URAIN Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 1 space. Contrary to popular belief, space is not "nothing." It is made of an energy called quantum foam that constantly compresses atoms into its 3rd dimension. what is your response for this thread ?http://scienceforums.com/topic/24174-matter-occupies-space/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I would like to know answers from science for following questions. Please answer What is the time? Which observe the time passing? Who experience the time passing? Hi URAIN I didnt notice you before, was it my report on nothing that made you notice me? And soon youll leave? :( In that case ill tell you my thoughts though its really much too early: The problem with the static view of the universe given by Parmenides and Cartesius and carried on to the Relativistic Universe is that neither life nor consciousness fit in the picture! Life perhaps was put in our equations by Ilia Prigogin but whether that suffices to predict large scale actions like putting a Dyson sphere around our sun is doubtful. Consciousness is quite another matter, nobody has got a clue on what should be done...I will speculate: Mind in order to appreciate itself is (roughly put) a function of two moments of time(a mindquantum) which seem to work best with a quantised time, or theres another timeaxis 90 % to the first... Putting "the flow of time" into physics will surely need drastic measures! Take care! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
URAIN Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Hi URAIN I didnt notice you before, was it my report on nothing that made you notice me? And soon youll leave? :( I am not understanding of your above quote. I suspect that you are said this by seeing my profile status. I am sorry if you misunderstood. I have only said, after 6 days new year is coming, in the name of year 2011. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
URAIN Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 In that case ill tell you my thoughts though its really much too early: What about, telling your thought? Consciousness is quite another matter, nobody has got a clue on what should be done...I will speculate: Mind in order to appreciate itself is (roughly put) a function of two moments of time(a mindquantum) which seem to work best with a quantised time, or theres another timeaxis 90 % to the first... Putting "the flow of time" into physics will surely need drastic measures! Take care! It means till now there is no any clue in science about "which is observing the time in living organism" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 It means till now there is no any clue in science about "which is observing the time in living organism" . "Till now"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, unambiguously, however you want to say it: Time is nothing but the counting of motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations of an entity. Vibrations/oscillations are either introduced by humans (tuning forks, quartz crystals etc) or natural (electrons of a cesium atom) Whether natural or man-made, humans are the only ones "interested" in such Vibrations/oscillations. We want to track events hence we define a precision and "set/control" that vibration/oscillation to achieve that precision. It is true that even after we set that precision, the precision could go haywire depending upon how much force is exerted on that entity on which we based our precision. I think that is pretty much it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I spend a lot of time thinking about the questions you asked. cnt stories. Although we cannot change times speed, fate can influence the perception of time to a certain extent. 1 When you stop and focus on it we really don't have alot of time. If it has been going on for 13.7 billion years and for the sake of this post it goes on another 13.7, we are only given a slot of 60-80yrs of life to experience it that's a very small percentage. I can't speak for everyone but I know for myself nearing fifty, time seems to be moving faster than ever. Although I know that time is still clicking by the same as always my perception of time has without a doubt changed. There is something spooky about seeing your age pop up in the obits section of the news paper more often. 2 To me the past cosmic time is interesting, but when contemplating time I usually focus on the far future. At some point far in the future the last bit of energy will fizzle out or the last black hole will evaporate or whatever happens last will happen. Will that be considered the end of time and if not when? Infinite time is something my mind just refuses to comprehend, but I'll keep thinking about it, I still have time. So do I. Two points: 1 Im not in the first hand interested in my personal position/duration of time, the time of life in general is what i worry about. 2 See point1. Perhaps your wiew of "the end" isnt up to date, only considering the energystarved U .Now theres also "the big rip" to worry about :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, unambiguously, however you want to say it: Time is nothing but the counting of motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations of an entity. Vibrations/oscillations are either introduced by humans (tuning forks, quartz crystals etc) or natural (electrons of a cesium atom) Whether natural or man-made, humans are the only ones "interested" in such Vibrations/oscillations. We want to track events hence we define a precision and "set/control" that vibration/oscillation to achieve that precision. It is true that even after we set that precision, the precision could go haywire depending upon how much force is exerted on that entity on which we based our precision. I think that is pretty much it. Is your basic idea that time is change? There is a debate at least dating back to Parmenides and Zenon.No fault in that I assure you, them old fellows were bright! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Is your basic idea that time is change? No, it's not an idea that I was floating, it is a fact; that time is a human invention. I didn't say time is change, I said time is nothing but the counting of motion. We could time anything, change, no change, whatever, as long as we set something in motion and count the number of times the thing in motion vibrates/oscillates. There is a debate at least dating back to Parmenides and Zenon.No fault in that I assure you, them old fellows were bright! May be they were bright, may be not. Has no bearing on what time actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 No, it's not an idea that I was floating, it is a fact; that time is a human invention. I didn't say time is change, I said time is nothing but the counting of motion. We could time anything, change, no change, whatever, as long as we set something in motion and count the number of times the thing in motion vibrates/oscillates. May be they were bright, may be not. Has no bearing on what time actually is. I dont get it! Ok... suppose you are right: We create time! Then what is preventing us from creating space in some similar way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 what is preventing us from creating space in some similar way? The motion is physical; the counting of the said motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations is not. Ergo, space is physical, time is not. Motion (movement) is impossible without space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The motion is physical; the counting of the said motion in terms of vibrations/oscillations is not. Ergo, space is physical, time is not. Motion (movement) is impossible without space. Time is just a space in one dimension. My "map" cannot contain more then three dimensions, so i see time as an ordered collection of holographs.The order IS our picture of the time dimension but the order itself is not created by our mind. Motion is not found INSIDE any holograph, its an effect on mind comparing differences in consecutive (past) holographs. Is your story different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 My "map" cannot contain more then three dimensions, so i see time as an ordered collection of holographs.The order IS our picture of the time dimension but the order itself is not created by our mind. Motion is not found INSIDE any holograph, its an effect on mind comparing differences in consecutive (past) holographs. Sorry, I disagree. The order is definitely created by the brain. What gets fed to the brain is a heap of data. It is the brain that is arranging the data in an order that makes "sense" to us. Where the order is not created by our own brain via our observations, we rely on external resources to validate the order. In any case, we are the ones who determine what is consecutive and what is not, what is ordered and what is not, according to what we know, what we learned and what we observe. That knowledge to determine what is consecutive and what is not, is embedded in our DNA (courtesy millions of years of evolution) and/or acquired via our own experiences as well from external media (books, journals, news papers, web sites, peers, acquaintances and so on) In that respect, time is just a counter. Say, at number 100000000000, Alexander the Great was born and at number 100000000000000000000 Bill Clinton was born. Here, I just picked two random numbers to illustrate my point that the sequence of numbers to place these two events (the birth of Alexander and the birth of Clinton) is generated by us. As long as the numbers are universally agreed upon, we think we coordinated time. So, a person born thousand years from now, wouldn't know whether Alexander's birth really preceded Clinton's birth. He would only "know" it via an external source. "Time" is not telling him anything. We were the ones telling him which event happened when on the number scale. Time, in that sense, is a real number scale. The number scale is still ours, purely man made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sorry, I disagree. The order is definitely created by the brain. What gets fed to the brain is a heap of data. It is the brain that is arranging the data in an order that makes "sense" to us. Where the order is not created by our own brain via our observations, we rely on external resources to validate the order. In any case, we are the ones who determine what is consecutive and what is not, what is ordered and what is not, according to what we know, what we learned and what we observe. That knowledge to determine what is consecutive and what is not, is embedded in our DNA (courtesy millions of years of evolution) and/or acquired via our own experiences as well from external media (books, journals, news papers, web sites, peers, acquaintances and so on) In that respect, time is just a counter. Say, at number 100000000000, Alexander the Great was born and at number 100000000000000000000 Bill Clinton was born. Here, I just picked two random numbers to illustrate my point that the sequence of numbers to place these two events (the birth of Alexander and the birth of Clinton) is generated by us. As long as the numbers are universally agreed upon, we think we coordinated time. So, a person born thousand years from now, wouldn't know whether Alexander's birth really preceded Clinton's birth. He would only "know" it via an external source. "Time" is not telling him anything. We were the ones telling him which event happened when on the number scale. Time, in that sense, is a real number scale. The number scale is still ours, purely man made. Our description of the reality is not the same thing as reality. We percieve objects by accepting and ordering data...its a complicated process not known in all its details. But looking at your text i dont create what im looking at... it IS there affecting my brain and the brain produces a picture (map) in my mind of the text. The text and the picture of the text are not the same thing! Likewise with the picture of time and time itself. Your argument does NOT prove there is no real object "time" in reality. All you look at is HOW our MIND makes a PICTURE of time, you make no attempt on explaining WHAT sort of object CAN give us the picture. Nor do we percieve space itself, all we see are objects and decide them objects must have a container containing them. Our decision does not create it, its there or not there independently of what we think or percieve. As the case is with time! To repeat again: The physics of time is not the same thing as the psychology of time :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 OK, looks like we are embarking on discussing three different concepts here, namely, reality, time and space. I thought the discussion is only limited to time but that is fine, I understand overlaps are the norm and not exception in our everyday lives. Our description of the reality is not the same thing as reality. We percieve objects by accepting and ordering data...its a complicated process not known in all its details. It is an approximation, agreed. But there is no real reason to think that our approximation of reality is markedly different from true reality. If there is a reason, I would like to know what it is. But looking at your text i dont create what im looking at... it IS there affecting my brain and the brain produces a picture (map) in my mind of the text. The text and the picture of the text are not the same thing! Well, yeah, but whoever said the text and a snapshot of the text are the exact same thing?! Why state the obvious? As an analogy, whether you are reading a hard-copy of Tolstoy's War and peace or whether I am reading it on my e-book reader like Amazon Kindle, we are still reading essentially the same thing. We could agree upon that, right? In which case, the reality of War and Peace is the information that the text is conveying to us, which is to say it's reality is not different at all than the originally penned version written by Tolstoy himself. Likewise with the picture of time and time itself. Your argument does NOT prove there is no real object "time" in reality. All you look at is HOW our MIND makes a PICTURE of time, you make no attempt on explaining WHAT sort of object CAN give us the picture. The burden of proof is on those who think that time exists in reality. Just as I cannot prove that there is no God, the onus of proof of God, lies with those who say God exists in reality. Nor do we percieve space itself, all we see are objects and decide them objects must have a container containing them. Our decision does not create it, its there or not there independently of what we think or percieve. As the case is with time! Space is physical. The very fact that particles move around is proof enough that space exists. Space is not a perception, it is real and fundamental. The movement could be of particles at the microscopic scale or objects at the macroscopic scale; even if you say that it is the electrochemical signals sent and received by neurons that is interpreting space as we know it, I would still say that in order for the electrochemical pulses to move around along the neurons' axons and across synapses, they still needs space otherwise no interpretation of the external world is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 It is an approximation, agreed. But there is no real reason to think that our approximation of reality is "markedly different" from true reality. If there is a reason, I would like to know what it is. Check out the approximations on the age of earthly life: There were lot of approximations from 4000 years to...say 10000 ...cant recall all steps and i dont think the present approximation is close to the mark :) So we both agree that there IS a reality, not yet correct described by our pictures of it? Got to zzleep :) cya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.Consciousness Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hmm...somebody in their infinite wisdom moved this thread to the Philosophy forums. Is philosophy forums a catch-all bucket for anything and everything that overlaps with more than one subject? Do they not know that everything in this universe is entangled and that there is no defined locality per se for any given entity? On this very thread, I talked about neurons so why is this not moved to the Biology forum? Or someone talked about dimensions so why is this not moved to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum? It would be fascinating to understand the logic behind moving threads and/or posting topics even. On what basis are subjects classified? Does a discussion involving, say, the Big Bang, belong to Astronomy and Cosmology forum or to the History forum? If my above questions are playing around semantics, may be this whole thing belongs to the Linguistics forum then? sigurdV, it was nice talking to you but I am not interested in the philosophy behind Time so please count me out of further discussions. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.