Does (abstract) time exist?

[Arising_uk]

virtue arising old chap.virtue is what i see.what sees the virtue in others is the virtue in ya self.it all virtue is nonlocal to the event and indinguishable from the mover of the event.which is relativity or its equivelent .nonlocality..virtue is nonlocal to the event as blags saw dipicted in the film with henery fonder.the 12angry men..it was blags nonlocal virtue that saw the virtue in henry fonders character.he saw it the exact same indistinguishable way as my nonlocal virtue saw it.there is only one nonlocal virtue.the virtue that is stationary to the event when measuring c the speed of light by an observer.its the relativity in the event.relativity is nonlocality.one consciousness is sourced by all brains.

So seeing no 'god' then, just others acting virtuously and a circular rationalisation of an already held metaphysical belief about consciousness cobbled together with some cod-physics.

[jackles]

the physics are correct arising.virtue is event awarness as conscience.which is consciousness which is stationary to c.

[Arising_uk]

the physics are correct arising.virtue is event awarness as conscience.which is consciousness which is stationary to c.

Virtue is the name given to the actions taken by self-conscious primates towards their fellows, the simplest explanation is that they can put themselves into anothers shoes and act as they wish to be acted upon. No need for all your metaphysics and especially no need for one based upon Physics.

[jackles]

ha .yyou cleverly avoid issues you cant explain or understand with your basic knowledged.you would make a great soliciter arising .ha.

[Philosophy Explorer]

ha .yyou cleverly avoid issues you cant explain or understand with your basic knowledged.you would make a great soliciter arising .ha.

Hey. Take it easy. I used to do soliciting myself LOL.

Anyways do you think that time really exists. You can measure it with a clock or calendar, but as I argued before, they only represent time and aren't (abstract) time itself. Let me ask the question this way. What do you think would be the best way to establish the existence of time? Maybe an atomic clock? But an atomic clock isn't perfect. Even if you had a perfect clock, would that be enough to establish time?

I've said enough. I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

[uwot]

Hey. Take it easy. I used to do soliciting myself LOL.

Were you ever arrested?

Even if you had a perfect clock, would that be enough to establish time?

All clocks, even atomic ones, count events. There is no way to measure time other than by comparing events. Time is a useful mathematical device, but there is no reason to believe it exists independently of events.

[jackles]

time exists independent of the event as consciousness.sot we can say the event exists in consciousness which gives time perspective.time therefor is an abstraction of consciousness to acomadate change in status of the event.

[uwot]

time exists independent of the event as consciousness.sot we can say the event exists in consciousness which gives time perspective.time therefor is an abstraction of consciousness to acomadate change in status of the event.

If I understand you, jackles, that's more or less what Kant said. But then I'm translating the barely coherent into the barely comprehensible.

[Ginkgo]

time exists independent of the event as consciousness.sot we can say the event exists in consciousness which gives time perspective.time therefor is an abstraction of consciousness to acomadate change in status of the event.

If I understand you, jackles, that's more or less what Kant said. But then I'm translating the barely coherent into the barely comprehensible.

Lol.In that case uwot you are doing a lot better than myself.

[jackles]

a moving thing abstacts time space out of the unmoving consciousness that the object is being indirectly moved by.so the moving things abstract time out of the unmoving thing.or equaly the unmoving thing abstracts time for or to accomadate the moving thing.so time dialates toward the unmoving thing.which is the consciousness of yhe observer.

[uwot]

a moving thing abstacts time space out of the unmoving consciousness that the object is being indirectly moved by.

Perhaps if you could give an example it might make more sense. Suppose we take a moving thing like the moon; how does your idea work in that case?

[jackles]

well the moon is a local to a system which has locality.locality has to move to be in existance as a locality.so its the change in location in relativity thats causing the time to exist in the nonlocality.the relativity between the earth and moon is the nonlocality that the time is being abstracted from.time is abstracted out of relativity.becausr in effect its the relativity that is moving the objects in the event.its why the observer joins the mover (relativity) when measuring c.the moved becomes at one as where with the mover on measuring c.

[uwot]

well the moon is a local to a system which has locality.

We're going to have to take this slowly. Sorry, jackles. Anyway; what is 'a local'?

[jackles]

i ment a locality within a locality.the moon is a physical locality in a system with other objects moving in relativity to one another.time is abstracted out of the relativity of the system.and you could think that relativity is nothing and thats what the time is abstacted from nothing.nonmoving nothing becomes time to the moving things.relativity represents the nothing thats moving the objects in time and space.so the moving thing has a past which is nothing and a future which is nothing and a present relative locality in time and space.hope that makes something.

[uwot]

i ment a locality within a locality.the moon is a physical locality in a system with other objects moving in relativity to one another.time is abstracted out of the relativity of the system.

Okey-dokey. So; things happen and other things happen. Compare the two and you have a means of calculating duration.

and you could think that relativity is nothing and thats what the time is abstacted from nothing.

You overestimate me; you could think relativity is nothing. I, on the other hand, am stuck with the notion that something has to be relative to something else, hence for there to be relativity, there must be at least two things.

nonmoving nothing becomes time to the moving things.

You are going to have to persuade me that 'nonmoving nothing' becomes anything but nothing.

relativity represents the nothing thats moving the objects in time and space.so the moving thing has a past which is nothing and a future which is nothing and a present relative locality in time and space.hope that makes something.

Spectacularly not. Sorry, jackles; I wish I could get my head around what you are saying, but you are going to have to use words in the way that other people do.