Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kharakov · 11-08-2002, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Kharakov:

I suspect that the Earth would continue to move around the sun at a rate of about sixty-seven thousand miles per hour even in the absence of consciousness to percieve the rate of change.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

If there is nothing there to measure the rate of change, there is no rate of change. Everything might as well happen at once if there is no conscious perception of it (everything).

Liquidrage · 11-08-2002, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
wdog
I'm glad we are on the same footing on this matter. You say Tron is "viewing time thru a prism of spatial analogy" I think so too and he has comitted a reification fallacy of some sorts.

See Tron, for the past to exist, it must exist somewhere.
And going by this false thinking, it would mean that somewhere in the universe (things exist in the universe) there is me being born, me crying, me sleeping etc. The same to all of us. You moving the mouse, you eating chicken. The singularity, 2 seconds after the big bang, the presolar material collapsing to form our galaxy, the mountains forming... etc. You are implying all that exists except we cant access it. We are in one frame - they are in another.

Where will all this info get stored?

Reality would be crowded and very soon, the past would crowd into the present. And then, crowd the present out of existence. And then only the past would exist.

A dead universe.

Actually. No. Just a big no

Where is this past?
Well, hell, where is this present? Is it in a little jar sitting on someone's desk somewhere perhaps?

I agree with Tron here. And from past dealings with him I know he's got a grasp of some of the absurdaties of science at these levels.

When tackling any issue you need to use the right tool. And classical thinking is not the right tool here.

And it's not that they are in the other frame. There is no preferred frame. But the natural conclusions of all these different frames is a flow of time.

And your conclusion that all these pasts/futures would somehow collide and create a dead world is unfounded.

Answerer · 11-08-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:
Time doesn't exist without consciousness to perceive it. How can a 'rate of change' exist without consciousness to percieve it?

This is more like a quantum type of question to me.

crocodile deathroll · 11-09-2002, 04:06 AM

Yes I do believe that time exists, but only as a fixed dimension and not an entity that flows from the present to the future.
As a fixed dimension, the universe has no absolute age like the sun does not have an absolute distance of 150 million kilometers. The sun has an observer frame of reference of 150 kilometers from our vantage point and the universe is only observed at an age of 14 billion years from our vantage point but you cannot read that into the universe as a whole.

tronvillain · 11-10-2002, 02:49 PM

Intensity, since you are apparently having difficulty following the conversation, I'll lay it all out for you in one post:

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.

Time DOES NOT move at any rate. Precisely because time is not a particle or a wave.

Who are you responding to? Not me apparently, since I said nothing about time moving at any rate.

So what exactly did you say earlier that we failed to address? Just state the point you wanted to make again please because it seems I missed it.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

tronvillain · 11-10-2002, 03:24 PM

Intensity:

Quote:

This is just a way of thinking. Its not a fact or a scientific principle. Its not testable or falsifiable so I will not argue about it.

It is a hypothesis about the nature of reality. Is it testable or falsifiable? Perhaps not, and certainly not by any means currently available to us. It has that in common with every speculation about the nature of time, including yours.

Quote:

But suffice it to say that when we say "exist", we implicitly mean exist in the present reality.
Unless you want to use language that is not precise. For example, if I get your juice from the fridge and drink it, then you come two days later and ask me "is my juice there?" and I reply "yes your juice exists". You check in the fridge and find the juice missing. You comb the house and look for it all over. Then I keep on harping "your juice exists". Of course the question will be "exists where"? And later it will be "it doesn't exist anymore". We operate within the present. And that the way our reality is shaped.
And of course I will be nuts. Because "exist" implies present reality. Reality itself implies state at the "present moment".

Agreed. It is implicit in normal use of the word "exists" that it refers to the present. When I ask "Is my juice there?" it is implicit that I mean "Is my juice there now?" and not "Was my juice there?" or "Will my juice be there?" Obviously, I am not using the word normally in talking about this model of time, which is unavoidable since the normal use of the word assumes a different model of time (a unique moving present).

Quote:

This merely shows you have a faulty definition of the word "existence" and "moment".
If you defined them as you formulate your proposition, you will realize your argument is self-refuting.

A moment is a specific point in time.
To say all moments exist simultaneously is to say "all moments exist at the same time" (simultaneously being defined as "existing or happening at the same time").
So what does it mean to say "all specific points in time exist at the same time"?
This is self contradictory because "specific points in time" means time is a continuum that can be referred to in discrete terms.
It also means there are many points in time (ie several moments).

But "at the same time" means at the same specific instance in time.

Since you have so much trouble with the word "simultaneously", let us simply abandon it - it is unimportant to the model. My position is that the universe is a static four dimensional object, and that each "moment" is simply a slice of that four dimensional object. To an external observer (were such a thing possible and actual) all moments in time would appear to "exist simulaneously."

Quote:

Your fallacy is in reifying time. You are thinking of time as a concrete entity - like a table - which can have a cup, a pot and a kettle at the same time on the surface. With time, only the present is available at a time. We can't have all moments available at the same time.
One present at a time will create the past and access the future. You cant have it all.

No, I am not thinking of time as a "concrete entity", I am thinking of it as another spatial dimension, but that is consistent with the table analogy. This is perfectly consistent with the statements "With time, only one present is available at a time." and "We can't have all moments available at the same time." After all, all those statements say is "With time, only one present is available at a given moment in time." and "We can't have all moments available at the same time." Where we disagree is your assertion that "One present at a time will create the past and access the future."

tronvillain · 11-10-2002, 03:42 PM

wdog:

Quote:

Intensity seems to have the best handle of the concept of time. I agrre with him that existence should be localized in time, nothing else makes sense to me.

I think you are viewing time thru a prism of spatial analogy. we have to be careful with that as it has limited usefuleness.

Oh, I used to share Intensity's view on the nature of time. In fact, I was quite hostile to the view that I now hold when it was advanced by others. It was only after extensive thought about the rate problem that I changed my mind. Now, does the spatial analogy have limited usefulness? I am unconvinced.

Quote:

what I mean by nonlinearities of the world are the inherent unpredictabilities of a lot of macrophenomena. it is not possible even in principle to know the exact state of our atmosphere in 3 months. it must evolve one moment at at time to its next state unpredictably. what you seem to be saying is that the future state already exists somehow, that is opposed to how we understand the weather. it can't exist because nature herself doesn't know what it should be.

The only justification I am aware of for saying that "it is not possible even in principle to know the exact state of our atmosphere in three months" is the existence quantum phenomena - a strictly determined system would be predictable in principle. Anyway, such phenomena do not present a problem for this view of time any more than they do for your view of time. The existence of a future state without sufficient reason based on the present state is no different that a future state coming into existence without sufficient reason based on the present state. In both cases, features of the universe will be brute facts, without complete causal explanation.

Quote:

I think I would say that time can be regarded as a parameter variable when you describe our existence with the evolution of the universe. The reality is the physical state (fields, particles), and it has a unique existence.

Again, that is perfectly consistent with this view of time, though what we call fields and particles would only be infinitesimal slices of four dimentional particles and fields.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

atrahasis · 11-11-2002, 12:57 AM

Black Moses says,

The concepts of time in general relativity and quantum mechanics are quite different making the explanations for cosmic and subatomic phenomena incompatible .
The universe at any given instant simply consists of many different objects in many different positions . We don't live in a single universe that passes through time . Instead , we (or many slightly different versions of ourselves) simultaneously inhabit a multitude of static, everlasting Existences that include s everything in the universe at any given moment. Every "now" is a complete, self-contained , timeless , unchanging universe We perceive each now as fleeting , when in fact each one persists forever . Every now is like a picture frame . Nothing moves or changes in any one frame . The frames (past and future) don't disappear after they pass in front of us . There is no movement from one "frame" to another . Some configurations of the universe simply contain little patches of consciousness (people) with memories of what they call a past that are built into the now. The illusion of motion occurs because many slightly different versions of us (none of which move at all) simultaneously inhabit universes with slightly different arrangements of matter . Each version of us sees a different frame (a unique, motionless, eternal now). How would you explain motion and the apparent flowing of time if this theory is true?

Kim says,

Quote:

What is more, we are somehow directly aware of the passing of time, and we see motion-a change of position over time. You may feel these are such powerful sensations that any attempt to deny them is ridiculous. But imagine yourself frozen in space-time. You are simply a static arrangement of matter, yet all your memories and experience are still there, represented by physical patterns within your brain-probably as the strengths of the synapse connections between neurons. Just as the structure of geological strata and fossils seem to be evidence of a past, our brains contain physical structures consistent with the appearance of recent and distant events. These structures could surely lead to the impression of time passing. Even the direct perception of motion could arise through the presence in the brain of information about several different positions of the objects we see in motion.

And that is the essence of my proposal. There is no history laid out along a path, there are only records contained within Nows. This timeless vision may seem perverse. But it turns out to have one great potential strength: it could explain the arrow of time.

......We are so accustomed to history that we forget how peculiar it is. According to conventional cosmology, our Universe must have started out in an extraordinarily special state to give rise to the highly ordered Universe we find around us, with its arrow of time and records of a past. All matter and energy must have originated at a single point, and had an almost perfectly uniform distribution immediately after the big bang.

Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the anthropic argument: we experience configurations of the Universe that seem to have a history because only these configurations have the characteristics to produce beings who can experience anything. I believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more satisfying explanation.

....There is one more reason to embrace the timeless view. Many theoretical physicists now recognise that the usual notions of time and space must break down near the big bang. They find themselves forced to seek a timeless description of the "beginning" of the Universe, even though they use time elsewhere. It seems more consistent and economical to use an entirely timeless description. But for these ideas to be more than speculation, they should have concrete, measurable results. Fortunately, Stephen Hawking and other theorists have shown that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can lead to verifiable predictions. For example, established physical theories cannot predict a value for the cosmological constant, which measures the gravitational repulsion of 'empty space'. But calculations based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation suggest that it should have a very small value. It should soon be possible to measure the cosmological constant, either by taking the brightness of far-off supernovae and using that to track the expansion of the Universe, or by analysing the shape of humps and bumps in the cosmic microwave background. And a definitive equation of quantum cosmology should give us a precise prediction for the value of the constant. It is a distant prospect, but the nonexistence of time could be confirmed by experiment.

--Guys, As crazy as it seems, this my way of thinking, i support kim....

intensity,
I get your point perfectly well but do you also get mine?

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]

crocodile deathroll · 11-11-2002, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Moses:
Black Moses says,

The concepts of time in general relativity and quantum mechanics are quite different making the explanations for cosmic and subatomic phenomena incompatible .
The universe at any given instant simply consists of many different objects in many different positions . We don't live in a single universe that passes through time . Instead , we (or many slightly different versions of ourselves) simultaneously inhabit a multitude of static, everlasting Existences that include s everything in the universe at any given moment. Every "now" is a complete, self-contained , timeless , unchanging universe We perceive each now as fleeting , when in fact each one persists forever . Every now is like a picture frame . Nothing moves or changes in any one frame . The frames (past and future) don't disappear after they pass in front of us . There is no movement from one "frame" to another . Some configurations of the universe simply contain little patches of consciousness (people) with memories of what they call a past that are built into the now. The illusion of motion occurs because many slightly different versions of us (none of which move at all) simultaneously inhabit universes with slightly different arrangements of matter . Each version of us sees a different frame (a unique, motionless, eternal now). How would you explain motion and the apparent flowing of time if this theory is true?

Kim says,

--Guys, As crazy as it seems, this my way of thinking, i support kim....

intensity,
I get your point perfectly well but do you also get mine?

I like Paul Davies idea of block time which follows on from a very similar to your picture frame example. Time in block time is like a hypercube of four dimensions and every moment and event in the universe are all equally real. So if a fundy runs up to you and tells you the universe is 6 thousand years old, then tell him his right. And with out sounding two faced if a scientist runs up to you and tells you the universe is 14 billion years old then tell him he is also right.
The main problem for the fundy is that no one can possibly exist in the extreme conditions of the 6 thousand year old universe to observe it. He would be crushed in a attosecond. But that does not diminish the reality of the universe in that timeframe

Sidian · 11-12-2002, 07:00 AM

tron:

why does time being the movement of particles thrust us singularly into the assumption of "the existence of a time dimension, in which a unique present is moving forward?"

intensity, black moses:

if there is every possible configuration of matter existing "simultaneously" (crappy english word of doom), why isn't there infinite configurations between each frame due to motion. as i said earlier, just like there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.11, 1.111...etc) why isn't there inifity between the positions an object holds as it moves from one point to another.

the only explanation for this is a discrete universe, which as i understand is inherent to multiverse-type theory (please say multiverse is an actual scientific term not just something i heard from a Jet Li movie =( ).

if the universe is descrete, how can we have any apparent form of roation? if would seem to me that the closer to the axis of rotation one observed an object, the less motion is happening. basically if i'm twirling a baton (err umm...drumstick...not baton, drumstick) the closer we come to the point around which the drumstick is twirling, the slower the drumstick is moving.

it would seem to me that as we got closer and closer examinations of the axis, there would be unlimited measurements of slower and slower movement up to we hit the axis itself where there was none.

doesn't rotation rule out any form of discrete motion? and doesn't non-discrete motion mean a non-discrete universe?

could this everpresent present theory work outside of a discrete universe?

i always thought of this theory as a way of predicting things we have trouble with.

like saying that there are only so many ways a chess game can be played (truly the number is high...there are 20 possible moves on the first turn, 20 possible reponses to that move and it gets ALOT worse from there...but it has a definite number). there are a set number of possible universe configurations. i always thought it flawed because of motion.

edit: changed 10 to 20 on chess thingy. 10 pieces can move on the first turn, each with two possible moves. chess newb =(

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sidian ]

11-10-2002, 02:49 PM	#85
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Intensity, since you are apparently having difficulty following the conversation, I'll lay it all out for you in one post: 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. Time DOES NOT move at any rate. Precisely because time is not a particle or a wave. Who are you responding to? Not me apparently, since I said nothing about time moving at any rate. So what exactly did you say earlier that we failed to address? Just state the point you wanted to make again please because it seems I missed it. [ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

11-12-2002, 07:00 AM	#90
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	tron: why does time being the movement of particles thrust us singularly into the assumption of "the existence of a time dimension, in which a unique present is moving forward?" intensity, black moses: if there is every possible configuration of matter existing "simultaneously" (crappy english word of doom), why isn't there infinite configurations between each frame due to motion. as i said earlier, just like there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.11, 1.111...etc) why isn't there inifity between the positions an object holds as it moves from one point to another. the only explanation for this is a discrete universe, which as i understand is inherent to multiverse-type theory (please say multiverse is an actual scientific term not just something i heard from a Jet Li movie =( ). if the universe is descrete, how can we have any apparent form of roation? if would seem to me that the closer to the axis of rotation one observed an object, the less motion is happening. basically if i'm twirling a baton (err umm...drumstick...not baton, drumstick) the closer we come to the point around which the drumstick is twirling, the slower the drumstick is moving. it would seem to me that as we got closer and closer examinations of the axis, there would be unlimited measurements of slower and slower movement up to we hit the axis itself where there was none. doesn't rotation rule out any form of discrete motion? and doesn't non-discrete motion mean a non-discrete universe? could this everpresent present theory work outside of a discrete universe? i always thought of this theory as a way of predicting things we have trouble with. like saying that there are only so many ways a chess game can be played (truly the number is high...there are 20 possible moves on the first turn, 20 possible reponses to that move and it gets ALOT worse from there...but it has a definite number). there are a set number of possible universe configurations. i always thought it flawed because of motion. edit: changed 10 to 20 on chess thingy. 10 pieces can move on the first turn, each with two possible moves. chess newb =( [ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sidian ]</p>

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

11-09-2002, 04:06 AM	#84
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Yes I do believe that time exists, but only as a fixed dimension and not an entity that flows from the present to the future. As a fixed dimension, the universe has no absolute age like the sun does not have an absolute distance of 150 million kilometers. The sun has an observer frame of reference of 150 kilometers from our vantage point and the universe is only observed at an age of 14 billion years from our vantage point but you cannot read that into the universe as a whole.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.