So you see that as a challenge - that 'maybe' you can show us that we do know what time is, fundamentally?
Since we do not know the fundamental nature of what we believe are 'physical dimensions', we cannot say that time actually exists as a fundamental physical part of reality.Nah, I pass. We know it's a physical dimension much like space. I will let you decide if that is fundamental enough.
We cannot even say what reality is, fundamentally.
Which is why such theories as Simulation are still on the table for discussion...
So you have seen a clock on the floor, and placed it on the table and thus declare "Clock is ticking, therefore we have evidence that time is known at its fundamental level!"?
Only symbolically re concepts of the mind.No, I say instead that we have evidence that time is part of physical reality.
Clocks are symbols of time - they represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind.
Just as numbers symbolically represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind
Is this supposed separation - fundamentally separate - or simply appearing to be separate?
We do not know.Are causes and their effect fundamentally separate?
How is it acceptable to say they are NOT the same thing, if nobody knows?Suffice to say they are not the same thing.
Is the wake separate from the sea? Is the ship separate from the wake?
Is the land separate from the sea?
The question was not "are they the same thing" [as in how they are labeled]. The question was, "are they separate?" [as in their function].Same applies here, wake is not the same thing as the sea, nor the ship, nor the land, nor are fingers hands.
Of course I can say those things. I have even pointed out why I can logically say those things.
Rather, it is an appeal to truthfulness. We don't know...therefore we cannot say...Well, there was an attempt, all I saw was an ill thought out thesis bordering on an appeal to ignorance re: we don't know therefore...
You brought a clock to the table as an example of time being real. I told the truth, that the clock is symbolic of something which is not known to be fundamentally real.
Only contextually real. Time is a conception of the mind, but does not exist in reality, other than symbolically.
[equivalent - a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.]
Your question is one of fundamentals. We do not know the fundamentals of the QF or of Energy.
We do know one fundamental of QF as it pertains to matter. It is physical in nature.We do not know the fundamentals of QF or Energy therefore to say "energy is the same thing as the objects it forms" is equivalent to saying "energy was the cause of its own beginning?" Looks like a non sequitur to me.
We do not know what energy is, fundamentally. We only know that it interacts with matter and in doing so, creates shapeform.
We know that the interaction creates information and we know that information is meaningless without conscious intelligence also existing.
We do not know the fundamental nature of consciousness, but we do know that it is necessary in relation to interacting meaningfully with the interactions of Energy and QF. [matter].
To say that there was no matter before the beginning of the universe, means one has to explain where matter came from.
So it appears. But recognizing the interaction between the one and the other in such a manner invokes a kind of magical thinking.This is the current explanation, it came from energy, as energy and matter are interchangeable re E=mc2.
The current explanation is really a guess about the fundamental nature of energy whereby it somehow transforms itself into matter and from matter, back into energy.
We understand that the process can be eternal and thus never began and never ended.
We also understand that the process can happen without any consciousness existing to acknowledge said process - that it could function in that manner eternally, independent of consciousness.
What we do not know, is - since the process is NOT independent of consciousness - whether this means that consciousness has also always existed.
We do know that human consciousness has not always existed, but we also know that the interaction between energy and matter was happening before the fact of human consciousness.
We cannot say for certain that human consciousness is fundamentally an emergent property of human brains, because we do not know if consciousness is a fundamental property of energy and matter.
We don't know that your claim that time is physical rather than a concept of the mind, it true. Of course a claim of a physical thing has to be shown first, before we can agree that it is indeed, a physical thing.
I answered that.Well, that's not what I asked you, I asked you to confirmed that you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first.
Energy effects matter which in turn creates shapeform. The shapeform the allows consciousness to conceptualize time. This means that time is not fundamental to the interaction between energy and matter, and even if it is true that consciousness is a fundamental part of the interaction, 'time' as a notion of consciousness would not have to be a fundamental part of that overall process.
For example, if the process of energy+matter+consciousness means that the process itself is therefore self aware, the entity being that process would have no logical need to know what time was in relation to itself, therefore, time would not be a fundamental aspect of that system.
Therefore time would not "tick on forever", nor would it have "ticked on" at all.
Red shift doesn't make time a fundamental reality, any more than a mechanical clock does.
Can you also agree with the above statement [italic]?Well, I can agree with that much.
