Re: "The Arrow of Time" (repost)

For some reason, my other post was misformatted.
Here's the same post, but re-formatted.

"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139275284.167413.308460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AllYou! wrote:
> "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1139247573.423469.145750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > AllYou! wrote:
>
> > > "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.
>
> > That's gibberish, I'm afraid. I expect better from you.
>
> > > >> You're trying to prove the existance of time by simply
> > > >> asserting it.
>
> > No, not true. You are the one trying to prove the non-existence
> > of time by simply
> > asserting that. To prove that, you must explain the phenomena of
> > entropy and
> > motion without the use of time. You cannot do that, so you simply
> > ignore my call of
> > your bluff.
>
> I think that you're the one who now posts gibbereish. The
> non-exitance
> of something can only be demonstrated by the absense of any evidence
> that it exists, and there's no evidence that time exists.
>
There is plenty of evidence that shows the existence of time whether
you agree with it or not. I have given you some of that evidence and
you have yet to refute it.


The record shows otherwise. You've blindly asserted that time exists,
and I'll allow you the courtesy that you've not allowed me by saying
that you've given what you believe to be evidence that it exists, but in
every case, I've been able to show you that what you consider evidence
really doesn't pass the straight face test. Please try to be more
intellectually honest. It's all well and good for you to reject my
refutations, but just because you do, it's not truthful to claim that
I've not done so. OK?

> As to entropy
> en·tro·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-p)
> n. pl. en·tro·pies
>
> 1) Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative
> measure of
> the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
> 2) A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
> 3) A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
> 4) The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve
> toward a state of inert uniformity.
> 5) Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
>
> I'll assume that you're interested in #4. All matter and energy in
> the
> universe tends to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. Why
> must
> that include any component of time any more than mere motion?
>
I am interested in all of those above, but there is more to entropy
than just brief definitions. The "tendency" of #4 is much more than
just a tendency - which means a general inclination or likelihood, or
predisposition toward something. For tendency to be an appropriate
term to define entropy would require that entropy occur some or most
of
the time but not always.

Well, a gas tends to want to equalize throughout the universe, but
gravity or containers prevents it. Therefore, not only does a state of
inert uniformity not always occur, actually, it never has. But we
digress.


There is nothing to show - not even a good
idea - that entropy does not always occur. Thus, the concept of
entropy is ill-defined as a "tendency" because there is never a case
when entropy is not applicable to objects.


You're confusing entropy with a state of inert uniformity. Entropy is
always applicable to objects......as a tendency toward a state of inert
uniformity, not the achievement of it.

For there to be motion, there must be a change of position. Change
means a transition from something; position as a noun means location,
so a change of position means a change from one location to another.
Such a change requires time to elapse. Therefore, you cannot have
motion - even mere motion - without having time.

Such a change does not require time to elapse. The change simply
occurs. Charting the change requires memory and math. Just as you
confuse entropy with a state of inert uniformity, you confuse the record
and evaluation of something as the thing.

> Let's take the case of releasing a gas into a closed container at
> vacuum. Entropy says that the gas will tend to fill the room to the
> same density.
>
No. Entropy says that the gas will fill the room to the same
density -
not that it will tend to do that. It will always happen unless
something occurs to prevent it.


Then it won't always happen, will it. That's way to be precise, we must
say that it will tend to occur, not that it will occur. to say that it
will occur unless something stops it from occurring, is to say that it
tends to occur. But let's get beyond this childish semantical debate,
shall we? It's not really on point, and you'll just be proven wrong on
this as well.


> Well, this didn't happen by magic. The molecules of gas
> bounce off each other, and a certain number of them will bounce in a
> direction where there are no other molecules, and so they'll exist
> in
> another part of the container.
>
No. The gas will fill the room according to the amount of gas
involved
and the size of the room.

But the process that makes that happen is as I've described. Certainly,
the rate at which it happens will depend upon the amount of gas and the
size of the room, but the process I've described is how it will happen.

It will be sucked into the room where a
vacuum exists until all the vacuum areas contain some of the gas. As
the gas moves into the room, it becomes less dense then it was in a
non-vacuum atmosphere due to the vacuum. Once the flow of gas is
stopped, it becomes evident that entropy is happening to it. Entropy,
however, begins as soon as the gas is released into the room, but the
vacuum makes it appear that it is not happening until the gas fills
the
room.

But you can't say that this just happens, or that it happens because of
a name you've given it. Allow me to show you where you're horribly
confused. What you've done here is to observe a phenomenon, then you've
given a name to that phenomenon, and then you've said that its the name
you given to the phenomenon which caused the phenomenon. Well, that's
just silly.


The cause of the phenomenon is as I've explained it above. That name we
give this phenomenon is entropy, and the it's not evidence of anything.
It's just a label.

> And now that there are less molecules in
> the corner of the container where they were first released, and some
> in
> the other corners, the concept of entropy has begun, and this
> bouncing
> and spreading of the molecules will continue until the gas exists
> throughout the container at the same density.
>
> Except for remembering where the gas was, and predicting where it
> will
> go, what has this got to do with time?
>
None of what you talk about can happen without the passage of time.

Time is just the label we've given to the evolution of the universe.
You've made the \same mistake about time as you have about entropy.

It
takes time for the gas to move into the room because there can be no
motion without the passage of time. It takes time for the gas to
stabilize to the same density and so entropy also requires the passage
of time.


The gas will spread throughout the room whether we give a label to that
process or not. And whereas entropy is just a label, it proves nothing
about anything.

> > > >> 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.
>
> > No, that is not a circular argument. That is one definition of
> > time, and it is correct.
> > There are many other definitions just as valid as that one.
>
> But that one is circular.
>
No, it is not a circular argument. I said:
1. time exists as a property of discrete matter. Where there is no
visible matter, time does not exist.


Actually, you said "time exists only where time passes". I just thought
we should get the record straight. Anyway, that argument from you is a
circular one. Do you know what a circular argument is?

2. Where there is visible matter, time exists and passes at time rates
according to the state of motion of the visible matter.

"Time exists and passes at time rates" is also circular. To
demonstrate, I'll bet you can't tell me at what rate time passes. Try
giving me that rate in terms other than time.


> Time passes where it exists?
>
Yes, just like light exists where photons exist. Where there are no
photons, there can be no light.

But you sued that phrase as a definaition.

> Splat rays from
> Mars only move where they exist, but do they exist? And if they do,
> what are they?
>
Yes, what are "splat rays"?

You answered my question as to what time is by saying that time passes
where time exists. So to show you how that's an invalid definition, I
did the same with splat rays. So if splat rays are not properly defined
that way, then neither is time.


> > You cannot have time without it passing.
>
> Well, if you take the existence of time on faith, I suppose that's
> true,
> but this isn't alt.religion. Where's the evidence that it exists?
>
I am not taking it on faith. I have shown you the proof but you
refuse
to rebut it.

You've never given any proof except to say that time exists because it's
contained in definitions. Definitions are human concepts, and so to use
them as proof of the existence of anything except a mental construct is
useless and not proof at all. That's my refutation. So please stop
lying that I haven't refuted something which you've never shown in the
first place. I thought that was beneath you.


> > Aging is proof that time exists and that it passes.
>
> Aging is proof on the physical phenomena at play in biology. It has
> nothing to do with time.
>
Yes, it does. The fact of aging can be true only where time passes
and
time can only pass where it exists. You cannot have aging without
time.

OK, here's prime example of a circular argument by you, and a refutation
by me. All you've done here is make a blind assertion that aging can
only be true if time passes. You then proceed to base the rest of your
argument on this empty assertion. I refute the whole argument because
the assertion is unsupported. We observe a person, and certain
biological processes are at play which make that person change in
appearance. We look closer, and we see what those are. We look even
closer, and we see more of what those are. But in the end, all we see
is change. There may be many scientific explanations for the change,
but all we see is change.

Science requires us to take valid observations, and construct theories
about them. We have many scientifically valid theories which attempt to
explain why the changes occurred, but none of them says that they
occurred because of time. Sure, your doctor will tell you that you
can't run as fast as you could when you were a kid because time has
taken it's toll, but that's not really science, now is it.

We observe change and take it at face value. We chart change using math
and other mental constructs, such as time, in order to evaluate change.
But in the end, it's still just a mental construct.

> > Explain how time could exist without it passing. Not possible.
> > Thus, since aging is
> > evident, time must be passing during the aging process.
>
> I'm not making the case that it exists without passing. I'm making
> the
> case that it doesn't exist.
>
You're not making that case at all. You're simply stating an opinion
without any support for it. Since 99.99% of the world believes it
exists, the onus is on you to rebut the evidence I have given you.
You
cannot cop-out by just saying it don't exist.

I cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You can't either. Prove
to me that splat rays don't exist. I've shown you that mass is caused
by splat rays, so prove I'm not right. See? You can't. That's because
the burden is on me to prove they do, just as the burden is on you to
prove that time exists, and so far, you've only shown that it does in
definitions.

> > > >> 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.
> > >
> > But you have no ticket for the merry-go-round, where everyone
> > lives
> > except you! I did not invent the concept of time, but I agree
> > time
> > exists because I have aged as it passed for me and I can remember
> > what
> > I did yesterday or ten minutes ago. The past does not exist now
> > but
> > it did exist once.
>
> That's what I said. Time only exists because you need a way to
> track
> your memories, and build your predictions.
>
No, not so. You need time to track your memories because memories
require the passage of time. Recalling a speech requires the passage
of time to recall each word spoken in the past. Predicting the
physical future requires time because predictions must be spoken or
written and that can happen only where time exists.

I agree. These mental constructs require the use of another mental
construct like math. You're beginning to see the light. I'm proud of
you.

> It's a construct of the mind, and nothing more. The past no longer
> exists, and the
> future has yet to exist. So as I said, all there is in the
> universe, except for
> memories and predictions, is now.
>
It's much more than just a construct. The constructs are the tools we
use to measure its passing, but the passage of time is real whether or
not you believe that.

Another blind assertion noted.


> > The math constructs used to measure time are not evidence of
> > time's
> > "physicallity" and I do not use them as such. My evidence that
> > time
> > exists is the fact that things age.
>
> What do you mean that they age? You mean that they change, right?
>
Yes.

So how does change prove the existance of time? You've never connected
those dots.


> > I do not claim that time is a physical process as you claim that I
> > do, but I claim that
> > time is a property of matter. The process of aging is physical
> > evidence that
> > time exists, but aging is not time itself - it is just the passing
> > of it.
>
> If time were physical, wouldn't it be capable of affecting
> something?
>
I imagine so, but I do not claim that time is physical, I claim it is
a
property of matter.

You said that time causes aging. How can something which is not
physical cause change?

> > > You use math to measure speed, but does that mean that math is
> > > anything more than a mental construct?
>
> > No, it does not mean it is anything more than that.
>
> Then pointing to the fact that you need time to measure speed proves
> nothing either.
>
Of course it does. The measuring of speed requires that time exist.

Does the measure of length require splat rays from Mars, or do we
measure length by using a standard of length and doing a simple
comparison to that standard?

> > > 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.
>
> > You're not thinking well.
>
> Whereas it remains to be seen as to which of us is not thinking
> well,
> such assertions demonstrate your proclivity to make useless
> pronouncements..
>
It does not remain to be seen which of us is off-track.

The whole nature of a debate is that each side takes mutually exclusive
positions, and then using logic, one or the other proves their point.
During that process, it remains to be seen which one will prevail. For
you to claim that this debate was over before it stated shows that
you're not only too closed mined to have a debate, and that you're
arrogance is supreme, but it frankly shows your ignorance as to the
nature of a debate.

Your position here is that I'm wrong and you're right not because of any
logical arguments we've presented, but rather, that it's because that's
just the way it is. That's been the way you've approached your argument
about the existence of time. You say it exists because that's just the
way it is.

I'm always a little saddened when I learn that someone is so
intellectually limited that they just can't grasp the concept of debate
and the possibility of fallibility. It really is pathetic.

You entered a
metaphysical posit in a physics newsgroup and found yourself unable to
support it. You are only one of a number who post here their
non-physics crapola.

And that's true because you say it's true, right?


> > Speed is the rate of movement irrespective of direction. It is
> > equal either to
> > distance traveled divided by travel time, or to rate of change of
> > distance with
> > respect to time. (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. ©
> > 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)
>
> Well, I've given you my counter-argument to this already, so I'll
> simply
> note my rejection of this assertion here.
>
No. You have not given any counter-argument at all. You simply posted
an opinion.

And that's true because you say it's true, right? Well, I'm gonna skip
the rest of this nonsense. MY arguments and counter-arguments are
contained above, and your rejection of them is no indication of whether
or not they *exist*.

[snip]



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
    ... crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? ... Consider first a non-complex system with many constituents - say a gas ... molecules can be interchanged randomly without any change in the ... This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
    ... crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? ... Consider first a non-complex system with many constituents - say a gas ... molecules can be interchanged randomly without any change in the ... This is why a protein-based system cannot self-assemble itself. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Challenges----thought processes etc.,
    ... Your last two items of "evidence" show how NUTZ you are, ... There are pictures of a cameraman being beaten up by the ATF. ... CLINTON ORDERED THE GAS ... For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: The wirehead problem
    ... did it because he likes cookies better than dog shit". ... To say that entropy is the cause of gas filling the volume is no different ... Answering "An apple increases in speed as it falls because of gravity" ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Entropy question
    ... > space do the opposite and condense, entropy increases as well. ... Start with a uniform gas in an otherwise empty region. ... the cube of the Jeans length -- it will begin to collapse into lumps. ... energy away from the lumps. ...
    (sci.physics)