Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

tiberry · 06-06-2003, 07:51 AM

Ahhhh...a taker!

And what better place for a debate than in the philosophy forum, where neither of us could ever really be wrong...

Don't take it personally- but I'm going to deconstruct your reply systematically - all in the name of a good debate.

You say that time is a fundamental aspect of THE universe - I'll give you ...fundamental aspect of OUR universe, or in other words the way we describe THE universe.

Let me refine my statement - Time is not an ELEMENTARY property of the universe.

I can't say that I agree completely that time is a measurement of action. In the simplest sense, yes...but again - it depends on your point of reference. In order to quantify movement one must state "at point x in time the object was there, at point y it is now there...therefore the object has moved. BUT, moved in reference to what?

Mass is more elementary. It exists whether we measure it or not. Notwithstanding the tree in the forest postulate of course...but even if we did measure it, we don't need a reference in order to deduce that the mass exists.

You say that time is a dimension, that is correct. Time is a measurement just as X, Y, Z, velocity, and many possible others. Precisely my point: Time is not a PROPERTY it is the MEASUREMENT of a property.

Relativity is very intriguing to me, as it seems to be the "on the right track", just incomplete. It becomes very difficult to imagine how to accurately describe things without a reference point RELATIVE to what you're measuring. You're intended counter to my statement actually did very well in proving my statement.

***There is not just one object or point in the universe.****

Just for a moment, imagine yourself 'outside' the universe, you are some 0 dimensional being. As such, you need no frames of reference to perceive or describe your surroundings. What would you see?

06-06-2003, 07:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
tiberry Insane Location: Location, Location!	Ahhhh...a taker! And what better place for a debate than in the philosophy forum, where neither of us could ever really be wrong... Don't take it personally- but I'm going to deconstruct your reply systematically - all in the name of a good debate. You say that time is a fundamental aspect of THE universe - I'll give you ...fundamental aspect of OUR universe, or in other words the way we describe THE universe. Let me refine my statement - Time is not an ELEMENTARY property of the universe. I can't say that I agree completely that time is a measurement of action. In the simplest sense, yes...but again - it depends on your point of reference. In order to quantify movement one must state "at point x in time the object was there, at point y it is now there...therefore the object has moved. BUT, moved in reference to what? Mass is more elementary. It exists whether we measure it or not. Notwithstanding the tree in the forest postulate of course...but even if we did measure it, we don't need a reference in order to deduce that the mass exists. You say that time is a dimension, that is correct. Time is a measurement just as X, Y, Z, velocity, and many possible others. Precisely my point: Time is not a PROPERTY it is the MEASUREMENT of a property. Relativity is very intriguing to me, as it seems to be the "on the right track", just incomplete. It becomes very difficult to imagine how to accurately describe things without a reference point RELATIVE to what you're measuring. You're intended counter to my statement actually did very well in proving my statement. *There is not just one object or point in the universe.** Just for a moment, imagine yourself 'outside' the universe, you are some 0 dimensional being. As such, you need no frames of reference to perceive or describe your surroundings. What would you see? __________________ My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.