1. I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?

4. Originally Posted by Manynames
Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
The third, and final paradox is more complicated, at least, i feel.

Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

Viola! Have a go, its fun.

5. How can we ever have time if we never take time?

Mmmmmm.

Like we all lve in a Matrix and I'm the Merilvingian, right?

Time is but a tool in a shed, so too perception, so also space...............this shed of reality.

6. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
How can we ever have time if we never take time?

Mmmmmm.

Like we all lve in a Matrix and I'm the Merilvingian, right?

Time is but a tool in a shed, so too perception, so also space...............this shed of reality.
This is a qoutation i have just realized was very similar... but moving on, can you answer the paradox?

7. Space, time, and perception are mutually exclusive concepts, yet work as one as our way of understanding reality.

Mutually exclusive things are mutually exclusive.

8. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Space, time, and perception are mutually exclusive concepts, yet work as one as our way of understanding reality.

Mutually exclusive things are mutually exclusive.
I don't feel that addresses the paradoxes i gave. Feel to explain that a bit better?

9. Three mutually exclusive things, A B and C. A does not define or experience B and vice versa, and likewise with all the other combinations. Yet they DO work together in explaining the "whole", reality.

10. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Three mutually exclusive things, A B and C. A does not define or experience B and vice versa, and likewise with all the other combinations. Yet they DO work together in explaining the "whole", reality.
I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?

11. To claify my point I would need to present a thoery on how arbitrary-constructs of "space" "time" and "perception" can work together to describe in our mind as n image the actual construction of reality.

That would clarify my point. It would be a big theory, it would take a LOT of explaining, because it would be NEW by virtue of the fact that space and time have a third memeber of their science family, "perception".

12. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
To claify my point I would need to present a thoery on how arbitrary-constructs of "space" "time" and "perception" can work together to describe in our mind as n image the actual construction of reality.

That would clarify my point. It would be a big theory, it would take a LOT of explaining, because it would be NEW by virtue of the fact that space and time have a third memeber of their science family, "perception".
You don't need to prove the first. Surely our very existences prove it already?

The second paragraph seems to be totally under your own perspective of what you comparatively believe in, which again, is not completely scientific, but just a hypothesis.

13. Exactly.

Eventually the universal truth will be known, and who those people are who were instinctively drawn to it in this time where presumably (as the scientific community "believes") the truth of the grand theory cannot be yet found. These people drawn instinctively to the theory of the universal truth will be known by their words, their works, which is why I urge caution.

14. I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
Good luck with that. :?

theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.

15. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Exactly.

Eventually the universal truth will be known, and who those people are who were instinctively drawn to it in this time where presumably (as the scientific community "believes") the truth of the grand theory cannot be yet found.
What makes you so sure that the universe will even allow us to understand its complexities, because, i simply do not beleive the universe will allow us to reduce its complex nature(s) so easily, if it even desires it.

16. Greetings, Kalster.

I am serious about my term "instinct". You people can find this theory yourselves by asking the right questions, step by step. I will not quick link anyone, and if I do, I hope you speak a foreign language.

17. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Greetings, Kalster.

I am serious about my term "instinct". You people can find this theory yourselves by asking the right questions, step by step. I will not quick link anyone, and if I do, I hope you speak a foreign language.
Kalster...???? Was this meant for another post, because i can assure you, and truthfully say, i am not him/her.

18. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
Good luck with that. :?

theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.

My statement was meant for that bigoted summary of my efforts.

I must go now.

19. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by KALSTER
I cannot understand your point, because it is not very clear. Please keep trying. I am sure eventually we will cox the truth behind what logic you inexorably hold, perhaps?
Good luck with that. :?

theQuestIsNotOver has already spoken about her theory and the forum members treatment of it. Well, her last post was written as if such a "theory" does not exist yet, but it does and has met no favour on these forums, mostly because nobody can ever figure out what she is saying. Just keep that in mind. Maybe she'll PM you a link to it, but I would advise you that this thread could quickly turn into a discussion of her thoughts instead of yours.

My statement was meant for that bigoted summary of my efforts.

I must go now.
You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?

20. You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?
Her response was to my post on the previous page and directed at me. I just gave some friendly advice to you, but you can make up your own mind of course.

21. Originally Posted by KALSTER
You think i am a biggot now? Trace back all the posts we have made, and i can assure you, i have given quite reasonable resonses, unless you disagree somehow?
Her response was to my post on the previous page and directed at me. I just gave some friendly advice to you, but you can make up your own mind of course.
That is so contradictory to the point i am now suspecting myself that ''yourself and her'' could be the same people... correct me here, but you never directed any comments to me until now in this thread, but supposing you had...

....

22. Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
Ok, i will give an answer to this paradox since no one so far has wished to reply to it coherently.

The truth is, is that we have more than just one sense, that being five and posibly six. So hence, we sense a time passing without the physical need of holding anything. It may even be considered the ''biological clock,'' one of several clocks we have in the body.

23. Originally Posted by Manynames
Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
Time is not physical, hence time cannot be taken.

Therefore this paradox is now resolved.... which leaves the last, which i will not answer until someone gives a sample, or a possibility.

24. Originally Posted by Manynames
Originally Posted by Manynames
Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?
Time is not physical, hence time cannot be taken.

Therefore this paradox is now resolved.... which leaves the last, which i will not answer until someone gives a sample, or a possibility.
Is there really no one here who wants to take a stab at the last?

25. If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

We don't. It is our objective explanation and subjective experience of time that we sense, you do not sense time itself, you notice things that are happening over periods of time, you notice that things take time to accomplish. You feel how you feel and think how you think, you are influenced by time(or at least influenced by forces over a period of time), but you do not feel or think time. You measure it using rythm. We know it exists because we see it's effects.

to quote Einstein "...time is what you measure with a clock." or a moon or a star or a drum, or a heart beet, or a step

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?

My argument against the same as above but for a different reason. We don't. You don't have time, you don't possess it. "I have time" is a figure of speak that doesn't mean "I am in possession of time" it generally means "I don't have plans"

26. Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

You don't create something by measuring it, you must first have something to measure and then make a ruler or a clock to measure with.

27. Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
The same way we can sense sounds and sense light, yet not touch them. Next question

28. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Originally Posted by Manynames
I will set some paradoxes here that may or may not be answered intuitively. The first for now, is:

If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

I can answer the paradox with a logical written proof. Can you solve it... this is just for fun, but sets some 'thought-provoking' consequences.
The same way we can sense sounds and sense light, yet not touch them. Next question
Ah very good. You can find the second if you search on from that post, but i have already given answers, so don't cheat

Muscly, i'll get to you soon enough.

29. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
Since time is not synonymous with movement from a mathematical sense, how can it exist without someone to measure it?

You don't create something by measuring it, you must first have something to measure and then make a ruler or a clock to measure with.
I don't agree with this part,

You don't create something by measuring it

I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.

30. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
If we cannot hold time, then how can we sense it?

We don't. It is our objective explanation and subjective experience of time that we sense, you do not sense time itself, you notice things that are happening over periods of time, you notice that things take time to accomplish. You feel how you feel and think how you think, you are influenced by time(or at least influenced by forces over a period of time), but you do not feel or think time. You measure it using rythm. We know it exists because we see it's effects.

to quote Einstein "...time is what you measure with a clock." or a moon or a star or a drum, or a heart beet, or a step

How can one have a time, if one can never physically take it?

My argument against the same as above but for a different reason. We don't. You don't have time, you don't possess it. "I have time" is a figure of speak that doesn't mean "I am in possession of time" it generally means "I don't have plans"
But i do agree with this 100%.

31. Originally Posted by Manynames
I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.
But isn't this effect not an effect of the act of observing, but an effect of our machines that we use to observe with?

We use electron microscopes to view particles, by shooting electrons at particles we effect the particle. We don't CREATE anything except potential, since quantum mechanics only deals with statistics. Potential is not an actual thing, it is another way of measuring things.

32. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
Originally Posted by Manynames
I say i don't agree, because we have actually shown the act of measuring can and does create things. This is the Observer Effect of QM.
But isn't this effect not an effect of the act of observing, but an effect of our machines that we use to observe with?

We use electron microscopes to view particles, by shooting electrons at particles we effect the particle. We don't CREATE anything except potential, since quantum mechanics only deals with statistics. Potential is not an actual thing, it is another way of measuring things.
It's an outdated argument now however to say the machine is what causes. May i ask that you go to Doctor Fred Alan Wolfs webpage and contact him via e-mail asking him about the ''microscope arguement'' because i feel he could give a better insight into the reason why we don't normally use this arguement?

33. There were actually two arguments. The first one was about the electron effecting the particles we are observing.

The second was that we don't CREATE anything by measuring it, though we may CHANGE it.

I'd be happy to get in touch with Fred, so please leave the URL to his sight. I'm a bit skeptical if there aren't any sources other than this one guy. I'm even more skeptical because you cannot explain it. It's a pretty simple argument, and should be just as simple to prove wrong.

Do the electrons not effect other particles in a way to cause such an effect? If not, then there you go, argument disproved. I'm assuming that's what it is right? The electrons either don't effect the particles at all, or effect them in some way not related to the Observer Effect.

34. I've been watching his videos and so far there is no science at all, just rhetoric and descriptions of things. Generalizations and over simplifications.

If this guy is the bearer of the only proof against the above argument, and if it is a less-than-scientific explanation, anything like his videos, I am sorry, but you will need to stand on the shoulders of a different giant because he seems more like an inflated balloon or a stilt walker than a scientist.

35. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
There were actually two arguments. The first one was about the electron effecting the particles we are observing.

The second was that we don't CREATE anything by measuring it, though we may CHANGE it.

I'd be happy to get in touch with Fred, so please leave the URL to his sight. I'm a bit skeptical if there aren't any sources other than this one guy. I'm even more skeptical because you cannot explain it. It's a pretty simple argument, and should be just as simple to prove wrong.

Do the electrons not effect other particles in a way to cause such an effect? If not, then there you go, argument disproved. I'm assuming that's what it is right? The electrons either don't effect the particles at all, or effect them in some way not related to the Observer Effect.
His video's most of the time are not directed at a scientific audience., If you however direct to him a scientific question, he will respond with a scientific answer.

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

36. Mind to tell me what doctor wolf says... I cannot remember his arguement now, but i am sure interested to here it again.

37. He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
possibilities by observing.

We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities. Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.

Since this is a paraphrasing, I will pass it by him to see what he thinks.

I am also seeing what he thinks about this opinion "observation changes the observer not the observed"

38. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
possibilities by observing.

We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities. Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.
Well, sure.

But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.

39. Originally Posted by Manynames
Originally Posted by marcusclayman
He says we "change" (which was my argument against your claim that we "create")
possibilities by observing.

We don't create anything, we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities.Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.
Well, sure.

But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.
Plus where i have bolded seems to be contradictory.

p.s Sorry to be a nag, but i don't understand what you mean here either:

''Since possibilities are a form of measurement, it seems that we are only changing our measurements, not the THINGS that we are measuring.''

You either change the measurements condition, or you don't alter the thing at all.

40. But we change virtual possibilities into real actualities. This is a type of ''creation'' in my eyes.
Fred agrees with this statement but this does not support your argument.
I will explain but first to clarify my view
we don't change anyTHING, we change possibilities
This is not contradictory, I'll explain.

"Possibility" is a concept, not a material thing. Although the word "thing" can be used to mean "idea" I, both for the sake of clarity and holding onto what little usefulness there is left in out ridiculously ambiguous language, use "thing" to represent "material object" and "idea" to represent "mental concept."

The observer theory and 2-slit experiment seem to show that we change possibility into actuality, but this is not the same as saying "we create an electron by observing it," according to the experiment we change what the electron does, but the electron is there whether or not we observe it, as is time, it just seems to act differently.

Time is still a measurement, the universe moves through time. An electron is not a measurement, an electron moves through the universe. What makes you think they act the same under observation?

I can observe what I am typing right now but if I did not observe it, that does not mean I would have typed an infinit number of things. Not all things act like quantum mechanics that is why they are "quantum mechanics" and not "universal mechanics"

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement