Re: IS TIME REAL?
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 10/19/04
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Next in thread: Oriel36: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:49:13 +0200
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:l486n01t86448hvtk5422m3sup61g6bthe@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:50:18 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch>
wrote:
>
> >|
> >| "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >| news:cc2dde17.0410140514.6046e432@posting.google.com...
> >| > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
> >| news:<evWdnUjTsrWwUPfcRVn-pw@conversent.net>...
> >| > >
> >| > > The original question was whether or not time was a fundamental
> >property
> >| of
> >| > > nature, and the follow up assertion was that it was not observable
in
> >| the
> >| > > same sense that distance, temperature, velocity, and mass, just to
> >name
> >| a
> >| > > few, are observable.
> >| >
> >| >
> >| > So what was the answer, yes or no?
> >|
> >| Many questions were asked.
> >|
> >| > I contend that time is a property
> >| > of matter and that it passes faster or slower for discrete objects or
> >| > systems depending upon their states of motion within the universe.
> >|
> >| And I contend that time is nothing more than an invention of man used
as a
> >| tool to more conveniently order another concept of man called *events*.
> >| Everything in the universe is in motion which means that it travels
from
> >| place to place in the universe. In order to discuss and conceptualize
> >where
> >| any given particle was relative to where all other particles were
located,
> >| we need the concept of time to do so conveniently. In fact, the use of
> >this
> >| concept is so integrated into the fabric of our perceptions of reality
> >that
> >| just constructing this sentence in a way that both of us can understand
is
> >| difficult to do with using the term *time*. But this difficulty should
> >not
> >| be confused with reality.
> >
> >Agree. Time is a concept that is more related to our thinking than to
nature
> >itself. Frequency is more physical, and that may be called a property of
> >matter. Time is handy to describe the progress of processes - such as
motion
> >or chemical reactions - and to compare their relative speeds. But since
> >physics is very much concerned with such things, I doubt we can do
without
> >such a concept as time.
>
> This is of course plain nonsense.
Please also comment to Bill Hobba's link of a few days later, with which I
largely agree but which Patrick Reany called Idiotic:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Real.htm
> Time is as fundamental to the universe as is 'length'.
> It is a basic 'dimension' which is an indefineable term, since we
presently
> know of nothing 'higher' by which we can define it.
How real in nature is a concept that you can't even define in natural terms?
> Our bodies have evolved visual detectors (eyes) that can sense three
spatial
> subdimensions.
In fact the detectors sense light. The spatial dimensions are
(re-)constructed in our mind.
> A blind animal would have no such concept.... although those
> using sonar might. To demonstrate this, shut your eyes and move your arms
> about. The arms themselves have no sense of direction (even though you can
> visually image where they are located).
>
> Similarly we have a biological time detector(s) physically embedded in our
> brains. It is not perfect, which is why our estimates of time 'interval'
are
> only approximate and dependent on what we are doing at the time.
It's a feeling, related to the order and progress of processes.
> It is most likely that time also has three subdimensions. That is how we
can
> assess its 'flow' at 1 second per second without being circular.
Now _that_ is what I call plain nonsense...
> We can specify the slope of a hill as 1 metre 'up' per metre 'along'
without
> circularity. Why does it appear strange to do the same with time?
Because it's not a true spacial dimension. In mathematics it can play a
similar role, although not perfectly.
> I should add that we use the term TIME very loosely.
>
> When we ask "what is the time?", the answer will specify a time instant on
an
> arbitrary scale that we have universally accepted. The same scale is used
on a
> calender...or in statements like "the pyramids were commenced in the year
> 3000BC".
>
> When we ask "how much time will it take?", the answer will give a fixed
time
> 'interval'..... or difference between two points on that time scale.
Right, the use of the word time for both time instant and time interval
sometimes leads to misunderstandings about equations.
> When we say, "time flies" we are refering to the fact that 'we appear to
be
> moving uni-directionally along an absolute time axis'. The speed of that
> movement is not 'psychologically' constant even if our clocks indicate
that it
> is.
Yeah.
Harald
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Next in thread: Oriel36: "Re: IS TIME REAL?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
