Time doesn't exist, clocks exist.
ruveyn
Well, the issue that I see is that if simultaneity is relative then there are events that are either directly or indirectly simultaneous with both A and B, and possible a time C after B, and a time @ before A. This undercuts the ontological foundations of our system, as our system implicitly requires absolute simultaneity to say that things are before or after, and although we can approximately use these tools because our frame of reference is pretty similar, there isn't an absolute truth to what we say. We're not talking about an absolute time, but rather just the outcomes of looking at our particular frame of reference.
If A preceeds B and is timelike separated from B then it preceeds B in all frames of reference moving at constant velocity with respect to the given frame of reference. Precedence is an invariant propert of the pair A, B. Also the space-time separation between A and B is invariant under any Lorentz transformation.
ruveyn
ruveyn
Well, the issue that I see is that if simultaneity is relative then there are events that are either directly or indirectly simultaneous with both A and B, and possible a time C after B, and a time @ before A. This undercuts the ontological foundations of our system, as our system implicitly requires absolute simultaneity to say that things are before or after, and although we can approximately use these tools because our frame of reference is pretty similar, there isn't an absolute truth to what we say. We're not talking about an absolute time, but rather just the outcomes of looking at our particular frame of reference.
If A preceeds B and is timelike separated from B then it preceeds B in all frames of reference moving at constant velocity with respect to the given frame of reference. Precedence is an invariant propert of the pair A, B. Also the space-time separation between A and B is invariant under any Lorentz transformation.
ruveyn
If the ordering of A, B, and C is relative to the frame of reference, with frame of reference R1 claiming that A, B, and C are simultaneous, and R2 saying that A -> B ->C and R3 saying C -> B -> A, then we have one state of affairs where A precedes B, and another where B precedes A, and a third where all is simultaneous. The issue is that each frame of reference will have its own claims to simultaneity. At R2 we will see A being simultaneous with B-t and at R3 we will see C being simultaneous with B+t. The issue is that if we hold to the transitivity of the present(an implicit assumption we use when talking about the ordering of events), then we would have to say that B-t = B+t. The issue is that B-t does not = B+t, which means that time, as we implicitly understand it, cannot work, simply because all of our temporal language is Newtonian.
I dunno, am I misunderstanding something? Are we talking past each other?
We don't, but if you start talking about how we replaced all clocks with giant cybernetic Cuckoos in 1977, then I'll know to lock you up.[/quote
The heart is a complex oscillator. It is an electrochemical, periodic clock.
In addition to the heart the earth and sky are filled with gazillions of oscillators. Every atom is an oscillator. We are clocks.
ruveyn
In addition to the heart the earth and sky are filled with gazillions of oscillators. Every atom is an oscillator. We are clocks.
ruveyn
Ok, but if we hold knowledge to the extreme skeptical standards found in the question, then even these can be doubted. Either the question is stupid, or it can't be given an affirmative answer.
ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land
It is more complex, because you "loose" use of the term "now" implements (or at least suggest) that there is something like an "universal time".
Possible - like the "pink unicorn" or that god created the radioactive decay and the fossils 6000 years ago to fool at the atheist to have better reason to burn those in hell ...
UH OH! Fossils are radioactive. They are rather hot in fact. So if they
are radioactively decaying, how many years in the future will there be dinosaurs?
After the glogal thermonewclear war? Did they fall back through a wormhole
in and around the LAC's Higgs Boson?
We are seriously talking about Negative Time or something here.
I asked this before.
Why are dinosaurs bones so radioactive?
While Noah was building the ark, the Antediluvians tried to blow up
an asteroid with nukes? Or did they blow up the planet that used
to be in the Asteroid Belt?
Um... Most of us who experience time have a 32 to 40 millisecond "now".
The human brain learns at a nominal rate of 45 bits per second.
The length of the NOW is demonstrated by the way music sounds.
If NOW was infinitesimal then sound would feel like quick puffs of wind
similar to ocean waves when you stand in an ocean but it wouldn't
sound like anything.
If NOW was a minute long, then music would always sound like
someone was sleeping on the keyboard of an organ and we would
hear all of the notes at the same time and most music would sound
the same... like that.
The 45 bits per second learning, or reality interface, rate...
Implies that the singularity has happened already and
our computers are smarter than we are.
Apparently they are. They have fooled us into thinking they
are sick and need antiviral medication. I don't know why we
believe them. Machines aren't alive. They are also supposed
to be working all the time, but they don't do anything when
we are not around.
TIME. If we couldn't see stars there would be no year.
If we couldn't see the moon then there would be no month.
If we couldn't see the sun making a shadow on a sundial
then there would be no hours.
In the future when people live forever, there will be a power
source that makes light, probably electric or radioluminescent
but it will be always bright and sundials will not work. That will
be what we call the end of time.
This post has a cognitive dissonance point of view. You might
have to accept the ideas in a suspension of beliefs to follow it,
but that is not intended. I am mixing POV information together
to discuss time, not religion or science, so there's no point in
trying to unscramble eggs or something here. Respond about
time unless you know why dinosaur bones are more radioactive
than any living thing that size could ever be. Or whatever.
Small tidbit, but you would know that in our Western language, the past is "behind us" and the future is "in front" of us, right?
Well, for the chinese this isn't quite so. The past is "in front", because we can "see" it. And the future is "behind" us, because we can't see it. =/ On a philosophical standpoint, it does makes sense.... <.<
Well, for the chinese this isn't quite so. The past is "in front", because we can "see" it. And the future is "behind" us, because we can't see it. =/ On a philosophical standpoint, it does makes sense.... <.<
Yeah, I think there are a few more languages like that. Fun stuff.
_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.
"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.
"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."
fidelis
Veteran
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.
There is no now. There is only a length of time where the past and present are so similar that the difference can be ignored. By this logic, if everything was static, and at a perfect standstill, there would be no time. But as there is change, there is also time.
The way I see it is there is some thing like this:
----------------+--^-+---------- Where ^ is the current time, and the two +'s are the borders of the experienced "present." We accumulate enough data in the previous second to KNOW what will not change, what will change (and how it will change), and what can't be predicted in the following fourth of a second. This is because the matter in space moves through space relatively slowly. The movement in a very short amount of time is so little that things appear "symmetric." The best way I can describe this is to grab a random picture and two pieces of plain computer paper. Put the two papers on opposite ends of the picture and slowly move them closer to the center. The point where they meet is "now" and they are the borders of your imaginary "present." You will notice that the less of the picture you can see, the more what you can see appears symmetric; Predictable even. This is the thing we call present. Merely the (recent) past playing tricks on us.
_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,195
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Time is simply chemical process/thermodynamic relaxation. The big bang was the core, its been moving out as a bubble, matter constantly seeking a lower energy state and being allowed this even more as the universe expands and spreads thinner.
Not to say that it isn't useful for us in terms of contextualizing events but, I doubt its anything more mysterious than matter in motion.
Not to say that it isn't useful for us in terms of contextualizing events but, I doubt its anything more mysterious than matter in motion.
There are harmonic oscillators at the subatomic level so it is not necessarily a chemical process. Chemical processes are about how atoms bond together through there electrical attraction at the outer shells of electrons.
A single cesium atom beats out a rhythm in isolation. That is not chemical.
ruveyn
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
You could take into account the buddhist point of view on time....which is time is an illusion. what happened no longer exists thus is an illusion...what will happen is only imagnination which is illusion thus all we really have is the present moment...the ever present moment and once that moment is gone...it is illusion. So it depends if you look at time from western point of view which time is linear or an eastern point of view which time is circular.
most of this debate has been from a western point of view, but from an eastern point of view...time is only illusion.
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
If these things didn't exist then I wouldn't be missing out |
14 Mar 2024, 1:01 pm |
Changing the clocks twice a year is bad. |
04 Apr 2024, 9:09 pm |
My mom doesn't get it! |
04 Apr 2024, 5:20 am |
Socializing - What works and doesn't |
Yesterday, 6:35 pm |