A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

[The Voice of Time]

When you concern yourself about varying measurements regarding length, that is precisely why physicists use the invariant quantity called space-time,

I don't think you understand, I'm not arguing with any existing physical theory of the workings of time. I have never said I'm interested in the uniformity of time. Instead, I know time can never be uniform, regardless of spacetime, instead I argue about the dialectics of finding the most dependable measure process.

because that only differs between observers when causal relationships are unaffected between events.

This sentence makes no logical sense. Given observer "a" and "b", there will only be a difference in observation when causal relationships are unaffected between events? So what when causal relationships are affected? Then only the same thing happens? How is the change of causal relationships going to do anything else but change the observation in question?

Also, my statement is that causal relationships do vary, they do not remain the same, the "rhythm of individual objects" change depending on perspective, that is, if I change perspective, I also change the value, which would've been changed also in the eyes if there existed any authoritarian system to judge the values at end. Let's say the authoritarian system, calculating the values, sees a change go from perspective "a" to perspective "b", the system would see a change in the sum of a result taken from one and "converted" to the other, but the result would be displayed in a common intermediary form, call it a common currency if you want, but this currency would have two different results depending on perspective! Meaning the perspectives themselves have a value distortion of the time-value, and this is not new, what is new is that this distortion can be calculated to find out which measure-process would have always the least amount of distortion relative to other distortions (also this authoritarian system does not exist, it is fiction). The epistemological experiment I use in the original post also portrays a primitive form of relative time-keeping, clocks cannot be used because they have been given an authority they have no justification for, except of course the convenience of ordinary life and a some mathematical and physics uses unrelated to this situation here.

[Resha Caner]

I'm not of the opinion that the statement that time exists apart from the mind makes any sense, as then we couldn't know it.

By that logic all of existence is part of one large mind. Yet surely we can perceive things that are not a part of us.

As easy and short as I could make it, but you should read the whole thing. This just tells about it, the thing at the top proves it.

Are you familiar with measurement theory? It sounds to me as if that is all you are talking about - specifically, you seem to be talking about noise and some type of averaging to smooth out the noise (though I'm not quite sure of your method). As such, I don't see how this relates specifically to the nature of time or our perception of it.

[The Voice of Time]

If you speak of noise then of course it's not about time ^^ Time here is processing of your surroundings, we usually catch certain processes from the overall flow and call them "objects". We can watch these objects, compare them to each other, and get the result. Thus it's about time.

And no, I'm not very into measurement theory as such, so you'll have to aid me if there's anything in measurement theory I should find interesting.

Smoothing out the noise is an interesting comparison, but instead you could say I want to hear ALL of the noise instead of getting rid of it

We already smooth time, is my point, in an analogy, and I want to go back to the source!

[ForgedinHell]

If you speak of noise then of course it's not about time ^^ Time here is processing of your surroundings, we usually catch certain processes from the overall flow and call them "objects". We can watch these objects, compare them to each other, and get the result. Thus it's about time.

And no, I'm not very into measurement theory as such, so you'll have to aid me if there's anything in measurement theory I should find interesting.

Smoothing out the noise is an interesting comparison, but instead you could say I want to hear ALL of the noise instead of getting rid of it

We already smooth time, is my point, in an analogy, and I want to go back to the source!

You are mentally gone. There are universities all around that teach physics, and here you are engaged in thumb sucking and calling it science.

[Resha Caner]

And no, I'm not very into measurement theory as such, so you'll have to aid me if there's anything in measurement theory I should find interesting.

There are works on measurement theory that I like, but I'm afraid that might be like giving you a mere piece of the puzzle. Since time is the main subject here, it might be better for me to recommend something like The Philosophy of Time by Robin Le Poidevin - an excellent summary of the various views of time.

[The Voice of Time]

Badges saying you're smart doesn't make you smart ^^

History is full of random individuals stumbling upon great discoveries. My favourite is some mathematical proof of a geometrical problem made by a housewife called Marjorie Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Rice).

But then you also have cases like this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/germa ... 6368490157

And several others, in botany probably the majority of its history could be called serendipity, same with zoology. Chemistry in its early time was often done by people we of our time would've called amateurs (and before that called Alchemists instead), as they didn't possess our knowledge and just did as best as they could.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to find something great. Surely I have much less chance, but that's not an argument for not trying

[The Voice of Time]

And no, I'm not very into measurement theory as such, so you'll have to aid me if there's anything in measurement theory I should find interesting.

There are works on measurement theory that I like, but I'm afraid that might be like giving you a mere piece of the puzzle. Since time is the main subject here, it might be better for me to recommend something like The Philosophy of Time by Robin Le Poidevin - an excellent summary of the various views of time.

I'm very unlikely to read any specific book, but to search my world for the subject "philosophy of time" may not be bad choice.

[Grendel]

Why not come to a philosophy forum and explain to its membership how they are better off studying science?

Coming from the least scientific person on this forum.... Scientism isn't science as Popper pointed out.

Now in my time I have met the odd genuine scientist and they had several qualities you could learn from, they weren't dogmatic, they were open minded, they didn't think they knew it all and they had a whole load of interests outside science they view in a non-scientific way.

So, you, with your degree in philosophy, who no doubt claims to now be educated in "how to think," somehow concluded that no one should ever criticize the failings of philosophy on a philosophy forum, impliedly, because of some social reason of civility?

Science uses logic, you use logical fallacies, this particular one is a strawman. Unless you want to provide empirical evidence of me making any such claim in any post ever on this forum.

But, what if my position is true, which it is?

Dogmaticism, very unscientific, yet again,

Would I then be more civil, more mannered, more respected, by allowing people on a philosophy forum to continue living in ignorance?

I couldn't care less about civility, you brought it up, it's your hang up. But the fact you have the delusion your posts are somehow enlightening people is very revealing from psychological angle. I have read a few of your post on other topics and the idea Narcissistic Personality Disorder kept flying into my head.

[Resha Caner]

I'm very unlikely to read any specific book, but to search my world for the subject "philosophy of time" may not be bad choice.

I hope that doesn't mean you never read any books. I do understand a reluctance to read books recommended on a forum. One could end up with an eclectic mix of drivel for a reading list. However, if you have a serious interest in the topic of time, and if you wish anyone of stature to take you seriously, you'll need to educate yourself.

Reading the work of others risks becoming trapped in their paradigm; not reading the works of others risks ignorance. One must attempt to maintain a balance.

With respect to the topic of time, it is an interesting one to discuss.

[reasonvemotion]

VoT, I don't understand your reluctance to gain some formal education. There are very few instances, like the references you have supplied, who were not educated beyond a high school level.

[The Voice of Time]

It's mostly because of the list, and I already have lots of books lying around to be read sometime, many difficult to understand for me, and just another one is not what I need anytime soon.

This theory isn't a big one for me, I don't need any support from the academia. If it's a good enough idea it'll pick up anyways, if not, maybe it wasn't that good? (the least person ever however to be able to judge that is our hell-forged guy, he's just being a troll and a bad person) Somebody says that everything in the world has been thought before......

I make ideas all the time (this is not one of those I hold dearest), I would need a lot of education if I were to follow your logic in pursuing all of the them educationally!

RE, my reluctance is mainly an existential angst to be part of any system. It's simply how I am, or have come to be. I don't like to be subject to other people's judgement, or else I would have left most of my projects a long time ago because by all means I'm not educated enough to support most of them! But I've achieved a lot of philosophical satisfaction in this solitary pursuit, and a lot of, at least to me, insight, into realms of knowledge I never have found other places. My science of needs project for instance has been an obsession for me since ca. 13 years old and it has taken me to wildly different places in the realm of knowledge, and if you just knew how it felt like to achieve results that you yourself come to hold so dear, and see that those aren't found anywhere else in the world, and you look, you look and forever search to see if you can find somewhere in the world that there are things close to this pursuit you have, but you don't find it, any progress is usually made by serendipity in solitary pursuit and exploration of the world at large. If you just knew how satisfactory, addictive, it can become to philosophize after a while, you wouldn't ask me why...

[Mark Question]

physicists have already dealt with long ago, and have come up with far betters answers to, especially since their answers are supported by empirical evidence.

Read a book on physics, then you'll start to learn how to reason.

far betters answers are supported by empirical evidence? can you prove it?

[ForgedinHell]

physicists have already dealt with long ago, and have come up with far betters answers to, especially since their answers are supported by empirical evidence.

Read a book on physics, then you'll start to learn how to reason.

far betters answers are supported by empirical evidence? can you prove it?

Yes. Can you prove otherwise? No. Why? Because you have no empirical evidence to support your position.

[Mark Question]

Yes. Can you prove otherwise? No. Why? Because you have no empirical evidence to support your position.

you have empirical evidence to support empiricism? empiricism support empiricism?
creationism support creationism?

[Bernard]

Just like to mention that few people, beside those who have taken a fair interest in philosophy, adequately understand or recognise the difference between truths and facts. There are people who regard thinking solely as the ability to reason, as though one hemisphere of the brain exists only as a conspiracy theory. These people say DUH a lot.