On the nature of time, split brain patients and other topics

[DaveC426913]

Simple, the physical properties of your fingers and the typewriter.

Such as? Name a property that puts the D after the I that doesn't ultimately depend on a time interval between them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Simple, the physical properties of your fingers and the typewriter.

You missed something, or refuse to address it.

 

[(Q)]

Such as? Name a property that puts the D after the I that doesn't ultimately depend on a time interval between them.

There's nothing there that depends on a time interval, it's simply the physical properties and forces on your fingers and the keyboard. Time has nothing to do with it.

 

[(Q)]

You missed something, or refuse to address it.

What's that?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, there were several, but that would be cheating.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's nothing there that depends on a time interval, it's simply the physical properties and forces on your fingers and the keyboard. Time has nothing to do with it.

So describe it. Describe my fingers on the keyboard typing 'I dunno' step-by-step, without a dependency on the passage of time.

You claim time isn't involved; prove it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I typed 90 words a minute back in the day. Today it's maybe 60, still not bad. I don't know of another metric for measuring capacity in typing.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So describe it. Describe my fingers on the keyboard typing 'I dunno' step-by-step, without a dependency on the passage of time.

You claim time isn't involved; prove it.

He can't prove the Eddorians aren't controlling him, How is he going to prove anything else?

 

[(Q)]

So describe it. Describe my fingers on the keyboard typing 'I dunno' step-by-step, without a dependency on the passage of time.

You claim time isn't involved; prove it.

You keep making the same mistake, assuming that the passage of time has anything to do with your fingers and the keyboard. You are the one who needs to prove time has the effect you say it does.

 

[DaveC426913]

You keep making the same mistake, assuming that the passage of time has anything to do with your fingers and the keyboard.

I'm not making a mistake; it is true. The science has it built-in. The formulae that describe the motion of my hands - right down to the atoms - have the variable t built right in - for example Δd/Δt. I would be incapable of even pressing a key without the events that depend on time.

This is well understood. So if you have a challenge to that, you have the onus to defend it.

You are the one who needs to prove time has the effect you say it does.

I already have. The D followed the I in time; that's why it is to the right instead of on top of it.

So I ask you: how are you going to describe my finger pressing the I first and the D second without any aspect that depends on the presence of time?

I suspect you know you've stepped in it, as you started to provide an answer - about what my fingers are doing - but stopped before filling the details as soon as you realized you can't do it without a dependency on time.


Here's several other ways we know time has a physical consequence on our world:

1. Effect always follows cause in time. No effect has ever happened simultaneously to its cause - let alone before it, because our universe is dependent on time and its flow from cause to effect. The glass hitting the floor and smashing always follows the cat knocking it off the counter.

2. I am standing at a location, holding a butcher knife. I read out my spatial coordinates as: N42.0690437, W70.24290525, Alt: 0ft.
You are standing at a location, in swim shorts. You read out your spatial coordinates as: N42.0690437, W70.24290525, Alt: 0ft.
ie. identical to mine.
How are you not dead with a stab wound to the belly?
How did we not mutually explode by occupying the exact same location?
Because my time coordinate is 20240831-07:00:00, and yours is 20240831-07:01:00
We were in the same place but passed each other by a minute.
An event in spacetime is defined by four coordinates: three spatial and one time.

You have a challenge to that, you need to defend it.

 

[(Q)]

I'm not making a mistake; it is true. The science has it built-in. The formulae that describe the motion of my hands - right down to the atoms - have the variable t built right in - for example Δd/Δt. I would be incapable of even pressing a key without the events that depend on time.

This is well understood. So if you have a challenge to that, you have the onus to defend it.


I already have. The D followed the I in time; that's why it is to the right instead of on top of it.

So I ask you: how are you going to describe my finger pressing the I first and the D second without any aspect that depends on the presence of time?

I suspect you know you've stepped in it, as you started to provide an answer - about what my fingers are doing - but stopped before filling the details as soon as you realized you can't do it without a dependency on time.


Here's several other ways we know time has a physical consequence on our world:

1. Effect always follows cause in time. No effect has ever happened simultaneously to its cause - let alone before it, because our universe is dependent on time and its flow from cause to effect. The glass hitting the floor and smashing always follows the cat knocking it off the counter.

2. I am standing at a location, holding a butcher knife. I read out my spatial coordinates as: N42.0690437, W70.24290525, Alt: 0ft.
You are standing at a location, in swim shorts. You read out your spatial coordinates as: N42.0690437, W70.24290525, Alt: 0ft.
ie. identical to mine.
How are you not dead with a stab wound to the belly?
How did we not mutually explode by occupying the exact same location?
Because my time coordinate is 20240831-07:00:00, and yours is 20240831-07:01:00
We were in the same place but passed each other by a minute.
An event in spacetime is defined by four coordinates: three spatial and one time.

You have a challenge to that, you need to defend it.

You keep making the same mistake over and over, assuming time is the cause or that something depends on time as a cause. The formula for distance over time shows the speed of an object, which is not caused by time, but instead the energy accelerating the object.

Example 1. Time did not cause the cat to knock the glass on the floor, nor does it cause the glass to break, nor does it cause the glass to fall.

Example 2. That is the cause of Pauli Exclusion Principle, not time.

 

[DaveC426913]

The formula for distance over time shows the speed of an object,

The speed of an object is defined as change in distance over change in time.

which is not caused by time, but instead the energy accelerating the object.

Acceleration is defined as change in speed over change in time.

You have depended on the consequence of time to make the point. Well done. You are coming around.

Example 2. That is the cause of Pauli Exclusion Principle, not time.

PEP works over distances smaller than an atom. In the scenario, we were never closer than 100 feet from each other. So no. Try again?

Example 1. Time did not cause the cat to knock the glass on the floor, nor does it cause the glass to break, nor does it cause the glass to fall.

Ah, I can see your confusion. You are moving the goal posts - perhaps you did not realize it.

You see, no one has said time "causes" anything.

It was your claim that (and I quote you here) "it has no physical effects on anything whatsoever.", which is a much broader claim, and one easily refuted.

I have provided several examples of time having very physical consequences on our world:

• it forces effects to follow causes (without time, glasses could smash before they fell)
• it allows things to move - without distance over time, you just have distance (like a diorama of animals in a museum, or a mannequin at a piano in a wax museum)
• it allows things to accelerate (such as fingers accelerating from zero velocity to fast enough to strike a key. They could not do this without the passage of time.)
• it allows two things to occupy the same space - by occupying it at different times (because time is a dimension, along with space, in which we have some control over our movement so as not to bump into each other.)

These are all things that could not happen without the passage of time. Time's presence makes the very world we live in possible. That's a pretty physical effect.

Every attempt you've made to refute my examples I have easily struck down. I've asked you several times to explain - specifically - your idea of how the world works without time's manifestation in it, and you have not been able to do so. Perhaps you want to walk back your (as yet, undefended) claim that time "has no physical effects on anything whatsoever".

 

[(Q)]

The speed of an object is defined as change in distance over change in time.


Acceleration is defined as change in speed over change in time.

You have depended on the consequence of time to make the point. Well done. You are coming around.


PEP works over distances smaller than an atom. In the scenario, we were never closer than 100 feet from each other. So no. Try again?

Ah, I can see your confusion. You are moving the goal posts - perhaps you did not realize it.

You see, no one has said time "causes" anything.

It certainly sounds like you're claiming time causes things to happen, but if not, then I apologize for making that assumption. Moving on.

It was your claim that (and I quote you here) "it has no physical effects on anything whatsoever.", which is a much broader claim, and one easily refuted.

If so easily refuted, you would have done so by now.

I have provided several examples of time having very physical consequences on our world:

• it forces effects to follow causes (without time, glasses could smash before they fell)

That has to do with entropy.

• it allows things to move - without distance over time, you just have distance (like a diorama of animals in a museum, or a mannequin at a piano in a wax museum)

What about a photon? It moves at the speed of light but time has stopped for the photon.

• it allows things to accelerate (such as fingers accelerating from zero velocity to fast enough to strike a key. They could not do this without the passage of time.)

Time does not "allow" those things to accelerate, that would be the laws of physics.

• it allows two things to occupy the same space - by occupying it at different times (because time is a dimension, along with space, in which we have some control over our movement so as not to bump into each other.)

Again, laws of physics are "allowing" things to not occupy or occupy the same space.

These are all things that could not happen without the passage of time. Time's presence makes the very world we live in possible. That's a pretty physical effect.

But, its not an affect. It can measure things happening but it doesn't actually affect anything.

Every attempt you've made to refute my examples I have easily struck down. I've asked you several times to explain - specifically - your idea of how the world works without time's manifestation in it, and you have not been able to do so. Perhaps you want to walk back your (as yet, undefended) claim that time "has no physical effects on anything whatsoever".

You are confused about time having an effect when instead you should be looking at the laws of physics for those effects.

 

[DaveC426913]

It certainly sounds like you're claiming time causes things to happen, but if not, then I apologize for making that assumption. Moving on.

We are still on your claim.

If so easily refuted, you would have done so by now.

And I have.

That has to do with entropy.

Yes it does. Do you know what entropy is synonymous with? It's called The arrow of time.

What about a photon? It moves at the speed of light but time has stopped for the photon.

So what?

Time does not "allow" those things to accelerate, that would be the laws of physics.

Yes. The laws of physics that time is one of the four dimensions. And that every example we have been talking about involves physics that incorporate time.

Again, laws of physics are "allowing" things to not occupy or occupy the same space.

I don't think you followed the example very well. The reason you didn't end up with a knife in your belly, is because you and I were never in the same place at the same time. You passe fthoruh ht esame spatial coordinates one minute after I did. If not for our separatimo in time, we would have been coincident in spacetime - i.e. a buthcer knief in your belly.

(I didn't expect this scenario would have to get this far; it's a little more graphic than I meant it to be.)

But, its not an affect. It can measure things happening but it doesn't actually affect anything.

All these things mentoned would happen simultaneously, if not for the passage of time.
It follows directly that time has very real physical effects on our world.

... you should be looking at the laws of physics for those effects.

Time is a big part of physics, and is intricately involved in every law of physics.

I've given example after example, with qualitative, quantitative and definitive descriptions - including the formulae to prove the dependency on time as a variable. You've handwaved, demured and dodged. (In case you think I'm just bloviating, I have asked numerous times for you to describe any of these events in detail without referring to time, and you have not. Your best response has been 'its atoms!' and 'it's physics!' without further elaboration. )


I'm stickin' and fork in you, cuz you're done. Let's move on.

 

[(Q)]

I've given example after example, with qualitative, quantitative and definitive descriptions - including the formulae to prove the dependency on time as a variable.

That would be a delusion as you've done no such thing. You're obviously very confused or just don't understand what it is you're talking about.