I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

May 17th, 2005 12:35 AM

Archduke Tips

Time sure is a nice way for modeling system response. Without it us engineers would sure be boned.

May 16th, 2005 11:15 PM

The_Rorschach

S'up brother. Been awhile, sorry for the sudden absence. Don't worry, soon as I finish this engine swap, we'll still hit some puddles

I'm trying to convert over to a Chevy engine. Looks like I have some damage to the block, so this one is trash.

May 10th, 2005 04:09 PM

kahljorn

It's roach face! You scurvy bastard. I see you.

May 7th, 2005 05:19 AM

Dole

As Ringo Starr said in his seminal nineties flop of the same name, 'Time takes time'.

May 7th, 2005 02:17 AM

The_Rorschach

I tend towards embracing the "block universe theory" in it's most static sense when it comes to Time. More along the lines of the Jewish-Zoroastrian notion that time is linear, a view which has been supported -though hardly proven- by R. Feynman's 'Arrow of Time' (as it relates to Thermal Dynamics).

It's really not so cut and dry as that however. I seem to recall reading some papers regarding the relationship between gravity and time, and how quanta particals -due to their nearly nil mass [making them virtually invisible to gravity's influence] they are able to 'communicate' and 'cooridinate' their actions instaneously [literally (and not merely where we can extrapolate from the results, but also on a hypedimensional level if one were to accept the multiverse understanding of "reality")], and in theory, possibly in the past - We being unaware of it because we are limited by our perception of the present, which is nothing more than a "projection of our own temporal asymmetry" - to use the words of Huw Price.

In any case, as varied and flawed as our (various) perceptions of time are, I don't believe our inability to grasp such a vast concept should cause us to question its existance altogether. Neither should the question be shrugged off casually. If one questions the existance of time, then one must also question the whole of scientific accomplishment. Were time an illusion, laws like TD2 (the existance of entropy) or the nature of warped singularities within Planck Length would be nothing more than fanciful lies. Or mad delusions.

I'm sort of out of it, I hope the above was lucid, but really I'm a layman when it comes to quantum theory and mechanics, so I am quite certainly out of my depth. Hopefully my opinion helped somewhat.

Apr 27th, 2005 05:41 PM

kellychaos

This whole rant started as a result of reading an www.edge.org survey as explained below. Some of the ideas were interesting. This particular fellow just got on my last nerve for some reason. BTW, please read my introductroduction to the thread again and this will make more sense. I kind of rushed the post quite without thinking and didn't go back to edit.

Quote:

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"

Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the "esprit de divination"). What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

The 2005 Edge Question has generated many eye-opening responses from a "who's who" of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 120 contributions comprise a document of 60,000 words.

Here's the link to other responses in the survey:

LINKY

Apr 27th, 2005 10:33 AM

ziggytrix

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

Apr 27th, 2005 01:00 AM

ScruU2wice

didn't Maxwell Planck prove time comes in really really really short intervals, or something along those lines.

Apr 27th, 2005 12:34 AM

sspadowsky

I think Kahljorn hacked his account.

Apr 26th, 2005 07:18 PM

ziggytrix

You haven't, by chance, developed a drinking problem, have you kelly?

Apr 26th, 2005 05:27 PM

kellychaos

Time

This is how the post should have debuted. Sorry, guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Rovelli

I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist. I mean that I am convinced that there is a consistent way of thinking about nature, that makes no use of the notions of space and time at the fundamental level. And that this way of thinking will turn out to be the useful and convincing one.

I think that the notions of space and time will turn out to be useful only within some approximation. They are similar to a notion like "the surface of the water" which looses meaning when we describe the dynamics of the individual atoms forming water and air: if we look at very small scale, there isn't really any actual surface down there. I am convinced space and time are like the surface of the water: convenient macroscopic approximations, flimsy but illusory and insufficient screens that our mind uses to organize reality.

In particular, I am convinced that time is an artifact of the approximation in which we disregard the large majority of the degrees of freedom of reality. Thus "time" is just the reflection of our ignorance.

OK, I got the quoting better arranged so that, by now, I hope you realize the original premise was not mine but that the rebuttal at the bottom was.

This whole statement appears to me like the Vonnegut "trapped in the amber" theory from Slaughterhouse Five. Things are active at our level of perception but at a macro level to a being "above" us, the dynamics of our lives is stillness to them. Sort of like hitting the bong and wondering if we're sitting on a pin in a higher dimension.

My answer to that is, "So what?!" Of what pragmatic value is it to us if it were so? Am I giving up on the metaphysical too easily? Have I lost the human spirit and faith in mankind to discover new realities when the truth is that I really don't care because it does not, and more than likely will not, impact my life in any practical way?

I don't doubt that there are, indeed, more "degrees of freedom" but our senses are limited. Is he proposing that there are unassisted ways to experience these other dimensions in our collective future? Have we just not found a way to "tap in" with, as yet, undiscovered senses. Or is it just a matter of perspective ... or faith? Again, so what?!

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off