16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd what rational model do you use for god's existence.
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.
Starrman
I have one but it's not wholly scientific , more humanistic and personal. I can own it as faith because I can't prove it to you . Can you prove time?
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanBeauty is an aesthetic consideration, time is not 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.
Is it? we all see it , it can be observed and experienced, it exists !! (lol)
I'm only joking , but do see the point.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThis 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. 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.
THe question is not whether time "exists" , it is whether time exists as an objective entity or force in it's own right or just exists theoretcially. He said very clearly that time is dependent on matter and energy , and that the two are enmeshed. To me this clearly means that he sees time as not independent of matter. I think he has a problem like me when people talk about time as if it is some kind of "thing" or "force" like electricity , or some kind of "ether" in which other things exist.
Time is in separable from matter and energy just like the beauty of a painting is inseparable from the paint and the canvas. The two are one and the same , they only exist as separate in our minds.
No -one has ever shown what time actually does or what it is made of or how it can exist independent of matter itself. To me saying time "exists" is like separating out a metre from the wood being measured and saying that both the wood and the metre exist as objective things equally. It may be true....but I don't think so somehow.
Who cares if he's not a physicist ....he could be a grocer for all I care ...as long as he makes sense. The litttle boy in the emperor's new clothes story was a nobody too.
16 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe other option is to have faith in time , but you wouldn't like that now would you?KM
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.
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. STARMAN
You cannot measure time and prove to me that it's not relative motion you are measuring . You cannot see time. You cannot tell me what time is made of , or where it exists. You cannot put it in an accelarator and split it or experiment with it. You cannot tell me why it is neccessary for existence or what it does or how it influences matter and energy. You just say "I can observe time passing" . How is that not faith? I can also "observe" God touching people's hearts and healing emotional wounds . I can observe him filling people with confidence and turning lives around . I can observe him directing lives in subtle ways so that they will find him . I can also observe him answering prayer and imparting words of prophecy to people. On occasions I have seen him fill people with his spirit so that they pray in tongues and keel over in rapturous joy. But I can't prove it , it's just faith.
Both of us believe in an invisble mysterious entity that can't be proved.
16 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are a very confused individual. I'm afraid I'm not up to sorting through the quagmire that is your reasoning, but that is some of the sloppiest I've come across recently. Time is empirically observable, that you have it in your head that this is not the case is worrying to me. That you seem to think this bizarre skepticism is equatable to doubting of faith in a supernatural entity is scarey.
The other option is to have faith in time , but you wouldn't like that now would you?KM
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. STARMAN
You cannot measure time and prove to me that it's not relative motion you are measuring . You cann ith.
Both of us believe in an invisble mysterious entity that can't be proved.
16 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBecause the energy is connected to the mass and substance of the water itself pressing against the dam. The energy isn't "in" the water the energy IS the water. And the water is blue.
This is obviously a fudge effort here KM. Why not just concede that the energy in that water has no colour? SCOTTY
Because the energy is connected to the mass and substance of the water itself pressing against the dam. The energy isn't "in" the water the energy IS the water. And the water is blue.
I will agree that it is a bit of a fudge but then s in order to cover the tracks of your previous contradictions? At least I admit my fudges.
Oh, so now there is something inherently special about those water molecules? I used the word "in" tactically, because the energy is in the interaction between the water molecules and the planet. It's called gravity.
[edit; oh, and blue has nothing to do with it. It would make no difference if the water were red or green or purple. Indeed, I didn't specify what colour the water was.]
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo , you have shown that there are particular peculiarites attached to potential energy and that gravity is involved. I was aware that the water might not be blue but I went with it anyway. To be honest I don't know what you are trying to establish other than playing a game of "look at me I can catch you out!" . The issue seems so far removed from what we are actually debating , unless you would like to link it in?
[b]Because the energy is connected to the mass and substance of the water itself pressing against the dam. The energy isn't "in" the water the energy IS the water. And the water is blue.
Oh, so now there is something inherently special about those water molecules? I used the word "in" tactically, because the energy is in the interaction between ...[text shortened]... water were red or green or purple. Indeed, I didn't specify what colour the water was.][/b]
You may well have caught me fudging here .Infact you have. I should have said gravity was involved from the start , but then gravity is a strange one anyway.
You have said yourself that possessing mass and energy is essential for existence , so unless you are trying to say that energy doesn't exist , what are you saying? We agree broadly on energy anyway.
You take me into a cul-de-sac to give me a good beating up over potential energy. Is this revenge for exposing your self contradictory statements regarding non-time dependent singularities? But would you admit that you were being self contradictory ? , I doubt it.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanTime is empirically observable STARRMAN
You are a very confused individual. I'm afraid I'm not up to sorting through the quagmire that is your reasoning, but that is some of the sloppiest I've come across recently. Time is empirically observable, that you have it in your head that this is not the case is worrying to me. That you seem to think this bizarre skepticism is equatable to doubting of faith in a supernatural entity is scarey.
WHOOAA Hold on there! This is a statement. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true. You STILL have yet to show me what it IS that you are observing. I think that you are observing objects moving around in the universe and comparing the relative movement of those objects.
Until you give me one single shred of empirical evidence that what you are observing is anything other than moving objects then yes , I will be a very , very confused individual.
I know it's hard for you to question something that you have probably never questioned before but until you can tell me how what you are observing is anything other than the relative motion of objects then how can you say time has been "observed" ????
You offer no proof or argument other than to just keep repeating a mantra that you never seem to question with any skepticism.
Statements are not convincing arguments .
It's perfectly rational to also think that the universe consists of the relative motion of matter and energy and that we measure this relative motion and call it time , but you don't need "time" for it to happen , what you observe is motion not time. You don't need to factor in time to explain the phenomenon , therefore how can it be proven. Prove it , don't state it.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterUgg, that motion you keep harping on about is not possible without marking the difference in position against a referential scale. Perhaps you're having a problem with the definition of time. Time is the continuum of experience in which events pass. It is the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event. If you consider it as a fourth dimension all that is needed to ascertain its existence is to observe a three dimensional object at two seperate instances, et voila! The presence of this fourth co-ordinate is obvious, observable and to it we give the term 'time'.
Time is empirically observable STARRMAN
WHOOAA Hold on there! This is a statement. Repeating it over and over again does not make it true. You STILL have yet to show me what it IS that you are observing. I think that you are observing objects moving around in the universe and comparing the relative movement of those objects.
Until you give me on ...[text shortened]... to explain the phenomenon , therefore how can it be proven. Prove it , don't state it.
And while we're on the subject, the notion of taking advice on being skeptical from a theist is so ironic, I'm surprised you don't choke on the words. Now go learn some elementary physics.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by Starrmanthat motion you keep harping on about is not possible without marking the difference in position against a referential scale.STARMAN
Ugg, that motion you keep harping on about is not possible without marking the difference in position against a referential scale. Perhaps you're having a problem with the definition of time. Time is the continuum of experience in which events pass. It is the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical e ...[text shortened]... ironic, I'm surprised you don't choke on the words. Now go learn some elementary physics.
And the reference is the relative movement of objects in the universe. There can be no static "referential scale" because the whole universe is moving constantly. In any case are you saying that things wouldn't move unless we marked their reltaive positions? I can guarantee you they were moving long before anyone was around to measure anything.
This is philosophical nonsense. you talk as if things can't move if their positions are not marked in some way!
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by Starrman"Time is the continuum of experience in which events pass. It is the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event. If you consider it as a fourth dimension all that is needed to ascertain its existence is to observe a three dimensional object at two seperate instances, et voila! " STARMAN
Ugg, that motion you keep harping on about is not possible without marking the difference in position against a referential scale. Perhaps you're having a problem with the definition of time. Time is the continuum of experience in which events pass. It is the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical e ...[text shortened]... ironic, I'm surprised you don't choke on the words. Now go learn some elementary physics.
......So far no disagreement....I agree with all of the above....BUT...
"The presence of this fourth co-ordinate is obvious, observable and to it we give the term 'time'." STARMAN
......this is where the problem is . You move from the theoretical and experiential into talking about the "presence" of time as if it's actually there. You jump from the conceptual to the reality of existence with consumate ease without even the faintest skepticism. You point out quiote rightly that we need the concept of time to make sense of space and experience , but quite wrongly assume that because of this it must be "present" and exist.
I agree that we are observing something but why is it obviously time we are observing rather than the motion of objects? Unless you can show why time is needed and useful , or how it is neccessary to do something other than just help us to make sense of the world then how can you say it is obvious it exists? Do you think that if time didn't exist then things wouldn't be able to move? Do you think time is made of anything? Is it a force?
I actually think that if things didn't move then time would not exist as a concept , and you can't show me that time is doing the moving.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd while we're on the subject, the notion of taking advice on being skeptical from a theist is so ironic, I'm surprised you don't choke on the words. Now go learn some elementary physics.STARMAN
Ugg, that motion you keep harping on about is not possible without marking the difference in position against a referential scale. Perhaps you're having a problem with the definition of time. Time is the continuum of experience in which events pass. It is the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical e ...[text shortened]... ironic, I'm surprised you don't choke on the words. Now go learn some elementary physics.
I'm just asking you examine your preassumed concepts as skeptically as you do other concepts. Your greatest weakness in this debate is that you underestimate me , and I'm happy for you to keep doing it.
I think it's elementary philosophy that's the problem here. I have no problem in accepting that time exists in theoretical physics and is neccessary for defining position in the universe. I agree that time is the fourth dimension and is essential for understanding the universe. But I also think that the concepts of socialism/ capitalism are essential to understanding world politics .However , I do not think that socialism exists , only people exist.
It 's when you start talking as if time actually exists as a physical phenomenon that's my problem . You come out with woolly ideas about time seemingly being neccessary for other things to happen. This makes it more than a conceptual co-ordinate but more like a force like electromagnetism (which can be obviously observed empirically) or matter which we know exists in the external world.
Your confusion of the conceptual internal world of humans and the external world of reality is what you fail to grasp. Time is obvious , but only subjectively.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI have failed to grasp what you are saying because you have failed to define what you mean by "exists" . You say time exists but talk about co-ordinates and dimesnions with no idea what a "co-ordinate" is . The jump I am making is a philosophical regarding how one decides or proves something exists or doesn't exist.
Not only do you fail to grasp the intension of my explication, your reasoning jumps across concepts which have no contextual link. I'm not going to bother with this, it's futile. You carry on believing that time doesn't exist, it makes little difference to me.
If you are saying time exists theoretically in the same way as longditude/lattitude lines exist then I will say fine and great. If you then go on to say that you have "observed" lines of longditude empirically I will ask you to take me to the place on earth where there is a big black line on the ground. If you can't show me such a place then I will be obliged to ask whether your longditude lines actually exist in the real world.
It's similar with time . I want to know if you think time has mass , or a wavelength , does time have a frequency? Can it be influenced by electricity? All these kinds of existential questions are important to establish whether time exists as more than just a concept.
You seemed convinced that when you saw your watch moving and then saw your fingers typing that you were seeing "time" passing as if you were watching time coursing through matter or something. But you could not refute my idea that it was just the motion of objects you were watching.
If you were able to come up with a convincing proof that time exists externally to the human mind in a real scientific way then you would have done it by now.