3 Questions:
Question number one: Do you have mercy?
Question number two: Are we monkeys?
Question number tree: Is time real?
>>26597136
yes, no and yes.
please let me know if you would like me to elaborate
>>26597136
Yes.
I don't have enough evidence for this.
Define 'real'.
yes
monkey is just a word
no it is always now. time is a construct
>>26597136
it depends
no we are humans silly
I guess
>>26597154
Please elaborate.
>>26597167
Is the a continuous amount of events, with the set cardinality aleph 1, and not more or less.
>>26597174
Do you like Eckard Tolle?
>>26597136
yes no kind of
Picture is unfair though because John Kraskinski is five years younger than Jenna Fischer and it uses a still from a movie vs an unflattering photo of her.
>>26597167
>I don't have enough evidence for this
We're not monkeys, we're homo sapiens. What's more to know, sweet buns?
>>26597167
>Define 'real'
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
>>26597209
>Is the a continuous amount of events, with the set cardinality aleph 1, and not more or less
To make an addition to your first question, we'd need to pair space and time together for it to be Aleph(1), then we can assume the answer to this as true. So, given this, yes time could be considered real.
>>26597243
See above.
Although how you're wording it gives room for there to be a discrepancy. We cannot say with certainty that time is occurring in fact; however it we can say that about the passage of time.I'm just nitpicking out of boredom. Don't mind me.
>>26597243
It's not that simple with constituents that make up fundamental physical theories.
Is temperature real? Or is it just the multiplicative inverse of the energy derivative of the entropy of a system, valid only for large enough particles so that the partial derivative concept can be well approximated?
(Or if you want to look at ideal gas, is temperature real or just a number you can assign to a system characterized by 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 gas particles?)
If you say yes these sorts of notions are "real" because we can use it, and speak of temperature and communicate useful stuff, then disney world and bugs bunny is also "real", even if there isn't a bunny that can speak English.
Time can be a useful imagination of humans, even if it (space also, and time) is only a derived approximative notion
Can't we just say that time is as real as length, width, and depth are?
The only difference being that we can't really "visualize" it?
Yes, no and no
>>26597442
>derived approximative notion
What does that mean senpai?
You are now reminded.
>>26597459
We can (abstractly) 'visualize' time if we measure the passage of it.
>>26597470
In the sense that "touch" is an approximation notion. You can use it to speak of interaction, but really if you take the atom model, then as two things get closer at one point they repell each other so strongly that getting closer becomes too hard for any force (that's not a nuclear reactors preasure, say). So nothing "really" "touches", share the same spot. It's a notion so we can talk about simple mechanics and we act as if billiard balls come together and push each other like a child imagines.
>>26597459
Depends on the theory.
In classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, time is a parameter.
In special and general relativity, time is more: a dimension and there is a way of measuring (metric tensor) space and time distances and those can mix up.
A difference is that things (e.g. your eye ball) can be, at once, understood to be located in space (it's somewhere), whereas in time the location is naively a length of a few years (90 years say) but really the thing is always changing and renewing and so there is no single eyeball that's existing for more than a moment.
>>26597209
>Do I have mercy
Yeah i am a big proponent of showing mercy to people and have shown a lot of mercy myself.
>are we monkeys
No we are a very close relative of apes, but not the same thing as monkeys
>does time exist.
yes time is a dimension of physical reality which we experience as a continuous sequences of cross-sections. Every thing that's ever happened remains an immanent part of physical reality, but we have no way to access it.
>>26597136
both of those in the OP are for a show about the apocalypse or something for jenna and a fucking michael bay film for john, what a stupid picture.
you realize that they're both married to people, have children, and lives outside of that show they did together yeah? i think it's so weird when people say they should be together, what the fuck you don't even know them it's a fucking television show
jenna/pam was and is still the epitome of qt3.14, though.
>>26597136
for little bugs and animals and stuff yes
kind of
real enough
Probably, don't know myself well enough to answer truthfully.
Yes.
Measuring and keeping track of the passing of time is real at least.
No, yes, time is a form of measurement - this is like asking if religion is real.
