What is time?

[Qfwfq]

I can only conclude that you are not here to discuss the subject but rather to prevent discussion of the subject.

Why don't you just outline your novel framework about space and time, without nitpicking on the colour, scent and pattern of Minkowski's toilet paper and, even worse, about who first brought it into the discussion?

:doh:

[Doctordick]

Why don't you just outline your novel framework about space and time, without nitpicking on the colour, scent and pattern of Minkowski's toilet paper and, even worse, about who first brought it into the discussion?

:umbrella:

Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know". Einstein's concept of time as a dimensional aspect of reality fails to provide for that very essential aspect of our knowledge of reality. Handling the existence of a difference between what we do and do not know is the fundamental basis of Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty and the notion of collapse of the wave function. This is exactly the reason for the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

 

I believe my "framework about space and time" is pretty clearly presented in the opening post of "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" And finally, if your comments above don't constitute Ad Hominem argument, I don't know what does!

 

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

[Racoon]

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

 

I appreciate some of the nuances in DoctorD's righting :umbrella:

[Qfwfq]

And finally, if your comments above don't constitute Ad Hominem argument, I don't know what does!

My comments above have nothing to do with ad hominem. I had simply shown that you brought in a matter but later denied having done so. I have also long lost patience because of your manner of dodging replies.

 

There's no point in bothering with a discussion so conducted. Please note that saying this is not "some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument"

[hallenrm]

Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know". "

 

What about the difference between two events we know, one happened last year, and another ten years ago?

 

Just curious!!!;)

[Doctordick]

What about the difference between two events we know, one happened last year, and another ten years ago?

Those two events you remember are part of your past "what you know". The concept "time" allows you to give order to what you know (the past) and the changes in what you knew as your knowledge arrived to what it is now. Every event you can remember happening to you happened to you in the present (it was a change in what you knew (the past at that very moment).

[hallenrm]

The concept "time" allows you to give order to what you know (the past) and the changes in what you knew as your knowledge arrived to what it is now. Every event you can remember happening to you happened to you in the present (it was a change in what you knew (the past at that very moment).

 

Sorry, but I did not understand or should I say you were unable to make it sufficiently clear).

 

I remember, that when I was at school, several decades back, I had an accident. I also remeber a professor teaching me Quantum mechanics, perhaps a decade later. I also rember that Erwin Schrodinger proposed his wave equation much earlier before I was born.

 

How is the time factor of all these events assimiliated in the conception of time proposed by you?:eek2:

[Doctordick]

I remember, that when I was at school, several decades back, I had an accident.

As I said, "time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being 'what we know' and the future being 'what we do not know'. "Decades back" is a time reference, a rather rough and inexact reference to "a present" when the past (what you knew) didn't include that accident. The present (at that time) was a change in what you knew (that accident) which was apparently significant to your past (what you know) now (at this present).

I also remember a professor teaching me Quantum mechanics, perhaps a decade later.

Again, you are using the concept of time to identify "a present" when "what you knew" changed (you learned some Quantum mechanics).

I also remember that Erwin Schrodinger proposed his wave equation much earlier before I was born.

Now seriously, be honest. You don't actually remember Erwin Schrodinger making that proposal do you? I would bet that there existed a change in your knowledge (a specific present) when "what you knew changed". You became aware of the supposed fact that he had made such a proposal and that the time reference placed in the record was "before you were born". In order to make sense of your world view, you placed your mental image of that event in that world view as if an extension of your personal concept of your time references were identical to that of the person who told you or to the person who wrote the book or perhaps Schrodinger himself. This is well known to be an invalid extension.

 

Think about it for a moment, if this time scale as perceived could be resolved down to the exact accuracy of the best clocks presently available, and you were aware of the exact reading on that clock, it would be fine for allocating the changes in your knowledge (you could theoretically attach a correct time to each and every change in "your knowledge") but it could not be extended to include the time others allocate to their experiences. Not in any exact manner anyway because everyones personal time depends on their path through the universe. If you stay at home and I fly around the world in a supersonic jet, when we get back together, our personal time lines will be slightly out of sync. On an infinitesimal scale, this is true even if you sit in the living room while I go to the bathroom.

 

This error becomes significant when one gets down to the theoretical level because the theory is presumed to be exactly correct; or else it is just a rough rule of thumb (rough is something to be defined and I can call within a peko-nanosecond "rough" if I wish).

How is the time factor of all these events assimilated in the conception of time proposed by you?:)

I openly accept the fact that time is a concept which can be attached to any complex mechanism and that the concept is very useful for describing the physical behavior of any coherent object; it is a parameter which can describe the changing state of that coherent object. But it is an entirely hypothetical variable used to display evolution of that state and it simply cannot be measured.

 

If you examine the derivation of my fundamental equation, you will discover that I define what I call a "center of mass system" of reference (the definition is a mathematical definition having to do with the vanishing of a particular differential, see appendix 3). That equation itself defines the parameter time (which is of course only defined in the "center of mass system"). If the "center of mass" systems of two different coherent objects can be regarded as being the same "center of mass" system (which of course cannot actually be as they couldn't be "different" coherent objects) then the evolution parameter describing their behavior can be considered the same and the behavior of each could be described via an identical t. That requirement right there establishes the accuracy of the time scale (exactly how rough the time definition must be in order to make use of the invalid idea that they are both on the same time line).

 

IF you are going to be so rough in your personal definition of time that a few milliseconds are not significant, then we are all in the same "center of mass system" and we can use any old repetitive system to establish this "rough" measure. So how does my conception assimilate your events? Easy, as long as your measures are rough enough the error is not significant.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[hallenrm]

Profound!!! Dick :computer: I must admit. It will take perhaps several weeks of thought for me to assimoliate it in my knowledge framework, but I promise I will.

 

................

Think about it for a moment, if this time scale as perceived could be resolved down to the exact accuracy of the best clocks presently available, and you were aware of the exact reading on that clock, it would be fine for allocating the changes in your knowledge (you could theoretically attach a correct time to each and every change in "your knowledge") but it could not be extended to include the time others allocate to their experiences. Not in any exact manner anyway because everyones personal time depends on their path through the universe. If you stay at home and I fly around the world in a supersonic jet, when we get back together, our personal time lines will be slightly out of sync. On an infinitesimal scale, this is true even if you sit in the living room while I go to the bathroom.

 

 

All I can comprehend now, is that time is subjective most of the time, for most of the people, (or should I say everybody. Am I right?

[Doctordick]

All I can comprehend now, is that time is subjective most of the time, for most of the people, (or should I say everybody. Am I right?

In a way. But you omit what is probably the most significant part of the concept. And that would be the fact that it allows data compression of "what we know". Our image of the world is full of things which appear to repeat. There are patterns in "what we know" which happen so often that we need not remember the details of every occurrence, we need only remember the details of one occurrence and then remember the related "times" for all the other occurrence. We give names to these repetitive things.

 

An unsubtle example: sunrise occurs every day! Language is a very subtle example of repetitive occurrences of complex temporal association. What I am saying is that time is a very powerful concept essential to making sense of your experiences (what you know).

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

memory seems to be the 'key' to which opens the gate to the kingdom of time.

[Doctordick]

memory seems to be the 'key' to which opens the gate to the kingdom of time.

And just what and/or where is that "kingdom of time" :hihi:

 

Language is a curious conveyor of information. It is so inexact that comments entirely void of content can none the less lead people to look for relationships which will defend the statement as rational. And sometimes they even find decent reasons. I can't be against it because without it nothing new would ever be discovered. :phones:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[arkain101]

I dunno, being kinda sarcastic really..

 

The kingdom of time is what came to mind when trying to describe the happenings of the universe from when and if it started to now and beyond. It did and can only happen in 'one' way, from at least our perspective. Without some type of memory, we just find there being a now, so I thought hey, I guess time needs to be held somewhere, so why not add some cool metaphor like a kingdom where time seems to reside.. maybe its our consciousness..

 

Point is, you seem to need memory to create time.

[Doctordick]

Point is, you seem to need memory to create time.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. I would say you need the concept "time" to make sense of what you think you know and "memory" is just another word for "what you think you know".

 

Have fun -- Dick

[CraigD]

Point is, you seem to need memory to create time.

Since neural activity requires metabolism, it also seems you "need time to create a memory".

 

The study of consciousness – which is what many approaches to the study of time amount to - seems to generate circular statements like these at every turn. After years of studying the subject using many different approaches – reading much excellent and enjoyable literature in so doing – I’ve concluded that this is because we laden the idea of consciousness with a sort of superstitious, magical meaning not conducive to rational examination. Although conscious processes appear (arguably) to be explainable as physical phenomena, it’s difficult to set aside the belief that there’s still a “ghost” there, when the consciousness we’re referring to is the essence of us.

[Doctordick]

Since neural activity requires metabolism

Both "neural activity" and "metabolism" are presumed conclusions of your paradigm and thus cannot be used to justify that paradigm. :evil:

, it also seems you "need time to create a memory".

Once again, this presumes your paradigm is valid: i.e., that the mental image of reality you achieved unconsciously by the time you were two is the correct answer to the question "what is reality?" :naughty:

I’ve concluded that this is because we laden the idea of consciousness with a sort of superstitious, magical meaning not conducive to rational examination.

Instead, could it not be that everyone is wasting their time trying to justify the validity of those beliefs they came to at the age of two; essentially they are working from the perspective that all that emotional baggage inherent in that unconsciously achieved mental image of reality acquired when they were a mere child has to be true? :confused:

 

It is a fact that human intelligence is totally isolated from the outside world in the sense that we don't know, a-priori, how any information we have is acquired. The only contact with reality exists via interactions, the real meaning of which simply cannot be known a-priori. Our mental image of the universe is constructed from data received through mechanisms (our senses) which are also part of that image. Any scientist in the world worth his salt should hold it as obvious that one could not possibly model the universe until after some information about that universe were obtained . The fundamental problem with this position is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the fundamental source of that information) until after we have modeled the universe. :rant:

 

Thus, the problem becomes one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process. This is the problem which every human being has solved on an unconscious level by the time they are two. The question is, "is that solution valid?" It should be clear to you that, if you don't know how to solve it, you certainly have no way of analyzing the validity of your solution. :hammer:

 

Absolutely every human soul out there (scientist to layman to philosopher) is absolutely ignoring the problem I have just pointed out to you. Intentional or unintentional, ignorance is ignorance whatever the source. :edizzy:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[arkain101]

where does color come from? How did certain colors get assigned to certain frequencies..