TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Turtle]

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.

 

Well, I said I was withdrawing, but maybe in for a penny, in for a pound. :cheer: So on your comment Popular, what do you think of Buckminster Fuller's views on time and associated ideas he puts forward in Synergetics? Certainly meets your criteria. :) I have a thread here in Watercooler if you want to take it up so as not to hijack this thread.

 

Here's a link to Synergetics:

R. Buckminster Fuller's SYNERGETICS

The Watercooler thread:

http://hypography.com/forums/watercooler/3398-buckminster-fuller.html

[hardkraft]

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".

 

Popular, I totally agree with your definition. If you take the motion as being the fundamental property then everything else needs to be defined in terms of it. You don't define the motion itself, it's a given. (In your case though it's probably more like it's the position that's fundamental). It's like asking what quarks are made of.

 

There were some other comments here saying that if there is no time then everything is happing all at once or everything is frozen. I've read a paper a while ago from a renowned phisicist that argues exactly that, everything is happening (happened) all at once and we are just experiencing a slice of that reality at any given moment. He even proposed a way to test it empirically. What I thought was exciting about that article was that he showed how this view can have real implications in science and everyday life besides ruining half of our SciFi stories. I'll try to find that article.

[InfiniteNow]

I'll try to find that article.

Was it perhaps this one?

 

Julian Barbour

 

The End of Time

[hardkraft]

Yes, that's exactly it! Thanks.

[arkain101]

I've decided to reply again to this thread, and keep time as the center theme. I did not mean to get so off track on the examples of perception, however I just wanted to clear up what I saw as false.

 

Okay. Where to begin.

 

The thesis of your essay appears to me to be stating, time in any consideration is a form of measurment manifested by our human mind.

 

To this I agree, and by this I would describe it as this theme.

 

Human mind generating meaning. Out of that which has no meaning. And it is important to not that meanings never existed relative to anything other than our minds.

 

For example;

 

 

Step 1:

 

Take a one particle universe. Ignore, atomic motion. Consider it something fundamental.

 

This reality has no meaning, and no existence. Exluding rotation there is no velocity, no events, no force, no time, no heat, no mass, no momentum, no energy, no space, no distance, no dimension.

 

(So there could be rotation, but, its complicated. If the one object is made of more objects there could be rotation, and things that our minds can create meaning out of. Like cyntrifugal force. But, if we stay on truth with our one particle universe, how could this singular, fundamental, thing measure to have rotation if it can not put stress on itself, As a total, solo, fundamental object would be required to obey.)

 

So. We find that at least relative to macro scale, the one object universe can have zero meaning applied to it.

 

 

 

Step 2:

 

Now, as soon as we introduce a second independent object, our minds can generate meanings.

 

With the objects in our minds we can move them together and apart, crash them together. Now our minds can generate meanings. We can measure distance. We can create 'space'. We have ourselves, mass, energy, force, momentum, inertia, dimension, and ill be darned, TIME!

 

However, this two particle universe has no certainty. It is impossible to decide which object is for sure the one of motion, the one at rest. The truth is here, it is both at the same time for all possible combinations between zero and 'c' at the plank length minimum intervals of change.

 

 

 

Step 3:

 

Now we introduce a third object/particle. Suddenly we have certainty!

 

The third object introduced allows our minds to create the meaning of certainty to the previously uncertain 2 object universe. With 3 objects, from each one of the three positions our minds can observe ratio relative to us. We can say with certainty, one of the two objects is moving faster than the other, vice versa. However, the observer can not prove whether or not its own self is in motion or not.

 

We first, generated a sub-meaning: A universe with no meaning, one position, one particle.

 

We then generated a universe with meanings from sub-meaningless universes. A universe of two particles, two positions. Uncertain. However, full of meanings.

 

Then thirdly, we generated a universe with certainty. Three particles. Three positions, the first certain universe relative to each of the three meaningless objects.

 

Geometrically, there is constant intwined with each step. First step, follwing laws of physics, geometrically the object locked into constant of zero. It can't even move but even it you mentally atemped to move it is in a strait line, that is constant. The second step we have a constant of equal change. We have ourselves equaliberium of duality. A line, where what happens to one equally and rightly so happens to the other, regardless of which claims it. The third step we introduce the first sense of shape geometrically. A triangulation, a universe our minds can create certainty out of. And of course there is a constant intwined, that is all angles add up to 180, back to the source, of a flat meaningless line.

 

As we continue to add more meaningless particles, our minds can concieve more and new meanings.

 

(Again, it is important to not that meanings never existed relative to anything other than our minds).

 

For example, When we add 4 particles we can end the #3 objects uncertainty of its own motion. #4 can prove #3 is at rest or in motion. Of course only relative to #4, which is in turn uncertain, but has meaning for us because there is more than two.

 

Further more, lets add several more. Suddenly we can create a new meaning as you have described as tempeature.

 

As we add more and more things, new events that we apply meaning to are manifested.

 

Untill finally we reach our current state universe with all the laws of meaning (physics) that we know.

 

Thus time is exactly as you have described, a creation of meaning, manifested by quantity of position, that does not exist, relative to one thing. Relative to one thing theres no meaning without other independent things. Our ideals are relative to the version of universe, but the ideals are created perceptions as you have described, that were not attached to begin with, they progess us the same time the limit us / hinder us to progress.

 

With all of this in consideration, some interesting speculations can arrise.

 

The more massive an object as a whole is, the slower the intervals (the longer) it is capable to achieve in time. The less massive an object is at a whole the faster (the shorter) the intervals it is capable to achieve.

 

For example. If you take a nail, and we upsize it a thousand times. With a given value and source of energy you can wiggle it back and forth. The interval will be very slow to prevent it from bending. There is a given energy required intwined to the interval and mass of the large nail moving side to side. Then if we take a regular sized nail we can wiggle it back and forth at much faster (shorter) intervals before it bends. There is also a value of energy intwined with the rate of intervals for this smaller nail. If each tick to each side was considered a second the large nail would have much longer seconds compared to the short nail.

 

As such we imediatly see that the mass is directly related to the interval rate. The less the mass obviously the faster any kind of interval, or measurement of change can occur. Also, velocity is obviously related to such intervals and is directly connect to when the nails are overcome and bend.

 

The mass is what appears to affect the rate of which change can occur, when you observe the change relative to the body as a whole.

 

One example is that a old spring powered clock. Using the same spring/force/energy; the less massive the compenents we use in the clock (as in the pendulem) the faster the intervals the clock will become, the faster it will tick off a second. The more massive the compents we use in the clock, the slower it will tick.

 

If relativity is true in what it proposes; that objects travelling fast increase in mass, than rightly so, it is obvious why the time should appear to tick slower on such an object. The intervals existing in the object, are directly related to the forces and masses.

 

 

Some explainations say that time is what stops everything from happening at once.

 

However, when we consider the previous, we rightly can agree that it is Mass which prevents everything from happening at once.

 

The effect known as mass is responsible for time, because it creates limits on change.

 

-That which has all the possible mass can not move can not have velocity, it becomes our one particle universe previously explained. The one particle universe is infinite mass because it has no time, it does not change, or have meaning.

 

-That which has no mass can be move at any desired velocity positive or negetive.

 

-That which has a portion, or ratio of mass, of the total (when you individualise wholes of an individual whole) can form the billboard for meanings of which we attatch.

 

Our meanings come from memory. So, in the same way you write numbers down on paper, our brain writes it our mind. The meaning we generate is memory. Numbers on paper have no meaning, its a peice of the universe, but we can generate meaning to say, it is a memorized time.

 

So, the universe has mass. Because of this not everything happens at the same interval, But NONE of that has meaning or certainty unless our memory operating minds can apply those meanings to it.

 

I assume quantum physics research reveals this concept to us. The universe as a whole operates meaninglessly, and by our memory minds we can generate its, particle like and wave like meanings. Its exposure of uncertainty at its core, and the obvious certainty we create with our seperate minds.

 

Including time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no “Arrow of Time”. That’s just an illusion, as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 →

 

So why do we say things like Clocks slow down as if a clock is something that moves like a car? It isn't travelling. There's no slow or fast or up or down to it.

 

This meaning of time appears to stand true. Clocks that rotate on a wheel compared to a clock at rest beside it, I understand do not change time value. There is no overall change in distance.

 

If correct, therefore a time change (dilation) is not connected to velocity, but instead, connected to changes in distance.

 

Factually; Our concieved concept of our future is always the observation of section of 'present moments' of another positions past.

 

Another objects future is going to experience our past.

 

ie: the events of light we see coming at us in our observable universe are obviously the past moments from that position. (created by the obliteration of forward and reverse directions)

 

Therefore, the forward gain of time linearly is cancled out by the equall negetive transition of time.

 

The canclation of these two form a present moment.

 

This means causality; the cause and effect. A cause is also an effect, and an effect is also a cause relative to the beholder.

 

This is because moments only happen when our concievement of past and future intercollide and react.

 

Thus moments will always be zero point time, a non existent creation from that which closes distance(future) and that which creates distance(past) to the observer.

 

Without our memory, direction would be meaningless, thus time would be all directions all the time.. simply not a flowing entity.

[Turtle]

I've decided to reply again to this thread, ...

Okay. Where to begin.

 

Step 1:

 

Take a one particle universe. ... Consider it something fundamental.

...

 

So. We find that at least relative to macro scale, the one object universe can have zero meaning applied to it.

...

Now, as soon as we introduce a second independent object, our minds can generate meanings.

...

 

I took the liberty of cutting to the quick of your reply. All that I redded refers to unity and you may think of this as foreground, and without background (which is duality, or two) there is no foreground (the 'meaning' I think you referred to). Time is the interval of measurement of their differentiation [differentiation as in telling a difference between foreground & background], regardless of the scale or context.

Only a bit off topic, but have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach Arkain et al?

[arkain101]

Only a bit off topic, but have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach Arkain et al?

 

No, not that I can think of, I'd have to reply. But thanks I probably will get into it eventually. It's complicated, I would if I could but I can't. I don't own any books, lol never been to a library. I just read on a comp a bit, which sucks because it tires you out to the point you can focus on what your reading.

 

I can't tell if you've labled my post as duh, right, or wrong.. lol

 

I gather my understandings from studying the usual material and in most cases making sure to soak up the basic laws.

 

Then I go ahead and theorize and play out thought experiments using the truth-basic type of philosphy I came up with.

 

I search for the most basic thing and test to see if it is true. I find, that any problem no matter how complicated it appears, it is only a manifestation of a bunch of basic things that are logically sound true.

 

Especially with relationships. couples can fight for hours/years dealing with a problem that just seems far to complex to wrap a mind around. Stop, do you both agree your intentions are to be together? the answer is your truth-basic.

 

Next, if not state the main reason why. Truth-basic.

 

Establish some facts to reflect upon. Were you two ever happy once, were you in a mutual place that seemed so great you wanted it forever?

 

Yes- It is absolutely true and factual it is possible for you two to be happy, why? You have proved it in the past.

 

Out comes the solution, when they figured the problem was fighting.

[Farsight]

hardcraft: I read Julian Barbour's book a few years back, and didn't think that much about it at the time. But it festered away and got me thinking, and had a lot to do with this essay. The difference is that Julian Barbour says we live in a "block" universe where motion doesn't exist. I don't know if he still thinks that.

[Farsight]

Turtle: I had a quick look at the Buckminster Fuller stuff. There's a lot there, and no pictures. I saw something on mass and couldn't make much sense of it, but the gravity tension sounded right. My guess is there's wheat in there, but it's weighed down by, I don't know, flab that's got a whiff of Dianetics or something. I'll put it on my favourites and try to look at it properly.

[Farsight]

arkain: you're thinking ontologically! Good man. But IMHO you go start to go off beam a little when you move on to mass. It's just energy in one place, and energy is basically stressed space, though you need to multiply by volume to get the units right.

[hardkraft]

Popular, I think you agree with Julian Barbour more than you realize. When pressed to give a definition of motion you gave it in terms of relative, static positions. It seems that it's the positions that you view as fundamental. Motion is another illusion of comparing one position against the one stored in the memory.

[Farsight]

I'll have to beg to differ on that, hardkraft. This is from wikipedia, and as far as I can recall does reflect the content of The End of Time:

 

It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that the illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history"...

 

You won't find me saying there is no motion and there is no change. While Julian Barbour says there is no time, he still talks about a "block universe" where everything is static. I don't. I say time is not fundamental, and is a derived effect. This is my universe. Instead of being a block universe, it moves:

 

[InfiniteNow]

While Julian Barbour says there is no time, he still talks about a "block universe" where everything is static.

Well, he speaks of "time-like" slices, like a photograph, whereby all that is there is a collapse of the wave function [math]\Psi[/math].

[Farsight]

And you wou won't find me talking about wave functions.

 

Where's Boerseun? He's gone a bit quiet. I wonder if he's had an epiphany!

 

:confused:

[hardkraft]

I know you don't say there is no motion, just the opossite, you claim that the motion is the the fundamental property, there is no time only a series of nows. You say that because I think you don't take your ideas to their ultimate and logical conclusion. There is no motion in now because now is an infinitely thin slice of time, like a time capsule. There is no time for anything to happen now because there is no time in now:confused:. The motion only becomes aparent when you compare two slices or capsules. You toyed with that idea when you tried to give a definition of motion.

[Buffy]

This issue of time being slices of zero length is better understood when put into one of the more familiar dimensions.

 

Do this and you'll come run into variations of Zeno's Paradox which is well understood, and is based on the simple fallacy surrounding the mathematical equation:

[math]\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \epsilon = 0[/math]

So, try slicing up a 2x4. This little equation can be misused to say that you can create an infinite number of slices with width zero, and the sum of an infinite number of zero's is of course, zero. Therefore you can argue that your 2x4 has a length of zero even if it started out at 36. But the mathematical quantity "epsilon" (defined as "a number as small as you'd like it to be as long as its not zero" in colloquial terms), is still going to define a positive, non-zero width, if you're slicing, because its not possible to have an "infinite number of slices." So, no matter what, epsilon does have a width: You can slice a 2x4 as thin as you want, but the slices still have width. Therefore the logical conclusion is you can never create a short enough "now" for you to justify "there is no time."

 

This ought to be obvious, but with all things "time" and "infinite," people start getting very mystical.

 

Infinitely thin,

Buffy

[hardkraft]

I guess infinetly thin wasn't the best choice of words. What I wanted to say is the thinest possible and it doesn't mean you can pack an infinite number of them in one second. Still, different words the same conclusion.