Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[erotavlas]

Basically what I am thinking is about the arrow of time and how everything in the universe moves in one direction, the direction of time. I think it is the same as what we refer to as entropy. I am wondering if everything that I do and think, my choices etc. are nothing but an illusion. What I think is really happening is that all the molecular interactions in my body including those that give rise to what we call thought and consciousness are governed by that motion of time. In that case, we really have no control over anything that we think or do. Everything inside us and around us in the universe is unraveling in one direction from moment to moment.

The only thing we are capable of is observation. Additionally not only are we observers but we are observers who aren't even in control of our own observation. (i.e. what and when to observe)

Any thoughts?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You seem to have conflated the problem of free-will vis-à-vis determinism and the issues of entropy and the arrow of time. I'm not sure how these two sets of ideas fit together, but there is a lot to debate about each one on its own. In other words, the debate over free-will would still exist in a deterministic universe even if entropy didn't exist. Similarly, even if the universe is indeterministic, as it seems most physicists believe, there still could be entropy and/or the arrow of time. In fact, if anything the concept of determinism seems in many ways to conflict with the concept of an arrow of time at least when looking at things in the fundamental sense of theoretical physics. An arrow of time seems to require some kind of indeterminism, at least when going through time in one direction to break the time symmetry.

[erotavlas]

For me entropy and time are the same thing. This is what gives rise to all change from moment to moment. If there was no time (aka entropy) then there would be no change, and everything would be static or frozen. So there could be no debate in that kind of universe

[Narnug]

I think I understand what you mean erotavlas.

I have been thinking along similar lines. And I can understand how this mixes free will into the picture.

What I have come to believe is that life is matter that can exploit the process of entropy.

A rock can not. It melts if it gets hot from some other source. If falls if it is pushed off a cliff. It breaks up if you hit it hard.

A living creature takes energy and uses it for its own survival/benefit/comfort.

So I do not think we have no control and are only observing. We are exploiting, that is what we call life in the widest meaning of that word.

Just my understanding.

[Steve]

For me entropy and time are the same thing.

For science, they are not the same thing. Entropy has units of Jules/degree Kelvin, and time has units of seconds. If they were the same thing, they would have the same dimensions (units).

[erotavlas]

For science, they are not the same thing. Entropy has units of Jules/degree Kelvin, and time has units of seconds. If they were the same thing, they would have the same dimensions (units).

Maybe I'm confusing entropy with inflation or whatver phenomenon is giving rise to the arrow of time in one direction. Whatever it should be called, I'm referring to that uniderectional flow that appears to be carrying everything in the unviverse along with it from momemt to moment.

[Narnug]

In my opinion one can not say that two things that are both the foundations of all creation can not be a part of each other or coexist in some way.

If science does not look at time and entropy as "things" that are connected in some way then science will never get anywhere.

And by the way, seconds have nothing to do with time as it works in our universe. Humans created seconds, humans also created meters and grams and all other measuring scales we use to define energy and distance.

Amb

narnug

[Steve]

If science does not look at time and entropy as "things" that are connected in some way then science will never get anywhere.

You seem to have concluded that if science says that things are not identical, then they are not connected. This is not correct. I pointed out only that time and entropy are not the same thing because they have different dimensions ( and hence different units) Time has the dimension t, Entropy has dimensions ml2t-2T-1 where m=mass, l=length, t=time, T=Temperature. In so far as entropy contains time in its dimensions, entropy and time can be said to be related - but they are clearly not identical and cannot be converted from one to the other.

[erotavlas]

I just thought of another way to look at the problem I have. Say there was a way to escape the known universe and control it from beyond its boundaries. If you had control of this flow of time and reversed it for the entire universe, basically like hitting a rewind button and stopping it at some previous point. When you resume playback would you witness the same events unfold as they did the first time? Or would there be the possibility of events unfolding differently the second time?

[Steve]

I just thought of another way to look at the problem I have. Say there was a way to escape the known universe and control it from beyond its boundaries. If you had control of this flow of time and reversed it for the entire universe, basically like hitting a rewind button and stopping it at some previous point. When you resume playback would you witness the same events unfold as they did the first time? Or would there be the possibility of events unfolding differently the second time?

Well, I see two possibilities. First, if you were able to get outside the universe, it would not be the same universe when it was rewound because you would be outside it. Second, although you think you are outside the universe, you get sucked back inside the universe when it is being rewound so you get no chance to hit the stop button and resume playback. On balance, I would rather you didn't mess around with the universe in this way.

[erotavlas]

Well, I see two possibilities. First, if you were able to get outside the universe, it would not be the same universe when it was rewound because you would be outside it. Second, although you think you are outside the universe, you get sucked back inside the universe when it is being rewound so you get no chance to hit the stop button and resume playback. On balance, I would rather you didn't mess around with the universe in this way.

oops I didn't consider that

-- Updated Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:23 am to add the following --

if anything the concept of determinism seems in many ways to conflict with the concept of an arrow of time at least when looking at things in the fundamental sense of theoretical physics. An arrow of time seems to require some kind of indeterminism, at least when going through time in one direction to break the time symmetry.

I'n not sure I understand this, can you explain further?

-- Updated Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:20 pm to add the following --

Can someone explain Scott's post i.e how determinism conflicts with the concept of an arrow of time. And why would the arrow of time require indeterminism?

[Stanley Huang]

erotavlas said: “Basically what I am thinking is about the arrow of time and how everything in the universe moves in one direction, the direction of time.”

Not everything in this universe is moving in the same direction, not just spatially, but even through time. Because not all things move in the same direction, not all things travel in the same time direction. So one object may travel to the past while the other object may move to the future, and I have written why is it possible that time can travel backward.

[erotavlas]

erotavlas said: “Basically what I am thinking is about the arrow of time and how everything in the universe moves in one direction, the direction of time.”

Not everything in this universe is moving in the same direction, not just spatially, but even through time. Because not all things move in the same direction, not all things travel in the same time direction. So one object may travel to the past while the other object may move to the future, and I have written why is it possible that time can travel backward.

that doesn't sound correct to me. WHat objects are you referring to that you think are moving backwards in time?

[Stanley Huang]

It is a relative comparison. For instance, the moon you see is the past. Light takes time to travel. If I am much further away from you, maybe you see the moon before me. So you see the moon at this moment while I see the moon 5 minutes later. Because what I see is the past relative to you, then, time must travel backward to the past for this to happen so that I cannot see the past. So not all things move to the future. If I see the past relative to you, then, the time will progress to the past.

[erotavlas]

It is a relative comparison. For instance, the moon you see is the past. Light takes time to travel. If I am much further away from you, maybe you see the moon before me. So you see the moon at this moment while I see the moon 5 minutes later. Because what I see is the past relative to you, then, time must travel backward to the past for this to happen so that I cannot see the past. So not all things move to the future. If I see the past relative to you, then, the time will progress to the past.

i don't think we can say anything moves to the past. The best we can do is observe the past. If you are 5 light minutes away from the moon and I'm 10 light minutes away all that is happening is you see the moon's state 5 minutes before I get to see it. The moon is still advancing through time in only one direction, just like your body. The light waves are only a representation of the state the moon was in at the instant they left the surface of the moon. The further you are from the source of the light waves, the further back in time your observation is. Not the actual object you are observing.

time must travel backward to the past for this to happen so that I cannot see the past. .

Time doesn't rewind so that you can witness the past state relative to me. Its the distances in space between observers and the object that causes this.