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

[Zayl]

'Obvious' huh? 'must be' huh? Clearly not a logician or scientist. Did the deep booming voices in your head tell you these absolute truths without evidence to back them up or arguments to validate or falsify?

I explained to you why it is redundant. Is that not a satisfiable enough answer? Saying that santa clause is responsible for time in the universe is also not falsifiable you know. But I do hope you can agree that it is obviously not the case? For a similar reason my argument was quite logical.

[Sy Borg]

Let's back up a little. You're having trouble with a thought experiment empty universe so how about this then. The universe has superclusters of galaxies that are in kind of blobby arms with unimaginably large areas between them. Lets conduct our experiments there then, in the middle of a vast empty area of space between superclusters of galaxies. Does that work? You can see by necessity the laws of our universe must exist there because it is our universe. You should also be able to agree that there is no other matter out there, or perhaps one atom per cubic parsec, not enough to interfere with our experiments (which we wouldn't have to worry about in a clean room but what the hell, I'll conduct the experiment in the wild rather than in a lab since you insist). Unfortunately I can't really get away from background radiation (which I could in a clean room) but if it interferes with the experiment in any way I'll just have to control for it as they control for extraneous variables in all other sciences. Dark matter is an interesting one but the latest theories I've seen have dark matter closely linked to the areas of space where superclusters are, not in the gaps between the blobby arms of superclusters. So, for arguments sake lets assume no dark matter is in this area of space either. No gravity wells as there is nothing remotely close with mass. So we now have our stage set, a big empty [section of the] universe where we can play with stuff without interference from other stuff in the universe. No multiverse, which was never my intention to propose. Any future thought experiments will be conducted in this (mostly) empty region of space. Not as experimentally clean as a clean room but whatever.

Thanks for that. There was no way I could go with the empty universe experiment.

However, I also expect intergalactic space to be extremely dangerous due to its thinness. Any object within deep intergalactic space would most likely be pulled apart by dark energy due to a lack of gravitational counter force. Too much gravity and you are crushed, not enough and you're pulled apart. It's the same problem with the thought experiment; I consider absolute nothing to be lethally dangerous.

Sorry, about the offtopic talk but the nature of space is relevant to time. Time moves very quickly in deep intergalactic. All objects that exist are temporal, holding together for a while before their inevitably destiny of breaking apart. The time in intergalactic space runs too fast for aggregation to occur, so no object as we know them could be possible in deep space. It's all rather (pleasantly) mind bending.

I was trying to put across the idea that time has two aspects to it, PlanckTime which, as you suggest, is the smallest divisible section of time (yes this contradicts the claim that time cannot be so divided but these two ideas are being argued about in science now with no clear winner, which is why we're discussing it here). My argument is that PlanckTime is where the universe's physical existence manifests for that moment (1 PlanckTime = 1 moment), the 'tick'. And this 'tick' is a universal constant unaffected by speed or gravity or anything else. Then the universe goes 'tock' where the physical manifestation of existence only exists as information, this is so we can actually move. The information about our universe during this 'tock' phase is processed by our universe's physical laws which gives us all our motions and collisions etc. This means when the universe goes back to the 'tick' phase movement, if physics dictates, has occurred in this information layer. The 'tick' is just the physical manifestation of the end of the 'tock'.

An attractive analogy. In essence it seems you are talking about reality at the smallest of scales being a rapidfire cyclic exchange between energy and information{?}.

The reason that I suggest we need some mechanism like this to explain time dilation within our universe is because if we only have a single dimension of time then any ship travelling at really high speed (99.9999999% the speed of light) should not act the way we expect. It should actually jump out of existence for extended periods of time. With a single time dimension if a ship had a 99% time dilation effect so 1 day passed on the ship for every 100 on Terra then the ship should disappear for 99 days worth of time so that it can travel for 100 days and only age a single day. With two dimensions we don't need to worry about this problem of a ship disappearing on us. Two dimensions means it never has to stay out of existence until its time is up for it to reappear with the correct time dilation. Every moment the ship will continue to exist which, hopefully, is what everyone expects would happen.

The other issue is that it's impossible for a large object to travel anywhere close to that speed. At 99.999etc% of light speed your ship would be a black hole due to its extreme mass. Actually, it would have burned up long before as the pressure in its "gravitational core" would have created high temperatures! Aside from speed of light, another interesting limit is that of mass. At a certain masses objects become planets, then stars, then black holes. Reality cannot sustain a supermassive planet or star, it must break down to a black hole. Time, mass, speed and heat energy are deeply entwined.

[Queebeagle]

To me it is obvious that time as a dimension is nothing more than a shallow model.
There is no denying that cause and effect exists in the universe. A concept such as time, must be the byprodct of cause and effect. This byproduct is NOT the properties of a dimension of space. Thus time as a dimension becomes redundant.
There is no reasonable motivation nor foundation for modeling time as a dimension.

I explained to you why it is redundant. Is that not a satisfiable enough answer? Saying that santa clause is responsible for time in the universe is also not falsifiable you know. But I do hope you can agree that it is obviously not the case? For a similar reason my argument was quite logical.

Okay what am I missing? You suggest time must be a byproduct of cause and effect but I see nothing to support this claim. My opinion, without evidence to the contrary, is that time would exist in empty space without the need for anything material in it so it is definitely not obvious to me. I agree that one aspect of time (what we are calling BeagleTime just for excrement and giggles, can't swear heh!) is, at least in part, a product of the material existence of the universe but this whole thread is about arguing this doesn't really explain everything.

Heh! Yeah I hope Santa isn't responsible for time, that really would be disturbing. Being falsifiable is only one method of refutation. Inductive reasoning is another which is the case with Santa, it is more likely than not that Santa is not the cause of time so we can discount it unless other evidence presents itself to the contrary. (I really hope it doesn't, I've been a bad boy so he might hold back time from me lol!) More seriously you say there is no reasonable motivation for modelling time as a dimension but I'm not at all sure why you are saying this. What is the rationale behind time only being a byproduct of cause and effect? If you don't want to post long stuff how about pointing to where you got this idea and information from so we can check it out ourselves?

Thanks for that. There was no way I could go with the empty universe experiment.

However, I also expect intergalactic space to be extremely dangerous due to its thinness. Any object within deep intergalactic space would most likely be pulled apart by dark energy due to a lack of gravitational counter force. Too much gravity and you are crushed, not enough and you're pulled apart. It's the same problem with the thought experiment; I consider absolute nothing to be lethally dangerous.

Why would something be pulled apart? Can you point me to something that explains the idea that dark energy would have this effect without the presence of a gravitational field? Also wouldn't matter be producing it's own gravitational field and so be inherently immune from that effect?

An attractive analogy. In essence it seems you are talking about reality at the smallest of scales being a rapidfire cyclic exchange between energy and information{?}.

Yep. Or exchange between existence and information as I'm not sure you can describe the whole of the universe in terms of energy but I'm not sure, if you can then yes energy is fine. Trying anyway heh!

The other issue is that it's impossible for a large object to travel anywhere close to that speed. At 99.999etc% of light speed your ship would be a black hole due to its extreme mass. Actually, it would have burned up long before as the pressure in its "gravitational core" would have created high temperatures! Aside from speed of light, another interesting limit is that of mass. At a certain masses objects become planets, then stars, then black holes. Reality cannot sustain a supermassive planet or star, it must break down to a black hole. Time, mass, speed and heat energy are deeply entwined.

True that. Okay just slow the ship down to a sustainable speed where the mass is not going to destroy it. We still have the issue that with a single dimension of time it requires the ship to disappear out of existence for portions of time. I was going to the extreme to make it obvious what I was trying to say but yes I think you're entirely correct to point out the issue with mass.

[Zayl]

Okay what am I missing? You suggest time must be a byproduct of cause and effect but I see nothing to support this claim. My opinion, without evidence to the contrary, is that time would exist in empty space without the need for anything material in it so it is definitely not obvious to me. I agree that one aspect of time (what we are calling BeagleTime just for excrement and giggles, can't swear heh!) is, at least in part, a product of the material existence of the universe but this whole thread is about arguing this doesn't really explain everything.

Heh! Yeah I hope Santa isn't responsible for time, that really would be disturbing. Being falsifiable is only one method of refutation. Inductive reasoning is another which is the case with Santa, it is more likely than not that Santa is not the cause of time so we can discount it unless other evidence presents itself to the contrary. (I really hope it doesn't, I've been a bad boy so he might hold back time from me lol!) More seriously you say there is no reasonable motivation for modelling time as a dimension but I'm not at all sure why you are saying this. What is the rationale behind time only being a byproduct of cause and effect? If you don't want to post long stuff how about pointing to where you got this idea and information from so we can check it out ourselves?

The definition of time is given by s=vt. The variable v is a result of change and such change must ultimately be a result of cause and effect. v cannot be non-zero without cause and effect. If v has a value, then t has a nonzero value as well.

Now let us imagine that time is a dimension just like s. We would still need cause and effect, which defines another concept of time again. Here is the redundancy.

Since I am a new member I cannot post urls, but after I achieve 10 posts I can provide a link to my own work where I show how it is possible to model all the laws of physics by using a very simple model derived straight from consciousness itself.

[Steve3007]

Zayl:

To me it is obvious that time as a dimension is nothing more than a shallow model.

There is no denying that cause and effect exists in the universe. A concept such as time, must be the byprodct of cause and effect. This byproduct is NOT the properties of a dimension of space. Thus time as a dimension becomes redundant.

There is no reasonable motivation nor foundation for modeling time as a dimension.

I agree with you that time as a dimension is a mathematical model. So is everything else in physics. But why a "shallow" model? Why do you say that there is no reasonable motivation for modelling time as such? All models, by their nature, are imperfect. But they are not invented unless they have at least some utility. Clearly the idea of time as a dimension has indeed had its uses in describing and predicting observations.

The concept of cause and effect is, arguably, also a part of our modelling, is it not? We see multiple correlations and we infer cause and effect as a useful model for predicting future correlations.

[Zayl]

Zayl:

To me it is obvious that time as a dimension is nothing more than a shallow model.

There is no denying that cause and effect exists in the universe. A concept such as time, must be the byprodct of cause and effect. This byproduct is NOT the properties of a dimension of space. Thus time as a dimension becomes redundant.

There is no reasonable motivation nor foundation for modeling time as a dimension.

I agree with you that time as a dimension is a mathematical model. So is everything else in physics. But why a "shallow" model? Why do you say that there is no reasonable motivation for modelling time as such? All models, by their nature, are imperfect. But they are not invented unless they have at least some utility. Clearly the idea of time as a dimension has indeed had its uses in describing and predicting observations.

The concept of cause and effect is, arguably, also a part of our modelling, is it not? We see multiple correlations and we infer cause and effect as a useful model for predicting future correlations.

You are right about what you say about models. When I say shallow model I refer to a less fundamental model, than a more fundamental model. I think we could agree that a model gives a more correct describtion of reality if it is fundamental?

In the less fundamental models time as a dimension suffices. However what I mean is that in sufficiently fundamental models there shouldn't be any motivation to model time as a dimension. It is due to the redundancy explained previously.

[Steve3007]

I'm not show what you mean by the word fundamental in this context. Do you mean models that more accurately fit observations?

I don't see anywhere where you've previously explained anything about redundancy.

[Zayl]

In my article I define fundamental as follows:

"If you have a bottle, you can say that this bottle consist of molecules. Then, molecules are the more fundamental concept. That is because we can explain a bottle in terms of molecules, but we cannot explain molecules in terms of bottles.

If you have a more fundamental understanding of something, you are likely to be able to find more information due to generalization. By generalizing this fundamental concept, you can predict more. For example, by identifying the more fundamental concept of molecules we can predict chemistry. Chemistry can be generalized to explain properties of objects.

The concept of fundamental is only relevant to how we mentally categorize how basic we predict the objective reality, but is not otherwise really a property of the objective reality itself. In reality what we perceive as a bottle, is neither molecules nor a bottle, we don’t even know what it truly is."

The redundancy is that if time is a dimension, then what is the result of cause and effect such that v is non-zero?

[Steve3007]

I'm still not 100% sure what you're getting at, Zayl. But I think what you're talking about is the idea that if we regard space-time as 4 dimensional then we tend to envisage it as something static. It's very difficult to say any of this without falling into the trap of using temporal language inappropriately, but there is a sense in which we regard all of time as existing simultaneously (there, I've fallen into the trap) because we're used to the idea that all positions in space exist simultaneously and we're used to using such things as Cartesian coordinates to represent that.

What you appear to be suggesting is that there is a problem with any kind of movement - any non-zero velocity - in this model. Presumably because velocity links distance with time in such things as the simple equation you mentioned earlier (s = vt).

Would you be able to elaborate on this idea some more and tell me if I'm on the right track?

-- Updated Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:44 am to add the following --

I just read your post #19 again.

One point I'd like to note: You say "v cannot be non-zero without cause and effect". Why do you say that? Why pick on velocity? Why not acceleration? An object moving at constant velocity (v) continues to move at that velocity unless acted on by a force. How does movement at constant velocity imply a cause? What exactly do you mean by the word "cause"? In a 4 dimensional model of space-time, why can't the concept of causality simply be represented by the relationship between adjacent regions in that space-time?

[Zayl]

I'm still not 100% sure what you're getting at, Zayl. But I think what you're talking about is the idea that if we regard space-time as 4 dimensional then we tend to envisage it as something static. It's very difficult to say any of this without falling into the trap of using temporal language inappropriately, but there is a sense in which we regard all of time as existing simultaneously (there, I've fallen into the trap) because we're used to the idea that all positions in space exist simultaneously and we're used to using such things as Cartesian coordinates to represent that.

What you appear to be suggesting is that there is a problem with any kind of movement - any non-zero velocity - in this model. Presumably because velocity links distance with time in such things as the simple equation you mentioned earlier (s = vt).

Would you be able to elaborate on this idea some more and tell me if I'm on the right track?

-- Updated Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:44 am to add the following --

I just read your post #19 again.

One point I'd like to note: You say "v cannot be non-zero without cause and effect". Why do you say that? Why pick on velocity? Why not acceleration? An object moving at constant velocity (v) continues to move at that velocity unless acted on by a force. How does movement at constant velocity imply a cause? What exactly do you mean by the word "cause"? In a 4 dimensional model of space-time, why can't the concept of causality simply be represented by the relationship between adjacent regions in that space-time?

The universe constantly changes because it is not constant. The way we understand this is in terms of cause and effect. I believe that we are limited to understand it in terms of cause and effect because the way our consciousness experiences information and how information changes is two different things.

You are right, we could pick on acceleration as well. We also cannot understand how acceleration is nonzero without the concept of cause and effect. Something caused a particle to move at an even higher rate. Yet when the particle moves as described by s=vt it changes position. We cannot understand relative motion without cause and effect either I suppose?

It is actually the whole concept of modeling relativity as 4 dimensions with time that at least I fail to see how it can be viable to model by using sufficiently fundamental building blocks. By fundamental in this case I would mean models that are more fundamental than mainstream physics which would fall under the category of philosophy. Perhaps some kind of primitive ontology which models both space, time and physics. But ofcourse modeling time as a dimension surely works within the realm of mainstream physics which would be less fundamental than a model based on for example consciousness itself.

It turns out that it is possible to model physics by assuming that there is only one inertial frame of reference. This is much simpler models than assuming that all frames of references fundamentally exist on an equal footing. What kind of building blocks could model space, time and cause and effect such that all frames of references exist on equal footing?

A nobels prize winner in physics explains why the simpler models are usually more reliable. I cannot post links since I am only a trial member, but for reference the video is called beauty truth and physics on ted website where sceintist present their speeches.

[Steve3007]

A nobels prize winner in physics explains why the simpler models are usually more reliable. I cannot post links since I am only a trial member, but for reference the video is called beauty truth and physics on ted website where sceintist present their speeches.

Is that the TED lecture by Murray Gell-Mann? Looks very interesting. I'll watch it tonight and get back to you. I would imagine Gell-Mann will have some very interesting thoughts about the role of beauty and symmetry in physics. I think it was him who used the Buddhist term "The Eightfold Way" in the concept of particle physics wasn't it? (And also borrowed the word "quark" from James Joyce). So clearly he has a lot to say about the role of beauty in exploring the nature of reality.

-- Updated Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:57 am to add the following --

(Error: When I said "...in the concept..." above I meant "...as a concept...")

Here's that TED lecture for anyone who's interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRxRGR3VpM

[Zayl]

A nobels prize winner in physics explains why the simpler models are usually more reliable. I cannot post links since I am only a trial member, but for reference the video is called beauty truth and physics on ted website where sceintist present their speeches.

Is that the TED lecture by Murray Gell-Mann? Looks very interesting. I'll watch it tonight and get back to you. I would imagine Gell-Mann will have some very interesting thoughts about the role of beauty and symmetry in physics. I think it was him who used the Buddhist term "The Eightfold Way" in the concept of particle physics wasn't it? (And also borrowed the word "quark" from James Joyce). So clearly he has a lot to say about the role of beauty in exploring the nature of reality.

-- Updated Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:57 am to add the following --

(Error: When I said "...in the concept..." above I meant "...as a concept...")

I am glad you found it interesting. I feel like what he talks about here relates more to philosophy but is perhaps soem key factors in how to contribute to science. I could relate to it by that he explained the concept of symmetry as used in particle physics, which he explained as peeling off different skins of the onion. Then the similarities in these onion skins indicate similarities and thus may indicate simpler models that can be even further generalized. He says that fundamental models tend to be simpler, and that when models are simpler they are more likely to be correct.

[Steve3007]

Zayl:

Yes, in the video Murray Gell-Mann essentially just reiterates, in an entertaining and engaging way, the defining feature of the laws of physics: that they are mathematical expressions of the patterns we see in our observations.

Symmetry is a kind of pattern. A pattern is a repetition. Any repetition that we notice in our observations allows us to describe those observations in a form that is smaller than a set of individual descriptions of each observation would be. We see this repetition and smallness as beautiful.

The smaller the better.

Gell-Mann pointed out that our conviction that "small is good" is so strong that if we find a description of a large set of observations that is particularly compact, then if an observation comes along that doesn't seem to fit the pattern we often keep the pattern. We are confident in the idea that further study will show that the observation has been mis-interpreted in some way and, on closer examination, will actually fit the pattern after all. This strategy has often been shown to be successful in the past. (He uses experiments that appear not to fit Einstein's theories of Relativity as an example.) So, on that basis, it seems like a good one.

[Zayl]

Zayl:

Yes, in the video Murray Gell-Mann essentially just reiterates, in an entertaining and engaging way, the defining feature of the laws of physics: that they are mathematical expressions of the patterns we see in our observations.

Symmetry is a kind of pattern. A pattern is a repetition. Any repetition that we notice in our observations allows us to describe those observations in a form that is smaller than a set of individual descriptions of each observation would be. We see this repetition and smallness as beautiful.

The smaller the better.

Gell-Mann pointed out that our conviction that "small is good" is so strong that if we find a description of a large set of observations that is particularly compact, then if an observation comes along that doesn't seem to fit the pattern we often keep the pattern. We are confident in the idea that further study will show that the observation has been mis-interpreted in some way and, on closer examination, will actually fit the pattern after all. This strategy has often been shown to be successful in the past. (He uses experiments that appear not to fit Einstein's theories of Relativity as an example.) So, on that basis, it seems like a good one.

Yes that is well said. As you say the laws of physics are expressed mathematically. I find it strange that this is such a strict law that mathematics must be a part of any physical law. What is so special about describing things with what we believe to be abstract numbers?

The way I see it is that our perception of number is a result of fundamental characteristics of nature. However we also know that there are fundamental properties of the universe which we cannot describe with numbers. That would be conscious experiences and perhaps even quantum mechanics, since no mathematical equation fully describes the measurement problem. I think this trend of describing things with numbers must be broken sooner or later in order for sceince to advance in certain areas.

[Rr6]

Time that we observe is inherent to XY and Z dimensions but only in respect to all three i.e. time that we observe is "moderation of angle and frequency" { thank you B. Fuller } in 3 dimensions.

Initially we have the inviolate ergo eternally existent, abstract concept of five, and only five, regular/symmetrical 3D polyhedra that can exist in all of one finite, occupied space Universe, or in scenarios that involve a multiple yet still finite set of, occupied space, local universe's.

Space-time is fairly well accepted irrespective of how space-time is really defined. Gravity{ we do not observe directly } is accepted as a property of space-time.

Well their appears to be a new kid on the cosmic block with an identity repulsive dark energy. Not knowing exactly what dark energy is, some are left to speculate it is another property of space-time and again, whatever space-time may be.

Here is what I believe. That there exists at least three fundamental, or essential aspects of space-time;

1) gravity as space and specifically a positive shaped geodesic arc of space,

2) time we observe and specifically as those events associated with a sine-wave,

3) dark energy as space and specifically a negative shaped geodesic arc of space.

In this scenario, space-time is more correctly labeled as space-time-space. The torus three surface aspects of curvature.

1) positive curvature ergo associated with gravity

2) flat curvature--transitional zone

3) negative curvature---associated with dark energy.

The above only addresses the surface of a torus. If we want to embrace a more wholistic view of the torus manifest as aspect of our directly observed Universe, then we assign time to the body of the torus. In my specific scenarios, time is inversions from gravity and dark energy surface to give 3D body to our torus as observed time.

This above is not to say that the finite, occupied space Universe, has an associated shape of a torus. I believe every fermonic and bosonic particle of Universe, have no less than three tori as three vectors. Each of these toroidal vectors we can associate with three generalized great circles as the abstract general great circle axis of each.

Then there is an abstract great circle associated with gravity, two time great circles, dark energy and two flat transitonal zones for a total of 7 abstract great circles to be associated with each great toroidal vector.

Finally, my explorations that led to the above beliefs, were involved with a 4-line/level numerical sine-wave, wherein all prime numbers{ except 2 and 3 } fall on the 2nd line/level. When I inside-outed the his numerical sine-wave, all the prime numbers now fall on top line-level.

This top line/level would be the abstract great circle associated with positive shaped gravity, where-from all gravitational, time inversions and out-version events occur.

Bottom line/level is the associated with all abstract great circle of an iinner negative shaped dark energy, time inversions and out-version events.

The two inside line/levels of this inside-outed, numerical sine-wave, now define a the two abstract great circles associated with the inside sine-wave set of time inverted events.

We do not see observe directly the gravitational positive shaped space, nor do we see the dark energy negative shaped space. We do see sine-wave events that of which two opposing events are directly connected to gravity and dark energy surface of the overall great toroidal vector, of an overall fermionic,or bosonic particle.

This has been difficult concept for me to accept, that every sine-wave we observe from quantum level interactions, is defined not by a particle that is moving in wave-linear fashion, but rather, a particle-like something-ness that has interactions with gravity and dark energy.

I dont think I can post URL yet as I'm still trial member but here is the basic numerical pattern.

....1...........5.....7..............11......13..................17.....19...................23.....

0...................6......................12...........................18.................................
..........3..................9.............................15...........................21.................

.......2....4............8.....10..................14......16.................20.......22...........

Here below is a texti-conic representation so it is not accurate but gives rough of idea of cross-sectional view from side of torus. I also cannot do fancy formatting yet. Below we see;

(><) (><)

two gravity arcs, ( )
4 time inversions, >< ><
two dark energy arcs )( of a torus.

r6