Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

This to me sounds like a cop out. The frozen universe is of course conceivable. We can conceive of all that we see frozen, not moving. And then of course behind this conception all things that move in the universe that we can't see but know exist are also not moving.

One of the reasons why it is hard to answer this is because I don't know the specifics of a "frozen" universe. Every time I am about to answer I wonder:

1) In what way is the universe frozen? Is it actually frozen to absolute zero, or are you just thinking of a three-dimensional description?

a) If it is just a three-dimensional description, then it is really just a frame of what may be an infinite number of frames which is what the other side of the argument will say.

b) If it is actually a frozen universe, then gravity, if it exists, would still allow orbiting bodies.

I am really just seeing if it is possible to come up with a definition of a common "now".

This is removed from frames of reference. This is something that can't be observed. Observation requires movement. This is the absence of all movement. Which I am not saying could occur, only that it is something defined enough to contemplate.

And even if there are infinite slices, which I think is illogical, it doesn't matter. We are just looking at one and asking what it is.

What is that one frozen slice? Is it more than just a specific order of all that exists at that given slice of time? Can it be thought of as being more?

Can it be thought of as a definition of a common "now"? If the slice exists in reality even for the smallest amount of time possible can we say that there are more than one "now"?

If somehow there is a flaw in your logic about infinities, then a slice of time in a continuous universe would only be an infinitesimal moment in time. It would be like taking a digit out of an interval between 0 and infinity; it wouldn't lessen infinity.

I just don't think you can go down this road.

There is no more reason to think the universe could be divided infinitely than there is to think we could create infinite energy.

Applying infinities to the world is the last resort and can only be done with evidence.

We know more than physics. We know chemistry too.

No covalent bond is infinite. They are all finite. They all had a beginning and will have an end.

But everything does move. I don't see how this helps your argument for the real universe. And even if everything stops today, what about when things did move? There could still be an infinite number of slices in one second before you stop the universe.

The question is; just because somebody is experiencing time moving slower than you does that mean they are experiencing another now than you?

If "now" has a finite minimum existence, for things that are not light, and it can be experienced differently depending on your frame of reference, then it does not matter how you experience that "now", you may experience it as occurring slower or faster. It is still the same "now".

 

[skepticalbip]

Why is thread even in Nat Sci?
80 plus pages about what?
Mod needs to create a place for this kind of discussion.

I agree. Philosophy seems appropriate since it has become a continuous argument over one person's ever changing beliefs (based on nothing to do with science) of the nature of reality.

 

[Mageth]

Untermensche, your notion of a frozen, motionless "slice" as you describe it above appears to imply that there is a thickness to the frozen slice, i.e. on the Z- or time-axis. Please explain???

BTW, I'd refer to your frozen slice or snapshot as a state. But there's no "now" to a state. There's no time dimension to a state.

 

[untermensche]

The way things appear to us is the way they are.

At last a glimmer. That is what relativity is telling us. Your observations are the way the universe is. The observations of someone moving at 0.8c with respect to you (or that you are moving at 0.8c with respect to) is the way the universe is, though significantly different than what you observed.

Relativity says we can't make an objective measurement of the things that are. Their measurement is relative.

We can make relative measures that are objective within a certain frame of reference, that is all.

But the thing itself is out there and our brains are making a representation of something that is out there.

The exact features of the thing out there are something we can only approximate. Which is what a relative measurement is. An approximation. Relativity describes our limitations in getting an objective measurement, not our certainties.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche, your notion of a frozen, motionless "slice" as you describe it above appears to imply that there is a thickness to the frozen slice, i.e. on the Z- or time-axis. Please explain???

BTW, I'd refer to your frozen slice or snapshot as a state. But there's no "now" to a state. There's no time dimension to a state.

If time has a limit to which it can be meaningfully sliced then the last meaningful slice would create a thickness. But it would represent a thickness where things exist but no change is occurring to them.

And this would represent an amount of time but an amount of time so small that change is not perceptible because change is not occurring. Change occurs in the next slice that is just as small.

This does presuppose that time cannot be divided infinitely.

But my problems with real infinities have been aired many times.

 

[skepticalbip]

At last a glimmer. That is what relativity is telling us. Your observations are the way the universe is. The observations of someone moving at 0.8c with respect to you (or that you are moving at 0.8c with respect to) is the way the universe is, though significantly different than what you observed.

Relativity says we can't make an objective measurement of the things that are. Their measurement is relative.

We can make relative measures that are objective within a certain frame of reference, that is all.

But the thing itself is out there and our brains are making a representation of something that is out there.

The exact features of the thing out there are something we can only approximate. Which is what a relative measurement is. An approximation. Relativity describes our limitations in getting an objective measurement, not our certainties.

The observation is true for the reference frame. Observations are true for all reference frames. There is no preferred reference frame. All are true. Plato's ideal plane does not exist.

 

[Juma]

Relativity says we can't make an objective measurement of the things that are. [...] Relativity describes our limitations in getting an objective measurement, not our certainties.

Time dilation is not an approximation. Length contrahention is not an approximation. Relativistic mass is not an approximation. Those are all objective quantities. The truth is that time, length and mass are all relative.

 

[Mageth]

Untermensche, your notion of a frozen, motionless "slice" as you describe it above appears to imply that there is a thickness to the frozen slice, i.e. on the Z- or time-axis. Please explain???

BTW, I'd refer to your frozen slice or snapshot as a state. But there's no "now" to a state. There's no time dimension to a state.

If time has a limit to which it can be meaningfully sliced then the last meaningful slice would create a thickness.

So which direction is this thickness going?

But it would represent a thickness where things exist but no change is occurring to them.

And this would represent an amount of time but an amount of time so small that change is not perceptible because change is not occurring. Change occurs in the next slice that is just as small.

That is total nonsense. First you say that no change occurs in a "thickness" of time ("a thickness where things exist but no change is occurring to them"), and then you say that change occurs in the next "thickness" of time" that is just as small. Please resolve.

So what, does something magic happen between these adjacent time thicknesses? What happens between those two "thicknesses"???

This does presuppose that time cannot be divided infinitely.

You seem to propose that *all things* are in stasis for a "thickness", and then !MAGIC HAPPENS! and the universe advances to a next "thickness", in which "change occurs", or doesn't occur, or what????

But my problems with real infinities have been aired many times.

You need to address your above-noted problems with your notions of time, change, etc.

 

[untermensche]

If time has a limit to which it can be meaningfully sliced then the last meaningful slice would create a thickness.

So which direction is this thickness going?

That would be a meaningless question. Since there is no motion no information about direction is contained.

That is total nonsense. First you say that no change occurs in a "thickness" of time ("a thickness where things exist but no change is occurring to them"), and then you say that change occurs in the next "thickness" of time" that is just as small. Please resolve.

The first thickness is different from the next. That is the change that occurs. But within each thickness there is no change.

So what, does something magic happen between these adjacent time thicknesses? What happens between those two "thicknesses"???

The difference is caused by what we call the laws of physics acting on the things within the thickness.

 

[Mageth]

So which direction is this thickness going?

That would be a meaningless question. Since there is no motion no information about direction is contained.

You're defining this as a unit of time of some short duration. Which is meaningless without a direction.

That is total nonsense. First you say that no change occurs in a "thickness" of time ("a thickness where things exist but no change is occurring to them"), and then you say that change occurs in the next "thickness" of time" that is just as small. Please resolve.

The first thickness is different from the next. That is the change that occurs. But within each thickness there is no change.

So when does the change occur? Change takes time.

So what, does something magic happen between these adjacent time thicknesses? What happens between those two "thicknesses"???

The difference is caused by what we call the laws of physics acting on the things within the thickness.

The laws of physics don't act on anything. You need to fix your language, among other things.

Moreover, you are confusing things even more. You are asserting that "within each thickness there is no change" and "the laws of physics acting on the things within the thickness". This is total, self-contradictory nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

That would be a meaningless question. Since there is no motion no information about direction is contained.

You're defining this as a unit of time of some short duration. Which is meaningless without a direction.

It is a finite amount of time. The smallest meaningful slice. To slice it again would just produce two copies of the same thing.

But it is not a duration of time. Two of these slices next to each other is a duration of time. And with two slices we do get information about direction.

So when does the change occur? Change takes time.

Two slices is enough for there to be change. Two slices is required for there to be change. A duration of time is required for there to be change, but there is (theoretically) a slice of time that does not contain change. The smallest meaningful slice. An amount of time that does not represent a duration of time.

The laws of physics don't act on anything. You need to fix your language, among other things.

Fine. The forces defined in our models are acting on the things within the slice. I was not trying to be evasive, only concise. I thought most people would know what I meant.

You are asserting that "within each thickness there is no change" and "the laws of physics acting on the things within the thickness". This is total, self-contradictory nonsense.

The modeled forces are causing the change. There is nothing contradictory in the least.

There are the forces and there is that which they act upon. The forces are not a function of time. Time is an expression of the forces on things that exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

Relativity says we can't make an objective measurement of the things that are. [...] Relativity describes our limitations in getting an objective measurement, not our certainties.

Time dilation is not an approximation. Length contrahention is not an approximation. Relativistic mass is not an approximation. Those are all objective quantities. The truth is that time, length and mass are all relative.

True. Time, length, and mass are all undefinable unless a reference frame is specified.

 

[untermensche]

Relativity says we can't make an objective measurement of the things that are. [...] Relativity describes our limitations in getting an objective measurement, not our certainties.

Time dilation is not an approximation. Length contrahention is not an approximation. Relativistic mass is not an approximation. Those are all objective quantities. The truth is that time, length and mass are all relative.

The way measured relative lengths or masses change is not an approximation. The length and mass is.

 

[untermensche]

Time dilation is not an approximation. Length contrahention is not an approximation. Relativistic mass is not an approximation. Those are all objective quantities. The truth is that time, length and mass are all relative.

True. Time, length, and mass are all undefinable unless a reference frame is specified.

We can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference, each an approximation, to get a limit to what time, length, and mass can be. That is the best we can do.

The question is, how many possible frames of reference are there?

Again I would say the answer we don't immediately jump to is our favorite imaginary number, infinity.

 

[skepticalbip]

True. Time, length, and mass are all undefinable unless a reference frame is specified.

We can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference, each an approximation, to get a limit to what time, length, and mass can be. That is the best we can do.The question is, how many possible frames of reference are there?

Again I would say the answer we don't immediately jump to is our favorite imaginary number, infinity.

Yes we can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference. No it isn't an approximation unless you are using the meaning of a limit to the measurement resolution of our observation. Our resolution of time is certainly much, much better than one nano-second but we can measure, and have measured, time dilation many orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of our equipment.

 

[Mageth]

You say "The forces defined in our models are acting on the things within the slice" and "There are the forces and there is that which they act upon". No: the "things" as you call them act on each other, their various ways of interacting are what we call forces. You also say "The forces are not a function of time." However, time is integral to the notion of (and the definition of) forces. See, e.g., the gravitational force.

Forces are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are no forces outside of the "things" within the slices to act on the things within the slices.

You can't separate the forces from the "things", and you can't separate forces from time.

 

[untermensche]

We can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference, each an approximation, to get a limit to what time, length, and mass can be. That is the best we can do.The question is, how many possible frames of reference are there?

Again I would say the answer we don't immediately jump to is our favorite imaginary number, infinity.

Yes we can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference. No it isn't an approximation unless you are using the meaning of a limit to the measurement resolution of our observation. Our resolution of time is certainly much, much better than one nano-second but we can measure, and have measured, time dilation many orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of our equipment.

Here is the concept worked out mathematically so perhaps you will understand it better.

A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

I am not the creator of this idea.

 

[ryan]

One of the reasons why it is hard to answer this is because I don't know the specifics of a "frozen" universe. Every time I am about to answer I wonder:

1) In what way is the universe frozen? Is it actually frozen to absolute zero, or are you just thinking of a three-dimensional description?

a) If it is just a three-dimensional description, then it is really just a frame of what may be an infinite number of frames which is what the other side of the argument will say.

b) If it is actually a frozen universe, then gravity, if it exists, would still allow orbiting bodies.

I am really just seeing if it is possible to come up with a definition of a common "now".

"Now" is tricky to define. The past was all present moments at one time.

There is a universal present moment. It is when everything is at rest relative to each other and there is no difference in gravity. In such a case, everything experiences the same present moment (now).

But in general, my present moment will be some else's past if we only relate present moments in time spatially.

This is removed from frames of reference. This is something that can't be observed. Observation requires movement. This is the absence of all movement. Which I am not saying could occur, only that it is something defined enough to contemplate.

It is observable if it could happen.

And even if there are infinite slices, which I think is illogical, it doesn't matter. We are just looking at one and asking what it is.

I see. You're right; in that situation, there would only be one slice.

What is that one frozen slice? Is it more than just a specific order of all that exists at that given slice of time? Can it be thought of as being more?

This is complicated because we understand the universe using a brain. Brains of course are dynamic.

Can it be thought of as a definition of a common "now"? If the slice exists in reality even for the smallest amount of time possible can we say that there are more than one "now"?

I think so.

If somehow there is a flaw in your logic about infinities, then a slice of time in a continuous universe would only be an infinitesimal moment in time. It would be like taking a digit out of an interval between 0 and infinity; it wouldn't lessen infinity.

I just don't think you can go down this road.

There is no more reason to think the universe could be divided infinitely than there is to think we could create infinite energy.

Applying infinities to the world is the last resort and can only be done with evidence.

We know more than physics. We know chemistry too.

No covalent bond is infinite. They are all finite. They all had a beginning and will have an end.

If we consider bonds as electromagnetic forces in the form of photons/bosons, then I have these questions:

1) Does the particle property of the photon have a size?

a) If so, how large is it. Is it continuous?

b) If it doesn't have size, doesn't that mean it is infinitesimally small?

But everything does move. I don't see how this helps your argument for the real universe. And even if everything stops today, what about when things did move? There could still be an infinite number of slices in one second before you stop the universe.

The question is; just because somebody is experiencing time moving slower than you does that mean they are experiencing another now than you?

If you accept the theories of relativity, then there is no present moment for two different frames of reference.

 

[untermensche]

You say "The forces defined in our models are acting on the things within the slice" and "There are the forces and there is that which they act upon". No: the "things" as you call them act on each other, their various ways of interacting are what we call forces. You also say "The forces are not a function of time." However, time is integral to the notion of (and the definition of) forces. See, e.g., the gravitational force.

Forces are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are no forces outside of the "things" within the slices to act on the things within the slices.

You can't separate the forces from the "things", and you can't separate forces from time.

No. You confuse not being able to see something with it not being there.

The forces are there acting as usual. The slice is so thin you cannot discern the activity of the forces, but they are there.

But once you get two slices you can clearly see the forces in action.

 

[Mageth]

Yes we can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference. No it isn't an approximation unless you are using the meaning of a limit to the measurement resolution of our observation. Our resolution of time is certainly much, much better than one nano-second but we can measure, and have measured, time dilation many orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of our equipment.

Here is the concept worked out mathematically so perhaps you will understand it better.

A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

I am not the creator of this idea.

From the wiki:

"From this formula, it can be seen that the nature of the moving particle being considered must be specified since the value of the chronon depends on the particle's charge and mass."

Your idea doesn't appear to have much to do with the chronon.