Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

Again, you are NOT measuring 'change', itself. You are just looking at numbers 'changing'.

Same difference in that case so to speak.

[evolution]

Again, you are NOT measuring 'change', itself. You are just looking at numbers 'changing'.

Same difference in that case so to speak.

But 'it' is NOT the same difference. That is; if you REALLY did 'want' to gain the True and Right perspective of thee actual Truth of things.

[Terrapin Station]

Same difference in that case so to speak.

But 'it' is NOT the same difference. That is; if you REALLY did 'want' to gain the True and Right perspective of thee actual Truth of things.

Yeah, it is. The numbers changing from 01 to 03 is a(n often definitional) measurement of how many seconds (or whatever unit we like) have passed.

It's just like the scientific standard definitional measurement of a second being 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. We can say it's an observation, but it's also a definitional measurement of time. And then we use that definitional measurement as a relative metric for other time (motion/change) measurements.

This is the same thing we do with spatial measurements, by the way. We set up definitional measurements--a ruler, the length of a rod, light wavelengths, etc. and then we use that as a relative metric for other spatial measurements. In the case of spatial measurements, we're dealing with relational (spatial) extension rather than motion or change.

[evolution]

But 'it' is NOT the same difference. That is; if you REALLY did 'want' to gain the True and Right perspective of thee actual Truth of things.

Yeah, it is.

Okay, then it MUST BE.

The numbers changing from 01 to 03 is a(n often definitional) measurement of how many seconds (or whatever unit we like) have passed.

It's just like the scientific standard definitional measurement of a second being 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. We can say it's an observation, but it's also a definitional measurement of time.

And, what again is 'time' EXACTLY?

And then we use that definitional measurement as a relative metric for other time (motion/change) measurements.

This is the same thing we do with spatial measurements, by the way. We set up definitional measurements--a ruler, the length of a rod, light wavelengths, etc. and then we use that as a relative metric for other spatial measurements. In the case of spatial measurements, we're dealing with relational (spatial) extension rather than motion or change.

[Terrapin Station]

And, what again is 'time' EXACTLY?

Motion or change.

[evolution]

And, what again is 'time' EXACTLY?

Motion or change.

So, WHY have you changed the words 'change' or 'motion' to the word 'time'?

To me, 'time' is NOT defined by, nor means, just one, nor another, word.

But, if that is how you define and see 'time', then this helps in explaining and showing your other confused perceptions and why they do not fit together. And this is also WHY your views differ so much from what is actually True, Right, and Correct in Life.

[Terrapin Station]

Motion or change.

So, WHY have you changed the words 'change' or 'motion' to the word 'time'?

If someone asks "What is a dog, exactly?"

And someone else answers, "A dog is a canine blah blah blah . . ."

Would you say, "So WHY have you changed the word 'canine' to the word 'dog'?"

[evolution]

So, WHY have you changed the words 'change' or 'motion' to the word 'time'?

If someone asks "What is a dog, exactly?"

And someone else answers, "A dog is a canine blah blah blah . . ."

Would you say, "So WHY have you changed the word 'canine' to the word 'dog'?"

Can you seriously NOT see the difference between what I actually said, and meant, from your completely distorted version of 'that'?

Or, do you purposely ONLY pick parts of what I say, and ONLY show those picked out parts ONLY, for a very specific reason?

The words canine blah blah blah are NOT just one, or another word, as I had CLEARLY pointed out is what you actually DID.

If you Truly can NOT see the difference here, then this helps in explaining your very narrowed field of view, when it comes to looking at and seeing things.

Saying, " 'time' is just 'motion' or 'change' " is absolutely NOTHING like saying, "a 'dog' is a canine and OTHER things ".

Besides this OBVIOUS difference. The word 'canine' by itself means 'dog'. Whereas the words 'motion' or 'change', by themselves, obviously do NOT mean 'time'.

What is apparently CLEAR is you have a BELIEF, which you CLEARLY do NOT want to let go of and so you are desperately trying to HOLD ONTO it. And, you are SHOWING that you will say and do just about ANY thing to make out that this BELIEF is true, right, and correct.

[Terrapin Station]

Besides this OBVIOUS difference. The word 'canine' by itself means 'dog'. Whereas the words 'motion' or 'change', by themselves, obviously do NOT mean 'time'.

This is the part that's throwing you off, because you don't agree with the claim.

Motion or change are identical to time, just like canines are identical to dogs. Motion or change is what time is, just like "canine" is what a dog is. We can explain "canine" more verbosely, a la "a domesticated carnivore of the family Canidae" and so on, and we can do the same with "motion" or "change" a la, say, "a processual difference of position or form" and so on. But in both cases, it's simply a way of giving information about the identity (or character/set of properties) of the item in question.

[evolution]

Besides this OBVIOUS difference. The word 'canine' by itself means 'dog'. Whereas the words 'motion' or 'change', by themselves, obviously do NOT mean 'time'.

This is the part that's throwing you off, because you don't agree with the claim.

'What' EXACTLY is "the part", which you ASSUME and CLAIM is, supposedly, "throwing me off"?

Also, are you OPEN to the FACT that you could be completely and utterly WRONG?

Motion or change are identical to time, just like canines are identical to dogs.

LOL Back to the beginning AGAIN.

Is this A FACT, or is this just your OWN view and perspective of things?

Have you REALLY NOT YET cottoned on to the actual way you write?

If you want to be taken seriously, then you NEED to speak Truthfully.

Motion or change is what time is, just like "canine" is what a dog is.

LOL If you say and BELIEVE so, the it MUST BE SO, correct?

We can explain "canine" more verbosely, a la "a domesticated carnivore of the family Canidae" and so on, and we can do the same with "motion" or "change" a la, say, "a processual difference of position or form" and so on. But in both cases, it's simply a way of giving information about the identity (or character/set of properties) of the item in question.

So, if you can explain them, "more verbosely", then HOW do you explain 'time', more verbosely?

[Terrapin Station]

Is this A FACT, or is this just your OWN view and perspective of things?

It's an objective, ontological fact.

So, if you can explain them, "more verbosely", then HOW do you explain 'time', more verbosely?

I just gave an example in what you quoted.

[evolution]

Is this A FACT, or is this just your OWN view and perspective of things?

It's an objective, ontological fact.

Great. This is what I have been looking for.

So, 'Motion or change are identical to time', is an objective, ontological fact.

Now, two things here:

Does this apply for EVERY one, or just for you? And,

Does this also mean that this is an unambiguous and irrefutable fact as well?

So, if you can explain them, "more verbosely", then HOW do you explain 'time', more verbosely?

I just gave an example in what you quoted.

LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one of your many diversionary tactics.

Did you REALLY just give an example?

If yes, then WHERE and WHEN, exactly, did you just "give an example" in what I quoted, WHERE you, supposedly, explained 'time' more verbosely?

From what I can SEE there is NO such thing. But maybe I can NOT see what you can. We will just to wait and SEE what you provide us with now.

[Terrapin Station]

Does this apply for EVERY one, or just for you? And,

It applies to everyone, obviously. That doesn't imply that they agree with it/believe it, but that's irrelevant.

Does this also mean that this is an unambiguous and irrefutable fact as well?

Facts aren't "refutable." Facts are whatever they are. They don't hinge on persons' beliefs, their arguments, etc.

It's a fact that's not clear to many people, oddly enough, but it's clear to some. It should be clear to everyone if they do even a smidgen of functional analysis of what's being referred to by "time." However, some of the conventions in physics tend to confuse on this end (such as the definition of motion hinging on time in a manner that makes the fact that time is motion/change seem like question-begging per that convention).

If yes, then WHERE and WHEN, exactly, did you just "give an example" in what I quoted, WHERE you, supposedly, explained 'time' more verbosely?

"and we can do the same with 'motion' or 'change' a la, say, 'a processual difference of position or form'"

I don't know how you could have read that so that it wouldn't have been clear.

[Steve3007]

(Presumably directed at devans99)

You're this close to going full time cube.

I've just got round to Googling "Time Cube" to check that it's "a thing", as they say. As far as I remember, I hadn't heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this Otis Eugene Ray guy had posted on this website. It might be interesting to see if there were any posters who suddenly stopped posting on March 18th 2015. There have been many, many posters on here with many similar hobby horses that they are absolutely convinced are fantastic insights that are being suppressed or not taken sufficiently seriously by the authorities. Occasionally they're interesting.

[Terrapin Station]

(Presumably directed at devans99)

You're this close to going full time cube.

I've just got round to Googling "Time Cube" to check that it's "a thing", as they say. As far as I remember, I hadn't heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this Otis Eugene Ray guy had posted on this website. It might be interesting to see if there were any posters who suddenly stopped posting on March 18th 2015. There have been many, many posters on here with many similar hobby horses that they are absolutely convinced are fantastic insights that are being suppressed or not taken sufficiently seriously by the authorities. Occasionally they're interesting.

lol--glad you enjoyed checking that out. You can easily lose a lot of time if you go down the rabbit hole of reading about that stuff. There are videos of Gene Ray that are interesting, too.

Yeah, I get the impression that quite a few posters on boards like this might be a bit like Gene Ray. That's one reason that I'd love to be able to interact more "traditionally" with folks who post on these boards. Of course, I'm someone who thinks that folks' views can't really be separated from their personalities, dispositions, quirks, person histories, hang-ups, etc. etc. I think the fact that we act like views can be separated from the totality of individuals espousing them is one of the more curious intellectual "conceits" we've invented.