sophie

Hi ya all - sundry and varied.

What is your best definition of SIMULTANEOUS?

Responses can be firmly scientific then rendering it definitively way over my head. Your answer can also be intuitive then making it more accessible to my mind.


I am currently thinking simultaneous means to me the favourable condition of being able to affect and directly incorporate through change. In other words an object A is simultaneous with an object B if there exists a symmetric relationship between A and B which allows either to be processed through either's NOW window of opportunity - they are connected in the present.


Any thoughts on the matter?

Abacus

According to The Random House Dictionary which just so happened to have been laying on the desk in front of me, the definition of simultaneous is existing or done at the same time. However, from my slim understanding of physics, simultaneity is not absolute. That is, if you say two events are simultaneous, I may not, in general, agree with you.

fando

That's correct. Simultaneity in physics is an illusion of circumstance. What appears simultaneous to a person on a rocket passing Earth might not be so to a person on Earth. It all has to do with the finite speed of light: two light pulses from two events might reach you at the same time, thus you qualify them as simultaneous. But to someone else who is moving with respect to you, the same pulses might arrive at different times and thus not appear simultaneous.

Bookman

sophie,

I don't really understand the language of your definition, but if you are intending to define the property for objects only (not events) the word "coexistant" may be more indicative of your meaning.

Obviously, simultaneous may apply to objects (as in the definition provided by Abacus), but that is not the usual way that people hear the word.

B

sophie

I adhere to the term co-existent, but it has a logical implication which means it could take hours or minutes to be side-by-side.

Let me try this approach for starters. There are two events v1 and v2. The event v1 is caused by the interaction of Av1 and Bv1. The event v2 is caused by Av2 and Bv2. In this scenario I realise it is scientifically difficult to reduce the error correction in the determination of the difference in times between v1 and v2 to zero. I propose no current argument against this understanding.

However I wish to zoom in on a generalised way the collection of events which cause events. It is uneducated to speak of v1 an event, without due consideration to the series of events which preceded v1. Can we logically say the moment of v1 was apparent because of the simultaneous convergence of events directly related to the cause of v1. This would imply since v1 only happened when v1 happened, before v1, the events which imply v1, were simultaneously proximate, and their coexistence is antecedent.

modig

Umm... I think we're getting a bit fancy with the language here. Simultaneous just means two things happen at the same time. Relativity of course says that events that appear simultaneous to person A, may not appear simultaneous to person B.

So I would say that my definition would be, that events are simultaneous to you if they appear to happen at the same time to you, meaning that light coming from the events reaches you at the same time. Of course I would also add that you have to have limits as to how simultaneous you want to require things to be...

God Fearing Atheist

Dont worry modig. From my experience, *all* of sophie's posts are gibberish.

-GFA

Baloo

Okay, so a simultaneous is a type of condition (surprising, as I'd have never guessed "simultaneous" was even a noun). But I digress. If I am able to affect my sandwich (by chewing it up and swallowing it), and through this change of a whole sandwich into little pieces of sandwich, I am able to incorporate the sandwich into my stomach, would you say a simultaneous has occured? If so, how long did the simultaneous last?

Or, to approach this issue from a different light, let's look at an example of how "simultaneous" might be used in a simple sentence.

"Two simultaneous jeers came from the crowd."

Now, it becomes a bit difficult to see how your definition (which starts out "the favorable condition...) can be applied at all, as the word is used as an adjective and not the noun you define it as (e.g., a type of favourable condition). Regardless, the attempt to apply your definition is further thwarted as there is nothing in the sentence that is favourable (nobody likes getting mocked). Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the two simultaneous jeers affect each other, nor does it seem as though one jeer is able to incorporate (whether or not "through change") the other jeer.

Hmm- "simultaneuos with". Sounds like we're moving back into the realm of adjectives... so let's try this new definition with the simple sentence above.
Original sentence: "Two simultaneous jeers came from the crowd."

According to your defintion, this means:

"There exists a symmetric relationship between the two jeers which allows either of them to be processed through either's NOW window of opportunity - the two jeers are connected in the present."

I don't think this holds. First of all, the jeers themselves are just patterns of pressure waves propagating through the air. As such, they cannot "process" other jeers (which means they cannot "process" each other).

But let's set that aside for a second... what seems vital to the definition is that each of the jeers, to meet this defintiion, must have a "NOW window of opportunity". This seems vital because you've captilized NOW, attributing a larger amount of significance to it. Forgive me if NOW in fact refers to an acronym with which I am not familiar.

A "window of opportunity" is generally used to describe a period of time in which an object can accomplish some task DURING that time, but not before or after that time. A "NOW window of opportunity" must therefore refer to a situation in which at the present time (NOW), an object is within its window of opportunity to accomplish some task. Having come to that understanding, we must ask: are the jeers in the sentence above presently within the window of opportunity to accomplish their task? The answer: no. They're sound waves, for crying out loud. They don't have a task, much less a window of opportunity to accomplish that task, be it a PAST window, a NOW window, or a LATER window of opportunity.

Finally, the definition states that the two jeers must be "connected" in the present. Though sound waves can overlap and interfere with each other, they cannot connect in any way I've ever seen the word "connect" used. For objects in the real world, a conection generally refers to some sort of bond forming - and that just can't happen between the two jeers.

So, all said and done, I'd have to say that I don't much care for your proposed definition. The things it does describe (or seems to) are things which nobody would consider to be simultaneous (e.g., me eating my sandwich). And it utterly fails to describe (in fact, it seems it cannot even coherently be applied to) situations which most people WOULD consider to be simultaneous (e.g. the two simultaneous jeers).



Er, you may want to reconsider applying for that opening at Cambridge...

sophie

Baloo,

you comments are valued. To read strongly into what I mean by simultaneity, you would have to accept an offer to process two simultaneous cheers instead of the jeers.

In the subjective sense of two simultaneous cheers, they are observed as simultaneous because the cheers were processed through change by an assumed sentient being.


If you wish to propose the phrase two simultaneous jeers objectively, then the assumption is by speaking of simultaneous cheers their simultaneity is founded and not questionable. By speaking objectively of two simultaneous cheers we would mean under the conditions given those two cheers can be subjectively determinable as simultaneous.

What we are saying is if two cheers one on one side of the world and one on the other side were to be spoken of as simultaneous, then they could only occur under some measurable conditions which we have described and can be tested subjectively.

sophie

modig,

I only wanted to point out, (I realise that pointing is generally used to describe a motion made with a finger) two people can be connected simultaneously, made simultaneous proximate, by using telephones to speak to each other.