Re: Human time perception
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Human time perception"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Human time perception"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:27:01 -0500
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:pveGd.141620$48.20834@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1105809211.793002.246550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > PD wrote:
> >> AllYou! wrote:
> >> > "Richard" <richard4576@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:34q759F4eij72U1@individual.net...
> >> > > Why does the human brain struggle with time being a non constant
> > ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Because the human brain is capable of conceptualizing what has
> >> happened as well as what
> >> > might To do so, it must perform calculations which require
> >> precision. In that regard,
> >> > time itself, is a concept.
> >> >
> >> > To illustrate this point, consider the following:
> >> >
> >> > Imagine a most powerful force which was capable of taking every
> >> particle in the universe,
> >> > and over a two year period, put each one of them back to exactly
> >> where they were relative
> >> > to each other a year before it began this process. This includes
> >> every most fundamental
> >> > particle down to the most elemental quantum level imaginable and
> >> beyond. At the end of
> >> > this process, all of us would be exactly as we were three years
> >> before, and all in nature
> >> > would be fully thus restored.
> >> >
> >> > Question; did we get older or younger? Did time go forward or
> >> backward?
> >>
> >> The hypothesis is false. No force, no process imaginable, even
> >> hypothetically, can "back up" the universe or reset everything for:
> >> - irreversible processes (2nd law of thermodynamics)
> >> - quantum processes (inherently random)
> >>
> >> The arrow of time and entropy are real. It's built into the universe.
> >> PD
> >
> > I never cease to be amazed at the idiocy displayed on this NG from
> > that
> > dork Bilge, all the way down. You people do not understand rhetoric or
> > logic or the philosophy of science or the philosophy of physics. And
> > you guys sure aren't ever going to learn it from a damn dictionary!
> >
> > First, PD, what you got right! You are right to characterize Allyou!'s
> > "force" as a hypothesis, because it is a simple speculation about the
> > possible existence of a "time-reversing" agent, the precise meaning of
> > which is argumentative. But you are wrong to overlook the fact that
> > what AllYou! did was to setup a thought experiment designed to examine
> > the meaning of the notion of operationally defined physics time (clock
> > time) as a measure of elapsed time by introducing a 'counterfactual'
> > "force."
> >
> >
> > Now, what Allyou! got right. He has brilliantly set up a thought
> > experiment (TE) designed to examine the meaning of the notion of
> > operationally defined physics time (clock time) as a measure of
> > elapsed
> > time, though he was not clear about that precise meaning.
> >
> > When he asked the question: "Did we get older or younger?" he clearly
> > was allowing an interpretation of elapsed time beyond the meaning of
> > measurement, since, under the 'counterfactual' assumption of the TE,
> > all clocks would retake their former physical states and thus not
> > retain any information about the intervening flow of events.
> >
> > What AllYou! got wrong is his claim that this TE is physics. It isn't.
>
> That is my point.
> Physics, as with any science, begins with observation,
> investigates (experiments if you like) and explains the observation.
> Idle speculation about what might be isn't physics at all, it isn't
> even science. What observation has AllYou! made that requires
> his conjectural hypothesis?
You've got it backward. What have you observed that makes you believe that anything
physical affects time, or that time affects anything physical. Or more succinctly, give
me one occasion where you've observed time, and not simply conceived of time as the reason
for the evolution of a process. If observation is the receipt of sensory stimuli, then
tell me what senses are stimulated by time and time alone. You can even use an instrument
to sense it, but you'd better link the operation of that instrument to the observation of
time with a valid theory.
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Human time perception"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Human time perception"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
