Time is imagined

[Frud11]

The illusion of Time is real, to things that are "alive". We can't even define what life is, so maybe that explains it.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, quite serious.
Can you answer any of the questions?
And I agree there would be no Time, if there was no life (observation by lifeforms). Time is observation of change by living things, so without life, there wouldn't be any time. The universe would keep expanding and changing, but if it wasn't being observed, except by "inanimate atoms", there would be no time.

If that is serious you are definitely out of your mind.. sorry dude.

 

[Frud11]

...you are definitely out of your mind.. sorry dude.

But you are the one who is out of their mind, sorry. Anyone who can seriously believe that wind and time are the same, or have the same "attributes", must have a serious perception problem.

You can't answer a single question I posed (the ones I'm quite serious about). So have resorted to name-calling, the standard ploy of mental defectives. But since I'm seriously out of my mind, this will have absolutely zero effect.

 

[Yorda]

If that is serious you are definitely out of your mind.. sorry dude.

go out of your mind sometimes. it's not good to stay inside all the time.

 

[Enmos]

But you are the one who is out of their mind, sorry. Anyone who can seriously believe that wind and time are the same, or have the same "attributes", must have a serious perception problem.

You can't answer a single question I posed (the ones I'm quite serious about). So have resorted to name-calling, the standard ploy of mental defectives. But since I'm seriously out of my mind, this will have absolutely zero effect.

Where did I say time and wind are the same..?
I just used 'wind' to show you how ridiculous your argument is.
YOU named supposed attributes of time that wind possesses as well..

If you really think that the fact that one can't put time in a jar or the fact that time is not available in any convenient store, proves that time doesn't exist.. then, YES.. then I think you are completely out of your mind..

 

[Frud11]

And I would say that anyone who really thinks that not being able to show that time is physical (because you CAN put it in a jar), is pretty out-there, too. You "just used" something you obviously pulled out of the air, to show how ridiculous it is to compare actual physical things, like pizza, with things that are not obviously physical, like time.

Completely crazy, if you ask me.

 

[Enmos]

And I would say that anyone who really thinks that not being able to show that time is physical (because you CAN put it in a jar), is pretty out-there, too. You "just used" something you obviously pulled out of the air, to show how ridiculous it is to compare actual physical things, like pizza, with things that are not obviously physical, like time.

Completely crazy, if you ask me.

You have a comprehension problem.. I see..

Tell me, and just answer with yes or no please: can one put time in a jar ?

 

[Frud11]

Those who don't believe that WIND is imaginary, presumably believe that it's real (I can't honestly think of any other options with this).

If you believe it's real, prove that it is. Show us all where WIND is, and tell us what it looks like. How easy is it to store? What sort of containers does it come in? Where can I buy some? Does it look like a liquid, solid, or a gas?

You can do none of the above. This is because it doesn't actually exist. It doesn't exist for the simple reason that it's imagined.

What is this supposed to be about? Do you seriously believe that WIND and TIME are interchangeable in a sentence?
If you really do (and your editing of my post indicates this), I think you're the one with the "problem".

P.S, If you can't figure out what my earlier comment was getting at, I guess you won't be able to figure this out either.

 

[Enmos]

What is this supposed to be about? Do you seriously believe that WIND and TIME are interchangeable in a sentence?
If you really do (and your editing of my post indicates this), I think you're the one with the "problem".

P.S, If you can't figure out what my earlier comment was getting at, I guess you won't be able to figure this out either.

Answer the question two posts up ? Pretty please ?

And I have already said that I don't think that time and wind are interchangeable.. it was kinda the point of that post..

 

[Frud11]

Answer the question two posts up ? Pretty please ?

And I have already said that I don't think that time and wind are interchangeable.. it was kinda the point of that post..

But what do I find in this post?

There's absolutely nothing foolish about the wind (motion of air molecules), and time.

Except for: it's foolish to say that you can substitute time for the wind, or for anything, because there is only one kind of time--the one that always goes forwards. I don't think you can substitute for it in any dynamical equations, at least (you wouldn't get many marks in the exam).

”
You can substitute it because it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time.

So, prove it's real..

So, are they equivalent? Does wind "possess all the attributes" of time, or what?

P.S. I would have thought that what I've had to say about the subject of time, would indicate that I don't think it's real, in a physical sense, so, no, you can't put it in a jar (or in anything), because you can't pick it up, or store it, or hold some of it in your hand. OK?

 

[Reiku]

Whatever.... Only hat i need some sleep...!!! Good night everyone!~!

 

[invert_nexus]

But what do I find in this post?

Just guessing here, but it appears to me that you improperly emphasized portions of the relevant post. The portion you should have emphasized is:

"...it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time."

This implies that your argument is fallacious.

 

[Frud11]

What "possesses all the attributes"? All the attributes of what?
What sort of fallacy are you putting forward here?

Pistachio icecream has all the attributes of time, too. So does the Statue of Liberty, and Disney cartoons. Just about anything you can think of, actually. But then, none of these things actually exist, either...

Now there's something nice and logical to get your teeth into.

P.S. Please stop suggesting that I emphasise other's posts a different way, I emphasised (that is, bolded), the relevant parts.

 

[invert_nexus]

What "possesses all the attributes"? All the attributes of what?

So.
Let me get this straight.
You have a complete lack of memory of the words that preceded the words I quoted?
I really needed to quote the entire thing and only bold a single portion of it so that you'd be able to place the quote into its context?

Alright. I'll help out your poor memory and inability to read back.

What "possesses all the attributes"?

Wind.

All the attributes of what?

Your argument about time.

What sort of fallacy are you putting forward here?

I think he's trying to say that you are improperly presenting the attributes of time. He's doing this by saying that the presentation you've built up describing time could also be used to describe the wind. Since the wind and time are not equal then there must be something wrong with your presentation.

Pistachio icecream has all the attributes of time, too. So does the Statue of Liberty, and Disney cartoons. Just about anything you can think of, actually.

Especially if you're Mr. Semantic.

P.S. Please stop suggesting that I emphasise other's posts a different way, I emphasised (that is, bolded), the relevant parts.

No, you didn't.

I'm not saying you misrepresented his post on purpose. I'm saying you misunderstood what he was trying to say because you failed to realize the distinction between "it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time" and "it possesses all the attributes of time."
These are two completely different phrases with completely different meanings.

Understand now?

 

[Enmos]

So.
Let me get this straight.
You have a complete lack of memory of the words that preceded the words I quoted?
I really needed to quote the entire thing and only bold a single portion of it so that you'd be able to place the quote into its context?

Alright. I'll help out your poor memory and inability to read back.



Wind.



Your argument about time.



I think he's trying to say that you are improperly presenting the attributes of time. He's doing this by saying that the presentation you've built up describing time could also be used to describe the wind. Since the wind and time are not equal then there must be something wrong with your presentation.



Especially if you're Mr. Semantic.



No, you didn't.

I'm not saying you misrepresented his post on purpose. I'm saying you misunderstood what he was trying to say because you failed to realize the distinction between "it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time" and "it possesses all the attributes of time."
These are two completely different phrases with completely different meanings.

Understand now?

Thanks Invert, that's what I meant..
But I really think Frud knew what I meant.. he's just acting stupid for whatever reason.

 

[Frud11]

the distinction between "it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time" and "it possesses all the attributes of time."

Hmm. Thinks../click, whirr/ So the argument about time is like arguing about something like the wind?

Maybe, but the wind blows from all points of the compass; it changes directions constantly; stops and starts; gusts (or "surges") down valleys and across bodies of water.
There are updrafts and downdrafts; turbulent flows; jet streams miles up, lots of other features that I can't imagine as a connection of any kind, to time.
But you're saying that I use the attributes in my argument about Time, that the wind also has?

Those who don't believe that Time is imaginary, presumably believe that it's real (I can't honestly think of any other options with this).

If you believe it's real, prove that it is. Show us all where Time is, and tell us what it looks like. How easy is it to store? What sort of containers does it come in? Where can I buy some? Does it look like a liquid, solid, or a gas?

Can't see anything there about compasses, gusts, or jet streams...? I don't see that you can contain wind, or store it, or buy it from somewhere. Solids, liquids and gases are three known phases of matter. Wind isn't a phase of matter...?