Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Sammi · 10-30-2002, 08:43 AM

To me and I may be out in left field consciousness depends a whole lot on local time and it seems to me what delivers consciousness may be linked to the same underlying phenomena.

The underlying phenomena, which Feyman and Mr. Black Hole have questioned WHICH IS "why are things regular and correspond to observations", SEEMS to me to be the deeper question about time.

* * *

I agree there are some facets of our universe which can be expressed without time. I will never disagree with this claim. What I do disagree with is the idea that all aspects of life can be expressed without time.

We MUST remember the use of time in physical equations is to obtain a correspondence with the future.

Sammi Na Boodie (I dt)

Kharakov · 10-30-2002, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:

The underlying phenomena, which Feyman and Mr. Black Hole have questioned WHICH IS "why are things regular and correspond to observations", SEEMS to me to be the deeper question about time.

Do you mean something like:

Why do phenomena occur at specific rates (chemical reactions, velocity of light, velocity of sound, etc.) in relation to other phenomena?

In direct response to "why are things regular and correspond to observations"?

A) random chance created the laws that regulate the universe

b) the universe and its laws have always existed

c) some conscious being created the laws that regulate everything

Sidian · 10-30-2002, 03:54 PM

by time being discrete you mean that it can be broken down to a smallest increment?

like we break down matter to smaller and smaller bits of matter, we can break down time?

i would totally disagree here. I would claim that we can get more and more accurate measurements. That's all i believe time is, a measurement of change.

someone earlier said "does a dozen exist" and that's an excellent analogy. We invented time to measure change just like we invented a dozen for quantity and meters for length. They do not have a function outside measurement, they don't truly have an existence.

if you can present a scenario where time isn't a measurement, or some for of place holder, but something more, i would have to alter this. i can't think of any off hand.

John Page · 10-30-2002, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B:
Is it the case that Time only exists where there is movement and change?
If so, what is the connection?

Perhaps strike "only exists" and replace by "is a measure of"?

I also offer an observation that the process of perception seems always to require time. If this is true, we are almost bound to assume that time exists. If time, for you, stands still then I would venture you are dead.

Cheers, John

Liquidrage · 10-30-2002, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidian:
by time being discrete you mean that it can be broken down to a smallest increment?

like we break down matter to smaller and smaller bits of matter, we can break down time?

i would totally disagree here. I would claim that we can get more and more accurate measurements. That's all i believe time is, a measurement of change.

someone earlier said "does a dozen exist" and that's an excellent analogy. We invented time to measure change just like we invented a dozen for quantity and meters for length. They do not have a function outside measurement, they don't truly have an existence.

if you can present a scenario where time isn't a measurement, or some for of place holder, but something more, i would have to alter this. i can't think of any off hand.

You arguement is evidence against what you claim.

If you believe time is nothing but change (and I won't disagree though we really can't but sure) then calling time discrete is saying that there is a smallest possible change that could occur. And that would be a photon moving at c traveling 1 Planck length.

Are you saying it's possible for a photon to move accross � a Planck length?

Sidian · 10-31-2002, 05:57 AM

i don't know the plank length and maybe it is helping see this more clearly.

imagine that you have two objects that are exactly plank's length and they are sitting next to eachother. would you say that when they begin moving they actually jump to the next plank length? that they hop from plank length to plank length like two pixels traveling across a monitor so fast that to us it looks like they are moving?

that's counter-intuitive. almost like problems with digital conversions of analog.

i would consider motion absolutely analog with no true breakdown or smallest part (not discrete?).

i make this arguement against the theory that there are "multiple universes" spawning everytime an alternative action could have been taken.

it's nonsense =(

Liquidrage · 10-31-2002, 08:17 AM

Pretty much any interpretation of quantum mechanics is going to have this discrete universe.

Though you need not invoke a Many Worlds as you you did for this discrete nature.

that's counter-intuitive
Yup. But allmost everything in quantum mechanics is just that.

We live in a classical world. But our world is built from the microscopic world. To really understand what our world is, we need to figure out how the micro-world works. And it is very counter-intuitive.

I would suggest reading a good high level introduction on quantum mechanics if you want to learn some more about this. Something like the Elegant Universe or some popular work by Gribbons maybe.

Mr. Sammi · 10-31-2002, 09:02 AM

Kharakov,

what I meant was regardless of the origins of the universe, what is the phenomena responsible for the regular nature of our universe?

Is it time particles which were embedded in the original universe that oscillated at certain frequencies and were the building blocks of the universe. 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.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain · 10-31-2002, 11:07 AM

Mr. Sammi:

Quote:

TronVillain may be correct in saying TIME does not exist because the time we use is an ancient structure imposed by humans.

Uh, I did not say that time does not exist. What thread are you reading?

Quote:

What Tronvillain lacks is insight. What we call time, which is an immaterial, fits an underlying phenomena which has not been explained. So the insight Tron lacks, is in the investigation of the underlying phenomena upon which this thing we call time rests.

Do I lack insight? I do not think so, but then I think that my position explains the underlying phenomena quite well.

Sidian · 10-31-2002, 04:10 PM

wouldn't creating a particle to explain time be like creating a god to explain an eclipse?

why do we say "a particle did it" when we can't explain something?

gluons,gravitons, photons, and now... chronons?

do not go farther down this path as it cannot be debated, proven, or nearly taken seriously by me.

time is a measurement. just like you can use a ruler to draft a picture and place things exactly on a page we use time to place things in the past or guess where they will be in the future. it IS necessary for perception because it is a tool of measurement. our measurements of 3d-space are necessary for perception as well.

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

10-30-2002, 08:43 AM	#31
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	To me and I may be out in left field consciousness depends a whole lot on local time and it seems to me what delivers consciousness may be linked to the same underlying phenomena. The underlying phenomena, which Feyman and Mr. Black Hole have questioned WHICH IS "why are things regular and correspond to observations", SEEMS to me to be the deeper question about time. * * * I agree there are some facets of our universe which can be expressed without time. I will never disagree with this claim. What I do disagree with is the idea that all aspects of life can be expressed without time. We MUST remember the use of time in physical equations is to obtain a correspondence with the future. Sammi Na Boodie (I dt)

10-30-2002, 03:54 PM	#33
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	by time being discrete you mean that it can be broken down to a smallest increment? like we break down matter to smaller and smaller bits of matter, we can break down time? i would totally disagree here. I would claim that we can get more and more accurate measurements. That's all i believe time is, a measurement of change. someone earlier said "does a dozen exist" and that's an excellent analogy. We invented time to measure change just like we invented a dozen for quantity and meters for length. They do not have a function outside measurement, they don't truly have an existence. if you can present a scenario where time isn't a measurement, or some for of place holder, but something more, i would have to alter this. i can't think of any off hand.

10-31-2002, 05:57 AM	#36
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	i don't know the plank length and maybe it is helping see this more clearly. imagine that you have two objects that are exactly plank's length and they are sitting next to eachother. would you say that when they begin moving they actually jump to the next plank length? that they hop from plank length to plank length like two pixels traveling across a monitor so fast that to us it looks like they are moving? that's counter-intuitive. almost like problems with digital conversions of analog. i would consider motion absolutely analog with no true breakdown or smallest part (not discrete?). i make this arguement against the theory that there are "multiple universes" spawning everytime an alternative action could have been taken. it's nonsense =(

10-31-2002, 08:17 AM	#37
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Pretty much any interpretation of quantum mechanics is going to have this discrete universe. Though you need not invoke a Many Worlds as you you did for this discrete nature. that's counter-intuitive Yup. But allmost everything in quantum mechanics is just that. We live in a classical world. But our world is built from the microscopic world. To really understand what our world is, we need to figure out how the micro-world works. And it is very counter-intuitive. I would suggest reading a good high level introduction on quantum mechanics if you want to learn some more about this. Something like the Elegant Universe or some popular work by Gribbons maybe.

10-31-2002, 09:02 AM	#38
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Kharakov, what I meant was regardless of the origins of the universe, what is the phenomena responsible for the regular nature of our universe? Is it time particles which were embedded in the original universe that oscillated at certain frequencies and were the building blocks of the universe. 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. Sammi Na Boodie ()

10-31-2002, 04:10 PM	#40
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	wouldn't creating a particle to explain time be like creating a god to explain an eclipse? why do we say "a particle did it" when we can't explain something? gluons,gravitons, photons, and now... chronons? do not go farther down this path as it cannot be debated, proven, or nearly taken seriously by me. time is a measurement. just like you can use a ruler to draft a picture and place things exactly on a page we use time to place things in the past or guess where they will be in the future. it IS necessary for perception because it is a tool of measurement. our measurements of 3d-space are necessary for perception as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.