click here;51460 wrote:
You may seem to come to the conclusion that with the data that you have that what you percieve is more likely to be true then false. When you say this though you do not actually increase the likelyhood of something being true or false.
Saying anything doesn't necessarily make it true. What are you arguing?
Stated or not, it may, nevertheless, be true.
For example: Existence of a unicorn.
Either a unicorn exists or it does not exist.
Everything exists (in context).
...You can not get to a proof of nonexistence from that and its pointless to even relate the two as visual representation has no relation to existence or non existence....
Trivial. I wasn't talking of this...
Article 1: It talks of the clock being effected at different heights in relation to the earths geoid because of gravitational pull. All that means is that the clock mechanically is not perfect in doing its job as it is being affected by outside variables. So it is not talking about 'time' changing but the clocks inaccuracy of measuring time.
If you read a bit more carefully, the clock was super-hyper-accurate and thus able to distinguish these anomalies in 'time'.
I like the quote on the first page "time is what you measure in seconds."
Rather like having a bit of desert w/out having the meal.
I do not see the relevance in the article to this topic. Nothing that this article says even implies that linear time is not existent or existent.
"It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."
It is not reality that has a time flow, but our very approximate knowledge of reality. Time is the effect of our ignorance
"At reality's deepest level, then, it remains unknown whether time will hold strong or melt away like a Salvador Dali clock. Perhaps, as Rovelli and others suggest, time is all a matter of perspective - not a feature of reality but a result of your missing information about reality.
" As I have been saying.
"A fuzzy causality is almost inevitable in quantum gravity, says Hardy. After all, even the theories that it will replace show hints of causal confusion. According to Einstein's theories of relativity, if two people are moving relative to one another, it is sometimes impossible for them to tell whether one event happens before another. Einstein's universe has no universal past, present and future.
In quantum theory there are many things that are impossible to measure precisely, such as a particle's position and momentum. Put the two theories together to make a quantum theory of gravity and it is almost inevitable that we are going to have trouble with notions of cause and effect: the logic of tock following tick or output following input just won't apply in the quantum-gravity universe.
The logic of tock following tick just doesn't apply at the smallest scales in the universe
"The kind of nonlocality one encounters in quantum mechanics seems to call for an absolute simultaneity, which would pose a very real and ominous threat to special relativity."
A second will only ever have the length of another second. Saying that in space a second is longer then a second on earth is foolish as the only problem is the clock not the unit of measurement. A unit of measurement can not change unless you have poorly defined that unit of measurement. 1 meter will always be 1 meter.
You make it seem like you actually read the articles, yet you say something like this. Sigh...
I'm not sure where he gets this justification for his intuition. I'm not sure how using this measuring device with in the measurement some how gets rid of time.
If you reread the articles with the intention of understanding, rather than automatically dismissing what is uncomfortable and defending your beliefs, we might be able to continue the convo rather than interminably circling your 'beliefs'.
There are concepts which I learned in physics that do not have any relation to time. For example calculating gravitational force between 2 objects.
So what? Off topic.
'Physics' has no clue what 'gravity' is.
I don't see how someone can say time is changeable.
It is not 'changeable. Nothing 'changes'. It is variously perceived, a matter of PERSPECTIVE!
Time is not a physical entity that will ever been seen or touched it is something that exists in a concept form and which we have applied values to.
Like anything else.
You can never actually 'touch' anything.
Article 3: This just seems speculative and informative for future investigations.
And of no value to you? Isn't this the place for 'critical thought' application? You claim to be so good at it, yet...
I am more then happy to hear the 'opposition' what I am not ready to do is except it without questioning.
You needn't a
ccept anything. It is food for... 'critical thought'.
Picking apart my anaologies gets you and I no where infact it makes advancing this conversation more difficult as I've had to restated what I mean 3 times. I think you know what I am saying yet you decide to ignore it until I get my analogies to be understood by you.
All the analogies in the world about the flatness of the earth renders the faulty premise no truer.
That is why i ignore them; trivial.
And you completely ignore the logically valid points that I make (other than the triviality of "saying it don't make it so" kind of stuff), knee-jerkishly glissanding on to your pet 'beliefs', again failing to respond to my specific points.
The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:
"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."
At this point, I feel that this convo is fruitless and repetitively boring, and I am going to unsubscribe now.
Believe as you must. It's not like you have any 'choice'...