Time

[Quantum321]

All of those things are important to man. However, the universe does not care about any of that. In short they are not needed by the universe. Events transpire based on the law of physics...however long or fast etc it takes. Rate of change in position, velocity. volume etc are all mans inventions. They reside in mans consciousness because we need to order things in order to comprehend and express the event. Time does not exist outside of mans consciousness.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Quantum321

[Mordred]

So no science just your belief got it. Here I thought we were discussing physics not belief or philosophy

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred

[Quantum321]

This is science. I know its difficult to get your arms around this concept. But do you really think an abstract concept like time is really an integral part of the universe? Especially when there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man?

[StringJunky]

Especially when there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man?

You might as well include everything. Time is not special. Why are you singling it out amongst parameters?

Edited November 16, 2016 by StringJunky

[Quantum321]

This thread is about time. Time is special because its an abstract concept in a universe of basic laws of physics. If you don't agree with my proposal..well that's your prerogative.

[Strange]

At the BB particles did not move through time. They moved through space. Now for man to understand what happened we had to invoke the measure of time to allow us to understand the sequence of events as they transpired. Time did not exist and was not a requirement of the expansion of the BB.

 

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

BTW I don't consider myself special in any way.

You guys don't know me well enough to make any judgements.

 

No one is judging you. Just commenting on the (unsupported) claims you make.

 

"Present some evidence that this is the consensus of the scientific community, if you are going to label it thus." I don't want to label time. The scientific community is assuming time began with the BB.

 

Please provide some evidence that the scientific community assumes time began with the big bang, instead of just repeating your claim this it is true.

 

I am not. I am saying its a baseless assertion. It has never been proven.

 

 

Correct.

 

 

I call it an assumption, what do you call it?

 

I call it a straw man argument. And, because you have been told many times that it is not true, an increasingly dishonest one.

This is science. I know its difficult to get your arms around this concept.

 

 

Then you will need to provide evidence.

[Quantum321]

"

At the BB particles did not move through time. They moved through space. Now for man to understand what happened we had to invoke the measure of time to allow us to understand the sequence of events as they transpired. Time did not exist and was not a requirement of the expansion of the BB.

What evidence do you have for this?

 

"Then you will need to provide evidence."

 

Again I have a much evidence as science has for accepting time as an integral part of the universe. You are on a vendetta against me. I implore you to open your mind. Do you honestly think the abstract concept of time is an integral component of the universe?

 

What evidence do you have that time exists?

 

"Please provide some evidence that the scientific community assumes time began with the big bang, instead of just repeating your claim this it is true.

 

There is no evidence...just the opinion of Steven Hawking and other famous physicists.

 

I call it an assumption, what do you call it?

I call it a straw man argument. And, because you have been told many times that it is not true, an increasingly dishonest one.

 

Seriously what do you call the accepted premise that time exists?

[Strange]

"

 

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

"Then you will need to provide evidence."

 

Again I have a much evidence as science has for accepting time as an integral part of the universe.

 

 

OK. Let me try and understand the disconnect here. (Or help you understand the disconnect.)

 

Do you think that scientists just say, "Hey here is an idea: expanding universe!" And the other scientists go, "Hey cool. I like that. It must be true."

 

That is not how it works.

 

The way science works is by building mathematical models of how things work and then testing them against observation or experiment. If the model's predictions match the data, then it may be accepted as a good theory. A large part of the work of science is to try and use the dat to show their own model to be wrong (or to show other people's models are wrong).

 

You have not done this. You do not have any sort of model, you are just making claims about time and the big bang. You need to somehow show that your ideas are supported, in mathematical detail, by the available data.

 

The reason that time is generally (but not universally) accepted as part of the universe is that our current theories include time and they work.

 

If you can build a theory (mathematical model) without time and show that it works as well (or better) then people may listen to the idea.

 

 

You are on a vendetta against me.

 

No. I am trying to help you understand what you need for your idea to be considered.

 

 

 

Do you honestly think the abstract concept of time is an integral component of the universe?

 

It certainly seems to be, based on current theories. It has the same status as the abstract concept of distance.

 

I think I have already said, there are some hypotheses where time and space are emergent properties. But there is no evidence for that currently.

 

 

 

There is no evidence...just the opinion of Steven Hawking and other famous physicists.

 

So you are confusing the opinions of individuals for that status of science.

 

 

Seriously what do you call the accepted premise that time exists?

 

We were not talking about the existence of time (which is, currently, a question for philosophy not science) but about your claim that "time started with the big bang".

 

The big bang theory (i.e. science) does not say this.

 

Even if some scientists are of the opinion that time started at the big bang, that is not science. It is opinion.

[swansont]

"Your describing a change with a measurable rate. Yet saying this doesn't equal a measure of time." Lets use this analogy. I push a small car across the table. It goes from point A to point B. Where is time involved? Matter moves through space whether time exists or not. Now if man want to describe this event he must use time in some of his calculations to understand the event. The universe doesn't need time for matter to move.Only to describe it.

I push two cars across the table, with intersecting paths. Do they collide?

This is science. I know its difficult to get your arms around this concept. But do you really think an abstract concept like time is really an integral part of the universe? Especially when there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man?

Other than the mounds of evidence that everything we observe has a certain age, and the evidence of time-ordering, you mean. Aside from all that, there is no evidence.

 

Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[Strange]

I push two cars across the table, with intersecting paths. Do they collide?

 

 

Bazinga.

[Quantum321]

"It certainly seems to be, based on current theories. It has the same status as the abstract concept of distance."

 

Correct. Distance is not a consideration for the universe. Only man.

 

"So you are confusing the opinions of individuals for that status of science." Those individuals opinions are the current status of physics."

 

 

"Other than the mounds of evidence that everything we observe has a certain age, and the evidence of time-ordering, you mean. Aside from all that, there is no evidence."

Age is only important to man. What in the universe tracks the age of things? or the speed or the acceleration or any of the numerous things that interests man?

The universe is actually very simple. It responds to the laws of physics and that is irrespective of time which is an abstract concept. Do you honestly think an abstract concept is an integral part of the universe?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Quantum321

[Strange]

"It certainly seems to be, based on current theories. It has the same status as the abstract concept of distance."

 

Correct. Distance is not a consideration for the universe. Only man.

 

 

So if it weren't for the presence of man, everything would be in the same place at the same time? In which case, how did man evolve to make time and distance magically appear?

 

 

 

Those individuals opinions are the current status of physics.

 

Nonsense. They are opinions. Science is not based on opinions. If you think it is, that might explain why you (and others with their personal theories) think that your opinions are worth something.

 

 

 

What in the universe tracks the age of things? or the speed or the acceleration or any of the numerous things that interests man?

 

The expanding and cooling universe can only happen if there is time (and distance).

 

 

 

Do you honestly think an abstract concept is an integral part of the universe?

 

It certainly seems to be. You have offered no evidence to the contrary, just your personal belief.

[Quantum321]

That information is only important to man. The universe isn't concerned with anything other than the basic laws of physic.

[Strange]

I thought you were claiming that time didn't exist. Now you are just saying it is only of interest to us. I won't argue with that (because it has nothing to do with science).

[Quantum321]

"I thought you were claiming that time didn't exist. Now you are just saying it is only of interest to us. I won't argue with that (because it has nothing to do with science)."

Time only exists in the consciousness of man. We need it to order events in our lives. Time does not exist outside the consciousness of man.

[Strange]

Time only exists in the consciousness of man. We need it to order events in our lives. Time does not exist outside the consciousness of man.

 

 

You are not making much (or any) sense. Nor are you answering the question.

 

Try to answer the following question without just repeating your beliefs:

 

In your view, if it weren't for the presence of human consciousness, there was no time. In which case, how did humans evolve to make time appear? (Evolution requires time, by the way.)

Edited November 16, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

 

"Other than the mounds of evidence that everything we observe has a certain age, and the evidence of time-ordering, you mean. Aside from all that, there is no evidence."

Age is only important to man. What in the universe tracks the age of things? or the speed or the acceleration or any of the numerous things that interests man?

The universe is actually very simple. It responds to the laws of physics and that is irrespective of time which is an abstract concept. Do you honestly think an abstract concept is an integral part of the universe?

 

 

That's not what your claim implied, though. You said "there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man". So time-ordering of e.g. fossils should not have happened when man wan't around. How would that work, exactly? Once man came up with the concept of time, did sediments suddenly become ordered? How did radioactive decay work, before humans were on the scene? Earth revolving and rotating?

 

Yes, I think time, as with many abstract concepts, is an integral part of the universe. Gravity is a pretty abstract concept. Pretty fundamental to the universe. Same with the various nuclear interactions.

[Quantum321]

"

In your view, if it weren't for the presence of human consciousness, there was no time. In which case, how did humans evolve to make time appear? (Evolution requires time, by the way.)"

 

Humans evolved because of the evolution. Atoms and neurons arranged themselves bases on environment and other factors. What has that got to do with time? You must not think the abstract notion of time is in any way involved in the movement of mass in the universe. It is only man invention.

 

"

That's not what your claim implied, though. You said "there is no proof that time even exists outside the consciousness of man". So time-ordering of e.g. fossils should not have happened when man wan't around. How would that work, exactly? Once man came up with the concept of time, did sediments suddenly become ordered? How did radioactive decay work, before humans were on the scene? Earth revolving and rotating?"

 

Fossils are the remains of life. Its and ordered event. Tissue decays based on the laws of physics, nothing more. Man comes along and want to order those events. The universe doesn't need to order anything. Everything unfolds based on the laws of physics nothing more.

[zapatos]

Fossils are the remains of life. Its and ordered event. Tissue decays based on the laws of physics, nothing more. Man comes along and want to order those events. The universe doesn't need to order anything. Everything unfolds based on the laws of physics nothing more.

If I may jump into your discussion...

 

When you say it is an ordered event, by what measure is it ordered?

I know you don't mean it is ordered by height or weight. The only measure I can think of by which it might be ordered is "time".

[Strange]

Humans evolved because of the evolution. Atoms and neurons arranged themselves bases on environment and other factors. What has that got to do with time?

 

So you are saying that the evolution of the entire universe and then humans happened in zero time?

 

Fossils are the remains of life. Its and ordered event.

Ordered events imply time.

When you say it is an ordered event, by what measure is it ordered?

I know you don't mean it is ordered by height or weight. The only measure I can think of by which it might be ordered is "time".

I have a vague hope that the next post will be, "Doh. Of course. How could I have been so silly. Of course time exists."

[Quantum321]

Ordered events apply only to mans understanding of the events of the universe. We need them in order to comprehend and express those events for our own needs. The universe doesn't need them. Everything in the universe unfolds based on physics. Time is a scale man invented to understand those events.

Time is an abstract concept man invented for his own purposes.

[zapatos]

Ordered events apply only to mans understanding of the events of the universe. We need them in order to comprehend and express those events for our own needs. The universe doesn't need them. Everything in the universe unfolds based on physics. Time is a scale man invented to understand those events.

Time is an abstract concept man invented for his own purposes.

So your answer is that it is ordered by time?

[Strange]

Ordered events apply only to mans understanding of the events of the universe.

 

 

That makes no sense. The events (cooling of the universe, formation of stars and planets, emergence of life, formation of fossils, evolution of humans) were ordered in time before we were there to understand them.

 

As all you can do is repeat the same thing, with no logical argument or evidence, I think we can dismiss it is nonsense.

 

 

 

Everything in the universe unfolds based on physics.

 

Unfolding implies that it took time.

 

Physics includes time.

 

 

Time is an abstract concept man invented for his own purposes.

 

The evidence shows this belief to be wrong.

[Mordred]

I suppose the next argument will be man invented the evidence. I haven't seen a logical argument yet. So we may as well include that illogical argument.

 

I see we are still on the man invented time. Which isn't science but philosophy.

 

How about this Physics needs to measure things.

 

So show how you can measure rate of change without time?

 

If you can show that as being possible you might actually have something.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred

[geordief]

Could we say that "time" is a man made concept that attempts to describe a natural process ?

 

That concept does indeed depend on an intelligent observer whereas the (undefined) natural processes predate (ironically?) or exist independently of this concept.