Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to explain this. Here's why.
Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, during, or after B.
Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
On Nov 18, 3:55 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, > look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people > speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, > during, or after B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
I trust you read my closely-reasoned 53 page post refuting this thesis?
In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation?
David Canzi wrote: > In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, > John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
> Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation?
I can do each. I can't do both - not because there is no time - but because "both" intrudes upon us as an inexplicable, incoherent idea of an event.
In article <he20p0$1i...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Canzi wrote: >> In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >>> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >>> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
>> Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation?
>I can do each.
If you can understand an invitation like "Lucky Dog Restaurant at 5:30 tonight", and show up when you're expected, then you're still using the ideas you once called "space" and "time". You didn't dispose of them. You just stopped naming them.
>I can't do both - not because there is no time - but >because "both" intrudes upon us as an inexplicable, incoherent idea of >an event.
Just because you're inscrutable, it doesn't mean you're deep.
On Nov 19, 6:55 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, > look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people > speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, > during, or after B.
Wrong concept. Communication does have time line. When we communicate, we can't be talking at the same time, can we?
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
You are actually substituting time with "before, after and during". Tell us why you wish to be so confusing? But I will tell you what:"The bible has events that the confusing conman mixed up time with your before/after/during."
John Jones wrote: > Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For > example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen > when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A > speaks before, during, or after B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and > during".
Then how would you describe "a conflict in time and space" commonly called an accident?
-- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler wrote: > John Jones wrote: >> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens >> before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to >> explain this. Here's why.
>> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For >> example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen >> when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A >> speaks before, during, or after B.
>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and >> during".
> Then how would you describe "a conflict in time and space" commonly called > an accident?
An objectified conceptual linear communication event, of course.
On Nov 19, 12:55 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, > look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people > speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, > during, or after B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
You have ignored causality. I throw a ball into the air. It comes down complies with causality.
"The ball comes down. I throw it into the air." requires a preceding statement such as "someone dropped a ball from an airplane" otherwise it does not comply with causality
On Nov 18, 6:42 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> David Canzi wrote: > > In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, > > John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
> > Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation?
> I can do each. I can't do both - not because there is no time - but > because "both" intrudes upon us as an inexplicable, incoherent idea of > an event.
No, dear. You can't do both at the same time because they are in two different places. Why complicate what is so simple? Unless, of course, the dinner is in the dinner car.
> Smiler wrote: > > John Jones wrote: > >> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > >> before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > >> explain this. Here's why.
> >> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For > >> example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen > >> when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A > >> speaks before, during, or after B.
> >> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and > >> during".
> > Then how would you describe "a conflict in time and space" commonly called > > an accident?
> An objectified conceptual linear communication event, of course
Meeting for dinner on the train, in other words. But, don't tell him that. It would shatter his LaLaLand illusions.
<jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens >before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to >explain this. Here's why.
>Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, >look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people >speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, >during, or after B.
>Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
John Jones wrote: > Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For > example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen > when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A > speaks before, during, or after B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and > during".
Remind me not to hire this guy. Or, if he is an employer (fat chance) I want a job with him.
<jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
Brian E. Clark wrote: > In article <he2lt0$k8...@news.eternal-september.org>, > olrik...@yahoo.com says...
>>> Then how would you describe "a conflict in time and space" commonly called >>> an accident? >> An objectified conceptual linear communication event, of course.
> I think one would want to wear some kind of protection for > that.
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one > thing happens before, after, or during another thing. But > we don't need time to explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. > For example, look at verbal "communication". Communication > doesn't happen when people speak in turn. There's no > argument for saying that A speaks before, during, or after > B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually > revisiting objects without it, then we can also dispose of > "Time", and dispense with its colourful, unnecessary laws, > laws that we call "before, after and during".
Read our messages 701,772 - 701,894. These explain time, different passing rates of time as in dreams. Differing passing rates of time as in boredom, slow time, interest, fast time. Different time operatives. Time as proof. Control over time. See physics, time, distance, weight, size, speed and x-factor. Also see time in religion. These should clarify and satisfy the current human capability for input of information regarding time. THE BORG
On Nov 18, 5:55 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Time is the changing of the state of the universe. It is also the most common noun in English and the name of a magazine.
In program synthesis, some things take time and some don't! It takes time to go through a set and check each element for being in another set, but it doesn't take time to substitute another set known to be the intersetion of the two sets, in order to change the problem into an equivalent one.
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens > before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to > explain this. Here's why.
> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, > look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people > speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, > during, or after B.
> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects > without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its > colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
David Canzi wrote: > In article <he20p0$1i...@news.eternal-september.org>, > John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> David Canzi wrote: >>> In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >>>> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >>>> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during". >>> Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation? >> I can do each.
> If you can understand an invitation like "Lucky Dog Restaurant at > 5:30 tonight", and show up when you're expected, then you're still > using the ideas you once called "space" and "time". You didn't > dispose of them. You just stopped naming them.
I can turn up at that place. But then if we want to determine whether turning up was before or after getting there, then I would need a third event to tell me.
I'm not getting rid of space and time as a way of expressing things we do. I'm pointing out that they can be disposed of. Not least because before and after, for example, aren't dependent on time, they are dependent on an association with another object.
Errol wrote: > On Nov 19, 12:55 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens >> before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to >> explain this. Here's why.
>> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, >> look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people >> speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, >> during, or after B.
>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
> You have ignored causality. I throw a ball into the air. It comes down > complies with causality.
> "The ball comes down. I throw it into the air." requires a preceding > statement such as "someone dropped a ball from an airplane" otherwise > it does not comply with causality
Causality tells us that we are more likely to meet some events than others. If you throw the ball in the air and then catch it when it comes down, you need to specify a third event to show that either throwing or catching is associated with it. This third event is unspecified in the term "then".
Temporal adjectives are ellipses for an association of events. They are not "temporal".
hypati...@comcast.net wrote: > On Nov 18, 6:42 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> David Canzi wrote: >>> In article <he1u17$i7...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >>>> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >>>> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during". >>> Can you catch a train or show up for a dinner invitation? >> I can do each. I can't do both - not because there is no time - but >> because "both" intrudes upon us as an inexplicable, incoherent idea of >> an event.
> No, dear. You can't do both at the same time because they > are in two different places. Why complicate what is so simple? > Unless, of course, the dinner is in the dinner car.
How do we know when they are at the "same time"? The same time isn't a temporal description, its a new actual event that is associated with either event.
Yap wrote: > On Nov 19, 6:55 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens >> before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to >> explain this. Here's why.
>> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For example, >> look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen when people >> speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A speaks before, >> during, or after B. > Wrong concept. > Communication does have time line. > When we communicate, we can't be talking at the same time, can we?
Talking together is another situation. You can't say which parts of the conversation came before another part without saying what that other part is. But that doesn't mean that you make everyone talk together.
>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during". > You are actually substituting time with "before, after and during". > Tell us why you wish to be so confusing?
I'm using ordinary language, and an ordinary presentation of time.
Smiler wrote: > John Jones wrote: >> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain" why one thing happens >> before, after, or during another thing. But we don't need time to >> explain this. Here's why.
>> Things do not come before, after, or during, other things. For >> example, look at verbal "communication". Communication doesn't happen >> when people speak in turn. There's no argument for saying that A >> speaks before, during, or after B.
>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and >> during".
> Then how would you describe "a conflict in time and space" commonly called > an accident?
We don't place an 'accident' temporally, we use it to present a particular selection of events.
John Stafford wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:55:36 +0000, John Jones > <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Just as we can dispose of "Space" by conceptually revisiting objects >> without it, then we can also dispose of "Time", and dispense with its >> colourful, unnecessary laws, laws that we call "before, after and during".
> And then what?
(Your replies are not addressed to the respondee, but to the post before it. Are your newsgroup settings correct?)
|
