Does time exist?

This is word salad.

Duration is quite simply the interval between two events in time.

It's not a matter of opinion or speculation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Duration is the Interval between two events , absolutely .

But time played no part in the interval . Time is the measurement of duration .

Hmmm....

Lets go deeper ....explain IN TIME

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And all those forms of change require time, an inherent potential permission of a permittive condition.

IMO, that is a misnomer . There is no dimension of Time wherein we live. Time is an inherent abstract property of a permittive condition.

But there can always only be NOW , the emerge of an arbitrarily measurable duration of change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not time , but the duration of plasma energy to cool down , so that the Plasma can cool to coalesce into matter .

Time is a misnomer . Obvisously

Sure

Duration is always in the NOW .

Measurement of duration is irrelevent to the dynamic of the duration its self .

Without duration there is no time .

 

Whoops, I broke a quote-tag, and clearly didn't check the resulting post. Here is it again:

f(4) = 4 describes many mathematical functions. In fact any function that returns a singular complex value for a just a single singular input value will suffice. To make this more explicit: you have inadvertently claimed that this is addition:
\(f(x)=\frac{x^2}{4}\)

Yes, but I'm not finding a mathematical object "4" anywhere.

This is the same function: f(4) = 4. And it has the same problems.

No, a string has ordering, so it can't be a set. A string is a sequence, but not of numbers, of characters. (I'm using it specifically in the programming sense, but you can read "a linear, finite sequence of language glyphs" or something along those lines in place of it.)

Right, "2 + 2" equals "4" in mathematics. It doesn't become "4", it is "4".

It's an operation, that can be expressed as a function.

I've never claimed functions can only take one input; I've pointed out that your "addition function" does. It takes one string as its input: f("2 + 2").

Fractals have nothing to do with this.

Then explain what "the potential of the latent mathematical value" is/means.

No, the (physical) action of performing the addition is not part of mathematics. 2 + 2 always equals 4. Nobody needs to "apply" an = symbol. It follows necessarily from the axioms of mathematics and number theory.

Please give a definition of a mathematical dove. Because that's what we are talking about, remember?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand: we are discussing mathematics here.

You are committing a fallacy of equivocation here. The term "potential" means many things, and these usages cannot be used interchangeably.

Please demonstrate that this is true in all languages, not just English.

Probabilistic has meaning in statistics, which is a branch of mathematics. I'm not familiar with a philosophical definition of the term. Deterministic is (usually) to do with (meta)physics and philosophy.
I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, though?

The definition of the word changes between these different disciplines, so they are not the same thing. For example, a "tree" is a biological structure that you see outside. But in mathematics it's also a hierarchical structure of objects. They are related etymology-wise, yes, but there are completely different things. Properties of one type of tree do not (necessarily) apply to the other type of tree. Their tree-properties cannot be applied universally. The same with "potential". What's true for one definition of the word "potential" isn't (necessarily) true for the other. What's why there are multiple definitions in the first place!

So you agree with me that "potential" in the sense of "becoming reality" has no meaning in mathematics. Good. I can't wait for your explanation of "the potential of the latent mathematical value" then.

---

Please define the word "variable" as you are using it in that sentence. Please define the term "conditional permission" as you are using it in that sentence.

 

More accurately, it's the time-interval between two events.

Which makes this wrong:

This is defined the wrong way around: duration is based upon time, not time on duration.

 

Please define what a "permittive condition" is.

Please define what an "arbitrarily measurable duration of change" is.​

 

To your last statement ; why do you think so ?

 

Original post was by NotEinstein, Today at 6:36 AM

I know what happened , which only proves my definition of potential as "that which may become reality" depending on the input and permissible output.

The condition permitted your variable input. Of course the output was garbage.

How long did it take you to get it right?

 

Based on duration .

 

One event could be a beginning of change, the second event could be the end of that change. In that case, the chronology of the change would have a duration in and of itself.

But it is arbitrary in respect to the measurement used to calculate the duration (interval of time).

 

Duration has no begining nor end .

 

Not according to the dictionary definition

1. 
   But I think I understand what you mean. Duration without points of reference would be undefinable?
   It's impossible to measure the duration of duration. Is that what you are getting at?
   I'd hesitate to say that duration is infinite in scope, which IMO it would be if it had no beginning nor end.

 

Hmmm....duration in your dictionary is about a relation between duration and the next stop , or time of the next stop based on the duration of the next stop .

Duration is not about being defined or not defined .

Duration is about the dynamics between things .

Duration is about movement .

Movement comes first , then duration

 

Still refuted.

These rocks still have not moved, yet they still endure.

 

This is a deepity. On the surface, its sounds profound.
But all you're saying is: a duration has a start and an end, and the time of the duration is ... well, the duration.

 

Because of the rocks fundamental structure . Which is a structure that is hard to break down .

Duration amoung rocks is different . From diamonds , to granite , sandstone etc .

 

No movement, yet here they are.
Your assertion stands falsified.
How do you explain duration of things that don't move?

 

There is movement , the break down of these rocks .

 

So how can it still exist during the very short time I'm watching it? It takes eons to break down.