Holmes

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But in the case of the person under anesthesia, their perception is NOT real. What allows you to cherry pick one situation over another?

It is you who just cherry picked, you just said one perception is not real yet another is!

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

"I'm just pointing out that to understand if time exists then we may need to understand fundamentally what time is. Since it appears that relativity breaks down at the small extremes, where time may fundamentally emerge from, then maybe relativity is not the key to  answering this question"

I think you are raising important questions, questions that go to the core of what science is.

Scientific explanations are always reductionist yet here we are with an irreducible thing we call "time", it seems time cannot be explained, cannot be decomposed.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I have nothing to add in terms of relativity. Relativity is consistent to our observations and predictions and is currently the best model of space-time we have. I just refer you to this (my quote) in one of my previous posts.

Einstein reframed time into events, special relativity deals with events rather than directly dealing with time, a train passing my window that coincides with my clock showing 17:23:19 is an event to Einstein and the special theory of relativity is about how the things that comprise an event are perceived differently by different observers.

This bring the subjective experiences of observers into play.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Thanks

Thanks, I may start a thread on this topic since the talk I listened to was very interesting, when discussing the smaller distances and high energies of the LHC quantum probing experiments. I just have no expertise and have limited knowledge on the subject. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, it's formulated as a physics question, and asks about measuring time, which means we are excluding perception.

You cannot exclude perception though. You cannot propose arguments and explanations in science based on observations without factoring in an observer.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

We are able to measure the passage of time.

The thread's title is about the existence of time, that's a profound question that must include perception.

We do not measure the passage of time, we instead make two observations and then an inference is drawn that time has passed.

The person seeing a wall clock who is then given a general anesthetic will, upon waking see that the two clock readings differ by seven hours yet they feel like just a moment apart.

I am arguing that that perceived time is real, it exists and is observed by the individual, the calculated elapsed time differs from what they perceive.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Many things exist that we really don't or never experience. I have never been to China. Does that mean China does not exist?

I don't know and neither does anyone else, there is no proof that anything exists other than self, cogito, ergo sum.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

Henry Louis Mencken. 

I thought we were having a polite conversation, it seems not.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

This is a philosophy question, not science.

That's a philosophical claim not a scientific one.

Mathematics is deterministic, computability theory is a logical theory that reduces mathematics to logic, there are at least two approaches to computability theory Turing machines and lambda calculus, it has been proven that Turing machines and lambda calculus - though very different - are logically equivalent, both are of course deterministic.

This is why I asked for an example of a "non-deterministic computation".

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Please provide a reference backing that statement.

Which statement? this one "All theories of computability (Turing machines, Lambda calculus) are fully deterministic."?

Well both lambda calculus and Turing machines are regarded as logically equivalent systems for describing computability.

Computability means literally calculating, doing what humans can do (and at one time only humans could do).

All the rules of arithmetic for example can be described using a Turing machine or lambda calculus.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Is a nondeterministic Turing machine is fully deterministic?

There are concepts of non-deterministic Turing machines but these do not appear in computability theory.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

In another thread you stated that you are not a Mathematician.

Perhaps you might like to enquire of your favourite Mathematician if this claim is in fact true as there are non deterministic computations available in Mathematics that were first discovered in the 1960s by Mandelbrot and later by someone (I'm not sure whom) extending Ullam and Von Neuman's work from the 1940s.

The Mandelbrot set is fully deterministic.

Just now, zapatos said:

Now THAT'S a straw man! 

Yes, you're quite right actually, I accept that and retract the statement.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not the issue. You don’t have to perceive something for it to exist. You can be oblivious to it. 

In which case you cannot support the proposition that it does exist surely? you can only believe it exist.

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Time exists that much is as certain as space existing. It is only how we perceive time that maybe at fault. A great man once said words to the effect "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour, chat with a hot blonde for an hour, and it seems like a minute.

Without time, everything would happen together, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW" in our universe, shows the legitimate existence of time.

I like Sean Carroll's version....

 

Yes, I do understand this, my questions are about why do we think our perception of time is not just as real as someone else's.

"I spoke to the blond for a short while, she was cute" and "I waited in the dentist for ages and ages" might both be true statements.

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

In addition to the Actor model already mentioned in this thread one example is Petri nets* where multiple transitions are enabled at the same time. 

*)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petri_net

Yes I know there are non-deterministic systems, but there is no concept of non-determinism in computation, in mathematics or arithmetic for example.

All theories of computability (Turing machines, Lambda calculus) are fully deterministic.

For example calculating the square root of Pi is deterministic, the same steps performed, always yield the same result.

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This types of comments just indicate ignorance.

That's an insult.

Quote

Have you read the article I posted earlier?

No.

Quote

If you are not willing to educate yourself at least slightly on the matter and you basically keep trying to discuss form a position where the strength of the opinion far outweighs knowledge and only serves to derail the discussion.

My disagreeing with you and some of the presumptions I see here in this thread is no justification for claiming I am not educated, my asking questions that you disapprove of does not give you the right to claim that I am derailing the discussion.

Quote

The weak attempt to ridicule the situation really just makes it worse. If someone says they prefer women as sexual partners, do you doubt that? If someone says that they prefer men, do you doubt that? What do you think is the basis of that?

I see, so you think we should censor such discussions, only tolerate opinions that are supportive of the transgender lobby.

Quote

If you are not willing to accept the basic biology underlying these issues, I do not see a meaningful way to engage on that matter as you are discussing issues based on your personal reality.

What biological facts have I not accepted? 

I asked the question about feeling like an owl to help make it more apparent how absurd the claim itself is. A man claiming to feel like a woman means he can recognize such feelings as feelings unique to women but since he is not a woman then how did he acquire an ability to recognize when his feeling are "woman feelings"?

How you feel is how you feel, it is personal, it is subjective by definition.

A biological male always feels like a biological male by definition, you can't feel like a man or feel like a woman, you just have feelings.

Two biological males may feel differently but they both feel like a biological male. 

To say "I feel like a woman" is to stereotype women.

Men and women have feelings, to say "I feel like a woman" is nonsensical, for example do I feel like a man or do I feel like a woman who feels like a man? 

If you want to discuss this subject then I suggest you stop insulting people with whom you might disagree, argue your case using logic and reason do not resort to emotional, inflammatory language.

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

How do you know you’re a man, or not homosexual? It’s really no different. 

That's not an answer to my question, its another question.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As iNow mentioned, the way you feel is determined to a large degree by your biology. The way your body produces and responds to hormones, the number and variations of receptors and so on all influence why you feel like a man for example. But there is a spectrum, i.e. not all men are equally attracted (or at all) to women, for example. Most of the spectrum finds a range in two broad categories, but quite a few (around 1% of the population cluster more in the middle of the area, where the various biological inputs in aggregate do not fall into one of those neat categories.

To put it bluntly, you do not need to check what type your gonads are to feel a certain way. It all happens beyond the consciousness, which is why one cannot simply erase it. One can have separate discussion regarding how that impacts free will (and if Eise is around, it will be very interesting discussion), but I think you do realize that quite a few associated traits are quite hardwired (such as sexual preferences) and cannot be altered at will.

So if I said I feel like an owl feels, you'd believe me? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We do this in science by removing human perception and using instrumentation where appropriate 

You can't remove human perception though, how can you experience anything unless you perceive?

Just now, exchemist said:

What graphite is this?

The burning of the candle creates soot, the atmosphere in the vicinity of the flame would have a high concentration of soot which is carbon, so I surmised that this region might be capable of having a current induced within in it.

Just now, studiot said:

If you are not trans then you probably can't know what a trans person means by saying "I feel like a woman", though I can't say I have ever heard one use those words.

But then you can't know what an ovarian cyst feels like either.

So would you condemn a woman for having an ovarian cyst ?

Firstly I don't "condemn" anyone, transgender people included.

To say "I feel a like a woman" when you are a man is nonsensical I think.

Now if a transgender woman declares they are a transgender woman then how do they know? what reasoning do they go through that leads to the conclusion "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body" what exactly is the reasoning?

I too have read similar reports, some dating back centuries. Has anyone here ever light a nightlight (candle) put that into a microwave oven and switched the oven on?

It is quite remarkable, not saying its related to ball lightning or anything, I suspect the burning candle creates a conductive path from the graphite and the microwaves induce a current in the graphite, but it is spectacular (no idea if this can damage the oven).

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It is analogous in that it’s not a choice. (gender, like sexual orientation, might have more factors involved than simple genetics)

 

Fair enough but we now enter the realm of "free will" and all that that entails.

Do we ever actually choose anything? are our actions inevitable? 

But with the transgender stuff, I don't see how one can say "I feel like a woman" when one is a man. How can one recognize what a woman "feels like"? 

1 minute ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

They haven't attempted once responded with a question or counter claim  other than I'm not very good at spelling 👍

Words matter, choose them carefully, say too little rather than too much, do not alienate your audience, no matter what, that's how I strive to behave, not always successfully but I do try.

9 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

Don't waste your time with some of these guys. They use fancy wordplay to disguise their horse shit opinions and lick each others asses with a an upvote so the same group of cucks with high points remain arguing pointlessly to feed their big egos.

Not me buddy, not me.

Just now, Andrew William Henderson said:

Zzzz

I assume this is your way of saying my comments were valueless, tiresome, very well then, so be it.

Emotions are often a source of trouble in forums.

Andrew, you made a small spelling error, this was raised, nothing more was said, it was just brought to your attention.

How did you respond?

Quote

You knew what it ment or you wouldnt have noted the spelling mistake rather than the irony of the post ....I shall watch you're spelling like a hawk if you can produce a few words or an idea ..

Why did you not just say "Thank you" or something?

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody has denied that. You’re simply wrong in your conclusion that I argued against a strawman 

No I am not.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

But here we are yet again with you derailing a topic. 

Yet you are the source of the strawman not I, you are choosing to abandon the topic and sneakily introduce a different topic, it seems this is all you can do.

If you continue to do this at my expense, I'll continue to correct you.

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, no. Just sloppy thinking from you.

When I say, “this argument reminds me of this other thing I’ve heard elsewhere,” it is NOT a strawman… but at least you’re consistent with your false assertions and misunderstandings. 

You wrote:

Quote

 Same argument like we used to hear about people “choosing” to be gay. Such ridiculous thinking. 

You did not say "this argument reminds me of this other thing I’ve heard elsewhere", you seem to be making dishonest claims now. Read what you wrote, it's there above.

You did not attack or challenge the premises, logic or reasoning of my argument, instead you declare (but do not show) that my argument is logically equivalent to some other (unstated) argument and that other (unstated) argument is based on "ridiculous thinking" and so declare that my argument is therefore ridiculous.

This does meet the definition of a strawman, you can refuse to accept this fact, you can choose to deny reality, you may even really truly believe you did nothing wrong, but the facts are the facts.

My accusation that you are habitually posting strawman arguments is not sloppy thinking either, the evidence speaks for itself.

If you want to challenge my argument then challenge my argument not someone else's argument, please deal with what I actually write not what you wish I had written.

You need to understand iNow that if you post a strawman argument then an opponent has every right to challenge you and point this out, when I call out your use of strawman tactics I attack it for what it is, I quote what you have written, your own words reveal the truth about you.

The strawman tactic is an attempt to change the subject from one you are incapable of debating to something else that doesn't even need debating.

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Seriously, it's time you look up the definition of straw man. 

 

I'm always happy to see humor in a discussion and levity, but I do have a right in a rule based forum like this to call out strawman arguments, it is rude and insulting to use them.

This is a scientific themed discussion forum, formality and rigor are part of science.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Just because you don’t think two hours have passed doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. 

That's true.

Quote

Time is not the same as time perception 

How can we tell though which one is real or not?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why do you choose to be right/left-handed?

This whole stance is analogous to asserting that everyone is right-handed, but some people just choose to use their left hand. Or vice-versa.

 

I'm not sure that it is analogous Swanson, left-handed or right-handed is determined by my genes as is my sex.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Seriously. Just go away.

I suggest you do not express opinions publicly like this if you are unwilling for those opinions to be scrutinized or challenged.

On 6/28/2021 at 8:04 PM, Kartazion said:

I think the OP wanted to quote reasons from an article without giving the source of it. Indeed it implies the physical Church-Turing thesis and non-deterministic computation.

Can you give an example of a non-deterministic computation?

Computability, "computation", is defined as a wholly deterministic process so I do not see how we can have a non-deterministic computation.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is not special, so sometimes it gets wiped out the week after it 'emerges'.

But that is not the reason it continuosly 'emerges'. ...

"Ian Malcolm: If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is. ...
Ian Malcolm: Life will find a way."

and I promise, that is the very last time I will ever quote Jeff Goldbloom.

Life exists on earth but that's all we have experimentally verified, until we find an example of life not on Earth we must - if we are being scientific - retain an open mind and consider the possibility that life may be special, may only exist here.