Fyron's 5000th Post

[David E. Gervais]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What is the opposite of a clock?

'A Leo', trust me, time and clocks will have nothing to do with them!

Am I good or what? LOL

Cheers!

[Fyron]

Ruatha's idea actually has some merit. Just saying "anti-matter clock" is a pretty poor attempt because it is the lazy way out. An anti-matter clock is not the opposite of a clock because it is still a clock, so is not truly opposite.

[Cyrien]

That depends on how you define the clock. Are you defining it in terms of its physical makeup or in terms of its purpose. It seems that you are defining in terms of its purpose and function therefore anti-matter clock is a poor fit. And while I can't think of an oppossite off the top of my head that does not mean there isn't one.

In fact all of us could fail to think of an oppossite to a clock and that would still not justify the statement that there is no oppossite to a clock.

In fact if a person wanted to they could go out and create the oppossite of a clock assuming one doesn't already exist.

Based on the function and usage of a clock principle one would first have to come up with a definition of a clocks function.

Here goes:

A clock is that which is used to keep and measure amounts of time that have passed, or a device to tell at what point in a day one is currently at.

Thus the oppossite of the clock would be:

That which is used to lose track of measured amounts of time that have passed, or a device that fails to tell at what point in a day you are currently at.

Thus I conclude that the oppossite of a clock is SE4.

Or you could go for the super impossible oppossite definition:

That which is not used to keep and unmeasure amounts of no time that have not passed, or a non-device to not tell at what point in a day one is currently not at.

Maybe I should throw in a few more nots and nons? A non-day?

What is my point? My point is that how you define the oppossite of a clock is based purely on how you define what is a clock.

[Fyron]

A clock is all of those definitions that have assigned to it, plus others. It is not just one of them; that would be too simplistic to model reality.

SE4 keeps track of time, just in a different manner than a standard clock. So, it is not an opposite to a clock, because it possess some similar traits and functions. In fact, SE4 incorporates a clock! It can not be an opposite to something that is a part of itself.

How about this:
What is the opposite to a Sony DVD Player? And don't say an anti-matter Sony DVD Player, cause that is in no way an opposite. Matter having an opposite spin and charge from anti-matter does not make a particular matter and anti-matter object pair a pair of opposites.

You're claim of everything having an opposite requires a much more black and white universe than the one we live in. Most things do not have anything that qualifies as an opposite.

[ April 15, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[David E. Gervais]

Urika! I just figured out what the opposite of a clock is... here's my logic...

A clock keeps track of time in the present. As in 'Now'... So the opposite of a clock is what keeps track of time in the 'past' and in the 'future'... Drumroll please..

I therefore conclude that the opposite of a clock is a 'Calendar'

I'm so good it's almost scary!

Cheers!

[Fyron]

David, both keep track of time in the same manner, so they are not really opposites. A Calendar keeps track of what time it is now just like a clock. It can track the current day, so you know what 3 days from now will be. That is the same as with a clock. It keeps track of the current hour, so you know what 3 hours from now will be.

[ April 15, 2003, 20:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Cyrien]

Your arguments are interesting but there are some holes in them. The sum of the parts is more than the parts themselves. Because a thing is made up partly of the thing it is supposed to be the opposite of does not mean it cannot still be its opposite.

One could make a strong argument for a dead horse being the opposite of a living horse and yet both are still horses.

And as to SE4 being or having a clock within it. I contend that that is just plain false. It makes use of a clock but is not itself a clock or have as one of its parts a clock. A clock may be necessary to use it as in the clock in the computer but simply making use of it does not make it a part of it.
Let us look at a generally accepted definition of clock so that we can begin to possibly view what may or may not be the opposite of a clock.

clock
n.
An instrument other than a watch for measuring or indicating time, especially a mechanical or electronic device having a numbered dial and moving hands or a digital display.
A time clock.
A source of regularly occurring pulses used to measure the passage of time, as in a computer.
Any of various devices that indicate measurement, such as a speedometer or a taximeter.
A biological clock.

This being the case it is clear that not all definitions can be true in all cases of what is a clock. Would some people perhaps argue that a watch is in fact a clock despite this defintion?

watch
A small portable timepiece, especially one worn on the wrist or carried in the pocket.

A chronometer on a ship.

So if a clock is not a watch can a watch be a clock? If not then anything of the above is not a clock. So what is a chronometer?

chro·nom·e·ter
n.
An exceptionally precise timepiece.

So what is a timepiece?

time·piece
n.
An instrument, such as a clock or watch, that measures, registers, or records time

Thus we have that a clock is something cannot be a watch but that measure time. But a watch can be a chronometer on a ship and a chronometer can be a clock. So by simply placing any clock on ship it simply ceases to be a clock?

With such variable and contradictory or almost contradictory definitions is it even possible to define what a clock is and thusly come to grips with what the opposite of a clock is?

I would therefore define the problem as thus. Clock is to vague a term. It applies to to many. It is like saying find the opposite to planet. One might be able to find the opposite to a planet but almost certainly can't to planet. The same holds true for clock. I could find the opposite for a specific instance of a clock but not to the wide range of things that clock itself might represent. Clock is merely a concept and as such it's only opposite is anti-clock which is a broad group just as clock is.

Why don't we have a unique desciptor for anti-clock then? Is it because it doesn't exist? Possibly. But more likely it is simply because we only name and make those things for which we have a use. A clock is usefull and has uses therefore an anti-clock must be useless and have no uses. Why would someone make a thing that must by its very nature is useless and has no uses? They wouldn't. That does not mean that such a thing does not exist it simply means that we have not made it ourselves and have no reason to define or know of it.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

by defining opposite as that which opposes, and a clock as a temporary collection of matter, i reduced the question down to the oposite of matter. and i think my reversed matter would opose matter.
now, a device which renders a clock useless, would be the oposite of a clock.
or, if you talk about oposite as 'across from' then a device which would cause you to keep track of time worse, would be the oposite of a clock.

[Fyron]

My arguments have had far fewer holes in them than those arguing for an anti-clock, actually.

Your point about something useless being the opposite of something useful does not mean that all useful things actually have something that is the opposite of them. In fact, almost none of them do. Only a very small range of objects/ideas/concepts actually have an opposite. You have yet to prove that there is anything that could be the opposite of a clock (even with a narrower definition of what a clock is). Just saying that it is theoretically possible is not any sort of valid logical argument. Furthermore, by your definition, any useless object could be the opposite of any useful object. But, opposites are by definition unique. They are 180 degrees apart (and they have to be able to be compared to each other for any sort of opposite to be able to make sense). You can not have 2 objects that are opposite, and hten have a 3rd object that is opposite to one of them. Useless A is the opposite of Useful B. But, it would also be the opposite of Useful C, as useful is the opposite of useless (going along with your reasoning, ofc). So, are Useful B and Useful C the same thing? Probably not.

You can not isolate one trait of an object and find something that appears opposite to that trait, and then say that that object is the opposite of the first object. Is a black horse the opposite of a white horse? Hardly. Black is the opposite color of white (one being no visible light, the other being all wavelengths of visibile light (which is a highly artificial definition that only makes sense with our extremely limited perception of reality)). But, the black horse and the white horse are still both horses. They are still the same objects, just with very slightly differing DNA, resulting in different pigmentation. So what would be an opposite to a black horse? Or a white horse, for that matter? Such an object would have to be the opposite of a horse itself. Is a pony (very small horse) the opposite of a Clydesdale (very big horse) just because they have opposing sizes? Not at all.

[geoschmo]

Even a stopped clock is still a clock. And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Of course a clock can be running but have the wrong time and never have the correct time. But even then it is still a clock.

Geoschmo