical reasoning", or "You are just denying the observable facts".

Before I am even able to communicate I am shut down and made out to be some loony with nothing at all to say nor express other than some magical or mystical ideology.

But as I am doing research to see if the evidence backs up and supports my predictions about how human beings will behave because of the thinking brain, and how it is controlled by the belief-system, then I need to write in ways to see how the test subjects react.

Do you see evidence that this is the case?

Do I see evidence that the posters who I reply to follow and understand me, then I would say, No, I do not see absolutely any evidence that any poster here as actually understood what I have said, except for on only one or two occasions a fraction of what I was saying was understood.

But as I am not here to be understood by the posters I respond to, then this does not really matter at all.

Do you regard yourself as having communicated the various points you wish to make quickly, succinctly and unambiguously? If not, is it all everybody else's fault?

Did you see where I ask another what is the reason I am not being understood?

I know very well I am not being understood here in this forum by the posters here.

It is my absolute lack of being able to communicate things, and be understood in this day and age.

[NickGaspar]

you assume true statements do not change.

I do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning.

Again you are arguing about a red herring and leave out human limitations in observation and understanding.

You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are.

Most of our positions, especially in science are our tentative positions. Modern facts are far more difficult to change due to the systematic methodology of science, but to be that arrogant and omniscient that is an absolutist fallacy.
Facts based on direct observations like allele changes over time and time dilation won't change, but that is an achievement of our technology to be able to be sure for a statement to become a fact.

Your ability to know things that will or will not happen for the rest of eternity is quite outstanding.

Are you at all able to explain how you know things forever more?

Again you are making the huge childish mistake to accept our evaluations of knowledge,truth and facts as intrinsic features of reality, not as observer relevant idealistic goals.

You need to clarify your theology if you want this discussion to become meaningful.

I am not making any such things, so you are once again looking at this from your own distorted and absolutely wrong assumptions and beliefs.

The rest of your comments doesn't worth any of my time addressing them. Its an emotional tap dance in defense of an ideology which demands the rejection of facts.

If this is what you believe, then this is what it MUST BE, to you anyway.

1"A fact is a thing known or proved to be true."
2 " do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning."
You see the problem in your claim that facts don't change?

"You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are."
Maybe, but that is not my fault....you need to clarify your positions if you don't want us to confuse you with Peterson.

"Your ability to know things that will or will not happen for the rest of eternity is quite outstanding.
Are you at all able to explain how you know things forever more?"
-well its you that makes general statements for the status of facts.....funny eh?

"I am not making any such things, so you are once again looking at this from your own distorted and absolutely wrong assumptions and beliefs."
- unfortunately for you, you are making such things, I don't know why this is not obvious to you.

[creation]

That was in relation to the word 'proven', and not the word 'proved', but I could be using in that, sort of, sense. It all depends on what we are referring to exactly?

I'm referring to your use of the word "proved" in your definition of your usage of the word "fact". That's why I quoted it.

I know.

You also wrote: You said that you use "proved" or "proven" to mean:
So I was just clarifying and making clear that at that time I was referring to the word 'proven' and not the word 'proved'.

You did use the word 'or', which implied that it was one or the other, so I was just making it clear for you what word I did use, back then.

In order to understand exactly how you are using the word "fact" I need to try to understand how you are using the words in your definition of that word - particularly those that have two oft-used but distinctly different meanings.

That is fine and great. A lot of words do have many different definitions, which some words do have two completely opposing definitions. So, to make sure you know for sure what the other is actually saying and meaning, then I find it great you seek to clarify.

If you're also now saying that you use the words "proved" and "proven" in different senses, please state those two senses.

I was not saying that outright, because it all depends on what it is exactly being discussed.

Is it the correct thing to do to define a word once, and then that word means that exact same thing forever more, no matter what other things are being talking about and discussed?

You appear to have assumed something and jumped to some conclusion before you actually clarified what I actually was saying and meaning.

You appear to be assuming that I'm assuming something. What do I appear to be assuming?

Very specific things. That is, IF I was still using the word 'proved' or 'proven' in the exact same sense as I was in discussion with you that we had a while back, then IF I was proposing something very specific relation to experiments and IF they yield facts, then IF I was, then what are those experiments.

This is all to specific, especially considering it appears you are assuming I am meaning something that I am not.

For example, on first glance at what you have written here, and so this might change, to me, on first thought experiments do not yield facts, but an actual experiment done, which has yielded results, is a fact. That results came about from an experiment is a fact. But, the results themselves are not a fact that something else is true, right, nor correct. For example, someone might predict that one clock travels at a faster speed than another clock does, and then when they are brought back together, then there will be discrepancy in the clocks. So, another person says let us try this. They perform an experiment where one clock travels at a faster speed and the clocks are brought back together, and there is a discrepancy between the two clocks now. Then it is a fact that that was predicted. It is a fact that an experiment was done, and it is a fact that results were found. But, the experiment did not yield a fact that because one clock travels faster than another then that means that a discrepancy will be found. The fact is the discrepancy between the two clocks when they come together again might be because of some other reason, which no one has yet thought about.

Do you see the difference?

If you do, then hopefully you will notice that if you make to many assumptions ahead or make to specific an assumptions, without clarifying what the actual answer is to your first question or to if your very specific conclusion is the right one or not, then things can get to far astray way to quickly, simply, and easily.

[creation]

The distance between matter.

So for one, if there's no matter, then you'd say there's no space, right?

That would depend on who I was talking with and the actually discussion we were having firstly. And, it would also depend on what their perception of what the words mean that we were using in the discussion.

For example, if I was having a discussion with you, let us say in relation to what I would put on a inventory list of the Universe in different scenarios, then after I knew how you were defining the words we are using in the discussion, then this would effect the way I responded to your questions.

See, it would depend on how you and I am defining the word 'space' to how I would answer a question, for example, If there is no matter, then if I would say there is no space or not?

[Terrapin Station]

So for one, if there's no matter, then you'd say there's no space, right?

That would depend on who I was talking with and the actually discussion we were having firstly. And, it would also depend on what their perception of what the words mean that we were using in the discussion.

For example, if I was having a discussion with you, let us say in relation to what I would put on a inventory list of the Universe in different scenarios, then after I knew how you were defining the words we are using in the discussion, then this would effect the way I responded to your questions.

See, it would depend on how you and I am defining the word 'space' to how I would answer a question, for example, If there is no matter, then if I would say there is no space or not?

I'm asking from the perspective of your views as you'd present them simply as your views. Imagine you were writing a paper about your ontology (of space, etc.). If you're writing a paper you're not going to defer to anything about me.

[creation]

I do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning.



You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are.



Your ability to know things that will or will not happen for the rest of eternity is quite outstanding.

Are you at all able to explain how you know things forever more?



You need to clarify your theology if you want this discussion to become meaningful.

I am not making any such things, so you are once again looking at this from your own distorted and absolutely wrong assumptions and beliefs.



If this is what you believe, then this is what it MUST BE, to you anyway.

1"A fact is a thing known or proved to be true."
2 " do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning."
You see the problem in your claim that facts don't change?

Do you see that this is completely illogical reasoning, yourself?

Firstly. you have absolutely NO clue NOR idea at all in the Universe what the 2. "do not" is in reference to.
Therefore, absolutely every assumption you have made, and/or any conclusion you have arrived at, here is based on and from absolutely nothing that I was talking about and meaning.

How many times do you need to be advised, Clarify before you start making up assumptions, especially before you make the completely absurd assumptions that you continually make here.

Tell us what do you assume the words "do not" are referring to here.

That way we will be able to see who has 'truly illogically reasoning'.

If you do not tell us what you assume the words "do not" refer to here, then some would say that implies you are to afraid to reveal what is actually happening here, and thus who is the one who is truly reasoning, illogically.

Also, if you want to make the claim that I am reasoning illogically, then it is up to you to make known what it is that you believe I am reasoning anyway. So, either way you are going to have to explain to us what it is that you believe the words "do not" that I said are in reference to anyway.

By the way I do not see any problem in my claim that 'facts do not change' at all.

I do however see a lot of issues in the way you look at and see things, that is; in the way you assume, and conclude things.

"You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are."
Maybe, but that is not my fault....

I have made my position clear enough. Remember, it is you who keeps telling me that my views and ideas are just magical thinking or mystical ideology.

I now wait for those that are truly interested. I wait to be challenged, questioned, and/or clarified on my position so far by those who are truly open.

I am only seeking those who still have some wonder left and who are truly curious.

you need to clarify your positions if you don't want us to confuse you with Peterson.

I do not care one bit if you confuse me whatever a "peterson" is. If you are not able to distinguish the difference, then so be it.

I asked you to clarify what a "peterson" is previously, but, once again, you could not even do that. Because I really do not care what a "peterson" is I have absolutely no interest at all seeking to clarify this by continually asking you to, nor do I care or have any interest at all if you confuse my words with that 'thing' or not.

"Your ability to know things that will or will not happen for the rest of eternity is quite outstanding.
Are you at all able to explain how you know things forever more?"

-well its you that makes general statements for the status of facts.....funny eh?

Well I know a fact does not change forever more. This is because of the definition of a 'fact' that I use, which is; a thing that is known or proved to be true. Therefore, if some thing is known or proved to be true, then that thing cannot suddenly just become not known or just not proved to be true.

Also, I said what I did here in relation to you claiming:
Facts based on direct observations like allele changes over time and time dilation won't change, but that is an achievement of our technology to be able to be sure for a statement to become a fact.

If you lived in the times that the sun was said to revolve around the earth, then you could have just as easily said that, "Facts based on direct observations like the sun revolves around the earth won't change", as well. But, sadly and honestly, those types of so called "facts", which are based on direct observations, DO CHANGE. So, I found it quite outstanding that you would or even could know that for the rest of eternity that a so called "fact"
like 'time dilation' will not change at all.

By the way, I do not think I made a "general statement" but more of a 'specific statement', for the status of facts, as I see them, and in relation to the other statements I make.

"I am not making any such things, so you are once again looking at this from your own distorted and absolutely wrong assumptions and beliefs."

- unfortunately for you, you are making such things, I don't know why this is not obvious to you.

Besides the fact that you actually believe that you know things, like time dilation, will not change forever more, because of the current technology and what is directly observed from that technology in the year known as 2020, which is about as narrowed a view one could have, you also believe you know what things are being accepted, within this head, and that I am making the mistake of accepting this thing. Even after I tell you I do not accept this thing, and so I am not making this mistake of accepting this thing, you still believe I am and will even still try and tell me that I am accepting that thing, which obviously I do not even accept.

You really do have a very high standard of your self and your ability to know things for sure, without any doubt at all, even if all the evidence in the Universe tells you otherwise.

Your beliefs,and their ability to completely blind you from even looking at what is actually true, right, and correct, let alone ever allowing you to being able to seeing the actual truth of things here, is even more outstanding and strikingly revealing than I first realized.

Thank you for exposing and showing us the true power of the belief-system to us.

[creation]

That would depend on who I was talking with and the actually discussion we were having firstly. And, it would also depend on what their perception of what the words mean that we were using in the discussion.

For example, if I was having a discussion with you, let us say in relation to what I would put on a inventory list of the Universe in different scenarios, then after I knew how you were defining the words we are using in the discussion, then this would effect the way I responded to your questions.

See, it would depend on how you and I am defining the word 'space' to how I would answer a question, for example, If there is no matter, then if I would say there is no space or not?

I'm asking from the perspective of your views as you'd present them simply as your views. Imagine you were writing a paper about your ontology (of space, etc.). If you're writing a paper you're not going to defer to anything about me.

I do not know how to write a paper. I never did education.

Also, when I said I did not know what the term 'your ontology' means, you replied: In other words, so what do you take space to be, exactly, as an existent?

I do not take any thing to be 'exactly' because absolutely everything I say could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect or partly any of these things.

But, if someone asked me, 'What is 'space'? then I would just say, or write on a piece of paper; 'Space', to me, means the distance between matter.

But this is because I see absolutely everything from the most simplest and easiest perspective. So, to me, ALL-THERE-IS and how the Universe works can be explained very simply and very easily.

Space is just the distance between matter. To see, this from my perspective, one just needs to look at (imagine) the smallest particles of matter. Obviously, they have to be a distance apart, otherwise they would just be one particle of matter. So, space is just a word to describe the distance between matter. 'Matter', to me, just being a words that describes physical observed things.

Space and matter, however, are interconnect as there cannot be one without the other. Both space and matter co-exist together-forever in the HERE-NOW, infinitely-eternally.

But, as I just thought about after reading another poster here a couple of days ago, there is only one thing in varies degrees of 'denseness', which accounts for space and objects of matter, which fitted in perfectly, and maybe better, with my 'there is only One thing anyway' view. This explanation will make explaining what it is that I will explain even more simpler and easier now. This, combined with other views, will help in explaining more simply how there are parts in quantum mechanics and relativity for me that are already actually unified, and how the other parts are just false, wrong, and/or incorrect anyway.

Now, I would say, 'space', to me, means the distance between observable matter.

[Steve3007]

My inability to communicate my thoughts is being proven here. I am absolutely totally incapable of communicating my thoughts to the posters in this thread. This can be clearly seen in the responses I get. ... I know very well I am not being understood here in this forum by the posters here. It is my absolute lack of being able to communicate things, and be understood in this day and age.

I don't think it's as extreme as that. You clearly do not have a complete inability to communicate your thoughts. If you did, nobody would ever reply to you. You have successfully communicated at least some of your thoughts to me, for example. But, as far as I can see, you are very inefficient at communicating your thoughts. In my view, this is largely because you tend to write very long posts, the vast majority of whose content is ignored. And you keep falling back on this notion that your words have to be continually clarified by others to check what you mean and whether you mean the same thing by them now that you did earlier.

If you wanted to communicate your thoughts to the people you're talking to as efficiently, succinctly and unambiguously as possible then I would suggest changing your writing style. But as you seem to be saying here:

But my purpose in writing here in this thread is not to communicate my thoughts to the ones that I am replying to.

...that is not your purpose. (At least, that seems to be what you've said. But maybe you'll say I've misunderstood you in that.) If your purpose is not to communicate then everything I say here and everything I might imagine you to be saying in reply is irrelevant.

[NickGaspar]

1"A fact is a thing known or proved to be true."
2 " do not. So, this is obviously false, which must of come from some truly illogical reasoning."
You see the problem in your claim that facts don't change?

Do you see that this is completely illogical reasoning, yourself?

Firstly. you have absolutely NO clue NOR idea at all in the Universe what the 2. "do not" is in reference to.
Therefore, absolutely every assumption you have made, and/or any conclusion you have arrived at, here is based on and from absolutely nothing that I was talking about and meaning.

How many times do you need to be advised, Clarify before you start making up assumptions, especially before you make the completely absurd assumptions that you continually make here.

Tell us what do you assume the words "do not" are referring to here.

That way we will be able to see who has 'truly illogically reasoning'.

If you do not tell us what you assume the words "do not" refer to here, then some would say that implies you are to afraid to reveal what is actually happening here, and thus who is the one who is truly reasoning, illogically.

Also, if you want to make the claim that I am reasoning illogically, then it is up to you to make known what it is that you believe I am reasoning anyway. So, either way you are going to have to explain to us what it is that you believe the words "do not" that I said are in reference to anyway.

By the way I do not see any problem in my claim that 'facts do not change' at all.

I do however see a lot of issues in the way you look at and see things, that is; in the way you assume, and conclude things.

"You obviously still have not clue as to what my views and ideas are."
Maybe, but that is not my fault....

I have made my position clear enough. Remember, it is you who keeps telling me that my views and ideas are just magical thinking or mystical ideology.

I now wait for those that are truly interested. I wait to be challenged, questioned, and/or clarified on my position so far by those who are truly open.

I am only seeking those who still have some wonder left and who are truly curious.

you need to clarify your positions if you don't want us to confuse you with Peterson.

I do not care one bit if you confuse me whatever a "peterson" is. If you are not able to distinguish the difference, then so be it.

I asked you to clarify what a "peterson" is previously, but, once again, you could not even do that. Because I really do not care what a "peterson" is I have absolutely no interest at all seeking to clarify this by continually asking you to, nor do I care or have any interest at all if you confuse my words with that 'thing' or not.

-well its you that makes general statements for the status of facts.....funny eh?

Well I know a fact does not change forever more. This is because of the definition of a 'fact' that I use, which is; a thing that is known or proved to be true. Therefore, if some thing is known or proved to be true, then that thing cannot suddenly just become not known or just not proved to be true.

Also, I said what I did here in relation to you claiming:
Facts based on direct observations like allele changes over time and time dilation won't change, but that is an achievement of our technology to be able to be sure for a statement to become a fact.

If you lived in the times that the sun was said to revolve around the earth, then you could have just as easily said that, "Facts based on direct observations like the sun revolves around the earth won't change", as well. But, sadly and honestly, those types of so called "facts", which are based on direct observations, DO CHANGE. So, I found it quite outstanding that you would or even could know that for the rest of eternity that a so called "fact"
like 'time dilation' will not change at all.

By the way, I do not think I made a "general statement" but more of a 'specific statement', for the status of facts, as I see them, and in relation to the other statements I make.

- unfortunately for you, you are making such things, I don't know why this is not obvious to you.

Besides the fact that you actually believe that you know things, like time dilation, will not change forever more, because of the current technology and what is directly observed from that technology in the year known as 2020, which is about as narrowed a view one could have, you also believe you know what things are being accepted, within this head, and that I am making the mistake of accepting this thing. Even after I tell you I do not accept this thing, and so I am not making this mistake of accepting this thing, you still believe I am and will even still try and tell me that I am accepting that thing, which obviously I do not even accept.

You really do have a very high standard of your self and your ability to know things for sure, without any doubt at all, even if all the evidence in the Universe tells you otherwise.

Your beliefs,and their ability to completely blind you from even looking at what is actually true, right, and correct, let alone ever allowing you to being able to seeing the actual truth of things here, is even more outstanding and strikingly revealing than I first realized.

Thank you for exposing and showing us the true power of the belief-system to us.

I guess, comforting your self with irrational death denying ideologies is far more important than accepting well established knowledge.
You are not convincing anybody with your pseudo Philosophical practices. You are demanding to play tennis without the bet. That is just ridiculous.