:grin:I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. — universeness
Fall short of what?It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short. — universeness
Right, this is the second element I talked about (besides "desdcription"): measurement.what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0)... — universeness
:flower:I personally am on the "joy" side. — Alkis Piskas
Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe.Fall short of what? — Alkis Piskas
Well it means 10cm of chocolate bar, and that categorisation has, as you suggest, mathematical meaning to humans, as does 10cm of space (even without indicating which dimension, as in length, breath or height.) I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe, which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another. I think such as time dilation, could not be true in a universe where distance had no 'reality.' If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe?But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — Alkis Piskas
The same applies to "a period of tme" or "interval of time". They are all self-referential expressions. I know these expressions are commonly used. But better avoid this, at least in this place, isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas
That would require an instant of zero-length. Which is absurd of course. So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas
My views and the labels I use are often different than those used in conventional Science.Fall short of what?
— Alkis Piskas
Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe. — universeness
The "chocolate bar" was sthe simplest example I could think of off-hand. The essential thing is that what units measure --time, distance, length, weight, etc.-- are constructs or concepts, and as such they have no physical/material existence, i.e. they do not really exist. Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones."But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — universeness
It might look or sound so, but if one grasps the essence and meaning of what distance is, I'm sure one will find what I say not only far-fetched but even quite obvious. One needs also to see a subject from all its aspects and include one's own experience with it: E.g. Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? As much as I try I will only see lack, absence of anything. How can absence of anything has en existence? One could say, "Well, one can't perceive atoms either, since they are not visible with a naked eye. True, but Science can, using special tools. However, Science has not show similar observation results and evidence about (empty) space, has it?I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe. — universeness
To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here?which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another — universeness
This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe? — universeness
No.Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist? — universeness
I have no idea about this.Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?' — universeness
Interesting.In physics and math the word instant means instantaneous or infinitesimal - having no length or duration. However, in common usage it can mean a tiny interval. Planck time is the limit of measurability and does not necessarily imply the smallest possible time interval. — jgill
Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas
You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run, (perhaps even still skip and jump Alkis!). Why is that physical experience almost overruled, by your metaphysical musings about the existence of distance? If distance does not exist then why do you have to physically traverse it, over time?Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? — Alkis Piskas
So how else do you perceive say, a box of cornflakes? So yes, the universe must be a container.To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here? — Alkis Piskas
On such a scale, I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. At those scales, I merely have to admit, 'I currently don't know.'I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case. — Alkis Piskas
I understand what you mean on the scale of the extremely big or at the scale of the extremely small. But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. So, I think it's very important to not state, that all notions of real experienced space and real experienced time/duration, are in every use of such labels, untrue. That what I mean by when I say that I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me.But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains". — Alkis Piskas
This is why I asked you about such a path, leading to such as cogito ergo sum. It's like the solipsistic position. I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime.This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes. — Alkis Piskas
But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition. — Alkis Piskas
No, they exist in real spacetime. I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them. These points exist in real spacetime and not just in mathematical geometric representations.And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. — Alkis Piskas
Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real!They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. — Alkis Piskas
But 3D points in space do exist. Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. If I give you an (x,y,z) coordinate relative to an agreed origin position then that 'place'/'position in 3D space' exists! and any relative distance to it, is real as it then becomes traversable. We know this is true or else we could not have landed on the moon! A coordinate such as (x,y,z,a,b,c) is far harder to demonstrate, as we cannot demonstrate a 6D spatial point exists.This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either. — Alkis Piskas
But doesn't infinitesimal mean exceedingly small? — Alkis Piskas
I have listened about half of the interview. I still didn't hear anything substantial or specific about time ...An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin. — universeness
Abtract talk. What is a "moment" other than a concept? How can "a succession of moments" --which is also an idea, it hs not even a foundation of some sort-- form an explanation and evidence about the existence/reality of time?He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. ... — universeness
What is the space I'm traversing? Can it be specified? Can it be perceived? Can it be sensed? Or all that is just movement and change, feeling the effort I am doing, the resistance I feel from the air, thew sound my steps are procusing? All these these are physical and real. Only these.You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run,... — universeness
I can understand the universe as a container. I can't undestand the Big Bang singularity at all, either as a container or anything else! :grin:So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you? — universeness
Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. — universeness
(See my comment about "traversing space" earlier on)But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. — universeness
Well, I always believe I'm mostly talking in an "earthly", everyday language. Maybe by "stepping too far" you mean going too deep? I may do this. I want to get to the essence of things. But in doing this, I try to use as less abstract thinking as possible. On the contrary, sometimes I feel I oversimplify things, at least in the minds of others. (For me, simple is beautiful and effective. One of my favorite mottos is "Truth is always simple" :smile:) Maybe this exudes a metaphysical aroma. I don't know ...I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me. — universeness
Do points A and B really exist? Does a point really exist ? Points can't and don't exist by themselves. As I said, it is we who assign a point, which can never be precise enough, anyway. Hence, the "hypothetical" attribute. In the same sense that a second cannot exist by itself. And even if we measure it, it can never be precise enough, i.e. absolute. Water in glass is real. It exists by itself. But its "volume" is not. It doesn't exist by itself.I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime. — universeness
I don't think it's possible foe anyone else. :smile:But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe. — universeness
You lost me! :smile:there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level ... — universeness
No, the opposite. I said exactly: "This would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all." That is, there would be no distance at all.I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! — universeness
What exactly can you observe? It's empty space. You can do that only mentally, i.e. imagine a line that joins these two goalposts. Or, in the physical worls you can draw a line. Or take a measuring tape and measure the distance. OK. What you would have done is simply using physical means to measure that distance. And, as I said, measurement is one of the things we are using the concept of distance (and time) for. The other is description. In doing so, we make distance acquire"flesh and bones", i.e. become somewhat "real".I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them — universeness
I don't know what do you mean by "result". But assigning physical points is a real event and the points are real too. Evidently. But the distance between these points, as I said above, is only what we can visualize and/or measure.Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real! — universeness
If they dont exist in 2D, as we used them all this time, how can they exist in 3D? :smile:But 3D points in space do exist. — universeness
Yes, geometry. It's the first or among the first things I brought up in this exchange:Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. — universeness
Interesting. :up:I've always thought of infinitesimals as part of the metaphysics of mathematics. They don't really exist in normal arithmetic, but have a mathematical description that allows them to be used in calculus, say. Leibniz came up with the idea, then a bit later the limit definitions took over. — jgill
Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain. — Alkis Piskas
Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. Also, bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. Sometimes it may be useful but most of the times it's not at all. It's just a wate of time. And I don't mean only you: unfortunately a lot of people do it.)Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration. — universeness
See, this doesn't help at all the discussion. It's just another view. And based on QM, not in real life. Not something anyone can experience, connect it to real life and so on. Such things are only useful for taining one's intellect. Like Math problems. They are fun, but they are not useful for our lives.So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges. — universeness
Interesting. But it has nothing to do with what I have said so far neither helps me undestand better the nature of time ...Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat. — universeness
Leibniz came up with the idea, — jgill
Wasn’t that contested by Newton? — Wayfarer
Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. — Alkis Piskas
bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. — Alkis Piskas
The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! — Alkis Piskas
Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position?Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas
I accept that the above, confirms that this is how you view our exchange on this thread.You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course. — Alkis Piskas
The term 'physical,' described as:Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said. — Alkis Piskas
Of course it's a personal view and complaint. Whose else could it be? :smile:This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals. — universeness
I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all.Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position? — universeness
I agree.The term 'physical,' described as: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... — universeness
This is a theretical approach based on an arbitrary use of undefined concepts. Certainly nothing physical in it.Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future. — universeness
Existence, reality, experiences, etc. All this is concepts, mental constracts. Not physical. We are not speaking here about psychological time ot how I perceive time in my mind, etc. This belongs to another area.Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. — universeness
Don't quite get this.This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. — universeness
Maybe so. OK, but about the physicality of time?I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. — universeness
Oh god. Is it I who needs to change my position regarding time, after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it. — universeness
This is hardy a novel approach, with all due respect, it's quite mundane, and I think the points you make would certainly be supported better, if you could cite a wider range of published and peer reviewed science, that supports your position.I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all. — Alkis Piskas
after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?
Godssake, universeness. Get real! — Alkis Piskas
More that time can't be construed as entirely or merely objective. That consciousness is an essentially temporal being, versus merely a being in time. — Pantagruel
What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain? — chiknsld
Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.
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.