The nature of time itself

Check this out.

0 Replies

All "questions" require context in which "answers" are meaningful. This question uses the term "time ITSELF" and therefore presupposes the context that time "exists" independent of an observer. If, like me, you believe this not to be the case then the question as put is meaningless. This does not prevent me from considering "our time" as "objective" for ephmemeral matters, but that its "essence" is essentially social and lies "mutually defined events".

In considering the "social reality of time" it is interesting to speculate on the worldview of people people like the Hopi Indians who have (or had) no "tenses" in the language.

http://www.westendword.com/moxie/opinion/columns/as-time-goes-by-digital-c.shtml

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

In considering the "social reality of time" it is interesting to speculate on the worldview of people people like the Hopi Indians who have (or had) no "tenses" in the language.

Granted, and that's why we are in the Philosophy & Debate forum. But our use of time in physics and cosmology belies the inexorable influence of our perception of time as a social phenomenon.

0 Replies

A drop of water is a natural quantum of water. Who is to say light is not the same. The quantum of light is a photon and like the drop of water is a natural unit. Could it be smaller? Who knows. Our limit of observation is the quantum or photon of light.

0 Replies

Maybe it's more about state rather than essence.

0 Replies

chris2a

For the purposes of debate, I am taking the extreme view that all we call "reality" is social, and that physics and cosmology are merely different social activities from the norm. A transcendent position IS possible where observer and observed are two sides of the same coin, but this tends to preclude "lower level discussions". (An analagy might be to attempt to discuss the emotional properties of music in terms of acoustics.)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

For the purposes of debate, I am taking the extreme view that all we call "reality" is social, and that physics and cosmology are merely different social activities from the norm.

Maybe not extreme but perhaps exclusively autoptic. Still, physical laws do seem to guide our social activities and perceptions. Are they independent of the macroscopic manifestations of nature? I would say they are and, in fact, govern them.

0 Replies

From the transcendent position the concept of "physical law" becomes deconstructed. The cognitive trait of "seeking prediction and control" reifies "agreed external regularities". We might move to an epistemological position which sees such cognitive traits as anthropocentric and limited.

0 Replies

So I say, "There are 13 stones in my dozen" and then you say, "They only weigh 12 stones".

0 Replies

Nice.

Space is a vacuum.

If you put took two identicle clocks and sent one in to space and held on to the other one, when they got back, the one in space would say a different time than the one from Earth; it would have been traveling slower.

Essentially, time is relative. It exists, but at different rates, everywhere.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

A drop of water is a natural quantum of water. Who is to say light is not the same. The quantum of light is a photon and like the drop of water is a natural unit. Could it be smaller? Who knows. Our limit of observation is the quantum or photon of light.

So, might it also be that this "sub quantum" energy is responsible for the seemingly different natural forces? Could a super dense "sub quantum structure" cause gravitational effects recognized as strong nuclear force?
Might this also help to explain dark matter?

(Or is it a completely ridiculous notion?)

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Our limit of observation is the quantum or photon of light.

Not so as there is sub-wavelength imaging.

0 Replies

chris2a wrote:

So I say, "There are 13 stones in my dozen" and then you say, "They only weigh 12 stones".

But in "real life" you would never say that ! This is a an example of a "contrived event" out of context which abounds in "philosophy". In a real communicative exhange all ambiguity is resolved by extension of "the event window" to include additional communication.

0 Replies

Chris says to Fresco: "Granted, and that's why we are in the Philosophy & Debate forum. But our use of time in physics and cosmology belies the inexorable influence of our perception of time as a social phenomenon." I wonder, in my technical ignorance, if physics' use of T (time) is the same as our common sense notion. If that were so, I would far less confident in its capacity than I am now.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I wonder, in my technical ignorance, if physics' use of T (time) is the same as our common sense notion.

Depends on what flavor of physics you are talking about.

0 Replies

I'm referring to quantum, not high school, physics.

0 Replies

JLN.

The link below refers to Feynman Diagrams in which "time" is represented as running from left to right. If you follow the embedded links you will find references to "events" and their observational correlates. Note that these diagrams indicate the presence of particles which travel "backwards in time" - a notion which obviously departs from Western social norm.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/feynman.html

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I'm referring to quantum, not high school, physics.

Then the answer is an overt no, as I thought my question made plain.

0 Replies

JLN,

Note also in the above that these diagrams are "a code with which Physicists talk to each other" - so ultimately we are back to "social agreement".

0 Replies

When dealing with subatomic particles we are in the very edges of our knowledge and ability to observe. Even the nature of matter is put into play as matter and energy interchange under certain conditions. We are like the blind men observing an elephant: One says it's a wall; another says a rope; another, a pillar; and so on.

0 Replies

The nature of time itself

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know