An Interesting Thought About Time
I wonder... Why is it 2015 and not 2012 or 1985. Why am I 26 and not 8? Why am I only aware of the current time I'm in now?
Why now?
Does anyone understand my question?
Printable View
An Interesting Thought About Time
I wonder... Why is it 2015 and not 2012 or 1985. Why am I 26 and not 8? Why am I only aware of the current time I'm in now?
Why now?
Does anyone understand my question?
Because culture.Quote:
Why is it 2015 and not 2012 or 1985
Because culture. Your existence is more than 26 years old though, I'd also rather celebrate the beginning of my existence if that didn't brought uncomfortable thoughts :PQuote:
Why am I 26 and not 8?
Actually, you can only perceive the past not the present.Quote:
Why now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOODPf-iuc
Could there be an exception to this? Namely, dreams?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoth
Yes, we must wait a tenth of a second to process waking-life perception, leaving us always a moment in the past. Also, our cognition, intelligence, identity, and general sense of reality are all defined by our memory (by the past, as it were). So we truly do live in and are defined by the past.
But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.
Even things like cognition and identity in NLD's are "Here & Now" conditions due to the disconnect with memory. There is still the fact that your dreaming engine, the unconscious, is still fueled by memory (the past), but because that fuel does not do much leeching into the dream itself (not in an organized manner, anyway), that fact might not totally mar the "Here & Now" aspect of dreaming.
I think advanced meditation might also hold to this exception as well.
I could be totally wrong, but it is an interesting thing to consider.
(Let us know if we're going off-topic OP)
This immediately reminded me of a talk by LaBerge on the subject (which complements your great paragraph on topic):Quote:
But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.
At a basic level I'd agree: there is no (or almost none) sensory input influencing the experience. But even dismissing the technicality of synaptic transmission (the rates naturally vary depending on the myelination) (which I'd feel it would be cherry-picking ^^) we still have to include the integration of so many neural areas in the prodution of the dream experience which would provoke this lag at some degree. There's actually a paper that explores this (even more relevant now that you mentioned meditation):Quote:
But in dreams we are experiencing "reality" the instant it is created by our unconscious for a true "Here & Now" moment; there is no lag, because there is no physical perception going on, so no input for the brain to process. Hell, you can even "see" into the future when you are lucid and go about creating your own dreams.
Reversal of cortical information flow during visual imagery as compared to visual perception The study was also mentioned in another pop-science channel (I'd advise watching the video for reasons I'll mention in a bit):
In short, what the study showed is that we use reverse pathways when processing either sensory input (originated from "reality"), or producing mental imagery. Now, I'd be careful not to generalize day-dreaming to dreaming, but for the sake of practicality I'll do it: so when imagining/dreaming the information flows from a high-order region to a lower one (which is the contrary of what happens when you receive a sensory stimulus).
As a bonus, there's also a mention to the role of the paracingulate sulcus in another study which hinted at why some people have trouble differentiating between imagined events/actions and actually past real events/actions (doesn't this sound familiar with your reverse reality check Sageous? :) )
Anyway, back to the main topic: there would be then SOME lag, but extremely minimized, so in some sense, we could indeed call dreams and imagination a representation of the present. I guess it would be interesting to see an experiment testing the flash-lag effect inside a lucid dream :D
I understand what you mean. I'll sum it up for you although this may actually confuse you further. The question actually needs a much longer explination of how your consciousness functions which I'm not wiling to sit and write out as it would take too long and this could turn into a very long discussion indeed. If you really want to take this further and understand the nuts and bolts of how consciousness works PM me and I'll point you in the right direction. As for your question, my answer is the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by petersonad
All time is contained in the now moment. There is no future or past there is only now. The illusion of time is just a byproduct of the way your consciousness functions to give you the experience of physical reality. Your perception is what gives all that is, contained in the now moment, structure and meaning.
Perhaps there is no such thing as time at all... I forgot to mention that earlier.
Time is a word invented by people. It's misleading word that could leads someone to think it actually exists in nature. There is no such thing as time, there is just movement of everything. Man invented mathematics, which also doesn't exist in the nature. It works, because our brains are made to see systematical patterns. So after invention of mathematics or similar pattern concepts it can be applied to movement and voila there is time!
I don't think it's accurate to say I understand your question, petersonad, but I think I might understand what's motivating it. It does seem like a question.
However... I think it's the kind of question that it's not within our cognitive bounds to answer. Or, considering that said cognitive creatures are the ones asking the question, a little more critically: it's a question that doesn't actually mean anything.
By way of explanation, think of a bunch of valid "why" questions and their answers. Maybe you'll be able to think of a counterexample to what follows, in which case I'd be fascinated to hear. But I think you'll find that your "why" questions never truly provoke an "a priori" understanding of the phenomenon in question. Rather, they simply describe or reduce it in terms of some other phenomena. For instance, "why does the wind blow" is a valid "why" question, and an acceptable answer is something like "differences in air pressure". But of course, this just translates the existence of wind to some other phenomenon, which we could also ask "why" of. Never will we reach a self-contained explanation which relies on nothing else. The question you ask, however, isn't amenable to that kind of response; there's no prior phenomenon we can rely on to construct an answer, or any means of explanation to reduce the question such a phenomenon. So the question is not actually a question.
"MU"
Either this is a really strange response, or you misunderstand the original poster -- unless I am the one misunderstanding them. I think you're explaining why we signify the current time by the number 2015. The reason for this is indeed culture -- we use an arbitrary calendar. But I don't think that's what they were asking about. I think they were asking why the current time is the actual objective time signified by the number 2015. In other words: why is the current time the year where the Dawn probe arrived at Ceres and Vanuatu experienced a cyclone? Why not a different time, like the year that Clinton was elected? Or Vesuvius erupted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoth
For any sensible definitions of "time" and "exist", one will grant that the statement "time exists", insofar as it has any meaning, is true. The statement will translate to something roughly like "change is observed", which is indubitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Something being a word doesn't mean it's "invented" in the sense of fabricated. "Movement" is also "a word invented by people", but you don't seem to have any scruples about asserting the reality of movement. What's the difference? As far as I can tell, the existence of "movement" and "time" are fairly synonymous. They are both essential to giving useful descriptions of observations, which is the only sensible criterion for knowledge of existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
I mean if there is no human, there is no time. If there is no human, there is still movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Why?
^^ Since time is a tool for humans to measure movement and change, if there were no humans, then there would be no need for the tool. Movement, however, would continue with or without us.
I think we might be using different definitions. I think by "time" you perhaps mean something like "9.30am"; the signifier, not the signified; an arbitrary product of culture, in much the same way as Zoth. I'm talking about that which is signified by "9.30 am".
Clocks are tools. Time isn't a tool. A clock is only useful as a tool because it measures an actual aspect of reality, just as speedometers are only useful as tools because they measure movement.
Consider a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the galaxy, which we're not observing or interacting with at all. If time did not exist and were not passing for that planet, it would be frozen in space. I don't think anyone really believes that.
Another thing: what about space? Is space also just a "tool" which stops existing when there are no humans? I find it very difficult to understand what somebody could possibly mean if they assert that space doesn't really exist. However, in light of special relativity, it is known that space and time aren't actually separate entities at all, but are entwined aspects of a single structure. It's both or nothing. If you think space exists, you're compelled by relativity to accept that time exists.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
and there is more these fabricated human tools of which original purpose is transformed into wrong understanding. I mean they are usually really great and usefull, but I think it is important to know that these are just human tools or inventions, not the real nature.
No. It doesn't matter about 9:30 or a culture. What does matter is that your brain can recognize some equally long intervals. You can create mankind calendar by observing your regular pooping cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Quote:
Clocks are tools. Time isn't a tool. A clock is only useful as a tool because it measures an actual aspect of reality, just as speedometers are only useful as tools because they measure movement.
Clock is human's physical tool, time is human's intellectual tool, movement is nature's tool.
If time did not exist the planet wouldn't be frozen in space. Contrary if there wouldn't be movement, the planet would be frozen, but that's nonsense because you need a lot of movement so form a planet in the first place. And while there is already a movement, it cannot be suddenly stopped.Quote:
Consider a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the galaxy, which we're not observing or interacting with at all. If time did not exist and were not passing for that planet, it would be frozen in space. I don't think anyone really believes that.
Space is not a tool and it is not dependent on humankind.Quote:
Another thing: what about space? Is space also just a "tool" which stops existing when there are no humans? I find it very difficult to understand what somebody could possibly mean if they assert that space doesn't really exist. However, in light of special relativity, it is known that space and time aren't actually separate entities at all, but are entwined aspects of a single structure. It's both or nothing. If you think space exists, you're compelled by relativity to accept that time exists.
and about light in special theory relativity? I don't understand it at all.
You are using a different definition of time, as Denziloe already said. This isn't debatable, the context in which you are using "time" yourself and in your explanations of everything, you are using the word time as meaning something related specifically to humans. I understand that this is your point, but what you are calling "movement" and alluding to as not being time because time cannot exist without humans is in fact the "time" Denziloe and personally myself are using when regarding the subject of the thread. I.e., time as a general concept that exists without humans, the ability for things to move and occur. There is not reason to arbitrarily use the definition you say that we have to use when it makes it 10x more difficult to discuss the topic and there is no good reason why we should use yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
Dreams couldn't be an exception because your brain still has to come up with meaning for everything you are experiencing and keep track of what order things happen in, etc. There is too much for it to be "instantaneous" and for it to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. I doubt a being bound by the physical laws could ever experience things real-time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Sageous was being somewhat "poetical" in here: of course there is no such thing as instantaneous perception, everyone here knows that even light takes time to reach it's destination. But in the sense of dismissing the need for sensorial input, you could joke about dreaming being a reality of the "present".Quote:
There is too much for it to be "instantaneous" and for it to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. I doubt a being bound by the physical laws could ever experience things real-time.
On another note, this discussion about time is way too complex for me (I only have very basic knowledge of physics), but extremely interesting ^^
Funny you should ask. Space, literally, does not exist: by definition, space is nothing at all. Like it or not, there is no such thing as space: it has no mass, no energy, no physical presence at all; just like time. We do indeed use space as a tool to grasp our physical universe. As such a tool it is extremely important (like time), but aside from being a way to measure and attempt to make sense of the distance between objects (from electrons to galaxies), there really is no thing that could specifically called space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
And when considering relativity, if you really think about it, it is not the interaction of time and space that we are observing, but the effects of relativistic changes in motion, light, and gravity, as perceived and measured by we humanly observers, using time and distance as our yardsticks.
So: Yes, just as there is no "thing," that is time, there is no "thing" that is space. Neither exist.
On that same note: Snoop,
How does a general concept exist when there is no one there to conceive it?Quote:
time as a general concept that exists without humans, the ability for things to move and occur. There is not reason to arbitrarily use the definition you say that we have to use when it makes it 10x more difficult to discuss the topic and there is no good reason why we should use yours.
You are sort of making our point for us, I think, by indicating that time is just a concept. I also believe that time has nothing to do with the "ability of objects to move and occur," they do all that just fine on their own. Also, I'm not sure why you feel this makes the topic more difficult to discuss; this description of time (and space) that we offer is actually quite simple... seems like a good reason to use it right there.
Why do you mention that your brain can recognise it? The brain can recognise movement, too, but you don't rule out movement as existing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
Again, arguing that movement exists isn't "contrary" to time existing: it doesn't establish anything. They both exist. You haven't explained why the planet wouldn't be frozen in space if there was no time.Quote:
If time did not exist the planet wouldn't be frozen in space. Contrary if there wouldn't be movement, the planet would be frozen, but that's nonsense because you need a lot of movement so form a planet in the first place. And while there is already a movement, it cannot be suddenly stopped.
Then you should look up some introductory material; the theory is quite simple. In particular you should look up Lorentz transformations. Essentially they show that time and space are not separate dimensions: they objectively commingle. A good analogy is with the three space dimensions. It makes absolutely no sense to say that the x-dimension exists but the y-dimension doesn't, because they're just two aspects of the same thing (three dimensional space). If you rotate clockwise by 45 degrees, your new and equally valid x and y axes will become a mixture of the two previous axes. It goes just the same with spacial dimensions and time. It simply makes no sense to say the spacial dimensions exist but the time dimension doesn't.Quote:
Space is not a tool and it is not dependent on humankind.
and about light in special theory relativity? I don't understand it at all.
Then, curiously, it appears you actually have a diametrically opposed position to Nfri.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
By what definition? I've never heard space defined like that. If space is a synonym for the word "nothing", how is it that there are several mutually inconsistent models of space -- flat, spherical, and so on? There's only one type of nothing. How is it that space warps in general relativity? You can't bend "nothing". When I ask my friend "what's colder than absolute zero" and my friend replies "nothing", are they telling me that space is colder than absolute zero? Certainly not. It appears to me that the definition you provide is clearly not correct.Quote:
by definition, space is nothing at all.
While we're on the subject of definitions, can you give me a few examples of things which you do consider to exist? My tentative guess would be solid objects, atoms, and so on. If so I'm curious as to why these things differ from space in their entitlement to "existing" status. How are you defining "exists"?
It has extension and volume. These can be measured in metres. Energy presupposes the existence of space for its definition, and has a unit of Newton*metre.Quote:
Like it or not, there is no such thing as space: it has no mass, no energy, no physical presence at all
So? I guess I didn't read Nfri's post closely enough, and we certainly didn't plan our respective responses in advance. I'm honestly not sure why that matters, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
You're gonna love this:
As far as I know, there is only one overall definition for space: nothing. Aside from their not being definitions at all, those mutually inconsistent models you list are not about space at all: they are models of the observed (either physically or mathematically) interactions of matter and energy occupying space (yes, you can occupy nothing). It isn't space/time that is warping, but observed light and gravity; it isn't that space is spherical or flat, but that the objects in it have arranged themselves in patterns that cumulatively assume those shapes, with space simply being the measure we use to describe that arrangement. Space remains the same -- nothing -- since you cannot warp, round, or flatten nothing.Quote:
By what definition? I've never heard space defined like that. If space is a synonym for the word "nothing", how is it that there are several mutually inconsistent models of space -- flat, spherical, and so on? There's only one type of nothing. How is it that space warps in general relativity? You can't bend "nothing". When I ask my friend "what's colder than absolute zero" and my friend replies "nothing", are they telling me that space is colder than absolute zero? Certainly not. It appears to me that the definition you provide is clearly not correct.
Though your interpretation of your friend's response about absolute zero is curious (the context of "nothing" in that case was not about space, but your friend's assertion that absolute zero is the lower limit for temperature, and playing a semantics game with his use of the word doesn't change much), I would agree that the temperature in space that is devoid of any energy or matter would indeed be absolute zero. There may be only one type of "nothing," but that fact does not preclude us from using the word in ways that depart from base meaning of "space." So my definition still feels reasonably correct.
How about a definition from you? You assert that space and time are real things; so what are they, then? Can either be held or measured? And no, volume is not a tangible thing; it is as much a tool for observation as are hours and minutes; that you can establish a measured distance between two objects does not mean that that distance is a tangible, touchable, "thing." Regardless of the volume you measure, the space filling that volume has no mass, no energy, nothing physical at all (except of course for any physical objects that might occupy that volume). So, given that it isn't space that is warping, and that volume has literally nothing in it, how would you define space as a physical entity? Is it energy? Is it matter? Are there space particles, or time waves?
I am not defining "exist," but yes, matter and energy certainly exist, because they have definite physical properties. I'm pretty sure I never said matter and energy do not exist. And, since "solid objects, atoms, and so on" are made of matter and energy, they certainly exist. I'm not quite sure how you expected me to answer that question, since I have been implying as much throughout my posts; indeed, if I thought matter and energy did not exist, what I was saying would make no sense at all.Quote:
While we're on the subject of definitions, can you give me a few examples of things which you do consider to exist? My tentative guess would be solid objects, atoms, and so on. If so I'm curious as to why these things differ from space in their entitlement to "existing" status. How are you defining "exists"?
As I already said, volume and length (extension) are tools for measurement, and not physical entities unto themselves. Also, energy certainly does not presuppose space because one of our tools for measuring it is a newton-meter. That is like saying paved asphalt exists only because our tool for measuring it is a kilometer.Quote:
It has extension and volume. These can be measured in metres. Energy presupposes the existence of space for its definition, and has a unit of Newton*metre.
I know you're not buying any of this, Denziloe, and that's just fine; my wife and I have been having this argument for a decade now, and she still assures me that time is very much a real thing... I'm quite used to be an outlier on this subject.
So, if a certain radioactive substance releases energy at a very exact rate, and it has an exact mass, then at a predictable point 1/2 of the mass will have become lighter molecules and energy. A very predictable point, as in exactly at a certain predictable "moment." Now if we also know that the planet rotates a certain amount in the interval between energy release from that substance, it can be concluded that when the substance reaches 50% mass the moon above it will be in an exact phase and a certain exact place on the surface of the planet will have the sun directly above it. Given the truth of these highly predictable rates of movement, and how the predictable events WILL occur at an exact "time" how does the presence of sentient minds matter at all? Is this not time as we know it? Would the correlations in movement not still be the same if we did not exist? How does time cease to have the same properties just because no one thinks about it. Sounds silly to me. The correlations of rate are still there so why define it depending on whether I will get bored waiting for it?
^^ Yes, all those things will happen whether we are there to see them or not, but that correlation and predictability you discuss are not present unless sentient beings are observing the activity. And yes, this is indeed "time as we know it," but if we weren't here it would no longer be as we know it, I think:
There is no force called "time" that causes that atom to release energy at a steady rate; to imagine an atom working from a strict a time schedule seems a bit silly on its face, I think. Instead, the atom is simply changing its state and releasing energy in the process; that that process appears to us to be occurring on a precise schedule is a result of us attaching the yardstick of time to it, and not one of the atom following a precise time-ordained schedule. By the same token, the earth's spin and the moon's orbit are not regulated by time, but by their relative movement and inherent energy involved (i.e., inertia and gravity); nothing they are doing is influenced by a thing or force called time. Time is not behind these things at all, but it is necessary for us to use time in order to make sense of the changes, and perhaps help organize our world by discovering a "precision" in the changes.
These things only appear to be happening at precise, predictable rates because we are here to say "Hey, these things are happening at a precise and predictable rates." If we were not here to say that, they would still happen anyway, with things like rates, precision, and time having no meaning (mostly because there would be no meaning to have, what with "meaning" being another sentient invention). And yes, because the energies released by decaying atoms and the movement of celestial bodies tend to be extremely uniform phenomena, we can actually use them as a foundation for calibrating the tool that is time.
As an interesting aside, I read a book recently called How the Shaman Stole the Moon, which describes how ancient peoples originally noticed that the sun and moon moved in precise manners, and from that they learned to make predictions about moon phases, seasonal changes, and even eclipses, all of which both helped their tribes (i.e., knowing better when to plant crops) and empowered the shaman predicting the changes because it seemed downright magical. It wasn't magical at all, though; just a primitive application of time as tool.
Although I am sure this conversation requires playing at looking at definitions from different perspectives, it feels to me that according to the view that time and space doesn't exist, the following would also be true: Evolution doesn't exist. There is merely matter, energy, and a dynamic interaction between the two, the rest is just human description and therefore doesn't exist without humans. This to me doesn't sound right. It's not because we need humans to describe time in minutes that it removes time, it only removes minutes. Also, science relies on time and space being real. For example, the movement of an object is defined as its location in space through time. Space can just be the description that two dots can be at two different locations as the same time and that there is a distance between the two. A little bit like a magnetic field doesn't "exist" but it does have a real effect. What the word "magnetic field" refers to must exist, because it is observed.
But maybe this is a game, like a person saying "Come and sit down upside down right here and then look in that direction. You'll see that what you see is mind-blowing!" So I don't see what's wrong with playing along and be mind blown. Why do I resist?
Yeah, totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
If you mean ''empty space'' then I agree as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
But moving things don't require an observer. Imagine you are last living man and then you die. Things don't stop moving or existing. They will happily continue to move. If alien race find your body year after your death and ressurect you, there would be evidence of year movement of things all over the place :))
Also if you would be last man on the earth and you would die, the concept of time in your head would ended, therefore no more time. What would left is just movement of things.
That's because it isn't right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Occipitalred
Evolution certainly exists, and does so without the assistance of any specific force called time, and without consideration for some requirements set by a thing called time. Evolution is about change, and I never said change does not exist. Whether humans were around to describe it or not, life would still evolve, and the things that are evolving also exist whether we observe them or not, and, of course, those evolving things are a specific collection of matter and energy -- a specific collection, a living whole, that does indeed exist whether or not humans have observed it.
Okay. Then tell me, what object or force that is time remains after the minutes are removed? I know I've asked this a few times now, and haven't gotten an answer yet: what are the physical properties of time? Before you answer: since change and movement are not the physical properties of time, but rather the observable results of the physical behavior of actual physical objects, I don't think using them to describe time as well quite makes sense.Quote:
It's not because we need humans to describe time in minutes that it removes time, it only removes minutes.
Science uses time and space to define its observations and make the equations work: the movement of an object through space is going to happen whether humans are observing or not; that we attach the yardsticks of time and space to define and comprehend that movement should not require us to make time and space physical entities in order to complete the comprehension. Also, I'm not entirely sure that a responsible scientist would tell you that time and space are "real" without adding some sort of qualification.Quote:
Also, science relies on time and space being real. For example, the movement of an object is defined as its location in space through time. Space can just be the description that two dots can be at two different locations as the same time and that there is a distance between the two. A little bit like a magnetic field doesn't "exist" but it does have a real effect. What the word "magnetic field" refers to must exist, because it is observed.
That there is a distance between two objects does not give space existence; it only says that two objects are not together, and are separated by nothing (aka, space).
A magnetic field certainly exists. It exerts force, can be felt, measured, even seen. In other words, it has physical properties that, as you say, can be observed. I'm not sure I understand why you mentioned it.
No, this is not a game. I am just pointing out something about which I have a certain opinion, and felt it worth discussing. I really do not play games or try to mess with people's heads, or other troll-like things, and I am sorry you have that impression.Quote:
But maybe this is a game, like a person saying "Come and sit down upside down right here and then look in that direction. You'll see that what you see is mind-blowing!" So I don't see what's wrong with playing along and be mind blown. Why do I resist?
Well, I am definitely more business minded and like history, while physics and science (which I think time could be categorized under?) are never things I boast of knowing a lot about or enjoying. After reading through the posts, and being thoroughly confused, a neat little paradox I heard a while back came to mind, and I figure that sharing it might help with the discussion, and a lot of you may have already read it, but it's Zeno's paradox.
Here is a quote from wikipedia.
"In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[13] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible."
itt: Newtonians and Kantians disagree.
I will make a serious contribution later :)
Well, this post was a slog which took multiple sittings and doses of caffeine. If it's also a slog to read and respond to, please focus on the final section rather than anything else.
It wasn't intended as any kind of rigorous point, it's just an interesting reflection on the discussion. You and Nfri were in vehement agreement about the nonexistence of time, but it turns out you have mutually exclusive thoughts on the matter. Such disparate and inconsistent arguments for the same conclusion indicates to me that there's some kind of fundamental confusion about definitions. But again, not a rigorous point worth dwelling upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
In that case let me enhance your knowledge: there are two means of definition that come immediately to mind for me.Quote:
As far as I know, there is only one overall definition for space: nothing.
The first is an ostensive definition, which is the means of definition for all basic observed phenomena; for example, red is defined by pointing to lots of "red" things; "solid" is defined by pointing to lots of solid things, and so on. The human cognitive apparatus is designed to make use of these kinds of definition. Space can be defined by referring to observed examples of space. A cardboard box; there's space in there. The sky; there's space there. Between here and that tree; there's space there. Between the surface of this wall and the selfsame surface? There's no space there. And so on.
The second -- and clearly superior for these purposes, I think -- is an analytical definition; that is to say, the construction of a model. "Space" means a normed vector space. A normed vector space is a formal, symbolic structure with rigorous axioms (you can look them up). There's nothing empty or tautological about this definition; it's a distinct abstract entity with distinct properties and a distinct structure, and humans have the capacity to determine whether a certain abstract structure is observed in reality or not. A sphere can be defined analytically and humans are are able to judge that objects closely approximating spheres exist in reality. The same goes for... an energy potential. Or an electromagnetic field. Conversely, a hypercube can be defined analytically and humans are able to judge that they see no objects that can be reasonably modelled by a hypercube; hypercubes don't exist. In the same way, space, with all of the properties of a normed vector space -- and in particular a three dimensional one -- is observed. And not some other type of thing. That's still a sticking point for me. It is an observed fact that space is modelled by a very particular space. One of its many qualifications, for instance, is that it is three dimensional. A two dimensional space would give different observations; a four dimensional space would give different observations. How can three dimensional space not exist if it has a specific set of empirical consequences which are absent when it is absent? If there's no space then how is it that we observe a specific type of space? You can't qualify nothing. So what has three dimensions? I imagine you'll answer that space doesn't actually exist, but rather that observed matter behaves according to a cosmic conspiracy exactly as if three-dimensional space, and not some other type of space, exists. I have serious reservations about that type of argument, for reasons relating to the central issues that I will cover at the end of this post. But I can't understand how that account even works. For example, forget about action and consider something simpler: a stationary object; specifically, a cube frame, made of wire. How does it make sense to say the matter of this object is "just behaving as if three dimensional space exists, but it doesn't really"? The cube is in three dimensional space; we can see that. It couldn't possibly be there if two or one dimensional space existed; you can't have eight corners connected by non-intersecting lines like that in a one dimensional space. And if it can't do it in one dimensional space then matter certainly can't behave like that when there's no space at all.
I never claimed to be defining anything; just pointing out that different analytical spaces exist, which is a fact.Quote:
Aside from their not being definitions at all
In that last part you beg the question; I don't think that space is nothing so you won't sway me by pointing out that nothing can't bend. I think that space has a particular structure that matches observations. This is all touching on the fundamental questions about what it means for a model to exist, how they relate to observations, what kinds of things are models, and so on, which I will lay out in a moment. For now I'll just make this point: what about gravitational waves? Gravitational waves are ripples in space. They're not ripples in the objects in space; they're ripples of the spacetime fabric itself, just like light is a ripple in the electromagnetic field, or a wave is a ripple in water. When these ripples reach us, we observe them. Why is it that water waves or electromagnetic waves (presumably?) exist, but gravitational waves are "just" a model which doesn't really exist?Quote:
those mutually inconsistent models you list are not about space at all: they are models of the observed (either physically or mathematically) interactions of matter and energy occupying space (yes, you can occupy nothing). It isn't space/time that is warping, but observed light and gravity; it isn't that space is spherical or flat, but that the objects in it have arranged themselves in patterns that cumulatively assume those shapes, with space simply being the measure we use to describe that arrangement. Space remains the same -- nothing -- since you cannot warp, round, or flatten nothing.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you misread or misremembered my post. But the predicate was not "is absolute zero", it was, "is colder than absolute zero". So this is no means of solution.Quote:
I would agree that the temperature in space that is devoid of any energy or matter would indeed be absolute zero.
You've really stopped making sense to me, here. Not trying to be rude, just stating the fact that I am lost. Can you at least appreciate why these kinds of statement might be incredibly confusing? You said that space was defined as nothing. You've asserted that "space" and "nothing" are synonyms. If this was truly the case then they should be interchangeable. But then you say that they're not interchangeable; that "nothing" doesn't have to be "about space" (in what sense can space be "about" space? And how is it that space is sometimes not about space?) and that we can use "nothing" in ways that depart from "space" (how can the meaning of "nothing" depart from "nothing"?). In my view the only way the above sentences could possibly have made any coherent sense to yourself when you typed them -- even on a purely syntactical level -- is if, subconsciously at least, you don't truly define "space" to be synonymous with "nothing".Quote:
...the context of "nothing" in that case was not about space...
There may be only one type of "nothing," but that fact does not preclude us from using the word in ways that depart from base meaning of "space."
This must just be a misreading. I was surmising that you thought they did exist, not that they didn't. Please reread what I said with this in mind to clear up any misconceptions about the point I was making.Quote:
I'm pretty sure I never said matter and energy do not exist. I'm not quite sure how you expected me to answer that question, since I have been implying as much throughout my posts; indeed, if I thought matter and energy did not exist, what I was saying would make no sense at all.
Please, please don't take this as an insult, because it's hard to state it in a matter-of-fact way that doesn't sound like an insult. But this is simply wrong. Newton-meters measure force, not energy. They can't measure energy. Force and energy are fundamental concepts in physics, and force is about as different from energy as a teacup is different from a tree; you can't help but have serious questions if a person jumbles them up. You could say I'm nitpicking and these details are irrelevant, but you have relied on the terms "energy" and "force" a good few times.Quote:
Also, energy certainly does not presuppose space because one of our tools for measuring it is a newton-meter.
Okay, it's time for the nitty gritty stuff. Honestly, I was disheartened that you simply dug your heels in at this point and stated that you wouldn't answer my question, without anything in the way of explanation; it suggested some kind of duplicity and an aspect of rhetoric, rather than mutual, constructive discourse in search of the truth. Especially as I personally consider this to be the nub of the whole thing, and tackling it to be the only way to make progress. I genuinely don't know what you mean when you assert that something exists or does not exist, because you assert existence of some things but not of others when I don't see any special difference between them. It surely follows that we don't know exactly what the other means when they assert something's existence. And progress is surely impossible until this is resolved.Quote:
I am not defining "exist," but yes, matter and energy certainly exist, because they have definite physical properties.
Here's what I can surmise from what you've said. You don't think that something exists simply because it models observations. For instance, you said that the bending of space models our observations of matter and so forth, but you don't think that space actually exists.
But you do think that something exists when it involves energy and mass, because they're "physical properties" (which is left undefined).
I don't understand this because I don't see the distinction; I don't see what makes those "physical properties" special, and distinct from other models. Take energy for instance. Energy is never "observed" in the sense of direct sense perception. Indeed it took a long time for anybody to even notice such a thing was a feature of reality -- the first inklings were around 1700. And what exactly was it that was noticed? A very abstract thing: if you take all of the speeds of a bunch of objects (N.B. e.g. in metres per second), square them, multiply by their masses, halve the result, and then total them, you get a value that does not change, even when the objects collide and change speeds. That's the most basic definition you can give of energy. It is a totally abstract piece of mathematics. It has no "physical" interpretation in terms of a physical object. It isn't "anywhere". It's just an analytical model used to generalise observations and make predictions. It wasn't ever perfect, either; and it didn't work at all for squishy objects, or objects with a lot of friction, and in many other cases. It was (and still is) an approximate model of observations. Here's one interesting point: you don't actually need to do the halving. You could just use the whole squared speeds multiplied by masses instead, and this would give you another quantity (double the previous quantity named "energy") which is just as useful a model. There's no reason to prefer one over the other. So... does the double of energy also exist, as well as energy? That would be rather bizarre. The moon exists. The moon doubled does not exist. And how about other arbitrarily defined quantities? Mass multiplied by velocity cubed, for instance, instead of squared. Does that "exist"? Maybe it's also useful in modelling sometimes. What about any other power of velocity? When does it give you something that "exists"?
But time doesn't require an observer. Imagine you are last living man and then you die. Time doesn't stop progressing or existing. It will happily continue to progress. If an alien race finds your body a year after your death and resurrects you, there would be evidence of a year's movement of things all over the place :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
Also if you were the last man on the earth and you died, the concept of movement in your head would end, therefore no more movement. What would be left is just time.
Denziloe:
I'm just letting you know that I never got to that all-important last paragraph of your post because the condescension on your part was simply too sickening, as was the fact that you chose to cherry-pick my post in a manner that pretty much everything to which you responded (as listed) was taken out of the context of my post, and apparently meant to make me look like a fool. So, since you seem more interested in winning something than discussing a fairly simple philosophical concept, and I am not, I felt no need to sit here listening to your contrivances.
But before I take the high road and cease responding to your sophomoric nonsense carefully cloaked in lots of words that pretty much keep saying the same two things (basically that you can prove the existence of space because it shows up in lots of math equations, which oddly ties right into what I was saying about space being a tool, and your odd obsession with the definition of nothing), here are a few quick points; read them if you care:
* Gravity waves certainly exist; I never said they did not. Why does the fact that gravity can pass through space in waves, just like light, mean that space must be comprised of something?
* If you look up the word "nothing" in pretty much any dictionary, you will find more than one definition. If you look up the word "space" in pretty much any dictionary, you will find more than one definition. You might also note that every definition listed for one word is not directly interchangeable with every definition of the other word. That was all I was trying to say; how you came up with all that other stuff is beyond me.
* You completely missed/rewrote my point about newton-meters, as you also obviously missed my point about space (vectors, distance, shape, or however else you choose to describe it) being an important tool for understanding our universe. By proving how I am wrong with pretty much nothing but math examples sort of made my point for me.
* Telling someone, while dripping condescension, that I "please don't take" what you're about to say "as an insult" is about as firm an insult as you can make. Thanks.
* Finally, with all your math and projections of superior knowledge, you still did not tell me whether there is a space/time particle or wave, which really was all I was talking about.
In a way I am sorry you spent so much time on that post, Denziloe, as you wasted both of ours. In your bizarre effort to either prove me wrong or prove how bright you are, you completely walked away from the very simple thing I was trying to say (basically that time does not exist as an entity unto itself). That's a shame, really, because it seems an interesting thing to talk about, and certainly more interesting than shredding my post and cherry-picking from my post a bunch out-of-context line-items that had pretty much nothing to do with what I said, all in the singular name of proving how right you are (and accidentally proving that you simultaneously missed my point completely and made my point for me by using space as a tool for measurement, conceptualization, and math rather than telling me what its physical properties are).
So I guess this means you've won, Denziloe; I hope you enjoy your little victory (actually, that's not true: I honestly hope this mess came from honest passion, and not a need to win, or be right).
Now, feeling that I have wasted far too much time with this and you, and tired of being called an idiot in 1,000 words or less, I'll go back to the high ground and ask myself why I even bother saying anything in the first place, and also quietly hope you don't do this to others, who might be too intimidated to call you on it.
I'll try not to get in the middle of yours and Sageous' despute here, denziloe, but if you are still interested in this discussion, I'd like to bring my perspective to the table because I think I may be able to reach a middle ground between your opposing viewpoints.
So first off, do you believe it to be possible to conceptualise of space and time abstracted from all human experience?
Secondly, you assert that the human cognitive faculty defines things as red or solid, but do these properties inhere in object themselves or are they only as those objects appear to us?
You may point to the wavelength of light that determines the band of the colour spectrum red, but this has little meaning to the colour blind or the blind since birth other than as an object of the intellect. We do not experience time and space intellectually, but as the structure of our perceptions.
I do not consider spacetime theory to contradict this proposition, on the contrary, relativity and the observer effect would seem to suggest a gap between things as experienced and in themselves.
When I die movmment and entropy as physical laws may continue (to state otherwise would be solipsism) but time will have lost all meaning. Any time spent unconscious may as well be a second as a century, subjectively.
The reason why you and Sageous have clashed is because you are speaking of time in itself whereas Sageous is speaking of time as we know it. No wonder there are misunderstandings in the thread when I'm not sure you are even disagreeing with each other on a structural level.
I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way. I was not trying to be condescending and explicitly tried to make it clear that I wasn't being rude but just responding to you as rigorously as I could, but it looks as though that has backfired and looked condescending instead. But in all honesty I can only really think of one part of my post that might have caused such outrage -- that is, the bit about the physics error, which apparently caused you to stop reading in disgust. I do stand by making that comment. Like I said, you have referred heavily to the concept of energy whenever you were pushed on the central question, so your large misconceptions about energy was of significant import to the discussion -- and if you'd continued reading you'd have found that energy was very important to the main point I was making. You don't seem to reject the actual content of my criticism as untrue, so I'm not sure what you'd prefer to me to have done. I could have not pointed out the weakness in this part of your argument, but that would have been dishonest of me, and really, one should be willing to have their arguments contradicted in such a discussion. Being frank is how I treat people with respect. Pulling punches for fear of upsetting somebody over a highly abstract discussion... that's the behaviour I would have considered condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
You are not a fool and I had absolutely no designs on making you look like a fool. Everything I said was carefully considered as part of the overall argument, and nothing I said was contrived or intended to "win" by intimidation. I think this is a pretty unfair thing to say. You only need to scan my post to see that I have gone to a lot of effort to detail what I was thinking in simple terms. The only time I can recall using an obscure concept was when I referred to a normed vector space, but that's simply because that is the mathematical structure that corresponds to space, and you asked for a definition. It's not contrived at all. It's my answer. And like I said, you can look up the details. I only omitted them because they're simple and boring. And as you didn't ever actually read the central part of my post, which I repeatedly referred to, you're not really in any position to call anything I said "contrived". I literally asked you at the start to skip out all of this stuff if you wanted to, because the main argument was at the end... so complaining that I was trying to argue by contrivance and intimidation is just... dishonest on your part, really.Quote:
but it looks as though that as was the fact that you chose to cherry-pick my post in a manner that pretty much everything to which you responded (as listed) was taken out of the context of my post, and apparently meant to make me look like a fool. So, since you are more interested in winning something than discussing a fairly simple concept, and I am not, I felt no need to sit here listening to your contrivances.
That really wasn't my point. You didn't finish the post, and I made it very clear that the important stuff was at the end.Quote:
But before I take the high road and cease responding to your sophomoric nonsense carefully cloaked in lots of words that pretty much keep saying the same two things (basically that you can prove the existence of space because it shows up in lots of math equations, which oddly ties right into what I was saying about space being a tool, and your odd obsession with the definition of nothing)
It doesn't pass through space in waves, it's a wave of space. I stated this in the question.Quote:
Gravity waves certainly exist; I never said they did not. Why does the fact that gravity can pass through space in waves, just like light, mean that space must be comprised of something?
Which definition of "nothing" were you taking to be synonymous with "space"?Quote:
* If you look up the word "nothing" in pretty much any dictionary, you will find more than one definition. If you look up the word "space" in pretty much any dictionary, you will find more than one definition. You might also note that every definition listed for one word is not directly interchangeable with every definition of the other word. That was all I was trying to say; how you came up with all that other stuff is beyond me.
Well yeah, it was false.Quote:
* You completely missed my point about newton-meters
All covered at the end of the post. Again, it's pretty unfair to be accusing me of intentionally ignoring points when you didn't actually read to the end of the post, and especially when I made it clear throughout that the important response was at the end. With that in mind, I don't really understand why you're asking me further questions.Quote:
as you also obviously missed my point about space (vectors, distance, shape, or however else you choose to describe it) being an important tool for understanding our universe. By proving how I am wrong with pretty much nothing but math examples sort of made my point for me.
I've already covered this of course. Apologies again that you were insulted. The fact was that you didn't have a firm grasp on some of the basic concepts in physics. That's not saying that you're stupid, it's just saying that... you haven't studied much of the nitty gritty of physics. Most people haven't. So what? They pursue other interests. That's all I meant by clarifying it wasn't meant as an insult. It wasn't a personal attack. It was just very relevant to the argument, at least in my opinion.Quote:
Telling someone, while dripping condescension, that I "please don't take" what you're about to say "as an insult" is about as firm an insult as you can make. Thanks.
I'm sorry I missed it. It depends on what you mean. Waves and particles are the same thing on a fundamental level. If you mean space/time as in relativistic spacetime, yes, they are the gravitational waves I referred to. If you mean space waves or time waves... well, there are waves in space, like electromagnetic waves, which wave over time. Is space made of particles, or is space made of particles? No, but neither's energy, which I discussed at length at the end of my post.Quote:
Finally, with all your math and projections of superior knowledge, you still did not tell me whether there is a space/time particle or wave, which was basically all I was talking about.
Ctharlie, I'll address everything that was an explicit question in case it helps you to follow up before next time. Too tired to engage beyond that now, I'll catch you tomorrow.
Can you clarify this question a bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ctharlhie
I don't believe that "objects themselves" is meaningful. That's not to say I deny their existence; I have no position on the statements "objects themselves exist" or "objects themselves do not exist" because I don't know what they mean and can't see any means of answering them.Quote:
Secondly, you assert that the human cognitive faculty defines things as red or solid, but do these properties i here in object themselves or are they only as those objects appear to us?
All I can say about red is that some objects I see I perceive as similar in some way (examples include strawberries and stop lights). By definition these objects appear red.
Solidity can be defined in the same way (examples include this sofa, this laptop, but not air), but I could also take a different approach and break it down into simpler concepts, like rigidity and non-intersection. Many things I observe act according to this model.
Denziloe:
First: I read the rest of that post, so you can drop your bizarre defense that I had no right even to point out your condescension because I didn't finish it (and no, it was not "all covered at the end of the post," BTW). And what did I find in the rest? Sadly, that it is simply more of the same; as was your last post to me above; including, incredibly, even more out-of-context cherry-picking. I cannot believe you are unable to see what you are writing... and I've actually got a fairly thick skin and enjoy a good argument.
If you'd like to "directly observe" energy, stick your hand in a light socket, or have someone throw a rock at you, or just stand outside on a windy or sunny day. Please don't explain to me that energy is only a mathematically malleable concept, when we both know it has been proven to exist and clearly observed, in one form or another, since we were living in caves. Yes you can throw math at energy to "prove" it is just a concept, but energy's ubiquitous physical presence pretty much negates that math, at least on the philosophical level from which I was speaking, and which you still refuse to recognize.
Speaking of condescension: as Ctharlhie much more diplomatically noted above, I was discussing time as we know it, and as we use it. I actually am reasonably well-versed in physics and math, and, believe it or not, already understand, agree with, and was already familiar with most of what you said -- I simply wished to discuss from a different perspective; this is a philosophy forum, after all. For you to choose to interpret my philosophic approach to this subject as ignorance is condescension enough, but then to compound it by explaining to me how simple you made everything so my small mind could understand was, well, astounding. Again, can't you even see this?
If space is moving in waves and not gravity, why do they call them "gravity" waves and not "space" waves? Seems odd, since with, well, everything else (water, light/electromagnetic, wind, etc) the word in front of wave describes the composition of the wave, and not what caused it. Also, what does "waves and particles are the same thing on a fundamental level" have to do with describing to me the physical makeup of time or space? Or were you just gently helping me understand the concept? For what it is worth, I specifically asked the question like that because waves and particles are essentially the same thing on a fundamental level; if you weren't coming out of the chutes assuming that I know nothing about these things, you might have understood that.
Finally, that was amazing how you continued to (apparently intentionally) misinterpret the cherry-pick from my post about newton-meters with yet another cherry-pick; that is chutzpah defined, I think.
Since you have no interest in discussing with me what I hoped would be discussed (that our use of time as tool has turned into a perception of time, which has turned into an irrefutable assumption that time is real, even though it has no physical properties), and I can't stand the sort of conversation we are having now, there is no point in continuing to defend myself in this atmosphere.
As an aside, I do hope you find time to respond to Ctharlhie's relevant questions.
Take care, Denziloe. There is no need to respond, as I am definitely done (all questions are rhetorical), but I do hope that one day you can look at posts like these and realize what you were doing.
I thought you were taking the "high ground"..? Please stop throwing jibes at me, I'm not attacking you. And please stop asking me questions if you don't actually want me to answer; it makes no sense, and my benign answers only seem to have insulted you even more. I think you should either put me on ignore or take a time out, because you're massively misreading or misrepresenting me now. For instance,
I literally never said this, let alone repeatedly. Read my post again. What I said was that it's unfair to call my points an attempt at contrived or intimidating arguments when I'd actually requested you skip through them to the end if you wanted to get to the point; and also that you couldn't really make any assertions about me leaving stuff out and missing the bigger picture when you hadn't read the end of the post where I tried to address the main issue. That has nothing to do with condescension or your right to think me condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
This is not an argument, I'm just clarifying that this "bizarre defense" is not one I'm trying to make and is not present in what I wrote, nor are any other percieved arguments or insults. If you can believe this, I would enjoy a return to our discussion, and feel free to bring up any outstanding questions again. If not, please stop communicating with me, although I would regret that outcome. Thanks.
^^ I called the questions rhetorical to save you the trouble of answering. If you'd like to do so, then go ahead.
It is absolutely amazing, BTW, that you feel you are the one being massively misrepresented...are you not reading what I wrote at all?
Okay, High ground for real now....
This is only stating the obvious, which is why I don't get why there is really a debate (about this, at least) here at all. Obviously if there are no beings to do the predicting or correlating, the predicting and correlating cannot occur. What does not go away is what those beings were predicting and making correlations about. So again, "time" as the human concept of time does not exist without human beings, but "time" as in the observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does. There isn't a point in even mentioning that time without humans doesn't exist during the course of the discussion of the original topic because it does nothing to add to the conversation that the topic was meant to discuss. That has been my point the entire time. If this rather odd technicality is preventing us from discussing anything meaningful (which it is), then why are we even bringing it up? We all know what we mean when we are saying "time" as its own functional process rather than our concept of time and ignoring the less useful meaning of the word helps with coming to a better collective understanding of one another. That's what we do when there are several meanings for a word, we pick the one most relevant and useful for the discussion because otherwise it's impossible to decipher what everybody is saying. Why is there so much friction here? It's got me completely baffled, I really am genuinely confused right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I agree and that's why I've been insistent on definitions for terms, although I'm not sure the disagreement can be resolved in exactly that fashion. The only form of the statement I've recieved from Sageous is "time does not exist" or "space does not exist". But if that's referring to the human concept -- which as you say, ceases to exist where humans do -- the fact is that humans obviously do exist, for aĺl of us. So surely the concept does, too? So whence the negation? There's a second problem of consistency. Sageous also insists that some things are totally distinct from time in that they do exist, such as energy. If it's just a matter of the concept vs. the thing it's derived from, how come energy -- also a concept and a thing -- gets treated differently from space and time?
Again, you are stating the obvious. I am not disagreeing with you, nor do I think Denziloe is. What you aren't getting is that this knowledge does absolutely nothing for us when discussing the OP. What you are stating, essentially, is that we should not be having this topic open for discussion in the first place because we can't know that time does not exist as we observe it if we aren't actively observing it. Again, this is actually true (the latter bit, no the part about not being able to discuss it)! HOWEVER, in the spirit of actually discussing what this thread was created for in the first place, we have to assume that it works as we observe it, without us observing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ctharlhie
To paint the picture better here, I will provide two different concepts for you to understand better:
1) Ever watch South Park? There is an episode where Cartman and Kenny get sent off by child services to live with agnostic parents who constantly reiterate that nobody could ever know whether a god exists or not, so debating his existence is pointless and forbidden. You guys are acting like the agnostic parents in this example.
2)In this very thread, 4 people are agreeing with each other, but for whatever reason arguing. Two of them recognize that they technically agree with each other, but the other two see it as a disagreement and are saying that, because we aren't recognizing the disagreement (which isn't actually occurring and even if it were, it would be pointless to discuss in regards to the OP), no further discussion of the original topic can take place.
Edit: this was a reply to Ctharlie, whose post has vanished at the moment, I guess because of a bug.
My argument didn't actually hinge on that, and unfortunately I never really got to lay out my personal approach (I was just trying to probe what Sageous thought). As you rightly went on to say, I'm definitely not tryring to make a statement about things in themselves, as I don't think that language has meaning. Definitely not a Platonist, though; what did you think was Platonic? My guess would be that you thought I might be trying to invoke the Form of the red, but the Form of the red is a pretty hefty metaphysical assertion, whereas I made a very sparse -- tautologous, even -- claim; namely that we percieve a similarity between certain objects. This intentionally invokes nothing.
Denziloe, I would like to hear your clear statement written in simple english for not native english speaker about this above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
snoop
How can you say in one sentence that time does not exist without human beings, but time as observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does? As far I know only human can observe and measure time, so without human there is no concept. What would left I think is just movement of things.Quote:
So again, "time" as the human concept of time does not exist without human beings, but "time" as inthe observable and measurable process the concept is derived from still does.
Denziloe
I think we have just the opposite understanding of words. For you is my movement = time and for me is your definition of movement = time.Quote:
Also if you were the last man on the earth and you died, the concept of movement in your head would end, therefore no more movement. What would be left is just time.
Okay this is my statement:
There is ''everything". Evolution made our brains filter view of "something" from "everything". Let's now accept that ''something'' is only think that matters in our debates. (by this I mean our viewing of everything) Now: If you die, what will left? In the previous human view there would remain the same something including not existing concepts such as time etc. But if you don't include your previous human view, there couldn't left anything, because something is only think that we know. This trouble me a lot, because in this conlusion if it actually exists or not doesn't matter. My common sense tells me that only real existing things such as physics and movement and energy and these evident things would left and nothing else. Now when I think about it deeply, I'm not sure even about this ground.
Sure thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
I think exactly the same statement applies to other things which you acknowledge to exist. I gave an extensive elaboration of this point in my discussion of energy at the end of the big reply to Sageous. Sageous was unwilling to consider the actual point that was being made there and pretended I was just trying to be a pedant about physics, but I hope that you can see what I was actually saying; energy itself is irrelevant, it's just being used as an example, to explore what it means to say that something exists. In case you don't personally believe that energy exists, just pick another example (like movement, for instance).
These things are all noticed, then used as conceptual tools, and we say they exist. As to "physical properties", you haven't defined it so I can't answer to that.
But if they're all the same in this respect then it's inconsistent to say some exist and some don't. We could either say they all don't exist, or they all do exist. That second approach is the one I'd take because it seems the most useful and common use of language, but it's really a matter of semantics at that point; we could take the opposite approach, but that wouldn't have any substantive consequences, it would just mean we were using words differently.
I didn't actually believe what I wrote there -- I would say they both exist. My point was that you can swap the words and the argument isn't changed. Therefore the argument lacks substance; we don't quite have the opposite understanding of words, but the disagreement is an issue of definitions, and that was my point.Quote:
I think we have just the opposite understanding of words. For you is my movement = time and for me is your definition of movement = time.
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
What we're just trying to say is that there are 2 main categories of existing things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
1. category of existing things: Tree'll still grow, rock'll still fall, water'll still flow. Energy'll transfer, sun'll shine. These things will continue if there is no man. I call this simply ''movement'' of things
2. category of existing things: Concept of time as it was invented thanks to mathematics and other fabricated non nature existing things. The other example is empty space. Another good example is god. Money is good one.... These things would not be in the world anymore if there is no man, because they are constructed ideas in human's minds, not nature.
I still don't understand the inconsistency. Why don't you list the "concept of energy" in the second category? And why don't you list "time", as opposed to the mere "concept of time", in the first category?
Well I'm finished making my point, if you guys don't want to accept or even try to understand what I'm saying, then whatever. I was never disagreeing with you, but proposing we simply allow the usage of the word "time" even when in a hypothetical situation humans don't exist, therefore "time" doesn't exist. It's like that topic about what would you do if you were the only person on earth, suddenly. I missed the apparent point of the topic and took it literally, whereas it was supposed to be a fun topic that didn't want to deal strictly with reality--which I wound up accepting. My proposition of using the word "time" was simply to make the conversation flow easier since we all know what we mean by time even when we're saying humans don't exist. If time can't be measured because humans don't exist, how can we be certain there is still movement in the universe if no one is there to see it? Yet you still claim there would be, and it's making the exact same point you're using in this argument. However, it's really not this big of a deal, unless you guys are responding to someone else making the argument, please don't respond to this. Enough topic space has been wasted on this stupid argument.
Interesting how this thread carried on for so long.
Allow me to present my own "south park agnostic" side to the debate.
The concept of time and movement are relative. This means that time and movement can only be measured in so far as comparing them to something else. Our entire existence is built on a reality molded by relativistic assumptions.
This however in no way disproves or nullifies the concept that an absolute form of time exists. There may very well be a force that causes time to propogate in a forward motion. Whether it exists in nature is a moot point. Every single concept ever devised by man can be argued to not exists in nature.
While I certianly enjoy seeing debate and critical thinking, I think we are putting too much time (pardon the pun) into discussing the merit of a human concept which at this point is but an abstraction of reality. We hardly understand the exact workings of subatomic particles, let alone the substance or (lack thereof) in which they preside. To make a statement such as "time is but a tool for humans, it has no basis in reality" or "time is the cause for all change" is equally erroroneous.
All in all I would have much rather seen this discussion head towards the original direction both sageous and zoth had taken.
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
Hi ,sorry to intrude on u scientists,sages,philosophers.i liked the start of this debate but for some reasons everyone started showing muscle ,and the time and energie u have deployed run out on u guys,and sageous,u started seeing red and denziloe wanted to prove his knowledge and u deprived him of this pleasure and TIME run out on u guys ,philosophie means that any subject u start discussing with anyone grant them automatically the right to go on and on as they think the debate at hands would take them,but always staying polite,not condescending that would be fruitless and boring,because philosophie is therapeutic the sky is the limit,and sageous i would be more humble if I were u everybody likes ur jibes.good luck.
I hope others enjoy this stuff as much as I do and I also hope this post will clear up matters at least somewhat. It took me considerable time to be honest, I've been learning a lot on the way, but it wasn't an easy task to assemble a picture of the state of affairs.
You won't easily find it spelled out in popular science material, but here's Einstein's position on whether time and space exist or not, taken from https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html
That's the widely accepted view in the scientific community, the same view which is also presented in the video below, despite the somewhat misleading title.Quote:
Space and time exist absolutely, but are not independent. They are interwoven into a single fabric called spacetime.
Spacetime does act on matter, by guiding the way it moves. And matter does act back on spacetime, by producing the curvature that we feel as gravity.
It is a very common misconception that Einstein would have said time is only an illusion and would have meant it doesn't exist in reality.
What he did say was this:
"The distinction of past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."
For an explanation what exactly the above quote means - please - watch a little 4 min. segment of the following video, you won't regret it, it's a fantastic visualisation making it instantly understandable.
And it's so adorable with the little alien on a bicycle that you won't easily forget, and it's important!
Start from around 22:38 min:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcOBtnU-zSA
Just reading the title can easily lead to misunderstanding. What they are on about does not contradict Einstein's position that time and space have an absolute (= fundamental, see below) existence in physical reality in the form of spacetime.
Instead it explains that and how our experience of time is an illusion, how time doesn't behave as it intuitively seems, but instead behaves very differently in certain circumstances, but behave it does.
Einstein's theory predicted that spacetime itself would bend in the vicinity of a massive object for example, and confirmation was gained by observing this effect during a total solar eclipse.
Light always travels the shortest way and in a straight line through space until it meets an object, but light from farther stars which passes closely by the sun undergoes a curvature and such its source appears to be somewhere else than when viewed in the night sky.
Like this:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...inf466x290.gif
In 2013 a new round of wondering about the nature of spacetime was kicked off by a mathematical "discovery", the amplituhedron.
Again you can find popular science sources under headers announcing the groundbreaking new insight of how "time and space are not real".
What is meant this time around is again not that spacetime isn't real, but that it might not be fundamental.
Meaning it might instead be a manifestation, an emergent property of an even more basic reality from the quantum realm.
Quantummagazine - A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics:
A picture of the Amplituhedron:Quote:
Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.
“This is completely new and very much simpler than anything that has been done before,” said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-co...edron_span.jpg
Somebody asked the following question under one more of those slightly confusing headers: Space and Time Are Illusions, Apparently:
Here's a beautiful answer she got from somebody calling themselves effdot:Quote:
In other news today, the discovery of the amplituhedron, "a newly discovered mathematical object resembling a multifaceted jewel in higher dimensions," means that space and time may be illusions. If you understand this, please explain it in the discussion section below.
Another snippet of the article from Quantummagazine:Quote:
Imagine this marble track in your mind's eye.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...s5o4m9bjpg.jpg
Imagine that you had a marble going down that track. If you wanted to know here the marble would be at any point in time, it's easy to see. You know the shape of the track, the possible paths the marble could take, and all the info you need.
Now, imagine that the same marble track was invisible. In fact, imagine that you had no idea what that marble track 'looked' like. The only way you know how a marble might travel along it would be to blindly drop it. If you got lucky, you may find the entrance to the track, and the marble itself may follow an orderly pattern. But without any idea of what the track 'looks' like, you have to make all kinds of probability calculations to guess the speed or position of the marble.
What these guys have done is create a mathematical model of the very complex marble track that particles travel along. Which means you can just do a volume calculation of that object relative to the particle to determine its paths.
Quote:
Puzzling Thoughts
Locality and unitarity are the central pillars of quantum field theory, but as the following thought experiments show, both break down in certain situations involving gravity. This suggests physics should be formulated without either principle.
Locality says that particles interact at points in space-time. But suppose you want to inspect space-time very closely. Probing smaller and smaller distance scales requires ever higher energies, but at a certain scale, called the Planck length, the picture gets blurry: So much energy must be concentrated into such a small region that the energy collapses the region into a black hole, making it impossible to inspect. “There’s no way of measuring space and time separations once they are smaller than the Planck length,” said Arkani-Hamed. “So we imagine space-time is a continuous thing, but because it’s impossible to talk sharply about that thing, then that suggests it must not be fundamental — it must be emergent.”
Unitarity says the quantum mechanical probabilities of all possible outcomes of a particle interaction must sum to one. To prove it, one would have to observe the same interaction over and over and count the frequencies of the different outcomes. Doing this to perfect accuracy would require an infinite number of observations using an infinitely large measuring apparatus, but the latter would again cause gravitational collapse into a black hole. In finite regions of the universe, unitarity can therefore only be approximately known.
To go off topic a bit - illusion actually fits very nicely for time if you apply the proper definitions of terms.
An illusion is a misinterpretation of a perception of something actually existing, while a hallucination is a purely endogenously generated perception.
The usual effects of most psychedelics are mere illusions for example. Say there's a lamp and what you see is an elf with an umbrella doing a little jiggle-dance. But there is a lamp, not nothing. Otherwise it would be classified as hallucination.
Same with time, there is something which we mistake for what we commonly understand under the term time.
Einstein gave us a conceptualization of this something with his spacetime fabric and it got demonstrated again and again that space and time really behave like that. Without RT we wouldn't be able to use satellites for another example...
Now it looks as if QM can reduce spacetime further and explain it as an emergent property of something else yet again.
Like finding yet smaller particles in atoms, which were thought to be the smallest, most fundamental building blocks of matter, but are not.
Happy you like it, Sageous! :)
^^ I did; interesting stuff indeed!
The thought that bubbled up after reading your post was that space-time seems to be physical reality's "qualifier;" or that which makes reality "real" for us.
In a sense, space-time doesn't need to be physically existent to have a real impact on reality. So, whether as tool or undiscoveed physical force, space-time for us must exist in order for us to exist in an intelligible manner.
Not sure if that makes sense, but it was where my slightly arguably addled mind went. That's probably not the response you were looking for; hopefully others will chime in now...
I like the thought about spacetime as the qualifier of physical reality for us.
We as conscious here-and-nows moving about in it, and spacetime qualifies what is the case of the matter.
Or something...:D
I wasn't looking for a specific response, it's more I wanted to present my findings - and the little alien on it's bike*! :alien:
When coming across this thread quite a while ago, I did some looking and reading around and then posted something. But shortly later I noticed, I had gotten some things wrong and deleted it. Now I had some leisure and it took my fancy again and so I embarked on another fun voyage through the wonder of internet self-education. I love these things where physics becomes so fantastic and baffling that indeed it fits into the philosophy department!
Goes and tries to unknot her mind with a bit of meditative darts-throwing...
*Edit: it is really worth watching that little segment, even my husband, who's a mathematician said he wouldn't have seen it presented that well and how memorable it would be. I prefer BBC-style documentaries, but hey ho - they did that in a lovely way!
I think it's an adaptation of a graphic of our light-cone from the Hawkins book "Short Story of Time".
I was wondering about that!Quote:
Originally Posted by StephL
Yeah, I had to find out that there's a difference between not real and not fundamentally real, and that took a while, but I was intrigued.
Since I spoke of internet self-education, I almost feel a bit bad about the overall quality of the above video, I didn't even watch it entirely...
So now I want to redeem myself. This is a real marvel, they both are brilliant speakers besides actual cutting edge physicists, Krauss (Cosmology I believe) and Greene String Hypothesis, as he himself points out. You will not be bored, it's a fine conversation and you and won't have to wait for finally something new and/or interesting!
Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kn5XKKZEFU
Thank you for these very nice and insightful posts Steph:D
These kind of discussions are always on a rough territory, I think. On one hand it is wonderful to debate these questions that I think are very fundamental to being a human. To think about how the world works and come up with these new ways to explain things can certainly be thrilling. Even more so when another party can inspire you to whole new levels of thoughts about the question.
On the other hand, there is a lot of information already out there. As loads of people have been thinking about this stuff. And unfortunately we don't all have a basic concept on what the scientific world has revealed so far. (I partially blame school systems for this;-)) And I don't expect people to. Hell I don't think I know enough to really debate about this either.
So we are on a rough territory. On the one hand thinking and debating about this stuff is fun and definately a good thing to do. I firmly believe that one should always question reality. On the other hand we most likely won't come to any new idea's. And by the off chance we do, then we most likely won't go ahead and back it up with the mathematics needed for that. So even though it can feel very profound and ground breaking, chances are our thoughts are wrong. Though let me state again: I do believe that it is very healthy and good to have these kinds of debates. I just like to keep this in the back of my mind.
Now the real problem arises when 2 parties with a different level of understanding come to debate. Especially when one knows the other is wrong, but cannot seem to show the other that he in fact is. Which is totally understandable, explaining something is a skill. That's why teachers have to learn how to teach (and even then there are a lot who still can't really do it).
This is just one of the things that can lead to conflict instead of a healthy debate. We can't ask anyone to educate themselfelves on the matter before posting. And we can't ask educated people to learn how to properly convey their thoughts, so that people with a lesser understanding of the matter can understand them. We can only hope that people share their point of view. And that they try and understand what others are saying.
So to get to my point (finally:cheeky:). I think it's great to see you (StephL) go to such lengths to make an educational post. Simply to give people a little bit of scientific understanding of the matter. I think that is a very good approach to the matter and it makes for a very healthy debate. If more people did it like that, we would all be a whole lot smarter after reading/participating in this thread, so thank you for that:)
Thank you!
Very happy you like it, MrPriority!
But I need to flee from this thread now, not to keep editing, because I'm still unhappy with how I put zig things and might find yet more stuff...
:alien:
And after finding the string theory thing, which does not actually pertain to the topic, but was so - yeah - educative and entertaining and fascinating, also nice and humorous and philosophical, that I wanted to share it - after finding that, I found something which does pertain.
It's about the existence of nothing (which is questionable).
Not really for nothing they've got two - let's for simplicity call them philosophers - on one side of the panel, too. ;-)
I said somewhere nothing cannot do that and that's also wrong, nothing can do a whole lot of stuff and there's different kinds of it as well!
Before throwing it in, I want to say a few things, this is the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, it's five people who know what they are talking about, and they do that, it's not a debate in the usual sense, it's a conversation hosted by Tyson, and you eavesdrop. Tyson tries to keep it on a followable track, and for the first time watching, he didn't really succeed for me, my eyes kept glazing over in confusion, but since I really, really liked it - I gave it a second watch, and maybe I'll do a third, because astoundingly, I did understand a lot more the second time around.
You gotta love Prof. Friedrich Gott, astrophysicist and cosmologist with his jacket from the future and multiverse-model in a piece of tupperware - and for one of his descriptions of nothing:
What is behind your head? What is beyond your field of vision?
It's not black, it simply isn't there for our perception, because we have no retinal cells pointing in that direction.
You go watch for more impressive variants of that, if you want to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYohZRivNhI
Edit: now - I had watched late last night, and now I just jumped in at points to show my husband, and I understood perfectly well, and didn't find something to demonstrate him where they lost me. So do not be deterred by what I wrote on glazing over.
Ah - I should stop worrying if people might watch or not, I will never know who might come across it and can only hope for the best!
Another after another etc. edit:
I keep finding things, this is nice, I was too lazy to go into thermodynamics and the arrow of time without finding the great documentary I once watched. I was looking for that in vain when I found the little alien. Aanyway:
New Quantum Theory Could Explain the Flow of Time | WIRED