Time constant
Richard
simultaneously and somehow we experience traveling along this line, this
being the case it would seem our futures are all mapped out, any
thoughts..????
Paul Cardinale
> It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
> simultaneously
Really? What scientists? Were they graduates of the Henry
Logic-is-bull Wilson institute?
Paul Cardinale
Lord Neptune
Oooh, I love this debate. In short, I'll answer with yes, I believe
that all time and events are in simultanious existance and we can only
experience one point moving forward in it.
I would agree that we have freedom of choice, though. That's where
this topic approaches a paradox.
My friend suggested this scenerio. For lunch, you can choose to have
a chicken sandwich or a ham sandwich. Now, your choice will not be
completely random at all. Firstly, you'll be influenced by the
smells, what you had previously, etc. etc... Basically, your
environment will help to make your decision. So, say you choose ham
and eat a ham sandwich.
Now, erase your memory, reverse your age and time to where you were
going to start deciding what to eat. Everything is the same as it was
the first time you chose. You will still choose ham over chicken
because it was never a random choice. Now, what about "randomly"
flipping a coin?
That isn't entirely random. The event of flipping a coin has more to
do with physics than it does with chance. The coin starts out in a
certain spot on a certain side, you pick it up a certain way, the coin
moves around in your hand a certain way, and when you flip it, you hit
a specific area of the coin with a certain amount of force, causing it
to lift up in the air and rotate, having the air resistance move it
around and then it falls, hits the ground a certain way, bounces, etc.
etc. etc... until the coin rests on a certain side.
So, basically, there is no chance. (In my eyes) So, therefor,
everything happens for a reason. Therefor, we will ultimately make
only one choice on certain things. Therefor, there can only be one
timeline based on our decisions in this one, and therefor, that
timeline will have been completely played out due to the fact that
there is no way it can change. And trying to change it would only
result in what was already meant to happen. As humans, there is
absolutely no way we can know the future with 100% certainty. It is
impossible. Therefor, any future we 'may' see will only be a facimaly
of the future. It may turn out to be relatively accurate, but that
would only be cooincidence.
This debate also ties in that it is impossible to travel into the past
to change an event, for if that happened, the person would have
already been in the past, and the event could not be changed, cause it
played out the way it did. Time paradoxes really hurt sometimes... I
think that's all I wanted to say about this. I'll probably reply
again later, too, in case I left anything out.
Stephen Speicher
> "Richard" <richard1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7sohv$mu28a$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de>...
> > It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
> > simultaneously
>
> Really? What scientists?
You may be surprised, but this is a not a completely uncommon
view. Kurt Goedel, the famous logician-mathematician, was the
first to demonstrate the existence of closed time loops in his
"Goedel universe" solution to the field equations of general
relativity in 1949 ("An Example of a New Type of Cosmological
Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation," _Reviews
of Modern Physics_, 21:447-450).
Einstein acknowledged Goedel's work here as being
"...an important contribution to the general theory of
relatvity, especially to the analysis of the concept of
time. The problem here involved disturbed me already at
the time of the building up of the general theory of
relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying
it."
Einstein explicated the issue:
"...and if the series is closed in itself. In that
case the distinction 'earlier-later' is abandoned for
world-points which lie far apart in the cosmological
sense, and those paradoxes, regarding the _direction_
of the causal connection, arise, of which Mr. Goedel
has spoken."
Like Stephen Hawking, Einstein also questioned Goedel's solution
on physical grounds: "It will be interesting to weigh whether
these are not to be excluded on physical grounds." And, Hawking
says: "This suggests that the solution is not very physical."
Goedel believed that, whether or not his rotating universe
reflected the world we live in, the lapse of time was strictly
illusory. This has been echoed through the years in one form or
another. For instance, Roger Penrose writes:
"The way in which time is treated in modern physics is
not essentially different from the way in which space
is treated and the time of physical descriptions does
not really 'flow' at all; we just have a static-looking
fixed space-time in which the events of our universe
are laid out!"
Most believe the spacetime version to be an abstract mathematical
model, and do not confuse the model with the actual world. But,
not all.
And, one has to be careful about offhand remarks from famous
people. When Einstein's great friend, Michele Besso, died, he
wrote in a letter:
"...in quitting this strange world he has once again
preceded me by a little. That doesn't mean anything.
For those of us who believe in physics, this separation
between past, present, and future is only an illusion,
however tenuous."
However, Goedel later told Robert Goldman that "I think he meant
it as some sort of joke." Recall that Goedel and Einstein spent
much time together at Princeton's IAS -- they were frequently
seen walking together, and several biographers of Goedel give
some insight into their relationship and friendship.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Reany
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> [snip]
> Most believe the spacetime version to be an abstract mathematical
> model, and do not confuse the model with the actual world. But,
> not all.
>
> And, one has to be careful about offhand remarks from famous
> people. When Einstein's great friend, Michele Besso, died, he
> wrote in a letter:
>
> "...in quitting this strange world he has once again
> preceded me by a little. That doesn't mean anything.
> For those of us who believe in physics, this separation
> between past, present, and future is only an illusion,
> however tenuous."
All of so-called real existence could be an
illusion and science could go right on never
KNOWING the difference as long as
1) there are patterns within the illusion and
2) there are minds (or at least one mind) able
to find meaning in those patterns.
No one can prove that this is not what's going
on in science anyway.
So why use time as a descriptor of phenomena
if it might not be a "real" thing? The correct question
is why we justify any anthropomorphic variable!
We use the variables we use because they have
meaning to us. But this is NOT a proof that
Nature "uses" our variables to conform to "natural
laws."
There is this principle called the Anthropic
Principle that states that humans are somehow
lucky enough to live within a special universe in
which some kind of pro-human synergism exists
by which humans are able to see and rationalize
the universe as it "really" is. I neither believe nor
disbelieve this doctrine. But I do maintain that it is
unprovable by science. (By the way, I have found
many different versions of the Anthropic Principle.
Many forms of it deal with the existence of humans
in the universe. I deal with the ability of humans to
be able to rationalize and find meaningful in large
"parts" of the universe as we know it through
phenomena.)
For a reference, see
http://my.freeway.net/~dialogos/dial3.htm
which also deals with the enigma of the abilities
of humans to observe and find meaning of the
natural realm. We tend to take these two abilities
for granted so strongly that the mere questioning
of this natural human "gift" seems to astound some
people. The use of the Anthropic Principle seems
to be mostly for secularists to find a counter argument
to the standard teleological arguments of "nature by
God's design." But they seem only to undermine their
own position by it. I do maintain that both views
are much more about beliefs than about science
per se. Neither to be outlawed, just recognized
for their intrinsic subjectiveness.
Even Christians have reason to be suspicious of their
naive realism, for their own scriptures say that "we
see through a glass, darkly," a metaphor for limited
human understanding and ken.
Patrick
Henry Wilson
wrote:
You'll keep Cardinale!
Ask yourself this, "when you are long gone dead, what will determine the
date".
Answer: all dates will have equal probability. So they must all exist
simulataneously.
Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
At the frontier of scientific invention.
See the amazing animations at:
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
BernardZ
@uwosh.edu says...
According to quantum mechanics there are events that are random. If I
choice my lunch, with some quantum effects then the odds are sometimes I
would select a chicken sandwich and sometimes a ham sandwich.
I bet also if I flipped a coin some days I would spin for chicken and
sometimes ham.
Paul Cardinale
> On 27 Mar 2002 11:25:26 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
> wrote:
>
> >"Richard" <richard1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7sohv$mu28a$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
> >> simultaneously
> >
> >Really? What scientists? Were they graduates of the Henry
> >Logic-is-bull Wilson institute?
> >
> >Paul Cardinale
>
> You'll keep Cardinale!
>
> Ask yourself this, "when you are long gone dead, what will determine the
> date".
>
> Answer: all dates will have equal probability. So they must all exist
> simulataneously.
>
So any two things that have equal probability must be simultaneous?
Paul Cardinale
Lord Neptune
> According to quantum mechanics there are events that are random. If I
> choice my lunch, with some quantum effects then the odds are sometimes I
> would select a chicken sandwich and sometimes a ham sandwich.
>
> I bet also if I flipped a coin some days I would spin for chicken and
> sometimes ham.
I agree with your statement. On some days, your decision will be
different. But, if you selected chicken one day, completely erased
that day, including your memory, and started it all over with
everything in the universe the same, you would still select chicken.
It's like a movie. If you watch a movie, and then rewind it and watch
it again, nothing's going to be different about the movie itself.
BernardZ
@uwosh.edu says...
> BernardZ <Bern...@FlagIname.com to reply delete Flag> wrote in message news:<MPG.170db5ffa123e7fb98991a@news>...
>
> > According to quantum mechanics there are events that are random. If I
> > choice my lunch, with some quantum effects then the odds are sometimes I
> > would select a chicken sandwich and sometimes a ham sandwich.
> >
> > I bet also if I flipped a coin some days I would spin for chicken and
> > sometimes ham.
>
> I agree with your statement. On some days, your decision will be
> different. But, if you selected chicken one day, completely erased
> that day, including your memory, and started it all over with
> everything in the universe the same, you would still select chicken.
Not if our understanding of quantum mechanics is correct!
> It's like a movie. If you watch a movie, and then rewind it and watch
> it again, nothing's going to be different about the movie itself.
A movie does not have free will.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3ca2be2a...@news.bigpond.com>...
>> On 27 Mar 2002 11:25:26 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Richard" <richard1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7sohv$mu28a$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de>...
>> >> It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
>> >> simultaneously
>> >
>> >Really? What scientists? Were they graduates of the Henry
>> >Logic-is-bull Wilson institute?
>> >
>> >Paul Cardinale
>>
>> You'll keep Cardinale!
>>
>> Ask yourself this, "when you are long gone dead, what will determine the
>> date".
>>
>> Answer: all dates will have equal probability. So they must all exist
>> simulataneously.
>>
>
>So any two things that have equal probability must be simultaneous?
If they are all equally accessible, I think yes.
>
>Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3ca437ca...@news.bigpond.com...
> On 28 Mar 2002 07:15:32 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
> wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3ca2be2a...@news.bigpond.com>...
> >> On 27 Mar 2002 11:25:26 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Richard" <richard1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7sohv$mu28a$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> >> It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
> >> >> simultaneously
> >> >
> >> >Really? What scientists? Were they graduates of the Henry
> >> >Logic-is-bull Wilson institute?
> >> >
> >> >Paul Cardinale
> >>
> >> You'll keep Cardinale!
> >>
> >> Ask yourself this, "when you are long gone dead, what will determine the
> >> date".
> >>
> >> Answer: all dates will have equal probability. So they must all exist
> >> simulataneously.
> >>
> >
> >So any two things that have equal probability must be simultaneous?
>
> If they are all equally accessible, I think yes.
Nice one.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Equal probability and accessibility --> simultaneity"
Dirk Vdm
Paul Cardinale
> On 28 Mar 2002 07:15:32 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
> wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3ca2be2a...@news.bigpond.com>...
> >> On 27 Mar 2002 11:25:26 -0800, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Richard" <richard1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7sohv$mu28a$1...@ID-89874.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> >> It has been suggested by certain scientists that all time and events exist
> >> >> simultaneously
> >> >
> >> >Really? What scientists? Were they graduates of the Henry
> >> >Logic-is-bull Wilson institute?
> >> >
> >> >Paul Cardinale
> >>
> >> You'll keep Cardinale!
> >>
> >> Ask yourself this, "when you are long gone dead, what will determine the
> >> date".
> >>
> >> Answer: all dates will have equal probability. So they must all exist
> >> simulataneously.
> >>
> >
> >So any two things that have equal probability must be simultaneous?
>
> If they are all equally accessible, I think yes.
>
and I toss it again in the evening, and it comes up tails (50%
chance),
then because the two events had equal probabilites, they must have
been simultaneous, right? So this morning and this evening must occur
at the same time, right? So all of my clocks which show passage of
time between two
tossings of a coin must be wrong.
Paul Cardinale
Lord Neptune
I think we just have a simple misunderstanding of what's being said.
I just wish I could more articulate my point more clearly. Either
way, there's no possible way that one could test the theory. So, in
actuality, this debate will never be completed. Heh. At the very
least, it's interesting to think about. Personally, I'm sticking with
the idea that the future is written, much like the past.
The only way to be certain that it is not, would be to have the
ability to tavel backwards in time. Then, you could travel to the
future, see a specific, simple event, and then travel back to where
you started, live life up to that point, and try to change it. That'd
be the same thing as a time paradox, though. And, you get into the
question of "is it possible to change the future if you already know
what the future is going to be?"
Henry Wilson
>Dick Vd head
>
OK smartarse, how will the date be determined when you are dead?
Henry Wilson
wrote:
You are refering to a physical event.
We are discussing time events.
>
>Paul Cardinale
The head and tail are 'spatially a-simultaneous'. They both exist at any
point in time but at different locations.
David Evens
Precisely the same way that the date was calculated before he was
alive, and WHILE he was alive.
>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>See the low-quality animations at:
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
David Evens
No, he was refering to TWO events.
>We are discussing time events.
Ah, events that never occur in physics since they have nothing to do
with reality.
>>Paul Cardinale
>
>The head and tail are 'spatially a-simultaneous'. They both exist at any
>point in time but at different locations.
So, the events occur at ALL times, despite the physically impossible
nature of non-definde coordinates for events.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:58:33 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>
>>>Nice one.
>>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>>>Title: "Equal probability and accessibility --> simultaneity"
>>>
>>>Dick Vd head
>>>
>>OK smartarse, how will the date be determined when you are dead?
>
>Precisely the same way that the date was calculated before he was
>alive, and WHILE he was alive.
I knew that question would be far too hard for you Evens.
I'll try to make it easier.
I have here a clock that runs forever. What time will it read when I'm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:03:12 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>So if I toss a coin this morning, and it comes up heads (50% chance)
>>>and I toss it again in the evening, and it comes up tails (50%
>>>chance),
>>>then because the two events had equal probabilites, they must have
>>>been simultaneous, right? So this morning and this evening must occur
>>>at the same time, right? So all of my clocks which show passage of
>>>time between two
>>>tossings of a coin must be wrong.
>>
>>You are refering to a physical event.
>
>No, he was refering to TWO events.
>
>>We are discussing time events.
>
>Ah, events that never occur in physics since they have nothing to do
>with reality.
The content of your messages has nothing to do with reality Evens.
>
>>>Paul Cardinale
>>
>>The head and tail are 'spatially a-simultaneous'. They both exist at any
>>point in time but at different locations.
>
>So, the events occur at ALL times, despite the physically impossible
>nature of non-definde coordinates for events.
Evens, from the point of view of someone who hasn't been born yet, timeflow
doesn't occur and the two events are both in identical existence.
>
(example of Evens childlike mind):
""""""
>>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>See the low-quality animations at:
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
"""""">
David Evens
>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:14:00 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:58:33 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nice one.
>>>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>>>>Title: "Equal probability and accessibility --> simultaneity"
>>>>
>>>>Dick Vd head
>>>>
>>>OK smartarse, how will the date be determined when you are dead?
>>
>>Precisely the same way that the date was calculated before he was
>>alive, and WHILE he was alive.
>
>I knew that question would be far too hard for you Evens.
>
>I'll try to make it easier.
>I have here a clock that runs forever. What time will it read when I'm
>dead?
The answer to this entirely new and unrelated question is that it will
be some time after the time it is when you die. (Unlike you, I
noticed that you didn't actually specify anything so precise as what
the time will be when you die, but merely some time PAST that point,
i.e. somewhere in the future of that event.)
>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>See the amazingly low-grade animations at:
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
David Evens
>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:14:45 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:03:12 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>
>>>>So if I toss a coin this morning, and it comes up heads (50% chance)
>>>>and I toss it again in the evening, and it comes up tails (50%
>>>>chance),
>>>>then because the two events had equal probabilites, they must have
>>>>been simultaneous, right? So this morning and this evening must occur
>>>>at the same time, right? So all of my clocks which show passage of
>>>>time between two
>>>>tossings of a coin must be wrong.
>>>
>>>You are refering to a physical event.
>>
>>No, he was refering to TWO events.
>>
>>>We are discussing time events.
>>
>>Ah, events that never occur in physics since they have nothing to do
>>with reality.
>
>The content of your messages has nothing to do with reality Evens.
Why are you calling yourself 'Evens'?
>>>>Paul Cardinale
>>>
>>>The head and tail are 'spatially a-simultaneous'. They both exist at any
>>>point in time but at different locations.
>>
>>So, the events occur at ALL times, despite the physically impossible
>>nature of non-definde coordinates for events.
>
>Evens, from the point of view of someone who hasn't been born yet, timeflow
>doesn't occur and the two events are both in identical existence.
Ah, you are talking about the assumptin that you are the totality of
the universe again. Only a deranged mind could pretend that such
things could be relevant to physics.
>(examples of Evens corrections):
>""""""
>>>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>>See the low-quality animations at:
>>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>"""""">
>
>
>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 10:58:18 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:14:00 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>>wrote:
>>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:58:33 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice one.
>>>>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>>>>>Title: "Equal probability and accessibility --> simultaneity"
>>>>>
>>>>>Dick Vd head
>>>>>
>>>>OK smartarse, how will the date be determined when you are dead?
>>>
>>>Precisely the same way that the date was calculated before he was
>>>alive, and WHILE he was alive.
>>
>>I knew that question would be far too hard for you Evens.
>>
>>I'll try to make it easier.
>>I have here a clock that runs forever. What time will it read when I'm
>>dead?
>
>The answer to this entirely new and unrelated question is that it will
>be some time after the time it is when you die. (Unlike you, I
>noticed that you didn't actually specify anything so precise as what
>the time will be when you die, but merely some time PAST that point,
>i.e. somewhere in the future of that event.)
>
The point being, evens, that without life there is no timeflow. There is no
reference. All dates are equally likely.
David Evens
And you support this (entirely new and unrelated to previous
assumptions) assumption with...?
>Henry Wilson's thought=free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>See the amazingly low-quality animations at:
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
Brain power Evens, Brain power.
David Evens
So you acknowledge that you have nothing which could possibly support
this entirely new and unrelated assumption of yours.
>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>See the amazingly crude animations at:
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
Well come on Evens, tell me what date it will be when you are long gone
dead.
>
>>Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>See the amazingly crude animations at:
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
David Evens
As I pointed out when you made that error before, all the times when I
am dead will be after the time when I die.