Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:36 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:27 am
Seconds/years are man-made units.

If two things can happen simultaneously AND independently from each other is time is a vector not a plane?

You wouldn't be AWARE if time was flowing backwards. The Big Bang (I mean Crunch) is yet to happen!
[/quote]

Yes but time itself is not manmade. And it comes in different sized intervals. That's all you need to prove its discrete using the information content argument.

If two things can happen simultaneously AND independently... But a dimension supports that perfectly well.

I don't think it matters which direction time flows; my arguments are symmetric and independent of the flow of time. A circle works whatever the direction of time is.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:40 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:36 am
Yes but time itself is not manmade. And it comes in different sized intervals. That's all you need to prove its discrete using the information content argument.

If two things can happen simultaneously AND independently... But a dimension supports that perfectly well.

I don't think it matters which direction time flows; my arguments are symmetric and independent of the flow of time. A circle works whatever the direction of time is.
TIME ITSELF is metaphysical bullshit.

A dimension. OK. How many dimensions of time are there?

Is time a vector or a plane?
How many planes?
Are they parallel?
Orthogonal?

What?

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:42 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:40 am
TIME ITSELF is metaphysical bullshit.

A dimension. OK. How many dimensions of time are there?
Time is not metaphysical bullshit: the speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is fundamental to the universe.

There is one dimension of time in this universe.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:45 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:42 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:40 am
TIME ITSELF is metaphysical bullshit.

A dimension. OK. How many dimensions of time are there?
Time is not metaphysical bullshit: the speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is fundamental to the universe.

There is one dimension of time in this universe.
The DEFINITION of 'speed' is man-made. the DEFINITION of speed is distance over TIME.

So speed is a FUNCTION of distance and time.

What is TIME a function of?

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:49 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:45 am
The DEFINITION of 'speed' is man-made. the DEFINITION of speed is distance over TIME.

So speed is a FUNCTION of distance and time.

What is TIME a function of?
No the definition of speed is built into the fabric of the universe.

time = distance / speed

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:57 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:49 am
time = distance / speed
I see. So at what speed is the universe expanding?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:45 am
What is TIME a function of?
Time is simply a man made construct pertaining to the number of events occurring in various substrates of matter.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:45 am
What is TIME a function of?
Time is simply a man made construct pertaining to the number of events occurring in various substrates of matter.
Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is not emergent; it is fundamental to the universe.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:57 am
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:49 am
time = distance / speed
I see. So at what speed is the universe expanding?
No idea but its expanding, which means it must be finite in size.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 pm
Time is simply a man made construct pertaining to the number of events occurring in various substrates of matter.
And theoretically we could assume the smallest unit of time to be any wave with a period of Planck distance. That's the easy part.
Discrete or continuous makes not much difference.

The hard part is explaining the absence of time-dilation in QM.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:16 pm

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm
No idea but its expanding, which means it must be finite in size.
OK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important. These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light, although the definition of "separation" is different from that used in an inertial frame.
Can you explain why we keep bumping into such dualistic definitions for 'time', 'distance' and 'separation' all over physics?

Surely reality is objective and needs not (cannot!?!) be re-defined?

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:19 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:16 pm
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm
No idea but its expanding, which means it must be finite in size.
OK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important. These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light, although the definition of "separation" is different from that used in an inertial frame.
Can you explain why we keep bumping into such dualistic definitions for 'time', 'distance' and 'separation' all over physics?
I have not studied general relativity but I believe mass distorts spacetime so things can appear to move FTL when they are not actually.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by attofishpi » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:00 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:04 pm
Time is simply a man made construct pertaining to the number of events occurring in various substrates of matter.
And theoretically we could assume the smallest unit of time to be any wave with a period of Planck distance. That's the easy part.
Discrete or continuous makes not much difference.

The hard part is explaining the absence of time-dilation in QM.
Thanks. Love it when as a layman I get some extra reading material! :D

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:36 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:00 pm
Thanks. Love it when as a layman I get some extra reading material! :D
Just start here and read all the papers at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

The one pattern (or absence of) that I am noting is that none of the knowledge from distributed systems theory is in physics!
And it's rather confusing to me because distributed systems are precisely about event ordering/consistency/race conditions/reference frame problems when dealing with multi-causal/concurrent systems.

Because distributed systems are my bread&butter I seem to have intuition about information/temporal phenomena that most physicists lack.

It's easy to take such stuff for granted...

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:05 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:17 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:50 pm
Hey, Dipstick.
In the OP to this thread I requested that nitwits not post here. You're a nitwit. Even worse, you're a crackpot, unrelenting in your mindless pursuit of bullshit. Please muster up enough intelligence to go away. You have nothing to contribute here. Thank you.
Greylorn
Care to be transparent about your criterions for:
* nitwit
* bullshit
* intelligence
* contribution

I bet you can't. So lets not pretend like you care about any "intelligent debate" when you just want to engage in group masturbation with people who think like you.

If you are going to subscribe to any principle, then let it be falsification. Be ready to abandon all of your prior models/beliefs at the drop of a hat when you encounter a Black Swan. But that's just too much hard work, isn't it ? ;)

After all, Planck noted that old farts don't really change their minds about anything. They just die. Russel was wrong. The world has moved on.

All physics is model-building. Use a better tool than set theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

If you cared about having an INFORMED opinion, you would have spent some time understanding information, decision and systems theory. They are kinda fundamental for learning HOW to learn!
Okay..
Care to be transparent about your criterions for:
* nitwit -- Someone smarter than you.
* bullshit -- Everything you write.
* intelligence -- A property that has eluded you.
* contribution -- Something you are too incompetent to make.

Greylorn

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests