Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Mattmars
| Reward Points: | 12 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
| Arguments: | 12 |
| Debates: | 0 |
HI Amarel,
I’m interested in actually playing the “CreateDebate” game. I think its a great site and a great idea, so I’d like to see if through logic and reason I can actually sway the “argument ratio”.
So I'm asking you (and others) to actually change their vote etc if anything I say makes you reconsider some point. (i.e. I'm hoping this is not just like a cheap trash talk site where people just and only endlessly defend a cherished point of view , without doing any extra thinking etc)
Anyway, I just replied to you re videos on the “no” side, but ill add a few “disputes” to the yes side to show what I think are the weaknesses of the “yes time” position”.
Please note I'm not being rude here, but I have thought this thing through, and it may just be the case that I'm actually basically right. You can see a list of common arguments for time, and how they may be wrong here...
And here...
E.g. Re (your opening post)
1- There are the 3 dimensions of Space and the 4th dimension of time which compose this universe.
2- Space and time are inseparable from each other which is why you'll hear scientists refer to Space/Time.
3- When matter is introduced to the equation it causes a disruption in Space/Time.
4- This disruption is observable as Gravity. Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity.
5- Time can be observed directly as causation. The procession of cause and effect takes place on a plane of space and has a duration (time).
6- Just as we can observe the quality of length, width, or height, (space) we can observe the quality of duration (time).
I call time “ the elephant in the room wearing the emperor’s new robe”, because
- time seems to be an amazingly unique area of science, where virtually everyone ignores the fact there are no scientific experiments to back up their “TIME IS...” statements, and
- we are expected to just accept the existence of completely un observed phenomena
( e/g/ a “past” and/or “future”, durations, times arrow etc),
So, with respect, re your first post, I dispute it politely but comprehensibly....
1- There are the 3 dimensions of Space and the 4th dimension of time which compose this universe.
3 dimensions of space agreed, but to claim there is a dimension of time you need to provide a clear definition of what the thing you are proposing exists “is”, and describe a scientific experiment , as per the scientific method, that supports your theory...
Amazingly if you search the web you may only find more and more “time is...” statements, but no experiments,
So Amarel, for your argument to be valid, you need to please post a very clear and precise definition of what you mean by “time” – (and not a circular definition), and some evidence ( ie not just statements about what time is, “if” it exists ).
2- Space and time are inseparable from each other which is why you'll hear scientists refer to Space/Time.
-
This is only true if time is shown to exist...and Relativity does not prove time exists, it only assumes time exists.
More to the point, and this is extremely important) you seem to assume Relativity proves “Space and time are inseparable”, but I can tell you have not checked "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" yourself.
(so, you may be just duplicating an “opinion” that you think others have checked... but which in fact they are just duplicating... because they think others have checked it)
-ie, to be sure of things one should always check for oneself...
--------- Very specifically, re Relativity... "ELECTRODYNAMICS"
At the heart of Relativity is of course the "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") Einstein’s first SR paper.
(https://sites.google.com/site/
Many people are intrinsically referring to this paper where they make statements about Relativity, and in particular “Time” or “time dilation”, but few people seem to check and analyse the paper for themselves
In section 1 of the paper..."Kinematics" , the (translated) words are...
"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time.
Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” "
But the paper continues...
If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this:
“The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”
So, it is stated.... “If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. “
But in fact, the paper only describes the motion of one material “point”, (a train), to the motion of another “material point”, the motion of the tip of a motorised hand rotating on a numbered dial.
In other words,while many people assume relativity proves time exists... section 1 of the seminal paper on Relativity itself only “assumes” that there is a thing called “time”, thus implying its existence, and “passing” are valid terms, and that a rotating hand on a numbered dial, in some way shows, or proves this. But from the outset the paper provides no logic or proof of the existence or function of “time”.
and, just "calling" the movement of a rotating hand "time", and from that suggesting there "is a thing called time that is needed for things to be able to move" - is imo, the most horrendously weak reasoning.
However, relativity does show how moving things "are" "changing" more slowly, but it does not prove there is a future or a past, or a thing called time that is "passing" more slowly... though many people seem to assume otherwise.
.: relativity does not prove “time” exists, and Minkowski is wrong to suggest space is merged with a thing called “time” - when in fact, all that is show is that things moving fast in 3d space, are, changing more slowly...ie no 4th “dimension”.
3- When matter is introduced to the equation it causes a disruption in Space/Time.
-
4- This disruption is observable as Gravity. Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity.
-
Agreed matter tell space how to warp, and warped space tells matter how to move, (general relativity)
But the idea gravity is to do with warped space-time, and not just warped space, comes from Minkowski’s interpretation of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"... where he seems to have also assumed that a hand rotating on a dial proves more than just that things exist and can be moving at steady speeds.
...“Therefore, time can be sensed indirectly as gravity”
I disagree, an object is either supported at a height, or is falling... no where does this prove there is a “past” and/or a “future”, or a thing called “time”, that must exist and “pass” for things to be able to fall.
If I'm wrong please post a dispute explaining why.
5- Time can be observed directly as causation. The procession of cause and effect takes place on a plane of space and has a duration (time).
This is what I mean by the complete lack of experimental testing....
Ameral, (please actually!) try this simple experiment.
-place an object on a table, say a cup
-push the cup from left to right and check what you observe.
You suggest “Time can be observed directly as causation.”... but that’s not what you observe.
The pressure on the left causes the cup to move to the right.
If this is “time” related, and “the past “ affects “the future”, as “time passes”, then you should be able to observe some of this, because apparently your finder should be “in the past”, and the moving cup “in the future” – but of course all you see is that everything just exists, and if one thing is pushing another it “causes” it to move, not over “time”, but “in the direction it is being pushed”.
As you push the cup left to right, you may place a rotating hand on a numbered dial nearby, and look at it as you push the cup. But all this proves is that you can be pushing a cup, and a hand can be rotating – none of which proves there is also a thing called “time”, “durations” of which “pass”, or must “pass” for things to be able to move.
The point about the above, is that much of the apparent conversation about “time”, may in fact just be intense “confirmation bias”.. all we see is stuff moving “now” but we conclude a whole lot of other invisible stuff exists and is going on.
Re “confirmation bias”, Amarel (and anyone else reading this), logically you are probably in one of two places,
-either you are interested in seeing whether or not time exists.... or
-you are certain time exists, and only want to hear and believe support for that idea.
Either way, check out this video, by https://www.youtube.com/channel/
https://www.youtube.com/
6- Just as we can observe the quality of length, width, or height, (space) we can observe the quality of duration (time).
Again, I disagree... yes we can observe distances... we can also make a machine to rotate a hand on a dial.
But that machine only “displays motion”, you can only claim we are measuring a thing called “duration” if you have some proof that everything in the universe is not just existing and moving....
i.e. you need to “prove” a thing called time exists and passes.
Ultimately you need to consider –two- possibilities... and realise that if you believe the theory of time, you almost certainly haven’t even thought of , let alone considered , possibility 2 ( so you cannot at this stage actually be sure 1, is right and 2 is wrong :)...consider
1-things exist move and change as a thing called time “passes”, and
2-things “just” exist move and change, not heading into a “future”, nor leaving a “past” behind.
Now, actually look at the world around you , and ask yourself...
“if things exist move and change as a thing called time “passes” “, how would the world look ?
The answer is “just as it does”, but now ask yourself...
“IF things “just” exist move and change, not heading into a “future”, nor leaving a “past” behind them”, how would the world look ?
You may realise that the world would also look exactly as it actually does...
(and as per occams razor, thus p2 should be considered very seriously)
The point being, if you believe in a whole load of invisible, un disprovable things (past, future, “time passing”, “durations” etc), you may never even think to consider how they may not exist, and how the world may actually be just as it appears to be... everything all just here, changing.
Matthew Marsden
A Brief History of Timelessness (r2): Why it's always now, everywhere.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/
more general aspects of 'time'
Timelessness, Downstairs at the Kings Head London (rt)
Hi Amarel,
im confused re the youtubes, where are you ? ( im in the uk).
I've put a great deal of work into the book, and the supporting videos, and im very serious about the possibility that we may be wrong to assume time exists from the outset.
I know many people have many issues with the possibility, but in writing the book i systematically and logically addressed every single issue that i have come across in , books, lectures, articles, videos, and forum discussions, and found that my approach seemed to address and dissolve all arguments for "time".
to show what i mean, i`ll show how i think each argument "for" time in this create debate can be shown to ultimately be unfounded, relying on people accepting unobserved ideas at existing, or through general confirmation biase and unsound logic etc.
Re the videos, please try the youtube links on my website (let me know if you have problems, and what they are - ie do you get anything displayed ?)
I think you will find them at least very interesting, I hope you can access them, i get very tired of retyping my entire argument in different formats on different sites :) hence i made the videos.
https://sites.google.com/site/
https://sites.google.com/site/
or search youtube for
-Timelessness, Downstairs at the Kings Head London (rt)
-Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Cox's Science of Dr Who:
-Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article)
also, please take a look at the book, (and the website),
A Brief History of Timelessness : Why it's always now, everywhere.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/
I know i may be right or wrong, but in this book i have laid out all of my reasoning for anyone to understand and consider, and that's the best i can do at this stage.
(if you are not satisfied that the book explains the possibility it declares then ill be happy to refund you the $4.00 by paypal).
(ill post some responses contesting the "for time" arguments)
matt marsden
Hi Amarel,
Thank you, there's a reason for that. I've looked into the problem of time, and discussions about time a lot. And this is why i call it the elephant in the room wearing the emperors new robe, because if you look at this debate, it's asking the question "does time exist?".
now the fact we are still asking this most basic question even apparently after 2000 "years" of civilization should bring up red flags... becasue logically at least the answer is
"we're obviously not certain, hence we're asking the question".
and we dont see countless sensible forums on "does cheese exist, or does the moon exist, or does gravity, or electromagnetism exist".
so, two of the biggest hurdles i recognized was
1- a colossal amount of unscientific confirmation bias towards the idea " a thing called time must kind of exist in some way"
and
2-an amazing acceptance of a concept that is not even clearly "defined" and agreed by a majority.
so, one of the biggest errors in all the debates on time, i have had, is that people rush off asking if some thing exists, and then hope to define "what it is" they are trying to work out exists, as they go along.
no where else in science do we do that, yet in "time" we do , and no one notices , hence the elephant in the room.
therefore, in my opinion, there are 2 debates going on here, the pro time people are trying to say what they think time "is",
and,
why they think it exists.
but if time "is" a legitimate phenomena ( and not just a useful idea), then time is whatever it is, and the definition should be very, very, scientifically clear.
so, those for time, should first agree what it is they are sure exists.... and not just use the "word" "time.
imo, mm
CreateDebaters,
“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, To both sides,
Just to clarify, my position re the “how could time not exist”, is
P1-we may be wrong to assume form the outset that there is any such thing as time.
P2-because, all we seem to actually observe is that matter(objects etc) exists, and is just moving changing and interacting in all directions.
P3-we don’t seem to observe anything actually leaving a ”temporal past” behind it, or heading into a “temporal future”.
P4-If all we seem to actually observe is matter moving and changing, and we do not see any proof of a “past” or “future” actually existing, then we may be wrong to conclude there actually “is” a past, or a thing called “time” that is “passing”.
Therefore, re “how could time not exist”.
We may be wrong to assume from the outset a thing called time exists, because we be wrong to think we can extrapolate from the observable facts that there is a “past”, or thus “time”.
MM
CreateDebaters,
“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, To both sides,
Just to clarify, my position re the “how could time not exist”, is
P1-we may be wrong to assume form the outset that there is any such thing as time.
P2-because, all we seem to actually observe is that matter(objects etc) exists, and is just moving changing and interacting in all directions.
P3-we don’t seem to observe anything actually leaving a ”temporal past” behind it, or heading into a “temporal future”.
P4-If all we seem to actually observe is matter moving and changing, and we do not see any proof of a “past” or “future” actually existing, then we may be wrong to conclude there actually “is” a past, or a thing called “time” that is “passing”.
Therefore, re “how could time not exist”.
We may be wrong to assume from the outset a thing called time exists, because we be wrong to think we can extrapolate from the observable facts that there is a “past”, or thus “time”.
MM
CreateDebaters,
“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, A question critical to both sides,
I like the standard of careful thought on this debate on “time”. But I think there is a fundamental problem in the method.
The question given is “Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, (and I am confident I have a very good argument for “how not” ). But, the problem is we are not given a definition for “Time”.
Therefore, anyone arguing against “time” is unfairly and illogically handicapped, because, any of those defending “time” probably each has a significantly different variant of the idea. ( especially if it transpires “time” does not exist).
Thus, as you can see for the arguments “for” time, anyone questioning the idea of “time”, is forced to question an intangible, invisible, ill defined “thing”, that (as clearly seen in the posts), seems to be different things to different people... which is not (imo) a valid logical or scientific starting point.
No one can argue against anything if no clear definition of what that thing is, is agreed, if they try the conversation will be chaotic, circular and inconclusive.
So, would those defending “time” please give a working definition of precisely what it is, extra to just matter(/energy) and motion, that they think exists, so we are all clear what we are questioning the existence of.
i.e. are you saying you all agree it is, Quote...
Oxford English Dictionary, Time:
“The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole:”?
Matthew Marsden
(brief history of timelessness)
CreateDebaters,
“Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, A question critical to both sides,
I like the standard of careful thought on this debate on “time”. But I think there is a fundamental problem in the method.
The question given is “Does Time exist? How?/How not?”, (and I am confident I have a very good argument for “how not” ). But, the problem is we are not given a definition for “Time”.
Therefore, anyone arguing against “time” is unfairly and illogically handicapped, because, any of those defending “time” probably each has a significantly different variant of the idea. ( especially if it transpires “time” does not exist).
Thus, as you can see for the arguments “for” time, anyone questioning the idea of “time”, is forced to question an intangible, invisible, ill defined “thing”, that (as clearly seen in the posts), seems to be different things to different people... which is not (imo) a valid logical or scientific starting point.
No one can argue against anything if no clear definition of what that thing is, is agreed, if they try the conversation will be chaotic, circular and inconclusive.
So, would those defending “time” please give a working definition of precisely what it is, extra to just matter(/energy) and motion, that they think exists, so we are all clear what we are questioning the existence of.
i.e. are you saying you all agree it is, Quote...
Oxford English Dictionary, Time:
“The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole:”?
Matthew Marsden
(abh timelessness)
Just politely disputing for the reasons above. And,
Re causality, here's an experiment I recommend anyone interested in time v timelessness try.
-Place an object, say a cup, on a table.
-look at the object, and push it from left to right over the table.
-consider what you actually see.
- P1. do you see your finger just pushing a cup, where it touches it, and over a distance on the table top?
Or
- P2. do you see a 'temporal past' in some way affecting a 'temporal future', over a thing called 'time' ?
If you consider position 2, you are apparently suggesting that you think your hand and finger are 'in the past', and your finger is in someway 'affecting' the 'future', i.e. the mug.
And assumedly, the point of contact between your finger and the cup, is 'the infinitely, or plank, thin 'present moment'.
I suggest, as per occams razor, that P1, that things just are just existing, moving, changing, and interacting... In all physical directions, is worth proper consideration.
Especially as it seems in fact, to be all we actually observe.
MM
Hi Amarel, I like your thinking, but I do politely disagree. I have read each of your points, and think I can explain certian oversights or possible incorrect initial assumptions in each one. I'm not being rude, it's just in writing 'timelessness' I just kept going to the point where I had tested for my self every objection to my own idea, that I could think of.
I'm sorry you can't get the videos, so rather than flood this forum with long replies Heres a timelessness site link to give a general outline of how we may be wrong to even initially assume there is a thing called time! and the logical/scientific risks of taking 'time exists' as a starting point (because if in fact there is no such thing as time! then we may never see this possible fact as true if our logic is based on an initial false premise).(IMO)
I'll post a link re 'causality' happening 'over time' or just 'now' seperately.
MM
To clarify re the you-tubes (2)
The reasons for suggesting the theory of time may be like "an elephant in the room, wearing the emperors new robe".
The elephant in the room,
Why do we assume (and where is the scientific proof, as per the scientific method), that watching something in smooth regular motion (eg the spinning Earth, or a motorised hand on a numbered dial ), in some way proves or suggests that, for movement to be possible, there is also some other 'invisible' thing called 'time' that 'must' exist for things to be able to move?
(Believing or not, in) the emperors new robe.
And, why is the existence of an invisible, poorly defined 'thing', apparently 'flowing' between an invisible 'future', and invisible 'past', assumed when in fact, all we actually seem to observe is a singular collection of matter just existing, moving and changing ?
(None of it actually seeming to be 'heading into a 'future' ', or 'leaving an invisible 'temporal past' behind' it).
These questions are addressed in,
|
||||||||||
