bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:17 am
So you agree that there is an infinitesimal distance between cause and effect in the fastest case?
What happened to the comment about what you overlooked and the question I asked you?
Well, you are asking whether if cause and effect are at the same point.
No. Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.
I explained that time doesn't actually consist of a set of infinitesimal temporal points. I said that that notion is only a conceptual abstraction.
You disagree with that, right?
So what's the argument for time really consisting of a set of infinitesimal temporal points, the argument for that not simply being a conceptual abstraction?
What happened to the comment about what you overlooked and the question I asked you?
Well, you are asking whether if cause and effect are at the same point.
No. Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.
I explained that time doesn't actually consist of a set of infinitesimal temporal points. I said that that notion is only a conceptual abstraction.
You disagree with that, right?
So what's the argument for time really consisting of a set of infinitesimal temporal points, the argument for that not simply being a conceptual abstraction?
There are two possible scenarios for cause and effect: 1) Effect comes after cause or 2) They are at the same point. (2) is absurd so we are left by (1). The question is how long does it take to see the effect after cause? The answer is any non-zero value since otherwise, we are dealing with (2). The faster the system the shorter the time interval between cause and effect.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:43 am
Well, you are asking whether if cause and effect are at the same point.
No. Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.
I explained that time doesn't actually consist of a set of infinitesimal temporal points. I said that that notion is only a conceptual abstraction.
You disagree with that, right?
So what's the argument for time really consisting of a set of infinitesimal temporal points, the argument for that not simply being a conceptual abstraction?
There are two possible scenarios for cause and effect: 1) Effect comes after cause or 2) They are at the same point. (2) is absurd so we are left by (1). The question is how long does it take to see the effect after cause? The answer is any non-zero value since otherwise, we are dealing with (2). The faster the system the shorter the time interval between cause and effect.
This has nothing to do with what I said, what I'm asking you, etc. Do you not understand what I said or what I'm asking you? Are you not interested? What I said has to do with the original argument you presented. You need to be able to understand and you need to be able to address objections to the argument you stated, as you stated it.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:49 am
No. Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.
I explained that time doesn't actually consist of a set of infinitesimal temporal points. I said that that notion is only a conceptual abstraction.
You disagree with that, right?
So what's the argument for time really consisting of a set of infinitesimal temporal points, the argument for that not simply being a conceptual abstraction?
There are two possible scenarios for cause and effect: 1) Effect comes after cause or 2) They are at the same point. (2) is absurd so we are left by (1). The question is how long does it take to see the effect after cause? The answer is any non-zero value since otherwise, we are dealing with (2). The faster the system the shorter the time interval between cause and effect.
This has nothing to do with what I said, what I'm asking you, etc. Do you not understand what I said or what I'm asking you? Are you not interested? What I said has to do with the original argument you presented. You need to be able to understand and you need to be able to address objections to the argument you stated, as you stated it.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:02 am
There are two possible scenarios for cause and effect: 1) Effect comes after cause or 2) They are at the same point. (2) is absurd so we are left by (1). The question is how long does it take to see the effect after cause? The answer is any non-zero value since otherwise, we are dealing with (2). The faster the system the shorter the time interval between cause and effect.
This has nothing to do with what I said, what I'm asking you, etc. Do you not understand what I said or what I'm asking you? Are you not interested? What I said has to do with the original argument you presented. You need to be able to understand and you need to be able to address objections to the argument you stated, as you stated it.
What you are trying to say? Please elaborate.
I already explicitly wrote out everything I was "trying" to say! That was the whole point of all of that stuff I typed. It was what I wanted to say!
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 9:22 pm
Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now. All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.
Change can happen at now. Because the observer of change never moves.
Change is a movement from one state to another, the knowledge of change can only exist via contrast.
This has nothing to do with what I said, what I'm asking you, etc. Do you not understand what I said or what I'm asking you? Are you not interested? What I said has to do with the original argument you presented. You need to be able to understand and you need to be able to address objections to the argument you stated, as you stated it.
What you are trying to say? Please elaborate.
I already explicitly wrote out everything I was "trying" to say! That was the whole point of all of that stuff I typed. It was what I wanted to say!
I can see that our discussion deflected several times. Do you want me to address all of them or you have a specific one in your mind?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:00 am
"Now" consists of the changes (and/or states, assuming there could be anything static) occurring from the perspective of some reference frame, rather than those that occurred from the the perspective of that reference frame, as well as those that will occur from the perspective of that reference frame. One such reference frame is our conscious awareness.
The mistake you're making is in thinking of time, in a perspective-free way, as some set of infinitesimal temporal "points" akin to how we think of points on a number line, say. That's rather a conceptual abstraction.
The elements of an interaction can only interact in the shared instant.
Another interpretation would assume that an element interacts with all the other temporary instances of the element with which it shares the interaction.
I don't really understand what either sentence is saying there.
Changes result from interactions. Changes are not dependent on perspective within a frame of reference. The interactions do not depend on a frame of reference.
If interactions depended on a temporal frame of reference, in some frames the interaction would occur and in others it would not. This denies the existence of causality.
Someone in your position needs to justify why an interaction only occurs at a certain value of the chosen frame of reference and why the interaction does not extend to all other frames of reference.
The elements of an interaction can only interact in the shared instant.
Another interpretation would assume that an element interacts with all the other temporary instances of the element with which it shares the interaction.
I don't really understand what either sentence is saying there.
Changes result from interactions. Changes are not dependent on perspective within a frame of reference. The interactions do not depend on a frame of reference.
If interactions depended on a temporal frame of reference, in some frames the interaction would occur and in others it would not. This denies the existence of causality.
Someone in your position needs to justify why an interaction only occurs at a certain value of the chosen frame of reference and why the interaction does not extend to all other frames of reference.
But that's not anything like what I said. I said that what counts as now is relative to a frame of reference (which I'm not using in the physics sense, exactly--I don't want you to think that it maps strictly to that concept a la relativity in physics). "Now" is the changes that are happening, as opposed to the changes that happened, or that will happen, from a particular frame of reference. One such frame of reference is our conscious awareness. That has a much broader scope for now than something like the periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
I don't really understand what either sentence is saying there.
Changes result from interactions. Changes are not dependent on perspective within a frame of reference. The interactions do not depend on a frame of reference.
If interactions depended on a temporal frame of reference, in some frames the interaction would occur and in others it would not. This denies the existence of causality.
Someone in your position needs to justify why an interaction only occurs at a certain value of the chosen frame of reference and why the interaction does not extend to all other frames of reference.
But that's not anything like what I said. I said that what counts as now is relative to a frame of reference (which I'm not using in the physics sense, exactly--I don't want you to think that it maps strictly to that concept a la relativity in physics). "Now" is the changes that are happening, as opposed to the changes that happened, or that will happen, from a particular frame of reference. One such frame of reference is our conscious awareness. That has a much broader scope for now than something like the periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Unfortunately, your clarification did not make things clearer to me!
Changes result from interactions. Changes are not dependent on perspective within a frame of reference. The interactions do not depend on a frame of reference.
If interactions depended on a temporal frame of reference, in some frames the interaction would occur and in others it would not. This denies the existence of causality.
Someone in your position needs to justify why an interaction only occurs at a certain value of the chosen frame of reference and why the interaction does not extend to all other frames of reference.
But that's not anything like what I said. I said that what counts as now is relative to a frame of reference (which I'm not using in the physics sense, exactly--I don't want you to think that it maps strictly to that concept a la relativity in physics). "Now" is the changes that are happening, as opposed to the changes that happened, or that will happen, from a particular frame of reference. One such frame of reference is our conscious awareness. That has a much broader scope for now than something like the periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Unfortunately, your clarification did not make things clearer to me!
If our point of reference is conscious experience, changes that are happening, relative to that conscious experience, can be 2-3 seconds (per the standard unit). That's the present or now relative to conscious experience. It's not changes that happened but no longer are happening, or changes that have yet to happen. It's the changes that are happening relative to conscious experience.
If our point of reference is the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, then the changes that are happening are just over one nine-billionth of a second in length, and that's it.
So what counts as "now" depends on the reference point (or frame).
But that's not anything like what I said. I said that what counts as now is relative to a frame of reference (which I'm not using in the physics sense, exactly--I don't want you to think that it maps strictly to that concept a la relativity in physics). "Now" is the changes that are happening, as opposed to the changes that happened, or that will happen, from a particular frame of reference. One such frame of reference is our conscious awareness. That has a much broader scope for now than something like the periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Unfortunately, your clarification did not make things clearer to me!
If our point of reference is conscious experience, changes that are happening, relative to that conscious experience, can be 2-3 seconds (per the standard unit). That's the present or now relative to conscious experience. It's not changes that happened but no longer are happening, or changes that have yet to happen. It's the changes that are happening relative to conscious experience.
If our point of reference is the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom, then the changes that are happening are just over one nine-billionth of a second in length, and that's it.
So what counts as "now" depends on the reference point (or frame).
I understood. (I believe)
Your position is that we are warned of the "now" according to our ability to distinguish the granularity of reality?
How does it relate to the fact that changes cannot occur "now"?
psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:08 pm
Your position is that we are warned of the "now" according to our ability to distinguish the granularity of reality?
??? Um, what?
How does it relate to the fact that changes cannot occur "now"?
psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:08 pm
Your position is that we are warned of the "now" according to our ability to distinguish the granularity of reality?
??? Um, what?
How does it relate to the fact that changes cannot occur "now"?
LOL--that is no "fact." That's just the point.
..i think the point TS might be making (and bahman) is that NOW is a moment in time - in a true moment in time, there is NO event.
Not an electron emitting a photon - etc..(TIME - EMIT) and since our consciousness (anatomic brain) relies upon the matter, and events occurring - ergo -NOTHING can happen at NOW - it is BINARY. Either there is an event or there is not an event. - TIME.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:21 am
..i think the point TS might be making (and bahman) is that NOW is a moment in time - in a true moment in time, there is NO event.
No, that's not at all my point. I wouldn't say that there are "true moments in time" and I wouldn't say that there are "no events."
