Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Beaconator, Oct 11, 2021.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    No. Nobody did. Y'know why? Because width or height of time is as silly as length of time.
    As I have said, "length of time" is a colloquial expression. You go ahead and show where it is used in a scientific context.
    As I have said often enough before, you shouldn't be thinking outside the box until you understand the box. And you certainly shouldn't be arguing against the box.
    James R likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Magnitude applies to all quantities. It is the size of the quantity.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Show me a "quantity of time".
    Here is one I found;
    Quantity Time
    Quality Time

    I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are arguing against the dictionary, whereas you seem to be using Asexperia's "Philochrony" and his use of "magnitive" measurements.

    Yet a quote from Asexperia: "But, all beings and all phenomena have a duration. Time is the measurement of duration." And illustrates it with this posit:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I responded to that illustration with this, which is self-explanatory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Magnitude is associated with measurement of 3 dimensional volumes of various sorts, such as "worldvolume", that consists of stacked branes (2 D planes)

    A "worldsheet" is a 2 dimensional measurement, associated with the duration of stacked 1 dimensional timelines (strings).

    A "worldline" is a 1 dimensional measurement, associated with the chronological duration of the uni-directional timeline of an individual object (particles) or single events (singularities).

    May I remind you that the "arrow of time" is a unidirectional measurement and is measured in chronologies (lengths) of simple arbitrary increments such as "seconds", or "minutes".

    I have never heard anyone refer to a magnitude of time. Can you provide an example?

    It is only when we measure extremely large numbers we revert to magnitive term such as "eons", "epochs"

    I have never seen the term "magnitude" used in reference to measuring the duration of a chronology. Can you offer an example?
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I'm arguing against your misuse of the dictionary.
    Google it.

    The very first hit I get is So, how can time have orders of magnitude if it doesn't have magnitude?
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Where is the misuse of the dictionary by quoting it?

    Magnitude of Time,
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2021
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    By leaving out the parts that don't agree with you.

    I'll repeat it again: You are using a colloquial definition, not a scientific one.
    exchemist likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Colloquial? You've got to be kidding.

    I listed the scientific description above and I dare you to use that in a single reference to a measurement of the magnitude of "duration of time".

    That above sentence took me a single magnitude of 60 seconds to write. Very scientific?

    If I wrote something like that, I'd be accused not understanding the big fancy terminology used on that occasion.
    Give me a break!
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And exactly what does that mean? That time does not exist unless it is properly addressed in scientific terms?

    Oh the confusion it causes when not using the term "magnitude" to indicate a "length of time".
    This I expect from exchemist. He is the science censor.

    I expected a little more imaginative latitude from you, to use a scientific term in a colloquial manner.

    Has latitude meaning?
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    So, another word that you don't understand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And now you're confusing "description" with "definition".
    As I said, Google it. Orders of Magnitude (time). How can there be orders of magnitude if there is no magnitude?
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    On the contrary, I'm a stickler when it comes to terminology. I don't like people using the word "massive" to describe things that have no mass - e.g. holes. I don't like people using the word "absolutely" when they mean "yes".
    "Would you like some coffee?"
    *pours it over his head* "Or would you like to qualify your answer? In a cup, perhaps?"​

    If you don't understand English well, that's fine - but don't pretend that you understand it better than everybody else.
    exchemist likes this.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    This is all classic Write4U method.

    He switches between technical and colloquial meanings of terms all the time and by doing so makes science into gibberish. Just cast your mind back to the utterable twaddle he has produced by doing this with the terms "potential" and "function".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    James R likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What on earth are you talking about? I am a stickler about truth and I never said any of the examples you cited above, but thanks for the info!

    It seems you are just spoiling for a fight? Note my use of colloquialism. Actually, that is more of an idiom, but I'm sure you'll understand.
    Again where have I said that I understand English better than everybody else?
    That is a totally duplicitous statement. I don't pretend anything, it is you who is actually stating that you know better than everybody.
    You do know that the term "stickler " is a colloquialism?
    Please, give me break.

    I posted the definition of both terms, because I do indeed understand English.

    But I challenge you to present an official declaration that the phrase "length of time" is a colloquialism.
    If you cannot prove your assertion, I shall consider your accusation as baseless and ill considered.

    If you understand colloquialisms, what then is your problem with understanding the content? But the phrase "length of time" is not a colloquialism, it is accepted speech.

    The problem here is not my use of the English language. The problem is your refusal to examine and discuss the issue. But it seems this thread has become lost in a magnitude of semantic interpretations of imaginary statements I never made.

    You accuse me of refusing to use the correct language. OK, I accuse you of refusing to examine the subject manner in an imaginative manner. You haven't told me that I am wrong in content, only in my presentation. Do you see the difference?

    If you do not understand the precise meaning of what I am saying ask for clarification. Don't tell me how to present my thoughts. They are clear and pertinent to the subject under discussion.

    Moreover it completely sidetracked a very interesting topic with utterly useless verbage. Let it go, ok?
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
  16. river

    But I disagree

    Duration isn't about time . Duration is about the movement(s) of things because of themselves . Regardless of whether these objects are measured in any form at all . Inotherwords objects have duration because of themselves . Hence objects cause Movement which causes duration .
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2021
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Existence itself causes duration.
    But I have said all I have to say on the subject of time, which not the subject of the thread topic.
  18. river



    Agreed .
  19. river

    Imagination . Memory , Understanding then Knowledge and then creativity .
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Early hominids imagining that thunder and lightning is caused by an unseen powerful being in the sky. This false memory being passed on through the ages, leading to an imagined understanding of a God, and the recording of "testaments" about the existence of Gods.

    Religions are grand works of human imagination.
  21. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    The most ancient beliefs had the existence of a god as a concept, intellectual concept. No temples, no priests, just "knowing" there was a god.

    From god as a concept, the followed generations passed thru several catstrophes which incited them to relate those as acts of gods.

    It is understood that the ancient concept of god was replaced by images representing the forces which caused such terrible events.

    Religion was more established when laws or doctrines appeared in relation to those gods, represented with images.

    When we look at the religion found in the bible, imagination is not the main rule and purpose but totally the contrary, it calls for a new beginning having the same planet earth but transformed, the same humans but also transformed, in a transformed as well universe. This book doesn't imply a new living in a spiritual world but in a real physical world.

    What about science?

    Science started with acquiring knowledge based in our physical world. Imaginations appeared to invent new things in our physical world. But, it came an era where the imagination found in new theories didn't fit with our physical world.

    Then, the solution was to say that our physical world is also imagination, and by such, the imaginations found in those theories will now fit greatly.

    We witness that religion (the Bible) maintains and respects the meaning of what is a physically real universe, while science is every day going more and more away from physical reality to preaching the imagination that everything around us is... imagination.

    We are born in a physically real universe, and our agreements or disagreements of how we perceive the universe won't change the fact that we didn't born in an imaginary universe.

    Imagination is more important than knowledge in children's world. In science knowledge is more important than imagination.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    There are movies showing chimpanzees defending their troupe against that unseen enemy in the sky who makes loud noises and throws water and fire at them. And perform dances by waterfalls as that is the unseen mountain spirit offering fresh water for them. The common ancestor of all great apes must have had these experiences with that unseen being in the sky or in the mountain or in the lake or in the ocean.

    Most early gods were based on unexplainable natural phenomena. The Devil and Hell is almost certainly based on the fire gods dwelling in volcanoes.

    It is clear that today's Chimpanzees, who have not evolved intellectually as much as humans nevertheless have imagination. This of course is based on the fundamental fight or flight instinct.

    The sophistry came much later, when some clever "holy men" discovered that they could gain power in the tribe when they began to "communicate" with the gods and could request favors by offerings to please the gods.

    There is no magic other than in the unexplained and unexplainable. Knowledge comes from discovering the cause of unexplained phenomena.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    On the contrary, every time I post I expect to be corrected by the smart people. It isn't the smart people who are disagreeing with me; it's only you.
    Indeed I do. I use colloquialisms all the time, when it is appropriate. And I don't pretend that a colloquialism is "the correct definition" of a word, like you do.
    No. I will continue to point out when you are wrong.
    As I have already said, the ideas of "width of time" and "height of time" indicate that "length of time" is a colloquialism. The three spatial dimensions are indistinguishable.
    I couldn't care less what you consider. I'm pointing out to the other readers where you are wrong. If they want to chime in on your side, they're perfectly welcome.
    All colloquialisms are accepted speech. Being accepted doesn't make them good science.
    Allow me to recap:
    1. In post #4, river said: " Imagination is more important than knowledge " a famous quote .
    2. In post #21, I responded: We need to imagine possible explanations for what we see - but it's equally important to test our imaginings against reality.
    3. In post #34, I continued: There's nothing we can't test.
    4. In post #35, YOU responded: The test of time?.....

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    5. In post #36, I replied: The test of time IS a test.
    6. In post #37, YOU responded: It is impossible to measure time with time.
    And on down the rabbit hole.

    The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that imagination needs to be tested against reality. You're the one who diverted it with your nonsense.
    There is nothing precise about what you say. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Colloquialisms are not precise.
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page