sophie

ContraTheos, in your summation it read that the energy contained within that primary static state will be used to stretch the singularity, through motion created by heat exchange.

I would like you to note here that heat exchange, motion, and change (to add a well known term) are all scientifically simultaneous.

What is needed philosophically, in my quest for knowledge anyway, is, what are the motivating factors of all these phy1sical phenomena. Understanding this may help us decide better if it was a sentient being or beings who carved out the foundations of our universe.

NearNihil Experience

hello Sophie. Hope things are well for you.

"I would like you to note here that heat exchange, motion, and change (to add a well known term) are all scientifically simultaneous"

Really? What makes you say that? and what exactly is "scientifically simultaneous?"

And is that just a comment or a criticism?I'm not offended or anything, one just can't "hear" how someone is saying something over these damn computers.

"What is needed philosophically, in my quest for knowledge anyway, is, what are the motivating factors of all these phy1sical phenomena."

I do believe you're doomed. I find motivating factors to be related only to things with desires...and I don't think (though it might) that the universe acquires some sort of motivation fromthe desire to expend energy. Maybe searching for the wrong paradigm? Maybe underlying patterns in the mechanism is a more fruitful pursuit?

"Understanding this may help us decide better if it was a sentient being or beings who carved out the foundations of our universe."

From the above it sounds like you may already lean towards, at least, pantheism. And does your quest for knowledge end at whether God or super-being created the universe...In other words, is that your ultimate question...to which the answer is 42(ha ha)? Just curious...call it an intrest in random humanity.

I may be completely off on all these things. Pardons. It's sleepy time. Cool topic though.

sodium

You're not much of a joiner, are you? Anyway, I'm not sure a middle position is as easy as that to stake out. Is the difference between the present time, and the past or the future, merely one of perspective, in the same way that our perception of where the present place is, is one of perspective? Or does the perception of the flow of time reflect something profound about reality itself? That the present is not just special to the current versions of us, but to the whole of reality. Which is it?

John Page

I just didn't like either of the choices.
Yes, and our ability to hypothesize and project/imagine ourselves in different situations allows us to have the kind of conjecture that you have just put forward.
Depends on your perspective.
This is not a totally flip answer, BTW, but perhaps a better answer would be "Depends on your system of perception" (which amounts to the same thing. On this topic, did you see leyline's OP on space ?

Cheers, John

sophie

I distinctly remember picking both theory A and theory B, as possible canidates to represent reality the way we humans percieve reality in existence.

Firstly the idea which embraces time as flow can be shown to be linked with our perception of continuity and its correspondence with existence can be shown as enduring the materialism of existence. The second theory relates how we as humans percieve the enduring states of matter and the way in which we measure our own interaction with existence.

What is necessary to grasp here, is the subtle difference between theory A, flow theory and theory B, which is the subjective theory. Theory A concerns existence or the foundation of existence, Theory B, concerns how we as humans use subjective time theory to measure ourselves while embedded in theory A. This is the most important aspect of the two theories, I can find, when I try to distinguish the two theories.

sophie

I have always been one who supports the simultaneous 'appearance' of time with existence. Humans through their powers of perception are able to experience the materialism of our existence, endure the regularity of materials, and express the continuity as time.

My question would be what is it in the appearance of existence which directly supports continuity or what seems like the cause, effect sequencing.


With this arrangement in mind, I view time as a set of transition states, unlike Barbour who envisions time as a set of quantum states. The transition states, transit, and with mass, shows a regular appearance. If anyone is interested, I can supply more details.

John Page

(My emphasis)
:notworthy
Different rates of change. A changes to a, B remains. B appears continuous w.r.t A.
I'm unclear on the concept - transition states of what?

Cheers, John

sodium

I can kind of understand the idea of perspective. From my perspective, a cat is cute little animal. From the perspective of a mouse, it is a giant monster. The problem is, that the mouse and I are really asking different questions: the mouse thinks about how the cat relates to mice, while I think about how it relates to humans.

But I don't think the difference in opinion between thomaq and me is a question of perception. We both are talking about how things really are, beyond ourselves, in the real world. He comes to a different conclusion than me. But that's because we find different kinds of arguments persuasive, not because we are asking a fundamentally different question. Now, you, on the other hand, may be asking a fundamentally different question. I'm not sure.

John Page

But doesn't one's opinion depend entirely upon how one perceives the "real world", including the interpretation of experimental results?

What do you think about a change-based theory of time where the fabric of time is warped depending on the synchronicity of changes? For example, a rock appears static, (relatively) "timeless" in its state compared to a human life or a burning match. This view would be counter to what might be called the intuitive or traditional view of time passing evenly at all places or even the GR view that time is inter-dependent with velocity.

Cheers, John

sodium

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Page
But doesn't one's opinion depend entirely upon how one perceives the "real world", including the interpretation of experimental results?

Yes, A-theory advocates and B-theory advocates disagree because we interpret the facts differently, and perhaps even disagree on what we consider "the facts". But that doesn't mean that the actual underlying reality is subjective. It's either one way or the other, although I don't think we have conclusive proof either way yet. I do, however, believe that the B-theory is more plausible.

I'm not sure I fully understand this idea, but I think we have to be cautious with it. Although the rock appears timeless, the underlying physics describes quite a bit of activity: particles vibrating, electrons zipping about.