In deterministic physics, all processes are time-reversible, meaning that they can proceed backward as well as forward through time
— Joshs
This is not true. In deterministic physics, not all processes are time-reversible. There are no reversible processes in nature. All processes are irreversible processes. The question is why they are moving towards higher entropy and not to lower entropy. — Hillary
Some physicists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have suggested that time may actually be symmetrical, such that there is a mirror universe to our own, with an arrow of time running in the opposite direction.Why isn't it happening the other way round though? — EugeneW
the question is, the fundamental question, is: why does entropy grow? Why doesn't it get smaller, so time moves in the other direction, i.e., the direction of less total, universal, or global entropy? This could have been the case. — Hillary
Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze and Bergson have shown in different ways that a quantifiable, mathematizable nature presupposes the kind of time which consists of self-presences transitioning from future to present to past in sequential movement (existing ‘in' time) — Joshs
Could you describe for me what time moving in the other direction would look like in everyday experience, or would it look just the same as it already looks to us, given that life is a bubble of resistance to entropy? — Joshs
Some physicists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have suggested that time may actually be symmetrical, such that there is a mirror universe to our own, with an arrow of time running in the opposite direction — Relativist
Thank you for remembering me :) These days I have been in the house for working, reading and practice guitar playing etc. So it is now a lot more flexible time thanks to COVID. — Corvus
Non-sequitur. A simple counterexample of different physics is Conway's game of life which is entirely deterministic yet not reversible. There's no way to determine the prior state from a given one.In deterministic physics, all processes are time-reversible — Joshs
That kind of makes them different manifestations of the same arrow, not two different arrows.Dr. Hawking argued that the Psychological Arrow was controlled by the Thermodynamic Arrow — Joshs
Interesting. If the mass density of the universe was high enough, this would eventually be the case. Once the maximum expansion had been reached, the arrow would reverse. How is this suddenly a certain kind of time going the other way just because distant galaxies are now getting closer?But the direction of the Cosmological Arrow depends on whether the universe is expanding.
This seems to be a question for Hillary, but meanwhile, it seem to be a 4th arrow of time being referenced which is none of the three (memory, entropy, and expansion) Hawking listed. It is strictly a philosophical arrow of time with no empirical tests, which is probably why Hawking didn't bother to list it. That said, an opposing position was given, as expected:Could you describe for me what time moving in the other direction would look like in everyday experience, or would it look just the same as it already looks to us, given that life is a bubble of resistance to entropy? — Joshs
Interesting response. It seems to suggest dualism coupled with some kind of growing block interpretation, where the free-willed mind/spotlight is suddenly reft of its undetermined future and is instead forced into the determined part (by way of already existing) of the (now shrinking) block. Memory is part of the immaterial mind, not the physics of the situation.You would feel like an unwinding poppet with a key clockwork, being pulled along, instead of being in control. — Hillary
You would wake from the dead, get younger, thoughts go backwards, hear before spoken, return oxygen to the air, etc. You would feel like an unwinding poppet with a key clockwork, being pulled along, instead of being in control. You'll be pulled along to shoot back in the womb. How it feels? Dunno! It all depends on the initial configuration. Why isn't that the end of the universe but going in the opposite direction? Behold the problem of the direction of time. — Hillary
So COVID had it's good sides as well! :smile:
I'm not sure why you think time doesn't exist so can't move either. Doesn't the Sun shine longer in the summer (in the northern hemisphere) than in winter? Doesn't the clock show, say, 8 hours in winter and 16 in summer (with or without clouds)? — Hillary
This isn’t authentic time you’re describing, it’s a game being played within the bounds of a pre-given schematics masquerading as time. — Joshs
There's no concept of "measurment". Measutement is an action. (Look up both words, "measurment" and "concept".)Measurement presupposes a concept of measurement, — Joshs
Right. I have said that already.Time understood according to certain long-standing assumptions shared by philosophy and science is just a dimension. — Joshs
Well, I respect their opinion. For me this doesn't make any sense at all.But to philosophers like Bergson and the phenomenologists it is the structure of reality itself. — Joshs
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Anyway, for one thing, the universe is not a human invention. Or, if you are talking about words/language, these are human inventions. But this is too obvious ...If time as dimension is a human invention, what features of the world can you point to that are not human inventions? — Joshs
Yes. The clock to capture time with, is a human invention. But time itself, the irreversible natural processes flow from less to more global entropy (with local reduction as on Earth). Aint processes flowing? The question is though, why not from future to past? — Hillary
How's the guitar play? :smile: — Hillary
Why not from future to past? Because it doesn't exist. Time is just illusion. All there is, is just human memory. If every human died today, then tomorrow there would be no time. Just silence and nothing. I
think it is what Kant said too - about time.
Space and time is nothing but a form of human intuition according to Kant. I think he is correct. — Corvus
It is good that you know about these guys and their opinions. I also know of a lot of guys who have or had an opinion about time. If cite them, and then other TPF members cite from their own guys, would that be called a "discussion"?Smolin argues ... Prigogine contends ... for Bergson it is ,,, — Joshs
I also know about what a lot of guys who have or had an opinion about time If cite them, and then other TPF members cite from their own guys, would that be a discussion? — Alkis Piskas
I believe that we are here to express our opinion, however it is formed. If, for example, I ask you, "What do you think about death?", would you answer "Well, Kierkegaard in his Philosophical Fragments said that ...". I don't care about what Kierkegaard said. I asked what do you think — Alkis Piskas
In Physics, "static" refers to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium. That is, it refers to physical things. Time is not one of them. But even then, something static has the possibility to change state, like something "stationary" that I mentioned earlier.What if time is static, without the possibility to move? — Hillary
In Physics, "static" refers to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium. That is, it refers to physical things. Time is not one of them. But even then, something static has the possibility to change state, like something "stationary" that I mentioned earlier. — Alkis Piskas
It is good that you know about these guys and their opinions. I also know about what a lot of guys who have or had an opinion about time If cite them, and then other TPF members cite from their own guys, would that be called a "discussion"?
I believe that we are here to express our opinion, however it is formed. If, for example, I ask you, "What do you think about death?", would you answer "Well, Kierkegaard in his Philosophical Fragments said that ...". I don't care about what Kierkegaard said. I asked what do you think. — Alkis Piskas
I believe that we are here to express our opinion, however it is formed. If, for example, I ask you, "What do you think about death?", would you answer "Well, Kierkegaard in his Philosophical Fragments said that ...". I don't care about what Kierkegaard said. I asked what do you think
— Alkis Piskas
Better one even! :grin: — Hillary
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.