Re: "The Arrow of Time"


"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1139052881.782294.5810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138900128.685489.207630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> AllYou! wrote:

>> Time is simply a mathematical
>> concept used to compare the aggregate change in the state of the
>> universe between two events.
>>
> Between events, yes, but it is more than that. Entropy exists only
> where time exists, and time exists only where time passes. The > fact
> of
> the passage of time refutes the metaphysical claim that time does > not
> exist.

Entropy exists as it exists. You're trying to prove the existance of
time by simply asserting it. For instance, you say that time exists
only where time passes. But how can it pass where it doesn't first
exist? That's a circular argument.

Time is simply exists as a mental contruct.

Not so. Time passes, as can be evidenced by noting flora and fauna
growth and death, and in the requirement that time must pass in order
to measure motion.

LOL! You're still stuck on the merry-go-round. You invent time for use in your constructs, and then point to it's existance in those constructs as evidence of its physicallity. You use math to measure speed, but does that mean that math is anything more than a mental construct?

The point is that we don't need time to measure speed. Just like distance, and mass and so many other naturally occuring physical properties of matter and energy, we could just as easily measure speed by arbitrarity picking a naturally occuring speed, and use that as a standard by which we measure all other speeds. But instead, we chose to use distance (as measured by using other standards of distance), and time (which we originally invented as the standard for all motions), and use a function of those to calculate speed.

What we should've done is taken distance (as measured by using other standards of distance), and motion (as measured by using other standards of motion), and derived time as a function of the two of those.


>> Actually, it's a useless layer of
>> complexity whereas units of motion, which is an actual physical
>> property
>> of matter, could suffice quite nicely in it's place.
>>
> "Units of motion"? Ya mean like seconds, hours, days, etc.?

Well, we could certanly use the same labels.

> Without
> those time measurements, explaining the passage of it would be far
> more
> complex than any babelfish could ever explain.

But you're still confused. There is no passage of time if time doesn't
exist.

If time did not exist, that would be true; but since time exists, that
is false. Thus it is you who is confused.

You're argument amounts to time exists because time exists. first of all, define *exists* in this context, and then secondly, prove it.


The only *explanation* we need has to do with the fact that we
have memories of *past* events, and predictions about *future* ones. If
not for that, the universe would simply exist *in the moment*.

That may be the only explanation needed in metaphysics, but that
explains nothing in physics. Memories and predictions have nothing to
do with the existence of time; rather, they support the physical
passage of time.

So all you have for the existance of time is memories and predictions. Hmmmmmm. So if there were no intelligence capable of having memories or of making predictions, there'd be no support of the passage of time, right?




The Parthenon is real, built long ago where much time
has passed since.

All of the physical processes of the universe have progressed since the Parthenon was built, and so we're able to peg its construction relative to the state of the progression of all of those processes, and that's all there is to it.




Predictions based on empirical research await the
passage of time to come true. You're confusing memory and prediction
with time like or as if growing potatoes involves time but is not time
itself.

Actually, that's what you're doing. If time were physical, you'd be able to show how time affects something. But as you so clearly pointed out, you must wait for physical processes to evolve, but there's nothing about time which affects them. Time is just a dimension on a chart. That's it. No intelligence, no charts, no time.


>> IOW, we use units of length to compare lengths, and units of mass >> to
>> compare mass. We really should use units of motion to compare
>> motions.
>>
> No. I disagree.

As is your right, no matter how wrong.

As is your opinion, no matter how wrong.

Opinions can't be wrong.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... phenomena of entropy and motion without the use of time. ... "physicallity" and I do not use them as such. ... You cannot have any speed as a standard to measure all other speeds ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Separation Of Time And Space
    ... > believe that this very simple time and motion relationship is at the ... > observer moving relatively faster than the stationary observer accrued ... > would hardly seem possible that the rate of the passage of time could ... > in relative proximity move at relatively different speeds, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Separation Of Time And Space
    ... believe that this very simple time and motion relationship is at the ... observer moving relatively faster than the stationary observer accrued ... would hardly seem possible that the rate of the passage of time could ... in relative proximity move at relatively different speeds, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR is built on false assumptions....continued
    ... And yet with all of that, our motion in space is still much closer to ... Experiments where clocks were flown in different ... to help us show, IMO, how we can tell that time rates vary. ... case, the speeds (i.e, the absolute speed of the Earth, and the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SPACETIME AND CONSCIOUSNESS
    ... on all aspects of modern science, consciousness, and how our knowledge ... the speed of its motion through time slows down. ... notion that objects travel at speeds considerably less than that ... understand how special relativity really works. ...
    (sci.physics)