My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<b>LB: If there is a demand for this we can start a new topic elsewhere.</b>

It seems inadvisable - when you have done it in the past with other topics, further discussion ceased. We can separate the threads later if necessary.

Accurate communication is difficult. Especially if we do not use the right words. And more especially if the right words do not exist.

***

So ... a tree falls, no one is there, does it make a sound? (As worded, a YES / NO / NOT-SURE response is required.)

definition - a sound is that which is heard
vs.
definition - a sound is that which can be heard

problem resolved, IF you say what you mean. As posed, the question can only be answered with 'yes' or 'no' if the one answering assumes (consciously or not) one definition or the other.

We need to develop the habit of looking at definitions of key words whenever something odd like this comes up. Stop responding with things like 'good question' or 'it's obvious'.

***

<b>[rich] "I say no. Time is a concept."</b>

So far, so good. IMO.

<b>[rich] " Nothing changes if we have no clocks,"</b>

Oops. A cave man observes the Moon rise and fall. He observes water flowing down stream. And so on.

Lots of change, no clocks.

definition - time is change
vs.
definition - time is a measure of change

(But this is not as settled as the sound issue. Not by a long shot.)

For example, do either of the following compute?

definition - change is time?
vs.
definition - 'a measure of change' is time?

***

Or, should the second pair of definitions have been posed first?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
<b>[rich] "I say no. Time is a concept."</b>

So far, so good. IMO.

<b>[rich] " Nothing changes if we have no clocks,"</b>

Oops. A cave man observes the Moon rise and fall. He observes water flowing down stream. And so on.

Lots of change, no clocks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Larry, you misinterpreted (or I didn't make clear enough) the sentence:

<b> " Nothing changes if we have no clocks,"</b>

I didn't mean: The moon stopped rising and falling or water stopped flowing down stream, etc.

What I meant was:

<b>The world with clocks = The world without clocks. </b>

i.e,, Nothing changes if we have no clocks. The world proceeds as usual.


rd

<b>LB definition - time is a measure of change</b>

I would say this is the most valid, although I would make it:

"time" is a concept man uses to measure (track) changes in the observable universe.

We seem to be in the present, at all times, as Fred intimated in a previous message: <b> "This is why on some level we feel exactly like we did as far back as our memory allows." Fred</b>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />pareidoliac- a recording device is an ear.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You know where this leads, don't you?

I can devise all kinds of experiments that would prove the tree fell and created the same disturbance whether or not someone obverses it, expanding the definition of "ear" to be almost anything you can imagine.

It would wreak havoc on the English language if we go too far down this path.

rd

"Time" is a construct.

<b>construct (kn-strkt)</b>

tr.v. constructed, constructing, constructs
1. To form by assembling or combining parts; build.
2. To create (an argument or a sentence, for example) by systematically arranging ideas or terms.
3. Mathematics To draw (a geometric figure) that meets specific requirements.

n. (knstrkt)
1. Something formed or constructed from parts.
2.
a. A concept, model, or schematic idea: a theoretical construct of the atom. <b>(***this one)</b>
b. A concrete image or idea: "[He] began to shift focus from the haunted constructs of terror in his early work" (Stephen Koch)

rd