Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 5

Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.


"Motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same instant, it's just absurd."

The word Instant itself is defined as a precise moment in time.

You are pretty much saying "motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same time", which is saying the same thing twice in different words. That's a tautology!

Entropy is related to the "direction" of time and not time itself.

Why do you think they say that the laws of physics are time invariant? Because the laws themselves hold up just fine even if you reverse time. The only reason the physical processes are not reversible to you (or me or others) is because they don't make sense when viewed or perceived in reverse. That's all.

At the risk of repetition, it's all about making sense to the human mind. Hence the concept of time which "moves" forward.

Well, don't get stuck in semantics. How do you differentiate between two configurations in space without the time component? Describe motion without using time for me, will you?

Direction of time will imply there is something as time.

Because the processes are irreversible. If time is just a concept and not a reality, why can't we just jump around?

I won't even take the risk of repeating myself. ðŸ˜† I can discuss about the nature of time, but if you deny the existence of time itself, that's not something I can work with. 
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by Freethinker112




Well, don't get stuck in semantics. How do you differentiate between two configurations in space without the time component?

On one hand you are defining motion as change in position of an object over time, and on the other hand  you are asking me to define motion as change in position of an object without involving time, while also telling me not to get stuck in semantics. Do you even see the irony behind your statements?

Describe motion without using time for me, will you?

Talk to a photon.

Direction of time will imply there is something as time.

No, it only implies that thermodynamic processes always proceed in a direction that increases the disorder of the system.

Because the processes are irreversible. If time is just a concept and not a reality, why can't we just jump around?

a. Because we don't live in the subatomic world. We have "bulk". if I was mass-less like a photon, yes.
b. Because, I didn't make up the rule for heat to flow from hotter object to a cooler object

I won't even take the risk of repeating myself. ðŸ˜†

Right, so no more motion related statements for the nth time? 😊


 I can discuss about the nature of time, but if you deny the existence of time itself, that's not something I can work with.

The onus is on you to prove the existence of time as an absolute entity and not in terms of other processes whose definitions were already laid out by us humans in terms of time.


Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by Freethinker112



Well, don't get stuck in semantics. How do you differentiate between two configurations in space without the time component? Describe motion without using time for me, will you?

Direction of time will imply there is something as time.

Because the processes are irreversible. If time is just a concept and not a reality, why can't we just jump around?

I won't even take the risk of repeating myself. ðŸ˜† I can discuss about the nature of time, but if you deny the existence of time itself, that's not something I can work with. 

ok lemme try. Hopefully you'll get it now.

First off, the stuff you are talking about is newton physics...It might come as a huge shock to you but its wrong anyway. 😉 Let us know if you want to understand why.

now lets talk time. See, time is like color... an artificial construct. Just because you see color does not mean its a physical reality. Reality is frequency/ waves/ particles... colors are how we perceive things. But that's just a function of our sensory mechanism, how our senses decode reality or frequencies. Foro a color blind person, there's no color, at least not the way other people perceive it...As for time, something similar is at work as color. 

also, time is brought in to explain change to kids. Its how the simple mind grasps things... You start ordering the sequence of changes because that's how your mind works. Then you make the wild jump to say time exists. But that's a construct in your mind. In reality, there's no change. Everything is there... past, present, future.  Nothing is changing. Only your mind is perceiving change. In the local universe (local as in what your mind can perceive), you perceive change. But again, there's no such thing as time, certainly no absolute time.

now, if you got that, maybe we can move on to a more evolved discussion... possible?😆
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum


[
now, if you got that, maybe we can move on to a more evolved discussion... possible?😆


Knowing FT, not a chance in hell, till at least the 150th page...

and then another thread...
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.



On one hand you are defining motion as change in position of an object over time, and on the other hand  you are asking me to define motion as change in position of an object without involving time, while also telling me not to get stuck in semantics. Do you even see the irony behind your statements?

There is no irony there. I stated you require motion for time because motion is change in position over some time interval. This explanation requires time. You say time doesn't exist. So, forget that definition of motion, and describe motion for me. Where's the irony?


Originally posted by K.Universe.



Talk to a photon.

Light has a velocity of c. Do you believe in c or is that also made up? That again has a time component.

Originally posted by K.Universe.



No, it only implies that thermodynamic processes always proceed in a direction that increases the disorder of the system.

That direction itself is the arrow of time.

Originally posted by K.Universe.



a. Because we don't live in the subatomic world. We have "bulk". if I was mass-less like a photon, yes.
b. Because, I didn't make up the rule for heat to flow from hotter object to a cooler object

If there is no time then why is there any delay? Even photon has a delay reaching here from Sun. Why is there any "delay"? Why do things happen in "order"?

Originally posted by K.Universe.



Right, so no more motion related statements for the nth time? 😊

That's the simplest way to explain it, so no promises there.


Originally posted by K.Universe.



The onus is on you to prove the existence of time as an absolute entity and not in terms of other processes whose definitions were already laid out by us humans in terms of time.

You're getting it backwards. Other processes are defined in terms of time. Things like velocity. So, when you claim that time doesn't exist, the onus is on you to describe all those things without time. I would love to see the results.
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum



ok lemme try. Hopefully you'll get it now.

First off, the stuff you are talking about is newton physics...It might come as a huge shock to you but its wrong anyway. 😉 Let us know if you want to understand why.

GR wasn't given by Newton. Might comes as a huge shock to you. I am not sure that this is the best place to learn science.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum



now lets talk time. See, time is like color... an artificial construct. Just because you see color does not mean its a physical reality. Reality is frequency/ waves/ particles... colors are how we perceive things. But that's just a function of our sensory mechanism, how our senses decode reality or frequencies. Foro a color blind person, there's no color, at least not the way other people perceive it...As for time, something similar is at work as color. 

This is not relevant at all, color is perception of light of a given wavelength range. We all know this.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum



also, time is brought in to explain change to kids. Its how the simple mind grasps things... You start ordering the sequence of changes because that's how your mind works. Then you make the wild jump to say time exists. But that's a construct in your mind. In reality, there's no change. Everything is there... past, present, future.  Nothing is changing. Only your mind is perceiving change. In the local universe (local as in what your mind can perceive), you perceive change. But again, there's no such thing as time, certainly no absolute time.

You don't need us, or any living thing to perceive the world for change to happen. Universe isn't now what it was before. And that duration has been there, even before us. Things change. They have always changed. And they change over time. The 13 billion years that passed before we came along wasn't "perceived by our mind". We could all die and time would still go on.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum



now, if you got that, maybe we can move on to a more evolved discussion... possible?😆

Discussion where time doesn't exist? ðŸ˜† It couldn't evolve, since there was no time.
Posted: 6 years ago
" if there is no time then why is there any delay? Even photon has a delay reaching here from Sun. Why is there any "delay"?"

it appears as delay to our minds. To a photon, there is no delay. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you. Our minds don't work at the speed of light. It's just electro-chemical processes with their inherent speed limits.



"when you claim that time doesn't exist, the onus is on you to describe all those things without time. I would love to see the results."


Since when did proofs descend into descriptions? If the Quran or the Bible or the Gita describe God, it doesn't mean you believe that God exists, do you? Are you asking me to prove a negative?
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.




Knowing FT, not a chance in hell, till at least the 150th page...

and then another thread...

Nah, I don't indulge in unscientific discussions anymore. Would rather spend that time learning actual stuff.
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.



it appears as delay to our minds. To a photon, there is no delay. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you. Our minds don't work at the speed of light. It's just electro-chemical processes with their inherent speed limits.


I don't understand why do you always bring the mind in the discussion.There is a delay in any frame of reference. Or are you saying that if humans were not there on Earth, it wouldn't take light 8 minutes to reach here?

Originally posted by K.Universe.



Since when did proofs descend into descriptions? If the Quran or the Bible or the Gita describe God, it doesn't mean you believe that God exists, do you? Are you asking me to prove a negative?

You write everything except for what I ask. And you get stuck on words. Give me a mathematical proof, a derivation, a theory, or explain in simple English words. Whichever you prefer. But I still don't see you describing things like velocity without the use of time.
Posted: 6 years ago
Originally posted by Freethinker112





Nah, I don't indulge in unscientific discussions anymore. Would rather spend that time learning actual stuff.

That's up to you but if you think classical mechanics is the only science there is, then you do have a steep learning curve. For the record, quantum mechanics more accurately describes reality than classical mechanics.

I don't understand why do you always bring the mind in the discussion.There is a delay in any frame of reference. Or are you saying that if humans were not there on Earth, it wouldn't take light 8 minutes to reach here?

No no no. To a photon, there is no frame of reference because there is no frame where it is at rest. At light speed, time goes to 0.So does length. That has nothing to do with humans or our minds.


You write everything except for what I ask. And you get stuck on words. Give me a mathematical proof, a derivation, a theory, or explain in simple English words. Whichever you prefer. But I still don't see you describing things like velocity without the use of time.

Which part of circular definitions are you not understanding? For the last time, you can't take a variable out of the equation and still describe the equation in its original form. If you can't understand that much, please don't engage me again in a discussion.



Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

7 Participants 76 Replies 4928Views

Topic started by Angel-likeDevil

Last replied by qwertyesque

loader
loader
up-open TOP