8
   

How The Brain Stops time

 
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 06:14 pm
@wayne,
The analogy still does not address the lack of material evidence for the existence of time.

To address mass nouns
Mass noun flour and mass noun time. If we are going linguistic with this lets take Navajo where container shape and size are built in grammatical features to nouns mass and count. This effectivly seperates all qualitative matter from that matter's quantitative container. In English we contain mass nouns simply because they are hard to handle physically without a container. Water (lake)(river)(cup) etc... we are not talking about the container although we contain them if we talk about the actual container we must refer to the lake or river bed or banks, or a measuring cup. Same goes for flour bag, cup, teaspoon. English as well as all languages and families cross culturally that I am aware of show lingusitically that mass nouns are mass because of their qualities make them impossible to be naturally quantified. no one is mistaking lingusitically quality for quantity, in fact the quantity is arbitrarily imposed on a quality, and these are things that can be seen, felt, tasted, touched, smelled. Add the inability to physically percieve and where have we?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 09:20 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

The analogy still does not address the lack of material evidence for the existence of time.

To address mass nouns
Mass noun flour and mass noun time. If we are going linguistic with this lets take Navajo where container shape and size are built in grammatical features to nouns mass and count. This effectivly seperates all qualitative matter from that matter's quantitative container. In English we contain mass nouns simply because they are hard to handle physically without a container. Water (lake)(river)(cup) etc... we are not talking about the container although we contain them if we talk about the actual container we must refer to the lake or river bed or banks, or a measuring cup. Same goes for flour bag, cup, teaspoon. English as well as all languages and families cross culturally that I am aware of show lingusitically that mass nouns are mass because of their qualities make them impossible to be naturally quantified. no one is mistaking lingusitically quality for quantity, in fact the quantity is arbitrarily imposed on a quality, and these are things that can be seen, felt, tasted, touched, smelled. Add the inability to physically percieve and where have we?


Thousand island or ranch?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 07:35 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

What i think the end product of this is, is that time is ...impossible to accurately track. ..

Not so:
Quote:
Cesium clocks have demonstrated stability [of] one second in 1,400,000 years according to the Naval Observatory...Set your watch by it: (303) 499-7111 .
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 07:52 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

What i think the end product of this is, is that time is ...impossible to accurately track. ..

Not so:
Quote:
Cesium clocks have demonstrated stability [of] one second in 1,400,000 years according to the Naval Observatory...Set your watch by it: (303) 499-7111 .



Thanks for the information. But I am afraid that even that is not accurate enough for Gosh. Gosh sets extremely high standards.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:13 am
@High Seas,
You seem top be missing the argument of Time and time. You can track time because it is simply the hash marks created by those wishing to measure something, and that something they are measuring may simply be the hashmarks which they created. The accuracy of those distances is not the issue. You cannot track Time the experiential duration by measurement other than experiential measurement. The brain tracks in recallable memory, moments although it experiences entire durations. Thus we have expressions like a long time, time flies, time is dragging, not very long time, all explaining the same amount of time expressed on a cesium clock. Placing an arbitrary measuring system on something that is not tangible and cannot be experinced uniformly make that system of measurement suspect at best, as no one can experience Time itself unbiasedly and Instruments cannot detect it. No one would take someone as credible if they measured distance in miles but that distance were invisible. One may claim that time is a unit of distance. (how many clicks on this measuring device does it take to get from X to Y) As there are distance time correlations throughout history (A day's ride, 3 hours away etc...) However its a tough sell that the time reffered to is talking about time as we seem to experience it as those things now are normally converted mentally into a convention distance unit. There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:26 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

You seem top be missing the argument of Time and time. You can track time because it is simply the hash marks created by those wishing to measure something, and that something they are measuring may simply be the hashmarks which they created. The accuracy of those distances is not the issue. You cannot track Time the experiential duration by measurement other than experiential measurement. The brain tracks in recallable memory, moments although it experiences entire durations. Placing an arbitrary measuring system on something that is not tangible and cannot be experinced uniformly make that system of measurement suspect at best, as no one can experience Time itself unbiasedly and Instruments cannot detect it. There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?


I never knew there was a distinction between Time and time. And I don't think I know it now. Do you also think there is a difference between a person's height and the measurement of the person's height? So there is Height and height. How about Length and length.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 06:18 pm
@GoshisDead,
It has been known for thousands of years, but only now it has become aknowledged by science.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

You seem top be missing the argument of Time and time. You can track time because it is simply the hash marks created by those wishing to measure something, and that something they are measuring may simply be the hashmarks which they created. The accuracy of those distances is not the issue. You cannot track Time the experiential duration by measurement other than experiential measurement. The brain tracks in recallable memory, moments although it experiences entire durations. Placing an arbitrary measuring system on something that is not tangible and cannot be experinced uniformly make that system of measurement suspect at best, as no one can experience Time itself unbiasedly and Instruments cannot detect it. There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?




I never knew there was a distinction between Time and time. And I don't think I know it now. Do you also think there is a difference between a person's height and the measurement of the person's height? So there is Height and height. How about Length and length.


I think it is incorrect to use a finite physical characteristic in comparison with an infinite such as Time. They are not the same.
There is Time, the infinite, and time the measurement. Any measurement of time is only a portion. The quantity of Time cannot be measured.
The measurement of height and length may be accurate into infinity, but the measured quantity is finite.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 11:57 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

You seem to be missing the argument of Time and time. You can track time because it is simply the hash marks created by those wishing to measure something, and that something they are measuring may simply be the hashmarks which they created. The accuracy of those distances is not the issue. You cannot track Time the experiential duration by measurement other than experiential measurement. The brain tracks in recallable memory, moments although it experiences entire durations. Thus we have expressions like a long time, time flies, time is dragging, not very long time, all explaining the same amount of time expressed on a cesium clock. Placing an arbitrary measuring system on something that is not tangible and cannot be experinced uniformly make that system of measurement suspect at best, as no one can experience Time itself unbiasedly and Instruments cannot detect it. No one would take someone as credible if they measured distance in miles but that distance were invisible. One may claim that time is a unit of distance. (how many clicks on this measuring device does it take to get from X to Y) As there are distance time correlations throughout history (A day's ride, 3 hours away etc...) However its a tough sell that the time reffered to is talking about time as we seem to experience it as those things now are normally converted mentally into a convention distance unit. There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?


Not to start an argument (more of discussion starter, really):

Regarding, the concept of Time (capital T) that you are developing -- for what reason is it inaccessible to experience (and/or instruments)? Is Time an abstraction of multiple, irreducible times? Or does it more resemble its theoretical opposite, eternity? (Eternity?)

The way i tend to conceptualize the "objective" (read arbitrary, but reliable) methods of measuring of time, be it by an hourglass or the frequency of the microwave spectral line of cesium, is by analogy with spatial triangulation. By observing "simultaneous" developments in three different processes, or taking notice of observable symmetry of two "other" processes from within a third, one is capable of measuring the "objective" duration of an experience. What's your take? (Feel free to take the words within quotation marks as dismissively or as literally as you'd like.)
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 10:19 am
@Razzleg,
Without the timekeeper the observation can only be expressed in comparatives. "How long did that take?" not very long. "which took less time" that one was faster. etc... Or the answer would refer back to the the standardized timekeeping measurment as someone experiences it in comparison to their experience of past time keeping "How long did it take?" a couple seconds maybe. "Which was faster?" that one was a second or so faster than the others. In a case such as stated one will use his/her cultural frame to express an amount deemed appropriate for the setting. With three ways of tracking time, one will have to compare two ways to one of the ways to the third. Five grains of sand took .01 seconds and 7 microwave revolutions. One is simply comparing measuring sticks, much like holding a yard stick up to a meter stick in the air.

In no way am I saying time tracking devices are not useful and/or functional, just that they may not be tracking a non-human created time, or a human independent time.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 10:01 am
@GoshisDead,
Video of How the Brain Stops Time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RdxPqL9JHY
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 11:39 am
@reasoning logic,
cool vid, thx
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 11:54 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 12:35 pm
@ughaibu,
So you think that Vasopressin plays a key role in the brian when it comes to measuring time? I wonder if it may also play a role in divorce rates.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 10:07 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

You seem top be missing the argument of Time and time. ... There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?

That's nonsensical on the face of it - cesium atoms and their outer electrons aren't man-made. We're observing something that exists independently of our observation. As to the measurement of electrical processes in persons sitting in chairs vs persons close to achieving terminal velocity in free fall - might that measurement be less related to brain biochemistry and more to relativistic effects? Even at low velocities (planes flying east to west vs planes flying in the opposite direction) relativistic effects can be reliably measured - and have been in countless experiments. You don't have to travel at close to the speed of light to see that time dilation and contraction work exactly as predicted by the theory; and that the same applies to other dimensions, like length.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 11:18 am
@High Seas,
Just for fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZEkWkpQ-mE&feature=related
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 01:43 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

You seem top be missing the argument of Time and time. ... There may be Time not created by man, but how would we know?

That's nonsensical on the face of it - cesium atoms and their outer electrons aren't man-made. We're observing something that exists independently of our observation. As to the measurement of electrical processes in persons sitting in chairs vs persons close to achieving terminal velocity in free fall - might that measurement be less related to brain biochemistry and more to relativistic effects? Even at low velocities (planes flying east to west vs planes flying in the opposite direction) relativistic effects can be reliably measured - and have been in countless experiments. You don't have to travel at close to the speed of light to see that time dilation and contraction work exactly as predicted by the theory; and that the same applies to other dimensions, like length.


That is nonsensical, cesium atoms aren't time their outer electrons aren't time we are observing something that exists independently of our observation using an unrelated measurement. As to the measurement of people sitting chairs versus achieving terminal velocity - might that measurement be less related to brain bio chemistry and and more to relativistic effects? (planes flying east to west compared to planes flying in the opposite direction) relativistic effects can be reliably measured with a man made system of measurement. The traveling at the speed of light has no bearing on that which was posted about time and Time and cannot be applied to those things which are tangible like length which just goes to show above entries about time being a unit of length and Time being unmeasurable.
thack45
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 05:27 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

... cesium atoms aren't time their outer electrons aren't time we are observing something that exists independently of our observation using an unrelated measurement...
That's right. It just so happens that counting radiation cycles (or something like that) of a cessium-133 atom is a much more stable means of measuring a second than is using the earth's orbit. And so the International System of Units found that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the atom nearly exactly predicts 1/86,400 of a 24 hour solar day. We obviously long before created the day and its subsequent hours and seconds for our own utility. Cessium (or any other element, for that matter) would not change its frequency if we changed our time keeping.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 11:05 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

... cesium atoms aren't time their outer electrons aren't time we are observing something that exists independently of our observation using an unrelated measurement...
That's right. It just so happens that counting radiation cycles (or something like that) of a cessium-133 atom is a much more stable means of measuring a second than is using the earth's orbit. And so the International System of Units found that 9,192,631,770 cycles of the atom nearly exactly predicts 1/86,400 of a 24 hour solar day. We obviously long before created the day and its subsequent hours and seconds for our own utility. Cessium (or any other element, for that matter) would not change its frequency if we changed our time keeping.


Indeed cesium wouldn't change its frequency, and us measuring its frequency still has nothing to do with time only it only deals with cesium frequency measurements
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 01:51 am
@kennethamy,
Thanks for the warning about Gosh - should have heeded it and not ventured to explain time dilation and length contraction in special relativity. Clearly Gosh lives in some alternative universe where time and length aren't dimensions at all, the speed of light isn't a constant, and none of our other laws of physics apply. I rather wonder how he gets around! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/imgrel/lcon.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/23/2019 at 03:05:15