I know everything about everything. - Debate me about anything. (50 cent, member)

~~The Unfan~~ · 12-13-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

What is an event? For an even to be an event, does it not need to be observed? That seems to be implicit in the definition.

Perhaps event is the wrong word. However if an apple falls out of a tree and no sentient thing is there to witness it, it still occurred. Which was my point, something doesn't need to be witnessed for it to happen.

Quote:

If everything we know is the result of observation, how can we possibly know what is beyond the realm of observation?

Oh so deep man. Welcome to science.

Quote:

Also, you say that human activity cannot determine the order in which events occur. That's just not true, Einstein proved that there was no such thing as synchronicity and that seeing two events as simultaneous depends on your reference frame/speed.

Relativity accounts for observation and basic senses, however I'm inclined to disagree with it accounting for "real" time. If you moved fast enough around something you could technically see yourself in two places, but you wouldn't actually say you're in two places. I do suppose there is a sort of perceptive relative time though.

dac · 12-12-2008, 02:46 AM

Debate and win all of WendyCal's arguments to Sleepy Jack... And GO!

thegoldlaw · 12-12-2008, 04:39 AM

If life was a snail and it was surrounded by salt who do you believe would play santa in the year 2042 ?

cardboard adolescent · 12-13-2008, 12:43 AM

Why doesn't something need to be witnessed to happen? How can you have an object without a subject? Now you're trying to distinguish between relativity and "real" time, but how can you have any sort of objective time... consider if the universe were a movie and you were God watching it. You could play it in fast forward or slow it down, and it would be the exact same, none of the characters in the movie would be able to tell. It only makes sense to talk about the "speed of change" if your perception relies on that very change. Time is a concept which we have invented and can barely define, it dies with us.

~~The Unfan~~ · 12-13-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Why doesn't something need to be witnessed to happen?

So did the anything ever come into being? I don't think the first life form witness what was before it.

Quote:

How can you have an object without a subject?

Grass.

Quote:

Now you're trying to distinguish between relativity and "real" time, but how can you have any sort of objective time... consider if the universe were a movie and you were God watching it. You could play it in fast forward or slow it down, and it would be the exact same, none of the characters in the movie would be able to tell. It only makes sense to talk about the "speed of change" if your perception relies on that very change.

This assumes a whole lot. It assumes a force outside of the natural universe. One for which there is no such proof, therefore one I will not consider the effects of on the natural universe.

cardboard adolescent · 12-13-2008, 11:59 AM

No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

anticipation · 12-13-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

i agree, except replace experienced with accepted, and now we're in business.

time has to be accepted as real by an entity for it to become real. if someone thinks "i don't need a measurement by which to govern the span of my existence, so what's the point in creating one?", then time means nothing.

cardboard adolescent · 12-13-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

i agree, except replace experienced with accepted, and now we're in business.

time has to be accepted as real by an entity for it to become real. if someone thinks "i don't need a measurement by which to govern the span of my existence, so what's the point in creating one?", then time means nothing.

this is a pretty moot point, but if time is subjective, then wouldn't the decision not to adopt time involve recognizing time as something which exists, albeit only on a subjective level? in which case, even by denying time you're affirming it. you can refuse to recognize time but you can't really refuse to experience it, except maybe through suicide.

right-track · 12-13-2008, 01:00 PM

Unfan, CA is right.
What he's saying is that time is relative to the individual.
And he's not talking hypothetically either. It's a scientific fact.

~~The Unfan~~ · 12-14-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Unfan, CA is right.
What he's saying is that time is relative to the individual.
And he's not talking hypothetically either. It's a scientific fact.

The thread was two pages and you still managed to succesfully not read it. I acknowledged relative time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dac

Ok Unfan, Dwayne Wade or LeBron James?

Last time I cared that basketball existed Michael Jordan would've been the answer to this question. Space Jam > these new cats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaSho

Explain to me how it is logically possible to believe a god is a man or a woman and not a higher being that has no gender.

By believing in multiple gods/goddesses who have reproductive systems.

12-12-2008, 02:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	Debate and win all of WendyCal's arguments to Sleepy Jack... And GO! __________________

12-12-2008, 04:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
thegoldlaw Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Maine, US Posts: 205	If life was a snail and it was surrounded by salt who do you believe would play santa in the year 2042 ?

12-13-2008, 12:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,511	Why doesn't something need to be witnessed to happen? How can you have an object without a subject? Now you're trying to distinguish between relativity and "real" time, but how can you have any sort of objective time... consider if the universe were a movie and you were God watching it. You could play it in fast forward or slow it down, and it would be the exact same, none of the characters in the movie would be able to tell. It only makes sense to talk about the "speed of change" if your perception relies on that very change. Time is a concept which we have invented and can barely define, it dies with us.

12-13-2008, 11:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,511	No it doesn't. I was just showing that all measurements are relative to the observer. Time is the most subjective thing there is, it has to be experienced or it means nothing.

12-13-2008, 01:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,769	Unfan, CA is right. What he's saying is that time is relative to the individual. And he's not talking hypothetically either. It's a scientific fact.