I'm not sure what was the problem with that??? — ssu

Me neither ssu. :( the rationale behind it is beyond me.

Yes, basically when we have a new way of looking at issues (or questions/problems), that is the easiest way for us to change the premises. It doesn't have to mean that the earlier thinking was wrong, it just that we didn't think about the issue from the new perspective. — ssu

Exactly! They are correct within their confined/discrete context, of which their are larger ones that encompass them and deliver us a better description of the interrelationships between contradictions and truths. In essence, the process of learning.
I'm definitely in agreement with/following your logic here.

Thank you for that. I didn't intend to be a vampire; it must have happened in my sleep. — Vera Mont

I don't follow Vera sorry. Can you elaborate for me it's a little ambiguous. I might be being a bit thick.

Edit: Nevermind I re-read and I get it now haha. :p clever clever

Two extremely simple ideas - sufficiency & necessity — Agent Smith

I think that "sufficiency" and "neccesity" can be synonyms for one another.

They need not be two things but rather one thing.
What is "true" for example is sufficient for it to be true, and neccesary for it to be "true".

For example it is sufficent for one to pee after drinking water - to meet a requirement, that the body's fluid intake and fluid loss are equal, and it is neccesary - to meet that requirement, hence it is sufficient for the purpose.

EVEN IF we are fallible — Bylaw

And that we are. If not in potential alone then act. Error must exist in some format/manner so that truth may exist by proxy.

‘90’ is sufficient to tell us about the temperature, but the temperature is not sufficient (but can potentially) give us 90 (temperature) — invizzy

"90" is only sufficient to tell us about 90 of something, something yet unclarified.
90 degrees celcius or 90 degrees kelvin, now that tells us about temperature. Both very different temperatures at that.

rising’ is sufficient to tell us about the temperature, but the temperature is not sufficient (but can potentially) give us rising (temperature) — invizzy

"Rising" is sufficient to tell us that something is rising: an idea is rising in my awareness, a boy is rising from bed, a loaf of bread is rising in the oven, the cost of living is rising.

"Rising" alone like "90" - not qualified, means very little informationally.

3 and 4 on the other hand are discrete in meaning as numbers. They don't require further qualification when used exclusively for maths. When using concepts outside of maths on the otherhand we must qualify what those numbers pertain to.

So maths and semantic languages are not the same. One (maths) is objective, the other (spoken language) is open to interpretation unless qualified exactingly.

Thus should dissolve the contradiction you're inquiring about.

Progression of physical matter.
Clocks are physical matter that can delivery a number.

The idea of duration of time can exist in your mind and it's very useful but duration ( time initial to time final ) can't exist in the physical present. All we are doing with the idea of time is piggybacking on the progression of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

Well, is our body and brain not progression of physical matter also? Our body has an inherent rhythm, from which our mind (the energy coursing around our nervous system) extrapolates a perception of time from. This perception is considered both very precise but also inaccurate.

In the sense that "time flies when you're having fun" - processing a lot of alerting/thrilling stimuli. But in another way one can easily train themselves through routine to wake up one minute before their alarm goes off (which I think is amazing).

Meanwhile time continues in a non "your perception" sense when you die. As time is required for your body to decay and be transformed through natural processes.

When we speak of time really we are speaking about three things and their interrelationship: 1). Energy (potential to do work), 2). Matter (potential to be worked/acted upon) and 3). Information/change - the intermediate between and including the first two: as energy holds information, matter holds information, and acts (the process of their influence on one another), again has information.

As for psychology, there can be endless models of time and there are. So what is time physically? I see continuity of physical matter. Continuity of time could be just a psychological add on. In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist

Indeed mark. In physics we standardise time as a constant so we can place it in reference to other phenomena and make calculations/predictions.

What is a clock but something cyclical - whether its based on atomic oscillations or a pendulum, or the rate of decay of an unstable isotope, or the vibration of a quartz crystal, or a 12 hour domestic circular clock face, it measures the "to-and-fro", the frequency, of something that repeats.

We use that frequency as a standard to make things linear or "chronological", and that gives us access to Newtonian/mechanical physics (objective and discrete).

What it doesn't offer though is access to special relativity or quantum physics unless we look at time from two other formats: (the perception of an observer - relativity) and probability/uncertainty (the Wave-particle function of quantum physics).

- as i outlined above in response to jgills Bergson post.

Instead, let us imagine an infinitely small piece of elastic, contracted, if that were possible, to a mathematical point. Let us draw it out gradually in such a way as to bring out of the point a line which will grow progressively longer. Let us fix our attention not on the line as line, but on the action which traces it. Let us consider that this action, in spite of its duration, is indivisible if one supposes that it goes on without stopping; that, if we intercalate a stop in it, we make two actions of it instead of one and that each of these actions will then be the indivisible of which we speak; that it is not the moving act itself which is never indivisible, but the motionless line it lays down beneath it like a track in space. Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration.

This is very similar to heisenbergs principle of uncertainty.
Take a particle at a single instance in time. It is a fixed point. Locatable. But we have no sense of its Velocity when we only have the present instant to base that prediction off. You cannot ascertain the speed of something in time when the time stamp is precise.

Now allow the particle to move in its sphere of potential locations. Now the Velocity is measurable (the track it takes, as a waveform of probable positions) however we now have lost its exact position (particularity) in this moment. Because we are not in "freeze-frame" but motion.

This is the uncertainty that partitions the particulate (objective) from the wave (potential/probability).
And in essence this explains as you referenced above with the elastic analogy by Bergson.

Time, like particles vs waves (light) is a Duality.
To know one state you cannot know the other.
Because to know both leaves no room for "change" (uncertainty).

It doesn't feel right to me to cause animals to suffer and die just because we like the way they taste etc.

I think we should be nice to animals. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I do too. Nicer than we are currently at least. I think we should have a more balanced approach to our predatory nature and our ability to sympathise with other species simultaneously.

Just as other life feeds on us - parasites, bacteria, viruses (questionably alive I know), fungi when we are living, just most of them do when we are dead/decaying.

It seems inevitable that we must also do the same: we must eat something, predate something (use them as an opportunity for our own survival). We must be proud and humbled by this equally.

Its the cycle of nature we are apart of. We can try to go fully vegan - and give up organic fertiliser (bone meal), medical transplants (porcine heart valves etc), animal testing for pharmaceutical drugs to help sick people, leather in place of plastic/fossil fuels for textiles, and meat, cheese and dairy and baby formulas based on cows milk (even when our requirnents for protein may exceed what we can fill up on plant material (during puberty, when we are sick, have muscle diseases, intolerances/allergies to soy/peanut/whey protein etc), and let all domesticated (helpless animals like chickens etc) die because we don't breed them and let them roam free in the wild again.

Or perhaps we can continue to predate animals for our own benefit, to maintain other checks and balances in nature, but harmoniously, not eating meat and dairy for the sake of it, and diversifying our diet as much as possible so as to not harm any population of life too severely.

In essence, a truly omnivorous diet as we evolved to do.
Fruit and veggies in correct proportion with meat, fish, nuts eggs etc, catered as appropriately as possible to individual needs.

I think the vegan extreme and carnivore extreme both throw the balance/symbiosis off and lead to their own unique problems. Carnivore-ism because it completely objectifies/commodifies our animal brethren (making us bottomless pits of greed and posession, parasites - a source of guilt, shame and constant angst as we oppose our own ethical nature. ) and veganism because it denies our recognition of who we really are, part destroyer (predator), not just creator (gardener/house keeper of the earth and her systems of balance).

Harmony, equilibrium, as nature would have it, is likely the most prudent course forward.

That's my personal take. Everyone has their own opinions on the matter. :)

I don't have the inclination or the energy to argue against unimaginative and downright wrong propositions ad infinitum. — god must be atheist

Hey. Is this a nice/kind or formal way to address another contributor? Disagree yes. Defame/shame someone on that basis, No. I think that's quite intimidating towards . She is entitled to her opinion.

If you believe she is "downright/absolutely wrong" are you suggesting you're totally/infinitely correct?
Tell us then "god", what ought we do? Because apparently you're fully aware/omniscient.

I think I smell arrogance.

I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature — Gnomon

That it does Gnomon, that it does. :)

bring it if you got it, and expect me to give back as good as I get. No fear, kid. — 180 Proof

That's a good attitude to have. I match it in return. I like your confidence. It seems then one must be open to anyone's interjections if you are really saying "bring it if you got it" and not just "Hush up, I'm not talking to you."

And, besides, only Gnomon can answer for himself/herself — 180 Proof

Unless of course Gnomon and are in agreement. In which case either of our answers are some variation of eachothers, fundamentally agreeable.
And that's up to him and I to conclude, in which case your interjection would be non sequitur.

Funny how that works.

Compatible, but like knitting is compatible with geology; consistent, no contradictions arise, but simply because they are talking about different things. — Constance

Bet you I could describe knitting and geologys similarities. If you'll welcome an attempt just for fun.

There's always a link. Every discipline carry with it the same basic skills. They may not be addressing the same task for sure in an objective sense but the understandings gained from a knitter can be applied to geology and vice versa. If they know the similarities as well as the differences, or in other words, the mental processes/skills required in both, and those that are not as transferable.

Ah, now please complete your post with a short paragraph telling us what (a) cause is. Back when we all had paper dictionaries, cause took up a lot of column inches because it's not-so-simple. For present purpose, that you or I might agree with or subsequently adjust or refine, what do you say it is? — tim wood

Why say many words when a few will do just fine

Alas, 'tis the power of condensing information with big impact into a little box".

You suppose wrong — 180 Proof

Ah, so you don't want to talk to me about it just Gnomon. Is that because you can't talk to me about it or because you don't want to? Do you also fear being exposed as you say Gnomon does? Hmm I do wonder indeed.

In any case I suppose we can leave it there.

Well then I suppose you already have your answer. Why ask anyone else in the first place ammi right? Haha

For example, you've just asked if I am a Christian. Now, I said I wasn't, didn't I? — Bartricks

Okay. Lol. Bartricks = not Christian. I got it.

And this thread is not - not - a request for historical or psychological explanations of why most Christians believe that God created the world. — Bartricks

Okay no historical explanations. No psychological explanations. Check. Got it.

So, clearly what I am wondering is if there is any philosophical reason why a Christian should believe such a thing. — Bartricks

Sorry I guess they can't then. No historical references are allowed. Nor psychological ones. They aren't allowed to cite what others believed historically (religious or philosophical, sorry plato, artistotle, Augustine, and all religious figures I guess and also those that were religious and philosophical (like Augustine) etc) nor are they allowed to think from their own point of view (psychological explanations).

So no. Can't offer a reason when all possible means to do so have been restricted/ denied.
Happy?

You have your answer.

Now you can continue to throw personal attacks and degrade my character or ability to philosophise if you want to resort to that. That's your perogative. But I suggest that perhaps you ought not to as that goes against the community guidelines.

I'm sure I've missed that "force". Please cite where in any of the equations or formal models used in QM there is a notation for mind/observer (and not the Hermitian operator for measurenent). You're not talking "over my head" and out of your bunghole again, Gnomon, are you? :sparkle: :eyes: — 180 Proof

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another.

As an observer (in a state of observation) we interact with/are entangled with that which we are observing. There is communication of information between the object of observation and the subject (observer). We must be entangled.

Heinsenbergs uncertainty principle also shows this for to make an exacting observation of one factor the other must be unknown/uncertain. You cannot measure the possible locations of a particle (Velocity) and the where the particle is located at this very moment simultaneously.

And in the same way when we observe something and interpret it as materialistic, we cannot understand it from any other possible explanation. Because some scientists saw lights wave behaviour while others measured it as a particle they were at odds with one another as to which must be correct.

Its like the #the dress thing all-over again.

ah okay my apologies.

I get your intent now. Carry on haha my bad.

If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being exists then we live in a utopia correct? (because they have all the knowledge and all the power to be good/establish goodness.)

But that is temporal in dynamic. No? So in theory such a being could exist in a world lacking knowledge (ignorance) therefore lacking potency (power) and therfore lacking benevolence (the choice to use knowledge and power for Good).

If this omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being just discovered their power, or was just born today, would it not take time for them to convince others (omniscience and omnipotence) to choose good (omnibenevolece).

As any good argument relies on omnipotency (irrefutable ethical imperative - no one can/ought to deny what's in their own best interests) and omniscience (irréfutable logic/reason- no one can/ought to deny what makes sense/is rational).

So really omnipotence and omniscience can be synthesised with one another into the statement "what's good for you to believe (ethics) and what's logical/rational for you to believe (reason) is harmless to you (benevolent).

That would satisfy all three conditions.

Read the people I mentioned in my posts, from what you write it is clear that you will learn a lot — Raul

Perhaps I will. I'll do that to satisfy your whims. Im open to having my opinions swayed by reason. If I wasn't open to that, I guess I would just be arrogant.

I look forward to learning from others. As I'm sure their experiences/insights have value, as perhaps do mine. It will be determined on the basis of agreement or rejection of such notions.

An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. — Gnomon

Gnomon that's a brilliant question. And yes, I understand, to be quite frank, it's one of the most challenging questions I've been faced with answering. Really difficult to posit an explanation. But not impossible (improbable).

"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence eachother, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?")

For information to occur there must be a diaspora between momentums. In essence there must be a" difference" between photons.

So we need an additional principle to engage energy at the speed of light to interact with itself, impart momentum and thus decelerate and provide mass to matter. Right?
This is crucial to understanding how energy and matter can be equivalent (E=mc2).

What principle can we rationalise that purports such an outcome?

For me it's down to something very simple but very powerful. Probability.

Consider energy at the speed of light as "the ability to do work/cause change".
Now consider probability as the likelihood to assume a given state.
If energy is "ability to change" and obeys probability then whenever probability is 1 (absolute/certain) then it must change (to make the probability less than 1 again, as in to maintain probability).

Probability at 1 is not probable, its certain/absolute.
And because energy must be the ability to do work/change it can never be 1 (absolute/certain/unchanging).

Therefore energy at the speed of light (a constant/probability of 1) has no other choice to maintain its quality of change but to decelerate and become matter. (probability less than 1 ie. Subject to changing of states.)

Otherwise energy at the speed of light would not be equivalent to change. Which would mean energy is impotent and cannot do anything but travel at light speed. In which case matter would Never exist.

Hopefully this clarifies why energy must condense into matter. It must/its imperative. For if it wasn't it could only ever be change but not that which is changed. And how can change exist in isolation from the changed?

No one is saying quantum physics is not contributing, I'm saying it is not needed to explain consciousness because consciousness is a macro-phenomena — Raul

First of all you just contradicted yourself saying "no one is saying quantum physics is not contributing" and then said "it is not needed".

Surely consciousness as the product of physics has a link to the quantum. Nothing exists in isolation. If it did that would violate information theory, that all information is connected and un-isolatable.

So instead of bombarding one with arbitrary impenetrable walls of disbelief, perhaps it's better to entertain others, gosh you might actually learn something you didn't know already.

(no one really understand it well — Raul

Speak for yourself. Haha. I do understand to well. And can explain that if you want me to.

Like you claiming consciousness requires quantum physics to be explained? — Raul

Well now in fairness you didn't ask more about it did you?
I'll oblige you with an explanation but only if asked for. I can't force feed views down someone's throat, they have to be willing to entertain them in the first place.

That willingness being demonstrated through asking more about the topic.

Okay — 180 Proof

Well that seems reasonable. Theres no shame in assessing your own current limits of exploration of a topic. No harm no foul. We can't study everything.

I only have issue with people that pretend they do know with no credible evidence to support the claim. I'm always down to discuss though. That's (discussion is) open to anyone.

Have you ever taken a single university physics course? or read any substantial work on quantum theory by a (popularizing) working physicist? Expertise is not required to refute 'quantum pseudo science' as I point out in the links above. I stand confidently by my "nope". :wink: — 180 Proof

Yes I have.

And apparently you haven't. Yet jump to conclusions despite that fact. Are all experts talking trash in that case? Should they just assume you're right despite not committing to the field?

Or maybe you're open to entertaining expert opinions and the people who've learned of them, in the potential to elucidate mechanisms of conscious behaviour?

If not, please provide your explanation as to why quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness.

Nope — 180 Proof

Oh interesting. I assume you're a quantum physicist then, having given such a definitive answer as "nope". I'm Sorry I didn't realise you were a professional in that discipline.

What are the limitations of your area of expertise? What are the intricacies of quantum physics that deem it impossible as a contributor to consciousness?

I look forward to your insights. Its been a while since I talked to an expert in the field.

Yes, consciousness and even the self could be one day created artificially by us... But we re far from that. — Raul

I'm not sure sure we are that far from it, given the pace of technology and the advancements in AI.

So far consciousness requires a brain, full stop. — Raul

And what is a brain? How do you define the characteristics of a brain?

I think electronic brains are entirely possible, I also think rudimentary artificial brains are already developed, and ever improving.

Consciousness is a macroscopic phenomena... — Raul

Is it? Can you provide proof of that?

I think he fact that quantum physics shows us that observation has an influence on the outcome demonstrates that consciousness is more pervasive than we think, and influences both the microscopic and macroscopic

Yes I agree I think science will make much headway in explaining consciousness. I think it will likely come from quantum physics tbh.

But because consciousness (sentient beings) can believe in non scientific beliefs I imagine it will be hard for science to explain them without putting them in direct explanatory connection with science which contradicts the non scientific belief they hold.

Its a contradiction. All it takes is one person who is absolutely against science, for a scientific description of consciousness to fail to describe why such a person holds anti-scientific views.

"For science to describe all things, it must also describe those things that contradict its explanation".

No biology, no thoughts! — Raul

No biology, no "biological thoughts" (thoughts strictly characterised by/and in biased reference to, biological organisms.)

If thought (storage and processing/modulation of information) can be manifested in a non biological way, and we are biological, then perhaps we will never see it through the veil of our own biological thought bias.

We can't assume that consciousness is "human-centric".
"because I said so" (humans projecting human notions on reality) is not a rational nor reasonable means to exclude other possibilities.

If we can created artificial sentience, which I believe we can, then we cannot assume consciousness is restricted to the human concept of it.

We must then "put ourselves in the shoes of others" so to speak. And try to imagine what consciousness may be like for a dog, for a plant, for a bacterium, for a robot, perhaps even for large self organising systems of matter in the universe.

Only then are we not being inherently biased towards our personal conscious perception but considering more or all possible concepts of awareness.

Not really, all those things are material, those things (symbols, meanings, etc.) are in our brains within neural-traces that combine always following physical laws (in some case deterministic, others are not, ... physics and biology are very complex).
And as such those things can be manipulated, like we can eliminate or induce ideas, words, concepts in your brains, we can as well see where and how they re located, etc... we can induce and create a "religious" brain since religious thinking is quite understood today (see Ramachandran's studies), and a long etc... And we can manipulate in traditional ways (talking, educating, ...) or in more sophisticated ways (using chemicals, electromagnetic fields, brain-surgery, etc.)... — Raul

Yes, you can manipulate others beliefs and thoughts, for sure, it's easier than imagined, either through discourse or physically (by administering psychotropic drugs, surgeries etc as you explained).

Key Question: But should you? Is it ethical to instill in someone your ideas/notions of what is correct. And deny them their autonomy to believe what they wish?

In other words are you prepared to assert what you believe as ultimately correct/right for all people thus justifying your manipulation of their mind?

Or is it better to have a diversity of opinion just in case? To allow for review, consideration and adaption of your own beliefs in relation to their needs?

In essence of your were a God, would you prefer to manipulate others beliefs to be in alignement with your own (autocracy), or would you rather discourse, where people are allowed to object and explain the grounds for doing so? (democracy).

As I already said, a materialistic view by itself is dangerous. Because it doesn't allow for other ideas (anything outside the realm of what is considered real (material).)

Yes, it's an important distinction to make I think. In a lot of conversations about consciousness, 'losing consciousness' when brain function is disrupted is taken as overwhelming evidence that consciousness is a brain function. Understandably so, if we don't make this distinction between consciousness and identity. It's also understandable that identity is seen to persist when someone 'loses consciousness', because from everybody else's point of view, the living body remains. There still is a sleeping bert1, with legal rights and spatio-temoral location etc, from Benj96's point of view. bert1 seems to still exist. But there is no bert1 from bert1's point of view. The deeply sleeping body has no point of view of its own, temporarily, and it is in that sense that identity is lost. — bert1

I couldn't have put it better myself! Such wisdom is heartening to see. Your logic is very sound to me.

The problem isn't two explanations, the problems is that they have to end up in the same sphere - the material — GLEN willows

Why do they have to end up in the materialistic sphere to be considered valid?

Does everything have to come back to the material? Is it impossible to reason about things that are not material?

Because if so we cannot reason about imagination, concepts or meaning, as none of these things are explicitly material in nature.

If only the material is real we ought to dismiss innovation, lateralised thinking, creativity and invention as these things precipitate into the material world from the "non material sphère- the mind".

To me the immaterial and material both exist and are both reasonable. The material cannot exist in isolation from its opposite - Immaterialism.

For opposites create one another mutually.

You cannot have poverty without wealth, you cannot have light without darkness, and you cannot have material reason (the physical) without immaterial reason (potential/ imagination).

Science and philosophy are completely different fields of inquiry. — Constance

Are they? There's no overlap between the reasoning and ethics of philosophy in scientific pursuits then? If they are indeed completely different fields of inquiry.

The relation one has with the world in philosophy is about the presuppositions of science, not the usual assumptions, and these presuppositions are not in the usual sense, observable. — Constance

What are the usual assumptions?

I agree in the sense that science has to pre-assume certain constants: energy, time etc. to make observable standardised measurements.

Philosophy on the other had doesn't have to pre-assume anything. But if it chooses to redefine the suppositions of science it must contend with the predictive value of scientific endeavours.

Either that, or reintegrate with science by highlighting what agreements can be made between philosophy and science.

I don't think theyre are mutually exclusive, but rather compatible. The key then would be to establish why science and philosophy are not in opposition but actually referring to the same thing

Not mine. On my view, identity is lost, not consciousness. So I no longer exist. But the functional unities that persist are conscious still, just as they still have mass. I'm a functionalist about identity, but not about consciousness. When I die I lose the functional unity that is bert1 forever. I might also lose it when I am in a deep sleep perhaps, or get knocked out. But it gets rebooted again.
9m — bert1

We think alike bert1. A good explanation of the nuances between panspychism and personal conscious awareness. Bravo.

Kant’s notion of time is a critique of Newton’s. Time is neither an absolute quatitative constant for Kant, not a relationship between material objects. It is the passive exposure of subjective intuition to an outside, to something existing. We generate time in apprehending, and must have something outward if there is to be apprehension. Time is the activity of pure self-affecting. — Joshs

Well I think he ought to have not critiqued Newton's findings as incorrect as they're extremely useful and gave rise to a pretext for the elucidation of all of mechanical newtonian physics.

At best he ought to have clarified that "perception of time" is another facet to objective/standardised and discrete time, the former created internally through the ability to have memories and thus anticipate change in reference to that data set.

They dont mutually exclude the existence of both facets of time. One is (conceptual/our experience of it) the other is how it runs outside of us as observers (objective).

Physics later confirmed this with the advent of special relativity which considers the role of the observer on how the external time changes at different velocities. It consolidated newtonian physics and relativity as referring to the same thing just with a separate prerequisite set of assumptions.

As ↪jgill has pointed out, this is just incorrect. The scare quotes probably indicate that Benj is aware of this, but thinks of pointing to some alternative use of "energy" and "time". But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno

It might be helpful if you quoted what he/she said so I could understand better her point of view.

I use scare quotes for certain words as I have a dualistic approach to things. Energy means one thing physically/objectively and an another as a concept/sensation/feeling.

It has quantitative and qualititative characteristics.

I would imagine from the context you gave me that jgill is referring to energy and time from a materialism/objective perspective. From the point of view of an observer using them as controls (constants) for the purpose of newtonian measurements.

Again the quote would have been useful as I don't like to make assumptions about what others said.

But then, why the pretence of talking about physics? — Banno

It's not pretence. In case you weren't aware physics treats time dualistically as well (newtonian =where its absolute/external and constant) and special relativity (where it changes in reference to an observer depending on velocity).

So if I'm "just incorrect", shall we discard special relativity altogether? I think you'll have a hard time trying to convince physicists to that.

Perhaps then you presumed from your own rigid set of assumptions the interpretation of exactly what I meant when I used the scare quotes. Communication is as much about what the listener already assumes as it is about what is meant by the orator. The difference is the interpretation.

I hope i clarified my position a bit better now.