I just wanted to know you view on time before I post my theory on it. I don't want to sound cliche and wish to hear what you have to say about the topic before doing so. I don't think anyone's come up with this theory yet and I think it will be easy to understand but rather elementary. Be patient for the theory revolves around simple algebra. I have two question I want you to answer though: 1. Is there a present? and 2. Can a variable be a negative and still equal to its positive? Thanks for your reply.
1. If present is defined as "now," then the answer is elementary. Yes. Im confused by the relevance of the present to any temporal theory; time is inherently mobile. It'd be like using dead stop to measure acceleration. 2. Can blue be black? No, of course not. Taken literally, a "negative" is analogous to "not." This is why negative numbers are called imaginary numbers; the number -2 is two digits, but it isn't two. So "not blue" cannot be "blue," even if the two do look alike.
This thread is going to be all about definition. I presume u mean present on a very short timescale. 1. I would have to say there IS present and the only way to see that it's obvious is not by taking time apart but by looking at the whole (like the solution to Zenos paradox). If there was no present tie, then nothing could take place Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 2. A variable cannot be equal to its negative because by definition, the addition of the two always results in zero. If it were equal, the result would be twice the variable.
Hmmm 1: There is nothin BUT the present; 'time' (sic) being merely a human mental apperception. 2: Huh? Not sure exactly what kinds of variables you're talking about here. If you're talking mathematical, then no. If you're speaking ontologically then sure, the opposition is not essential to the object but rather a mental schematic that you compose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The past is real. Since the speed of light is finite, the further away you look the further back in time you see. Your computer was 1/25 of a second ago, the sun 8 minutes ago, the furthest galaxy 15 billion years ago. The future is the sum of a large number of probabilities, a hazy shadow of the present. 1. However, the present is instantaneous, without any duration whatsoever, so it is a mere illusion. 2. Try the absolute value function. :m:
Re 1: If the past is an infinite chain of has-been "instanetanities" (its new, look for it in next years Websters), then to say that the present does not exist by virtue of its being instantaneous, the past cannot either. Re 2: Post absolute value function, you're no longer dealing with a negative versus positive variable. Assumeing absolute value kills negatives (wish I had a calculator handy to see why you suggested it be chcked, math was never my strong point), you've still cheated to get your answer, and set two positive variables equal to one another, regardless of your starting point. To do it properly, you'd have to work backwards (start with the absolute function, in this case) from a properly formatted equation, and end up with a negative on one side and a positive on the other. This cannot be done.
I've thought some more Re 1, and decided I agree with you, after all. Applying the old "tree falling in a forest" scenario: If humans were not around to percieve it, would there be a present? The answer is, unequivocably, no. For the reason you provided above. My point was was flawed itself (infinity multiplied by zero = zero). Nice thinking.
talk2farley: Are u suggesting that if humans are not around to see a tree falling in the forest then it hasn't fallen?
Ah, the answer to the original question ("If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?") is, obviously, yes (I could never understand why people had trouble with that one, but hey). The answers to these questions can vary, theyr just guiding lights. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Original questions continued: 1. Now, what if I were to say there was no present? That our perception and reality is the product of the interception of both the past and the future? 2. What if the variables weren't mathematical but rather related to mathematics? Would it be reasonable to say -n = n if n was an object and the equation was resembeling the transition of an equal to an opposity?
"If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?" This classic exposes preconceptions equating perceptions and physical effects. When a tree falls, it produces waves in the air, but to have 'sound' there must be someone within earshot.
"When a tree falls, it produces waves in the air, but to have 'sound' there must be someone within earshot." What if their is a recording device present?
Then you record 'sound waves', a physical measure. 'Sound' has to be interpreted by the brain to become a perception.
And, we can assume, the playback would be the sound of a "tree falling in the forest?" Regardless of whether the device was ever played back? Isn't the act of hearing a physical measure? Assume yes to all of the above. Therefore, the answer to the original question is established: the presence of a human ear is not a necesarry condition for a falling tree to make a sound.
Sorry about my quick edits, I posted half a sentence at first. The playback would still only make waves in the air unless there was someone in the room to 'hear' the sound that the waves make in the ear.
As for the existence of the sound of the falling tree: I'd like to extend the picture a bit: Say a tree falls, it makes a loud noise, it scares a bird, the bird makes loud noises, flies away, scares a herd of deer, who come running out of the forest, where *we* see them. Basically, there CAN be something that we can understand as an indication that something else happened: even though we weren't there ... [poetic intermezzo] Who can say where the road goes where the day flows - only time ... Enya, Only Time [/poetic intermezzo]
The existance of sound from a falling tree without someone there to experience it would be dependent on whether the tree exists without an audience to percieve it or not.
That's the secret of long-lost primal impressions of passing shadows, sounds, and smell of deep woods.
There can be no question that if a tree falls in the forest that it still makes a sound wave. The deer and the Bluejay hear it. Their reaction to the sound is subjective to our perception. We would generally be startled by what we perceive to be an event worthy of note, but not necessarily for them. When my A/C kicks on in my house I notice it if I am awake and paying attention because it makes an audible difference in the general db level of the environment, but the degree to which I pay attention to it is subjective. If I am jamming the stereo, certianly I don't pay it any mind if I hear it at all. If I am quietly reading, I might take note, but not really think much about it. Either way, the sound is there, and measurable, regardless of how much I pay attention to it. Same for the deer and the BlueJay. They here it everyday so they may not react to it like you think they should. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your bias is "Holy SHIT. That tree just fell...." Their reaction is "just another day at work..." Perception is reality.
