Time reversal in physics formulae is often touted as an indication that processes might run backwards in time, but I suspect the interchangeability of + or - signs are just mathematical artifacts.

Do you mean Smolen or Smolin?

Do you mean Smolen or Smolin? — Hillary

Why do you ask? Is there a Smolen as well as a Smolin writing about time and physics? Or are you just saying I made a spelling error?

I don't know. But I do know Smolin.

The clock can't be stopped. — Hillary

It can ... If take its battery out or I break it! :grin:

There is no configuration of objects that stays the same forever. The global arrangement of matter always moves in one direction. — Hillary

I agree. Well, except that matter can move in all kinds of directions! :smile:

You like his basking in his anti-intellectualism? Right, let’s dumb down all discussions by shutting off reference to those who have articulated the issues most throughly — Joshs

No, it's not that I don't like references, but Alkis is right that a lot philosophical conversation is about what other philosophers say. Which is good, don't get me wrong, but they are just humans too.

It can ... If take its battery out or I break it! — Alkis Piskas

:lol:

And sometimes, when I clap my hands and yell: SILENCE!

I have seen a guy in English parliament smashing his writchwatch! Time's up!

Time reversal in physics formulae is often touted as an indication that processes might run backwards in time, but I suspect the interchangeability of + or - signs are just mathematical artifacts. — jgill

Yes. All processes are reversible on the small level. But try to reverse it all. You won't get it done! That's why the laws of thermodynamics are time asymmetric. But why is entropy increasing, instead of decreasing? Of course the chance of a gas in a container to be in one corner is small, but if it's motion was reversed it would go towards smaller volume and the law would be that the smaller chance is visited. If the motion of the whole universe was reversed it would be crunching towards the singularity.

I agree. Well, except that matter can move in all kinds of directions — Alkis Piskas

But not back to time zero...

It would be called a discussion among continental philosophers, who use close readings of texts to buttress their arguments. Not so much on this site, though. — Joshs

Funny ... I have stepped on "Al-Ghazali’s 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers). I have not read the article. It might be fun ... I just put it on my --ever growing-- TOREAD list!

I quoted those people because I agree with their views and they make a good starting point for discussion — Joshs

I know. It's only logical that people do that. Yet, what happens, even when you just quote someone, is that one has to know the context in which this quote appears, and to know that one has to read one or more works of the referenced philosophers. And this is quite impossible in a discussion, esp. when many such references appear in it. This happened when I once criticized a Wittgenstein's quote, nbut with arguments and all ... Many then have suggested to me to read his "Tractatus" or even his work, in general. Godssake, man! Just tell me where I am wrong and why. Well, no one did! See what I mean?

So if you don’t care what Bergson, Prigogine or Smolen think about this issue then you don’t care what I think — Joshs

No, this is not true at all. As I told you, I just ask you to tell me your personal opinion. You don't need to bring in philosophers or other authotities or experts to support your opinion.

I would love it if you used quotes to clarify your position. — Joshs

I rarely do so. I don't need to do that. I have to clarify my position --and I usually do that-- myself. If I can't it means that my opinion or explanation is not good or I have not understood the subject. Einstein has said “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Here, I used a quote myself! :smile: (But only after I have made my point and because I love this quote! :smile:)

I have seen a guy in English parliament smashing his writchwatch! Time's up! — Hillary

:up: :grin:
(Excellent way to make his point and at the same time to get rid of his watch that didn't work well! :grin:)

But not back to time zero... — Hillary

No, certainly not that! :smile:

I rarely do so. I don't need to do that. I have to clarify my position --and I usually do that-- myself. If I can't it means that my opinion or explanation is not good or I have not understood the subject. Einstein has said “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Here, I used a quote myself! :smile: (But only after I have made my point and because I love this quote! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Are you my mirror image...? Damned, it looks so. Seems I read my own writing. Scarry! :grin:

Speaking of time... Its almost three in the night here... Gnight!

All processes are reversible on the small level — Hillary

In the broad river of time there might be tiny eddies where momentarily particles of reality circle before being caught up in the forward momentum.

Gnight! — Hillary

(I enjoyed three seasons of a crime series produced in Holland on Netflix)

I guess you mean "Undercover"? The guy playing the major role, Frank Lammers, plays the role of the silly family father in a commercial for a supermarket. He runs for Jumbo, with an empty plastic Jumbo bag, passes people going there too, the camera shows his greedy face (which is fun!) he jumps on a small wagon, and rolls in, with arms wide open...

Actors, all suffering from identity crisis. I know...

In the broad river of time there might be tiny eddies where momentarily particles of reality circle before being caught up in the forward momentum — jgill

Yes! Kind of. The vacuum contains particles fluctuating in time and from them forward time emerged, before the big inflation.

Entropy. This is not a physics forum is it?

The question is not physical but philosophical. The physical answer states that time measures growing entropy. The chance of gas particles in one corner is smaller than being all around the the container. So particles move from small entropic states to higher. With local exceptions, like Earth, but the global entropy still increasing. The philosophical question, for which physics has no answer, is, why isn't it the other way round? Why doesn't the universe started at a time at infinity? Why shouldn't it start at maximum entropy and decrease to less? The end situation reversed will have such behavior. The law would then be that matter moves towards less probable states. Why should more probable states have the preference. That holds only if time is already going forward. But if the initial conditions laid at the end and were reversed time would go backwards. I know it's not the case, but why not? The end would be the beginning then. The initial conditions could have been a reversed end condition. But it's not. Why not?

So it is just a stupid and pointless pretend question. Fair enough. Bye

Just because you can't answer is it doesn't mean there is no answer. Bye!

particles move from small entropic states to higher. With local exceptions, like Earth, but the global entropy still increasing. — Hillary

The local exceptions are life and being, all that really matters to us.

The local exceptions are life and being, all that really matters to us — magritte

Yes, it are the exceptions that matter. That's where it's happening. But why isn't the exception an increase in entropy? So it all goes backwards? Why the fuck did it start at time zero? Of course it does and did. But the begin could just have well been at infinity. This is the fundamental problem of the direction of time. No more and no less.

Yes. But... Why they don't radiate inwards? Why isn't the beginning of time situated at the end? — EugeneW

I think now is a good time to point out that in the case of black holes... light and matter radiate inwards towards a singularity. Theyre a bit like dustbins sucking up everything that comes within their vicinity. If everything eventually got dragged into a black hole and then those black holes got pulled into one another eventually all energy and matter would be pulled into one super black hole - a singularity. However Hawkings radiation means that actually eventually even black holes radiate away. So the quest continues to ascertain whether it’s ever possible for “a Big Crunch” the opposite of the Big Bang where all things come together once again

Its almost three in the night here... — Hillary

As I can see from the time stamps, I also posted that 12 hrs ago ... same time zone ...

Sounds reasonable! I wished I could see it like that. Indeed, when all life has gone, time and space are gone. Only black silence... And then... what's that sound...? Is it a guitar...? What lovely sounds! Aaahh! It Corvus, on the eternal guitar! Great thing not, the guitar! Timeless! :smile:

I wanna buy an electric one. It looks so easy, playing on them. With a headset for the neighbors and going fully fledged in the weekend. On Sunday morning... — Hillary

OK, for example, let say not everyone is dead, but let's say that you were put into a box, and buried under the ground with no clocks or watches or phones or anything - you had years of supply of water and food and the air to breath. You are in total darkness and no sounds or lights on your own for a few months. Would your be able to know how much of time has passed when you tried to guess?

Or more extreme example, if you were put in the box since your birth up to now, would you know what time it is now? Would you be able to tell how long since you have been in the box? Would you even know what time is?

Yeah, guitars can sound pretty good. When you are playing guitars and enjoying yourself, you hear the guitar, but you don't realise time passing. Because time doesn't exist. :)

Or more extreme example, if you were put in the box since your birth up to now, would you know what time it is now? Would you be able to tell how long since you have been in the box? Would you even know what time is? — Corvus

It's the question we would survive, but I guarantee you that time would move like a snail, and we probably be bored to death. I read that they once put rats in an empty cage from birth. To compare with a rich surrounding. (speaking of torture...). It may come as no surprise their brain, the connections between neurons, and their size, was less. I could have told them that from the start! You would now no clock, of course not. Time, on the other hand... Just throw a guitar in the box and time flies! :smile:

I like the tones of these standing waves (getting lower when you lay your finger closer to the box hole).

OK, for example, let say not everyone is dead, but let's say that you were put into a box, and buried under the ground with no clocks or watches or phones or anything - you had years of supply of water and food and the air to breath. You are in total darkness and no sounds or lights on your own for a few months. Would your be able to know how much of time has passed when you tried to guess? — Corvus

I would count sheep. 3600 sheep an hour, 72 000 twenty hours, etc. In sleep that's difficult though. But one thing would be sure. It will be later than when I went in!

It's the question we would survive, but I guarantee you that time would move like a snail, and we probably be bored to death. I read that they once put rats in an empty cage from birth. To compare with a rich surrounding. (speaking of torture...). It may come as no surprise their brain, the connections between neurons, and their size, was less. I could have told them that from the start! You would now no clock, of course not. Time, on the other hand... Just throw a guitar in the box and time flies! :smile:

I like the tones of these standing waves (getting lower when you lay your finger closer to the box hole). — Hillary

If you insisted, time exits, and we somehow agreed upon it does, then it must be mental existence, rather than anything physical. OK, there are motions, changes and historical events, but they are all your perception. Without the perception, they don't exist. I think that is what Kant must have meant, time and space is human intuition, not physical entity. :D

I would count sheep. 3600 sheep an hour, 72 000 twenty hours, etc. In sleep that's difficult though. But one thing would be sure. It will be later than when I went in! — Hillary

What we have is just present moments, and every single moment becomes past in our memories. Future is just imagination stemmed from present awareness and memories of the past. When one dies, the whole thing and the world disappears to the dead, to nothing and everlasting darkness and silence, which is eternal non awareness. Only the living ones keep playing the guitars and hear the sound. The dead ones cannot hear anything, feels nothing and doesn't know what time is. Time is just perception. :)

Future is just imagination stemmed from present awareness and memories of the past. — Corvus

But so is the past. An imagination. So with the imagination of the future, an imagination of time is formed.

When one dies, the whole thing disappears, to nothing and everlasting darkness and silence. — Corvus

Very true, my dear Corvus! But the sweet echoes of your guitar fill the universe! Unheard, unseen, in total darkness and unimaginable silence, but still...

Only the living ones keep playing the guitars and hear the sound. The dead ones cannot hear anything, feels nothing and doesn't know what time is. Time is just perception. — Corvus

Very true. Again! But if time is perception, then there is something the perception is about. Your guitarplay would become strangely surreal if not. Desirable as that might be! :smile: