paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 05:51 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
but barring that, if you maintain 1G your spaceboard clocks will register "ticks" at the same pace as Earth clocks


... unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the mathematics of Einstein's relativity say:

Quote:
A Bussard ramjet could conceivably achieve a constant 1g acceleration that would allow the pilot to make very long journeys. To an Earthbound observer, such a ship would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach the center of the galaxy. But because of relativistic time dilation, only 20 years would pass for the crew on the ship.
Interstellar Spaceflight: Is It Possible?

Quote:
Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while ageing very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human travelling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on Earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime. The space travellers could return to Earth billions of years in the future.
Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LWSleeth wrote:
Try this thought experiment. What if absolutely everything in the universe stopped changing right now. No stars move, no seasons change, no clocks hands rotate, no one ages, no one is born, no radiation moves through space, heat stops right where it is . . . all utterly still. Is time passing?


... I have ... the answer is not so obvious ... so I tried a slightly perturbed scenario: imagine you stop all changes in the universe except for yourself in order that you are there to observe ... is time passing? ... the answer is obvious - stopping change does not stop time ... your sense of time goes merrily on (albeit you'd probably go insane!) ...

LWSleeth wrote:
See, your "sense" is the more or less subconscious awareness you've had from birth of all the movement around you, all the change.


... and doesn't this apply equally for your sense of space? ... and whether to give "change" ontological priority over "space" and "time" or the other way around remains a debated philosophical issue - a sort of chicken and egg problem ... can space and time exist without change?; can change exist without space and time? ... my own philosophical position (as you may have already guessed!) is that space and time hold ontological priority - there has to be space and time before change can exist ...

LWSleeth wrote:
If fact, it is that constant loss and change toward our own death that cements the "sense" of time rather dramatically in people's mind.


... frankly, I don't see that ... I feel now as I did 10 years ago, yet I can still sense the time of day passing ... it's only when I look in the mirror that I see that I am aging ... that being said, there are a number of physicists who view the increasing entropy in the universe as the "arrow of time" ...

LWSleeth wrote:
While that is true, I don't see how disequilibrium is something that can be included as a source of order (along with quantum oscillation and gravity). IMO, that disequilibrium is attributable to universal expansion, so it seems more accurate to say it is a source of space.


... but isn't it entirely possible that the expansion of the universe could have been completely in equilibrium? ... in which case, nothing we value in the universe - galaxies, stars, earth, us! - would be here ... the "heat death" would already be upon us ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 06:42 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42752 wrote:
... unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the mathematics of Einstein's relativity say:


You are right, my brain was preoccupied when I answered. Thanks for correcting that.


paulhanke;42752 wrote:
I have ... the answer is not so obvious ... so I tried a slightly perturbed scenario: imagine you stop all changes in the universe except for yourself in order that you are there to observe ... is time passing? ... the answer is obvious - stopping change does not stop time ... your sense of time goes merrily on


Well, I disagree. Let's say after you die you are still conscious (just disembodied). And in that condition, you find yourself in a realm that does not deteriorate in anyway, and so is eternal. What does "time" mean in that instance?

There are those in fact who achieved experiences through meditation who say just such a realm exists. The Buddha (himself a great meditator) said, "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

I have myself experienced the stopping any sense of time, first with peyote when I was young and foolish, and then later through meditation. The mind tends to follow all the changes of the world, but when it is brought to utter stillness, one stops identifying with the physical world, and that includes identifying with its relentless progress toward disorder. In that experience, "time" seems to be be one, vast eternal moment.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:13 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Well, I disagree. Let's say after you die you are still conscious (just disembodied). And in that condition, you find yourself in a realm that does not deteriorate in anyway, and so is eternal. What does "time" mean in that instance?

There are those in fact who achieved experiences through meditation who say just such a realm exists. The Buddha (himself a great meditator) said, "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded."

I have myself experienced the stopping any sense of time, first with peyote when I was young and foolish, and then later through meditation. The mind tends to follow all the changes of the world, but when it is brought to utter stillness, one stops identifying with the physical world, and that includes identifying with its relentless progress toward disorder. In that experience, "time" seems to be be one, vast eternal moment.


... and here's where we just have to agree to disagree Wink ... as for your spiritual thoughts, it sounds like you're actively testing the limits of your humanity - so many people don't even know enough to bother ... have a good journey! :a-ok:
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:55 pm
@paulhanke,
MJA


Quote:

The Equation is =

MJA



The Equation is = God[/SIZE]
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 08:20 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... anyhoo, take a look into the mathematics of stochastic processes ... two stochastic processes that are completely uncorrelated share nothing, whereas two stochastic processes that are correlated must have something in common ... for this "regularity" that you speak of to work - for the "regularity" of one process to be used reliably as a measure of another process - the processes must be correlated ... otherwise, you would be able to count the number of oscillations of a cesium atom during an Earth orbit and come up with ten bazillion, and then count the oscillations of the same cesium atom during a second Earth orbit and come up with two ...


... hey, check this out ... I dropped this line of argument because of an interpretational problem ... when you run two independent random signals through the cross-correlation function, they will show no correlation ... but when you run two independent but periodic signals through the cross-correlation function, the function will indicate correlation (the common periodicity) ... since the signals are independent (do not come from the same source), the interpretation of the correlation is the signals' commonality in time itself, due to the fact that signals are functions in time ... but then it occurred to me that you could simply reply that the cross-correlation function is just mathematics, and that you can interpret mathematics in any way you please - for example, that the correlation is just the "regularity" between the two "regularities" ... so I dropped it and followed an analogical argument instead.

But watch what happens when you merge the analogical argument with the mathematics of stochastic processes! ... I missed this earlier because, being trained as an electrical engineer, all I think in are functions in time ... but the fact is, rulers are periodic functions in space! (this would have occurred much earlier to someone trained in image processing!) ... so if you take an English ruler and a Metric ruler and run their ticks through the cross-correlation function, what do you get? - the same thing you get when you run the ticks of two oscillators through the cross-correlation function! ... so the analogy holds up under mathematical scrutiny - the implication being that whereas English rulers and Metric rulers are rulers in space because they are periodic functions in space, oscillators are rulers in time because they are periodic functions in time!

I know this isn't going to convince you that time is as real as space is, but I just thought it was too cool to keep to myself Wink
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 01:50 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
One liners in big letters without realy meaning anything= MJA..:bigsmile:


The simple truth is a two liner actually that looks Just like this:

=
MJA

PS: Does anyone have the right time?:sarcastic:
0 Replies
 
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 02:03 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
MJA




The Equation is = God


Truth or Is or God or One or Just or Free or Equal or Nature or Absolute or Universal are All synonymous.

But the mathematical equation for truth is simply = and nothing more.

Einstein was this close to truth: e = mc2
Then he lost it and went back the other way, dang it!
And that's as close as science has ever gotten, well, until now.
Peace,

=
MJA
0 Replies
 
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 09:58 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... hey, check this out ... I dropped this line of argument because of an interpretational problem ... when you run two independent random signals through the cross-correlation function, they will show no correlation ... but when you run two independent but periodic signals through the cross-correlation function, the function will indicate correlation (the common periodicity) ... since the signals are independent (do not come from the same source), the interpretation of the correlation is the signals' commonality in time itself, due to the fact that signals are functions in time ... but then it occurred to me that you could simply reply that the cross-correlation function is just mathematics, and that you can interpret mathematics in any way you please - for example, that the correlation is just the "regularity" between the two "regularities" ... so I dropped it and followed an analogical argument instead.

But watch what happens when you merge the analogical argument with the mathematics of stochastic processes! ... I missed this earlier because, being trained as an electrical engineer, all I think in are functions in time ... but the fact is, rulers are periodic functions in space! (this would have occurred much earlier to someone trained in image processing!) ... so if you take an English ruler and a Metric ruler and run their ticks through the cross-correlation function, what do you get? - the same thing you get when you run the ticks of two oscillators through the cross-correlation function! ... so the analogy holds up under mathematical scrutiny - the implication being that whereas English rulers and Metric rulers are rulers in space because they are periodic functions in space, oscillators are rulers in time because they are periodic functions in time!

I know this isn't going to convince you that time is as real as space is, but I just thought it was too cool to keep to myself Wink


I think that's a very interesting way to think about it. What you said reminded me of my struggles to understand the relationship between the number line (a ruler) and the oscillations which causes the music of the primes. But I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that time and space are real.

I wonder if the following remark by the mathematician and Taoist philosopher George Spencer Brown, (another self-styled genius, and I think rightly so), adresses the same point more succintly.

"Space is what would be if there could be a distinction. Time is what would be if there was an oscillation."

George Spencer-Brown
Conference on Laws of Form
Esalin Institutue 1973

This would be the 'mystical' view. Here is Sri Aurobindo on the topic.

"Time and Space, according to the metaphysician, have only a conceptual and not a real existence; but since all things and not these only are forms assumed by Conscious-Being in its own consciousness, the distinction is of no great importance. Time and Space are that one Conscious-Being viewing itself in extension, subjectively as Time, objectively as Space. Our mental view of these two categories is determined by the idea of measure which is inherent in the action of the analytical, dividing movement of Mind. Time is for the Mind a mobile extension measured out by the succession of the past, present and future in which Mind places itself at a certain standpoint whence it looks before and after. Space is a stable extension measured out by divisibility of substance; at a certain point in that divisible extension Mind places itself and regards the disposition of substance around it.

In actual fact Mind measures Time by event and Space by Matter; but it is possible in pure mentality to disregard the movement of event and the disposition of substance and realise the pure movement of Conscious-Force which constitutes Space and Time; these two are then merely two aspects of the universal force of Consciousness which in their intertwined interaction comprehend the warp and woof of its actions upon itself. And to a consciousness higher than Mind which should regard our past, present and future in one view, containing and not contained in them, not situated at a particular moment of Time for its point of prospection, Time might well offer itself as an eternal present. And to the same consciousness not situated at any particular point of Space, but containing all points and regions in itself, Space also might well offer itself as a subjective and indivisible extension, - no less subjective than time."

Sri Aurobindo
The Life Divine
Arya Publishing, 1939 (203)
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 04:57 pm
@Khethil,
At the event horizon of a black hole time almost stops.

Because an object with more massive than earth, time will flow slower , relative to earth

Ina singularity of almost infinite gravity time will stop

This poses a problem to me, it time stops at the singularity that created our universe, time must stop so how was the universe created if here were no time?

Alan

It is believed by many there was no time and flow of was created a that moment

But how ?
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 06:54 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
But I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that time and space are real.

... if you look closely, I didn't Wink ... all that the analogy is good for is asserting that "time is as real as space is" ... so if space isn't real, neither is time!


Whoever wrote:
George Spencer Brown, (another self-styled genius, and I think rightly so)

... truth be told, if you attribute "genius" to him then he's lost his "self-styled" status, hasn't he? Wink ...


[quote=Whoever]"Time and Space, according to the metaphysician, ...
[/quote]

... and I think there is a lot of truth in those words ... the experience of "time" to a being with the powers of memory and prediction can be something entirely different (past-present-future) than it can be to a being without those powers (eternal-present) ... "time" is projected onto experience through being in the world - "time" is how you interact with it.

Anyhoo, here's how I reach the hypothesis that space and time are in some sense real ... I am a manifestation of self-sustaining change ... I move in space that already exists; I flow in time that I do not create ... I have never observed a change that created space; I have never observed a change that created time ... therefore, space and time are fundamental prerequisites for the change that I am - if there were no space and time, there would be no change and I could not exist ... as well, I flow through a field of matter-energy in space and time ... I, as a manifestation of self-sustaining change, do not inhabit the matter-energy I did when I was born ... or even ten years ago ... or even one year ago ... not even last month ... again, if it were not for this abundant field of matter-energy across space and time for me to flow through, my flame would quickly flicker and die ... if I am real, then the field of matter-energy that I flow through is real ... and if the field of matter-energy that I flow through is real, then the space and time in which the field exists is real ... so if I hypothesize that I am real (and I do), then the derivative hypothesis is that space and time are real Smile
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:05 pm
@Khethil,
My guess is that there was no Big Bang. The red shift is simply age effects on photons.

If the universe infinite and eternal. like you proposed this would solve the difficulty around, time, mass , matter, gravity and everything else

An infinite universe would not have the difficulties relating to time

An infinite universe woud/is have intrinsic mass and gravity binding all that is and time would be localised, mainly as a measurement of how we move in relation to everything else.





Alan
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:44 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
My guess is that there was no Big Bang. The red shift is simply age effects on photons.

If the universe infinite and eternal. like you proposed this would solve the difficulty around, time, mass , matter, gravity and everything else


... ah - but I did not mean to imply such a far-reaching proposal ... I was merely making the observation that as I sit here and type I do not observe whorls of space and time emanating from my fingers (i.e., change does not inherently create space and time) ... likewise, when I stop for a moment to think I do not observe time stop nor space collapse (space and time are not simply "change") ... however, neither observation is meant to reflect beyond the present out into some far reaching finite or infinite past ... that is, these observations in no way deny the possibility of a unique kind of change (say, a Big Bang) that is capable of creating space and time (much like there is a unique kind of change - fusion - that is capable of alchemy) ...
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:23 am
@Khethil,
Pauhankie

Will we ever know how the universe was created and formed.

If we had a time machine only then will know, everything else is speculation and conjecta
Alan
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 04:34 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
My guess is that there was no Big Bang. The red shift is simply age effects on photons.

If the universe infinite and eternal. like you proposed this would solve the difficulty around, time, mass , matter, gravity and everything else

An infinite universe would not have the difficulties relating to time

An infinite universe woud/is have intrinsic mass and gravity binding all that is and time would be localised, mainly as a measurement of how we move in relation to everything else.





Alan
You are changing known facts to suit your purpose.The universe is finite ..The universe did have a beginning we are creatures of time and space and if it had a beginning it can have an end..There is no infinity..We can have no space no time but not infinity.
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:08 am
@Khethil,
Paul- re. your earlier post.

I think what you say makes sense. The question that remains is, Are you real? Brown and Aurobindo say no.

(Btw. Brown was a self-styled genius long before I came along).

"Since before time and space were, the Tao is. It is beyond is and is not. How do I know this is true? I look inside myself and see." Tao Te Ching

This was Kant's solution, that what is prior to time and space is not an instance of a Category. This would be why we cannot imagine it or find it in metaphysics.
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:17 am
@xris,
xris - How do we know the universe is finite?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 08:15 am
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
xris - How do we know the universe is finite?
Well i accept known science and that the universe started with the BB what else is there but knowledge ? everything else is speculation. If its speculation you want then anything is possible absolutely anything..
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:57 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
"Since before time and space were, the Tao is. It is beyond is and is not. How do I know this is true? I look inside myself and see." Tao Te Ching

This was Kant's solution, that what is prior to time and space is not an instance of a Category. This would be why we cannot imagine it or find it in metaphysics.


... it's definitely interesting to think about what exists beyond our horizons ... for example, what lies beyond the expanding shockwave of the Big Bang? - that which the known universe is expanding into? ... is it "nothing"? - is it a field of unthinkable possibilities whose symmetry is broken into space-time-matter-energy as the shockwave passes? - is it an alien universe of absolutely mind-bending physics that the shockwave is forcing through a phase transition into our physics? - is it the Tao? Wink ... likewise, what were things like prior to the Big Bang? - physics can take us back only so far ... our physical theories are grounded in what we can do in terms of local experiments and what we can observe in terms of fossil light and radiation that allows us to see back in time almost to the Big Bang ... so in a sense Kant was right - what is prior to time and space is not a knowable Category, simply because it lies beyond our physical horizons ...
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 01:36 am
@Alan McDougall,
XIS

Quote:

You are changing known facts to suit your purpose.The universe is finite ..The universe did have a beginning we are creatures of time and space and if it had a beginning it can have an end..There is no infinity..We can have no space no time but not infinity.



I am changing nothing read what my post says before commenting on it

I said, "it is my guess"

No one knows for sure if the universe is finite or infinite.

How could a finite universe ever begin to evolve if it is caught up n the infinite gravity of a singularity that stops time, how?
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 05:02 am
@Khethil,
Kant does not say that what is prior to space and time is not a knowable category. This would be a fairly trivial assertion and a blatant appeal to ignorance. He say it is not an instance of a category. This is a quite different idea, and it is an important one since it is precisely what the mystics say is the case, as we see from Lao-tsu's remark. Kant, and later Hegel, Bradley etc., shows that this conclusion can be reached not only in experience, as Lao-tsu asserts, but by the use of our reason. It is is the only solution to the problem of origins that is not demonstrably logically absurd, so it has a lot going for it.
 

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 5
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 06:39:19