What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
This is the most fundamental question concerning time: If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
EB
EB
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
The simplest answer: they don't. All clocks fall out of sync.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... antum-gas/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... antum-gas/
And there is no such thing as a "master clock". The most precise clock you have available to you becomes the reference clock by default.“In 2014, the world’s most accurate optical clock wouldn’t lose or gain one second in the entire age of the universe,” says Jun Ye at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Previous caesium clocks kept time accurately to within a second over the course of 300 million years.
Now, Ye’s group has built a strontium clock that is so precise, out of every 10 quintillion ticks only 3.5 would be out of sync – the first atomic clock ever to reach that level of precision.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:49 pmThis is the most fundamental question concerning time: If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
EB
You are still considering things with things - time with clocks - understand that the events that occur within a mans clock occurs within the events of all matter, clocks included - as I previously stated - time only exists when an event occurs.
Sorry if it seems arrogant, but I am going to post our conversation from the other thread of 'what is time' here:-
So what? Our perception is also because of events occurring in the sub atomic fabric of our brain.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmBut this contradicts our perception of time.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:46 am I think we can look at time objectively by understanding that time is simply the occurrence of an event, no event, no time - a true moment in time.
So what we are looking at, objectively, is the most finite point in 3D space - where, either an event occurs or it doesn't. Binary reality.
Yes, it does. Gravity and the speed one has through space affects the events.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmOne moment, no or very few events. Another moment, a furious myriad of events. I don't think anyone believes time actually slows down or speeds up with the number of events.
Yes, time is the measurement of events that man has attuned clocks to.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmWe even had to devise special contraptions, clocks, to produce special events occurring at regular time intervals, tick·tacks, to tell us time.
As above RE our perception.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmAnd even if nothing happens around you, your own body is doing all sorts of things and your brain makes sure you have a notion of the passage of time.
As I said, at its most finite a moment in time is binary, either there is an event in 3D space, or there isn't - yes, this includes the events occurring within the 'fabric' of our brain.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmA moment in time isn't an instant. "Moment" is just another word for "period of time", only suggesting something shorter. A moment is just a short period of time, say from less than a second to more than one minute. It really doesn't mean anything to ask for a precise duration. How long is a moment? It depends... It was supposed to take just a moment but we waited instead a long moment in silence...
Similar is a massive word in the context of time.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmIf time was the occurrence of an event, or the succession of events, there would be no reason for similar processes to take the same amount of time.
Scientists have for the first time been able to measure something in a zeptosecond, or a trillionth of a billionth of a second.
An attosecond is even larger but is 1×10−18 of a second (one quintillionth of a second). For context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years. The word "attosecond" is formed by the prefix atto and the unit second.
No, I don't think you are quite getting this. Events ARE time.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmInstead, if you think events occur in time, in some sort of preexisting time, then events will take a certain time to unfold according to their nature.
The events that make up our reality - at the binary most finite scale - possibly well beneath the planck scale, may be related to other events in 3D space, but not necessarily in a causal relationship.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmUnless, if there is just one fundamental type of event.
Such as the huge amount of events that must occur for a second hand to move a second.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmThe time for a macroscopic event to unfold would depend on the fundamental events it is made of. In fact, I can't see any other explanation.
Clocks don't have to do anything that humans apply metaphysical concepts to.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pmThis explains clocks without having to resort to the metaphysical concept of time.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
That's exactly what people call "synchronisation".Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:03 pm The simplest answer: they don't. All clocks fall out of sync.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... antum-gas/“In 2014, the world’s most accurate optical clock wouldn’t lose or gain one second in the entire age of the universe,” says Jun Ye at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Previous caesium clocks kept time accurately to within a second over the course of 300 million years. Now, Ye’s group has built a strontium clock that is so precise, out of every 10 quintillion ticks only 3.5 would be out of sync – the first atomic clock ever to reach that level of precision.
Yes, there is. A master clock is whatever people, usually scientists, want to call "master clock".
Scientists call "master clock" the clock they are using as the reference clock. The reference clock is just the clock that tells the reference time. The reference time is the time other clocks are set to at intervals to make sure they stay synchronised with the master clock and hence with each other.
Say we have one thousand ordinary clocks in a secure vault and they stay synchronised within twenty seconds over a period of 24 hours. How do they do that if there's no time is the question.
EB
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Thank you for teaching me that which is covered in any undergrad computer science class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Not quite. When you are doing event-ordering in a distributed fashion the above doesn't work.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:54 pm Scientists call "master clock" the clock they are using as the reference clock. The reference clock is just the clock that tells the reference time. The reference time is the time other clocks are set to at intervals to make sure they stay synchronised with the master clock and hence with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_timestamps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_clock
See also:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... di2012.pdf
Spanner is Google’s scalable, multi-version, globallydistributed, and synchronously-replicated database. It is
the first system to distribute data at global scale and support externally-consistent distributed transactions.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:49 pm You are still considering things with things - time with clocks - understand that the events that occur within a mans clock occurs within the events of all matter, clocks included - as I previously stated - time only exists when an event occurs.
Please, read again what I say:
I think it's phrased clearly and the question is straightforward: What keeps clocks ticking together if not time itself?If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
Please answer the question as asked. And if you don't know the answer, fair enough but please don't post irrelevancies.
Please address the topic at hand. What you say from there is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:49 pm Sorry if it seems arrogant, but I am going to post our conversation from the other thread of 'what is time' here:-[/b]
EB
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
If you told us what you were trying to do I could help you figure out out faster.
Or you can swing your dick at me like you always do.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Or you can just answer the bloody question.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:14 pmIf you told us what you were trying to do I could help you figure out out faster.
Or you can swing your dick at me like you always do.
Just a thought.
EB
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
It's difficult to give good answers to poorly-stated question.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:29 pm Or you can just answer the bloody question.
Just a thought.
EB
So you can help me help you, or be a dick about it.
Just a thought.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Therefore, you totally don't understand the concept of time which is what I have explained to you in the most comprehensible way I can to someone that lacks the comprehension of such a thing.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:09 pmPlease, read again what I say:attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:49 pm You are still considering things with things - time with clocks - understand that the events that occur within a mans clock occurs within the events of all matter, clocks included - as I previously stated - time only exists when an event occurs.
If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
I think it's phrased clearly and the question is straightforward: What keeps clocks ticking together if not time itself?
Please answer the question as asked. And if you don't know the answer, fair enough but please don't post irrelevancies.
If you paid more than a zeptosecond of attention you would understand that TIME does NOT keep a clock ticking!
The events that occur within matter are what IS time. Time is purely a man made measurement of events.
Which only goes to show that you need to brush up on your skills of comprehension.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:09 pmPlease address the topic at hand. What you say from there is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:49 pmSorry if it seems arrogant, but I am going to post our conversation from the other thread of 'what is time' here:-[/b]
EB
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
the waterproof clock isn't afraid of the sink...
-Imp
-Imp
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
..and that is the amazing thing about the waterproof clock with relation to the sync...
-atto
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
I understood it's your point first time round but your point is irrelevant since it does not answer my question in this thread.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:48 pmTherefore, you totally don't understand the concept of time which is what I have explained to you in the most comprehensible way I can to someone that lacks the comprehension of such a thing.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:09 pm Please, read again what I say:
If time doesn't exist as such, if the only reality of time is to be a mere convention, a convenience to ensure the necessary synchronisation of our activities across society, including the synchronisation of our machines and of our scientific instruments, then how is it at all possible to durably synchronise different clocks, among other things. Assuming a number of clocks are set to read the same as some master clock, why would they stay synchronised with it if time doesn't exist?
I think it's phrased clearly and the question is straightforward: What keeps clocks ticking together if not time itself?
Please answer the question as asked. And if you don't know the answer, fair enough but please don't post irrelevancies.
If you paid more than a zeptosecond of attention you would understand that TIME does NOT keep a clock ticking!
The events that occur within matter are what IS time. Time is purely a man made measurement of events.
So, either you answer the question or you don't, but please stop posting irrelevancies.
EB