Sorry, you're making it up on the fly. And thus this not an honest discussion, but instead an exercise in whatever you can claim to maintain your ideas. The primitive form of the simplest reduction of which is simply, you're wrong, therefore you're wrong. — tim wood

Why don't read my comments and try to understand them? Did you understand what I said? If yes, then what is wrong with my comments? Saying that I am wrong does not help at all unless you pick up an error in my comments or argument.

Granted that you're wrong, the reasoning is impeccable. Your particular variation, again reduced, is, "I'm right, therefore I'm right." — tim wood

Or maybe granting what I said is right and you lack understanding of what I said.

Now, a baseball cares nothing for a clock, knows nothing about time, knows nothing about anything. — tim wood

Sure.

But the baseball does have its internal processes, those of decay and eventual disintegration. — tim wood

I assume by internal processes you mean the change in the state of parts, electrons, quarks, etc. of the baseball.

And the outward manifestation of these the means by which you may distinguish one from another baseball. — tim wood

Are you talking about a baseball at two different points in time?

These all occur in time, on time, wrt time, and by some standards a measure of time. So to say they "cannot experience time" is simply meaningless nonsense. — tim wood

That is correct that things exist in time. The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time.

Now you may specify that as a condition - a presupposition - of your argument and try to work out any consequences. You can do that. But if you build on those, then you're merely building nonsense on nonsense. — tim wood

Huh? It is clear to me now that you didn't understand my argument and comments.

You can believe that if you like, but that's all you can do with it. Anything beyond your affirmation of your belief becomes nonsense, which quickly becomes dishonest if not yielded. — tim wood

Why don't you try to read my comments a few times and let me know where you lack understanding so I can elaborate?

Why don't you try to read my comments a few times and let me know where you lack understanding so I can elaborate? — MoK

That is correct that things exist in time. The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time. — MoK

Here's a good example. Your statement is nonsense on its face. Clarify it, prove it.

Here's a good example. Your statement is nonsense on its face. Clarify it, prove it. — tim wood

Is this the only statement that you have a problem with? If yes, then I am not making nonsense over nonsense!

Anyhow, consider a building with two identical rooms so similar that you cannot distinguish them from each other when you are inside one or another. Suppose you are held in one room, which I call room one for the sake of discussion. Suppose that the building owner moves you from room one to room two when you are asleep. Can you tell me whether your room has changed when you become awake?

Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions. — MoK

I read D1, and you now added "electron" for your physical in S1 and S2. Does electron exist? Can you prove electron exist? How do you know electron is in S1 and S2?

D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively — MoK

I read D1, and you now added "electron" for your physical in S1 and S2. Does electron exist? — Corvus

Sure it exists according to contemporary physics.

Can you prove electron exist? — Corvus

Are you denying objective reality? Are you denying that the computer that you are using now does not exist?

How do you know electron is in S1 and S2? — Corvus

That is just a definition. It is required to define a change, please read D2.

Sure it exists according to contemporary physics. — MoK

You need to ditch physics in order to arrive to real truths. :)

Are you denying objective reality? Are you denying that the computer that you are using now does not exist? — MoK

You are confusing electron and electricity. They are different.

That is just a definition. It is required to define a change, please read D2. — MoK

If you don't know what electron is, then you must first prove what it is, and if it exists before progressing.

You need to ditch physics in order to arrive to real truths. :) — Corvus

We cannot ditch physics if we want to know what a physical, such as a chair, is made of.

You are confusing electron and electricity. They are different. — Corvus

I didn't talk about electricity but your computer. So again does your computer exist? Yes or no?

If you don't know what electron is, then you must first prove what it is, and if it exists before progressing. — Corvus

How about the chair that you are sitting on right now?

We cannot ditch physics if we want to know what a physical, such as a chair, is made of. — MoK

We don't need physics to know what chair is made of. It is a commonsense knowledge. You know what it is made of, just by looking at it :)

I didn't talk about electricity but your computer. So again does your computer exist? Yes or no? — MoK

No we are not talking about computers here. We are talking about electron in D1. I only told you electricity, because of your confusion between electron and electricity.

How about the chair that you are sitting on right now? — MoK

No, we are not talking about chair in the OP. Remember? You added electron to D1.

We don't need physics to know what chair is made of. — Corvus

Sure we need.

It is a commonsense knowledge. You know what it is made of, just by looking at it :) — Corvus

No, looking at a chair just gives you an idea about what it looks like.

No we are not talking about computers here. — Corvus

Why don't you answer my question? We cannot go anywhere if you deny its existence?

We are talking about electron in D1. — Corvus

An electron is just an example of a physical. There are other things that I call physical, such as the chair that you are sitting on now. Such objects are however reducible whereas an electron is not.

I only told you electricity, because of your confusion between electron and electricity. — Corvus

I certainly do not make such a mistake.

No, we are not talking about chair in the OP. Remember? You added electron to D1. — Corvus

That was just an example of physical!

Sure we need. — MoK

It is no good to use Physics or Math as some sort of authority to push your ideas in the arguments. You will be blinded in the sea of illusion when doing that.

No, looking at a chair just gives you an idea about what it looks like. — MoK

What else do you need to do for knowing what a chair is made of? What can Physics do for more knowledge?

Why don't you answer my question? We cannot go anywhere if you deny its existence? — MoK

Why ask a silly question? It is also relevant question. Computers are not the topic of our discussion.

An electron is just an example of a physical. There are other things that I call physical, such as the chair that you are sitting on now. Such objects are however reducible whereas an electron is not. — MoK

It seems to be clear that you don't know what electron is. Saying electron is physical is not meaningful or intelligible statement at all.

I certainly do not make such a mistake. — MoK

Then tell us what the difference between the two, and what electron is. Does it exist?

That was just an example of physical! — MoK

Unknown objects cannot be used in the premises of arguments. The premise with unknown concepts will not be accepted as worthy of further investigation. Hence you must clarify any unclear and unknown concepts you are using in the premises of your argument before progressing to the next stage.

It is no good to use Physics or Math as some sort of authority to push your ideas in the arguments. You will be blinded in the sea of illusion when doing that. — Corvus

The electron, quark, etc. are real. It is through physical investigations that we accumulate such a body of knowledge. Can you break a chair into electrons, quarks, etc. by hammering it? Sure not.

What else do you need to do for knowing what a chair is made of? What can Physics do for more knowledge? — Corvus

Physics tells you what a chair is made of, irreducible entities such as electrons, quarks, etc.

Why ask a silly question? It is also relevant question. Computers are not the topic of our discussion. — Corvus

I am asking this question to make sure whether we can agree that physical objects exist or not!

It seems to be clear that you don't know what electron is. — Corvus

Sure I know, I am a physicist by education and I studied particle physics in good depth.

Saying electron is physical is not meaningful or intelligible statement at all. — Corvus

That is not correct.

Then tell us what the difference between the two, and what electron is. Does it exist? — Corvus

An electron is an elementary particle that has a set of properties such as mass, charge, and spin.

Unknown objects cannot be used in the premises of arguments. The premise with unknown concepts will not be accepted as worthy of further investigation. Hence you must clarify any unclear and unknown concepts you are using in the premises of your argument before progressing to the next stage. — Corvus

The electron is a known object. If you are not happy with it I can choose the example of a baseball that is subject to change/motion.

The electron, quark, etc. are real. It is through physical investigations that we accumulate such a body of knowledge. Can you break a chair into electrons, quarks, etc. by hammering it? Sure not. — MoK

But if something is real and exists, then it must be visible, touchable and has smells and textures.
I have never seen electrons anywhere in the universe. Have you seen them? Not talking about in the books and videos and drawings of course.

Physics tells you what a chair is made of, irreducible entities such as electrons, quarks, etc. — MoK

I have never seen a chair with electrons and quarks. Chairs exist. I am sitting on it now of course.
But electron is an imagined object. You only have the effects of what electricity does, and they postulated the imaginary substance, and named as electrons. It doesn't exist in reality.
See, this is difference between science and philosophy. Science has many imaginary objects which don't exist, but keep naming them as if they exist. In that sense, science is another form of religion and mysticism. Philosophy corrects them, and tells them no, this is what really exists with truths.

Sure I know, I am a physicist by education and I studied particle physics in good depth. — MoK

I see. I am not saying you are wrong. I was pointing out the OP is not clear.

That is not correct. — MoK

Electron is an imagined concept. Tell us where electron exists, and what shape it is.

An electron is an elementary particle that has a set of properties such as mass, charge, and spin. — MoK

That is just a definition made of the postulation from the workings of electricity.

The electron is a known object. If you are not happy with it I can choose the example of a baseball that is subject to change/motion. — MoK

Yes, please. Demonstrate and prove what electron is, and where it exists. Thank you. :smile:

The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time.
— MoK
Your statement is nonsense on its face. Clarify it, prove it. — tim wood

Anyhow, consider a building.... — MoK

Non sequitur, non-responsive, incoherent. It appears that's all you got. I will not be responding further, as it is clearly a waste of time. But you might consider that I'm a thing that exists in time and I experience time.

But if something is real and exists, then it must be visible, touchable and has smells and textures. I have never seen electrons anywhere in the universe. Have you seen them? Not talking about in the books and videos and drawings of course. — Corvus

Please see the section "Interference from individual particles" in this article if you want to see how a single electron can affect the screen producing something visible to our eyes.

I have never seen a chair with electrons and quarks. Chairs exist. I am sitting on it now of course.
But electron is an imagined object. You only have the effects of what electricity does, and they postulated the imaginary substance, and named as electrons. It doesn't exist in reality.
See, this is difference between science and philosophy. Science has many imaginary objects which don't exist, but keep naming them as if they exist. In that sense, science is another form of religion and mysticism. Philosophy corrects them, and tells them no, this is what really exists with truths. — Corvus

Please see above.

Yes, please. — Corvus

Ok, if you are happy with the example of the baseball then please consider it as a physical object and read the argument.

Non sequitur, non-responsive, incoherent. It appears that's all you got. I will not be responding further, as it is clearly a waste of time. But you might consider that I'm a thing that exists in time and I experience time. — tim wood

You are something that exists within time and cannot experience time. Did you understand the relevance of my thought experiment?

Please see the section "Interference from individual particles" in this article if you want to see how a single electron can affect the screen producing something visible to our eyes. — MoK

None of that says anything about existence of electron, and what it looks like. They are all manipulated in the laboratories using the measuring instruments. None of them are actual images of electron.
You need to point out where in the world, we can see electron, and how it looks like. Not the photos of the simulations manipulated with electricity, and some equations measuring the currents and voltages of electricity.

Ok, if you are happy with the example of the baseball then please consider it as a physical object and read the argument. — MoK

Baseball could be a physical object. Yes, we can see the baseballs. I used to play baseball. It is a physical object. Electron is not a physical object.

None of that says anything about existence of electron, and what it looks like. They are all manipulated in the laboratories using the measuring instruments. None of them are actual images of electron. You need to point out where in the world, we can see electron, and how it looks like. Not the photos of the simulations manipulated with electricity, and some equations measuring the currents and voltages of electricity. — Corvus

You cannot have a photograph of an electron. You can only see its trace that produces some effect in the environment like the screen in the above example or the cloud chamber.

Baseball could be a physical object. Yes, we can see the baseballs. I used to play baseball. It is a physical object. Electron is not a physical object. — Corvus

Then please consider baseball as an example of a physical and read the argument.

You cannot have a photograph of an electron. You can only see its trace that produces some effect in the environment like the screen in the above example or the cloud chamber. — MoK

That's not electron. They are pixels of lights.

Then please consider baseball as an example of a physical and read the argument. — MoK

Fair do's, mate.

Cool, please only read the second argument, mate!

I got my baseball out, and put it on the desk at 5 PM. Now 10 PM, 5 hours later, nothing changed. The baseball has not changed at all 5 hours later. No movement, no breaking and no flying anywhere. It sits exactly same spot as it was 5 hours ago. Therefore time cannot cause physical to change. Physical changes only by force or energy.

If I pick up the baseball, and throw it to the wall, it flies to the wall, and hits the wall, and drops to the ground. No time is required. Only energy of throwing the ball is required.

Therefore physical changes only when force or energy was applied to it. No time is required. Time only emerges if and only if I measure it with the stop-watch. Correct?

I got my baseball out, and put it on the desk at 5 PM. Now 10 PM, 5 hours later, nothing changed. The baseball has not changed at all 5 hours later. No movement, no breaking and no flying anywhere. It sits exactly same spot as it was 5 hours ago. Therefore time cannot cause physical to change. Physical changes only by force or energy. — Corvus

I didn't say that time causes physical to change.

If I pick up the baseball, and throw it to the wall, it flies to the wall, and hits the wall, and drops to the ground. No time is required. Only energy of throwing the ball is required.

Therefore physical changes only when force or energy was applied to it. No time is required. Time only emerges if and only if I measure it with the stop-watch. Correct? — Corvus

No. It is not correct. Time is required for any change. Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow X to come after Y. This variable is called time.

No. It is not correct. Time is required for any change. Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. — MoK

But there was no change of the baseball of S1 at t1 (5PM), and S2 at t2(10PM) as seen by the observation. How do you explain that? Time passed, but there is no change.

Baseball was flying to the wall, hit the wall and dropped to the ground. No time was supplied or known. But the baseball moved to different location. Time was not even considered here.

You need the time variable for further calculating the energy value, but you must measure time for that while the ball is moving. This measuring action of time is not required for the ball to move.

But there was no change of the baseball of S1 at t1 (5PM), and S2 at t2(10PM) as seen by the observation. How do you explain that? Time passed, but there is no change. — Corvus

Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion.

Baseball was flying to the wall, hit the wall and dropped to the ground. No time was supplied or known. But the baseball moved to different location. Time was not even considered here. — Corvus

If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument.

You need the time variable for further calculating the energy value, but you must measure time for that while the ball is moving. This measuring action of time is not required for the ball to move. — Corvus

It is required. Please reread my argument.

Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion. — MoK

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct.

If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument. — MoK

You need to read the baseball posting again, and think again.

It is required. Please reread my argument. — MoK

Ditto.

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct. — Corvus

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from?

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from? — MoK

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings?

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings? — Corvus

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these.

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these. — MoK

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time?

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time? — Corvus

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too.

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too. — MoK

But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects.