Light has no meaning — Raymond

What are you on about?

What are you on — Agent Smith

Nothing yet... You write light becomes meaningless without time. That means it has meaning. But light has no meaning. Even if you put a clock beside it.

Light has a frequency and wavelength. These are used to define time, showing its relation to space.

But light has no meaning. — Raymond

So light = flkts (meaningless)?

Light has a frequency and wavelength. — Raymond

We can and do use frequency & wavelength to define light.

Too, if light is problematic (circularity), how about Do Re Me Fa So La Ti?

.

Too, if light is problematic (circularity), how about Do Re Me Fa So La Ti? — Agent Smith

A single frequency of light doesn't exists in reality. Only in the mind it can serve as the perfect clock. Clocks are a realization of the idea. The perfect clock, as assumed for the axis of time, is a process with an unchanging period. Exact, invariant periods, are ideal only. The idea of the clock is the perfect clock. It's this clock that's placed on the time axis. So, the time axis is a virtual axis.

Do-Mi can be used to define time. Like a cuckoo appearing periodically. "Let's meet at two o'cuck".

Yes, you're right!

Spot the fallacy! — Agent Smith

If time is not real, then Agent Smith didn't post the OP before I posted this. Anyone for modus tollens?

If time is not real, then Agent Smith didn't post the OP before I posted this. Anyone for modus tollens? — Cuthbert

:up:

Temporal paradox of logic

The law of identity.

Panta rhea.

Contradiction.

If time is not real, then Agent Smith didn't post the OP before I posted this — Cuthbert

The second premisse seems to be false. If time is not real (as is the case), then he still could have posted. If the second premise is true and negated, so he did post, then still time is not real.

Maybe Shakespeare should have posited his question as ‘to be AND not to be’ rather than ‘to be OR not to be’
Might have made his play even more interesting.

Quantum entanglement, ‘superposition’, quantum computing can have a state of 0 and 1 at the same time.
Does this suggest ‘be and not be’, at the same instant in time, is possible?

Einstein shows time as relative and inseparable from space. So there is no time, there is only spacetime.
The smallest ‘current’ unit of time in Physics, is the Planck time or the time is takes a photon to travel a Planck length.
It is posited that a photon does not experience time or space, ‘relative to us as observers’ as it travels at 3x10^8 m/s. This suggests that any photon created after ‘the singularity,’ which has never been slowed down due to an interaction, has never ‘experienced’ space or time, at least, relatively speaking.

Time seems to be ‘linear’ in our 3D arena but perhaps it is not linear.
I think we would all probably accept that time aggregates such as hours, days, dates, era’s etc are nothing more than convenient human measurements but I also think that if the universe as humans generally experience it, is ‘real’ then time as a ‘durational measure of the ‘length’ of the occurrence of an event’ is ‘real.’

BTW, Roger Penrose posits that time before the very stupidly named Big Bang (not big and no bang) would be part of a previous ‘Epoch’. A time duration within which a previous manifestation of a ‘universe’ existed.

Assume R = Time is real

If R is true then there must be a proof (call it ϕ1ϕ1) that R.

The proof ϕ1ϕ1 implies that we can construct a reductio ad absurdum argument (call it ϕcϕc) to prove R.

ϕcϕc assumes the negation of R i.e. ~R = Time is unreal.

If ~R, there can't be contradictions (re definition of contradiction); no contradiction, no ϕcϕc; no ϕcϕc, no ϕ1ϕ1.

Conclusion: Impossible to prove time is real. — Agent Smith

This is a convoluted way to try and prove whether time is real or not. How about starting off with a definition of time and then we can discuss whether or not your definition refers to something real and consistent with observation.

The law of identity.

Panta rhea.

Contradiction. — Agent Smith

"η ταυτότητα ρέει συνεχώς"

i taftótita réei synech

In ordinary colloquium:

"per identitatem fluit continue"

The identity flows. Is this a logical contradiction?

Assume R = Time is real

If R is true then there must be a proof (call it ϕ1ϕ1) that R.

The proof ϕ1ϕ1 implies that we can construct a reductio ad absurdum argument (call it ϕcϕc) to prove R.

ϕcϕc assumes the negation of R i.e. ~R = Time is unreal.

If ~R, there can't be contradictions (re definition of contradiction); no contradiction, no ϕcϕc; no ϕcϕc, no ϕ1ϕ1.

Conclusion: Impossible to prove time is real.
4dReplyOptions — Agent Smith

Assuming it to be true and trying to proof it implies a way to look for it and compare it with your assumption. If the proof is a reductio ad absurdum, this means you render it absurd if time isn't real. So it's real.The proof takes time for unreal and explores it's absurd consequences, rendering time real.The premise though is false. No time doesn't mean no contradiction. So the conclusion is false. It is possible to proof time real by assuming it not real.

Stating time is real and trying to proof it, will be an attempt in vain eternally. No true clock will be found in reality, so time is not real, restricting reality to the physical world. The idea of time is real.

This is a convoluted way to try and prove whether time is real or not. How about starting off with a definition of time and then we can discuss whether or not your definition refers to something real and consistent with observation — Harry Hindu

That's what @Raymond has been hinting at right from the beginning.

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.  — St. Augustine of Hippo

What the clock measures.

Basic idea = Something that can't be broken down into simpler ideas. Ergo, is undefin(ed/able).

The premise though is false — Raymond

So you claim...so you claim! Good response though! :up:

How can you proof time wrong? Construct an hypothesis of time. Observe. If time is found, hypothesis correct. If not, look further. If still not found (or implied by findings) or arguments can be constructed to kill the hypothesis, time is not real. If the argument introduces new hypotheticals, and if these are found or implied by a finding, time is not real.

So, the clock. Is it real? Approximate. How can the real thing and the approximation be both real? They can't. So time is not real. The clock is a persistent illusion, on an illusionary and imaginary axis (it-axis), as an inseparable part of an illusionary manifold.

Is time the clock though? How can the clock measure time if the clock never can show the true value? Does the real value actually exist? Can time be broken up?

If quantum theory is correct then a 'quantum of time' must exist. It does and is called planck time and it is 10^-43 seconds and is described as 'the smallest measure of time that has any meaning.'
So time exists on that basis. All other time measurements are aggregates of planck time.

According to the uncertainty relations if you make dx smaller and smaller dp becomes bigger and bigger. At the small distances, a black hole appears with a planck size Schwarzschild radius. In the hole time stands still. The limit to measure length lies at the Planck length, with a corresponding uncertainty in time. This doesn't mean though that space or time are quantized. We just can't measure smaller distances, and thus no smaller intervals of time, which doesn't mean that time is not continuous.

time is not real — Raymond

What is real?

Mathematicians can play with time, real or unreal:

Playing with Complex and Distorted Time

If there was any physical substance to time it would be a topic in fluid analysis. Perhaps it flows in the aether? :chin:

Isn't so called (velocity/gravitational) time dilation, a case of warping the 4^th dimension (time); however, unlike space in which case a straight line becomes a curve, with time, a curve becomes a straight line.

The uncertainty principle establishes that you cannot know momentum and position at the same instant of time. It follows then that the relationship between the two quantities will become more 'disturbed' when you try to improve the accuracy of either, separate measurement.
A smaller error margin in one, will result in a bigger error margin in the other, I think?
If you attempt to go smaller than Planck values then yes, the theory predicts a black hole or 'quantum foam.'
Hawking radiation suggests time does not stand still inside a black hole and that over an immensity of time, a black hole will evaporate.
Your statement does not prove that spacetime is not quantised to the same level that current efforts do not prove that it is. We just don't know yet but I would currently move towards the 'yes spacetime is quantised' side, based on what science has found so far. So, I still hold, in general, that time (or spacetime) is 'real.'

For me the more pressing questions, relate to:
if spacetime is the 'real' state then distance and time are 'not separate' quantities, so, expansion of space, is the notional 'clock' ticking. The current expansion rate is accelerating, This suggests that the 'rate of time' must also be accelerating but this further suggests a 'universal' reference frame for time as well as the more localised, relative, reference frames, within which the phenomena of 'time dilation', occurs. The divisor in the time dilation equation can tend towards zero, which suggests that if you could travel at light speed (within space as currently understood) then you cannot age and you could theoretically outlive the universe you are traveling in!!!
Another mind f### is that in your own reference frame you would still only live your own lifespan.
This reference frame would be effectively 'outside of the universe's reference frame.'
This is based on the premise that Is it correct to say that in the 'Universal reference frame', a photon, traveling at light speed, does not experience spacetime at all? It only enters spacetime when it slows down due to interaction/change in property/pair production etc.

I do have some fun playing with this, with more (perhaps philosophical) thoughts like; 'so, is this like the state dead and the state alive?'
is a photon effectively dead when it does not experience spacetime? does it become alive when it enters spacetime? How does this relate to the human experience? Probably nonsense, but it stops my head from exploding when I try to approach anything near to an understanding of this stuff.

'Real' is a label for a concept, a property, an idea. Maybe a member of one of the Platonic forms (or Aristotelian ideals) or something that atoms (don't want to champion Plato over Democritus) can achieve when they aggregate in particular ways
Labels help humans categorise. We then use methods such as the scientific method (Perhaps based on the Socratic method) to test the veracity of a particular label. If the label holds then we might use it in an equation/formula/hypothesis in an attempt to gain new knowledge. 'Real' is perhaps just epistemological.

'Real' is perhaps just epistemological. — universeness

Possible, quite possible. However truth in what sense truth, epistemologically that is?

For instance, Kant's view is that a thing in itself causes us to perceive phenomena, and that our cognitive apparatus arranges the matter of sensation in space and time. — Amalac

If the notion of causation has its relevance only in the context of thought about phenomena (it being a form of judgement) then how could it make sense to speak about something noumenal causing perception of phenomena?

Hawking radiation suggests time does not stand still inside a black hole and that over an immensity of time, a black hole will evaporate. — universeness

Hawking radiation does imply that particles just outside the horizon are entangled with the particles inside and take away the frozen information inside. On the inside time hasn't stopped. This looks so from the outside only (if you fall in it takes an amount of time to reach infinity inside (which can't truly be infinity though but in the classical picture it is). The moment a black hole has formed it's almost instantly radiated away by from the quantum vacuum near the horizon, the heavy curvature of spacetime being the exciter. Negative energy solutions cause the inside mass to reduce. On the outside though, this process lasts very long. :cool:

Is a photon dead? Nice question. It hasn't an associated restframe. Very strange! In a sense it mediates instantly, like the instant interaction in Newtonian space. But an instant interaction implies that everything happens at once, in space as well in time, hence only a finite lightspeed can make things happen.

Seems you think a lot about this stuff! I don't know a lot of people who have their head exploding on stuff like this! That's what geniuses are made of. (Just kidding...) :smile:



Depends who you ask it. For a lot of people the clock is very real and they fight it, save it, buy it, or kill it even. The clock can go awfully slow when waiting. Don't think about the clock!

Truth maybe only found outside the matrix, agent Smith.
Was his character meant to portray an agent of truth? Especially when he tried to conquer by means of replication. Mimicking the Darwinian, time-driven, experience of DNA. One of the best replicators that evolution/natural selection has produced. Was it ultimately his power to replicate that made him more 'real' than the other agents. Real enough to take over the body of a real person, outside the matrix?

Truth is another label but its epistemology is probably best associated with relativism, whereas 'Real' is probably more of an idealistic goal or perhaps 'hope' would be a better label.
An absolute truth? An objective truth, well I think things get tougher when you combine labels!

'I think therefore I am' may be 'true' and may provide evidence that I am 'real' but that's probably
its limit. It provides no evidence to me at all, that you are real, from a solipsistic viewpoint.

Many physicists now think that the (badly named) big bang started after Alan Guth's Inflation posit.
Big bang and then inflation has now changed to inflation then big bang.
So the suggestion is now that the big bang did not come from the so-called 'singularity' and the 'beginning' or first event/process/period of quantisable time was inflation.
Something much smaller than Planck spacetime must have existed, during the period of inflation.
Photon dominance does not occur until around 10 seconds after the big bang.
We have no cesium at this point, so I suppose it's inaccurate to even mention the second as a time unit at this point.
I think time can only be described as a 'continuum' during inflation because all matter and energy was part of the 'fabric of space' itself. Matter and energy 'broke away' from spacetime during inflation. So after inflation, time can be quantised as plank time units.
Notionally, inflation happened probably from time =0 to < 10^−36 seconds. In that time the universe expanded by a volume factor of 10^76 or from nothing (or perhaps a singularity) to the size of a tennis ball.