Re: Define a clock

From: jem (xxx_at_xxx.xxx)
Date: 10/19/04 

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:27:38 -0400

AllYou! wrote:

> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:7J7dd.105934$a85.94589@fed1read04...
>
>>AllYou! wrote:
>>
>>>I'll try this one again:
>>>
>>>"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>
> news:FoYbd.28493$UA.2860@lakeread08...
>
>>>>What you're observing when you watch the blinking light or listen to the
>>>>ticking clock is "change" - light/no light, sound/no sound. "Change" is
>>>>the essence of these observations, and the details concerning how the
>>>>change is being produced aren't relevant to that. In your terms,
>>>>"change" is a fundamental aspect of Nature - not change in velocity,
>>>>change in displacement, or change in anything in particular, just
>
> change.
>
>>>
>>>To assert that the details of what makes a clock operate is irrelevant
>
> is to
>
>>>dismiss my theory out of hand. My whole point is that time is a
>
> derivative
>
>>>of the very real properties of distance and velocity. It's a concept
>
> only
>
>>>and it's measurement is fully dependent upon motion. IOW, all clocks
>
> depend
>
>>>upon motion to produce events. And so to say that the very property
>
> which
>
>>>is the underpinning of my proposition is irrelevant to the discussion is
>
> to
>
>>>end the discussion. If your point is to do so, then that's OK. We'll
>>>simply agree to disagree. However, if you wish to discuss the matter
>>>further, then we must consider what it is which drives any mechanism
>
> which
>
>>>we say measures time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How can "change" be measured? By creating a device that produces it
>>>>(e.g. a blinking light), and registering the amount produced concurrent
>>>>with any other process in which something is changing. Obviously, such
>>>>a device is called a clock.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's spend some time on what an event is. An event is a point having
>
> no
>
>>>dimension. It's like a point (in space) or a line or a plane in that
>
> it's
>
>>>imaginary and simply used for demarcation. You assert that it's a point
>
> of
>
>>>change. However, I'm not claiming that change occurs as a fundamental
>>>aspect of nature. I'm not claiming that the light on the clock blinks
>
> on
>
>>>and off as if produced by some mystical presence. Somewhere, at some
>
> level,
>
>>>a motion produced an event. Now, we can watch the hand of a clock pass
>
> by a
>
>>>mark on a dial and claim that this constituted an event. Or we can
>
> watch as
>
>>>a pendulum swings and listen for the ratchet to be released and say the
>>>resultant tick is an event. But no matter what you use, the production
>
> of
>
>>>events requires motion in some form or another. Whether this represents
>>>change in all cases is not a issue I'm prepared to debate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's probably correct to say that all changes are effected as motion,
>>>>and certainly all clocks have moving parts, but it's not the motion
>>>>that's of interest; it's the fact that the motion brings about change at
>>>>a single point (i.e. a swinging pendulum is at it's low point or it's
>>>>not, the second hand on a watch points to 12 or it doesn't).
>>>
>>>
>>>And now we agree. We judge the position of all things in the universe
>
> by
>
>>>the using the position of a given thing as our standard. But where we
>>>disagree is that motion was required to produce the event.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So what's "time" then? Well in one sense "time" refers to the
>>>>measurement of a clock (i.e. the quantity of standard change that a
>>>>clock produces), but the word is also used to refer to what the clock is
>>>>measuring, and in this sense, time is change.
>>>
>>>
>>OK, so it appears you want to continue with this space-motion idea, but
>>weren't you proposing that idea *because* you considered time to be
>>unobservable, and haven't I shown that time (aka change) *is* observable
>>(at least I don't interpret any of your above comments as taking
>>exception with that)? So why do you still want to develop this motion
>>based framework, which based on even a superficial analysis, would
>>require a major effort to build, assuming it could be built at all?
>
>
> You've got the cause and effect backwards. I simply stated that time was
> unobservable in the sense that motion and distance and other properties are
> as an adjunct to my theory that time is just a concept. I'm not claiming
> that time is just a concept *because* it's unobservable. I'm claiming that
> it's just a concept and pointing to the fact that it's not directly
> observable as one factor in the whole family of evidence that it's only a
> concept. And yes, you've shown that change is observable but I don't accept
> that change is time. Change is change and only equated to time if you
> maintain the time/distance coordinate system.
>
> As to the effort to build whatever it is needs to be built, that's of little
> if no consequence to the issue of properly understanding and discussing
> what's real and what's conceptual. I'm sorry if it would take lots of hard
> work to properly view science, but laziness shouldn't be the issue here,
> should it? In fact, a large part of my argument of why we view this matter
> as we do is based upon the contention that it's simply easier to do so than
> the alternative. Again, not my concern.
>

I could go out and dig holes in my backyard, fill them in and then
repeat the process - but I don't. Do you think that's on account of
laziness?

You need a good reason for undertaking any project, and a very good
reason for big projects. You've given no rationale for the need to
develop a space-motion model other than some fuzzy thinking about the
inadequacy of time. You're certainly free to pursue this as far as you
like, but without more to justify the effort, I suspect you'll have
difficulty recruiting others to help dig the holes.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: xmalloc string functions
    ... such people as the Gnome development team? ... this design decision has been sheer laziness - that it's just too hard, ... Maybe the Gnome developers *did* have some legitimate reason for doing ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: kilyx
    ... somewhat compatible with, for good reason) ... There's a difference between what the IDE is built in and what GUI ... Borland built a C++ IDE around a Java core ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: WTF? A new tax?
    ... Builders I know are leaving half built sites all over. ... beds with half acre gardens. ... We are told that the reason there is ... couples splitting up and needing two houses instead ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: WTF? A new tax?
    ... Builders I know are leaving half built sites all over. ... why developers can't build small houses on this land, ... We are told that the reason there is ... not houses with large gardens. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Astronomers pinpoint the moment Ansel Adams clicked the shutter
    ... >> considered the subsurface chalk, ... This tells me more about your ability to reason than ... > built on an immoveable base, and never pointed it out to me before. ... to have been intellectually dishonest you'd have to ...
    (rec.photo.digital)