We Never Know
No Slack
But I asked what instruments detect time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
But I asked what instruments detect time.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, Zwing, philosophies are just talks.
There are literally thousands of different philosophies, that deal with different situations to respective different spheres.
The majority of philosophies have nothing to do with Physical Sciences (eg physics, chemistry) or with Natural Sciences (eg physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy & life sciences (such as the many fields and subfields of biology)).
These non-science-related philosophies are most concern with social, cultures, ethics and politics. And some are philosophies concerning religions and spirituality. None of these are relevant to physical or natural phenomena.
Even logic, may or may not be relevant to science.
Before Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences didn’t exist until the 19th century, and before physics and chemistry became distinct branches of sciences, sciences prior the 19th century was called Natural Philosophy.
Natural Philosophy first existed as early as the Archaic period (7th century BCE) in Greece, flowering during classical period (6th & 5th centuries BCE) and the Hellenistic period (3rd century to 1st century BCE).
Natural Philosophy continued to peaked, during the following periods: Roman Empire, during the Golden Age of Islam (9th to 13th centuries), then the Renaissance in Western Europe (15th to 16th centuries), then the scientific revolution, then the Age of Enlightenment (18th century).
The 19th century, saw the sciences was divided into what we see today, physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy and life sciences. In the 20th century, physics was divided between classical physics (eg thermodynamics, electromagnetism, Relativity) and modern science (quantum mechanics, quantum field physics, particle physics (eg Standard Model), etc).
The only philosophies that are relevant to science today, is methodological naturalism, with it emphasis on Scientific Method, especially the stage of testing the hypothesis (eg evidence gathering, performing experiments, analyzing the data, reaching the conclusion based on the available evidence & data, etc).
Science required works, while philosophies are mostly just talk, and the majority of philosophies are utterly useless and often wrong, because It is just accepting what they say, they require no testing, without verification .
Last edited:
Note certain what your intent is with this question It is king of a trappy question with little purpose. We measure the relative changes in our time /space universe with what we call 'time. We really do not 'detect' time.
We Never Know
No Slack
Read back
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that is the general problem of objective reality in itself. We don't observe that, we have experiences of it, that is not itself, but our experiences of it.
I have really tried to make sense in strong sense of the independent observer, who are independent of what is observed and what is observed is independent of observer. I can't, so I use a different model of what reality is.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but even logic has a limit if you look closer.
In effect the problem is if you abstract away all particulars then is orderly universally positive or a mix of regularities and variants that can't be add together as one coherent whole as making positively sense as true, valid, rational, objective or what ever factor is used.
In practical terms if an other human can act differently than you, then what is then going on there and how do you explain that and don't explain it away.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Here is a psychological fact. If you have some old knowledge and it turns out to be incorrect in light of new knowledge, then you can learn to reassess the old knowledge as wrong without feeling wrong. But that is something you have to learn yourself.
Not that I am a philosopher, but I don’t mind being in the position of defending it. What you say above misrepresents; philosophy is the one field that deals with every aspect of human knowledge and experience from the most basic (ontology, epistemology) to the most referential (phil. of science, phil. of language) and the most relative (political phil., phil. of religion). I think you might mean to say that social science, culture, ethics and politics are the only sub fields of philosophy that anybody gives any considerable attention to nowadays.Most philosophers in the various sub fields are either professionals or otherwise competent in the diverse fields which are their objects.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes, but because of a lot of it rests on making sense, you can get lost in it.
Here is an example of how not to do philosophy:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
—Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.
And my point is that detection of the sort you are asking for is not only unnecessary, but uncommon.
A clock measures time, but so does any motion. That motion happens detects time.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It reminds me of that you can never bathe in the same river twice.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Thal's silly, the clock and motion do not detect time, they count!
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.
I think philosophers like to claim this, but in reality, it isn't really what happens.
Philosophy is at its best when asking questions and pointing out flaws in the arguments made by others. It is a fun subject to discuss among friends over dinner and drinks. But it is at its worst when actually arriving at conclusions. Usually those conclusions are not based on any facts, but rather on uninformed opinions.
Philosophers like to think that they support all other subjects and that those subjects would be worthless without the conclusions of the philosophers. In reality, philosophers of science are usually a joke and those of metaphysics are uniformly jokes. Not only do they get wrong conclusions, but the wrongness would be obvious if they only studied their subject for a bit.
Another difficulty comes when philosophers claim that things 'must be' a particular way. This is very common in metaphysics, for example. Again, those who actually study physics usually just ignore philosophy as irrelevant. And they do this for good reason. It turns out that the way philosophers say things 'must be' is usually NOT how things actually are.
In the end, philosophers of science are similar to literary critics. They don't produce anything of substance themselves, they merely give their opinions. They don't often even understand what they are criticising, and so they usually get things wrong.
If only that were actually the case. Philosophy has made a hash out of basic concepts like causality, the nature of deduction, etc.
I reached this conclusion, by the way, when reading Kant. He was going off about synthetic and analytic knowledge and a priori and posteriori for each. The example he gave for analytic a priori knowledge was geometry. He basically said that Euclidean geometry is the only one conceivable. Well, he was wrong. They are many non-Euclidean geometries.
Of course, he then proceeded to base a good deal of his viewpoint on the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge, when he actually gave no example of such. And, in fact, we still know of no example of such.
No, the motion detects time. It isn't simply a matter of counting. For example, we determine the lifetime of subatomic particles by looking at how long their paths are before decay. By knowing their velocities, we measure the time.
We detect time through motion, pure and simple.
In fact, I have a fairly famous book on gravity that declares 'time is defined so that motion looks simple'. And that is, in fact, the case.
We measure time in ways similar to how we measure space, momentum, charge, or any other physical property: by looking at its effects on other things. In the case of time, those effects boil down to motion.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
They can't count. We count time as the effect it has in regards to motion. Time is an objective regularity like other objective regularities. Now stop time because it is all in your mind and not objective. That is a test btw. Stop everything since it is one.
I'd also point out that a ruler doesn't detect space: it counts! And yes, the analogy is close.
We Never Know
No Slack
Clocks, counting, movement... measure time, not detect time.Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.
Huh?!?!?!
Note certain what your intent is with this question It is king of a trappy question with little purpose. We measure the relative changes in our time /space universe with what we call 'time. We really do not 'detect' time.
Ultimately, there is no difference between detecting and measuring.