The state of the universe.

Cos of the speed of movement! The faster the acceleration the more time slows down for the observer!

Because the space-time is bent due to presence of huge mass located ya know where. Mass that accumulates there over many days of NoFap.

 

So basically living in a present moment?

I also think we need to make more of a distinction between mind-time and space-time. Both requires observer to be experienced. But one is more objective. It can be measured, and influenced by outside factors - the gravity and the speed of movement. And if there would be nobody to observe it I think we can still safely say that space-time would be still bent in presence of huge mass. While other is purely subjective perception.

 

So they don't both require observation. Mind-time, as you put it, is directly experienced, or 'intuited' [observation is an external process.. eyes, telescope etc]. As for 'space-time', who ever observed it? It is an abstract theory right? A hypothesis.

 

Yea. I did use the word "observer" as a synonym of the word "perceiver" or "experiencer" there. I guess that's technically wrong, my bad. I sometimes mess up some English words and their meanings, not my native language.

Well, regarding space-time, there have been some experiments with clocks that have been put in higher altitude and they seemingly run faster there than when they are closer to huge mass. I'm not sure whether somebody did this experiment by putting clocks in straight up outer space, but since it's not that expensive to do, comparing to some other more ambitious science projects people are working on, I imagine some scientists would have by now. I also imagine this could be tested here on earth by measuring time in very fast moving objects. I gotta admit I don't know, I will need to do some research later on whether those type of experiments have been done. And also how reliable they might end up being. But if they have not been even tried to be done I will be very surprised.

As for people themselves, I guess nobody ever have experienced this. So I guess you might argue that this thing is not even real.

 

I may be missing something, but say a mechanical clock runs slower, what bearing does that have on time? The clock is not time, just an arbitrary measurement of it [the units are utterly arbitrary]. If the clock runs slower, this just signifies the clock runs slower for some reason or another.... due to some physical process on its mechanical properties.

Here's a thought; there is no future. The next minute can be halved, and so too that, and so too that, and so too that, and so too that to infinity. I can never get from the present to the future because there are an infinite amount of moments to pass through. So there is only the present. The idea that there is a future is an illusion of clocks and calendars.

 

These experiments have been performed on atomic clocks. I think they don't have a reason to run slower other than the time itself being slow.

 

On the button Buzz!

 

I suspect you have modified Zeno's Dichotomy paradox for use in this situation...

However, I guess I have a solution. You don't have to pass through infinite movements. In case of the original paradox, you can take a single movement (say one metre) which is the sum of the infinite movements. Simple. Apply it here.

 

Yes, I was thinking of Zeno's paradox of movement, where an arrow can not actually get anywhere for any space is infinitely divisible; before it can cover the first infinitesimally small space, it must cover half that space, and half that space, etc etc etc. What an amazing thing the mind is right. It all brings into question the absolute reality of space and time. Of course proponents of common sense, just bring into question philosophy. But if you take that approach, the common sense one, all scientific theory gets caught up also... and there goes scientific realism out the window. One must be consistent.

But one metre is not a single movement, it requires an infinite amount of movements as there is an infinite amount of spaces to be transversed.. even in a metre; one metre is infinitely divisible. Got to love the Greeks.

 

Yes, the clock is not time. It's a tool to measure time. That's the point. Who said that clock is time? Wasn't me! Slap him if you find him.

That "physical" process on its mechanical properties is called space-time. I suppose space-time is not probably physical, so lets use quotes for that. The space is bent. Condensed inwards in a presence of huge mass. Time is also condense inwards hence slowed.

I think what's going on here is that you keep talking about mind-time and I keep talking about space-time. I am trying to discuss of what metal the spoon is made of and you keep saying "Neo, wake up, the spoon does not exist!" haha. What do you mean? I have it right here, I can touch it! Either that or I don't quite understand you.

I do however thing that I understand very well what you mean. On fundamental level time does not exist. But still we experience it. It's part of our reality so we measure it. Maybe of fundamental level space is an illusion too? Maybe the whole universe is still compressed in single point? Maybe space is also illusion of our perception? Still tho, we have measuring tapes so what the hell lol.

 

I had thought that. I wanted to say that we don't have to think about the infinite movements, but the sum of them (take it as a unit). But of course this way doesn't solve the paradox, it is just another way of looking at the action. So yes, the Greeks win, in a way.

This infinitely small movements thing was also used in the Achilles and the Tortoise' paradox. I thought a similar thing for that also.
EDIT: Okay, not exactly. Still a similar situation came when Achilles was infinitely near the tortoise. He would take a step which will be the sum of the distance the tortoise will travel in the same time and some more distance. So Achilles will get ahead of the tortoise.

 

It is itself a measure of time... it does not measure time [itself]. Hours, minutes, and seconds are invented not discovered. Two different things, which I think we agree on anyway. If the clock, the measure of time, slows down - two arbitrary hours becomes one long slow 'hour', what does that mean? It can't mean that time has slowed down... just that we have a different measure of time. But I think we kind of agree on this, that time itself is illusive.

You say 'space-time' is the affect some physical process has on some time-measuring device. I don't see how that has any bearing on our understanding of [physical] reality at all. The pace of my normal-heart increases with a physical change such as...... exercise. So what? This is just mechanics, just like the mechanics of the time measuring device changes under some duress. Am I missing something here? Surely scientists don't equate the altered state of a clock with 'space-time'??

I don't see how 'space-time' can escape being a theory, or concept. And as an instrumentalist, not a realist, it does not make sense to say it exists.

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to pursue philosophy into absurdity and solipsism. I just see it more as a critical exercise that examines what we think of as knowledge. I think it also plays a defensive role in enabling us to keep our common sense notions alive... where we always prioritize belief over abstract theory/ knowledge. Philosophy is first and foremost a humanity to me. I think this function was lost in the early modern era [Descartes], where an obsession with certainty grew, and philosophy was reduced to epistemology, the theory of knowledge.

So I believe, or presuppose, time exists. We are constrained/ wired to think in terms of time. This is what a philosopher such as Kant means when he said it is an a priori form of all experience. Though it can not itself be an object of experience, it is yet something that we are constrained to have a normative belief in. I do not need to 'know' something with certainty in order to believe in it.

So I believe space and time exist, I believe the world exists, I believe people exist. I believe wonderful philosophic minds exist, with which I can communicate. As for a lot of so-called 'knowledge', I'm not sure whether it exists beyond the sphere of fiction as it is so obviously fabricated by our own minds. The history of science/ theory bears this out with revolutions occurring at regular intervals.

All theory is 'science fiction' in that sense. But what I find interesting, or should I say a little alarming, is some of the cutting-edge science wants to get away from theory, ontology, metaphysics, reality altogether. It is like they at some point realized that that time-less project could not be done with the scientific method, and have decided to change the age-old rules; 'space-time' is not a concept, and thus to be thought of as either true or false [of reality]. No! We define it as just what happens to a clock under certain physical conditions. Perhaps this means science is simply being collapsed into technology.

 

Can we extrapolate from all of this that the closer one gets to the speed of light, fapping would become increasingly difficult - due to the increase in mass - and take much longer - due to the slowing down of time?

Jokes aside, I'm loving this conversation string.

Lets keep it going.

T22.

 

For the sake of having an explanation, a reason to know what they are thinking is correct. Science has always been based on observations of physical phenomenon. So it doesn't matter that the observations do not tell reality, explaining then is all we can do sensibly.

Note: if my post seems off-topic, I also believe the same because I don't think I've understood what Buzz means to say!

 

Yes, I agree. Scientific theory is a model or an instrument. That's why when better ones come along, old ones are replaced.

So science is not about truth, but about power. The theory gives us power over the environment, and gives us technology.

But truth, and reality remain. And they function critically to limit the scope of science and technology, or serve to remind them of their limited function. Without this criticism, the 'totalization' of science has the potential to dehumanize us. Actually, I wonder if we are already dehumanized as the prevailing opinion, or ideology of the 'mass mind', has been, for a good century or so, materialism. Thanks to scientific realism, everything is reduced to physical processes.

Personally, I think it dehumanizing for people to identity themselves with their brain. It is an interesting model, just as identifying comparing a brain with a computer is, but also potentially dehumanizing if its function as a limited model is forgotten.

 

Are there any bankrobbers on NoFap?



I used to box too.