Ontology of time

[tar]

If time is just EDPP' date=' than physics just measures how EDPP behaves. It doesn't really matter. We're limited to what can be empirically observed, and at the present that does not include the nature, or lack thereof, of time.

[/quote']

 

Cap'n Refsmmat,

 

Well maybe time can be observed, if it is considered the actual thing that separates one event in the universe from another event that occurs or occured at the same reference point in space.

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

As I've said, you're bringing up questions of physics and doubting accepted theory, you can't move onto the philosophy until that's resolved.

 

 

If time is just EDPP, than physics just measures how EDPP behaves. It doesn't really matter. We're limited to what can be empirically observed, and at the present that does not include the nature, or lack thereof, of time.

 

I agree that "We're limited to what can be empirically observed..." That's why I suggested EDPP as an observable, meaningful substitute phrase for "time." Physical processes are, of course, (mostly) observable and their duration can be measured by clocks. But when a process slows down (whether the rate of a clock's ticking or the aging process of high speed space voyagers) and we say, "therefore time dilates," we introduce an unobservable element, the expansion of "time," the nature of which is still in a state of hot ontological debate (not just in this thread.) This would seem like a clear improvement in the way we communicate about time, which is one reason that ontology is relevant to physics in this case.

 

swansont:

I would like to remind you that "this thread" originated as a hijack of a science thread and as Cap'n just pointed out, you keep bringing up science (and keep getting it wrong). If you had wanted to discuss philosophy, you could have started a thread on it there, but you chose another path. Stop pretending that this is somebody else's doing.

 

You are right that my original comments about time were in another thread which I didn't originate. I think it is harsh to call it a hijack of that thread, however, because the thread was addressing the nature of time. It was just a question of protocol in that regard, but now, of course, I wish I had started this thread in philosophy.

 

I don't think it is "wrong" to distinguish the observable slowing of physical processes (including clocks' ticking), for instance at high speeds or altered gravitational fields, from the assertion that "time dilates," as explained above.

Edited July 1, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

I don't think it is "wrong" to distinguish the observable slowing of physical processes (including clocks' ticking), for instance at high speeds or altered gravitational fields, from the assertion that "time dilates," as explained above.

In physics one is a subset of the other. But it's clear from your statements, e.g. requiring preferred frames, that you are trying to define something that is different from what physics describes. The simple statement that time does not dilate but durations increase show that. To a physicist, the statements are equivalent. But you go on and call it expansion, which is not a description I would use. Clearly, your model differs; you are describing something else. Whatever it is you are attempting to describe is likely to have implications, though, and as such it still needs to agree with observation.

[owl]

Swansont:

But you go on and call it expansion, which is not a description I would use.

 

How do you see the difference, in meaningful language, between expansion and dilation?

[tar]

Owl,

 

I don't know about the EDPP being better than what we already have.

 

Already Kant has figured that time and space are our two "pure" intuitions. As such we are "given" them already, and know what they are.

 

And the time we are always in is now, and the place we are always at is here.

 

This gives us a frame of reference, on both counts, from which we can determine and know about other moments, (those that we remember, and those that we predict) and other places (those distant from us, and those inside us.)

 

And we have this ability to put ourselves in the shoes of another. Take the perspective of another "here and now".

 

The findings of Physics, are about how the universe behaves, what rules it goes by, how it fits together, what must be the case, from the perspective of a certain other "here and now" if all the known rules are to hold (which they have proven to actually do, or they would not be accepted as true.)

 

In this manner, the observer (another "here and now") on the near C fly by WOULD measure the Earth and its distance from the Sun the way Physics say he/she would.

 

The distance you would measure and the time you would measure, from your "here and now" would not change because of this. The event durations of the physical processes that you measure are not universal absolutes. They only measure so, from your here and now. From our fly by guy, the event duration of the same physical processes would measure differently. But the fly by guy, using the laws of physics, can make the calculations and transforms, to your here and now, and know how you would measure it.

 

Regards. TAR2

[swansont]

How do you see the difference, in meaningful language, between expansion and dilation?

Expansion evokes the image of a physical object getting bigger. Time dilation is mathematically defined; time slows down with respect to another frame.

[owl]

TAR2:

And the time we are always in is now, and the place we are always at is here.

 

Absolutely. The whole universe is not about who can see what from where and when as limited by light-speed. Presentism. Now IS everywhere, not an infinite variety of local "time environments" throughout the universe.

 

In this manner, the observer (another "here and now") on the near C fly by WOULD measure the Earth and its distance from the Sun the way Physics say he/she would

.

 

I think we all agree that the near ‘C’ fly-by perspective will get a different earth (or AU) measure than the at- rest frame on earth or from orbiting satellites. I simply insist that the at- rest frame is accurate, and that earth does not “actually” shrink or get squished/ flattened out-of round (or the AU shorten to 1/8th) as so measured (and taken as“equally correct.”)

 

The distance you would measure and the time you would measure, from your "here and now" would not change because of this.

 

Understood and agreed.

 

The event durations of the physical processes

that you measure are not universal absolutes. They only measure so, from your here and now. From our fly by guy, the event duration of the same physical processes would measure differently.

 

Here again is my argument on time ontology relative “the year” and high speed measures of it:

The time it takes for one earth orbit does not change (much) in the “real, objective universe” (if I may be so bold) regardless of how space voyagers measure time, say, as previously, on a 10 earth year round trip. They record 5 years elapsed time, and have only “aged” 5 years while all of us here on earth have meanwhile recorded and aged 10 years. High speed slows down physical processes, both clocks' ticking and probably the aging process.

 

But the fly by guy, using the laws of physics, can make

the calculations and transforms, to your here and now, and know how you would measure it.

 

I have many times agreed that relativity has the correct formulae for such “transformation” of measurements, so that we all end up “on the same page”... and keep GPS positioning accurate, etc.

 

swansont.

Expansion invokes a physical object getting bigger. Time dilation is mathematically defined; time slows down with respect to another frame.

 

I understand, up to the semicolon. But how is, “time slows down...” different than “clocks tick slower”... the observable physical process which claims a longer “event duration” (dilated time?)

 

Ps: I would like to return to the argument, for a moment, against relativity's claim that all measurements, as above, are equally correct.

I suggested that this claim puts relativity squarely in subscription to the subjective idealism philosophy. (See Berkeley and Hume, the most well known proponents.) I reiterated the old cliche' about the tree falling in the forest (see above recent post.)

 

The falling tree makes sound waves whether heard and measured or not. I call this real objective nature in this case, independent of perception and measurement. And, to the finer point, measuring the decibel level of that sound from further away, resulting in lower sound level, does not mean that the sound level at the falling tree diminishes. (The recorded decibel level diminishes with the square of the distance.) Again, the accurate measure of sound level is at the falling tree, and, we can adjust for further distances and quieter sound levels with the 'square of the distance' formula and not claim that the quieter measure is "equally accurate."

This is philosophy as relevant to physics.

[tar]

Owl,

 

On the other hand, perhaps EDPP makes some sense, along the lines of looking for the mechanisms that define, or create time in the first place.

 

Perhaps we only get confused when we expect the event to look the same, to every "here and now". Since the universe is very large and an event anywhere is not instantly noticed by the rest of the universe, it may be the delay in notification that actually is what time IS. To expect that you can visualize two events, at disparate locations in the universe, at the same time, ignores the mechanisms of time, and the actual delay in notification, if ignored, takes time out of the consideration of the two disparate events, making it very hard indeed to "see" what time is.

 

Even when an observer is only inches away from an event, the event actually needs to have occurred, prior the registration of the event upon the instruments of the observer. The registration of the first event, actually is a second event that happened after some time had passed.

 

For instance, if an electron in an atom falls to a lower energy level and releases a photon, the event is noticed by a photon detector, which presumably works by having the arrival of the photon, cause another event, which will "mirror" the first event in an analog way, depending on the energy and frequency of the notifying photon.

 

The period of time that passes, while the photon is on its way to the detector may or may not be considered depending on what is being looked at. For instance if we are measuring the period of time, until the next photon emission from that atom, the period between the departure of the first and second photon from the atom will match the period of time between the arrival of the first and second photon at the detector, and in essence the distance (and time) between the events can be discounted. As long as you know you are discounting it in the measurement of the two events, AND the detector is in the same rest frame as the event. If on the other hand, the event of the photon release and the event of the photon detection, are not happening in the same rest frame, then the distance and time between the events becomes important, because it changed between the first release and the second, and thus needs to be factored in to the measurement of the duration of the time between the two releases.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Owl,

 

Never quite understood the near C traveler coming back 10 years later, aged only 5 years. Let's say for instance the traveller's "clock", is a powerful telescope, trained on the Sun and the Earth, counting the revolutions of the Earth around the Sun. On the way out, the clock would appear to the traveller to be going very slowly, the Earth hardly moving, and once he made his turn and started back, the Earth would appear to making its orbit quite smartly. If in total, his clock counts 10 revolutions, when he returned, he would have been gone for 10 years, seen each revolution occurring, and have no particular reason to not be 10 years older.

 

Regards, TAR2

[swansont]

I understand, up to the semicolon. But how is, “time slows down...” different than “clocks tick slower”... the observable physical process which claims a longer “event duration” (dilated time?)

 

Because clocks can tick slower for a multitude of reasons that do not include time dilation, as every gasbag with a relativity denial complex will point out, in misplaced hopes of overturning relativity theory.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Question on twin paradox moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58255-relativity-question/

[owl]

TAR2:

Never quite understood the near C traveler coming back 10 years later, aged only 5 years. Let's say for instance the traveller's "clock", is a powerful telescope, trained on the Sun and the Earth, counting the revolutions of the Earth around the Sun. On the way out, the clock would appear to the traveller to be going very slowly, the Earth hardly moving, and once he made his turn and started back, the Earth would appear to making its orbit quite smartly. If in total, his clock counts 10 revolutions, when he returned, he would have been gone for 10 years, seen each revolution occurring, and have no particular reason to not be 10 years older.

 

Relativity has shown (and I accept) that clocks at high speed "tick" slower. I assume that all physical processes including the human aging process "proceed" more slowly at high speed.

(This does not mean that some undefined thing, "time" "dilates," whatever that means besides clocks ticking slower... the focal point of this thread.)

So, if a space ship with the most accurate possible clock on board, and its voyagers go on a near 'C' round trip from earth and back, and their slowed down clock shows that only five years have elapsed (and they show only five years of aging), ... and meanwhile earth has orbited sun ten times, I maintain that "in the real world" ten years have passed. Maybe it makes no difference whether we say that "time has dilated" for the voyagers. But the above explanation does not require that "time" be "something that dilates." We can stick to what we observe and just say that high speed makes the spaceship's clock slow down as well as the passengers' aging process.

Its about "the ontology of time."

 

swansont:

Because clocks can tick slower for a multitude of reasons that do not include time dilation, as every gasbag with a relativity denial complex will point out, in misplaced hopes of overturning relativity theory.

Of course "clocks can tick slower for a multitude of reasons that do not include time dilation..." They can also slow down because they are traveling at high velocity, as above, without "making something" malleable out of time.

But I see you prefer to return to name calling rather than addressing the latter point. I've said dozens of times that I do not deny the above observed effects of relativity (including also clocks in different gravitational environments.)

Your smear tactic of calling my argument a "relativity denial complex... in misplaced hopes of overturning relativity theory"... ignores all of the above yet again.

[swansont]

Of course "clocks can tick slower for a multitude of reasons that do not include time dilation..." They can also slow down because they are traveling at high velocity, as above, without "making something" malleable out of time.

 

Since you seem to be quite aware that what physicists call time dilation occurs by moving a clock, I would think it obvious I was referring to other effects. Obviously, though, I was wrong. I was referring to things like changes in temperature, pressure or humidity, or the presence of electric or magnetic fields. Those can affect clocks, but do not affect time. So the simple statement that "the clock ticks slower" encompasses effects that render it less than useful.

 

But I see you prefer to return to name calling rather than addressing the latter point. I've said dozens of times that I do not deny the above observed effects of relativity (including also clocks in different gravitational environments.)

 

Your smear tactic of calling my argument a "relativity denial complex... in misplaced hopes of overturning relativity theory"... ignores all of the above yet again.

Really? I mentioned you somewhere in that sentence? Considering it was a response to you, the syntax is all wrong for it to be an attack on you. The context is all wrong, too, as you point out — you are not trying to overturn relativity. (That's the problem with accusing someone of using a smear tactic. If you make a mistake, it's a smear tactic in and of itself.)

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I as well accept the time dilation found in the multitude of experiments, with the cesium clocks and the the muons, and the short half life events that seem to us to take longer at high velocities. Something is indeed going on. But I prefer to think that things happen "as if" something is following a geodesic or not, in regards to the usefulness of the formulae in predicting events, given certain parameters, rather than thinkiing that space and time are some wierd thing we know nothing about, that works in some mysterious manner.

 

Often in looking at drawings and descriptions and plots of reality, I notice that whole dimensions are dropped out, and you are looking at derivitives of functions, that show "something" about the nature of things and their relationship to each other, but not EVERYTHING about the situation. It is hard for a laymen, with just a little reading and math training, to know what has been left out, what has been ignored, what has been approximated, what has been assumed, and what comparisons will and will not map nicely back to reality.

 

For instance, in the "clocks run slower" situation, is that ALL clocks? Take the twin traveler. Out her front window she sees Alpha Centuri extremely blue shifted, out her rear window, she sees the Sun extremely red shifted. Can she not figure out how fast she is going, by the comparison of the frequencies and wavelengths she is seeing, compared to the frequency graph of dark body radiation? And why could she not construct a clock with these frequencies?

 

Or if she is not allowed to look at where she has been and where she is going, and ALL the physical processes are foreshortened and slowed, then she would probably be blind. The frequencies hitting her cones would not be the ones that cause the cones to fire, the eye would not focus right, perhaps, as well.

 

Would the bearings in her lazy susan still be round? Would the foreshortening of the length of her pendulum clock cause it to tick faster and counter act the "slowing" effect of relativity?

 

I do not know the meaning of ALL physical processes are slowed. If her clock is a viscous liquid making its way down an inclined plane under the influence of the 1g spin of the craft that gives her gravity, what about the vicous liquid has changed? Its viscosity? Its friction against the board? Why would it not procede down the board as it would on Earth?

 

Just not sure what physics to carry into the craft and which to leave behind.

 

Regards, TAR2

[pantheory]

Owl,

 

I'm trying to get at the ontolology of "time," like, what is "it" besides event duration between designated instants?

I know that our most sophistcated clocks show what has come to be known as "time dilation," but how is that different than, as above, the fact that they "keep time" differently (slow down or speed up) in different inertial environment

Time dilation in concept is quite simple. Matter that moves against the forces of a gravitational field, its atomic/ molecular changes will occur more slowly than they would in the absence of gravitational resistance.

 

Your initial definition "the event duration between designated instants" hits the nail on the head. Why are you searching for another definition, meaning, or understanding when this one seems totally complete and comprehensible? -- and I believe it is totally the correct definition for time under any circumstance.

.

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory

[tar]

P.S.

 

Not that I am not perplexed by why I consider now, now, rather than when I started typing this post. I remember doing that, and I predict I will finish this post script, but I seem to exist on that border line between that which I remember, and that which I predict. My "current" state, seems to be now.

 

Perhaps we cannot consider "time" without considering what it is for a human. The periods between one event and the next, whether imagined or remembered seem to form the structure of time. That reality itself deals in cycles and repeating periods is a given. That notice of these events also takes a period of time is a given. The distance from an event establishes a period of time it will take to get to us. All these notions are "built" in to our consciousness. And we see these things happen, and know they happen, even when we are not experiencing them. We have the year, and the day, and the seasons, and ticking of a pendulum, and the beating of our heart, to mark the passage of time.

 

Perhaps it is EDPP, after all.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Sorry Pantheory, I did not see your post till after I posted my postscript to my post. We posted at the same TIME! 'Cept I was a bit dilated.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I as well accept the time dilation found in the multitude of experiments, with the cesium clocks and the the muons, and the short half life events that seem to us to take longer at high velocities. Something is indeed going on. But I prefer to think that things happen "as if" something is following a geodesic or not, in regards to the usefulness of the formulae in predicting events, given certain parameters, rather than thinkiing that space and time are some wierd thing we know nothing about, that works in some mysterious manner.

 

Often in looking at drawings and descriptions and plots of reality, I notice that whole dimensions are dropped out, and you are looking at derivitives of functions, that show "something" about the nature of things and their relationship to each other, but not EVERYTHING about the situation. It is hard for a laymen, with just a little reading and math training, to know what has been left out, what has been ignored, what has been approximated, what has been assumed, and what comparisons will and will not map nicely back to reality.

 

For instance, in the "clocks run slower" situation, is that ALL clocks? Take the twin traveler. Out her front window she sees Alpha Centuri extremely blue shifted, out her rear window, she sees the Sun extremely red shifted. Can she not figure out how fast she is going, by the comparison of the frequencies and wavelengths she is seeing, compared to the frequency graph of dark body radiation? And why could she not construct a clock with these frequencies?

 

Or if she is not allowed to look at where she has been and where she is going, and ALL the physical processes are foreshortened and slowed, then she would probably be blind. The frequencies hitting her cones would not be the ones that cause the cones to fire, the eye would not focus right, perhaps, as well.

 

Would the bearings in her lazy susan still be round? Would the foreshortening of the length of her pendulum clock cause it to tick faster and counter act the "slowing" effect of relativity?

 

I do not know the meaning of ALL physical processes are slowed. If her clock is a viscous liquid making its way down an inclined plane under the influence of the 1g spin of the craft that gives her gravity, what about the vicous liquid has changed? Its viscosity? Its friction against the board? Why would it not procede down the board as it would on Earth?

 

Just not sure what physics to carry into the craft and which to leave behind.

 

Regards, TAR2

In your own inertial reference frame, you are at rest. You see no relativistic effects on things that are in your own frame. You would see the sun as moving away from you, which accounts for the redshift, and Alpha Centauri moving toward you, accounting for the blueshift. Because of those motions, the distances to those objects in other frames would be foreshortened.

 

Any observation of bearings changing shape, etc., would be made by observers in other frames.

[pantheory]

tar,

Sorry Pantheory, I did not see your post till after I posted my postscript to my post. We posted at the same TIME! 'Cept I was a bit dilated.

 

I know what you mean. That pesky time dilation also impedes my progress resulting in my not getting anywhere fast

[owl]

Owl,

 

 

Time dilation in concept is quite simple. Matter that moves against the forces of a gravitational field, its atomic/ molecular changes will occur more slowly than they would in the absence of gravitational resistance.

 

Your initial definition "the event duration between designated instants" hits the nail on the head. Why are you searching for another definition, meaning, or understanding when this one seems totally complete and comprehensible? -- and I believe it is totally the correct definition for time under any circumstance.

.

Ontology is the study "of that which is" (Wikipedia), i.e., what "exists," its nature as an entity (or not), whether as a concept only (like event duration) or existing independently, on its own, as a naturally occurring object or process, etc. The application of ontology to time, therefore, must examine "what dilates" and what dilation means when we say (usually automatically, without a second thought to such considerations), "time dilation." That has been my intended focus in this thread.

Often times it seems that "time dilation" is taken to mean that time is an entity, an environment of some kind that surrounds moving objects or objects in different gravity fields and expands or contracts with those fields or velocities.

My ontology and coinage of "EDPP" is simply an attempt to demystify such references to time in relativity theory.

 

All of the above also applies to the use of the phrase "length contraction" in relativity, though not specifically the topic here. Ontologically speaking wide variations in measurement at high speeds (from different frames of reference) does not mean that objects and distances/lengths being measured actually shrink (or deform) and expand as so measured. I will start a new thread in the philosophy section to discuss this and how the philosophy of subjective idealism applies to such frame of reference variation and to discuss more generally objective vs subjective perspectives on "reality."

[pantheory]

Ontology is the study "of that which is" (Wikipedia), i.e., what "exists," its nature as an entity (or not), whether as a concept only (like event duration) or existing independently, on its own, as a naturally occurring object or process, etc. The application of ontology to time, therefore, must examine "what dilates" and what dilation means when we say (usually automatically, without a second thought to such considerations), "time dilation." That has been my intended focus in this thread.

Often times it seems that "time dilation" is taken to mean that time is an entity, an environment of some kind that surrounds moving objects or objects in different gravity fields and expands or contracts with those fields or velocities.

My ontology and coinage of "EDPP" is simply an attempt to demystify such references to time in relativity theory.

 

All of the above also applies to the use of the phrase "length contraction" in relativity, though not specifically the topic here. Ontologically speaking wide variations in measurement at high speeds (from different frames of reference) does not mean that objects and distances/lengths being measured actually shrink (or deform) and expand as so measured. I will start a new thread in the philosophy section to discuss this and how the philosophy of subjective idealism applies to such frame of reference variation and to discuss more generally objective vs subjective perspectives on "reality."

 

Sounds good to me I think if length contraction did not occur it would seem to me to be illogical. Matter resists acceleration. Molecules seem like they would be more tightly compacted in the direction of accelerated motion. But as you mentioned, this is another subject.

 

regards, Forrest

[owl]

Sounds good to me I think if length contraction did not occur it would seem to me to be illogical. Matter resists acceleration. Molecules seem like they would be more tightly compacted in the direction of accelerated motion. But as you mentioned, this is another subject.

 

regards, Forrest

I will reply in my new thread on the philosophical basis of relativity's assertion that all frames of reference yield equally valid measurements. (Just info for the interested... a small plug.)

(philosophy section, yet another ontology thread.)

[tar]

Because of those motions, the distances to those objects in other frames would be foreshortened.

Swansont,

 

Yes but the question is "whose" other frame?

 

Some descriptions of reality, put an army of observers, everywhere, to determine what is going on.

This, in essence, is putting ourselves in their shoes, and determining what it is that we would experience, would we be in those shoes...but perhaps, since this goes to Owl's new thread on subjectivity and objectivity, I'll check that one out, and see if WE can come to any determinations. Peer review, you know, is important, when attempting to know "the thing, as it is".

 

Regards, TAR2

[pantheory]

owl, can i ask a question? what do you want this standardized clock for?

Maybe not now, but seemingly in our cosmic future such a computer adjusted clock concerning "galactic meantime" or "universe meantime" will be a necessity for space colonies, star travel, etc.

Edited July 8, 2011 by pantheory

[swansont]

Ontology is the study "of that which is" (Wikipedia), i.e., what "exists," its nature as an entity (or not), whether as a concept only (like event duration) or existing independently, on its own, as a naturally occurring object or process, etc. The application of ontology to time, therefore, must examine "what dilates" and what dilation means when we say (usually automatically, without a second thought to such considerations), "time dilation." That has been my intended focus in this thread.

Often times it seems that "time dilation" is taken to mean that time is an entity, an environment of some kind that surrounds moving objects or objects in different gravity fields and expands or contracts with those fields or velocities.

My ontology and coinage of "EDPP" is simply an attempt to demystify such references to time in relativity theory.

 

Which only raises the question: what do you mean by duration? All you've done is moved the question.

 

All of the above also applies to the use of the phrase "length contraction" in relativity, though not specifically the topic here. Ontologically speaking wide variations in measurement at high speeds (from different frames of reference) does not mean that objects and distances/lengths being measured actually shrink (or deform) and expand as so measured. I will start a new thread in the philosophy section to discuss this and how the philosophy of subjective idealism applies to such frame of reference variation and to discuss more generally objective vs subjective perspectives on "reality."

 

I'll point out (again) that this is a straw man. Which means you are pursuing the ontology of a fantasy based on an invalid premise.

[tar]

Swansont,

 

I am beginning to see what you are saying about the strawman.

 

These concerns, that Owl and I are bringing up, have already been the considerations of men and women, for many years. The questions have already been posed, and considered, and conventions have been established to define the terms that should be used, to investigate the nature of reality. This does not mean that there are not still discoveries to be made, and it does not mean that laymen and scientists do not have the same reality to investigate, and the same human mechanisms with which to model reality. However, there is, in my estimation, a tendency I have noticed in myself, and in others, to consider that ones own model of reality, is the best one available. Though we can and do add the discoveries of others to our own model of reality, and hence there is a collective effort in process to address the issue, there remains this tendency to consider ones own take, the best way to look at it.

 

So with "time" we can investigate the nature of it, and consider the relationship in spacetime of one event to another in terms of distance and time, but the concept of NOW is a slippery fish. It needs an observer, or an army of them, deployed, all of the same mind, reporting back instantaneously (which cannot actually occur in our universe.)

 

Without conventions, and differential geometry, and the equations of special and general relativity, and the mathematical spaces and manifolds developed for these purposes, this condition is not readily addressable. As pointed out to me by another poster, ordinary words are not enough. You have to speak in the language of physics to know where the lead edge of this discussion is.

 

Regards, TAR2

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

I am beginning to see what you are saying about the strawman.

 

These concerns, that Owl and I are bringing up, have already been the considerations of men and women, for many years. The questions have already been posed, and considered, and conventions have been established to define the terms that should be used, to investigate the nature of reality. This does not mean that there are not still discoveries to be made, and it does not mean that laymen and scientists do not have the same reality to investigate, and the same human mechanisms with which to model reality. However, there is, in my estimation, a tendency I have noticed in myself, and in others, to consider that ones own model of reality, is the best one available. Though we can and do add the discoveries of others to our own model of reality, and hence there is a collective effort in process to address the issue, there remains this tendency to consider ones own take, the best way to look at it.

 

So with "time" we can investigate the nature of it, and consider the relationship in spacetime of one event to another in terms of distance and time, but the concept of NOW is a slippery fish. It needs an observer, or an army of them, deployed, all of the same mind, reporting back instantaneously (which cannot actually occur in our universe.)

 

Without conventions, and differential geometry, and the equations of special and general relativity, and the mathematical spaces and manifolds developed for these purposes, this condition is not readily addressable. As pointed out to me by another poster, ordinary words are not enough. You have to speak in the language of physics to know where the lead edge of this discussion is.

 

Regards, TAR2

I don't disagree that the concept is slippery. My disagreement starts when one proposes a premise that is at odds with observation, namely the validity of relativity. That's not philosophy, and I reject the premise that sound philosophy can be based on flawed science. Formal logic agrees with me, too — you cannot have a valid conclusion based on an untrue premise.