:
|
no, i think that a much bigger force similar to time (as in what we have created in an attempt to understand it) actually is the true time that we are trying to understand, but never will. TIME FLOWS! its the time we have created ourselves that doesn't flow. this is what im trying to explain: we only imagine time as what we can calculate to an understandable effect, this is balls, time itself is incomprehensible to the Human mind because time flowing constantly is unconceivable to us;
|
Do you have anything to base this on? All you've said is "no, that is not time, this other thing that we cannot ever observe is time." Cannot ever observe? Completely incomprehensible to the human mind? This is just another metaphor for God, and if it isn't then it is its twin. Bloody hell, I thought I'd only come across this sort of tactic in theological debates, not temporal ones. Christ. What time have we created? Are you trying to disassociate the measurement from the objective again? Clocks do not display falsified data.
I can solve Zeno's paradox: the state of any object is defined by position
and momentum. Easy.
:
|
we must question everything, otherwise we fear we may not understand a concept, thus is Human psychology.
|
I disagree. We
should question everything, but we don't nearly enough, so it is clearly not an imperative. However, a vital part of asking questions is recognising the answer when it comes by.
:
|
time, the true force that is, has always been here and everywhere, and always will be. our own creation of physical time would of course cease, along with our psychological time.
|
Well duh. In other words "our experience of time stops when we die". Along with our experience of everything else, I should imagine.
:
|
lets over simplify this: a child beleives in Saint Nicholas. when the child finds presents etc, it assumes someone put them there, seeing as this would be the most logical explanation and is what the child understands, 'the presents are there and exist, so the person who put them there must also exist', thus refers to the long dead Saint. the child continues to believe its theory is true until proven wrong, and even then will still partially beleive it until its proven wrong to the point of it being impossible for the original concept to still be 'true'.
|
Science is a lot like this, therefore it
is possible that the time Humans use is wrong (which i beleive), and that the true force that is time itself has not yet been expanded upon or even perceived yet, making the assumption that 'time must be real, because it helps calculate other things that
are real', void.[/quote]
Did you just compare fundamental, tried and tested physical laws with the belief in Santa Claus? I believe you did.
It is quite possible, even probable, that we are wrong about many things in science, fundamentally or semantically. It is, however, a colossal mistake to take that stance before evidence that has disproved, and so far your arguments have fallen flat by you assumption that there is some ineffable "force" (what?) of time. It is all right to preach to this here choir about the nature of science, but you have gone and proposed an unscientific hypothesis, because it can be neither disproved nor supported by evidence.
:
|
this is not the case, there are 3 sets of 'time',
|
There is no such thing! There is time and our unique experience of it. By measuring it with well define units and accurate tools, we produce an
objective record of time. "Objective" being the operative word.
:
|
the smallest being the psychological time of each and every Human being, and most probably animal too. like the body clock.
|
This is irrelevant. Nothing but the evolutionary response to the advantages of being able to respond behaviourally to regular changes in the environment.
:
|
is almost mathematical, therfore is more likely not to be true to time itself.
|
Whoa, whoa! Are you now disassociating mathematics from the universe too? And what's this "almost"?
Finally.
:
|
this IS time, but is simply unfathomable to Humans.
|
What, by decree?
:
|
therefore, it would never amount to the statement of 'time is time' etc, because in my veiw, there is only one true time, and it is not the one we know most commonly.
|
This is getting abstract. I'll be repeating myself if I address this again.
:
|
no, your correct. Humans only have an operational estimated definition of time itself, not time itself.
|
I see. So if we quantify something with numbers, it is no longer real? You really don't like maths, do you? The universe follows laws that can be expressed perfectly in mathematics, the only inaccuracies we experience are due to unaccounted variables and the accuracy of our instruments from which we obtain our raw data.
:
|
and temeperature doesn't even come into it, as its obvious it exists due to the sensation of heat,
|
Oh, so you can accept our intuitive sensation of heat to make its existence "obvious," but not our intuitive sensation of time? Let's have some consistency here.
:
|
which also blurs vision and could be classed as 'seeing' heat.
|
No, that is the movement of air due to convection current that distorts light.
I was here comparing the operational definitions of temperature and time, that enable us to make use of them. Poincaré and Einstein's Special Relativity defines perceived time and space as components of the four-dimensional manifold of "spacetime". Weird, right? Time must be completely unknowable! However, the thermodynamic definition of temperature is just as abstract, all about heat "flowing" between "infinite reservoirs". Weird, right? Temperature must be completely unknowable!
:
|
unless you want to go into the whole 'language philosophies' debate. i certainly don't.
|
I'm sorry? This is irrelevant.
:
|
unless there is a greater force than time itself, absolutely nothing that exists at this very moment in time and in the future would know what would happen if time ceased to exist. you made a good point earlier about time being conceived as like 'pausing a video', because we would be the observer still subject to time. but just now you've stated that if time stopped or ceased to exist (whether their the same is unknown), we would be 'locked in one state'. no we wouldn't, because it is beyond anything, therefore you could say that pink elephants would fill the skies and Timmy Mallet would become an idol. in other words, we simply don't know.
|
I say we do know (see? I can make an assertion too) We could not experience time being stopped, since there is no motion occuring nor information transference, again, among other things. But that it is beyond anything? No, of course not. Space still exists for everything to continue to exist in. Actually, one model for the Big Bang depicted the early, singularity universe as having four ordinary spacial dimensions, which kept it locked unchanging in that state, but when one became a temporal dimension for reasons I could not even tell were being proposed at this point (possibly the quantum fluctuations in the multiversal foam?) that then allowed inflation to proceed. The universe does not have to have a time dimension. It just would not have gotten anywhere is it didn't.
:
|
touché, nothing can be said on this really until intelligent lifeforms make contact and tell us their situation. if their time is differnt to ours, if related at all, then it proves my theory that time is secondary and less specific to TIME.
|
You need to work on that theory some more. You have not proposed any definition of "TIME" besides it being undefinable. That is not a theory, that is evading the issue and making it unscientific. As I have said before, it is a tactic frequented by Creationists.
:
|
but on the other hand, if their time is exactly the same as our own, maybe even the same measurements and identicle to the last minute, then i've fucked up, and i'll eat my hat, with a side order of my own words.
|
With different instruments, units and numerical system, that is doubtful. It is also irrelevant, we expect this anyway.
:
|
but if it turns out to be a parallel universe to our own (somehow), both of our theories are dismissed by default. parallel universe's dont count.
|
I- this...
what?
.
