You can take previous post and swap time for distance and it works All distance measurements are arbitrary in same way time measurements are Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My view is only SINGULAR NOW EXIST Na small capitals not have the same draw attention impact Not going for credibility - that should arise from the discussion - the all in capitals is to emphasise the FUNDIMENTIALNESS of the matter and also for emphasis Will swap for colouration Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well they created what they call time, but what they call time has no fundimential existence and, to coin a phrase, can be said to exist only in a definition state Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Universe being in existence is its own now Humans not required Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now is not defined as such in the few dictionaries I looked at Which makes moot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Michael: There's no need. I understood you the first time, I think. Didn't I? Did I get something wrong about your position? What way is that, exactly? In my previous post, I was careful to distinguish the thing itself from a measurement unit for the thing. It's probably easier to start with length than with time. Length is a thing. We can measure length in metres or feet or furlongs or light years or some other unit. The units are something we can choose, so in that specific sense they are arbitrary. But the units being arbitrary has no bearing on whether the thing itself - length, in this case - is arbitrary. When you walk down to the local shops, the distance you need to walk is a thing. You'll feel more tired if you walk a longer distance than a shorter one, for instance. That's a statement that says nothing at all about units; it's a statement about length. Length is the thing that stops everything from being in the same place. Unless you believe that, actually, everything is in the same place, then denying the existence of length is ludicrous. And if you do believe, for some reason, that everything is actually in the same place, then you have a lot of explaining to do as to why you get more tired walking 30 miles than 3 feet. If it is your claim that humans created length, then you have the same problem you have with time. What was the universe like before humans evolved and created length? When, exactly, did that act of creation happen? How did the creation of length by human beings change the physical universe? And what was the mechanism for that change? Similarly, time is the thing that stops everything from happening simultaneously. If time doesn't exist, then how do you account for any change at all? What does it even mean for something to change, in a timeless universe? If humans created time, when did that occur? What did the universe look like before time was created by humans? What mechanism changed the physical universe when a human created time? A reference frame refers to something. The hint is right there in the name. Your claim is not just that units of time are arbitrary, but that time itself is either arbitrary or doesn't exist, if I understand you correctly. Which is your claim, by the way? Does time exist in some arbitrary way, or does time not actually exist? Not the units, understand, but the thing itself: time. I don't want to waste time on a misunderstanding of your position. As opposed to what? And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?
Thanks for the clarification. As I understand it, then, your claim is that time does not exist. Is the word "fundamental" important to your claim? What would a "non-fundamental" existence of time look like? Previously, you said that humans create time. But here you are saying that the universe has "its own now". Is "now" a time, or not? If it is, then aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that the universe's "now" doesn't need humans to create it? Alternatively, if the universe's "now" is something other than time, can you please tell me what the "now" is? Forget dictionaries. Tell me your definition of "now". We can go from there. (P.S. It's fine if you want to rely on a particular dictionary definition; just tell me which one.)
An observer need not be human or even be alive for that matter. It is the simultaneous interaction that counts , not the symbols humans attach to them. Newton's Third Law does not require a human observer. As a singular (expanding) object, the universe does have its own timeline. It's called the worldvolume, the entirety of the 3D geometry. Every 2D surface time slice of that worldvolume represents a universal NOW. The Universe is not infinitely large. It is a singular object with a singular existence. Time does not grow 3 dimensionally. Time has a single direction and therefore each instant of time represents a 2D surface of duration and ageing of the worldvolume. It is only inside the universe that things happen relative to each other.
That says it all, this is nothing more than a silly philosophical and semantics stand. Here is what the rest of us call time using your concept. I order a beer in a SINGULAR NOW I receive my beer in a different SINGULAR NOW, the duration between those events is called a passage of time. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is just rather silly.
Will try to simplify my position Stuff (let's go the Universe) exist Fundimential to its existence it has properties These properties exist humans present or not Humans come along and begin to codify the stuff (language) Arising in language there came labelling ideas (ideas which had no backing of stuff), my existing only by being defined Enter fundimential existence and only existing only by being defined fundimential existence has the backing of stuff, where's existing only by being defined does not (concept) I try to keep the distinction clear in my posting but obviously I am not From a point to another point we give a name. Arbitrary point to arbitrary point a arbitrary distance unit name There does not exist a fundamental point to point distance which we human can / could discover which could be taken to, and matched with, an alien point to point distance in another galaxy In a singular NOW it does Correct almost - I think - is the wording humans create time or humans created time Whatever - the human version is arbitrary and since my position is no fundimential time exist of no consequence As opposed to what? A line up of a multitude of NOWs And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind? Said line up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My goto is Merriam-Webster at the present time or moment is given as the first definition from my app - along with many others which at a glance did not appear to be relevant Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The singular now being referred to is the Universe's singular now Within the Universe each atom / collection of atoms have their own singular now subservient to the Universe singular now If you think you have more than one now ie one orders the beer - one receives it (in your words a different singular now) there must be a lot of you running around with beer at / in different stages of consumption Question according to the time you and the rest are using what would be the interval between your different now's? For the record my answer would be - a singular now does not have intervals Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can you tell me how a cell can count NOWS? They have no hearts that go tick tock. They do have plasma circulation and cellular comunication. Apparently it is the cytoskeleton of the cell that can store memories, albeit of the short-term variety. It has been tested and proven. Slime mold can learn timed intervals and after a while learn to anticipate the change before it actually happens If you take the time to watch this discussion between biology scientists, you will find many answers on the subject of interspecies communication and a certain awareness of environmental conditions by even the most simple organisms and turns out that there is no such thing as an independently simple organism. This discussion clearly explains that age old mantra of "everything is connected to everything" does not just apply to pure physics but also to biological interactions of all life on earth. And then there is mention of "mycilia" in the root systems of plants.
Write4U likes your post... I rest my case, you must be wrong.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Write4U is on my Iggy list so sorry does not count Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That statement just shows your ignorance, not mine. And as far as Michael is concerned, I don't have to like him personally (or vice versa) as long as our interpretation is compatible I can offer my agreement with the statement. I am not here for a popularity contest. I am just amazed at the lazy thinking displayed by many " learned fellows". You no longer feel it necessary to learn. Your loss.
Neddy; We agree on the above. Unfortunately, the clock synch convention was conceived about 1900. It could only have been implemented for no more than 120 yr. The method would have synchronized clocks within a 60 ly radius. Beyond that, distances are speculations, dependent on theories.
Write4U; We are elements/members of the universe, so our view can only be from the inside. We can only see/perceive the universe as an historical sequence of images. The pdf is the general case for reciprocal observations by two observers with a relative velocity. Clock synchronization is a special case when the relative velocity is zero. Plant and animal life forms are essentially programmed. The human has biological clocks for life support functions, as do plants and animals.
Yes and therefore we cannot objectively see the universe as a singular object from witout. Anytime there is reference to a human observer rather than an imaginary external observer, the argument changes to relativism, not objectivism. This is a non-relativistic picture of ................................................................... NOW. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See thread : http://sciforums.com/threads/is-con...-in-microtubules.161187/page-125#post-3703803
