Mathematically Speaking?

[Neogaia777]

I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. ***

I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay grade, so I'm not surprised you misinterpeted my statement. This wikipedia article may make more sense to you.

*** Although you haven't considered the possibility that all events happen/happened/will happen/will have happened/are happening simultaneously, but that we perceive them in sequence. This seems a good match for your pondering of God perceiving the past, present and future at the same time. (You see our vocabulary imposes the belief that time is just that simple sequence of events in series. It is not constructed to deal with time as it is. I imagine that's why physicists use mathematics to talk about it.)

And if there is a God outside of time, or outside of this time, etc, then He also created this universe to be only one time, or only one possibility of a sequence of events.

And if there are others, supposedly that He is also above, or is outside of, etc, then we'd be getting into the realm of scientific "woo", as we'd be referring to many other universes that would also be part of another or higher dimension, or we would have to add a dimension, etc, where all those other universes or possibilities would theoretically exist.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

Events are right now separated by time and space, what time they are happening matters not, because they are separate events still separated by time and space.

Time is also just time, and not a sequence of events.

And whatever reference frame they are in also doesn't matter, or matters not, and is not applicable to this discussion here.

God Bless.

I am sorry Neogaia, but you are rambling.

Re your first paragraph - If a sniper tracking you during an evening stroll fires a high powered rifle at you it very much matters at what time he pulls the trigger. Events influence each other the timing (whatever we mean by that) is important.

Re paragraph two, if time is not a sequence of events then you directly refute same statement by @tdidymas that I was challenging, a challenge you declared to be wrong.

In regard to the third paragraph, it is apparent you didn't even bother to read the link. On this topic you seem to have a closed mind and rambling, illogical thought process. While I disagree with tdidymas at least they presented an internally consistent argument that offered a plausible definition of time. I shan't be wasting further time discussin this with you, unless you come back having read the link and offered a concise, focused argument for why you think it is wrong.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am sorry Neogaia, but you are rambling.

Re your first paragraph - If a sniper tracking you during an evening stroll fires a high powered rifle at you it very much matters at what time he pulls the trigger. Events influence each other the timing (whatever we mean by that) is important.

Re paragraph two, if time is not a sequence of events then you directly refute same statement by @tdidymas that I was challenging, a challenge you declared to be wrong.

In regard to the third paragraph, it is apparent you didn't even bother to read the link. On this topic you seem to have a closed mind and rambling, illogical thought process. While I disagree with tdidymas at least they presented an internally consistent argument that offered a plausible definition of time. I shan't be wasting further time discussin this with you, unless you come back having read the link and offered a concise, focused argument for why you think it is wrong.

And you are talking about a bunch of matters, apparently in an effort to show you understand more, or are more intelligent, etc, that do not at all apply to this discussion, or the points I am trying to make here, etc.

You call it rambling, but I call it losing my patience, so maybe I do need to take a break for a little while here, etc.

Reference frames only matter when separated by a great, great deal more time and space than events that happen to, or between two people on this earth here, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am sorry Neogaia, but you are rambling.

Re your first paragraph - If a sniper tracking you during an evening stroll fires a high powered rifle at you it very much matters at what time he pulls the trigger. Events influence each other the timing (whatever we mean by that) is important.

Re paragraph two, if time is not a sequence of events then you directly refute same statement by @tdidymas that I was challenging, a challenge you declared to be wrong.

In regard to the third paragraph, it is apparent you didn't even bother to read the link. On this topic you seem to have a closed mind and rambling, illogical thought process. While I disagree with tdidymas at least they presented an internally consistent argument that offered a plausible definition of time. I shan't be wasting further time discussin this with you, unless you come back having read the link and offered a concise, focused argument for why you think it is wrong.

You guys are derailing this thread way, way away from having anything to do with the topic in the OP, or in posts #37, 38, and it's very, very clear as to "why", and I'm getting really upset about it, etc.

Do you disagree with the logic posited in post #37? And if so, why?

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

And you are talking about a bunch of matters, apparently in an effort to show you understand more, or are more intelligent, etc, that do not at all apply to this discussion, or the points I am trying to make here, etc

That is offensive. I am addressing a subject that bares directly on what you seem concerned about. I am doing so partly because I enjoy the stimulation of such discussion and part in an effort to help you reach a conclusion. Apparently, despite my best efforts, you have not understood this. Fair enougn, but please have the courtesy to accept that the intent was genuine.

You call it rambling, but I call it losing my patience, so maybe I do need to take a break for a little while here, etc.

You are losing your patience? This is a discussion forum and yet the bulk of the discussion on this thread consists of you talking to yourself, generally ignoring or midunderstanding what others have posted, making self contradictory statements and doubling down on any nonsense you have been called on.

Reference frames only matter when separated by a great, great deal more time and space than events that happen to, or between two people on this earth here, etc.

GPS only works because relativity is essential to the efficient working of the systems. Given the way GPS has permeated so many aspects of our lives your statement here turns out to be seriously wrong.

Since I don't think you will take that break you contemplated I shall make use of the convenient service provided by the forum admins and take a break from you.

 

[Neogaia777]

That is offensive. I am addressing a subject that bares directly on what you seem concerned about. I am doing so partly because I enjoy the stimulation of such discussion and part in an effort to help you reach a conclusion. Apparently, despite my best efforts, you have not understood this. Fair enougn, but please have the courtesy to accept that the intent was genuine.

You are losing your patience? This is a discussion forum and yet the bulk of the discussion on this thread consists of you talking to yourself, generally ignoring or midunderstanding what others have posted, making self contradictory statements and doubling down on any nonsense you have been called on.

GPS only works because relativity is essential to the efficient working of the systems. Given the way GPS has permeated so many aspects of our lives your statement here turns out to be seriously wrong.

Since I don't think you will take that break you contemplated I shall make use of the convenient service provided by the forum admins and take a break from you.

That last part sounds like a threat, so maybe I should talk to the admins or whomever about that maybe, etc? I certainly did not at all try to threaten you, etc. Which is what you are right now doing to me, etc.

And I haven't broken any rules either, etc, all I told you is that you were derailing the thread, and that you were trying to sound more intelligent, and that those were making me impatient, or upset, etc.

Now how is that worse than your right now trying to threaten me right now for doing no wrong right now, etc?

Anyway, whatever, I'm out for a bit, and I will explain this all to the admins if I have to I guess.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Post #37, etc.

Prove it wrong or incorrect, etc.

Bye for now.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Wrong:
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Goodbye.

Satellites are moving very, very fast, and are constantly at different locations over the earth, and a whole host of other things, much which is presented/explained in the link/article you just prosted, etc, but I am talking about people experiencing events at different locations on the earth, etc, for which there is very, very little difference at what "actual time" they are experiencing or are going through (or are perceiving) those events at different places in or on the earth, etc. Like I said, it's about "a nanosecond of a nanosecond of any real difference", and that's if your lucky, etc. But of course all the tools/signals used in our GPS systems, are constantly all having to make constant slight adjustments, etc, because it would be impossible for them to pinpoint an exact location on the earth in real time if they did not, and/or otherwise, etc.

But another thing I want to point out, and would like to get back to, is the "main topic of the OP for crying out loud", and post #37 more specifically, etc, because "none of any of this has anything to do with the main topic of this thread, and we are getting way, way off-topic in this thread", etc.

So could we maybe get back to the main topic please, because this is part of what's making me impatient/upset, etc.

Much thanks.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ophiolite

I owe you an apology, so I am officially apologizing to you, ok, and I would ask you if we can please start over here, ok.

I was just getting frustrated by anyone thinking they could possibly disagree with the logic posited in especially post #37 here, ok, but it's nothing against you personally, ok, so I 100% apologize, and would ask if we can start over here, ok.

I probably should have waited a bit before posting, so this is really my fault, ok. Call it a personal failing or weakness of mine sometimes, ok.

But I do 100% apologize to you personally, ok. I'm very, very sure your a very much highly intelligent person, and are probably much more intelligent than me right now, or most of the time, ok, and probably also much more reasonable than me most of the time also, ok. So I do 100% sincerely apologize to you, ok. And hope we can still talk and have much more reasonable and logical and intelligent discussions in the future, ok.

And again, "sorry", ok.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And this one is directed at all here, etc.

But I would ask if we could all please get back to the main topic in the OP here, and maybe the logic posited in especially post #37 in this thread here, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Satellites are moving very, very fast, and are constantly at different locations over the earth, and a whole host of other things, much which is presented/explained in the link/article you just prosted, etc, but I am talking about people experiencing events at different locations on the earth, etc, for which there is very, very little difference at what "actual time" they are experiencing or are going through (or are perceiving) those events at different places in or on the earth, etc. Like I said, it's about "a nanosecond of a nanosecond of any real difference", and that's if your lucky, etc. But of course all the tools/signals used in our GPS systems, are constantly all having to make constant slight adjustments, etc, because it would be impossible for them to pinpoint an exact location on the earth in real time if they did not, and/or otherwise, etc.

A nanosecond is time it takes light to travel about 30 cm (1 foot). Simultaneity doesn't exist for object in different frames in GR and within frame the separation between two events matters. "a nanosecond of a nanosecond of any real difference" doesn't exist, but if you meant a billionth of a billionth of a second (or one billionth of a nanosecond) the distance light travels in that time is smaller than a proton.

 

[Neogaia777]

A nanosecond is time it takes light to travel about 30 cm (1 foot). Simultaneity doesn't exist for object in different frames in GR and within frame the separation between two events matters. "a nanosecond of a nanosecond of any real difference" doesn't exist, but if you meant a billionth of a billionth of a second (or one billionth of a nanosecond) the distance light travels in that time is smaller than a proton.

I'm going to create a separate thread to talk about "time" soon, what it is, how we measure it, or in some cases, according to some people, even "define it", etc. Anyway, after I do some more research, I'm going to be creating another "separate" thread here specifically for that topic soon, so watch for it, or I will link it here when I do, ok.

But this thread I'd like reserved for the topic in the OP, or my points made in posts like post #37, as none of this has anything at all to do with any of "that" here, ok.

But the speed of light has nothing to do with time anywhere, but I'll get into that more in another thread, and after I do a bit more research, and I create it here, ok.

But I do thank you for the info about how long it takes light to travel though, so I'm going to mark your post as "informative", but would like to keep this thread reserved for the main topic started here, etc. (and I might re-post post #37 to hopefully get the conversation back going on it again).

Much thanks.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Post #37

If I know with 100% certainty which way you are going to choose, then there is never any other kind of real possibility of another way it can go, right, etc?

But if it's not 100%, or is some kind of other percentage between the two (or more), etc, then I can't know which way you are going to choose for sure, correct? And there is, therefore, some things I not only don't know, but absolutely cannot know, correct?

And for any being to be 100% truly all-knowing, etc, then He/She/It would have to know them all, correct?

Which means, no free will, and all has already been chosen/decided for us, and there is never any other way any of this can ever go, correct?

I don't see how your missing the math or the logic here, as it's really very, very simple, etc, and is the whole point of me making this entire thread, etc?

Which also leads into the subject of this entire universe all being 100% absolutely deterministic from the very beginning, and down to it's very ending, and everything in-between, correct?

Unless I am missing something here, etc?

God Bless.

Post #38

And if I don't know, but I know a lot of things, then I can run a calculation among what is going to be the most possible, or most likely, but it's never going to be 100%, because there are some things I don't know 100% absolutely, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm going to create a separate thread to talk about "time" soon, what it is, how we measure it, or in some cases, according to some people, even "define it", etc. Anyway, after I do some more research, I'm going to be creating another "separate" thread here specifically for that topic soon, so watch for it, or I will link it here when I do, ok.

Good luck with that.

But this thread I'd like reserved for the topic in the OP, or my points made in posts like post #37, as none of this has anything at all to do with any of "that" here, ok.

I can barely tell what your point is in that post and the OP.

But the speed of light has nothing to do with time anywhere, but I'll get into that more in another thread, and after I do a bit more research, and I create it here, ok.

Oh boy. Something to keep in mind: Time and the speed of light are intimately connected. All information transmission is capped by the speed of light.

But I do thank you for the info about how long it takes light to travel though, so I'm going to mark your post as "informative", but would like to keep this thread reserved for the main topic started here, etc. (and I might re-post post #37 to hopefully get the conversation back going on it again).

Much thanks.

No problem.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

I can barely tell what your point is in that post and the OP.

Glad I'm not alone in that thought ..
There's a hint of category error in believing probablities to be fundamental truths/realities, there .. I think(?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Glad I'm not alone in that thought ..
There's a hint of category error in believing probablities to be fundamental truths/realities, there .. I think(?)

:shrug emoji:

 

[Neogaia777]

@Hans Blaster @SelfSim

Ok, let me start with this or try this first, ok, and hopefully you guys will start to get it hopefully, ok.

Just purely based on mathematics here, etc, can a possibility or probability be absolutely 100%, and yet not be absolutely 0% at the same time?

Yes or No, etc?

But whatever your answers are, I'll have to come back here later, cause I have to go for now, ok.

And then maybe also answer this one for me maybe also, etc.

Is an absolutely 0% chance or possibility of a thing ever happening ever even a real possibility in any kind of math or mathematics that you know of, etc?

And again, Yes or No, etc?

Be back later.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Hans Blaster @SelfSim

Ok, let me start with this or try this first, ok, and hopefully you guys will start to get it hopefully, ok.

Just purely based on mathematics here, etc, can a possibility or probability be absolutely 100%, and yet not be absolutely 0% at the same time?

Yes or No, etc?

But whatever your answers are, I'll have to come back here later, cause I have to go for now, ok.

And then maybe also answer this one for me maybe also, etc.

Is an absolutely 0% chance or possibility of a thing ever happening ever even a real possibility in any kind of math or mathematics that you know of, etc?

And again, Yes or No, etc?

Be back later.

God Bless.

Next, is it possible for anyone who says they know with 100% absolute certainty what you are going to choose in a certain moment, and let's just say they do, even though it's technically not at all possible for any human being, etc. Anyway, is it ever possible for you to ever choose otherwise, since that possibility is now absolutely 0% absolutely, etc?

Yes or No, etc?

And then, if say they didn't know with 100% absolute certainty, would it be fair to say then that they didn't, and even "couldn't know with 100% absolute certainty which way you would choose until you chose", etc?

Yes or No, etc?

Now, apply this to all-knowingness, how does any all-knowing being know absolutely everything with 100% certainty, when all possible decisions/actions/choices made by human beings, or other creatures, or whatever, are not always fully known with 100% absolute certainty, etc?

And this is pretty much my point that I am trying to make here, and that I really, really do hope you all are hopefully fully getting at this point, etc.

If there is an all-knowing God, or entity, or being, or whatever, etc, then how could He/She/It not know all things, and yet also at the very same time, also know all things with 100% absolute certainty at the same time, etc?

If there is any such being, then all those other probabilities/possibilities cannot exist, etc.

At least, not in this universe anyway, etc.

And that is the main point I am trying to make here, etc.

Be back later.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

@Hans Blaster @SelfSim

Ok, let me start with this or try this first, ok, and hopefully you guys will start to get it hopefully, ok.

Just purely based on mathematics here, etc, can a possibility or probability be absolutely 100%, and yet not be absolutely 0% at the same time?

Yes or No, etc?

i) The probabilities are unrelated.
ii) Either selection of a sample is performed .. or it isn't.

 

[Neogaia777]

i) The probabilities are unrelated.
ii) Either selection of a sample is performed .. or it isn't.

Care to elaborate a bit more on that maybe?

I'm not talking about multiples, but just one for now, etc.

A single solitary choice in this example, etc.