thief

Thief here... I didn't see the word 'impossible' used in the Webster's, when noting the difference between random, and predictable. What reference are you using?

Thief here... So...if the word 'unpredictable' cannot be used to describe events difficult to foretell.... And...if 'random' cannot be used to describe events difficult to foretell... Then...you would say ALL events are predictable?

Thief here... So your stance would be that.... Time does exist beyond the chalkboard. As if it be substance or force? Time in a bottle?

Thief here... I stepped away from this discussion because it became an argument. And not well done either. Half of the participants want to label movement, and the other half are trying to rip the label off. Let's try something simple. See yourself meditating while sitting on a sphere. Are you moving? can't say...no reference. Picture a second sphere in front of you....are you moving? Can't say...both spheres could be moving in parallel lines...or the sphere you're sitting on... could be rotating and the sphere in front of you could be orbiting...or no movement at all. Picture a third sphere at a distance. Distance unknown. No telescopes. No measuring device. No units. The third sphere appears to be moving. How would you know? you have eyes. Time is a ratio. Measuring devices, and numbers had to be invented first, so that this ratio could become 'something'. Can movement happen without the equation? yes. That some of you insist on numbers...doesn't mean the other guy got it wrong. Most things will continue onward...whether we clock them or not.

Thief here...a critique on the meaning I suppose is fair enough. So...I looked in Webster's and found that random events do not have patterns! So...your rebuttal to my use of the word 'random' is correct. Then, I look for the word unpredictable. It refers to things that cannot be foretold. In light of this...the initial post could be rephrased. I believe the asking was about events that cannot be foretold. "Do unpredictable events exist?" Then I reconsider the demo I described earlier. I cannot predict where the first three points will be. I cannot predict where the fourth (starting point) will be. The roll of the cube, the choice of corner, the pending measure to be made.

Thief here... I wasn't thinking miracles, when I wrote my last post. Random events are essential to everything. Without random events many things will cease. Evolution. Creative thinking. Pleasant surprises. If all things were predictable....you would be so bored! It is the random give and take...the ebb and flow...that makes this world possible. Using numbers to predict an outcome is all fine and good. Such skill is useful when trying to manipulate your surroundings. But to consider that such effort will ever become complete unto itself? I think not.

Thief here... I think you've got it backwards. We seem to agree that random events do exist. But the events don't need numbers or explanation. The dandelions, the ocean waves, the rain and wind, the flight of the insect... the long list of such things....were all doing just fine...long before numbers were invented by Man to help him reason about such things. That we try to make our world more controlled is natural. Man was made to subdue all things. Equations help him do so to some things. It is ironic that same goal, will elude us. No matter how many equations you have.

Thief here....please see post seven...this thread. Random events repeat, and many people are using numbers hoping to get a better handle on this item. It's the repetition that generates the patterns. In regards of post seven....you could take the roll of the dice....and the pocket scale for the measure....replace them with your own choice of corner..at random...and replace the measure with a drafting divider. The demo will take longer....but the results will be the same. Triangles will appear without numbers.

Thief here... Defend your equations as you care to. The topic is...does randomness exist? Yes. And that's it!

Thief here.... That a mathematical technique has been developed does not indicate it's ability to predict an exact result. Can your equations plot the path of dandelion in flight? Can you be sure the landing location? This is what random events are about. Numbers don't apply to everything.

Thief here... Before we start doing a lot of numbers.... Let me point out that equations lean toward exact results and therefore exact predictions. Random events don't have that quality. Randomness deals in probabilities. If you can..... equations that demonstrate probability might work. But, equations having exacting quantities and results..... 'probably' won't.

Thief here...I've been busy, Throng....not sure of your last post. Just a quick look and run... Some artists, (like myself) can make a drawing look quite good...like a photo. But for all the effort it takes...the drawing is considered 2d. Looking directly over the edge...you cannot be sure what you see. Above the plane...the image appears to take shape....be not yet 3d. Drawings are optical illusions. Translate the drawing into a carved object....3d. You can have any number of points in a plane...show any shape...but without a point above or below the plane....it's all flat....2d....width and length... no height.

Thief here...as I suspected. It's a linguistic problem. I looked up real in the Webster's. It is correct to say time is 'real'. Mathematicians do so.... in that quantities on the chalk board, are considered (mathematically) real. Laymen use the word 'real' in reference to those things tangible. Two separate uses.

Thief here... I think you're overlooking something. Repeated action produces predictable results. It's not the science of numbers that so many people favor. But because the results repeat...then some are willing to say.. Chaos is science.

Thief here... It's been about a year since I saw the demo...please forgive the lack of reference. The demo was simple. Choose three points on large paper....and a forth point inside the triangle. Label the corners one thru six. Grab some dice...throw one cube away....roll the remaining cube. From the fourth point, measure halfway to the corner chosen by the cube. Make a point there. Roll again. Measure halfway to that corner from the second point. Continue. As you do so, a pattern will form. Congruent triangles. Overlapping, and various size, but all having the same proportions as the original boundary. The science program was announcing the new science of Chaos. Numbers can be difficult to work in this new study. Try calculating the flight of a dandelion seed. But random events can repeat, and the repetition is what counts...even though the numbers don't work well.

Thief here... I reviewed some articles on entropy. Entropy appears to be another calculation technique.... similar to time. Yes of course, the small anomalies of our universe must be accounted for. That's why the second law of thermodynamics was written.... to account for the leftovers from the first law. Time and entropy are calculations. If time were of substance, could you not examine the substance and be sure the quantity of time within it? If distance must be tweaked to make the equation work... what are we doing? I would like this moment to report of a hyper-cold experiment,I saw on tv. Apparently some one is very close to absolute zero... and they have made some observations not expected. I cannot confirm this....the speed of light can be slowed...a lot! As it passes through as near zero material, I assume a frozen gas, the light wave can be slowed to that of a bicycle. If the constants we use for calculation, are not so constant...then what can we say with certainty? What would dear Albert say... energy equals the velocity of a bicycle,squared?

Thief here... So the previous two posts lend more confusion. First to say time has no substance or force. Then location of observation changes the time value. I say... If time is neither force nor substance, then it has no effect, and anything moving away from me at the speed of light, is also arriving at the speed of light at point 'B'.

Thief here... If aging is repressed by high velocity then 'time' has a physical effect. So you would contend that time is a substance or a force?

Thief here... Allow me to ask this question. I must do so in this way. I see myself as an observer...watching an object move from point A to B. The distance let's say is one thousand light years. I need to live 1000years to make the observation. At no 'time' does the distance shrink. At no 'time' does the clock change it's ticking. Does the object age?

Thief here... Thank you Martin for the pdf's. Good stuff! Especially to see poetry in a science paper. To be fair to this thread...I've been looking for cause to recant my previous posts. Found none. References at hand describe time as a measure. I can see why Barbour and Rovelli are attempting to use equations without time as a quantity. I for one never thought of time as anything but a measure. Never once a substance or a force. After all, a measure is supposed to be consistent in concept. If it is needful to tweak the quantity of time to balance the equation.... What are we doing?!!!! The word quantity to a layman brings thought of weight or charge. To a mathematician it is a component of his equation. I think this is where post#1 (is time real?)took it's asking.

Thief here...thank for this opportunity. The first post did seem to be a simple and straight forward question. I see no cause to treat the concept of time as anything but that. It has no influence, no effect. It has no substance...it has no push or pull. It is part of a number system that allows us to gage and compare movement. I wasn't trying to be poetic, or philosophical. Perhaps the discussion we are now having is the linguistic effect of repeatedly using a concept in such a manner, that we train ourselves to think of it as corporeal. It may very well assist a scientist, that he discern clearly that some items are of thought, not having embodiment. That we are able to hold an idea within our thoughts, manipulate that idea to great length, and achieve predictable results..... does not render that item as tangible. Time in a bottle?

Thief here... So I looked it up in the Webster's... There is a long list of definitions, none of which give rise that 'time' is anything but a means of measurement. As measure...it is purely a cognitive effort. It is not a force or energy...nor is it a substance having mass. As a measure it is used to calculate, compute, or compare movement. It is never the cause or effect of any event of movement. As a measure it does not influence. It is only a cognitive device, created by man to serve man.

Thief here... That we have cognition does not bring such to touch.

Thief here... Before this thread dies.... I saw the note early on in this thread. I was disappointed to see it was all but ignored. Time does not exist. It is not a force...such as gravity. It is a form of measurement....a cognitive construct....created in the mind of man...a cognitive tool...to serve man. Numbers go the same way. Numbers are cognitive tools...which we use to examine our 'realities'. Take away the numbers....take away the clocks....nothing stops.

Thief here... You have jumped to a complex collection of ideas trying to answer the simple question. Time does not exist. It is a form of measurement. Constructed in the mind of man. It is a cognitive tool made by man, to serve man. It is not a force...such as gravity. It is not velocity...just part of the calculation. And animals are coordinated with what appears to be a sense of time. You have what it takes to tell the difference. You don't confuse your ability to juggle with waking up in the morning. Two different responses to two different stimuli.