It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You didn't grasp the implication of what I posted, and you have embraced the idea that no implication or inference exists in connection with the statement itself. That indicates that you were not able to grasp the inference that was presented, and if you can't grasp it, then there's no possible way to teach you what it is that you'd need to know for that inference to become clear to you. If you were a child, then I'd have some optimism (since the human intellect is much more supple and flexible at that stage of development) but as a fully matured adult, if that level of conceptualization is beyond you, then breaking through with a workable alternate presentation is out of my realm of expertise
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bastardo
Is is perfect.
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
Right, you didn´t agree with my comment that time does not exist outside of human perception. Your argumentation was completely based from a human perception standpoint. Therefore your argument is flawed.
Please debunk me and tell me what Law of Physics is bound by time, how does time exist in physics?
You didn't grasp the implication of what I posted, and you have embraced the idea that no implication or inference exists in connection with the statement itself. That indicates that you were not able to grasp the inference that was presented, and if you can't grasp it, then there's no possible way to teach you what it is that you'd need to know for that inference to become clear to you. If you were a child, then I'd have some optimism (since the human intellect is much more supple and flexible at that stage of development) but as a fully matured adult, if that level of conceptualization is beyond you, then breaking through with a workable alternate presentation is out of my realm of expertise
Talk with bravoure and arrogance all you want if it makes you feel important, but you ain´t sayin nuthin´.
Please answer my question and show how smart you really are.edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?
Still not saying anything....
Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
The past and future don't exist because existence happens in the present.
If past and future don´t exist, how can the present exist. Present would be the result of the past en the cause of the future. They either all exist or none of them exist.
Planck's Constant suggests that all action is based on indivisible and identical units of presence that each have an initiation, a span of existence and then a completion. It goes on to assert that each of these units are identical and cannot be variable in any way. The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events).
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?
Still not saying anything....
Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)
The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events)
Originally posted by smithjustinb
The past doesn't exist. It may have existed, but it doesn't anymore. Back when 30 seconds ago happened, it happened presently, but now, 30 seconds ago doesn't exist anymore except as a memory. There is a physical imprint on the brain of it having occured, but that biological imprint is here now, not then.
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
Yes, and this implies the existence of time in physics.......where?
Still not saying anything....
Even if this Planck constant had the variable of time, it would still be a concept within human perception obviously.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)
The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events)
That's entropy, not Time.
In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. In this context, the term usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies the expected value of the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. In this context, a 'message' means a specific realization of the random variable.
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by NorEaster
Planck's Constant suggests that all action is based on indivisible and identical units of presence that each have an initiation, a span of existence and then a completion. It goes on to assert that each of these units are identical and cannot be variable in any way. The inference here, as it relates to the concept of Time, is that the existence of activity features one unit of action (its full span of initiation, existence and completion) followed by the next unit of action (with its own full span of initiation, existence and completion), and on and on, within any progression of activity (or chain of events).
It may relate to our concept of time, but it could also be measured in size and distance. Nowhere is the existence e of time infered, only in the translation to our perception.
The Planck constant (denoted h), also called Planck's constant, is a physical constant reflecting the sizes of energy quanta in quantum mechanics.
It´s about size, it says nothing about time.
edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)edit on 14-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by smithjustinb
This thread has become ridiculous and irrelevant.
I thought it was about objective reality and subjective reality. That's what I came here to talk about.
: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty 2 : something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
Ironic that you can´t see that this is exactly what we´re talking about.
Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by smithjustinb
Ironic that you can´t see that this is exactly what we´re talking about.
Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.
Maybe you should go ____ your____. Fill in the blanks however you'd like.
The point of this thread is not whether or not the past and future exists, its about which form of reality (objective or subjective) is more true, or if there is even a such thing as objective reality.
I don't see how talking about time is going to solve that riddle.