If an object is traveling at a constant speed from A to B to C to D, then time can be measured by the location of the object. However, if the object accelerates or decelerates during the journey, the location is not a good measure of time.
Rational Metaphysics (RM) is trying to measure time by change, for example by the location of the object I referred to. The object might decelerate to speed zero - how will RM measure time then?
My words “Time can be a measure of change” are about the situation where the object moves at a constant speed. Another way of saying that is “Change can be a measure of time”.
Clearly, change and time are different concepts and different aspects of the same universe we live in. Trying to measure one by the other will not work. RM’s claim that time and change are the same thing is a huge weakness in the whole logical structure of RM.
So much for the anticipated politics, now address the question.
Come to think of it… never mind.
Throughout the world “time” has actually meant “the measure of the changing”. During Einstein’s day, they realized that the only way to measure such changing was relative to some other changing and thus was born “Time is Relative” and the proceeding Relativity theories to make all physical measurements relative.
But none of that really matters because in RM, Time is defined as “the measure of relative change”.
The change itself is not “time”. Time is the measure of that change. Much like in length versus separation in location. The separation in location isn’t length. Length is merely the measure of that separation. Time isn’t the change, but the measure of that change and always merely relative to some other proposed changing, just as with length. One length is merely a comparison to another length. That is how measures work.
Length and time tell of How Much difference there is, not that there is a difference. If there is a difference in the state of the universe, it is “time” and/or “length” that tells of how much difference there is (“space-time”). And in RM, the only things that can be different are location and potential. Locations don’t change in RM. They are declared fixed points. That means that the only thing that can change is potentials at those points. The only changing is potential and it is only changing relative to some other state, thus the only measure of that changing of potential, is time. The changing of potential determines time, not the other way around.
We are not talking about you and what you believe. We are talking about RM. And you noted, RM defines its terms. And as has been stated many times, if in the long run RM would predict one thing yet another is notably observed, then RM’s construct would be flawed. But that is a long way from your current education as to what RM’s construct actually is.
This is RM’s stance;
Now using RM’s defined concepts, do you see any logical flaw?
I agree that change takes time, so when a potential changes relative to another then that change has defined some sort of time interval.
The logical flaw is when the above definition of time meet this statement:
Claiming a fixed ratio is invalid. A change could be large or small, and yet take place in the same time interval. Choosing the same infinitesimal infA does not constrain how much change can occur in what length of time. So no fixed ratio between potential and time can be concluded.
Hence I do not accept that 1000 units of change takes 100 units of time. That assumes a fixed ratio, and has not been proven.
1) “Any change in potential takes time” and thus that change did not occur instantaneously. That means that its speed is not infinite. If the speed is not infinite, then it must be finite. If it is the fastest change possible then it is a single fixed number. There can only be one “fastest possible”. The fastest change that can possibly occur must be fixed and finite simply because it cannot be infinite and it is a single maximum possible.
2) A maximum change-rate (“fastest possible”) is a maximum-change per single-unit of time, "mC/t". And a single unit of time is obviously also fixed and finite; “1 unit”. And thus mC/t is a fixed and finite ratio.
3) Thus if 1000 units of time occur, 1000 mC (1000 maximum changes for each unit of time) is a fixed and finite number; 1000t * mC/t = 1000 mC.
Now with which of those numbered statements do you disagree?
I knew that you weren’t going to answer my question, but I was hoping that you would give enough such that I could answer it for you.
So your answer is (2). And your objection is that “maximum change rate” is not the same as “maximum change per unit of time”.
1) A speed or a rate is a “change per unit of time”, “C/t”. - {“miles per hour” or “blinks per minute”}
2) If there is a “maximum rate” then there is a “maximum change per unit of time”, “maximum C/t”.
3) A “maximum C/t” requires either a maximum C for each t, or a minimum t for each C.
4) Since a rate is a “change per unit of time” (per [1]), a maximum C/t is a maximum-change per unit of time, “mC/t”.
5) There is no alternative.
It doesn’t matter if you are talking about something changing at a single location or a change due to the changing of the location of something otherwise not changing. In both cases a changing is occurring at a location, whether the same as before or a new location. We are talking about the maximum amount of change per second at ANY one location, old or new.
Again, with which of those numbered lines do you disagree? Or was that even the issue?
I have made it clear that I accept a speed limit for change moving from A to B. I have also made it clear that I see no reason for A or B to have a limit of what change they receive.
You are arguing that there is a maximum change per time at a point, say A. I do not accept this. Point A logically should be able to receive any amount of change in one unit of time. The only limit is how fast that any amount of change can travel to point B.
In terms of your steps, the split occurs here:
This is where you interpret that as a maximum change at point A, and I interpret it as the speed that any amount of change moves at.
This debate proves to me that Rational Metaphysics (RM) has assumed that there is a maximum rate of change at any one point. What would stop a change arriving? I see no logical reason there should be such a maximum rate.
So now you are not accepting that one, right? Point B cannot change unless it receives (or sends) something, right? You are saying that there is a limit for how quickly something can relocate, but not how quickly it can change.
So let me break that one down;
1) Any change in potential takes time and thus that change did not occur instantaneously.
2) If the rate is not infinite, then it must be finite.
3)If it is the fastest change possible then it is a single fixed number.
4) There can only be one “fastest possible”.
5) The fastest change that can possibly occur must be fixed and finite simply because it cannot be infinite and it is a single maximum possible.
I agree that change cannot be instantaneous. That means the slope of a change is not vertical. It can be arbitrarily high, but not vertical. It means that if we keep looking at smaller and smaller time intervals the very high slope becomes less high.
So I disagree with 2 and 3:
It is the same situation as a photon - there is no such thing as a photon of “infinite energy”. However, there is no limit to the amount of energy in a photon. This idea applies to change - there is not such thing as an instantaneous change at one point. Instead, the slope of change at a point can be arbitrarily high, and we can always reduce it by taking smaller and smaller time intervals.
So 2 is not right - it is finite but unbounded, and 3 is also wrong - it is not a single fixed number.
There is no finite value to “fastest possible” rate of change at one point. Any such claim is still an assumption, like claiming there is a maximum energy for a photon.
You are clearly struggling with the idea of something being finite and unbounded.
Take the set of positive integers (whole numbers): 1, 2, 3, 4…
There is no such thing as an integer called “infinity”. So every integer is finite. Yet the set contains an infinite number of members. So there is no “largest” integer even when they are all finite in size. That’s what the combination of “finite and unbounded” means.
The same applies to real numbers, which include all fractions and non decimal things like pi. I gave an physical example - the energy of a photon, which is always finite but there is no “largest” energy for a photon.
This is a logical choice for the rate of change at a point - it should always be finite, but there is no finite fixed value for the maximum rate of change. To have a finite maximum rate begs two questions - Why is there a finite maximum? What is special about that finite maximum value?
I understand it is very important for Rational Metaphysics (RM) that there should be a finite maximum rate of change at a single point. RM can assume the one exists and proceed from there.
I see. So at some point in your life, you got confused on what “finite but unbounded” means. When they use that term, they are always talking about two different properties of an entity.
They say that the universe is “finite but unbounded”" and what they mean is that the current size or energy content is finite, but the potential size or maximum size is unbounded or infinite. Those are two different numbers; current size and potential size.
They also use that term when discussing many of the numbers that cannot be completely represented by the digital system such as Pi. The number Pi has a finite size but requires an infinite number of digits to represent it in the standard digital system of numbers. Those are two different numbers; size and number of numbers to represent it.
This is what led to Georg Cantor’s conundrum concerning the cardinality of infinities. Cantor realized that a real number can have infinity squared digits; inf.inf. But of course using a bidecimal system a real number could have infinity cubed digits; inf.inf.inf. This is just an issue of the decimal representation system and its limits although Cantor argued that no value could exceed the maximum real number of decimal numbers, which is clearly not true. Actually every location in Euclidean space involves 3 real numbers and thus represents infinity to the sixth power decimal numbers.
But in RM, I am talking about a single property, not two separate properties or how it is represented in digital form. The maximum size is merely one property that is either infinite or finite. A maximum is a single number in its size regardless of how many digits it might require to represent it in a monodecimal system. If anything has a maximum then that maximum is by definition a bound. If it was unbounded, it would not be a maximum.
The single property of maximum value or size must be either finite (bounded) or infinite (unbounded), by definition.
You are trying to confuse the issue of what finite and unbounded means.
I gave a clear example - positive integers and whether there is a maximum. Clearly there is no maximum value of an integer, even though every integer is finite.
In response, you are trying to confuse “finite and unbounded” with distractions. You stated:
Not true - the example of a maximum positive integer is about only one issue. Your next point:
This is a distraction - representing a finite real number like Pi with a finite number of digits is quite a different problem to determining a maximum positive integer.
Rational Metaphysics (RM) uses both of these distractions in the final comments:
RM has not given any logic about why there must be a finite maximum rate of change at a point. One logical possibility is that all rates of change at a point are finite and there is no maximum value - the rates finite and unbounded. RM cannot rule this possibility out. Overall, RM has not yet given a firm logical argument for a finite maximum rate of change.
I have asked you before to please stop accusing concerning my intentions else I will have to return the favor. Is that what you want?
Well, I gave the explanation as to why it is two, so what is your explanation as to why it is only one?
Which is the “one issue” that is both finite and unbounded?
Well you are right, you merely stated a distraction and didn’t address the issue at all.
Either display how a single maximum can be both finite and also unbounded or give it up.
We are debating Rational Metaphysics (RM) and the issue of a maximum rate of change at a point in the universe.
There is an assumption in the challenge you present to me:
This challenge assumes there is a finite single maximum in the first place. My answer is that there is no such thing. My argument is simple: the rate of change at a point is finite and unbounded, so there is no maximum. It makes no sense to say the maximum rate of change is “infinity” because that implies an instantaneous change, which I agree is not logical. The only way to express this is to say there is no finite single maximum rate of change.
RM has not excluded the argument I present on this.
There might be a finite single maximum - it is a possibility. It appears RM requires that there be one. It is an assumption, because RM has not given a case it must exist.
Eugene, you are trying to say that a value can be both finite and also infinite, which is like saying that a number is both 10 and greater than 10 at the same time. Logic doesn’t permit something to be both what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time.
Remember that we are not talking about the maximum potential, but the maximum rate of change. An infinite rate of change means that the same point is at both a high and a low value at the same time. It can’t be both. That isn’t an “assumption”. It is true by definition and logic.
I have asked (for the third time now) for any example of a value that is both finite and also infinite (unbounded). You haven’t provided any such example of course, because it would be silly. A proof is determined by the lack of alternatives. The only alternative to being finite is to be non-finite, which is to be infinite.
Are you too proud to admit that RM has proven a point?
You have finally revealed the source of the logical flaw in Rational Metaphysics (RM).
RM argues that the maximum rate of change at a point is either finite or infinite. I agree that “infinity” is not an acceptable rate of change, so RM concludes that the maximum rate of change is finite.
What RM has not considered is that there is NO maximum rate of change.
I anticipate that RM may try to argue that if there is no maximum rate of change then the maximum must be infinity. That is not true. A maximum of infinity is impossible (because it can’t be attained), but saying there is no maximum is very possible.
The way to get your mind around it is to think of my example of integers. If you say “the maximum integer is either finite or infinite”, then you have made the same mistake, because neither choice works. The correct answer is “There is no maximum integer, and all integers are finite in value”.
So the logical flaw in RM is to say “The maximum rate of change must be either finite or infinite”. That has immediately excluded one possibility - that there is no maximum at all. It is a subtle possibility that clearly RM has not taken into account.
None of this says that RM is wrong - we need to compare with reality to check that. What this says is that RM has assumed that a maximum rate of change exists and worked from there.
Having assumptions is OK - both quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) have assumptions. Theories can be successful and useful with assumptions included - we just need to be aware of what they are.
Obviously it is okay for you, but RM is a little more strict.
So since assumptions are okay by you, then it is okay that I tell everyone that TEW ASSUMES that little magic fairies WAVE particles into place which causes the inference pattern. That is why it is called an “elemental wave”, because they are tiny invisible “elementals”.
Eugene, you are being silly. You agree that a value is not capable of being infinite and thus must have a finite value and yet doesn’t necessarily have a finite value. If it is incapable of being infinite, it is only capable of being finite.
We haven’t gotten into WHY is must always be finite because that would require math and logic well outside your education and willingness to see reason.
The concept of “there is no maximum” is a tricky one.
The example of integers is the best one for this. Each integer if finite. There is no such thing as an integer called “infinity”. What is the maximum integer? The answer is that there is no maximum. Another way of saying that is the the integers are finite and unbounded.
The same is a logical possibility for the rate of change at a point. Each rate of change must be finite, because an infinite rate of change is logically impossible. What is the maximum rate of change? It could be finite, which is the choice of Rational Metaphysics (RM).
Clearly RM has not considered the possibility that there simply is no maximum. This is seen in this quote:
Philosophically, this misses the possibility that there simply is no maximum at all. That is the possibility that RM has missed.
It is a very subtle and difficult point of philosophy to understand. I strongly recommend you take some time to think about this one, because academic philosophers are very likely to pick up on it too. All you need to do is to acknowledge there is an extra possibility that RM has assumed does not apply.
Not being infinite MEANS there is a maximum. It just doesn’t specify what that maximum is or upon what it depends.
Anyway, RM merely depends on it not being infinite and you already agreed to that. RM has 3 proofs for why it can’t be infinite. One requires some sophisticated mathematics, the other two are fairly simple and I showed them to you.
