Is Time Real?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 2:49 am 

hyksos » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:26 pm wrote:ronjanec :

I keep trying to explain to everyone here that the same type of logic must first be used in regards to "time", and to correctly answer the very important OP question is time real? Where is this "time" that many of you are talking about here? Or have any of you actually seen "time", like Mr. Leibniz challenged anyone to answer during his time here on the earth.

Granted, many of you really know your physics well, but if you cannot provide scientific evidence that "time" is real in the first place, you may be just wasting your time here,

Special Relativity is still strongly grounded in the Leibnizian view. Einstein repeated such several times in his 1950 article.

If by the word "time" we meant to refer to "That cosmic universal clock which ticks everywhere". I think that version of time became unreal (not in GR).. but as early as 1905. What happened after that was some perpetual arguments about the existence of a local clock, or a "local time" (if you want).

Do we have any real strong arguments in this thread? Well what do we really see in this thread?

(1.)
We have one person telling us that he has some personal feeling that the moment physicists starting referring to dilated clocks that physics "went off the rails" and "never came back". Is that a strong argument? We are to accept that physics "goes off the rails" and then just willy-nilly stick a universal clock back into the universe??

Undergraduate physics textbooks, which are actually used in real classrooms. The oft refer to the fact that you cannot reliably use GPS on trans-continental passenger airplane flights, unless and until you correct for Special Relativity. And yes -- until you correct for dilated clocks. This not something I read on a theoretical physics blog. It is in textbooks.

(2.)
rajnz00 , who simply point his finger at everyday phenomenon in the room he is sitting, and then flippantly (half sarcastically) dismisses every point you make. I might also mention that he is committing something called the Fallacy of Division. (more on this later) rajnz00 may also be authority-hijacking. Making his words close enough to Smolin's to pretend to quote him as authoritative. Even though the reborn Time that Smolin is referring to is likely some new kind of time that applies to changes over a dozen billion years as universes form and un-form. Smolin himself would be mortified at the idea that someone would take his local conditions on earth and extrapolate it to the entire universe as a whole. That mortification is repeated continually throughout his book. Also, Smolin throws doubts on fundamental symmetries of physics, using similar arguments.

If I'm being too wordy: Let me break it down. How likely do you think it is that Lee Smolin is suggesting we just go ahead and re-insert classical Newtonian Universal Clock back into physics? (when I ask the question that way, the answer becomes suddenly clear.)

In regards to the validity inferring the existence of time from physical phenomena (from being empirical) two important weapons for your toolbox.

"Water is wet. Therefore water molecules are wet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

"I see cycles of time in these atoms on the desk here in my lab. Therefore, the universe has cycles of time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition


hyksos,

You are smart enough to realize that you talking to someone who is not very well versed in modern physics, and who has also never pretended to be anything different. On the other hand, you are talking to a person who takes a back seat to no one when it comes to discussing time(and many other subjects) in metaphysical/ontological terms.

If I had your's, or Dave's, or DragonFly's, or Raj's knowledge of modern physics, I could incorporate my Metaphysical/Ontological knowledge in regards to "time", into a very specific argument on why I believe parts of modern physics are wrong in regards to "time".

I believe Dave, Dragonfly, and Raj basically only want to look at "time" from strictly a physics viewpoint(no offense intended guys): I did not include you in the same list hyksos, because I believe from reading some of your posts that you may think there is another aspect to "time" that modern physics may be missing, or posssibly even wrong about?

I do not believe in a cosmic universal clock that ticks everywhere, because I believe time only exists on earth where man and his timekeeping system exist. So I obviously believe that the Newtonian Universal Clock does not belong back in modern physics.

I again believe that "time" is not a real object or thing, so it would be impossible for time to ever physically slow down relative to this, that or anything else. Or in other words, time "dilation" is an illusion, and that famous atomic clocks experiment that "proved" this to be "true" was really silly in it's conception and premise.

I know that what you are saying about the the aircraft GPS is true, but I am not convinced that this is actually caused by relativistic principles.

With the exception of my doubts about the actual cause of the aircraft GPS issue: I have over the years gone into very great detail in trying to prove by Metaphysics/Ontology what I said here about time "dilation" and the concept of "universal" time(also the distinction between "time" and "duration" among other things)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 16th, 2017, 4:22 am 

Thus the term Space-Time is a misnomer. The Time part of it comes from the delay aspect connected to the Speed of Light limitation in the propagation of information. We shouldn't call this delay aspect "Time".

There is a way to express an exactly dual model of Special Relativity. In the dual model you drop all notions of spacetime, and instead replace it with something called a "four vector". The four vector is given as three components of linear momentum, and a 4th component of energy.

In this model you stop referring to "time" and instead say there is momentum of bodies, and the fourth component appears to us as energy. In some strange way, this is a much easier way to visualize what is going on. It is very analogous to your "Space(3)+Space(1) or just Space."

If you encounter a tweed-jacket wearing professor of physics, you will want to refer to this method as the "Matrix Representation of SR" (that's how you can speak their language).

For the morbidly curious : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 16th, 2017, 5:27 am 

I believe from reading some of your posts that you may think there is another aspect to "time" that modern physics may be missing, or posssibly even wrong about?

Of course. Presentism has been touched upon in the thread already. I can't speak for him, but Dave O has hinted that the he believes the past still exists. I am a presentist, unfortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 8:29 am 

Dave_Oblad on January 15th, 2017, 5:05 pm wrote: An ethical person would admit to making an error

What error? That you cannot understand basic English? It's unreasonable for you to demand I apologise for your shortcomings. I'll try explaining those simple sentences again, but if you still dont understand please dont bother responding.
Raj wrote: Boltzmann, who explained the 2nd law of thermodynamics, didn’t know about the big bang, and thought the universe was eternal, puzzled why we had not already reached the dismal future you have painted, with matter, finely, and equally distributed in space, as we had an infinite amount of time to do so. He proposed that our solar system and surrounding region had recently been formed by a very large fluctuation. We know now that we are not just a low entropy fluctuation surrounded by matter dispersed into quarks.

Explanation – 1. Boltzmann thought the universe was eternal. (thought the universe was eternal)
2. But, he knew if it was eternal then we shouldn’t exist. Why? Because the universe should have dispersed evenly into atoms, given that it existed for eternity, as he so believed. (puzzled why we had not already reached the dismal future you have painted, with matter, finely, and equally distributed in space, as we had an infinite amount of time to do so.)
3. So, he had to find an explanation for our solar system and surroundings, the galaxies were not yet discovered during his lifetime.([So]He proposed that our solar system and surrounding region had recently been formed by a very large fluctuation.)
Comprehende? If not - so be it.

Dave_Oblad on January 16th, 2017, 1:51 am wrote: A thought experiment would have me creating a bunch of Quantum Responders and placing them in many different locations (Deep Voids or Near Black Holes) moving at various speeds.

This is like Einstein's thought experiment, but immeasurably more complicated. His was childlike in simplicity. yours like a jumbo jet.
I fear, like Leonardo da Vinci, you maybe too far ahead of your time. :(
" Dave: I spend most of my free time on the fringe of Science" Like all great men, you may have ventured beyond the fringe. Adios.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
Dave_Oblad liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 10:51 am 

hyksos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:27 am wrote:
I believe from reading some of your posts that you may think there is another aspect to "time" that modern physics may be missing, or posssibly even wrong about?

Of course. Presentism has been touched upon in the thread already. I can't speak for him, but Dave O has hinted that the he believes the past still exists. I am a presentist, unfortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/


posting.php?nomobile=1&mode=quote&f=2&p=314062 (it looks like I screwed up posting the link here with my always really terrible computer "skills")

"the past still exists"? Actually hyksos, I talked about this a few days ago in a different thread;

Yes, "the past" still exists in people's memories, film, sound, and the history books of course, but what we are really talking about here in regards to science and objective reality is a past state or particular condition of all collective being, that no longer actually exists anywhere in the universe or in objective reality;

The past state or particular condition of all collective being that existed before say in the year 1849 has of course completely changed from the now or present state or particular condition of all collective being of 2017, and again, no longer actually exists anywhere in the universe or in objective reality. And this is (again) also the reason that "time travel" will always be impossible...your actual "destination" no longer exists anywhere in objective reality.

"I am a presentist, unfortunately" Why unfortunately hyksos?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 3:45 pm 

A thought experiment would have me creating a bunch of Quantum Responders and placing them in many different locations (Deep Voids or Near Black Holes) moving at various speeds.

Brilliant. We must think of a name for these “Quantum Responders”, Dave’s intergalactic army scattered all over the universe, in the deepest of voids and the blackest of holes, moving helter-skelter, in uncoordinated confusion. Boltzmann had “Boltzmann brains” named after him so we can’t call them that. Let me think…. How about "Scatter Brains"?

With apologies to TS Eliot

Ah Davitty, Davitty, there is no one quite like Davitty,
He’s broken every universal law, he breaks the law of gravity!
And when a quantum’s gone a missing, or the past is past repair.
It’s useless to call on Davitty, 'cause Davitty’s just not there
He’ll always have an alibi, (and one or two to spare)

And they say that all the geniuses whose brilliant theories are widely known
(I might mention Isaac Newton, I might mention Einstein)
Are nothing more than lackeys for the Genius, who travels back in time
Thus controlling their operations: the Napoleon of Time!
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
Dave_Oblad liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 4:25 pm 

Another really ridiculous illusion about possibly being able to someday "travel back in time to the past", is the thought that "the past" somehow exists in a different place than it actually did in "the past" that you could still somehow"visit" today(say 1849 for example again), seperste from where the rest of us are existing right now in 2017;

"The past"/1849 actually existed in the exact same place where you and are existing today, the main difference now being that the past or previous 1849 state or condition of all collective existence of course has changed a great deal in the last 168 years or so.

That's a relief!? You were worried that some "time traveller" could "go back in time" and kill your grandfather and that would be the end of you?(!) There is nothing to worry about clueless one, because your grandfather is still here with us in 2017 just like he was in "the past", but he has of course changed quite a bit physically from when you last saw him.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 4:35 pm 

rajnz00 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:45 pm wrote:
A thought experiment would have me creating a bunch of Quantum Responders and placing them in many different locations (Deep Voids or Near Black Holes) moving at various speeds.

Brilliant. We must think of a name for these “Quantum Responders”, Dave’s intergalactic army scattered all over the universe, in the deepest of voids and the blackest of holes, moving helter-skelter, in uncoordinated confusion. Boltzmann had “Boltzmann brains” named after him so we can’t call them that. Let me think…. How about "Scatter Brains"?

With apologies to TS Eliot

Ah Davitty, Davitty, there is no one quite like Davitty,
He’s broken every universal law, he breaks the law of gravity!
And when a quantum’s gone a missing, or the past is past repair.
It’s useless to call on Davitty, 'cause Davitty’s just not there
He’ll always have an alibi, (and one or two to spare)

And they say that all the geniuses whose brilliant theories are widely known
(I might mention Isaac Newton, I might mention Einstein)
Are nothing more than lackeys for the Genius, who travels back in time
Thus controlling their operations: the Napoleon of Time!


DragonFly, Raj is trying to steal your thunder by also posting poetry in the Metaphysics Forum!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby DragonFly on January 16th, 2017, 5:15 pm 

When, Thens, and Nows

Life is a web of Whos, Whys, Whats, and Hows
Stretched in time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 5:31 pm 

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

Yesterday This Day's Madness did prepare;
To-morrow's Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby DragonFly on January 16th, 2017, 5:36 pm 

I didn't know that you were Omar reincarnated.

I'm currently illustrating his Rubaiyat one last time (I've done several.)
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 5:40 pm 

I thought your previous Limerick was brilliant. Wanted to give it a thumbs up, but seems to be a time constraint on that too.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 16th, 2017, 5:45 pm 

Hi all,

Raj: Thanks for your explanation and I accept your clarification. I think it could have been expressed a bit more clearly as: Boltzmann, who initially believed the Universe to be eternal, saw a conflict between his belief and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

(per my thought experiment:)
Not sure I would call them Scatter-Brains though, as they don't think. It's more like the typical "Field of Clocks" that Relativists are prone to use in explaining Relativity.

I also liked your poem. The original can be fount here:
http://monologues.co.uk/Childrens_Favourites/Macavity.htm

Again, Presentism has a good following. But I can't get around the conclusion that a slice of Time just 1 Planck Interval Thick has enough information to progress to the next Interval. It must be a continuation of previous slices. So how many previous slices are required to deliver the degrees of Freedom we witness?

If we have agreed that Space is composed of Discrete Units, then straight lines are impossible except for purely right angles:

stepped.jpg
A few samples of straight lines at Planck Scales

If we can agree straight lines are impossible at Planck Scales then where does the information come from to tell a path to compensate as a pattern of ratios in order to form a straight line path?

History (Geometry) is the only source I can come up with. For a very subtle angle as a straight line path, how much history is then required?

Ok, so just another simple example that Time must have Thickness. So how thick must Time be to produce all possible (straight line) paths? Ie: If a straight line must be over a billion miles in length before a correction is required.. how thick must Time be?

This is one reason I have issues with an Eraser existing or History being over written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

Perhaps the Quantum is smarter than we give it credit for? Maybe Scatter-Brained is not so far off in Retrospect.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 6:41 pm 

I can't get around the conclusion that a slice of Time just 1 Planck Interval Thick has enough information to progress to the next Interval.

A slice of Time? Hmm... A slice of space? ... just munching thoughtfully on a slice of apple

You seem to be stuck in Zeno's paradox, in limbo, in those dark regions of quantum nothingness.

O is he in heaven? Or is he in hell? That damned purgatory block spell!
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 16th, 2017, 7:04 pm 

Hi Raj,

Zeno's paradox is resolved by treating space as being composed of discrete indivisible units (including Time). At some point a final step can't be sub-divided in our Reality. Math may support infinite divisibility but our Universe doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

Regards,
Dave :^)

Ps. Catch all later.. must get back to work.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 16th, 2017, 7:34 pm 

Thanks for that Dave. I wouldn't have known. (You didnt see my earlier conversation with Dragonfly)

Though the discreteness of space solves Zeno's paradox, there are many other (more satisfactory) solutions.

The discreteness of space is not a very satisfactory solution, if at all. It merely transfers the question from how can Achilles catch the tortoise? or how can the arrow reach its target? to why are space and time discrete?

Aristotle's explanation, that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small, finally solved mathematically by Newton, as a convergent series, with a finite sum, seems to be more satisfying.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 16th, 2017, 8:07 pm 

Hi Raj,

Raj wrote:Aristotle's explanation, that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small, finally solved mathematically by Newton, as a convergent series, with a finite sum, seems to be more satisfying.

This doesn't work unless one uses Discrete values for Distance and Time and is thus not so satisfying to some of us. Infinite Divisibility is the Elephant in the room.

Raj wrote:why are space and time discrete?

Now that's the million dollar question!

Ok.. I really must get back to work.. dumb deadlines.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 17th, 2017, 1:39 am 

If we have agreed that Space is composed of Discrete Units, then straight lines are impossible except for purely right angles:

Not necessarily true.

If we can agree straight lines are impossible at Planck Scales then where does the information come from to tell a path to compensate as a pattern of ratios in order to form a straight line path?

This is your own personal research. (start a new thread?)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 17th, 2017, 1:42 am 

"The Argument for the Unreality of Time" is the best-known philosophical work of the Cambridge idealist J. M. E. McTaggart (1866-1925). In the argument, first published as a journal article in Mind in 1908, McTaggart argues that time is unreal because our descriptions of time are either contradictory, circular, or insufficient. A slightly different version of the argument appeared in 1927 as one of the chapters in the second volume of McTaggart's greatest work, The Nature of Existence


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 17th, 2017, 4:34 am 

DragonFly » January 16th, 2017, 5:36 pm wrote:I didn't know that you were Omar reincarnated.

You mean Fitzgerald. The Rubaiyat is Omar's but the poetry definitely Fitzgerald.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 10:05 am 

hyksos » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:42 pm wrote:
"The Argument for the Unreality of Time" is the best-known philosophical work of the Cambridge idealist J. M. E. McTaggart (1866-1925). In the argument, first published as a journal article in Mind in 1908, McTaggart argues that time is unreal because our descriptions of time are either contradictory, circular, or insufficient. A slightly different version of the argument appeared in 1927 as one of the chapters in the second volume of McTaggart's greatest work, The Nature of Existence


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time


Thanks for link hyksos: While I have read his thoughts on "time" before, I personally prefer reading Julian Barbour's thoughts on the same subject(Barbour actually mentioned one of my most important personal ideas on "time" in one of his books, or my conclusion that "time is always something else actually existing here, when you look at this more closely")
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 17th, 2017, 1:02 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

Hyksos wrote:Not necessarily true.

You are correct. In my zeal to complete the post, I failed to clarify that if a discrete foundation Exists then the Geometry of connections defines straight line approximations.

Hyksos wrote:This is your own personal research.

While my intention was to support the concept that Time is actually Distance (Time is Unreal?) and the Past isn't Erased (Expanding Block Model).. you are correct that research regarding the Geometry of the Quantum Foundation is on-going on several fronts.. including my own brand of logical search. That it deserves its own thread is probably true and perhaps I will someday when I have more time.

My goal to retire as quickly as possible is conflicting with the fun of participation here. I need to have more self control.. lol. So I'll do my best to resist posting again for awhile.

Take it away folks..

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Braininvat on January 17th, 2017, 1:21 pm 

rajnz00 » January 16th, 2017, 2:40 pm wrote:I thought your previous Limerick was brilliant. Wanted to give it a thumbs up, but seems to be a time constraint on that too.


We have no time constraint on the Like button. If you have that problem again, let me know.

BTW, as a limerick lover myself, I feel compelled to point out that a limerick has the form AABBA. DF's offerings were not of that form, the ones I saw were AABA or AABB. Not limericks.

An epicure dining at Crewe
Found quite a large mouse in his stew;
Said the waiter, "Don't shout,
And wave it about,
Or the others will be wanting one, too!"
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5767
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 17th, 2017, 2:59 pm 

Braininvat, Maybe I was offline when I was attempting to give it a thumbs up. Have given it now.
I described it inaccurately as a limerick. It was actually an adaptation of Hamlet, Shakespeare. It's worth reproducing it again:
DragonFly:
Being or becoming: that is the question
That haunts Existence’s investigation:
Whether ’tis simpler for the All to offer
The slings and vectors of a told fortune
All at once, as a marble monument,
Or to perform in the sea of actions,
And by disposing ever create them?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 17th, 2017, 3:13 pm 

PS ronjanec, while on the subject of Shakespeare, "brevity is the soul of wit", also from Hamlet.
You always quote a post in toto. So we have long posts, posted twice or even thrice, because of you. Your comments at the end of that are often only one line. Maybe you could consider just putting the relevant portion you want to quote about, or, as you have mentioned, you have difficulty doing this, consider not quoting at all. We will be able to figure out what you are saying. I think I have got it. Time is not a thing, like a rock, and goblins don't exist.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 17th, 2017, 4:01 pm 

"Whether ’tis simpler for the All to offer
The slings and vectors of a told fortune
All at once, as a marble monument,
Or to perform in the sea of actions,
And by disposing ever create them?
"

Dave and ronjanec, have each figured out the mystery of time and the universe, in their own way and reached satisfactory, though very different, conclusions. Dave with his squiggly lines and galactic armies of “Quantum Responders” in random motion, has explained everything to us lesser mortals and concluded Time is distance and the past is very much there, to be discovered very shortly by Ligo, and ronjanec with his "open challenge" to show him where time is, has stumped us all and concluded that time is a human invention, possibly started by Adam and Eve.

As it stands, it seems the Universe is headed for a cold death, with matter distributed evenly in an ever expanding universe. Dave asks why will the future be different from this? Will time end? (Or will distance end, as time=distance according to him).

We do see complexity evolving from simplicity as the Universe ages. This complexity needs energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, thermodynamics tells us. But the Universe is expanding. New "space" is being created. What is this space? Is new Time also being created? And what is this time?

Suddenly we have discovered that most of the Universe is made out of "dark energy" and we do not even know what it is. Is energy being created too? Maybe that is the "fuel" that is powering, or will power, us to a better and more interesting future.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet, William Shakespeare
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 4:15 pm 

Really? Ok, I will try and give it a shot Raj, and see if this works better for everyone who reads my posts.

"Time is not a thing like a rock"? Yes. "and goblins don't exist"? Goblins do exist at least in some way Raj because man talks about them, but if man did not exist, Goblins would not exist in any way shape or form in the universe, because they have no independent existence or presence aside from man just talking about "them"(or no objective existence like say a rock)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 17th, 2017, 4:17 pm 

Great! Understood perfectly :)
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 275
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby DragonFly on January 17th, 2017, 4:58 pm 

rajnz00 » January 17th, 2017, 3:01 pm wrote:" There is no such thing as a free lunch, …


We have a free lunch, if not a universal feast:

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/the-impossible-recipe-video-art-scape-and-poem/#more-535
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 17th, 2017, 6:29 pm 

rajnz00 » January 17th, 2017, 3:34 am wrote:Though the discreteness of space solves Zeno's paradox, there are many other (more satisfactory) solutions.

The discreteness of space is not a very satisfactory solution, if at all. It merely transfers the question from how can Achilles catch the tortoise? or how can the arrow reach its target? to why are space and time discrete?

I have detected a fork in the topical nature of this discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32280
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests