Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

What? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Do you believe that there is an order of events that occur in some frame of reference?

 

[Juma]

What? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Do you believe that there is an order of events that occur in some frame of reference?

? Sounds more like a trap than a real question...

And it doesnt make sense: why focus on "an order of events"?

There are events, there are some order of these events and there are frames of references. That is bloody obvious. So why do you need to pose that question?

 

[ryan]

Do you believe that there is an order of events that occur in some frame of reference?

? Sounds more like a trap than a real question...

And it doesnt make sense: why focus on "an order of events"?

There are events, there are some order of these events and there are frames of references. That is bloody obvious. So why do you need to pose that question?

The OP mentions a timeline. We have all been comparing time to an ordered number line line for over 200 pages now.

So, if asking whether or not events have order is a trap, then I don't even know what we are discussing anymore.

 

[Juma]

? Sounds more like a trap than a real question...

And it doesnt make sense: why focus on "an order of events"?

There are events, there are some order of these events and there are frames of references. That is bloody obvious. So why do you need to pose that question?

The OP mentions a timeline. We have all been comparing time to an ordered number line line for over 200 pages now.

So, if asking whether or not events have order is a trap, then I don't even know what we are discussing anymore.

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

 

[skepticalbip]

The OP mentions a timeline. We have all been comparing time to an ordered number line line for over 200 pages now.

So, if asking whether or not events have order is a trap, then I don't even know what we are discussing anymore.

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

 

[beero1000]

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

Tbh, I don't think it's intentional. He just isn't a very precise thinker, yet is ambitious enough to try and tackle questions whose statements require precision. It's frustrating at times, but I don't hold it against him.

 

[ryan]

The OP mentions a timeline. We have all been comparing time to an ordered number line line for over 200 pages now.

So, if asking whether or not events have order is a trap, then I don't even know what we are discussing anymore.

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

Order and sequence are usually synonymous. It seems entirely fair to say that the present, dare I say, passes through this order; or similarly, time passes the present.

If you can give a clearer physical explanation of events that occurred in the past, then I will use that instead. This is just how I think of it.

 

[ryan]

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

"Units of time" and "frame of reference" need to be defined?! Am I suppose to give a full first year physics lesson too?

 

[skepticalbip]

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

"Units of time" and "frame of reference" need to be defined?! Am I suppose to give a full first year physics lesson too?

From past experience, yes. You have used infinite as a "unit of time" in the past when trying to argue that an infinite past had a beginning. I know what frame of reference in physics means but I don't see your use here as meaningful - we aren't talking about relativity.

I notice you left out "pass". That one definitely needs defining as to how you are using it.

 

[Juma]

For fuck sake: make your argument! Dont waste time like this. It is fucking obvious that events come after another. Get on with it!

Order and sequence are usually synonymous. It seems entirely fair to say that the present, dare I say, passes through this order; or similarly, time passes the present.

If you can give a clearer physical explanation of events that occurred in the past, then I will use that instead. This is just how I think of it.

Then explain what "passes" means here.

Events passes. What does it mean that "the present passes through an order"?

What does "time passes the present" mean???

 

[skepticalbip]

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

Tbh, I don't think it's intentional. He just isn't a very precise thinker, yet is ambitious enough to try and tackle questions whose statements require precision. It's frustrating at times, but I don't hold it against him.

Maybe I am giving him credit for having much more capability for precision than deserved. I have seen him make very clear and reasoned posts in the past where he had no trouble expressing his thoughts in quite clear and concise fashion.

 

[ryan]

Order and sequence are usually synonymous. It seems entirely fair to say that the present, dare I say, passes through this order; or similarly, time passes the present.

If you can give a clearer physical explanation of events that occurred in the past, then I will use that instead. This is just how I think of it.

Then explain what "passes" means here.

Events passes. What does it mean that "the present passes through an order"?

What does "time passes the present" mean???

Imagine a frame of reference that a clock tics in. The clock's hands strike 12:00; we will call this event A. Then the minute hand strikes 12:01; we will call this event B.

In the frame of reference, event B came after event A. The moment that event A happens is the present. Similarly, the moment that event B happens is the present. The present passed from event A to event B.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine a frame of reference that a clock tics in. The clock's hands strike 12:00; we will call this event A. Then the minute hand strikes 12:01; we will call this event B.

In the frame of reference, event B came after event A. The moment that event A happens is the present. Similarly, the moment that event B happens is the present. The present passed from event A to event B.

The passing of time means change is occurring according to the "laws of the universe".

Technically, change is occurring. The present state is in a state of constant change.

As the present state changes we label that process, the "passing" of time. It is a loose way to talk about the situation but it is pointing to something real.

Change IS occurring. So if you say that "passing" means the same as change is occurring then it refers to something real.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then explain what "passes" means here.

Events passes. What does it mean that "the present passes through an order"?

What does "time passes the present" mean???

Imagine a frame of reference that a clock tics in. The clock's hands strike 12:00; we will call this event A. Then the minute hand strikes 12:01; we will call this event B.

In the frame of reference, event B came after event A. The moment that event A happens is the present. Similarly, the moment that event B happens is the present. The present passed from event A to event B.

Why not just say that event A occurred before event B? That seems much clearer. It doesn't evoke the idea of something having to physically move which "passing" does.

 

[bilby]

Of course, the problem with asserting that the present is 'real', while the past and future are not, is that the present isn't real.

If event A occurs at the exact same time as event B in one reference frame, there is no reason not to invoke a different reference frame in which A occurs before B; or yet another in which B occurs before A.

We can either ditch simultaneity as a concept or we can ditch relativity; the hypothesis of simultaneity makes no predictions that are both experimentally confirmed and contradict relativity; while relativity does make predictions that are experimentally confirmed and contradict simultaneity.

Simultaneity is thereby shown to be a fiction - an incorrect concept.

The past and future may or may not be real; but the present demonstrably is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

 

[untermensche]

The past and future may or may not be real; but the present demonstrably is not.

You haven't demonstrated what you claim to demonstrate.

Relativity of simultaneity means two people can look at the same events and see them differently.

But they are looking at the same events. It is not different events.

One present seen differently.

If I walk around a building and see it differently that isn't evidence there is no present. To think so would be bizarre.

 

[ryan]

Imagine a frame of reference that a clock tics in. The clock's hands strike 12:00; we will call this event A. Then the minute hand strikes 12:01; we will call this event B.

In the frame of reference, event B came after event A. The moment that event A happens is the present. Similarly, the moment that event B happens is the present. The present passed from event A to event B.

Why not just say that event A occurred before event B? That seems much clearer. It doesn't evoke the idea of something having to physically move which "passing" does.

So what is the difference between A before B and B after A?

 

[bilby]

The past and future may or may not be real; but the present demonstrably is not.

You haven't demonstrated what you claim to demonstrate.

Relativity of simultaneity means two people can look at the same events and see them differently.

But they are looking at the same events. It is not different events.

One present seen differently.

No. As many presents as there are points of view; many of them incompatible with each other.

If I walk around a building and see it differently that isn't evidence there is no present. To think so would be bizarre.

Lots of things are both true and bizarre.

There really is no such thing as 'the' present; every point of view has a different observation of the sequence in which things occur. Person A can remember something person B is experiencing, while for person C none of it has happened yet.

Yes, it is bizarre; and yes, it is observably true.

Human intuition is a poor guide to reality. We can either discard intuition, accept the bizarre, and be able to accurately predict how things work - sufficiently well to build tools such as GPS; or we can cling to intuition, discard the bizarre, and get things hopelessly wrong, such that our technologies simply don't work.

In a contest between your incredulity and Einstein's relativity, relativity wins, because it works, and your intuition doesn't.

The existence of the present is entirely a local phenomenon, and using the idea that it is universal to build an argument is doomed to fail before it even starts.

You are entitled to your own opinion; but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why not just say that event A occurred before event B? That seems much clearer. It doesn't evoke the idea of something having to physically move which "passing" does.

So what is the difference between A before B and B after A?

Nothing.
Saying event A occurred before event B is the same as saying event B occurred after evant A.

But either is more clear than saying that "The present passed from event A to event B."

 

[ryan]

Of course, the problem with asserting that the present is 'real', while the past and future are not, is that the present isn't real.

If event A occurs at the exact same time as event B in one reference frame, there is no reason not to invoke a different reference frame in which A occurs before B; or yet another in which B occurs before A.

We can either ditch simultaneity as a concept or we can ditch relativity; the hypothesis of simultaneity makes no predictions that are both experimentally confirmed and contradict relativity; while relativity does make predictions that are experimentally confirmed and contradict simultaneity.

Simultaneity is thereby shown to be a fiction - an incorrect concept.

You are talking about absolute simultaneity. If two events happen simultaneously in one frame of reference but not in another, then both are correct.

The past and future may or may not be real; but the present demonstrably is not.

The present is not real?!