1. For you to know that a clock works, you must match it with another clock. For you to know that that clock works...

If the sun casts no shadow, that means it's noon on the solstice. Everything else can be constructed using a little thing I like to call "division."

And how do you know it's the solstice?

Yes, how do you know it's the solstice?
If I were walking and came upon a boy standing by a windmill who asserted with complete conviction that all the winds in the world is caused by its windmills, how could I convince him otherwise?

How could I formulate an argument that would make sense within his form of life?

You know it's the solstice since the sun isn't casting a shadow. You convince the kid by blowing up the windmill.

Wow, that truly convinced me.
*throws out all clocks

How do you know there aren't other reasons no shadow is cast?

How am I to convince the child that I have blown up all windmills in the world?

How does one explain to an African tribe that has never seen the real world what a helicopter is?

It is not that this strictly matter.

What matters is that we can publicly speak about these terms, not what they designate you see?

It makes no sense to reply to me by offering other examples, this will only lead to the further problem.

I am on your side...but you're not...

>How are you to be sure that the measuring tool you use for the clocks is not faulty and renders the same results on an anomaly? How are you to be sure that the clocks did not degrade into the same sequence but were initially incorrect?
>If I am to say that I know all the clocks are correct because they all run in sequence. How do I know that without measuring them all and can I place such blinded faith in the measuring tool I used?

I said, every clock on Earth. Thats likely, over hundreads millions?

And lets say for sake of my argument, for years, they all kept the same, each one, 1 oclock was 1 oclock.

for years they all were synchronized.

It would be infinitely less likely that continuos coincidence kept them synchronized, and not continuos mechanical/energetic motions.

Continous energetic motions being, what is attempted to be gotten after, as a measurement of time.

>How are you to be sure that the measuring tool you use for the clocks is not faulty and renders the same results on an anomaly?

Use different measuring tools, and different clocks.

It is easier with space, because you can see a ruler, how can you be sure the yardstick isnt shrinking.

With time, our attempts for measurement, is like 'making a yard stick of time', using space, and 'speed, velocity, motion', to 'keep time'.

I may clap 50 beats a minute, roughly, and I may be very rough, but I likely if I try to keep a steady beat, will not be so rough as to clap 100 or 1000 beats a minute?

That I suppose touches upon, as all this does, our confidence in our general, towards fundamental, acquaintance with some aspects of the universe. That we know enough about some laws, molecules, atoms, that like, we can feel comfortable, thinking, "ok maybe it could, but it is not likely, "if everything goes as it did, and as it is, and our knowledge of the surroundings and laws and theories are truish enough, it should be safe to say" the Earth will not increase in speed by 3 or 4 or 7 times tonight.'

Now we say the same thing for time.

Funnily, interestingly enough, there is the year, the day, the heavenly bodies motions, into our time. Well that is some, maybe, top down, and then we work up to that, with our micro stuff, which also in its way might be the top down of the universe:

But anyway, so I suppose partly: the universe, or this area of the universe as a whole, would have to undergo some fundamental change, that would allow our measurement of time to slowly, surely alter.

Well, I guess seconds is one thing... decay rate of cessium atoms or something:

Sure there can be a small earthquake and the device they keep track of that on can skip a pico second or a million here and there... but there are the millions of other clocks, that are relatively synched and working, and then night always falls, and day always rises, so everything below that generalized chunk of factage, is rounded and relatively relative?

You didn't reply to my post.

You just replied to the OP again.

If you want to speak to yourself, go back to >>>/reddit/, thank you very much.

>how could I convince him otherwise?

Ask him the volume of the Earths atmosphere, its mass: the input of energy into the windmills, the mass of the blades (and some other details), and then measure the energy of the wind, and see if they equal

>Ask him the volume of the Earths atmosphere, its mass: the input of energy into the windmills, the mass of the blades (and some other details), and then measure the energy of the wind, and see if they equal

That implies that he already knows or that his form of life is in tune with mine but what if he were a member of an African tribe that made a very small windmill out of sticks about 10 feet tall for fun by chance one day and concluded that replications of these throughout the world caused wind?

How could you convince them, practically, through language?

What does it matter if you can still speak about the words meaningfully through their usage?

>How do you know there aren't other reasons no shadow is cast?
Tons of ways that it would be tedious to list here. I suggest you look up contrastivism to understand exactly how you're being a trivial pedant.

You don't have to convince him you blew them all up - just have him stand in front of the one while the wind is blowing. I guess if you want to be boring you could just tie a rope to the blades and pull it stopped. To each his own.

African tribes have seen the real world, but I'll assume that little patronising remark was due to the language barrier. Anyway, assuming you know how helicopters work, you tell them all that stuff. Voila, explained.

You clearly don't get what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter if they don't understand.

What matters is that whether or not they understand, we can still speak meaningfully with one another.

Also, all you did was restate previous assertions. You are unable to look in from out.

>I-it doesn't matter that my argument is nonsense!
>Y-you just don't get it

Ad hominem

I thought I covered your shite questions/considerations in my responses, sorry there cunt, my bad.

>It is not that I say we shouldn't believe such things are consistent. Only that we cannot say with certainty that they are.

Is it possible to ever say anything is consistent? Hypothetically, theoretically, what would it take to be able to say, "anything is consistent"?

Surely, everything in the universe, in real time, is consistent, consistently occurring in real time.
>How are you to be sure that the measuring tool you use for the clocks is not faulty and renders the same results on an anomaly?

Measuring tool = Looking at the hands of hundreds of millions of clocks. They are all on 12. Now they are all on 12:01. Now they are all on 12:02. There must be some physical, mechanical, energetic reason for this.

I believe I can be quite sure, this difference, this quantity the Earth moved, from 12 to 12:01 is not equal to a million years. (then, I can just work backwards, towards, what it may be equal to)

>How are you to be sure that the clocks did not degrade into the same sequence but were initially incorrect?

If I am to say that I know all the clocks are correct because they all run in sequence. How do I know that without measuring them all and can I place such blinded faith in the measuring tool I used?

>What matters is what we publicly come to agree is the second and whether we can accept each other's process of justification at any given moment.

yeah, but this says nothing about the potential for whether or not it is possible for 'time keeping device' to stay consistent. And if that is theoretically possible, it is theoretically possible for us to be sure, that the device is in fact, operating absolutely consistently.

I totally understand what you are getting at, the 'groundlessness' of it all.

The concept of 'steady beat keeping' is a transcendent concept, perhaps there are absolutes beyond practical matter.

There might be a 'fastest possible time' that is like a speed of light, physical universal limit.

There must be a 'smallest possible unit of space', there is likely a smallest possible unit of time, though it is likely beyond expressing with matter (in the same way, there are theoretically more numbers, than possible quantity of matter);

However, infinitesimal time is not possible, just as infinitesimal space is not, as I just said, there must be limits, there is only so close to 0 you can go. The quickest possible time, would be the absolute first theoretical time, after 0 time speed.

>How could you convince them, practically, through language?

Would, teaching them your language, count?

You must be that 'on certainty' poster, huh.

I could make pictorially language, drawing images, in sand, and on paper.

Irony

trying to apply logic as if concepts where abstract axiomatically well constructed stuff baka

>I thought I covered your shite questions/considerations in my responses, sorry there cunt, my bad.

Apologies, I don't know why I replied to your other post that way. Perhaps I confused it with another one.

>Measuring tool = Looking at the hands of hundreds of millions of clocks. They are all on 12. Now they are all on 12:01. Now they are all on 12:02. There must be some physical, mechanical, energetic reason for this.

How would you do this? Are you capable of imagining a 1000 things in your head right now?

>yeah, but this says nothing about the potential for whether or not it is possible for 'time keeping device' to stay consistent. And if that is theoretically possible, it is theoretically possible for us to be sure, that the device is in fact, operating absolutely consistently.

>I totally understand what you are getting at, the 'groundlessness' of it all.

Yes, you may right. Sorry if I have been vague.

>Would, teaching them your language, count?
Perhaps but what would that look like? And could you be sure that they even understand you? But does it matter...does it matter that they understood you...if they can use the word what you deem to be appropriate...

>You must be that 'on certainty' poster, huh.
No but I read the book because of him...

>I could make pictorially language, drawing images, in sand, and on paper.
What if you came upon an african tribeman who had spent his entire life being taught that nodding meant 'no' and shaking your head meant 'yes'? How could you convince him otherwise?

>What does it matter if you can still speak about the words meaningfully through their usage?

You repeated the phrase elsewhere "what matters is"
implying all that we can and should care about is practicality and pragmatism?

You said, that we can speak about these terms, not what they designate.

But, we believe, with good evidence, that 'things' 'exist' outside of ourselves. And we make words, to instead of having to be surrounded by all things of the world at all time, to point to them to get things done, we create codes, apple = *points to red sphere hanging off tree*. Sand = *points to stuff on beach*

You can then say, "put the apple in the sand", and I take the red sphere, and put it in the little beige spheres. How is what words designate not important?

"What matters is what we publicly come to agree is the second"

Now, this is about like, Knowing Absolute Truth, stuff.. Noumena vs phenomenon, gradients of relative knowledge.

So you think there can be multiple contradictory processes of justification at any given moment; or lets say even non contradictory (1000 angels on needle pin cause the second to be perfect, because God made those angels perfect time keepers, they keep it on their harps)

Do you not agree, there exists some real Truthness, which efforts are attempting to approach, to know? And that, there can be multiple true processes of justification?

I lost the track a bit. What we publicly agree is the second. Are you saying this, as in saying "There is no "real" entity that exists outside mans mind and invention, that is "the second""?

>You said, that we can speak about these terms, not what they designate.

Yes.

>But, we believe, with good evidence, that 'things' 'exist' outside of ourselves. And we make words, to instead of having to be surrounded by all things of the world at all time, to point to them to get things done, we create codes, apple = *points to red sphere hanging off tree*. Sand = *points to stuff on beach*

Yes.

>You can then say, "put the apple in the sand", and I take the red sphere, and put it in the little beige spheres. How is what words designate not important?

It is important to our process of justification in our interactions with one another but not in themselves. How would you by simply pointing to the red apple ostensively teach a child what is red and what is apple? *Points to apple* How does the child differentiate my words if it hasn't learned them before? How does the child know that I am not pointing to the dirt on the apple? Or to beyond the apple? Or to the core of the apple? Not that it matters...

>"What matters is what we publicly come to agree is the second"

Yes.

>So you think there can be multiple contradictory processes of justification at any given moment; or lets say even non contradictory (1000 angels on needle pin cause the second to be perfect, because God made those angels perfect time keepers, they keep it on their harps)
>Do you not agree, there exists some real Truthness, which efforts are attempting to approach, to know? And that, there can be multiple true processes of justification?

I agree that there are multiple truth processes of justification but NOT that there is a **thing** that these multiple truth processes of justification are trying to get *at*.

>I lost the track a bit. What we publicly agree is the second. Are you saying this, as in saying "There is no "real" entity that exists outside mans mind and invention, that is "the second""?
No. I do believe things exist in the world. I do not agree with Descartes or skeptics.

Jesus christ, this thread is full of humanities idiots. The second is defined by a precise number of oscillations in the EM output from the transition of an electron between 2 precise energy levels in a precise isotope.

Everything can be built up from there.

>How would you do this? Are you capable of imagining a 1000 things in your head right now?
Google world time right now. I guess this might be part of your point. Lets say there was google world time. I was going to say, coordinate an event where everyone look at their clocks, and they are all filming themselves (was first gonna say telephone, but just thought of filming better).

But lets say google world time, and then everyone just adjusted their 'inconsistent' clocks to that one standard every time?

But that doesnt really need to happen... because everyone relatively knows what time it is... because everyones clocks are relatively synched, and run rather together and consistently.

"Would, teaching them your language, count?"
>Perhaps but what would that look like? And could you be sure that they even understand you? But does it matter...does it matter that they understood you...if they can use the word what you deem to be appropriate...
In that case, teaching him the language, we would may assume, would be no different than teaching an english child language?

I guess you will have to define "understand".

>What if you came upon an african tribeman who had spent his entire life being taught that nodding meant 'no' and shaking your head meant 'yes'? How could you convince him otherwise?

Well I wouldnt need to convince him otherwise, because neither of us are absolutely/universally right or wrong. Just local inventions (I do not think the possibility of materia moving x distance in y time, is a local invention, but 'calling it a second' might be, and then using that as some unit, in a scale of units, might be:)

If he knows what yes means, and knows what no means. And I taught him my language at this point, we have a nice laugh at how rare it is that my locality decided nod equals yes and shake equals no, and his nod equals no and shake equals yes:

I would tell him, because I am a guest in his land, I will use his system.

>The second is defined by a precise number of oscillations

How do you measure these oscillations?

>Jesus christ, this thread is full of humanities idiots.
>Proceeds to make points which have already been addressed in another form

Kindly fuck off, brainlet

I truly believe this guys are trolling. You can't be that stupid.

>2. If I were to match a clock with a universally accepted one. With what will I compare the universally accepted clock?
With times of day

>3. I may compare it to some axiomatic framework
What the heck are you talking about

>If I were to say that such and such an operation or movement of atoms or photons in something I determine as 'temporal' is the standard by which I define a second. Then how am I sure of the measuring tool of atoms or photons that I have used?
Quantitative nature of atoms. The rest is convention.

>And doesn't this lead to the same problem as before?
No

>5. If I am to be handed a clock, am I not always under the assumption that it 'works'?
You can see for yourself by watching the hands and praying to the quartz god

>And what would a working clock look like exactly?
It divides time consistently

>Doesn't it work already within my daily life?
In your case probably not

>6. It is not that we should act at all turns as though this is the case. No, what we must do is simply realise the groundlessness of our beliefs.
What is this, Wittgenstein for schizophrenics?

>7. Mustn't I say at all turns, "I believe this to be the case..."
Yes. You wouldn't want to make based quartz god angry. You won't like him when he's angry.

>Not that it matters...
ahhh, I had the suspicion earlier, watch out Stirner, Witty posting is prepping for take off.

>It is important to our process of justification in our interactions with one another but not in themselves.
>but not in themselves?

What do you mean by that? Are we now asking: What is important?

>How would you by simply pointing to the red apple ostensively teach a child what is red and what is apple?
Look at society, does it appear average people know the difference between red and apple? How is that so?

There are things that share the color of the apple, that do not share the appleness. There are apples that are not red. You show the child Google.com

>*Points to apple* How does the child differentiate my words if it hasn't learned them before?

Here you are begging the question "Is it possible for a human to 'know more' to experience more (or better) if they do not learn language"?... are you?

>I agree that there are multiple truth processes of justification but NOT that there is a **thing** that these multiple truth processes of justification are trying to get *at*.

Do you agree there is a difference between 1 inches and 12, and that there is a difference between a thing that is 1 inch long and thing that is 12? (do we have to get your girlfriend (male) ('s husbands daughter) for this one?

>What do you mean by that? Are we now asking: What is important?

What sense does it make for Moore to reply to Skeptics with "Here is one hand"...

Is Moore not making the same mistake? Is he not attempting to take on the skeptic's argument from the opposite position but continuing the same problem?

Moore wishes to 'prove' that the external world exists...yet he speaks in terms which are philosophical, not what we publicly come to accept...

When a philosopher says, "There is a tree!" What mistake is he making here? To me it is obvious...

>Do you agree there is a difference between 1 inches and 12, and that there is a difference between a thing that is 1 inch long and thing that is 12? (do we have to get your girlfriend (male) ('s husbands daughter) for this one?

I agree there is...a skeptic may doubt that fact but does Moore not make the same mistake here?

By responding in the manner he does, Moore seems to be attempting to speak facts, forgetting that we all can only speak *of* them.
It is not for Moore to assert that "Here is one hand"...it is for me or others to affirm or doubt him...

ITT American education

The world silently weeps

>le STEMtard that can't think outside the box enters the thread

I take the box rather than the meaningless speculation

Define "meaning"

kek

m.nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity

Define "Define"

Your first statement is wrong. You can test a clock's veracity by comparing it to the position of the sun and certain stars, with the right knowledge.

>continentalfags thinking they have good arguments against epistemology by using babby's first semantics

How do you measure the sun and stars?

Explain.

You are a genius xdxdxdxddddddd

Reddit tier post

>Define "meaning"
>Explain

It's all you can really say to defend your gibberish. You are the real shitposter here.

This thread is a great illustration of how analytic philosophy is autism.

Exactly.

No argument to be found.

Not an argument.

Not valid points. None of them make sense. Please explain.

Hey. Stop being a faggot.

With your eyes nigga

You take an arbitrary unit to measure.

You've read Wittgenstein, why do you even believe it's ok to doubt about those things? Doubt it's not always valid.

Clocks can't explain simultaneity nor time. What's your point? Are you a concerned clock maker?

I am making the point that it matters not that these things are open to doubt. Only that we can speak in public terms.

>implying certainty is binary and not an asymptotically sliding scale

Where does the scale begin and how do you measure the scale?

Its not a quantifiable scale, it's an analogy.

>Certainty is not binary, it's a asymptotical sliding scale
>Could you explain where the scale begins and how you measure the scale?
>Lol it's just an analogy bro

Wow. Really made me think!

This whole post is, while not necessarily untrue, is a self troll. Everything being measured comparatively to something else doesn't by itself imply that one of the axiomatic clocks isn't right, just that we can't rightly know which one is right. The "mustn't I say at all turns, I believe this to be the case" is paradoxical, cause I have to in turn believe that I must say at all turns I believe. Ad infinitum. Saying in each case "I believe" becomes redundant.

>When a philosopher says, "There is a tree!" What mistake is he making here? To me it is obvious..

There are only 3 possibilities:
Absolutely total knowledge is humanly possible of the world.
Absolutely no knowledge is humanly possible of the world.
Relative knowledge is humanly possible of the world.

The first two, are miniscule extreme poles: 0 and 100.

The latterest, relative, would use a 0 to 100 scale.

If it was possible for a single thing to be known 'in/about the world', that would automatically cancel the 0/no, leaving the most likely hood to the largest basket of potential by far, that relative knowledge is possible.

How would one argue that absolutely 0% knowledge is all that is possible?

What are the conditions, definition, of knowledge?

If one claimed, 0%, would they have anything to say, on the potential of any theoretical reality existing in which, knowledge at all was possible?

>It is not for Moore to assert that "Here is one hand"...it is for me or others to affirm or doubt him...

Yes, you cannot know for sure. But what I am trying to get at with my above comments and questions: would the skeptic concede or consider, it is possible, for Moore to be right?

openntpd.org/manual.html

I got so trolled...

>1. For you to know that a clock works, you must match it with another clock.

Not true, the best clocks are tied to the half-life of certain elements.

ye, atomic clocks right?

You guys argue about the stupidest things.

OP is describing ntp as if he were a starving NIST scientist locked in a room with lsd

aren't they?

No, atomic clocks don't work based on nuclear fission. Fission is inherently random process, so basing accurate measurements of time on that doesn't sound wise, does it? Try to be more skeptical about things you read here.

>mfw all the brainlets in this thread that read the first line, stop there and then form an argument which was already answered in the OP

Truly embarrassing