Thread: The Best Things in Life are Free

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I didn't say courtship is love. I said love requires socialising (including but not limited to courtship). At least love that isn't simply the 'puppy' love, the shallow love that many teenagers have, requires socialising with that person.

And in many cases this does actually have a direct monetary cost associated with it.

Only if you decide to spend money to do that then it has a cost, no one forces you to spend money to socialize. So love is still free, regardless of including socializing. You don't have to pay to talk. But like always, you can spend money on stuff.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Using the unromantic idea of comparing love to a car journey, you can jump in your car and go somewhere. There are many places you can go without having to pay an extra cost ('free'), but the journey still costs you money because you had to pay for the fuel to get you there. Love is the final destination here, and socialising is your 'car'.

So with that analogy, love is free, but how you acquire love isn't free because you have the option of spending money in the process. There is beauty all around, you don't need to drive to find it, but you can if you want. Personally, I think sunsets are the way to go.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Well ultimately we can define things however we want, but this has no bearing on how accurate and true the definition is.

I did look up a few online sources to come to that definition of time. There were quite a few different definitions out there, I just combined the ones that made the most sense into a single more complete definition. And I thought I'd declare what it is at the start to avoid confusion. If you don't think my definition of time is correct, what do you think is the correct definition?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

C'mon, you know better than this. Only the present currently exists, but to deny the past as being real is nonsense. Just because something no longer exists that has no effect on how real it is.

Unless by real where you mean "exists" then you're simply saying the past doesn't exist, which says nothing really.

Real is defined as being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. That which can only be told about does not exist, because all you get is a story about it, not it itself. And the subconscience makes up its own past, you can never convey your own experience to someone with 100% accuracy, and when they heard your story, they'll remember it how they want to. So any accounts of the past are just personal attempts to explain their experiences. Hence, the past does not exist. It did exist at some point, but it no longer does. That is the nature of the past, after things come from not existing in the future, through their existence in the present, they go back to not existing in the past. So you can say the past was real, but it no longer is real. Just as the future will be real, but isn't right now.

Originally Posted by schmaven

as time is the spacing between events, it is not real

Originally Posted by Photolysis

This also doesn't make sense. Try the following: As distance is the spacing in between items, it cannot be real.

With events with any time in between them, at least one of those events does not exist. Therefor is not real. So the measurement goes from either something imaginary to another imaginary thing, or we measure from a real thing to an imaginary thing. You cannot use time to measure two things in the present, because they occur at the same time, and both are real. I think this discrepancy alone is enough to prove that time is like imaginary numbers, and isn't real.

Of course, as the limit of time approaches zero, you can measure two real things. But this is only on the small scale of things. Similarly to how there are equations that model the deflection of a beam as a whole very accurately and are considered truths. But if the point you're considering is not far away enough away from a support, that same equation used as a truth no longer applies. So for the most part, time measures unreal things. How can something be real when you have to reference it with things that aren't real?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

As distance is the spacing in between items, it cannot be real.
So distance isn't real?

Well, firstly, items and events are two completely different things, so you can't even compare them like that. Distance is real, because it is the measurement between two real things. You can't measure something if it isn't there, which limits measurements of distance to scope of only real things, thus making it real.

sorry for not being more clear in my earlier post

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Well guess what? The whole of modern physics is against you when you state that time does not exist.

If you want to disprove all of modern physics, you're going to have to do more than write a few badly worded statements with little substance.

I am curious as to where the whole modern physics classifies the idea of time as being real. Do you have a source for this? We have provided what I feel to be compelling arguments against time being real, you are the one posting things with little substance.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I notice how you avoided giving any scientific proof whatsoever. Don't be shy. If you know the answer on the matter as you claim, you will go down as one of the greatest minds in physics.

Whoever thought of imaginary numbers was a genius. The proof that imaginary numbers are not real does not disprove anything in the field of math. It is simply acknowledging a fact. Similarly proving that time is imaginary does not disprove any of modern physics. And I'm sure we're not the first to conclude that time is not real. And we're not the ones coming up with time itself, just showing how it is not real, so sadly I doubt we'll go down as one of the greatest minds in physics, as it is really not that tricky of a concept.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You begin with putting a very spiritual slant on a scientific statement (which is wrong as energy exists in various stable states and is not always changing).

The saying, "change is constant" applies to everything. Energy does exist in various stable states, but at the molecular level, there is always energy exchange, in every case. The changes may be large and fast, or they could be minute and unnoticeable, but they are always taking place. Keep in mind that heat and light are forms of energy.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Watch what happenes when I rewrite your first phrase: [Energy is constantly changing from one form to another (false)]. Therefore through this we could relatively say nothing is free, or rather, all is free [complete non sequitur]. Yet if we remain unattached to what is relative, we realize the universal - that which never changes, which is always free, and is Reality itself [more inane rambling].

Listen to my interpretation of this same phrase: [Energy is constantly changing from one form to another (very true, I have had thermodynamics and a lot of physics classes so far)]. Therefor through this we could say that since all money is, is another form of energy, and energy is always changing form, money will inevitable change form into some other kind of energy. In this way, energy is always transforming from one form to another. Even if you just put the money in the bank. That is changing it from kinetic energy (energy in motion) to potential energy (the ability to do work / use energy).

You trade money for work, i.e. you pay people for them to perform certain services. So money = power, power = work / time, Work = force * distance, and force is physical energy, so money = energy * distance / time. Money is a form of energy. Energy is always in change. You can use money to get people to do work for you, but in that case, you are not doing the work, you are just changing energy from the form of money, into power. People trade work and time for money, work is a form of energy, time measures how long the work took place. So if you're trading energy for something, it makes sense that you're getting energy back for it. As you can use money to trade for more energy, it is a form of energy in itself. Money is just one of the many ways to exchange energy, which is always changing forms. So since everything is an exchange of energy, in the form of work, nothing is free from work. However, if you choose not to pay for the work, that work is free. Therefor, everything costs work, you can do the work yourself for free, some of the best things in life aren't exempt from costing work. But if you do the work yourself to experience those things, you will not have to spend any money, making those things free.

Yet if we remain unattached to what is relative, we realize the universal - that which never changes, which is always free, and is reality itself.

The best things in life are experiences themselves, which are by nature, free. The means by which you acquire these experiences never have to cost money. But because we live in a society, you sometimes need money to get to places where you can experience the best things. However, that money was spent on the journey, not the experience. So journeys are not free, but the best things in life are. It doesn't cost a dime to use your senses. As the universe is always there, capable of being perceived and interacted with, being responsible for every one of our experiences, always at zero cost to the perceiver. The best things in life are indeed free.

But the best things in life are experiencing the energy, not the energy itself (the electronic signals interpreted by our brains are responsible for all of our pleasures and our pains and our experiences... also electronic signals are energy). Electronic signals (energy) by themselves are cool, but not that great, only when they are interpreted by our brains do they create our reality through our ability to experience and perceive. In this reality all of the best things in the world exist, and how we interact / see them is based solely on our ability to use our senses. Money is simply another form of energy and is not necessary for our brain to experience things.

So, the best things in life are free. But can be bought if you're a sucker.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Guess what? You can throw around terms like enegy, and reality and so on all you want, but people can see you are talking crap.

What's your argument for time being real?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Who gives a shit about a view no one in their right mind would take? Who cares how one random person decides to define it? I could call you racist because I take the view that "money is free" is a statement that refers to white superiority.

I believe I am in my right mind, and I hold this view. People hold separate views all the time. Considering them is how you get to know people and how they think. Everyone is just one random person. The only difference between some views are that more people have heard and accept them. But they are still from just random people deciding to define stuff.

You could call someone racist because you take the view that "money is free refers to white superiority" However, others who look at that view probably would not agree with it because you didn't give a reason for why that is your view. You would have to explain how that refers to white superiority for me to see where you're coming from on that one.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Any rational person would rightly call me on my stupidity of completely redefining a statement and drawing a conclusion from it.

Any rational person would explain their own definition of the statement in the case that there is a difference in understanding the terms that could be leading to the different conclusions.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It doesn't matter in the slightest if someone views work as costing nothing because it is completely and utterly WRONG. It's the definition of work, you know, to actually do work?

The definition of work is force times distance. You can exert a force on something and move it (or yourself if it's really big) some distance, thus doing work, and not have to pay anything. I would say work is free. There are forms of work you have to pay for, but that's just because you're probably paying someone else to do the work, and you yourself are not doing any work. In which case the work is still free, you're just paying for someone else to do it. For whom you're paying, it doesn't cost him anything to do that work, in fact, he is gaining money (the opposite of cost) to do that very same work for which you are claiming costs money.

If anything, work gives you money. Think about it, if you went to work and didn't do any work, I don't think they would pay you. However, you can buy work, i.e. trade your money for someone to perform the work in your stead. In which case you are buying a favor, not work, as the one performing the work, not the one buying the work, is the one who does the work. The actual doing of the work is free, and if anything, results in you receiving money.

I saw one of those dime store philosophy bumper stickers that said, "The best things in life aren't things".

As cheesy as it was, it about summed up how I feel about that cliche sentiment.

Only if you decide to spend money to do that then it has a cost, no one forces you to spend money to socialize. So love is still free, regardless of including socializing. You don't have to pay to talk. But like always, you can spend money on stuff.

But you are forced to spend some money to socialize. Partly as a result of social conventions (try avoiding spending money on clothes), but also because it does take up time, and because you need the energy to socialize. Energy which comes from food, which costs money (or if you grow it from scratch, a lot of time and effort).

what do you think is the correct definition?

What I think is irrelevant because it has no bearing on reality. You might just as well ask me if I believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. It has no bearing on how true they actually are.

having verifiable existence. That which can only be told about does not exist, because all you get is a story about it, not it itself.

Firstly things can have verifiable existence without resorting to using faulty human memory. You'll notice that scientists realise that using human memory is not the way to do things when trying to prove or disprove truths about the universe.

And saying that if something can only be "told about" does not exist is wrong. It simply means that there is not objective factual information about the object, and has no effect on it's existence.

Well, firstly, items and events are two completely different things

An event is an item. There can be a distance between them, in the same sense that there is a time between them.

With events with any time in between them, at least one of those events does not exist. Therefor is not real. So the measurement goes from either something imaginary to another imaginary thing, or we measure from a real thing to an imaginary thing. You cannot use time to measure two things in the present, because they occur at the same time, and both are real. I think this discrepancy alone is enough to prove that time is like imaginary numbers, and isn't real.

You use circular proof. You define the past as not being real (using flawed criteria), and then use this to prove that time is not real because it imaginary because the past is not real!

You cannot use time to measure two things in the present

Sure I can. I can measure the time two processes started say, in the present.

And measure what precisely? If you're asking the question "what is the difference in time between these two things" then it's a meaningless question because it makes no sense.

I feel to be compelling arguments against time being real, you are the one posting things with little substance

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to really, but your arguments stand on things you have simply defined to be the case (or amusingly that actually fulfill your (incorrect) definition of real). The logic is flawed. And I have explained why so you cannot say my arguments are of no substance.

Whoever thought of imaginary numbers was a genius. The proof that imaginary numbers are not real does not disprove anything in the field of math.

Except imaginary numbers are an abstract concept and when they are used to get meaningful results in reality the imaginary parts of the numbers cancel each other out, leaving a real number.

The saying, "change is constant" applies to everything. Energy does exist in various stable states, but at the molecular level, there is always energy exchange, in every case. The changes may be large and fast, or they could be minute and unnoticeable, but they are always taking place. Keep in mind that heat and light are forms of energy.

Change is not constant. It is dynamic. And yes I am well aware that photons have an energy value (Planck's constant x wavelength) and so does the heat stored in an object (SHC x the mass x absolute temperature, and the energy stored due to the phase changes). And so molecules have rotational energy, electronic energy, lattice energy. There's also E=mc^2, and many other forms of energy.

very true, I have had thermodynamics and a lot of physics classes so far

Then evidently you didn't learn much about thermodynamics which will explain in detail the barriers to a particular reaction occuring and that there are stable energy states. You should also be aware that only specific quanta of energy can be absorbed by systems.

So money = power, power = work / time

Except you're replacing the metaphorical usage of work and power with the physical definitions.

I will continue this later.

Thanks for all the stuff so far, keep it coming... I just thought I'd step in a sec because I find the act of raping mathematics highly objectionable.

Whoever thought of imaginary numbers was a genius. The proof that imaginary numbers are not real does not disprove anything in the field of math. It is simply acknowledging a fact. Similarly proving that time is imaginary does not disprove any of modern physics. And I'm sure we're not the first to conclude that time is not real. And we're not the ones coming up with time itself, just showing how it is not real, so sadly I doubt we'll go down as one of the greatest minds in physics, as it is really not that tricky of a concept.

lol

Okay, right, first, there is no proof that IMAGINARY numbers are not REAL numbers, because IMAGINARY numbers are actually placed on a different numberline by the very definition of an IMAGINARY number (mathematical terms will be put in caps so as not to confuse them with the completely different meanings in everyday language).

The words IMAGINARY and REAL were chosen at the time as arbritrary labels; they do not in any way at all have any relevance to our common understanding of the words real and unreal/imaginary.

Now, ask yourself this: what on Earth can you possibly mean by a 'real' number?

Have you ever seen a number?

When eating your dinner, have you ever found a bunch of root twos mixed up with your baked beans? Have you ever had a conversation about the weather with e? Have you ever walked your dog minus three tenths times?

Numbers don't 'exist', they are all fabrications created in order to usefully describe reality, including real ones. I've never bumped into i walking down the street either, but that doesn't somehow destroy mathematics, and nobody claims it would.

Except imaginary numbers are an abstract concept and when they are used to get meaningful results in reality the imaginary parts of the numbers cancel each other out, leaving a real number just like every number ever.

That's better.

Another way I just thought of explaining myself; this is what an IMAGINARY number looks like in matrix notation;

0 -1
1 0

And this is what a REAL number looks like;

1 0
0 1

Anybody who claims that the first one for some reason doesn't exist whilst the second one does, is, to put it in technical language, snooker loopy.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

But you are forced to spend some money to socialize. Partly as a result of social conventions (try avoiding spending money on clothes), but also because it does take up time, and because you need the energy to socialize. Energy which comes from food, which costs money (or if you grow it from scratch, a lot of time and effort).

You are not forced to spend money to socialize. But you can. Also, spending money on socializing, or on food, is just that, spending money on socializing and food. It is not spending money on love, as love is free. There are tons of things you need to do to keep yourself alive, some of these things you have to pay for, but saying "I'm spending money to be alive, and I have to be alive to do things" does not equate to spending money on the things you do.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

What I think is irrelevant because it has no bearing on reality. You might just as well ask me if I believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. It has no bearing on how true they actually are.

What you think is clearly relevant, as you are using your definitions of words to form your argument. Although because you have not yet informed us as to what you think, your current argument has no bearing on reality, because we can't understand it. I have looked up the formal definitions of words I thought I needed to be more clear on, and included what I came up with earlier on in a few posts. You just said, "no, that's just what you think" and did not provide your own definition to clarify your point.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Firstly things can have verifiable existence without resorting to using faulty human memory. You'll notice that scientists realise that using human memory is not the way to do things when trying to prove or disprove truths about the universe.

And saying that if something can only be "told about" does not exist is wrong. It simply means that there is not objective factual information about the object, and has no effect on it's existence.

If things in the past are real, where are they? Do they exist currently? No. They don't. They did (past tense) exist, but currently, in the present, they do not exist. You can talk about them all you want, but they still remain in the past. There are cases where things have existed, and still exist. For instance, I've had my computer for 4 years, and I still have it. It exists right now. It does not exist in 2004, that is the past.

Something that can only be told about, can have objective factual information about it. And yes, that has no effect on its existence. But when you can't see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, or hear it, it does not exist. To sum it up, if it isn't capable of being perceived anymore, it no longer exists.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

An event is an item. There can be a distance between them, in the same sense that there is a time between them.

An event is something that happens at a given place and time, it is not an item. An item is just something. There is no happening with items, only events. Items can be involved in events, but are not events themselves. There are distances between items, but no time between items.

If there is a time between items, what is the time between your chair, and your window? Obviously you can't use time like that. But you can say, what is the time between falling out of my chair (an event) and opening the window (another event).

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You use circular proof. You define the past as not being real (using flawed criteria), and then use this to prove that time is not real because it imaginary because the past is not real!

I'm using normal proof, you are simply not considering my argument. I define the past being real, using standard definitions. And then use that to prove that time is not real, because something real generally deals with real things, not unreal things.

So let's just say I come up with my own term, "blieben". This blieben is the spacing between flying spaghetti monsters and earth. Clearly you can see that blieben is an unreal concept because it is used to measure unreal things.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Sure I can. I can measure the time two processes started say, in the present.

Yes, anyone can use time. Also, anyone can use imaginary numbers.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

And measure what precisely? If you're asking the question "what is the difference in time between these two things" then it's a meaningless question because it makes no sense.

Exactly, you have to measure events. Time is the ordering of events, not things.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to really, but your arguments stand on things you have simply defined to be the case (or amusingly that actually fulfill your (incorrect) definition of real). The logic is flawed. And I have explained why so you cannot say my arguments are of no substance.

definition of real:
1) Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence
2) Capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"
3) Substantial: having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary; "the substantial world"
Source

How is my definition of real incorrect. Please enlighten me as to what the correct definition is. You have not presented your side of the argument with anything I found persuasive, so I have concluded that your argument currently is of no substance.

Simply saying that my definitions are incorrect, and that my logic is flawed does not help your case at all. Especially because you have not made any attempt to correct my definitions or to point out any gaps in my logic.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Except imaginary numbers are an abstract concept and when they are used to get meaningful results in reality the imaginary parts of the numbers cancel each other out, leaving a real number.

The imaginary parts don't cancel each other out. By definition, they are the square roots of negative numbers and don't exist. It is a mathematical fact that 3i squared = -9 You don't cancel out the i. If you were to try to perform a mathematical function on the i, you would end up with -9ii.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Change is not constant. It is dynamic. And yes I am well aware that photons have an energy value (Planck's constant x wavelength) and so does the heat stored in an object (SHC x the mass x absolute temperature, and the energy stored due to the phase changes). And so molecules have rotational energy, electronic energy, lattice energy. There's also E=mc^2, and many other forms of energy.

There are definitely many other forms of energy, and each form changes into other forms. This is always taking place on the atomic level. To deny this fact is to say modern science is wrong.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Then evidently you didn't learn much about thermodynamics which will explain in detail the barriers to a particular reaction occuring and that there are stable energy states. You should also be aware that only specific quanta of energy can be absorbed by systems.

While the total amount of energy in a system may remain constant, this is due to the balance of energy going in, and energy going out. So while it may look like the energy is stationary, it is in a constant state of flux.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Except you're replacing the metaphorical usage of work and power with the physical definitions.

Physical definitions of work and power: Power = energy per unit time (measured in Joules/second or Watts). Work = force applied over a distance (measured in Joules). Force = a type of physical energy (measured in newtons). 1 Joule = 1 newton * meter. Therefor, Power = energy/second or in scientific terms, P = Nm/s (Newton*meter)/(second). I'm sorry if I confused you earlier, but I'm using the definitions used by science, and have not used metaphors in this proof.

If you don't understand what I am explaining, feel free to ask questions and I will clarify my point. Also, please make an effort to provide a counterargument if you disagree with my position instead of just claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. Because I can assure you, I do know what I'm talking about.

The imaginary parts don't cancel each other out. By definition, they are the square roots of negative numbers and don't exist. It is a mathematical fact that 3i squared = -9 You don't cancel out the i. If you were to try to perform a mathematical function on the i, you would end up with -9ii.

There seems to be some kind of abnormal rift in spacetime in the exact location of my last post...

Even if you had a point, you are raping maths again. -9ii is 9. And Photolysis is right when he says IMAGINARY numbers tend to cancel each other out, for example they were developed in order to calculate the exact roots of cubic equations and though you often need to use i in your calculations the answers are often entirely REAL.

And the fact still stands that you've completely misunderstood the nature of numbers and mathematics.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

: Except imaginary numbers are an abstract concept and when they are used to get meaningful results in reality the imaginary parts of the numbers cancel each other out, leaving a real number

I agree, imaginary numbers are an abstract concept. However, imaginary numbers are imaginary. This makes them not real. I also agree that when you use imaginary numbers in many calculations, the imaginary parts of the numbers cancel out and you can get real numbers. However, this does not distract from the imaginary numbers still being not real. They can not be real and still give meaningful results. Everything mathematically you can do with them has no problem with them not being real.

Originally Posted by Xei

Even if you had a point, you are raping maths again. -9ii is 9. And Photolysis is right when he says IMAGINARY numbers tend to cancel each other out, for example they were developed in order to calculate the exact roots of cubic equations and though you often need to use i in your calculations the answers are often entirely REAL.

My point was that time is not real, just as imaginary numbers are not real, yet this does not prevent us from using either of them. -9ii = 9 is proof that we can use imaginary numbers and get real results. The answer being real does not have any correlation to imaginary numbers being real. I agree with imaginary numbers canceling each other out.

Originally Posted by Xei

And the fact still stands that you've completely misunderstood the nature of numbers and mathematics.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

The imaginary parts don't cancel each other out. By definition, they are the square roots of negative numbers and don't exist. It is a mathematical fact that 3i squared = -9 You don't cancel out the i. If you were to try to perform a mathematical function on the i, you would end up with -9ii.

I was trying to say that the imaginary part is there only to identify the number as imaginary. And that you don’t do mathematical operations on the identifier. I did not mean to say that you don’t cancel out the i’s, you would. But if you used i as a variable, and multiplied -3i by 3i, you would get -9ii. In this case, we’re using i as an identifier. I was thinking about how if you divided 12iii by 3ii you would get 4i, then you would be canceling i's and using it as a variable.

I'm sorry if I was unclear in my earlier explanation, but I can assure you that I have a firm grasp on the nature of numbers and mathematics.

To go back to where all this confusion began:

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Whoever thought of imaginary numbers was a genius. The proof that imaginary numbers are not real does not disprove anything in the field of math.

What I meant to convey was that we use imaginary numbers all the time in mathematics. Imaginary numbers are not real and by definition don’t exist. The realness of the imaginary numbers, or any numbers has no bearing on their effectiveness in calculations. Similarly, time not being real has no effect on how we use it every day.

The desire to sound intelligent has driven this topic pretty far off course.

p.s. stop using the word 'maths'.

Also, hey; I'll help do your homework for you. It will give me a sense of satisfaction to know you couldn't do it yourself.

Here's some books;

The Death of Ivan Illyich-Tolstoy in this book the character Ivan Illyich leads his life with material gain as his driving force. As he lays ill on his death bed, he questions the reasons for his suffering, because he believes he has lead a good life (financially prosperous) that doesn't deserve a painful end.

Siddartha- Hess this book chronicles the life of a man named siddartha in ancient India and is meant to be a parallel of the life of Gautama Buddha who is also a character in the book. Siddartha seeks out the true meaning of life, first as the son of a brahmin, then as an ascetic, and for most of his life as a wealthy business man. Through the book, siddartha struggles with a desire for knowledge and the desire to be 'like everyone else' through experiencing material pleasures. In the end he gives up everything to be a ferryman. You'll have to read it to get the moral of the story.

Maybe I'll think of some more. Off the top of my head though, these were the two that really apply to your topic.

I won't have time to find or read 'em now, but thanks anyway.

Schmaven; all I can recommend is that you reread my explanatory post. I'm guessing your mathematical knowledge is just what you've personally heard and read, as opposed to you being taught, because you don't really understand IMAGINARY numbers at all. Either you're wording things very poorly or you don't really get them... no offence of course, it's easy to do at first.

- i is not an 'identifier', it is a number, just like e or pi, and you can do any operation on it you want.

- Numbers are treated exactly like variables.

- It is very wrong to say that IMAGINARY numbers are 'defined to not exist'.

- IMAGINARY and REAL have no correspondence with the english words. They might as well be call RED and BLUE numbers or SIMON and GARFUNKEL numbers; they are just names.

Hopefully you will eventually see why your original statement doesn't make sense. Especially the bit where you listed the 'definitions' of real; listen to Photolysis, he's right: none of those was the mathematical/physical definition.

About time being real; I assume time is treated like a real number line in physics, but it honestly doesn't matter, it's just convention. You could probably use the imaginary number line instead but it would just mean you were constantly writing i after your numbers. This is a good demonstration of how maths is actually just a tool we use to describe reality and numbers have no tangible existence.

But if you're going to keep going with "Love is the best thing in the world", that means yes.

The best things in life are free. Because it's not about being happy without money, it's about The best things. Food is necessary, but might not be the best thing.

Let's say love is the best thing. Two people with no money, food, or a home, could meet and fall in love. They didn't need anything to be able to fall in love, and nothing can stop it.

The same thing goes for family, friends, happiness, and the wonders of the natural world.

Yes, some of the best things in life are free.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Well guess what? The whole of modern physics is against you when you state that time does not exist. Your nonsense about "egos" has nothing to do with it.

Haha! Guess what? Nothing is against me.

The ego is part of this; no denial. Ego is linear mind, therefore linear processing and processes.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

If you want to disprove all of modern physics, you're going to have to do more than write a few badly worded statements with little substance.

I notice how you avoided giving any scientific proof whatsoever. Don't be shy. If you know the answer on the matter as you claim, you will go down as one of the greatest minds in physics.

We're waiting...

Off-topic. I'm not trying to disprove or win anything. Stop waiting for that.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There is no substance to your bullshit whatsoever.

You begin with putting a very spiritual slant on a scientific statement (which is wrong as energy exists in various stable states and is not always changing).

If nothing is always changing, everything is never changing.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Watch what happenes when I rewrite your first phrase:

You'd be surprised what happens when "you" stop editing things.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Guess what? You can throw around terms like enegy, and reality and so on all you want, but people can see you are talking crap.

I guess less often.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Who gives a shit about a view no one in their right mind would take? Who cares how one random person decides to define it? I could call you racist because I take the view that "money is free" is a statement that refers to white superiority.

Any rational person would rightly call me on my stupidity of completely redefining a statement and drawing a conclusion from it.

Most of this is hypothetical. Hypothetical is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It's the definition of work, you know, to actually do work?

So?

Free..Love.
Not free..stuff.

So both.

FREEDOM!!!
Breath it in
Free Air, the essence of life, all around you.
LOVE is Everywhere
Breathing is my favorite activity. Take time to breath and your life will improve.

Originally Posted by Xei

Schmaven; all I can recommend is that you reread my explanatory post. I'm guessing your mathematical knowledge is just what you've personally heard and read, as opposed to you being taught, because you don't really understand IMAGINARY numbers at all. Either you're wording things very poorly or you don't really get them... no offence of course, it's easy to do at first.

Currently, I'm one math class away from having a minor in math, I've had calc I, II, III, differential equations, and now I'm taking linear algebra. I have not taken number theory or any classes explaining imaginary numbers, I have just used them a lot in many classes. I may not understand everything about imaginary numbers, but I am very familiar with their applications in the real world. I also want to add that being taught, is personally hearing and reading things. So yes, all my knowledge is just what I've personally heard and read, as a result of me being taught.

Originally Posted by Xei

- i is not an 'identifier', it is a number, just like e or pi, and you can do any operation on it you want.

- Numbers are treated exactly like variables.

- It is very wrong to say that IMAGINARY numbers are 'defined to not exist'.

- IMAGINARY and REAL have no correspondence with the english words. They might as well be call RED and BLUE numbers or SIMON and GARFUNKEL numbers; they are just names.

Hopefully you will eventually see why your original statement doesn't make sense. Especially the bit where you listed the 'definitions' of real; listen to Photolysis, he's right: none of those was the mathematical/physical definition.

About time being real; I assume time is treated like a real number line in physics, but it honestly doesn't matter, it's just convention. You could probably use the imaginary number line instead but it would just mean you were constantly writing i after your numbers. This is a good demonstration of how maths is actually just a tool we use to describe reality and numbers have no tangible existence.

If numbers have no tangible existence, then I would say they are not real. By the same reasoning, I conclude that time is not real. I used imaginary numbers as an example, because the word imaginary usually implies something being not real. I don't really want to argue over the semantics of mathematics, as that does not have anything to do with the point I intended to make (that time is not real).

It's really quite a bit more important than semantics... but okay. Your original argument was tangled up in maths though, would you care to explain it without the bit about imaginary numbers? And please distinguish if you're talking about real as in 'existent' or REAL as in 'mathematically having no IMAGINARY part'.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's really quite a bit more important than semantics... but okay. Your original argument was tangled up in maths though, would you care to explain it without the bit about imaginary numbers? And please distinguish if you're talking about real as in 'existent' or REAL as in 'mathematically having no IMAGINARY part'.

I'm saying the realness of something has no effect on its practical use. For instance, I would consider imaginary numbers to not be real. However, this doesn't stop anyone from using them in calculations. Similarly, time can not be real and that will not affect how we use it.

There seemed to be the idea that if time were not real, that physics would be disproved or something along those lines. I was trying to point out how this would not be the case, as time does not have to be real for us to use it.

To sum things up, time is not real. However, I invite you to try to convince me otherwise, but as far as my thinking has taken me on the subject, I have so far concluded that time is not real.

But when it comes down to it... having studied science thoroughly for a while now I've begun to come to terms with how nothing is 'real' in the sense that humans think of it.

When it comes down to what is real, what I think you are basically referring to is what is matter or energy. If not please give an example of something which is real but not matter or energy.

But yes, take the atom, for example. We feel that we are on fairly solid ground with the primitive view of the atom as being very real. That is because we picture such atoms as big billiard balls with little billiard balls orbiting around, and we feel familiar with such experiences. But atoms are of course not truly like this; their large space is governed by the electrons surrounding them, and when it comes down to it, an electron is just a piece of maths, a logical behaviour. Electrons are not really solid particles at all in atomic terms, instead they form a sort of negative cloud around the positive nucleus, and the shape of this cloud is dictated only by maths.

Really we should not be surprised at this because in the end, although solid spheres seem much more asthetically pleasing and believable than clouds of maths, all solid spheres are in the end are just a different mathematical expression.

To take a few more examples; wave/particle duality. Many people reject this as being 'not real'. But in fact it describes reality perfectly, so really it is as real as can be. It's just another type of maths.

And spacetime. People would say that is not real because it is not tangible. But that is rubbish. What is solid is just a mathematical result of repulsions between opposite charges; why exactly do they repel? What is charge? In the end charge is just a set of mathematical expressions telling to particles to accelerate towards or away from each other. There is no why that we can understand. Spacetime is completely real because it is just another piece of maths which describes reality.

And of course this brings us to time also being real, of course. Which was the point of this post.

This argument over imaginary numbers would end if someone would simply define them and move on. Even those of you that seem to at least think you understand the concept haven't done it yet.

The imaginary number 'i' is equal to the square root of -1. This number is called imaginary, because it does not exist on the real number line. The reason for this is, when any real number is squared, you come up with a positive number, and therefore the square root of -1 is a meaningless concept when using real numbers. The Imaginary number line is quite real, however; and is similar to a separate dimension from the real number line. If you were to imagine the real number line as an x axis running horizontally, you could place the imaginary number line as a y axis running vertically, and two would intersect at zero, which is the only number that is both real and imaginary.

Yes I know, all you added was the exact definition of i (root -1), and Schmaven seemed to be aware of that anyway.

Besides we've moved past that issue now, the above posts are about time if you'd care to read 'em.

Imaginary numbers are like symbols. Concepts, symbols, images, abstractions. None are reality. They represent reality in a limited perspective, which is not actually real.

Reality is beyond concepts and proof. I should now stop speaking.

This is basically my argument against time being real.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

As events pass from the future, through the present, into the past, they also pass through what I would call reality. Only the present is real. Events in the future are yet to happen, so they do not exist (the future is always uncertain). Similarly, events in the past have already taken place, and all that remains of those events are memories or records of their existence, but those events themselves no longer exist. They already happened. Only those events which are taking place in the present can be said to exist, and therefor be real.

The first paragraph is really what it hinges on.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

As time is the spacing in between events, it cannot be real. The only events that exist are in the present, and thus have no time in between them. The only way you can measure a time is when relating to the past or future, which I would say are not the present, and therefor not real. So if the thing you are measuring is not real, I would conclude that the measurement itself is not real. It is the separation between things that do not exist. But this does not take away from the usefulness of time at all. Time does not exist, yet we benefit greatly through its use regardless.

This is basically saying you can't measure things that don't exist with something that does exist.

This is my current conclusion, as I have not seen any convincing arguments for time being real.

If time does not exist then we would never move from this 'real' moment, would we?

And respond to my big response post pluhz.

Now I see why you were talking about imaginary numbers, at first it made no sense.

Only this moment exists. It is constantly changing which creates the illusion of time. We don't move through time, we move through space.

Past and Future are illusions. WE create them at this moment.