I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. — universeness

:grin:
I personally am on the "joy" side. :smile:

It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short. — universeness

Fall short of what?

what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0)... — universeness

Right, this is the second element I talked about (besides "desdcription"): measurement.
E.g. "10 cm" means nothing by itself, i.e. without a context or reference. But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. Americans would use "inches". Chinese would use "shì cùn". And so on. All these measures are references. They serve as descriptions and measurements, for comparison purposes. They have no existence themselves. The only existent element in all that is the chocolate itself. And it is independent of any description or measurent.

I personally am on the "joy" side. — Alkis Piskas

:flower:

Fall short of what? — Alkis Piskas

Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe.

Units of measurements are mathematical constructs/conveniences, I can appreciate that point.

But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — Alkis Piskas

Well it means 10cm of chocolate bar, and that categorisation has, as you suggest, mathematical meaning to humans, as does 10cm of space (even without indicating which dimension, as in length, breath or height.) I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe, which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another. I think such as time dilation, could not be true in a universe where distance had no 'reality.' If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe?

Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist?
Some notion, suggesting that the entire universe is really still, a singularity, its just in an expanded/inflated/extended state?
If so, I would expect to experience more ability to naturally network, with other humans.
Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?'

The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, by all means.

That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas

In physics and math the word instant means instantaneous or infinitesimal - having no length or duration. However, in common usage it can mean a tiny interval. Planck time is the limit of measurability and does not necessarily imply the smallest possible time interval.

Fall short of what?
— Alkis Piskas
Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe. — universeness

My views and the labels I use are often different than those used in conventional Science.

But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — universeness

The "chocolate bar" was sthe simplest example I could think of off-hand. The essential thing is that what units measure --time, distance, length, weight, etc.-- are constructs or concepts, and as such they have no physical/material existence, i.e. they do not really exist. Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones."
(Why do I have to bring up an external view? Well, I do it sometime, only to show that I'm not the only one who has certain views about a subject but also persons who are much more knowledgeable than me on that subject.)
Anyway, there have been not a single person who has rejected my view about time and argumented --in a plausible way-- in favor of physicality or even the actual existence of time. And I'm not surprised! :smile:

I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe. — universeness

It might look or sound so, but if one grasps the essence and meaning of what distance is, I'm sure one will find what I say not only far-fetched but even quite obvious. One needs also to see a subject from all its aspects and include one's own experience with it: E.g. Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? As much as I try I will only see lack, absence of anything. How can absence of anything has en existence? One could say, "Well, one can't perceive atoms either, since they are not visible with a naked eye. True, but Science can, using special tools. However, Science has not show similar observation results and evidence about (empty) space, has it?

which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another — universeness

To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here?
I'm not sure if you refer to "distance" or the "3D universe". And I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case.
But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains".

If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe? — universeness

This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes.

But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition.

And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either.

Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist? — universeness

No.

Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?' — universeness

I have no idea about this.

In physics and math the word instant means instantaneous or infinitesimal - having no length or duration. However, in common usage it can mean a tiny interval. Planck time is the limit of measurability and does not necessarily imply the smallest possible time interval. — jgill

Interesting.
But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? And as such it still has a length/duration?
So, what I undestand, in Physics "instant" is just concept and something referention, used for description purposes, and as such it has no existence by itself. The same about --and maybe worse with-- "tiny interval". How mush is "tiny"?
I didn't know about this Planck's time. I know about Planck's time which about 10−43 seconds, as it is brought up by @universeness (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/823560)

Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas

An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin.

He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. That's what we experience, Ira. And the question is: Is that the structure of nature? Does nature exist in a series of moments, one after the other? Is that what's really real about the world? Or is that, as Einstein said, an illusion, and there is some timeless picture which is the truer picture?

Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? — Alkis Piskas

You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run, (perhaps even still skip and jump Alkis!). Why is that physical experience almost overruled, by your metaphysical musings about the existence of distance? If distance does not exist then why do you have to physically traverse it, over time?

To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here? — Alkis Piskas

So how else do you perceive say, a box of cornflakes? So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you?

I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case. — Alkis Piskas

On such a scale, I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. At those scales, I merely have to admit, 'I currently don't know.'

But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains". — Alkis Piskas

I understand what you mean on the scale of the extremely big or at the scale of the extremely small. But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. So, I think it's very important to not state, that all notions of real experienced space and real experienced time/duration, are in every use of such labels, untrue. That what I mean by when I say that I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me.

This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes. — Alkis Piskas

This is why I asked you about such a path, leading to such as cogito ergo sum. It's like the solipsistic position. I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime.
To me, It's almost like slapping a solipsist until they accept I am real and if they don't accept I am real, then I am justified in continuing to slap them, as if I am not real, then they are not really being slapped and I am doing nothing bad. Surely I am unable to terminate their existence, if solipsism is true,in any sense.
This for me, is where the empirical, trounces all metaphysical notions of spacetime.
But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe.

But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition. — Alkis Piskas

On your first sentence, yes. If quantum superposition is true then perhaps an object can be in two places at once, there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level, there is no evidence (afaik) of superposition at a macro level such as experienced by humans.
I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! You are the one suggesting distance is not real!

And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. — Alkis Piskas

No, they exist in real spacetime. I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them. These points exist in real spacetime and not just in mathematical geometric representations.

They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. — Alkis Piskas

Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real!

This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either. — Alkis Piskas

But 3D points in space do exist. Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. If I give you an (x,y,z) coordinate relative to an agreed origin position then that 'place'/'position in 3D space' exists! and any relative distance to it, is real as it then becomes traversable. We know this is true or else we could not have landed on the moon! A coordinate such as (x,y,z,a,b,c) is far harder to demonstrate, as we cannot demonstrate a 6D spatial point exists.

But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? — Alkis Piskas

I've always thought of infinitesimals as part of the metaphysics of mathematics. They don't really exist in normal arithmetic, but have a mathematical description that allows them to be used in calculus, say. Leibniz came up with the idea, then a bit later the limit definitions took over.

Infinitesimal

They have no Euclidean dimension (except for position).

An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin. — universeness

I have listened about half of the interview. I still didn't hear anything substantial or specific about time ...
So I looked in YT ... (BTW, always prefer Youtube than just audio or other audiovisual medium. It has usully transcripts of what is said, which is very helpful for different reasons.)
So, you can listen to Smolin's Theory of Time at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI
But there's something else more interesting and more at the point regarding time:
Lee Smolin - The Nature of Time
I have watched about half of it (with small jumps) ... He talks about the cocetn of the main things the main argument that I heard from Smolin about time being real didn't persuade me at all:
Here's parts I copy-paste from the video transcript:
~5:55: "One of the most mysterious aspects of time is the future and we all think about the future ... about aging, which is our concern with our own futures, the concern with the future of the planet climate change and so forth."
OK, the word "future" here is used as a figure of speech, an expression that wa all know what it means.
Then,
~6:18: "If time isn't real, if you're one of those people believes the time is an illusion, then what is the future? Is the future already determined? Do you think, when you think about the future, that are you one of these people who's a fatalist that ... well, it's bound it's all set up it's bound what's going to happen is bound to happen it's already determined or is the future open?"
~6:50: "If the future is open is novelty possible? There's this idea of science [that] explains everything in terms of laws and how could anything new ever happen because it's things of just time is just the rearrangement of atoms nothing is really happening but atoms moving around in which case nothing new can ever happen most of my scientific ..."
~7:12: "We see novelty all the time in the evolution of the universe, the appearance of galaxies stars planets, life, everything up to including everything that we experience each day is novel in the universe. Is that a real aspect of reality or is it an illusion?"

I stop here, because I can't find any good argument about the existence of time as something real but only ideas related to time (like novelty) which don't tell us anything specific about time or are an evidence that time is real, that it actually exists. Does novelty --which is a pure concept-- offers as such an evidence?

See, once again, ideas about time, concepts related to time, descriptions, figures of speech and common language expressions using the word "time". There's nothing scientific or a plausible argument in all this that can be used as an evidence for the existence of time as something real.

He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. ... — universeness

Abtract talk. What is a "moment" other than a concept? How can "a succession of moments" --which is also an idea, it hs not even a foundation of some sort-- form an explanation and evidence about the existence/reality of time?

You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run,... — universeness

What is the space I'm traversing? Can it be specified? Can it be perceived? Can it be sensed? Or all that is just movement and change, feeling the effort I am doing, the resistance I feel from the air, thew sound my steps are procusing? All these these are physical and real. Only these.

So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you? — universeness

I can understand the universe as a container. I can't undestand the Big Bang singularity at all, either as a container or anything else! :grin:

I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. — universeness

Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain.

But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. — universeness

(See my comment about "traversing space" earlier on)

I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me. — universeness

Well, I always believe I'm mostly talking in an "earthly", everyday language. Maybe by "stepping too far" you mean going too deep? I may do this. I want to get to the essence of things. But in doing this, I try to use as less abstract thinking as possible. On the contrary, sometimes I feel I oversimplify things, at least in the minds of others. (For me, simple is beautiful and effective. One of my favorite mottos is "Truth is always simple" :smile:) Maybe this exudes a metaphysical aroma. I don't know ...

I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime. — universeness

Do points A and B really exist? Does a point really exist ? Points can't and don't exist by themselves. As I said, it is we who assign a point, which can never be precise enough, anyway. Hence, the "hypothetical" attribute. In the same sense that a second cannot exist by itself. And even if we measure it, it can never be precise enough, i.e. absolute. Water in glass is real. It exists by itself. But its "volume" is not. It doesn't exist by itself.
But even if points A and B refer to real objects, e.g. two loudspeakers, their distance isn't. They are just apart. What we call distance is the measured path between them: 30cm, 50cm, 1m? Do these measures exist? And, as I said, this measured distance can never be precise enough.

BTW, this reminds me of Zeno's Arrow "paradox", a simple version of which is: An arrow can never reach its target, because it has always to pass from the middle of the distance between the archer and the target, ad infinitum. Well, that's why I call it "paradox", because it's a pseudo paradox: it assumes that space is discontinuous and thus divisible. (He did the same with the Achilles and the Tortoise "paradox", considering time as discontinuous and thus divisible.)
So, the concepts of space and time can be only conceived as continuous in nature. They have no start, intermediate points or end. Otherwise, they the Universe would follow Zeno's "laws"! :smile:

But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe. — universeness

I don't think it's possible foe anyone else. :smile:

there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level ... — universeness

You lost me! :smile:

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! — universeness

No, the opposite. I said exactly: "This would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all." That is, there would be no distance at all.
I guess, I can never be clear enough! :smile:

I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them — universeness

What exactly can you observe? It's empty space. You can do that only mentally, i.e. imagine a line that joins these two goalposts. Or, in the physical worls you can draw a line. Or take a measuring tape and measure the distance. OK. What you would have done is simply using physical means to measure that distance. And, as I said, measurement is one of the things we are using the concept of distance (and time) for. The other is description. In doing so, we make distance acquire"flesh and bones", i.e. become somewhat "real".
Now, if we remove the line between the two goalposts --both physically and mentally-- and also forget about measurement, is there anything there that we can perceive and refer to as a distance?
So, isn't what we call "distance" only what we can visualize and/or measure?
The goalposts, on the other hand are real and they don't need to be visualized.

Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real! — universeness

I don't know what do you mean by "result". But assigning physical points is a real event and the points are real too. Evidently. But the distance between these points, as I said above, is only what we can visualize and/or measure.

But 3D points in space do exist. — universeness

If they dont exist in 2D, as we used them all this time, how can they exist in 3D? :smile:

Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. — universeness

Yes, geometry. It's the first or among the first things I brought up in this exchange:
From the Greek geo (= land) and metron (= measure) -> "measurenent of the land". (Of course, this was people's most imporantn thing at that time: their land property! :smile)
So, guess what? Right. Measurement again! :smile:

I've always thought of infinitesimals as part of the metaphysics of mathematics. They don't really exist in normal arithmetic, but have a mathematical description that allows them to be used in calculus, say. Leibniz came up with the idea, then a bit later the limit definitions took over. — jgill

Interesting. :up:

Leibniz came up with the idea, — jgill

Wasn’t that contested by Newton?

Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration.
You did not find Smolin's viewpoints compelling. I find his point of view regarding time quite valid.
But I also find Carlo Rovelli's notions of time quite compelling, and he, like you, proposes that time is illusionary. I like his comment that:

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.

Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat.
How do we know the universe is flat?
The Possibility of a 'finite' Yet 'unbounded' Universe.

Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration. — universeness

Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. Also, bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. Sometimes it may be useful but most of the times it's not at all. It's just a wate of time. And I don't mean only you: unfortunately a lot of people do it.)
You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course.

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges. — universeness

See, this doesn't help at all the discussion. It's just another view. And based on QM, not in real life. Not something anyone can experience, connect it to real life and so on. Such things are only useful for taining one's intellect. Like Math problems. They are fun, but they are not useful for our lives.
Philosophy to be valuable, must apply to life, to things that can be experienced or explain basic things in life and the Universe. 2,500 years ago, Heractitus said "Everything flows". This condensed "knowledge" explains the concept of time better than most theories of sophsiticated except "empty" or useless views about time I have come upon.

Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat. — universeness

Interesting. But it has nothing to do with what I have said so far neither helps me undestand better the nature of time ...

***

Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said.

Leibniz came up with the idea, — jgill

Wasn’t that contested by Newton? — Wayfarer

Both were eclipsed by Weierstrass and Cauchy with their formalization of limits. :cool:

Non-standard analysis was formalized in the last century - it uses infinitesimals - but is rarely taught these days. A friend who was in the math department at CU Boulder told me they experimented with it one term, but for whatever reasons it was not successful.

Yes but the dispute over whether it was Newton or Liebniz who came up with calculus is the part you will hear about outside mathematics class.

Yes but the dispute over whether it was Newton or Liebniz [Leibniz] who came up with calculus is the part you will hear about outside mathematics class. — Wayfarer

Important at the time, virtual trivia now. Possibly a subject for philosophers to entertain. :smile:

Leibniz v Newton is still a topic in history of ideas and physics, to do with their competing understandings of time.

Leibniz v Newton is still a topic in history of ideas and physics, to do with their competing understandings of time. — Wayfarer

True, though relativity came along.

A far more relevant and interesting conflict of ideas of time is Einstein vs Bergson.

Yes, I have noticed that one as well. But, for instance, Brian Greene still includes a discussion of the differing conceptions between Newton and Leibniz in his 'The Fabric of the Cosmos', and I seem to recall (though can't be sure without looking it up) that he said it was relevant to the subject. Anyway, just a footnote to the broader topic.

Cassirer considers the differences between Newton and Leibniz inasmuch as Newton's fluxional calculus remains essentially mechanical in its orientation, whereas Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus is more purely abstract. FWIW.

Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. — Alkis Piskas

This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals.

bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. — Alkis Piskas

The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! — Alkis Piskas

Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas

Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position?

You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course. — Alkis Piskas

I accept that the above, confirms that this is how you view our exchange on this thread.
That has little meaning for me, as I don't see our exchanges as competitive, I see them as interesting.

Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said. — Alkis Piskas

The term 'physical,' described as:
1. Relating to the body as opposed to the mind:
2. Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:
"the physical world"
SIMILAR: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable
3. relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally: "physical laws"

Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future.

Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, (cogito ergo sum), in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. (The base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), and by extension most of the Western world, is the second, defined as about 9 billion oscillations of the caesium atom.)

I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. There is no biggest or smallest, or any real example of nothing/infinite/perfect. These are simple placeholders, for notions that have no actual existents and can only ever be asymptotically approached. WE (as an example of self-aware existents,) make time and distance real, and for me, any proposals from real physics or metaphysics, that time and distance are not real, remains, currently, of little significance or value. I remain open to the possibility, that such notions, if irrefutably confirmed, will become significant and gain value in the 'dare I say,' future.
It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it.

This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals. — universeness

Of course it's a personal view and complaint. Whose else could it be? :smile:

Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position? — universeness

I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all.

But let's come to the hot point in my message: the challenge!

The term 'physical,' described as: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... — universeness

I agree.

Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future. — universeness

This is a theretical approach based on an arbitrary use of undefined concepts. Certainly nothing physical in it.

Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. — universeness

Existence, reality, experiences, etc. All this is concepts, mental constracts. Not physical. We are not speaking here about psychological time ot how I perceive time in my mind, etc. This belongs to another area.

This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. — universeness

Don't quite get this.

I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. — universeness

Maybe so. OK, but about the physicality of time?

It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it. — universeness

Oh god. Is it I who needs to change my position regarding time, after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?

Godssake, universeness. Get real!

I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all. — Alkis Piskas

This is hardy a novel approach, with all due respect, it's quite mundane, and I think the points you make would certainly be supported better, if you could cite a wider range of published and peer reviewed science, that supports your position.

after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?

Godssake, universeness. Get real! — Alkis Piskas

You have not proved the non-physicality of time, in any way, shape or form. You have also not demonstrated why such non-physicality, if true, is in any way, significant. You have only mostly offered your own speculations. Also, making appeals, in the name of non-existent gods, does not help you demonstrate your own ability to 'get real.'

More that time can't be construed as entirely or merely objective. That consciousness is an essentially temporal being, versus merely a being in time. — Pantagruel

What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain?

Or are you merely brainstorming? :wink:

What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain? — chiknsld

Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.

Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.

Not bad :strong: