Does time exist?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I reject your seperation of properties into either "conceptual" or "scientific". That was (you seem to have missed it) part of the point of the thought-experiment you refused to perform. dOTTY

I admitted that your thought experiment would refute my argument and you would win. I then pointed that your thought experiment could only take place in a dif ...[text shortened]... inconsistent. Since we do not live in such a universe it didn't feel like much of a defeat.

Clearly you do not understand the point of such thought experiments as a means of elucidating facts about our world.

Disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Perhaps you'd answer this: let's allow your scientific world view. Take two arbitrary points. Is there distance between them?

Originally posted by dottewell
I reject your seperation of properties into either "conceptual" or "scientific". That was (you seem to have missed it) part of the point of the thought-experiment you refused to perform.

To answer your question simply and in your original terms: being a mile long is a property of of a piece of land which is not dependent on the contents of your mind, my mind or anyone else's mind.

To answer your question simply and in your original terms: being a mile long is a property of of a piece of land which is not dependent on the contents of your mind, my mind or anyone else's mind.DOTTY

The difference is land does not consist of "mile" or made of "mile" (land is made of earth etc) so although it is a property conceptually it is not a property scientifically in reality . However , blue light DOES consist of specific wavelengths of photons so blue light is a property of the sky (or light comng from the sky) and IS a scientific property

BLUE LIGHT WAVELENGTHS ARE REAL , PHOTONS ARE REAL , A MILE IS NOT REAL (BUT THE LAND IS)


I would have thought this was obvious. It's a context error all along.

Whoever heard of doing a physics experiment on a "mile"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
To answer your question simply and in your original terms: being a mile long is a property of of a piece of land which is not dependent on the contents of your mind, my mind or anyone else's mind.DOTTY

The difference is land does not consist of "mile" or made of "mile" (land is made of earth etc) so although it is a property conceptually it is not a ...[text shortened]... a context error all along.

Whoever heard of doing a physics experiment on a "mile"?

You're missing the point again.

Take two points exactly one mile apart.

Is there - "objectively" - a distance between them?

Originally posted by dottewell
Clearly you do not understand the point of such thought experiments as a means of elucidating facts about our world.

Disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Perhaps you'd answer this: let's allow your scientific world view. Take two arbitrary points. Is there distance between them?

Perhaps you'd answer this: let's allow your scientific world view. Take two arbitrary points. Is there distance between them?DOTTY

Yes , I can conceptually say there is distance between them . But if these two points are say two telegraph poles I would not expect to bump into said distance.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Perhaps you'd answer this: let's allow your scientific world view. Take two arbitrary points. Is there distance between them?DOTTY

Yes , I can conceptually say there is distance between them . But if these two points are say two telegraph poles I would not expect to bump into said distance.

I don't want to know if there is distance between them "conceptually". I want to know if there is distance between them.

Originally posted by dottewell
Clearly you do not understand the point of such thought experiments as a means of elucidating facts about our world.

Disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Perhaps you'd answer this: let's allow your scientific world view. Take two arbitrary points. Is there distance between them?

Clearly you do not understand the point of such thought experiments as a means of elucidating facts about our world. DOTTY

I love thought experiments as much as the next man but they need to be relevant. Your thought experiment was never going to "elucidate facts about our world" because you set about dismantling the facts about our world . It wasn't set in our world. The "facts about our world" are that blue light does not do or is ever likely to do what you described.

I would be happy to look at it again but you have to accept that it would be a philosophical experiment .

Actually let's do it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Clearly you do not understand the point of such thought experiments as a means of elucidating facts about our world. DOTTY

I love thought experiments as much as the next man but they need to be relevant. Your thought experiment was never going to "elucidate facts about our world" because you set about dismantling the facts about our world . It wasn' ...[text shortened]... appy to look at it again but you have to accept that it would be a philosophical experiment .

Okay, I understand. You don't get it.

Respond to my previous post and we might get somewhere.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A MILE IS NOT REAL (BUT THE LAND IS)

What if the distance between the two points was zero. Would the land still be real?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What if the distance between the two points was zero. Would the land still be real?

The only way that the distance between the points could be zero was if the land did not exist in the first place. And if the land didn't exist then it would be impossible for the distance to be perceived conceptually. You can't have zero distance between two points on a piece of land that exists. The distance depends on the land to exist not the other way round.

maybe it's different within your non-time dependent singularity event happening thingywotsit . LOL

Originally posted by knightmeister
The only way that the distance between the points could be zero was if the land did not exist in the first place. And if the land didn't exist then it would be impossible for the distance to be perceived conceptually. You can't have zero distance between two points on a piece of land that exists. The distance depends on the land to exist not the other ...[text shortened]... it's different within your non-time dependent singularity event happening thingywotsit . LOL

What if that mile existed for zero seconds. Would it still exist?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The only way that the distance between the points could be zero was if the land did not exist in the first place. And if the land didn't exist then it would be impossible for the distance to be perceived conceptually. You can't have zero distance between two points on a piece of land that exists. The distance depends on the land to exist not the other way round.

But the first sentence clearly states that land cannot exist without space. Clearly by your reasoning they are co-dependent, so why are you assuming without evidence that the space dimension depends on the energy?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What if that mile existed for zero seconds. Would it still exist?

That would be like saying basketball players don't exist until the game has started or after it ended. Time on the clock is just that time on the clock, it doesn't mean that time isn't real before or after the game.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That would be like saying basketball players don't exist until the game has started or after it ended. Time on the clock is just that time on the clock, it doesn't mean that time isn't real before or after the game.
Kelly

It would if the game was all that ever existed.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It would if the game was all that ever existed.

That is the question now isn't it, if there was nothing, then nothing is all there ever would be. You have everything in a null value that turns into everything, sort of like that square circle. if it was really null or nothing then it couldn't very well be everything at the same time, with or without a cause.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is the question now isn't it, if there was nothing, then nothing is all there ever would be. You have everything in a null value that turns into everything, sort of like that square circle. if it was really null or nothing then it couldn't very well be everything at the same time, with or without a cause.
Kelly

Go away and disprove the theory of relativity or, as we say in Scotland, haud yer weesht.