You seem to be thinking of time as something other than specific, particular changes, but that's all that time is. — Terrapin Station
Part of the change isn't the change. You'd need to specify some other change. — Terrapin Station
the present is a simple division between future and past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you saying that a change is indivisible? — Metaphysician Undercover
Think of it this way: How would a change be temporally divisible? — Terrapin Station
Don't you think that a change can be divided into parts, just like an object? Have you ever seen slow motion films of what appears without the slow motion, as a rapid change? When I see such slow motion films, like a drop of water landing in a pool of water, creating waves, it makes me think that what appeared to me as one change is really numerous changes. — Metaphysician Undercover
A change is temporally divisible into other changes, j — Metaphysician Undercover
You can't temporally divide 9:31 to 9:32 where you're talking about the same change. So 9:31 to 9:32, relative to itself, is not temporally divisible. It's only temporally divisible relative to other changes. — Terrapin Station
So we have 9:31:01, 9:31:02 — Metaphysician Undercover
No, that is the change between 9:31 and 9:32. — Metaphysician Undercover
There must be something between these two which is not evident in either one, which qualifies as "the change" — Metaphysician Undercover
You just claim it is "different", because it is neither 9:31 nor 9:32. — Metaphysician Undercover
That the clock face says 9:31 and then 9:32 is sufficient. — Terrapin Station
It's either different or it's the same (as in identical). if it's the same, but just another name for the same change, then we're not subdividing it. If it's different, then it's not subdividing that specific change with respect to itself. It's naming another, different change. — Terrapin Station
This is not at all sufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover
Logically, changes can obtain if there are only two states and nothing else. — Terrapin Station
When the clock face reads 9:31 and then 9:32 we don't say it stayed the same. It changed. — Terrapin Station
So let's say that our change from 9:31 to 9:32 has a change to 9:31:30 in between. So we have a change from 9:31 to 9:31:30, and then a change from 9:31:30 to 9:32. — Terrapin Station
That has no impact on whether 9:31 is in the past with respect to 9:32 relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32. Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, 9:31 is not in the past. — Terrapin Station
Relative to the change from 9:31 to 9:32, we only have the present--the occurring change of 9:31 to 9:32. — Terrapin Station
That's not true, two distinct states are two distinct states. There is no change unless there is also continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover
When the clock face reads 9:31 then 9:32, is it the same? — Terrapin Station
We're not getting anywhere... — Terrapin Station
Yes it continues to be the same clock no matter what time it says. — Metaphysician Undercover
When the clock face reads 9:31 then 9:32, is it the same? — Terrapin Station
Ok, the "clock face" has changed, but it is still the same clock face. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the numbers on the clock face are part of the clock face, and the numbers change, then the clock face changes. — Terrapin Station
It doesn't completely change in the sense of (possibly) being completely unrelated, but it changes. It's not identical when it reads 9:31 and when it reads 9:32. It's different. — Terrapin Station
then all we have is two distinct instances of numbers, 9:31, and 9:32. This is not a change, — Metaphysician Undercover
Say you have a universe with just one item — Terrapin Station
(Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271)The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'.
I was simply observing that it is impossible to conceive of a universe with just one item. — Wayfarer
because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers.
it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another,
When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change.
This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description.
'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time',
The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'.
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.