incubusman8
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 11:19 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
No, the words gobbledeegook and hulabaloo come to mind while reading your post. I love a good paradoxical, deliberately vague statement as much as the next guy, but I would like an explanation. Essentially, here is my objection, which addresses your premise, not your point, as I don't know where that is; what is the difference between actuality and potentiality; from what perspective are you dertermining what is actual and what will shortly be actual; if from the individual perspective (the only persp. in my view), I would say that potentiality never exists except as an idea, while everything (experiences and ideas) is actual. In other words, actuality I define as experience, which is everything and potentiality is only one idea amoung many, such as 'masking tape', which are all part of experience.

Any thoughts?

P.S. BTW, I agree with you that most people don't quite get it; they confuse there ideas for the context in which the ideas are occuring. I can hardly bear the subjuntive these days, unless the person who uses it is really a ****. I vainly call myself a realist. :sarcastic:


Perhaps this is a waste of space, that might annoy the mods here, but I'd like to say Bright Noon, that was incredible. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 03:14 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... does the impossibleness of change without space also imply that space outside of change does not exist? ... that space, time, and change are one and the same? ...


I think it is possible for space to exist outside of change. While I do not consider it possible for empty space to exist ie independant of processes or objects (ie slow processes), it would then be possible for space to exist outside of change if there were no change in, for example, the position of two electrons in an otherwise empty space.

I do not consider that space, time, and change are one and the same. Time is our constructed experience of change (so yes one and the same), space and time can be (quite successfully) related by the idea of spacetime (not one and the same, but relatable).

For me, space is more fundamental than time, for space can be defined without time, but time requires space to be defined.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 08:12 pm
@Khethil,
Here is my take on time be it what it may

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE

MY PERCEPTION ON TIME

Nothing is as it seems to be and all things are subjective realities to the observer. Everything is relative to each person from the viewpoint of the only ultimate reality the First Cause, Ultimate, Divine Mind. There is no absolute time, time moves differently from one object to the next and in one location to the next.

For example, time moves slower on massive objects like the Sun or Jupiter and faster on smaller objects like our Earth. It moves even minutely faster in space. This is no longer a theory, but proven fact.

Extremely accurate precision atomic clocks on fast moving spacecraft have detected this strange phenomenon and proven Einstein's theory of relativity to be true.

One take on the concept of time is,s top all the clocks in the universe and movement will continue unaffected. Stop all movement and the illusion we call time will stop and nothing ever happen again, unless Source again allows movement to begin again

Time is elastic with in one moment in only one direction, namely into future moment. The twin paradox describes what happens. One twin boards a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light, on a voyage for Alpha Centauri, some four light years from earth. Ten years he returns having aged only one year compared to his now twenty-year-older twin brother.

An enigmatic paradox but absolutely true and real.

One exciting, but far distant use of this effect is the real possibility of reaching any moment in the future. Given enough speed, one could reach the Olympic Games of the year 2108, in a matter of a few subjective days. Backward times travel to the past, is a fantasy and if this were possible, a person could do the impossible and go back and murder their younger self.

There is no universal now! Events are simply there, hanging in space-time

Time is infinite meaning time has never started nor will it stop.

If it did have a starting point, at what time did it start? There must be time to start time if it had been started, and if time would stop then nothing will exist as there will be no time to keep everything there, and yes there still will be time if time had stopped so you can't say time had a starting point or an end.

Time keeps all things in motion, if there is no time then nothing will exist - not even black!

Time has many infinite time dimensions. This means it can be as slow as possible, but never to zero stop, and that can it be as fast as possible, but only below the speed of light.

Time is a force that allows movement to occur to all moving things or maybe the reverse.

This force can be overcome or you can allow it to overcome you. This means if you overcome your own time dimension, then you are traveling faster than the time dimension you were in.

As a result, you will go into another time dimension faster than your own, so you will think that you are going at a normal rate but you see your time dimension i.e. Earth, as going very slowly. On the other hand, the people from the dimension you were previously in would think that you are going faster meaning you also aged more!

This works the other way too. If you traveled slower than your own time dimension then you would be in a time dimension slower than the time dimension you were previously in, and as a result, you would see the people back in the normal time dimension i.e. Earth, moving very fast, while you went at normal rate of time. On the other hand, the people in the normal time dimension would see you move very slowly inside while they think they are at a normal rate of time.


I reiterate that traveling back in time is impossible. The reason is that if we did go back in time, then we would be going at a time dimension much slower than zero, going minus back, which is impossible. The grandfather murder
paradox will prevent this.

Also reversing time we would have to reverse entropy and reassemble everything, like putting poor humtydumty back together again

And even if it were, you'd be stuck there for infinity, as you'd be just getting minus faster and faster that will never reach zero, and would be a constant loop over, and over, that never reaches the future. Besides, once something happens, it cannot be reversed due to the same reason.


Also, Einstein says time halts at the speed of light. If we traveled faster than the speed of light, then we might enter the past...

Interestingly if you are caught up in the gravitational pull of a black hole your feet's would age at a much greater rate than your less massive head. Of course before you are torn apart. This even applies to a minute degree to living in high mountain areas as apposed to lowlands

You make think that time is 'not a push or a pull, therefore it is not a force', this is not actually quite true. It is pushing when you travel slower and pulling as you travel faster.

This means, that to overcome time force, you must apply acceleration as a force. This also means you cannot calculate the force of time as it is infinite, or do any calculation that will prove what speed time is going but to compare it to other speeds of time because the speed of time is infinite at the speed of light, and never to zero point.

This means that speed is related to time.

When the time forces are equal to the speed forces opposing it, then it is said that forces opposing time will be back to its original time dimension from which it came from.

In other words, if you went into the future, to try to go back you have to slow time down, so you have to go faster, when the time is just right, then it cancels each force out and you can be back to your normal time dimension. Note that this is not traveling back in time!

The possible number of time dimensions is infinite. This means that you cannot count how many time dimensions as it goes on forever.

Time has intervals. This means that the time dimensions have intervals between each other. In other words, it is the time difference between each time dimension.

But really, there isn't any because the difference is so small, a time dimension could equal that difference which again has interval difference that just goes on for infinity but gets smaller in difference each time.

Time force relies on itself to keep it going. This means that every time dimension there are, they are all needed to rely on each other to keep time itself going. If this is true, then time is infinite which is true and so this is true.

If time relies on itself to be infinite, then that must mean there is a loop of time.
Time is always everywhere. Wherever anything is, there will always be time.
If time exists anywhere, then in a black hole where they say there is no time, there has to be time, or everything is nothing. It only slows it down so much it hardly moves but still does move.



Time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. We only conceive of time by the movement of an object through space, so space and time are different realities of the same thing and can only exist where movement is allowed. For example, stop all movement in the universe and you have stopped time, have you not? Therefore, these three things are one "spacetimemovement" reality. There is simply no universal now and each moment is unique to the observer. God, however, observes our reality,, like unraveled frames of a movie story, depicting the life of the universe, from its birth until its demise like separate billions of moments, recorded on each frame of the film of existence.

Time is a measurement we have created to track how we move through space.

It should be obvious that something that is eternal cannot exist in three-dimensional reality. It must exist outside of what we call time and space in an "ever-changing moment"

By Alan McDougall 29/8/2007

paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 10:50 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
I think it is possible for space to exist outside of change. While I do not consider it possible for empty space to exist ie independant of processes or objects (ie slow processes), it would then be possible for space to exist outside of change if there were no change in, for example, the position of two electrons in an otherwise empty space.

I do not consider that space, time, and change are one and the same. Time is our constructed experience of change (so yes one and the same), space and time can be (quite successfully) related by the idea of spacetime (not one and the same, but relatable).

For me, space is more fundamental than time, for space can be defined without time, but time requires space to be defined.


... but if space is dependent upon objects-aka-slow-processes, and even slow processes are dependent upon time, doesn't that make space dependent upon time (and thus time more fundamental than space)? ...
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 10:59 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Extremely accurate precision atomic clocks on fast moving spacecraft have detected this strange phenomenon and proven Einstein's theory of relativity to be true.


... there's some special case about gravity wells that makes this experiment work within the Earth's gravity well ... but it's the case outside of gravity wells that's always bothered me ... imagine me in empty space millions of light years from any galaxy ... and then imagine you zooming past at almost the speed of light ... relativity predicts that I will see you moving in slow motion - time for you is moving much slower than time for me ... but how does this exact same situation look to you? ... here's how: you in empty space millions of light years from any galaxy ... and then me zooming past at almost the speed of light ... relativity predicts that you will see me moving in slow motion - time for me is moving much slower than time for you ... say what???!!!
0 Replies
 
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 10:03 am
@Whoever,
What time is it anyway?
Are you certain?
Nature is!

=
MJA
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 04:45 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... but if space is dependent upon objects-aka-slow-processes, and even slow processes are dependent upon time, doesn't that make space dependent upon time (and thus time more fundamental than space)? ...


Not if there are, as in my example, no change in position between two electrons in an otherwise empty space.

I would agree if an electron had an internal process though.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 10:41 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
I would agree if an electron had an internal process though.


... is quantum physics relevant here? ... that is, does the fact that quantum field theory says that the electromagnetic force that these two electrons impose upon each other is a result of an ongoing exchange of photons imply that electrons have internal processes? (or that electrons are processes?!) ...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:56 am
@paulhanke,
I thought it was accepted that if you have mass or pure energy you have change therefore time..If you have not got time then that terrible word pops up that does not explain itself"NOTHING" Mass or energy creates space for time to move in..As mass is energy we have the famous trilogy ..
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:16 am
@xris,
E = M
Simplified: = is the simplest foundation, truth, and solution to everything.
Equal will set us free!
Einstein, Jefferson and Me

=
MJA
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 10:24 am
@MJA,
MJA wrote:
E = M
Simplified: = is the simplest foundation, truth, and solution to everything.
Equal will set us free!
Einstein, Jefferson and Me

=
MJA
ARR so you have found the theory of everything and i thought it might include T for truth not something so earthly as Jefferson and Einstein..Me is a selfish word and it would never be part of the truth..
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 11:25 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
ARR so you have found the theory of everything and i thought it might include T for truth not something so earthly as Jefferson and Einstein..Me is a selfish word and it would never be part of the truth..


I'm sorry you feel that Way.
I am certain that once you find the truth of Oneself, you find the truth of all.
For All is truly One.

=
MJA
0 Replies
 
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 05:42 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;23522 wrote:
Thank you very much for your replies. It gives some insight, but doesn't quell-the-fire (so to speak).

So many well-meaning and vastly intelligent folks (scientists, mostly) speak of "time" as a force (entity? phenomina?) that exists separately-and-distinctly. Most of these people are far more intelligent than I, yet when I look at it: Time is a useful concept we apply to sequences or rates. We can look at a notion and say ".. yes, this describes time" yet Time doesn't exist as a separate entity; at least that's what it seems.

It's a useful term; needed term! But bent, traversed and objectively measured (that isn't *really* measuring something else), I'd really love to hear it.

Thanks again for your posts


The only people who think time is actually something are those who are either confused, or are infatuated with physicalness and so want to believe it can do mystical stuff (like allow time travel).

You are on the right track to think time is merely a human measurement concept. It is, in one sense, exactly like the energy concept. Lots and lots of people talk about energy like it is a substance that composes everything from mass to "spirit." In reality it is merely a way to measure the sort of change/movement we call "work." Energy is not a "substance," it has no properties.

Likewise, time is a way to measure the rate of a specific type of change in our universe, but to really understand the confusing picture of time (introduced primarily by relativity), you have to also take into account a few other factors.

First, the "direction" of change in our universe is from being more organized to less organized, from compacted to expanded. When used in philosophical discussion like ours, often this trend is referred to as universal entropy (also philosophical entropy).

Second, we think of the universe as beginning with the Big Bang, and therefore what order there is in the universe started soon after that and has been becoming more disordered ever since (overall).

Third, the main organization we observe is in matter and material processes, so it is the disorganizing of matter we are referring to as universally "entropic."

Fourth, there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and if it keeps disorganizing then there are a finite number disorganizing events left in the universe before it is fully disordered.

Fifth, because order is associated with matter and material processes, and because matter is tied up in various types of cycles (from planetary orbits to the cycling cesium, hydrogen, or rubidium used in atomic clocks), we use their cycles to count. What we are counting doesn't matter really, it's just regularity that we are after.

Sixth, here's where everyone gets confused about time. During the counts of something cycling like a clock, some amount of organization in the universe has disappeared. So time is really a concept derived from our observation of the universe's matter flying apart. It is a counting/measuring concept that keeps track of the rate of entropy, time doesn't actually exist as a force or entity unto itself. Instead of saying "It has been 62 years since I was born," I could say "X number of disordering events have occurred since I was born." I could also say, "X number of disordering events are left before I die." It's because the rate of disordering events are rather constant that we can use cycles to count "how long" we have before something occurs.

Seventh, the time concept got interesting with relativity. Why? Because the rate of entropy can be affected. Increasing gravity or acceleration in a frame of reference slows down atomic cycles, and therefore everything in that frame of reference disorganizes more slowly than in its prior less-gravity/accelerating frame of reference. Clocks, no matter what type, move slower too so you can't tell your frame of reference has slowed down its disorganzing rate. BTW, the whole frame contracts too, but you can't tell that either because your ruler has also contracted and so measures exactly the same as before. The only way you will know of this rate of entropy change is if you've been, say, accelerating away from Earth and then back, and when you return you find out your spaceship clock is behind Earth clocks (which has been confirmed using atomic clocks on accelerating planes).


So, much of the talk that goes on in every philosophy and science area of forums I've ever visited is mostly being done by confused people who are projecting the drama of their own demise as a physical being into this "force" they call time.

Some other of the weird interpretations are coming from materialists/physicalists who want to believe physicalness can create all that exists, including us and consciousness; they treat time like a dimension that can be, for example, traveled forward and backward in (this is a far-fetched interpretation taken from gravity's effect on clocks). It supports their a priori philosophical beliefs to make time and other physical concepts as "mystical" as they can to account for some of the amazing organization and creativity behind life and consciousness.

But once we remove confusion and physicalist "believer" spin, time is nothing more than a measurement concept that exists solely in our heads. Smile
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 08:37 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Mass or energy creates space for time to move in..


... or is it the other way around? Wink
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 09:47 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
You are on the right track to think time is merely a human measurement concept. It is, in one sense, exactly like the energy concept. Lots and lots of people talk about energy like it is a substance that composes everything from mass to "spirit." In reality it is merely a way to measure the sort of change/movement we call "work." Energy is not a "substance," it has no properties.


... and in a sense, it is not like the energy concept ... I can measure the potential energy of a rock on a mountain top ... and I can measure it again ... and then again ... can I do the same with time? ... as well, energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted into energy - so if energy is not a substance, does that imply that matter is not a substance? ... so if neither energy nor matter are substances, then what is? ... change? ... but what is change? ... heck - what allows change to even occur in the first place?

LWSleeth wrote:
Fifth, because order is associated with matter and material processes, and because matter is tied up in various types of cycles (from planetary orbits to the cycling cesium, hydrogen, or rubidium used in atomic clocks), we use their cycles to count. What we are counting doesn't matter really, it's just regularity that we are after.


... but the regularity of what? ... change? ... but does the rate of change of, say, a cycling cesium atom have anything at all to do with, say, the change in position of the earth as it circles the sun? ... as there is no causal link between these two processes of change, that does not seem like it could possibly be the case ... so then when we use the regularity of change of a cesium atom in order to increase the accuracy of our measurement and prediction of the change in the position of the earth as it circles the sun, we must be measuring something that is shared by both but independent of either ... and what is this entity that is shared by all changes but independent of any individual change - is it time?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 04:39 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... or is it the other way around? Wink
No im sure you need an event to create space and time..The only time we have not got time is in an imagine ethereal dimension.I cant pretend to know if in our thoughts we have no real time has time got a different perspective.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:15 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
No im sure you need an event to create space and time..The only time we have not got time is in an imagine ethereal dimension.I cant pretend to know if in our thoughts we have no real time has time got a different perspective.


... so, if events create space and time as by-products, that means that my fingers are creating space and time as I sit here typing, right? ... where does all this excess space and time go? ... or does it make more sense to consider space and time as degrees of freedom that must exist prior to and within which events can happen? ...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:01 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... so, if events create space and time as by-products, that means that my fingers are creating space and time as I sit here typing, right? ... where does all this excess space and time go? ... or does it make more sense to consider space and time as degrees of freedom that must exist prior to and within which events can happen? ...
I think your fingers are making use of the space and time that other events have allowed..
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:06 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I think your fingers are making use of the space and time that other events have allowed..


... like, say, the Big Bang? Wink ... one big event that created space and time, thus providing the degrees of freedom needed for every event since then ... ... ...
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:17 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... like, say, the Big Bang? Wink ... one big event that created space and time, thus providing the degrees of freedom needed for every event since then ... ... ...
Quit so but was it given to us or did we take it..Oh if we only new if this big show was for us just to enjoy..Why in my life is so annoying..red wine, why do i have to only have two glasses a night?:perplexed:.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nature of Time
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 06:41:21