Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not quite, rather a function of limited understanding, arrogance, and hatred for anyone that hasn't wasted as much time as you have. ...

Nope, dislike of those who proudly proclaim ignorance of the subject of philosophy and say they know nothing but then procede to say much about it.
I've never seen anyone proclaim such. Just you going around like you own the place, picking fights with people, and telling them you have that right because of your credentials. You seem to only ever use your education as a weapon, not considering those that you think don't measure up to you. Again it's not the fault of a novice that you can't find anyone here that you care to play nice with. Bob is a good example as you continually call him Boob. You should be ashamed of yourself, you're no teacher!

But it would seem you're not thinking clearly, as everyone of my age or older definitely has regrets of wasted time, just not necessarily of the same type, the difference in many is that they don't then use it as a weapon to make others pay for their decision to wast time as they chose. I'm sure everyone shall agree that hindsight is 20/20, it's only that the good ones use it to educate not denigrate.

Which is why I became a teacher and here I engage in roughly socratic discussion which appears to upset many. Mainly, I suspect, because they know nothing but talk much about it.
You're no teacher, that's for sure, at least one worth much. Look how utterly stupid your comments can be: "because they know nothing" For anyone to speak, automatically means they know something. But my main complaint about you is your presumption, that you know, that your perspective is the only one that can be, and your asking questions that have already been answered, your childishness with respect to countries, as you try and boost yours above all others, your bigotry, as if where one is from is necessarily a reflection upon them. Simply speaking, I see you as primarily immature, while I'm usually only ever, nasty, as a means of reflection. I've always been a fire with fire kind of person, so as to edify.

James Markham wrote:...when people say someone can time travel into the future because of time dilation, it doent mean that the 10 years will not be experienced mentally as 100 years, only that the body may not age because cell division will be slowed.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've never seen anyone proclaim such. ...

Just you going around like you own the place, picking fights with people, and telling them you have that right because of your credentials.

You seem to only ever use your education as a weapon, not considering those that you think don't measure up to you. Again it's not the fault of a novice that you can't find anyone here that you care to play nice with. Bob is a good example as you continually call him Boob. You should be ashamed of yourself, you're no teacher!

You're no teacher, that's for sure, at least one worth much. Look how utterly stupid your comments can be: "because they know nothing" For anyone to speak, automatically means they know something.

But my main complaint about you is your presumption, that you know, that your perspective is the only one that can be, and your asking questions that have already been answered, your childishness with respect to countries, as you try and boost yours above all others, your bigotry, as if where one is from is necessarily a reflection upon them. Simply speaking, I see you as primarily immature, while I'm usually only ever, nasty, as a means of reflection. I've always been a fire with fire kind of person, so as to edify.

James Markham wrote:If our perception of duration was governed by the motion of electrochemical signals across neurones this phenomena would not be possible, time for us would be as uniform in our acknowledgement of it, as the ticking of a clock.

James Markham wrote:What exists in the objective universe is change, and any rate of change is necessarily only relative to other changes that take place.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've never seen anyone proclaim such. ...

You and Bill both proclaim such an attitude towards the study of Philosophy and the reading of those who have been called the philosophers.
You're a liar, prove it! You can't, while visions of sugarplums dance in your head, seemingly an idiot!

Just you going around like you own the place, picking fights with people, and telling them you have that right because of your credentials.

Once again, I do not do that. I was asked by godfree by what measure do I make such a judgement about his thoughts so I told him.
It was your demeanor, as you lost control, that spoke volumes, as you skewered him with it, like a sword, you do not wish to edify, rather to thrust yourself upon people, so as to claim victories. Because you believe it was wasted time???? Again, to you, your knowledge is a weapon, that you use to force your belief of superiority upon those you believe are less that you. Oh you have peers alright, others of the same clone lineage. Over here in HIGH SCHOOL, we called them cliques, which were always elitist. You're seemingly a little person that can only find value with another's demise, evidenced time and time again as to how you engage. You have sought victories due to typos, or improper homonym usage, colors of text, for gods sake, how pathetic is that. Colors don't MEAN a god damn thing. How childish you can be. Your Yank crap, another example, you're a bigot, another instance of selfishness, that you BELIEVE is knowledge, NOT!!!! And while you may say that I'm currently doing the same thing, you're supposedly the learned person of philosophy, to hear you tell it, while you see me as your flunky. Who should/does set example???? Well it's certainly not you, not that I'm saying I'm any better, but it's been you that has put more words in my and others mouths, because I believe you honestly believe that 'one's words meaning, can only be found in the response you supply to them.' That's pretty fucking arrogant, and quite stupid actually. Remember, you asked me about your ills.

You seem to only ever use your education as a weapon, not considering those that you think don't measure up to you. Again it's not the fault of a novice that you can't find anyone here that you care to play nice with. Bob is a good example as you continually call him Boob. You should be ashamed of yourself, you're no teacher!

I call him boob when he is one. Bob's a big boy and can cope especially since he believes what he says about himself.
It's to humiliate, much like children do, in a childish squabble, where the hell is this smart learned philosophy major, of a teacher at, anyway? Buried deep in the bullshit, it would seem. Where's your example? In the gutter? Do you always like batting the less fortunate, in your approximation, around? Yes I think I'm starting to see the learned, philosopher, teacher emerge, that's been fixed with NLP. Yeah you've been fixed alright! Solid!!! And you ain't going nowhere!
You asked!

Take a look at my posts and you'll find I discuss very nicely with the novice, it's those who think they have the answers but have not bothered to read any philosophy I tend to clash with. Mainly because I question their thoughts and this appears to upset them greatly, confirming that they've not studied philosophy with a group.
Yes, as long as they see things your way, they PAY HOMAGE to the teacher. So as to stroke your ego. Which is probably the only reason you chose the profession. To ensure your due, at least as you 'believe' it. Sure those people are alright in your book. So you think that philosophy is a matter of conforming, to the ways of those of the past, that you were told is the way, because the powers that be, have set it down on paper, with impressive gold leaf bindings, kept in impressive halls, of fine wood and stone? And no I'm not necessarily being disrespectful of any past philosopher, quit putting words in my mouth, yet there is a point contained within. Though I doubt you'll find it. You usually don't, rather you like to tell me what I mean, as you see that it's only contained in your head, as you portray, in your response.


I come to a philosophy forum to talk philosophically not to teach but the process can be the same.
But what are you teaching?

You're no teacher, that's for sure, at least one worth much. Look how utterly stupid your comments can be: "because they know nothing" For anyone to speak, automatically means they know something.

lmao given the phrase was a paraphrase of what you continually claim and was intended as such.
Who started what? In our mess of soon to be years, come Sept., who started what? Are we growing? We engage one another, and what have we actually learned? About ourselves or each other, can anything of truth be found in the muck? You constantly misread me, while trying to marginalize me. Because of how you view yourself? Of course you will say I do the same, I have always fought fire with fire, so yes you're correct, but who was the instigator? As I only see them as responsible. With me and Chaz, he was, which is 'usually' the case with me.

But my main complaint about you is your presumption, that you know, that your perspective is the only one that can be, and your asking questions that have already been answered, your childishness with respect to countries, as you try and boost yours above all others, your bigotry, as if where one is from is necessarily a reflection upon them. Simply speaking, I see you as primarily immature, while I'm usually only ever, nasty, as a means of reflection. I've always been a fire with fire kind of person, so as to edify.

I've heard this from such as you all my life, 'I don't start fights but ...' and they were continually in fights.
Do you know anything about Carl Jung's and Isabel Briggs Myers personality types?

'Those of this personality type are often unappreciated, at work, home, and play. Ironically, because they prove over and over that they can be relied on for their loyalty and unstinting, high-quality work, those around them often take them for granted--even take advantage of them.'

So where could the fights possibly lie, you would be, philosopher. Why do you think I quote Socrates so often? 'I only know that I know nothing.' It would seem you flunked his course. And fuck 'your' CHOICE in NLP, as if only you know. The FACT is you don't. But there is no denying that experience from childhood shapes us, then should one such as you make them continually pay for it? You're no philosopher, at least not of any consequence, yet you profess you know!


Yak, yak, yak again from you. Once more and ad nauseum, I reply to your fellow Yanks posts, you will find no posts of mine doing as you claim.
Your Yak is up your ass! Ad nauseum?? You make me want to puke almost continually, with your absurd notions, that you use only to serve your selfishness, your ego. So now tell me what I meant, as surely only you know, you arrogant fuck!

Of course where one is from has a reflection upon them! Only a megalomaniac thinks otherwise.
Wrong, as you hold them accountable for something as unavoidable as birth. You are a fool!

I really don't care what your opinion is of me as on the whole I think that for someone who claims to knows nothing you talk to much about it and ask far to few questions. I also think you too over-emotional.
I think that your thinking is only self serving! That you don't know what it's really like to 'truly' care for another.
You asked!!!

tillingborn wrote:

James Markham wrote:If our perception of duration was governed by the motion of electrochemical signals across neurones this phenomena would not be possible, time for us would be as uniform in our acknowledgement of it, as the ticking of a clock.

I think there are two ways we can understand perception of time in this instance. So for clarity I’ll call one time drag and the other time dilation. Time drag is the thing that you quite rightly say has nothing to do with the motion of electrochemical signals, as Einstein put it:
“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.”
You can only notice time dilation in a different inertial frame to your own. On the train, Einstein won’t notice any time dilation, because he is traveling at the same speed as the light clock, so to him it appears that the pulse of light is taking the shortest possible route between the two mirrors. The same is true of all interactions on the carriage, including the ones in his brain. However, an observer outside his inertial frame can see that, in fact, the interactions don’t happen like that; the particles involved follow the same path as the photons in the light clocks, so that all events on the carriage are dilated by the same factor.
Special Relativity states that matter cannot travel at the speed of light, which for the purpose of illustration, I’m going to ignore. Suppose Einstein’s train was travelling at the speed of light; the photons in the light clock are going as fast as they can just to keep up with the train,
No, I don't think so, because the light source is traveling on the train just as fast as the train, such that at the instant the photons leave it, they are moving just as fast as the train, such that their speed is in addition to the trains speed, so they need not catch up to the train. Now an argument could be made, if the train had instant (at the speed of light) unlimited torque such that as the photon has just left it's source, the train instantly (at the speed of light) accelerates to the speed of light, then and only then does the photon have problems keeping up. What you say cannot happen with the train maintaining a CONSTANT speed. At a constant speed, there is no catching up. Do you understand my point, and think me ill?

Thus there is no spare speed for them to pass from one mirror to the other; as far as that clock is concerned ‘time has stopped’. The same is true of every other atom in the carriage.



You say:

James Markham wrote:What exists in the objective universe is change, and any rate of change is necessarily only relative to other changes that take place.

I don’t know whether time exists, I suspect that you are right and it doesn’t, but given that some physicists believe it does, Lee Smolin for example, I'm keeping my options open. However, I agree with your analysis with regard to time dilation moving things into the future. In the Twin's paradox, one twin goes off on a rocket ship, turns around comes back and discovers that his twin is much older than him. It may seem that the younger twin has travelled into the others future. I think it is much easier to understand in the context you put it; basically, less stuff has happened to the younger twin for the reasons above.
Too bad you can't make the meet up, you are to join anyway. I will be posting notes and feedback on that and future meetings on the message board.

tillingborn wrote:Special Relativity states that matter cannot travel at the speed of light, which for the purpose of illustration, I’m going to ignore. Suppose Einstein’s train was travelling at the speed of light; the photons in the light clock are going as fast as they can just to keep up with the train,

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, I don't think so, because the light source is traveling on the train just as fast as the train, such that at the instant the photons leave it, they are moving just as fast as the train, such that their speed is in addition to the trains speed, so they need not catch up to the train.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you understand my point, and think me ill?

tillingborn wrote:Too bad you can't make the meet up, you are to join anyway.

James Markham wrote:Hereandnow, thanks for taking the time to explain a bit about relativity, to be honest I haven't really bothered trying to twist my head around it in the past, mainly because the people trying to explain it to me, haven't understood it themselves, and because I like to jump to the consider the implications of a theory, I've always dismissed it on the grounds that time travel is impossible.

James Markham wrote:If you think about it logically, all the energy and matter that existed in the early universe, is here with us now, unless there is a constant replication taking place at an infinite number of intervals, and likewise, all the energy and mass that will exist in the universe tommorow, is currently here with us in the present, so in that respect there is no past or future, only an ever changing present.

James Markham wrote:So you seem to be confirming what I have concluded about time, it's simply the relative rates of events, and all events are properly described as the dynamics of energy, changing from one state (a) with potential (b) to state (b) with potential (c).

Does that make sense?

tillingborn wrote:

tillingborn wrote:Special Relativity states that matter cannot travel at the speed of light, which for the purpose of illustration, I’m going to ignore. Suppose Einstein’s train was travelling at the speed of light; the photons in the light clock are going as fast as they can just to keep up with the train,

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, I don't think so, because the light source is traveling on the train just as fast as the train, such that at the instant the photons leave it, they are moving just as fast as the train, such that their speed is in addition to the trains speed, so they need not catch up to the train.

One of the key claims of Special Relativity is that regardless of how a light source is moving relative to you, the light will be traveling at the same speed when it reaches you. In that respect, light behaves like waves. For instance; it doesn't matter whether a sound source is approaching or receding, the sound waves will hit you at the speed of sound. Similarly light will always hit you at the speed of light. The difference is that if it is you that is moving, the speed that sound waves will hit you changes;this is not the case with light. It's a long story, but there's a perfectly good explanation as to why.
Of course you're correct, I don't know what I was thinking. Getting old I suspect, where I allow an angle of potential argument trump dusty old knowledge. Light supposedly only has one speed, as it is in fact electromagnetic energy (EME), which is 186,000 m/s, such that it's supposed to be true that it's speed is capped, in space, and in earths atmosphere. Which I see, can be seen, as brakes on it's possible speed, I mean one has to wonder, if dark matter and dark energy are more that hypothetical, if they somehow limit EME's speed potential, or it could also be that without them EME could not propagate at all. But that's another topic, for another time.

I see a big problem with the "light bouncing between two mirrors example" as it pertains to a speed that is constant relative to a speed that is continuously variable.

So here it goes:

A train on the equator, is traveling true east at a speed that is exactly half the speed of EME, (93,000 m/s). One mirror is facing true west. The second mirror is facing true east, such that their line of sight is true East/West. These mirrors are zero loss mirrors, that do not create heat as a result of reflecting the EME, such that once the EME is started by a source, the source can be extinguished such that now the EME is trapped between the two mirrors to reflect back and forth to the end of time, just like that of stars billions of light years away, oh, did I forget to mention the vacuum of space, oh yes, that too is the case. Now since the speed of EME is constant at 186,000 m/s, it is traveling both true east and true west at that speed, as it can go no faster or slower, yet the mirrors that are reflecting this EME are traveling true east at 93,000 m/s, half the speed of light. Now if we vary the speed of this train between 1/4, (46,500 m/s), and 3/4's, (139,500 m/s), the speed of light, the EME between the two mirrors still goes 186,000 m/s. And it doesn't matter which observer, measuring this speed of EME, between these two mirrors is standing, either on the train or standing immediately adjacent to the equator on the ground as the train whizzes by, as they both can only measure it going 186,000 m/s because that is the ONLY speed it can go. It is true that the window of opportunity for the observer standing on the ground to measure it's speed, between the two mirrors is extremely narrow, (It's an extremely fast electronic measuring devise whose electronics is cooled to almost absolute zero, such that it operates at the speed of light.), but that's the only measurement he can get, because the speed of EME is only ever constant, it is never relative. It cannot be added to, nor subtracted from.

In other words, if the observer on the train cannot measure EME either going faster, as it bounces off the mirror, facing true east, where the speed of the train, you might think, should add to it's speed, or traveling slower, as it bounces off the mirror, facing west, where the speed of the train, you might think, should subtract from it's speed, then the ground observer shall not see any difference either, with his speed of light instrument. And this is the problem I see where everything is relative, but EME (light). If it is indeed a constant, then no one, anywhere, can measure its speed otherwise.

No?? Has my train derailed again? I think not.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you understand my point, and think me ill?

Yes and no.

tillingborn wrote:Too bad you can't make the meet up, you are to join anyway.

Whoops! Sorry James, that's one of my weirder typos; I meant to say you are welcome to join anyway.

James Markham wrote:Hereandnow, thanks for taking the time to explain a bit about relativity, to be honest I haven't really bothered trying to twist my head around it in the past, mainly because the people trying to explain it to me, haven't understood it themselves, and because I like to jump to the consider the implications of a theory, I've always dismissed it on the grounds that time travel is impossible.

I think the reason that people believe time travel is theoretically possible is that it is mathematically convenient to treat space and time as though they were planes. In order to pin point an event, you need four coordinates; left a bit, up a bit, back a bit, soon, or something of that nature, in Cartesian terms it's x,y,z and t. In Euclidean geometry, those planes are assumed to be flat; so on a piece of paper, if you go from (0,0) to (1,1) for instance, you can draw a straight line. In non-Euclidean geometry, the planes are not assumed to be flat, the paper can be crumpled. This gets some mathematicians very excited, because there is no reason, mathematically, why the paper shouldn't be folded in half, so that two points of 'time' are next to each other. That being so all you need is a short cut, a wormhole, to travel from one time to another. It all rests on the assumption that the mathematically convenient dimensions of spacetime actually exist; a position known as Platonism. I don't know whether they do or not, but as a trained philosopher, rather than mathematician, my first instinct is to apply Occam's Razor and not multiply entities beyond necessity. You can argue that time and spatial dimensions are relations, rather than objects, I have never seen a bucket full of time, for instance. As you note, we only ever see n number of events compared to n' number of events; the Earth rotates once, the small hand on the clock turns 24 times, which you can reduce to pendula swinging or caesium atoms vibrating; there is no measure of 'time' that doesn't involve physical events. For me, the onus is on anyone who believes in time to prove it exists. I will eat my shorts if they succeed.

James Markham wrote:If you think about it logically, all the energy and matter that existed in the early universe, is here with us now, unless there is a constant replication taking place at an infinite number of intervals, and likewise, all the energy and mass that will exist in the universe tommorow, is currently here with us in the present, so in that respect there is no past or future, only an ever changing present.

Indeed; it does seem as if there is some stuff that is just doing it's thing. It looks very like a universe that is getting bigger; I can't see any evidence for time and space.

James Markham wrote:So you seem to be confirming what I have concluded about time, it's simply the relative rates of events, and all events are properly described as the dynamics of energy, changing from one state (a) with potential (b) to state (b) with potential (c).

Does that make sense?

Well, I think I agree with a lot of what you say, but that is different from confirming.

tillingborn wrote:Suppose Einstein’s train was travelling at the speed of light; the photons in the light clock are going as fast as they can just to keep up with the train, there is no spare speed for them to pass from one mirror to the other; as far as that clock is concerned ‘time has stopped’. The same is true of every other atom in the carriage.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:In other words, if the observer on the train cannot measure EME either going faster, as it bounces off the mirror, facing true east, where the speed of the train, you might think, should add to it's speed, or traveling slower, as it bounces off the mirror, facing west, where the speed of the train, you might think, should subtract from it's speed, then the ground observer shall not see any difference either, with his speed of light instrument. And this is the problem I see where everything is relative, but EME (light). If it is indeed a constant, then no one, anywhere, can measure its speed otherwise.

tillingborn wrote:Suppose Einstein’s train was travelling at the speed of light; the photons in the light clock are going as fast as they can just to keep up with the train, there is no spare speed for them to pass from one mirror to the other; as far as that clock is concerned ‘time has stopped’. The same is true of every other atom in the carriage.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So it would seem that you are saying that Electromagnetic Energy is Time, and that Time is Electromagnetic Energy. Nay, this is not true! And this is why I ask if it's time that slows/stops, or merely the clock.