Science and religion do mix

To me - science is an evidence based system of exploration. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god figure - hence a fundamental conflict between an evidence based system of thinking, and a faith based system of thinking.

There is no evidence to support the existence of a god figure - hence a fundamental conflict between an evidence based system of thinking, and a faith based system of thinking.

Ecklund and colleagues viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge

Moderate religious people are not necessarily at odds with science, and there is little conflict, if any. Extremists and creationists indeed ARE incomplatible with scientific worldview. So this question does not have a yes or no answer.

Moderate religious people are not necessarily at odds with science, and there is little conflict, if any. Extremists and creationists indeed ARE incomplatible with scientific worldview. So this question does not have a yes or no answer.

By a narrow definition which applies to a few extremists, that is, young earth creation, does indeed conflict with science. But that applies to only a few fringe individuals. In the same manner, you might say that flat earthers conflict with science, but you haven't said anything important because flat earthers are an insignificant fringe group.

The belief in a creation does not conflict with science in any way.

There is no fundamental conflict between religion and science.

the only reason the search for gravitational waves continues is because of an act of faith. the entire search for the higgs boson is an act of faith. add dark this and that with little or no evidence at all, just models and hypothesis often no more than guesswork.

Faith is directly in conflict with everything the scientific method stands for.

CHollman82,

Faith is directly in conflict with everything the scientific method stands for.

The scientific method is simply a method. It cannot stand for anything. Unless, of course, you make science your god. Then you may assignment of cognizance to it.

You don't know what faith means, or you don't know what constitutes evidence, or you don't know anything about the Higgs Boson or Dark Matter/Energy... I'm not sure which

study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science as requiring distinct boundaries

our forefathers were deeply religious men that were protestant and wanted

By a narrow definition which applies to a few extremists, that is, young earth creation, does indeed conflict with science. But that applies to only a few fringe individuals.

Since all i did was agree with the article and got voted down

I got three ones for pointing out that faith deals in metaphysics while science does not

Science is the empirical way to understand everything, spirituality is the inferential way.

Science tells you what it is, "religion" or spirituality raises the question 'Why is it that way?'.

I got three ones for pointing out that faith deals in metaphysics while science does not

"Metaphysics" is anti-scientific...

Inference is a precursor to and is overridden by empiricism.
Nope, science should be used to answer both questions as accurately as possible.

Twenty-Five percent of Americans are YEC's.

The number is from the 25 percent of Americans that believe the Bible is the literal word of Jehovah. ALL of them have religions that are incompatible with science.

"Anti-science" is the wrong word. Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science.

Science can only answer things that are empirical, not everything can be empirically known.

Ethelred,

Twenty-Five percent of Americans are YEC's.

That is simply not true.
Your assertions are simply not valid.

"Anti-science" is the wrong word. Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science.

Hence "metaphysics" does not exist.

CHollman82,
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with young earth creationism. Nothing you quoted even mentions the age of the earth.

Your comment is not just wrong, it is irrelevant to the point you purport to have made.

CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.

So dumb... why do I bother. If you believe god made humans in their present form at most 10,000 years ago what do you think you are... besides an idiot?

In my experience they go hand in hand.

So you think there is a significant distinction between biblical literalists who believe that god made humans in their present form (implying they do not believe in evolution) and biblical literalists who believe in a young Earth?

CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.

I never made that claim.

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.

Sure, because not all questions that can be posed are meaningful. Ask a MEANINGFUL question about something that exists and it can be answered through the scientific method....

No one bother to comment on the fact that if something exists it must interact with something, and if it interacts with something it is detectable and observable and subject to empirical study... leaving no room for the existence of things that are not empirical...

Science tells you what it is, "religion" or spirituality raises the question 'Why is it that way?'.

Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science

religion and science deal with supposed different realms

Science can only answer things that are empirical, not everything can be empirically known.

Soooo - if we cannot know reality - what is the point in this conversation? The whole point of science - is the exploration of our universe (reality).

....leaving no room for the existence of things that are not empirical...

@Deesky, I mention above that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means YOU cannot make negative claims about it either.

It is unknowable [noumenonl reality] (which to me means it does not exist),...

That is simply not true.

That is also untrue.

Young Earth Creationists are a small, insignificant fringe.

Believing in the bible does not make someone a young earth creationist.

I believe in creation and I believe in the bible, but I do not believe in a young earth.

Your assertions are simply not valid.

Nothing you quoted has anything to do with young earth creationism. Nothing you quoted even mentions the age of the earth.

Most people have no real idea how long homo sapiens have existed.

10,000 or 100,000 years are virtually identical given the age of the earth.

To repeat, your quotations and statements have nothing to do with the age of the earth or

Young Earth Creationists are a small, insignificant fringe.

Try and find a Southern Baptist that ISN'T a YEC. I did not pull those numbers out of my ass.

Then you are not one of the 25 percent that believe the Bible is the perfect, non-contradictory, literal and exact word of Jehovah. Which is what a Fundamentalist Christian does.

44% of American adults agreed that "God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

Believing that God made man says nothing about how or when he made man.

you get answers which have nothing to do with God and little to do with people's beliefs.

Choose A,B or C requires an answer.

best effort to answer what is essentially unanswerable.

How would you know about fundamentalism or Christianity?

I believe in God and I believe in the fundamental principles set forth in the Bible.

But within 10,000 years and as we presently are does.

I live in the bible belt, grew up in a fundamental Christian church -- none of which, by the way, believed in a young earth

and I have never met a young earth creationist.

You just make up stuff which has no basis in reality.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention in session in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1982, express our support for the teaching of Scientific Creationism in our public schools.

Such a question is basically not answerable.

It combines gestimates of the number of years homo sapiens has existed

along with a contradiction of the biblical record.

People who answered "yes" doubtless had a notion that homo sapiens have existed for a short time geologically

It combines gestimates of the number of years homo sapiens has existed along with a contradiction of the biblical record.

Which disproves the Bible.

doubtless elided over the biblical inaccuracy in the question in order to provide an answer.

You continue to conflate fundamentalism with young earth creationism despite clear differences which have been repeatedly expressed to you.

CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.

I never made that claim.

Yes you did, you said "metaphysics does not exist".

How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.

Sure, because not all questions that can be posed are meaningful.

Why does the universe exist?

What is energy?

And no you are not the expert on REAL Fundamentalists. You seem to insist on changing them into something you find more accepting of reality then is the actual case.

The world does not agree with you on this. REAL Fundamentalists don't agree with you. The Southern Baptists don't agree.

All of them agree with me on this. You could ask Kevin. He will agree with me. You are not a Fundamentalist and are either without a clue or being disingenuous.

Ethelred

Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

someone tell me how an object that interacts with something other then itself can be fundamentally "unknowable", "undetectable", or not subject to empirical analysis.

Otherwise, anything described as "metaphysical" simply does not exist.

Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

Then, someone tell me how an object that interacts with something other then itself can be fundamentally "unknowable", "undetectable", or not subject to empirical analysis.

If anyone can answer both of these questions sufficiently I will submit that metaphysical things may exist. Otherwise, anything described as "metaphysical" simply does not exist.

By definition, metaphysics is beyond normal physics, for which there is no evidence. You could call string theory metaphysics, but there are still good reasons to pursue it and one day it may prove to be physics (or not).

Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

None.

That can be possible if any signals the object generates become undetectable at some point in time (like other galaxies/clusters and CMB will become in many billions of years time due to the expansion of the universe).

By definition, metaphysics is beyond normal physics, for which there is no evidence.

Since you brought up string theory I will use it as an example. Let's say superstring theory pans out and allows for some predictions and observations. The LHC produces a bunch of new particles that can be explained well using string theory. Wonderful. This won't mean there are actually little vibrating strings!!! Strings in this sense are merely mathematical constructs, the right number of variables to allow observations to be linked consistently. That is all.

Likewise in the standard model, an electron is modeled as a zero volume point particle or a wave. It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.

Belief in something without evidence is called faith, and faith is not a virtue.

Since you brought up string theory I will use it as an example. Let's say superstring theory pans out and allows for some predictions and observations. The LHC produces a bunch of new particles that can be explained well using string theory. Wonderful. This won't mean there are actually little vibrating strings!!! Strings in this sense are merely mathematical constructs, the right number of variables to allow observations to be linked consistently. That is all.

Likewise in the standard model, an electron is modeled as a zero volume point particle or a wave. It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.

Sure, what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Are you conflating metaphysics with conceptualization?

I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.

metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means YOU cannot make negative claims about it either. Obviously, it is faith based

I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.

I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.

Christ Nou I thought you were cleansed of this bullshit. There IS no metaphysics only physics. Philos were selling Authority to people who assumed that the smartest people in the world should have all the answers, and the Enlightenment taught them that this knowledge did not come from god.

As I stated at least twice above, metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. It was philosophy, in particular Kant's epistemology (relevant to science (wiki it)) who demonstrated this resoundingly IMO. In doing so, he made distinction between Phenomenal reality and Noumenal reality, which I believe is purely logical conclusion (if understood), and even relevant to interpretations of qm. To think that TOU could posses all of reality in your mind is naviete in the extreme.

It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.

How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?

THE ANSWER does. Humans evolved. Still do. That is against Fundamentalist principles.

Since God did not create man in his present form, the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered. Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.

Mathematics bestows only the very narrow skill of its own type of reasoning, and not very much in the way of critical reasoning.

I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.

Then you are on the wrong website.

I'm sorry, let me just briefly jump in here... In what form did he create man in then, DB? was he more kangaroo-like perhaps?

Ethelred made a very illogical statement -- that asking a question about something when that question contains fallacies about the subject of the question, disproves the subject of the question.

I just pointed out his flawed reasoning.

I believe he said that the ANSWER invalidates the subject.

dogbert: How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?

Ethelred: THE ANSWER does. Humans evolved. Still do. That is against Fundamentalist principles.

I've never seen so much Olympic grade back-paddling. You can try to reframe the original exchange as much as you like, but that exchange is recorded here for all to see:

So if someone asks a question that conflicts with evolution, that question invalidates evolution?

So if someone asks a question that conflicts with evolution, that question invalidates evolution?

That question conflicts with evolution theory, therefore, according to your illogic, it must invalidate evolution.

To return to the question which you say invalidates the bible

the third question in your quoted poll was "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Since God did not create man in his present form,

the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered

Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.

Nice spaghetti-speak

Philos only use the fuzzy nature of words to obscure their uselessness in describing things with them. This could be called at the very most 'entertainment'.

philos can be as much a threat to science as their religionist brethren. They give the impression that things can be understood without doing the necessary work that science requires.

People on this site actually think that a concept like time is a real physical entity despite never observing it apart from it's application in relating things.

Therefore since Time is not a thing discovered,

but rather only every used in relating things

it's existence must come from mind, in ordering experience.

The element of phenomenal reality that is epistemological delimits

IMO, this is just logic,

justifies my statement that we can't know everything of Reality.

You may disagree, fine.

Purely logically one would have to believe that a one-to-one correspondence

This is not certain as there is a gulf between GR and QM

and QM had to abandon intuitive understanding to make progress.

Since God did not create man in his present form, the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered. Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.

No. The question does not conflict with the Bible nor does the YEC beliefs conflict with it so the YEC's answered said they believed that was the case. However the evidence is clear. They and the Bible are wrong.

the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered

No. The question does not conflict with the Bible

branches of philosophy that are incontestably related to and are vital to science,.. logic, epistemology, linguistics,.. to name a few obvious ones.

There is even a 'philosophy of physics' with many books/papers written on the subject.

Therefore since Time is not a thing discovered,

It is a thing just as much as left to right, back and forth, up and down are. And yes we did discover space. {...} independent movement.

No. The THINGS themselves are related to each by within time. Time is not dependent relating things, its the other way around as it is a property of the Universe.

Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to. Of course all you can do is give examples of it's use. And proclaim dogmatically and religiously that its a real entity.

Are you paying attention? Time and space are things experienced, yes,... NOT discovered as independent entities themselves.

the question wether there are actual spacial dimensions as intuitively understood beyond what we observe is metaphysical.

I agree with you, I consider time to be a human invented concept. The referent in physical reality is change. Change occurs, we perceive this change in sequence, we label this "time".

Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to.

This is why I entered this thread, because I don't care for science fan-boys desparaging others beliefs systems, when their world view is replete with them.

The higgs field is proposed to have caused mass,... are you saying one should propose some field to account for time? Maybe space too, and causality?,.. won't work for

I agree with you, I consider time to be a human invented concept. The referent in physical reality is change. Change occurs, we perceive this change in sequence, we label this "time".

Whether you agree with the wizard or not, time in science can be represented objectively. It can be assigned values and used to explain and predict phenomena independent of our experience of it. It exists whether we exist to experience it or not. It existed before we did and will continue to exist after we are gone. It's existence has nothing to do with US.

Yes, change existed before we existed to experience change... we call change in sequence "time"... it's just a name we assigned to the physical reality of change.

It {time} exists whether we exist to experience it or not. It existed before we did and will continue to exist after we are gone.

Yes, change existed before we existed to experience change... we call change in sequence "time"... it's just a name we assigned to the physical reality of change.

And so what makes time itself a Human invented concept? Time continues whether anything changes or not.

It can be assigned values and used to explain and predict phenomena independent of our experience of it

Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Nou exposes his religious roots:

Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to.

So since we don't have a handful of particles to show you, or since scientists are still struggling to define the fundamental nature of this or that, this means that the metaphysical must exist? God is not required but his house must still be there?

Time is what it is. The more science learns about it the more they know about it. THEY are the only ones who can explore what time is. No need to jump to any silly conclusions or poetic extrapolations.

This is why I entered this thread, because I don't care for science fan-boys desparaging others beliefs systems, when their world view is replete with them.

Your belief system offers nothing of value. Nothing testable. Nothing repeatable. Nothing useful. Only unwarranted coonclusions.

Purely logically one would have to believe that a one-to-one correspondence between reality and some intellectual conceptual structure could be made consistently. This is not certain as there is a gulf between GR and QM,.. and QM had to abandon intuitive understanding to make progress.

Which again does not follow from anything else you said. It follows from the math and the evidence..

It is remarkable that with all that is known about reality, we cannot even begin to say what Consciousness IS.

How would you know? Change always occurs... as far as we know we cannot stop it, even at absolute zero.

Without change, there is no concept time because it cannot be determined (in fact without change there is nothing, existence becomes equivalent to non-existence)

Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.

Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.

That's all it is, and it is the result of complex physical arrangements and interactions, which are all determined by physical law. Consciousness is a byproduct of physical law in a given manifestation, as is EVERYTHING.

I am entirely anti-religious, and my belief system is a rigorous analysis of knowledge inorder to interprete physical theories wrt to the nature of reality.

It is remarkable that with all that is known about reality, we cannot even begin to say what Consciousness IS.

Yes we can, consciousness is an emergent property of complex biology/chemistry/physics. The problem is not that we don't know what it is, it's that people want there to be more to it than there is.

Penrose thinks it has something to do with quantum level events, others just proclaim consciousness would spontaneously arise if software is programmed the right way. No one knows.

Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.

'Best' sir? I would ask someone else with an appropriate degree who would quote an unimpeachable authority, who has already come up with the 'Best'. Except further down the bookshelf we find an equally erudite (but long dead) authority whose 'best' is something quite different.

Science will study 'consciousness' using all the relevant tools, and come up with some answers. Most likely they will recommend you discard the word entirely as it is misleading and devoid of useful content.

They might tell you that the WORD is useless in describing anything meaningful about the human condition. They might even snicker.

Penrose thinks it has something to do with quantum level events, others just proclaim consciousness would spontaneously arise if software is programmed the right way. No one knows.

-YET. You've already assigned it to some astral plane.

Again, people wanting it to be more than it is. It is an emergent phenomenon of physical law... I don't know what more you're looking for, because that is what it is.

Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences. Perception of reality is an entirely physical process, the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences is an entirely physical process... there is no magic here

Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences. Perception of reality is an entirely physical process, the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences is an entirely physical process... there is no magic here

It's that simple is it? Two physiological process cause consciousness to just happen? You're right it's not magic, ... magic isn't that vague.

Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences.

Do you content that people suffering from amneisa must be unconsciousness? The ability to recall has been blocked, yet consciousness remains.

Noumenon is correct. We plainly do not understand consciousness.

consciousness is still several orders of magnitude more mysterious. You're not appreciating the significance of the thing.

S It makes USE of those physiological processes you mentioned but is not equated with there combination.

You don't [understand consciousness]

CHollman 82,

You don't [understand consciousness]

I don't. And you don't either.

When you don't know the details, you don't know the subject.

Everything you just said hasn't happened yet,.. it is more science faith.

As a fan-boy you have a religious faith that everything will be explained.

Consciousness is different because it is what is used to understand.

Consciousness is different because it is what is used to understand.

Let me state another point. Spirituality is not the same as religious

Excuse me. Right on top of the word 'spirituality'.

You say "Time is what it is",... hmm, sounds like the ontological argument for the existence of god!

I have, where?

Neither positive nor negative assertions about metaphysics can be a source of knowledge.

The difference between noumenal reality and phenomenal reality is that in the latter reality is made to conform to conceptualizations. We never come to know reality as it is in itself.

We can only developed models that link one observable to another, and can never know what or how reality "is" in between!

Otto, your arrogance is measured by the depth of your ignorance.

Otto's Achilles heel is his own self admission:
"I am mathless."
Otto's greatest strength is ironical:
Accusing his contrahents of sophistry.

In as attempt to grasp CHollman82:

All that which is labeled metaphysical is an attempt at a description to describe all that which you allowed yourself to label and describe physically through whatever measure (mutual interaction?) you apply.

When you reach a point where whatever measure you apply can no longer distinguish between the two labels - the metaphysical and the physical - , the purpose, of all labeling - if you are ever incline to categorize labeling to include metaphysical labeling (math) - is served.

Rating? I see no rating here. Ever. My broken browser is a blessing - considering all the words lost over something I never saw.

Without the ability to gain knowledge of reality through perception consciousness is not possible. Without the ability to store and recall those perceptions and to form relations between them consciousness is not possible. With them consciousness is possible. That is the generality of consciousness, it is an emergent byproduct of these properties... the details are irrelevant to understand what it is. - CH

You don't need to know all of the details to understand something and make correct statements about it. I don't need to understand exactly what degree one must be able to form relations between saved information about reality to be conscious in order to tell you what consciousness is. CH

You can translate Otto's linguistic expressions into expressions of math/logic.

"Territory vs. Map"

Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Would you call shamans or bushmen religious? But definitely highly spiritual...

Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.

Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.

Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'? For that matter what do you mean by 'change'? And what do you think I meant by it?

Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.

Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'? For that matter what do you mean by 'change'? And what do you think I meant by it?

Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'?

For that matter what do you mean by 'change'?

And what do you think I meant by it?

I mean, you made a comment with absolute certitude and so I asked you to prove that it's true. If you cannot, then at best it's an opinion (a metaphysical one at that).

I think it means what anyone would think it means - things/entities which aren't perpetually static.

Time is defined ONLY by change

Time is defined ONLY by change

Prove it.

Time is defined by the difference between one configuration of the universe/reality and another.

-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of 'change' just by declaring c and h dimensionless.

That was easy.

Time is a measurement of change... without it time is nothing, an empty concept referring to nothing.

-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of 'change' just by declaring c and h dimensionless.

There - more questions for you to choke[sic] on.

Otto has supplied references which indicate that SCIENTiSTS outside the D/CH universe have equations which indicate that time can exist without change.

Otto prefers the equations he cites which use NUMBERS

I'm afraid you've done no such thing.

"Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields."

Uh huh. So time is a 'fundamental unit.'

"A SET of fundamental units is a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated."

But is time always dependent on other FUs?

"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant."

-Hmmm. But wait-

"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of change.

That's rich coming from someone who admits to having no math skills and therefore wouldn't know which numbers to believe.

I know when to defer to experts who know what they're talking about. Got any references to back up your nonsense claim that time needs change to exist? Someone besides either of you? Hint - try GOOGLE or WIKI.

Kind of a big question, not something you'd get a good answer for from google or wikipedia.

Time is ill understood and as far as I am aware, the only definition we truly have for time is that it is the means by which to order the events within the universe

"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

Reality-
5. Philosophy .
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

Philos just want some place to go after they die. There must be some essence and a location where it can reside happily foreverafter. Of course they won't admit to this. They probably don't even realize it. How poignant.

Philos just want some place to go after they die. There must be some essence and a location where it can reside happily foreverafter. Of course they won't admit to this. They probably don't even realize it. How poignant.

This is not what philosophy is about -.-
Clearly you do not know what it is and thus condemn it.

Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change

Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.

Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.

Then according to your construct you should be able to identify exactly what time is independent of what it measures. So without change, let's hypothesize an entirely static universe, what is time?

Naw I probably cant do that. I was just addressing what the D/CH consortium claimed - that it was something dependent upon something called 'change', the nature of which neither was able to elaborate upon.

I assume they both looked for references and, having found none, jumped bail.

Then according to your construct you should be able to identify exactly what time is independent of what it measures. So without change, let's hypothesize an entirely static universe, what is time?

Naw I probably cant do that. I was just addressing what the D/CH consortium claimed

The universe doesn't remember anything so it cant have a sense of time

Time is something what happens in the human brain or other organisms that have timing mechanisms...

Also what we remember can be associated with time. We remember something at one point and remember something at another point

So what is time in physics?

You can derive time from particles

In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

@CH -

In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

AHHHHH!!!! Another frozen chicken!!! See Gawad!!! It wasn't just me. Sorli's affliction was contagious.

This was in Physics Essays not Nature. Is it the same paper?
http://www.physor...ion.html

The universe doesn't remember anything

I didn't feel the need to explain what change meant, I figured it was obvious.

Would you like me to explain the meaning of every single word I use before we can discuss something?

The universe doesn't remember anything

More poetic hot air. The universe 'remembers' everything.

Time is defined ONLY by change.

wiki
"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

TheGhostofOtto1923
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.

Time is defined ONLY by change.

In the absence of any change/events within the lifetime of 'your' existence .. and if 'me' outside the sphere of influence that is 'you' experiences an 'event', that of which 'you' cannot be aware; then has time ceased to exist for 'you' and yet continues for 'me'?

although time requires change to be measured that nevertheless time exists pending a change that allows measurement and perception.

A scientist would ask you the exact same thing. Change what? How? Where?

I gave you a theorem in which change is represented by meters (length or movement) and kilos (weight). I also showed you how time can be independent of these 2 measurements.

You need to give me a specific example of some sort of change that HAS to occur in order for time to exist.

Yeah I read this article in April. Let's see what it says...

"They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable..."

'Absolute...independent' -which is what the exerpts [sic] I posted say.

I said exactly what I meant to say, it's not my fault you're trying to read into it. I said change, period.

Again, if I wanted to qualify what "type" of change I was talking about I would have. I said only "change"... referring to all and any change.

You seem to be missing the words "BEGIN by explaining how we USUALLY ASSUME that..."

While time can be expressed independent of weight or displacement, it cannot be expressed independent of change. For example time may still be expressed in relation to change in electric current (Ampere), change in temperature (Kelvin), change in luminous intensity (Candela), and change in amounts of a chemical substance (Mole), while weight and displacement have been eliminated.

There's a big difference between information contained in the environment as a result of physical processes and the act of interpreting and 'remembering' it. For that you need a living entity.

You're stubborn as a mule. Go ahead and define time in a completely static reality, I'll wait.

You're stubborn as a mule.

You're stubborn as a mule.

You can lead a mule to water...

time [..] cannot be expressed independent of change

Absolutely.[..] I only needed [..] to show that the word 'change' is inadequate to talk about time.

Are there equations similar to the one I posted which can describe time as independent of all these variables too? I bet there are.

I don't know what you're talking about...

I said that time is meaningless absent of change, not that time is meaningless absent of change that I personally perceive...

Hardly surprising as your depth of cognition is that of a goldfish.

so to repeat for the slow witted drop kick ..

If 'you' are not aware of or do not perceive a change then in your existence a change does not/will not occur. Its a bit like your BS argument for undetectable things being non-existent.

In 'your' dull existence when no detectable change occurs, according to your faulty logic, time ceases to exist.

Yet for others that can detect the change (of which you cannot know because you are sensory impaired), time is happily flowing as it always does. The flow of time is independent of observable change and therefore for all intents and purposes time flows regardless of change.

Its too late tonight to help you understand because explaining the bleeding obvious to numbskulls is blah blah blah...

Let's see. Without change time doesn't exist. How about this, without change exist doesn't exist. Where are you if nothing changes, ever. No thought, no movement, no nothing. Without change space isn't, let alone time. You can't perceive without change. Without change there is no anything.

Stop the time is change nonsense. There are so many more interesting things I expect out of all you posers. Doh, I meant posters. Find another thread and entertain me!!!

Frozen chickens the lot of you!

the fact that all things are meaningless without change is just extra

I don't want to eat shiny red sports cars. Well, I actually don't want to eat anything made out of steel, plastic, and glass, but let's just focus on the red sports cars I don't want to eat right now and argue about that.
No, catsup wouldn't make them taste better. Pepper? No. Mayo, hmm, I never tried it but no. (See what a wonderfully useless conversation we could have by skirting the real issue?)

All things are meaningless without change. Time isn't special in that regard. Because of our apparent path through time, time is different, but still meaningless without change. Better to have a real discussion about what you like to eat. I haven't had a decent steak for lunch in a while...

Time is unique in that regard

Of course there are, though they too would define time in terms of change. If you can find one method of defining time independent of change please do post. I would be very interested to understand such a defining of time.

[I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

How do you reconcile the compression of time as demonstrated by observations supporting General/Special Relativity with the idea that time only "refers to relative change"?

The "fabric" of spacetime is distorted by gravity.

Time is NOT a human derived concept.

Time is real. You can't touch it, but it is still real. Not well understood, but real.

The measurement of length is a measurement of change, stick not there, stick there, stick not there, only count the distance where it is there. Same as the measurement of duration is measurement of change. Time is no different, with respect to change, than the other dimensions.

Hopefully you have some Ranch or Blue Cheese to throw on that word salad. (otto, not substantial enough to be called spaghetti!)

Also, are you and Otto British or something because you sound like queers, no offense, you just say really weird things like "word salad"... I can't imagine a heterosexual American coming up with that to refer to obfuscation.

bluehigh
In 'your' dull existence [..] no detectable change occurs [..]

[..]others [..] can detect [..] change [..] time flows regardless of change.

bluehigh
Its a bit like your BS argument for undetectable things being non-existent.

I posted refs to equations which say that time can be defined independent of movement, length, and weight. Take a little time, read the thread, and dispute what you find.

I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

Ok word spaghetti lovers, if spacetime is one thing, then is 'change' of any or all parameters necessary for space to exist? I say no because obviously, it's not.

'You' may not know something exists, however that does not provide proof of its non-existence. It is only equivalent to not existing for 'you'. To say that something does not exist until 'you' are aware of it, is only a personal perception and does not imply that it does not exist for 'others'. This applies equally to groups of 'you' - the 'we' you speak of. The 'others' may be unknown or even unknowable to 'you'. Time doesn't require 'you' to know of its existence so as to be real. You require Time to know that you exist.

I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

Here is where the dispute comes in.
Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.

bluehigh
'You' may not know something exists, however that does not provide proof of its non-existence. It is only equivalent to not existing for 'you'. To say that something does not exist until 'you' are aware of it, is only a personal perception and does not imply that it does not exist for 'others'. This applies equally to groups of 'you' - the 'we' you speak of.

bluehigh
The 'others' may be unknown or even unknowable to 'you'.

God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable and yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.

there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.

Time is ALWAYS expressed in terms of some change. No one has provided any examples to the contrary, despite the claims of some that they have (otto)... Stop beating around the bush and define time without referencing change, you cannot do it because one is necessary for the other.

Do you mean; equating God's undetectable existence to his non-existence has an effect on a portion of the population? How is this relevant?

So you are saying that because God interacts with people that God is not fundamentally undetectable but may be practically undetectable and still therefore non-existent. You then suggest that God needs to interact with 'anything else' to differentiate Gods existence or not. That makes no sense. God interacts with billions of people.

existence or otherwise of God has a demonstrable effect on a large group of people. So, we have a cause that for science is undetectable and (its proposed) therefore non-existent and yet has a clear effect on billions of people

"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the SPEED of light, c, which is a fundamental constant.

So you are saying that because God interacts with people that God is not fundamentally undetectable but may be practically undetectable and still therefore non-existent.

you cannot describe time absent of change

you cannot describe time absent of change

.. and you cannot describe change absent of Time.

Change is a concept used to describe transformations of matter and energy within Time. Change is not a property of matter and energy. Change is a property of Time. Change is a concept that quantifies the flow of Time.

One more time for the ignoramus

existence does not depend on YOU having knowledge of interaction. YOU cannot know if "something does not interact with anything", unless you are a God, so your argument is worthless.

Speed requires change... you cannot describe time absent of change, how long will it take you to understand this?

Hang on a minute they are both on TV so have been detected and therefore are real. Falsify that!

This common sense, this is intuitive and obvious.

Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.

Maybe you should try fish. I hear it is a brain food.

CH would have to supply at least ONE valid physics or mathematics reference indicating that at least ONE kind of change was essential to the existence of time.

Bluster is not a valid response. Unqualified opinion is not a valid response. CHs intuition is not a valid response.

This is a physics website and CH made a statement which I countered with valid physics. CH has the responsibility to either respond in kind or kiss my hairy butt. Take your pick CH.

CHs claim did not specify what sort of 'change' he was referring to.

I disproved the notion that the entire set 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time. I thereby negated his whole hypothesis.

Deliberately.

When I use the word "change" without further qualification

I am referring to all change, I thought that was obvious.

First, a quantity of time refers to a change... whether that be the position of the second hand on a clock or the vibrational state of a cesium atom... do you agree?

from some state of reality to another state of reality

What the hell are you talking about? You obfuscate the hell out of anything you try to discuss with juvenile wordplay.

And I presented to you at least 2 cases in which it didnt apply.

Give me equations which include the variables describing the workings of a clock movement and/or the vibrations of a cesium atom in relation to time, which shows that these variables are essential for time to exist.

Bullshit, you presented two cases in which time did not DIRECTLY rely on change, only indirectly.

physical structure of reality

unlimited number of examples of change in physical reality.

Thus time is not a mere measurement of change. In GR space and time are a single thing. Change takes place in space-time. Time is not dependent on change. Change is dependent on time.

Change cannot occur without time.

Change cannot occur without time.

It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though, it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?

There is no difference between considering it to be the way you stated and considering it to be the reverse way that I am stating, they are equivalent.

Youre not going to try to use just WORDS are you?

It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?

they are equivalent.

The reason I prefer my way is because matter and energy PHYSICALLY exist

nd matter and energy change according to the laws of physics.

this change gives rise the meaningful concept of time.

It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,

No. The change is dependent on time and not the other way around.

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?

Within space-time

It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?

they are equivalent.

Wrong, they are both dependent on each other, they two words that describe the same thing.

All that time is is a measurement.

SCIENTISTS SUGGEST THAT "SPACETIME" HAS NO TIME DIMENSION

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli,

The Foundation for Cosmic Religiousness

You can't MEASURE time without change but there is no reason to think it would not still exist

With clocks, we measure the numerical order t0,t1,t2,,tn of a material change, i.e., motion running in space.

There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time

It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change.

This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world"

Otto & Ethelred are wrong, though Ethelred presents a more considered argument.

If you could somehow place yourself outside a hypothetical empty universe and peer inside - how would you measure the passage of time? Time would have no meaning.

Even if that universe had a single, unchanging object inside, you could still not do it. Only if you had two objects (or more) which were in motion relative to each other, would you be able to derive a measure of time.

Time exists whether it measured or not

Sorry... you're wrong

The concept of time, that is, the concept of relative changes in matter/energy, is utterly dependent on that relative changes to which it refers

The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.

what other proof do you want?

Never mind it was Amrit. You are quoting the ass that did so badly in his evasions with me. He never did any experiments that supported him. Nor could he answer my questions.

Oh wow, you were actually surprised when a PhD physicist didn't respond to angry angsty emails from a teenage armchair popular mechanics scientist?

ou consider his blowing you off

an admission of the correctness of your undoubtedly arrogant assertions regarding his work?

If you could somehow place yourself outside a hypothetical empty universe and peer inside - how would you measure the passage of time? Time would have no meaning.

And that is a metaphysical argument.

If it's impossible to measure or detect

no reason to believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.[q/]
To all the moppers many thanks. You know who you are.
By all means eat. Avoid the indigestible.
Sticking to my guns, change bears the burden...(of time).
Time found refuge in space. And a point is labeled (defined)to make the label called location possible.

There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.[q/]

To all the moppers many thanks. You know who you are.
By all means eat. Avoid the indigestible.

Sticking to my guns:
... change bears the burden...(of time).

Time found refuge in space.
And a point (is) labeled (defined)to make the label called location possible.

Sorry, I hate grey, therefore the edit correction.

There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.

You consider his blowing you off an admission of the correctness of your undoubtedly arrogant assertions regarding his work?

Oh, yes, forgetting your belief that nature is subordinated to mathematics.

bluehigh
The example of God is that although undetectable within the constraints of scientific inquiry, the existence or otherwise of God has a demonstrable effect on a large group of people.

bluehigh
So, we have a cause that for science is undetectable

bluehigh
I reconcile my cognitive dissonance by excluding the argument that because something is undetectable it does not exist.

Wheeler MultiWorlds approach to QM time is inherently a series of ordered events, but the order is timelike and there is no reason to use change instead of time. It is not a CHANGE ordered series it is a TIME ordered series.

And yes I am very fond of the Wheeler model. I loath the Copenhagen model.

so hanging your hat on any one interpretation that strikes your fancy does not make a convincing argument.

bluehigh
LivaN, your ignorant tirade regarding delusion deserves a - BARF.
I could defend my assertions but its pointless when dealing with yet another imbecile.

bluehigh
God is an example of an possibly empirically undetectable entity that has a known soft science effect.

I never use the Copenhagen model due the crap about an observer. What makes the atoms in an observer special?

Please give an example of such a known effect?

the existence or otherwise

I used to before I figured the unspoken assumption that only conscious observations would collapse the probability wave.

And that neither of you have the talent to do so in an entertaining manner.

Eh? What do you mean by that?

In the Schroedinger's Cat experiment by the Copenhagen model the cat is BOTH alive and dead after the specified time and the probability wave collapses when the box is opened. I did not make that up. Schroedinger and Einstein came to that conclusion and neither Heisenberg nor Bohr disabused them of the notion.

Only it's pure crap.

Lots of nonsense has been written based on the crap idea that a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave.

LivaN

Please give an example of such a known effect?

You are, I think, misinterpreting in what Bluehigh was getting at.

The BELIEF is what is having the effect.

you missing this:

the existence or otherwise

Ethelred
And then went on a rant.

bluehigh
LivaN, I believe it was you that descended into the gutter with unnecessary personal attacks

bluehigh
For Christs sake (!) does not attending church regularly not constitute an effect?

Of course it is. It's not a serious experiment but a metaphor.

It appears that you're placing way too much significance in a metaphorical 'experiment' and thus working yourself into an unnecessary lather.

TheGhostofOtto1923
CHs claim did not specify what sort of 'change' he was referring to.

I disproved the notion that the [ENTIRE SET] 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time.

I disproved the notion that 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time.

It THE COPENHAGEN model not the experiment that is crap.

And I am not in a lather.

Time defined by a subset of change is still time being defined by change.

In the Schroedinger's Cat experiment by the Copenhagen model the cat is BOTH alive and dead after the specified time and the probability wave collapses when the box is opened. I did not make that up. Schroedinger and Einstein came to that conclusion and neither Heisenberg nor Bohr disabused them of the notion.

Only it's pure crap.

The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.

Which functions in space-time.

what other proof do you want?

Math that works better than what we have. Something that actually is usefull as opposed to merely an awkward bit of philosophy that adds nothing to human knowledge.

Change is defined by time. That is, if you try to replace T for time in equations with C for change you will not succeed UNLESS you simply try to hide time as Vendicar did on the other thread.

So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY... it is not meant to be taken literally...

Ethelred
Change is defined by time.

Ethelred
That is, if you try to replace T for time in equations with C for change you will not succeed UNLESS

So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY..

it is not meant to be taken literally...

do you really think you're super intelligent for not understanding that

To me that makes you foolish, not smart...

Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.[13]

Now if it can be done clean THEN it would be sensible to use Change instead of time. - Eth

So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

You mean, like you - a self confessed math illiterate?

SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY.

you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

as time is defined by change

Absolutely. Unlike you I admit this, which is why I am careful to use references when I have something to say

In what instance is there time without change? - LivaN

In what instance is there time without change?

Change however can be identified without time

though it cannot be so without at least one dimension which may inevitably be a time like dimension

I do not wish to replace time with change

bluehigh
Try instead 'change is defined by Time".

bluehigh
deserve more than a glib response, perhaps some other time.

Time is part of a property of the Universe .. To have change you MUST have both time and space for the change to occur in.

So you alienate significant parts of society because you seem no more authoritative that a lay preacher. You stand there saying 'just believe me' because I know better but cant explain because you people are not among the chosen ones.

Time however cannot exist without change. Take the three dimensional spacetime. Up is representing time dimension. It is necessary for a change in location from one point to the next. How can you move from one location to the next, if the next location is not changed from the proceeding one?

Time however cannot exist without change. Take the three dimensional spacetime. Up is representing time dimension. It is necessary for a change in location from one point to the next. How can you move from one location to the next, if the next location is not changed from the proceeding one?

See if scientists were having this discussion, one of them would be standing at a whiteboard writing out some equations critical to his hypothesis. Others would be suggesting changes substitutions and they would be doing this words as shortcuts for variables and standard equations which they assume everyone is familiar with.

Correct and undeniable in any logically reasonable reality.

TIME IS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF CHANGE.

Except change and time are synonyms

...do science for a living. Well THAT'S embarrassing ( for you). Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?

Only physics is real.

Except change and time are synonyms

...

CH was given specific examples where this is not so and yet continues to display his... lack.

Tell me which you disagree with:

1. All measurements of time require change.

2. If no change occurs time cannot be measured.

3. Time can only be perceived by measuring it, which can only occur with change... therefore time cannot be perceived without change.

4. If all change ceases, it will never begin again... for a spontaneous change in a static universe would be fundamentally unexplainable.

5. If something cannot ever be perceived (fundamentally), it's existence is equivalent to it's non-existence.

Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?

Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?

Yep, I have. For example Deesky and CHollman are expert wankers that think they know something about Physics.

- Hardly. Its the perception of science in the community that bothers me and pronouncing 'we cant explain unless you know the Math' is unhelpful. I know this because part of my role(s) involves community forums.

Give me a unit of time that does not depend on change

Give me a unit of time that does not depend on change

Vendicar had one (if I remember correctly) that specifically required no change, would apply to you at any time, and was likely a reflection of your character.

a nanoTard

Though, if you practice hard you could grow up to be a MegaTard.

@CH -

In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

AHHHHH!!!! Another frozen chicken!!! See Gawad!!! It wasn't just me. Sorli's affliction was contagious.

This was in Physics Essays not Nature. Is it the same paper?
http://www.physor...ion.html

CH, I apologize for not being explicit enough.
Spacetime requires reference points to be meaningful. None of the 3 and 1 dimensions can be measured without change. Everything is relative, meaning you need to have a differentiated observation point from which to make observations.

In response to your 5:

...

Basically, you are elevating time to a special place for the wrong reasons. The specialness of time is our inability to move in any direction but forward. This is special. Eth resists replacing time with change because it adds no value. Otto is arguing to argue. BH and CH are grumpy. Me, I'm having fun

In what instance is there time without change?

Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.

CH has a bag of M&M's.
CH says "In order to know how many there are you have to count them."

God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable and yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.

That makes no sense. God interacts with billions of people.

CH has a bag of M&M's.
CH says "In order to know how many there are you have to count them."

Sorry I dont get this at all. I think that if CH didnt have enough fingers to count his candy on, otto would merely suggest that since a single M&M weighs so much, then you could weigh the bag and do the math.

But since CH doesnt know math he would just stomp his feet and hold his breath and claim that otto was trying to steal his candy.

This is not science.

That was in response to Gawad, not you Pyle

I've accepted space-time as EMERGENT from mass/energy (and in a sense matter). That doesn't mean it's not subject to distortion la SR and GR. On the contrary. IMO it's precisely because it's emergent from mass/energy that it's subject to distortion from these.

The article then includes ways of eliminating ALL the variables of change, one at a time, and thus concludes:

"That leaves every physical quantity expressed simply as a dimensionless number, so it is not surprising that there are also physicists who have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental quantities."

ERGO, time exists as a fundamental unit whether there are any other 'change' variables present or not.
http://en.wikiped...tal_unit

DISPUTE THIS.

if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.

if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.

Define 'elevate' and 'above' in quantifiable physics terms; ie with math. Assign variables to the terms 'space-time' 'matter' and 'energy' with which they can be 'value-rated' in terms of ??? Anything??

Enough for you?

Juvenile nonsense...

No one can give me a single instance/measurement/quantity/description of time that does not reference physical change, and most people are simply ignoring this. That's all the proof I need that there's something to this idea.

Enjoy acting like children.

I sorta envy guys like you with seemingly infinite stamina.

I sorta envy guys like you with seemingly infinite stamina.

It's called crazy Skultch. I might have some extra if you want some.

The article then includes ways of eliminating ALL the variables of change, one at a time, and thus concludes:

"That leaves every physical quantity expressed simply as a dimensionless number, so it is not surprising that there are also physicists who have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental quantities."

ERGO, time exists as a fundamental unit whether there are any other 'change' variables present or not.
http://en.wikiped...tal_unit

DISPUTE THIS.

ANYBODY?? Except the Hollowhead

if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.

Define 'elevate' and 'above' in quantifiable physics terms; ie with math. Assign variables to the terms 'space-time' 'matter' and 'energy' with which they can be 'value-rated' in terms of??? Anything??

Also, sorry I was late to the party. As far as the primary topic of this thread, it is utter bullshit that science and religion MIX.

Also, one other slight objection: that page you linked to is about fundamental units, but the Time v. Change part of this thread seems to hinge mone on the question of what constitutes fundamental properties (I realize the tow can overlap, though).

Why are you waving that hammer at me?