this is true I'm glad we're on the same page and you're not butt hurt about it

But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense" — Alkis Piskas

What is noonsense? Sounds like one wants to nap at noon! "I have superb noonsense!"

Where am I not polite? I just said it's nonsense and corrected that in saying that I think it's nonsense. Why is that impolite? In my view it is nonsense like mine is in yours. I just don't see why past and future don't exist. I said the clock indicating it is an imaginary one and that in the context of irreversible processes they are real. No more no less. Why shouldn't they be real?

Okay sorry if I sounded impolite! It's young wildness, I guess. :smile:

I consider my view applicable to everyone. I realize though that there are more views. Don't we all wanna know the truth?

1. Does a "normal" proof P for a proposition q imply the existence of a reductio ad absurdum proof C for q? In other words, does a proposition q being true imply that assuming ~q leads to a contradiction? — Agent Smith

Indeed, no one has dealt wit the logic of your OP. I don't think logic is high on the agenda this year. Or it might be that the structure of your argument is not obvious.

If a statement is true, then it's negation can be used to prove a contradiction. That is, if P, then we can deduce ~P ⊢ (Q & ~Q).

A reductio has the form ~P ⊃ (Q & ~Q) ⊢ P; that is, if a proposition's negation implies a contradiction, then the proposition is true.

So yes, for a true proposition on can trivial construct a reductio argument.

But your argument in the OP seems to rely on assuming both that time is real and that it is not real; from that, you can deduce whatever you like.

Thanks.

With all the variety in the posts, I lost track of what it was that I wanted.

Yep, it's logic and its temporal aspects that interest me. A few points I wanna lay down for your consideration:

1. "All is change" - Heraclitus
2. A = A (The law of identity)
Ergo,
3. Logic is atemporal

But then,

4. Contradiction ([...]in the same sense and at the same time)
Ergo,
5. Logic is temporal

3 & 4 is a contradiction (if time matters) and not (if time doesn't matter)

Gracias for showing me that

If a statement is true, then it's negation can be used to prove a contradiction. That is, if P, then we can deduce ~P ⊢ (Q & ~Q). — Banno

4. Contradiction ([...]in the same sense and at the same time) — Agent Smith

(Q & ~Q) is atemporal.

Time can be introduced by just specify the time and place that a predicate occurs: Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021.

A contradiction might be (Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021) and (Banno is not writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021)

Note that the temporal component is part of the predication, not part of the logic as such.

So logic is atemporal, but predication may involve time as needed.

Arigato gozaimasu.

Q & ~Q is, not atemporal, rather it's temporal. There has to be time i.e. time has to be real (contradiction: true and false in the same sense at the same time).

If time were an illusion i.e. it's unreal, Q & ~Q can't be a contradiction as the notion of simultaneity, crucial to the definition of contradictions, is meaningless.

Just to be clear, I'm not as sure about this as I sound.

There has to be time i.e. time has to be real (contradiction: true and false in the same sense at the same time). — Agent Smith

SO (Agent Smith is a cat and not a cat) is a contradiction at some time and not another?

No; only some contradictions are time dependent.

I bet this is a confusion resulting from that "Is change a property of space, objects, or both?" thread. Nonsense begets nonsense.

SO (Agent Smith is a cat and not a cat) is a contradiction at some time and not another? — Banno

It's rather confusing, the relationship between time and logic. If S = Agent Smith is a cat, S & ~S is a contradiction only if simulateneity is meaningful. However S & ~S isn't a contradiction if change is real (law of identity violated).

No; only some contradictions are time dependent. — Banno

I dunno about that!

Nonsense begets nonsense. — Banno

Perhaps...

Show me how it's nonsense! Is there a contradiction? Where?

Show me how it's nonsense! — Agent Smith

Where is time in (~(Q & ~Q)?

Where is time in (~(Q & ~Q) — Banno

The Law of Noncontradiction only makes sense if contradictions are well-defined.

And you think this somehow means that they must be timed? It just doesn't follow.

I'll get back to you later (if I think of something). G'day!

And you think this somehow means that they must be timed? It just doesn't follow. — Banno

Suppose time doesn't exist. If so simultaneity is meaningless.

Contradiction: A proposition is true & false
1. In the same sense
2. At the same time (simultaneity)

A proposition can be true and false in the same sense (at different times). Change (takes time).

The law of identity: A = A
If the law of change (everything changes with time) is true, the law of identity is false, A now is not the same as A later.

However, for logic to, in the most basic sense, work, the law of identity must hold. In other words, if the law of change is true, logic must be atemporal (outside of time).

I'm at a loss as to what conclusion(s) follow(s) from these facts.

My best guess.

1. Logic must be atemporal (to avoid equivocation fallacy).
2. Logic must be temporal (otherwise contradictions are meaningless).

1 & 2 is a contradiction (only if logic is temporal) and not a contradiction (if logic is atemporal). The only way out is to say logic is temporal (contradiction) sometimes and atemporal (law of identity) at other times.

"Yes, I have heard about that expression-term, also a very long time ago. It seems that it has faded away!"

Things take TIME to fade away.

"Yes, figuratively. And in your mind. In your mind you can do a lot of things, you know!:"

Well, that's part of many other threads, isn't it. What the conscious mind comes up with versus what reality is.

"Our whole life is recorded into our memory in frames, at a much shorter rate, since we are perceiving images with a duration up to about 400 fps. (New video standards support up to about 300 fps.) So, our whole past is there."

Yeah, human recall of 'past events' is a similar posit. Is human recall another example of more evidence of 'time travel' into the past?
'When ma auld mammy tells me aboot her days gone by,' sorry about the scots dialect, I seem to have a need to express it every so often, is she 'really' taking me on a 'time trip' into her past?

"BTW, as someone who knows about photography"

Not sure if you are referring to me or you. I know very little about photography, but I could be convinced of the posit that "photography is more real than reality" from the position that a moment is fleeting but a photograph of it maintains it longer so is more 'real' in that sense. You suggest a similar viewpoint with:
"photography can capture an instant of infinitesimally small duration, something our human perception is unable to"

"The sleeping" person is real, though"
They certainly seem real to me, whenever I have observed such.

"Reality defeats though!"
Don't understand your contextual use of the word 'defeats' here. Surely 'thought' is a part of an individual's reality and an objective reality, if we consider the human race as a totality.

"However, as interesting as all this may be, it doesn't really tell us anything about time. We cannot use a recording of any kind as a proof for the existence of time or even as a result of time. Neither can we attribute to time the decay of matter, e.g. of our bodies, as we grow old. it is the result of aging, a process of life. It is a finite process, with a start (birth) and an end (death), the cycle of life as we call it, wrongly of course, because it's a line and not a circle! "

I Disagree with your 'cannot' above and would suggest 'can' instead or at least 'perhaps can.'
A process happens due to time passing. Process cannot happen without duration, as an attribute.
The 'cycle of life' is valid, if you accept the posit that within the time that humans have existed, an individual atom (or smaller packet), in its individual journey through the universe, since its formation, may have been a physical part of more that one human. In this sense, we are all made of the same raw materials. We are ALL part of the posit of infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

"I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. Anyway, I have ignored even this too, to see if and what you really have to say about my reasoning about time and infinity"

I think you are being a little over-sensitive. I use the term nonsense and will continue to do so when I feel it is warranted. It just means 'No sense' or non sense, the two are synonymous and in my part, not intended as an insult but just an accurate description of my opinion of something stated. so to be accepting of one and more unhappy with the other demonstrates the confusion that's out there. REMEMBER, this site has moderators. Let them arbitrate. Don't get me wrong, anyone is still absolutely free to complain about any turn of phrase I use that they are unhappy with or find offensive. Just in the same way as I can choose to accept or reject their concern. The site moderator will judge and decide on any required action. Let's not become too woke folks or we might become too close to the 'snowflake generation' description.

"this is true I'm glad we're on the same page and you're not butt hurt about it"

We are on the same page, no hurt at all involved. I have enjoyed our wee exchange so far.
:grin:

It seems to me that yourself and Agent Smith are concentrating on the mathematical aspects of the OP and Agent Smith did put the OP in mathematical terms. Perfectly acceptable approach, but as is often the case, people like to employ various epistemology when contemplating a posit. I personally have no issue with digression as long as the OP is 'kept in mind.' People can pick up nuggets of thoughts that they had not thought about before, from any discourse, digressive or otherwise. Demanding fierce loyalty to the OP and its method of presentation, to a dictatorial level, is rather restrictive and somewhat short-sighted.

"Time can be introduced by just specify the time and place that a predicate occurs: Banno is writing this on Monday 17 Jan 2021."

Yeah, but at which hour?, which minute?, which second?, which nanosecond......planck time...ad nauseam, did Banno write this?
Is time a continuum or is it quantisable?
Does it have a definite beginning, a clearly defined flow/direction, and an end scenario?
Is time linear (past, present, future,)? or is it multidimenional (time travel possible?).
For any given set of possible reactions to a causal event, will all of them happen, in a multiverse of time?
This would not mean, time is not linear as all the alternatives can happen at the same time in each universe, perhaps suggesting a 'layered' structure to time or an infinity of linear time lines rather than non-linear time.
These are all or at least some of the sub-questions implied by the OP's main posit and title: 'Impossible to Prove Time is Real.' This is not purely mathematical but has mathematical aspects.
Alkis Piskas.......please feel free to call this nonsense. These are just my thoughts. They are not precious to me in the traditional sense as described by the character Gollum in Lord of the Rings.

This exchange was a waste of time. I am out of here.

"BTW, as someone who knows about photography"
- Alkis Piskas
Not sure if you are referring to me or you. — universeness

To you. But it applies to both of us. :smile:

"Reality defeats though!"
- Alkis Piskas
Don't understand your contextual use of the word 'defeats' here. — universeness

You are right, sorry. I missed the word "us". (I initially had typed "Reality wins")

Surely 'thought' is a part of an individual's reality and an objective reality, if we consider the human race as a totality. — universeness

:up: At least someone who can see what "objective" reality can mean!

I Disagree with your 'cannot' above and would suggest 'can' instead or at least 'perhaps can.' — universeness

OK. I can accept this.

In this sense, we are all made of the same raw materials. We are ALL part of the posit of infinite diversity in infinite combinations. — universeness

Well, as far our physical part (our body) is concered. But there's also a non-physical part ... (Well, this for some other time, though! :smile:)

***
BTW, why don't you use the "Quote" feature (like I do) that TPF offers for replying? It makes more clear who says what.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the quote feature, which is a 'doh!' moment for me as an old retired computing teacher!

Well, as far our physical part (our body) is concered. But there's also a non-physical part ... (Well, this for some other time, though — Alkis Piskas

But I like this wee digress.....sorry Banno!
That "non-physical part" you offer becomes two questions.
is a thought quantisable? and can it exist outside of the human body?
My current answers would be probably yes to the first one as under quantum theory everything is quantisable and no to the second question unless it is memorialised as text, recorded audio etc.

It just means 'No sense' or non sense — universeness

In my language, saying "This is nonsense" is clearly impolite, if said publicly or between two people who are not familiar with each other. I believe this is true for most countries.
One can always say "This makes no sense", which is perfectly OK. But if he choses to say "nonsense" instead, he does it on purpose. See? It's the intention that counts.

[]not intended as an insult[]
Certainly. That's why I said impolite. And we don't need that, do we? It makes this place less pleasant, doesn't it?

[]this site has moderators. Let them arbitrate.[]
For godssake, it wasn't so serious to report it and call the attention of the moderators ... It was just a remark I made. And it certainly didn't have to take such dimensions!
Anyway, there's enough rudeness going on in this place already that overshadows this case!

***

OK, let's move to some other topic to talk about something more interesting! :smile:

an old retired computing teacher! — universeness

I am a retired programmer too, well among other retirements! :grin:

I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. — Alkis Piskas

I really don't understand your feeling about the use of nonsense. What's so bad if I think something is nonsense? It's not a personal attack. I just don't understand what you mean, so to me it is nonsense. I litterally don't sense it. I asked to explain what you mean, to turn it into sense. Should I have said that I don't understand?



Ahoy Scotsman! Why do you think that non-linear time is associated with multiple time dimensions? Time can be circular in one dimension. Closed time loops are a possibility in general relativity. On the microscale virtual particles states in the vacuum are represented by a circle, a vacuum bubble. Virtual photons or virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, are represented by closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. In a sense such a particle rotates in spacetime and it can be released from it's closed periodic prison by real particles, like an electron and a positron can excite the closed photon loop, giving two real photons (which is called the annihilation of an electron by a positron), and two photons can excite the virtual electron loop to create an electron and a positron (or another pair). It were these loops that were the only material presence at the singularity. Time went back and forth. Then... bang! Freedom!

By the way, there are two books Brian Greene wrote. I think the story about the rotating bucket is written in The Fabric.

In my language, saying "This is nonsense" is clearly impolite, if said publicly or between two people who are not familiar with each other. I believe this is true for most countries.
One can always say "This makes no sense", which is perfectly OK. But if he choses to say "nonsense" instead, he does it on purpose. See? It's the intention that counts — Alkis Piskas

I hold the personal view the nonsense is not impolite, even if you are correct that I hold a minority opinion.

For godssake — Alkis Piskas

Now don't get all 'theist' on me.....ha ha

it wasn't so serious to report it and call the attention of the moderators — Alkis Piskas

I was not discussing the action of 'reporting'. I don't know the moderator's system of moderation, perhaps it's by sampling or something, it may be by receiving complaints as you imply, I doubt they read every comment.

And it certainly didn't have to take such dimensions — Alkis Piskas

It did not but I can 'blow on embers,' if I wish and you can ignore my response if you wish.

Anyway, there's enough rudeness going on in this place already that overshadows this case — Alkis Piskas

Ha! This website is very pleasant compared to some I have read. But I support your goal to maintain and encourage people to be polite but we don't want to turn into snowflakes either. So I maintain that 'nonsense' is not impolite and I will use it when I wish to. People can just ignore my response if they are offended or simply respond to me that they are offended.
We just need to discuss the balance at times, as we are doing now.

That "non-physical part" you offer becomes two questions. — universeness

Don't worry about spoiling Agent Smith's (not Banno's) topic ... It gets more replies => more popular! :smile:
But we got already far astray. Better check my topic "You are not your body!" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1) You can comment to it, if you like. :smile:

Cheers fellow computaunt!!:grin:

I am a retired programmer too, well among other retirements! — Alkis Piskas

Sorry I forgot to include the quote again. So, again:

Cheers fellow Computaunt!! :sweat:

For godssake
— Alkis Piskas
Now don't get all 'theist' on me.....ha ha — universeness

... It was with a small "g" ... :smile:

I don't know the moderator's system of moderation, perhaps it's by sampling or something — universeness

I don't know either ...

This website is very pleasant compared to some I have read. — universeness

I guess so.

But I support your goal to maintain and encourage people to be polite but we don't want to turn into snowflakes either. — universeness

Good. Thanks. :smile: Thanks god, I have been justified, at least partly! :smile: (Really, now. I'm not a theist. Note the small "g" again ... :grin:)