What is reality ?

[Michael 345]

Even though we can trace our cosmic history all the way back to the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, that isn’t enough to answer the question of how (or if) time began. Going even earlier, to the end-stages of cosmic inflation, we can learn how the Big Bang was set up and began, but we have no observable information about what occurred prior to that. The final fraction-of-a-second of inflation is where our knowledge ends.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/did-time-have-a-beginning-5bbb690df291

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not one word of which either answers my questions nor indicates (let alone "proves") that time doesn't exist.

 

[Michael 345]

Here we go again...
The claim was yours.
What properties does length have?
Do you also deny the existence of that? Along with breadth and depth and thus volume?

My claim = TIME does not exist

You seem to believe TIME does exist

Unfortunately for me it appears that non existent TIME does not have properties

So I am unable to provide non existent properties to prove non existent TIME is indeed non existent

Ummmm I wonder why that is?

However if TIME does exist it would have properties

Care to oblige?

What properties does length have?

Specifically? NONE

Believe otherwise?

Ditto as per TIME

 

[Michael 345]

Not one word of which either answers my questions nor indicates (let alone "proves") that time doesn't exist.

Was not directed to you

Just happened to be something I was reading and I added the link for its information value

 

[Mark Turner]

Not one word of which either answers my questions nor indicates (let alone "proves") that time doesn't exist.

Well there is three reasons that time doesn't exist

1. No physicality
2. Unaltered space
3. A human construct to record age

Your might be half way close to understanding this .

 

[Dywyddyr]

My claim = TIME does not exist

I understood that.

Unfortunately for me it appears that non existent TIME does not have properties

And in similar vein I asked you what properties length has. And breadth and depth. You haven't given any.

So I am unable to provide non existent properties to prove non existent TIME is indeed non existent

So I assume therefore that you also claim that none of those exist either.

However if TIME does exist it would have properties

And again: what properties does length/ breadth/ depth have?
What sort of properties should time have to exist (in your opinion)?

What properties does length have?

Specifically? NONE

Now we're getting somewhere.
So space etc. doesn't exist either. And therefore nothing at all can exist.

 

[Michael 345]

https://www-researchgate-net.cdn.am...www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_time_exist

Not as answer to any post

Provided for information purposes

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well there is three reasons that time doesn't exis

No.

1. No physicality

What "physicality" does length have?

2. Unaltered space

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

3. A human construct to record age

Nor this.

Your might be half way close to understanding this .

You certainly aren't.

 

[Michael 345]

And again: what properties does length/ breadth/ depth have?

Specifically NONE

Now we're getting somewhere.
So space etc doesn't exist either. And therefore nothing at all can exist

Slight of hand redirection but depending on definition
A TOTAL VOID WITH NO CONTENT DOES NOT EXIST

What is normally considered as space ie the low vacuum between say here and the moon does contain a few atoms of existing stuff

However even with this stuff removed the space contains virtual particles which flit in and out of existence and cannot be removed

 

[Michael 345]

What "physicality" does length have?

NONE

It is a concept

 

[Mark Turner]

No.

What "physicality" does length have?

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Nor this.

You certainly aren't.

Length is a measure of a distance , time hasn't got a length unless you was to imagine it had.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Slight of hand redirection but depending on definition
A TOTAL VOID WITH NO CONTENT DOES NOT EXIST

By your "reasoning" there can't be any void. Nor any content.

What is normally considered as space ie the low vacuum between say here and the moon does contain a few atoms of existing stuff

Since, according to you, length doesn't exist then that must be false. There can't be any space between Earth and Moon.

However even with this stuff removed the space contains virtual particles which flit in and out of existence and cannot be removed

Given that (according to you) length (and breadth and depth) don't exist the space cannot either.

 

[Mark Turner]

NONE

It is a concept

True , a measure is just our way to quantify things . The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Length is a measure of a distance

If - as per prior arguments - length doesn't exist then distance cannot do so.

time hasn't got a length unless you was to imagine it had.

If you have to resort to inane sentences then you're not going to get far.
The fact that I typed this post AFTER reading yours is an indication that time exists.

 

[Dywyddyr]

True , a measure is just our way to quantify things . The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us .

False.
If length doesn't exist then there'd be nothing to measure.

 

[Mark Turner]

False.
If length doesn't exist then there'd be nothing to measure.

Omg , we measure the space between objects and call the measure a length . If we don't measure it the space still remains .
A length is our linguistics we use to understand the process of the measure .A length exists as a descriptive word , likewise time .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Omg , we measure the space between objects and call the measure a length . If we don't measure it the space still remains .
A length is our linguistics we use to understand the process of measure .

One more time: if length (the dimension) doesn't exist then there can be no separation (either between objects or of faces/ edges of objects).
If length as a dimension doesn't exist then there can be NO distance.
If there's no distance then everything occurs/ exists at a point.

 

[Mark Turner]

One more time: if length (the dimension) doesn't exist then there can be no separation (either between objects or of faces/ edges of objects).
If length as a dimension doesn't exist then there can be NO distance.
If there's no distance then everything occurs/ exists at a point.

No , one more time , a length is the term we use to identify the measure of a distance . Your confusion is the question difference of , what properties are within the measured length .
This is really basic linguistics and science , you're trying to invent and imply a length as being a physical thing itself . That is simply not true , a length is the measure of a physical thing .

 

[Michael 345]

True , a measure is just our way to quantify things . The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us

So if

The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us

then what are the properties of this measure

None of your post contain ANY properties of any stuff you claim exist

Please provide at least one property of any something you claim exist

You did ask in one of your post what properties do I think TIME should have

Your joking right?

But in the spirit of humouring you I submit the following list

Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed - none of those either

Feel free to pick any and replace the none word with what you consider to be a property

 

[Dywyddyr]

No , one more time , a length is the term we use to identify the measure of a distance

Wrong. Length is a dimension.

Your confusion is the question difference of , what properties are within the measured length .

Equally wrong. There is no confusion on my part.

This is really basic linguistics and science

If it really is basic then you should be able to understand it. Then again, I'm not surprised because your comprehension of both of those has previously been shown to be severely lacking.

you're trying to invent and imply a length as being a physical thing itself

Really?
"Length" is a basic dimension in physics, in fact it's a fundamental.

That is simply not true , a length is the measure of a physical thing .

Nope.
Length - as a dimension - is the extent between (or along) objects.
If you deny length as a dimension then there can be no spacial extension - i.e. everything is a single point.
If you deny time as a dimension then everything is happening now. (I.e. me going to sleep last night occurs simultaneously with with me being born and me dying - the fact that this isn't true should give you a slight clue).