Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

What is time?Follow

QuoteReply
#102 Jul 27 2009 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I don't understand how you can call it qualitative. Abandoning the anthropocentric ideal for a minute, redness or softness are qualitative sure, but time isn't some.. epiphenon (or effect I guess, whatever) of the relations of objects. We can take measurements of it sure, by cutting it into pieces which can contain sequences and predictable occurrences of change, but the qualitative measurements we take of time are measurements, concepts abstracted from time, and not equal to it.


Because an object's temporal position is one of its qualities, and a very important one at that.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#103 Jul 27 2009 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Pensive claims things exist before we observe them, but do not experience time. And once we observe them, they do experience time.


No I don't. A human observing an object does nothing to give that object the experience of time.

Quote:
What is the difference between time and ptime?


I am not claiming that any such dichotomy exists. I don't know where you are getting this from.

Quote:
Of course it would.


Amazing considering that you can't test anything unless "testing" means something. Without time, it doesn't. This isn't some radical idea that even enables the conclusions of what I actually think time is; intelligibility is a fundamental condition of all knowledge, ever.

***
Quote:

Because an object's temporal position is one of its qualities, and a very important one at that.


That doesn't really answer my question you know.

Edited, Jul 27th 2009 3:03pm by Pensive
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#104 Jul 27 2009 at 12:56 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Pensive claims things exist before we observe them, but do not experience time. And once we observe them, they do experience time.


No I don't. A human observing an object does nothing to give that object the experience of time.


The key quote from Pensive is:

pensive wrote:

me wrote:

If the answer is yes, things exist without us, but don't experience time.


Yup. Time lets us understand them so that they're intelligible, rather than all batsh*t crazy.


To show I am not quoting Pensive out of context, here is the full quote of mine, to which Pensive answered "yup" is:

me wrote:

So they actually do exist (or could exist) independent of human experience?
Now I'm thinking your answer will be yes or no, but perhaps I've missed the point.
...
If the answer is yes, things exist without us, but don't experience time. Even if, when we find them, it looks like they did.



▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#105 Jul 27 2009 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
"If the answer is yes, things exist without us, but don't experience time." "Yes, that is correct"

"A human observing an object does nothing to give that object the experience of time."

These are perfectly consistent dude. The first statement asserts that objects exist and do not experience time. The second statement asserts that objects do not experience time. I have no earthly idea why you think that they are contradictory, aside from just not listening when I say that time and objects have nothing to do with the existence of each other. I mean it would make sense if you accused me of just gibbering nonsense that doesn't mean anything, because my assertions are analytically impossible or something, but instead you seem to have said that, when I assert that time and existence are not intertwined, that I am wrong because I have implied or stated somewhere that time and existence are intertwined.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#106 Jul 28 2009 at 7:00 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
"If the answer is yes, things exist without us, but don't experience time." "Yes, that is correct"

"A human observing an object does nothing to give that object the experience of time."

These are perfectly consistent dude. The first statement asserts that objects exist and do not experience time. The second statement asserts that objects do not experience time. I have no earthly idea why you think that they are contradictory, aside from just not listening when I say that time and objects have nothing to do with the existence of each other. I mean it would make sense if you accused me of just gibbering nonsense that doesn't mean anything, because my assertions are analytically impossible or something, but instead you seem to have said that, when I assert that time and existence are not intertwined, that I am wrong because I have implied or stated somewhere that time and existence are intertwined.


Pensive: Wait, you mean you think objects never experience time? Could you just say that? Even when we watch them, they are not experiencing time? Or that objects do not experience anything?

Either way I don't care.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#107 Jul 28 2009 at 8:28 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592267273743
Scholar
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Wait, you mean you think objects never experience time?


Well yes, that's what I've been trying to get across. Observing an object doesn't suddenly grant it subjective power. That's a power that you need in order to participate in time.

Quote:
Either way I don't care.


Then why are you continuing this farce? Smiley: lol
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 250 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (250)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC