How the univers came to be

Great. We finally agree on something important. I.e. the existance of change is no evidence for the existance of time. What then, except for your strong beliefs, is the evidence for the existance of time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Change happens, and time "happens" along with it. But time is our observation of the change.
At least that's how I think about it.

If we noticed all the detail (every particle interacting) we would see a lot of interactions, and no changes - just a "continous" set of interactions (and I'm treading dangerously close here to a topic that tends to get threads shut down, so I won't put the word "thermal" in there), therefore we "notice" the changes because we don't see everything - we "see" a lot of gaps in the data or pattern.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I tend to agree with this. I have in several post stated that matter, energy and space are real and have observable properties, which time does not. I have more crudely stated that "time does not exist" (usually adding "as a part of nature" or "as something real," etc.)

I have called time a "concept" an "artifact" etc. I have even once or twice used the most correct phrase: "Time does not have ontological status." but as that goes over the head of most reading here, I do use, for common clarity, the simple phrase "Time does not exist." without any intention or meaning to be "disingenuous."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy T says time doesn't exists at all, though..

The analogy, is just that.. an analogy. It's to get an idea across. It doesn't have to fit perfectly.

 

I disagree.. time does have observable properties. If without time there can be no change that change happening is an indication of time.
I know this sounds circular, but that's nothing strange to you.

What is it with this 'blue' thing ?
As an experience blue is just the mind interpreting the signals it gets from the retina.
But blue exists objectively as well, it is the name we gave to light of a particular wavelength.
In this sense blue means: Light with a wavelength between 440 nm and 490 nm.

You are completely missing the point..
Like the mile the second is an invented unit, but both describe a very real thing.
Like the Fahrenheit scale and the Celsius scale, both measure the same thing but on a different scale. It doesn't mean that temperature doesn't exist objectively..

 

I'll ask again..
Can you explain to me what speed is with the use of time ?

 

Wrong. I said that change is not the cause of time. That's not the same thing as saying that the existence of change is no evidence for the existence of time.

 

So you say that in objective reality time does not play any role whatsoever and, in fact, does not even exist. It only exists in our minds.. Is that it ?

 

Is space "a real physical thing, like mass and energy" ?

 

Yes. In post 58 footnote I gave three different OBSERVABLE PROPERTIES of space. Nothing about time is observable.

In most of my post I have said mass (or matter sometimes), energy and space do exist and have observable properties.
---------------------------

Your Post 66 (and earlier) concern for how there can be speed, if time is not real (built mainly on fact speed's dimentional form is meters/second) has also been answered before (In post 27's third and fourth paragraphs) I.e. there I outlined how, like time parameter "t" that appears in typical college-level equations of "physics 101," the spatial derivatives of position (i.e. "speed") can be eliminated from all equations (via the "chain rule" and the partial derivataves)

In more advanced levels of physics, such as quantum mechanics or most "action principle" formulations of physics, neither speed not time appears in the equations. Those equations typically are made via the Hamiltonian, which uses energy. (The Schrodinger equation is a form of quantum mechanics that does use time and derivative with respect to it, but even in that form, speed speed does not normally appear.) I.e. only simpler statements of physical laws use speed. This is because it is really energy, not speed which is important. Speed is only one component of kinetic energy. E = 0.5mV^2 is an approximation as the "m" factor is not a constant, but is itself a function of speed. More advanced physics thus uses E, not speed. I will however borrow from it to give an new answer to your question (also only an aproximating valid for v << C): I could express V as the squareroot of {2E/m} to eliminate it if you do not like the post 27 answer already given that show how to eliminate speed.
-----------------------------------
With reguard to your post 68:
That is the basic idea, but of course creatures other than man also have the same every day concepts of time that we do. (And of speed too. - For example, a bat catching a bug knows a great deal about time and speed, even about the Doppler effect, but of course he does not know our names for these concepts, but he can use them better and faster than humans can.*)
______________
*He uses both his absolute speed thru the air, which Doppler shifts the sound wave of the echo returning and his realtive speed, with respect to the bug. Note also that the bug's current speed (and that of the bat) both may be different from when the sound waves reflected off the bug and from the bat's speed when he emitted the "dynamic chirp" he is now hearing. (Thus the bat is analyzing the effects associated with four different speeds!) The bat is also contantly changing the structure of the "dynamic chirp" to keep it optimium for the particular bug among many he chose from perhaps 20 feet away. - Amazing abilites. To do the processing that a bat does, in real time with his 1/10 oz processor, man needs at least a day working with even a very advanced computer.
---------------------------
In Post 57 you said:
"Does time exist because change happens ? Of course not."
Thus, it seems to me, that you are "backpeddling" in Post 67 with:
"That's not the same thing as saying that the existence of change is no evidence for the existence of time."

Are you now saying that because "change happens" that IS evidence for the existence of time (as a real thing in nature, like mass, energy and space)? If not, then what is your evidence for that ontological status you claim for time?

Honestly, I do not see that you have any support for your claim to offer, but you continue to make the claim by simple repeated assertion.
--------------------
WRT Post 65's
"But blue exists objectively as well, it is the name we gave to light of a particular wavelength.
In this sense blue means: Light with a wavelength between 440 nm and 490 nm."

No "blue" does not exist objectively (certainly wavelenths do exist objectively - it is just that none of necessity give rise to the "blue" experience.)_

Your idea that some wavelengths create in humans a experience of "blue" is partially true, (i.e. when that is the only wavelenth presented) at least for humans with all three color receptors in the retina. Those with only two will not completely agree. However, The color experience is very complex. It strongly depends on the full spectrum and the different reflective regions of the image /object. Perhas you have seen a demonstration of this where two idential spots of pigment are surrounded by different rings of other pigments? Then the identical spots will not be percieved as the same color.

Land (of polaroid fame) had a theory of color, the "retinex theory," which partially captures this complex physiologic interaction with light from a 2D image. Years ago he gave lectures in which he showed recognizable objects, such as a red apple on a blue towel etc. He had control of the three projectors and could vary the amount of the various wavelengths actually present. It is not necessary for there to be any of the wavelength band you called "blue" for you to see the blue of the towel. etc.

COLOR, more than beauty, is "in the eye (and expectations) of the beholder." Fortunately, you do seem to understand that no object has any color. What I think you do not fully appreciate is that it is possible to experience any color even if the wavelengths normally provoking that color are totally absent.

I know a good deal about how color is processed in the human brain, but only about the way the relative activities of the three color senstive detectors are algebratically transformed in the activity on more central nerves in region V5 to produce the blue/yellow, the red/green and black/white "axies" of neural activity. I forget, if lots of activity (or little) is red in the nerve set making the red green axis but that is what determines the color perception along that axis, and it is really at this more central level that constant staring at say red can then make the same shape in green later when looking at a white wall.

I do not think anyone fully understands the complexity of color perception. Edward Land came close. What wavelenghts are present is much less important than the relative intensity stimulating the the three diffent receptor types. You can make any color perception you like from only three pure wavelengths. (Even most from only two or only one and uniform intensity white light.) I.e. only two pure wavelengths, one chosen to excite mainly the red receptors and the other the blue and green receptors (which over lap in their sensitivy curves a great deal) by sutable choice of their relative intensities can produce most colors, even your blue with none of your "blue light" (I think, but am not sure, as there are limits as to what you can do with only two pure wave lengths illuminating some known objects, like leaves, ripe apple and tennis ball. - Especially if you initially have also white light illumination that you "fade out", leaving only the two pure wavelengths).

With a typical scene / image, color perception becomes extremely complex, as you automatically adjusts for the assumed "white light illumination" - why you will see green leaves in a "color rich scene" even if their is no "green light" reflecting off of them etc. Even just a solid uniform field of color (CONTAINING THREE PURE WAVELENGHTS) is much more complex than you imagine. - Not just certain wavelengths are certain "objective colors." Your color TV works that way - only three phosphers make all colors - none of them even vaguely is yellow, yet you see the tennis ball shown as yellow.

 

Billy I have a massive headache right now.. I'll get back to you later.

 

Don't worry -Time cures all things. (Perhaps it has causal powers after all.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS after I returned form lunch, I continued post 70 a great deal more than you reproduced in post 71 (and corrected some ot the typos).

 

Maybe it didn't. It's a fancy of the logics of the human mind that everything that is must have become.

 

I agree.. I think the universe always was.

 

LOL See, I told you so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok, I will take another look at post 70 next time then.
I really cannot concentrate on anything now.. so it's best not to reply now. I will probably be posting in the forum here and there though.

 

It is all about perspectiv. We are good at explaning things when we can get it under a microscope but when we have to look at the bigger picture it becomes more complicated.
I like to find the most simple way to look at things.
So how about we say that there is two opposites that are the basic of the univers...... everything and nothing.
What happens when theis two meet?
It might just be that simple.
To use another form one might use cosmos and kaos
Cosmos/Nothing: no change, no time.
Kaos/everything: constant change, constant time.

what happens when fire meets ice?
You get something inbetween.

 

Sorry I completely forgot.
I glanced this quickly, and I have to say you're probably right.
But it was just an example to make a point.

 

I love the universe came from the back of a turtle...theory is very nice.

 

By thinking in concepts you can't understand the meaning. Imho.

 

Even if it were true, where did the turtle come from ? It doesn't explain anything.