Time

[pig]

i knew I was right

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Thanks Alberti,
let’s postpone our discussion for a few months.
God bless,
Jano

Why? I think now is as good a time as any to ask good questions about the physics of time dilation and its implications.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

time doesn’t exist in reality it only exists in the mind.

see Augustine Confessions book 11 chapter 27

but at the same time I would say time is relative in the scientific sense, not sure about the philosophical sense.

Yes, because what St Augustine said 1600 years ago about time is not only correct, but never has been contradicted by other Saints of the Church, nor by other wise philosophers over the ages.

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, because what St Augustine said 1600 years ago about time is not only correct, but never has been contradicted by other Saints of the Church, nor by other wise philosophers over the ages.

serious question the person who has the latest question to a philosophical issue is correct?

I would love for you to explain how Time has existence in the world how it exists on its own and doesn’t need to be in the mind of a person who exercise what he calls time.

for me Augustines definition of time, I think, is the best explanation (philosophically) of how time works.

St. Augustine is still very widely accepted by the Church and much of what he has said has always been held and highly regarded by the Catholic Church.

but to explain it the best I can

time has no existence in the outside world, Think about how we are able to measure something in time. Lets say that you want to run a 10 minuet lap, and you are 2 minuets into this lap. How are you able to measure you progress in this time. How do you know that two minuets have past? It can’t be because you see 2 minuets of existing time right now, the things that are in the past are now non-existing they no longer exist. So how do you know of things in the Past? secondly you know you have 8 minuets left, how do you know there is 8 minuets left when those 8 minuets have yet to come into existence. Lastly how are you able to have a grasp on the present when it is constantly changing and you can’t pin down one moment of the present by itself and see its existence before it goes into the past.

so the past doesn’t exist
the future doesn’t exist
and the present is constantly passing and can’t be pinned down.

how are we able to have measurements of time in this world?

Before you go on and read the answer try and answer this question for yourself, how are we able to have a measurement of time if only the present exists and is constantly going into the past, meaning we can’t pin it down. Plus even if you could pin down the present how could you know how much time has past when there is no existence of what has past.

answer bellow Highlight from next line down

the reason we are able to know time is through 3 things

first we know the past through memory, meanign we remember what happened in the past the expiernces of the past exist in our mind. For example in a hymn you have to hold a note for 4 seconds or 4 beats (at 60BPM) when you are at beat 3 you know your at beat 3 because you have a memory of the first and second beat

you know the present because your mind is attending the present

lastly the future you know by anticipation, meaing when you are beat 3 you anticipate beat 4 and the note after beat 4

so you konw time through memory attention and anticipation

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

serious question the person who has the latest question to a philosophical issue is correct?

Not at all what I said, is it now? My implications are that you are taking only one person’s opinion on the nature of time and completely ignoring everyone else who disagrees with the position. There are better explanations of the nature of time than what St Augustine said.

I would love for you to explain how Time has existence in the world how it exists on its own and doesn’t need to be in the mind of a person who exercise what he calls time.

Your assertion is that time only has meaning with humans present, so the 13.6 billion years of the universe’s history did not actually happen because humans were not there to witness it. My assertion is that time does exist outside of our experience.
Your assertion is that Ireland did not exist until it was discovered by some tribe from northern Spain or whatever.

for me Augustines definition of time, I think, is the best explanation (philosophically) of how time works.

So you are content with the idea that, without human experience, time does not exist? I am extremely skeptical that you truly believe that.

St. Augustine is still very widely accepted by the Church and much of what he has said has always been held and highly regarded by the Catholic Church.

I would amend this to say that St Augustine is widely accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as his theology is very at odds with particular elements of Eastern Catholic theology.

but to explain it the best I can

time has no existence in the outside world, Think about how we are able to measure something in time. Lets say that you want to run a 10 minuet lap, and you are 2 minuets into this lap. How are you able to measure you progress in this time. How do you know that two minuets have past? It can’t be because you see 2 minuets of existing time right now, the things that are in the past are now non-existing they no longer exist. So how do you know of things in the Past? secondly you know you have 8 minuets left, how do you know there is 8 minuets left when those 8 minuets have yet to come into existence. Lastly how are you able to have a grasp on the present when it is constantly changing and you can’t pin down one moment of the present by itself and see its existence before it goes into the past.

Can you see air you breath? You can see the effects of it, but can you actually see it? Have you ever seen your spleen? Or your kidney? Or your brain? Yet you accept that they are there because you see their effects, yes?
Just because time is not ‘visible’ like my desk is visible, does not mean that it is not real.

so the past doesn’t exist
the future doesn’t exist
and the present is constantly passing and can’t be pinned down.

How minutely can we nail down ‘present.’ Is it the minute we are in? The second? The nanosecond? The femtosecond? At which point can we not tell between the ‘now-present’ and the ‘next-present?’ (Really, that should be 'at which point does the present become the past?)

how are we able to have measurements of time in this world?

With clocks and watches. In order for something to measurable, it must be real, that is a fact of science.

Before you go on and read the answer try and answer this question for yourself, how are we able to have a measurement of time if only the present exists and is constantly going into the past, meaning we can’t pin it down. Plus even if you could pin down the present how could you know how much time has past when there is no existence of what has past.

I do not believe you fully realize the implications of your theory of time. If you truly believe in the non-existence of the past, why are you even Catholic? For the past to have not existed, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, then the Catholic Church was never founded and there is no such thing religion.

 

[JDaniel]

Why? I think now is as good a time as any to ask good questions about the physics of time dilation and its implications.

I agree.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, because what St Augustine said 1600 years ago about time is not only correct, but never has been contradicted by other Saints of the Church, nor by other wise philosophers over the ages.

Alberti:

Aquinas saw time as in-the-mind and as having imperfect reality.

God bless,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

Not at all what I said, is it now? My implications are that you are taking only one person’s opinion on the nature of time and completely ignoring everyone else who disagrees with the position. There are better explanations of the nature of time than what St Augustine said.

how do you know I’m only taking one into my consideration, don’t you think its possible that I have viewed other philosophers view on this?

Your assertion is that time only has meaning with humans present, so the 13.6 billion years of the universe’s history did not actually happen because humans were not there to witness it. My assertion is that time does exist outside of our experience.
Your assertion is that Ireland did not exist until it was discovered by some tribe from northern Spain or whatever.

I do not believe you fully realize the implications of your theory of time. If you truly believe in the non-existence of the past, why are you even Catholic? For the past to have not existed, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, then the Catholic Church was never founded and there is no such thing religion.

So you are content with the idea that, without human experience, time does not exist? I am extremely skeptical that you truly believe that.

your comments here don’t understand what I’m trying to get at.

let me try this again

I think something that can help explain this is Aristotle’s view of change. For example you have the changing of a piece of wood to ash.

Point X will represent Wood point Y represents Ash

X → Y

X is the starting point (can’t remember what he called this)
y is the ending point (don’t remember what he called this)
and → is the thing that underlies the change

for Aristotle there is always something going on while the change is happening

so there is X1 X2 X3 X4 X5…Y

and it is constant change it will never stay on X1 or X22

during the change when you are X22 X1-21 no longer exists, and X23-Y don’t exist yet. Only in the present does X22 exist once it reaches X23 X22 no longer exists.

time is exactly like this

at 4:00:00 only 4:00:00 exists 3:59:59 no longer exists and 4:00:01 does not yet exist.

so if things that are in the past no longer exist how can we measure time.

I say its through the mind, memory attention anticipation.

to make it clear from the beginning of time things have existed but at this point of time things in the past no longer exist. So for example Jesus once existed but now he exists in heaven. The Jesus who walked on earth no longer existed he now exists in Heaven. Another example, you who went to mass last Sunday (or saturday night) no longer exist but now exist as the person reading this, and the person who will be sleeping later doesn’t exist yet.

my point is that Time doesn’t exist because you must have past to measure time, and the past no longer exists. You could measure things in the present but that has no length so there is nothing to measure. You could measure the future but that also has no existence yet. So there is nothing in the outside world that you can measure. the ONLY way we can measure time is by use of our mind. Our memory allows us to measure things in the past, our attention of the present allow us to measure things that are happening in the present, and our anticipation allows us to messure things in the future.

again the example I used earlier is a musical note. Lets say you are holding a 4 beat note. The only reason you know when to cut that note off is because of your mind not because time exists in the real world. At beat 3 we have the memory of beats 1 and 2 we are attending beat 3 and we are anticipating beat 4 and beat 1 of the next measure.

Can you see air you breath? You can see the effects of it, but can you actually see it? Have you ever seen your spleen? Or your kidney? Or your brain? Yet you accept that they are there because you see their effects, yes?

you can’t see the effects of time though, please explain how we see the effects of time, and how that proves that time must have existence in the world. Plus I never said just because its not visable means it isn’t real.

How minutely can we nail down ‘present.’ Is it the minute we are in? The second? The nanosecond? The femtosecond? At which point can we not tell between the ‘now-present’ and the ‘next-present?’ (Really, that should be 'at which point does the present become the past?)

I agree with you

With clocks and watches. In order for something to measurable, it must be real, that is a fact of science.

no it doesn’t, when you look at your watch and see the small hand on 5 the large hand on 12 and the second hand on 12. How do you know that when the second hand reaches 2 10 seconds have passed? If the second hand is no longer on the 12.

the only way you can know that 10 seconds have past is that if you have a memory of the second hand on 12 and now see the second hand on 2.

if Time had existence in the world if it was an actual real being, then we wouldn’t need our minds to measure it. Just like we don’t need our minds to measure a peice of paper, well everything needed to measure the peice of paper is in the world.

one other thing on this point 10 is necessary to measure 10 feet, do feet and 10 both exist by themselves in the outside world or do they just explain things?

 

[catholictiger]

Alberti:

Aquinas saw time as in-the-mind and as having imperfect reality.

God bless,
jd

another way to look at it is that it is that the mental being of time is founded on reality. (something along those lines)

 

[JDaniel]

I would love for you to explain how Time has existence in the world how it exists on its own and doesn’t need to be in the mind of a person who exercise what he calls time.

CT:

St. Thomas’ explanation is somewhat lengthy, so, because of time and space considerations I cannot reproduce all of it here. But, because you asked the question, I’ll attempt a summation.

We know time exists precisely because we number the before and after, even if we only do so implicitly. We sense motion as containing a beginning of it and and ending to it. In that sense, we number the starting of motion as first, and the termination of that motion as second. We do not imagine this numbering any more than we imagine that a dog has four legs. Nature imparts that reality to our intellects.

But, as numbered, it is not precisely real. It appears to be more like an abstraction. However, motion goes on, and time goes on, even while we sleep. For, upon awakening, we discover that the hands on our clock have changed position, the sun has changed position, and a myriad of other motions has occurred while we were unconscious.

But, number itself has a foundation in reality, since there are countless things in the real world which the mind does not create but only knows by numbering them, such as the dog mentioned above. Now it is true that there could be no actual enumeration of the parts of time if there were no human soul. Nevertheless, even if there were no human souls, there would still be a numerability in the prior and posterior parts of a motion’s trajectory, and this is the foundation for time. To this extent at least, time has an imperfect existence outside of the mind. It has a foundation there.

When we see motion, we see time simultaneously. We don’t analyze what we are seeing; we sense that we are sensing time the moment we see motion. But, this is not to say that time and motion are the same. It is to say that time is never without motion, nor is motion ever without time. This means that they are correlative. If you look up that word in a dictionary, you’ll discover that it has its foundation in the word, “relative.” So, at the very least, both time and motion are relative to each other. From this assertion other relativities may be deduced.

St. Thomas believes (Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. II, ch. 22, and Commentary on the Physics, Bk. IV, les. 23, nn. 1209-1210) that there would be no numerability in the parts of motion if nature did not intend in some way a human mind that could number the numerable and thus reduce the potency of motion to a state of act. But, he said further, that the potency then act of motion are present even in the absence of any human mind.

time has no existence in the outside world, Think about how we are able to measure something in time. Lets say that you want to run a 10 minuet lap, and you are 2 minuets into this lap. How are you able to measure you progress in this time. How do you know that two minuets have past? It can’t be because you see 2 minuets of existing time right now, the things that are in the past are now non-existing they no longer exist. So how do you know of things in the Past? secondly you know you have 8 minuets left, how do you know there is 8 minuets left when those 8 minuets have yet to come into existence.

See above.

Lastly how are you able to have a grasp on the present when it is constantly changing and you can’t pin down one moment of the present by itself and see its existence before it goes into the past.

In the same way as St. Thomas suggested: by our unending tendency to number them. In fact, we have a word for it. It is called, “succession.” We know that the Now exists because we can number them. Besides, we also understand that it terminates the Past, and begins the Future. It is that thing - that is not a part of time - as time is succession, that separates the past from the future.

so the past doesn’t exist

But it does. We record it.

the future doesn’t exist

True. Not yet, anyway!

and the present is constantly passing and can’t be pinned down.

Doesn’t mean it’s not real.

how are we able to have measurements of time in this world?

By consensus, men (and women) determine the length of time slices and make them additive, or subtractive. For example, the second, the minute, and the hour.

Before you go on and read the answer try and answer this question for yourself, how are we able to have a measurement of time if only the present exists and is constantly going into the past, meaning we can’t pin it down. Plus even if you could pin down the present how could you know how much time has past when there is no existence of what has past.

See above.

God bless,
jd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

how do you know I’m only taking one into my consideration, don’t you think its possible that I have viewed other philosophers view on this?

Because you cite Augustine and ignore everyone else, obviously.

your comments here don’t understand what I’m trying to get at.

Then either you are poor at explaining your point or poor at understanding your own point. Your initial post was

time doesn’t exist in reality it only exists in the mind

That means explicitly that it takes a mind for time to exist. If time exists only to observers (a mind), then before observers came to be time did not exist. It is painfully obvious that this is an impossibility.

let me try this again

I think something that can help explain this is Aristotle’s view of change. For example you have the changing of a piece of wood to ash.

so if things that are in the past no longer exist how can we measure time.

I say its through the mind, memory attention anticipation.

to make it clear from the beginning of time things have existed but at this point of time things in the past no longer exist. So for example Jesus once existed but now he exists in heaven. The Jesus who walked on earth no longer existed he now exists in Heaven. Another example, you who went to mass last Sunday (or saturday night) no longer exist but now exist as the person reading this, and the person who will be sleeping later doesn’t exist yet.

If I have a block of wood and it just sits there, did I lose it to the past? How?

Further, you are conflating existence with something else. Existence is an actuality of being (to paraphrase). If you do not exist, you are no longer being. Thus, I must be the same as the being who was on Sunday and I must be the same being who will be later tonight.

my point is that Time doesn’t exist because you must have past to measure time, and the past no longer exists. You could measure things in the present but that has no length so there is nothing to measure. You could measure the future but that also has no existence yet. So there is nothing in the outside world that you can measure. the ONLY way we can measure time is by use of our mind. Our memory allows us to measure things in the past, our attention of the present allow us to measure things that are happening in the present, and our anticipation allows us to messure things in the future.

I think the only thing I can say to this is that there are no Langoliers.

you can’t see the effects of time though, please explain how we see the effects of time, and how that proves that time must have existence in the world. Plus I never said just because its not visable means it isn’t real.

Your example above shows how we see the effects of time. A pile of wood becomes ash due to the burning process over a period of time. The burning process does not instantaneously produce ash. Your exact quote was

It can’t be because you see 2 minuets of existing time right now

You cannot see time, but you can see its effects, just like you cannot see air but you can see its effects.

I agree with you

You cannot simply agree, you must have a definitive response to the several questions there.

no it doesn’t, when you look at your watch and see the small hand on 5 the large hand on 12 and the second hand on 12. How do you know that when the second hand reaches 2 10 seconds have passed? If the second hand is no longer on the 12.
the only way you can know that 10 seconds have past is that if you have a memory of the second hand on 12 and now see the second hand on 2.

Yes, measurement requires real, physical things in real, physical units. You cannot count 2i cows, nor can you count 1000 unicorns.
I know 10 seconds passed because I started timing at the 12 and there are 10 small increments between the 12 and the 2, with each increment having been defined as 1 second. The fact that I have a memory of the event (generally) means that it did indeed happen and the moment (second hand at 12) did exist and its effects (my act of measuring) are propagating through time to now.

if Time had existence in the world if it was an actual real being, then we wouldn’t need our minds to measure it. Just like we don’t need our minds to measure a peice of paper, well everything needed to measure the peice of paper is in the world.

This is precisely correct. 13.6 billion years passed since the Big Bang before humans came about. It happened without a mind to measure it, how does your theory explain that?

one other thing on this point 10 is necessary to measure 10 feet, do feet and 10 both exist by themselves in the outside world or do they just explain things?

Yes, they both are real things.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti:

Aquinas saw time as in-the-mind and as having imperfect reality.

God bless,
jd

That is a more appropriate Scholastic “middle-ground” position on the issue. I personally think time is an objective element that is subject to subjective experiences/peceptions. 179 passed while watching the extended version of The Two Towers, but it felt like days because I was so wrapped up in the experience of the movie.

 

[catholictiger]

CT:

just go back up two posts to see this

I see what he is getting at and we don’t disagree to much what I say is that time is a mental being and not a real being.

as in Humans are real being they can exist on its own in the real world it only needs God to create it.

a mental being like a unicorn can’t exist in the outside world and can only exist in the mind. Unicorns have existence but only in the mind of a person.

Time is the same way Time isn’t a being that has existence by itself in the real world. Its existence is in the mind of a person. Objection move because of motion not because somehow time has existence and making these things move. Gravity helps move them and all those scientific things which makes things move in the world. Time exists only in the mind, and time doesn’t have to exist for things to occur in the outside world

I don’t think I made this clear but some of the philosophers I have studied I don’t remember if it was Clarke (don’t remember first name) or Augustine or both who said that Time has its foundation in reality.

What I’m trying to argue is that time is a mental being not a real being, the only reason we have a concept of time is because our minds give it existence but it has no existence outside of our minds.

The world can continue to do the things it does without human minds, while humans do give existence to time I don’t believe it has to much impact on the world itself. Yes I do know existence theory of relativity and how “time” acts differently with different gravity. But we are discussing philosophy and science deals with different things. We are asking is time a real being or just a mental being. Science can’t and doesn’t answer those questions.

In the same way as St. Thomas suggested: by our unending tendency to number them. In fact, we have a word for it. It is called, “succession.” We know that the Now exists because we can number them. Besides, we also understand that it terminates the Past, and begins the Future. It is that thing - that is not a part of time - as time is succession, that separates the past from the future.

this is how our minds number time I guess you could say.

But it does. We record it.

ok the past exists in our minds but no longer exists in reality. Does that help clear it up, sorry if I didn’t make this clear I was talking about real being and not mental being.

real beings can only exist in the present, the present is the only thing that is really existing, the past only exists in our memories. Your first baseball game no longer has existence in the real world but has existence in your mind. Your dreams of having a good retirement don’t exist in the real world but only exist in your mind.

I have practically addressed everything

sorry if I didn’t make this clear but what is at issue is that I claim that time is only a mental being. Mental beings have existence but only in minds. Time doesn’t have to exist in the real world for there to be things happening.

time is alot like change for aristotle when things are changing only one thing actually exists at a time in reality. The past events like the full piece of wood exists only in our minds while, the ash that will come will exist but now exists in our minds.

even if a thing isn’t changing its a constant, the present constant is the only thing that exists, its future and past exist only in the mind.

again to drive this point home, Time is a mental being, not a real being.

 

[catholictiger]

Because you cite Augustine and ignore everyone else, obviously.

Then either you are poor at explaining your point or poor at understanding your own point. Your initial post was

That means explicitly that it takes a mind for time to exist. If time exists only to observers (a mind), then before observers came to be time did not exist. It is painfully obvious that this is an impossibility.

If I have a block of wood and it just sits there, did I lose it to the past? How?

Further, you are conflating existence with something else. Existence is an actuality of being (to paraphrase). If you do not exist, you are no longer being. Thus, I must be the same as the being who was on Sunday and I must be the same being who will be later tonight.

I think the only thing I can say to this is that there are no Langoliers.

Your example above shows how we see the effects of time. A pile of wood becomes ash due to the burning process over a period of time. The burning process does not instantaneously produce ash. Your exact quote was

You cannot see time, but you can see its effects, just like you cannot see air but you can see its effects.

You cannot simply agree, you must have a definitive response to the several questions there.

Yes, measurement requires real, physical things in real, physical units. You cannot count 2i cows, nor can you count 1000 unicorns.
I know 10 seconds passed because I started timing at the 12 and there are 10 small increments between the 12 and the 2, with each increment having been defined as 1 second. The fact that I have a memory of the event (generally) means that it did indeed happen and the moment (second hand at 12) did exist and its effects (my act of measuring) are propagating through time to now.

This is precisely correct. 13.6 billion years passed since the Big Bang before humans came about. It happened without a mind to measure it, how does your theory explain that?

Yes, they both are real things.

I don’t have time to go through this all now, well the time which is a mental being doesn’t give me enough time to do this. lol.

anyway I just wanted to address one point and that is the idea that 10 and feet have existence in the outside world. I would say they don’t and if you could please try and explain how they have existence in the outside world.

for example you have 10 cows in a barn being milked. Is there actually in that barn the form 10 and what ever makes up the matter of 10? Or is 10 something that our minds use to quantify what is in reality.

if one cow is slaughtered does the real being of 10 undergo a substantial change and become 9?

my point is that numbers and measurements our, as kant called it, categories of the mind which help us make sense of reality. They aren’t things that are real beings in the outside world.

Time is the same thing there is no real being of time but rather time is a category of the mind that helps us measure the amount of change or the amount of things past in the real world.

now I disagree with Kant’s conclusion but I do think he makes some good points with things of science and mathematics in the fact that quantitative things are categories of the mind and we take real beings, like cows humans cars, etc. and put the categories into them. One major difference between Kant and myself is that I believe the cow out there is actually a cow and not my sense perception of the Cow. I’m a realist, not an empiricists.

see my response to JD if you want to continue this discussion on the reality of time.

again for me Time is a mental being, not a real being.

 

[pig]

wiki:

Consider an observer measuring a charge at rest in a reference frame F. The observer will detect a static electric field. As the charge is stationary in this frame, there is no electric current, so the observer will not observe any magnetic field.

Consider another observer in frame F′ moving at relative velocity v (relative to F and the charge). This observer will see a different electric field because the charge is moving at velocity −v in their rest frame. Further, in frame F′ the moving charge constitutes an electric current, and thus the observer in frame F′ will also see a magnetic field.

its a bit ridiculous, this point of view business. If I sit in front of a static electric charge it remains static and there is no current or magnetic field. If someone walks past the static charge they see it is not static it is moving and has an electric current and magnetic field.

So we both measure the charge at the same time and get diametrically opposite results for the same object. Very illogical.

 

[inocente]

its a bit ridiculous, this point of view business. If I sit in front of a static electric charge it remains static and there is no current or magnetic field. If someone walks past the static charge they see it is not static it is moving and has an electric current and magnetic field.

So we both measure the charge at the same time and get diametrically opposite results for the same object. Very illogical.

I wonder if God is crestfallen to hear that you deem His creation illogical.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I don’t have time to go through this all now, well the time which is a mental being doesn’t give me enough time to do this. lol.

anyway I just wanted to address one point and that is the idea that 10 and feet have existence in the outside world. I would say they don’t and if you could please try and explain how they have existence in the outside world.

I could very well reverse the question and ask you to explain how the do not have existence in the outside world. 10 is a quantifier and depends on the counting system (10 in decimal is 1010 in binary), but that quantifier must objectively exist for everyone to agree that the number of cows is 10 (in decimal). If it did not objectively exist, then mathematics as a whole could not work.

for example you have 10 cows in a barn being milked. Is there actually in that barn the form 10 and what ever makes up the matter of 10? Or is 10 something that our minds use to quantify what is in reality.

10 is a quantifier that objectively exists.

if one cow is slaughtered does the real being of 10 undergo a substantial change and become 9?

Quantifiers are more like accidents than substances, so 10 would go through an accidental change to become 9 if a cow were slaughtered.

my point is that numbers and measurements our, as kant called it, categories of the mind which help us make sense of reality. They aren’t things that are real beings in the outside world.

I disagree. If numbers and measurements were not objectively real, then communication could not be possible. If numbers were not objectively real, then the word “the” has two letters to you while three to me!

Time is the same thing there is no real being of time but rather time is a category of the mind that helps us measure the amount of change or the amount of things past in the real world.

I disagree. Time must be objectively real, otherwise it requires observers to make it real, something that contradicts experience.

now I disagree with Kant’s conclusion but I do think he makes some good points with things of science and mathematics in the fact that quantitative things are categories of the mind and we take real beings, like cows humans cars, etc. and put the categories into them. One major difference between Kant and myself is that I believe the cow out there is actually a cow and not my sense perception of the Cow. I’m a realist, not an empiricists.

Measurements must be objective, otherwise science would not work!

again for me Time is a mental being, not a real being.

If time were only a concept of the faculty of our mind, why can we not go backwards in time? Why can I not go further in time than the present? The answer is plain: time is a physical entity that we pass through. Anything else is tantamount to denying existence outside our life on earth.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

its a bit ridiculous, this point of view business. If I sit in front of a static electric charge it remains static and there is no current or magnetic field. If someone walks past the static charge they see it is not static it is moving and has an electric current and magnetic field.

So we both measure the charge at the same time and get diametrically opposite results for the same object. Very illogical.

This particular problem appears illogical because the resolution is not written on the page, nor is the information presented with the correct phrases. In terms of the electromagnetic field tensor, there are induced electric and magnetic field components of the tensor, but these components actually counter-act one another in measurements so the moving observer measures nothing at all!

If the theories are understood properly, there are no contradictions.

PS: you may want to include a link to the website that you are citing.

 

[catholictiger]

Mainly because your post deals with one issue the objectivity of measurements I won’t quote all of your points but still address your points.

You bring up this idea that measurements must objectively exist because in order for us to have math at all. I disagree there is nothing that necessitates the idea that the number 10 mut have existence outside our minds on order for us to measure. A question I bring up for you how did you learn how to count did you do it yourself or did someone teach you. I would think you were taught about numbers. My point is that everyone is taught things and this is why we agree with something not that numbers have existence in the outside world.

So people are, on simple things like this, are all taught the same thing and this is why we can have math and science.

So this goes back to time it doesn’t have to be a real being for us to measure it. Our society has developed in a way in which we measure the passage on things with time this development I believe is why we can measure time.

Now on to the your reversal to explain this i will bring up the idea of red. By your logic it would appear that red must exist a real being. Now one day you become angry your face turns red now does redness as itsel exist in you at that moment? No it doesn’t its chemical reactions that look red and also your essence doesn’t include red so when you become red your accidents change not your essence. I would appear that because of what I said its clear red doesn’t exist in what looks red. Plus of red was a real being you would have to show where red is or what the effects of red are.

Plus all of the things you brought up air being invisible and such I don’t think it really is if you were able to see on the high zoom level so by that it has being. The molecules in air are its being. I’m almost positive that every single being can be seen if we have powerful enough microscopes. So I ask you is there such things as the being of time or being of space or is there some other metaphysical way it exists because it could exist as a transadental

Why can’t we go back in time simple we are moving forward on the motion of our lives like I explained with change if you are on X11 you must go to X12 its impossible to go to X10

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You bring up this idea that measurements must objectively exist because in order for us to have math at all. I disagree there is nothing that necessitates the idea that the number 10 mut have existence outside our minds on order for us to measure.

It is not an idea but a fact. If we have a real object, then it has accidents and so can be measured. Two distinct real objects can be compared through accidents; in order to measure accidents, objective quantifiers must exist to give comparisons of objectively real objects. Thus, measurements and their quantifiers must objectively exist.

A question I bring up for you how did you learn how to count did you do it yourself or did someone teach you. I would think you were taught about numbers. My point is that everyone is taught things and this is why we agree with something not that numbers have existence in the outside world.

Numbers are the vocal and visual representations of the real set of quantifiers. I can start calling three as “bloogurjaf” and it still would represent the same quantifier.

So people are, on simple things like this, are all taught the same thing and this is why we can have math and science.

No, we can have math and science because there is a rational basis underlying the four-dimensional universe.

So this goes back to time it doesn’t have to be a real being for us to measure it. Our society has developed in a way in which we measure the passage on things with time this development I believe is why we can measure time.

Think about what you are saying though: we can measure absolutely everything else (length, position in space, mass, charge, temperature, pressure, energy, etc) and those are all real, but time, which we can also measure, is not real. It is inconceivable that that idea is logical to anyone.

Now on to the your reversal to explain this i will bring up the idea of red. By your logic it would appear that red must exist a real being. Now one day you become angry your face turns red now does redness as itsel exist in you at that moment? No it doesn’t its chemical reactions that look red and also your essence doesn’t include red so when you become red your accidents change not your essence. I would appear that because of what I said its clear red doesn’t exist in what looks red. Plus of red was a real being you would have to show where red is or what the effects of red are.

Okay, I did not ask about redness, I asked how can you prove that numbers are not real. Further, I have never suggested that time is a real being, only that it is objectively real, something you are denying.

Plus all of the things you brought up air being invisible and such I don’t think it really is if you were able to see on the high zoom level so by that it has being. The molecules in air are its being. I’m almost positive that every single being can be seen if we have powerful enough microscopes. So I ask you is there such things as the being of time or being of space or is there some other metaphysical way it exists because it could exist as a transadental

Believe it or not, you still will not actually be able to see the air or other molecules you put in front of an electron microscope (or atomic-force microscope or scanning-tunneling microscope), you will only see a digital representation of the molecule. A picture of a cow is very different from a cow.

Why can’t we go back in time simple we are moving forward on the motion of our lives like I explained with change if you are on X11 you must go to X12 its impossible to go to X10

Okay, you are not actually answering the question at all, just restating it. Why is it not possible to go back to X10? If time is not objectively real, then there is nothing stopping me from going to X11, so why is it not possible to go back in time?