His position is time is a priori intuition, which is nothing to do with physical time. Hence there is nothing to be confused with.
Friction, and thereby gravity, is only a contingent cause of walking, insofar as differences in elevations relative to foot placement, i.e., a whole line of starting blocks like runners use as a substitute for friction, is equally sufficient for ambulation pursuant to the primary condition of putting one foot in front of the other. The whole point being, if Iâm not putting one foot in front of the other in order, I ainât walkinâ, gravity in and of itself making not one damn bit of difference.
Besides, if I am engaged in that to which I was originally invited, re: walking, all those conditions by which it is possible are given necessarily, otherwise I wouldnât be walking, which is a contradiction.
Now even if proved gravity is a necessary condition for walking, it still does not follow from being that condition alone, that gravity is determinable as existent thing or mere force, which is the main concern of the origin of this conversation.
All you stated so far was your opinion.
Repeating them is useful. How on earth could we possibly discuss anything if we just say that things exist in literature!?
What does that mean? What is his argument?
I clearly wrote, why time is perception with reasons and even with the examples.
You are missing the point here. What is the point of repeating here, what exists in the Google, Wiki and AI?
That is a large topic. It would be off topic to write about the whole argument of Kant here. You need to read it yourself.
I gave you the summarised point of the argument, which is enough to support my position on the topic.
You are certainly wrong to say that time is a part of our perception. That is not a counterargument against my argument as well.
Do you want to discuss or not? Yes or no?
My counter argument against your point was that your argument is clearly unsound, and based on the wrong premises.
You need to give the reasons why you agree or disagree with the counter argument. But you seem to be just keep talking about some irrelevant definitions which are available on the internet.
I donât see this discussion can progress further constructively due to lack of rational response. Hence I will leave you to it. All the best.
Ok, end of discussion!
You say time does not exist. But beyond the obvious example of a clock machine, and the many things that use clock to measure a greater rate of how systematic and programmatic things should be done (like a computer), there are also other physical non engineered examples, like the half-life of materials; of how we measure the date of ancient objects by carbon dating.
If time did not exist, how could be so useful to us in organizing a sequence of how things happened? We organize newspapers, journals, objects from certain events. And they all point to the existence of time.
How could you argument against that?
If you are asking me, I am not saying that time does not exist, but saying it cannot change if it only exists at now.
I have no idea what this all has to do with the topic, but I am compelled to not let such statements lie:
It isnât walking if there isnât an external force acting on your feet. Flailing around in freefall isnât walking, even for Michael Jackson.
The force is necessary for walking, yes. That force isnât gravity, itâs the ground applying the force that makes it possible. So one can walk in deep space where thereâs no significant gravity, but the force has to come from somewhere. The guys on the ISS canât walk. Thereâs pretty much full gravity there, but nothing applying any force to them unless they strap themselves into one of those treadmills with the bungee cords applying the downward force which must be countered by the treadmill belt. And yes, they have those to help keep up the muscle/bone mass, and yes, walking is done on the ISS.
As for âstaying at the same pointâ in the absence of force, that contradicts Newton first law of motion: ⌠an object in motion stays in motion with the same velocity unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force.
The force is needed for proper acceleration, but the lack of it does not make one stationary.
Time being physical or not depends on the definition used. There very much is time that is physical, and time that is not.
Actually, I never saw that phrase defined by Mok (I could have missed it), and it isnât a standard term. It seems quite contradictory since a process by definition occurs over some duration, making the property of being simultaneous contradictory by definition.
Kant uses an idealist definition of time (and pretty much everything else). Yea, thatâs not physical. That doesnât preclude a non-idealist from using a far more physical definition of time.
I indicated that you were probably talking about that other sort of change (of location over time). Motion is undefined without time, so sure, time is necessary for motion by definition. You concluding the definition is what makes it circular.
This is wrong by definition. An event is an occurrence at a place and time. A timeless point is not an event. Itâs probably just a point like they use in geometry.
Please learn what an event is, and how to use these terms the way the rest of the world does.
If the points are timeless, 1) theyâre by definition not events, and 2) being timeless, their being âsimultaneousâ is completely meaningless. How lost are you in the terminology that you make such statements? Simultaneous means in short âat the same timeâ, which is meaningless in the absence of time.
My definition of time was based on the phenomenological observations on the world.
OK, maybe you can answer this question, because Mok failed to do so.
In what way time is physical?
You didnât read the rest of my argument carefully. Friction is necessary for walking, but there would be no friction without gravity.
Time is included in the definition of speed, but we cannot conclude that time is a physical thing given that definition.
What are you talking about!? I didnât say that points are timeless. I am simply defining a simultaneous process as a process in which the events occur at the same timeless point!
You are correct. It isnât a standard term for any subject. It is contradictory and obscure on what it actually stands for.
There are some write-ups on internet about it, but it appears not relevant for defining what time is in its nature.
Process is always about something to become something else. Just keep asking out of blue, what is simultaneous process with no mention on what it is about sounds empty and meaningless.
OK fair enough. I look forward to reading your account of the physical definition of time.
If you consider a clock to be a physical thing (not sure about Kant, who might consider a clock to be just another concept), then what clocks measure is physical time, since clocks have no access to human phenomena.
In particular, clocks measure the proper length of their own worldline, which, being frame invariant, is considered to be physical, unlike coordinate time which is abstract.
Both proper and coordinate time are regularly referenced by âtâ in physics equations, but phenomenal time (what you and Kant and perhaps Mok is using) does not appear in those equations at all.
So if I nail together some wood into a dog house and then put that in deep space, the dog house would fall apart due to lack of friction holding the nails in?
Meanwhile, one can walk in that deep space, given an accelerating force (of your rocket say, or a spinning wheel), all without gravity. So wrong twice. You really need to think before making all these assertions that have trivial counterexamples.
With that I will agree. I still donât know these 4 definitions you use, only the names you give them. I gave some standard definitions and their names. âTimeâ is a word with no one correct definition, so using it without being precise can only lead to confusion.
You called that point timeless. I donât know another way to interpret what you said there. If you meant âat the same point in timeâ, sure, thatâs pretty much what simultaneous means, but a point in time is hardly timeless. But you didnât say âpoint in timeâ, you said âtimeless pointâ.
Itâs more likely that you didnât read my answer; there are no objections there.
Thereâs a question there: if time exists, what are the criteria for âexistenceâ? I asked you to name the method you used to determine what exists and what doesnât.
Clocks donât have any idea what they are measuring. Clocks just ticks and pushes numbers on the display as they are calibrated.
It is humans who read the display of the clock, and tells the time, not the clocks.
According to your idea, if clocks were never invented, there would be no time. It doesnât quite make sense.
Physical time doesnât exist. Events and motions happen regardless time exists or not. It is always after the events or motions completed its movement, time gets stamped for the intervals. Time never starts first. Time only activates measuring when humans start measuring the intervals.
Time can also be language and numbers. If there were no words or numbers, there would be no time. Things will still move. Events and motions will take place regardless time or clocks existed or not.
Because time is perception of humans.
Does that mean if clocks stop ticking, then time would suddenly cease to exist?