| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2006 08:56:20 AM |
| Object: |
Does time exists... |
for a child or a animal who does not have ability to think about time?
We can't recall first 4-5 years of our life. Whether those were just
4-5 years or 4.5 billion years, it becomes irrelevent.
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 11:23:25 AM |
|
|
<Abhi.Jeet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136991380.656495.308860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
for a child or a animal who does not have ability to think about time?
If an animal decides to trail some prey for dinner, it may consider how long
particular moves may take and chose those moves that seem to take less time.
A child from the start can learn to compare the times it takes to perform
even rudimentary acts.
We can't recall first 4-5 years of our life. Whether those were just
4-5 years or 4.5 billion years, it becomes irrelevent.
But this predicament can be applied to most conceptions which might consider
as knowledge or truth, why pick time? Actually this might be a description
of inductive logic in general when dealing with probabilities and not
certainties. But, ga, ga, goooogle;
The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos
by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to
be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons,
trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels
(omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can
see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.
The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern
creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to
originate in far-off stars and galaxies, although many other creationists
reject this explanation (and also believe that Adam and Eve had no navels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
Russell ... made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis
enunciated by Philip Henry Gosse - that any argument suggesting that the
world was created as if it were already in motion could just as easily make
it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:
"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang
into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that
"remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary
connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is
happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that
the world began five minutes ago."
- Bertrand Russell
The Omphalos hypothesis contains a powerful philosophic problem, one that
troubles even those who have applied it in recent times. Since the
hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion, it is
perfectly reasonable to suggest that world was created mere minutes ago. Any
memories you have of times before this were created in situ, in exactly the
same fashion that the fossils were. This idea is sometimes called "Last
Thursdayism" by its opponents, as in "the world might as well have been
created last Thursday."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
This view is not popular for various reasons:
1. It is unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any currently available
scientific method;
2. It can be interpreted as God having 'created a fake', which does not sit
well with most benevolent theistic theologies;
3. This philosophical approach, extended to other areas, has serious
negative implications for science as a whole.
This conception has therefore drawn harsh rebuke from some theologians.
Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, for example, preached that Bertrand
Russell's projection of Gosse's concept to such a recent creation (discussed
below), "like much of what Russell wrote and said, is nonsense. 'Human
beings', posited in being five minutes ago with built-in 'memory' traces,
would not be human beings. The suggestion is logically incoherent."[3] The
basis for Hebblethwaite's objection, however, is the presumption of a God
that would not deceive us about our very humanity - an unprovable
presumption that the omphalos hypothesis rejects at the outset.
Many Jewish answers to the age of the Universe delve slightly into the
Omphalos hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 09:42:56 PM |
|
|
Time ceases to exist when you are not conscience.
That's it in a nutshell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 02:07:57 PM |
|
|
<snerkable@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137037376.272136.84110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Time ceases to exist when you are not conscience.
That's it in a nutshell
Sufficient but not necessary to explain the possibility of time. If our
conception of time depends upon the activities of nerve cells and the
conception stops then this is only sufficient for saying that those nerve
cells are not active during those moments. But not sufficient to say that
the nerve cells disappear when they are not actively producing time
awarenes. But if events continue when some people die then time is probably
just the activities of matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 11:13:03 PM |
|
|
Object exist and meet the requirements of physics. Where precisely is
time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
13 Jan 2006 02:07:18 PM |
|
|
"a_friend" <a_f_r_i_e_n_d@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137129183.190791.320290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Object exist and meet the requirements of physics. Where precisely is
time?
If an object is an interaction of relationships then time is the ability for
the activities to interact?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 11:01:53 PM |
|
|
I have read a book called the end of time written by a quantium
physisist and he argued that time didn't exiest. It was a very
difficult book to understand but simply put in the most objective sence
time is change. If there is no movment or if nothing changes time
dosn't happen. I will say that time exiests because we sence it and
observe it. Nothing is relevent if we are not there to observe it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 11:07:56 PM |
|
|
"enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137042113.479701.41040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have read a book called the end of time written by a quantium
physisist and he argued that time didn't exiest. It was a very
difficult book to understand but simply put in the most objective sence
time is change. If there is no movment or if nothing changes time
dosn't happen. I will say that time exiests because we sence it and
observe it. Nothing is relevent if we are not there to observe it.
Reality is our construction of a reality. The construction is a reflection
of the reality that created us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abhi" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 10:22:49 AM |
|
|
dosn't happen. I will say that time exiests because we sence it and
observe it. Nothing is relevent if we are not there to observe it.
In short, truth does not exist if there is no one to sense it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 12:59:46 PM |
|
|
dosn't happen. I will say that time exiests because we sence it and
observe it. Nothing is relevent if we are not there to observe it.
In short, truth does not exist if there is no one to sense it.
There is truth but is in not revelent with no observer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ceir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 10:44:44 AM |
|
|
Let's take the point. If you're right, then what practicle value has
that knowledge? In deed, if the universe is the experiment of an evil
genious, like the Matrix, again, what practicle value is that
knowledge? Philosophy is great, I love it, but if the conclusions we
arrive at aren't useful, then they have nothing but artistic value,
enjoyed for their own sake.
Know what I mean?!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ceir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 07:54:18 AM |
|
|
If 'change' can be perceived, (and I'm implying that it does) then
'time' must exist for a 'beginning' and 'end' of any event.
Time exists. Just because we devised a way of measuring it, doesn't
change its fundemental nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 08:55:35 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2006 05:54:18 -0800, "ceir" <ceiriog@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
If 'change' can be perceived, (and I'm implying that it does) then
'time' must exist for a 'beginning' and 'end' of any event.
Time exists. Just because we devised a way of measuring it, doesn't
change its fundemental nature.
The arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy.
--
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to
originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 09:35:43 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006 05:54:18 -0800, "ceir" <ceiriog@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
If 'change' can be perceived, (and I'm implying that it does) then
'time' must exist for a 'beginning' and 'end' of any event.
Time exists. Just because we devised a way of measuring it, doesn't
change its fundemental nature.
The arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy.
I have a row of cups with increasingly warmer water lined up on the
table. Are you saying that the warmest cup exists in the future? How
can I see it, then?
-tg
--
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to
originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 11:02:26 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2006 07:35:43 -0800, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:
The arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy.
I have a row of cups with increasingly warmer water lined up on the
table. Are you saying that the warmest cup exists in the future? How
can I see it, then?
Read Hawkings.
--
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to
originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sam ende" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 11:37:11 AM |
|
|
tg wrote:
I have a row of cups with increasingly warmer water lined up on the
table. Are you saying that the warmest cup exists in the future? How
can I see it, then?
visibly you can see by the steam rising from the cups, physically you
can measure it by holding your hands around a cup and noticing it cool,
that's entropy.
sammi
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 08:33:29 AM |
|
|
ceir wrote:
If 'change' can be perceived, (and I'm implying that it does) then
'time' must exist for a 'beginning' and 'end' of any event.
Time exists. Just because we devised a way of measuring it, doesn't
change its fundemental nature.
What do you mean by 'event'? Is the beginning or end of an event an
event?
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ceir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
12 Jan 2006 09:51:41 AM |
|
|
event = a change in states.
Water drips from a leaf. One 'moment' the drop is on the leaf, next
'moment', its splashing on the ground. The state of the drop has
changed = an event has occurred.
For the drop to move in space, inch by inch, it must also do it through
time, moment by moment.
Yes, the beginning would be an event, infinitesimally divisible I
suppose.
Imagine if time stopped. Nothing could change. Light would even stop
travelling. Imagine the inertia! You'd probably never get it going
again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
13 Jan 2006 09:25:41 AM |
|
|
ceir wrote:
event = a change in states.
Water drips from a leaf. One 'moment' the drop is on the leaf, next
'moment', its splashing on the ground. The state of the drop has
changed = an event has occurred.
For the drop to move in space, inch by inch, it must also do it through
time, moment by moment.
Yes, the beginning would be an event, infinitesimally divisible I
suppose.
Imagine if time stopped. Nothing could change. Light would even stop
travelling. Imagine the inertia! You'd probably never get it going
again.
In thinking about time, it is very important (and difficult) to avoid
begging the question.
To say that there is a change of state, you assign an identity to
something, and then you try to establish a causal chain to maintain
that identity. In the case of the drop of water, you might label each
water molecule somehow and say "molecules 1 to N are the drop, so the
drop has changed state."
But I might say "the drop of water is molecules 1 to N located at
positions (XYZ-sub n) relative to the leaf". How does time work in this
case? My drop may either be manifest or not, but it certainly can't
fall to the ground.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
13 Jan 2006 02:53:14 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2006 07:25:41 -0800, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:
To say that there is a change of state, you assign an identity to
something, and then you try to establish a causal chain to maintain
that identity. In the case of the drop of water, you might label each
water molecule somehow and say "molecules 1 to N are the drop, so the
drop has changed state."
But I might say "the drop of water is molecules 1 to N located at
positions (XYZ-sub n) relative to the leaf". How does time work in this
case? My drop may either be manifest or not, but it certainly can't
fall to the ground.
Time is uniform because energy is conserved. That tells you that there
is some kind of action taking place - an energy - that creates time.
Mass is created because of a broken symmetry. Energy is conserved
because mass is conserved, realizing that mass and energy are
equivalent. Time is created in a uniform manner by breaking this
symmetry.
If this symmetry were not broken there would be no mass, no energy and
no time. There would only be pure existence, timeless, eternal,
immutable.
--
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act:
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to
originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ceir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
18 Jan 2006 06:14:06 AM |
|
|
ok, the present state of the object/condition has an identity, till it
changes, then you can give it another, or not, it doesn't matter.
the point is, that to alter its state, a tick on the universal clock
must occur. one state was 'then', a new state is 'now'.
sorry to hear your drop can't fall to the ground. plenty do, so I'll
use them as the examples
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
18 Jan 2006 08:28:47 AM |
|
|
ceir wrote:
ok, the present state of the object/condition has an identity, till it
changes, then you can give it another, or not, it doesn't matter.
the point is, that to alter its state, a tick on the universal clock
must occur. one state was 'then', a new state is 'now'.
sorry to hear your drop can't fall to the ground. plenty do, so I'll
use them as the examples
Thanks for your concern. ;-)
I'm not sure if you understand the term 'begging the question'. You are
assuming to be true the thing you are trying to prove. When you say
"one state was" and "new state", you are using language which relies on
the existence of time in the first place.
The identity of the entity matters because there can be a drop of water
on the ground and one on the leaf, and whether they are the same drop
or not is what determines whether "time has passed' or not. (Note: we
are ignoring quantum mechanics here)
What exists in your brain when you make such observations is simply a
matrix of images or data storage system with certain markers or
coordinates. That could be a reflection of 'reality', where there are
no identical objects, that is, there is the drop on the leaf and the
drop on the ground. The time coordinate is simply one more
characteristic that we associate with an object, like its size or
color.
Consider how we measure time----we rely on measuring some kind of
displacement, so time is in the form of a 'length'.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ceir" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
19 Jan 2006 02:45:05 AM |
|
|
So all possible states exist, drop on leaf, drop on ground, etc... all
stationary, but we perceive a passage of them? Like a film? Lots of
static images, but seen as moving. So are we just assuming change
occurs, and call it time?
Surely 'begging the question' implies that we know nothing of the
answer? I can imagine a conversation about aliens, and what they did on
a certain day, begging the question of whether they actually exist. We
see time occuring all the 'time' though. Why can't we use direct
evidence as a proof?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
19 Jan 2006 05:17:39 AM |
|
|
ceir wrote:
So all possible states exist, drop on leaf, drop on ground, etc... all
stationary, but we perceive a passage of them? Like a film? Lots of
static images, but seen as moving. So are we just assuming change
occurs, and call it time?
Well, take the film, cut out and print the frames, and pin them
randomly on the wall. To re-arrange them in order, you must have some
other information. Do you have it in all cases?
Surely 'begging the question' implies that we know nothing of the
answer? I can imagine a conversation about aliens, and what they did on
a certain day, begging the question of whether they actually exist.
Google the term "begging the question". You will see that the usage in
logic is not the same as the recent common usage.
We
see time occuring all the 'time' though.
See what I mean?
Why can't we use direct
evidence as a proof?
I am not saying that time exists or not, I'm just pointing out that it
is not a simple question. Again, consider how we measure it. Consider
how it works in our brain. It is the most difficult concept there is, I
think.
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 09:18:24 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 06:56:20 -0800, wrote:
for a child or a animal who does not have ability to think about time?
We can't recall first 4-5 years of our life. Whether those were just
4-5 years or 4.5 billion years, it becomes irrelevent.
IMO yes. Everyday brings new growth changes that force modification
of skills learned yesterday. Brain processes need not be able
to model concepts to still require adaptations.
As a modeling skill or concept, probably not, developmental
processes make very deterministic demands as time passes.
These processes have their own built in clocks, or clock references.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." - Mark Twain
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 10:18:19 AM |
|
|
IMO yes. Everyday brings new growth changes that force modification
of skills learned yesterday. Brain processes need not be able
to model concepts to still require adaptations.
As a modeling skill or concept, probably not, developmental
processes make very deterministic demands as time passes.
These processes have their own built in clocks, or clock references.
I must admit this question is like, 'does falling tree in jungle makes
sound if there is no one to hear it?'
No.
Suppose there is only one clock in universe and nothing else, does time
exist for this clock?
Consciousness must exist to describe a event. Otherwise event does not
exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 12:33:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
IMO yes. Everyday brings new growth changes that force modification
of skills learned yesterday. Brain processes need not be able
to model concepts to still require adaptations.
As a modeling skill or concept, probably not, developmental
processes make very deterministic demands as time passes.
These processes have their own built in clocks, or clock references.
I must admit this question is like, 'does falling tree in jungle makes
sound if there is no one to hear it?'
No.
Suppose there is only one clock in universe and nothing else, does time
exist for this clock?
If you are alone in a sensory-deprivation room, you may well count your
heartbeats. For this to work as a clock, you must have some kind of
memory of numbers other than the current one. If there is just one
'register', observing the number in the register tells you nothing.
This is not the same as the tree in the jungle.
-tg
Consciousness must exist to describe a event. Otherwise event does not
exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 10:05:54 AM |
|
|
Sir Frederick wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 06:56:20 -0800, wrote:
for a child or a animal who does not have ability to think about time?
We can't recall first 4-5 years of our life. Whether those were just
4-5 years or 4.5 billion years, it becomes irrelevent.
IMO yes. Everyday brings new growth changes that force modification
of skills learned yesterday. Brain processes need not be able
to model concepts to still require adaptations.
As a modeling skill or concept, probably not, developmental
processes make very deterministic demands as time passes.
These processes have their own built in clocks,
Well there's the problem, eh. In the philosophy game, we call such a
statement 'begging the question', and it is a very common fallacy.
What does a 'built in clock' look like? Does it tick or does it tock?
What counts your heartbeats other than your culturally constructed
confabulations?
-tg
or clock references.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." - Mark Twain
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 01:30:43 PM |
|
|
A built in clock is a story. Right, Fred?
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 02:06:10 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 11:30:43 -0800, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com> wrote:
A built in clock is a story. Right, Fred?
W : )
In my usage a story is ANY transmission of ANY defined information
from ANY defined context to ANY defined context.
Classical information theory does not deal with
contextual meaning. (A key and lock thus becomes a story.)
If you have a better word, let us know. "Packet" won't do.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." - Mark Twain
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Does time exists... |
11 Jan 2006 10:46:25 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 08:05:54 -0800, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sir Frederick wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 06:56:20 -0800, wrote:
for a child or a animal who does not have ability to think about time?
We can't recall first 4-5 years of our life. Whether those were just
4-5 years or 4.5 billion years, it becomes irrelevent.
IMO yes. Everyday brings new growth changes that force modification
of skills learned yesterday. Brain processes need not be able
to model concepts to still require adaptations.
As a modeling skill or concept, probably not, developmental
processes make very deterministic demands as time passes.
These processes have their own built in clocks,
Well there's the problem, eh. In the philosophy game, we call such a
statement 'begging the question', and it is a very common fallacy.
What does a 'built in clock' look like? Does it tick or does it tock?
What counts your heartbeats other than your culturally constructed
confabulations?
-tg
or clock references.
There are books on the subject of metabolic clocks,
read one. (Do an Amazon search on "biological clocks",
also "biological development timing".)
The present interest in telemeres is because they effectively
count cell divisions(clocking function), then you get old and die.
A fuse on a firecracker is a clock.
Perhaps you are missing a few clocks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
