Measuring the measure of time

[swansont]

true swansont, but stating time is a dimension is already 'leaving' science. In a model it works....don't forget in terms when tryign to explain such things as time is a dimension one might use the classical rubber sheet object model...and why it rotates around an indentation in the sheet...but then one is 'explaining' gravity through gravity.... a ball on a sheet representing gravity is circular when saying it would curve around the indentation as that would only happen when one assumes gravity is still working downwards on the sheet and the object...but thats what we are trying to explain. if gravity was represented by the sheet and not the sheet + our conceptual idea of gravity working 'downwards' like on earth, the object would just keep moving in its 'straight' path over the indentation right?

 

Stating that time is a dimension is firmly ensconced in science, as it's part of relativity. Take care not to confuse the science with the explanations of it, especially when they are for a lay audience.

[lakmilis]

more so in mathematics than physics swansont. I see your point, and as such I do not have any objections to treat the time coordinate in minkowski space any different than we would. I just have to still point out, when talking about leaving 'science' and discussions on time etc, these things become relevant of which I mentioned.

 

In other words, I was really pointing out conceptual jargon rather than the essence of your post, my apologies

[Fred56]

Stating that time is a dimension is firmly ensconced in science

And science is firmly ensconced in...?

[swansont]

And science is firmly ensconced in...?

 

That's not related to the question at hand. The statement was in regard to saying time as a dimension is somehow "leaving" science. ct is a component of the position four-vector. Discussing ramifications of that might get you away from science, but the observation itself does not. And the validity/basis of science will probably push you into philosophy and metaphysics as well.

[Fred56]

Yes, sorry. What I meant was that the concept of time as a measurable quantity, some property of the universe, although firmly established, is based on our experience, our understanding, which is all in our heads, as it were. This then, is ultimately where science is, as well. Of course we have had a lot of, er, time to "extend" this internality into an externality: a "collection" of "memory". All those books, etc.

[brodix]

Fred,

 

OK. Ready? Here we go then:

 

 

This is ok to say, but on analysis, the first question has to be: where is the event created? It makes more sense to say “when” the event is created. Except then you're saying that time “times” events. The old circular definition problem.

 

Obviously it is impossible to fully define the parameters of any debate and so it is always easy to avoid the essence of an argument by picking at the inevitable loose threads. That said, I don't quite see your point. The "event" is created by a physical action. Where, what and when are defined by that action. I'm not saying "time" times events. That, presumably, would be based on the assumption that time is a pre-existing dimension. I'm saying that it is not. Temperature doesn't exist, except as a measure of motion and I'm arguing that the same applies to time. It is effect, not cause.

 

Here, your argument runs into some semantic difficulty. “Proceed” and “goes the other way” imply movement of some kind. Again, the circular definition appears: you are saying something like: “events move through time”. But you're still only saying “time is what times the event”

 

Yes, it is a semantic difficulty, but if time is a consequence of motion, then terms to describe motion would also apply to time. If I was to say that my childhood was a long time ago, the fact is that in the process of living, I've also physically traveled some distance and encountered my share of events along the way. To the extent we are mobile creatures, presumably our future is what lies ahead of us, but in some indian cultures, the past is what is in front of you and the future is behind. That is because their point of reference isn't the observer, but the energy. Such that what you observe ahead of you occurs before you see it, then the energy of this event passes you and goes on to its future. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes next.

 

 

On the first page of this thread I quoted something from another website about energy. This says that the concept of energy “flowing” or moving is just a concept, nothing more.

 

Information is the map of reality, not necessarily the territory. Space is considered to be three dimensional, but three dimensions are really just the coordinate system of the point they all cross. The fact is that the same space can be defined by any number of such frames. You might say that the Arabs and the Israelis used different coordinate systems to define the same land. So the reality of space is effectively infinitely dimensional. The problem is that to make sense of it, we need the focal point of that frame to organize it, like a calendar needs a starting date. To define space we reduce it to a plane and a line perpendicular to it. Which coincidentally describes how we stand on the surface of this planet. Not intuitional at all.(haha)

 

Energy and information are not the same. It is natural for stable material to coalesce into the most efficient pattern, but if it is a closed set, it is entropic, so in order to exist, new energy and the information it has recorded must be absorbed. This results in some degree of instability/chaos, because the pattern must continually adapt. If competing patterns contest the same energy, it becomes incumbent that one pattern be neutralized, if not destroyed. So energy and information are definitely not the same thing. Information is top down structure. Energy motivates bottom up process. You eat a chicken and the energy that was that chicken continues into the future, motivating your bodily functions, while the organization and information that was that chicken recedes into the past.

 

But where is it being recorded? So God does keep a backup (of the universe)?

 

Energy records information. It also erases it. God hits that reset button frequently. It's called regeneration. Cleans up the code, but eventually even the platform gets scrapped when it becomes too obsolete.(As for God, absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual absolute would be the essence out of which we rise, not an Ideal Form from which we fell. Consciousness is bottom up emergent phenomena. Intellect is the top down ordering of its context.)

 

Note: before when I posted this: it occurred to me that:

 

Well, we can if we use a couple of stopwatches. Except that these are “representative” of time. They don't have little “time tanks” inside and we can't get any of this time stuff out of one of them.

 

And:

 

Things like rulers, watches, thermometers, pressure transducers, indeed all of the various instruments we make for such a purpose, are all used to “assess” or “manipulate” our concept of change and its measurement. This concept, or experience of change in the world around us, is based entirely on our own internal mechanisms of change. We use change to measure change. There seems to be no easy way around this apparent conundrum.

 

Each of the instruments is ultimately an extension of our concept of such change. We know we can't get the temperature out of a thermometer and put it somewhere (say for later use), or grab a few metres of distance. We only have a “representation” of these things. This representation only ever has a “mental” existence.

 

Identical cause yields identical effect. What watches do is produce a stable, repetitive effect.

 

Reality is memory.

 

Memory is the information that is currently recorded.

[Fred56]

Well, it probably isn't so easy to analyse someone else's ideas without creating an impression of nit-picking, or trivial objection. Maybe if we were discussing this face-to-face, or even ear-to-ear, the impression would be a little different. Apologies if I have upset you with any of this, and yes it is a difficult subject.

 

But to continue the discussion:

The "event" is created by a physical action. Where, what and when are defined by that action.

Sure, this is absolutely and scientifically logical and correct. But the physical action is an observation (which is made by observers, i.e. us), and the rest follows from this. We assume that there are lots of events occurring that we don't (or can't) observe, but this is because of our logic, our science, which is our thinking.

It is natural for stable material to coalesce into the most efficient pattern' date=' but if it is a closed set, it is entropic, so in order to exist, new energy and the information it has recorded must be absorbed.

[/quote']

This is another observation, right? But “the information it has recorded” is a philosophical construct, not an actuality. It's a model, which may or may not provide some insight.

Energy records information. It also erases it. God hits that reset button frequently.

Well, this looks a lot like a speculation. Can you enlarge on this a little?

Identical cause yields identical effect. What watches do is produce a stable, repetitive effect.

Watches don't “produce” anything, other than a “memory” in our brains. The concept of stable, linear time is well established, and is a direct consequence of the stable, linearly functioning (it ticks regularly) neurobiological system we are all born with.

[pioneer]

Time flow has a connection to energy. For example, the ticks of the watch are indicating the flow of time, because the potential energy in the watch is decreasing. When the energy is gone, the ticks will also stop.

 

If we look at an electron, its shows a cyclic change of state where the energy stays the same. This is moving forward in time, only relative to a reference, which is showing a decrease in energy. But in its reference, with its energy at steady state, there is not net flow of time. This allows it to last forever, more or less.

 

When humans measure time, we always use a system that is lowering energy. This can be mechanical, electrical, or neural. These systems are moving forward in time because of the loss of energy. When we compare other systems to this time, we are assume they also moving in time, even if, like an electron, they don't age much after billions of years. I like time potential, since this allows system to store potential energy and not age. When it gives off its energy, its time potential decreases. This is not human reference dependant but only dependant on potential energy.

 

An SR reference has more potential energy or time potential, than a fixed reference and therefore is able to last longer with the laws of physics. The laws of physics determine how fast the energy is bled off.

[brodix]

Well, it probably isn't so easy to analyse someone else's ideas without creating an impression of nit-picking, or trivial objection. Maybe if we were discussing this face-to-face, or even ear-to-ear, the impression would be a little different. Apologies if I have upset you with any of this, and yes it is a difficult subject.

 

Assume I'm quite thick skinned. If I sound frustrated, it's due to personal time contraints and the stresses incurred.

 

But to continue the discussion:

 

Sure, this is absolutely and scientifically logical and correct. But the physical action is an observation (which is made by observers, i.e. us), and the rest follows from this. We assume that there are lots of events occurring that we don't (or can't) observe, but this is because of our logic, our science, which is our thinking.

 

Yes. The observation/event is information. It is created by physical activity and then recedes into the past. Think of a factory; The product moves from start to finish, but the production line faces the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. Its main concern isn't the finished product, but the energy produced, in wages and profits, that allow it to continue forward, consuming and processing material. Your mind is like that factory. The consciousness consumes information and produces conceptual structure called thought, which quickly recedes into the past, to be replaced by the next thought, but all of which the purpose of is to enable the mind to continue forward into the future.

 

This is another observation, right? But “the information it has recorded” is a philosophical construct, not an actuality. It's a model, which may or may not provide some insight.

 

It's a philosophic construct if it's in your mind, but you can have the same amount of energy manifested as a cloud of interstellar gas, or as a rock floating in space. Same quantity of energy, different information being recorded. Its form/pattern is the memory of its past.

 

Well, this looks a lot like a speculation. Can you enlarge on this a little?

 

Said rock flies though said cloud of gas. Information/pattern of the gas changes. Old pattern is erased, as new one is produced.

 

Watches don't “produce” anything, other than a “memory” in our brains. The concept of stable, linear time is well established, and is a direct consequence of the stable, linearly functioning (it ticks regularly) neurobiological system we are all born with.

 

Those fortunate enough not to be schizophrenic. The problem with the fact that our brains are linear is that it tends to promote monolithic thought processes, where we don't see the other side of the situation without some effort. In larger political and economic terms, it leads to bubbles, wars and other such examples of mass myopia. Not that this could ever affect the scientific establishment, of course. Of course the advantage of monolithic thinking over mental balancing is immediate political advantage. While the intellectual is analysing the situation, the thug punches him in the nose. Of course, in the long term, this leads to wars, etc, as everyone tries to beat everyone else.

 

Time flow has a connection to energy. For example, the ticks of the watch are indicating the flow of time, because the potential energy in the watch is decreasing. When the energy is gone, the ticks will also stop.

 

If we look at an electron, its shows a cyclic change of state where the energy stays the same. This is moving forward in time, only relative to a reference, which is showing a decrease in energy. But in its reference, with its energy at steady state, there is not net flow of time. This allows it to last forever, more or less.

 

When humans measure time, we always use a system that is lowering energy. This can be mechanical, electrical, or neural. These systems are moving forward in time because of the loss of energy. When we compare other systems to this time, we are assume they also moving in time, even if, like an electron, they don't age much after billions of years. I like time potential, since this allows system to store potential energy and not age. When it gives off its energy, its time potential decreases. This is not human reference dependant but only dependant on potential energy.

 

An SR reference has more potential energy or time potential, than a fixed reference and therefore is able to last longer with the laws of physics. The laws of physics determine how fast the energy is bled off.

 

That is the narrative unit of time going from beginning to end, as the energy coalesces into the physical body, then bleeds away, going on to other events. This unit starts as future potential, is formed, dissolves, then is past. Meanwhile the lost energy goes on its merry way.

[Fred56]

The consciousness consumes information and produces conceptual structure called thought' date=' which quickly recedes into the past, to be replaced by the next thought, but all of which the purpose of is to enable the mind to continue forward into the future.

[/quote']

This is quite succinct, I think. Consider though, what “replaced by the next thought” really means here, in your statement. In some sense, you are saying that our thinking is like a reflection of what is going on around us. This “going on” is only observable because we can store memories (of events), and can discern the (relative) intervals of time between them.

We don't remember things out of sequence, in general (unless there is some bug in the “system”, due to disease or drugs, say), but perceive a fairly seamless reality. Those who have studied such things will tell you that this perception is mostly illusory. For example, our sense of vision is normally running in a “relaxed” state, and there is a small area on each retina (the fovea) which is the only part that is capable of any resolving power. It is the only area of the retina where there are sufficient cells to enable us to focus on the words on a page, for example. Despite our belief that we can view a more or less 180 degree picture of the world, the bit we see clearly is only about the size of the width of our thumb held at arm's length. The brain manages, and quite successfully, to “fill in the gaps”. Memory is the key to this.

[brodix]

This is quite succinct, I think. Consider though, what “replaced by the next thought” really means here, in your statement. In some sense, you are saying that our thinking is like a reflection of what is going on around us. This “going on” is only observable because we can store memories (of events), and can discern the (relative) intervals of time between them.

We don't remember things out of sequence, in general (unless there is some bug in the “system”, due to disease or drugs, say), but perceive a fairly seamless reality. Those who have studied such things will tell you that this perception is mostly illusory. For example, our sense of vision is normally running in a “relaxed” state, and there is a small area on each retina (the fovea) which is the only part that is capable of any resolving power. It is the only area of the retina where there are sufficient cells to enable us to focus on the words on a page, for example. Despite our belief that we can view a more or less 180 degree picture of the world, the bit we see clearly is only about the size of the width of our thumb held at arm's length. The brain manages, and quite successfully, to “fill in the gaps”. Memory is the key to this.

 

Notice I'm not saying time isn't linear, just that it isn't a pre-existing dimension, but is essentially an illusion caused by motion, similar to the illusion we have of a seamless view of the world, when our range of perception is fairly narrow. We don't know what we don't know and sometimes our ability to project seems more real then it actually is.

[Fred56]

Notice I'm not saying time isn't linear, just that it isn't a pre-existing dimension, but is essentially an illusion caused by motion, similar to the illusion we have of a seamless view of the world, when our range of perception is fairly narrow. We don't know what we don't know and sometimes our ability to project seems more real then it actually is.

Yes, that's pretty much how it is. But this "ability to project" has given us Newtonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations, and all the rest.

[brodix]

Yes, that's pretty much how it is. But this "ability to project" has given us Newtonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations, and all the rest.

 

It's also given us Plato's Ideal Forms, epi-cycles, monotheism, various economic and financial bubbles, Big Bang theory, time as fundamental dimension, lotsetc. When you are projecting out and the results start to get weird, it's time to go back and review what you have taken for granted. Sometimes this doesn't happen because the ones with the most credibility are the ones most invested in the situation. In the story of the emperor's new clothes, they don't tell you about all the kids that got smacked by their parents, just when the reality became unavoidable did the crowd really take notice that what they were told was not the way it was. One step back, for every two steps forward.