atrahasis

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

BlackMoses:Yes, i have a point. The meaning of Time being a movement(as you stated) and time being a measure of movement is totally different.
I have no problem if it was just a syntax error.

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

BlackMoses:Yap! that's right

Liquidrage: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.

BlackMoses:Or rather the arrow of time

Liquidrage: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.

BlackMoses:That's right again...

From the above we basically agree, so let's not quibble over semantics.

Best...

atrahasis

Buffmann,
I like your approach...esp liquidrage's paradox..(truncated)
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Aah, this thread has become beautiful.

Let me start with Buffman:

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

Intensity : If I follow your reasoning correctly, anything that is not energy does not exist? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You need to define your meaning or understanding of the word "existence" first because it seems rather narrow.
It seems you have reduced existence to mean tangible, discrete things. Which is misleading when applied in a simplistic manner.
We are now treading on the dangerous, minefield of reification fallacy. And feel free to point out if and whether I am becoming unduly philosophical on a physical subject.

Do concepts exist? Well, does love exist? (materialists define love as a chemical reaction in the brain)
I think concepts exist. When we understand a concept, it becomes like a memory and memoried DO exist in form of [bio]chemical or electric states in the brain cells (specifically the hippocampus which is part of the temporal lobe).

In that sense, concepts DO exist (tangibly). Just like computer software exists as electric states in the hardware - which are measurable and "tangible".

I don't mean to present a false dilemma here but the only way of arguing that concepts dont exist is by proving that our brains don't exist.

Buffman : 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?

Intensity : I think his point was that the universe is expanding at a particular rate.
Besides, expansion would be impossible without time. This is true whether someone exists to measure that time (or expansion) or not.
In this sense the tree falling in the forest analogy and the sound it gives will favour my argument here.
I also feel that there is a confusion or ambiguity that arises here between Time measurement and Time. Time measurement does NOT create time. Just like a ruler does NOT create distance. Distance exists whether we measure it or NOT.
This is where the dozen question (does a dozen exist?) comes in. Dozen is an abstract concept (which is immanent) but it is applied on actually existing things - eggs for example.
Eggs exist, whether a dozen is there or not. In the same way, time exists whether there is a minute or not.
Thus its important to bifurcate time measurement from time. Because meaurement can never give us the accurate time anyway - even when using atomic clocks - there is always some error of measurement, and some margin/ element of uncertainty. Other forces might also affect clocks and also the position of the observer etc. Thats why I said its important to remember that what does NOT exist, is absolute time. But time itself does exist (so long as there is any change).

Does colour exist?
If we were colour blind would that mean colour does not exist?

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

Intensity : Not exactly correct Buffman. In GR, in special cases, energy can be conserved. But then again it depends on what you mean by "energy" and what you mean by "conserved".

In flat spacetime (SR), energy conservation can be expressed in two ways: as a differential equation or as an equation involving integrals. But when this is generalized into curved spacetimes (GR), the differential form tells us something else: it says that no energy is created in an infinitesimal piece of space time. The integral equation says the same for a finite piece.

Lest I become tedious and lose my audience, you can check <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html" target="_blank">This page</a> for more on pseudo tensors, energy (GR understanding), and conservation of energy.

But this energy conservation question is not that important to me and will be inconsequential to this discussion, when and if you explicitly broaden your working definition of "exist"[ence] - and I think you have to.

Liquidrage :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.

Intensity : What has "order" got to do with time? And I hope you recognize the anthropic element behind your affirmations about the order in the universe.

Liquidrage : 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".

Intensity : I think it would help if you specified what laws you are referring to. But if you are referring to because if you are referring to thermodynamics, specify the law and its relevance/ relationship to existence of time.

For example, is it time that stops a broken glass from coalescing back together?

Or are you talking about measure of entropy with time? Closed, isolated or open systems?
etc etc. Try to be more specific.

Are you saying existence of time is contigent upon the existence of laws?

Oh, for the record, I am a proponent of the idea that time exists.

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

Intensity : You are cracking me up: "something similar nothing"? Thats hilarious phraseology.

Liquidrage :I can do with or without time.

Intensity : Do what? when? The very fact that you do means time exists. Without time, you cant do. Doing requires time.
As soon as there is NO activity (movements, reactions anything) in our universe - time will cease to exist.

Liquidrage : 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)

Intensity : I beg to disagree - you can simply refute yourself by defining the word "moment". Its like arguing that all colours are white.

Time has different dimensions: present past and future.

The present is relative (we can observe todaya supernovae explosion that took place six years ago) in our real present.

The fact that there is no measurement procedure to detect absolute contemporaneity of events in space is no reason to beleive that time does not exist because measurability is not a property of the concept of [present] time.

Liquidrage :...but it's the laws the govern the universe that gives us the impression that time moves and has a direction.

Intensity : Time does not move. Time makes movement possible. It is also used to measure speed of movement.

If time moves, what is its speed of movement?
You have comitted the fallacy of reification. Movement requires energy of which time has none. Time is not a particle and it is not a wave. So it can't move.

From the fluctuation of the ideas and positions of Black Moses and Liquidrage (heck, I can even throw Buffman in) - its clear that there is a confusion between existence of something and that thing being tangible or measurable in a discrete/ physical sense.

Perhaps time is a description - like consciousness - hence immeasurable in descrete terms.
Perhaps time is a concept - like existentialism which is immanent but is in form of physical/electric states in the brain - hence exists.

I see an incorrect conflation of existence with tangibility, measurability and discreteness.

Remember, a second may not exist, but time exists. Because change is everywhere we look. Thanks to the eternal flux of the universe.

I see time as a measure and medium of change.

Time and change are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. Once you wrap this tightly around your brain, things will become very clear.

Otherwise there is a need to define existence. Can peeramid do this?

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Buffman

L.R.

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

That one stopped me dead in my tracks. Are you saying that because there are humans, there must be time? If so, wouldn't that be somewhat like saying that because there is nuclear "energy" there must be humans? Are we about to discuss whether Evolution proves the existence of Time?

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

Though I may quickly agree, roughly 80% of the rest of humanity very likely would not. (But what do they know?)

Lets remove humans from the equation for a second.

OK!

Without humans, does there still exist a now when a super large cloud of mostly hydrogen is out there, somewhere?

Honestly, I am not trying to be pig-headedly recalcitrant. But what do you mean by "now?" Does hydrogen exist? Yes! It's energy. Can it exist in a cloud form? Yes! It is a cloud of "potential" energy.

Is there also a now when that cloud starts to condense?

(Same problem with "now.") Yes! One form of energy "may" interact with other forms of energy. In this case, I suspect that gravity is beginning to convert the potential energy into "kinetic" energy. (That is happening right "now," as we electronically communicate with symbols which convey common denominator mental images and meanings.)

Is there also a now when that cloud of hydrogen has condensed enough for fusion to occur?

(The "now" conundrum remains.) You bet that fusion "may" occur as the energy transmutates from one form to another. We "know" that because we both "know" that fusion is a nuclear process in which two light nuclei combine, at extremely high temperatures, to form a heavier nucleus and release vast amounts of energy. The explosive force of a hydrogen bomb is an example of uncontrolled fusion, and the energy of the sun and other stars is believed to derive from fusion reactions; speculated to occur at room temperature in electrochemical cells with palladium electrodes. --- Is it possible that we created time to help us to communicate knowledge...curious little devils that we are?

Yes, I'm loosely decribing the process of star formation.

<a href="http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld023.htm" target="_blank">http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld023.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld024.htm" target="_blank">http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld024.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld025.htm" target="_blank">http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld025.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld026.htm" target="_blank">http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~barkhous/ast201summer/part4/sld026.htm</a>

(Note how many "mights" and "mays" are in just this much of the presentation. What do those two words communicate to you?...That's a rhetorical question.)

{/b]Even without humans, there is an order.[/b]

Oh? Which human told you that? Is it possible that the universe of energy remains in the process of ordering itself? Is it possible that the universe of energy will never attain stability (Whatever that means?) because energy is not stable in all its iterations? Or simply because the origin(s) of the universe of energy imparted velocity to that energy that is infinite? Or that the origin(s) of the universe of energy is itself "unstable." (Just look at the surface of planets/moons and tell me about that order. Meteors. Comets. Asteroids. The Hubble telescope is gloriously revealing things here-to-fore unimagined.

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.

Sounds good to me.

We us humans live in a world with an arrow of time that points one way.

An interesting two dimensional view of the universe. (Chortle.)

But whether or not we are here, the laws of the universe exist.

You might be wise to tread a little lightly on that contention. There have been some pretty interesting develops coming forth that "currently" don't seem to fit into the laws that "we" have defined. The universe doesn't really care what we think. It just does whatever the various forms of energy...that "we" know about...decide they are going to do and we are left sorting out the results/aftermaths and assigning symbols to them so we can better understand and explain what happened...and perhaps even making the knowledge useful.

<a href="http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html" target="_blank">http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html</a>

(Please note the word "inventing" in the above discussion.)

<a href="http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html" target="_blank">http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html</a>

<a href="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/" target="_blank">http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/</a>

And these laws (not a god or IPU) give rise to a universe that lets us have our "time".

But we humans don't know about, let alone, understand all the so-called laws yet. So how can you make the above statement about "time" with any degree of confidence?

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

Hell! I'm not in the least qualified to even discuss this with anyone. I wouldn't attempt to debate it. I will discuss the human brain-mind interface and semantics/semiotics with folks. Why? Becuase the entire universe already exists between our ears.

{b]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.[/b]

Why do I get the feeling that that's much like what I claimed? We needed to invent mathematics to create time in order to reveal and understand the energy laws of the universe. (How's that?)

IMHO, Time is little more than a wonderful human construct to help us explain our own relationship to, and position in, the universe of Energy.

(I'm finally going to bed.) Thanks for the excellent intellectual jump start of research on the Web. This afternoon I plan to "make" some TIME to watch the ball games.

Oh, dear. All kinds of good stuff has suddenly appeared. I'm sorry people. I have got to go to bed. However, I am already in so far over my head that I am very doubtful that I can be much of a continued, worthwhile, stimulus for you folks. I am simply too far behind the "TIMES" in this area. I look again much later to see if I can contribute anything meaningful...but no promises.

atrahasis

So far, we are still in a two dimensional universe(in this thread) what if we married Time and Space?=[Space-Time] Lets this try and see were the rabbit hole leads us.....

..................................................

Sidian

this is long, but this is what i have always understood to be the theory of relativity.

Einstein had it right.

there's an absolute speed. nothing can exceed this speed (maybe the speed of light). and time is relative BECAUSE nothing can move faster then this speed.

when an environment is in motion, components of the environment which are still moving inter-relative to each other (rather than relative to objects outside the environment) are forced to move along with their environment.

basically if you throw a watch, all the components of the watch move with the watch, as well as continue to move inter-relative to each other (as in the watch still works while it's flying along through the air)

components of the watch must go the speed of the environment as they are part of it, but they also want to move according to their position in, and according to the "rules" of, the environment. they will continue to do so, but at a fraction of their original ability. as the speed gets closer to the max, the components must give up more and more of their inter-relative speeds to make it to the environments speed.

think about when your driving. you are moving at the speed of your car because you are in your car. now, if you were to move your arms up and down while the car was still moving (don't wreck your car trying this please), your arms are not only going the speed of the car (keeping up with their environment), they are also moving inter-related to your body. your arms are moving faster then the car.

if your car could approach the maximum speed, your arms would no longer be able to go faster then the car as they are also ruled by the max speed. so less and less of your up and down movement would be possible at faster and faster speeds, however the up and down movement would still happen because you are pushing them up and down.

back to the flying watch.

if you were holding your watch and a part of the environment that was approaching the max speed, you would not notice at all that the watch was "slowing down", because the parts of your body trying to move inter-related to each other (and trying to move faster then the environment) would slow down also. thus aging, thinking, moving, breathing, even the reactions in your body that require breathing would be slowed. because you are thinking at the new slower speed, you aren't aware of it. even your watch tells you that there is nothing abnormal.

time doesn't really slow down, nor do the components of a high speed environment slow down. they just seem to slow down relative to each other.

isn't this what Einstein was trying to explain? i've actually never read anything by him, but i always understood this to be the theory of relativity. I always figured he understood this but wasn't really able to explain it well enough to colleges as they wouldn't let go of time.

ps. if you have trouble with movement not being discrete, try to apply a discrete system of motion to rotation. if a particle has a smallest movement possible, how can it rotate? wouldn't the outside of the particle be moving farther and faster then the inside?


ps. our concept of time is not on a universe level but only on a planetary level. we base our time on the movement of objects on our planet which is itself an environment in motion.

Buffman

Intensity

Perhaps time is a description - like consciousness - hence immeasurable in descrete terms.
Perhaps time is a concept - like existentialism which is immanent but is in form of physical/electric states in the brain - hence exists.
I see an incorrect conflation of existence with tangibility, measurability and discreteness.
Remember, a second may not exist, but time exists. Because change is everywhere we look. Thanks to the eternal flux of the universe.
I see time as a measure and medium of change.
Time and change are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. Once you wrap this tightly around your brain, things will become very clear.
Otherwise there is a need to define existence. Can peeramid do this?

Please forgive my having grouped all these excellent thoughts into a single bouquet. However, I concur. My problem is an inadequate definition of "existence." You have accurately exposed my confusing "a description" with "a concept"...though is it not possible for a description (observation) to "exist" without a concept (hypothesis) whereas a concept can not "exist" without a description? (And yes, I'm playing semantic games again because I am not qualified to discuss this issue in any other manner...and very likely not even in this manner.)

At this point it should be no great revelation that I am completely out of my element. Rather than continue to muddy these far more knowledgeable waters with further inane verbiage, I am again returning to the lurker grandstand from which I never should have ventured in the first place. I can only invite your compassion and understanding. When I made my first post here, I had just attempted to have rational discussions with Radorth and Chip. I needed some place where I could safely return from the "space-time" (for you Black Moses) trip to which I had just been exposed. That's the only feeble excuse I have...and I'm sticking with it.

John Page

Buffy:

I don't think this is the issue. Let me try this:

1. In order to know we exist, we must perceive that we exist.
2. Perception is a process that requires comparison of states over time.
3. Therefore, we cannot perceive (that we exist) without the passage of time.

One might say that the question "Does time exist?" is nonsensical - it would require that we do not exist (or at least for perception to not take place) in order for time to not exist.

Cheers, John

Buffman

John

As I said, I am in way over my head. Thanks ever so much for attempting to lead me through the maze of my own design.

I guess I am still stuck in the belief that if there were no conscious self-awareness (no human mind... dependent to a specific degree on sensory input), there would be no human construct (measurement system) called "Time." The Time System helps our minds to make order out of seeming chaos and to transform the energy we find in choas to our own ends.

(Now please forget everything I just wrote. I have little confidence in any of it. Your use of "perception" sent a brief ripple through my inner universe that ended at my fingertips. "Bad, bad, fingertips! Back into your caves!" Thanks again.)

Ted Hoffman

&lt;Disapointedly sheathes back his razor-sharp sword as Buffman genuflects submissively before him. He steps back carefully, knowing that in a split-second, without forewarning, Buffman can spring up and behead him. He peers around and sees Sidia. His eyes clamp on Sidian as his brain wraps around Sidians ideas and crushes them boa-like...&gt;

Sidian : there's an absolute speed. nothing can exceed this speed (maybe the speed of light). and time is relative BECAUSE nothing can move faster then this speed.

Intensity Where did you get this from? Only special relativity relies on the idea that light speed is the fastest speed. General Relativity and Lorentian Relativity are consistent with the idea that Faster Than Light (FTL) Speeds are possible.

Sidian : isn't this what Einstein was trying to explain?

Intensity Partly, hence my argument that there is time. But there is no absolute time.

You have got the time concept quite well. The only problem is that you have conflated SR (FTL speeds not being possible) with GR (time from a planetary look).

So you are with me when I say time does exist?

&lt;..A feeble whimper escapes from Sidians ideas. Then the deafening silence enwraps the macabre scene. Buffman looks up. Intensity tenses...&gt;