does time exist?

TheCorrectResponse

"Reality" is a function of consensus. It is about "what works" at different levels of observation which constantly shift and evolve. As far as "time" is concerned questions like "what was there before the big bang" become devoid of meaning because "before" and "after" depend on the existence of consensual observers.....but everyday courtroom scenarios involving "sequences of events" are perfectly legitimate justifications for the adjective "real" to be applied to "time" for that "lay" subset of events.

The interesting issues about "reality" are often theological because clearly no "God" can be said to "exist before the big bang" . What we have here is misapplication of "layman's time" at the wrong level of discourse.

0 Replies

USAF...

You are the observer of "the tree in the forest" in your mind's eye. That is what dissenters overlook.

No observer - no "existence".

The only way out is to invent an "ultimate observer" or "God" like Bishop Berkeley.

0 Replies

I am sorry but I am not smart enough to move from what appears to be a scientific discussion of these terms to a philosohpical discussion and back again. I was just trying to describe the current standard scientific theory. In QM reality is not just a term it would be a global schrodinger wave equation.

It is also incorrect to say one cannot describe things before the big bang. That is true for classical physics and relativity (which breaks down at pressures greater than about 10EXP78 tons per sq. in.).

In QM you can potentially go beyond. In QM you can NEVER have nothing as I believe you are using the term. If you have nothing then you know, for example, you have zero energy and zero energy fluctuations. This is a violation of the uncertainty principle. In fact while we don't currently have the ability to create a working model. QM tells us that the universe sprang from a vacuum fluctuation. Of what? of the "nothing"

So I'll leave you all to whatever it is you are trying to work out. Have a good one!

0 Replies

I agree with the correct response. Fresco, you obviously haven't been readint this thread. We've already discussed this phycological crap. We are not interested in perception. It has no place in a discussion on the physical possibilities of the universe. So unless you can speak of physics theory instead of physcological theory, take it to another thread.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse

QM is highly significant philosophicaly because it favours "non-duality" (the inseparability of observer and observed) over "naive realism." When you say "time is not real" you are in essence saying "time" does not conform to "naive realism". Indeed no "thing" whether it be "time", "distance", "electron" or "tree" is independent of the function for which it is evoked by particular observers. "Things" are nodes of communicative exchange with no "independent existence".

0 Replies

USAF

You obviously don't understand QM. "Physicality" (time, location etc) is contingent on the observational process.

0 Replies

You are incorrect in saying QM favors non-duality. Maybe if you are talking about it at very conversational level. But QM is math. What you are describig as "non-duality" is known as the measurment paradox, among other names, and is the most obtuse part of QM, i.e. when is a measuremnt made? So at most currently QM has no side to take in this question. Although I can see how a cursory reading can lead to this misinterpretation.

As to the remainder of your post, its pretty impenetrable to me. As I confessed I am not terribly bright. So I'll leave you with the more knowledgeable people to figure out whatever it is you are trying to figure out.

PS Does the spell checker even work???

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

USAF

You obviously don't understand QM. "Physicality" (time, location etc) is contingent on the observational process.

I understand it enough to know that what you're talking about is *not* quantum mechanics, but is relativity - the two of which are antagonistic. So before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, you need to get your terms straight. Relativity is based on the need of an observer, not quantum mechanics. In either case, as I said, the psychological nonsense has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

0 Replies

The CorrectResponse,

I have no comment other than to point you to the fact that Niels Bohr, the father of QM adopted the Yin-Yang (Non-Duality) symbol as his coat of arms and to leave you with a couple of quotes;

Quote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

EINSTEIN

Quote:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

HEISENBERG

0 Replies

USAF

I think you will find the concepts of "observer" differ for Einstein and Bohr,
but play a central role for both. I refer you to my comments on Bohr above and also to the defeat of Einstein camp in its challenge to QM on "locality" which previously had been axiomatic to concepts of "physicality".

0 Replies

If you would like to look into this further I can recomend "Quantum Implications Essays in Honor of David Bohm" Routledge & Kegan Paul as the best book I have ever read on the subject. It is c. 1987 but still relevant. This will show you what the best minds of QM have to say on the subject. If you have no science background only one or two of the papers will be useful and the more physics you know the more the book will be understandable and meaningful. I am sure it is still in print.

Just a reminder per one of your quotes. Einstein also said "God does not play dice"; he was soooo wrong. When talking about Einstien it is good to remind one's self that he spent the last 30+ years of his life in scientific obscurity beacuse he could "philosophically" believe in the quantum theory. Find a published journal paper from him after his theory of relativity.

Philosophy may be interesting but it never lead to a mathematical model of reality. Whatever "reality" may mean to you.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse

I usually recommend Bohm himself (Wholeness and Implicate Order) when advising on these matters. Note that it is "philosophy" which claims to be the superior "vantage point on reality" as opposed to "science" per se. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is fairly essential in understanding this.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Both ideas are completely intuitive and both just as incorrect.

I agree with everything you've said thus far and value your input except for this particular sentence here, which is not supported by your argument, and does not have basis

0 Replies

Fresco
Bohm was indeed a fascinating character and one even the elite didn't hesitate to describe as "deep"; the ultimate compliment. I haven't read Kuhn's book. Do you think that I could handle it?

Stuh
Well I would say if you are familiar with the concept of the Minkowski 4-space then you can see the basis for a non-moving time. In Minkowski 4-space, the degrees of freedom are all just there. There is no development in time as there is no development in width. There is no mathematical mechanism within the construct for a moving time. This is often termed the "block universe". You do have world lines but the specific entity that a world line describes is not seen moving in a time dimension that also moves. You are not free to "animate" the world line. You cannot slice up the Minkowski structure into discrete pieces of time and then play them forward or backward as frames in a movie. Any more than you can say one of the spatial dimensions can be animated. Would you say space moves from left to right? Symmetry requirements would force that on you.

You can term one end of the time dimension to be past and one future for ease of discussion. Just as you can term a left and a right. These have no absolute physical meaning. And since the dimensions are exact in their mathematical description you can just as easily and correctly flip your past and present "ends" just as you are free to flip what you consider right and left. In Minkowski space these symmetries are identical.

This is how I learned it. It may be that the formalism has changed but I doubt it. Of course I could have learned it wrong. As I've tried to explain to Fresco, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed! If I'm wrong this means I have lead many people astray over the years. I hope there is no chance of litigation being brought against me!

If the problem you had with my statement did not have to do with this but rather my statement that the Earth moves.wellthat's a tougher nut to crack.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Fresco
Bohm was indeed a fascinating character and one even the elite didn't hesitate to describe as "deep"; the ultimate compliment. I haven't read Kuhn's book. Do you think that I could handle it?

Stuh
Well I would say if you are familiar with the concept of the Minkowski 4-space then you can see the basis for a non-moving time. In Minkowski 4-space, the degrees of freedom are all just there. There is no development in time as there is no development in width. There is no mathematical mechanism within the construct for a moving time. This is often termed the "block universe". You do have world lines but the specific entity that a world line describes is not seen moving in a time dimension that also moves. You are not free to "animate" the world line. You cannot slice up the Minkowski structure into discrete pieces of time and then play them forward or backward as frames in a movie. Any more than you can say one of the spatial dimensions can be animated. Would you say space moves from left to right? Symmetry requirements would force that on you.

You can term one end of the time dimension to be past and one future for ease of discussion. Just as you can term a left and a right. These have no absolute physical meaning on a Minkowski space. And since the dimensions are exact in their mathematical description you can just as easily and correctly flip your past and present "ends" just as you are free to flip what you consider right and left. In Minkowski space these symmetries are identical.

This is how I learned it. It may be that the formalism has changed but I doubt it. Of course I could have learned it wrong. As I've tried to explain to Fresco, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed! If I'm wrong this means I have lead many people astray over the years. I hope there is no chance of litigation being brought against me!

If the problem you had with my statement did not have to do with this but rather my statement that the Earth moves.wellthat's a tougher nut to crack.

0 Replies

I have NO idea how I quoted myself. But I will say that I am unanimous on my response. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Hehe

A mathematical model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions it makes. In general, the assumptions that we make are only as good as the observations that we can make. But the observations we can make are not only limited by technological and fundamental (eg, uncertainty) limits, they are also limited by the frame of reference that we make those observations under. For example, the quality of our observations is limited by the technological tools that we have available, limited by our inability to observe what's may be really going on below QM, and generalizations may not be applicable under general circumstances just because they appear universal on Earth.

Scientific theories are adopted when they are shown to be accurately predictive and have no counterexamples. But we can only trust these models for making predictions under the same circumstances that we look for counter examples! It is irrelevant that the model we have constructed views time as being similar to a spatial dimension -- because in ALL likelihood, our model is false, and only appears valid under the limited circumstances that we humans are capable of gathering evidence for. So we can use the model to make predictions, but we can't use the model to make confident predictions about untestable hypothesis -- like the block universe model. In fact, we have a good deal of logical empirical and intuitive evidence that suggests time does not follow the block universe model. Indeed, if the block universe model were accurate, then there is no reason why traveling backward in time would be impossible.

But time is completely unlike the other dimensions. Unlike the spatial dimensions, time has a specific meaning -- it represents the evolution of things, change, motion...it can bring life to a spatial universe of 1 dimensions, 2 dimensions, 3 dimensions, or N dimensions. Clearly it does not behave like the other dimensions, and it is only a mathematical convenience to treat it as if it were "just" a dimension. We should not let this mathematical tool lead us astray from remembering what it represents. Just as, for example, when we solve for an equation with the quadratic formula we know that in some cases the negative solution has no physical meaning.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse,

One route into Bohm's esotericism is via "The Ending of Time" (A dialogue between Bohm and Krishnamurti).

And here's a synopsis of Kuhn:
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

0 Replies

If there is no time then I can ignore this overdue notice on my mortgage. Boy, THAT'S a relief!

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:

The wave is not the ocean, true, rather the wave is a property of the ocean. Therefore neither the wave or the ocean exist independantly of one another.

Wrong! The energy creating the wave is electromagnetic force. It is not the water itself. It was transferred to the water from something else.

Quote:

To confirm whether something exists or not, or that we don't know about it's existence, one must first define it. Since nothing has no properties by which it can be defined the whole question is redundant, or in your speak, silly.

You just defined it yourself. Nothing has no properties. Which, makes it unique, thereby definiable. This is the same idea as the empty set in mathematics.

Look at it this way; the ocean has many properties which define it and one of these properties is called "wave." Lets say wave has three basic values or states: sunken, level and raised. The value of wave at any point of the surface has no bearing on the existence of ocean or it's inherant defining property of wave. Of course it is possible to have an expanse of ocean where the value of wave is uniformly "level" just as you could have a volume of space-time in which no ripples or knots exist; EM/matter respectively. However, just as the ocean and all it's defining properties continue to exist in such a state, so to does space-time. It is still there even though there is no energy passing through it. In summary, space-time does not exist independantly of it's defining properties which could be called "ripple", "twist" and "knot", ie, to manifest EM, distotions of relative geometry and matter respectively.

And no, I haven't defined "nothing" because non-existence/existence is not a property. "Something" with no defining properties can neither be said to exist or not exist - it's completely meaningless.

0 Replies

does time exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know