What is time?

[Doctordick]

Hi modest, I have found your posts to be quite rational; however, you seem to entirely miss the issues I am trying to put forth.

Originally Posted by modest

I think Einstein's definition leads to problems with your world view.

I firmly hold that this is a simple consequence of the fact that you have no idea as to what I am saying. You are operating under the presumption that I am presenting an alternate way of explaining these issues of significance. This is not at all the basis of my presentation. My comments are merely addressed to the reasons why the adherents to Einstein's theories totally fail to comprehend the view I am presenting.

Reductionism is a conceptual building block of modern science. The philosophical problem with reductionism is the idea of infinite reduction; it is necessary to terminate this reduction at some point and that point is usually referred to as the fundamental ontology which is essentially reality itself. This requires us to “know” reality so we stand around, guessing what this fundamental ontology might be, and measuring our success by building logical structures and comparing them to our experiences. Essentially, this relies on the validity of the very world view we are trying to construct. It is inherently a circular construct.

Originally Posted by modest

His definition has never led to problems of agreement with observation.

That is not the issue I am addressing.

Originally Posted by modest

Time is relative. What's the problem here?

The problem is the very definition of time.

Originally Posted by modest

You want Einstein's definition of time to fail in its purpose which would then support your personal philosophy of anti-realism.

Exactly where did you get the idea that I was suggesting a “philosophy of anti-realism”?

Originally Posted by modest

The only way to attack such a theory is to make a better one that makes better predictions with better theoretical structure. Your sentence above doesn't accomplish that.

I am neither suggesting a theory nor complaining about a current theoretical structure. What I am talking about are the constraints which must be satisfied by any epistemological structure. You make it quite clear that you have not understood my opening arguments., I am sorry; you may be a very intelligent person but you obviously have no idea as to what I am talking about. I am not at all surprised by this as I am working with a perspective on reality which, to my knowledge, no one has ever taken. (Anssi is of course a specific exception, leading me to suspect there are others, whom I have never had contact with, who have at least thought about these issues.)

But that is all beside the point. What is significant is that I have derived a fundamental equation which must be valid for any self consistent epistemological construct. The structure and the implications of this equation should be examined carefully; something which the entire academic community has utterly refused to do.

Originally Posted by modest

By this reasoning length is not a measurable variable. The front and back of a train have spacetime separation and therefore a train has no length. That's not useful.

Perhaps this is true; if you understand the issues, show me the consequences of such a proposition.

Originally Posted by modest

This is not a definition of time.

That appears to be an assertion! Please show me why I can not use that as a definition of time!

Originally Posted by modest

I appreciate that it has meaningful constraints that are related to time. But, taken literally "the future is "what we do not know"" means anything we do not know is in our future.

Are you asserting that there exist things you do not know which are not in your future? It appears that you are asserting that there exists things in the past which you do not know, but that idea presumes that you understand reality. The fact that you assign a time to new knowledge which yields temporal continuity to your world view (i.e., things that occurred in the past) is no defense that these supposed events actually occurred in the past (your awareness certainly occurred in the future).

Originally Posted by modest

Perhaps you meant to say "we can only know things from our past".

Now here you show a slight comprehension of the fact that our mental image of reality is based upon what we know of the past. What you miss is the fact that our explanation of the past is free to assign any time parameter to the events of interest having nothing to do with the order in which we came to learn these things.

Originally Posted by modest

Yet there is something (some concept) that distinguishes two past events that are exactly the same in every way except for 'time' that separates them.

This is a consequence of your interpretation of these events. You are the one who has decided that these two past events are exactly the same. Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong?

Originally Posted by modest

Your definition makes no allowance for that.

Exactly, that is why my deductions are so astounding. It appears that the allowance is simply not a required part of a rational world view.

Originally Posted by modest

It is therefore incomplete at best.

Is it now? Then please explain why Schroedinger's equation can be deduced from such a perspective.

I am afraid that the real issue here is that you simply do not understand what I am talking about.

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

I am a bit puzzled by your reply. I had to go back to my post to see what exactly did I say, in order to try and understand what are you saying.

Originally Posted by modest

I think you're the only one assuming it has any ontological reality. I honestly don't think that would be a normal assumption. The present instant is no more real than a world line.

By that, do you mean to say that I am the only one to presume, that anyone would assume ontological reality to the "present moment"?

Or to the "relativistic present moment"?

In our everyday conception of reality, I think just about everyone do assume reality is in some specific state at "present instant" even before they themself see that state.

Of course if one assumes the relativistic description of "present moment" to be ontologically correct, they are forced to change their assumptions of how world looks like right "now", beyond their natural senses.

Since you say "the present instant is no more real than a world line", I am interested to hear what you think world looks like beyond your sight. Is it a mixture of all the possible states?

Also, from a physics standpoint, people regularly make assertions that hinge completely on the assumption that "relativistic present moment" (inside relativistic spacetime) is ontologically correct. For example that "Rigorous Proof of Determinism..." that I just mentioned (and the whole Andromeda invaders Wikipedia page for that matter). And length contraction and isotropic speed of light. They are not ontologically correct descriptions if simultaneity is not ontologically relative. Different models would communicate the same reality rather differently.

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DD:

My definition of time stands! The past is "what we know" and the future is "what we do not know". The present then becomes the boundry (of our knowledge).

This is the only definition of time that makes any sense if one's worldview says time has no ontological reality. Everyone who thinks otherwise will fight it tooth and nail.
I don't see how both views can be wrong since a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, so, at least one view is correct and since they contradict each other .... only one will be correct.
What would the definition of time be from the other perspective?

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

What would the definition of time be from the other perspective?

I have been told many many times that the definition is merely "time is what clocks measure!" I personally find that a rather sloppy definition of time but no one seems to share my discomfort.

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

That is an unjustifieable leap of faith enjendered by the success of Newtonian mechanics. He introduced the idea that the future could be known if the past were known and Einstein's picture is soundly based upon that erroneous illusion. That is precisely the source of the problems between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

This simply isn't true. If it were true, Newtonian mechanics would also fail to be quantized (as you say, Newton introduced the assumption). However, non-relativistic mechanics (Newton) can be quantized, as can special relativistic mechanics with a few subtleties. These theories have the same suppositions about time.
-Will

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I have been told many many times that the definition is merely "time is what clocks measure!" I personally find that a rather sloppy definition of time but no one seems to share my discomfort.

How then do you define space, other then what rulers measure?
-Will

[swampfox]

My thoughts:

It's an unfolding of a dynamic process between two stable states: Need to view the Universe as one big non-linear dynamo that was set in motion by trajecting the pre-existence through a critical point.

Time does not exist without change. Before the Big Bang, the pre-existence may have been in a stable state: there was no change, there was no time. Something happened which pushed the pre-existence past some critical point: Like a piece of concrete stressed pass it's breaking point, it abruptly trajected towards some final stable state which it has been moving ever since: Like a vase pushed pass the critical point of balance over the edge of a table: The trajectory of the vase from table to floor is akin to the entire history of the pre-existence as it moves between two stable states with the dynamics of motion between these states being perceived by us as time.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

If it were true, Newtonian mechanics would also fail to be quantized (as you say, Newton introduced the assumption).

That is a pretty broad statement. Do you actually think you can prove it or is it merely an opinion?

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

These theories have the same suppositions about time.

No, they certainly do not! Newtonian physics does not consider time to be a coordinate of the geometry. One would think that someone as versed in modern physics as yourself would be well aware of that fact.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

How then do you define space, other then what rulers measure?

Space is a little more subtle (that is why I seldom bring it up). But, since you asked, I will put it forth: my definition of “space” is that “space is a geometric representation of numeric references to the unknown ontological elements upon which one builds one's epistemological constructs (which are, of course, the source of one's expectations).

As I said, I have been told over and over again by the academic authorities that "time is what clocks measure!" My first response to that is, “Ok then, what is a clock?” I think you would be astonished with the number of times that is answered with, “the thing that measures time!” Not only is that an entirely circular definition, but it is absolutely equivalent to, “just get off my back; if you don't know what time is, you can't do physics!” Essentially the response to my comments amounts to, “we all know what we are talking about and if you can't comprehend it you're just stupid”: i.e., let's not think about it.

And the same thing goes for space; if space is what rulers measure, please define a ruler without mentioning space. Physics is just chock full of such circular reasoning. It is what I define to be a "squirrel construct". (I intend no disrespect with that comment; it is no more than a statement of how their ideas were arrived at and I have no better procedure to suggest. I am merely solving the problem of constraining one's expectations when analyzing an extremely large set of undefined variables.)

And, speaking of relativity, I think you would benefit from reading a discourse I had with Hurkyl (who I think is a mathematician interested in relativity) on physicsforums.com (you should be aware that I was “banned forever” from posting on that forum for posting “crackpottery”). The authorities have ways of dealing with people like me.

Sorry, on reviewing that thread, I realized that there is a lot of garbage between my presentation to Hurkyl. In order to follow my presentation to him I think you would find it convenient to skip all posts except the following four:
my opening presentation to Hurkyl post #26
parametric representation of any arbitrary phenomena post #40
attaching a clock to each and every parametric path post #42 197640
continuation of post #42 post #43

Have fun -- Dick

[Overdog]

The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on a constructed reality.[citation needed] Indeed, a basic presupposition of constructivism is that Reality-As-It-Is-In-Itself (Ontological Reality) is utterly incoherent as a concept, since there is no way to verify how one has finally reached a definitive notion of Reality. One must already have Reality in mind--that is, one must already know what Reality consists of--in order to confirm when one has at last "hit bottom." Richard Rorty has said that all claims to Realism can be reduced to intuition (Consequences of Pragmatism, chs. 9, 11). The Realist/Anti-Realist debate can be reduced, in the end, to a conflict of intuitions: "It seems to us that..." vs "Well, it seems to us that..." A realist would not like to construe the argument in this way, and would say that one of these is misled, that one group perceives correctly, and the other perceives incorrectly. Strict constructivists will complain that there is no way to confirm one way or another, since the goal of inquiry (Reality) must be assumed to be understood at the outset. The Realist hope, in a constructivist view, is simply to arbitrarily freeze the infinite circularity that plagues human reasoning which vainly hopes to validate itself with a secure foundation.

Famously, this rather relativist theory is seen by some to contradict itself as a true affirmation: because this view also is "constructed," that is, made and not found, built by human hands rather than discovered in Nature or Reality. Consistent constructivists, however, will reply to this tu quoque (your theory, too!) critique with a rejoinder of their own: bien sur! (of course our theory, too!). It is an obvious and foolish claim for a constructivist to play a realist with regard to his or her own perspective...

Constructivist epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thought this was interesting.

[Overdog]

The reason I posted that is because it seems to me the debate is being waged from points of view which are seperated by an epistimological paradigm shift. Perhaps some insight into the philosophical underpinnings of the two perspectives would be helpful.