Time

[catholictiger]

Okay, I did not ask about redness, I asked how can you prove that numbers are not real. Further, I have never suggested that time is a real being, only that it is objectively real, something you are denying.

I think there may be some confession of terms so before we go on what exactly do you mean by objectively real?

I’m saying time is a mental being

you say time is objectively real, if that isn’t a real being meaning having form and matter what do you mean by objectively real once you answer this question I can maybe have a better idea what exactly your getting at.

 

[pig]

This particular problem appears illogical because the resolution is not written on the page, nor is the information presented with the correct phrases. In terms of the electromagnetic field tensor, there are induced electric and magnetic field components of the tensor, but these components actually counter-act one another in measurements so the moving observer measures nothing at all!

If the theories are understood properly, there are no contradictions.

PS: you may want to include a link to the website that you are citing.

is it possible Alberti you could translate that to english. the website seemed fairly clear to me until now. thank you. byee

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I think there may be some confession of terms so before we go on what exactly do you mean by objectively real?

I’m saying time is a mental being

you say time is objectively real, if that isn’t a real being meaning having form and matter what do you mean by objectively real once you answer this question I can maybe have a better idea what exactly your getting at.

First, if time is merely a mental being, then it is not objective because it depends on a person’s experience/interpretation. Second, if time is merely a mental being, then it is not necessarily real because the mind can make up lots of not-real things (like fire-breathing dragons or unicorns).

I say that time is objective, in that 1 quantity of time is the same for all people, regardless of perceptions of that duration. Since it is objective, it must be real. Time is not a real being, it is an accident of our universe, in particular, the space-time manifold.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

is it possible Alberti you could translate that to english. the website seemed fairly clear to me until now. thank you. byee

Actually, I misread the original quote and thought it was discussing a different problem. A similar resolution still occurs. I will try to elucidate.

In electromagnetic theory, the electric and magnetic fields are actually two components (6 if you want to be technical, but B[sub]x[/sub],B[sub]y[/sub],B[sub]z[/sub] are all still part of B) of the same single field. This single field is known as a tensor with a particular rank of 2; this can (incorrectly) be conceived as a 4x4 matrix. In this (purely aesthetic) view, the electromagnetic field tensor is written as

where i is the imaginary number (purely an older style of the relativistic treatment of space-time) and E[sub]i[/sub] is the electric field component and B[sub]i[/sub] is the magnetic field component.

Now, the stationary observer has a field tensor that has no B components. The moving observer, however, has an entirely different field tensor:

where the Greek symbol beta is the velocity divided by the speed of light (i.e., v/c), Greek gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - beta[sup]2[/sup]), and the observer was moving in the x-direction.

Since the electric and magnetic fields are actually the same thing, there is no contradiction or illogic involved in the different measurements of the different frames, despite the appearance of one.

If you need more help on this, try the following:
UCSD notes on relativistic E&M
This wiki link on the relationship between E and B fields

 

[catholictiger]

First, if time is merely a mental being, then it is not objective because it depends on a person’s experience/interpretation. Second, if time is merely a mental being, then it is not necessarily real because the mind can make up lots of not-real things (like fire-breathing dragons or unicorns).

I say that time is objective, in that 1 quantity of time is the same for all people, regardless of perceptions of that duration. Since it is objective, it must be real. Time is not a real being, it is an accident of our universe, in particular, the space-time manifold.

after trying to figure this out for alittle while because this actually got me thinking, I must say your theory is very solid makes alot of sense and I could see as true. But there are still two issues for me that I’m still not raping my head around that could tear down your theory all together.

First I’m not to sure that science is objective, I’m not to sure about math but time kinda fits in both categories, he is why scientific judgements are probable, it is probably the case that this explanation we give of this phenomenon is in fact the case. I don’t believe it is every possible to say that this explaination is certainly fact and what really happens. Why? The reason why is that there is still the future that has yet to happen, in this future new discoveries could be made that could disprove theories of science even laws of science that have been proposed. Now I’m pretty sure that scientific laws are things that people are so certain about that they know (they think they know) that it will always work this way, and they are probably correct. It is probably the case that things will stay at rest if they aren’t acted upon by an outside force. But you can’t say for certain that it will always happen this way because there is no way to know that something in the future could disprove that theory or law.

Now if science is objective it would seem that scientific judgments would be in fact universal true and it would be impossible for something in the future to disprove it. I would say that this is absurd you can’t assume that something that is only based on observation will always happen the same way and you won’t be able to assume that nothing else will be discovered that will disprove your theory. I would bet that the majority of scientist if not all scientist would say that it is possible that something in the future may disprove my theory. For me it is difficult to rap my head around how scientific judgements can be probable and at the same time objective seems contradictory to me.

Now math is different because math isn’t based on observation math is based on logic, and because of this no matter what the physical laws of the universe are 10 will always be 10 no matter what, so it would seem that mathematical concepts, basic mathematical concepts are objective. But this brings me to my second question

does accidents mean something is real.

some questions need to be answered

what is an accident?

does this accident have existence?

if it has existence where we do find this existence? can it exist on its own? must it have something else to exist?

So that we will be on the same page I need you to answer these questions I don’t want to have confusion of terms.

my second problem with your theory of time is I’m not sure if accidents are real or if accidents are simple how we explain things and aren’t really in things.

 

[JerryZ]

You do not understand the four-dimensional nature of the big bang, nor the prompting of the theory.
It is blindingly easy to determine the location of the origin of an explosion: the debris follows specific trajectories, you just have to follow the trajectories backwards. In space, each galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies, equally. There is no trajectory to follow because there does not exist one.

The easiest way to explain it is to take a deflated balloon and put a whole bunch of equally spaced dots on it, then inflate it. What happens? Each dot moves away from all other dots equally and, if you only existed on the surface of the balloon, there is no origin of the expansion. This is the same thing in our universe. No amount of technological advances will ever be enough to determine the location of the big bang, it is not a physical possibility now or ever.

No, the singularity was absolutely something. It must have been, otherwise we would be made of nothing, an obvious contradiction. Prior to the singularity was nothing, but God created something out of nothing: the singularity and all of existence.

In order to throw that theory out (that you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the point of origin) you first need to have a vantage point (a frame of reference). You need to be able not only to measure the speed at which all the galaxies are flying away from each other but you also need to be able to record a trajectory which can only be obtained byy veeeeeeeeeeeeery long observations. NOT a project for a lifetime, HECK possibly the lifetime of the entire civilization could not achieve it. We are but a dot in the history of our Universe!
There is hope though we already have been to better and better measure the WHEN, sometime in our distant future someone will have the EUREKA moment of the WHERE.

Also the inflating balloon analogy is that an analogy that was used to explain the expansion of the Universe in the early days when they discovered that all the galaxies where moving away from us.
In fact the Big Bang was at first ridiculed by mainstream physics.
And there are still people trying to find alternate ways to explain but the scientific evidence is preponderantly in favour up to now to it.

 

[JerryZ]

maybe its just our perceptions of logic and reason differ. we perhaps see and measure the same thing but see different origins for the results. e.g. you may see time itself as affecting or effecting a material clock but i may see time as the measurement for an effect on the clock. I could be vastly wrong, I don’t know. But i would like very much to see a clock, a spring-wound clock, slowing with acceleration. Then I think I would be satisfied that you are right and that I am wrong.

Am I right in thinking that you are of Italian extraction or origin because I spent many happy days in the company of a group of Italians on a very long, difficult, [time difficult], walk to santiago. ‘Our feet are on fire’ was the Italian description of the pain, I am fond of the Italians. Very friendly and great walkers too.

Well my dear friend the issue with giving you that proof is that in order to achieve it, we would need to speed up your Tag-Heuer Chronograph at speeds that we are currently not capable of. The precision of the best mechanical chronometer is 1/2000th of a second.
And if you cared to read the tests done with the atomic clocks aboard planes they accrued differences of 60 and 273 nano seconds depending of the direction the plane was flying, West or East.
By the way the reason that happens is because the plane travelling west is adding it’s speed to that of the rotation of the Earth while the one going East is subtracting it and therefore it’s moving slower in the bigger frame of reference.
But I digress that Tag-Heuer precision when expressed in nanoseconds equals to 500000
So between 1 click and the next 500000 nanoseconds passed.
You will agree with me that it is impossible for that thing to measure an event that is 2000 times smaller than it’s accuracy. It would be like trying to measure the diameter of a hair with a yardstick divided in feet only.

I suggest that you accept the fact that the time dilation effect has been proven beyond the shadow of the doubt by many different methods both on earth and in space.
They are able to accurately predict the effect, which is the scientific way of testing a theory by repeatable observations that need to yield the same results before it is accepted.

Then again you are free to believe anything, including that the Earth is flat. I believe in London there still exist a society that proposes that.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

In order to throw that theory out (that you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the point of origin) you first need to have a vantage point (a frame of reference).

Yes, but what you are forgetting is that we are still inside the explosion! We are not simply observers of an explosion that happened way over there, we are actually in it. To get a vantage point, you need to be an external observer.

You need to be able not only to measure the speed at which all the galaxies are flying away from each other but you also need to be able to record a trajectory which can only be obtained byy veeeeeeeeeeeeery long observations. NOT a project for a lifetime, HECK possibly the lifetime of the entire civilization could not achieve it. We are but a dot in the history of our Universe!

We can actually measure these galactic velocities, and we have mapped them fairly well, you just need to do a Google search of “Hubble’s law.” And we still cannot determine the origin because it is impossible. Perhaps the image below can help:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p39.gif
source

There is hope though we already have been to better and better measure the WHEN, sometime in our distant future someone will have the EUREKA moment of the WHERE.

Again, an impossible discovery, much like perpetual motion machines.

Also the inflating balloon analogy is that an analogy that was used to explain the expansion of the Universe in the early days when they discovered that all the galaxies where moving away from us.

And it is still just as relevant. The fact that it was used “in the early days” says nothing of its falsity or truth–in fact, I would suggest by the fact that the analogy is still used for explaining shows that there is at least a strong element of truth to it.

In fact the Big Bang was at first ridiculed by mainstream physics.
And there are still people trying to find alternate ways to explain but the scientific evidence is preponderantly in favour up to now to it.

There is no alternative to the big bang that matches all observations and predictions and no credible scientist is trying to invent new alternatives to the big bang.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

after trying to figure this out for alittle while because this actually got me thinking, I must say your theory is very solid makes alot of sense and I could see as true. But there are still two issues for me that I’m still not raping my head around that could tear down your theory all together.

I am glad that it got you thinking!

First I’m not to sure that science is objective, I’m not to sure about math but time kinda fits in both categories, he is why scientific judgements are probable, it is probably the case that this explanation we give of this phenomenon is in fact the case. I don’t believe it is every possible to say that this explaination is certainly fact and what really happens. Why? The reason why is that there is still the future that has yet to happen, in this future new discoveries could be made that could disprove theories of science even laws of science that have been proposed. Now I’m pretty sure that scientific laws are things that people are so certain about that they know (they think they know) that it will always work this way, and they are probably correct. It is probably the case that things will stay at rest if they aren’t acted upon by an outside force. But you can’t say for certain that it will always happen this way because there is no way to know that something in the future could disprove that theory or law.

I would argue that science is objective because science intends to explain the objective universe. I agree that certitude and explanations of results varies over time, but that does not reduce the fact of objectivity in science, only that researchers intuitions are subjective. Aside from that, no one publishes results saying “This is a law of nature and it is correct!” What happens is they publish a result saying “We have found this to be the case.” And after a large set of successful testing is something called a law of nature.

Now if science is objective it would seem that scientific judgments would be in fact universal true and it would be impossible for something in the future to disprove it. I would say that this is absurd you can’t assume that something that is only based on observation will always happen the same way and you won’t be able to assume that nothing else will be discovered that will disprove your theory. I would bet that the majority of scientist if not all scientist would say that it is possible that something in the future may disprove my theory. For me it is difficult to rap my head around how scientific judgements can be probable and at the same time objective seems contradictory to me.

Intuition about a result is what is subjective, but the process and underlying mechanisms of a result (which science is intending to discover) is objective. Truth will out, so even if a result is interpreted incorrectly, the correct interpretation will eventually come about.

Now math is different because math isn’t based on observation math is based on logic, and because of this no matter what the physical laws of the universe are 10 will always be 10 no matter what, so it would seem that mathematical concepts, basic mathematical concepts are objective. But this brings me to my second question

does accidents mean something is real.

Accidents are attributes of something real but are not part of its essence (i.e., what the object is made of and not what it is), so they must be real too.

some questions need to be answered

what is an accident?

Accident comes from Aristotle’s substance theory, but are, as I said above, the attributes of something that are not part of its essence.

does this accident have existence?

if it has existence where we do find this existence? can it exist on its own? must it have something else to exist?

As far as I know, and anyone who knows better can/should correct me, accidents only have existence through something and not by itself.

So that we will be on the same page I need you to answer these questions I don’t want to have confusion of terms.

New Advent: Accidents is a good start.

my second problem with your theory of time is I’m not sure if accidents are real or if accidents are simple how we explain things and aren’t really in things.

This is what you have asked above and that I have answered.

 

[Jaaanosik]

never mind
I did not read a post properly.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t have time to go through this all now, well the time which is a mental being doesn’t give me enough time to do this. lol.

anyway I just wanted to address one point and that is the idea that 10 and feet have existence in the outside world. I would say they don’t and if you could please try and explain how they have existence in the outside world.

for example you have 10 cows in a barn being milked. Is there actually in that barn the form 10 and what ever makes up the matter of 10? Or is 10 something that our minds use to quantify what is in reality.

if one cow is slaughtered does the real being of 10 undergo a substantial change and become 9?

my point is that numbers and measurements our, as kant called it, categories of the mind which help us make sense of reality. They aren’t things that are real beings in the outside world.

Time is the same thing there is no real being of time but rather time is a category of the mind that helps us measure the amount of change or the amount of things past in the real world.

now I disagree with Kant’s conclusion but I do think he makes some good points with things of science and mathematics in the fact that quantitative things are categories of the mind and we take real beings, like cows humans cars, etc. and put the categories into them. One major difference between Kant and myself is that I believe the cow out there is actually a cow and not my sense perception of the Cow. I’m a realist, not an empiricists.

see my response to JD if you want to continue this discussion on the reality of time.

again for me Time is a mental being, not a real being.

Pig:

But don’t you see, numerability and time must have at least imperfect existence outside of the mind for two reasons: (1) if ten cows weren’t really 10 cows, your “outside world” would not make sense to a cognizant being, and (2) ten of anything is clearly a multitude of things that is identical to that same multitude of some otherwise different things, whether a cognizant being exists or not. That it is not a big deal to non-cognizant beings, is irrelevant. In at least the Mind of God, those multitudes have a comparative reality.

Pig, it is true that time is primarily a mental construct, but, it has its basis in the real world. There exists a unit to unit, or one to one, correspondence.

God bless,
jd

 

[migueltojose]

There have been a few episodes of the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and movies like Groundhog Day and the Matrix that can make you think about time (and Einstein of course)… Everything we perceive as our reality is filtered through the self. If there is an infinite and all knowing God then there is no limit to what he can do. I’ve heard of the Catholic belief of the “eternal present” (God’s time). I’ve also heard that time was a convenient illusion created by God, presumably for the opportunity for eternal salvation. For quantifiable measureable growth and development. Given that, the possibilities are endless and really unknowable. Perhaps each and every “soul” has it’s own time and universe. If capacity, creativity and imagination are unlimited… why not? It’s all relative… With God, all things are possible.

Consider what Mary did (had done) at Fatima? 70,000 witnesses saw the sun dance and draw toward the earth. Many were healed. When it started the ground was sloppy mud and their clothes were dirty, when it was over the ground was dry and their clothes were clean. (My recollection anyway.)

I’m not saying I believe in this particular hypothetical, I’m saying that it’s possible along with a lot of other possibilities. I think it is a necessary, worthy and noble endeavor to engage in academia, philosophy and science… but I also think we need to remain humbled and awed by the universe and world we experience and remember that “there by for the Grace of God, go I…” We think we know a lot of stuff. But we really don’t know if we do for sure, we just think we do.

Maybe everything that can happen has happened or will happen. Maybe every “random” event or possibility occurs eventually. An electron goes this way rather than that way. (Multiplied a kajillion times over and over.) The possible permutations would become numbers incomprehensible to us. But…

Maybe it is all about us, but, there’s a catch, it’s all about us not being all about us…

Obviously though, the only philosophy I ever took was in high school so I apologize if I come across simple or sophomoric compared to “real” philosophy… (Like Donald Sutherland in Animal House)…

 

[catholictiger]

I am glad that it got you thinking!

I would argue that science is objective because science intends to explain the objective universe. I agree that certitude and explanations of results varies over time, but that does not reduce the fact of objectivity in science, only that researchers intuitions are subjective. Aside from that, no one publishes results saying “This is a law of nature and it is correct!” What happens is they publish a result saying “We have found this to be the case.” And after a large set of successful testing is something called a law of nature.

Intuition about a result is what is subjective, but the process and underlying mechanisms of a result (which science is intending to discover) is objective. Truth will out, so even if a result is interpreted incorrectly, the correct interpretation will eventually come about.

Accidents are attributes of something real but are not part of its essence (i.e., what the object is made of and not what it is), so they must be real too.

Accident comes from Aristotle’s substance theory, but are, as I said above, the attributes of something that are not part of its essence.

As far as I know, and anyone who knows better can/should correct me, accidents only have existence through something and not by itself.

New Advent: Accidents is a good start.

This is what you have asked above and that I have answered.

your time is an accident of the universe makes me think you may have it correct. I will need think over this. So I will stop posting on here for a little while, mainly because I have exams this week and also to allow me to think over this.

have a blessed week

 

[catholictiger]

Pig:

But don’t you see, numerability and time must have at least imperfect existence outside of the mind for two reasons: (1) if ten cows weren’t really 10 cows, your “outside world” would not make sense to a cognizant being, and (2) ten of anything is clearly a multitude of things that is identical to that same multitude of some otherwise different things, whether a cognizant being exists or not. That it is not a big deal to non-cognizant beings, is irrelevant. In at least the Mind of God, those multitudes have a comparative reality.

Pig, it is true that time is primarily a mental construct, but, it has its basis in the real world. There exists a unit to unit, or one to one, correspondence.

God bless,
jd

why are you calling me a pig

JKJK did you mean to put pig in this response.

but I’m not saying there aren’t 10 cows in the outside world what I’m saying is that 10 is a category of our mind a process of our mind that allows us to quantify things like the number of cows in a barn. There is nothing in your explanation that necessitates that 10 must be something real for us to be able to count things. I see it very possible that you can use concepts that exist in your mind to explain these things

and I agree with your last statement it does have basis in the real world. the present exists and that present existing allows us to have time, allows us to have memory of the past and anticipate the future which means our idea in our mind of time has basis in the real world.

as I said to the other poster I have exams this week and I can’t be involved in a deep philosophical argument like this I will come back to it later this week.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Do we as a human family even know what time is?

THANKS!