If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
The rest of this is filler words.
PhilX
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.Time, is the measurement of objects, moving through space. Time itself, does not move through space. The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.
If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
The rest of this is filler words.
PhilX
Present awareness wrote:The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.The difference in "position" of an object in space is given by a "distance". The time taken by a body to move through a "distance" is given by referring to the number of cycles completed by some other body that is caught in predictable repetitive motion.
Present awareness wrote:Kind of like the disk? The center of time is stationary but connected to and controlling its outer parts while they are moving and changing?Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.Time, is the measurement of objects, moving through space. Time itself, does not move through space. The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.
If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
The rest of this is filler words.
PhilX
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.Time is measured by changes in all creation (sun up, sun down) and for humans in all that is seen and experienced. Time is increments of motion, the whole in a frame by frame process. (reminds me of cartoons being drawn part by part on paper pages put together then flipped to move the drawing)
What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
PhilX
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.You are a truly brilliant man, Phil. I am stumped with this one. No clue at all.
If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
The rest of this is filler words.
PhilX
Ruskin wrote:It could we're the ones who move but the same difference either way. Apparently time is relative as well it's not universally consistent throughout the universe.Whether we use as a reference the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, or the spin of the Earth on its axis, or the natural oscillation frequencies of atoms, we can determine by various processes and calculations a unit of time on which they all agree, such as the "second".
enegue wrote: The idea that time is relative is a myth based on the observation that an atomic clock in orbit about the Earth gets out of sync with one on the ground.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.It seems time moves with all moving things.
If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?
The rest of this is filler words.
PhilX
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Ruskin wrote:Not quite.
"It's based around the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of how fast you move."
It's not a fact, it's an assumption within the theory of special relativity.
PhilX
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
No. Not really. When you hit your thumb […]
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolve […]
But if we do try to live by the rule of thumb t[…]