What Makes Time, Time?

[______]

What produces time? Movement (i.e. the rotation of planets; planets orbiting a star)? Does time exist for those in open space in no orbit? These are questions I have pondered for a long time.

I posted this in another thread and thought it deserved it's own topic.

Your opinions are deeply appreciated! :D

[scameter]

I think that time is one of two things, although of course this is just speculation: it is either a physical thing produced by this existence that was created at the Big Bang along with everything else in this existence, which would essentially depend on if it is physically existing, and if it can be explained in physics; number two, that it is a conceptual thing, created by human conceptuality, and simply is change and the continuation of things, specifically perhaps movement, as you said.

[______]

So then, if we were in the "void" of "empty" space in no sort of orbit, time would cease to exist? <_<

[Michael]

Thought makes time

[scameter]

Space is apart of existence just as much as matter, so if indeed time is created by existence, we could be anywhere and it would exist, even if relatively so.

[sonrisa]

I sometimes wonder if time is merely a man-made measuring device to explain day into nite, the change of seasons, why we grow old, etc....

but the physicists have all these equations saying that time is an actual thing, sooo.....

{shrug) :uninvolved:

[______]

So we have, "time is relative", "time is because we are", and "time is an object". :think: <_<

I'm no physicist, but if time were an object, wouldn't we have found it by now?

Time is in fact relative only because we exist, but who's to say that if we didn't exist there would be no time?

[scameter]

Physicists haven't explained everything yet. Even gravity isn't entirely "found" or explained, it's effects are only explained.

[______]

Thought makes time

How so? :think:

[schrodinger]

Time and Zero, the two ultimate constants in the universe. Both represent reference frames for everything else, and neither one exist! :lol:

[Michael]

How so?

1. Try asking a rabbit what time it is

2. The perception of time changes with one's state of mind

3. Without thought there is no time

4. Time is an aspect of the elaborate illusion of maya

5. Take 1 part thought, 1 part mind and shake well.... :thumbsup:

[scameter]

If number one is taken into full consideration, it is also language that creates time, even though it is based in thought. :)

[______]

Try asking a rabbit what time it is

By my experience, rabbits are always late.... :P :D

[______]

Take 1 part thought, 1 part mind and shake well....

Shaken not stirred? :P :lol: :D

[______]

In all seriousness, I think this may just be a most accurate explanation for time. Unless of course time is just whatever we make of it.... :think:

[Rudi]

Time is the long strings on the loom upon which the tapestry of our existence is created. It is as definitive to matter as atomic weight. It is the framework for our conciousness.

[scameter]

Why?

[______]

Why?

Great question, Scam! :thumbsup: That one's my favorite! :D

[______]

Time is the long strings on the loom upon which the tapestry of our existence is created. It is as definitive to matter as atomic weight. It is the framework for our conciousness.

Wow. Care to expand?

[Rudi]

I remember the first time I helped her with her coat. She slipped both arms into the sleeves and shrugged the heavy cloth over her shoulders. She ran her hands behind her neck to lift her mane free and as she did her hair brushed my cheek and filled my senses with a scent I will carry to my grave.
The day we became lovers she slept in the August heat as the children in the yard next door played in a sudden rain storm. The sound of her breathing echoed in the their joy. This moment traveled with me every step of my journey since.
This morning I watched the sunrise softly light her face. Two hands reached out to touch my cheeks. “Good Morning Kitty!!!” our three year old daughter yelled. Funny, the identical glow in their eyes held no trace of irony.
If I could have read the book of all she could be, would I have known my lover the way I do having spent my life with her.
This is what time is.
I also know what time is not. It is not my creator. I am the same child that fought his enemies on the playground, the same child that held his father's hand as the line went flat. That same child runs his fingers across the surface of time and learns what he can be.


This may sound inappropriate for a post in the"Science" section but it is my elaboration on the “Framework of our consciousness” part.

[scameter]

So, time is romance and emotion? I could see that. :)

[______]

That was a wonderous explaination! :)

Thank you! :thumbsup:

[Rudi]

For me there is no emotion I would relate to any of the events I mentioned. I cannot relate my Fathers passing with sorrow nor do I relate my daughters birth with joy. I felt nothing at either. I was present, there was nothing else happening, no stray voices in my head. The Tao says “to see the world clearly you must rid yourself of desire”. I had, and have, no desire to alter these experiences. Perhaps that is why they have no other reference except as mile markers on the path tying all my steps together.
Manet wrote of his wife's death; that he watched her skin change color and was devoid of sorrow. He accounted himself a monster for this. People are afraid to admit this lack of emotion, it violates a social convention that demands a universal definition of events that have significance for the tribe.

I was trying to create an analogy where there is desire for knowledge without the expenditure of time. Who does not want to know more about their lover's child hood, what they are thinking about in the long pauses, what they dreams they have that cannot be mentioned without absolute faith? What parent would not look into the crystal ball of their child's future. That future is real and is there for us to find. Just as the past is there. Both beyond our grasp; we touch the now, endlessly.

One way to think about time is to think about it's absence. Consider what a boon it would be for a team of scientists to be able to move and probe and measure the realty of a completely frozen instant . A thousand live's could be spent in this endeavor. The ability to measure the exact positions of subatomic particles itself would be an opportunity to move beyond our reality.

[scameter]

:D

[______]

Eternity is but a chain of current moments! :D

[scameter]

"Current" moments.. apply that to the somewhat Taoist philosophy of life being like a river and that following the Tao Te Ching allows one to be in harmony with the natural flow of the river of life and it becomes quite interesting. :)

[Smurf]

To me there is no definitive, "present". What is the "present"? Is it a second? or a year. Is it all comparitive?

Then if there is no "present", as it is too vague to be precise, then there is nothing to seperate the future from the past. So time, it is a measurement. A measurement of the infinite fourth dimension.

There is time, and Distance - they are both measurements. What connects them, what drives this world is speed. When the two collide they bring about motion, life etc...

[______]

<_< That's quite right, Smurf.

"Present"? The Here and Now? Yet each second becomes the past as it passes us by. Perhaps the "present" is only "alive" for a brief instant.

Like I said before, "Eternity is but a chain of current moments!"

[Rudi]

I like the analogy of a river. Without time- a river is just an oddly shaped lake.
What if time could change places with matter. What would it's nature be?
We consider whether time is resolved into picoseconds or eons. Is this analogous to the view of relativity vs quantum theory; cosmic vs microscopic?

[scameter]

I think that we are often too extreme in our views. We should be more like mediators in that we attempt to find a middle, balanced ground between the two, in which both influence but not solely.

[MidnightSun]

Scameter is pretty right.

Light can blind. Be carefull with ur views :)

[sonrisa]

Smurf & Dash, Einstein said the present moment is an illusion. That was when he saw time a block consisting of the past & the future.

He also thought he could exist simultaneously in both the past & the future. Which I guess you can do if you reject the Heisenberg Principle, & Einstein did.

but towards the end of his life he decided that the whole business of time- past, present, & future- was just a bunch of maya.

[scameter]

I'm cute? :P

[______]

I think that we are often too extreme in our views. We should be more like mediators in that we attempt to find a middle, balanced ground between the two, in which both influence but not solely.
Sounds much like the Middle Way! :D

[scameter]

Indeed. :)

[______]

Then what would you propose the "Middle Way of Time" be? :think:

[Rudi]

We have time, if we have patience, to explore something elemental to our universe.
I do not feel that machines that count very quickly and evenly have defined time any more adequately than an ancient Greek could say he could define the smallest particle of matter because he had a very sharp knife.

I cruised the discussion boardfor sometime before I officially joined; due to warnings from a respected associate that my enjoyment would diminish once my investment was imperiled.

She was right. There is a lot of posturing here. Petulant replies and self promotion as well. But the hard edged requirements of thoughtfulness that are the basis of many curt retorts and dismisals, or at least the result, have made me formulate my ideas in a more concrete verbal form.
There is no middle ground. But there is a need for participants in worthwhile endeavors to LISTEN and frame our arguments in a fashion that promotes discussion, not commentary.

[scameter]

The are also no absolutes, or certainties. :)

[______]

<_< hmmm..... Seems to me that we have plenty of time to explore what time is! :D :lol:

[scameter]

:D

[amadman]

Here is my input on time.

We measure time with what we know. The rotation of the planet, orbit of the planet ect.
But that is only a measurement of time and it is relative to us.

My thought is that time change as you scale up or down. When you move down a scale time goes faster and when you move up a scale time goes slower.

Imagine that you are so big that the earth is the size of a marble.

Would earth days just be spinning past? :think:

[scameter]

Then indeed, if that is true, which it would appear to be at this current time, time does not truly exist, only to us. Or, even if it does exist without us, we only know it from our subjective standpoint. But, one problem with this is that time has not always been portrayed in the exact way it is now, or at all.

[amadman]

Hello Scameter :bye:

I would lean more to time existing and we only experience it from our own scale perspective.

As for your problem, The way I see it is that no matter how time is portrayed it does not change what time is.

[scameter]

To both answers, why?

[amadman]

Ok... Lets see if I can explain my thought process.

Lets say that in the ' time' the 'giant' in my previous post could say "Look at the pretty blue one!" the earth would spin 3 times.

In that same 'time' the things on earth aged 3 days while the things in the larger scale would have only aged seconds.

So thinking like this is why I believe that time exists without us and we only experience it from our own scale perspective.

[scameter]

Hmmm.. so, essentially, the fact that many different perspectives on it proves to you that time exist independant of us?

[amadman]

Thats sounds right!

I wish I could have said it so clearly :thumbsup:

[scameter]

:P I tend to be good at that I think, seeing the heart of an issue, not to sound arrogant or anything. But, I see your viewpoint and it makes sense, altough of course it could simply be that because we are all human, we all are capable of seeing the illusion that is time and indeed experiencing it. To be honest, I think time is symbolic, as with much of human conceptuality, for change and occuring; movement.

[______]

^Yup, that's good ol' Scam!^ :lol:

[Michael]

Am I being tick?

[Michael]

Am I being tick?

[scameter]

:ph34r:

[Steven Coyle]

"Tock, tock"

[liquidharmony]

I heard a theory on time and black holes that states time would actually slow down as it approached a black hole. The theory says that if you could sit stationary in front of a black hole and throw a digital clock that it programmed to tick every second, the closer the clock got to the black hole, the longer the interval between ticks would become. however if you were to travel towards the black hole with the clock, the ticking would appear not to change. This to me seems to make time objective and relative to gravity. Its just a theory, but held in high esteem.
It also says that, to an outside observer, time would completely stop just before entering the black hole and the object would infinitely appear to sit just outside of the hole.

[Smurf]

Yeah I agree, time isn't relative itself - there is only the different perseptions of it. As it is the fourth dimension coupled with distance it creates the Speed=Distance/Time formula without which this world wouldn't function as it does.

I heard a theory on time and black holes that states time would actually slow down as it approached a black hole. The theory says that if you could sit stationary in front of a black hole and throw a digital clock that it programmed to tick every second, the closer the clock got to the black hole, the longer the interval between ticks would become. however if you were to travel towards the black hole with the clock, the ticking would appear not to change. This to me seems to make time objective and relative to gravity. Its just a theory, but held in high esteem.
It also says that, to an outside observer, time would completely stop just before entering the black hole and the object would infinitely appear to sit just outside of the hole.

The time itself would changed only the physical dimensions of the clock. The gravitational pull of the black hole would have such an effect on the digital clock. Also it is just a theory - if you would like to test it by sitting outside a blackhole with a clock then be my guest :P
Clocks are not time itself they only measure the eternity.

[______]

...they only measure the eternity.
Interesting..... :)

[liquidharmony]

The time itself would changed only the physical dimensions of the clock. The gravitational pull of the black hole would have such an effect on the digital clock. Also it is just a theory - if you would like to test it by sitting outside a blackhole with a clock then be my guest tongue.gif
Clocks are not time itself they only measure the eternity.

I realize it was just a theory, but I think you misunderstood what it said. If you put aside the physical effects on the structure of the clock, and watched from a stationary position as the clock approached the black hole, the duration between ticks would increase as the clock got closer the the hole. not because the clock is being affected, but because the duration of one second at that point in space would be longer than the duration of one second at your stationary point in space.
as for proving it... try proving any theory on time other than what we already know.

just because its the fourth dimension doesnt mean it has to remain constant. maybe one day it will change and the world will cease to function as it does. we take for granted its consistency. our physics are only proved on a very small scale in relation to the infinite.

[Smurf]

I realize it was just a theory, but I think you misunderstood what it said. If you put aside the physical effects on the structure of the clock, and watched from a stationary position as the clock approached the black hole, the duration between ticks would increase as the clock got closer the the hole. not because the clock is being affected, but because the duration of one second at that point in space would be longer than the duration of one second at your stationary point in space.
as for proving it... try proving any theory on time other than what we already know.

just because its the fourth dimension doesnt mean it has to remain constant. maybe one day it will change and the world will cease to function as it does. we take for granted its consistency. our physics are only proved on a very small scale in relation to the infinite.


But how would the gravitational pull be affecting something that is already affecting its existence? You can't have a reverse affect or else the physics of the universe would come under question. The rate at which the black hole exists is affected primarily by time and distance. The gravitational pull uses time itself to measure the speed at which it affects stuff around it.

[liquidharmony]

But how would the gravitational pull be affecting something that is already affecting its existence? You can't have a reverse affect or else the physics of the universe would come under question. The rate at which the black hole exists is affected primarily by time and distance. The gravitational pull uses time itself to measure the speed at which it affects stuff around it

Space and time do not exist individually. they are intertwined in spacetime. The four dimensions are inseparable. In a situation where the three dimensions of space are distorted, it is inevitable for the fourth dimension of time to also be distorted. when the gravitational force gets so great that even the tiniest neutron is moving at more than one speed, time must accommodate. If time remained unchanged, then the physics of the universe would come under question. I believe this is part of Einsteins theory of relativity.

The rate at which a black hole exist inside of the black hole and outside of the black hole are two entirely separate things. The existence of such a thing is not determined by the physics of our universe. that is why anything beyond the event horizon is unobservable.
:think:
that last part is tough for me to say clearly :huh:

[Smurf]

No it's understandable.. and I agree with most of it. But I never got this deep into physics anyway so I'll just take what you say to be true. But wouldn't you observing the clock, being in the sphere of influence of the black hole be slowed down in time and not be able to view that time is distorted in the clock? :P

[liquidharmony]

But wouldn't you observing the clock, being in the sphere of influence of the black hole be slowed down in time and not be able to view that time is distorted in the clock? tongue.gif



not if you are observing from a stationary position or a set orbit as the clock falls towards the black hole. However if you are plunging towards the hole with the clock in your hand, time would appear to remain constant. The effects of gravity must be unequal.

[traveler]

Hi: my 3 cents..........1.what makes time is space and matter.....2.eternity is one current moment.....3.there are absolutes.

[MidnightSun]

Another idea about time travel. Computers power double every year. Their simulation capabillities signitifically improved during 30 years. The point is that you pick up a very powerful computer (not a nowadays pentium) and make him create virtual reality just as same as this one is, the exact copy. So you could travel forward and back in time without travelling by urself, you could just watch it and do not participate.
Of course a problem occurs then. If such a virtual reality would have been created we wouldnt know if we are the real ones or copies or perhaps we're the illiusion already, eh?

[Winfried]

The Matrix has you :D
Travelling back and forth in 'time' in a computer program doesn't count to me as really travelling trough time, no matter how sophisticated the program is. You're just moving forward through time at the same pace as you normally do, while running a sublime fake reality. I can't see how you could go forward in time with this virtual reality, for the future depends on so many different things. Travelling backward seems hard to me too, for no-one could verify whether or not our historybooks are correct.

In order to check this we need some machine that could mess up the space-time continuüm (how does one spell it) in a very precise way, so that a small bit of space (a test-person, a box, or a dinosaur perhaps) is allowed to travel through time untill that bit reaches a specific date (say June 18th 1815). If this bit of space contains a historian, he would be able to check whether or not the battle of Waterloo went like the textbook says it did. Now that would be sweet.

I got another idea of mine while I was watching a documentary about space telescopes. At a certain point the narrator said something like "the telescopes can see even further into space, reaching back almost to the beginning of time itself." It made me think. If someone was to be shot away, with several times the speed of light, billions of lightyears into space will he/she travel back through time? Or does he only see the light that was emitted billions of years ago?

[WanderingTaoist]

Here's a thought: We're all (or most of us) traveling through time right now! :D

Here's another thought (although not my own!): A Roman orator called Sextus Empiricus once said that all discussions of time end in pure nonsense. And St. Augustine once said "I know what time is until I start thinking about what it is." :thumbsup:

In fact, to paraphrase some of the problems Augustine raised in thinking about time:

There are a lot of difficulties in talking about time, it seems to me. I mean, think about it: We talk about the past, and we saying things like: "20 years ago is a long time ago!" or we think of the future and say, "20 years in the future is a long time!"

But surely the past doesn't exist, or else it would be the present, and not the past! So...how can we say something that does not exist is long? The future doesn't exist either, or else it wouldn't be the future, it would be the now! How can something that does not exist be long? :uhoh:

.....of course, we can avoid this semantic problem by simply saying "It was a long time ago, or it will be a long time from now" but time is not a matter of semantics (or so it seems to me).

We could start with the present, but what is the present? This year? If we start with a year, on January 1st, is the entire year present? Or is it that only the first day is present, and the other 364 have not yet arrived?

But we could further subdivide that: is the entire day present, or only the present hour? Is the entire hour present, or only the present minute? The entire minute, or only this second? This second, or....

You see the problem. The "now" or "the present" seems to be shrinking! How can we measure time if the past no longer exists, the future does not yet exist, and present is infinitely divisible??

Is time merely motion? I'm not so sure we can completely reduce it to motion, because we can measure how long a particular motion takes (i.e., a day is 24 hours). In doing so, what are we measuring? are we simply comparing motions to each other? Does the earth actually have to make a full rotation for it to be a "day"? Or is a day for us always 24 hours? Aren't all bodies moved in time?

Kant claimed time was a priori , but I don't think that actually solves anything like this.

So....how does this connect to space? I am of course aware of the concept of space-time in physics,
but I think we can make a distinction between time as measured by physics, and time as a psychological and philosophical problem. There probably is a connection between the two, but for "the time being" I can't see it! :think:


I got another idea of mine while I was watching a documentary about space telescopes. At a certain point the narrator said something like "the telescopes can see even further into space, reaching back almost to the beginning of time itself." It made me think. If someone was to be shot away, with several times the speed of light, billions of lightyears into space will he/she travel back through time? Or does he only see the light that was emitted billions of years ago?

Interesting! It reminds of a book called The Discovery of Heaven, where it was postulated that if an alien race 40 light years away had an incredibly powerful telescope, they could see everything that happened on earth forty years ago. During the time period this book was set in, 40 years ago would've been the Holocaust, which then lead to the interesting question of the impression we're making to interstellar observers, and how horrible it would be if they only saw us at our most barbaric. Morbid, but interesting.

[scameter]

Anyone find this thing of mine interesting at all?

Life is a lie; there is only existence.
Existence breeds complexity.
Complexity breeds contradiction.
Contradiction breeds error.
Error breeds progress.
Progress breeds time.
Time breeds death.

I don't entirely believe it myself, but it seems interesting. :)

[MidnightSun]

The Matrix has you

Yes yes! :D I thought so too, the theory was very similiar to the movie. I got it from one BBC documentaries about time travel.

[Fool Zero]

MidnightSun:Computers power double every year. Their simulation capabillities signitifically improved during 30 years. The point is that you pick up a very powerful computer (not a nowadays pentium) and make him create virtual reality just as same as this one is, the exact copy. So you could travel forward and back in time...
But wouldn't that require the computer to retain in memory, among many other things such as galaxies and germs and subatomic particles, an exact copy of itself making exact copies of itself past, present and future?

Furthermore, in order to provide the computer with a complete set of data, wouldn't someone have to determine the exact arrangement of every atom not only on this planet but everywhere in the universe -- all without changing a single thing?

Sounds like rather a tall order to me. :uhoh:

[WanderingTaoist]

MidNight Sun's simulation idea sounds really intriguing, but I'm not sure we could a) pull it off (at least not now!) and b ) I agree with Winfried, I don't think time traveling on a computer really counts. Kind of like how if you make an exact copy of something, it will be an exact copy in every way except for one: it's not the original. The quality of being "original" is not something you can physically copy.

Besides, there's many things we don't know about the past; the computer might re-construct something based off of our assumptions and do so in a completely wrong way! For example, what if for some reason, in a couple of hundred years, they assumed everyone in 2006 wore red converse shoes? And they told the computer that, so it reconstructed an exact replica of 2006...but everyone has red converse on!

For that matter, I'm not sure you could manage to get an adequate record of every single human that ever lived and their actions; you could make a world of fictional people, I suppose, but again that would be different from the reality...

Cool idea nevertheless though. I'd make a movie out of it if it hadn't been done already :thumbsup:

[MidnightSun]

a) pull it off (at least not now!)

Yes, not now, in future.

B) I agree with Winfried, I don't think time traveling on a computer really counts

But the affect of seeing future and the past would remain the same.

Besides, there's many things we don't know about the past; the computer might re-construct something based off of our assumptions and do so in a completely wrong way!

Just simply construct this very moment and press the reverse button.

The quality of being "original" is not something you can physically copy

It wouldn't be the original physicall copy,but the copy wouldnt know about it. He would think that he is physicall.

[Fool Zero]

Just simply construct this very moment and press the reverse button.

Pressing the reverse button while a spitball is still in flight might possibly show where it originated. Once it's gone "splat!" against the chalkboard, though, I doubt that there'd be enough information available to reconstruct its trajectory.

I'm afraid the same would go for a lot of things. Knowing that a car is traveling at a certain speed in a certain lane of the freeway wouldn't, for example, tell you where or when it got onto the freeway.

And gathering enough information about this moment or any other to completely reconstruct it, would also completely change it. Hey, I think that's what Heisenberg said too! :D

[MidnightSun]

And gathering enough information about this moment or any other to completely reconstruct it, would also completely change it. Hey, I think that's what Heisenberg said too!

Make computers do all the thinking job :P Humans dont haveto create computers, maybe Alice will make one who can do this procedure :D

[sonrisa]

so Fool0, u r saying that time travel is incompatible with the Heisenberg Principle?

[scameter]

Originally posted by @--
Life is a lie; there is only existence.
Existence breeds complexity.
Complexity breeds contradiction.
Contradiction breeds error.
Error breeds progress.
Progress breeds time.
Time breeds death.

:uhoh:

[Winfried]

Progress breeds time.
I don't really understand how this could be.

[scameter]

Because progress is a continuing thing, because as long as existence exists, it will have complexity, and from that derives contradition, which forms error, which inspires the desire to fix it, and the continued effort to fix error is progress, and progress is the continuation of things, or time, and then time effects death.

[abaris]

scameter,

are you using the term "progress" in the sense of advancement? If so I'll have to disagree with you.
It is rather obvious that things do not get necessarily better with the passage of time. The knowledge of the classical world was lost in the dark ages.

Take the Antikythera mechanism (wiki reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism)) as an example. It was build in the first century BC. The knowledge and craftsmanship for its construction was then lost for 18 centuries.

It was not until the late 17th century that European craftsman were able to produce a device of comparable complexity.

Time advances but that which is subject to the passage of time does not necessarily advance as well. It would be therefore more accurate to speak of change over time instead of progress.

I think that Anaximander ( around 600 BC ) captured the meaning of time better then anyone ever since:


Whence things have their origin, Thence also their destruction happens, According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense For their injustice In conformity with the ordinance of Time.


As for contradiction rising from existence! I couldn't disagree more. Existence is truth and as such free of contradiction. Limited perceptions of existence are contradictory because of the fallacies they contain.

[scameter]

are you using the term "progress" in the sense of advancement? If so I'll have to disagree with you.
It is rather obvious that things do not get necessarily better with the passage of time. The knowledge of the classical world was lost in the dark ages.

No. By progress, I mean in the sense that incompleteness is attempted to be replaced by completeness, and I did not mean this only for humans. Nature attempts this as well.

As for contradiction rising from existence! I couldn't disagree more. Existence is truth and as such free of contradiction. Limited perceptions of existence are contradictory because of the fallacies they contain.

So then existence it's self has no error or fallacy?

[abaris]

error or fallacy are human terms. Nature doesn't know right or wrong. Things just are or they are not.
Regardless of what we think or want them to be.

The universe existed before we came about and will still exist after we cease to be.

[WanderingTaoist]

Life is a lie; there is only existence.
Existence breeds complexity.
Complexity breeds contradiction.
Contradiction breeds error.
Error breeds progress.
Progress breeds time.
Time breeds death.

Because progress is a continuing thing, because as long as existence exists, it will have complexity, and from that derives contradition, which forms error, which inspires the desire to fix it, and the continued effort to fix error is progress, and progress is the continuation of things, or time, and then time effects death.

I'm not sure how you seperate "life" from "existance". To a certain extent, doesn't everything that exists have a "life" of sorts, if we take life in its most general sense?

Is contradiction possible? It seems to me that if anything were truly, existentially contradictory, it would cease to exist. Often what appears to be contradiction is, in fact, different parts of a harmonious whole operating reciprocally on one another. Perhaps one could say complexity creates the illusion of contradiction.


progress is the continuation of things

Is it? It seems to me that time will pass regardless of whether or not there is "progress".

As for death, well....if there is only existance, what is death? An end to existance? But there is only existance in the first place! (or is that your point?)

Perhaps we're treating this too critically, if so I apologize, it is a decent poem :), although I think I don't understand its theoretical underpinnings

[scameter]

I'm not sure how you seperate "life" from "existance". To a certain extent, doesn't everything that exists have a "life" of sorts, if we take life in its most general sense?

To that philosophy of mine, life is a lie created by people and attached to existence. Btw, remember, I didn't say I believe this philosophy I've made; I was really only speculating.

Is contradiction possible? It seems to me that if anything were truly, existentially contradictory, it would cease to exist. Often what appears to be contradiction is, in fact, different parts of a harmonious whole operating reciprocally on one another. Perhaps one could say complexity creates the illusion of contradiction.

But even illusions are still something; and so the illusion of contradiction would still mean contradiction exists, even if not truly.

Is it? It seems to me that time will pass regardless of whether or not there is "progress".

And yet progress happens, and has since the Big Bang, from the view of science. The complexity of life creates errors, which nature attempts to fix, and as we try to fix our own errors sometimes.

As for death, well....if there is only existance, what is death? An end to existance? But there is only existance in the first place! (or is that your point?)

Death, in this equation, is the end of progress, or time, when existence essentially stops.

Perhaps we're treating this too critically, if so I apologize, it is a decent poem , although I think I don't understand its theoretical underpinnings

:P Nah, I'm glad you're being critical. That's essentially why I made it and put it here (although I wasn't originally intending to, it just seemed like an interesting thing to do, putting it here). But, I hadn't actually thought of it a poem... interesting interpretation. :)

[WanderingTaoist]

But even illusions are still something; and so the illusion of contradiction would still mean contradiction exists, even if not truly.

But if they are illusions, they exist only in our mind; nature itself ("complexity") does not in fact contradict itself, our minds simply come up with a (false) notion of contradiction when we fail to take into account the whole picture.

And yet progress happens, and has since the Big Bang, from the view of science. The complexity of life creates errors, which nature attempts to fix, and as we try to fix our own errors sometimes.


"Errors"? I'm not sure how nature could "err" unless nature has a set telos or goal, and most science seems to reject telelogical explanations. For that matter, the term "progress" seems to indicate some sort of goal, unless by progress you simply mean a gradual increase in complexity. And if you do mean simply an increase in complexity, I'm not sure how such a process could err.

Death, in this equation, is the end of progress, or time, when existence essentially stops.

Does existence ever stop? Show me something that has truly passed out of existance. "To be or not to be" is, ontologically speaking, a bit of a non-sequitor in my opinion; there is only to be. I may die, but the material making up my body is already being incorporated into new beings, and as for my "self", it is either continuing to subsist as well, or else it never really existed to begin with. Even if one can identify individual existants dying off, existence itself continues. Being is by definition eternal; to create or destroy being itself, one must already be.

I hadn't actually thought of it a poem... interesting interpretation.

You should consider making it a part of poem! :)

[scameter]

But if they are illusions, they exist only in our mind; nature itself ("complexity") does not in fact contradict itself, our minds simply come up with a (false) notion of contradiction when we fail to take into account the whole picture.

If illusions are notions regarding existence that only exist in our mind, and thus do not correlate with reality, how do we know all of reality is not merely an illusion?

"Errors"? I'm not sure how nature could "err" unless nature has a set telos or goal, and most science seems to reject telelogical explanations. For that matter, the term "progress" seems to indicate some sort of goal, unless by progress you simply mean a gradual increase in complexity. And if you do mean simply an increase in complexity, I'm not sure how such a process could err.

My progress I mean nature's attempt to make it's self more efficient and complete. And by errors in nature, I mean things such as inadequette genes that then die off because they are errors, which is progress, or other similar situations.

Does existence ever stop? Show me something that has truly passed out of existance. "To be or not to be" is, ontologically speaking, a bit of a non-sequitor in my opinion; there is only to be. I may die, but the material making up my body is already being incorporated into new beings, and as for my "self", it is either continuing to subsist as well, or else it never really existed to begin with. Even if one can identify individual existants dying off, existence itself continues. Being is by definition eternal; to create or destroy being itself, one must already be.

Possibly. But, you can't know if existence is eternal or not; in fact, existence could simply be an illusion. Everything we see, feel, think, believe, etc., is from the standpoint of our mind. This is why we are capable of being fooled, in the myriad ways that we can be so. This is why I prefer to say nothing is certain, because we are inevitably subjective, even if we are able to attain a small measure of objectivity, which entirely limits our ability to know.

You should consider making it a part of poem!

How do you mean?

[abaris]

If illusions are notions regarding existence that only exist in our mind, and thus do not correlate with reality, how do we know all of reality is not merely an illusion?

Illusions do contain contradictions that's how we distinguish them from reality. The truth is recognized by simplicity and consistency lies on the other hand are full of contradictions and tend to be elaborate. Every judge and trial attorney is aware of this.

[abaris]

My progress I mean nature's attempt to make it's self more efficient and complete. And by errors in nature, I mean things such as inadequette genes that then die off because they are errors, which is progress, or other similar situations.

More complete? How can the universe be more complete does it not by definition incorporate all that is.

More efficient?
How could that be! All that is has always existed in a different form. Eternal change and perfect conservation. The universe is the perfect perpetuum mobile.

And efficient in what respect or to what end? Do you expect the universe to work for you or somebody else's purposes.

And if inadequate genes do die of because of a universal strife for completeness, why do they still exist?

[WanderingTaoist]

. But, you can't know if existence is eternal or not; in fact, existence could simply be an illusion. Everything we see, feel, think, believe, etc., is from the standpoint of our mind. This is why we are capable of being fooled, in the myriad ways that we can be so. This is why I prefer to say nothing is certain, because we are inevitably subjective, even if we are able to attain a small measure of objectivity, which entirely limits our ability to know.

How could existance be an illusion? You might be deceived about what you see, feel, think, believe, etc., but you can't be deceived about your own existance. "I think, therefore I am"; you can doubt all you want, but the very fact that you are doubting proves something exists. You might be fooled about what you are, how you are, where you, etc, but you can't be fooled about the fact that you are.

I don't think we can just call everything into doubt; why do we have reason to doubt our mind? If "nothing is certain", how can you make assertions about time, progress, etc in the first place?


More complete? How can the universe be more complete does it not by definition incorporate all that is.

Exactly. As far as "more efficient" goes, if there is no goal, then how can something be more "efficient"? Efficient at what?

[scameter]

Illusions do contain contradictions that's how we distinguish them from reality. The truth is recognized by simplicity and consistency lies on the other hand are full of contradictions and tend to be elaborate. Every judge and trial attorney is aware of this.

Hmm.... interesting. The problem with this is that we can never really know if we are seeing something entirely, and thus can't know if we're seeing the total truth of it or not, in it's simplicity. This is why we have symbols, small conceptual entities that are capable of containing thoughts about things in existence, or other thoughts, without the need of having to see the entire picture.

More complete? How can the universe be more complete does it not by definition incorporate all that is.

The universe has changed and grown since the Big Bang. Thus, at the Big Bang, it was not complete.

And efficient in what respect or to what end? Do you expect the universe to work for you or somebody else's purposes.

For it's own purpose, for things in it to survive better, including inorganic things. For instance, the Earth now is more efficient than when it first began, because over the years, nature has worked to make it so.

And if inadequate genes do die of because of a universal strife for completeness, why do they still exist?

Because they change.

How could existance be an illusion? You might be deceived about what you see, feel, think, believe, etc., but you can't be deceived about your own existance. "I think, therefore I am"; you can doubt all you want, but the very fact that you are doubting proves something exists. You might be fooled about what you are, how you are, where you, etc, but you can't be fooled about the fact that you are.

Not necessarily. Many philosophers and religions, including the Descartes you're quoting, and Buddhism, think either that existence is an illusion, or that we exist by our thoughts. We could be being deceived, and how would we know it? The deceived never knows they're being deceived until they're not being deceived anymore.

I don't think we can just call everything into doubt; why do we have reason to doubt our mind? If "nothing is certain", how can you make assertions about time, progress, etc in the first place?

Because nothing is certain. Questioning and speculating doesn't assume something is certain enough that it exists; it simply assumes that things we experience can be questioned. The mere fact that we can do this doesn't prove we're not being deceived; our ability to doubt could it's self be an illusion. To assume anything is to narrow one's vision.

[abaris]

Hmm.... interesting. The problem with this is that we can never really know if we are seeing something entirely, and thus can't know if we're seeing the total truth of it or not, in it's simplicity. This is why we have symbols, small conceptual entities that are capable of containing thoughts about things in existence, or other thoughts, without the need of having to see the entire picture.

No problem at all! We observe draw conclusions, create theories and then we see if the predictions of those theories are in accordance with other observations. If they are not we refine them. The resolution of contradiction is the essence of true science.

To give you an example, Relativity and Quantum mechanics are in contradiction to each other. That's how we know that our current understanding of things is flawed. In conclusion we have to backtrack and try to figure out at what point physics took a wrong turn. To treat each of them as a conceptual entity and try to incorporate them into a super theory (like String theory) is definitely the wrong approach. Science is not about accommodation of contradictory "conceptual entities" it is about resolving contradictions and thus arriving at simpler theories

The universe has changed and grown since the Big Bang. Thus, at the Big Bang, it was not complete.

Even if you assume the Big Bang theory to be correct, which i don't, you still have to admit that all mater and energy of the universe was present in the primordial singularity. Nothing was added to the universe since and nothing escaped from it. It is neither more nor less complete then it was before.




For it's own purpose, for things in it to survive better, including inorganic things. For instance, the Earth now is more efficient than when it first began, because over the years, nature has worked to make it so.

Why is it more efficient or complete now? because of it's ability to support life? In a cosmological context this feature of our planet is completely irrelevant. A single asteroid or a series of volcanic eruption could set an end to Human life on earth at any time. And it won't matter a bit in a universal context. Nature doesn't work to make the earth more accommodating or to preserve it for us.

Because they change.

Exactly they change. They do not strive for completeness. Change is inevitable either it seems beneficial to us or not.


Not necessarily. Many philosophers and religions, including the Descartes you're quoting, and Buddhism, think either that existence is an illusion, or that we exist by our thoughts. We could be being deceived, and how would we know it? The deceived never knows they're being deceived until they're not being deceived anymore.

I'm quite sure that you are not a product of my imagination dear scameter. If I were to die tomorrow, you would still continue to post to this forum. Your existence is therefore definitely independent of my thoughts.

Because nothing is certain. Questioning and speculating doesn't assume something is certain enough that it exists; it simply assumes that things we experience can be questioned. The mere fact that we can do this doesn't prove we're not being deceived; our ability to doubt could it's self be an illusion. To assume anything is to narrow one's vision.

Cogito ergo sum!

[scameter]

No problem at all! We observe draw conclusions, create theories and then we see if the predictions of those theories are in accordance with other observations. If they are not we refine them. The resolution of contradiction is the essence of true science.

And true science is flawed, because it is narrow to only that which is empirical. It is unable to see things such as spiritual, occult or other non-empirical things, of which it simply ignores.

resolving contradictions and thus arriving at simpler theories

Contradiction breeds error. Error breeds progress. :)

Even if you assume the Big Bang theory to be correct, which i don't, you still have to admit that all mater and energy of the universe was present in the primordial singularity. Nothing was added to the universe since and nothing escaped from it. It is neither more nor less complete then it was before.

Then why did it change? Why didn't the Big Bang simply occur, and everything floated around randomly in space?

Why is it more efficient or complete now? because of it's ability to support life? In a cosmological context this feature of our planet is completely irrelevant. A single asteroid or a series of volcanic eruption could set an end to Human life on earth at any time. And it won't matter a bit in a universal context. Nature doesn't work to make the earth more accommodating or to preserve it for us.

And yet the earth is constantly trying to keep it's self stable, and is trying to continue to exist. Through this, it has grown more complex and deep, which has caused things on it to grow and change and progress, and thus came life. Nature doesn't try to make life, but life does try to persist, and nature seems to want to help it, through things such as evolution. Plus, I don't only mean human life.

Exactly they change. They do not strive for completeness. Change is inevitable either it seems beneficial to us or not.

And why does it change?

I'm quite sure that you are not a product of my imagination dear scameter. If I were to die tomorrow, you would still continue to post to this forum. Your existence is therefore definitely independent of my thoughts.

You are assuming that what you experience is real. How can you know, truly? People who are under a trick or illusion totally believe that it is real, and to them it is. We could currently be under the most intricate illusion, and have no idea of it. There are simply so many possibilities, to assume anything is to forget them out of a desire for ease.

[WanderingTaoist]

And yet the earth is constantly trying to keep it's self stable, and is trying to continue to exist. Through this, it has grown more complex and deep, which has caused things on it to grow and change and progress, and thus came life. Nature doesn't try to make life, but life does try to persist, and nature seems to want to help it, through things such as evolution. Plus, I don't only mean human life.

How do you know this, scam? According to your other comments, it is impossible to know anything for certain. Are you not just assuming this is the case?

You are assuming that what you experience is real. How can you know, truly? People who are under a trick or illusion totally believe that it is real, and to them it is. We could currently be under the most intricate illusion, and have no idea of it. There are simply so many possibilities, to assume anything is to forget them out of a desire for ease.

So everything must be relative, according to this, because we can never really know anything, therefore your guess is as good as mine, because all things are possible.

Your position (which I don't think you actually hold! :D) is somewhat inconsistant; if one cannot trust one's own experience of reality, then how can you make assertions about that reality? What makes your assertions better than anybody else's, if we can't know anything? The very fact you make assertions about the universe would seem to indicate that you do, in fact, believe that what you experience is real.

[scameter]

How do you know this, scam? According to your other comments, it is impossible to know anything for certain. Are you not just assuming this is the case?

I have also explained that I believe in two different kinds of truth: factual truth, which is simply that which is logical and that which corresponds to reality, and philosophical truth, which is pure truth and can be anything. Most of my statements correspond more with factual truth, because philosophical truth's broadness is usually difficult to comprehend.

So everything must be relative, according to this, because we can never really know anything, therefore your guess is as good as mine, because all things are possible.

What I said above should explain.

[WanderingTaoist]

I have also explained that I believe in two different kinds of truth: factual truth, which is simply that which is logical and that which corresponds to reality, and philosophical truth, which is pure truth and can be anything. Most of my statements correspond more with factual truth, because philosophical truth's broadness is usually difficult to comprehend.

I don't think I know what you mean by philosophical truth :think: ...it seems to me that the truth by definition can't be "anything", but must be the truth, and truth is always connected to reality (unless it is logical truth), otherwise it ceases to be truth. Probably I'm missing something! :blink:

Can we seperate "philosophical truth" from reality? It's my understanding that true philosophy seeks to comprehend reality (as best it can). On the other hand, logical or propositional truth is easily seperable from reality:

Pigs always eat cheese.
Old Snaggle is a pig.
Therefore, Old Snaggle will always eat cheese.

This is statement is complete nonsense and has no bearing on reality whatsoever, but it is
logically sound.

When we use the word "truth" we may be either refering to that which is concerned with reality, or that which concerned with logical propositions.

...wait...maybe I just said what you did, but with different words? <_<

[scameter]

I don't think I know what you mean by philosophical truth ...it seems to me that the truth by definition can't be "anything", but must be the truth, and truth is always connected to reality (unless it is logical truth), otherwise it ceases to be truth. Probably I'm missing something!

That is because the usual definition of truth is actually that of fact. Truth is anything that is true, and what is true can be anything; the fact that we perceive only things that are probable or experienced can be true is the limitations imposed by our inevitable subjectivity. To accept uncertainty, and thus to accept that anything is possible or real, creates true truth. Fact is truth through the eyes of the ego.

Can we seperate "philosophical truth" from reality? It's my understanding that true philosophy seeks to comprehend reality (as best it can). On the other hand, logical or propositional truth is easily seperable from reality:

True philosophy seeks wisdom. Knowledge, truth, reality, etc., are only good to philosophy if they give wisdom.

When we use the word "truth" we may be either refering to that which is concerned with reality, or that which concerned with logical propositions.

Or with what is true beyond our ego.

[Fool Zero]

(sonrisa, Nov 26 2006):
...u r saying that time travel is incompatible with the Heisenberg Principle?

No, I'm just saying that reconstructing the present in enough detail to calculate the past and future would completely change the present. I think that's at least superficially similar to what Heisenberg said has to happen when you try to learn the position or velocity of a subatomic particle.

Remember the Butterfly effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect) -- "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Not only would you have to predict exactly what every butterfly in the world was going to do and calculate its effect on the weather, you'd have to figure all this out without scaring away a single butterfly.

[WanderingTaoist]

that is a valid argument but it is not sound in order for it to be sound it has to be true

Insofar is it is a logical statement, however (and not an argument), the proposition is true. A false proposition would be something like:

All cats are grey
x is grey
therefore x is a cat

It does not follow that "x is a cat", since there may be other things that are grey aside from cats.

Does "sound" signify that something is both propositionally true and actually true?

[WanderingTaoist]

'it has the added benefit of being true' henry kissinger :) :lol:

thanks psyche :)

..how did we get on this topic from time, anyhoo?

[scameter]

All cats are grey
x is grey
therefore x is a cat

Actually, that isn't even true logically. Now, if it was...

All cats are gray.
x is a cat.
Thus x is gray.

Then that would be true. But this is inductive (I think) logic; things like science use inferencial logic, where they base their conclusions both on logic and evidence to infer facts.

[WanderingTaoist]

Actually, that isn't even true logically

Exactly, it was an example of a false logical statement :D

[scameter]

:lol: Alrighty.

[WanderingTaoist]

because time and truth have a unique quality in common

they are both timeless in their mystification


Very profound :) :thumbsup:

[scameter]

no

it would be valid but not true

in order to be true the premises have to be true

Indeed, but logically it is valid and logical, as you say. That was the point I was making. It is logically true.