[RascalPuff]

Indeed, time is a ‘man made’ method of measuring motion - which exists without any chronographic description. Whereas, in a setting that includes human measurement, the measure of time is likewise the measure of motion. With this qualification, time and motion are synonymous; though motion carries on, with or without measurement.

Hopefully, this clarification will minimize frequent misunderstandings of this issue.

May this missive serve as an invitation to further qualification or comment.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

"With this qualification, time and motion are synonymous; though motion carries on, with or without measurement."

This reminds me of MJA's insistence that the universe, as it is observed by observers, exists even without observers to observe it. The proof is alleged to consist of the passing away of observers while the universe still remains even though they have passed away. Yet, this is easily refuted by the necessity of remaining observers who observe those whom have passed.

Likewise, the notion of motion carrying on without measurement is understandable, but emprically-speaking is impossible to ascertain because measured observation with the eyes and brain is required to make such an assessment of motion. Even as force - F = ma - an observed acceleration is necessary.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "With this qualification, time and motion are synonymous; though motion carries on, with or without measurement." This reminds me of MJA's insistence that the universe, as it is observed by observers, exists even without observers to observe it. The prove is alleged to consist of the passing away of observers while the universe still remains even though they have passed away. Yet, this is easily refuted by the necessity of remaining observers who observe those whom have passed. Likewise, the notion of motion carrying on without measurement is understandable, but emprically-speaking is impossible to ascertain because measured observation with the eyes and brain is required to make such an assessment of motion. Even as force - F = ma - an observed acceleration is necessary.

Good to hear from you, Nobody (Is Somebody).

Post #1 of this thread is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(The universe goes on, with and without human existence, observation or measurement. We are dust in the wind. It was here - and in motion - when we got here, and, it'll be here - and in motion - when we're all gone...)

Best regards to You and Yours (& Dear Michael).
- RP

[N0B0DY]

It's true that evolution denotes motion, RP, but evolution is a man-made theory based on the observation of relative changes over time. Once the observer is gone, there can be no sense of evolution, motion or existence for that observer until such time as there a new observations to be made.

Perhaps though, through boundless time from eternity past, this isn't the first time observations have been made.

[neutralino]

In my humble opinion, I think it's a rather bold statement to say that "time is a man made method of measuring motion". I don't believe that time is man made at all. Ok, so the way that we measure time has necessarily been invented by man, but does this imply its existence is solely down to us being here? I don't think so. In fact, I believe that time has been around since the birth of the universe (whatever that means!)

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino In my humble opinion, I think it's a rather bold statement to say that "time is a man made method of measuring motion". I don't believe that time is man made at all. Ok, so the way that we measure time has necessarily been invented by man, but does this imply its existence is solely down to us being here? I don't think so. In fact, I believe that time has been around since the birth of the universe (whatever that means!)

Dear neutralino:
What you said.
(I couldn't agree with you more.)

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I would have to say that the response you gave is sort of unlike you, Neutralino. Thinking, believing and facts don't usually mesh very well, but I know what you mean.

The point is, like any other observation, it cannot be proven that the universe or time exists if there are no observers to observe it - it especially opposes empirical science, being based on observed experiential and experimental phenomena.

If it is subconsciousness that sets the parameters for the evolutionary process, then consciousness observation could simply be due to a channeling in on such probablistic parameters. Subconsciousness would be due to the shared universal interactions based on universal symmetry being broken which allows for random fluctuations.

[RascalPuff]

Hi Mr. Nobody Raven Knight:

"The point is, like any other observation, it cannot be proven that the universe or time exists if there are no observers to observe it - it especially opposes empirical science, being based on observed experiential and experimental phenomena." - Nobody
------------------------

History archives the fact that people before us were observing the existential universe.

Imho, w' due respect, the above quote by Nobody is a (familiar) non sequitur.

I initiated this thread to air out the above contentions.

This argument is reminiscent of the old saw about a tree, falling in the forest, and whether or not there's any noise... Depending on whether or not there's anyone to hear it; in turn, depending on the definition of rarefications and percussions in the atmosphere, which do occur, whether there's anyone to receive that signal or not: the signal exists, independent of a recipient, is what I think.

Hence the specific wording of the opening statement.

Whereas, neutralino's statement - which complies with the opening statement - was less guarded.


Are we not challenged to triage the subjective from the objective here?

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

"Depending on whether or not there's anyone to hear it; in turn, depending on the definition of rarefications and percussions in the atmosphere, which do occur, whether there's anyone to receive that signal or not: the signal exists, independent of a recipient, is what I think."

There could be posited a flipside to the non-sequitur argument, on the sole empirical basis of proving otherwise to ourselves, RP. It depends on how orthodox our view of evolution is - for instance: how fast a galaxy can form without observers to observe the process...observers always having to wait - with the notion of the motion required for evolution being consistent with a relative timeframe that requires observers. This premise: "History archives the fact that people before us were observing the existential universe." might not directly lead one to infer that the universe exists without observers. In other words, if there were no such existence as observers, could we really prove through a scientific method that the universe exists? In such an instance it proves quite impossible, even if we hypothesize a post-mortem means of observation, the means and thus the argument against its existence still must stand.

How real is the past if we only observe the present, and how real is the present if we only observe a false sense of the present in the past? Is time not an a-priori presumption of existence, and if so can we infer that a-priori presumptions have anything to do with the existence of anything outside of the timeframe attributed to evolution. We can only concretely infer its existence if there is a concrete difference between the light observed from past events and what the brain consists of in the present - re: Berkeley et al.. It would be impossible because the brain is one of them past events, of which is unified with others the further back we go in time.

With regards to the signal, I could just as easily ask: what signal?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Would a quantum wave collapse into a particle if no one was around?