Time, it's direction, and how it behaves.

[Keanumoreira]

Finally, we come to Intrepede (intrepid? The internet holds no way to spell it, lol). Intrepede, known by Quantum Scientists and the second law of Thermodynamics, is the force that gives the universe chaos... Now, according to Intrepede, the universe gets more unstable as the passage of time increases, which means the universe today is more organized than it will be billions of years from now, and was more organized than it is today way back during the Big Bang. So, add this in with the Chaos Theory, and time has a funny way of existing. Why? Well, this means what if we live in a universe of chaos, then we need a universe that isn't chaotic to balance things out.

A one-pager on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics:

 

http://i.imgur.com/rGnwx.png

 

And that's really all there is to it. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics have nothing to do with an "unstable universe" seeking to "balance out" chaos. Rather, entropy is just a number describing how many ways (microstates) a system can configure itself to reach a particular set (macrostate) of measured variables. And the second law of thermodynamics just states that a large, closed system will never arrive at a macrostate with lower entropy because there are so many more ways to increase entropy than to decrease it.

 

 

 

Oh, thank you MB. I'll read up on that and adjust the main topic appropriately.

 

Edit: As soon as I understand what the hell it's talking about, lol.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[grannywils]

You and me both, Keanu. That was very impressive MB. I am reasonably intelligent, but must admit to having no clue when it comes to quantum physics or thermodynamics (or whatever that was) :unsure::huh: :confused:

[Dragonspyre]

Although MB was impressive, and correct, in the first section of his post, at the end, his claims on the accuracy of caesium are inaccurate.

 

Caesium-133 DOES in fact lose accuracy, but at a rate so slow, it will change by one second in several quadrillion (10^15) years. Caesium has questionable accuracy, because the amplified light emission device used can have significant impact. Using a maser will give far different results than a laser. Therefore, while close to one second, it is not EXACTLY one second.

 

As for those who claim that time either does not exist, or is merely a system of categorization, I could easily present the mind-boggling conundrum that space and motion do not exist either.

 

Zeno of Elea, alive circa 490-430, presented to philosophers some of the most headache inducing paradoxes known. He stated that motion does not exist. In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

 

Another statement is the arrow paradox. In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

 

In this lies puzzling metaphysical problems about the very definitions of time and space. Many arguments here were presented from the view of relative perspective, whilst the question remains not a relative matter, but one of absolutism. Time is both of an individual flow and is not of an individual flow: All entities comprise it, yet all remain disambiguated from the amalgamation of time in absolutism. Were all to be considered in perspective, the accuracy would be questionable.

 

Say no news could spread across the Earth during a certain event, yet no person would be given knowledge that this event would happen. The event in question would be a large, grey spherical object dropping into the water of the gulf located at 0 latitude and zero longitude. This event takes 7.5 seconds to play out, the sphere will then disappear, and only someone within a 100 foot vicinity could observe it (Magnification devices do not work in this example). The only likely viewer is a person 135 feet from the center of 0 latitude and zero longitude. The person has the capability of moving 35 feet in 17.5 seconds, giving them time to get to 0 latitude 0 longitude by the start of the event. This person is the only one to bear witness to the 7.5 second event. As no person on Earth other than them knew the event was to happen, nor was any other person a witness to the event, then the sole perspective of the event would be known only to the viewer (Who, considering how odd an event it was, is not likely to be believed). Therefore, the perspective of only one person would be accurate.

 

Another example would be assuming that we all observed correctly. Say everyone on Earth believed they were witnesses to a comet, but only one person actually saw a REAL comet, whilst the other all shared an identical hallucination. History would record the comet was seen by everyone alive at the time of this event, whilst in truth, only one person really did see a comet, and every other human at the time was given inaccurate information because of a false observation.

 

Awkward examples, but I'm too tired to think of better ones.

[Tidus44]

The philosophical questions presented by Zeno make for good stories and perhaps some mental exercise, but they really demonstrate nothing.

If a man races a tortoise, he will overtake and pass the tortoise simply if the man moves faster.

If one shoots an arrow, it moves from where it was launched to where it lands.

Both are easily demonstrated. However, time has no meaning to either situation and time is neither a detriment nor a benefit in either situation. At best, time is some arbitrary number picked out of somewhere and used to partially explain them.

 

To suggest that these mental exercises demonstrate motion, speed, distance or space do not exist is stretching it I would think as there are physical realities that allow such things to be observed – if only in the present.

 

Show me time. Show me the past. Show me the future. Or tell me how to observe time and thus be able to see time pass or arrive.

One can only observe the present as the past and future do not exist and time is merely a perspective or an illusion and is only measured by some means to satisfy some need to explain some abstract “something”. But it doesn't exist.

[Dragonspyre]

The philosophical questions presented by Zeno make for good stories and perhaps some mental exercise, but they really demonstrate nothing.

If a man races a tortoise, he will overtake and pass the tortoise simply if the man moves faster.

If one shoots an arrow, it moves from where it was launched to where it lands.

Both are easily demonstrated. However, time has no meaning to either situation and time is neither a detriment nor a benefit in either situation. At best, time is some arbitrary number picked out of somewhere and used to partially explain them.

 

To suggest that these mental exercises demonstrate motion, speed, distance or space do not exist is stretching it I would think as there are physical realities that allow such things to be observed – if only in the present.

 

Show me time. Show me the past. Show me the future. Or tell me how to observe time and thus be able to see time pass or arrive.

One can only observe the present as the past and future do not exist and time is merely a perspective or an illusion and is only measured by some means to satisfy some need to explain some abstract “something”. But it doesn't exist.

 

The problem I'm seeing with your argument is that you are treating non-literal examples as literal, and treating the intangible as if it is tangible.

 

The basic principle behind Zeno's Paradoxes states that when something moves from point to point , it must first get to a point halfway between each. To get to that point, it must first travel to a point halfway between the first and middle points, and to get to there, you must get to a point halfway between those two points. In this, it was stated that since an infinite amount of points much be reached to reach across any distance, that no motion technically occurs, as what is between no motion and motion must be reached, and halfway between each new set of points must be reached. It is stated in this mathematical sequence:

 

{...,1/16,1/8,1/4,1/2,1}

 

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.

 

This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.

 

As for you asking me to show you time, the past, present, or future... it would be in vain. Time is not a physical object. Time, like gravity, exists without any ability to record it. Were the physical proof of a concept the requirement for it becoming fact, very little of science would be considered true. Neither gravity nor atoms have been seen and observed, yet both are universally believed to exist. One doesn't have to be aware of time for time to exist. The belief or disbelief of any given person's opinion bears no weight on whether or not something exists. If it exists, it exists, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

 

Whilst we can sense space around us, we cannot sense time. We do not possess an understanding of time. What hope is there of knowing the ins and outs of something we have no ability to understand? As much as I have spent my own life delving into the enigmatic and wondrous machinations of time, I still have extremely little understanding of how it works. I cannot show YOU time, because I barely know how I view it myself. In the past, I've had entire nights built upon dreams that ended up being small, precise, unimportant events that happened sometime later. I hardly recollect any of them, but I remember faintly that in one, I visualized talking about a specific subject in a specific room, towards a specific person at a specific angle, and a very specific sequence of cars went by out the window. I originally thought this was a dream, until every single detail happened PRECISELY as observed 3 or 4 days later.

 

Yes, I realize this sounds a tad batty, but my studies in time have taught me far more than I was meant to. Far more. To observe time requires understanding of it, and the belief that it doesn't exist does not reflect very good understanding of it, but rather a relativistic view on an absolutist matter.

[HeyYou]

The philosophical questions presented by Zeno make for good stories and perhaps some mental exercise, but they really demonstrate nothing.

If a man races a tortoise, he will overtake and pass the tortoise simply if the man moves faster.

If one shoots an arrow, it moves from where it was launched to where it lands.

Both are easily demonstrated. However, time has no meaning to either situation and time is neither a detriment nor a benefit in either situation. At best, time is some arbitrary number picked out of somewhere and used to partially explain them.

 

To suggest that these mental exercises demonstrate motion, speed, distance or space do not exist is stretching it I would think as there are physical realities that allow such things to be observed – if only in the present.

 

Show me time. Show me the past. Show me the future. Or tell me how to observe time and thus be able to see time pass or arrive.

One can only observe the present as the past and future do not exist and time is merely a perspective or an illusion and is only measured by some means to satisfy some need to explain some abstract "something". But it doesn't exist.

 

The problem I'm seeing with your argument is that you are treating non-literal examples as literal, and treating the intangible as if it is tangible.

 

The basic principle behind Zeno's Paradoxes states that when something moves from point to point , it must first get to a point halfway between each. To get to that point, it must first travel to a point halfway between the first and middle points, and to get to there, you must get to a point halfway between those two points. In this, it was stated that since an infinite amount of points much be reached to reach across any distance, that no motion technically occurs, as what is between no motion and motion must be reached, and halfway between each new set of points must be reached. It is stated in this mathematical sequence:

 

{...,1/16,1/8,1/4,1/2,1}

 

This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.

 

This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.

 

As for you asking me to show you time, the past, present, or future... it would be in vain. Time is not a physical object. Time, like gravity, exists without any ability to record it. Were the physical proof of a concept the requirement for it becoming fact, very little of science would be considered true. Neither gravity nor atoms have been seen and observed, yet both are universally believed to exist. One doesn't have to be aware of time for time to exist. The belief or disbelief of any given person's opinion bears no weight on whether or not something exists. If it exists, it exists, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

 

Whilst we can sense space around us, we cannot sense time. We do not possess an understanding of time. What hope is there of knowing the ins and outs of something we have no ability to understand? As much as I have spent my own life delving into the enigmatic and wondrous machinations of time, I still have extremely little understanding of how it works. I cannot show YOU time, because I barely know how I view it myself. In the past, I've had entire nights built upon dreams that ended up being small, precise, unimportant events that happened sometime later. I hardly recollect any of them, but I remember faintly that in one, I visualized talking about a specific subject in a specific room, towards a specific person at a specific angle, and a very specific sequence of cars went by out the window. I originally thought this was a dream, until every single detail happened PRECISELY as observed 3 or 4 days later.

 

Yes, I realize this sounds a tad batty, but my studies in time have taught me far more than I was meant to. Far more. To observe time requires understanding of it, and the belief that it doesn't exist does not reflect very good understanding of it, but rather a relativistic view on an absolutist matter.

 

Zeno may have been a great mathematician... but, there is a difference between looking at things from a mathmatical perspective, and looking at them in the real world. Movement does indeed take place, as when I fire the arrow, it (sometimes) hits what I am aiming at. No one will dispute that it moved, as it is readily apparent that it has.

 

As for Achilles, and his turtle..... if the race last long enough, he WILL pass the turtle. The only circumstance in which he would not, is if he did not have enough TIME (*snicker*) to overtake the turtle.

 

What's to understand about time? Whether it exists are not, you can observe it's passage, even though such passage may be based on the arbitrary movements of sticks pivoting about a common center.

[Dragonspyre]

Zeno's Paradoxes were examples I used when other people disputed the existence of time. I figured refuting the existence of space (Although I should have used only the mathematical versions, because everyone thought the arrow and Achilles parables were LITERAL.)

 

I myself realize time both passes in a way that can be observed and exists as a dimension, but most of my arguments were directed at those who claimed that time did not have either property.

[Tidus44]

The only circumstance in which he would not, is if he did not have enough TIME (*snicker*) to overtake the turtle.

 

LOL

 

Zeno's Paradoxes were examples I used when other people disputed the existence of time. I figured refuting the existence of space (Although I should have used only the mathematical versions, because everyone thought the arrow and Achilles parables were LITERAL.)

 

I myself realize time both passes in a way that can be observed and exists as a dimension, but most of my arguments were directed at those who claimed that time did not have either property.

 

Actually, no, I did recognize the philosophical exercises for what they were and did not take them literally. I simply pointed out they are meaningless in the debate of whether time exists or not, whether it has direction or has behaviour and even more so meaningless as a demonstration that space or motion do not exist. As for math, well I am sure it can be proved mathematically that nothing exists, this is all a dream and we are actually sleeping in a liquid filled pod providing energy to run a rather large and complex machine, but I would likely debate that as well.

However, if you would like to debate the existence of motion and space I would be more than willing to do so, but in another thread.

 

The consideration of time started for me about 15 years ago. I was in a rather remote part of the world and was asked by a local what the band on my arm meant. When I explained what a wrist watch was and what it did, the gentleman thought that was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard. I spent rather a wonderful afternoon with him as he explained his thoughts on time.

A few years later in another remote part of the world, I was fascinated by another explanation of time, entirely different than the one I understood and even more so than the one I had patiently explained to me in that other remote part of the world.(as an aside, in one country I was afraid I'd freeze to death and the other I was afraid I'd melt).

Some time later I was hired as a consultant by a company for the purpose of conducting some tests and had to familiarize myself with a device laymen refer to as a metric clock, which is actually quite interesting to work with.

Finally, as part of a group looking into certain aspects of history in another part of the world, I was confronted with the mathematics of time used by the Mayans.

 

I had to ask of the various explanations and various measurements - what is time?

 

In thinking over the explanations and means of measurement, I could accept that time could be a dimension (the present), but the concept of time passing? The thought makes me laugh. Where does it pass from and where does it pass to and more importantly how does one measure its passing? I have 4 explanations or actually categorizations that I could use, and all perfectly logical, but each as meaningless as the other.

 

I think we look for the difficult answers in life and pass by the simple as too unsophisticated for us to consider. My belief is that all existence occurs in the present and that the past and the future do not exist. It is only an opinion that anyone else can disagree with, but then convince me that your belief is more correct, if you have the want, but philosophical fofarah isn't going to convince me of anything.

 

Time is a way to address the unknown in a manner that allows us to sleep at night, because we have an answer. The belief your answer is correct is OK and it is also OK that the answer is different for different people. I don't need the comfort of time telling me what to do or when; and I have the luxury of not worrying of time and can sleep when I'm tired, wake when I'm not and eat when I'm hungry - all without any interference from the arbitrary movements of sticks pivoting about a common center (I liked it - so I stole it).

 

It was fun, but I am afraid you have taken my attempt at debate somewhat personally and before you become further upset, I will thank you for your responses, I trust my explanation of my beliefs is adequate to assure you I hold no malice at your opinion, and so I will not trouble you further within this thread.

[HeyYou]

The only circumstance in which he would not, is if he did not have enough TIME (*snicker*) to overtake the turtle.

 

LOL

 

Zeno's Paradoxes were examples I used when other people disputed the existence of time. I figured refuting the existence of space (Although I should have used only the mathematical versions, because everyone thought the arrow and Achilles parables were LITERAL.)

 

I myself realize time both passes in a way that can be observed and exists as a dimension, but most of my arguments were directed at those who claimed that time did not have either property.

 

Actually, no, I did recognize the philosophical exercises for what they were and did not take them literally. I simply pointed out they are meaningless in the debate of whether time exists or not, whether it has direction or has behaviour and even more so meaningless as a demonstration that space or motion do not exist. As for math, well I am sure it can be proved mathematically that nothing exists, this is all a dream and we are actually sleeping in a liquid filled pod providing energy to run a rather large and complex machine, but I would likely debate that as well.

However, if you would like to debate the existence of motion and space I would be more than willing to do so, but in another thread.

 

The consideration of time started for me about 15 years ago. I was in a rather remote part of the world and was asked by a local what the band on my arm meant. When I explained what a wrist watch was and what it did, the gentleman thought that was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard. I spent rather a wonderful afternoon with him as he explained his thoughts on time.

A few years later in another remote part of the world, I was fascinated by another explanation of time, entirely different than the one I understood and even more so than the one I had patiently explained to me in that other remote part of the world.(as an aside, in one country I was afraid I'd freeze to death and the other I was afraid I'd melt).

Some time later I was hired as a consultant by a company for the purpose of conducting some tests and had to familiarize myself with a device laymen refer to as a metric clock, which is actually quite interesting to work with.

Finally, as part of a group looking into certain aspects of history in another part of the world, I was confronted with the mathematics of time used by the Mayans.

 

I had to ask of the various explanations and various measurements - what is time?

 

In thinking over the explanations and means of measurement, I could accept that time could be a dimension (the present), but the concept of time passing? The thought makes me laugh. Where does it pass from and where does it pass to and more importantly how does one measure its passing? I have 4 explanations or actually categorizations that I could use, and all perfectly logical, but each as meaningless as the other.

 

I think we look for the difficult answers in life and pass by the simple as too unsophisticated for us to consider. My belief is that all existence occurs in the present and that the past and the future do not exist. It is only an opinion that anyone else can disagree with, but then convince me that your belief is more correct, if you have the want, but philosophical fofarah isn't going to convince me of anything.

 

Time is a way to address the unknown in a manner that allows us to sleep at night, because we have an answer. The belief your answer is correct is OK and it is also OK that the answer is different for different people. I don't need the comfort of time telling me what to do or when; and I have the luxury of not worrying of time and can sleep when I'm tired, wake when I'm not and eat when I'm hungry - all without any interference from the arbitrary movements of sticks pivoting about a common center (I liked it - so I stole it).

 

It was fun, but I am afraid you have taken my attempt at debate somewhat personally and before you become further upset, I will thank you for your responses, I trust my explanation of my beliefs is adequate to assure you I hold no malice at your opinion, and so I will not trouble you further within this thread.

 

Nah, takes quite a bit to upset me. And if you like my description of the clock, you may feel free to use it. :D

 

I would guess that if you got the various folks together in one place that you had your discussions with, THAT would be an interesting conversation. Quite honestly, they are ALL probably correct, as time is just a crutch that humans use to account for the passage of the earth around the sun, and rotation on it's axis. Different folks perceive it in different ways, not just geographically, but culturally as well I would imagine.

 

The past DID exist, when it was the present.... the present does not exist YET. I don't think that Time goes anywhere..... it is the rest of us that are simply passing thru it. Each moment exists as a separate entity, and reality as we know it simply moves from moment to moment.

 

Consider Time, a succession of moments, as a train. Each box car represents a moment. We spend our moment in a box car, and then move on to the next. Now, there is some debate on whether all of our 'stuff' moves with us, and each boxcar is empty, until we occupy that moment, and then everything moves on, or, maybe our stuff exists in all of them? There is a bit of theory leaning toward the former supposition. Everyone has gone looking for some particular item, and have been unable to find it...... so, they start searching some of the same places again, only to discover that there it is, in plain sight, and they must have just 'over-looked' it. Or, was it in fact, not there at the previous moment when they were looking, and moving on to later moments, the item in question caught up with them? Or..... maybe the guys in the blue suits, who are responsible for moving everything from moment to moment... dropped it, and when they noticed that you were looking for it, went back to the point they dropped it, and put it back where it belongs? :D

[Keanumoreira]

The only circumstance in which he would not, is if he did not have enough TIME (*snicker*) to overtake the turtle.

 

LOL

 

Zeno's Paradoxes were examples I used when other people disputed the existence of time. I figured refuting the existence of space (Although I should have used only the mathematical versions, because everyone thought the arrow and Achilles parables were LITERAL.)

 

I myself realize time both passes in a way that can be observed and exists as a dimension, but most of my arguments were directed at those who claimed that time did not have either property.

 

Actually, no, I did recognize the philosophical exercises for what they were and did not take them literally. I simply pointed out they are meaningless in the debate of whether time exists or not, whether it has direction or has behaviour and even more so meaningless as a demonstration that space or motion do not exist. As for math, well I am sure it can be proved mathematically that nothing exists, this is all a dream and we are actually sleeping in a liquid filled pod providing energy to run a rather large and complex machine, but I would likely debate that as well.

However, if you would like to debate the existence of motion and space I would be more than willing to do so, but in another thread.

 

The consideration of time started for me about 15 years ago. I was in a rather remote part of the world and was asked by a local what the band on my arm meant. When I explained what a wrist watch was and what it did, the gentleman thought that was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard. I spent rather a wonderful afternoon with him as he explained his thoughts on time.

A few years later in another remote part of the world, I was fascinated by another explanation of time, entirely different than the one I understood and even more so than the one I had patiently explained to me in that other remote part of the world.(as an aside, in one country I was afraid I'd freeze to death and the other I was afraid I'd melt).

Some time later I was hired as a consultant by a company for the purpose of conducting some tests and had to familiarize myself with a device laymen refer to as a metric clock, which is actually quite interesting to work with.

Finally, as part of a group looking into certain aspects of history in another part of the world, I was confronted with the mathematics of time used by the Mayans.

 

I had to ask of the various explanations and various measurements - what is time?

 

In thinking over the explanations and means of measurement, I could accept that time could be a dimension (the present), but the concept of time passing? The thought makes me laugh. Where does it pass from and where does it pass to and more importantly how does one measure its passing? I have 4 explanations or actually categorizations that I could use, and all perfectly logical, but each as meaningless as the other.

 

I think we look for the difficult answers in life and pass by the simple as too unsophisticated for us to consider. My belief is that all existence occurs in the present and that the past and the future do not exist. It is only an opinion that anyone else can disagree with, but then convince me that your belief is more correct, if you have the want, but philosophical fofarah isn't going to convince me of anything.

 

Time is a way to address the unknown in a manner that allows us to sleep at night, because we have an answer. The belief your answer is correct is OK and it is also OK that the answer is different for different people. I don't need the comfort of time telling me what to do or when; and I have the luxury of not worrying of time and can sleep when I'm tired, wake when I'm not and eat when I'm hungry - all without any interference from the arbitrary movements of sticks pivoting about a common center (I liked it - so I stole it).

 

It was fun, but I am afraid you have taken my attempt at debate somewhat personally and before you become further upset, I will thank you for your responses, I trust my explanation of my beliefs is adequate to assure you I hold no malice at your opinion, and so I will not trouble you further within this thread.

 

 

 

The past DID exist, when it was the present.... the present does not exist YET. I don't think that Time goes anywhere..... it is the rest of us that are simply passing thru it. Each moment exists as a separate entity, and reality as we know it simply moves from moment to moment.

 

 

 

 

In light of what has been said about the past not existing (and some of that extended to the future as well), that is the most convincing argument I have heard in this thread. Bravo sir, bravo.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Keanumoreira