... and in a sense, it is not like the energy concept ... I can measure the potential energy of a rock on a mountain top ... and I can measure it again ... and then again ... can I do the same with time?
... as well, energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted into energy - so if energy is not a substance, does that imply that matter is not a substance? ... so if neither energy nor matter are substances, then what is?
... change? ... but what is change? ... heck - what allows change to even occur in the first place?
... but the regularity of what? ... change? ... but does the rate of change of, say, a cycling cesium atom have anything at all to do with, say, the change in position of the earth as it circles the sun? ... as there is no causal link between these two processes of change, that does not seem like it could possibly be the case ... so then when we use the regularity of change of a cesium atom in order to increase the accuracy of our measurement and prediction of the change in the position of the earth as it circles the sun, we must be measuring something that is shared by both but independent of either ... and what is this entity that is shared by all changes but independent of any individual change - is it time?
Of course you can, how do you think we know clocks are altered by gravity/acceleration?
As for your last question, does the universe lack substance, that is what some think (including me) who suggest everything is various concentrations of oscillation and the fields they produce. Yet it doesn't make sense that existence is foundation-less, so some of us are intrigued by the idea of substance or neutral monism. Here's a link to some articles on that in case you are unfamiliar with it: Advanced Search
My point was that what we really counting, in the final analysis, is how many times something (anything!) will cycle before (on a personal level) our body falls apart, or (on a universal level) before all the organization in the universe has become disordered. Time is the measure of the rate of the universe's march toward disorder.
... can you? ... I can measure the potential energy of that rock ... and then measure it again ... and again ... and it's always the same potential energy ... but if I measure five seconds ... and then measure five seconds again ... and again ... is it the same five seconds?
... so if neutral monism denies the mental and the physical, does that mean it's a process metaphysics of sorts?
maybe I didn't ask the question clearly enough ... why should the regularity of something seemingly unrelated (like the oscillation of a cesium atom) have anything to do with the earth spinning around the sun (or even my body falling apart)...if time is just a measurement and there is nothing else to link the two, then there should be no absolutely no correlation between cesium oscillations and earth orbits, should there?
Would you claim that velocity can't be a measurement because we perform it differently than we weigh things?
Neutral monism doesn't DENY mental and physical, it simply says there is something more basic that is the essence of both (it denies that all existence is only one or the other). The idea is there is some sort of ground state substance that both consciousness and physicalness is made of and determined by.
Everything can't be understood by just throwing one's mind at the subject; sometimes we must stop and very, very carefully think about things.
... and here I thought I was!
...take a look into the mathematics of stochastic processes ... two stochastic processes that are completely uncorrelated share nothing, whereas two stochastic processes that are correlated must have something in common ... for this "regularity" that you speak of to work - for the "regularity" of one process to be used reliably as a measure of another process - the processes must be correlated
otherwise, you would be able to count the number of oscillations of a cesium atom during an Earth orbit and come up with ten bazillion, and then count the oscillations of the same cesium atom during a second Earth orbit and come up with two
...so what do the oscillations of a cesium atom have in common with the orbits of the Earth for you to be able to use one to measure the other? ... the substrate of time ... your "regularity" is just shorthand for "regularity in time" (just like you can have "regularity in space") ... and it is "regularity in time" that is used to accurately measure time (just like "regularity in space" is used to accurately measure space) ... and just like the substrate of space, the substrate of time has a geometry that is influenced by gravity ... oscillations do not arbitrarily speed up or slow down under the influence of gravity - the geometry of time itself is affected by such influences ...
Forgive me for this short post.When we thing of TOE this equation will compress or , for lack of a better word, all other fundamental constants, into just one, mind boggling single beautiful equation
"But can a human mind ever reach this level of understanding"
If you think about it deeply that ONE EQUATION, this final equation of all reality will eliminate the need for a God
But I am much more comfortable with the concept of a loving personal God
President Roosevelt said so eloquently I think at the beginning of the second world war.
"You have nothing to fear but fear itself"
"Do not fear God lives"
??????? That makes no sense whatsoever.
. . . what difference does "correlation" make as long as you use the same standard next time you boil an egg?
I am not going to repeat the rather extensive explanation I laid out for you in my last post because it doesn't seem like you read it
... my point exactly ... if there is no correlation, the "regularity" in a oscillating cesium atom has, by definition, "no relation" to the "regularity" of the orbiting Earth ... this is the logical consequence of time-as-measure ... it is only when you take the position of time-as-substrate (or time-as-correlator, if you will) that the "regularity" in an oscillating cesium atom and the "regularity" in the orbiting Earth can be counted upon to be consistent with respect to each other ...
... it is the correlation that allows something to be used as a standard in the first place ... for example, an English yardstick and a Metric ruler measure lengths in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth not because the English yardstick and the Metric ruler are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in space" ... likewise, a cesium clock and some other frequency standard measure time in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth ... not because the cesium clock and the frequency standard are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in time" ...
... I read it - it just seems to me to be lacking ... under the guise of "regularity" you are hand-waving away the fact that there must be a correlational substrate that allows the regularity of one thing to be used in any sense to measure an otherwise unrelated thing ... in the case of English yardsticks and Metric rulers, the correlational substrate is space ... and in the case of oscillating atoms and orbiting planets, the correlational substrate is time ...
(despite the fact that no authority would agree with your unsupported views on timers)
... yep - that Einstein ... what a loser, eh? ... I mean, c'mon - a geometry of spacetime?! ... what could he have been thinking?! ... I guess I'll go back to playing in my sandbox like a good little moron and dream the dream of mystical correspondences between unrelated things ...
Ok, sorry for losing my patience.
But it is ironic you seem to think you are on the side of Einstein when I am the one reasoning from his point of view.
My objection to your logic is not about that, but rather you trying to insist we must be constrained by relationships (or lack of) which have no relevance to time. You've been insisting some sort of correspondence is required between a timer and the changing aspect of reality we decide to time. You've not given a single bit of logic to justify that assertion, but just keep asserting correspondence over and over.
The flaw is measure.
Once your remove any uncertain measure from an equation, = is all that remains.
= is natures One certainty or truth.
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of Einstein's equations, in which case it is possible to overlook his geometric-spacetime conceptualization that those equations are grounded in ...
is it fair to say that since I can use "regularities" to measure lengths, planes, and volumes, that "space" is merely a measurement? ... that there is no such thing as "space", only "regularities"?
... that it is not the fact that all things exist "in space" that provides the ground that allows us to, say, use a ruler to measure an object and obtain the same result every time; but rather "regularities" just are and are in no way "regularities in X"? ... and so how fundamental are these "regularities" - are "regularities" the "underlying oneness between all"? ...
Equality is a truly great thing to wish for, for me too!
Why should clocks slow down in an accelerating frame of reference? Because gravity or acceleration acts as a constricting force that causes the atoms that make up the space ship (and its clocks) to tighten up and move more slowly. The accelerating space ship will actually shrink (and so will the rulers on board so that the ship will still measure exactly the same).
Here is where you make it clear you are confused about time and measurement standards. You have categorized time with space when really time is in the category of the ruler. Can you see time? No, just a clock (the "ruler"). Can you see space. YES!!!! Space is not a ruler, time is a ruler. Two completely different species of things.
(and of course the idea of some sort of underlying "stuff" or ground state substance, as neural monism proposes, is again getting some interest)
One thing you are saying is right on, and that is there is a huge mystery of why any sort of regularity should exist at all.
two major or "foundational" ordering influences of creation: quantum oscillation and gravity.
... so, let me get this straight ... if I were to send a cesium clock off in space at 1G acceleration for a month and bring it back at 1G acceleration, the cesium clock that traveled at 1G acceleration when compared to a cesium clock that remained here on Earth will show ... no difference!!! ... why? ... because for that two month period both were exposed to a 1G acceleration - they were equally "tightened up" - equally "shrunk" ... yes?
... wait a minute ... I think you are privileging the sense of sight here ... not only do we sense time, both consciously and subconsciously (circadian rhythms, etc.), but also the way in which we sense space through sight is not by seeing space - but rather seeing things in space ... so, by your rationale, the fact that you can't see space means space is also just a ruler, yes? ...
if it weren't for disequilibrium, all the quantum oscillations and gravity in the universe would not have created a thing ...