Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

... So that doesn't make time an entity that can "dilate." The latter is reification.Michael

Michael,

Please elaborate how "time dilation" whether by SR or GR is a reification of "time". I may
be dense, I just do make this connection you do.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Right. They misunderstand me. My beef is with "bent space" not with the bent path of light or its constant speed, which is very well established by SR. Light responds to mass/gravity *as if* it had mass. (We know that no mass can achieve lightspeed.) This is demonstrated in the "recoil" which Modest says that laser guns have and in the "box of mirrors" experiments in which captured light gives the box added inertia *as if* the photons bouncing off the walls had mass.

You forget that . So a photon responds as though it "mass" is
really saying "because it has an energy density in its proximity". The photon "is" a packet
of energy quantized into a localized "space". That gives it it's particle like properties.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Anyway... those who say that space curves, has shape, expands, contracts are making "space itself" into an entity with properties.
My ontology for this thread denies that reification.

I guess this gets to the heart of it wrt Ontology:

What is it about Ontology that reifies a concept when that concept ascribes properties ?

If this were truly so, you would then reifying this "empty space of nothing" with the
ascribing of the property of being void of anything.... Seems to me...

Of course you can elaborate a bit more thoroughly.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by NomDePlume

Michael, I think to be fair there are misunderstandings on both sides. I think that, very early on, someone (freezetar or modest maybe?) suggested that the specific feature of your ontology of simultaneous "now" in some way contradicts the speed of light (its buried with all the arguments about photons without time and triangles, etc).

I do not know if this is a true assertion BUT if it can be proven that a simultaneous now DOES contradict a constant speed of light, then we are forced to conclude that no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. Does that make sense? Could one of our resident math/physics types weigh in on this?

NomDePlume,

There was a "Now" the Michael was describing on this thread (earlier) (which he may still
beleive in) where the "now" expanding like an instantaneous wave out to infinity (or edge of
the universe if you prefer) from where you are standing. This notion is very classical
greek (Aristotle, Plato, etc) yet is in marked contrast from modern science. You can
not be aware of this "Now" everywhere at the same time. No signal (at least real)
can travel the distance in time. So this "awareness" would have to be "out of time".
The Gnostic tradition has instantaneous knowledge in this way. Were this to be expressed
in some physical way, then Tachyon particles would have to exist in some way. Though
they have Causality issues, some physicists are considering the possibility (fringe though
it may be).

On the other hand; you can in your mind comptemplate the concept of such a "now".
Even though in the concept [now] of instantaneous awareness, this is not the same
"now" as the present instant - "now".

Except for Michael I think you will have near universal disagreement with this now. As
somewhat of a heretic myself, I am considering in what ways that some form of
Tachyon type particles could coexist and not wreck QM, GR, and Causality.

maddog

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

As a gift to you -- here is an old-fashioned key-wound alarm clock.
I have painted the face black and removed all the hands.
It keeps perfect time.
You may find that you have certain sensory limitions in your ability to 'read' it.

Did you set the alarm, and for what "time"?

Again with the ontology whatsit; you state: "it keeps perfect time". Therefore the following questions come to mind (epistemologically speaking), which are:
1) Where does it keep it?
2) Is perfect time the same as "ordinary" time?
3) Does the device make any noise, on a regular repetitive basis (does it tick)?
4) Can it be modified, so that an observer can also see, say, the innards 'moving around'?

Bearing in mind, that I believe the only form of "perfect time" is that which fundamental particles 'have', when they "go somewhere".
("I'm going outside for a while", said the electron to its nucleus, "I may be some time"... "Well, that's just perfect", said the nucleus)

[Michael Mooney]

I do not know if this is a true assertion BUT if it can be proven that a simultaneous now DOES contradict a constant speed of light, then we are forced to conclude that no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. Does that make sense? Could one of our resident math/physics types weigh in on this?

Yes, it makes sense. If your if were true "then" "no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. "

But if you understand that beyond the local perspectives of relativity, everything is now happening everywhere simu;taneously then " a simultaneous "now" (everywhere) can be correct.

A first cause, would (by definition) have nothing before it. You cannot logically ask "what came before time.

If you understand that "time" is a convention of event-duration-measurement, and that there is no "beginning" or "end" of "time", then you will realize that there is no absolute "beginning of time"... before which nothing existed.... after which *it all* appeared magically out of "the eternal void" or whatever,

We have two choices- either we have an eternal universe or a first cause "something out of nothing." BOTH choices contradict our everyday experience (where nothing is eternal, and yet nothing is uncaused), neither contradict logic. I suggest the entropy argument I made earlier is the resolution as to which we should prefer. Also, you should read Hume on cause and effect.

It is logically consistent to denote matter as "matter stuff" and the lack of matter as "void stuff" which has different properties to matter, but is just as material.

If you realize that time is a fabricated convention... elapsed time for natural events to happen... the duration being up to the one measuring a specifically selected "event", then you will understand that nothing is ever created or destroyed... no magical "beginnings... out of nothing".. . and that, therefore the universe must be eternal... ongoing... perpetually and dynamically changing... with no nonsense "beginning or end."

With respect to the meaning of words, "void stuff" is an oxymoron.
"Void" means "no stuff." Your pseudo-logic requires re-defining the meaning of "void" to assert that there can be no void.

Scholastics actually believed that particles were just condensed space. So planets and the sun where just regions where "void stuff" was denser.

I'm not much interested in what " scholastics usually believe." Modern scientific scholars "believe" that "space and time" (wedded as "spacetime") do (does) all kinds of of shape shifting and time dilating. That don't make space, time, or spacetime "real" in a way that curving, expanding, dilating, etc. implies a real fabric/medium.

This isn't enough for your argument. You have stated explicitly that "space" cannot have properties- for that to be true space must literally be nothing. If space is the quintessence of the scholastics, then it can certainly have properties.

Are you now the supreme arbiter of what is "enough" for the cogency of an argument??

"Empty space" is lack of any"thing" occupying it. You can re-define words to make "void" mean "not really empty", but that is nonsense in service to your illogical assumption... "there is no empty space."

Edit: a friend has informed that pre-Einstein scientists viewed space as filled with a quintessence or aether. This aether was the "sea" through which Maxwell's electricity and magnetism flowed. The logic was that all waves need a sea, so light waves must propagate on the aether sea.

There is no logical reason why electromagnet and gravitational forces require a "medium" (as some"thing" other than empty space) through which to proagate. This is the fundamental fallacy of the materialistic worldview which simply denies the possibility of "action at a distance."
I do have a theory as to how these forces propagate through empty space... but it is not presently respected as "scientific."

Omnipresent consciousness a Presence with no scientific, empirica evidence. It does not qualify as "real" under the rules of observability. So it is not submissable as real evidence.

BTW, "entropy" is applicable to defined local spaces... not to the universe as a whole. Nothing is lost or gained in the big picture. All energy/matter/plasma (weird matter) etc. exists and can be retrieved by the "cosmic gravitational net" if
there turnes out to be enough matter in the universe for "critical cosmic density" to reverse the expansion phase and commence the contraction phase toward the "big crunch" prior to the next cyclical "big bang." )This too would account for "where it all came from... once we get over the linear "beginning of time" childishness.
Michael

[Boof-head]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

But if you understand that beyond the local perspectives of relativity, everything is now happening everywhere simultaneously then " a simultaneous "now" (everywhere) can be correct.

How do you understand "beyond" any local perspective, bearing in mind that locality is "where you are, right now"?

Newton believed that the sun and all the stars were fixed in place, and that a universal time existed "everywhere at once". This view has had to be upgraded (from about 1916), since the stars aren't fixed after all. Universal time might exist universally, but we exist locally so we can't really say much about this absolute time, except there is "a time", or time "does exist, universally".

Unfortunately you are in motion, like everything else. Therefore, given this fundamental motion, that everything has (even at the microscopic level) you are required as every other observer of 'events in time' to gauge, or measure the location of events relative to your own location (which you have one of).

Therefore the only really fundamental here is: "time exists universally, and individually. There is one of each, and they are not the same thing. One is 'background time' the other is 'foreground'; if this were not the case you wouldn't know the difference - you would be stuck in universal time, which has the value 1".

[NomDePlume]

Michael, you make throughout your last post the "I am asserting it, therefore it is correct." logical fallacy. Also, when you read an argument (even your own) its good practice to check that each step follows from the last.

Yes, it makes sense. If your if were true "then" "no ontology with a simultaneous "now" can be correct. "

It was my understanding from earlier in the post that this was the assertion made by others. I am incapable of supporting such an assertion. I am searching through popular books for a simple argument. IF this could be rigorously mathematically proven (simultaneous now is incompatible with constant speed of light) would you revise your ontology?

If you realize that time is a fabricated convention... elapsed time for natural events to happen... the duration being up to the one measuring a specifically selected "event", then you will understand that nothing is ever created or destroyed... no magical "beginnings... out of nothing".. . and that, therefore the universe must be eternal... ongoing... perpetually and dynamically changing... with no nonsense "beginning or end."

Your logic isn't actually sound here, in fact its something of a non-sequitur. Even a concept of "elapsed time" we can order events. It is logically possible to have a first event, followed by a second, followed by a third, etc. You haven't shown that the universe has to be infinite, it could, logically, have a beginning.

In short, removing "time as a fabricated convention" does not prove the universe had no beginning.

Your pseudo-logic requires re-defining the meaning of "void" to assert that there can be no void.

I'm not asserting there can be no void- I'm asserting that THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A VOID. This is very different. You have asserted over and over again that we not assign properties to the void as something obvious. It is not. You are ASSUMING there is empty space, and using it to make an argument.

That there is empty space is a non-trivial assumption, based entirely on what you want to prove. You want to prove space can't bend, so you say "space is nothingness, we can't assign properties to nothingness" so you have assumed that which you want to prove.

Are you now the supreme arbiter of what is "enough" for the cogency of an argument??

No, but I can point out where your logic isn't sound, same as anyone else.

"entropy" is applicable to defined local spaces... not to the universe as a whole. Nothing is lost or gained in the big picture.

This does not appear to be true. See the wikipedia article on entropy, or Hawking's brief history of time book. I'm sure other places discuss it. The entropy of the universe is to be constantly increasing.

[modest]

Originally Posted by NomDePlume

It was my understanding from earlier in the post that this was the assertion made by others. I am incapable of supporting such an assertion. I am searching through popular books for a simple argument.

You are correct. If the speed of light is invariant and the principle of relativity true then simultaneity (by its normal definition) is not absolute but relative. A popular argument concerning trains and light pulses is given in this 1910 letter by D.F. Comstock (it is purposefully light on math):

Comstock, D.F. (1910), “The Principle of Relativity

It was written before the postulate of an invariant speed of light was rigorously tested as it has been today.

Originally Posted by NomDePlume

This does not appear to be true. See the wikipedia article on entropy, or Hawking's brief history of time book. I'm sure other places discuss it. The entropy of the universe is to be constantly increasing.

Yup. Einstein and others proposed cyclic cosmologies much like Michael is describing (big bang / big crunch, big bang / big crunch, etc). It was Richard Tolman who originally showed that entropy would increase from one cosmic cycle to the next leading to the same entropy issues you run into with a non-expanding steady state universe. I thought this was called the "Tolman entropy problem", but a quick google search shows me wrong. Here's a quote from wiki in any case:

In the 1930s, theoretical physicists, most notably Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the Big Bang. However, work by Richard C. Tolman showed that these early attempts failed because of the entropy problem that, in statistical mechanics, entropy only increases because of the Second law of thermodynamics.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

Cyclic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It gives Tolman's book as a source:

Relativity, Thermodynamics, and ... - Google Book Search

And, speaking of Tolman's books—"The theory of the relativity of motion" page 7-10 gives a great discussion of some of the differences between absolute Newtonian space and time and relative spacetime that have been discussed in this thread.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

NomDePlume,
Square one for the ontology of spacetime is the examination of whether it is a fabricated concept or an actual entity. If it bends, expands, has shape and such, then it must be an actual entity.
But the *observable" movement of objects and light through space can be accounted for by gravity as mutual attraction between masses and light by mass without such a medium if one allows that gravity can "act at a distance" without such a "mediating" medium.

I simply maintain that the latter is possible, so that the fabrication of the medium, spacetime is not necessary and is superfluous.

Same with "time" What is it that is said to "dilate?" Simple question with no answer but "event duration" (elapsed time for specified natural/observable phenomena to "happen."

So, tho it is said that "it takes time for things to happen" (obviously true) this does not mean that "time itself" is *something.* Do you see this? Do you agree?

So, then comes the question," What was happening before the universe came into existence?" The question, based on linear thinking, assumes a "time line", a "before and after the universe was... what, "created out of nothingness." I maintain that the latter is absurd, prima facia.
Wiki:

" The literal translation would be " first face", prima first, facie face. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."

I also maintain that "someting out of nothing") (the whole cosmos ex nihilo) is also prima fascia absurd.

Now. (It is now, everywhere!) Entropy: I said that "as a whole", on universal scale, nothing is lost. If there turns out to be enough mass in the *whole cosmos* for the critical mass required, then it will all come back eventually for another in the perpetual "Bang/Crunch" cycle.

Wiki (my bold):

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
....
In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world

Wiki on the entropy objection to the"Cyclic model":

....This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.

I have consistently argued that more simple "dark matter"* is being found all the time with better detectors, so that6 the "missing matter problem" against reversal/implosion may not be a "problem much longer. (*Ordinary matter not emitting or reflecting light.)
And then, as in the quote above... whatever "dark energy" and "dark matter" might be (??) could add to the equation for viable critical cosmic mass.

That'll do for now.
Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Maddog:

Please elaborate how "time dilation" whether by SR or GR is a reification of "time". I may
be dense, I just do make this connection you do.

What is it about Ontology that reifies a concept when that concept ascribes properties ?

Wiki:

Wiki:
Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing
...
Reification in thought occurs when an abstract concept describing a relationship or context is treated as a concrete "thing", or if something is treated as if it were a separate object when this is inappropriate because it is not an object or because it does not truly exist in separation.

As I again challenged Modest (As in, 'you reifiy time and I don't')... "What dilates?" (We *know* clocks slow down under certain conditions! This does not mean that some entity "time" is expanding or contracting as a special little environment around each clocking ticking at different rates.

If this were truly so, you would then reifying this "empty space of nothing" with the
ascribing of the property of being void of anything.... Seems to me.

Whoever posits that space is something reifies "it." Whoever says that it is simply the empty volume *in which actual things exist* does not "treat it as a concrete* thing" and therefore does not reifiy it.
(*Concrete in the sense that "it" has the properties of shape (including curvature), expand/contract abilityy, etc as discussed to death in this thread.)

Michael