beliefs

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 "Big Bangers" and "ID"ers can come awfully close to being "religious" in their acceptance and interpretations of "facts". (whatever they are)

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

Sorry John,

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

Describe "Time"

Dear John,

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

Sorry again, John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ) 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

I believe that a universe without time is not in accordance with observations.

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?