Time.

[[Tycho?]]

Never

 

Ever

 

EVER

 

Quote Hawking as authority.

 

Thats a pretty foolish statement. He is a highly respected physicist. Other physicists certainly seem to listen to what he says. Cambridge doesn't make you the Lucasian Professor of mathematics if you dont have some sort of authority.

[Sayonara]

He may be highly respected but that doesn't make him ineffable.

 

Hawking took some flak for that.

[zeropoint]

What is time? Some people think of time as a human concept, but to me it seems as if time, to some extent, is woven into the fabric of space. If it weren't, how would space warp time? Someone on the boards(don't remember who) said that time is the direction in which entropy increases. I can't imagine a world without time. If someone/something were to live outside time, what would it be like? Would there still be cause and effect? When I look at it from that perspective, it seems as is time exists only in our heads. :shrug:

 

Last time I looked time was movement.

 

The human brain is a serial computer. It does not compute in parallel no matter how much you may think you are "multi-tasking." If you are doing two or more things "at once," you are not actually doing things at the same time but the brain is switching back and forth in nanoseconds to perform the tasks serially, although it appears to be accomplishing these things at the same time.

 

Because of this inability of the brain to compute serially, it can conceive of things, happenings, events, motion only in sequence. This sequence thinking is what creates the illusion of time.

 

Time is motion.

 

zeropoint

[Saryctos]

There is nothing more to time than what currently IS. Time is not the cause of anything, and nothing can cause time to change. The past only exists in any form of memory. Even calling that "the past" is a stretch, as to maintain a memory often requires a continual source to keep it in its current state. The function of time is nothing more than an intuitive tool for the accurate estimation of future events. On that note, the future doesn't even truely exist, as it is just a concept of events that can/will happen. This makes the question of time "travel" useless

 

Time is by all means a vary useful tool in mathematics and physics, but it seems that the scope of the reality of the situation is being overthrown by the numbers game.

[Sayonara]

On that note, the future doesn't even truely exist, as it is just a concept of events that can/will happen.

Insofar as we are aware of its true nature, which is unlikely.

[zeropoint]

There is nothing more to time than what currently IS. Time is not the cause of anything' date=' and nothing can cause time to change. The past only exists in any form of memory. Even calling that "the past" is a stretch, as to maintain a memory often requires a continual source to keep it in its current state. The function of time is nothing more than an intuitive tool for the accurate estimation of future events. On that note, the future doesn't even truely exist, as it is just a concept of events that can/will happen. This makes the question of time "travel" useless

 

Time is by all means a vary useful tool in mathematics and physics, but it seems that the scope of the reality of the situation is being overthrown by the numbers game.[/quote']

 

Yes...."...what CURRENTLY is" The eternal NOW means that all events occur concurrently. It is the brain that must see them in sequence. They are, in fact, all happening "at once."

 

Since the brain processess serially, it cannot see all this at once, so it processes "time" as a sequence of events.

 

zeropoint

[Saryctos]

That statement specificly was accounting for that the future isn't a specified thing, only a conceptual analisys* of the outcome dictated by the laws of physics. I was trying to seperate the events of the present as being the only events that have, and will occur.

[MindOfChaos]

I agree that time can be distinguished between cause and affect or entropy but wouldn't entropy decrease when travelling near to c?

 

Lets just imagine that person T wants to measure the affect of entropy in his spaceshipe when travelling near to the speed of light' date=' ie 99.9999999 .

When his spaceship travels at 99% the speed of light, mr T begins to prepare his two mixtures of gas, one green and one red, mr T states that both the gases would mix together when on earth. He starts his experiment and puts both boxes containing the gases beside one another and then seperates them, what would happen? Would it happen at a normal rate? Would the gases mix when travelling at c? The constancy of light and mass/energy relationship would forbid mr T from moving let alone accelerate to near the speed of c, so I have based this thought experiment as a theoretical one.

 

The question that needs to be brought to mind is that if time dilates and entropy halts in a spaceship at that speed and yet time and entropy exists naturally on earth at that exact moment then wouldnt' time exist without entropy?

 

I will welcome any harsh comments on this but please, I have left my thought experiment as a personal theoretical one.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't the gases appear to mix at the same rate as normal? As both you the ship and the gases are traveling at 99% the speed of light so both you the gases and your clocks to measure the ammount of time the gases take to mix would all be effected in the same manner.

 

 

Also before I was not talking about direct time travel. I probably didn't explain my self very well. I was talking about the only way to see past events in real life would be if you were to have a complete record of the past and know every single place of every atom for the entire planet and solar system and be able to replicate that point of time. As to my understanding time is just the state matter is in and the rate in which it changes.

[zeropoint]

That statement specificly was accounting for that the future isn't a specified thing, only a conceptual analisys* of the outcome dictated by the laws of physics. I was trying to seperate the events of the present as being the only events that have, and will occur.

 

"...that have and will occur..."

 

I'm not sure that the word "occur" is valid here.

 

 

Changing the subjects a bit..

 

1. Would you say that if an orange grows on an orange tree, something has been created? Has an orange been created?

 

2. What is your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

.

[sunspot]

One can time travel to many unpredictable futures. Picture if one was at a crossroads of life, trying to pick between two careers, or two possible mates. Depending on one choices, one would create different future for themsevles. Often one may not know which is the better choice, or what might have been, but both choices will lead to a different future outcome.

[Klaynos]

One can time travel to many unpredictable futures. Picture if one was at a crossroads of life, trying to pick between two careers, or two possible mates. Depending on one choices, one would create different future for themsevles. Often one may not know which is the better choice, or what might have been, but both choices will lead to a different future outcome.

 

Prove it's not predefined. Even if only by the atmomic interations of atoms in our brains...

[zeropoint]

One can time travel to many unpredictable futures. Picture if one was at a crossroads of life, trying to pick between two careers, or two possible mates. Depending on one choices, one would create different future for themsevles. Often one may not know which is the better choice, or what might have been, but both choices will lead to a different future outcome.

 

Suppose the very act of thinking about this choice were already known? Already destined? Now where does that leave you?

 

Suppose one were already headed in ONE of the directions and the mind somehow "knew" that so that it chose the one that is most appropriate for the already destined outcome? ???

 

Suppose both, or three or four paths exist and the mind simply chooses which one to pursue "first" (keeping in mind my proposal that "time" is an illusion) owing to some sort of propensity or applied rational that has to do with latent talent or ability?

 

Lots of possibilities here.

 

zeropoint

[Saryctos]

1. The orange is arranged by the tree into what we call an orange, but it is not created in the basic sense of the universe, although the same word is used in every day terminology, it is true that nothing has been "created" only rearanged*.

 

2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

"For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."(at the bottom of Entropy)

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e2

In this example here( the gas example) it asks which comes first, the organized or the disorderly. The answer would be the neat square of molecules in the corner, and it is stated that it is because disorder is the way things turn out. But the problem with that is both are very orderly, as the seemingly disorderly is controlled by diffusion.

(if this is not a good example, then I'm sorry)

 

I'm not really familiar with Entropy(which I hope was what you were asking with #2, otherwise 'oops'). But from that example I can see I don't care much for it. Yes it was only one example, and my agreement can be swayed by persuasive arguement. If I missed the point of it completely, just send on back in a more understandable by less knowledgable people on the subject.

 

Originally Posted by sunspot

One can time travel to many unpredictable futures. Picture if one was at a crossroads of life, trying to pick between two careers, or two possible mates. Depending on one choices, one would create different future for themsevles. Often one may not know which is the better choice, or what might have been, but both choices will lead to a different future outcome.

 

If only 1 choice of the options is to be made, then there is only 1 choice made, and thus 1 future outcome becomes the present.

[Sayonara]

If only 1 choice of the options is to be made, then there is only 1 choice made, and thus 1 future outcome becomes the present.

I can infer from this that you are tossing possible multiverse models out of the window. Why is that?

[zeropoint]

1. The orange is arranged by the tree into what we call an orange' date=' but it is not created in the basic sense of the universe, although the same word is used in every day terminology, it is true that nothing has been "created" only rearanged*.

 

2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

"For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."(at the bottom of Entropy)

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e2

In this example here( the gas example) it asks which comes first, the organized or the disorderly. The answer would be the neat square of molecules in the corner, and it is stated that it is because disorder is the way things turn out. But the problem with that is both are very orderly, as the seemingly disorderly is controlled by diffusion.

(if this is not a good example, then I'm sorry)

 

I'm not really familiar with Entropy(which I hope was what you were asking with #2, otherwise 'oops'). But from that example I can see I don't care much for it. Yes it was only one example, and my agreement can be swayed by persuasive arguement. If I missed the point of it completely, just send on back in a more understandable by less knowledgable people on the subject.

 

 

 

If only 1 choice of the options is to be made, then there is only 1 choice made, and thus 1 future outcome becomes the present.[/quote']

 

Yes, I understand the need for better examples. When you're working on the fly you don't often have good examples up your sleeve. That's something I have problems with too. I often find a good example to prove my point AFTER I'm done arguing and my opponent has gone home.

 

Since this is an informal forum, let me just say that I'm sure you will come across more support after you've loggen out. No sweat. Another day will come when you can use that example.

 

For now, I would like to posit (informally) that perhaps it appears that things start out orderly because they are "at critical mass" to use this term incorrectly. In other words, if things go from orderly to disorderly, it means that their very solid state begins to become not so solid. HOWEVER, once they SEEM to disappear (disintegrate) perhaps they have simply entered another dimension.

 

All this crazy talk leads somewhere, I promise, so hang on...

 

Here's a very simple illustration: Rain falls to the earth as a liquid (you might say it's solid in that we can certainly see it). What happens to it after some "time?" It begins to evaporate (turn to vapor). Uh-oh, it's becoming disorganized. Soon, it's no longer solid (or liquid) except for the very solid sediments of minerals that remain behind. It expands into the atmosphere and seems to disappear. But it will be back. It will be "created" as rain. But what has happened is that it has gone from being organized to disorganized to recombining and finally to being re-"created." In essence, it has reappeared. But this word, "reappear" is used only because humans use eyes to "see." This water is there all the time, in various forms. It's reincarnation as rain means that it has gone from organized to disorganized back to organized. It has gone from one dimension to another and cannot be destroyed.

 

zeropoint

[Saryctos]

Here's a very simple illustration: Rain falls to the earth as a liquid (you might say it's solid in that we can certainly see it). What happens to it after some "time?" It begins to evaporate (turn to vapor). Uh-oh' date=' it's becoming disorganized. Soon, it's no longer solid (or liquid) except for the very solid sediments of minerals that remain behind. It expands into the atmosphere and seems to disappear. But it will be back. It will be "created" as rain. But what has happened is that it has gone from being organized to disorganized to recombining and finally to being re-"created." In essence, it has reappeared. But this word, "reappear" is used only because humans use eyes to "see." This water is there all the time, in various forms. It's reincarnation as rain means that it has gone from organized to disorganized back to organized. It has gone from one dimension to another and cannot be destroyed.

 

zeropoint[/quote']

 

The time you speak of is heat exiting material, or the material being absorbed into the surface on which it sits. Time itself is not performing the act, only the processes that we sum up as "time". It is akin to the "growing old" factor, time does not just magically make you older, there is a complex symphony of biological happenings taking place that change your body.

 

Organisation on this level is mearly an over generalization from the human level. look deeper into the object and you will see that the atoms are just as organized as they always were. Changing state is simply the difference in how massive quantities of atoms hold their shape, yet reguardless of their state, they are all just accumulated atoms.

 

 

I can infer from this that you are tossing possible multiverse models out of the window. Why is that?

 

If the actions in one universe affect those in another, then they are not seperate universes, only catagorized as such. Since then there would have to be a larger system governing their interactions. That may not coincide with a actual multiverse theory, but I do not keep up with that theory, so please excuse my ignorance on the subject.

[zeropoint]

The time you speak of is heat exiting material' date=' or the material being absorbed into the surface on which it sits. Time itself is not performing the act, only the processes that we sum up as "time". It is akin to the "growing old" factor, time does not just magically make you older, there is a complex symphony of biological happenings taking place that change your body.

 

Organisation on this level is mearly an over generalization from the human level. look deeper into the object and you will see that the atoms are just as organized as they always were. Changing state is simply the difference in how massive quantities of atoms hold their shape, yet reguardless of their state, they are all just accumulated atoms.

 

 

 

 

If the actions in one universe affect those in another, then they are not seperate universes, only catagorized as such. Since then there would have to be a larger system governing their interactions. That may not coincide with a actual multiverse theory, but I do not keep up with that theory, so please excuse my ignorance on the subject.[/quote']

 

These universes you speak of is what I call dimensions. I wrote an article on that which is published in the in-house organ of NASA.

 

campRevised.pdf

[Sayonara]

If the actions in one universe affect those in another, then they are not seperate universes, only catagorized as such. Since then there would have to be a larger system governing their interactions.

Bit of a truism tbh.

 

That may not coincide with a actual multiverse theory, but I do not keep up with that theory, so please excuse my ignorance on the subject.

That'll be a "yes" then, and I suppose it covers the "why?" as well. You should look into it.

[aguy2]

The discernable nature of time

I contend that the only empirical evidence we collectively possess concerning the 'nature of time' can be summed up as follows:

"Time's passage seems totally dependent upon local conditions."

 

This represents very little verifiable evidence, hence the possibility of discussions like the one we are having, where almost anyones guess seems as valid as another.

 

Why is it that we all seem to 'feel' that we know what we are talking about, when we should all 'know' that collectively we don't know diddly from squat?

 

Has the nature of time, that the physicists know, bear some 'real' relationship to such things as 'emotions' and 'feelings'?

 

aguy2

[Saryctos]

Has the nature of time' date=' that the physicists know, bear some 'real' relationship to such things as 'emotions' and 'feelings'?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

 

Yes, they are all created in the mind.

[aguy2]

Yes, they are all created in the mind.

 

Are you saying that such things as 'time', 'emotion', and 'feeling' are mental artifices, and thats all they are?

 

If this were true, why wouldn't what little empirical evidence we have match up with and tend to support our mental constuct of time's nature?

 

aguy2

[Saryctos]

What is an example of something that doesn't match up?

[aguy2]

What is an example of something that doesn't match up?

 

1) Why does the verifiable nature of the passage of time at relativistic velocities seem so alien to our emotions and feelings?

 

2) Why do we maintain the persistent illusion that our existence is somehow 'accumulating' time, when every beat of our heart brings us closer to our demise?

 

aguy2

[Saryctos]

1) Why does the verifiable nature of the passage of time at relativistic velocities seem so alien to our emotions and feelings?

 

2) Why do we maintain the persistent illusion that our existence is somehow 'accumulating' time' date=' when every beat of our heart brings us closer to our demise?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

1)I'm not sure I understand this question exactly.

 

 

2)Time's passage is accumulated in the addition of memory information. This is also how we percieve the past to still exist. An example of this perception is in a photograph. To the universe, the photograph's molecules are just arranged in a way that absorb light in ways we percieve as distinct colors. To us this represents a past experience because we relate the picture information to the memory stored about it. As we aquire a larger ammount of memories our idea of the universe grows larger as there are more memory cells holding information.

[aguy2]

Time's passage is accumulated

 

Concidering only our internal mental constructs a good case can be made that 'time's passage is accumulated'. But our preceptions of the universe aren't the universe.

 

In the 'quantum' world of the very small the statement 'time's passage is accumulated' doesn't make sense, because in the quantum world there is no such thing as the 'passage of time', let alone a gain or a loss of such a thing.

 

In the cosmological world of the very large, with an assumption of a series of oscillating/cyclic sub-universes, I can make a good case that in any given cycle the case is 'as space expands, time contracts'.

 

The point being that it may be true that 'time's passage is accumulated' only in the minds of bipedal apes.

 

aguy2

 

Ps. There apparently aren't any such critters as "memory cells".