0
   

The nature of time

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 02:09 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...but then again that is perhaps best left for philosophy of science...
Well put Fil. Sensations such as that of time are difficult to define
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 03:57 pm
@Fido,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:
Now ?...now some of you sleep on that if u can !
Quote:
Fil you seem to be emphasizing the subjective aspects of time. True the perception of its rate depends upon to brain size as I’ve speculated but the substantial nature of Einsteinian relativity—moving clock running slower, time-at-a-distance, etc very strongly endorses its objectivity
Relativity endorses objectivity... I think it much better supports the idea of a variable fluidity... We make sense of the movment of objects in space with time
Quote:
agreed
and space and time are two dynamic factors of reality... [/quote] I disagree neither are dynamic , in and of themselves however space is obvious , but space , in and of its self , does not interfere with the dynamics of things in space and time has no dynamics associated with it , in otherwords time alone cannot change any circumstance of any object
Quote:
Ultimately, you can only relate one to the other as time is space, and space is time... Of objects, to which science actually applies, physics tells us all matter is in the process of reformulation as something else, just as the heavy metals we have were made in the stars by fusion... And as we speak, all elements are becoming something other under the forces they encounter, and only remain what they are if no energy is applied to them... Everything is radio active with extreme half lives... It is upon half lives of elements that atomic clocks are built, and they act on a very reliable probability... Now; you tell me... Is the radio active decay measuring time, or is time measuring it, or both together...
time is measuring the decay
Quote:
You should consider that in asking for the nature of time you are talking about the time of nature, essentially, your own time and life beyond which nothing has meaning... Now; you can take one element of abstraction, that of number, and apply it to the moral form of time as life, but you are trying to abstract a quasi form with a physical form, that is- a form made to represent physical reality... This means you are abstracting an abstraction and you are confusing its meaning more than you are squeezing meaning out of it... Don't waste your time... It is all you have....
the nature of time is the measuring of the movement of any object or objects
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 04:45 pm
@north,
Wow I guess I’ve really started something. The Average Clod (me) wishes he cojld participate morse freely but is bound by an inferior brain. To accommodate folk like me,however, why don’t you paraphrase in short common words
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 05:05 pm
@dalehileman,
...if you started something would be fair to conclude that you intend to finish it ? Or do you thrive only by murky the water further ? Wink
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 05:15 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Wow I guess I’ve really started something. The Average Clod (me) wishes he cojld participate morse freely but is bound by an inferior brain. To accommodate folk like me,however, why don’t you paraphrase in short common words


time is the measurement of movement , of an object , in a four dimensional mathematical grid nothing more
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 06:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...if you started something would be fair to conclude that you intend to finish it ?
Fil do you wish me to
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 06:24 pm
@dalehileman,
I would gladly appreciate like probably you used to do in your youth days that you would place the love of philosophy in front of the love for your reputation and try to be more bold in providing (lets play with Fido here) a quasi answer...can you deliver ? Cool
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 07:23 pm
@north,
north wrote:

dalehileman wrote:
Wow I guess I’ve really started something. The Average Clod (me) wishes he cojld participate morse freely but is bound by an inferior brain. To accommodate folk like me,however, why don’t you paraphrase in short common words


time is the measurement of movement , of an object , in a four dimensional mathematical grid nothing more
There is a big reality out there, and to say: Nothing More usually means there is far more... Reality as we understand it is made up of matter, and of space and of time... The last two cannot even be considered as having being, but no being is understandable without space and time...And space and time are the reflection of each other... It is like the common measure of Light Years... You are talking of a bit of matter moving at light speed, and the distance it covers in space during a certain measure of time, all of which equals a certain distance in space...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2012 08:18 pm
@Fido,
dalehileman wrote:
Wow I guess I’ve really started something. The Average Clod (me) wishes he cojld participate morse freely but is bound by an inferior brain. To accommodate folk like me,however, why don’t you paraphrase in short common words
Quote:
time is the measurement of movement , of an object , in a four dimensional mathematical grid nothing more
Quote:
There is a big reality out there, and to say: Nothing More usually means there is far more... Reality as we understand it is made up of matter, and of space and of time...
and energy , time to the Universe is irrelevent
Quote:
The last two cannot even be considered as having being
space is space only time has no being
Quote:
but no being is understandable without space and time...
in what way is no being understandable without space and time ( time is a concept by the way )
Quote:
And space and time are the reflection of each other... It is like the common measure of Light Years... You are talking of a bit of matter moving at light speed, and the distance it covers in space during a certain measure of time, all of which equals a certain distance in space...
that does not make space and time a reflection of each other
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 04:59 am
@north,
You seam pretty certain on the existence of at least say a 3 dimensional space...but I would n´t be so intuitively sure about background North...just to give you an example in a 3 dimensional virtual reality the space in which you move is not really there, you have nothing but zeros and ones, after all a one dimensional string of programming...true, still is some sort of space, but quite different from the one you are talking about up there...now with all this I am not saying there is a programmer to reality, at least if referring to ultimate reality, reality is just whatever is the case to be true and possibly true and in that sense its information does not grow or diminishes, its there...
You are not just a Naive Realist North, you are totally naive in the way you assume most of your assertions...when it comes to metaphysics and similar stuff you simply don´t have a clue on what people are trying to talk about do you ?...as usual you react with an outburst of practical low to the ground realism...please understand that my criticism of realism is not like Fresco´s or JLNobody usually endorse, indeed I´m ultimately a realist myself, but not necessarily a simpleton realist !
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 07:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Dimensions are interesting. The interesting thing is how many dimensions we need to describe the universe. Used to be that the number of dimensions needed was the same as the number of dimensions perceived.
But is it not true that there can be more dimensions to reality than we are aware of? There are ten, according to some new theories, and we exist in all of them.
That raises the question of awareness.
If we were two dimensional in a 2d world with 2d awareness, we would only be aware of our surroundings in a flat circle around us. Anything crossing our field of awareness on the third dimensional axis would be perceived by us as suddenly appearing and disappearing as it passed through.

To us, perceiving a three dimensional universe, time is similar. The fourth dimension exists in straight angles to all the dimensions beneath. It is a fifth "direction", and everything always has movement in the 3d directions along an axis of the fourth, time.
That is how we perceive. We are perceiving from a fixed "location" on the 4d axis, and so reality always unfolds in what we know as the present.
But we have abstract knowledge of the time axis. If a comet passes earth, we will see it come and then disappear. But we know the trajectory it will take, how fast it will travel and that it is going to happen in the first place.
That means we approach the situation from the dimension above, the fifth dimension. From a 5d perspective, the comet isn't coming or going by. It is in all places simultaneously, and it would be perceived as a line through space, like a river, existing everywhere along it's path simultaneously.
To perceive that we would have to have an an "anchor" in the sixth dimension. Some direction of movement that would allow everything to unfold simultaneously in a progressive mind.
So we can't perceive 5 dimensional reality, but our minds operate in at least that many, maybe more.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 08:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...can you deliver ?
Not much beyond what I’ve already said
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 08:25 am
this is the nature of time according to the great philosopher mr. d bowie

Time - He's waiting in the wings
He speaks of senseless things
His script is you and me, boy

Time - He flexes like a whore
Falls wanking to the floor
His trick is you and me, boy
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 08:28 am
@djjd62,
He’s describing a sort of mysterious quality not easily put into words
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 08:37 am
I do have a fling for Occam´s Razor, when it comes to dimensions I prefer to reduce then to stretch them...not saying that there can´t be 10 dimensions but saying that probably they can be reduce or integrated in the 1 one...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 08:50 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Well put Fil
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 02:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You seam pretty certain on the existence of at least say a 3 dimensional space...but I would n´t be so intuitively sure about background North...just to give you an example in a 3 dimensional virtual reality the space in which you move is not really there, you have nothing but zeros and ones, after all a one dimensional string of programming...true, still is some sort of space, but quite different from the one you are talking about up there...now with all this I am not saying there is a programmer to reality, at least if referring to ultimate reality, reality is just whatever is the case to be true and possibly true and in that sense its information does not grow or diminishes, its there...
You are not just a Naive Realist North, you are totally naive in the way you assume most of your assertions...when it comes to metaphysics and similar stuff you simply don´t have a clue on what people are trying to talk about do you ?...as usual you react with an outburst of practical low to the ground realism...please understand that my criticism of realism is not like Fresco´s or JLNobody usually endorse, indeed I´m ultimately a realist myself, but not necessarily a simpleton realist !


the simple is the actually the truth

the complex , using computer virtual reality takes away from what is really happening , and that is due to mathematics , not the reality we live in

to try to compare reality with virtual reality is , not only miss guided but misleading

time is simply the movement of real objects in space , governed by the nature of the object , from the atom , to a galaxy

you Fil are on a complex journey which will , in the end , lead you back to the simplicity of the fundamental Nature of the Universe , which you just aren't aware of
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 02:47 pm
@north,
Again thank you fellas for your interest in my OP
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 02:50 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Again thank you fellas for your interest in my OP


your welcome
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2012 02:59 pm
@north,
North and some of you other fellas might have wondered why my replies haven’t been contributing much to the discussion, it’s because a2k doesn’t have a “Stop Following This Thread,” and so in the “My Posts” listing it will flag any thread to which I might have reason to reply

In a2k’s defense however, some of the forums using purchased software don’t have that provision either. But I really miss email notification
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The nature of time
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:59:49