Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-24-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

I'll try this another way: Is the present something that actually moves forward in time or is it simply the label those at a given point in time give to that point?

I wonder if anyone has good sources on the idea that time moves along with the arrow of the second law of thermodynamics?

Francois Tremblay · 02-24-2002, 02:50 PM

It's not apparent to *you*, however it is apparent to *me*. In fact, it is axiomatic - if there is no causality, or if there is no "present", then there is no action and we cannot be having this discussion. If you disagree with this, then there is no point in discussing anything (since we cannot be having any discussion in the first place). Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying, I'm not sure why you are protesting exactly.

tronvillain · 02-24-2002, 04:04 PM

Franc28:

Quote:

It's not apparent to *you*, however it is apparent to *me*. In fact, it is axiomatic - if there is no causality, or if there is no "present", then there is no action and we cannot be having this discussion. If you disagree with this, then there is no point in discussing anything (since we cannot be having any discussion in the first place). Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying, I'm not sure why you are protesting exactly.

I am protesting because you insist on denying the possibility of an infinite regress. The absence of a uniquely privileged "present" does not imply the absence of causality, since at its most basic causality is simply a matter of dependence. As a result, we can be having this discussion... but we are also having it yesterday, and we may also be having it tommorow.

I'll ask you again: Is the present something that actually moves forward in time or is it simply the label those at a given point in time give to that point? If you hold that it moves forward in time, at what rate does it move? I hold that the present is simply a label those at a given point in time give to that point, and that the apparent forward motion of the present is only apparent. There is nothing illogical about my view, it avoids the rate question, and it permits an infinite regress.

Bill · 02-24-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
I wonder if anyone has good sources on the idea that time moves along with the arrow of the second law of thermodynamics?

I don't know how good this source is, but the concept is at least stated by <a href="http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/chapter16.html" target="_blank">John F. Hawley, Dept of Astronomy, University of Virginia</a> thusly:

Quote:

When we ponder the Planck era, we are led to questions about the nature of space and time themselves. What is it that provides the ``arrow of time,'' the perception that we move into the uncertain future and leave behind the unchangeable past. The laws of physics are time symmetric, meaning that they work the same whether time runs forward or backward. (A substitution of -t for t everywhere gives the same equations). The one exception is the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy must increase with time. This means that a complicated system will tend to evolve toward its most probable state, which is a state of equilibrium (and maximum disorder). If the sense of the arrow of time comes from the second law this means that the big bang had to start in a state of low entropy (high order), and the arrow of time results from the universal evolution from this initial state to the final disordered state, be it big crunch or the heat death of the ever expanding universe. We are led to ask whether the theory of quantum gravity explains why the initial big bang was in a low entropy state. Is quantum gravity a theory that is not time symmetric? Does the second law of thermodynamics, an empirical relationship first discovered by engineers in the nineteenth century, tell us something about the most profound secrets of the universe?

Another (longer, but simpler) explanation is <a href="http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm" target="_blank">HERE</a>.

== Bill

tronvillain · 02-26-2002, 04:01 AM

So Franc28, did you decide that there was no point discussing anything with me, or do you concede the logical possibility of time extending infinitely into the past?

Francois Tremblay · 02-26-2002, 01:33 PM

Geesh, aren't you in a hurry ? Let me explain with a bit more detail.

Do you agree that the fact that there is a present is axiomatic ? If that is true, then the "apparent forward motion" of the present is not just "apparent" - from our frame of reference, it is quite real. We are moving at 1 sec relative/1 sec absolute. Infinite regress would mean that a finite speed can yield an infinite distance, which is impossible.

I am not sure how the idea that the "forward motion of the present is only apparent" would help your case. You'd have to deny the very existence of a present to have any hope of taking away the finite limitation on existence, but that is self-defeating since without present we end up with a state of non-existence.

In short, for there to be a possiblity of infinite regress at all, you need to demonstrate that either causality does not exist, or that our experience of time is wrong in some absolute way. Either avenue seems to me to destroy objectivity, and therefore is impossible.

For people to whom this may seem a bit dry, take the usual example of the Earth in orbit around our sun. To simplify the example to this case of causality only (but it is applicable to all cases), suppose that the Earth has always been turning around our sun (i.e. eternally, for all moments in time). In a certain amount of time, the Earth moves a certain distance.

Adding any number of moments will not yield infinity, because by definition mathematical infinity (which is the kind we are talking about when we say "infinite regress") is a state where no other numbers can be added. Therefore, no amount of rotations will yield an infinite regress.

Note that saying that "the amount of time in any given rotation could be infinite" is merely pushing the problem back. One would then have to show that THAT infinite regress is possible, but that explanation fails for the reason explained above.

Because infinite regress is impossible, there has to be an "uncaused cause". Since there are no gods, it seems the only uncaused cause possible is the universe itself. I realize that this position seems counter-intuitive, but it's the only one that is logically sound.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]

tronvillain · 02-26-2002, 08:45 PM

Franc28:

No, I do not agree that the fact that there is a present is axiomatic - you are simply assuming your conclusion. As a result, it is entirely possible that the present is simply what those at a given point in time call that moment in time. Now, you appear to hold that the present moves forward in time at a rate of 1 sec relative/1 sec absolute. This is gibberish, unless you are proposing some sort of "meta-time" which would solve nothing.

As I have pointed out before, that the forward motions of the present is only apparent does not deny the existence of causality. "Causation" is simply a matter of the state of the world being dependent upon the state of the world at an earlier time, and this is unrelated to whether or not the present is moving forward in time.

Quote:

For people to whom this may seem a bit dry, take the usual example of the Earth in orbit around our sun. To simplify the example to this case of causality only (but it is applicable to all cases), suppose that the Earth has always been turning around our sun (i.e. eternally, for all moments in time). In a certain amount of time, the Earth moves a certain distance. Adding these finite moments all you want will not yield infinity, because by definition mathematical infinity (which is the kind we are talking about when we say "infinite regress") is a state where no other numbers can be added. Therefore, no number of discrete rotations will yield an infinite regress.

I think the problem here may be the definition of infinity you are using. Tell me, is it or is it not the case than for any given integer, there are an infinite number of integers on either side of it? If the present is not something that can move forward in time, then there is no apparent reason that the same cannot be true of time. Saying that "that the Earth has always been turning around our sun" can be the same as picking a point on the number line.

Francois Tremblay · 02-26-2002, 08:53 PM

If there is no present, then we cannot be having this conversation right now - we either had, in which case it is over, or we will later. Are you sure you really want to hold to that view ? If so, why should we still be discussing at all ?

You speak about meta-time. No meta-time is necessary to make the distinction between frames of reference (relative and absolute time), so I have no idea what you're talking about. To take your own usage, your objection is "gibberish".

Quote:

As I have pointed out before, that the forward motions of the present is only apparent does not deny the existence of causality. "Causation" is simply a matter of the state of the world being dependent upon the state of the world at an earlier time, and this is unrelated to whether or not the present is moving forward in time.

Once again you baffle me completely. How can any causation at all exist without moments for it to exist in ? Time is a measure of causality : because of this, you are saying that causality can exist without causality, which is a contradiction. As I said, without a relative present in which something can act, we cannot meaningfully speak of causation at all.

Quote:

I think the problem here may be the definition of infinity you are using. Tell me, is it or is it not the case than for any given integer, there are an infinite number of integers on either side of it?

That's right - there is an infinity of integers (which are mathematical concepts, not existants, need I remind you).

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]

tronvillain · 02-26-2002, 10:18 PM

We are obviously having this conversation, but our doing so does not entail a unique present that moves forward in time. We are having this discussion now, we are having this discussion yesterday, and we are very probably having this discussion tommorow. Since to someone existing within time our two views would be indistinguishable, accusations that my view denies causality seem unfounded. The state of the world at later times depends upon the state of the world in either case.

So you admit that for any given integer, there are an infinite number of integers on either side of it. If the present is not something that moves forward in time, then it is possible for an infinite amount of time to exist before any given moment in time in a comparable way. You point out that integers are simply mathematical concepts not existants, but there does not appear to be any logical obstacle to such an infinity existing. Oh, you've pointed out the impossibility of traversing an infinite, but there is no apparent reason it has to be traversed.

The difference between our two views would simply be a matter of interpretation, except that my interpretation avoids question "At what rate does the present move forward in time?" and permits an infinite regress. You on the other hand are forced to propose the existence of some kind of "meta-time", since you are treating time as a dimension in which the present moves.

If you have trouble grasping that, think about this: How much time is there between 1995 and 1996? A year. Now, you hold that the present moved from 1995 to 1996. How long did this take? Remember, don't be tempted to say "A year." That's how far the present moved, not how long it took. The only solution is to propose some kind of "meta-time" or, as I do, deny that the present is something that moves in time.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Francois Tremblay · 02-26-2002, 11:52 PM

Quote:

We are obviously having this conversation, but our doing so does not entail a unique present that moves forward in time. We are having this discussion now, we are having this discussion yesterday, and we are very probably having this discussion tommorow.

If there is no present, then there is no "now", we could NOT have this conversation yesterday because yesterday was not "now", and we will NOT have this conversation tomorrow because tomorrow will not be "now".

Quote:

Oh, you've pointed out the impossibility of traversing an infinite, but there is no apparent reason it has to be traversed.

What ? We're talking about an infinite regress of time and your answer is "there is no reason why it has to be traversed" ? If it wasn't entirely traversed, then there cannot be a present time, which is a contradiction.

On the other hand, I understand now why you labour so much to prove that there is no present - you use this as an excuse to deny that all moments have to be traversed. Clever. Unfortunately for you, denying the existence of a "present moment" is still absurd.

Quote:

You on the other hand are forced to propose the existence of some kind of "meta-time", since you are treating time as a dimension in which the present moves.

I have never needed any "meta-time" to discuss time. Once again you repeat the same nonsense. Time is experienced in various frames of references, just like space : there is no need for any "meta-time". You are merely distracting the conversation from the topic of infinite regress.

Quote:

If you have trouble grasping that, think about this: How much time is there between 1995 and 1996? A year. Now, you hold that the present moved from 1995 to 1996. How long did this take? Remember, don't be tempted to say "A year." That's how far the present moved, not how long it took. The only solution is to propose some kind of "meta-time" or, as I do, deny that the present is something that moves in time.

You completely omitted any frame of reference and you say this is supposed to be a rebuttal ! Your "problem" is like someone who asks, for space instead of time :
"I throw a ball at 2 m/s from my point of view. What is its velocity ? Remember, don't be tempted to say 2 m/s. That was its velocity from your hand, not its real velocity. The only way to know is to posit a meta-space."

The answer is that it depends on your frame of reference. If I am on a train going at 10 m/s in the same direction, its velocity is 8 m/s in the opposite direction of me. If I am in space, the ball travels extremely rapidly because of the rotation of the Earth. And so on.

In your example, if we're talking about a normal human being, it took 1 year to get from 1995 to 1996, that is : I experienced one year between these two absolute dates. This is because the time-velocity of a normal human being (and indeed, the vast majority of the universe) is... 1 secR/1 secA. Imagine that.

Now come back to the subject at hand and stop disgressing. Since you deny that all moments must be traversed, and for that you need to deny present time, and any action necessitates a present, do you deny we are having this conversation ? If not, which of these three premises do you deny, and why ? If you cannot deny any of these premises, then you have no grounds to claim that infinite regress is possible.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]

02-26-2002, 01:33 PM	#26
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Geesh, aren't you in a hurry ? Let me explain with a bit more detail. Do you agree that the fact that there is a present is axiomatic ? If that is true, then the "apparent forward motion" of the present is not just "apparent" - from our frame of reference, it is quite real. We are moving at 1 sec relative/1 sec absolute. Infinite regress would mean that a finite speed can yield an infinite distance, which is impossible. I am not sure how the idea that the "forward motion of the present is only apparent" would help your case. You'd have to deny the very existence of a present to have any hope of taking away the finite limitation on existence, but that is self-defeating since without present we end up with a state of non-existence. In short, for there to be a possiblity of infinite regress at all, you need to demonstrate that either causality does not exist, or that our experience of time is wrong in some absolute way. Either avenue seems to me to destroy objectivity, and therefore is impossible. For people to whom this may seem a bit dry, take the usual example of the Earth in orbit around our sun. To simplify the example to this case of causality only (but it is applicable to all cases), suppose that the Earth has always been turning around our sun (i.e. eternally, for all moments in time). In a certain amount of time, the Earth moves a certain distance. Adding any number of moments will not yield infinity, because by definition mathematical infinity (which is the kind we are talking about when we say "infinite regress") is a state where no other numbers can be added. Therefore, no amount of rotations will yield an infinite regress. Note that saying that "the amount of time in any given rotation could be infinite" is merely pushing the problem back. One would then have to show that THAT infinite regress is possible, but that explanation fails for the reason explained above. Because infinite regress is impossible, there has to be an "uncaused cause". Since there are no gods, it seems the only uncaused cause possible is the universe itself. I realize that this position seems counter-intuitive, but it's the only one that is logically sound. [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

02-26-2002, 10:18 PM	#29
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	We are obviously having this conversation, but our doing so does not entail a unique present that moves forward in time. We are having this discussion now, we are having this discussion yesterday, and we are very probably having this discussion tommorow. Since to someone existing within time our two views would be indistinguishable, accusations that my view denies causality seem unfounded. The state of the world at later times depends upon the state of the world in either case. So you admit that for any given integer, there are an infinite number of integers on either side of it. If the present is not something that moves forward in time, then it is possible for an infinite amount of time to exist before any given moment in time in a comparable way. You point out that integers are simply mathematical concepts not existants, but there does not appear to be any logical obstacle to such an infinity existing. Oh, you've pointed out the impossibility of traversing an infinite, but there is no apparent reason it has to be traversed. The difference between our two views would simply be a matter of interpretation, except that my interpretation avoids question "At what rate does the present move forward in time?" and permits an infinite regress. You on the other hand are forced to propose the existence of some kind of "meta-time", since you are treating time as a dimension in which the present moves. If you have trouble grasping that, think about this: How much time is there between 1995 and 1996? A year. Now, you hold that the present moved from 1995 to 1996. How long did this take? Remember, don't be tempted to say "A year." That's how far the present moved, not how long it took. The only solution is to propose some kind of "meta-time" or, as I do, deny that the present is something that moves in time. [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-24-2002, 02:50 PM	#22
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	It's not apparent to you, however it is apparent to me. In fact, it is axiomatic - if there is no causality, or if there is no "present", then there is no action and we cannot be having this discussion. If you disagree with this, then there is no point in discussing anything (since we cannot be having any discussion in the first place). Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying, I'm not sure why you are protesting exactly.

02-26-2002, 04:01 AM	#25
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	So Franc28, did you decide that there was no point discussing anything with me, or do you concede the logical possibility of time extending infinitely into the past?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.