Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Asexperia, Sep 28, 2015.
What is the basis of both ?
The physical movements of things .
Without which neither would exist .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In science, change and movement are synonymous.
They shouldn't be .
Change is based on movement .
And, movement is based on change.
You are actually totally wrong. because
1) what is the greatest possible change ( moving from one point to another?) at
"c" the speed of light. and at that clip through space the movement through time becomes zero.* "smallest time".
2) what happens relatively when you fall really, really deep? like into a black hole?,
you again stop, apparently , moving through time.*
** that does not mean that time itself becomes lesser or disappears, just because of your speed or your depth. because
time has always been there for all existence. As explained, The No. #1 in the ALMA thread, possible and potential. Time exists even with no movement at all.
Dont have such an egocentric, narcissistic, geocentric, limited perspective.
There always was energytime before Asexperiatime. and there will be, thankfully, after us.
PS: the less you want to move through time, the more you have to change in space. Reality is the opposite of what you have proposed.
I do not know where you got that wrong idea from. Time is a property of things (objects and phenomena) that allows them to experience changes. No change, no time.
Asexperia, go over the points above one by one please and find out. Read up on relativity.
Before there were things, there was energy, energy, uncreateable needed time to exist in. always. So, if time is a phenomenon, then you must agree that time existed uncreated always. The No.# 1 dimension discussed in ALMA.
I wish, at 88, that time would be my property, as it is , I lived many moments of zero duration ( I never could get a hold on time). so if you added all the zeros, the moments of my 89 years alive, I spend zero time hanging on to time since conception. And
time, as a first dimension is doing quite well without me. Time is not my, or your property. Whoever told you that it is, as your post above implies, , has sold you a scam. imho.
A property is an essential quality of things. You have aged in time.
THE DOUBLE CONTINUITY (C2) OF TIME
The types of variables are: qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative ones can be: nominal and ordinal. The quantitative ones can be: discrete and continuous. The discrete variables take a finite number of values. The continuous variables take an infinite number of values. Examples of discrete variables are: the number of siblings of a person, the number of chairs in a room, the number of planets in the solar system, etc. The continuous variables are those that can be measured. For example: length (3.5 m), mass (9.2 kg), temperature (27.6 'C) and time (31.3 s). But time is not only continuous by taking infinite values, but by increasing in value continually. That is why this characteristic of time is represented by C2 (C is continuity, 2 is double).
A time interval (duration) can be 15.6 minutes, but time never stops. C2 is the proof that time passes or flows.
Time actually never moves. so of course, it can never stop. (it actually stops at "c".)
You make the mistake of thinking being in a car, you can move the road, or rotate the earth underneath you. time is stationary, like the road. we move, at various speeds through stationary time . You think time passes and flows, flawed perspective. we pass. i will soon pass past 89. turns around the sun.
C2 is just proof that we have a long way to go, no matter how far we already went. and
there is infinite, un-flowing future time #1 to move into, as ALMA showed.
Yes, Time exists because my axioms exist. See "Constructing Time from an Axiom."
And my arse exist because my description of it exist
I think therefore I fart
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Possibly #4 might be in the neighborhood, depending upon what's meant by "duality".
Time as an organized metric framework of temporal units is a utile if not outright necessary construct for helping to manage civilization. If a framework (as a stretched-out chronology) also corresponds to something that is deeply existentially independent of human practices... Then instead of "time", that might alternatively be conceived (in an everyday way) as the co-existing, different states or configurations of the universe when not constrained by insufficient dimensions.
But "differences" in the content of one sequence of moments and the next significantly distinct series obviously do not co-exist in human perception (only in memory). And that is an "inter-subjectively" real assessment -- that a "next" slightly altered state of the world replaces and annihilates the current one -- from the standpoint that other people (not suffering from any rare clinical conditions) experience the differences as ephemeral changes, too. (IOW, not just one person's hallucination which lacks coherency with the sensations of the majority population.)
But when switching from the phenomenal external world representation outputted by the brain to its other rationally inferred external world of scientific realism, some if not most formulations would disparage that depicted brevity of existence into another non-objective feature of experience (like the other secondary properties).
Since scientific realism is, in a sense, flirting with metaphysical be-ing (the way things truly are), but the former commonsense orientation is treating mental experience as the valid character and be-ing of the world[*]... Then one is left with purely a hopping back and forth in convenience between the opposing POVs or choices, like dancing on hot stones.
- - - footnote - - -
[*] In other words, flirting with "poly-solipsism". More properly polipsism: poly (mulitple) + ipse (self/selves or connected mindstreams in this context) + -ism (belief, thought-orientation system, etc).
Question: Can time exist in the absence of any spatial dimension?
Not even nothing .
Therefore, is time dependent on the existence of spatial dimensions?
Yes but ;
Time is dependent on the movement(s); of physical three dimensional things . Which inherently have spatial dimensions.
Length , breadth and depth .
In what we are, if time stops in c it is because before it moved.
For you and others:
1- Time is a dimension of space. False
2- Time is static. False
3- We flow in time. False. We flow WITH time.
Space and time are related in speed. Space is static.
Why does either statement make sense to you both ?
Separate names with a comma.