Does time exist?

Does time exist?

  • Total voters
    18
  • This poll will close: .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neverfly said:
Simply stating this belief of yours is not support of that belief.
Unless you can demonstrate HOW to recover that data in my example, even theoretically, you must admit the possibility that you're in error-- that You WANT to believe that information can never be destroyed.
Click to expand...

By analyzing the radiation, the sound, the heat, the light, we've been able to reconstruct the "Big Bang", and we've come up with theories on how Black Holes operate using our microscopes and telescopes. I'd be willing to guess that all the information in the universe from the time of the big bang still exists and is what scientists are analyzing to determine the birth of the universe.

If information could be deleted then it would be technically and in theory impossible to ever know how the universe was created or what happens when a star dies because we wouldn't see any stars because the light would evaporate out of existence before it reaches our telescopes.

I thought this was basic but since you want me to come with some proof I will get back to you when I have the theories proving my case.
 
TimeTraveler said:
By analyzing the radiation, the sound, the heat, the light, we've been able to reconstruct the "Big Bang", and we've come up with theories on how Black Holes operate using our microscopes and telescopes. I'd be willing to guess that all the information in the universe from the time of the big bang still exists and is what scientists are analyzing to determine the birth of the universe.

If information could be deleted then it would be technically and in theory impossible to ever know how the universe was created or what happens when a star dies because we wouldn't see any stars because the light would evaporate out of existence before it reaches our telescopes.

I thought this was basic but since you want me to come with some proof I will get back to you when I have the theories proving my case.
Click to expand...

You're operating under the assumption that if SOME information remains or is recoverable, then ALL information must be.
That's erroneous.
Then you operate under the assumption that if information can be deleted, ALL must be deleted. Which is also erroneous.

Yes, check into it:) If you turn out having a good case, more power to ya. If not, you will learn something new, and no one can complain with that.:)
 
TimeTraveler said:
Exactly. Thats the only way the information could be "erased" out of existence.
Anyway watch this video for now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF63fxXMKTM and then we will continue this discussion.
Click to expand...

I watched the whole video. I found the "information = physical universe" idea bit meaningless. How? Imagine a galaxy contains all its gravitational structure with full of stars, planets and energy formations. This galaxy is sucked up, collapsed, destroyed, by a Black Hole after a Supernovae explosion in its centre. We can easily assume that this galaxy had full of in-formation as being an environment for many of its stars and their planets and their possible habitants. It is obvious that the end of this galaxy will be the end of everything inside of it. Not the end in terms of disappearing, but the end in terms of being transformed into a different state of matter and energy.

Now imagine another galaxy, but this one travels nearly at the opposite side of the universe. It doesn't even have to be, 10 billion light-year distance will do; and this second galaxy has also its own habitants. Actually, imagine that this second galaxy is ours, the Milky Way. The question is, how our galaxy would get affected from the explosion of the first galaxy? Don't forget, we will keep getting the light of this galaxy for another 10 billion year since the first galaxy is exploded in its own time garden and its light will keep travelling to us (and every other direction but we don't care this, we care only our direction) for another 10 billion year even after the actual explosion.

Guess what, this is wrong too! Because although explosion happened while both galaxies were at the distance of 10 billion light year away from each other, universe is expanding much faster than light and we will be able to see this light much longer than 10 billion year. Practically, the explosion incident will almost never being observed by us in the lifetime of our own solar system. According to this logic, the supernovae explosions that we are observing now might have actually happened even before our solar system was emerged out of chaos of gases. And don't forget, we are observing those exploding Supernovae today does not mean that the rest of universe are also observing the same explosion today; no, some of them are still observing them as normal galaxies, and some of them will observe their pre-explosion state for another billions of years -if there was any observant over there. Weird, but true...

Forget about this "information" thing, information is actually highly relative concept especially when you consider the provider and receiver ends of a piece of information, coding and decoding process of an information, and so on, and so forth.
Now I'd like to raise my original question: How does a travelling light -it's not even travelling when you think of the expansion speed of the universe- "evaporate" out of "existence"?

You must also know from your video that after defending 30 odd years, even Hawking himself admitted that nothing is evaporated in the event horizon of a black hole.
 
baftan said:
I watched the whole video. I found the "information = physical universe" idea bit meaningless. How? Imagine a galaxy contains all its gravitational structure with full of stars, planets and energy formations. This galaxy is sucked up, collapsed, destroyed, by a Black Hole after a Supernovae explosion in its centre. We can easily assume that this galaxy had full of in-formation as being an environment for many of its stars and their planets and their possible habitants. It is obvious that the end of this galaxy will be the end of everything inside of it. Not the end in terms of disappearing, but the end in terms of being transformed into a different state of matter and energy.

Now imagine another galaxy, but this one travels nearly at the opposite side of the universe. It doesn't even have to be, 10 billion light-year distance will do; and this second galaxy has also its own habitants. Actually, imagine that this second galaxy is ours, the Milky Way. The question is, how our galaxy would get affected from the explosion of the first galaxy? Don't forget, we will keep getting the light of this galaxy for another 10 billion year since the first galaxy is exploded in its own time garden and its light will keep travelling to us (and every other direction but we don't care this, we care only our direction) for another 10 billion year even after the actual explosion.

Guess what, this is wrong too! Because although explosion happened while both galaxies were at the distance of 10 billion light year away from each other, universe is expanding much faster than light and we will be able to see this light much longer than 10 billion year. Practically, the explosion incident will almost never being observed by us in the lifetime of our own solar system. According to this logic, the supernovae explosions that we are observing now might have actually happened even before our solar system was emerged out of chaos of gases. And don't forget, we are observing those exploding Supernovae today does not mean that the rest of universe are also observing the same explosion today; no, some of them are still observing them as normal galaxies, and some of them will observe their pre-explosion state for another billions of years -if there was any observant over there. Weird, but true...

Forget about this "information" thing, information is actually highly relative concept especially when you consider the provider and receiver ends of a piece of information, coding and decoding process of an information, and so on, and so forth.
Now I'd like to raise my original question: How does a travelling light -it's not even travelling when you think of the expansion speed of the universe- "evaporate" out of "existence"?

You must also know from your video that after defending 30 odd years, even Hawking himself admitted that nothing is evaporated in the event horizon of a black hole.
Click to expand...


That is the stance I said. It was the others who said that information can be destroyed, not me. In my opinion information is never destroyed whether the universe is expanding or not. I do believe the universe is expanding but I don't know how this prevents us from viewing the universe as information. The amount of energy isn't expanding because it's the exact same amount it has been since the big bang, so how can we describe the "expanding" element of the universe?
 
TimeTraveler said:
That is the stance I said. It was the others who said that information can be destroyed, not me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you keep using your "information" word, you should not complain about reactions. Because word "information" refers highly questionable and subjective issues, including data on the computers (this example was discussed), or a note on a piece of paper; a piece of information can be nothing for someone else. The physical equivalent of this information is nothing but some mass and energy, they can be carriers of information, but they are not "information" themselves; being information says almost nothing about their existence. They can be used as information for formulas, for discussions or for observant, but these possibilities are subjective.
 
TimeTraveler said:
The information exists somewhere in some form in the universe.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. As Fraggle has stated information is organised. Once that organisation has gone the information has gone.

It's not (ABSOLUTELY NOT) removed from existence.
Click to expand...
The information has gone.

The sound of the keystrokes when typing up the book are in the universe somewhere.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
It attenuates so much that it eventually gets swamped (and lost forever) in the background.

This is proven by the article on blackholes, the information in the form of radiation ALWAYS exists even with blackholes so it's safe to say this would apply to burning a book or to destroying a harddrive.
Click to expand...
No, it's far from safe to make such assumptions.
 
TimeTraveler said:
If information could be deleted then it would be technically and in theory impossible to ever know how the universe was created
Click to expand...
I have news for you: it is technically and theoretically impossible to know how the universe was created.
We can make estimates of how it could have happened but unless (if ever) we come up with one single (totally incontrovertible) theory and no others whatsoever the we cannot know how it started.
All we'll ever have is a "best guess" and maybe a couple of other nearly-as-good-guesses.

I thought this was basic but since you want me to come with some proof I will get back to you when I have the theories proving my case.
Click to expand...
Fail again.
Theories do not ever prove cases, they explain observations. If anything the case proves (wrong word, but you introduced it) the theory.
 
When there was only darkness, there was no time. Without moving objects (mass & energy) there is nothing to measure time. Time cannot come before mass and energy, simply because the idea of time relies fully on the relative motions of celestial bodies. There is no ideal universal clock.

Consider Zeno's famous paradox involving halving the distance between start and end-points in space and time. For those who aren't familiar, say you are at home (point A) and you want to go the grocery store (point B). Before reaching Point B, you will first reach the halfway point between points A & B (point C). From here, before reaching Point B you will reach the halfway point between point C and B... and so on until infinity. So in this situation you'll never reach the grocery store. But we all know this isn't true in the real world, it is simply a mockery of how we have divided our world into neat intervals of time.

The truth of the matter is that you can never actually refer to an instant in time, you can only capture intervals of time. Even if you took a photograph, you would never capture a moment in time, just an interval, perhaps one-fifteenth of a second depend on your shutter speed. If this is true, that means that no matter what you do you will never be able to measure a instant in time. If there are no measured instants, then there is no infinity paradox, which means that there is no actual time measurement.

So in short, there is no time, there is only relative motion between objects, like your car to the road beneath it, or the earth to the sun.
 
MarkitScience said:
So in short, there is no time, there is only relative motion between objects, like your car to the road beneath it, or the earth to the sun.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've read the entire thread. This assertion was already made and challenged. You need to move the argument forward, not simply repeat it.
 
Haven't read the entire thread, but...

Time is like a river. It wanders through... no that's not it.

Certainly the human concept of time exists. Usually as something flowing. It seems to me that we give it a spatial aspect (the corridors of time, for example) which is understandable given our highly spatial existence.

I think this is where the concept of traveling 'through' time comes from. But this, I think, is purely illusion born of our spatially oriented brains.

My real sense is that time is just our way of recognizing and processing the fundamental entropy of the universe. Our 'time' sense is really an 'energy gradient' or 'disorganization' sense.

Just as we know that there really is no such thing as the color 'red', we have sensors that detect and process electromagnetic wavelengths in the 600nm-700nm range as the 'color red'. Same goes for sound. We have visual, auditory, tactile, taste, thermal, olfactory, and 'energy-gradient' qualia.

Therefore, I would say that time exists no more than the color red or the perceived sound of a waterfall. It's a qualitative perception of a fairly mundane phenomenon - entropy.

But we get so damn excited by it!
 
I think time exists the same as height, length, width. They are merely descriptive words that lend understanding to something witnessed. You do not touch any of them. They are variables. Everything has it's own length, height, width, and existence span. I think time is a measure of existence. Though I also think there are some things in a state of Outside of existence. Like your Higgs particles or God particles as well as ghosts, spirits, angels, God.
Outside of existence as well as Outside of time.
 
Gretle said:
Though I also think there are some things in a state of Outside of existence. Like your Higgs particles or God particles as well as ghosts, spirits, angels, God.
Outside of existence as well as Outside of time.
Click to expand...
The Higgs is the so-called "God Particle". What makes you think it exists "outside of existence" (or time)?
What makes you think that "ghosts, spirits, angels and god" exist at all?
 
yes, we (Humanity), have made ways to measure time, from modern clocks, and watches. back as far as stone henge. But time was here before man and will still be here once were gone.
 
soullust said:
yes, we (Humanity), have made ways to measure time, from modern clocks, and watches. back as far as stone henge. But time was here before man and will still be here once were gone.
Click to expand...
What is time that is not experienced? Is it the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top