Thread: Time is as Real as That Clock

It's not about the atoms. Atoms are eternal, and that's obvious. It's about what arises from the atoms, the different combinations and complexities that emerge from their interactions.

I've got a trilobite around my neck. Elrathia kingi fluttered in Cambrian oceans half a billion years ago. This is a shape, a formation of atoms, which has remained constant for 1/2 of multicellular history, and 1/9th of Earth's total history. You could undermine it, sure, by saying that all atoms have existed since the dawn of time. You could say that the carbon, calcium, and silicon atoms in the fossil are indistinguishable from other carbon, calcium, and silicon atoms in other places, and you'd be right, except. . . You disregard that they are in other places! The different spatial arrangements of atoms give rise to patterns within patterns, which humans then look at and become inspired by.

Reductionism gives you a view into the world separated into bare parts. Personally, I find that a perspective involving all stages of complexity to be more rewarding. Reductionism is a fine, perhaps ideal starting point, but it shouldn't be your end point. That's death.

Also, from your explanation, I'm not seeing how recycling of atoms shows how time is a fabrication. Don't the alternating positions of atoms, the consequential movement that you witness in everyday life show that there is flow going on?

Abra has it pretty much right.

A very interesting question is whether or not collections of atoms have any objective reality.

I think they must do in some fashion, because the collection of atoms that constitutes a brain gives rise to the objectively real entity of consciousness.

Abra is wrong in one small detail which is that atoms are far from eternal. They didn't exist until quite a while after the big bang, and they are still being destroyed and created today in reactions with nuclear character.

The constituents of atoms, nucleons, specifically protons, may be eternal however.

Originally Posted by Xei

A very interesting question is whether or not collections of atoms have any objective reality.

One dayyy I'll show you all how this is all about languageee.

When I can be bothered to strike down O'nus-tier walls of text.

Originally Posted by Jimmehboi

Any thoughts? Or obvious things to point out?

Yes. Matter can be created, or rather transformed from energy.

Otherwise reductionism is totally limited in its core. It is a direct contradiction to complex systems theory and systems theory. Reductionism states "a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts", which is obvious disagreeable.

Originally Posted by Xei

Abra has it pretty much right.

A very interesting question is whether or not collections of atoms have any objective reality.

I think they must do in some fashion, because the collection of atoms that constitutes a brain gives rise to the objectively real entity of consciousness.

Abra is wrong in one small detail which is that atoms are far from eternal. They didn't exist until quite a while after the big bang, and they are still being destroyed and created today in reactions with nuclear character.

The constituents of atoms, nucleons, specifically protons, may be eternal however.

This intro on proton decay is a good summary of the current stand on that.

"In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, usually a neutral pion and a positron. Proton decay has not been observed. There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

In the Standard Model, protons, a type of baryon, are theoretically stable because baryon number is conserved. Therefore protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon.

Some beyond-the-Standard Model grand unified theories (GUTs) explicitly break the baryon number symmetry, allowing protons to decay via new X bosons. Proton decay is one of the few observable effects of the various proposed GUTs. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed."


Matter do not have an independent or objective existence, it exist as a probability distribution until an observer collapses the wave function. A conscious observer that is. I have recently made a paper on this subject, but it is unfortunately not in English, though I will translate it soon. Maybe it can provide a basis some discussion. Now I have to sleep

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

One dayyy I'll show you all how this is all about languageee.

When I can be bothered to strike down O'nus-tier walls of text.

Haha, thanks for making me laugh

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

A conscious observer that is.

Not necessarily. The important thing is the interaction that comes with the measurement.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Not necessarily. The important thing is the interaction that comes with the measurement.

It has to be a conscious observer, but let us not discuss this right now. I will create a thread for discussion when my paper is translated.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Otherwise reductionism is totally limited in its core. It is a direct contradiction to complex systems theory and systems theory. Reductionism states "a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts", which is obvious disagreeable.

"a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts"--

Reductionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Cough*

Nice that you very objectively sifted out something which went well with your rejection of my point.
The full quote

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

Reductionism can be an important key thought for many of today's affairs. Law, the easiest example I can think of,
Avant-garde art of all forms can benefit from taking this outlook.
Philosophy within the topic of reductionism is vast and well-explained,

Simply going along with the idea that physical bodies and abstract bodies are completely independant to eachother- other than the fact that our abstract thoughts are created by matter, I was swinging towards the notion of saying that time only has an effect on perceivable conciousnesses, obviously, but I meant with lenient degree- we don't have any understanding of what fast or slow is when it comes down to it.

Personally, I find that a perspective involving all stages of complexity to be more rewarding.

I know Abra made a good point, and I don't mean to sound nihilistic here but however rewarding it may be, in shit knows how many years time, it wont matter at all what every deep-thinker in the world has experienced, let alone just us here at Dreamviews; within our Universe it wont matter.

Just like it wouldn't to the rock in space.

(I'm not against anything you guys are saying)

Originally Posted by Jimmehboi

I know Abra made a good point, and I don't mean to sound nihilistic here but however rewarding it may be, in shit knows how many years time, it wont matter at all what every deep-thinker in the world has experienced, let alone just us here at Dreamviews; within our Universe it wont matter.

Just like it wouldn't to the rock in space.

Not 100% relevant but this reminded me of a cool little argument from Nagel:

Oh by the way I'd recommend reading 'Mortal Questions', which this is from, it's top.

Originally Posted by Thomas Nagel

It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

One dayyy I'll show you all how this is all about languageee.

When I can be bothered to strike down O'nus-tier walls of text.

Please do! I'm starting to believe the same thing, the linguistic perspective is a new and fascinating topic for me. I'd love to hear your thoughts once you get the time and ambition to channel the mighty O'nus.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa79YA0PqdE

Originally Posted by Speesh

Please do! I'm starting to believe the same thing, the linguistic perspective is a new and fascinating topic for me. I'd love to hear your thoughts once you get the time and ambition to channel the mighty O'nus.

Read some Wittgenstein to tide you over til then.