|
Posted July 08, 2009 (04:20PM)
the trouble with time is that it may not exists deep down in physics and in it just a human invention. I know it sounds ridiculous, here is a popular article on the subject - http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
|
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (04:26PM)
Yeah OF, and as I used to tell my 'students', There is no gravity, it's just that the whole world sucks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (05:28PM)
I'll leave astrophysics alone for now, partly because I don't remember much about it, and partly because I think it's tangential to the issue of an infinity in reality. Points are defined (not measured) as infinitesmal. Take anything that is not infinitely small, and you can fit an infinite number of points on it. This doesn't prove or suggest anything about infinity in reality, it just illustrates the definition of a point. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (05:52PM)
I have this issue, sitting in a drawer in my night stand along with the last six months worth. The premise of the article is silly, as if physicists will discover a point of measure in time thats so small that they discover ticks like a wind-up clock. But then, if I'd heard physicists were researcxhing a way to slow the speed of light, I'd have said that was silly too...several years ago they did it by sending light through a medium of liquid sodium. |
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (05:52PM)
I just noticed that I didn't acknowledge a couple of things. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (05:53PM)
"What happened yesterday really did happen, and it's all in your mind."
'What happened yesterday really did happen', means (to us speakers of the language) that what happened, occurred without our necessary participation. That means even if we didn't observe it, it happened. 'it's all in your mind', in the normal usage means that what it refers to has no existence outside of the mind. QED |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (07:07PM)
What I mean by that is yesterday an event occured in reality, and existed as an occurence. Today it is no longer occuring, what is left is a memory of the occurence and a physical alteration in reality. The physical alteration does not mean that the occurence continues to exist into the present, it just means that the variables have changed. For example, suppose that yesterday someone chopped down a tree outside my house. The occurence of the tree getting cut and falling no longer exists today in reality but possibly exists in memory. The fact that there's a stump where the tree used to be does not mean that past exists in reality. It means that a stump exists in reality, and the story of how the tree became a stump exists in images and language in my head. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (07:38PM)
Wow.... this is deep.... Do you all lick frogs or eat mushrooms.... Ignore me... I'm a physical alteration of an occurence that occured yet it continues in the present with you viewing this post....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (07:40PM)
I agree with you, that the past is no longer occurring, because if it was it would be the present. A similar statement can be made about the future, but these are trivial statements, because they follow from the very meaning of the terms. I had thought that you were putting forth the philosophic position that the world exists because it is perceived and it is not independent of our perception. Thank goodness that you’re not, I thought that I had buried Bishop Berkeley a couple of pages back on this thread. The good Bishop (1685-1753) was the first to enunciate the position fully understanding the lunacy that it commits one to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 09, 2009 (02:35AM)
Is there such a thing as present? All five senses once triggered become the past. We live in what we know and anticipate what we don’t which would be the future. So if there is a present, maybe it is only the anticipation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 10, 2009 (05:00AM)
Hi Stoic, (I) About time: - Some people in metaphysics, called "presentists", say that only the present really exists. The past used to exist, but it does not exist. This might appear either trivial or absurd: if we take "exists" as tensed, and thus to mean "exists now", then the statement is trivial. But if we take "exists" timelessly, then the statement seems absurd. Example: a past event might be the cause of a present event. But how can something non-existent be the cause of something real? - Maybe this is the idea: in some sense, the present is *more real* than the past or future. (And maybe the past is more real than the future, which is indeterminate.) This seems like a non-trivial and non-absurd idea. Maybe it's right. - Even if you accept that idea, though, I would not say that the past is all in your mind. Your beliefs about the past, etc., are in your mind, but the events themselves are not. Saying that the past is in your mind because you only know about it from your memories, is like saying that I only exist in your mind because you know about me from my forum postings. (II) About points: - Is this your point (pun intended): Points are defined such that any nonzero region of space contains infinitely many of them. But this doesn't show that there are actual infinities, because points don't really exist? If so, I'd repeat an earlier point: presumably you accept that nonzero *regions* of space (like regions of 1 cubic meter) exist. You can also fit infinitely many *nonzero regions* into any finite region. (The sizes of the regions just have to decrease such that their sum forms a convergent series.) - Btw, in my view, points are not infinitesimal. Rather, points have volume 0. I think "infinitely small" also makes no sense, unless by that you just mean size zero. There is a mathematical theory of "infinitesimals" (which provides an alternative foundation for calculus from the standard formulation)--they are supposed to be numbers that are greater than 0 but less than any real number. But I say there are no such things. (III) Proving the reality of infinity: - There is an argument that space is infinitely divisible. You may decide whether to call it a "proof" or not: (Background assumption: there are squares. This need not mean square material objects, but could just be square regions of space.) 1. The diagonal of a square is incommensurable with the side. I.e., it equals an irrational number times the side, i.e., there are no natural numbers n and m such that the ratio of the diagonal to the side = n/m. This is a mathematical theorem. 2. If space is discrete, then all distances in space are integer multiples of some minimum distance, d. (where d is the 'pixel size' of the world, as it were.) 3. If so, then the ratio of any two distances is rational. (This is mathematically provable, but I assume you can just see it's true.) 4. Therefore, if space is discrete, then the ratio of any two distances in space is rational. (from 2, 3) 5. Therefore, if space is discrete, then the ratio of the diagonal of a square to the side is rational. (from 4) 6. Space is not discrete. (from 1, 5) In this argument, I use "discrete" just to mean "not infinitely divisible". So space is infinitely divisible. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (12:16AM)
Is there an end to space, if we had a ship capable of unlimited flight through space, could it theoretically proceed forever in a straight line? Or would it be a much larger version of east is east and north and south? Probably a silly question in line with is the world flat. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (01:05AM)
(I) I'm finding many things to be absurd when placed in the context of "exists timelessly". Things or events exist prior to them even being conceived? Iphones and the holocaust existed in the stone ages - but they existed as future objects and a future event? If that is the case, then how can any imagined object or concept be said to be outside of reality?
But how can something non-existent be the cause of something real? -I don't claim to know the "how", but non-existent things do effect reality. Humans and animals always take actions based on perceptions of reality and not reality itself. A child who believes a monster is under his bed will take certain actions which are real, it does not make the monster real but the actions certainly are. -Any time something goes from being non-existent to existent, the non-existent is causing something real by altering the constitution of reality. The non-existent causing something in reality may be the core definition of creation. This is under the assumption that future objects cannot be considered existent. (II) A * Infinity = Infinity : if A > 0 A * Infinity = 0 : If A = 0 A * Infinity = -Infinity : If A < 0 "A" here represents "non-zero" regions. Notice that whenever "A" truly is non-zero, the result is infinite which cannot fit into a finite region. It doesn't matter how tiny you make "A", an infinite number of the tiny regions will still result in an infinite region. (III) That is a clever argument, now all you have to do is prove the existence of a true square in space. I would posit that there are no true squares in reality since the square would have to be composed of a physical substance to exist in reality and be measurable as a square. That would then make smallest minimum distance d a function of the atom size of the substance. Atoms have no corners to allow for the perfect square to exist in reality. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (01:45AM)
- Even if you accept that idea, though, I would not say that the past is all in your mind. Your beliefs about the past, etc., are in your mind, but the events themselves are not. Saying that the past is in your mind because you only know about it from your memories, is like saying that I only exist in your mind because you know about me from my forum postings.
I consider you to exist in reality because of the possibility of causing you to react through interaction. I cannot cause a reaction or a change or interact with the past. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (02:33AM)
Iphones existed in the stone age.
They hadn't yet been assembled. Time is a measure of the exertion of energy, a more dense concentration on energy creates the effect of an acclerating of time, when it's no more than an acceleration fo energy. A man in orbit will experience a very slight slowing of time from those of us on Earth, further into space and time slows even more. Energy in the form of gravity, I wager, causes sub-atomic activity to speed up which in turn would accelerate molecular activity and decay and create the effect of time moving faster. I liken our perception of time to our emotions, love, hate, fear..we experience these feelings, but are they real in a physical state or are they chemical opioid reactions that create a reality for our conscious state as tools developed through millions of years of Darwinian natural selection designed to aid self preservation and reproduction? Lets go to the store and buy a box of love, a jar of fear and a can of time....throw an idea or two into the carriage while there if they're on sale....we can then use one of those idea's to create an Iphone. I'd read an article a few years ago and I cannot recall to save my life who or what the article came from, but the premise was that there is no space/time where gravity isn't present, it might have been a theory of Hawkings, but I'm not sure....what I said above would make perfect sense if thats true. (no, not the part about the can of time) |
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (02:47AM)
There is past, present, and future? Easy to understand past and future, but of present, any memory or observation of an event would be past tense. I suppose just being here is present, or existing in it, a fleeting immeasurable moment between past and future? Within our capacity I think present is unattainable, unless you can stop time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (12:06PM)
About two thousand years ago, our friend Plato ran into some major philosophic problems when he gave a ‘higher’ reality to ideas than the things that the ideas represent. He looked at the world and all he could see was the impermance and imperfection of things. This lead him to make the (misguided) leap into saying that if all the things we perceive are less than perfect, there must be a perfect thing to which we compare them to, and which lets us say, “Ah yes, that’s what that thing aims to be.” He just could not seem to accept the world could ‘merely’ be an assemblage of things that were less than perfect and assumed that ‘the perfect’ must exist.
My own favorite ‘solution’ for this philosophic issue was offered by the later Wittgenstein. He said we get our notion of what a thing is suppose to be from seeing the resemblances among things of a like kind, in the manner that we see the resemblances among members of a family. There may, in fact, be no characteristic that all members of a family have in common, but there are enough characteristics that they share among themselves (and not with others) that must of us can readily say “Yes they look like brothers, or, They must be mother and daughter.” Okay, what’s this got to do with what has been said before in this thread? I see a similar problem when I see you speak of Ipods in the stone age. Just because the materials that make them up existed at a previous time, doesn’t mean they existed at that time. The same is true for the idea of them. Leonardo may have had a good notion of the concepts of flight, but he never invented a flying machine. Similarly, the memory of a thing, is not the thing. Okay, what’s this got to do with investing? I see a similar temptation that some of us have, that is- We see various movements in the market(place) and we ascribe to them some underlying meaning. Not every movement up and down, is for some reason. I am not saying that there are no moments of the market that permit an explanation/rational, only that some movements come about through cross currents of many different actors and/or reasons, such that the result is ‘predictable’ from the sum of the parts. This doesn’t mean that having a plan is useless. It does mean, there is no foolproof plan. It does mean, one must always be ready to adapt to new information (admitting you were wrong.) And finally, it does mean there is no golden formula, and you can never rest on your laurels. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 11, 2009 (01:14PM)
Shap, thats an excellent point, somewhat on the lines of what I was saying relative to the reality vs our perception of it.
The "Iphone in the Stone Age" idea is where I think we differ, the materials were present in the stone age, barring the plastics in which case the materials were present but not yet complexified via photosynthesis and millions of years of fermentation to create oil from organic matter Relative to what you say about the market, trading will affect the way you perceive other things in a much more pragmatic sense. You can spend hours, days or more researching and backtesting an idea, but when it comes time to put that plan into action, you very often discover that the results of all your research and backtesting had been missing a detail, or were distorted by varying degree's of convenient thinking often based on familiar concepts rather than the facts that are often much harder to decipher.. |
|
Posted July 12, 2009 (02:08AM)
Hi Stoic,
Interesting comments. This is what I think . . . No, nothing existed before it existed. Verbs in English can be taken as either tensed or tenseless (timeless). When a verb is in the past or future tense, you can tell. But the tenseless use of a verb is spelled and pronounced the same as the present tense, so they're easily confused. The tenseless usage is one in which *no time is specified*. (For example: in "Two plus two equals four," I don't specify any time.) The present tense usage means the statement is indexed to the time at which the sentence is spoken/written. (E.g., in "It is raining", I mean it is raining *at the present time*.) So again, if you are saying that past events don't exist (present tense), then that's trivial--then you're just saying the past isn't present. If you're saying past events don't exist (tenseless), that appears absurd--you're saying they not only don't exist *now*, but they don't exist at all, without regard to any time. To Incubus: I don't think that a scattered collection of atoms that will one day be assembled into an iphone, is an iphone. Imagine someone trying to sell you an iPhone, and it turns out to be a box of oil and metal and stuff. - 1st example: Is the *monster* causing the child's behavior, or is the child's *mental state* (beliefs, fears) causing it? The monster doesn't exist, but the child's beliefs and fears exist. - 2nd example: In normal cases where something is created, it is caused by something else that already exists. E.g., the iPhone is created by people and a factory that exist first. Even when God supposedly created the world, that wasn't the non-existent causing the existent. God (supposedly) existed first, and he caused the world to exist. So what you must be thinking of is a case where something pops into existence out of nothing, and there was nothing whatsoever there to cause it. But I don't think that is possible. To amplify my point now, suppose you see an indentation on my couch. You ask what's causing it. I say that my imaginary friend is causing it, with his non-presence on the couch. I think you should reject this explanation. My actual friends can cause indentations by sitting on the couch. Friends who don't exist and thus are not there cannot do so. Sorry, I didn't make my idea clear. Consider an infinite series of spatial regions. The sizes of these regions, in liters, are as follows: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, . . . So the series contains smaller and smaller regions. Notice that each of them has nonzero size ("0" will not appear anywhere in this series). But also notice that the sum of them is finite: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + . . . = 1. So a finite region contains infinitely many nonzero parts. The problem in your argument above is that you're treating A as constant. But the regions in my example are all of different sizes. I think you're saying that a region of space only exists if there is matter there. Aristotle, Descartes, and some other great philosophers thought that, but I disagree. As far as we know from modern physics/chemistry, most of space is empty, even the places that appear "filled" (e.g., the table in front of you is mostly empty space--the atoms are tiny in comparison with the spaces between them). As long as there can be empty space, I don't see why there wouldn't be, say, empty cubical regions of space. Btw, the same sort of argument applies to lots of other shapes. Essentially every shape has an irrational ratio somewhere, if you accept standard geometry and arithmetic. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 12, 2009 (03:44AM)
Sort of like life on earth, a continuation of past generations from various means. Whether it is animal or vegetable. As advanced, you would think scientists could create some form of life, a single cell maybe. Do they even as yet know what life is? |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
You must Log In to post to this forum.
|