Another fallacious mistake. I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that.I think that you cannot truthfully state that a change has taken place unless that change has been measured. — Metaphysician Undercover
Another fallacious mistake. I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that. — noAxioms
I have the same problem with "proceed." You'd have to explain how we could have something proceed without changing. — Terrapin Station
As per my explanation, time may pass, or "proceeds" without any physical change — Metaphysician Undercover
Fair enough. You said physicists have determined that, and they don't claim that.I said you cannot assert that a change has not taken place just because it cannot be measured. But you are asserting exactly that.
— noAxioms
I was not asserting that. — Metaphysician Undercover
With that I agree. "I changed my political viewpoint after the last election" "How much?" "By just over 2 hours"I've been saying that time is not change
With that I agree. "I changed my political viewpoint after the last election" "How much?" "By just over 2 hours" — noAxioms
The problem is that "pass" and "proceed" are terms that imply change or motion, unless you have some novel definition of them that you'd need to explain for the idea of time not requiring change or motion to make any sense. — Terrapin Station
I didn't actually specify "physical change" in anything I said, by the way. Just change. So if you want to posit "nonphysical change"--whatever that would be--okay, but it's still change. — Terrapin Station
Time may require change to be meaningful, but change is not what it is. — noAxioms
I've already explained to you how time can pass or proceed without any change or motion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you give a clue re a few words that the explanation started with so that I can look it up again? — Terrapin Station
Otherwise, re "pass" and "proceed" you'd have to explain the definition you're using that doesn't involve change or motion. — Terrapin Station
I'm contrasting this with what Terrapin quotes immediately after:Time may require change to be meaningful, but change is not what it is.
— noAxioms
That's pretty close to what I've been trying to tell Terrapin, change requires time, but change is not what time is. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you loosely agree that time without change is not meaningful, but here you say time can pass without any change.I've already explained to you how time can pass or proceed without any change or motion. — Meta
So you loosely agree that time without change is not meaningful, but here you say time can pass without any change. — noAxioms
T-S, You seem to defend a definition of time as change, but complain about common language use, which I was not trying to do. I haven't read all your posts, but perhaps you could point to a post where you explain that if that's what you claim. — noAxioms
, but twice as much motion is not twice as much time. — noAxioms
I can also have change without time: The air gets thinner with altitude: — noAxioms
Two equal size wheels spinning, and one goes around twice as fast as the other. That seems to be twice the motion (change) in the same time. — noAxioms
One of those "you can't have x if there is none of x's opposite" arguments? — Terrapin Station
Yes, because if y cannot fail to have x, then x is part of what y means — sime
Don't understand what you're saying. It doesn't need to be any particular amount of time for the one wheel to change twice as fast as the other. I chose rotation because rotation is absolute, not relative to anything. Sure, there are two wheels and thus there is a relation to them, but I didn't need to specify the relation with time (the RPM of either) to make my point.Okay. That makes sense but you're just pointing out that time is relative (in a different sense than the special relativity sense) to whatever we're using as the change for measurement. In other words, "In the same time"=you have to be referring to some set of changes that you're using for the relative measurement. For example, the changes in a clock. — Terrapin Station
Don't understand what you're saying. It doesn't need to be any particular amount of time for the one wheel to change twice as fast as the other. — noAxioms
I thought of an example of change without meaningful time: I have a universe with an unstable particle. It eventually decays. The time it takes to do that is meaningless. — noAxioms
Is there any meaning to a half-life of them? — noAxioms
Then you're relating processes anywhere to that wheel, and not to time.If you were using the wheel that goes around twice as fast as the change for time measurement, then it would mean twice as much time. — Terrapin Station
Then you're relating processes anywhere to that wheel, and not to time. — noAxioms
There can be no units. There is nothing on which said units could possibly be based.I thought of an example of change without meaningful time: I have a universe with an unstable particle. It eventually decays. The time it takes to do that is meaningless.
— noAxioms
Talking about time in the sense of measurement there, if that's all you have in your universe, "the time it takes to decay" is simply whatever unit you apply to the change in question. — Terrapin Station
There is no simulation. It is a universe with ordered events.So are you asking if someone (who?) performs associative acts in that situation?
There can be no units. There is nothing on which said units could possibly be based. — noAxioms
There is no simulation. It is a universe with ordered events. — noAxioms
Yes. The changes are the particles that have already decayed, and the ones that have not. There is nothing else to go on.It's always based on some set of changes. — Terrapin Station
The change is the decay of one of the particles. Not sure what you're thinking I'm assigning to that change other than the order in which it occurs. It is meaningless to say they decay at a fast rate at first, and tapering off. That case is not in any way distinct from them decaying slowly at first, and quickly at the end.You posited a change in the universe. So it would be whatever you assign to that change.
The change is the decay of one of the particles. Not sure what you're thinking I'm assigning to that change other than the order in which it occurs. It is meaningless to say they decay at a fast rate at first, and tapering off. That case is not in any way distinct from them decaying slowly at first, and quickly at the end. — noAxioms
I had one particle at first, but immediately moved on to the example of a million such particles.You were positing something decaying at different speeds where there's only that particle decaying? That wasn't clear from your earlier comment. — Terrapin Station
Agree. My example illustrates that: change without meaningful time. Time is not equivalent to change."At different speeds" would be nonsensical in that situation. "At different speeds" has to be relative to another change.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.