0
   

beliefs

 
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:17 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
2 Cents It might be pointed out that at least "scientific" beliefs can be politely refuted or argued.

There is no argueing with a religious belief. It can be anything I care to imagine. Facts and observations have nothing whatever to to with it.

I have noted that some Confused "Big Bangers" and Confused "ID"ers can come awfully close to being "religious" in their acceptance and interpretations of "facts". (whatever they are) Question

Idea Naturally I am willing to concede that a fact is whatever I imagine to be true Confused


Try arguing against scientific concepts like mental illness, infinite number, survival of the fittest, neurobiology. You will get nowhere immediately and be worse off later.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 07:24 pm
Sorry John,

I would be prepared to argue any one of those any time that I have time!

Describe "Time" Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 06:05 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
Sorry John,

I would be prepared to argue any one of those any time that I have time!

Describe "Time" Very Happy Very Happy


Time.. another myth. As if there is universal clock that ticks out a place for all events.
Time is a word that is employed colloquially to facilitate the common affairs of humankind. Its reification by science as a dimension betrays the social and linguistic roots of science.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 07:04 pm
Dear John,

You may trust me that time is a real happenstance. Before I start to lecture ya wanna try again Question Question
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 12:15 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Dear John,

You may trust me that time is a real happenstance. Before I start to lecture ya wanna try again Question Question


Time. Read the book. Been there.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 07:01 pm
Sorry again, John, Crying or Very sad

Aparently you have not or you would not have said--

"Time, another myth,as if there was a universal clock that ticks out a place for all events."


I gleefully admit that some peoples idea of what constitutes time may border on the mythical but unfortunetly time does constitute a factor in the evolution of a universe.

Describing it is the trick Exclamation

If you want to go into that more deeply we ought to get another thread,
probably in Science and Mechanics.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 02:01 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Sorry again, John, Crying or Very sad

Aparently you have not or you would not have said--

"Time, another myth,as if there was a universal clock that ticks out a place for all events."


I gleefully admit that some peoples idea of what constitutes time may border on the mythical but unfortunetly time does constitute a factor in the evolution of a universe.

Describing it is the trick Exclamation

If you want to go into that more deeply we ought to get another thread,
probably in Science and Mechanics.


The only way to look at Time is philosophically- HERE. It should be here, not in science and maths. Science and maths simply take it for granted and work from there.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 05:28 pm
John,

I prefer the other way. First I would prefer for us to observe the universe (or Cosmos, a preferable term, IMO) and see if we can arrive at a description of "time" that agrees with our perceptions.

I BELIEVE Very Happy our perceptions have a high degree of accuracy within their limits. Not perfect Exclamation Exclamation FrankAPisa has argued this rather convincingly in the past. I can sum up those arguements quickly if you wish.

Exclamation So first--- Can we agree that our perceptions may be accurate to a high degree of probability:?:

If you agree with that statement then we can start on our perceptions of "time". If you do not agree then we can argue the validity of our perceptions. Best, M
0 Replies
 
AngeliqueEast
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 11:41 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
John,

I prefer the other way. First I would prefer for us to observe the universe (or Cosmos, a preferable term, IMO) and see if we can arrive at a description of "time" that agrees with our perceptions.

I BELIEVE Very Happy our perceptions have a high degree of accuracy within their limits. Not perfect Exclamation Exclamation FrankAPisa has argued this rather convincingly in the past. I can sum up those arguements quickly if you wish.

Exclamation So first--- Can we agree that our perceptions may be accurate to a high degree of probability:?:

If you agree with that statement then we can start on our perceptions of "time". If you do not agree then we can argue the validity of our perceptions. Best, M


I agree BM
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:58 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
John,

I prefer the other way. First I would prefer for us to observe the universe (or Cosmos, a preferable term, IMO) and see if we can arrive at a description of "time" that agrees with our perceptions.

I BELIEVE Very Happy our perceptions have a high degree of accuracy within their limits. Not perfect Exclamation Exclamation FrankAPisa has argued this rather convincingly in the past. I can sum up those arguements quickly if you wish.

Exclamation So first--- Can we agree that our perceptions may be accurate to a high degree of probability:?:

If you agree with that statement then we can start on our perceptions of "time". If you do not agree then we can argue the validity of our perceptions. Best, M


If our perceptions are accurate to a high degree of probability, I must be able to state what it is that they are accurate of. Unless I can name and describe what it is that I am measuring I cannot say 'perceptions are accurate to a high degree of probability'. And if I do name what perceptions are accurate of, then the object must be fully known and described. If there is a difference between that object and the object of perception (whatever that is - there are further problems here) it makes no difference, for the object is pinpointed or referenced with or without accuracy. Accuracy of perception is simply a measure of how much we can do with perception, and that is of no interest to us here.

The material world presents no evidence of time, and neither does memory. I also don't have a universal standard or method of arranging events as 'before' and 'after', and without that, it is difficult to see what else the concept 'time' can help us with.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 03:01 pm
I've enjoyed reading through these posts. Can't say that I understand all of what's been said here, but the thing about 'time' really made me sit up and listen.

Fact is, I've thought about the concept of time a lot.
To me, it's something that's been invented to make our lives fit into a rhythm in order that we might better make use of our time.
We are told when to go to school, when to go to work, when to retire.
We go to work at a certain time and come home at a certain time.
No matter what your politics, its all part of keeping going. Like small hurdles to get over - I'll be home by six, thank god its the end of the week, looking forward to my holiday, that sort of thing.

An insect lives in a different reality to us. Its life is more of an experience, than a perceived duration of time. Compared to the life of the planet Earth, I am less, in its time, than the insect is, in my time. In fact, I am no time at all.
If I think of my life as one over all experience, a moment in time.. rather than of a certain amount of years, time ceases to exist.
This scares the hell out of me because I don't really understand it.

I realise that this sounds a little bit like stoner talk, but believe me I have great respect for people who can get their heads around (to any degree) what I instinctively feel I'm not yet 'evolved' enough to understand about time and space.
Its frustrating.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 06:52 pm
John,

You can use our perceptions of "entrophy", "causuality", "relativity", "distance" as indicaters that a thing called "time" may exist.

I elaborate to wit--

Relativly hot things become cool. (entrophy) A person must be born before it dies. (Causuality+entrophy) A beam of light (OK electromagnetic radiation Smile ) will travel a distance wilst the person lives.
A distance may be determined through angular (geometric) calculations or measurements.

If our perceptions were not reasonably accurate then we probably wouldn't be here.

If our perceptions of EMR, for instance, were not accurate we would die of heat exposure (sunburn or freezing) We could not survive those extremes therefore our perception must be accurate enough to ensure our survival.

If our perceptions of distance were not accurate then you would be seriously disadvantaged in eating, catching game, and avoiding danger.

If our perceptions of entrophy were inaccurate then we would have never have sought a comfortable (benign) place to live or sleep.

If our perceptions of causuality were inaccurate we would attempt to pick fruit in the spring, eat dates before a date palm grew and so on.

Basically I aver that since we exist then our perceptions also have a high degree of probability (or accuracy). The converse would be be that any self replicating organism that is not suited for its environment will not replicate. This seems to hold true for all "self replicating" (living) organisms.

Since an interval exists between hot-cold, begin-end, start-stop,-live-die, then I think it reasonable to name this interval.

For convenience we call it "time". For more precision we can call it space-time.

So my belief is that there is something that can be called "time". It probably exists, although what is a common perception of time as a universal clock probably does not exist.

So can you agree that there is probably something called "time" that does exist in some form or another Question
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 06:58 pm
Endymion,

Stay with us. Time is an interesting concept. Just wait until we get into the various "Speeds of Time".

I think that we are going to get into what physical things effect the speed of time as we define (percieve) it.

It's bed Time :wink: g'night
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 04:18 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
John,

You can use our perceptions of "entrophy", "causuality", "relativity", "distance" as indicaters that a thing called "time" may exist.

I elaborate to wit--

Relativly hot things become cool. (entrophy) A person must be born before it dies. (Causuality+entrophy) A beam of light (OK electromagnetic radiation Smile ) will travel a distance wilst the person lives.
A distance may be determined through angular (geometric) calculations or measurements.

If our perceptions were not reasonably accurate then we probably wouldn't be here.

If our perceptions of EMR, for instance, were not accurate we would die of heat exposure (sunburn or freezing) We could not survive those extremes therefore our perception must be accurate enough to ensure our survival.

If our perceptions of distance were not accurate then you would be seriously disadvantaged in eating, catching game, and avoiding danger.

If our perceptions of entrophy were inaccurate then we would have never have sought a comfortable (benign) place to live or sleep.

If our perceptions of causuality were inaccurate we would attempt to pick fruit in the spring, eat dates before a date palm grew and so on.

Basically I aver that since we exist then our perceptions also have a high degree of probability (or accuracy). The converse would be be that any self replicating organism that is not suited for its environment will not replicate. This seems to hold true for all "self replicating" (living) organisms.

Since an interval exists between hot-cold, begin-end, start-stop,-live-die, then I think it reasonable to name this interval.

For convenience we call it "time". For more precision we can call it space-time.

So my belief is that there is something that can be called "time". It probably exists, although what is a common perception of time as a universal clock probably does not exist.

So can you agree that there is probably something called "time" that does exist in some form or another Question


Hot things become cool, but we need a third thing to tell us whether the hot or cool thing comes first.
A beam of light will travel a certain distance, but the start and end points are determined by a third point.
If our perceptions are accurate 'of' a material world, then at some point we must have become separate from the material world. But this is not possible.
Entropy sets a clock upon the whole universe, it describes a universal clock. But we still need a third thing to tell us which is the start and which is the end of the universe.

Because start and finish, beginning and end, before and after, cannot be absolutely established, the concept or idea of 'interval' also cannot be established. So now I must ask why I need to map out events on a time-line, if a time-line cannot be absolutely established.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 06:11 pm
John,

I dunno why you need a time line, or think that you can survive without one.

But in order to understand our cosmos I think it necessary to have some concept of the factors I mentioned. Confused

My main interest is in that the speed of "time" (I realize that you have not conceded that time may exist) seems to vary a good bit depending upon the observers physical location. Exactly what this means I haven't figured out--yet :wink:

If you can describe a universe without resorting to using the terms, time, before,after or any other term that would imply a sequential ordering of some sort then I'd love to hear you.

I believe Smile that a universe without time is not in accordance with observations.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 06:17 pm
Isn't an uncertain belief to some degree actually a belief?
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 06:41 pm
Sturgis,

I'd certainly say so, but I am not too sure of it :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 05:41 am
Quote:
I believe that a universe without time is not in accordance with observations.


I believe that the sense of time is a thing of the observer, not the observation. All timelines are fictive. They are frames in wich we can understand transitions and changes.

The "speed of time" is zero. That is why everything happens at once. Objects move, time doesn't. Imagine if the road moved along with the car... that wouldn't work very well.

Time is but the dualistic counterpart of space. They are nothing without eachother. Furthermore, matter decides how the currents of time will flow. It is all relative, as the story goes. Time itself has no individual existence, it is a product of space and matter. I have an example.

Imagine that you're standing on a mountaintop, gazing out on a great landscape. You see other mountains close to you and still other peaks further away. From your vantage point these mountains form the outline of, say, a sleeping lady. This sleeping lady is much like time, in that it isn't really there. It is just a concept applied to the observation by the observer in order to clarify and defragment the experience. In reality it is merely a mirage formed by matter and space, by the mountainpeaks and the distance between them.

Now, for a more related question. Would you categorize my ramblings as belief or knowledge?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 10:50 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
I believe that a universe without time is not in accordance with observations.


I believe that the sense of time is a thing of the observer, not the observation. All timelines are fictive. They are frames in wich we can understand transitions and changes.

The "speed of time" is zero. That is why everything happens at once. Objects move, time doesn't. Imagine if the road moved along with the car... that wouldn't work very well.

Time is but the dualistic counterpart of space. They are nothing without eachother. Furthermore, matter decides how the currents of time will flow. It is all relative, as the story goes. Time itself has no individual existence, it is a product of space and matter. I have an example.

Imagine that you're standing on a mountaintop, gazing out on a great landscape. You see other mountains close to you and still other peaks further away. From your vantage point these mountains form the outline of, say, a sleeping lady. This sleeping lady is much like time, in that it isn't really there. It is just a concept applied to the observation by the observer in order to clarify and defragment the experience. In reality it is merely a mirage formed by matter and space, by the mountainpeaks and the distance between them.

Now, for a more related question. Would you categorize my ramblings as belief or knowledge?


Belief is the support of, or action upon, one or more unproven propositions or statements from two or more unproven alternatives. If statements are subsequently proven, then they are no longer statements of belief. Knowledge is the presentation of, but not the action upon, proven and/or unproven propositions.
Both knowledge and belief are in the public domain of language, for which the term 'report' adequately describes the form in which these statements are publicly presented. In order for statements to be considered either as beliefs or as knowledge, it is necessary that the paradigm within which statements are presented is agreed upon by supporting and opposing parties.
(c)
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 07:24 pm
John,

I suspect that is what we are trying to determine Exclamation

Is "time" Knowledge or Belief or Fact Question

The thing that I find most indicative that "time" may be a real phenomen is in the behavior of "gamma rays" or "cosmic waves" and their reported behavior in a portion of space (or space-time) influenced by mass. Apparently it's not all in our heads Exclamation

Note to cyracuz,

There is a web page devoted to the "Harvard Tower Experiment" which seems to show that particles accellerate with gravity. ie. "blue shift"

There were some experiments performed in the Empire State Building which seemed to show that time itself (or the speed of a cesium clock) varied with the acelerations due to gravity. Paul Davies notes them in one of his books, amongst many others.

So is our sense of time (not worrying about dividing some planets rotational period into little chunks) actually based on the wave length of light (which changes due to the relative positions of masses Question

You see Special Relativity, as far as I can determine, regards the speed of light as "c", and fixed throughout the universe. But I have noticed that if "c" is fixed (by fiat, if you please) then the speed of time must vary Exclamation
I assume then that if "time" even stands still or had a beginning then something that we call "time" must exist.

I have also noticed that if the speed of time is fixed then "c" varies all over the place. Confused Confused



This has certain philosophical ramifications for both "Big Bangers" who believe that "time" began, and "Creationists" who believe that there was a time when time wasn't :wink: . Evolutionist's often need a bit more of it :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

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. » beliefs
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 02:09:43