Can't look back in time

In
news:[Only registered users see links. ],
BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:


Notwithstanding the fact that your speculations are hardly the basis
to make pronouncements about the Universe, can you explain why it is
that you don't think so?

AllYou! wrote:


Motion requires distance and time to define.


You've just invoked time again.


Oops!


Explain motion without "time". You can't. You
always have some skirting around the issue version
that avoids use of the word time without abandoning
the concept.


As motion exists, time exists, with or without
your approval. If I pick you up and throw you
really fast, time will stop for you.

In news:b5c17$48ef4993$cdd085bb$[Only registered users see links. ],
Sanforized <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

That's rather meaningless to this debate. What do you mean by
"define"? If by 'define', you mean to quantify, then let's look at
how you quantify it. You've done so by using the progession of yet
another process in order to compare it to the motion to which you're
referring.

Explain to me where you got your standard of time, except by using
the progression of another process.


Circular logic. You're supporting your argument as taking your
position as fact.


.......of motion.


I'm glad to see that you've kept an open mind. Anyway, I'm not sure
what you're asking. I don't have to explain motion. It simply
exists, and I observe it. But if you're asking me to quantify
motion, I fully agree that the use of the tool we created as an
intellectual concept is very useful for doing that. But then, that
tool relies, in turn, on the progression of yet another process.

What's your standard for a unit of time, if not the progression of
another process?


I embrace the conept of time. It's an incredibly useful tool that I
don't want to do without. But that's ALL that it is...... a
concept.



I never said that it didn't exist. I said that it exists only in
our minds, and not in the physical realm.

AllYou! wrote:

[...]


I'm going to terminate this particular discussion
with you because if you're not trolling then I need
to feel sorry for you, and I sure would hate to do
that!

On Oct 10, 8:02*am, Sanforized <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Explain motion without "time". You can't.

I think you can have motion with out time but you have to take the
observer out of the observational refrance frame and the biological
factor out as well

things will move , decay , transform,cycle yada yada yada but with out
a biological observer their is no time refrance

In news:76e33$48ef6e6a$cdd0852b$[Only registered users see links. ],
Sanforized <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

Amazing. If you're so confident in your position, and it's so
clearly correct, you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.

In
news:[Only registered users see links. ],
RustyJames <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

What is this obession with 'explaining' motion? Motion is a
obserable. If you mean to quatify it, you can do that with any
intellectual tools you wish, but that doesn't amke them any thing
other then an intellectual concept. Time is the comparison of the
progression of one physical process with another one that's used as
a standard. If I'm wrong, show me.


We can have motion with \out any observes because motion exists. Do
you really think that motion would not exist without observers?


Right, and yet, motion still exists. It doesn't need to be
quantified or explained in order to exist.

RustyJames wrote:


There is still sequence. Without time there
is no sequence. Best of luck finding the
same rational solutions most of us have
achieved.

In news:ce457$48ef73c9$cdd0852b$[Only registered users see links. ],
Sanforized <[Only registered users see links. ]> mused:

Not true. There was a sequence, which means that it's a memory,
which is an intelectual process, which means that it's irrlelvant to
what is. And even beyond that, the sequence is what it is, and we
use the concept of time to conceptualize and describe and
communicate about the sequence. It exists as a tool.

But again and again I keep asking how we came to a standard of time
except through the use of the progression of yet another process.

On Oct 10, 8:02*am, Sanforized <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

motion will exist whether with or without time time is only introduced
by an observer without an observer there is no time.