Time does not exist.

[Terrapin Station]

Relativists should note that the concept of existence also requires the concept of objective reality.

In other words, only the material world exists.

That doesn't follow from anything you'd just said, by the way.

I agree that the world is physical (or "material"), but nevertheless, it doesn't follow from anything about relativism, objectivism/subjectivism, (the concept of) existence, etc.

Naturally existent material frequencies discovered by man are the absolute standard detected by an atomic clock and used measure the passage of time.

They're the standard, but there's nothing absolute about them.

Without supported reasoning and facts you’re only asserting notions, by the way.

Yeah, I'm not claiming to be uttering anything akin to a formal argument.

[Terrapin Station]

All you are doing is conflating length (the extension of matter) with length (the measurement), and change (a process) with time (a measurement).

Not at all. You were doing that. I'm saying over and over that the measurement isn't identical to what we're measuring. Time isn't identical to our measurement of time. It's identical to what we're measuring--namely, changes or motion. Length isn't identical to our measurement of length. It's identical to what we're measuring--namely, extension of matter in a particular orthogonal orientation.

Measurements only exist in minds

I agreed with this in terms of measurements as comparisons, with the meaning of that attached, etc.

because minds possess goals.

I didn't comment on that earlier, but while I agree that only minds possess goals, I do not agree that this has anything to do with why measurements (as comparisons, etc.) are subjective. I don't know why you'd think that measurements necessarily have something to do with goals, really.

Change and the extension of space existed prior to human beings and their goals.

Yes, exactly. Thus, time and length existed prior to human beings and their goals. The measurement of time and length, however, did not (well, or at least it didn't exist prior to persons; I wouldn't say that personhood is necessarily limited to humans, or that we necessarily appeared first or anything like that).

Measurements . . . only exist within their minds for achieving some goal.

I disagree that one need have some goal in mind to measure something. That would often be the case, but I don't think it's necessary.

[Walker]

That doesn't follow from anything you'd just said, by the way.

I agree that the world is physical (or "material"), but nevertheless, it doesn't follow from anything about relativism, objectivism/subjectivism, (the concept of) existence, etc.They're the standard, but there's nothing absolute about them.

Without supported reasoning and facts you’re only asserting notions, by the way.

Yeah, I'm not claiming to be uttering anything akin to a formal argument.

Unfortunately for the worth of your words your proclamations have no inherent validity but fortunately truth don't care if you're wearing a tuxedo or a tuxedo T-shirt.

“However, since the wave-train is travelling more slowly as c drops, the number of wave-crests passing a given point per unit time is fewer, proportional to c. Since the frequency of a wave is also defined as the number of crests passing a given point, this means that frequency is also proportional to c with no changes in the wave structure of the photon at all. Furthermore, the photon energy is unchanged in transit.”
http://www.setterfield.org/atomconstants.html

In other words, if everything in the universe should proportionally increase in size when you’re not observing everything, and since your existence as awareness is a factor present in all apprehensions of reality, and since awareness is necessary for the conceptualization of the physical, then with the life that you are as the measure, constants that change as everything else changes but retain proportionality are indeed absolutes.

[duszek]

Animals must also have some concept or some feeling of time.

A lioness will ask herself: How long will it take me to run and catch this antilope over there ?
I can go at high speed only for a certain period of time, after two minutes I get out of breath and that´s it.

Or: shall I go and hunt now or will I survive on my reserves until next day ?

[Walker]

Animals must also have some concept or some feeling of time.

A lioness will ask herself: How long will it take me to run and catch this antilope over there ?
I can go at high speed only for a certain period of time, after two minutes I get out of breath and that´s it.

Or: shall I go and hunt now or will I survive on my reserves until next day ?

Cheetahs can only fail a few times. No reserves is the penalty for svelte.

[Terrapin Station]

Unfortunately for the worth of your words your proclamations have no inherent validity

"Inherent validity"??? Is there one of those crazy-face smilies here?--it doesn't look like it unfortunately. Anyway, I wouldn't say anything has "inherent validity." It's not an inherent property. It's a property that only obtains in the context of formal arguments, and specifically, when it's impossible that (either) premises are true and/or a conclusion is false (or both). But again, I'm not saying anything like a formal argument. Maybe you think you are, but then you've got another think coming.

but fortunately truth don't care if you're wearing a tuxedo or a tuxedo T-shirt.

Yeah, truth doesn't care about anything, because it's not a person.

In other words, if everything in the universe should proportionally increase in size when you’re not observing everything, and since your existence as awareness is a factor present in all apprehensions of reality, and since awareness is necessary for the conceptualization of the physical, then with the life that you are as the measure, constants that change as everything else changes but retain proportionality are indeed absolutes.

As we pretend there are objective constants in the first place?

[Walker]

Well at the very least you could put on a T-shirt when hosting guests.

With your good intent everything will be fine and when you open, understanding will dawn. There are two ways to use reasoning. One way is to get somewhere. The other is to conceptualize where you’ve been. The first has no space for conceptual contradictions. The second is the arrow, not the target.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA2EnemzBpk

[Walker]

Philosophically, since life is the measure of all things including scientific understanding, then in addition to discovered atomic weight of an element, availability of energy for lifes' use is a determinate of inherent value for inorganics. Thus, Old Sol has inherent value.

“Unlike Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, the Moon has been bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind. It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products.”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Prepa ... ar_surface

[Impenitent]

one question: when does time not exist?

-Imp

[prothero]

You have to decide if time is anything other than an abstraction from change?
You have to decide what time would mean in a frozen changeless universe?
You have to decide if there are any static changeless entities at all or if everything is actually flux, change, impermanence?

[Trajk Logik]

All you are doing is conflating length (the extension of matter) with length (the measurement), and change (a process) with time (a measurement).

Not at all. You were doing that. I'm saying over and over that the measurement isn't identical to what we're measuring. Time isn't identical to our measurement of time.

That last sentence makes no sense. If you aren't conflating change with the measurement, time, then why are you using the same terms for both things? It makes more sense to say it like I say it, "Change isn't identical to our measurement of it, and the measurement we call time."

It seems that we mostly agree, its just that we seem to be talking past each other primarily because you aren't using terms correctly by conflating them.

[Terrapin Station]

All you are doing is conflating length (the extension of matter) with length (the measurement), and change (a process) with time (a measurement).

Not at all. You were doing that. I'm saying over and over that the measurement isn't identical to what we're measuring. Time isn't identical to our measurement of time.

That last sentence makes no sense. If you aren't conflating change with the measurement, time, then why are you using the same terms for both things? It makes more sense to say it like I say it, "Change isn't identical to our measurement of it, and the measurement we call time."

"Time" linguistically (so a la what terms we're using) isn't identical to "measurement of time."

Look at it this way. Presumably, you think that you have a computer monitor, that that's real. Well, presumably you also don't believe that a measurement of your computer monitor is identical to your computer monitor. You can measure the width of your monitor for example, but you wouldn't think that the act of measuring the width of your screen is identical to the monitor. You wouldn't plug your monitor cable into your your act of measurement. You'd plug it into the monitor. So a measurement of the computer monitor isn't identical to the computer monitor, and that's the case both ontologically and linguistically (even though the word "computer monitor" occurs on both sides.)

you aren't using terms correctly

Jesus Christ. One of the things that sucks about talking with people this way is that I can't just give you a swirly when you say something like that instead.

[Noax]

That last sentence makes no sense.

I thought it made perfect sense.

Earth required time to form, but not the measurement of it. I don't define time as a measurement.
The temporal separation between two points in spacetime, just like the spatial separation between two other points in spacetime, are things that can be measured, but I don't define them to be the measurement itself. I personally define them both to be relations between states of things.

[Dalek Prime]

All I can say is, without time measurement, physicists wouldn't have reached their level of overconfidence to pontificate to the rest of us. Classical mechanics relies on it. And now they want to ban it. Fact is, whether or not everything exists in an eternal now (tell that to my parents), we require a way to express the point in this eternal now where something exists in such and such a state. Otherwise, reality becomes gibberish to us, rather like a paper turned black from the ink written on it, until every space is filled. It may have held brilliant drawings and words, but now it may as well been soaked in ink, for its worth. Or not written on at all.

[Trajk Logik]

That last sentence makes no sense.

I thought it made perfect sense.

Earth required time to form, but not the measurement of it. I don't define time as a measurement.
The temporal separation between two points in spacetime, just like the spatial separation between two other points in spacetime, are things that can be measured, but I don't define them to be the measurement itself. I personally define them both to be relations between states of things.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. You say, "Earth took time to form but not the measurement of it." If Earth took time to form, then how much time? In other words, you'd have to supply a measurement to even say it took time to form. What method would you use to measure the change of the Earth's formation when the day and year of the Earth while it was forming was different than it is today? Earth changes. Period. How long it takes to change from A to B is a measurement using some other change that isn't the Earth changing. Even the points A and B are themselves a product of our minds compartmentalizing and separating the processes of nature.

Again, we are using an arbitrary method of measuring - one that only exists within our minds, not out there where the Earth is forming. Measurements only exist in minds because minds possess goals. Why measure something if you don't have a goal for using the measurement?