Time. A reasoned view.
John Jones
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".
haiku jones
I trust you read my closely-reasoned 53 page post refuting this
thesis?
Haiku Jones
David Canzi
John Jones <jonesc...@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
John Jones
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.
David Canzi
John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Canzi wrote:
>> In article <he1u17$i7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> John Jones <jonesc...@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.
--
David Canzi
Yap
> 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.
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."
Smiler
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
Olrik
> 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.
Errol
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
hypa...@comcast.net
> > 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.
hypa...@comcast.net
Meeting for dinner on the train, in other words. But, don't tell him
that.
It would shatter his LaLaLand illusions.
raven1
Drivel.
Brian E. Clark
olri...@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.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
ZerkonXXXX
> Time is an idea that was invented to "explain"
Time is an idea "invented" by memory.
Mike Painter
Remind me not to hire this guy.
Or,
if he is an employer (fat chance) I want a job with him.
John Stafford
And then what?
Olrik
That would fit Mr. Jones perfectly :
http://www.l-page.net/auction/2007/05/propeller-beanie-hat-red-orange-new.html
Olrik
THE BORG
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:he1u17$i7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
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
Charlie-Boo
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.
C-B
John Jones
> In article <he20p0$1ik$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> David Canzi wrote:
>>> In article <he1u17$i7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> John Jones <jonesc...@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.
John Jones
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".
John Jones
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.
John Jones
> 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.
John Jones
> 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 Jones
(Your replies are not addressed to the respondee, but to the post before
it. Are your newsgroup settings correct?)
John Jones
That gives time some authority.
John Jones
> 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!
Nothing takes time. What you mean by "taking time" is only another event.
John Jones
I wouldn't. It's completely off target. What's "linear"?
Olrik
Wooooooooooossssshhhh
John Jones
Being pissed off just isn't a stretch really.