Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 10-31-2002, 04:27 PM

Uh, there is a difference between suggesting that time is discrete and inventing a particle to "explain time." To my knowledge, no one is suggesting the existence of "chronons", or as Star Trek has already suggested, "chronitons."

Liquidrage · 10-31-2002, 06:01 PM

As Tron said. I was no way implying the existance of a time particle.

Everything I've said here is based on time being nothing but the movement of particles.

atrahasis · 10-31-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
time being nothing but the movement of particles

Time...? being the movement of particles!!??

neee.. i don't think so but i have no problem if you would show that...

May be you meant this...Time is a measure of the movement of particles...that does make sense..

atrahasis · 10-31-2002, 10:14 PM

Mr. Sammi:what I meant was regardless of the origins of the universe, what is the phenomena responsible for the regular nature of our universe?
BlackMoses:The upcoming superstring theory might handle that..

Mr. Sammi:Is it time particles which were embedded in the original universe that oscillated at certain frequencies and were the building blocks of the universe.
BlackMoses:Timeparticles??

I wish you know how long it would take to a find a time particle(That is, if there is any at all)

Mr. Sammi:Was it possible that these time traces were able to create energy then matter AND is responsible for the regular nature of all energy and mass.

BlackMoses:Now they are time traces not time particles!!??

To answer your final query which goes like this:::Was it possible that these time traces were able to create energy then matter AND is responsible for the regular nature of all energy and mass?

The answer is a big NO without any need to explain anything simply because there nothing to explain in the first place...

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]

Liquidrage · 11-01-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Moses:


Time...? being the movement of particles!!??

neee.. i don't think so but i have no problem if you would show that...

May be you meant this...Time is a measure of the movement of particles...that does make sense..

You're edging into semantics here. Do you have a point in doing so?

Time exists whether it is measured or not. The ability to move is intrinsic to our universe. As soon as movement occurs time exsts.

A typical view is that of entropy giving rise to to what we call the flow of time and movement giving rise to time. This basic model has been put forth by not just Julian but the likes of Hawkings and Linde. Einstein himself saw time as a dimension, not something that hinged upon measurement.

A second is a measure of time just as a centimeter is a measure of length.

Buffman · 11-01-2002, 03:35 PM

This seems to be the old "tree falling in the forest" conundrum. If there is no sound recording device present, does the fall make a sound?

My answer! Yes, because sound has a physical component.

If there is no time recording device present, does time exist?

My answer! No, because time has no physical component. It is conceptual.

(Buffman dashes back into his bunker to avoid in-coming fire.)

Liquidrage · 11-01-2002, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buffman:
This seems to be the old "tree falling in the forest" conundrum. If there is no sound recording device present, does the fall make a sound?

My answer! Yes, because sound has a physical component.

If there is no time recording device present, does time exist?

My answer! No, because time has no physical component. It is conceptual.

(Buffman dashes back into his bunker to avoid in-coming fire.)

FIRE!!!!
j/k

I see your arguement as semantical and not conceptual.

I can same the same thing for length. If there is nothing, then length does exist. If there is no movement sure there is no time. And we're talking fundamental movement here. Not just people walking around, but even radioactive decay counts.

Lets focus on this line.
If there is no time recording device present, does time exist?

There universe has it's own time recording device built in.
The universe is expanding. That is one recording device. The future has a more space then the present or the past.

Stars go from periods of birth to death. Another recording device.

The cosmic background radiation. It's constantly getting a tiny bit weaker. Thats another device.

Atomic decay. Thats another device.

Planets stuck in orbit. Another device.

The universe is it's own recording device. Not in some metaphysical way, but in a very real way. This is the flow of time from entropy. The present has the past built into it.

So when we say time needs a measurement, it's semantical. Because I don't think any of us can fathom a universe where such measurements don't exist.

tronvillain · 11-01-2002, 08:13 PM

Now, is time the movement of particles? I do not think so. Such an explanation assumes the existence of a time dimension, in which a unique present is moving forward. That leaves us with the question: "At what rate is the present moving into the future?" The answer can not be "At one second per second", as that makes no more sense than driving at "one kilometre per kilometre." No, some sort of meta-time will be required to arrive at such a rate, and the problem continues ad infinitum. Far simpler to abandon the idea of the present as something unique and in motion, and instead have all moments in time existing "simultaneously" with the motion of the present only an apparent motion.

Buffman · 11-01-2002, 08:33 PM

Liquidrage

FIRE!!!!

Loved it! I even donned my flak-vest and helmet while scanning the skies for a Scud-B fired from FSU.

I see your arguement as semantical and not conceptual.

You're right! Every human argument is based on semantics/semiotics...linguistics, logic. Before I offer any attempt at an intelligent response to your thoughts, perhaps this will better explain my position.

What is Energy? Can it be created or destroyed? We both know that it can only be transformed. Is sound energy? Is time energy?

<a href="http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_of_energy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_of_energy.htm</a>

I can same the same thing for length. If there is nothing, then length does exist.

I agree! It doesn't exist. Length is not energy. It is a concept.

If there is no movement sure there is no time. And we're talking fundamental movement here. Not just people walking around, but even radioactive decay counts.

Radioactive decay is the transmutation of energy. It doesn't count anything, any more than a star says, "Ten billion, 20 billion, time to go nova."

Lets focus on this line.

"Ho-kay!"

Buffman: If there is no time recording device present, does time exist?

There universe has it's own time recording device built in.

Oh? Are you absolutely sure that it does? Are you claiming that the universe is conscious as well as self-aware? Hmmmmm? Have you given those implications some serious thought? Are you sure that humans aren't the ones who claim that?

The universe is expanding.

And exactly how do "you" know that? Does the universe know it? Even if it did, would it care? Why do "you" care? If the concept of time did not exist, humans would create it. They did! Why?

That is one recording device. The future has a more space then the present or the past.

Not ever having been inside a "singularity," I honestly don't know if what you claim is valid or not.

Stars go from periods of birth to death. Another recording device.

Physical, energy, transmutation. I wonder if that's why humans talk about "lengths of time?" Maybe they need to create one word symbol from nothing (length) to modify the other word symbol created from nothing (time) in order to better conceptualize the universe in which they find themselves. (Humans do seem to be very adroit at creating things from nothing to explain unknown, or not understood, things to themselves.)

The cosmic background radiation. It's constantly getting a tiny bit weaker. Thats another device. Atomic decay. Thats another device.

Is that one, or two, transmutations of energy? (No cheating just because I am in over my head.)

Planets stuck in orbit. Another device.

Doesn't Potential energy, based on gravity, have something to do with this? "Stuck" in orbit? Would it remain "stuck" there if it stopped orbiting?

The universe is it's own recording device. Not in some metaphysical way, but in a very real way.

Oh? And is there a Master Recorder/ Timekeeper? Many folks seem to think so.

This is the flow of time from entropy. The present has the past built into it.

I guess you are saying that Mathematics, another human creation, is really the universal Timekeeper God. So, Mathematics, which is not a form of energy, but utilized to explain and understand it, validates the existence of time, length, width. height, weight, distance, speed. etc. My! My! How wonderfully creative these humans really are. But how does that make Time exist as more than just a concept? So far all you appear to have done is show how we use the concept, not what it is...because it is not energy and therefore does not exist.

So when we say time needs a measurement, it's semantical. Because I don't think any of us can fathom a universe where such measurements don't exist.

I completely agree. Time is whatever we say it is because we created it and we can destroy it. We can't do that with energy. We can only change its forms....until we find, and harness, anti-matter. Then look out!

I guess I'm stuck on my original position. Time only exists in the mind of humankind. (What did you expect from a liberal arts type? A Quantum and Particle Physics discussion? Hell! We are semantic swords-persons...must remain PC in order to uphold the honor of all the deceased and dying liberals/freethinkers in this country.) <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Liquidrage · 11-01-2002, 09:30 PM

I disagree with everything

But really, with how you handle the built in measurement of time I put forth.

For example,

Time exist as more than just a concept? So far all you appear to have done is show how we use the concept, not what it is...because it is not energy and therefore does not exist

It's not how we use the process, as much as we are a result of the process.

There surely is nothing metaphyisical in anything I put forth. No need for a God to have these built in measurements.

Lets remove humans from the equation for a second.

Without humans, does there still exist a now when a super large cloud of mostly hydrogen is out there, somewhere? Is there also a now when that cloud starts to condense? Is there also a now when that cloud of hydrogen has condensed enough for fusion to occur?

Yes, I'm loosely decribing the process of star formation. Even without humans, there is an order. I don't care if you look at it in reverse. You can claim novae's condense to form stars, stars do anti-fusion and then eventually end up as clouds of hydrogen.

We us humans live in a world with an arrow of time that points one way. But whether or not we are here, the laws of the universe exist. And these laws (not a god or IPU) give rise to a universe that lets us have our "time".

Now, if you want to debate that without humans or something similar nothing exists, that is a different story.

I can do with or without time. It's just semantics. My personal view is similar to Julian's in that all moments exist at the same "time" (lack of better word) but it's the laws the govern the universe that gives us the impression that time moves and has a direction.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

10-31-2002, 10:14 PM	#44
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	Mr. Sammi:what I meant was regardless of the origins of the universe, what is the phenomena responsible for the regular nature of our universe? BlackMoses:The upcoming superstring theory might handle that.. Mr. Sammi:Is it time particles which were embedded in the original universe that oscillated at certain frequencies and were the building blocks of the universe. BlackMoses:Timeparticles?? I wish you know how long it would take to a find a time particle(That is, if there is any at all) Mr. Sammi:Was it possible that these time traces were able to create energy then matter AND is responsible for the regular nature of all energy and mass. BlackMoses:Now they are time traces not time particles!!?? To answer your final query which goes like this:::Was it possible that these time traces were able to create energy then matter AND is responsible for the regular nature of all energy and mass? The answer is a big NO without any need to explain anything simply because there nothing to explain in the first place... [ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

11-01-2002, 09:30 PM	#50
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I disagree with everything But really, with how you handle the built in measurement of time I put forth. For example, Time exist as more than just a concept? So far all you appear to have done is show how we use the concept, not what it is...because it is not energy and therefore does not exist It's not how we use the process, as much as we are a result of the process. There surely is nothing metaphyisical in anything I put forth. No need for a God to have these built in measurements. Lets remove humans from the equation for a second. Without humans, does there still exist a now when a super large cloud of mostly hydrogen is out there, somewhere? Is there also a now when that cloud starts to condense? Is there also a now when that cloud of hydrogen has condensed enough for fusion to occur? Yes, I'm loosely decribing the process of star formation. Even without humans, there is an order. I don't care if you look at it in reverse. You can claim novae's condense to form stars, stars do anti-fusion and then eventually end up as clouds of hydrogen. We us humans live in a world with an arrow of time that points one way. But whether or not we are here, the laws of the universe exist. And these laws (not a god or IPU) give rise to a universe that lets us have our "time". Now, if you want to debate that without humans or something similar nothing exists, that is a different story. I can do with or without time. It's just semantics. My personal view is similar to Julian's in that all moments exist at the same "time" (lack of better word) but it's the laws the govern the universe that gives us the impression that time moves and has a direction. [ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

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

10-31-2002, 04:27 PM	#41
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Uh, there is a difference between suggesting that time is discrete and inventing a particle to "explain time." To my knowledge, no one is suggesting the existence of "chronons", or as Star Trek has already suggested, "chronitons."

10-31-2002, 06:01 PM	#42
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	As Tron said. I was no way implying the existance of a time particle. Everything I've said here is based on time being nothing but the movement of particles.

11-01-2002, 03:35 PM	#46
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	This seems to be the old "tree falling in the forest" conundrum. If there is no sound recording device present, does the fall make a sound? My answer! Yes, because sound has a physical component. If there is no time recording device present, does time exist? My answer! No, because time has no physical component. It is conceptual. (Buffman dashes back into his bunker to avoid in-coming fire.)

11-01-2002, 08:13 PM	#48
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Now, is time the movement of particles? I do not think so. Such an explanation assumes the existence of a time dimension, in which a unique present is moving forward. That leaves us with the question: "At what rate is the present moving into the future?" The answer can not be "At one second per second", as that makes no more sense than driving at "one kilometre per kilometre." No, some sort of meta-time will be required to arrive at such a rate, and the problem continues ad infinitum. Far simpler to abandon the idea of the present as something unique and in motion, and instead have all moments in time existing "simultaneously" with the motion of the present only an apparent motion.

11-01-2002, 08:33 PM	#49
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Liquidrage FIRE!!!! Loved it! I even donned my flak-vest and helmet while scanning the skies for a Scud-B fired from FSU. I see your arguement as semantical and not conceptual. You're right! Every human argument is based on semantics/semiotics...linguistics, logic. Before I offer any attempt at an intelligent response to your thoughts, perhaps this will better explain my position. What is Energy? Can it be created or destroyed? We both know that it can only be transformed. Is sound energy? Is time energy? <a href="http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_of_energy.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/forms_of_energy.htm</a> I can same the same thing for length. If there is nothing, then length does exist. I agree! It doesn't exist. Length is not energy. It is a concept. If there is no movement sure there is no time. And we're talking fundamental movement here. Not just people walking around, but even radioactive decay counts. Radioactive decay is the transmutation of energy. It doesn't count anything, any more than a star says, "Ten billion, 20 billion, time to go nova." Lets focus on this line. "Ho-kay!" Buffman: If there is no time recording device present, does time exist? There universe has it's own time recording device built in. Oh? Are you absolutely sure that it does? Are you claiming that the universe is conscious as well as self-aware? Hmmmmm? Have you given those implications some serious thought? Are you sure that humans aren't the ones who claim that? The universe is expanding. And exactly how do "you" know that? Does the universe know it? Even if it did, would it care? Why do "you" care? If the concept of time did not exist, humans would create it. They did! Why? That is one recording device. The future has a more space then the present or the past. Not ever having been inside a "singularity," I honestly don't know if what you claim is valid or not. Stars go from periods of birth to death. Another recording device. Physical, energy, transmutation. I wonder if that's why humans talk about "lengths of time?" Maybe they need to create one word symbol from nothing (length) to modify the other word symbol created from nothing (time) in order to better conceptualize the universe in which they find themselves. (Humans do seem to be very adroit at creating things from nothing to explain unknown, or not understood, things to themselves.) The cosmic background radiation. It's constantly getting a tiny bit weaker. Thats another device. Atomic decay. Thats another device. Is that one, or two, transmutations of energy? (No cheating just because I am in over my head.) Planets stuck in orbit. Another device. Doesn't Potential energy, based on gravity, have something to do with this? "Stuck" in orbit? Would it remain "stuck" there if it stopped orbiting? The universe is it's own recording device. Not in some metaphysical way, but in a very real way. Oh? And is there a Master Recorder/ Timekeeper? Many folks seem to think so. This is the flow of time from entropy. The present has the past built into it. I guess you are saying that Mathematics, another human creation, is really the universal Timekeeper God. So, Mathematics, which is not a form of energy, but utilized to explain and understand it, validates the existence of time, length, width. height, weight, distance, speed. etc. My! My! How wonderfully creative these humans really are. But how does that make Time exist as more than just a concept? So far all you appear to have done is show how we use the concept, not what it is...because it is not energy and therefore does not exist. So when we say time needs a measurement, it's semantical. Because I don't think any of us can fathom a universe where such measurements don't exist. I completely agree. Time is whatever we say it is because we created it and we can destroy it. We can't do that with energy. We can only change its forms....until we find, and harness, anti-matter. Then look out! I guess I'm stuck on my original position. Time only exists in the mind of humankind. (What did you expect from a liberal arts type? A Quantum and Particle Physics discussion? Hell! We are semantic swords-persons...must remain PC in order to uphold the honor of all the deceased and dying liberals/freethinkers in this country.) <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.