TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[arkain101]

blargy hell..

 

Grey doesnt exist as a frequency.

 

You are still seeing blue, yellow, and red.

 

Perception can not be fooled, it is a product of action.

 

How can you be fooled of color, when color doesnt exist and is relative to your brain?

 

Its frequencies you see, the frequencies dont change. The brain interprets them as they do.

 

Its like that question we had as kids. I wonder if the Blue I see, is the same blue you see.. Maybe my red is your blue, and your red is my blue.. Is it possible to tell?

 

Perception can not be fooled, for perception exists outside the observable universe.

 

Our mind and our very existence is like a movie screen with zero dimensions that reality data splatters on. The screen isnt even there, but energy tends to light it up.

 

I stand by my argument that the perception thing is false.

 

Its not even grey, because its actually a ton of colors, which is infact just various energy frequencies.

 

Isnt it interesting that geometry exibited in perception:

 

 

Has a form of symetry.

 

[Turtle]

cwes:I guess I disagree with you. ... But sometimes ideas need to be expressed from many different angles since we don't all come at learning from the same direction. And which of the 10 million descriptions should I read?

Read as many as possible. I don't discount this particular discourse by popular out of hand; I read it, and then discounted it.

But it's the expression of the different ways to approach the subject that is interesting in itself.

We agree on this.

Because there are different ways of learning, there should be different ways of expressing information. All students do not learn the same way.

Absolutely agreed here too. But here we must apply GIGO. Well learnt crap is still crap.

And Peer review is not the essence of the scientific method, you're pulling my chain. :) That pre-supposes that there are peers to do the review and the scientific method requires only person to apply it. Who would have done Peer review for Leonardo da Vinci?

No pull...no pull...:cup: The simple fact is that there are of course peers; more's the problem getting them to review a particular exposition.

 

You see the thing with Leonardo is that he actually did some of the work his theories predicted and so proved them, and others we are still reviewing today. For all this splainin' sposed to be goin' on by popular et al, I see no new predictions nor experiments done to prove them. No beef.

And you make funny joke about Michael Crichton.

 

I do the best I can. :cup:

[Farsight]

This concept of time goes back to Aristotle, and "Presentism" was invented in 1908. Plus there's been books such as Julian Barbour's. So I can't claim total originality. But I hope I've provided something interesting to think about, particularly the Einstein quotes - which I think indicate that he eventually reached the same conclusion.

 

The other thing that's particularly interesting is how people think they know something, but never actually think about it, and take it totally for granted. It's almost like something out of religion, like faith. We see how cewes resists the colour perception "experiment", but there have been more dramatic examples elsewhere.

 

I think time is like this. It really isn't a Dimension, and once we train ourselves to think ontologically we see it for the measure, the mere dimension that it is. Then other puzzles become less mysterious. Such as energy, mass, and gravity. Do you know that Einstein never agreed that gravity is spacetime curvature? I could say more, but I'll save it for another day.

 

As regards peer review and verifiable science, please let's not forget that this is just an essay on a forum. It's a concept, a fresh idea, something to think about, not a paper in Nature. Things have to start somewhere.

[Farsight]

Turtle, I think the guests are coming from here:

 

Time Explained (v2.1) - T-SIX - T6 - The End Of The Internet

 

Hi guys. I'm also known as Farsight.

 

;)

[cwes99_03]

cwes:

Quote:

As to Popular's ideas on time - or anyone posting here claiming some new insight - I find it highly improbable that any true new insight into the nature of time is going to show up on this or any other forum. While peer review may slow things down, it is indeed the very essence of the scientific method. Like it or not, even true insights may take decades, or hundreds, or thousands of years to receive recognition. I don't know this Crichton guy, but from your brief reference he sounds like a whiner to me. As you presumed however, I do find it all interesting.

 

I guess I disagree with you. If time is only an internal referent, then any nature it has would be relative to a conscious mind capable of inventing it. If there is any truth in that, then it has been said before as you say. But sometimes ideas need to be expressed from many different angles since we don't all come at learning from the same direction. And which of the 10 million descriptions should I read?

But it's the expression of the different ways to approach the subject that is interesting in itself. Maybe someday we'll be able to access information in a way that is more in keeping with our individual learning capabilities. Because there are different ways of learning, there should be different ways of expressing information. All students do not learn the same way.

And Peer review is not the essence of the scientific method, you're pulling my chain. That pre-supposes that there are peers to do the review and the scientific method requires only person to apply it. Who would have done Peer review for Leonardo da Vinci?

And you make funny joke about Michael Crichton.

linkback

Steve, you might like to check your reference. Who's quote is that in your post? It certainly isn't me. I know I did a quick search for Crichton on the forum and didn't find any posts made by me with that name in them. Please use the quote and multiquote options if you don't know how to edit the tags to show who you are quoting.

[Turtle]

As regards peer review and verifiable science, please let's not forget that this is just an essay on a forum. It's a concept, a fresh idea, something to think about, not a paper in Nature. Things have to start somewhere.

 

Agreed. As a caveat, I get the impression other respondents take it much more seriously. Moreover, I tend to only read such essays here without responding and in this case I was drawn in as an aside to the mechanics of all the views the thread is getting. To that point, I seriously doubt there is that much reading of the essay and I withdraw to allow time for sorting it out. :D ;)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

cwes99_03, you are absolutely right. I'm sorry. I was responding to turtle, not you.

[hardkraft]

It is interesting that the optical illusion that you presented managed to cause more controversy than the main idea of your article :hihi:

This discussion illustrates perfectly how difficult it is to change our perception of what our eyes tell us to be true. cwes99 measured the colors himself and the results he got convinced him of what his eyes are seeing even though the numbers say just the opposite. R=101, G=97.8, B=96.3 and R=117, G=112, B=110 are not exactly the same and are not perfect grays but they are pretty close and nowhere near being bluish or yellowish. They are both gray slightly on the red side, this is probably because the jpeg compression introduced some color noise, and the left piece is actually slightly more orange than the left, not that it matters since it's humanly imperceptible. (Made a graphic to illustrate this but I am not alowed to insert it since I am too new :hihi:, if anybody cares they can go to acidsplash.com/test/images/grays.gif)

This shows how even the best scientists (well, maybe not the best) can in confidence read data believing that it supports their already made up conclusion even when the numbers prove the very opposite. Great discussion nontheless :hihi:

[Farsight]

Yep, it is interesting. There's a whole bundle of psychology going on when it comes to what people think. People who consider themselves to be rational are totally unable to be rational when faced with something that challenges a belief or concept that's been with them since an early age. That's why they "catch 'em young". That's why we have suicide bombers. People find all sorts of ways to dismiss the challenge and get back to their comfort zone. The colour perception test is intended to demonstrate this to the reader, to open his mind to thinking seriously about time. But some people duck and dive and find all sorts of ways to evade a considered rational response to the essay. They just can't handle it. They can't show where it's wrong, so they resort to silence or dismissal or even abuse. And some resort to futile pseudo-science trying to disprove the colour perception test because they will not give an inch. Yep, it sure is interesting all right.

 

Here's your link:

 

http://acidsplash.com/test/images/grays.gif

 

[Boerseun]

Sorry - I just stumbled across this thread now, but...

Time didn’t start fifteen billion years ago. Because time didn’t start in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place.

...so how do you define motion in the absence of time?

 

Seems there's a bit of circular reasoning here. :hihi:

[Farsight]

Sorry - I just stumbled across this thread now, but...

 

...so how do you define motion in the absence of time?

 

Seems there's a bit of circular reasoning here. :bouquet:

 

The circular reasoning is in the definition of distance and time, remember?

 

There's no circular reasoning in defining motion in the absence of time. You just define it. After all, it's fundamental. Treat it like temperature. The least motion is no motion, that's zero at the bottom of your scale. The most motion is what light exhibits. That's at the top of your scale. Assign it to whatever value you want for your own convenience. Ditto for the units. I rather like klicks myself.

 

:bouquet:

[Boerseun]

This doesn't quite gel. You'll get the same circular reasoning using "motion" exclusively. So, cut out the middleman and stick to "time". The concept of "motion" doesn't make it any less cumbersome.

 

Consider a paperclip. This tiny piece of bent wire takes a long journey around the sun, and with the sun around the galactic core, and with the Milky Way around the local group, and with the local group around... you get the idea. In the absence of "Time", if there is only "motion", then this paperclip will exist everywhere at once. Simultaneously. This is clearly not the case. Now whether we have difficulty in describing or defining "time" is immaterial - there clearly is some mechanism at work which, in the words of Douglas Adams, prevents things from happening at once. And "Motion" as opposed to "Time", doesn't cut the mustard. If Time and Distance together makes for circular reasoning, so, too, does "Motion". There can't be motion without time, for how would anyone know they're experiencing "motion" if they can't compare their position in space with their position in space at a later time?

 

Instead of playing with definitions, can you explain to me how you would describe "motion", without resorting to time? And, how that would be any different than the circular reasoning emerging with distance and time?

[Farsight]

Hmmn. I'm not sure if you'll be happy with this, but see what you think:

 

Motion is a changing location in space that can be compared against other motion only in terms of a ratio. All observers of motion are themselves operating through internal motion, along with a form of recordkeeping called memory. This operational combination means the observers of motion infer a new dimension that has length and can itself be moved through. The observers consider this inferred dimension to be fundamental, and call it time. They then earnestly consider hypothetical "time machines" which can achieve a form of motion that allows an observer to "travel" to a "location" called "the past".

[InfiniteNow]

The above is lacking, as it does not help to define a concept when the definition uses the word you are trying to define. "What is blue?" "Blue is a color, called blue, and it's blue because it's not red, and red is different from it because it's not blue..."

 

I'll give you credit for trying though. :bouquet:

 

 

Boerseun,

 

At any given moment, if time were measurable below a Planck length, like the absolute zero of time (similar to zero kelvin)... a single unified (let's call it an infinite) now, then everything is connected and everywhere. I am thinking along the lines of entanglement here... In the set which describes the frozen moment, the universe is contained.

 

Yet, our experience and perception seems to indicate that it's not frozen, that change occurs and whatever labels we choose are dynamic. There is a separation across moments, but not within. Dilly of a pickle really... Time for more coffee.

 

 

:bouquet:

[Farsight]

Infinitenow: blue is a subjective property. It's a label that you apply to an experience within the set of experiences called vision. It has no objective existence. Whilst we might say "the flower is blue" what we ought to say ontologically speaking is "the light reflected from the petals has a predominant wavelength that we observe and experience, and to which we ascribe a self-referential property that we call blue".

 

But aw, it's just easier to say "it's blue".

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose I could have used a different analogy. :bouquet:

[Farsight]

Try thinking of one. Seriously, it's a struggle. We take so many familiar concepts so totally for granted. When you look at them hard through the ontological microscope they have a nasty habit of slipping right out of your grasp and you're left scratching your head. And if they don't, you're still left scratching your head saying things like What is Mass?