Does time exist?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Just for the posterity of this thread, it is probably worth putting the following quote in here

So, Einsteinian relativity, and therefore relativity of simultaneity, cannot be used to effectively argue that time exists, because Einsteinian relativity doesn't make such ontological claims; it therefore cannot be used to argue that the universe isn't presentist.

In the absence of such a counter argument, the lack of evidence for the co-existence of past and future, with the present, should lead us to the conclusion that only the present exists; in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Note that Occam's razor does not favour presentism, as presentism requires the assumption that strange dynamics physically warp objects and dilate their processes such that the speed of light is always measured to be c.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Note that Occam's razor does not favour presentism, as presentism requires the assumption that strange dynamics physically warp objects and dilate their processes such that the speed of light is always measured to be c.

And it does favour the assumption that past and future physically exist?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

And it does favour the assumption that past and future physically exist?

Yes. As I said in my post you quoted:

"The conclusion is the ontological existence of an extended temporal dimension necessarily follows from the physical theory. The physical theory makes deep ontological commitments. Hence, it can be used effectively to argue that time must exist."

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. As I said in my post you quoted:

"The conclusion is the ontological existence of an extended temporal dimension necessarily follows from the physical theory. The physical theory makes deep ontological commitments. Hence, it can be used effectively to argue that time must exist."

That doesn't explain why Occams Razor would favour the assumption that past and future co-exist with the present.

roosh

@Morbert - Just a subsequent question, which I'm wondering about; you've mentioned that the order of events, and simultaneity isn't physical; does this mean that relativity of simultaneity isn't physical, given that it essentially just a concept for saying that the ordering of events is different according to different reference frames.

Also, isn't it the ordering of events that lead to the conclusion that what is the present for one observer could be the past for another; if the ordering isn't physical can we conclude that the past isn't physical?

Are "the past" and "the future" not just an extension of the concept of "the ordering of events"?

pontia

how do you tie in they were able to build the newgrange passage tomb that lights up tomb at exact sunrise every year ? calculated by movement of stars ect

Masteroid

roosh wrote: »

@Morbert - Just a subsequent question, which I'm wondering about; you've mentioned that the order of events, and simultaneity isn't physical; does this mean that relativity of simultaneity isn't physical, given that it essentially just a concept for saying that the ordering of events is different according to different reference frames.

Also, isn't it the ordering of events that lead to the conclusion that what is the present for one observer could be the past for another; if the ordering isn't physical can we conclude that the past isn't physical?

Are "the past" and "the future" not just an extension of the concept of "the ordering of events"?

I don't know if this will help.

Imagine you are in a large room whose walls are mirrors and that there is a constant illumination from the centre of the room. As you walk around this room, with its contents remaining stationary, the reflections you observe in the mirrored surfaces will change and would give rise to the illusion that the contents are moving.

Can you see that?

If we take you out of the room for a minute, then since there is only one source of light and everything in the room is stationary, all possible paths for photons are occupied. Any reflection that can possibly be viewed exists independently of whether it is viewed or not. At all times there are photons available to form any image that can be seen.

If we equate the possible set of reflections with the set of time-slices then we can visualise this 4-D block that contains the entire set of possible reflection, or points in time and what we perceive as events taking place is simply the resultant change in reflection. The mirror doesn't change, the light doesn't change and no events other than photons bouncing take place.

And obviously, reflections make no ontological statements about the rooms contents. The room may be full of real objects but a reflection can't tell you how much they weigh.

However, it is perception changing that makes objects move and not the other way around.

So therefore, consciousness itself is a is a single reflection, a small imperfection that forms a local tube that passes through as many reflections as there are in a lifetime.

It may be that consciousness is almost a standing wave in energy terms and that this wave propogates along the 'time-dimension', from past to future, a constant flow of energy from one side of the imperfection to the other, in the direction settle on by harmonic resolution.

Scary, that would mean I would experience these reflections over and over. It would have to be this way too because we can't have a one-off event in something that doesn't change.

Berlin at night

roosh wrote: »

Personally I believe that time does not exist, that it is merely a figment of the imagination of mankind, and our subsequent belief that it is an external force acting in the universe, makes it, by definition, an illusion.


I know for people in this forum, that this is probably not a radically new idea, however, trying to discuss it with people who are more scientifically trained than I, leads to the usual dismissal of the notion as "crackpottery".

As the notion of time has a very real impact on how mankind behaves, and with the impact that the scineces have on the collective psyche, I personally believe that such a question be given serious consideration, as the impact that it has on the collective worldview is very relevant, important and fundamental to the question of existence.

I would be interested in hearing anyone elses views on whether time exists in reality or is merely the invention of mankind, based on a misperception of naturally occuring phenomena.



I ultimately see time as a measurement system, as opposed to a force than can be measured. It is often pointed out to me, that time dilation is evidence that the contemporary conceptualisation of time is correct, as per the theory of General Relativity. The issue I have with this however, is that there is a self-contained notion of time that amounts to circular reasoning.

Ultimately it is assumed that time exists, and that clocks measure time. However, with regard to the clocks, I believe it is erroneous to suggest that they measure an external entity/force called time.

With regard to the atomic clock, what is measured is the microwave emissions of changing electrons, while the older clocks that give rise to the 24hr clock were the measure of the degree of the earths rotation. To then make the jump to say that these things measure anything other than what was stated i.e. emissions of changing electrons, or the degree of the rotation of the earth, namely that they measure the force that is time, is a non sequitor, it is illogical.

How I see it, and again this is probably nothing fundamentally new, is that when time is given as a measurement, what is actually being measured is the change that occurs in an object relative to the number of microwave emissions of a changing electron in an atom, or relative to the degrees of rotation of the earth, or relative to some other [almost] constant phenomenon.

The practical implication of this, is that instead of viewing time as a force of nature, it is merely viewed as a measurement system, akin to the metric system, and is afforded no special properties with regard to the "spacetime continuum".

What adds perhaps, further credence to this is outlined in the following articles Article #1 and Article #2.

These refer to a solution to the equations for General Relativity, where time seems to "disappear". This is often referred to "as the problem of time" in Physics, and as far as I can gather is represented as Diffeomorphism Symmetry.

For those that are mathematically minded, there is an online lecture given by Lee Smolin. The first lecture is an introduction to "the problem of time" and doesn't really require much mathematical training. The second would require much better mathematical training in order to understand. That is where I left it, as my maths is only leaving cert level (and first year college).


Any ideas on the issue are welcome.

Considering there is no future time as we are always living in the past time.

Masteroid

Actually, I just had an amazing thought. I might not think so in the morning but I'll write it anyway.

In the 'Mirrored Walls' analogy above, perception, consciousness, would have to be explained in terms of how photons interact.

Instead of having an observer enter the system, as we had above, in the block-universe, conscious entities are derivatives of the block itself. My consciousness exists.

In the mirrored room, my ability to perceive simply as a result of the room's existence may be explained thusly.

If we map all the points in the space of the room that correspond to the set of reflections I perceive over my 'lifetime' we can define a line in 3-D space.

If we then take a point and map it to all the points on the mirrors that provided all the photons that are passing through that point in space and then do the same for all points along my life-line then we could create an image that represents the energy distribution along my 'life-line' in terms of numbers of photons that occupy a particular point in 3-D space at a particular time.

And there is no reason to suppose that the energy distribution is constant along that line. Otherwise, why would the reflection change along that line?

So far we are only dealing in 3 dimensions but if we treat the photons as a dynamic system, then we could take a series of snapshots, like the one above and create a new diagram.

This new diagram charts the change of energy distribution at each point along my life-line and any change would be due to a change in photon density, if you will, and the reason for the change may be due to an effect we haven't considered yet.

Suppose the photon density of a region had a local effect on the photon density around it. If it could then this would naturally give rise to energy systems that exist as eddies around the points of space along my life-line.

And the evolution of those eddies would be unique to that location, where my consciousness is.

If we now process the images along with all the points local to my life-line we could create an animation that would reveal the wave patterns in that region. Consciousness exists here. Standing-wave built on standing-wave dancing to a rhythm beaten out as photon density settles its constant battle.

Would that animation be a map of my consciousness?

Transfer that to a 3-D block universe, let there be a photon creator and a reflector for all photons, given 'time', and given that all photons must travel along well-worn paths and in that sense are 'confined' to their current path, couldn't interactions between photons give rise to dynamical systems within the confines of that path that could cause a slight 'change' in the path.

And the reason that the universe appears dark is because the only energy of the universe we can directly experience is the energy that appears as a result of photon induced systems. We can only interact with the changing characterstics of systems that occur on the same scale as ours do. The vast majority of energy, the vast majority of photons, is not taking part in these systems, it simply passes through them having an inperceptible effect on the evolution of the system.

It's dark.

Nothing ontological here, I'm just wondering, if you had lots of photons bouncing around the same space, wouldn't systems of patterns eventually evolve that could overcome the force of reflection causing photons to be deflected off their path. And if you just kept pumping photons into the system, eventually the entire space would be occupied by photons, the reflected paths being constantly reinforced, and therefore maintaining a high-density with respect to the number of affected photons, and the only change that can possibly take place is due to the photons, and the fact that they move, themselves. The effects that photons have on each other would be amplified in the systems it produces.

Perhaps the entire universe as we know it is the result of photons interactions?

I'm thinking of a boiler that is built to service a food-production company. Some of the heat of the boiler is used for heating the workplace but if you try to account for the energy used by the boiler by how much the workplace was heated, there would be a huge deficit. Most of the energy converted by the boiler is used in unseen processes.

It's late.:)

Masteroid

Berlin at night wrote: »

Considering there is no future time as we are always living in the past time.

Which is persistently 'now'.

So what is it that you think is actually changing?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

@Morbert - Just a subsequent question, which I'm wondering about; you've mentioned that the order of events, and simultaneity isn't physical; does this mean that relativity of simultaneity isn't physical, given that it essentially just a concept for saying that the ordering of events is different according to different reference frames.

Also, isn't it the ordering of events that lead to the conclusion that what is the present for one observer could be the past for another; if the ordering isn't physical can we conclude that the past isn't physical?

Are "the past" and "the future" not just an extension of the concept of "the ordering of events"?

Yes, the past, present, and future as defined by reference frames aren't physical. To build an understanding of the physical past, present, and future, we have to look at the frame-independent picture of the universe. This is where the cone-structure of Minkowski space is important. Every event has a "future cone" and a "past cone", which, physically speaking, are events that satisfy certain relations with the event in question. This a physical quality, not frame-dependent. The ordering is in this case is physical. For example, there is a physically ordering of the event "me typing this message" and "you reading this message", an ordering that is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

However, if an event falls outside the future or past cone of another event, those events are neither in the past nor the future of each other in any physical sense.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

However, if an event falls outside the future or past cone of another event, those events are neither in the past nor the future of each other in any physical sense.

Out of interest, could you give an example of two events that could fill such criteria, i.e., an event that is in neither the future nor the past of another event?

Morbert

Masteroid wrote: »

Out of interest, could you give an example of two events that could fill such criteria, i.e., an event that is in neither the future nor the past of another event?

An example of two events would be you reading this message, and a supernova explosion in the Andromeda galaxy.

Any two events which could not have been connected by a hypothetical photon.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

An example of two events would be you reading this message, and a supernova explosion in the Andromeda galaxy.

Any two events which could not have been connected by a hypothetical photon.

Are you saying that past and future can only exist relative to two events if there is a causal history between those events, that two events must have common ancestors in order to be in each other's past or present?

Suppose there is a supernova occuring in the Andromeda galaxy. If that supernova had not occured then the universe would be different.

Would I be able to read your message even if the most distant supernova had not occured?

How can you be certain that this part of the universe would exist as it is if any other more distant events had occured differently?

Is it not possible that even if our own galaxy had been created with just one star more, or less, in it that life might never have occured on earth?

It seems to me that the universe as it is is the only possible outcome that could be determined from its previous configuration. In order for the supernova to not be occuring, the big bang would have had to have been different in terms of how it proceeded.

This means that everything in the universe is connected, in a sense, to the big bang. The world-line of the universe therefore contains and is connected to all the world-lines of all the events in the universe.

The world-line of that supernova in the Andromeda galaxy (SNAG) intersects a great many other world-lines. If we were to subtract the SNAG worldline from the universe we have to alter all the world-lines it had intersections with and that in turn would affect other, more remote world-lines and the result would be that the world-line of the universe would be different.

So really it could be that, if the SNAG hadn't occured in my past then I could not have composed this reply.

Is there not an 'interdependency' between world-lines such that one can affect all others? How world-lines are determines how the universe is. I'm thinking of how a small plughole at one end of the bath effects the behaviour of all the water in the bath. (Not too convoluted, I hope.)

Surely all light-cones intesect the universe's light-cone in the past, all events occur in some future light-cone of some other event. Every event is a link in the cause/effect chain

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, the past, present, and future as defined by reference frames aren't physical. To build an understanding of the physical past, present, and future, we have to look at the frame-independent picture of the universe. This is where the cone-structure of Minkowski space is important. Every event has a "future cone" and a "past cone", which, physically speaking, are events that satisfy certain relations with the event in question. This a physical quality, not frame-dependent. The ordering is in this case is physical. For example, there is a physically ordering of the event "me typing this message" and "you reading this message", an ordering that is invariant under Lorentz transformations.

However, if an event falls outside the future or past cone of another event, those events are neither in the past nor the future of each other in any physical sense.

This is actually a point I was going to raise myself, as it was a point that was raised in a discussion elsewhere; I think it is very similar to, if not the same as, the point masteroid is making. I think we can use it to see how our definition of "no", "past" and "future" are different.

It seems that the definition of past and future events, according to the light cone structure, defines "past" in terms of those events which have a causal effect on our present, where some events can exist in the universe such that they are neither physically in an observers past or future. Herein lies an issue with what is meant by "the past".


If we consider that the universe consists of more than just ourselves; that is, extreme solipsism is incorrect and there do exist distant parts of the galaxy which are spatially separated from us.

Now, if we consider what we refer to as now, without getting caught up in trying to establish what events have actually occurred now, we can reason that, given the existence of distant parts of the universe and the probability that there are events occuring there, there must be events which occur, in those distant parts of the universe, which are simultaneous with our now.

However, given the spatial separation of those events, and the finite speed of light, we can reason that by the time a photon from that distant event reaches us, the physial emitting event must necessarily be in our past; even if the event itself wasn't in our past light cone until a moment after the photon reached us in our present.

The event, which is in our "past" may not have a causaul influence on our perception until a later point, but that doesn't mean that it isn't in our "past".

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

This is actually a point I was going to raise myself, as it was a point that was raised in a discussion elsewhere; I think it is very similar to, if not the same as, the point masteroid is making. I think we can use it to see how our definition of "no", "past" and "future" are different.

It seems that the definition of past and future events, according to the light cone structure, defines "past" in terms of those events which have a causal effect on our present, where some events can exist in the universe such that they are neither physically in an observers past or future. Herein lies an issue with what is meant by "the past".

It is the same definition as used in the Newtonian picture. The only difference is in the Newtonian picture, there is no upper bound on the speed signals travel. The cones in the Newton picture are so wide that they are flat hypersurfaces corresponding to the common sense notion of moments.

If we consider that the universe consists of more than just ourselves; that is, extreme solipsism is incorrect and there do exist distant parts of the galaxy which are spatially separated from us.

Now, if we consider what we refer to as now, without getting caught up in trying to establish what events have actually occurred now, we can reason that, given the existence of distant parts of the universe and the probability that there are events occuring there, there must be events which occur, in those distant parts of the universe, which are simultaneous with our now.

However, given the spatial separation of those events, and the finite speed of light, we can reason that by the time a photon from that distant event reaches us, the physial emitting event must necessarily be in our past; even if the event itself wasn't in our past light cone until a moment after the photon reached us in our present.

The event must have been in our past light cone if it was able to send a photon to us. The "even if" scenario you have in blue is impossible.

The event, which is in our "past" may not have a causaul influence on our perception until a later point, but that doesn't mean that it isn't in our "past".

You're confusing concepts here. Light cones pertain to events, not entire histories. The event (the emission of a photon) is physically in the past of the event it influences (us seeing the photon).

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is the same definition as used in the Newtonian picture. The only difference is in the Newtonian picture, there is no upper bound on the speed signals travel. The cones in the Newton picture are so wide that they are flat hypersurfaces corresponding to the common sense notion of moments.



The event must have been in our past light cone if it was able to send a photon to us. The "even if" scenario you have in blue is impossible.



You're confusing concepts here. Light cones pertain to events, not entire histories. The event (the emission of a photon) is physically in the past of the event it influences (us seeing the photon).

Do all events which fall outside an observers past and future light cones, necessarily exist in their present?

Also, if a star goes supernova in the Andromeda galaxy now and I count to five, will that supernova exist in the past light cone of "me plus the five count"; I presume it doesn't; would it exist in my future light cone?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Do all events which fall outside an observers past and future light cones, necessarily exist in their present?

Also, if a star goes supernova in the Andromeda galaxy now and I count to five, will that supernova exist in the past light cone of "me plus the five count"; I presume it doesn't; would it exist in my future light cone?

I'll answer both these questions together.

Let's use a more local example. Let's take the example of the sun exploding. Both "you" and "you plus five" would both be causally unconnected to the sun exploding. The explosion would not exist in the past or future light cone of "you" or "you plus five". All observers would agree that you would have to count to around 480 before the sun exploding would be in your past light cone (At which point, the sun exploding would have a causal influence on you, and a catastrophic one at that). You wouldn't say events not in the past or future light cones must necessarily be in the present though, unless you use a very unconventional definition of present.

Masteroid

Morbert wrote: »

I'll answer both these questions together.

Let's use a more local example. Let's take the example of the sun exploding. Both "you" and "you plus five" would both be causally unconnected to the sun exploding. The explosion would not exist in the past or future light cone of "you" or "you plus five". All observers would agree that you would have to count to around 480 before the sun exploding would be in your past light cone (At which point, the sun exploding would have a causal influence on you, and a catastrophic one at that). You wouldn't say events not in the past or future light cones must necessarily be in the present though, unless you use a very unconventional definition of present.

I got a bit lost here. How can 'roosh' and 'roosh + 5' have a light-cone each if both 'rooshes' are seperate events?

Also, 'roosh' and 'roosh +5' are causally connected so what effects 'roosh' must also effect 'roosh +5'.

And if the sun explodes 'NOW!', isn't roosh's destruction in the future cones of both the sun and roosh?

In fact, how is it even possible for the sun and roosh not to be in each other's light-cones?

The thing is, roosh is more than a photon being absorbed by an electron. That would be an event wouldn't it? And photons don't have light-cones.

They can't. The universe is zero length and and the time between emission and absorption of a photon is zero. A photon does not have a future or a past because, in its own FoR, it didn't exist in the past or future.

What does that mean? That all photons exist 'now'?

I know there are a lot of question marks here but they are mostly rhetorical. My point is, where do you draw a line on roosh's history or future? Are not his great-great-great-great-grandparents in his past light-cone and are not his great-great-great-great-grandchildren not in his future one? Doesn't roosh's past light-cone extend all the way back to the big bang?

And therefore, don't all light-cones intersect?

I brought this up before but it went without comment, there are two kinds of causal link, two types of experience. Being involved in a collision is not the same as observing a collision from a distance.

Similarly I pointed out that there are two distinct types of perception. There is the kind of perception that comes from observation through experience, being caught in an earthquake for example, and there is the kind of perception that comes from experience through observation where for example, you might see a news broadcast about people caught in an earthquake.

I think it is excessive to say the least to consider the kind of photonic interactions we've been discussing so far in relation to perception as creating a causal link between two events. They rather connect two seperate causal chains.

The gamma rays produced in a supernova are not the supernova, they are the debris that was created by a supernova. When we detect such gamma rays we do not directly observe a supernova, we deduce it. The supernova occured in the past of the gamma rays. The gamma rays are no more than a collection of data that partially describe the supernova.

The star that went supernova has its causal sequence and an observer of gamma rays so produced has his. But the progress of science does not depend on any particular supernova. Any will do for the purpose of observation.

And evolution recognises this. By being able to perceive the debris created by events, we can avoid the intersection of two seperate causal chains.

Or, roosh might be walking down the road when he sees a man wearing a hoodie walking toward him. Roosh might then cross the road.

Did the man in the hoodie cause roosh to cross the road or did roosh perceive the hoodie and cause himself to try and prevent a causal link from developing between them? The man in the hoodie may never even see roosh.

You could say that an emitted photon is the effect of a previous event and that absorption is the cause of a different and random later event.

Supernovae cause themselves to be seen and men cause themselves to look for them. There is no causal link between the two but our telescopes allow us to create 'pseudo-causal' links by pointing them in different directions until we detect unusual phenomena.

The supernova didn't cause the telescope and the telescope didn't cause the supernova, men caused telescopes and supernovae provided photons to be detected.

So, please, for the sake of clarity, can we choose 'now' to be the frame of reference where all objects simultaneously agree on their positions relative to each other?

And can we agree that when we detect photons, we are examining debris from an event that took place in the past as it exists now?

And that perception is an evolved device that 'contrives' a cause/effect relationship with otherwise unconnected events in order to either avoid future entanglement or to ensure it. For instance, a lion and an antelope might be in the same region. Two unconnected events. When the lion perceives the antelope, it tries to ensure entanglement by performing a successful hunt. Whereas the antelope would try to accomplish the opposite.

Same cause, different effect, perception.

Or would you say the distinction isn't important?

Morbert

Masteroid wrote: »

I got a bit lost here. How can 'roosh' and 'roosh + 5' have a light-cone each if both 'rooshes' are seperate events?

Each event in spacetime has an associated past and future cone.

Also, 'roosh' and 'roosh +5' are causally connected so what effects 'roosh' must also effect 'roosh +5'.

Yes, the worldline of an object with mass will always lie within its light cones. What affects you+0 must also affect you+5. But what affects you+5 doesn;t have to affect you+0.

And if the sun explodes 'NOW!', isn't roosh's destruction in the future cones of both the sun and roosh?

Yes

In fact, how is it even possible for the sun and roosh not to be in each other's light-cones?

Because the speed of light is finite. The sun exploding cannot affect any event on earth until the signal of the explosion reaches the earth.

The thing is, roosh is more than a photon being absorbed by an electron. That would be an event wouldn't it? And photons don't have light-cones.

Photons trace out the light cone structure of spacetime.

They can't. The universe is zero length and and the time between emission and absorption of a photon is zero. A photon does not have a future or a past because, in its own FoR, it didn't exist in the past or future.

The light cone structure is frame-independent. It is the causal structure of the universe. The length contraction from the perspective of any observer doesn't change anything.

What does that mean? That all photons exist 'now'?

I know there are a lot of question marks here but they are mostly rhetorical. My point is, where do you draw a line on roosh's history or future? Are not his great-great-great-great-grandparents in his past light-cone and are not his great-great-great-great-grandchildren not in his future one? Doesn't roosh's past light-cone extend all the way back to the big bang?

No lines are drawn. Here is an example of worldliness of two particles, one with mass, and one without.



You can see that the massive particle is always within its light cones. The massless particle's worldline traces out the light cone structure. It is impossible for any particle to travel outside its world lines, meaning the causality of events is constrained in this manner.

And therefore, don't all light-cones intersect?

With the exception of high spacetime curvature areas like a black hole, sure. But this just implies that, given enough time, the signals between two events can intersect, which is of course true

I brought this up before but it went without comment, there are two kinds of causal link, two types of experience. Being involved in a collision is not the same as observing a collision from a distance.

Similarly I pointed out that there are two distinct types of perception. There is the kind of perception that comes from observation through experience, being caught in an earthquake for example, and there is the kind of perception that comes from experience through observation where for example, you might see a news broadcast about people caught in an earthquake.

I think it is excessive to say the least to consider the kind of photonic interactions we've been discussing so far in relation to perception as creating a causal link between two events. They rather connect two seperate causal chains.

The gamma rays produced in a supernova are not the supernova, they are the debris that was created by a supernova. When we detect such gamma rays we do not directly observe a supernova, we deduce it. The supernova occured in the past of the gamma rays. The gamma rays are no more than a collection of data that partially describe the supernova.

The star that went supernova has its causal sequence and an observer of gamma rays so produced has his. But the progress of science does not depend on any particular supernova. Any will do for the purpose of observation.

And evolution recognises this. By being able to perceive the debris created by events, we can avoid the intersection of two seperate causal chains.

Or, roosh might be walking down the road when he sees a man wearing a hoodie walking toward him. Roosh might then cross the road.

Did the man in the hoodie cause roosh to cross the road or did roosh perceive the hoodie and cause himself to try and prevent a causal link from developing between them? The man in the hoodie may never even see roosh.

You could say that an emitted photon is the effect of a previous event and that absorption is the cause of a different and random later event.

Supernovae cause themselves to be seen and men cause themselves to look for them. There is no causal link between the two but our telescopes allow us to create 'pseudo-causal' links by pointing them in different directions until we detect unusual phenomena.

The supernova didn't cause the telescope and the telescope didn't cause the supernova, men caused telescopes and supernovae provided photons to be detected.

So, please, for the sake of clarity, can we choose 'now' to be the frame of reference where all objects simultaneously agree on their positions relative to each other?

And can we agree that when we detect photons, we are examining debris from an event that took place in the past as it exists now?

And that perception is an evolved device that 'contrives' a cause/effect relationship with otherwise unconnected events in order to either avoid future entanglement or to ensure it. For instance, a lion and an antelope might be in the same region. Two unconnected events. When the lion perceives the antelope, it tries to ensure entanglement by performing a successful hunt. Whereas the antelope would try to accomplish the opposite.

Same cause, different effect, perception.

Or would you say the distinction isn't important?

On a fundamental physical level, these are all meaningless distinctions. The earthquake caused you to react to it, even if there were events along the way. You are within the light cone of the earthquake in a matter of fractions of a second. c is a big number, and this is why the causal structure of the universe appears Newtonian on our tiny scale.

youi

I think time is just a Maya.
There is only a big dance of energy.


This video is good do ye think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

I'll answer both these questions together.

Let's use a more local example. Let's take the example of the sun exploding. Both "you" and "you plus five" would both be causally unconnected to the sun exploding. The explosion would not exist in the past or future light cone of "you" or "you plus five". All observers would agree that you would have to count to around 480 before the sun exploding would be in your past light cone (At which point, the sun exploding would have a causal influence on you, and a catastrophic one at that). You wouldn't say events not in the past or future light cones must necessarily be in the present though, unless you use a very unconventional definition of present.

Ok, if we use this more local example, we can examine the differences between the definitions of "past" and "future"; you're suggesting that an event only physically exists in an observers past once a photon reaches the observer; that is, the event only becomes part of their past light cone at that moment.

But, if we start with the premise that the universe consists of more than just ourselves; that is, for me, the universe consists of more than me; for you, it consists of more than you. This means that the sun exists and is spatially separated from you. That is, an extreme interpretation of solipsism is incorrect.

If the sun exists, then it exists in a shared "now" with you, as does the entire universe; this shared "now" is your present. If the sun explodes, then it does so in this shared "now".

Given the finite speed of light, if the sun explodes in your shared now, then by the time a photon from that event reaches you, the explosion event must necessarily be in what you and I would refer to as "the past"; indeed, it would be part of "the past" one second after the explosion occurs, even though light from it had not reached you yet. It may not have had a causal influence on you, but it would be "in the past".

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Ok, if we use this more local example, we can examine the differences between the definitions of "past" and "future"; you're suggesting that an event only physically exists in an observers past once a photon reaches the observer; that is, the event only becomes part of their past light cone at that moment.

A slightly stronger criteria: Once a hypothetical particle travelling at the speed of light, capable of travelling through all obstacles, would have the possibility of travelling from the event to the observer. More rigorously, we say the event is in the past if there is a time like interval between them.

But, if we start with the premise that the universe consists of more than just ourselves; that is, for me, the universe consists of more than me; for you, it consists of more than you. This means that the sun exists and is spatially separated from you. That is, an extreme interpretation of solipsism is incorrect.

That's fine.

If the sun exists, then it exists in a shared "now" with you, as does the entire universe; this shared "now" is your present. If the sun explodes, then it does so in this shared "now".

Yes but what I call "now" is predicated on my frame of reference. Let's say, from my frame of reference, the sun explodes when my clock strikes 12. According to another observer, the sun has not yet exploded when my clock strikes 12. According to another, the sun has already exploded when my clock strikes 12. All observers will, however, agree that the blast will reach me and kill me when my clock strikes 12:08

Given the finite speed of light, if the sun explodes in your shared now, then by the time a photon from that event reaches you, the explosion event must necessarily be in what you and I would refer to as "the past"; indeed, it would be part of "the past" one second after the explosion occurs, even though light from it had not reached you yet. It may not have had a causal influence on you, but it would be "in the past".

According to one observer, the sun exploded when my clock struck 12:00:01. According to another, it happened when my clock struck 11:59:59. So it is true that, one second after 12:00:00, the explosion is in the past according to my reference frame. But according to others, it happens when my clock strikes some time in the future. It is only once my clock strikes 12:08:00 (roughly speaking) that all observers agree that the explosion is in my past.
I.e. There is no observer which would say the sun explodes after my clock strikes 12:08

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

A slightly stronger criteria: Once a hypothetical particle travelling at the speed of light, capable of travelling through all obstacles, would have the possibility of travelling from the event to the observer. More rigorously, we say the event is in the past if there is a time like interval between them.



That's fine.



Yes but what I call "now" is predicated on my frame of reference. Let's say, from my frame of reference, the sun explodes when my clock strikes 12. According to another observer, the sun has not yet exploded when my clock strikes 12. According to another, the sun has already exploded when my clock strikes 12. All observers will, however, agree that the blast will reach me and kill me when my clock strikes 12:08



According to one observer, the sun exploded when my clock struck 12:00:01. According to another, it happened when my clock struck 11:59:59. So it is true that, one second after 12:00:00, the explosion is in the past according to my reference frame. But according to others, it happens when my clock strikes some time in the future. It is only once my clock strikes 12:08:00 (roughly speaking) that all observers agree that the explosion is in my past.
I.e. There is no observer which would say the sun explodes after my clock strikes 12:08

OK, so the point seems to be that the arrival of the hypothetical particle at your location is when the explosion physically becomes part of your past. But if all observers agree that the particle arrives such at the moment your clock reads 12:08, would they not have to say that the explosion occurred before your clock struck 12:08, even if we assume the smallest possible spatial separation?

Just looking at it in this way, without recourse to specific reference frames; by the time the hypothetical particle has travelled half the distance from the sun to you - as measured by any reference frame - the explosion must necessarily be in the past; even by the time the particle has travelled a quarter of the distance the explosion must necessarily be in the past; by the time the particle has traveled 0.00001 of the distance the explosion must necessarily be in the past; and so on ad infinitum. That would mean that the explosion must necessarily be in the past before the hypothetical particle reaches you.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

OK, so the point seems to be that the arrival of the hypothetical particle at your location is when the explosion physically becomes part of your past. But if all observers agree that the particle arrives such at the moment your clock reads 12:08, would they not have to say that the explosion occurred before your clock struck 12:08, even if we assume the smallest possible spatial separation?

Just looking at it in this way, without recourse to specific reference frames; by the time the hypothetical particle has travelled half the distance from the sun to you - as measured by any reference frame - the explosion must necessarily be in the past; even by the time the particle has travelled a quarter of the distance the explosion must necessarily be in the past; by the time the particle has traveled 0.00001 of the distance the explosion must necessarily be in the past; and so on ad infinitum. That would mean that the explosion must necessarily be in the past before the hypothetical particle reaches you.

This simply means the order of events is physical: I.e. The causal structure of events is the same for all observers. Everyone agrees the particle has travelled 0.00001 of the distance after the explosion and before the particle reaches earth, or 0.00002 of the distance, or 0.000010001 of the distance.

So the statement in blue is correct. But different reference frames will disagree over when the particle reaches half way, 0.00001 of the distance.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

This simply means the order of events is physical: I.e. The causal structure of events is the same for all observers. Everyone agrees the particle has travelled 0.00001 of the distance after the explosion and before the particle reaches earth, or 0.00002 of the distance, or 0.000010001 of the distance.

So the statement in blue is correct. But different reference frames will disagree over when the particle reaches half way, 0.00001 of the distance.

The point being made though, was that the explosion event is only in the past when the hypothetical particle arrives at the observer, or was it that the explosion event is only in the past when the observers clock reads 12:08? Either way that can't be the case if the two events are spatially separated.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

The point being made though, was that the explosion event is only in the past when the hypothetical particle arrives at the observer, or was it that the explosion event is only in the past when the observers clock reads 12:08? Either way that can't be the case if the two events are spatially separated.

It is the case. There are observers, for example, where the explosion happens after the earth observer's clock strikes 12:07, or :12:07.9999, or 12:07.999999999

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is the case. There are observers, for example, where the explosion happens after the earth observer's clock strikes 12:07, or :12:07.9999, or 12:07.999999999

Even for those reference frames, the explosion must be in the past prior to the clock striking 12:08.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Even for those reference frames, the explosion must be in the past prior to the clock striking 12:08.

Yes. That is what I have been saying. All observers agree that the explosion is in the past of 12:08.

countrynosebag

davej - thanks for finding that nugget!
deceptively simple 'chat' there
understood more, got confused more, understood more...........................
i agree there is now and that past and future do not exist but,,,,the linear thing just works for me - maybe i am just thick! how do you account for growth, entropy and decay if there is no time?
simple person needing simple explanations here, was he saying that we imagine our movement and perceptions to make all fit comfortably - need a lot of help with this little package.
anyone fancy pitching in - i just felt that saying that these concepts would neither be understood nor accepted for hundreds of years was the most telling and convincing thing said to convince me of exactly the opposite - rather like the nuns' telling me at school that life would be great when i am dead, and in this other place called heaven which we were just told was there too
of course i know and accept that things are happening at microscopic levels i cannot perceive with naked eye and the quantum area - muddled again here, is also talking about smaller particles, activity and even another activity being examined continuously but stuck again