Martian:

Deepsight holds on to a discredited view of time because it lets him hold on to this idea about a god creating the universe. The problem we have is that he refuses to accept reality and supporting obersvations and calculations that show time to be a measurement of motion(ie the expansion of spacetime and the physical bodies moving through it) instead of a "void where events are etrapolated" that he came up with based on 18th century physcis.

I do not know anything abiut 18th century notions of time and do not base my queries on such. I base my queries on the self evident, self existent nature of time. It is glaring that current science is living in la la land regarding the nature of time: and I have no doubt that in future, the notions of current science regarding this matter would be shown to be disastrously wrong.

Time is time. It self exists. It could not but. It is. It is not birthed by the Big ba.ng, and it will still exist even if the universe didnt.

What you have given me is methods of measurement of durations.

As such, you need to address yourself,not to the method of measurement only, but precisely to the non-contingent existence of the duration.

thehomer horribly misconceived the question when I asked him what the second is contingent on. He gave me a method of measurement, failing to recognize that the question is "what is the EXISTENCE of the DURATION" contingent on.

Is it the atomic measurements that CREATE the duration measured?

No: the duration is there: all you have done is measured it!

See?

Deep Sight:
You have provided what I expected: a reference for the measurement of time and not time itself.
As a rough analogy, I would say that this is like thinking that the tailor's tape-rule is the cloth.
Again, the bold word shows exactly what I am saying: namely that it is that specific DURATION that is measured as described above. All you have shown is the method through which that duration is measured. You have not shown that such a duration would not exist without motion.
Same as above. You are simply lecturing on method of measurement. You have said essentially nothing relevant to the concerns of the OP.

Motion is what's been measured!!! What else do you want?! You keep harping on and on about how time is not a measurement of motion, but when I asked you how you'll measure time without motion, you said nothing.

Deep Sight:
As such I would simply ask you to address this simple question I raised earlier:

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?
If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?
Answer?

What makes you think that life would be the same if the conditions on earth are altered? The answer is that if the earth was moving at a different speed, life would have adapted differently than what obtains now or maybe life wouldn't even exist at all.

Martian:

Motion is what's been measured!!!

Well motion is not time, and for this reason you concede that time itself is not motion. Do I need to explain this? If you move faster, you get to a destination quicker. However the 1 second you use to get there is the same 1 second experienced by a stationary man.

This simple analogy alone conclusively shows that motion is not time.

What else do you want?! You keep harping on and on about how time is not a measurement of motion, but when I asked you how you'll measure time without motion, you said nothing.

I did answer you in that thread:maybe you missed it.

My second question should perhaps help you see the point:

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

What makes you think that life would be the same if the conditions on earth are altered? The answer is that if the earth was moving at a different speed, life would have adapted differently than what obtains now or maybe life wouldn't even exist at all.

You know very well that this is a horrible cop out. This is no answer.

I REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS:

You need to address yourself, not to the method of measurement only, but precisely to the non-contingent existence of the duration.

thehomer horribly misconceived the question when I asked him what the second is contingent on. He gave me a method of measurement, failing to recognize that the question is "what is the EXISTENCE of the DURATION" contingent on.

Is it the atomic measurements that CREATE the duration measured?

No: the duration is there: all you have done is measured it!

Na wa for this deepsight o. Make i just remain in the sidelines.

Deep Sight:

I think it's titled "The Universe" and I have not been able to find a video of it onlne, but I will try to get a transcript of the text.I actually tried to record it as well but failed to do so and I understand anyway that Icannot transfer a recorded version from Dstv's PVR decoder anyhow.

Okay.

Deep Sight:
Exactly what was said was that within a few minutes [? ? ?] of the expansion, more than 300, 000 years [? ? ?] passed. ? ? ? ! ! !

Well that makes no sense. A minute is not 300,000 years. Or do you think a minute is 300,000 years?

Deep Sight:
And I hope you recognize that that excellenty shows my case to be correct.

How does it show your case to be correct?

thehomer:

Well that makes no sense. A minute is not 300,000 years. Or do you think a minute is 300,000 years?

Well the statement I quoted is exactly what was stated by Professors and Research Fellows at leading American Universities.

Your modern "science" for you.

I will try even harder to find the transcript: it might just stop you from recommending to me "leading experts" in these matters.

How does it show your case to be correct?

It shows that you are providing the method of measurement of a GIVEN duration already and as such time is not contingent on motion.

PS: Please attempt the various questions I laid out above? The ones in red?

Ok, the documentary is actually titled "The History of the world in two hours" And a thirty second ad introducing it can be found here -

http://www.historychannel.com.au/tv-shows/videos.aspx?id=974

Synopsis -

http://www.historychannel.com.au/tv-shows/show-details.aspx?id=974

I am off to find a transcript.

Later.

Deep Sight:

. . .


Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

Answer?

In this question, what are you measuring? Are you assessing how long it takes the earth to rotate or how much a person's physical features change?

Sure the person would be old by sunset if the biological clock were assumed to continue "ticking" at its current rate but I don't see how this helps you. If you simply wish to pin all your hopes on a person's experience, then you need to realize that people's experience which is deeply coupled to memory are highly susceptible to errors.

Can't get the transcript yet. . . .but here are some comments and criticism's of the documentary -

http://www.amazon.com/History-World-Two-Hours-Applicable/dp/B006ENHGLS

A lot of the criticism centres on the fact that its a casual work for casual viewing, nevertheless those statements which concern me were made by leading scientists in this field. . . .

Going back to search out the statements. . .. be right back

thehomer:

In this question, what are you measuring? Are you assessing how long it takes the earth to rotate or how much a person's physical features change?

Sure the person would be old by sunset if the biological clock were assumed to continue "ticking" at its current rate but I don't see how this helps you. If you simply wish to pin all your hopes on a person's experience, then you need to realize that people's experience which is deeply coupled to memory are highly susceptible to errors.

I am saying that the same duration of time has passed irrespective of the speed of movement of the earth.

I am still at a loss as to what you think time is. Time and space are one and the same and we recognise time by the duration of motion. No motion, no time.
Time is not a static force we can grasp or measure independently outside of motion. Infact, time bend and alters with characteristics of motion.
[s]Someone travelling at the speed of light for 3 seconds would come back [s]ot his starting point on earth about 300yrs later.[/s]
[/s]. error.[
A phenomenon called time dilation, will cause space explorers traveling near the speed of light to age more slowly than their compatriots left behind on earth.
This phenomenom of time dilation shows that 1 seond for one person may be different for another person depending on their relative motions. Therefore,time is not a constant quantity, but is largely or wholely dependent on motion.

This would seem to contradict your view that 1 second is the same for veryone irrespective of motion.

I have found the intro on youtube. Can't hear much audio though. Maybe its the computer i'm using.

Check it out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Uu81SEfHc&feature=relmfu

pastormustwacc: Na wa for this deepsight o. Make i just remain in the sidelines.

well.. He's just making arguments that for the most part is irrelevant cos we already know most of what we need to know about the concept of time.

Think of it this way... If we were in a different planet, say Jupiter that takes about 12 years to orbit the sun. Our brains will develop differently and adapt to the world we live in, Hence giving us a different perspective of time and that perspective will be used to puzzle out our universe differently.
That still doesn't mean we will get our calculations wrong because scientists always adjust "our" time to the time of other worlds so they can launch probes there.

That's how we got Curiosity to land on Mars, Cassini to orbit Saturn voyager 1 to interstellar space and many more...

At the first two concerns,

1) its called Inflation, and there is a sound mathematical calculation to support this.


2) The earth has slowed down indeed thanks to our moon and gravity from Jupiter. However it is still slowing down by as much as 1.4 milli seconds every hundred years. This will continue until the earth and moon share similar cycles.

plaetton: I am still at a loss as to what you think time is. Time and space are one and the same and we recognise time by the duration of motion. No motion, no time.
Time is not a static force we can grasp or measure independently outside of motion. Infact, time bend and alters with characteristics of motion.
Someone travelling at the speed of light for 3 seconds would come back ot his starting point on earth about 300yrs later.

A phenomenon called time dilation, will cause space explorers traveling near the speed of light to age more slowly than their compatriots left behind on earth.
This phenomenom of time dilation shows that 1 seond for one person may be different for another person depending on their relative motions. Therefore,time is not a constant quantity, but is largely or wholely dependent on motion.

This would seem to contradict your view that 1 second is the same for veryone irrespective of motion.

Indeed, this is what the current science says. I do not dispute that this is what the current science says. I dispute that it is correct.

I have laid out very simple, and seemingly childish questions to show what I mean. However, as simple and seemingly childish as these questions are, they go to the root of the matter. If indeed time is a function of motion, please answer me these questions -

ONE

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

TWO

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

Area_boy:

well.. He's just making arguments that for the most part is irrelevant cos we already know most of what we need to know about the concept of time.

Think of it this way... If we were in a different planet, say Jupiter that takes about 12 years to orbit the sun. Our brains will develop differently and adapt to the world we live in, Hence giving us a different perspective of time and that perspective will be used to puzzle out our universe differently.
That still doesn't mean we will get our calculations wrong because scientists always adjust "our" time to the time of other worlds so they can launch probes there.

That's how we got Curiosity to land on Mars, Cassini to orbit Saturn voyager 1 to interstellar space and many more...

At the first two concerns,

1) its called Inflation, and there is a sound mathematical calculation to support this.


2) The earth has slowed down indeed thanks to our moon and gravity from Jupiter. However it is still slowing down by as much as 1.4 milli seconds every hundred years. This will continue until the earth and moon share similar cycles.

And does this change the duration in question?

Does an earth spinning so fast that a day lasts six hours only, mean that that duration is shorter or longer than 6 hours on an earth where a day lasts 24 hours?

Deep Sight:

I am saying that the same duration of time has passed irrespective of the speed of movement of the earth.

Okay. This doesn't affect the length of a second so I don't see how your question helps.

We are only a few minutes into our two hour Journey and already 380 thousand years have passed

The narrator is referring to scale of time for the documentary and the history of the universe.

thehomer:

Okay. This doesn't affect the length of a second so I don't see how your question helps.

1. O yes it did because dividing up the cycle of the earth was the first method for arriving at such before the more accurate atomic clocks came along, but anyway that's just by the way and beside the point.

2. The key point remains that what you gave me was a method to measure a duration. I asked you WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DURATION IS CONTINGENT ON - NOT HOW TO MEASURE THE ALREADY EXISTING DURATION! ! ! !

Deep Sight:

And does this change the duration in question?

Does an earth spinning so fast that a day lasts six hours only, mean that that duration is shorter or longer than 6 hours on an earth where a day lasts 24 hours?

You are getting it all muddled up man. six hours is six hours, 24hrs is 24 hrs. Like i said, this is the world our brains developed into. At this same moment Jupiter has about 14hrs/day..

Try and understand that time is fixed and we only have reference points as our brains developed. our earth is our reference point. At the quantum mechanics level, everything falls apart because at the speed of light, time stops entirely. so what then is time??

Area_boy: We are only a few minutes into our two hour Journey and already 380 thousand years have passed

The narrator is referring to scale of time for the documentary and the history of the universe.

Were those the exact words? I need to re check. I don't remember it that way. If that's what was said, then my bad.

Unfortunatly i still cant get audio on that video.

However, you should not that the issues do not go away, even if I misheard that: because it is still contended that the early universe breaks down in terms of time. You alluded as much yourself. This remains my contention.

Area_boy:

You are getting it all muddled up man. six hours is six hours, 24hrs is 24 hrs. Like i said, this is the world our brains developed into. At this same moment Jupiter has about 14hrs/day..

Try and understand that time is fixed and we only have reference points as our brains developed. our earth is our reference point. At the quantum mechanics level, everything falls apart because at the speed of light, time stops entirely. so what then is time??

The bold is my point exactly.

The red bold is exactly what I state: our reference point for measurement of time is our earth: but that is measurement: that is not time in itself: that does not mean that time is motion. Such would be, to use a crude analogy, like saying that the tailor's tape rule is the cloth.

In response to the blue bold, I say to you that time neither begins nor stops. Time is.

Area_boy:

You are getting it all muddled up man. six hours is six hours, 24hrs is 24 hrs. Like i said, this is the world our brains developed into. At this same moment Jupiter has about 14hrs/day.

Good, and this conclusively shows that time is not contingent on motion.

The bold says it all.

I notice that neither thehomer nor martian have addressed themselves to this most crucial point:

"The key point remains that what you gave me was a method to measure a duration. I asked you WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DURATION IS CONTINGENT ON - NOT HOW TO MEASURE THE ALREADY EXISTING DURATION! ! ! !"

Deep Sight:

Indeed, this is what the current science says. I do not dispute that this is what the current science says. I dispute that it is correct.

I have laid out very simple, and seemingly childish questions to show what I mean. However, as simple and seemingly childish as these questions are, they go to the root of the matter. If indeed time is a function of motion, please answer me these questions -

ONE

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

TWO

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

1. Time would be experienced differently by the two depending on the state of their minds. I find that time goes very fast(duration of time is very slow) when I am playing a video game. I always find it to be my best way of whiling away time when am waiting for something. Duration of time increaes with anxiety. So it all depends on whether the person sitting in the BA jet was sleeping, watching a film or full or anxiety during the flight. His sense of time would be affect by all of the above.

2. If the earth were to take 80yrs to make its revolution around the sun, obviously our climate, our environment, our DNA and our physiology and consciousness would be altered to blend with that new reality. In that case, the physiological changes could go in one or two directions.
It is not possible that we would remain the same.

But since a DNA alteration is would be a logical consequence, I am of the opinion that our physiology would change for much greater longevity ,and that our consciousness would experience 80yrs in the same way we see 1yr today.

Addendum:
I believe that there exist a harmonic corrolation between the size of the earth, its gravity, rate of spin, distance to the sun, and our DNA, and therefore, our sense of time. All these factors tend to exist or evolved over time into a seemingly perfect balance.
A change in any one would inevitably alter the rest.

My point is that it is not possible to isolate or define time, independent of motion and space.

Deep Sight:

The bold is my point exactly.

The red bold is exactly what I state: our reference point for measurement of time is our earth: but that is measurement: that is not time in itself: that does not mean that time is motion. Such would be, to use a crude analogy, like saying that the tailor's tape rule is the cloth.

In response to the blue bold, I say to you that time neither begins nor stops. Time is.

to be politically correct, i'll go with "time as we know it stops".


I think I understand your point a bit clearly now, but what relevance does it have to anything?.

Except you are saying that time has always existed pre big bang, since it is different from what we actually perceive it to be. But then that would mean our universe has always been eternal and will continue to be. hmmmm more implications here....

Area_boy:

to be politically correct, i'll go with "time as we know it stops".

What does it mean to say that "time as we know it stops" Can you concisely tell me what this statement means please, because, as for me, I do not understand it.

Does time move in the first place.

Is there any conceivable perspective of existence that is not embedded in time.

I think I understand your point a bit clearly now, but what relevance does it have to anything?.

Its relevance rests in the cosmological question of the existence of God viewed from the perspective of the nature of existence itself. It is generally asserted by modern scientific thinking that time and space were created by or at the moment of the big b@ng. I believe that this is not logically consistent. The reason it is theologically relevant is that it contains an inference that nothing could have existed prior to the big b@ng. This is logically inconsistent because (x) same science holds that a singularity existed prior to the big bang - a singularity is not nothing and as such being physical must needs exist in already existent time (y) If space was created by or at the moment of the big bang, then into what space is said universe expanding into - already existent space and (z) Time by nature is an intangible continuum that is neither created nor destroyed.

All of these dovetail into the necessary, prior existence of a permanent intangible time - on which bulwark rests the proper construct for the notion of the existence of that permanent element that is referred to by the theist as GOD.

Except you are saying that time has always existed pre big bang,

Yes.

But then that would mean our universe has always been eternal and will continue to be. hmmmm more implications here....

But o no, the universe is demonstrably finite in the past: and again this forms the foundation for the Cosmological Argument.

Agree or disagree, at least I hope I have answered your question as to what the relevance of this discussion is with reference to theistic/ atheistic discourses.

plaetton:

1. Time would be experienced differently by the two depending on the state of their minds. I find that time goes very fast(duration of time is very slow) when I am playing a video game. I always find it to be my best way of whiling away time when am waiting for something. Duration of time increaes with anxiety. So it all depends on whether the person sitting in the BA jet was sleeping, watching a film or full or anxiety during the flight. His sense of time would be affect by all of the above.

This is a most improper, if not disingenuous answer. It is trite that people may experience time differently based on their activity: such as sleep, etc. This does not however imply that the duration is actually longer or shorter. It simply means that the person based on his state of mind, either took little, moderate or excessive notice of the duration.

The question is very conscise: because it seeks to ask if the experience of duration will change based on movement alone: it is an important question since the discussion here is whether or not time is contingent on motion.

As such, you should be addressing yourself to whether time changes based on motion: this is why I gave you the examples of a person travelling in a jet and a stationary person - even if it can be argued that there is in fact no stationary person as the earth is in constant motion, the motion of the earth will still be different from that of a person travelling within a jet.

If current scientific notions are correct, then given all other factors to be constant between the person sitting motionless on a couch and a person flying in a jet, there should be a standard difference in duration AND experience of time based exactly on the difference between the speed at which both are travelling.

If this is not the case - as it evidentially is not - then time indeed is not contingent on motion.

2. If the earth were to take 80yrs to make its revolution around the sun, obviously our climate, our environment, our DNA and our physiology and consciousness would be altered to blend with that new reality. In that case, the physiological changes could go in one or two directions.
It is not possible that we would remain the same.

But since a DNA alteration is would be a logical consequence, I am of the opinion that our physiology would change for much greater longevity ,and that our consciousness would experience 80yrs in the same way we see 1yr today.

Then why would you call it greater longevity?

Deep Sight:

1. O yes it did because dividing up the cycle of the earth was the first method for arriving at such before the more accurate atomic clocks came along, but anyway that's just by the way and beside the point.

How is it besides the point? We keep picking better and better methods of measuring whatever we measure. For that reason, we've refined how we measure length and mass.

Deep Sight:
2. The key point remains that what you gave me was a method to measure a duration. I asked you WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DURATION IS CONTINGENT ON - NOT HOW TO MEASURE THE ALREADY EXISTING DURATION! ! ! !

I"m sorry but I still find this question pointless. Let me see if I can make this more explicit.

I pointed out how we measure a second and based on that larger units like days and years to shorter periods like micro- and nano- seconds. Yet you say you're asking me what the existence of e.g a second is based on not how we measure a second. That is as pointless as asking me what the basis mass is while ignoring how we measure it. It looks as if you simply wish to conflate what we're measuring with the various perceptions that people can have of what is being measured.

I could say that the basis is the fact that we're intelligent creatures that have come up with independently verifiable means of assigning values to features of the universe that we find important. Though I would think that this is a basic assumption that we make to interact with other people so I still don't see how your question helps you in your quest for God.

Now that I've given my answer on various levels, I'd like to see what you think the "existence of the duration is contingent" on.

Deep Sight:

This is a most improper, if not disingenuous answer. It is trite that people may experience time differently based on their activity: such as sleep, etc. This does not however imply that the duration is actually longer or shorter. It simply means that the person based on his state of mind, either took little, moderate or excessive notice of the duration.

The question is very conscise: because it seeks to ask if the experience of duration will change based on movement alone: it is an important question since the discussion here is whether or not time is contingent on motion.

As such, you should be addressing yourself to whether time changes based on motion: this is why I gave you the examples of a person travelling in a jet and a stationary person - even if it can be argued that there is in fact no stationary person as the earth is in constant motion, the motion of the earth will still be different from that of a person travelling within a jet.

If current scientific notions are correct, then given all other factors to be constant between the person sitting motionless on a couch and a person flying in a jet, there should be a standard difference in duration AND experience of time based exactly on the difference between the speed at which both are travelling.

If this is not the case - as it evidentially is not - then time indeed is not contingent on motion.



Then why would you call it greater longevity?

Greater longevity as per our current perspective. Its all about perspectives. It is the perspective that defines time for us.
In a just few seconds or minutes of R.E.M sleep, we encounter situations in our dreams that seem to last several hours or even days. In tis case, less than a minute of sleep time= several hours of dream time.

As per the person in the couch and person on a jet,their relative motions(in this case 1000km/h) are far too insignificant to show any appreciable difference or change in the type of time perspective you are talking about. You should know that. Besides, both are under the same gravitational force.

thehomer:

How is it besides the point? We keep picking better and better methods of measuring whatever we measure. For that reason, we've refined how we measure length and mass.



I"m sorry but I still find this question pointless. Let me see if I can make this more explicit.

I pointed out how we measure a second and based on that larger units like days and years to shorter periods like micro- and nano- seconds. Yet you say you're asking me what the existence of e.g a second is based on not how we measure a second. That is as pointless as asking me what the basis mass is while ignoring how we measure it. It looks as if you simply wish to conflate what we're measuring with the various perceptions that people can have of what is being measured.

I could say that the basis is the fact that we're intelligent creatures that have come up with independently verifiable means of assigning values to features of the universe that we find important. Though I would think that this is a basic assumption that we make to interact with other people so I still don't see how your question helps you in your quest for God.

Now that I've given my answer on various levels, I'd like to see what you think the "existence of the duration is contingent" on.

Well let me make this more explicit and simple. You agree that what you gave me is a measurement. A measurement of what, please?

What is being measured.

And, if it were not measured, would the thing being measured still exist or not.

Simple - unless you wish to adopt absurdity by telling me that nothing is being measured.

plaetton:
Greater longevity as per our current perspective. Its all about perspectives. It is the perspective that defines time for us.
In a just few seconds or minutes of R.E.M sleep, we encounter situations in our dreams that seem to last several hours or even days. In tis case, less than a minute of sleep time= several hours of dream time.

As per the person in the couch and person on a jet,their relative motions(in this case 1000km/h) are far too insignificant to show any appreciable difference or change in the type of time perspective you are talking about. You should know that. Besides, both are under the same gravitational force.

You know very well that that is an analogy: and consistent science should hold that if indeed time is a function of motion, then people moving at different speeds should experience time differently - no matter how minuscule the difference.

As such, if this is true, three minutes should be experienced differently in a space craft heading to the moon, (to dismantle your flimsy excuse of same gravitational field) than it is experienced sitting on your couch. Not just experienced differently, but should in fact be a different length of time.

Anything less, and the notions become inconsistent.