A question about making theories of time

[Enigma'07]

That makes absoluty NO sense to me. So, imaginary time doesn't really exist in what we see every day, but if you could visualize it it would be the fourth dimension. Am I sort of right?

 

[wesmorris]

Consider that in your mind you can project into the future and into the past (from the perpetual NOW).

Consider that if there were a spatial dimension that were perpendicular to time itself, that would mean there could be more time at one time than just that time...? Hmm. Yeah it messes with my mind. I'm almost wholly convinced though that it has something to do with why consciousness can happen.

Yeah I'd say you're sort of right in that it doesn't exist in what we see every day and if you could visualize it, it would be the fourth spatial dimension.. as far as I understand it that's true.

 

[wesmorris]

If time is always flowing, why is it always right now?

 

[Enigma'07]

does imaginary time flow at all?

 

[wesmorris]

No I don't think so. If it "flowed" per se, it would have the same problem with dimensionality that time does.

It is a degree of freedom in which things that are subject to n-dimensional space, or more specifically, things that exist in the fourth dimension, can move.

 

[Votorx]

Grey Wolf,

Sorry it took me so long to answer you. I would agree with you but there's only one problem.

if time were to stop i see how the past would be segmented but wouldnt that segmen include the "present" being frozen in time as well?

The only reason I cannot accept this is because there cannot be a present without there being a future as well. If the future was to disperse then all perception, including the present and reality, would disperse as well.

and how would the future have a beging when there is no continuation from present to future?

It can't, which is why, consequently, the future can no longer exist.

If time were to stop, we would lose all perception and cease to exist. ”

By John:
We wouldn't cease to exist. The opposite would happen

So if time stopped we would begin existing? This defy's all logic. Why don't explain yourself?

No this is the way nature, in fact, operates.

Of course not, almost everything in nature is balanced. Just because our human instinct, and how we view the universe is chaotic doesn't necesarily mean everything else is. If nature was chaotic, then ideas such as dynamic equilibrium wouldn't be possible. There would be no ecosystems, no balance between producers and consumers, everything would be out of whack and no natural laws would be present. Everything in nature is there for a reason, when we begin defying that reason that's when it becomes chaotic.

What do you mean "disrupted"?

Tampered with, changed, mangled anything that would set it off from its natural sequence.

If a ray of light from zeti alpha 29349 passes earth without ever striking it, its reference frame is utterly meaningless, until we bring it to our mind.

Who is it meaningfull to? Do you really believe that just us humans give meaning to things? That's very egotistic. If nothing had meaning unless we gave it that meaning, then we wouldn't be in existence today. Just look back at the Earth before Human's began populating it. Even if you were correct, just because something doesn't have a "meaning" doesn't keep it from existing or furfilling its purpose.

 

[wesmorris]

Who is it meaningfull to?

Like I said, no one if it just passes by un-noticed.

Do you really believe that just us humans give meaning to things?

I believe a POV generates meaning, in the most literal sense. Without an observer, how can there be meaning? Meaning is generated from observation right?

That's very egotistic.

How so? I thought it was just "paying attention".

If nothing had meaning unless we gave it that meaning, then we wouldn't be in existence today.

Why not?

Just look back at the Earth before Human's began populating it.

What about it? I suppose we could make a strong argument that we exist today exactly because of the 'survival instinct' of all of our evolutionary predecessors, and their success in doing the surviving and the evolving and such. That would probably be a decent argument for "meaning" from the perspective of those doing the surviving and the evolving and such. So what about it?

Even if you were correct, just because something doesn't have a "meaning" doesn't keep it from existing or furfilling its purpose.

Okay, well it can't have "purpose" without intent or will. Unless you're a theist, that doesn't work. As far as "existing" goes, okay. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it doesn't matter that it exists until some POV observes or projects their observation to it, because without that - it is literally meaningless.

 

[John Connellan]

Yeah but without one's perception, time is exactly meaningless.

We're not talking about meaning here I thought he just wanted to know if time goes on or not

OK I'm not wanting to get into another argument here k?!

 

[John Connellan]

So if time stopped we would begin existing? This defy's all logic. Why don't explain yourself?

I thought the opposite of cease to exist is "not cease to exist"! This is what I meant. I meant that if time stopped then we would exist forever.

Of course not, almost everything in nature is balanced. Just because our human instinct, and how we view the universe is chaotic doesn't necesarily mean everything else is. If nature was chaotic, then ideas such as dynamic equilibrium wouldn't be possible. There would be no ecosystems, no balance between producers and consumers, everything would be out of whack and no natural laws would be present. Everything in nature is there for a reason, when we begin defying that reason that's when it becomes chaotic.

No idea how that is a reply to what I have said

 

[Votorx]

Why not?

I didn't realize you ment that in a literal term . The way you came accross it seemed to me that everything needed a meaning that only us humans can give, and without that meaning its pointless.

Okay, well it can't have "purpose" without intent or will.

Not a purpose in that literal tense, more of a....hard to explain...We have a planet out in the galaxy that has never been observed or "given a meaning", one day it explodes sending shards out into deep space. One of these huge chunks of rock collides with the Earth ending all life. The planet had no meaning, but it still generated a scenerio where, even without a meaning, it effected us in some way whether it was directly or indirectly. Couldn't time just follow this same idea?

 

[Votorx]

No idea how that is a reply to what I have said

*sigh* You said nature was chaotic and I was explaining why it isn't... (dull)

I thought the opposite of cease to exist is "not cease to exist"! This is what I meant. I meant that if time stopped then we would exist forever.

Last time I checked it was the opposite...But I had said if time stopped we would cease to exist. You have yet to tell me why would continue existing...

 

[John Connellan]

*sigh* You said nature was chaotic and I was explaining why it isn't... (dull)

To u it seemed I indirectly implied that but i didn't. I meant that this is how nature operates with respect to time. Why do u think it is chaotic?

Last time I checked it was the opposite...But I had said if time stopped we would cease to exist. You have yet to tell me why would continue existing...

Ahhh.......because.........time is simply change. this is my most simple definition of time (more philosophical than scientific but hey, thats why we're here right!) and without change we cannot cease to exist.

 

[Votorx]

Why do u think it is chaotic?

I don't...I was saying it wasn't! Look:

*sigh* You said nature was chaotic and I was explaining why it isn't...

and without change we cannot cease to exist.

But isn't the transition from active to frozen time change? And in that change can't we lose existence?

 

[John Connellan]

I don't...I was saying it wasn't! Look:

Sorry, I meant to say "not chaotic"! Why anyway?

But isn't the transition from active to frozen time change? And in that change can't we lose existence?

Why do u possibly think we would lose existence just because time is slowing down and stopping? Since when has a bit of time (or lack thereof) hurt anyone

 

[Votorx]

Why do u possibly think we would lose existence just because time is slowing down and stopping?

Argghh...because it can! Lets just leave it at that! (I think if you look a few posts behind you will see why, and I explained it)

Sorry, I meant to say "not chaotic"! Why anyway?

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook
You reply to my thread, then we have this exchange then you forget??? Look back at my post again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wesmorris]

We look into the past everytime we look into the sky, so why could we not look into the future?

From my understanding there are a group of physicists who would argue that time travel may actually be possible, but only into the future, never into the past. That makes my head hurt.

It's because by the time you got there, it'd be way later than now. You're seeing light, which travels at the speed of light. You have to travel at less than that. So by the time you travelled there at less than the speed of light, it would be later there when you got there. It wouldn't be the past because by the time you got there, it'd be later than when you left.

What's interesting is that to the people who were still at the location you were at when you left, would be later than it is for you... physically. Say you go almost the speed of like for 20 years and then come back at the same speed, round trip 40 years. When you get back, more than 40 years will have passed on Earth. This might be somewhat backwards, but I think that the closer to the speed of light you went, the later it is on earth when you get back and the shorter the trip seems for you. It's probably just that the difference between the two increases by some amount... something like that.

My head hurts.

 

[water]

What's interesting is that to the people who were still at the location you were at when you left, would be later than it is for you... physically. Say you go almost the speed of like for 20 years and then come back at the same speed, round trip 40 years. When you get back, more than 40 years will have passed on Earth. This might be somewhat backwards, but I think that the closer to the speed of light you went, the later it is on earth when you get back and the shorter the trip seems for you. It's probably just that the difference between the two increases by some amount... something like that.

Okay. What abut chemical reactions in your body? Would they slow down while on "time travel"? Would you really not age at the same rate as normally on Earth?

If, while on "time travel", your digestion works the same, then you age the same. Maybe more ( ") time had passed on Earth than for you, but the aging would be the same, wouldn't it?

(I never liked that identical twins example.)

 

[wesmorris]

nope rosa, the time is actually different. that's what I meant by physically, your personal experience of time never changes, but time itself is at a different rate as compared to the orignal frame of reference.

you are 40 years older and maybe everyone you ever knew is long since dead, depending on how close you were to the speed of light. at least that's what the physists tell us I suppose. I haven't verified the experiement myself.

weird stuff. why don't you like the twins example?

 

[water]

Wes,

Then you're saying that metabolism in a living organism goes at a different rate?
Just forget about time for a moment and think in terms of chemistry: Do, when on "time travel", chemical reactions really take place at a different rate?

What physicists are saying about "time travel" is math stuff, and math works. How about real organisms?
I mean, a theory is no good if the predictions it makes are not in accordance with later observation. Right now, we don't have that later observation yet, as nobody came back from such a time travel (at least not that I would know of), so the theory can be really nice and spiffy. But until they get some real living organisms that have been through "time travel" and some real evidence -- I just can't buy it. This is also why I don't like the twins example -- it works in math, but who knows whether it works in biology/chemistry.

Well, maybe I'm just dense ...

 

[wesmorris]

Supposedly (unless you listen to those who seem to be conspiracy theorists), it has been experimentally verified. As far as I know, it's widely accepted in the scientific community that it works with real organisms. It's my impression that it's NOT just a theory, but it's the way the universe works. Literally, there is no such thing as absolute time - it only applies to a specific inertial reference frame.

What's really interesting about that IMO, is that technically, every atom in the universe is in a slightly differently inertial reference frame.

Oh and you never said anything about your dreams regarding my comments on meaning.