owl

An event occurring now IS the outcome, having already been caused by events leading up to the present. Future events can not effect an occurrence that is already happening now, already caused as above. It's not like "time" can be "fast forwarded" into the future or "rewound" back into the past. Btw, on another subject, it is very strange to be still taking fire in a thread "the present time" on things like my definitions (not physics) in which I am not allowed to reply unless it's physics related. Swansont said: Like what a psychologist is (granted, blame md) or what time is when referred to as an entity in relativity, as in "block time" or relativity's "block universe" in which everything that has existed or will exist is somehow existing now? I think that when I return from my weekend I will start a thread on the philosophy of science (in the Philosophy section, of course) with a focus on understanding relativity's basic *assumptions* about what time, space, and spacetime actually ARE in the real world. Maybe there I will be allowed to "contradict relativity" as per it's "block universe" assumptions about time, etc. I think I will call the thread, "Is Philosophy Relevant to Science?"

It can't. Sometimes (often times) theory has very little to do with reality. In reality a cat is either dead or alive. Observation has nothing to do with it.

Mystery111, What part of: ... do you not understand? Do you understand what reification means? To reify time or the present means to make something, an entity, of it. You say: Past tense means over and done, not just a "notion." There is no "it" (reification of 'past tense') to "have a present." Whatever has already happened IS not Now happening, not still present. You go on:... Did you read my reply in Ontology of Time to Rocket's claim (in 'the present time' thread) that the universal Now is "rubbish?" Relativity addresses local phenomena. The ontology of time (and cosmology in general), including the ongoing present is not so limited, i.e., to to local frame dependent observation. We can consider 'the whole' in cosmology and ontology without automatically invoking relativity's dictum that everything is relative (and depends on frames of reference.) (We can't do that in the Physics section, but we can here.) Your last sentence above makes no sense. Reality Is ongoing whether we are considering it in part (from different frames of reference) or as a whole. Consider a cosmos with no observers. Does it change drastically without frames of reference describing different "realities" and different "nows*?" (*As if 'the present' were comprised of many "presents"... as reified entities.) No. Your paragraph applies only to the limited scope of relativity's local frame dependent descriptions of 'reality.' There is no need for me to go through the rest of your post point by point. The above is the essence of my criticism. You finish with: It's relative if you restrict the discussion to relativity's frame of reference focus. Please consider for a moment that time is 'that which elapses as all things move everywhere' (as I do) and that the present Is (always) the ongoing now, transcending the 'passage of time' without "frames" around it (as I do.) Thanks.

You didn't. No problem. It is good to raise yet again the questions, "can the past be changed (or even 'visited')?"... and "can the future be visited?" I would really like to hear from those who say "yes" to either or both vis-a-vis my last post.

Mystery111, I think you are confused at a very basic level about "tense" as in "was, IS, and will be." This is abundantly clear in your statement (my bold): The past has happened. The future will happen.The present is happening. Yet you say: Yes. "Exists" IS present tense. But then you go into such apparent nonsense as, ... as if Now were some 'thing' with interchangeable parts. Likewise with: The ongoing NOW is not a series of "present moments" and it is not a location/ velocity specific medium, each with a "local now" depending on frame of reference, as relativity of simultaneity would have it. You say: This reifies "the present moment" as if "it" is not only a 'thing', but as if there were a bunch of 'them'... maybe an infinite number of "presents," with one for each locus or frame of reference at whatever relative velocity. Relativity is a theory about local dynamics, but that does not mean that cosmology or time ontology must be so limited. As I said, concluding my last post in the Ontology of Time thread:

Not off topic, but the wave vs particle issue (when it looks like what in the experiment) does not in fact show that "the past can be changed." Think about it in more everyday terms. Can an egg be unscrambled... or un-laid? No. As to "the future", can an egg 'jump into the future' past the incubation period and become the future chicken it will be after the egg hatches? No. Time travel, into either the past or the future is total nonsense.

DrRocket, who calls the "universal present" "rubbish," has just posted the following in the "present time" thread (Physics), in which I am not allowed to post. He said: I agree that relativity's "spacetime" concept limits itself to descriptions of local, not universal phenomena. This, however, does not constrain/limit either cosmology or the ontology of time (including presentism) to local phenomena. Here is an example from an 'old' Scientific American article (my bold): Scientific American, "Is Space Finite?" [Jean-Pierre Luminet, Glenn D. Starkman, & Jeffrey R. Weeks, April 1999, pp. 90-97: Likewise for "the present." In the big picture (cosmology and ontology of time), Relativity's limited scope notwithstanding, the present is not limited to reality as observed from local frames of reference.

Mystery111, As per your suggestion in the "present time" thread (Physics section), I bring my questions to you here, as follows: From my post 89, “the present time" thread: Quoting Mystery111, post 71: This sums up the subject very succinctly. (I am bolding the present tense.) But later, in post 75, you said: How can the past (no longer present) “have a now that is happening?” As per the “block universe” theory based on eternalism, in which the past and future are all somehow still present? (see below.) Quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: from my post 317 in Ontology of Time; I asked, “So in what sense if not total nonsense is the above statement true... existing right now but not currently present?” What do you think? In the same post, I quoted Wikipedia on eternalism: I commented: Count me among the opposition. The above denies presentism, that the future is not yet here and real and that the past is not still here and real. You seem to agree. Right? *Ps: I agree that the phrase, "the flow of time" is misleading in that it reifies time as an entity, like a river. But I have no problem with the phrase, "the passage of time" as the simple concept of elapsed time as things move, including clocks 'ticking.'

I really, truly don't get it. This thread topic is on what "the present time" means, and that is what people have been discussing, including me. I wonder how "presentism" is not relevant? (not "my" theory but for clarity on its lack of local boundaries.) Does "Stick to your own thread" mean that I am not now allowed to participate in threads other than my own? Anyway... in confused compliance, this IS my last post in this thread.

I have only read the opening post so far. There he said: I agree that motion of objects is the only basis for the concept of time. As any object moves from point A to point B, we say that "time elapses.” I agree that this does not make it an entity, some medium to be "traveled through.” I presume* that "...moving forward along the temporal dimension...” simply means that “the future”(not yet present) constantly turns into the present, not some kind of travel forward through a medium, time. * He goes on to say...”then how can we expect to time travel to a past that only exists as a memory or to a future that will exist** as a memory?” (**...but that does not yet exist)

Mystery111, post 71 This sums up the subject very succinctly. (I am bolding the present tense.) But later, in post 75, he says: How can the past (no longer present) “have a now that is happening?” As per the “block universe” theory based on eternalism, in which the past and future are all somehow still present? (I am hoping this post, directly on topic, in context, and specific to Mystery111’s comments, does not get me in trouble.)

Note: I am not allowed to post on presentism in the "present time" thread or even note there that I am posting here on the same subject. Very heavy handed "moderation!" Wikipedia on Presentism: I hope that his religion does not disqualify him here from having an intelligent perspective on time. The thing is that it IS always the present, ongoing, transcending "elapsed time" between one instant and another. It seems that many in the "present time" thread can not comprehend an ongoing present without the "duration" of time elapsing. It's like writing in water with your finger. It happens in the present, without anticipation or leaving a record. Same here regarding his religion. I agree without being religious. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: So in what sense if not total nonsense is the above statement true... existing right now but not currently present? Wikipedia:(my bold) Count me among the opposition. The above denies presentism, that the future is not yet here and real and that the past is not still here and real. BTW, my assertion that the present is universal is simply that “now” does not depend on location; not limited by any spatial boundaries... that time is not an entity interwoven with space. "It" (no entity implied, as in "It is raining") IS now here, there, and everywhere, not depending on observational frames of reference.

Speculations section: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54529-ontology-of-time/page__pid__636795__st__300#entry636795

See my reply in the Ontology of Time thread.

JustinW, post 293: Sorry for the delay. A bit late but agreed. All activity happens (present tense of the verb 'to happen') in the present. (Seems blatantly obvious, but...) When what is now “ in the future” becomes the present, it isn’t the future anymore, and the present can not be somehow transported into a “when” that has yet to become present. (Time is not "something" that can be 'traveled through.') PeterJ, from ‘The present time’ thread (in which I am not allowed to discuss time): Exactly. No duration but ongoing, as the concept of “the future” passes into the already over-and-done past. Daedalus, post 302: Yes. No clocking required. As everything moves/changes, we say that time elapses... whether clocks measure it or not. This is the essence of the ontology of time.

Thanks for the info. I don't feel like lamenting anything, just avoiding such nasty personal attacks and keeping it a civil discussion of science, which does, of course, allow disagreements.

Thank you. Iggy has been engaging in personal attacks on me since early in my participation here. Is there a way to block him from my threads? (Sorry if this is in the rules and I missed it.) Here is a further example of such harassment: I have never brought my spiritual interests to this forum, yet he attempts to discredit me for my interests outside science. (I have many interests outside science.) Further, he claims expertise in what I have and have not studied extensively.* I have in fact studied 'spacetime' extensively for many years. My disagreement with relativity's reification of space, time, and spacetime is just that, disagreement, not lack of information. I have often cited other authors and the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime, also in disagreement with the mainstream on 'spacetime.' I would really like to keep this civil and focused on the scientific arguments rather than these continuing personal attacks. Ps; about tautologies and definitions, some repeated from previous quotes on tautology but bolded for emphasis: The Free dictionary on tautology: Wikipedia: ("Time is that...") Dictionary.com: definitions plural of def·i·ni·tion (Noun) Meriam Webster: "Time is that which clocks measure" does not fulfill the bolded requirements for a meaningful definition and does fulfill the bolded tautology references for how it is a meaningless "definition." Enough already. This thread is about what time IS. If you don't care, don't participate.

Umm... This thread is "The present time" and my last post was on presentism. ??? Is it forbidden in a science discussion to examine fundamental assumptions about the nature of time, like "What is it?" Anyway, in an attempt to avoid being banned I will hereafter keep all my comments about time in my Ontology of time thread.

Pantheory, (I agree 100% with your paragraph above this statement): “Time: is an interval of change that involves relative motion.” How would this statement be different if “relative” were omitted? Universally true, I say. Not limited to how movement is observed. The motion of all objects does not depend on how, from where/when, from what frame of reference that motion is observed. Like above, movement of anything from A to B has its own elapsed time (not requiring measurement), its event duration, regardless of the frame of reference from which it is observed. What say you to this? Edit: Just read Iggy's last post. Off the top, can anyone here imagine what he means by, "Two clocks which share a location but have different velocities..."? I knew he was confused,but... Doesn't to "share a location" mean that the clocks are at rest relative to each other... at the same place... impossible with "different velocities'? More later. No 'time.'

*For instance, the *assumption* that time exists as an entity, and "that" is what clocks measure. “Time is that”... does not address or define what time is, which was my point.** Dictionary.com on tautology: World English Dictionary: No, Iggy. All definitions are NOT tautologies. Some actually define what the subject (time in this case) IS! Iggy: Do you mean "proper" as in the Wiki and dictionary definitions of tautology above? Readers: see my point** above. More personal derision does not make me wrong, i.e., your declaration that am full of nonsense doesn't make it so. So quit with the smear tactics and be specific in your criticism, hopefully with more cogent arguments than claiming that all definitions are tautologies. Note to readers: I have in fact used the "aurameter" example before, and it is perfectly relevant as used again above. It's like the old Smothers Brothers revision of the "Streets of Laredo" song... "If you get an outfit you can be a cowboy too." It would end like this, If you get a (whatever) meter you can measure (whatever) too. It will not, however, make whatever into a real, actual entity. Edit: I was wrong when declared that I would not reply to any more of your posts. This post is proof of that... easily corrected, however...

After all your venomous personal attacks, I am way beyond caring whether you take me seriously. You didn't even get the very clear sense in which I just agreed that "clocks in orbit will slow down relative to earthbound clocks." Here it is again: ... That's clocks with higher velocities in orbit,just to be clear. You seem to have a serious need to make me wrong, even where I agree with relativity (if not the language of "time dilation" reifying time.) Again: You: I have often disagreed with mainstream science, particularly about how it uses the concepts of time and space with only disdain for the ontology of what they are in the "real world", off the graph or conceptual coordinate system, so to speak. So If you claim that I am in error, explain how so. Repeating as if it is a given that 'time dilates' does not make me wrong. Neither does repeating that no one knows the real, true shape of Earth, because relativity dictates that there are no preferred frames of reference, and it might look like an extremely oblate spheroid from an extreme FOR. We all beat that one to death, but the above argument didn't make me wrong or the Earth just as likely very flattened as nearly spherical. So if you really need to make me wrong, be specific.

I am suggesting that since higher speed clocks in orbit slow down in rate of "ticking" (internal dynamic of their physical process) compared to surface clocks, the internal physical dynamic of human aging also probably slows down, so they would "age' more slowly than the rest of us on Earth. The point is that elapsed time is simply the concept of event duration of any physical process being measured, not an entity of any kind. On the other hand, in the natural world/cosmos objects are separated by distances, which do not vary with how they are measured. So we devise measuring rods like the meter and can then say how many of them, end to end, are contained in, say Earth's polar diameter or the average* distance between Sun and Earth *(taking into account the variation due to its elliptical orbit.) Frame of reference as determining "reality" (see "realism") is over-rated by relativity in all of the above. I am not disputing the invariance of c. I said: Light has velocity. "Time" does not. Get the difference? And you can use the word "spacetime" all you want, but that does not make "it" an entity either, even though it is standard vocabulary for relativity. I'll leave that up to you. Please be specific about how I have made errors. For instance, calling "strawman" does not defeat an argument. The debate would require an explanation as to how the argument is specious, i.e., how exactly it is a fallacious, 'strawman' argument. (Perhaps a new thread on "Owl's Errors" as a new topic.)

See moderator's note, post 73 above. Accordingly, and inviting further discussion, I have moved my post 70 above to my Ontology of Time thread (also in Speculations, though it belongs in Philosophy.)

This post is transcribed from the “Are string theorists already trying to hijack the OPERA neutrino experiment?” thread in Speculations. Seems everyone else on that thread is discussing the question, “what is time?” but I am not allowed. See moderator’s note, post 73 today in that thread. Since this has become another 'what is time?' thread, I would again like to raise the ontological question which the physics standard definition, "Time is that which clocks measure..." does not answer. By the same principle we could validate the existence of "the human aura" as "that which 'aura-meters' measure," but that is just another tautology which does not in fact validate the "human aura." I think that JustinW nailed it in on 28 October 2011 - 09:47 AM, (post 29): My bold! I think so. Time is the concept that motion (everything moves) 'takes time', not that it creates something called time or, as above "detects" time. The faster one thing moves relative to another thing, the more its rate of internal system dynamics slows down relative to the slower moving system. This echos, I think, what michel123456 said: ... except that there is no standard time speed, just faster and slower physical processes relative to each other, depending (for the relativity effect) on relative velocity of each system, gravitational field of each physical system, etc. To revisit 'another time, another thread, another thought experiment'... It takes Earth 'a year' to orbit the Sun. But if a rocket blasted off from Earth and went near lightspeed out for an Earth year and back for another Earth year, the rocket's clock/calendar might show that only one 'speeding rocket year' had elapsed, because its clock had slowed down with high velocity relative to Earth. The voyagers would have, I presume, only aged a year as well, while folks on Earth would have aged two Earth years. This is, I think, consistent with relativity without making "time itself" into "something" besides different relative rates of physical motion for Earth and its inhabitants vs a speeding rocket and its passengers.

Presentism is not 'my theory' or 'my opinion.' I think that you don't appreciate the significance of 'the philosophy of science'* as a tool with which to examine the assumptions of any given scientific theory. *("...not just philosophy.") On a lighter note (very little humor), I "predict" that (excuse the 'shouting') presentism will prevail: "NOW IS THE ONGOING PRESENT EVERYWHERE"... will eventually debunk the relativity dictum ('dogma' may be too strong...) that reality everywhere depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed... that "everything is relative" (including simultaneity) and that "there is no preferred frame of reference." Again, imagine that no intelligent life or observers ever evolved. The cosmos would remain as it is, objectively, intrinsically, and independent of from which frames of reference it is observed.