Re: Have you ever wondered.....


"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42882fbb$0$64522$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
> news:qN2dnaJuZb1eJhnfRVn-2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:42843c7d$0$64534$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
> >> news:sOudnUJzxMqEcRzfRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> Our present debate boils down to this:
> >> > However, there is no denying that motion is a physical reality.
> >> >
> >> I never denied it.
> >>
> >> > That's wholly different than time, which is constructed completely as
> >> > an
> >> > intellectual
> >> > concept.
> >> >
> >> So, let's compare the two concepts 'motion' and 'time'.
> >>
> >> In the dictionary we find as definition of the word 'concept':
> >> 1-A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or
> >> occurrences.
> >> 2-Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at
> >> idea.
> >>
> >> Both concepts (motion and time) are our ideas about the universe
> >> as it reveals itself to us through sensory input.
> >> In the case of both motion and time the relevant sensory
> >> input is vision.
> >>
> >> If we want to know how the concepts are formed, we can
> >> start from the situation where we receive the visionary input
> >> from the universe, but have not yet formed any concepts of it.
> >> How do we acquire the concepts 'motion' and 'time'?
> >>
> >> --DATA COLLECTION--
> >> The visionary input has the form of successive states.
> >> That's how vision works.
> >> So, the data we have to work with is successive states of
> >> the universe.
> >>
> >> --MOTION--
> >> -Analysis of data
> >> When we look at successive states, we note that sometimes
> >> the location of an object in the final state differs from the
> >> location of that object in the initial state.
> >> -Conclusion
> >> We conclude that in the universe a process exists which causes
> >> change of location of an object between states.
> >> -Concept
> >> We give that process the name 'motion'
> >> -Discussion
> >> The concept 'motion' is derived from the sensory input of
> >> states of the universe, which shows that there is motion
> >> in the universe.
> >>
> >> --TIME--
> >> -Analysis of data
> >> When we look at successive states, we note:
> >> 1-that we never see more than one state.
> >> 2-that between any two states, we can see an arbitrary
> >> number of intermediate states.
> >> 3-that intermediate states yield intermediate values for
> >> data we collect on processes.
> >> -Conclusion
> >> We conclude that in the universe states are ordered.
> >> -Concept
> >> We give that ordering the name 'time'
> >> -Discussion
> >> The concept 'time' is derived from the sensory input of
> >> states of the universe, which shows that in the universe
> >> states are ordered.
> >>
> >> --DISCUSSION--
> >> -Motion and time alike are concepts which we infer from
> >> data on the universe consisting of states, obtained by
> >> visionary sensing.
> >> -Motion is a phenomenon (a thing in the universe which
> >> comes to our attention)of change of locations of objects,
> >> as occurs in the universe. It is not seen, it is inferred by
> >> studying states.
> >> -Time is a phenomenon of ordering of states as they
> >> occur in the universe. It is not seen, it is inferred by
> >> studying states.
> >>
> >> --QUESTION--
> >> What is wrong with an intellectual concept?
> >
> > Nothing is wrong with an intellectual concept as long as we realize that's
> > what it is.
> > This whole discussion was whether or not time was physical, or limited to
> > an intellectual
> > concept. It's just an intellectual concept and has no physicality to it
> > whatsoever.
> >
> When we look at the universe and study successive
> states, we conclude that these states are ordered.
> It's not something we conjecture out of the blue, it
> is how the universe shows itself.
> How can you say that that this ordering is not physical?
> It is how the universe works.


You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the comparison of two states of the
universe is an intellectual process and goes beyond the physical, and then also claim that
ordering those states is not simply an intellectual process. You've just written
gobbledygook. You've gone on and on about how *seeing* is simply the receipt of sensory
stimulation and can only apply to a single state, but now you say *looking* includes the
ordering of multiple states.

Let me know what your position is on this matter, once and for all.

The simple fact is that while denying it, you've agreed with my position. All objects in
the universe are in motion, and that motion is physical. We know that it's physical
because we can observe that motion. Our senses tell us of one state, and then they tell
us of another, and we compare those and we order them. The comparison and ordering, while
an intellectual process, is simple observation of physical occurrences, and that's how we
know that motion is physical.

However, your notion of time is limited just to that intellectual process of observation.
You call that process of remembering and ordering *time*, but those processes are strictly
intellectual and born of the intellect. That why it's clear that time is not a physical
phenomenon, and motion, as well as other processes, is.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... I can use a 'motion' comparison, ... > make a sense of this, we have to be aware of the objective universe ... > A relativity theory can give a good account of how things affect you, ... > describing the physicality of this universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... there is no denying that motion is a physical reality. ... >> as it reveals itself to us through sensory input. ... >> from the universe, but have not yet formed any concepts of it. ... It's just an intellectual concept and has no physicality to it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • THE RELATIVITY OF THE INERTIAL PHENOMENA (GRVITY)
    ... The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is ... from the perspective of watching the universe from ... Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • RHU Theory: The relativity of the inertial phenomena
    ... The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is ... from the perspective of watching the universe from ... Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... ;; There will be an x-axis value, a y-axis value and a z-axis value. ... ;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point, ... ;; in the wmt clock at a certain state of the universe, ... progresses through the vectorspace which is represented ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)