The nature of time...

[Byzantine Prince]

One only needs to take into account the history of the concept in order to disprove it. Someone probably thought about it, and invented it, like they invented God.

Man looks at movement, and thinks, something is different from my memory of that image. The fact that the position of the object is different in the memory, indicates to the man that [blank] has passed. Wait, he said, let's call it TIME!
What do you think?


PS: No Kant fanatics allowed! :knight:





EDIT: TK, the 4rth dimension is a theory. Not a fact. I cannot even consider it.

[Templar Knight]

So would you would disagree that time is the 4th dimension?

[Quietus]

Einstein said we're moving on an intertwined space-time; mass distorts/warps this space-time and one result is gravity. And how you see an event depends where you are in the space-time continuum. :dizzy2:

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave ~:rolleyes:, you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

[Strike For The South]

My clock is moving therefore so is time. Stop trying to blow my tiny mind!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Quietus]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave ~:rolleyes:, you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave. On equations, time does slow down. And since nothing is faster than light, they simply put that the distortions in time-space caused by mass is as fast as light.

It is theoretical. It doesn't have to be as fast as light, an object simply has to be very, very fast.

[Byzantine Prince]

On equations, time does slow down.
Assuming the variable of time is included. But I am arguing that the very origin of it is simply related to the function of memory. If you had no memory, time, as it is percieved, would not be noticed.



And since nothing is faster than light
If you can imagine something going faster then light then something probably can. This does not prove time.

Addition.... If something stop movement completely(no heat, therefore no collisions or movement between molecules or atoms) then the said mass would grow infinetly smaller until it dissapears completely. There is a formula for this. It's part of basic Chemistry. After something reaches a certain temprature(really low) it dissapears. It has never happened because the temperature is too low to be generated but it works perfectly mathematically.

"Mass cannot be created or destroyed."

You see the contradiction? If something stoped ALL movement however small it would cease to exist. BUT, then how does anything start to exist. For every effect there must be a cause, right?

Mathematically some things could make sense but they do not necessarily prove anything. But what I said does prove something. ~D

[fret]

That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

If I understand you correctly, he is right. The faster an object travels, the slower the object travels through time.

[Quietus]

Assuming the variable of time is included. But I am arguing that the very origin of it is simply related to the function of memory. If you had no memory, time, as it is percieved, would not be noticed. Haha. Don't trust your senses. Your senses are limited. Vision is simply light spectrum bouncing off objects, hitting your eyes and then coverted to electrochemical signals sent to your brain. There's no such thing as color. It's an abstract interpretation of your brain. There's no such thing as music either, it's only abstract of soundwaves.

But that speed of light is constant. Hence your vision is limited to how fast that light travels. Eg. Light travels from the sun to the earth in ~8 minutes (until it hits your eyes).


If you can imagine something going faster then light then something probably can. This does not prove time. I don't know exactly how they arrived at E=MC2, then that invalidates that equation.


Addition.... If something stop movement completely(no heat, therefore no collisions or movement between molecules or atoms) then the said mass would grow infinetly smaller until it dissapears completely. There is a formula for this. It's part of basic Chemistry. After something reaches a certain temprature(really low) it dissapears. It has never happened because the temperature is too low to be generated but it works perfectly mathematically.

"Mass cannot be created or destroyed."

You see the contradiction? If something stoped ALL movement however small it would cease to exist. BUT, then how does anything start to exist. For every effect there must be a cause, right?

Mathematically some things could make sense but they do not necessarily prove anything. But what I said does prove something. ~D It would grow infinitely smaller? No, it it will not cease to exist. Mass can be created from energy and vice versa.

[solypsist]

the ever useful wikipedia strikes again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time


of particular interest is the "Time in Physics section" - whoa.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, a very deep-thinker Physician well approaches to the core of philosophy. There were ancient Greek ones, correct me if I'm not wrong..

Briefly, Einstein may well be a quasi-philosopher..

[Reverend Joe]

*runs around screaming like a headless chicken for the next hour*

Why, why, WHY did I have to look at this thread?

Admittedly, though, it is more interesting than the usual political thread that clutters the backroom. And it's heavy ****.

[Byzantine Prince]

Haha. Don't trust your senses. Your senses are limited. Vision is simply light spectrum bouncing off objects, hitting your eyes and then coverted to electrochemical signals sent to your brain. There's no such thing as color. It's an abstract interpretation of your brain. There's no such thing as music either, it's only abstract of soundwaves.
Ok you sure love Spinoza. ~D
I agree with it, I don't see this as a refutation of what I previously posted.



It would grow infinitely smaller? No, it it will not cease to exist. Mass can be created from energy and vice versa.
After a certain temperature it would completely dissapear, theoretically. We don't really know what would hapen because we cannot reach that point of cold.


Well, a very deep-thinker Physician well approaches to the core of philosophy.
A physician is a medical doctor.

[Papewaio]

Time is as measurable as distance.

As for getting to near zero temperature the substance does not cease to exist it forms (ironically given above statements) a thing called a Bose-Einstein condensation.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/temperature.html


On earth, muons are created when a charged pion decays. The pions are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation and have a very short decay time--a few nanoseconds. The muons created when the pion decays are also short-lived: their decay time is 2.2 microseconds. However, muons in the atmosphere are moving at very high velocities, so that the time dilation effect of special relativity make them easily detectable at the earth's surface.

Essentially if it wasn't for time dilation muons would not reach the earth... one of many proofs that Relativity works.

Can add things like entropy to the mix of things that are time dependent...

[Reverend Joe]

No, it just becomes infinitely small, and therefore, infinitely dense. It loses no mass- that is impossible.

Edit: this is in response to BP.

[Quietus]

Ok you sure love Spinoza. ~D
I agree with it, I don't see this as a refutation of what I previously posted. Who is Spinoza? It simply meant that time is independent of human memory and senses. That's why mathematics is used, because your senses are just your senses and it is very limited (special only to the confines of the earth where the body evolved)


After a certain temperature it would completely dissapear, theoretically. We don't really know what would hapen because we cannot reach that point of cold. What is "it" in the sentence?

[_Martyr_]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.


There is a lot wrong with the above paragraph, scientifically. Coming from a scientific point of view rather than a philosophical point of you as you seem to, I would suggest that you read Hawking's most excellent "A Brief History of Time". The last few chapters are somewhat dedicated to your question and its written in laymans terms. Also, there are many laymans explanations of Relativity and perhaps some Quantum theory to be found. You seem to be treating science like philosophy here, its not a matter of just arguing a case and saying it is so, we are talking about the scientific process here. By all means if you can refute any of Einstein's equations in particular (you mentioned you disagreed with most of what he has ever said) then I'd love to see your work, but please dont think you can argue science, especially physics in terms of pure subjective philosophical observations. Eistein's theories have been verified many many times over, time is not a constant, and varies with velocity, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through a vaccum is, namely c. That is not to say that Physics, specially on the cutting edge is and should be very intertwined with Philosophy, but it is a case of implications and insights rather than mixing and matching approaches, conclusions and methods.

I dont exactly understand your point either, you are saying that if it wasnt for memory, we wouldnt know that time exists? And thus we cant prove it exists. Sure, but memory is a result of time passing (or at least is a product of of it passing and is enabled by it) so it's the equivalent of saying without the force of attraction we wouldnt knowei about gravity. But we DO know about the force of attraction and we DO have memory, so we can percieve the passing of time. Calling it time and perceving it as we do is of course a very human invention, but it is a fundamental quality of the physical Universe. Observation, theorisation and verification is ultimately the only way we can make proper determinations about the Universe. This is in essence what the Scientific Process boils down to. What this has led to is the determination that there is a characteristic of the Universe which is completely non-spacial, non-massive and uni-direction (always from past to present to future) which determines the order of events and which is apparently irriversable. Humans call this characteristic of the Universe time. What exactly do you dispute? Due to the fact that you can remember things, you acknowledge there is a fundamnetal characteristic of the Universe as described above. Calling it time, perceiving it and writing equations describing it is totally specific to humans, or conscious beings, but the quality of the Universe still exists, even if we were not around to see or perceive it. If a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around does it make any noise? (Now Im starting with Philosophy :dizzy2: , and somehow I have a feeling that you will disagree with me on the tree as well...~D ) Anyway, 2AM here and Im going sleepy sleepy!

[Kraxis]

Actually the speed of light varies depending on the substance it passes though, or the lack of it of course. In water for instance it is very very slow compared to our general image of 300,000 km/s. Even passing through our atmosphere it slows down considerably. This shows a relation to mass, despite the fact that light isn't a particle.
But in general we consider the speed of light to be the one in absolute vacuum.

[_Martyr_]

Eh, read what I wrote... I did indeed mention vacuum. Why else would refraction exist?

[Kraxis]

We wrote it at the same time... I was answering Quietus.

[Quietus]

We wrote it at the same time... I was answering Quietus. Yes, speed of light is a given depending on the medium. ~:)

[Byzantine Prince]

but please dont think you can argue science, especially physics in terms of pure subjective philosophical observations. Eistein's theories have been verified many many times over
And philosophers have argued many times over that time does not exist.


I dont exactly understand your point either, you are saying that if it wasnt for memory, we wouldnt know that time exists? And thus we cant prove it exists. Sure, but memory is a result of time passing
No. Merely that images are engrained in our heads as memories. We see and percieve things change position and we think that it is somehow in our past, when in fact the past doesn't exist, nor the future, only the present.


If a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around does it make any noise? (Now Im starting with Philosophy :dizzy2: , and somehow I have a feeling that you will disagree with me on the tree as well...~D )
That is not philosophy. ~;)

The past is just memories, and future merely our exagerated imaginations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BP:

I'm no physicist, but from what I've been able to read that summarizes the work of Planck and a few others, I don't think theres much difference between philosophy and high-end physics.

Pappy:

Nice proofs. Are you aware of any data collected so far that disconfirm Einstein's relativity ideas?

As to E=Mc2:

It's a "simple" derivation of F=Ma wherein:

Energy is the ultimate expression of force;

Mass is our constant for substance;

and the speed of light squared is just the use of an assumed maximum constant speed (the square of which is its accelaration).

If you characterize lightspeed as the fastest possible speed, it must be constant in a formula for all energy, the rest is Newton redux.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

You are right, the past doesn't exist (though some scientists have argued for timetravel), it has passed, and the present is. That alone argues that every moment passes us by as in a stream and its flow is thus time.

[Byzantine Prince]

There's no reason to assume it's time that flows. You have to think, why can I think differently about this? and then ask yourself, why am I not thinking the way I am not supposed to?

Ask yourself, why is it I have to name this such a broad concept ?

[Kraxis]

Call it what you will but the present is everchanging and it is never the same. What is has been has passed us by in a flash (well less actually). The rate of the passing by is time. That of course is not physical but so isn't thoughts.

[Quietus]

There's no reason to assume it's time that flows. You have to think, why can I think differently about this? and then ask yourself, why am I not thinking the way I am not supposed to?

Ask yourself, why is it I have to name this such a broad concept ?
If Einsteins theory is correct and you have a superfast ship, you can go back and forth from Earth and you would age in your timeframe while the earth's inhabitants will have aged aged considerably. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a superfast ship.

ps. I just looked up Spinoza. I agree with some of his points but not entirely. For example I disagree with your signature: "If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil. -". Men aren't born free ever, since the body is a machine. ~:)

[Byzantine Prince]

The_Unreality_of_Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time)


PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.

Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong.

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use.


For example I disagree with your signature: "If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil. -". Men aren't born free ever, since the body is a machine.
Most men are not free, not in the way that they should anyways. That's why they believe in good and evil.

[JimBob]

Time is simply a measure of distance. In the space that thing a moves x thing b moves y. Thing b used to be the sun, moon, stars. Now its clocks and such. So who cares if it is 'real' (no idea what that could mean, it's as real than what we use for distance, we chose some numbers and there you go), it is useful. Two cents.



Three cents: Geometric Infinity damnit.

[Soulforged]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave ~:rolleyes:, you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.
This is just wording. Time exists because we call certain phenomenum time, simple as that, the perceptible phenomenum is out there. Now analizing it some scientists discovered that it's in fact the forth dimenssion. In the essence of time there's nothing phylosophical (at least that you want to discuss philosophically logintude and height too), you can "go backwards" and "go forwards" in time too, at least in theory.

PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.
Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong. Yes and some idealists too, not the perfect subject to talk about physics (Hegel specially :rolleyes:)

[Quietus]

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use. The real question is if time is fixed or relative (Einstein).


Most men are not free, not in the way that they should anyways. That's why they believe in good and evil. All men were never free. Men can be defective but not free. Answer these questions:

1) Which came first, your hunger or your stomach?
2) Which came first, your stomach or your DNA?
3) Which came first, your DNA or your parents' DNA?

Freedom is only an illusion. Your feelings are only there to keep you alive and reproduce (and pass your DNA to your children). You never pass your brain. That's the system and it is inescapable. If you kill yourself, it means that you are simply defective and your dna is eliminated from the pool. If you never reproduce, it means you are not good enough in this system as well.

Like it or not, you are part of that system, which is Evolution.

Lastly, laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil". People follow it for their own protection (survival) as well as others. It is favored, because Society is there do what individuals can't do on their own and it is part of Evolution itself.

eg. If you can beat a gang of 20 thieves on your own, there would be no need for cops.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]All men were never free. Men can be defective but not free. Answer these questions:Discussable.

1) Which came first, your hunger or your stomach?
2) Which came first, your stomach or your DNA?
3) Which came first, your DNA or your parents' DNA?Huh?~:confused:

Freedom is only an illusion. Your feelings are only there to keep you alive and reproduce (and pass your DNA to your children). You never pass your brain. That's the system and it is inescapable. If you kill yourself, it means that you are simply defective and your dna is eliminated from the pool. If you never reproduce, it means you are not good enough in this system as well.Again discussable, freedom is not an ilussion, maybe your problem is one of terminology...

Lastly, laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil". People follow it for their own protection (survival) as well as others. It is favored, because Society is there do what individuals can't do on their own and it is part of Evolution itself.Law is not the measure of good and evil, and that's something that many people fail to understand here. Law is just pragmatic, it tries to achieve justice of course, but never looking to the motives of the man or to his moral tendences in society. People follow it for his own pleasure, wich is very different from survival.

[Don Corleone]

Time is a dimension, no differerent than any other we perceive, though we perceive it differently.

BP, to challenge the concept of 'time' is to challenge existence itself. You might be able to argue semantics and claim that it is not defined properly. But the fundamental concept, life is a movie, not a snapshot, is fundamental. How can you possibly argue for existence period if you cannot allow for time?

I think it's good that you try so hard to develop theories based on pure reason, but at some point, you're going to need a healthy dose of empiricism. There are simple data you can observe, make predictions about and confirm or deny your guesses on. You are right, at the end of the day, all could be explained by a deluded mind that exists singularly and creates time to prevent itself from going insane (as well as all experienced phenomenon that display chronolgical characteristics).

But what would be the point? You're driving towards a nihilism that nihilists themselves do not dare tread into. Why bother to tap your toughts and observations into that imaginary little keyboard? Why write messages to imaginary friends across the internet, or even speak to imaginary diversions in 'real life' for that matter? At the end of the day, existence, and meaning of said existence, are a choice. We matter because we choose to. At the end of the day, it really is that simple. To follow this path of 'pure reason' and 'nothing exists except my thoughts' may very well be true, but if it is, what possible point could it serve to make yourself aware of such a truth? If existence is truly meaningless and absurd, why exist?

[Byzantine Prince]

I think it's good that you try so hard to develop theories based on pure reason, but at some point, you're going to need a healthy dose of empiricism.
Empiricism is not a word.
I am basing my thoughts on empirical evidence, didn't you notice?
My argument was:

Man looks at movement, and thinks, something is different from my memory of that image. The fact that the position of the object is different in the memory, indicates to the man that [blank] has passed.

That is clearly based on something man experiences. Then from his senses he derives into the false conclusion that TIME has passed.


Why bother to tap your toughts and observations into that imaginary little keyboard? Why write messages to imaginary friends across the internet, or even speak to imaginary diversions in 'real life' for that matter?
Why do you post here? ~D

Seriously though, why even bother speaking? Why bother living, why bother having sex, why both eating? Why?!?! Because by living a little longer, I can think and philosophize a little longer.


what possible point could it serve to make yourself aware of such a truth?
I am more confounded on why you think my aims are so worthless. Just because I'm nihilistic you think I have no goals, that would make me a bum(~;) ), not a lover of wisdom.

Aristotle said that in order for man to be alone he must either be an animal or a god. Nietzsche added that man must be both, a philosopher!

[Quietus]

Discussable.
Huh?~:confused:
Again discussable, freedom is not an ilussion, maybe your problem is one of terminology...
Go ahead and discuss, I'll answer you.


Law is not the measure of good and evil, and that's something that many people fail to understand here. Law is just pragmatic, it tries to achieve justice of course, but never looking to the motives of the man or to his moral tendences in society. The law is the best social measure/approximation of "good" and "evil" at least in a democratic society. It is under the law that everyone is relatively safe. Collective security is important.


People follow it for his own pleasure, wich is very different from survival. Pleasure and Pain is part of survival. That's the point. Who decides which is Pleasure and Pain? The machine in you. Do you decide which is sweet or not sweet? If an experience is Painful, do you keep repeating it? No, you stop doing it because it is a threat to your survival.

[Kanamori]

How can you possibly argue for existence period if you cannot allow for time?

Cogito ergo sum. Variously put by him, 'I am, I exist'; 'I am thinking, therefore I am'. You can be sure of your existence w/o being sure of any notion of time, because the statement only requires self-recognition momentarily.

[_Martyr_]

How about this BP, time is the rate of change of the present.

[Byzantine Prince]

Rubbish. The vast majority of philosophers throughout history have been glaringly, amazingly, flabbergastingly wrong.
But oh to what extents they went to convince themselves that they were worthy of truth! ~:)

They have all contributed their part, these philosophers, they have fine-tuned the nature of reality itself. They have examined the ethics and politics of this world to the edges of reason. One only needs to read their works to see the incredible amount to forcefulness they have put into their concepts.

To boil that down to good advice is ridiculous.


How about this BP, time is the rate of change of the present.
Rate of change is represented by the derivative just fine. Thank you Leibniz!

[Kraxis]

Rate of change is represented by the derivative just fine. Thank you Leibniz!
Hey, unfair... I stated on the previous page. Ok not really the same but the intention is the same.


Call it what you will but the present is everchanging and it is never the same. What is has been has passed us by in a flash (well less actually). The rate of the passing by is time. That of course is not physical but so isn't thoughts.

[Soulforged]

Go ahead and discuss, I'll answer you.No, for another topic.

The law is the best social measure/approximation of "good" and "evil" at least in a democratic society. It is under the law that everyone is relatively safe. Collective security is important.Again your summarazing your views, not reality of the law. The law is just pragmatic, good and bad are things for the individual to measure.

Pleasure and Pain is part of survival. That's the point. Who decides which is Pleasure and Pain? The machine in you. Do you decide which is sweet or not sweet? If an experience is Painful, do you keep repeating it? No, you stop doing it because it is a threat to your survival.Yes that will explain sadomasoquism. Not all pleasure is oriented towards survival. You're your "soul", you mind, your psique, call it what you want, and through those you make statements such as the previously that's the freedom that you've, free will is discusable, material freedom is not, it's the essence of the higher individual that we humans are.

[LeftEyeNine]

A physician is a medical doctor.

Non-native speakers do make mistakes. Especially when it is midnight..

So take it that way.. Thanks for correction..

[Del Arroyo]

My clock is moving therefore so is time. Stop trying to blow my tiny mind!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL my thoughts exactly. ~:cheers:

DA

[Quietus]

No, for another topic. Ok.

Again your summarazing your views, not reality of the law. The law is just pragmatic, good and bad are things for the individual to measure. No, it's not my view, it's a social consensus. I don't make the laws. People vote for lawmakers, hence it is a consensus. Lawmakers won't ban pornography because the social consensus is that it isn't "evil".


Yes that will explain sadomasoquism. Not all pleasure is oriented towards survival. You're your "soul", you mind, your psique, call it what you want, and through those you make statements such as the previously that's the freedom that you've, free will is discusable, material freedom is not, it's the essence of the higher individual that we humans are. That's the illusion part. Example:

Which came first, your Hunger or your Stomach? In other words, are you hungry because you have a stomach or you have a stomach because you are hungry?

Your body creates a chemical illusion of hunger that makes you eat. What you eat isn't your choice either.

If I tell you I have a lump of white substance in front of me, would you eat it? You won't decide to consume or avoid it until you know what it is because it wasn't never your choice after all.

The illusion part is where you look at the white substance and determine whether you can eat it and not die and THINK, you're actually doing all the picking.

[Soulforged]

No, it's not my view, it's a social consensus. I don't make the laws. People vote for lawmakers, hence it is a consensus. Lawmakers won't ban pornography because the social consensus is that it isn't "evil".Of course as always common sense.
laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil" By a general rule the law must adapt to the equity, wich is a type derivated from morality, but the law itself, again by a general rule, doesn't and shouldn't contain measures of good or bad, the idea of justice is very far from positive law. Common sense doesn't serves in all cases Quietus, here is one of them, moral and law are separated.

Which came first, your Hunger or your Stomach? In other words, are you hungry because you have a stomach or you have a stomach because you are hungry? Errr...The hunger comes from the metabolism in your cells wich sends signals to your brain, not from your stomach. In any case I don't see your point here. Where's the illusion?

Your body creates a chemical illusion of hunger that makes you eat. What you eat isn't your choice either.Huh? Of course not I can eat and egg or a piece of meat. Clearify.

If I tell you I have a lump of white substance in front of me, would you eat it? You won't decide to consume or avoid it until you know what it is because it wasn't never your choice after all.What was never my choice, eat the lump or the lump existence...~:confused:

The illusion part is where you look at the white substance and determine whether you can eat it and not die and THINK, you're actually doing all the picking.Illusion? It's all certain, I decided to eat or I decided not to eat it, ultimatelly you'll see it in my actions.


lmao.. so someone's desire to twist their theory until it conforms to reality suddenly equates to a good, objective, view of the world and it's properties?Phylosophy is all about twisting things, and modifying the very axiological points of human thinking.

[Papewaio]

The_Unreality_of_Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time)


PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.

Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong.

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use.


Philosophy and science are related at least at the level of hypothesis. In the past far more scientists were philosophers.

The difference, and scientists would argue the flaw with philosophy, is that science tests its ideas against the world. This is not to say that physics has dropped mind experiments such as Schrodingers Cat.

The specialisation has gone even further. We now have theoritical scientists such as Einstein and Hawking, and experimental scientists. The theorists create ideas, test them mathematically, while the experimental scientists go out and test the ideas. This division of labour is slightly abstract except when referring to Physics dons getting their slave labourer, umm, project student to do the experiment.

Although science is fairly commonly referred to as being not a democracy, In My Dishounourable Opinion the title of dictatorship of thought more fairly rests in the court of Philosophy.

Science is to Philosophy what Democracy are to Dictatorships. One at least has the support of the numbers and a far greater amount of accountability, the other just works on force of who has the greatest perceived power.

In the end of the day science is not a democracy either. All the worlds philosophers can say what they like, while one child can scientifically prove them wrong.

[Quietus]

Of course as always common sense. By a general rule the law must adapt to the equity, wich is a type derivated from morality, but the law itself, again by a general rule, doesn't and shouldn't contain measures of good or bad, the idea of justice is very far from positive law. Common sense doesn't serves in all cases Quietus, here is one of them, moral and law are separated. The meaning of "good" and "evil" changes and it can be reflected in the laws.


Errr...The hunger comes from the metabolism in your cells wich sends signals to your brain, not from your stomach. In any case I don't see your point here. Where's the illusion? The illusion is the hunger. It's out of your control. Can you choose not to be hungry? For long can you hold on? You'll eat eventually.

It's not your brain that is really important. It's the machinery inside you. Your consciousness is simply an illusion to aid this machinery, so it can survive and reproduce.


Huh? Of course not I can eat and egg or a piece of meat. Clearify.
What was never my choice, eat the lump or the lump existence...~:confused:
Illusion? It's all certain, I decided to eat or I decided not to eat it, ultimatelly you'll see it in my actions. It's not you who decided what to eat, it's your DNA. You only eat what your body can utilize. Do you eat wood? It has energy just like steak. All the foods you mentioned are digestible. What determines what is digestible? Your DNA.

The illusion is, you think, you're making a choice, but in reality, the choices were already made. Have you ever seen yourself eating your own clothes? Clothes are made of fiber (just like wood, and not digestible).

[Soulforged]

The meaning of "good" and "evil" changes and it can be reflected in the laws.It can be reflected in law, but are the laws the measure of good and bad, not. There's absolutelly no way to make objective rules for morality.


The illusion is the hunger. It's out of your control. Can you choose not to be hungry? For long can you hold on? You'll eat eventually.Ok, but why do you call it illusion? In any case there's exceptions, a man can force his system to not eat, he'll die but he can do it.

It's not your brain that is really important. It's the machinery inside you. Your consciousness is simply an illusion to aid this machinery, so it can survive and reproduce.That's a very positive and wrong view of the human. The human has a will, wich don't necesarilly comes from survival.

It's not you who decided what to eat, it's your DNA. You only eat what your body can utilize. Do you eat wood? It has energy just like steak. All the foods you mentioned are digestible. What determines what is digestible? Your DNA.I ate paper some time, by my own decesion. DNA doesn't determine choices, just tendences.

The illusion is, you think, you're making a choice, but in reality, the choices were already made. Have you ever seen yourself eating your own clothes? Clothes are made of fiber (just like wood, and not digestible).So you see the human as just another animal. The difference is exactly that freedom that you seem to ignore. If I've a piece of bread and in the other hand a piece of chocolat and I decide to eat chocolate today and bread tomorrow there's a choice. If I decide to eat paper, there's a choice. That's why I think that you're trying to discuss free will, wich is discussable, but material freedom (ie the perceptible possibility of election) is not discussable it's out there and it's evident. The human is way beyond the simple instinct, the human works with the mind.

[King Henry V]

I agree with JimBob and Don Corleone that time is a measurement, like yards or inches, used to quantify the rythms of nature and natural evolution. That is why I think that time travel is impossible. The only way for people to go back in time is if everything goes backwards, which means that at a certain point those going back in time will retun to nothing.

On the side-debate going on here:
My view of law is that it is based of morality and good and wrong. It is meant to punish the wrong-doer and if possible make better what has gone wrong.

[Byzantine Prince]

Philosophy and science are related at least at the level of hypothesis. In the past far more scientists were philosophers.
Today far more philosophers are mathematicians.


The difference, and scientists would argue the flaw with philosophy, is that science tests its ideas against the world. This is not to say that physics has dropped mind experiments such as Schrodingers Cat.
I don't disagree. However philosophers can prove any scientist wrong, for they are naturally better orators. Therefore they can dispute the existence of the world itself and so make that argument invalid.


Science is to Philosophy what Democracy are to Dictatorships. One at least has the support of the numbers and a far greater amount of accountability, the other just works on force of who has the greatest perceived power.
Philosophy has always described and analyzed everything that we can percieve, including science. It is not the job of the philosopher to learn every possible aspect of human intuition, it is rather the job of the scientist to put his science in light of philosophy. One cannot be a good scientist without also being a philosopher.




PS: Souforged and Qietus, Get your own thread for that irrelevent discussion.

[Papewaio]

I don't disagree. However philosophers can prove any scientist wrong, for they are naturally better orators. Therefore they can dispute the existence of the world itself and so make that argument invalid.

He can talk all he wants. Then I introduce him to a thing called momentum and hit him in the nuts... lets see if he is so eloquent about stating that doesn't exist.

Anyone can masticate lyrically about the state of the world. Doesn't make them correct.


Philosophy has always described and analyzed everything that we can percieve, including science. It is not the job of the philosopher to learn every possible aspect of human intuition, it is rather the job of the scientist to put his science in light of philosophy. One cannot be a good scientist without also being a philosopher.

Philosophy is dead, science killed him. ~;) :bow:

[bmolsson]

Sorry, but I don't have time for this.......

[Divinus Arma]

If you pass wind but are quadraplegic, deaf, and can't smell, did you ever really fart at all?

Kind of the same argument as this one, if you ask me.

Time is time. A fart is a fart. Argument solved.

[Byzantine Prince]

DA, that's a similar argument that Spinoza makes.

"One and the same thing can at the same time be good, bad, and indifferent, e.g., music is good to the melancholy, bad to those who mourn, and neither good nor bad to the deaf. "

Therefore does music exist separate from aeverything else? No, it's simply waves through air.

I could make the same argument for time. It's good bad and indifferent, but indifference is not an exception, it's the rule. Highest power rules.

[yesdachi]

Man looks at movement, and thinks, something is different from my memory of that image. The fact that the position of the object is different in the memory, indicates to the man that [blank] has passed. Wait, he said, let's call it TIME!
How can one have a memory without time? ~;)