does time exist
Is time simply a man made concept or is it the guiding force of the Universe? If time exists how would one prove that Time exists? This is a question that has rattled through my head more then once over my meager existence on this world. Every time I ask this question I never receive a acceptable response. I continually find myself standing on a shoreline tiring to decide to wade in or stay dry. So I put the question to you. My best concept of time is that time is static, however mans concept of time is that of it being fluid. Time as man perceives it is true for us; however is it true for the rest of the universe? Nick "outta time" Lidster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
- Original Message - From: "Nick Lidster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 5:44 PM Subject: does time exist > Is time simply a man made concept or is it the guiding force of the > Universe? If time exists how would one prove that Time exists? The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given in the Critique of Pure Reason. Briefly put, space and time are the a priori forms of our intuition. Reconciling this with relativity did seem difficult, until one realizes that there is an absolute spacetime; with different reference frames being represented by rotations in spacetime. Goldstein's text on Classical Mechanics contains a good explaination of this. Hope this helps. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Dan said: > The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given > in the Critique of Pure Reason. Briefly put, space and time are > the a priori forms of our intuition. But what is intuition if not a process operating through time? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Dan said: The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given in the Critique of Pure Reason. Briefly put, space and time are the a priori forms of our intuition. But what is intuition if not a process operating through time? Rich But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as "truth"... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Brad said: > But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say > that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics > and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of > space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them > replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as > "truth"... Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time *exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: does time exist
Thanks Dan I'm sure that will help. As for Rich and Brad, that is where I would get in my self evaluation of time. It would end in a stalemate not being able to decide if we are a function of time or time is a function of us. IMO fitness does not equal truth. If that statement were true we would always be wrong, nothing would ever get done. Simply put everyone would be right all the time even with contradictory ideas. Heard this somewhere before; "If you believe that it is true then it is, because truth is only what you believe not what anyone else does." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: does time exist
Thanks Dan I'm sure that will help. As for Rich and Brad, that is where I would get in my self evaluation of time. It would end in a stalemate not being able to decide if we are a function of time or time is a function of us. IMO fitness does not equal truth. If that statement were true we would always be wrong, nothing would ever get done. Simply put everyone would be right all the time even with contradictory ideas. Heard this somewhere before; "If you believe that it is true then it is, because truth is only what you believe not what anyone else does." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 12:35 PM Subject: Re: does time exist > Brad said: > > > But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say > > that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics > > and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of > > space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them > > replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as > > "truth"... > > Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have > intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time > *exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something > in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal > structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that > this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in > nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of > temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what > looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial > patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal > flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity > might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]). I realize that I didn't explain things very well, but a good explanation would probably be a 100k+ post, carefully written. So, you will have to live with me giving the next layer up on the explanation. Intuition, for Kant, is not just a gut feel (e.g. woman's intuition). Rather, it is the way our minds interact with that which is real apart from us: numenon. Space and time are a priori in that they come first; they are an inherent part of the human mind. Numenon is that which exists as itself, apart from us. To use language from later philosophy, its things-in-themselves. We do not live in a world of numenon; we live in a world of phenomenon. Phenomenon is the interface between mind and numenon. It is defined both by that which exists apart from humans and by the human mind. For Kant, space and time do not exist apart from us. One of the great usages of this, at the time, was to better explore causality. He countered the "uncaused cause" proof of God's existence by defining causality as part of the human mind's ordering. Apart from our minds, things simply are. It is us who orders them in space and time, and arranges them with causal links. What is neat about this worldview, is that it has a better explanation of why we are surprised than does idealism. After all, if one is an idealist, and phenomenon is simply the shadows of our own mind, then why should we ever be surprised? But, if phenomenon is also dependant on that which exists apart from human minds, then surprises can be expected. Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind, then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart from observation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Dan said: > Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to > understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind, > then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart > from observation. But some of their properties *do* exist apart from observation, or at least are always the same whenever measured: they are always spin-1/2 particles, for example. So would your position be that electrons have a "dual nature", being part mind and part numenon? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: Re: does time exist > Dan said: > > > Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to > > understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind, > > then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart > > from observation. > > But some of their properties *do* exist apart from observation, or at > least are always the same whenever measured: they are always spin-1/2 > particles, for example. Fair enough, I was speaking a bit too generally. Rightly said, some important properties do not exist. The spin is always +/- 1/2 whenever measured, but it cannot be either +1/2 -1/2 before being measured in a given direction, unless it had been measured in that direction. So would your position be that electrons have a > "dual nature", being part mind and part numenon? Electrons are phenomenon. Phenomenon is better described as the interface between mind and numenon than part and part, IMHO. But, that is getting a bit technical, in a philosophical sense. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Brad said: But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as "truth"... Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time *exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l When I turn over the CD I am holding in my hands, and look at the rainbow pattern of light coming from the overhead lamp, hitting the CD, and being reradiated back into my eyes, isn't the rainbow diffraction pattern pretty strong evidence that the photons spread out over all space and all time (with some amplitude) on their journey from the CD to my eye? Isn't that difficult to reconcile with a temporal structure in which some things "were," other things "are," and still other things "will be," and in which the "are" becomes "were" and the "will be" becomes "are"? Brad DeLong ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
- Original Message - From: "Brad DeLong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: Re: does time exist > >Brad said: > > > >> But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say > >> that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics > >> and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of > >> space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them > >> replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as > >> "truth"... > > > >Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have > >intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time > >*exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something > >in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal > >structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that > >this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in > >nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of > >temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what > >looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial > >patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal > >flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity > >might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]). > > > >Rich > > > >___ > >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > > > When I turn over the CD I am holding in my hands, and look at the > rainbow pattern of light coming from the overhead lamp, hitting the > CD, and being reradiated back into my eyes, isn't the rainbow > diffraction pattern pretty strong evidence that the photons spread > out over all space and all time (with some amplitude) on their > journey from the CD to my eye? In a word, no. Let us consider light that originates from a very small light bulb, and is radiated in all directions. Some of the light hits the disk and is reflected into your eye. The reflection angle is dependant on the frequency of the light (and on the nature of the CD surface, of course). Let us now consider just a short burst of light from that lamp. It is connected to a switch that can turn in on and then off very quickly. Let us replace your eye with an instrument that can record such a short burst, and is also able to determine the wavelength of the light. Given that the total distance from the lamp to the CD to the instrument is about 3 meters, we have a transit time of no more than about 10^-8 sec. If we have an equally short pulse of light, we would have a span of little more than 2x10^-8 seconds to consider. Let us consider two events: the start of the pulse at the lightbulb, and the end of the recording of light at the instrument. These are two positions A, and B in spacetime. With reflection, the two events can be seen to be spacelike, and not timelike. Thus, A (which is the start of the pulse) is always before B, (which is the end of the recording of light.), no matter which reference system one is standing in while considering the two events. Further, nothing before A or after B can influence the events. We can also discuss spacial limitations. We see that only that space that is is the after half of the light cone for A and the before half of the light cone for B need be considered. Thus, we have a relatively restricted volume of spacetime that needs to be considered. Dan M. >Isn't that difficult to reconcile with > a temporal structure in which some things "were," other things "are," > and still other things "will be," and in which the "are" becomes > "were" and the "will be" becomes "are"? Given what I've said, not really. Causality is unidirectional. Jokes about preliminary exams in physics included proposed questions like: "discuss time reversal in physics. Be sure to include the influence of Einstein on Newton and Galileo." We need to remember that science describes what we observe. It is neutral about the inherent reliability of observations vs. ultimate reality. That's a philosophical, not a scientific question. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: does time exist
Brad said: But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics and relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of space and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them replicate themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as "truth"... Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time *exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]). Rich I don't know what it means to say that time "flows" given the large number of events that have spacelike and not timelike separations. The fact that every electron-photon coupling looks "the same" in some sense (whether it is "an electron emits a photon and recoils," "an electron and a position meet and annihilate each other and their energy is transformed into photons," or "a photon breaks apart into an electron and a position") is mother nature telling us something. What mother nature is telling us is not clear to me, however... -- Yours, Brad DeLong ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
