|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2021 21:47:06 GMT
An instance is a duration of time in which one phenomenon changes into another. Given it is a duration of time both P and -P exist simultaneously within said length of time given the instant of change as a length is both phenomenon occurring within the same time period. X changing into Y within a second observes both X and Y occur within a second. This second can be replace with millisecond, etc. as the second is the instant of change. All instants are durations at the meta scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 20, 2021 10:40:27 GMT
What about formal causes, as e.g. Aristotle mentioned?
X is a cause for Y
Y is a cause for X
X and Y is mutually closed to happen simultaneously
Since that either the duration is optional, or the duration length between those both = 0.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Nov 20, 2021 21:49:13 GMT
Planck has quantum time at 5x10^-44. Zeno's paradox proves that time must exist as such quanta. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htmBut how anyone can suspect that relative time could be in any way compatible with quantum time has nothing to do with reason; and everything to do with careerism and blatant lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 21, 2021 9:23:39 GMT
Planck has quantum time at 5x10^-44. Zeno's paradox proves that time must exist as such quanta. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htmBut how anyone can suspect that relative time could be in any way compatible with quantum time has nothing to do with reason; and everything to do with careerism and blatant lies. Even not being a physicist I agree the relevant and quantum doesn't seem to match. The idea of relativity, as for me, was kinda psychological ideology (e.g. as communism, theosophy, darwinism, etx). Psychology is not Philosophy, and it has no such privilege to say what the one should aim at. I can't say I have enough potential to criticize the relative theory, and so on, but I think that if we accept such conceptions as Nothing (Heidegger), Chaos, Relativity, etc we risk to make no steps farther. I believe those concepts are rather to be taken as misconceptions. Each of those cannot leave or emit from rationality. It's not like – I believe only that those concepts are misconceptions – I think I've got some counterarguments to them (in general). 1. Let me take a concept of a labyrinth or a maze instead of each of them. (For sure there are differences, however not so major.) Then how can we say that labyrinth is totally chaotic or it is nothing, or relative? This labyrinth is not to be chaos since even if that labyrinth is infinite, there's no way to go out of logic within it: as soon as the labyrinth-ness ends no labyrinths left, so there's no chaos, and so on. The labyrinth isn't nothing: taking into account that labyrinth is something, otherwise the labyrinth is nothing, and further: the labyrinth is nothing; nothing is not something; therefore, the labyrinth is not something, so some contradictions appear. The labyrinth isn't relative. Why so? Can't we say that for the labyrinth keepers it's not a labyrinth, and for the others it is? I think no. Here's why: (1) if for x A is B (2) and for y A is not B, (3) then all what we have here is that A is C, (4) and that C is not relative. Along with this, it is something that those both (x and y) should agree at that, else: (1) isn't that A is B, and (2) isn't that A is not B, but this is impossible, because this cannot be simultaneously A is B and not B. |
|
