The nature of time

[Pyrotex]

Hi Pyrotex, I have utterly no argument with anything you say except for one small issue. You are failing to comprehend a subtle aspect of my definition of time....

You are proceeding as if my definition of time is identical to your intuitive concept of time which it is not. Before you can talk about a “change in the past” you must be careful to make sure you understand exactly what “the past” is. I have defined the past to be “what you know, presume you know or perhaps what you think you know”. ...

Okay, Doctor,

I think I'm beginning to catch on.

 

As a sentient being, all I really have "access" to is the total store of memory and (interpreted) sensory information in my brain (my Map of Reality). This is what I "know".

Which is semantically identical to: this is what I think I "know".

My mind can access any of this (in principal) and with the aid of the mental structure that we call "short term memory", I can detect changes in any portion of my Map of Reality.

 

That light was red, now it is green. There's the change.

 

Ironically, what the mind detects is not the change in the light, but the change in my awareness (loosely speaking) of the light, aka, the change in my Map of Reality.

Literally: "I know the light is red, I know the light is red, I know the light is red, I know the light is green... aha! change!"

 

Am I on track so far?

 

If so, then "time" becomes (in a sense) the semantic concept with which I order the sequence of changes in my mind's knowing, aka, the sequence of changes that have occurred in my Map of Reality. If the mind detects two changes, and when change 2 occurs, my memory already contains a record of change 1, then I say that change 1 occurred in time before, or prior to, change 2.

[Doctordick]

Okay, Doctor,

I think I'm beginning to catch on.

Yeah, I think you are. The issue is very clearly expressed by movies. Everyone knows that what you are actually seeing (so to speak) is a series of still pictures but you perceive the illusion of continuous motion.

 

That brings up two specific problems about which I argued with some of my physics professors when I was a graduate student. (They said it was philosophy which had nothing to do with physics.) First is the question of illusion. It is essentially the scientific position that, if you can prove it is an illusion, then it is an illusion. If you cannot prove it is an illusion it is real. It seems to me that the argument should be the other way around. If you can prove it is real, then it is real. If you cannot “prove” it is real, then it is an illusion. Since you cannot prove solipsism is wrong, you must assume everything is an illusion.

 

A good example of what I am talking about is what you are reading at this moment. Your perception is a graphic image on a computer screen, or perhaps an image on a piece of paper if you have printed it out, whereas the reality (as per your own world view) is that cone cells in your retina are being excited. Yet I will bet money that, try as hard as you can, you can not “perceive” the excitement itself as a real. So the computer screen is clearly an illusion created by your subconscious.

 

And that brings up another problem. These illusions are created by our subconscious (at least that is what we call it in our personal world view). This means that we have acquired that world view by solving a very strange and seemingly impossible problem. Essentially our world view is an explanation of undefined information (reality???) transformed by an undefined process (our subconscious???). Everyone (except Anssi) seems to hold the position that the problem I have just specified is absolutely insoluble; in spite of the fact that millions upon millions of infants solve it all by themselves every year. And most of them manage to find a very functional solution in less than a year.

 

Think about it and give me your reaction. It is indeed a soluble problem and I have solved it.

 

Oh, and what does all this have to do with this thread? Don't kid yourself; time is an illusion!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[lawcat]

We must start somewhere. The fundamental assumption which must be true for any rational discussion is that something exists. All that exists we name universe. Universe is what it is, whatever it is.

 

The second order of inquiry is the way we describe it, all that exists -- the universe -- and the parts of it. We describe what we perceive, which is the shapes and the realtionship between shapes. To do that we use polar or cartesian coordinates--we use geometry. The geometry does not necessarily exist, but that which our geometry describes exists as discernible part of the universe, and that we call space.

 

The third inquiry is required by the failure of geometry. We discern change in shapes and change in relationship between shapes, yet cartesian geometry is static and it fails to explain change--that which we perceive of universe. So we say there is an infinite counter which is part of our model geometry as well. With this new coordinate--the counter--we can explain that part of the universe which allows for change. That something which is part of the universe that allows for change we shall call time, just to give it a name, and it corresponds to a counter in our model geometry.

 

Now we have something called space and something called time, which is part of the universe, and we can represent it in our cartesian system as 3 distance axis and a counter.

 

Time exists by our experience of it, just as space exists by our experience of it. We may not know what it is ontologically, but distances and counters suffice for the purposes of explaining both.

[REASON]

Don't kid yourself; time is an illusion!

 

I'm just amazed at how accurately the illusion of time can be defined. :eek2:

[Doctordick]

I'm just amazed at how accurately the illusion of time can be defined.

I suppose you are as amazed by that as is the Pope by the power and glory of God. Amazement is a wonderful thing to build your life around isn't it. :lol::lol:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[REASON]

I suppose you are as amazed by that as is the Pope by the power and glory of God.

 

Not even close. I was being ironical. But you're clearly free to suppose as you wish.

 

 

Amazement is a wonderful thing to build your life around isn't it. :phones::lol:B):lol:

 

I don't know. Is it? I build my life around relationships with others. :naughty:

[Doctordick]

Ok REASON, I will give you another chance. I had presumed that your post was nothing more than an attempt to discredit my assertions via a witty comment. Perhaps you are more open minded than that implies.

The units of time that measure change are defined by humans in the same way that units of distance are defined by humans. But you can't point to a kilometer any more than you can point to a minute, so if that's what you think it requires for something to exist then there is neither time nor distance.....there is nothing. Clearly, that is not the case.

It's not so clear to me; neither with respect to either time or distance. I do not know how to prove that change is a real characteristic of the universe. All I really know is that what I am aware of changes and, in order to take that fact into account when I make an attempt to create an explanation consistent with my limited knowledge (what I am aware of) I have to invent “time”. Please examine my post Laying out the representation to be solved”.

 

If you look at my responses to lawcat's private message to me, you should understand that “space” is not defined in my post; however, I will define space later. That definition (which by the way ends up being perfectly consistent with the common concept) turns out to result in some rather interesting subtle problems.

 

But meanwhile,

I'm just amazed at how accurately the illusion of time can be defined. ;)

I am personally not amazed at all as, if you understand my analysis of the problem of laying out a notation which makes no presumptions, the result of my (actually quite simple) definition of time results in exactly mirroring the standard definition. Try and come up with a “reasonable” way of handling that same problem without coming up with essentially the same result.

 

More important than that, considering the fact that our world views are a fiction conceived of by our subconscious as I was pointing out earlier,

A good example of what I am talking about is what you are reading at this moment. Your perception is a graphic image on a computer screen, or perhaps an image on a piece of paper if you have printed it out, whereas the reality (as per your own world view) is that cone cells in your retina are being excited. Yet I will bet money that, try as hard as you can, you can not “perceive” the excitement itself as a real. So the computer screen is clearly an illusion created by your subconscious.

don't you find it rather amazing that so many people have almost identical mental models of reality? Why should their brains produce such a uniform result? Do you really think that everyone is smart enough to deduce the actual correct reality as a proper illusion? Or is there something else going on here?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

...I do not know how to prove that change is a real characteristic of the universe. All I really know is that what I am aware of changes....

Well, one way to "prove" it (at least to your mind) is to take it to be a truth statement that you DD are "real"....your problem solved. For if at least one thing in the universe exists that is "aware of change", then change must be a real characteristic of that universe. I mean, DD, you do agree that you are "real" and "exist"--correct ?--and that you "know it" ?

 

...More important than that, considering the fact that our world views are a fiction conceived of by our subconscious

But, where is the logic in this statement ? Your statement was conceived by your subconscious and is then a "worldview", and thus by your thinking, must be a "fiction", not a "fact". Your claim is then a "fiction" for the reason that according to your philosophy all worldviews are a fiction. This does raise the question, how does DD define a fact, and how does a "fact" differ from a "fiction" ?

[Pyrotex]

Well, it looks like Alfred Korzybski wins again. ;)

By communicating with each other, we build up a common vocabulary. It is this vocabulary with which we build up a world-view, our Map of reality. Actually, our world-view is basically complete by the time we are 8 or 10 years old. So it is not surprising to me that we should have the same illusions, the same metaphors, the same experiential icons in our Maps.

[Rade]

Well, it looks like Alfred Korzybski wins again. By communicating with each other, we build up a common vocabulary. It is this vocabulary with which we build up a world-view, our Map of reality. Actually, our world-view is basically complete by the time we are 8 or 10 years old. So it is not surprising to me that we should have the same illusions, the same metaphors, the same experiential icons in our Maps.

But, for Korzybski to reach final victory, he claims that our "maps", while the collective illusions (fiction), are not invented illusions, but a direct product of the "territory" (facts). You see, for Korzybski, the "territory" exists, it is "real"--but for DD, all is illusion--map and territory. There is no Korzybski thinking in DD--not the way I read his philosophy. It is not clear to me that DD would claim that he "exists", let alone any "territory". Now, this is not to say the I think the Fundamental Equation does not have value--I think it does--it is a sub-set of the philosophic Law of Identity A = A (this is the reason DD also claims that it is a philosophic tautology). But for me, tautology (which is the inverse of contradiction) has great value. And the tautological root of the Fundamental Equation provides a mathematical basis for the formation of "concepts" within the human mind, and that operation has importance to physics (well, all science and just being a human). But DD does not agree with me.

[JMJones0424]

...he [Korzybski] claims that our "maps", while the collective illusions (fiction), are not invented illusions, but a direct product of the "territory" (facts). You see, for Korzybski, the "territory" exists, it is "real"--but for DD, all is illusion--map and territory. There is no Korzybski thinking in DD--not the way I read his philosophy. It is not clear to me that DD would claim that he "exists", let alone any "territory".

 

This is not at all the impression I have gotten from DD's posts. He makes repeated references to solipsism, but I do not remember him ever claiming that nothing actually exists. Instead, as I understand him, he is saying our perception of reality can never be known to be completely "accurate", and therefore what we think of as reality is actually the map we have constructed for ourselves in order to organize and make sense out of the various "data points" that we think we have. He appears to me to be trying to create a framework for determining whether or not the map one uses is self-consistent.

 

EDIT:

In the What can we know of reality? thread Doctordick writes:

As has been said many times (on this very forum and in many professional publications), one can not prove solipsism is false and, as solipsism is the philosophic position that everything is illusion, it certainly follows that there exists no way to separate reality from illusion; however, it is just as true to say that you cannot prove there does not exist something real behind our concepts of reality. It seems to me that the only rational position is to assume both real and illusionary ontological elements exist behind our thoughts: i.e., it seems rather ridiculous to presume one knows what is real.

[lawcat]

But, where is the logic in this statement ? Your statement was conceived by your subconscious and is then a "worldview", and thus by your thinking, must be a "fiction", not a "fact". Your claim is then a "fiction" for the reason that according to your philosophy all worldviews are a fiction. This does raise the question, how does DD define a fact, and how does a "fact" differ from a "fiction" ?

 

This in my view sums up DD efforts here. DD actually proved just the opposite of what he set out to do. He proved the absurdity of his solipsism.

 

But I think DD is puliing a prank on everyone. It's impossible than anyone can be serious about such position. I'll consider his posts an inside science joke on strange claim posters.

[Doctordick]

This is not at all the impression I have gotten from DD's posts. He makes repeated references to solipsism, but I do not remember him ever claiming that nothing actually exists.

Thank you! There appears to be a number of people around here who simply don't comprehend the idea of not making presumptions. I think the most important phrase in the post that you quote is

It seems to me that the only rational position is to assume both real and illusionary ontological elements exist behind our thoughts: i.e., it seems rather ridiculous to presume one knows what is real.

I am aware of no one (other than myself) whose analysis of the problem confronting mankind considers the possibility that, real/imagined, can go either way on any issue.

 

Or even beyond that, it appears to be almost a scientific axiom that imagined entities can serve no scientific purpose; which leads to the somewhat ridiculous presumption that, if it serves a scientific purpose, it must be real.

 

That brings up something I said a long time ago which I think deserves a little thoughtful consideration. I will post it under the title “Exactly How Does One Determine Truth?”

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

This is not at all the impression I have gotten from DD's posts. He makes repeated references to solipsism, but I do not remember him ever claiming that nothing actually exists.

In the thread titled "ontology quiz", DD made this comment about a quiz question, where one was asked to argue that a chair placed in front of them exists or does not exist:

 

Clearly the chair does not exist.

 

Now, you have posted another comment by DD that he finds:

 

It seems to me that the only rational position is to assume both real and illusionary ontological elements exist behind our thoughts

 

So, how am I to take this philosophy of DD ? In the first post, DD finds that "clearly" no chair exists put in front of him--I then take this mean that nothing put in front of DD exists via perception.

 

But then, clearly, DD does claim in a second post that "real ontological elements exist". So, something does exist--correct ?

 

So, I ask a simple question....is a chair put in front of DD a real ontological element ? If no, why not ? If a chair is not a real ontological element--what is ? An example would help. If the answer to the simple question is yes, then clearly DD has a philosophic position based on a contradiction.

 

I hope you see my confusion with the DD philosophy claim about "existence" and what is "real".

[emacneille]

Hate to put a break in the flow, but it was getting rather focused on DD. From what I've read of DD's. posts, he seems quite rational, although a little head butting in the name of science won't crack any skulls.

 

Time is the medium by which we view change. What is remarkable is that change seems to take the same quantity of time in every instance the same change occurs (pendulums or the earth going around the sun). Of course, this is subject to relativistic effects. However, in the human experience, time appears to be a constant variable.

 

What is the nature of time? Well it is difficult if not impossible to imagine, but the framework of time as we know it fits perfectly into the definition of a dimension. Every point in 3d space can go forward or backward in time, just as any 2d point can go up or down in 3d space. The integration of two more directions to every point in a dimension leads to a new dimension.

 

But why is time so different from the other dimensions of our movement? We cannot control our movement, and time seems to be moving in only one direction.

 

If time is spacial like our other dimension, and simply cannot be imagined by our 3D and lowly minds, time is the fourth dimension. Why do we only travel one direction? Newton's first law! We are falling through tetra space at a steady rate, thus the apparent constant nature of the time variable in physics.

 

-It is important to point out a possible syntax confusion. When talking about a space with three dimensions, commonly it's called the third dimension. The fourth dimension has four dimensions, meaning there are 4 orthogonal directions, each with a forward or backward, which can be traveled from any point.

 

ps. DD-where can i find this much referenced equation of yours?

[emacneille]

Reason is absolutely right. The very definition of 'change' depends upon some non-zero time interval.

 

Time is how we account for the constant rate of change. Change is maxed out with a given time interval at the speed of light, which is the bound of change possible in the observable universe. Change is also limited at lower momentums, and as long as those Cesium atoms keep chugging along at 9,192,631,770 Hz. The rate of change is constant. This rate limits the amount of change possible in an interval. Imagine the total energy of every single atoms' movement plus the energy of any other particle in the universe for an entire second, compared to the same figure for the next second. Although there will be fluctuations, the law of large numbers suggests that the two energy levels will be nearly identical. This figure could be defined as the energy constant of the universe.

 

-It would be different with a different speed of light. A faster speed of light would yield more change or Cesium decay/second than a slower one. However, this bit is unimportant, because it is only true with perception held constant.

 

Our perception of time is a relation between the typical amount of change we see in a given stroke of our internal clock (based on Cesium decay). The speed at which we are able to interpret information is a function of the relative speed of the things we must react to for survival. We're completely zoomed out from the atomic world, and all of the change we acknowledge happens macro. A much smaller organism, perhaps the size of several atoms, would benefit from relatively faster perception than us to sense atomic fluctuations, and to live our lifetime these creatures would feel magnitudes of ten older.

 

Thus the speed of light is a relative measure, relative to our perception. Our perception is a certain fraction of the speed of light and it is this fraction that relates the number of Cesium decays to what we think of as a second. Change and time are essentially the same thing, merely binarily opposed constructs stored somewhere in our cranium, that together create the average distance in the tou direction that bounds events.

 

Isn't the nature of time equally related to our perception as change?

[phision]

I found this:

 

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_The_Nature_of_Time.pdf

 

...felt it needed to be added to this thread!