Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
Though we construct conventional Time out of a cyclical phenomenon with a cycle stable duration.
Since a stable cyclical phenomenon duration has in itself a absolute value, the conventional Time based on any stable cyclical phenomenon is also absolute.
Also the value of a characteristic property of a real object (length, weight, temperature etc), measured versus a standardized reference, are absolute.
Inertial movement of an object is absolute versus the local vacuum.
cheers
beda

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 11:10:10 AM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.

Ok, lets see...

> Though we construct conventional Time out of a cyclical phenomenon

Does this 'conventional Time' exist?

Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 18:35:26 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 11:10:10 AM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
> Ok, lets see...
> > Though we construct conventional Time out of a cyclical phenomenon
> Does this 'conventional Time' exist?
beda:
yes conventional Time exists as a very useful abstract tool.
like the conventional Kg
like the conventional meter
like the conventional c° degrees
like the conventional atmosphere pressure
but weigh, distance, temperature, pressure do not physical exist, what exist are the physical objects
that assume those absolute measurable conditions and characteristics.
Take away the objects and all their characteristic disappear
cheers, beda

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 1:16:21 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 18:35:26 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 11:10:10 AM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > > Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.

> > Does this 'conventional Time' exist?
> beda:
> yes conventional Time exists

Therefore 'time' exists.
So you contradict yourself.

The word 'time' means (shorthand for) 'conventional Time'.]
Therefore if 'conventional Time exist then time exist because they mean the same thing (in our context).
Time is 'the value on the specified clock'.

On Tuesday 19 December 2023 at 19:35:56 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 1:16:21 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 18:35:26 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 11:10:10 AM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > > > Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
> > > Does this 'conventional Time' exist?
> > beda:
> > yes conventional Time exists

Of course it does. It's just that time as your religion
imagined it doesn't.

> Therefore 'time' exists.
> So you contradict yourself.

Rotchm, poor halfbrain, learn to read. Did he write
"time doesn't exist"?

>
> The word 'time' means (shorthand for) 'conventional Time'.]
> Therefore if 'conventional Time exist then time exist because they mean the same thing (in our context).
> Time is 'the value on the specified clock'.

Of course, and anyone can check GPS, the value on
the specified clocks has nothing in common with the
delusions of your idiot guru. The time as The Shit has
described it doesn't and didn't exist.

Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 19:35:56 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 1:16:21 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 18:35:26 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 11:10:10 AM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > > > Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
> > > Does this 'conventional Time' exist?
> > beda:
> > yes conventional Time exists
> Therefore 'time' exists.
> So you contradict yourself.
beda:
I don't contradict myself, you just are unable to distinguish between an abstract concepts (their meaning and their conceptual use) versus the real objects that assume those characteristics that we measure with those abstract conventional concepts
versus the real object that those characteristics assume.
Take two stones and posit them at a certain distance, we are able with our conventional meter to distinguish their distance and communicate it to other people, this process does not mean that distance becomes real.
Take two clocks with different cycle duration, we can make out of them two different conventional times, neither of which are real physical entities, though we can compare their timings.
Their timings sprung out as emergent abstract concept coming out of the peculiarly assemblage of different physical objects.
We had Time in our mind and make it EMERGE from material physical objects ad hoc assembled as clocks.
Think of the concept of numbers and their use: numbers are not physical objects, they are emerged abstract tools emerging from our physical minds.
>
> The word 'time' means (shorthand for) 'conventional Time'.]
> Therefore if 'conventional Time exist then time exist because they mean the same thing (in our context).
> Time is 'the value on the specified clock'.
beda,
yes, time, conventional time and time measured by clocks exist,
what you are not understanding is that they are EMERGING abstract concepts from physical objects (clocks and our mind),
they exist as abstract concepts and are meaningful only for our human minds.
Out of our minds those abstract concepts have not any physical existence.
In your mind the number one exists abstractly, anyone as a surgeon, would not ever find any physical trace of it disassembling you neurons.
cheers, beda

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 19:35:56 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:

> > So you contradict yourself.
> beda:
> I don't contradict myself,

Yes you do.

'Conventional time' means 'time'.
You admitted that conventional time exists.
Therefore, time exist.

> yes, time, conventional time and time measured by clocks exist,

Ok, you agree.

> what you are not understanding is that they are EMERGING abstract concepts from physical objects

Irrelevant.

> they exist as abstract concepts

Irrelevant whether they are abstract or not.

Il giorno mercoledì 20 dicembre 2023 alle 02:04:49 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 19:35:56 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
>
> > > So you contradict yourself.
> > beda:
> > I don't contradict myself,
> Yes you do.
>
> 'Conventional time' means 'time'.
> You admitted that conventional time exists.
> Therefore, time exist.
> > yes, time, conventional time and time measured by clocks exist,
> Ok, you agree.
> > what you are not understanding is that they are EMERGING abstract concepts from physical objects
> Irrelevant.
> > they exist as abstract concepts
> Irrelevant whether they are abstract or not.
beda,
you just say that abstractness of a concept is irrelevant to you,
while instead there is a very meaningful difference between abstract concepts and real physical objects.
Abstract concepts belong to the realm of our human minds,
while real physical objects belong to the realm of physical world.
Anyways, if you are happy with your mingling conceptual confusion, I have nothing to add to save you from it
cheers,beda

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 8:10:10 AM UTC-8, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
> Though we construct conventional Time out of a cyclical phenomenon with a cycle stable duration.
> Since a stable cyclical phenomenon duration has in itself a absolute value, the conventional Time based on any stable cyclical phenomenon is also absolute.
> Also the value of a characteristic property of a real object (length, weight, temperature etc), measured versus a standardized reference, are absolute.
> Inertial movement of an object is absolute versus the local vacuum.
> cheers
> beda
Time = distance/speed, so time is a relationship between change and the rate of change. Distance, speed and time are all real because time is a physical relationship.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 8:10:10 AM UTC-8, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> Time as a physical entity doesn't exist.
> Though we construct conventional Time out of a cyclical phenomenon with a cycle stable duration.
> Since a stable cyclical phenomenon duration has in itself a absolute value, the conventional Time based on any stable cyclical phenomenon is also absolute.
> Also the value of a characteristic property of a real object (length, weight, temperature etc), measured versus a standardized reference, are absolute.
> Inertial movement of an object is absolute versus the local vacuum.
> cheers
> beda
Saying that time is not real is like saying that collisions are not real or that commensuration periods are not real. Time is a relationship between physical things.

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:

> you just say that abstractness of a concept is irrelevant to you,

You obviously do not understand what you read.
It was irrelevant to the discussion. You need to learn to stay on topic.

The discussion was about deductive reasoning, Boolean logic, syllogisms;
You agreed that

1-conventional time exist
2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.

Therefore time exist.
But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
You not only your reading skills are nil, your deductive skills are also sub par to nil.

Il giorno giovedì 21 dicembre 2023 alle 01:42:59 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
>
> > you just say that abstractness of a concept is irrelevant to you,
> You obviously do not understand what you read.
> It was irrelevant to the discussion. You need to learn to stay on topic.
>
> The discussion was about deductive reasoning, Boolean logic, syllogisms;
> You agreed that
>
> 1-conventional time exist
> 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
>
> Therefore time exist.
> But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
> You not only your reading skills are nil, your deductive skills are also sub par to nil.
beda,
the idea of a unicorn exists
but unicorn don't physically exists
You have purposely manipulate my assertion
I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity
time, conventional time, numbers and many other abstract concepts exist and are useful
but are abstract EMERGING concepts without any real physical existence
Their realm inhabit only in our human minds.
Out of human mind there are just physical material objects
cheers, beda

On Wednesday 20 December 2023 at 02:04:49 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno martedì 19 dicembre 2023 alle 19:35:56 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
>
> > > So you contradict yourself.
> > beda:
> > I don't contradict myself,
> Yes you do.
>
> 'Conventional time' means 'time'.

It does. Just not in your moronic church. It's quite
easy to understand why your bunch of idiots doesn't
accept the real time and prefers praying to a fabricated
one.

On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:

> > 1-conventional time exist
> > 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
> >
> > Therefore time exist.
> > But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.

> the idea of a unicorn exists
> but unicorn don't physically exists

True, but irrelevant to our topic, which is about deductive reasoning.
Stay on topic.

> You have purposely manipulate my assertion

Nope. If you think I did, you show again your misunderstandings, or lies.

> I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity

And I never said that you did.

1-A is (belongs to) B
2- C is A

Thus C is (belongs to) B.
But you dont agree with this. You fail basic logic.

On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 21:12:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
>
> > > 1-conventional time exist
> > > 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
> > >
> > > Therefore time exist.
> > > But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
> > the idea of a unicorn exists
> > but unicorn don't physically exists
> True, but irrelevant to our topic, which is about deductive reasoning.
> Stay on topic.
> > You have purposely manipulate my assertion
> Nope. If you think I did, you show again your misunderstandings, or lies.
> > I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity
> And I never said that you did.
>
>
> 1-A is (belongs to) B
> 2- C is A
>
> Thus C is (belongs to) B.
> But you dont agree with this. You fail basic logic.

He doesn't, you do, poor halfbrain. He didn't say "time doesn't
exist". He said "Time as a physical entity doesn't exist".

On Friday 22 December 2023 at 20:14:22 UTC+1, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 11:58:19 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 21:12:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1-conventional time exist
> > > > > 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore time exist.
> > > > > But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
> > > > the idea of a unicorn exists
> > > > but unicorn don't physically exists
> > > True, but irrelevant to our topic, which is about deductive reasoning..
> > > Stay on topic.
> > > > You have purposely manipulate my assertion
> > > Nope. If you think I did, you show again your misunderstandings, or lies.
> > > > I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity
> > > And I never said that you did.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1-A is (belongs to) B
> > > 2- C is A
> > >
> > > Thus C is (belongs to) B.
> > > But you dont agree with this. You fail basic logic.
> > He doesn't, you do, poor halfbrain. He didn't say "time doesn't
> > exist". He said "Time as a physical entity doesn't exist".
> As far as I can tell... my clock is still real.

Your clock is real and time is real, but your clock
is a physical entity and time is not.

Il giorno venerdì 22 dicembre 2023 alle 20:14:22 UTC+1 mitchr...@gmail..com ha scritto:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 11:58:19 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 21:12:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1-conventional time exist
> > > > > 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore time exist.
> > > > > But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
> > > > the idea of a unicorn exists
> > > > but unicorn don't physically exists
> > > True, but irrelevant to our topic, which is about deductive reasoning..
> > > Stay on topic.
> > > > You have purposely manipulate my assertion
> > > Nope. If you think I did, you show again your misunderstandings, or lies.
> > > > I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity
> > > And I never said that you did.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1-A is (belongs to) B
> > > 2- C is A
> > >
> > > Thus C is (belongs to) B.
> > > But you dont agree with this. You fail basic logic.
> > He doesn't, you do, poor halfbrain. He didn't say "time doesn't
> > exist". He said "Time as a physical entity doesn't exist".
> As far as I can tell... my clock is still real.
beda,
Indeed, we extrapolate from the display of the clock the abstract concept of time.
Like extrapolating from the finger of your hands, the abstract concept of numbers,
Your hands are real, numbers are not, they are just conceptual tools.
The idea of God exists, but this doesn't make God exist.
Your silly syllogism implies that A;B and C must be of the same ontological nature
while in the case I proponing, that is not the case:
clocks are real objects, while time shown on their displays is an EMERGING abstract concept
that inhabit only in our minds.
cheers, beda

Il giorno sabato 23 dicembre 2023 alle 00:31:48 UTC+1 Maciej Wozniak ha scritto:
> On Friday 22 December 2023 at 20:14:22 UTC+1, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 11:58:19 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 21:12:23 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-5, Beda Pietanza wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > 1-conventional time exist
> > > > > > 2- 'time' is synonym to 'conventional time'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore time exist.
> > > > > > But you somehow conclude from the two premises that time doesn't exist.
> > > > > the idea of a unicorn exists
> > > > > but unicorn don't physically exists
> > > > True, but irrelevant to our topic, which is about deductive reasoning.
> > > > Stay on topic.
> > > > > You have purposely manipulate my assertion
> > > > Nope. If you think I did, you show again your misunderstandings, or lies.
> > > > > I never said that conventional time exists as a physical entity
> > > > And I never said that you did.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1-A is (belongs to) B
> > > > 2- C is A
> > > >
> > > > Thus C is (belongs to) B.
> > > > But you dont agree with this. You fail basic logic.
> > > He doesn't, you do, poor halfbrain. He didn't say "time doesn't
> > > exist". He said "Time as a physical entity doesn't exist".
> > As far as I can tell... my clock is still real.
> Your clock is real and time is real, but your clock
> is a physical entity and time is not.
beda,
let's drop this trivial difference between real objects and the EMERGING
abstract properties that we can extrapolate from observing their evolution.
I ask you to consider different clocks based on different working
mechanism in a lab moving inertially.
The ratios between different clocks are not maintained if the lab environment
changes in any ways, included the change of the inertial speed of the lab.
If this is true this, as I am convinced, this would rend SR a math model illusion.
let me know what you think.
cheers, beda