Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

This thread to me is mostly about this concept of an infinite amount of things that are real.

Can we travel at the speed of light?

Can we provide infinite energy to do it?

Maybe that is one of the problems. The discussion is about how the universe actually works.

 

[untermensche]

This thread to me is mostly about this concept of an infinite amount of things that are real.

Can we travel at the speed of light?

Can we provide infinite energy to do it?

Maybe that is one of the problems. The discussion is about how the universe actually works.

Is the universe not real?

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe that is one of the problems. The discussion is about how the universe actually works.

Is the universe not real?

Undoubtedly. And relativity allows us to understand that reality.

 

[untermensche]

Is the universe not real?

Undoubtedly. And relativity is a description of that reality.

Relativity tells us absolutely NOTHING about whether or not it is possible for an infinite amount of real things to exist.

It tells us that light has one speed to all observers and that speed is not infinite.

 

[skepticalbip]

Undoubtedly. And relativity is a description of that reality.

Relativity tells us absolutely NOTHING about whether or not it is possible for an infinite amount of real things to exist.

It tells us that light has one speed to all observers and that speed is not infinite.

There was no claim that it did tell us about infinite things. Relativity tells a hell of a lot more than that light is constant for any frame - that was an observation, verified many times, that lead to relativity which predicted much, much more that has also been verified many times.

 

[Kharakov]

Why doesn't a rotating individual see a distant star as having infinite length contraction?

why should she?

I read about it a bit today- the  Ehrenfest paradox was one of the problems Einstein attempted to solve with GR. Pressed for time, so I'll leave you with the wiki link.

Skepticalbip brought up that rotations have intrinsic acceleration (in the direction of the point one is rotating around) too. So...

 

[untermensche]

Relativity tells us absolutely NOTHING about whether or not it is possible for an infinite amount of real things to exist.

It tells us that light has one speed to all observers and that speed is not infinite.

There was no claim that it did tell us about infinite things. Relativity tells a hell of a lot more than that light is constant for any frame - that was an observation, verified many times, that lead to relativity which predicted much, much more that has also been verified many times.

Exactly. Why relativity has nothing to do with this discussion. It is about INFINITE regress after all.

 

[skepticalbip]

There was no claim that it did tell us about infinite things. Relativity tells a hell of a lot more than that light is constant for any frame - that was an observation, verified many times, that lead to relativity which predicted much, much more that has also been verified many times.

Exactly. Why relativity has nothing to do with this discussion. It is about INFINITE regress after all.

Interesting. You are the one that keeps sidetracking onto different topics (just to keep an argument going) when you find that you can't defend whatever you are arguing at the time. In fact you are the one that diverted the discussion to relativity.

 

[another1]

Egomaniac and psychotic opportunist who had a small gang based on a sexual drug culture of abused youth to brainwash, Charles Manson, said that everyday is a new experience in reality. A scary black VHS tape showed a large part of that particular pontification that was left out of the media. He was attempting to say that literally every day you wake to a new reality, and that your memories are false, or from someone or somewhere else. It has been decades since I lost the tape but I do remember what most drug cult leaders say because I believe humanity psychologically developed in a drug culture when the starving were forced to eat various unknown things to survive. I remember his point about time. Of course it is a popular phrase he coined that "now is all there is", or "all is one, one is none, none is one". Those are pee droppings but from meeting a lot of mansonites in the 90's, those circular and nonsensical sayings seemed to resonate with them with an eerie vibe. It could be possible that so many people identified with some of those wordings because of instinct. As if they knew that what he was saying was somewhat true, but would rather buy the t-shirt instead of look further into the fundamentals. If the point that they all subconsciously knew was true, were true, there would be no way to put it into decipherable language. That, I believe is a defense mechanism in the nature to sustain it's own illusion. Reboot - sleep - reboot.

Now my point is, and I will use my own philosophy that the past never happened at all and the future has happened before... every day should be used to do as much good for others, sacrifice all we can and even die to make a righteous point or do a heroic thing. The pieces of memory that our little electric engines process in the skull are hierarchal and I believe that the tier we stand on in that sense is closest to the Kingdom of Heaven. To be Christlike could mean the difference between rebooting or reformatting.

The closest thing that even comes near what I believe I'm limited in explaining to anyone else due to intentional limitations in human communication would be the movie Dark City, but not as horrifying.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly. Why relativity has nothing to do with this discussion. It is about INFINITE regress after all.

Interesting. You are the one that keeps sidetracking onto different topics (just to keep an argument going) when you find that you can't defend whatever you are arguing at the time. In fact you are the one that diverted the discussion to relativity.

One person cannot keep a discussion or an argument going.

The sidetrack to relativity occurred because I made the claim that there is only one "now". I don't know if the sidetrack answered that question but I assure you it wasn't my idea.

Imagine the universe frozen. This would represent a moment in time, a "now". A specific arrangement of matter and energy and whatever else makes up a universe.

Is this frozen universe one thing? Or is it infinite things?

If it is one thing there is one now.

 

[ryan]

Imagine you are floating in space. You look towards the Earth's surface with a telescope and see a millisecond clock ticking slower than your millisecond clock. An observer that can see your clock from Earth will see your clock running faster.

Objectively speaking, which clock has the correct time? Of course there is no answer.

The perception of time for both is subjective.

The objective time is what they are both perceiving through their "lenses".

A reflection in a twisted mirror that creates a different distortion depending where you stand to look at it.

Each observer has a different picture but what is creating the picture is one thing.

I was tired, and I must have forgotten what my point was. So disregard my "Okay, I see" response.

When the clocks come back together, they will show different times. This is evidence that time dilation goes beyond just perception and subjectivity. Most importantly, it shows that one event, the mechanical process of the clock in space, happened before the identical process of the clock on Earth.

A better example is when two identical clocks start at the same time. Then if one clock enters a stronger gravitational field, it will objectively run slower than the other clock.

 

[untermensche]

The perception of time for both is subjective.

The objective time is what they are both perceiving through their "lenses".

A reflection in a twisted mirror that creates a different distortion depending where you stand to look at it.

Each observer has a different picture but what is creating the picture is one thing.

I was tired, and I must have forgotten what my point was. So disregard my "Okay, I see" response.

When the clocks come back together, they will show different times. This is evidence that time dilation goes beyond just perception and subjectivity. Most importantly, it shows that one event, the mechanical process of the clock in space, happened before the identical process of the clock on Earth.

A better example is when two identical clocks start at the same time. Then if one clock enters a stronger gravitational field, it will objectively run slower than the other clock.

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe. Take a snapshot. And suppose we label all the frozen matter and energy and the stuff we don't even know what it is as; X.

Is X one thing, or is it many things?

If it is one thing then there is only one "now". "Now" representing a single configuration of matter and energy and other stuff.

 

[Juma]

Interesting. You are the one that keeps sidetracking onto different topics (just to keep an argument going) when you find that you can't defend whatever you are arguing at the time. In fact you are the one that diverted the discussion to relativity.

One person cannot keep a discussion or an argument going.

The sidetrack to relativity occurred because I made the claim that there is only one "now". I don't know if the sidetrack answered that question but I assure you it wasn't my idea.

Imagine the universe frozen. This would represent a moment in time, a "now". A specific arrangement of matter and energy and whatever else makes up a universe.

Is this frozen universe one thing? Or is it infinite things?

If it is one thing there is one now.

And as we have tried to explain to you, there is no objective now that is common to all observers.

But that does not mean that there are not one universe. But that universe is somewhere beyond spacetime: spacetime is just the way we interact with it:

What is in the future for one observer is in the past for another. Thus the future and past coexist.

This common knowledge. Basic physics known for 100 years.

 

[ryan]

I was tired, and I must have forgotten what my point was. So disregard my "Okay, I see" response.

When the clocks come back together, they will show different times. This is evidence that time dilation goes beyond just perception and subjectivity. Most importantly, it shows that one event, the mechanical process of the clock in space, happened before the identical process of the clock on Earth.

A better example is when two identical clocks start at the same time. Then if one clock enters a stronger gravitational field, it will objectively run slower than the other clock.

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe. Take a snapshot. And suppose we label all the frozen matter and energy and the stuff we don't even know what it is as; X.

Is X one thing, or is it many things?

If it is one thing then there is only one "now". "Now" representing a single configuration of matter and energy and other stuff.

I do not know how to explain my argument without using at least 10 paragraphs.

 

[skepticalbip]

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe. Take a snapshot. And suppose we label all the frozen matter and energy and the stuff we don't even know what it is as; X.

Is X one thing, or is it many things?

If it is one thing then there is only one "now". "Now" representing a single configuration of matter and energy and other stuff.

I do not know how to explain my argument without using at least 10 paragraphs.

You have explained your argument extremely well. Unter- is just trying to come up with and post something he hopes will divert you so he doesn't have to admit that, yes, that is very good evidence that time dilation is an objectively demonstratable reality. You will notice that his response did not address your post at all.

 

[Kharakov]

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe.

Well, at least you're over your "you can't use imaginary things to describe reality" phase.

 

[untermensche]

One person cannot keep a discussion or an argument going.

The sidetrack to relativity occurred because I made the claim that there is only one "now". I don't know if the sidetrack answered that question but I assure you it wasn't my idea.

Imagine the universe frozen. This would represent a moment in time, a "now". A specific arrangement of matter and energy and whatever else makes up a universe.

Is this frozen universe one thing? Or is it infinite things?

If it is one thing there is one now.

And as we have tried to explain to you, there is no objective now that is common to all observers.

But that does not mean that there are not one universe. But that universe is somewhere beyond spacetime: spacetime is just the way we interact with it:

What is in the future for one observer is in the past for another. Thus the future and past coexist.

This common knowledge. Basic physics known for 100 years.

The scenario examines that one universe. If we can theoretically "freeze" it and say the specific arrangement of all that exists in the universe is a distinct thing then there is only one now.

Now would be that specific arrangement.

A person experiencing slower time is not experiencing more "nows". They are experiencing longer "nows". Change is occurring slower. The hands of the clock turn slower.

 

[untermensche]

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe.

Well, at least you're over your "you can't use imaginary things to describe reality" phase.

No I'm not and to think so is ridiculous.

I am merely putting forth a thought experiment to try to examine an idea.

I am not saying imaginary things, like infinity, are real.

 

[untermensche]

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe. Take a snapshot. And suppose we label all the frozen matter and energy and the stuff we don't even know what it is as; X.

Is X one thing, or is it many things?

If it is one thing then there is only one "now". "Now" representing a single configuration of matter and energy and other stuff.

I do not know how to explain my argument without using at least 10 paragraphs.

Do you think that frozen snapshot is one thing or infinite things?

Is a specific arrangement one thing or infinite?

 

[Kharakov]

Well, at least you're over your "you can't use imaginary things to describe reality" phase.

No I'm not and to think so is ridiculous.

I am merely putting forth a thought experiment to try to examine an idea.

So you aren't using your imagination to attempt to discern something about reality?

I am not saying imaginary things, like infinity, are real.

Just don't forget that the concept "finite" is far more imaginary than the concept of infinity. Finite objects require something to be "separate" from the reality it comes from, and nothing is actually separate.