Does time exist?

[DaveC426913]

Duration is not time based . Nor mathematically based .

Duration is simplely based on movement of energy then matter , matter being the less energenic of energy .

Duration is the dynamic between things .

Energy as in Cosmic Plasma energy . Ionic of protons and electrons , The cooling hence the increase density of both into the creation of sub-atomic and atomic , and therefore macroscopic forms of , such as the galactic cores and suns and planets etc .

This is word salad.

Duration is quite simply the interval between two events in time.

It's not a matter of opinion or speculation.

 

[river]

This is word salad.

Duration is quite simply the interval between two events in time.

It's not a matter of opinion or speculation.

Duration is the Interval between two events , absolutely .

But time played no part in the interval . Time is the measurement of duration .

Hmmm....

Lets go deeper ....explain IN TIME

 

[Write4U]

Duration is not time based . Nor mathematically based .

Duration is simplely based on movement of energy then matter , matter being the less energenic of energy .

Duration is the dynamic between things .

Energy as in Cosmic Plasma energy . Ionic of protons and electrons , The cooling hence the increase density of both into the creation of sub-atomic and atomic , and therefore macroscopic forms of , such as the galactic cores and suns and planets etc .

And all those forms of change require time, an inherent potential permission of a permittive condition.

river said,
Lets go deeper ....explain IN TIME

IMO, that is a misnomer . There is no dimension of Time wherein we live. Time is an inherent abstract property of a permittive condition.

But there can always only be NOW , the emerge of an arbitrarily measurable duration of change.

 

[river]

And all those forms of change require time, an inherent potential permission of a permittive condition. IMO, that is a misnomer . There is no dimension of Time wherein we live. Time is an inherent abstract property of a permittive condition.

Not time , but the duration of plasma energy to cool down , so that the Plasma can cool to coalesce into matter .

Time is a misnomer . Obvisously

But there can always only be NOW , the emerge of an arbitrarily measurable duration of change.

Sure

Duration is always in the NOW .

Measurement of duration is irrelevent to the dynamic of the duration its self .

Without duration there is no time .

 

[NotEinstein]

Interesting post of my own introspection. Is that my bi-cameral mind arguing with myself?

Whoops, I broke a quote-tag, and clearly didn't check the resulting post. Here is it again:

"f(2+2) = 4

f(4) = 4 describes many mathematical functions. In fact any function that returns a singular complex value for a just a single singular input value will suffice. To make this more explicit: you have inadvertently claimed that this is addition:
$$f(x)=\frac{x^2}{4}$$

You're looking at reality , no?

Yes, but I'm not finding a mathematical object "4" anywhere.

"f(3+1) = 4

This is the same function: f(4) = 4. And it has the same problems.

OK, a string is a set of numbers.

No, a string has ordering, so it can't be a set. A string is a sequence, but not of numbers, of characters. (I'm using it specifically in the programming sense, but you can read "a linear, finite sequence of language glyphs" or something along those lines in place of it.)

(2+2) is a string with a value of 4 in mathematics, but not necessarily in philosophy or reality.

Right, "2 + 2" equals "4" in mathematics. It doesn't become "4", it is "4".

Addition is a mathematical function.

It's an operation, that can be expressed as a function.

Where did I say that a mathematical function can only take one (oops, 1) input? Or have only one (1) function.

I've never claimed functions can only take one input; I've pointed out that your "addition function" does. It takes one string as its input: f("2 + 2").

Try fractals.

Fractals have nothing to do with this.

lol, I recognize that the term potential has many applications and wanted to clarify that I was speaking about the type of potential which is inherent but latent , not for instance {V}

Then explain what "the potential of the latent mathematical value" is/means.

Not unless you do the calculation and use = symbol

No, the (physical) action of performing the addition is not part of mathematics. 2 + 2 always equals 4. Nobody needs to "apply" an = symbol. It follows necessarily from the axioms of mathematics and number theory.

And it depends on the context ; 2 doves + 2 canaries = 4 birds, but not 4 doves or 4 canaries.

Please give a definition of a mathematical dove. Because that's what we are talking about, remember?

The OP asks ; Does time exist? Does that fall under mathematics or philosophy?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand: we are discussing mathematics here.

That is the crux of the matter. The word potential applies in all disciplines of study as well in practical application.

You are committing a fallacy of equivocation here. The term "potential" means many things, and these usages cannot be used interchangeably.

That is why I believe it is a profoundly important symbolic term.

Please demonstrate that this is true in all languages, not just English.

So are the terms Probabilistic and Deterministic mathematical terms or philosophical terms?.

Probabilistic has meaning in statistics, which is a branch of mathematics. I'm not familiar with a philosophical definition of the term. Deterministic is (usually) to do with (meta)physics and philosophy.
I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, though?

The point I am trying to make is that it applies universally to every theoretical discipline

The definition of the word changes between these different disciplines, so they are not the same thing. For example, a "tree" is a biological structure that you see outside. But in mathematics it's also a hierarchical structure of objects. They are related etymology-wise, yes, but there are completely different things. Properties of one type of tree do not (necessarily) apply to the other type of tree. Their tree-properties cannot be applied universally. The same with "potential". What's true for one definition of the word "potential" isn't (necessarily) true for the other. What's why there are multiple definitions in the first place!

That would be a case where a potential does not become reality. Potential = That which may become reality. And can be applied to both Probabilism and Determinism.

So you agree with me that "potential" in the sense of "becoming reality" has no meaning in mathematics. Good. I can't wait for your explanation of "the potential of the latent mathematical value" then.

---

But, if anything it show that the "the potential of the latent mathematical value" is a variable depending on the conditional permission to become expressed .
That's where the "may become" reality comes into play.....

Please define the word "variable" as you are using it in that sentence. Please define the term "conditional permission" as you are using it in that sentence.

 

[NotEinstein]

Duration is the Interval between two events , absolutely .

More accurately, it's the time-interval between two events.

Which makes this wrong:

But time played no part in the interval .

Time is the measurement of duration .

This is defined the wrong way around: duration is based upon time, not time on duration.

 

[NotEinstein]

Time is an inherent abstract property of a permittive condition.

Please define what a "permittive condition" is.

But there can always only be NOW , the emerge of an arbitrarily measurable duration of change.

Please define what an "arbitrarily measurable duration of change" is.​

 

[river]

More accurately, it's the time-interval between two events.

Which makes this wrong:



This is defined the wrong way around: duration is based upon time, not time on duration.

To your last statement ; why do you think so ?

 

[Write4U]

Original post was by NotEinstein, Today at 6:36 AM

Whoops, I broke a quote-tag, and clearly didn't check the resulting post. Here is it again: ...................................................................................................
NotEinstein, Today at 4:54 PM .

I know what happened , which only proves my definition of potential as "that which may become reality" depending on the input and permissible output.

NotEinstein said,
Please define the word "variable" as you are using it in that sentence. Please define the term "conditional permission" as you are using it in that sentence.

The condition permitted your variable input. Of course the output was garbage.

Please define what an "arbitrarily measurable duration of change" is.
NotEinstein, Today at 4:59 PM

How long did it take you to get it right?

 

[river]

I know what happened , which only proves my definition of potential as "that which may become reality" depending on the input and permissible output.

Based on duration .

 

[Write4U]

This is word salad.

Duration is quite simply the interval between two events in time.

One event could be a beginning of change, the second event could be the end of that change. In that case, the chronology of the change would have a duration in and of itself.

It's not a matter of opinion or speculation.

But it is arbitrary in respect to the measurement used to calculate the duration (interval of time).

 

[river]

One event could be a beginning of change, the second event could be the end of that change. In that case, the chronology of the change would have a duration in and of itself.
But it is arbitrary in respect to the measurement used to calculate the duration (interval of time).

Duration has no begining nor end .

 

[Write4U]

Duration has no beginning nor end .

Not according to the dictionary definition

Duration, NOUN
durations (plural noun)

1. the time during which something continues:
   "the subway stop has been closed for the duration of the convention" ·
   "a flight of over eight hours' duration"

1. 
   But I think I understand what you mean. Duration without points of reference would be undefinable?
   It's impossible to measure the duration of duration. Is that what you are getting at?
   I'd hesitate to say that duration is infinite in scope, which IMO it would be if it had no beginning nor end.

 

[river]

Not according to the dictionary definition
But I think I understand what you mean. Duration without points of reference would be undefinable?
Is that what you are getting at?
I'd hesitate to say that duration is infinite in scope, which IMO it would be if it had no beginning nor end.

Hmmm....duration in your dictionary is about a relation between duration and the next stop , or time of the next stop based on the duration of the next stop .

Duration is not about being defined or not defined .

Duration is about the dynamics between things .

Duration is about movement .

Movement comes first , then duration

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmmm....duration in your dictionary is about a relation between duration and the next stop , or time of the next stop based on the duration of the next stop .

Duration is not about being defined or not defined .

Duration is about the dynamics between things .

Duration is about movement .

Movement comes first , then duration

Still refuted.

These rocks still have not moved, yet they still endure.

 

[DaveC426913]

One event could be a beginning of change, the second event could be the end of that change. In that case, the chronology of the change would have a duration in and of itself.

This is a deepity. On the surface, its sounds profound.
But all you're saying is: a duration has a start and an end, and the time of the duration is ... well, the duration.

 

[river]

Still refuted.

These rocks still have not moved, yet they still endure.

Because of the rocks fundamental structure . Which is a structure that is hard to break down .

Duration amoung rocks is different . From diamonds , to granite , sandstone etc .

 

[DaveC426913]

Because of the rocks fundamental structure . Which is a structure that is hard to break down .

Duration amoung rocks is different . From diamonds , to granite , sandstone etc .

No movement, yet here they are.
Your assertion stands falsified.
How do you explain duration of things that don't move?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Because of the rocks fundamental structure . Which is a structure that is hard to break down .

Duration amoung rocks is different . From diamonds , to granite , sandstone etc .

No movement, yet here they are.
Your assertion stands falsified.
How do you explain duration of things that don't move?

There is movement , the break down of these rocks .

 

[DaveC426913]

There is movement , the break down of these rocks .

So how can it still exist during the very short time I'm watching it? It takes eons to break down.