# Imagination.

That's like saying you're not measuring a two-by-four with a tape measure. But you are. You're comparing a known length (tape measure) with an unknown length (two-by-four).
And what pray tell do you know about length of time itself.
With a clock, you're comparing a known interval of time (tick tock) with an unknown interval.
and what And how big is an interval? The tick tock of a clock is a purely arbitrary and artificial measurement.
Moreover, the duration of tick tocks is relative to speed, no?
You're not. You're counting the number of ticks and tocks after they happen.
Yes, you are counting a manmade arbitrary length of "duration" of a chronology after it has begun, i.e. it's in the past.

Future time is immeasurable, because it has not yet emerged. It is a latent potential, until it is associated with change. There is no such thing as independent time. It is always associated with duration of a physical process or duration of existence, at which time becomes measurable.

Is it not curious that your "present" has already happened in the past? Your present experience of sunlight is already 8 minutes (480 tick stocks) in the past.

And what pray tell do you know about length of time itself.
Don't try to be cute. Length and time are two different things. When you mean duration, say duration.
And how big is an interval? The tick tock of a clock is a purely arbitrary and artificial measurement.
As are all measurements. Size of A is compared to size of B using some arbitrary "standard" such as meters, kilograms or seconds.
Future time is immeasurable, because it has not yet emerged.
Again, the same applies to all measurements. We have to assume that the height of the Eiffel Tower will be the same tomorrow as it is today. Of course we can confirm that tomorrow.

The tick tock of a clock is a purely arbitrary and artificial measurement.
This is wrong, of course, because clocks are all calibrated against some standard. An uncalibrated clock is useless. The calibration process means that clocks are anything but arbitrary.
Moreover, the duration of tick tocks is relative to speed, no?
That sentence doesn't actually mean anything.
Is it not curious that your "present" has already happened in the past? Your present experience of sunlight is already 8 minutes (480 tick stocks) in the past.
No. Your present experience of sunlight is happening right now.

Everything you can imagine exists in reality because your imagination exists in reality.

The only thing that keeps our imagination from happening is our understanding of our own physical constructs.

agree or disagree and pose why.

Everything that one knows about in one's own reality is just a figment of one's imagination.
Otherwise one would not know about it at all.

There are just varying intensities of the imagination. If one were to imagine thing x vividly enough, then the imagination of thing x would become indistinguishable from the reality of thing x. The understanding of one's own physical constructs is the only thing in one's mind which stops thing x from being imagined so vividly that it becomes indistinguishable from reality. For example, if I were to imagine, vividly enough, that I had lifted a rock with my mind, it would happen in my own subjective reality. Whether or not it would happen in other peoples realities, I do not know. However, this is the same as always, because the only thing that anyone knows is the contents of their own minds, so they can never be sure of anything that anybody else is thinking.
Your comment really hints at the philosophy of idealism, which I agree with. I agree with the philosophy of idealism because words which mean anything other than some kind of experience, are impossible to interpret, and therefore, mean absolutely nothing. This gives the form Anything other than some kind of experience=absolutely nothing. All of this is self evident, but for some reason, some people seem to get confused about it anyway, so I decided to throw some words around in order to change that.

This is wrong, of course, because clocks are all calibrated against some standard. An uncalibrated clock is useless. The calibration process means that clocks are anything but arbitrary.

That's all true, but different people may have different perceptions of time. For some, it may seem faster, and for others it may seem slower. I think that is what the writer was getting at when they said that the tick toc of a clock was arbitrary.

No. Your present experience of sunlight is happening right now.

That's true also, but I think what the writer was getting at is that one can have an experience at point a on their timeline, and then later have exactly the same experience at point b on their timeline, and hence have their past be identical to their present. This doesn't happen for similar yet unidenticle experiences though.

This is wrong, of course, because clocks are all calibrated against some standard. An uncalibrated clock is useless. The calibration process means that clocks are anything but arbitrary.
calibrated to what? It is just another arbitrary measurement . The universe does not deal with human symbolic measurements, we do. There is no tock before there is a tick.
That sentence doesn't actually mean anything.
Time is not relative to speed (duration)?

Speed
The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval; the instantaneous speed is the limit of the average speed as the duration of the time interval approaches zero. Speed has the dimensions of distance divided by time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed
No. Your present experience of sunlight is happening right now.
That is what I said. But the sunlight was emitted 8 minutes in the past before it enters our present.
Every present sensory experience was actually generated in the past, except perhaps for touch.

A Matter of Time
Part of the Einstein exhibition.
Time seems to follow a universal, ticktock rhythm. But it doesn't. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/time/a-matter-of-time#

Last edited:
calibrated to what?
To other clocks.
It is just another arbitrary measurement .
No. Clocks are calibrated to one another, so not arbitrary. We human beings share time and calendars. It's part of how we organise our lives.
The universe does not deal with human symbolic measurements, we do.
Your claim was that the "tick of a clock" is arbitrary. It isn't. Each tick is traditionally 1 second, on the clocks we use regularly.

Your next argument will be that the second is arbitrary, and you're sort of right about that, in the sense that the second is defined by counting a certain number of oscillations in a particular kind of atom. But our freedom to define the unit of measurement that way doesn't make time itself arbitary. For example, if somebody wanted to define a new unit of time using a different kind of atom, they would still need to calibrate that new unit against the caesium standard, otherwise it would be impossible to compare time intervals.
Time is not relative to speed (duration)?
That doesn't mean anything. Time and speed have different units. They can't be directly compared. It's meaningless to say that 1 hour equals 10 metres per second, or anything like that. Speed is not "duration". And your use of the word "relative" in that sentence doesn't seem to mean anything.
That is what I said. But the sunlight was emitted 8 minutes in the past before it enters our present.
Everything present sensory experience was actually generated in the past, except perhaps for touch.
Okay. It's not worth quibbling over.

To other clocks.
And that means something?
No. Clocks are calibrated to one another, so not arbitrary. We human beings share time and calendars. It's part of how we organise our lives.
Yes, but the universe doesn't
Your claim was that the "tick of a clock" is arbitrary. It isn't. Each tick is traditionally 1 second, on the clocks we use regularly.
All of it is arbitrary for human convenience. It is meaningless in terms of universal function.
Your next argument will be that the second is arbitrary, and you're sort of right about that, in the sense that the second is defined by counting a certain number of oscillations in a particular kind of atom.
Thank you.
But our freedom to define the unit of measurement that way doesn't make time itself arbitrary.
And I didn't say that that time itself is arbitrary.
For example, if somebody wanted to define a new unit of time using a different kind of atom, they would still need to calibrate that new unit against the caesium standard, otherwise it would be impossible to compare time intervals.
Yes, all for human convenience. It is meaningless in terms of universal functions. You reject the concept of a mathematical universe but propose that Time is a universal dimension, whereas it is only an emergent measurement of duration.
That doesn't mean anything. Time and speed have different units. They can't be directly compared. It's meaningless to say that 1 hour equals 10 metres per second, or anything like that. Speed is not "duration".
Again I didn't say that. I said that time is relative to speed.
And your use of the word "relative" in that sentence doesn't seem to mean anything.
Okay. It's not worth quibbling over.
Right, because it is true.

Don't try to be cute. Length and time are two different things. When you mean duration, say duration.
Hold on. You made the comparison with measuring the length of a 2 x 4. Don't quibble about that now.

And I did say "duration"

Hold on. You made the comparison with measuring the length of a 2 x 4. Don't quibble about that now.
And I did say "duration"
As I said, don't try to be cute. In message #41 you were talking about the "length of time ". Length and time are different things.

As I said, don't try to be cute. In message #41 you were talking about the "length of time ". Length and time are different things.
No they are not . If time is a measurement of duration then durations have lengths of time (intervals).
Nothing to do with spatial measurement. It's a temporal measurement.

And as far as spatial speed relating to temporal time:
The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval; the instantaneous speed is the limit of the average speed as the duration of the time interval approaches zero. Speed has the dimensions of distance divided by time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed

As I said, don't try to be cute. In message #41 you were talking about the "length of time ". Length and time are different things.
...................and welcome to that very special hell of trying to tie down Write4U to consistent use of terminology.

...................and welcome to that very special hell of trying to tie down Write4U to consistent use of terminology.

Duration
Duration is how long something lasts, from beginning to end. ... The noun duration has come to mean the length of time one thing takes to be completed. The duration of something might be known or not — in past times, the unknown length of time the current war would last was called "the duration.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/duration

Perhaps you may want to expand your knowledge of terminology.....

If time is a measurement of duration then durations have lengths of time (intervals).
Would you talk about the width of time or the height of time?
The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval; the instantaneous speed is the limit of the average speed as the duration of the time interval approaches zero. Speed has the dimensions of distance divided by time.
Notice that your own quote does NOT refer to "length of time". It clearly distinguishes distance (length, width, height) from duration (time).
Duration is how long something lasts, from beginning to end. ... The noun duration has come to mean the length of time one thing takes to be completed.
That's a colloquilal usage. It's no more appropriate in a scientific discussion than the colloquial usage of "theory" meaning "wild guess".

...................and welcome to that very special hell of trying to tie down Write4U to consistent use of terminology.
He may be channeling river.

Would you talk about the width of time or the height of time?
No I am talking about a chronology of time
Notice that your own quote does NOT refer to "length of time". It clearly distinguishes distance (length, width, height) from duration (time).
AFAIK, durations are always of a certain length.
That's a colloquilal usage. It's no more appropriate in a scientific discussion than the colloquial usage of "theory" meaning "wild guess".
Are you confused by my language?
The subject of the topic is Imagination. Use it!

No I am talking about a chronology of time
That doesn't answer the question. Does width of time or height of time make sense to you?
AFAIK, durations are always of a certain length.
Durations are of a certain magnitude. The magnitude of a time interval is not expressed in width or height.
Are you confused by my language?
I think YOU are confused by the language - or TRYING to confuse the language.
The subject of the topic is Imagination.
The topic is imagination as it relates to reality.

That doesn't answer the question. Does width of time or height of time make sense to you?
Did anyone but you mention width or height of time in this post?

But if you wish to pursue this, lets first look at applicable definitions of the term "length"

length
noun
1. 1.
the measurement or extent of something from end to end; the greater of two or the greatest of three dimensions of a body.
"it can reach over two feet in length"

Similar:
extent, extent lengthwise; distance, distance lengthwise; linear measure, span, reach, area, expanse, stretch, range.
2. 2.
the amount of time occupied by something.
"delivery must be within a reasonable length of time"

Similar: period, duration, stretch, term, span

So tell me where it says that "length" is exclusively associated with measurement of spatial dimension and not with the measurement of a temporal duration?
The topic is imagination as it relates to reality.
OK then, get real!

You're too deep in the physics box my friend. It helps to peek over the edge once in awhile.

Durations are of a certain magnitude. The magnitude of a time interval is not expressed in width or height.
IMO, that is the wrong application of the term "magnitude".

Again, let's consult the dictionary;

mag·ni·tude
noun
1. 1.
the great size or extent of something.
"they may feel discouraged at the magnitude of the task before them"

Similar: immensity, vastness, hugeness, enormity, enormousness, expanse, size, extent, greatness,
largeness, bigness

Opposite: smallness
2. 2.
size.
"electorates of less than average magnitude"

Similar: size, extent, measure, proportions, dimensions, breadth, volume, weight, quantity, mass, bulk,
amplitude, capacity, strength, degree, gauge, measurement, extension
So, do you still want to use the term "magnitude" rather than "length" in relation to the measurement of duration ?