I think you're right!You posted this before. But it is still not less awesome.:tongue:
........I feel like you missed his point :O I honestly don't even know what parts of what he said you're talking about >.<If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? He says no. I think that's silly.
Dude's jumping from the obvious to the nonsensical and back. We are not cosmic, geocentric or chronocentric or whatever. We are within our own minds, nothing more. The only access we ever have to the supposed outer world is through our senses. So it's possible to enter sensory conditions that you've never experienced before and get confused. So what. That's his subjective proof and nothing more.
He's saying, ultimately, that we experience time subjectively. Woop-dee-doo. We experience everything subjectively. And we will never know if that tree makes a sound, one way or the other.
Yes, it would be wonderful. I have to listen to what a wonderful world now. But wishful thinking on the part of anyone is not proof of anything.
Though, I do strongly respect the fact that he took the time to say he might be wrong. The same goes for me.
Well....I think I get thewind's point. The professor was saying that time is relative to the observer (I agree) and if there is no one there to observe it doesn't exist (not so fast). So in essence he is saying is; if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear, it doesn't make a sound.
That counts as 'someone' being there to hear it.What if there's a microphone nearby?:mellow:
Yeah, OK, I understand that. I'm asking about HIS equation. Why someone isn't able to tell time while in a space shuttle, while he is perfectly able to tell time when on the ground. Why a race of living beings that evolved somewhere where there is no gravity would not be able to experience time.
Its part of the special theory of relativity, gravitational time dilation, and it's actually been proven with atomic clocks at differing altitudes.
I disagree. If nobody is in the forest to see the tree, the tree or what we perceive to be a tree still exists. The point the guy was making is that time is made in our minds. Trees exist outside of our minds.I think my analogy is sound. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? If nobody is in a forest to see the tree, does the tree exist? If nobody is in the universe to perceive time, does time exist?
This is EXACTLY what he was saying!I disagree. If nobody is in the forest to see the tree, the tree or what we perceive to be a tree still exists. The point the guy was making is that time is made in our minds. Trees exist outside of our minds.
This is exactly NOT what he was saying!And where is your proof of this?
The point I was making is that everything we perceive, including our perception of trees, is made in our minds. Do trees exist outside our minds? Maybe. Maybe not. The same goes for time.