8 of 11
8
Time
Posted: 14 June 2010 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 14 June 2010 07:28 AM

If all motion ceases, all these clocks will stop and if so, then time will also stop.  Motion, therefore is necessary for time to exist and without motion, there will be no clocks and no time.

Yes, but the reverse is true as well: without time, there can’t be motion. You continue to forget this part. Of course it is impossible to understand time without motion (or change), but how can you understand motion without reference to time? The definitions are circular.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2010 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 14 June 2010 07:37 AM

Yes, but the reverse is true as well: without time, there can’t be motion. You continue to forget this part. Of course it is impossible to understand time without motion (or change), but how can you understand motion without reference to time? The definitions are circular.

Hence, the definition of time as “just the presence of motion and forces”.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2010 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 14 June 2010 10:23 AM

Hence, the definition of time as “just the presence of motion and forces”.

[Irony]Hence the definition of motion and forces as being different in time.[/Irony]

C’mon kkwan, please stop doing as if you have some deep insights: your thoughts are going wild on a few concepts you picked up from science and philosophy. I’ve seen too many people who make wild theories, and trying to prove them with citations from everywhere.

But I expect that you will see me again as indoctrinated by academic philosophy and physics…

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 04:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
kkwan - 13 June 2010 10:57 PM

You have been indoctrinated by “received wisdom” from scientific and mathematical operations ...

That phrase neatly wraps up the problem with kkwan’s thinking on this and other scientific subjects. Observing reality, formulating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, rejecting those that fail the tests and keeping the ones that pass is indoctrination. Arguing with him is a waste of time. He dismisses science and as “received wisdom” and favors naive speculation.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
DarronS - 15 June 2010 04:06 AM

That phrase neatly wraps up the problem with kkwan’s thinking on this and other scientific subjects. Observing reality, formulating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, rejecting those that fail the tests and keeping the ones that pass is indoctrination. Arguing with him is a waste of time. He dismisses science and as “received wisdom” and favors naive speculation.

I did not say that science and the scientific method is indoctrination. What science does not explain is, what is time. The operational definition of time used in science does not address the issue of the nature of time. So, scientists think that time, as defined for scientific or mathematical purposes, is time itself. This is due to the indoctrination in their education to only treat time in operational terms.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 14 June 2010 11:29 PM

C’mon kkwan, please stop doing as if you have some deep insights: your thoughts are going wild on a few concepts you picked up from science and philosophy. I’ve seen too many people who make wild theories, and trying to prove them with citations from everywhere.

Apparently, you have run out of ideas on how to refute my arguments on what is time.

cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 15 June 2010 06:43 AM

Apparently, you have run out of ideas on how to refute my arguments on what is time.

I used the irony tags to show that a sentence with exactly the opposite meaning can be formulated. You did not refute my idea, but you keep hammering on that only your point (point 1) counts:

1. Without motion or change we can have no idea of time.
2. Without time we can have no idea of motion and change.

You never refuted 2. but only state that 1. is true. My point is that both are true, none of them is more fundamental than the other. Time on one side, motion and change on the other side, are interrelated. You are looking for ‘basic building blocks’ of reality (see your thread about mereological nihilism). You did not refute my idea that every scientific and complete theory can only explain its concepts in other concepts of the same theory. If it is complete, then this is necessary the case: there is no basic building block.

Take a dictionary as example (English - English). It is complete if every word in the language is explained in it. But then automatically, there are no basic words.

For a scientific theory the difference is that it needs observables, i.e. parameters that can be matched directly to experimental or observational data.

GdB

endless loop: See loop, endless
loop, endless: See endless loop

[ Edited: 15 June 2010 07:20 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 15 June 2010 07:18 AM

I used the irony tags to show that a sentence with exactly the opposite meaning can be formulated. You did not refute my idea, but you keep hammering on that only your point (point 1) counts:

1. Without motion or change we can have no idea of time.
2. Without time we can have no idea of motion and change.

You never refuted 2. but only state that 1. is true. My point is that both are true, none of them is more fundamental than the other. Time on one side, motion and change on the other side, are interrelated. You are looking for ‘basic building blocks’ of reality (see your thread about mereological nihilism). You did not refute my idea that every scientific and complete theory can only explain its concepts in other concepts of the same theory. If it is complete, then this is necessary the case: there is no basic building block.

Take a dictionary as example (English - English). It is complete if every word in the language is explained in it. But then automatically, there are no basic words.

For a scientific theory the difference is that it needs observables, i.e. parameters that can be matched directly to experimental or observational data.

The onus is on you to show me premise 2 is true, not me. You cannot refute a premise with another premise. Also, which scientific theory can claim it is complete and there are no basic building blocks of reality? This is specious reasoning.

A Scientific theory is not equivalent to a dictionary. Your analogy is false.

From the wiki on false analogy

An example of a false analogy between energy and mass would be to assume that since E=mc2, then energy and mass must be identical. Energy and mass are not identical, energy can travel at the speed of light while mass cannot. Analogies should never be mistaken for establishing an equivalence. Not recognizing the misapplication of analogy can be as potentially disastrous as not recognizing a misapplication of logic.

Even in science, there are unobservables. See my post on unobservables in the philosophy forum. For instance, can scientists directly observe dark energy/matter, what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole or quantum particles?

[ Edited: 15 June 2010 08:13 PM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2010 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 15 June 2010 08:10 PM

The onus is on you to show me premise 2 is true, not me. You cannot refute a premise with another premise. Also, which scientific theory can claim it is complete and there are no basic building blocks of reality? This is specious reasoning.

OK. Let’s go back to the basics. You state that:

For the universe, that would be the BB, and the subsequent hyper inflation of space causing motion and forces which is time, and the emergence of matter/energy.

This was my main response to it:

You are looking for causes where it is conceptually impossible. We recognise causation by its regularity: every time we see some event, it is followed by another. That means time is inherently wired with causation. So trying to explain time as caused by something else, you are making a category error.

You stated:

Hence, the definition of time as “just the presence of motion and forces”.

And I reacted that one can turn it around was well:

Hence, the definition of motion and forces as being different in time

So I did not refute your definition, but I said it has a logical counterpart. I gave classical mechanics as an example. If we try to define mass and force, we would get something like:

A force is the cause for a mass getting accelerated.
Mass is the resistance to get accelerated by a force.

kkwan - 15 June 2010 08:10 PM

A Scientific theory is not equivalent to a dictionary. Your analogy is false.

You are correct. But we were talking definitions. And then the analogy is correct.

kkwan - 15 June 2010 08:10 PM

Even in science, there are unobservables. See my post on unobservables in the philosophy forum. For instance, can scientists directly observe dark energy/matter, what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole or quantum particles?

Of course there are unobservables. But the proof of a scientific theory is empirical (otherwise we are doing just logic, mathematics, or creating a fantasy world). Empirical means that, mathematically or logically, we can connect the unobservables to something we can observe.

So for short:

1. Your explaining of time as caused by the expansion of the universe is a category error (this is really meant as a refutation).
2. Your definition of time as ‘presence of motion and forces’ is circular. We need the concept of time to define ‘motion and forces’.

So what are we left with?

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2010 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 15 June 2010 11:08 PM

You are looking for causes where it is conceptually impossible. We recognise causation by its regularity: every time we see some event, it is followed by another. That means time is inherently wired with causation. So trying to explain time as caused by something else, you are making a category error.

The time-linked concept of causality is true of the middle world which we experience (in which time could be an illusion and also the time-linked concept of causes as well).

From this wiki on cuasality

Interpreting gravity causally is even more complicated in general relativity. Similarly, quantum mechanics is another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is particularly unclear.

So, your narrow definition of causes as time-linked does not mean that “time is caused by the expansion of space” is conceptually impossible and therefore, there is no category error in my proposal.

You are correct. But we were talking definitions. And then the analogy is correct.

You wrote:

You did not refute my idea that every scientific and complete theory can only explain its concepts in other concepts of the same theory. If it is complete, then this is necessary the case: there is no basic building block.

Those are concepts, not definitions.

Of course there are unobservables. But the proof of a scientific theory is empirical (otherwise we are doing just logic, mathematics, or creating a fantasy world). Empirical means that, mathematically or logically, we can connect the unobservables to something we can observe.

It is not so clearcut to “mathematically or logically” connect the observables to the unobservables to determine the truth of a scientific theory, without direct observations.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2010 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 16 June 2010 07:25 AM

So, your narrow definition of causes as time-linked does not mean that “time is caused by the expansion of space” is conceptually impossible and therefore, there is no category error in my proposal.

Yes, in QM the concept of causality is not quite unproblematic. But what has that to do with my statement that your use of causality is a category error? Of course your very loose concept of causality allows you to state such statements. Tell me according to which natural law expansion of space causes time?

kkwan - 16 June 2010 07:25 AM

You did not refute my idea that every scientific and complete theory can only explain its concepts in other concepts of the same theory. If it is complete, then this is necessary the case: there is no basic building block.

Those are concepts, not definitions.

So what is more basic, force or mass?
Or what is more basic: time or expansion of space?

Of course there are unobservables. But the proof of a scientific theory is empirical (otherwise we are doing just logic, mathematics, or creating a fantasy world). Empirical means that, mathematically or logically, we can connect the unobservables to something we can observe.

kkwan - 16 June 2010 07:25 AM

It is not so clearcut to “mathematically or logically” connect the observables to the unobservables to determine the truth of a scientific theory, without direct observations.

No idea what you are saying here.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2010 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 16 June 2010 07:59 AM

Yes, in QM the concept of causality is not quite unproblematic. But what has that to do with my statement that your use of causality is a category error? Of course your very loose concept of causality allows you to state such statements. Tell me according to which natural law expansion of space causes time?

Not only in QM, also with gravity in general relativity. What this means is that in the realms of the very small and the very large, causality is problematic. It cannot be assumed that causality is not problematic in the middle world.

From the wiki on retrocausality

Retrocausality (also called retro-causation, backward causation and similar terms) is any of several hypothetical phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.

As physics:

Established physics does not generally employ retrocausality. Nevertheless, a number of theories allowing particles or information to travel backward in time have been proposed by respected scientists or have received meaningful evaluation by the scientific community.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2010 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 16 June 2010 08:41 AM

Not only in QM, also with gravity in general relativity. What this means is that in the realms of the very small and the very large, causality is problematic. It cannot be assumed that causality is not problematic in the middle world.

I am not aware of any causality problems in GR. Maybe you enlighten me…

As far as I can see, from a causality perspective, there is no difference between a newtonian immediate action at a distance, or curvature of space. Remember my statement ‘natural laws are the way how causality works’. There is a huge difference between Newton and Einstein, but what is the same: the apple still falls to the ground. The way physics sees why this happens is greatly changed, but not that it happens.

kkwan - 16 June 2010 08:41 AM

From the wiki on retrocausality

What has retrocausality to do with it??? From your link:

This is not considered part of science, since the distinction between cause and effect in physics is not made at the most fundamental level.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07

I have read that time is a measure of change.

Somewhere at the beginning of these post the comment was made the what exists is now.

We arbitrarily divide up the movement of the planet and sun into units to use as a reference to what the state of now was to that particular unit of time or plan what the state of now will be at an up coming referenced unit of time.

So I don’t believe traveling into the past is possible. The past no longer exists. Just the constantly changing state of now.

When people travel at different relative speeds all that occurs is that as you move faster change happens at a slower frequency.

The slower and object the faster the frequency of change. The object ages faster because it experience change at a higher frequency.

However the now moves along at the same pace for both objects. Change just happens at a higher frequency for the slower moving object.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 06:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Here is a cosmologist’s take on time.

It turns out that one of the great mysteries of time — why it has a direction — is really a question about how the early universe was organized. There’s something called “the arrow of time” and it is simply the direction in which time passes from the past to the future. There are many ways in which the past and future are different: things become messier toward the future; we remember yesterday and not tomorrow; actions we take now affect the future but not the past. All of those reflect the arrow of time.

Now, the origin of the arrow of time is a mystery. Based on the laws of thermodynamics, we understand how it works. But we don’t understand why there is an arrow. It comes down to conditions near the Big Bang; the universe started out highly organized and has been becoming more random and chaotic ever since. What I said on Colbert was that the universe is like a mechanical toy that started all wound up, and has been winding down for the last 14 billion years.

This makes quite a bit more sense than any of the philosophical ramblings on time. Time is simply a device mankind invented to measure entropy.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 11
8