Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.
There is a problem here concerning your use of 'detect.' Time is measured not detected.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.
It's usually quite difficult to measure something if it doesn't exist.Clocks, counting, movement... measure time, not detect time.
Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists. I believe this circular vocabulary is not helpful nor meaningful. The continuous time of our time space universe and any other possible universe. At the smallest scale of the Quantum world we have momentary time related to Quantum events only, bit not continuous.It's usually quite difficult to measure something if it doesn't exist.
Not you too. I suggest reading back. There is plentiful evidence for general relativity and hence a space-time manifold. And, as I said, how do you measure something that doesn't exist?Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists.
Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists.
Depends. What do you mean by the phrase 'physically exists'?
It we do not have the time/space physical universe the continuous time arrow does not exist. Time is only observed when we have an observable measurable change. Time is only temporal, get it. I do not consider this a meaningful discussion.
See post #2803There is a problem here concerning your use of 'detect.' Time is measured not detected.
Wrong! Let me show you:Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.
Good thing not everybody would agree.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.
Good thing not everybody would agree.
I think it would be good if philosophers started listening to other disciplines and realizing their ideas are not set in stone.
Philosophy is at its best when asking questions and pointing out flaws in the arguments made by others.
Philosophers like to think that they support all other subjects and that those subjects would be worthless without the conclusions of the philosophers.
Ultimately, there is no difference between detecting and measuring.
Yeah, like the cows in Genesis!Unless it just poofed into existence.
Yeah, like the cows in Genesis!
Fine, I can put together an electronic counter and capacity link the 60Hz from any electricity power outlet to the input and with appropriate counting arrangements, I could count time, and make a clock even. Is the time being detected at the electrical power generating station. or in my counter. In fact I could make an audio oscillator and do the same thing.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.
Precisely, that is how one is aware that time is a human concept. There is no cosmic entity on the other side of the concept. When the mind is still, the concepts of the ego mind are seen for what they are, thought bubbles that are meant to represent something real.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.
How do you know that there was a "pre-Big Bang"? And you still do not seem to understand that if time began with the Big Bang then the universe always existed.If you say so.
Ultimately there was a pre-BB. The BB is the expansion. It was set in motion by _______?
It wasn't then it was.
Unless it just poofed into existence.
3D space is full of matter and energy, zpe, atoms, etc., there are vibrations throughout, the space is an entity that is full and real.I'd also point out that a ruler doesn't detect space: it counts! And yes, the analogy is close.
Yes, and I assume that included cows as well; “fiat vaccae, et “poof” vaccae fuerunt”, know what I’m sayin’?Cows? Didn't the whole universe poof into existence in genesis?