Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Answerer · 08-03-2002, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Moses:


I meant simultaneous. The past is there somewhere in the universe but not somewhere in 'time'.
The future is there somewhere in the universe,not somewhere in 'tim'e

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]

Well, I think you are talking about relativity and relativitistic events and that what a person's past could be other person's future. Am I saying the correct thing? Anyway, the time travel that I'm talking about is the actual science fiction time travelling which person could travel back before he is born and stop his own birth.

atrahasis · 08-03-2002, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Answerer:


Well, I think you are talking about relativity and relativitistic events and that what a person's past could be other person's future. Am I saying the correct thing? 
Im no expert in relativity so i can't tell.But maybe your right!!!

Anyway, the time travel that I'm talking about is the actual science fiction time travelling which person could travel back before he is born and stop his own birth.
Yah i got you but thats why i said if time travel is possible, it will not prove existence of time instead it will prove einstein right!! the past and future existing simultaneously.

Mickey · 08-03-2002, 12:18 PM

Most posters seem agreed that the idea of time embedded in our psychology needs to be revised.After reading numerous books on relativity,I found it difficult to understand what the "time" is which slows in an accelerating system.In common speech time is personified and seen as a force which flies,or marches on,or waits for no man.
In relativity it seems that time is one with distance(or space).It seems clear that distance is not an entity or phenomenon,we never think of it as such,and it seems to be just separation.We use a ruler to calibrate the amount by which events are not in the same place,if the events are,say,walls of a room.If we see the events as being part of a "temporal sequence",say two dawns,we calibrate the distance between them with a clock.
If you think of the simplest clock,a stick in the dirt,it is obvious that it is just another way of looking at the relative locations of the earth and the sun.Clocks do not measure time,as say an ammeter measure the flow of current.They just perform a sequence of events in correlation with another sequence of events.I see our everyday time as being our way of perceiving the monodirectional sequence of events we call tghe universe.
As for the ideas of past present and future,is it possible to say where each of these begins and ends?Is it not the case that there is a seamless flow of events?If I go into a 13th Cent cathedral and clasp a stone pillar to my chest,I can perceive it only as being present.Part of the embrace is not in the past and part in the future.Whilst it endures,the experience is all present.There is nothing in the fabric of the pillar which exists in some other place called past or future,how could there be?
The very notion of existence requires endurance;we could not perceive existence which did not continue.Duration is the persistence of being.Clock time is the experience of the distances between events.Everything in the universe all happening at the same time and place would be a singularity,with no room for space time,which is just a human relational concept,this is David Bohm's explanation.In addtion Bohm thought that the slowing of clocks when accelerated was due simply to the effects of the addition of velocities on the paths of particles,which also explains the shortening of objects in the direction of travel.
Barbour's book uses the idea of Platonia to prove that everthing can be accvounted for in only three dimensions and that

Mickey · 08-03-2002, 12:25 PM

(continuation of previous post)and that a fourth dimension-time-is not necessary.I cannot say that he succeeds because I do not follow all the rotational geometry involved.His book is a Physicists book for Physicists.
Interestingly(to me)S Hawking's book A Brief History of Time,does not try to explain timein any direct way.I assume this if because time is the events between us and the big bang.

tronvillain · 08-03-2002, 05:50 PM

Black Moses:

Quote:

If time travel is possible, it will not mean that 'Time' exists, instead it will mean that Einstein was right when he said "The future and past exist concurrently" what do you think guys?

While I am of the opinion that the past, present, and future concurently and are merely labels that vary dependent on ones position in time, the possibility of time travel would not necessarily show any such thing. Also, if the
past, present, and future do exist concurently then while time travel may be possible, it will never change the timeline.

Answerer · 08-03-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Moses:
Originally posted by Answerer:

Yah i got you but thats why i said if time travel is possible, it will not prove existence of time instead it will prove einstein right!! the past and future existing simultaneously.

Well, I'm no fan or supporter of making time a dimensional existence, I certainly hope that what you said will be the case and that time is just only our interpretation and awareness of change.

Liquidrage · 08-04-2002, 05:25 AM

At last I understand that Barbour is writing a book that, from the standpoint of physics, attempts to take Liebnitz seriously. However, Barbour ignores the necessary philosophical foundation and thus tosses his readers hither-thither, depending upon just what their pre-existing biases might be. This is not a good book. Perhaps if you begin by reading Liebnitz you might try Barbour next, but under these circumstances, you should not read Barbour's book as the first or only book on this topic. Read something else first in order to get properly "grounded," philosophically speaking.

Bill,

I agree and disagree. Sorry about waiting so long to reply but I haven't had the time until now to give this the attention it deserves.

I agree that the book shouldn't serve as an introduction to the topic. But does that mean it is a bad book? Certainly not.

Nor is Barbour's book a philosophical piece. It is physics. Though there are philosphical implications to his conclusions, he arguements do not rest on mere semantics. Read the book.

I never denied you could find negative reviews. However, the reviews I have seen (not seeking them out, but coming upon them through reading similar topics) have been overwhelmingly positive.

Personally, I am a huge fan of Smolin's use of Barbour's work in using a process event relationship at the most fundamental levels.

And I'll end this with a question? Do you truely believe that at the most fundamental level that "time" and space are not discrete?

<a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html" target="_blank">http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html</a>

atrahasis · 08-04-2002, 11:50 PM

tronvillain,

While I am of the opinion that the past, present, and future concurently and are merely labels that vary dependent on ones [i]position in time,the possibility of time travel would not necessarily show any such thing. Also, if the past, present, and future do exist concurently then while time travel may be possible, it will never change the timeline.

I think you should look at the Link that Liquidrageprovided in his post Number 486 and also search this, (sorry i forgot the url); How Is the Universe Built? Grain by Grain
By GEORGE JOHNSONand learn about spin nets!!

GEORGE JOHNSON quotes Dr. Rovelli "In quantum mechanics, an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus is thought of as a cloud of probability: a "superposition" in which all the electron's possible locations hover together. In the view of Dr. Rovelli, Dr. Smolin and their colleagues, the universe itself is a superposition of every conceivable spin net -- all the possible ways that it can be curved.
Where does time fit into the picture? A SPIN NET PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT OF THE GEOMETRY OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE AT A PARTICULAR INSTANT. To describe space-time, Dr. Baez and other theorists have stretched spin nets into the fourth dimension, devising what they call spin foam. Slice it and each infinitely thin cross section is a spin net.
Most perplexing of all, spin nets and spin foam cannot be thought of as existing in space and time. They reside on a more fundamental level, as a deep structure that underlies and gives rise to space-time.
"That is the core of the matter," Dr. Rovelli said. "They don't live somewhere. They are the quantum space-time."
The universe, in this view, is conjured up from pure mathematics. And the old idea of space and time as the stage on which everything happens no longer seems to apply.
"If we believe what we really have discovered about the world with quantum mechanics and general relativity, then the stage fiction has to be abandoned," Dr. Rovelli said, "and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them."

Mr. Sammi · 08-06-2002, 06:59 AM

Black Moses,

Dismissing the claim, that time is experiemced, while waiting for the changes to conclude, with a rebuttal that the changes will complete regardless of the waiting period, reeks of a superficial understanding.

Claiming that we do not experience time, because it does not exist is a historical philosophical dinosaur. You are living in the past of limited thinking.

There is a quality of experience with which humans (I should be careful using the collective WE here) attach the "concept of time". The quality of that experience is contingent on time. At this moment, time and the way in which the experience presents itself are both inexhorably tied together.

No experience without time. *Time at this instant is the transcendental comittment to regularily oversee continuity*.

* * *

To further my points from the last post, the ideas of intrinsic time and extrinsic time comes to light. Intrinsic time is waiting for internal changes to become coherent. Extrinsic time is waiting for external elements to settle. Are the two linked? How are the two linked? Why are the two linked? Questions you can think and answer yourselves...

Does an embryo experience time in the womb? YES, It must, both intrinsically and extrinsically. ELSE?

I am reiterating a modern concept of time by proposing, "time", as a transcendental quality, whose effects are continually experienced.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi · 08-06-2002, 07:14 AM

What does Barbour and his static view of the universe have to do with impending reality?

The quantum states that Barbour has idealised is in reality only mathematical grammer to describe DISCRETE TIME. I do not think even Barbour realises this aspect of his work. Barbour has broken the world into discrete events, seen, "ALL AT ONCE", where each quantum state that Barbour has idealised, can be seen as CAUSES.

Even the existence of such "CAUSES" presupposes time, intrinsic time, in order that the experience become a reality. Barbour seems to have gone to great effort to try to remove extrinsic time contingincies. The question is did he succeed?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

08-03-2002, 06:59 AM	#62
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	Originally posted by Answerer: <strong> Well, I think you are talking about relativity and relativitistic events and that what a person's past could be other person's future. Am I saying the correct thing? </strong> Im no expert in relativity so i can't tell.But maybe your right!!! <strong>Anyway, the time travel that I'm talking about is the actual science fiction time travelling which person could travel back before he is born and stop his own birth.</strong> Yah i got you but thats why i said if time travel is possible, it will not prove existence of time instead it will prove einstein right!! the past and future existing simultaneously.

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

08-03-2002, 12:18 PM	#63
Mickey Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Stoke On Trent England Posts: 94	Most posters seem agreed that the idea of time embedded in our psychology needs to be revised.After reading numerous books on relativity,I found it difficult to understand what the "time" is which slows in an accelerating system.In common speech time is personified and seen as a force which flies,or marches on,or waits for no man. In relativity it seems that time is one with distance(or space).It seems clear that distance is not an entity or phenomenon,we never think of it as such,and it seems to be just separation.We use a ruler to calibrate the amount by which events are not in the same place,if the events are,say,walls of a room.If we see the events as being part of a "temporal sequence",say two dawns,we calibrate the distance between them with a clock. If you think of the simplest clock,a stick in the dirt,it is obvious that it is just another way of looking at the relative locations of the earth and the sun.Clocks do not measure time,as say an ammeter measure the flow of current.They just perform a sequence of events in correlation with another sequence of events.I see our everyday time as being our way of perceiving the monodirectional sequence of events we call tghe universe. As for the ideas of past present and future,is it possible to say where each of these begins and ends?Is it not the case that there is a seamless flow of events?If I go into a 13th Cent cathedral and clasp a stone pillar to my chest,I can perceive it only as being present.Part of the embrace is not in the past and part in the future.Whilst it endures,the experience is all present.There is nothing in the fabric of the pillar which exists in some other place called past or future,how could there be? The very notion of existence requires endurance;we could not perceive existence which did not continue.Duration is the persistence of being.Clock time is the experience of the distances between events.Everything in the universe all happening at the same time and place would be a singularity,with no room for space time,which is just a human relational concept,this is David Bohm's explanation.In addtion Bohm thought that the slowing of clocks when accelerated was due simply to the effects of the addition of velocities on the paths of particles,which also explains the shortening of objects in the direction of travel. Barbour's book uses the idea of Platonia to prove that everthing can be accvounted for in only three dimensions and that

08-03-2002, 12:25 PM	#64
Mickey Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Stoke On Trent England Posts: 94	(continuation of previous post)and that a fourth dimension-time-is not necessary.I cannot say that he succeeds because I do not follow all the rotational geometry involved.His book is a Physicists book for Physicists. Interestingly(to me)S Hawking's book A Brief History of Time,does not try to explain timein any direct way.I assume this if because time is the events between us and the big bang.

08-04-2002, 05:25 AM	#67
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	At last I understand that Barbour is writing a book that, from the standpoint of physics, attempts to take Liebnitz seriously. However, Barbour ignores the necessary philosophical foundation and thus tosses his readers hither-thither, depending upon just what their pre-existing biases might be. This is not a good book. Perhaps if you begin by reading Liebnitz you might try Barbour next, but under these circumstances, you should not read Barbour's book as the first or only book on this topic. Read something else first in order to get properly "grounded," philosophically speaking. Bill, I agree and disagree. Sorry about waiting so long to reply but I haven't had the time until now to give this the attention it deserves. I agree that the book shouldn't serve as an introduction to the topic. But does that mean it is a bad book? Certainly not. Nor is Barbour's book a philosophical piece. It is physics. Though there are philosphical implications to his conclusions, he arguements do not rest on mere semantics. Read the book. I never denied you could find negative reviews. However, the reviews I have seen (not seeking them out, but coming upon them through reading similar topics) have been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I am a huge fan of Smolin's use of Barbour's work in using a process event relationship at the most fundamental levels. And I'll end this with a question? Do you truely believe that at the most fundamental level that "time" and space are not discrete? <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html" target="_blank">http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html</a>

08-04-2002, 11:50 PM	#68
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	tronvillain, While I am of the opinion that the past, present, and future concurently and are merely labels that vary dependent on ones [i]position in time,the possibility of time travel would not necessarily show any such thing. Also, if the past, present, and future do exist concurently then while time travel may be possible, it will never change the timeline. I think you should look at the Link that Liquidrageprovided in his post Number 486 and also search this, (sorry i forgot the url); How Is the Universe Built? Grain by Grain By GEORGE JOHNSONand learn about spin nets!! GEORGE JOHNSON quotes Dr. Rovelli "In quantum mechanics, an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus is thought of as a cloud of probability: a "superposition" in which all the electron's possible locations hover together. In the view of Dr. Rovelli, Dr. Smolin and their colleagues, the universe itself is a superposition of every conceivable spin net -- all the possible ways that it can be curved. Where does time fit into the picture? A SPIN NET PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT OF THE GEOMETRY OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE AT A PARTICULAR INSTANT. To describe space-time, Dr. Baez and other theorists have stretched spin nets into the fourth dimension, devising what they call spin foam. Slice it and each infinitely thin cross section is a spin net. Most perplexing of all, spin nets and spin foam cannot be thought of as existing in space and time. They reside on a more fundamental level, as a deep structure that underlies and gives rise to space-time. "That is the core of the matter," Dr. Rovelli said. "They don't live somewhere. They are the quantum space-time." The universe, in this view, is conjured up from pure mathematics. And the old idea of space and time as the stage on which everything happens no longer seems to apply. "If we believe what we really have discovered about the world with quantum mechanics and general relativity, then the stage fiction has to be abandoned," Dr. Rovelli said, "and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them."

08-06-2002, 06:59 AM	#69
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Black Moses, Dismissing the claim, that time is experiemced, while waiting for the changes to conclude, with a rebuttal that the changes will complete regardless of the waiting period, reeks of a superficial understanding. Claiming that we do not experience time, because it does not exist is a historical philosophical dinosaur. You are living in the past of limited thinking. There is a quality of experience with which humans (I should be careful using the collective WE here) attach the "concept of time". The quality of that experience is contingent on time. At this moment, time and the way in which the experience presents itself are both inexhorably tied together. No experience without time. Time at this instant is the transcendental comittment to regularily oversee continuity. * * * To further my points from the last post, the ideas of intrinsic time and extrinsic time comes to light. Intrinsic time is waiting for internal changes to become coherent. Extrinsic time is waiting for external elements to settle. Are the two linked? How are the two linked? Why are the two linked? Questions you can think and answer yourselves... Does an embryo experience time in the womb? YES, It must, both intrinsically and extrinsically. ELSE? I am reiterating a modern concept of time by proposing, "time", as a transcendental quality, whose effects are continually experienced. Sammi Na Boodie ()

08-06-2002, 07:14 AM	#70
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	What does Barbour and his static view of the universe have to do with impending reality? The quantum states that Barbour has idealised is in reality only mathematical grammer to describe DISCRETE TIME. I do not think even Barbour realises this aspect of his work. Barbour has broken the world into discrete events, seen, "ALL AT ONCE", where each quantum state that Barbour has idealised, can be seen as CAUSES. Even the existence of such "CAUSES" presupposes time, intrinsic time, in order that the experience become a reality. Barbour seems to have gone to great effort to try to remove extrinsic time contingincies. The question is did he succeed? Sammi Na Boodie ()

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.