16 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou appeared not to as you made a whole string of ridiculous posts about existence being proven by having the property of color.
By the way I agree about colour , do you think I didn't know this?
You have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy. It is energy, which does not exist in material form but only because of the exact location in space/time of matter in relation to other matter. Never the less this potential energy can be converted into mater. So either the dimensions exist or we have got something out of nothing.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan't you see that the energy is totally dependent on both time and space? WHITEY
You so easily forget that we are talking physics here.
The colors you mention are nothing more than the specific wavelengths of light being emitted by the object/phenomena.
Weight is little more than a bend in space/time and has absolutely no meaning without space/time.
The light that touches your face left the sun 8 minutes ago. Right now the sun migh ...[text shortened]... t potential energy go? Cant you see that the energy is totally dependent on both time and space?
So since matter is energy converted ( am I right?) , all matter and energy in the universe is dependent on space/time? So every atom , quark, electron and every bit of energy in the universe needs space/time to exist first before it can then exist? Therefore , space/time must exist in a massless , matterless , energyless state of some sort? So before any particle of matter and any amount of energy at all there was space/time? So before the universe even existed there must have been some pre-existent space/time which had to exist first in order to allow a dependent universe to exist "in"?
What was happening in this space/time , was there anything substantial within it for anything to happen ? If not how is it time , time has to move doesn't it ? , it's a series of caused events one after the other. How are you going to have caused events without any matter or substance?
By the way what do you speculate that space/time is made of? (since it cannot be made of energy or matter).
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy WHITEY
You appeared not to as you made a whole string of ridiculous posts about existence being proven by having the property of color.
You have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy. It is energy, which does not exist in material form but only because of the exact location in space/time of matter in relation to other matter. Never t ...[text shortened]... be converted into mater. So either the dimensions exist or we have got something out of nothing.
Can you give me a specific example of this? Would the dam and water idea suffice ?
By the way it's not energy I'm hung up on or the colour of energy . I just think scientifically that if something exists it has to be made of something. Ie - it has to be substantial in some way or other.
You accuse me of skirting? I smashed your circle of time idea to pieces and you had nothing to say....I keep asking you if you think the complete absence of existence (non-existence) is possible with no direct answer.
You atheists always say where is God , I can't see him , how do we know he is there? We can't empirically prove him to exist so why believe he is there? I agree with this scientifically , but then personal faith is different. However , you have no more substantial evidence for the existence of time than you do God and yet you chose to believe time exists fervently. At least I can own that my beleif in God is not scientific and one of faith. Can you own your belief in time existing as faith? If not then prove time exists to me scientifically and substantially (not theoretically). Put your "time" to the same skeptical tests as you do my "God" and see what comes of it.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou appeared not to as you made a whole string of ridiculous posts about existence being proven by having the property of color.WHITEY
You appeared not to as you made a whole string of ridiculous posts about existence being proven by having the property of color.
You have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy. It is energy, which does not exist in material form but only because of the exact location in space/time of matter in relation to other matter. Never t ...[text shortened]... be converted into mater. So either the dimensions exist or we have got something out of nothing.
At least if something has a colour you know that it is interacting with wavelengths of light by absorbing some and reflecting others , I would say that that would show it to have a damn good chance of existing substantially because that can only happen if atoms are somehow there interacting with light. This would not prove that something "colourless" cannot exist , but it would show that something "with colour" probably does exist.
There are all sorts of other tests that one can put time to that it fails miserably , not just colour , but height, weight , mass , energy level fluctuations , smell , reflectiveness , radioactiveness etc etc
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe nature of time may be misunderstood or poorly explained, but it would be foolish to say such a thing has no observable parts. The mere process of typing this post used it, I observed its passsing and marked it with a measuring device (my watch). I can repeat this test and verify that time will indeed pass again. Empricially, time's existence is not in doubt, what its existence comprises of is a more interesting question.
You have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy WHITEY
Can you give me a specific example of this? Would the dam and water idea suffice ?
By the way it's not energy I'm hung up on or the colour of energy . I just think scientifically that if something exists it has to be made of something. Ie - it has to be substantial ...[text shortened]... Put your "time" to the same skeptical tests as you do my "God" and see what comes of it.
The same cannot be said for your god, who does not make himself available for any tests.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadridiculous posts WHITEY
You appeared not to as you made a whole string of ridiculous posts about existence being proven by having the property of color.
You have still done nothing but skirt around the issue of potential energy. It is energy, which does not exist in material form but only because of the exact location in space/time of matter in relation to other matter. Never t ...[text shortened]... be converted into mater. So either the dimensions exist or we have got something out of nothing.
Can we drop this kind of talk. I don't think I have accused you of being ridiculous. I disagree very strongly and I don't think you say what you really mean but I think there is a coherence to what you say and the circle idea was a good one that had me stuck for a while. I would bow to your superior physics knowledge and your knowledge of maths and I doubt that what you believe is ridiculous. I actually think you know more than me about physics and maths , but I think I come out on top on the application of physics to philosophy and logic. As a mathematician you've got me beat , but you don't understand the existential implications of what you come up with.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe mere process of typing this post used it, I observed its passsing and marked it with a measuring device (my watch)Starrman
The nature of time may be misunderstood or poorly explained, but it would be foolish to say such a thing has no observable parts. The mere process of typing this post used it, I observed its passsing and marked it with a measuring device (my watch). I can repeat this test and verify that time will indeed pass again. Empricially, time's existence is not i ...[text shortened]... on.
The same cannot be said for your god, who does not make himself available for any tests.
This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of interactions between material objects in motion. What colour was the time that you supposedly "saw" and observed? There must have been light reflecting off it for you to see it. Or maybe what you actually saw was some material objects moving about...but all that would prove is....erhem.... that the material universe moves around a lot. If you use a watch to measure time does that prove time? Of course not , you are just comparing the movement of one object arbitarily against another moving object.
I can equally say that I can "see" God doing his stuff in the world everyday , but does that prove him to you? I would guess not . You would say I was attributing some concept or property to certain material events.But nevertheless I can easily say I am observing God in the same way you say you are observing time. But "seeing" God or time requires faith because you have to believe it's there to then interpret events in a certain way.
You "see" time in your mind , just like you see beauty in a painting , but does the beauty actually exist ? Who knows? Maybe time does exist but just "observing" it is not going to prove it . You have to show that what you are observing cannot be equally explained by another rational model. The other option is to have faith in time , but you wouldn't like that now would you?
Empirically , time's existence is in doubt , that's the whole point.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/denying_time.shtml
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere are so many logical contradictions in what you've just written, that I have no idea where to start. I will try and get back to you later, if I have the time.
The mere process of typing this post used it, I observed its passsing and marked it with a measuring device (my watch)Starrman
This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actua ...[text shortened]... 's the whole point.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/denying_time.shtml
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeister
This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of interactions between material objects in motion. What colour was the time that you supposedly "saw" and observed? There must have been light reflecting off it for you to see it. Or maybe what you actually saw was some material objects moving about...but all that would prove is....erhem.... that the material universe moves around a lot. If you use a watch to measure time does that prove time? Of course not , you are just comparing the movement of one object arbitarily against another moving object.
Okay, firstly, 'see' is a figure of speech intended to suggest observation in general, it doesn't (in this case) mean visually so. Secondly motion (in a physical sense) means a change in the position of a body with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference. To suggest motion is possible wihtout time is redundant. Thirdly, using a watch to measure time does indeed prove that time exists, otherwise what would you be measuring with it exactly?
I can equally say that I can "see" God doing his stuff in the world everyday , but does that prove him to you? I would guess not. You would say I was attributing some concept or property to certain material events.
I would say you are seeing existence and using that as a proof of god, which is incorrect.
But nevertheless I can easily say I am observing God in the same way you say you are observing time.
But you'd be wrong, you are observing processes and functions which have perfectly natural definitions and then assigning a new, supernatural and unnecessary definition to them.
But "seeing" God or time requires faith because you have to believe it's there to then interpret events in a certain way.
Time requires a watch, god requires faith, the two are inconsistent and only one is empirical.
You "see" time in your mind , just like you see beauty in a painting , but does the beauty actually exist ?
Beauty is an aesthetic consideration, time is not.
Who knows? Maybe time does exist but just "observing" it is not going to prove it.
What? Observing it (providing that your observation is not faulty in some fashion) is confirming its existence.
You have to show that what you are observing cannot be equally explained by another rational model.
Do I? And what rational model do you have in mind? And what rational model do you use for god's existence.
The other option is to have faith in time , but you wouldn't like that now would you?
Actually you're wrong, but I don't think I've the inclination to go through an inductive view of the relative and common sense view of the world I have.
Empirically , time's existence is in doubt , that's the whole point.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/denying_time.shtml
This guy is not a physicist, other scientists disagree with him, in tha majority, and his paper looks at ascertaining what type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
16 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanSecondly motion (in a physical sense) means a change in the position of a body with respect to timeSTARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
What do you mean "with respect to time" , time is relative isn't it? What you meant to say is the change of position of a body relative to another body. When a car moves along a road and you "time" it with a watch all you are doing is noticing the movement of the mechanisms in the watch and the movement of the car and then dividing one into the other in an arbitrary fashion. You don't "need" time for this to happen only movement and observation.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI would say you are seeing existence and using that as a proof of god, which is incorrect. STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i ...[text shortened]... t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
I don't see it as a proof of God , I don't think God can be proved "scientifically" , only personally through faith. It's you that thinks you have proved time exists by "seeing " existence through a certain paradigm which tells you time exists objectively (so of course that must be what you are seeing) . Just be honest and call it faith or prove time exists empirically to me.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanBut you'd be wrong, you are observing processes and functions which have perfectly natural definitions and then assigning a new, supernatural and unnecessary definition to them. STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i ...[text shortened]... t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
You are right it's about definitions and perceptions I cannot prove God empirically or scientifically to you , and neither can you prove time. We just have different perceptions.
I can explain how things move without using time and I can explain causal events in sequence without time . So why do I need time (apart from being a useful concept) ? What does time actually do? Does it make things move? Does it cause anything ?
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by Starrman"Time requires a watch, god requires faith, the two are inconsistent and only one is empirical." Starrman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i ...[text shortened]... t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
What does time requires a watch mean? I've got a watch on now and all I know that my watch proves is that a certain physical mechanism within the watch moves and I can divide these units of movement into other units of movement , and then call it "time passing". All I am doing is measuring one set of movements relatively against another set of movements. So if say motion exists but time doesn't how are you going to prove to me that motion can't do the job all by itself. Who needs time , it doesn't do anything!
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat? Observing it (providing that your observation is not faulty in some fashion) is confirming its existence. Starrman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i ...[text shortened]... t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
Not so , observation is not enough. If I said all the you are observing is the movement of objects relative to each other how is your observation that time exists any more valid than my observation that only motion of objects exists? Your observation is only a proof if you pre assume that time exists but I can easily look at my watch and the world and observe only movement. How do you prove you are right and I am wrong?
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanDo I? And what rational model do you have in mind?STARRMAN
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is where you need to get REALLY ruthless with yourself here.
How did you observe time passing ? Did you "see" the time? I would posit was that what you saw was your fingers and the keyboard , but time ? If you actually "saw" time I would be amazed! One could easily argue that what we "see" is a series of i ...[text shortened]... t type of 'universal time' exists, not that no time exists at all.
Motion of matter and energy for one.