Conundrum: Infinite past & Clock

[Speakpigeon]

My question was as to why the clock should show any particular reading at all, and if so, then which one.

When you read the time on an ordinary clock, the reading is a direct result of what the reading was the last time you looked at it, and ultimately at what time you set the clock when you started it initially (and, obviously, on it's imprecision and drift, which I will ignore here). There's no mystery and our expectations are usually met.

With a clock that's supposed to have always been going on throughout an infinite past, there's no starting point, and it was never set to being with. And even if there was, without a finite time span between setting and reading, there's no good reason that the clock should read one particular value rather than any other.

And yet we do expect that it would. It's not a question the we don't know in a thought experiment what time it would display. It's that there's not one good reason that it should display any one particular reading rather than any other, and this even though we expect that it has to display one.

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

A clock is going to cycle through all possible time displays every twelve hours (or twenty four hours, depending on its design).

We cannot know until we look what time it displays; But knowing that it is a clock, we can limit the possibilities to those times a clock CAN display. So it is analogous to a well shuffled deck of cards - draw out one card, and you cannot say which of the 52 possibilities it is, without looking at it first. But you still know that it will be one of those 52 possibilities, and that it has an equal chance of being any of them. You are able to say with complete certainty that it's not the fifteen of clubs, or the three of widgets.

Your hypothetical clock will display a random time, that is somewhere within the range of times it is able to display. There is no way to predict in advance what time that will be, because there is no defined starting point or earlier time point where the time displayed was known. Once you look at the clock, you can say with certainty what it displayed at any given finite distance into the past; and what it will display at any given finite distance into the future. But you still won't know what time it started with, because the question is nonsensical - it never started. You may as well ask what day in the past I was last in Paris - a city I have yet to visit. The question is meaningless, given the known prior information that I haven't been there yet.

I can only infer that you, like other people here, didn't get the question at all.

You appear to take it as an epistemological problem, i.e. what is it an observer would be able to tell depending on the specific set-up. Or, whether he would be able to tell anything at all. Alright, you answered that one proficiently, but I wasn't interested because I already knew the answer.

My question isn't an epistemological one. It's an ontological question, if a metaphysical one: Assuming an infinite past and a clock that has always been running, we all expect that it should give a definite reading. If you disagree with that here, please explain.

So, assuming the clock gives a definite reading, why should it be any particular reading rather than any of all the other possible readings for this clock?



Still, maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe you think it's perfectly acceptable to say that the clock would give a particular reading without any reason or cause for that.

Pure hazard? Purely arbitrary?

Whoa.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is wrong with it? It isnt a a clock. A clock assigns a (periodically) monotonously increasing function to ticks. Your ”clock” of pebbles is always ”1”.

That's definitely an interesting perspective. Still, I'd like to wait for other views to be properly expressed before I reply to you. And, I guess, it will have to wait till the other question is properly sorted out. I hope you can stand the waiting.

Just to keep you busy away from boredom, your answer shows you don't understand how my "clock" works so, it's just a suggestion, but you could try to look at it again while the other question is dealt with.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's a contradiction in our different expectations. Something has to give, I think.
EB

But there is no contradiction. If a cyclic process (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) is 3 at a specific timepoint then it was 2 before and will be 4 after. The further back in time you go ut will spell out 4,3,2,1,4,3,2,1... etc. forever.

I dont see any contradiction here.

That's There's a contradiction in between our different expectations.

Not between what the clock says at different points in time.

Of course not, it's a perfectly good clock
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you want to take part in this conversation you will need to explain yourself in the ordinary lingo used by most reasonably well-educated people. Can you do that? If so, you're welcome to explain yourself.
EB

Good luck with that one.

The only thing she has going for her is she knows a few terms of jargon.

She has no ability to think about that jargon.

It is just a smoke screen that is supposed to dazzle. Nothing rational besides the jargon will emerge from her.

I'm more optimistic than you seem to be. I always expect people to surprise me in a good way.

I'm straightforwardly atheist. I'm even sceptical about what the world itself really is, and God can only, and always, come second. So, He has zero chance with me.

Still, I must be influenced by our worldwide Christian culture, even here in France and its profoundly secular tradition. I always expect people can be redeemed.

Even untermensche.

So, just watch. I'm sure UM can come round. He shows good sense on occasions.

I believe in opportunity. I only need to be patient, and being retired, I can afford to be patient.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What exactly will I be coming round to?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The infinite time I mentioned was more of a volume (lots of time lines) than a span. Sorry.
<snip>
Anyway. Drop GR from what I said, and just focus on "a volume has an infinite amount of parallel line segments within itself".

Alright, I guess I broadly understand what you're talking about.

Now, given the particular OP we should try to focus on, I still think my question makes sense, even in the context of relativistic infinite time volumes. Just assume a clock. Any kind of clock you favour, as long as what it reads is a linear function of time.

You seem to accept that a clock will display a particular reading (if not, please explain why). I take it, and accept, that the reading of any clock depends on the particular space-time path taken by the clock. This, I believe, doesn't affect the ontology of this clock. That is, assuming it hasn't been somehow destroyed along the way, the clock is something definite. It can only show a particular reading.

I hope that it remains meaningful in the context GR to say that the clock has always existed throughout the infinity of the past. I take it that "the past" will be a particular past, a function of the space-time path taken or followed by the clock. But it will nonetheless still be a past as we think of it, i.e. the clock will have been affected by the time aspect of the space-time path followed exactly in the same way that we would expect with our ordinary notion of time and past.

So, assuming a clock that would have always existed and be ticking away throughout such an infinite past, the question of what particular reading it will give when you look makes sense.

So, again, I assume you accept that the clock will give one particular reading. But why should it give one particular reading rather than any of the other possible readings given that there was no definite time when the clock would have been set, as is always the case for ordinary clocks? That's the contradiction I see in this situation. If you disagree, please explain.

If there's indeed a contradiction, something has to give. But what?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What exactly will I be coming round to?

Exactly what I couldn't possibly know and I'm no oracle. I just hope something better than the character that has been on display so far.
EB

 

[Juma]

The infinite time I mentioned was more of a volume (lots of time lines) than a span. Sorry.
<snip>
Anyway. Drop GR from what I said, and just focus on "a volume has an infinite amount of parallel line segments within itself".

Alright, I guess I broadly understand what you're talking about.

Now, given the particular OP we should try to focus on, I still think my question makes sense, even in the context of relativistic infinite time volumes. Just assume a clock. Any kind of clock you favour, as long as what it reads is a linear function of time.

You seem to accept that a clock will display a particular reading (if not, please explain why). I take it, and accept, that the reading of any clock depends on the particular space-time path taken by the clock. This, I believe, doesn't affect the ontology of this clock. That is, assuming it hasn't been somehow destroyed along the way, the clock is something definite. It can only show a particular reading.

I hope that it remains meaningful in the context GR to say that the clock has always existed throughout the infinity of the past. I take it that "the past" will be a particular past, a function of the space-time path taken or followed by the clock. But it will nonetheless still be a past as we think of it, i.e. the clock will have been affected by the time aspect of the space-time path followed exactly in the same way that we would expect with our ordinary notion of time and past.

So, assuming a clock that would have always existed and be ticking away throughout such an infinite past, the question of what particular reading it will give when you look makes sense.

So, again, I assume you accept that the clock will give one particular reading. But why should it give one particular reading rather than any of the other possible readings given that there was no definite time when the clock would have been set, as is always the case for ordinary clocks? That's the contradiction I see in this situation. If you disagree, please explain.

If there's indeed a contradiction, something has to give. But what?
EB

Ehat do you mean with ”was no definite time when the clock was set”. It doesnt make sense. Ir the clock is set then it was set at a specific time. There is no other option.

 

[Kharakov]

Alright, I guess I broadly understand what you're talking about.

Ok, I was just disagreeing with the statement that a finite time span implies a finite amount of time, but it doesn't have a lot to do with your point:

So, assuming a clock that would have always existed and be ticking away throughout such an infinite past...
If there's indeed a contradiction, something has to give. But what?
EB

A clock is defined by relative change, so what was the clock ticking relative to? Was there a 1 through 12 written on the clock? A well defined orientation of the clock (it had a top, a direction of spin, which was relative to something else). Did the clock have distinguishing features? Did some consciousness focus upon it?


What clock existed before meaningful symbols,language, etc.? What clock existed before stable, relative change, or before consciousness evolved to the point that it could emerge from quaos and know what it was to be a clock, to have relative rates of change?


When did something get so synchronized that it could be used as a standard clock, from which point we could say "this is time=0, before this, no consciousness could measure relative change, there was only change"?

 

[untermensche]

What exactly will I be coming round to?

Exactly what I couldn't possibly know and I'm no oracle. I just hope something better than the character that has been on display so far.
EB

My question was asking what do you think you can teach me.

My character is what it takes to think like me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ehat do you mean with ”was no definite time when the clock was set”. It doesnt make sense. Ir the clock is set then it was set at a specific time. There is no other option.

The clock is assumed to have existed at any time throughout the infinite past. There's no beginning of time, so there's no definite time when the clock was set. It was always running.

Perhaps in the new conception of mathematicians, whereas the infinite would be taken as an actual infinite rather than just the limit of an unbounded series, you could say that the clock was set at this actual infinite time. But that wouldn't help because we would still not have a definite time span between the setting of the clock and the reading of the clock to impose a definite value on the reading.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Alright, I guess I broadly understand what you're talking about.

Ok, I was just disagreeing with the statement that a finite time span implies a finite amount of time, but it doesn't have a lot to do with your point:

So, assuming a clock that would have always existed and be ticking away throughout such an infinite past...
If there's indeed a contradiction, something has to give. But what?
EB

A clock is defined by relative change, so what was the clock ticking relative to? Was there a 1 through 12 written on the clock? A well defined orientation of the clock (it had a top, a direction of spin, which was relative to something else). Did the clock have distinguishing features? Did some consciousness focus upon it?


What clock existed before meaningful symbols,language, etc.? What clock existed before stable, relative change, or before consciousness evolved to the point that it could emerge from quaos and know what it was to be a clock, to have relative rates of change?


When did something get so synchronized that it could be used as a standard clock, from which point we could say "this is time=0, before this, no consciousness could measure relative change, there was only change"?

As I said, you can choose whatever clock you think is best or more relevant to this problem.

Consciousness is irrelevant here. Again, it's not an epistemological question, such as "can we know what the clock would say?".

It's a metaphysically ontological question.

Given some clock (you get to decide what kind of clock it is), that would have existed throughout the past assumed as infinite, what should it read at any given point in time. If it's running, it exists, it's in a particular state at every point in time, and it should therefore show a particular reading. However, since it was never set, or since there has been an infinity of time between setting and reading, there's no reason or cause for the clock to be in any particular state rather than any of the other states it could possibly be. And that will be true at any definite point in time (except the infinite itself if there's such a thing).
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What exactly will I be coming round to?

Exactly what I couldn't possibly know and I'm no oracle. I just hope something better than the character that has been on display so far.
EB

My question was asking what do you think you can teach me.

Well, it wasn't.

I definitely could teach you better English. That's something.

Good English certainly would help with your arguing.

What else I wouldn't know. Logic? Rationality? Reasonableness? Humour?

But then again, I never suggested I was trying to teach you.

My character is what it takes to think like me.

Too bad, if it's true, which I doubt.
EB

 

[untermensche]

My question was asking what do you think you can teach me.

Well, it wasn't.

I definitely could teach you better English. That's something.

Good English certainly would help with your arguing.

Point out the most salient example of this.

My English is perfect.

 

[Kharakov]

A clock is defined by relative change, so what was the clock ticking relative to? Was there a 1 through 12 written on the clock? A well defined orientation of the clock (it had a top, a direction of spin, which was relative to something else). Did the clock have distinguishing features? Did some consciousness focus upon it? What clock existed before meaningful symbols,language, etc.? What clock existed before stable, relative change, or before consciousness evolved to the point that it could emerge from quaos and know what it was to be a clock, to have relative rates of change?

When did something get so synchronized that it could be used as a standard clock, from which point we could say "this is time=0, before this, no consciousness could measure relative change, there was only change"?

Given some clock (you get to decide what kind of clock it is), that would have existed throughout the past assumed as infinite, what should it read at any given point in time.

Assuming the "flip coin clocks" below can detect their position on the "eternal wave clock", they'd probably seek out a peak or a trough to call a zero point. Why you found yourself at one point or another on the universal wave clock would depend on various factors. The universal wave clock doesn't move.. if you move to another location on it, it might or might not effect your measurement of your fellow mice.

 

[Kharakov]

My question was asking what do you think you can teach me.

Well, it wasn't.

I definitely could teach you better English. That's something.

Good English certainly would help with your arguing.

Point out the most salient example of this.

My English is perfect.

Like your understanding of circular reasoning and the number of tangent lines of a smooth curve.

 

[untermensche]

Point out the most salient example of this.

My English is perfect.

Like your understanding of circular reasoning and the number of tangent lines of a smooth curve.

The number of lines that exist in the real world is zero.

 

[Kharakov]

So you don't know what a line is?

I agree that you don't understand what is meant by a line....

 

[untermensche]

So you don't know what a line is?

I agree that you don't understand what is meant by a line....

I know how a line is defined mathematically.

That is the tangent line you speak of.

Total fantasy.

You know, perfectly straight and infinitely divisible.

 

[Kharakov]

So you don't know what a line is?

I agree that you don't understand what is meant by a line....

I know how a line is defined mathematically.

That is the tangent line you speak of.

Total fantasy.

You know, perfectly straight and infinitely divisible.

Lines that are perpendicular to tangents are straight, unless they go in a tangent, then they're gay.

However, I was talking about the amount of tangent lines on a curve in nature. So, a tangent line would have a line orthogonal to it, where it meets the curve. As long as we define the direction of the line as being away from the curve under the tangent line, we can say the orthogonal line points away from the curve.