5
   

does space and time have substance ?

 
 
north
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 11:32 pm
can time change movement in and of its self of any object?

and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 9,670 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 11:47 pm
@north,
north;151671 wrote:
can time change movement in and of its self of any object?


I don't think time has any effect in and of itself. Time is really just a measurement of change. Change is the real effect. Or time may be the effect of change.

north;151671 wrote:
and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions


Without plasma or matter ,it seems space would be void.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:05 am
@wayne,
wayne;151676 wrote:
I don't think time has any effect in and of itself. Time is really just a measurement of change. Change is the real effect. Or time may be the effect of change.


or precisely , the consequence of movement(s) of things and their interactions



Quote:
Without plasma or matter ,it seems space would be void.


exactly
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:14 am
@north,
north;151681 wrote:
or precisely , the consequence of movement(s) of things and their interactions





exactly



I'm not sure if time is really a consequence, if thats what you mean.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:18 am
@wayne,
wayne;151684 wrote:
I'm not sure if time is really a consequence, if thats what you mean.


okay

imagine time without any type of movement what-so-ever

now is that possible ?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:23 am
@north,
north;151686 wrote:
okay

imagine time without any type of movement what-so-ever

now is that possible ?


There would then be no need for the measurement,time, but I'm havin trouble seeing it as a consequence. I would think that a consequence would need to be some sort of effect. I think change is more a consequence of movement.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:36 am
@wayne,
wayne;151687 wrote:
There would then be no need for the measurement,time, but I'm havin trouble seeing it as a consequence. I would think that a consequence would need to be some sort of effect. I think change is more a consequence of movement.


change is a consequence of movement but so is time

time is just a MEASUREMENT of this change
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:47 am
@north,
north;151689 wrote:
change is a consequence of movement but so is time

time is just a MEASUREMENT of this change


I must agree, then ,that time as a measurement is a consequence of movement. But only because we exist.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:55 am
@wayne,
wayne;151692 wrote:
I must agree, then ,that time as a measurement is a consequence of movement.


good you understand the reasoning

Quote:
But only because we exist.


and before we existed then what ?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:02 am
@north,
north;151696 wrote:
good you understand the reasoning



and before we existed then what ?


I am assuming change occured before we existed ,but with no one to measure it's rate, I don't think time really exists without us.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:09 am
@wayne,
wayne;151700 wrote:
I am assuming change occured before we existed


of course

Quote:
but with no one to measure it's rate, I don't think time really exists without us.


oh the rate of change always existed

its just that to the objects themselves , the mesaurement of the rate of change didn't matter as to why the change took place in the first place
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:13 am
@north,
north;151702 wrote:
of course



oh the rate of change always existed

its just that to the objects themselves , the mesaurement of the rate of change didn't matter as to why the change took place in the first place


I'd say that's pretty much the truth of it. I guess that's why change is said to be the only constant.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:23 am
@wayne,
wayne;151705 wrote:
I'd say that's pretty much the truth of it. I guess that's why change is said to be the only constant.


actually I perfer movement
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:35 am
@north,
north;151709 wrote:
actually I perfer movement


Can the half life of an isotope be said to involve movement?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 09:59 pm
@wayne,
wayne;151711 wrote:
Can the half life of an isotope be said to involve movement?


yes

but to ask this , means that you don't understand movement
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 10:17 pm
@north,
north;151671 wrote:
can time change movement in and of its self of any object?

and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions
The entire transition from Newtonian physics and classical mechanics to general relativity and quantum mechanics hinges on the realization that space and time are not independent realities.
My only additional suggestion is to consider the notion that reality is composed of events not matter; and that space and time are merely aspects of the relationships between events.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 10:35 pm
@prothero,
prothero;155124 wrote:
The entire transition from Newtonian physics and classical mechanics to general relativity and quantum mechanics hinges on the realization that space and time are not independent realities.


because of the reality of energy and matter and the consequent movement of the interactions between things



Quote:
My only additional suggestion is to consider the notion that reality is composed of events not matter;


matter is the essence of the events in the first place

take away matter , on what physical platform then does reality take place ?


Quote:
and that space and time are merely aspects of the relationships between events.


yes

because of the pressence of energy and matter
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 12:18 am
@north,
north;155126 wrote:
matter is the essence of the events in the first place
take away matter , on what physical platform then does reality take place ?
You may be right and I may be wrong but the value of philosophy is expanding your realm of ideas.
Do you see how profound a metaphysical assumption or philosophical specualtion your insistence on matter as the fundamental reality is?
The suggestion is that matter and energy (the physical platform) is not the basis of fundamental reality.
That fundamental reality is process becoming, change , flux, and that matter is merely an aspect of process.
It takes some getting used to, I admit because materialism and being have dominated western thought for centuries.
If one can entertain the notion of process as primary reality, it is much easier to fuse the mental and the material into a spiritual monism.-
Overcome materialism and Cartesian dualism in one blow.
Understanding
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:33 am
@prothero,
My take on the original question is that time is a tool of measurement created by man... like looking at the position of the sun. Past and future only exist in our minds. The only time that actually exists is right now. Some events happened already, and there are more events yet to happen. The "past" is merely memories or evidence of events that have already happened. "Future" is merely a projection we have in our minds that we create from the information we have... known as the "past."

Motion is change. Pebbles in a river don't get smoothe because of some magical force called "time," it is the motion of the stone with the other stones. Our understanding of how it works lets us see the process, see the events that caused the result... they are smoothe.

I want to keep going but don't want to lose ppl by having a LONG post Very Happy
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:04 pm
@Understanding,
Understanding;155172 wrote:
My take on the original question is that time is a tool of measurement created by man... like looking at the position of the sun. Past and future only exist in our minds. The only time that actually exists is right now. Some events happened already, and there are more events yet to happen. The "past" is merely memories or evidence of events that have already happened. "Future" is merely a projection we have in our minds that we create from the information we have... known as the "past."

Motion is change. Pebbles in a river don't get smoothe because of some magical force called "time," it is the motion of the stone with the other stones. Our understanding of how it works lets us see the process, see the events that caused the result... they are smoothe.

I want to keep going but don't want to lose ppl by having a LONG post Very Happy


piece by piece:D
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » does space and time have substance ?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/22/2020 at 11:04:19