Proof of Time

[Jay-qu]

I concur with the last two posts, keep it clean and keep it fun :eek:

[ughaibu]

From the last two posts, both "summer" and "keep it", require a concept of time, that's shared by both the writer and the reader, in order to communicate. Is "proof of time" really necessary? A generally comprehensible concept of time seems to be indispensible.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

Steve - I'm not going to get involved with you in a discussion regarding McCutcheon in this thread. This thread is about time. McCutcheon's theory is crticially dependent on the flow of time, as I've said. It cannot explain time, even if McCutcheon is right. It adds nothing to this thread.

You're kidding, right?

The point is that if he's correct, time is not the cause of change. It is simply a way of understanding the progressive states that existence goes through as it expands. If he's correct, everything we see happen is caused by the expansion of fundamental particles. Those events are what we use to measure 'time'. The thread is 'Proof of Time'. If the cause of time is not germain to this thread, I don't know what is.

If every chemical process and every atomic process is driven by expansion it is the engine of change. Time is what we conceptualize over the continuum of 'nows' that we know as 'time' which we see and experience only because of the changes that take place.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Well, your agenda shines through, Steve. Ease up a bit, okay? It's summer. :(

As you wish Tormod. Perhaps I'm taking it a little too seriously.

[EWright]

Why is the fact that you can't undo what you've already done not proof of time? And what of the fact that tomorrow will come but yesterday will not? What then is history, if not another time; and one which we can not travel to? Why wait for what will come, if there is no future?

[Qfwfq]

And how do you define an expansion, if not along the lines of:

 

"Bigger and bigger, as time goes by."?

 

Cool it, Steve.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that time is a concept we create from seeing that changes take place. I'm not saying that it's an invalid concept. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists outside of ourselves, outside of our minds.

We definitely see change take place. We ascribe that to the effects of time and that's the problem I have with it. If the changes we see happen are driven by McCutcheon's expansion, then we'd need to go into the nature of that expansion to find out about time because that's where it would have to exist.

I do apologize for being short tempered but I have a problem with being called names or having a weak mind, even if it's only implied and not stated directly.

So, I'll agree to be polite as long as everyone else does.

I think you'd agree that if a standard is applied to one of us it should be applied to all?

[EWright]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that time is a concept we create from seeing that changes take place. I'm not saying that it's an invalid concept. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists outside of ourselves, outside of our minds.

We definitely see change take place. We ascribe that to the effects of time and that's the problem I have with it. If the changes we see happen are driven by McCutcheon's expansion, then we'd need to go into the nature of that expansion to find out about time because that's where it would have to exist.

I do apologize for being short tempered but I have a problem with being called names or having a weak mind, even if it's only implied and not stated directly.

So, I'll agree to be polite as long as everyone else does.

I think you'd agree that if a standard is applied to one of us it should be applied to all?

 

Steve, so how do changes take place without the progression (in time) of a series of events, one proceeding or following the next? They do not happen simultaneously. This fact is not a creation of the human mind.

 

What IS a creation of the human mind, is the units which we choose to measure time by. If we were to encounter an alien race, their units of measurement would be different, and would have to be translated if we wanted to express the same thing in regards to time, similar to standard and metric measurements. I discuss man-made measurable units of time within the context of a larger dimension of fixed time in my Theory of Temporal Relativity. Click on my signature below to read it and let me know what you think in the corresponding thread (a link to the thread is posted below the article).

[Boerseun]

If the changes we see happen are driven by McCutcheon's expansion, then we'd need to go into the nature of that expansion to find out about time because that's where it would have to exist...

How can something 'expand', i.e. be size x the one moment, and then size x+1 the next moment? The 'progression' of moments are required before a size-change can be said to happen. In other words, 'expansion' ala McCutcheon depends on 'time' existing already. Time cannot follow from expansion, expansion can, however, occur only if the flow of time is already in place. So, whether the universe is expanding or not, the question of the origins of time stays exactly the same. Therefore, McCutcheon doesn't bring anything to the party in this discussion.

[IDMclean]

I suppose it could happen if it is uniform. Not that it explains anything.

 

such that:

[math]s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t(x, y, z)^2[/math]

 

I believe that the whole expansion thing is a different interruption of GR's predicted Universal Space-time Expansion.

[Tarantism]

if it is plausable that there is one "time"...i would say that it is equally plausable that there are more "times",

 

off topic, i know, but it has been the subject of many of my ponderings.

[EWright]

if it is plausable that there is one "time"...i would say that it is equally plausable that there are more "times",

 

off topic, i know, but it has been the subject of many of my ponderings.

 

Definitely. Check out my Theory of Temporal Relativity by clicking my signature below. It discusses units of measurable time within the context of a fixed universal time. The universe, after all, only has one age.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Steve, so how do changes take place without the progression (in time) of a series of events, one proceeding or following the next? They do not happen simultaneously. This fact is not a creation of the human mind.

 

What IS a creation of the human mind, is the units which we choose to measure time by. If we were to encounter an alien race, their units of measurement would be different, and would have to be translated if we wanted to express the same thing in regards to time, similar to standard and metric measurements. I discuss man-made measurable units of time within the context of a larger dimension of fixed time in my Theory of Temporal Relativity. Click on my signature below to read it and let me know what you think in the corresponding thread (a link to the thread is posted below the article).

I've been away again, sorry for not responding sooner.

To the extent I understand what you say, I completely agree with you. We measure one event (usually) by using one that is 'shorter'. We assume some events have a constant duration throughout the universe. I don't have a problem with that. I think my problem is my inability to clearly express myself.

I think one of my posts got lost, too.

Anyway, if the events that we use for time standards are caused by expansion, then the duration of the events is dependent on not only the expansion itself but the nature of the particle which is being expanded and how the physical laws are generated when it interacts with other particles.

Another reason why McCutcheon's theory is germane here is that if we 'went back in time' we might not see a big bang. McCutcheon posits that the rate of expansion might be slowing down. That implies that once it was 'faster' than it is now. That implies that the laws of physics, the laws of the universe might be changing over time.

The subject here is time and the proof of it. If the rate of expansion (assuming expansion is correct) slows down enough, the universe might just cease to exist as we know it. The laws might change. Events might change the way they proceed. And if their relative durations change, well, assuming life persists (it's safe to say that it could) wouldn't it be a good idea to be aware of how it might change before it happens?

The point being that whatever is driving expansion will be where a possible immutable time standard exists, if one exists at all.

[Tarantism]

Definitely. Check out my Theory of Temporal Relativity by clicking my signature below. It discusses units of measurable time within the context of a fixed universal time. The universe, after all, only has one age.

times within time.

[paigetheoracle]

What about time as measurement of travel across space or perception thereof? In other words it's a measurement of change ie what we are aware of compared to what we were aware of. If there is no motion (change) then there is no time - hence things appear timeless, however you wouldn't be aware of this yourself as you wouldn't register anything either (no perception inside = no movement outside: Suspended animation).;)

 

This process I believe happens all the "time" in microcosmic reality ie psychologically. Concentration upon something (meditation/contemplation) slows down or halts time and e-motional reaction to what this discloses to us about life/existence (study) frees our attention again to expand and speed up (cold logic - hot emotion). :eek2: :hihi:

 

I personally believe that there is a mechanical explanation for life and a theory of everything would take in the mind as well as external reality but that's another post entirely (sorry to go a little off topic because of this but I wanted to show the link).:doh:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This process I believe happens all the "time" in microcosmic reality ie psychologically. Concentration upon something (meditation/contemplation) slows down or halts time and e-motional reaction to what this discloses to us about life/existence (study) frees our attention again to expand and speed up (cold logic - hot emotion).

Another way of looking at that is to assume that the brain is a type of operating system that divides its focus into different areas, in other words, time slices. Using a circle as an analogy and once around the circle is our fundamental mental time 'unit', we can slice the revolution up into pieces and divide our focus. Breathing commands take place within that period, listening, smelling, seeing, tasting, feeling, and of course, thinking etc. all get their slice of the time unit. Our ability to focus might really just be the ability to steal time from one function and use it on another. And not all functions result in the sensation of 'time', most likely. If we focus on one of the functions that don't result in the sensation of time, we just don't feel it as much. Time passes quickly, in other words. So all that really happened was that our awareness of time changes. Just a thought and the time went by so quickly.

[InfiniteNow]

Using a circle as an analogy and once around the circle is our fundamental mental time 'unit', we can slice the revolution up into pieces and divide our focus.

Sounds almost like a theory put forth by (I think) a British physicist named Julian Barbour in his book "The End of Time." Little slices...

 

 

I'll take eggplant, olives, and extra cheese on my time slice please. Oh, and could you warm that up in the brick oven too?