Does time exist?

[Write4U]

I don't follow; what are you trying to say?

You provided the wrong input (command) into the computer, which allowed it only to give you an permissible output. In this case assigning your post to me.

Please define what you mean by "variable input"

You were permitted to provide an incorrect (variable) input which resulted in a wrong output.

Are you trolling?

No, just trying to explain the concept of latent potentials which, in combination, form the implicate of what becomes expressed in reality. This implicate was formed the moment you neglected to input the correct command.
When you pressed the "post" key, you made the implicate become explicated in reality.

This is what I am trying to explain. Everything, literally everything, that becomes expressed in reality is preceded by potential. But by the generic definition not all potential becomes expressed in reality, IOW its potential remains a latent ability.

I believe I gave this example before. A car with the potential to drive at 150 mph, but is restricted by law to driving at a speed limit of 30 mph, retains its potential of driving at 150 mph. Alas 120 mph will have to remain a latent ability, unless you want to break the law.

 

[NotEinstein]

You probably won't find it .

You mean: you probably can't provide one, so your claims are baseless.

Point to me , the scientific definition of time .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

Done!

 

[river]

You mean: you probably can't provide one, so your claims are baseless.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

Done!

Based on movement .

 

[NotEinstein]

You provided the wrong input (command) into the computer, which allowed it only to give you an permissible output. In this case assigning your post to me.

I guess, but I don't understand how that has any relevance to the discussion at hand?

You were permitted to provide an incorrect (variable) input which resulted in a wrong output.

Ah, OK. Understood.

No, just trying to explain the concept of latent potentials which, in combination, form the Implicate of what becomes expressed in reality.
When you pressed the "post" key, you made the implicate become explicated.

Not that I necessarily agree with this, but I don't see how this is relevant at all? I didn't type mathematical objects? My input was atoms, electron, wavefunctions, whatever, physical things or actions. At no point in time writing that broken post did I encounter a real parabola, or a physical number 4.

This is what I am trying to explain. Everything, literally everything, that becomes expressed in reality is preceded by potential.

But mathematics don't become expressed in reality.

But by the generic definition not all potential becomes expressed in reality, IOW its potential remains a latent ability.

The grammar is slightly off (the latter part of your sentence technically refers to the potential of the potential), but I agree with the gist of it.

I believe I gave this example before. A car with the potential to drive at 150 mph, but is restricted by law to driving at a speed limit of 30 mph, retains its potential of driving at 150 mph. Alas 120 mph will have to remain a latent ability, unless you want to break the law.

I don't disagree, but what does this have to do with mathematics?

 

[NotEinstein]

Based on movement .

I cannot find that bit of text is not in the link I provided. Where is it?

 

[river]

I cannot find that bit of text is not in the link I provided. Where is it?

Exactly .

Not there .

 

[NotEinstein]

Exactly .

Not there .

Right, and "based on duration" is also not there, so you are wrong in claiming that. If that the argument you're making?

 

[paddoboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

Done!

Heaven forbid!! A scientific explanation on time and whether it is fundamental or not
I also like Sean Carroll's reply to a similar question.......
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/04/03/the-reality-of-time/

or this

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[river]

Right, and "based on duration" is also not there, so you are wrong in claiming that. If that the argument you're making?

How am I wrong ?

 

[NotEinstein]

How am I wrong ?

Oh, I thought your "Exactly . Not there ." post was meant to mean that because the phrase "based on movement" wasn't in that definition, time wasn't based on movement. So then I noted that "based on duration" is also not there, so that must mean time wasn't based on duration.

If I have misunderstood your intentions, please clarify what you meant with post #1266.

 

[river]

Oh, I thought your "Exactly . Not there ." post was meant to mean that because the phrase "based on movement" wasn't in that definition, time wasn't based on movement. So then I noted that "based on duration" is also not there, so that must mean time wasn't based on duration.

If I have misunderstood your intentions, please clarify what you meant with post #1266.

Exactly

Duration is based on movement .

 

[Write4U]

Not that I necessarily agree with this, but I don't see how this is relevant at all? I didn't type mathematical objects? My input was atoms, electron, wavefunctions, whatever, physical things or actions. At no point in time writing that broken post did I encounter a real parabola, or a physical number 4.

If you haven't watched this yet, You will see how a parabola can be formed by drawing straight lines.
And also how the number 4/3 can give form a beautiful shape.
If you have seen it, please take the time to watch it again. It will give you insight into my way of thinking, trying to see things from different perspectives and connecting them to (hopefully) gain a deeper understanding of reality and how it unfolds.
https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world

 

[NotEinstein]

Exactly

So you agree that time is not based on duration or on movement? Good.

Duration is based on movement .

That may or may not be so, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

 

[river]

So you agree that time is not based on duration or on movement? Good.


That may or may not be so, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

It is what we are discussing .

The essence of time , is based on the duration and deeper movement of any object .

 

[NotEinstein]

If you haven't watched this yet, You will see how a parabola can be formed by drawing straight lines.
And also how the number 4/3 can give form a beautiful shape.
If you have seen it, please take the time to watch it again. It will give you insight into my way of thinking, trying to see things from different perspectives and connecting them to (hopefully) gain a deeper understanding of reality and how it unfolds.
https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world

I do remember: http://sciforums.com/threads/what-qualifies-as-science.159271/page-20#post-3478995
Turned out Roger Antonsen was on my side; what he shows there are depictions, representation, not actual mathematical objects.

And you still have not explained how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[NotEinstein]

It is what we are discussing .

The essence of time , is based on the duration and deeper movement of any object .

You just agreed that it's not, in post #1271. Are you contradicting yourself?

 

[river]

You just agreed that it's not, in post #1271. Are you contradicting yourself?

How does my post # 1271 contradict my post# 1274 ?

 

[NotEinstein]

How does my post # 1271 contradict my post# 1274 ?

In post #1271 you agreed with:
"time wasn't based on movement."
and:
"time wasn't based on duration."

In post #1274 you said:
"The essence of time , is based on the duration and deeper movement of any object ."

Which is a contradiction: time isn't based on movement or duration, yet time is based on duration and movement. Which is it?

 

[river]

In post #1271 you agreed with:
"time wasn't based on movement."
and:
"time wasn't based on duration."

In post #1274 you said:
"The essence of time , is based on the duration and deeper movement of any object ."

Which is a contradiction: time isn't based on movement or duration, yet time is based on duration and movement. Which is it?

Time is based on duration , the measure of the movement of objects .

 

[NotEinstein]

Time is based on duration , the measure of the movement of objects .

So the "Exactly" in your post #1271 was nonsense? OK.

Back to business: please provide a scientific source that defines time this way.