2 of 6
2
Time is real
Posted: 20 September 2008 12:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2008-09-19

If time did not exist then every year would be the same, nothing would ever change and every event would be the same every year.

If time did not exist then we would not have a past, future or a present. In other words nothing would exist if it weren’t for time.

How else can I explain this ?

Imagine our planet was tied to a string and the string was tied to a spinning motor and that spinning motor was moving upward (for example from the floor to the ceiling). Our planet would move in a vortex like fashion around the sun. The planet spinning in this fashion as it moves upward leaves a trail called the past, so if you would want to recap what happened in the past just put the motor in reverse spin and move it downward till you get to the time specified.

As for time travel, you would not be able to go back in time in the current universe, because in reality you can not stop the planet from spinning and reverse it till you get to the point you would want to get to change the past, otherwise you would create a time paradox and it would be kind of like a broken record.
Time travel is only possible in a different universe where the planet has just started the destined time, so if you change time you would change it in another universe not the current one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2008 06:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  337
Joined  2008-09-10

I am a novice at this, but it would seem to me that if we did not exist, it follows necessarily that what we consider “time” would not exist either, necessarily.  But this is only a statement regarding our concept of “time.”  The same would apply as to any sentient being’s concept of “time.”  It does not follow from this, however, that stars will not form, etc., which I believe is Occam’s point, with which I agree.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2008 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

The universe and dimensions formed so that I could experience.  When I die, you will all cease to exist.  cheese

The same thing was true for my Great Great Grandpa.  cheese

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2008 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9282
Joined  2006-08-29
retrospy - 06 October 2008 01:58 PM

When I die, you will all cease to exist.  cheese

I remember reading in one of Freud’s books (forgot which one) that one of the reasons people believe in an afterlife is because when we lose someone, a part of us dies with them. In order to understand where that part of us went (it can’t be dead since we are still alive), we created an afterlife. I guess it makes some sense since we learn a great deal about us through others.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2008 11:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 26 July 2008 07:10 AM

According to him, time is a causal dimension, unlike space which we can transverse in both directions.

By both directions I assume you mean forwards and backwards.

But how do we travel back in space?

I don’t think we can, space is the same as time in this respect.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Interesting idea.  Sort of like the song, “You Can’t Go Home Again” or the zen saying that “You can’t step in the same river twice.”  If we assume the four dimensions are really linked such that they are really a unit that we artificially split into four, then imagining that we start from, say our computer, walk away then come back, we really aren’t in the same (four dimensional) place. 

{Geez, is this what happens when I come to the forum in the early morning?  I’m going to have to make sure I go back to evenings and back to being a pragmatist. LOL  }

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Occam - 08 October 2008 10:10 AM

Interesting idea.  Sort of like the song, “You Can’t Go Home Again” or the zen saying that “You can’t step in the same river twice.”  If we assume the four dimensions are really linked such that they are really a unit that we artificially split into four, then imagining that we start from, say our computer, walk away then come back, we really aren’t in the same (four dimensional) place.

Right; you aren’t in the same part of spacetime, although you have returned to the same part of space.

... modulo the problems of figuring out what “the same part of space” really means. After all, the earth is moving all the time, so is the sun, so is our galaxy ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
dougsmith - 21 July 2008 01:09 AM

Quite so. Time is just another dimension like the three of space. That’s Einstein’s result and it agrees with a reading of McTaggart that accepts the C series. The illusion is that of some sort of “specialness” to the present.

Hopefully, I am not out of order here except your post is from July and this is now October.  May I suggest that the proper dimension is length and that we humans have arranged aribtrairly into 3 orthogonal directions.  There are many other ways to describe space.  The other dimension is time.  So, for me, there are only 2 dimensions: space & time. cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 08 October 2008 10:21 AM

... modulo the problems of figuring out what “the same part of space” really means. After all, the earth is moving all the time, so is the sun, so is our galaxy ...

Well my point is I would argue that you are not in the same part of space, you are actually somewhere else. It’s just wrong to say you are ever in the same part of space.

So my theory is that going back in space is a significant illusion, which confuses us and makes us think there is something different (in this respect) about time and space, when in fact there isn’t.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
kkwan - 21 July 2008 08:58 AM

Let me rephrase the philosophical question. If there were no sentient/conscious beings to experience/observe space-time, matter/energy and gravity will the universe exist?

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM assert that there will be no decoherence at the quantum level without an observer. Quantum superposition/entanglement will persist as in the Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment with the paradoxical result of both existence and non-existence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger’s_cat

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened.

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states “decayed nucleus/dead cat” and “undecayed nucleus/living cat”, and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.

In the Wigner’s friend thought experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigners_friend

Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.

However, if the universe does exist in the absence of a sentient/conscious observer, who or what will observe, record and inform that it exist?

kkwan

Much of what you quote is very old stuff back when the best scientists did not have the tools to look at or conceptual background to understand QM.  The quantum world exist and behaves in its own way independent of consciousness.  At the quantum level is not possible to “observe” without seriously affecting results.  It is like throwing cars into traffic to measure which way the traffic is flowing and with what velocity.  Such a limit in no way means that consciousness is needed for anything.

There are more than Schrodinger’s interpretation of QM.  His motivation was to show how stupid it was and he succeeded.  Consider Feynman’s Sum over Histories explanation for a better view. 

It seems that we continue to play over and over the semantic game of does a tree falling in the woods makes a noise.  Of course it does and just like the noise time is real and is further a consequence of there being a universe.  As Doug has noted the second law says it all - times arrow goes one way.  Any other argument is either semantic or hubris. grin

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 01:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
wesmjohnson - 08 October 2008 01:27 PM

 

It seems that we continue to play over and over the semantic game of does a tree falling in the woods makes a noise. 

If it makes a noise , what noise does it make?

Say I’m wired up to hear a loud bang and you are wired up to hear a high pitched squeak, obviously the (objective) noise it makes, can’t be the noise either of us experience and if the noise isn’t of the type we experience, what the heck is it?

This question persists because there is a problem here that needs explaining, it’s not semantic games.

Stephen

[ Edited: 08 October 2008 02:10 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  337
Joined  2008-09-10

If it makes a noise , what noise does it make?
Say I’m wired up to hear a loud bang and you are wired up to hear a high pitched squeak, obviously the (objective) noise it makes, can’t be the noise either of us experience and if the noise isn’t of the type we experience, what the heck is it?
This question persists because there is a problem here that needs explaining, it’s not semantic games.

A noise we did not experience?  A noise we might have experienced, had we been able to do so?  Is your definition of “noise” such that it is necessarily something that we must experience?

Obviously, I don’t know what the problem is that requires explaining, but would like to know.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
wesmjohnson - 08 October 2008 12:59 PM

Hopefully, I am not out of order here except your post is from July and this is now October.  May I suggest that the proper dimension is length and that we humans have arranged aribtrairly into 3 orthogonal directions.  There are many other ways to describe space.  The other dimension is time.  So, for me, there are only 2 dimensions: space & time. cool smile

As I understand it, there are three orthogonal directions of space, and the time direction should be thought of as being orthogonal to all three of the previous. So there still are four dimensions or directions of spacetime.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 11:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10
dougsmith - 08 October 2008 03:36 PM

As I understand it, there are three orthogonal directions of space, and the time direction should be thought of as being orthogonal to all three of the previous. So there still are four dimensions or directions of spacetime.

It’s hard to picture four dimensions isn’t it. Could you imagine four five or six spacial dimensions, I understand it mathematically but I cannot picture it. I through in a picture of what 4 or five dimensional objects would look like.

400px-Dice_analogy-_1_to_5_dimensions.svg.png

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2008 04:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
StephenLawrence - 08 October 2008 01:56 PM
wesmjohnson - 08 October 2008 01:27 PM

 

It seems that we continue to play over and over the semantic game of does a tree falling in the woods makes a noise. 

If it makes a noise , what noise does it make?

Say I’m wired up to hear a loud bang and you are wired up to hear a high pitched squeak, obviously the (objective) noise it makes, can’t be the noise either of us experience and if the noise isn’t of the type we experience, what the heck is it?

This question persists because there is a problem here that needs explaining, it’s not semantic games.

Stephen


The noise it makes is a characteristic set of sound waves, vibrations, which emanate from the intersection of the tree and the ground.  While it is possible, though not probable, that you are “wired” in a manner significantly different than I, we would both receive the vibrations and hear the noise, albeit differently, were we there.  However, the salient point is that whether you, I or anyone else is actually there is immaterial, the vibrations (the noise) are still there.  To deny it is to deny the whole of Physics or it is simply semantics in defining that “noise” means a human must hear it - circular reasoning. cool smile  I’ll add here that my understanding of neuroanatomy and the differences between individuals comes from a number of years as full time faculty in the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of South Florida. grin

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2