A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

[ForgedinHell]

Just like to mention that few people, beside those who have taken a fair interest in philosophy, adequately understand or recognise the difference between truths and facts. There are people who regard thinking solely as the ability to reason, as though one hemisphere of the brain exists only as a conspiracy theory. These people say DUH a lot.

And some people spemd thei entire lives in ignorance, thinking that their silly, false beliefs pass as knowledge simply because there are a group of people who find refuge in the humanities departments because they lack the whit to study real subjects, like physics. These people tend to speak of "truths" a lot.

[Bernard]

Do you believe that half the brain works as operatively as the other half? Methinks you would be laughed out of many a science school if you continue to opine in a manner that thwarts such belief.

[ForgedinHell]

Do you believe that half the brain works as operatively as the other half? Methinks you would be laughed out of many a science school if you continue to opine in a manner that thwarts such belief.

I doubt you've ever even walked by a science book of any kind, much less bothered to pick one up and read it.

[Bernard]

Thou shalt read science books!

[Mike Strand]

It appears to me that the Voice of Time has made a fair attempt to examine "time" closely and explicitly, and to characterize it in terms of the ability or habit of human beings to see (and agree upon) local events as occurring in some order, using adjectives such as "before", "after", and "simultaneously".

I don't think physics in general tries to explain or characterize time explicitly, but merely carries it implicitly as a variable in its mathematical equations. In fact, at least one prominent physicist, Julian Barbour, has tried to argue that time doesn't really exist -- or at least that a theory of physics can be developed without using time as one of the variables in the equations (see his book, The End of Time).

Physicists go so far as to say "time flows only in one direction", which makes it different from the other three dimensions (of space). But that's the extent of their characterization, I believe.

Thus it's interesting to me to see any attempt to tackle the meaning or character of time directly, as Voice of Time has here. His introductory first post might be more closely read and examined to see where, if anywhere, it might be improved or crystalized, or where better concepts or basic assumptions might be introduced as starting points.

For example, to Voice of Time: Could it be that, in measuring which of the three processes ends first, which second, and which third, we use our intuitive idea of a regular, beating rhythm, as found in an ordinary clock? The ticking clock is itself a fourth process, call it the "reference process", which covers the other three. By counting the number of ticks (or reading the face of the clock) from the beginning of the three processes and seeing how many of them have occurred at the end of each of the three processes, we measure duration and hence the ordering of their completions. In fact, the three processes don't have to start at the same time -- we just need to keep track of the number of ticks, from a point in time before the experiment, corresponding to the beginning and ending of each process.

Thus to me, it appears that what you have written may be leading to this definition or characterization: "Time is the dimension corresponding to and measured by a set of regularly occurring and evenly spaced (to our perception) events, such as the ticks of a clock or the progress of its hands, and against which the duration of other processes can be compared and quantified. The more frequent the ticks are, the more accurate the clock becomes as a tool to measure time".

In effect, you've described explicitly what a clock is and how we use it, for example, to time Olympic swimmers or in scientific experiments to time chemical reactions or other phenomena. Of course, this doesn't address the relativity issues brought up in Einstein's theories, but can still be applied to local events.

This may be an oversimplification of your work, however, and if I've missed a key insight, I apologize.

[The Voice of Time]

The key idea/concept you missed is that you have given authority of accuracy (of equal intervals, for instance) to the clock without examining the clock first.

Rhythm isn't rhythmic, only seemingly so, but what seems the case isn't therefore always the case, as any illusionist can show you. My point was that comparing these three processes, produces a dialectic product of one of the processes as the, in between all specimen of the experiment, most reliable rhythm, because regardless of any of the other two processes, it will be the one which gives you the most "time", in the meaning of the mass of events, it doesn't "lose" time, in that events are not recorded because of distorted relationships between rhythms/(recurring)processes.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, V of T! I realized just before your post that you had decided to throw out a reference process, such as a clock or other device that we assume as a "regular" rhythm. You wanted to use just the three different processes a, b, and c, starting simultaneously according to their human sponsors, and then decide which process is the best of the three in some sense to measure duration or differences among their duration. Is this closer to mirroring your intent? If so, I'll proceed to try to mirror your analysis in my own words.

[Mike Strand]

To Voice of Time: Please check out this restatement of the setting for your theory of relative time. I've tried to make it into a concrete example, stating your assumptions and posing the questions that your theory purports to solve:

Process a: A dripping tap watched by a plumber, not necessarily constant rhythm of drips – the plumber counts X drips.
Process b: A woman playing single notes haphazardly on a piano, then leaving after awhile – the woman counts Y notes.
Process c: A man taking puffs on a cigar, then putting it out. The man counts Z puffs.

Assume the three processes start simultaneously, and that a ends first, b second, and c third (e.g., a has the "shortest" duration, b has the second-shortest, and c has the longest).

Problem: Is one of these three processes the best or most reliable, in some sense, for measuring the durations of all three processes? If so, which one? And what are the three measures of duration (or their differences) obtained by the “measuring process”?

People may substitute values for X, Y, and Z to make the example even more concrete. Say there were 52 drips in process a, 16 sequential, single notes played in process b, and 41 puffs of the cigar in process c.

[The Voice of Time]

Then in that situation you could find out which of those three processes is the most reliable given any of them used as a measure-device measuring the two others (as "rhythm" isn't actually necessary or interesting here, as rhythm is just the equation T = total time, N = number of counts, T/N = Rhythm, or alternatively a complicated function detailing the varying intervals. But we want the process which is the entirety, the total time if you want, of it all, and rhythm just an average division of this process into smaller processes)

[Mike Strand]

OK, Voice of Time -- then do you agree this example fits in with your theory? If so, could you please go ahead and (1) show the reasoning and calculations that establish one of these processes as best for measuring the duration of the others, and (2) show the durations of each of the processes?

Alternatively, could you use this example to show what you refer to as the "process which is the entirety, the total time if you want, of it all"?

This should help me and other readers come to a better understanding of your theory.

[The Voice of Time]

I'll answer point 2) first: the duration is whenever the process ends, in that all that is supposed to happen happens. In your given example you've already predetermined the duration by stating that as they all start at the same time you'll have to just count

52 drips in process a, 16 sequential, single notes played in process b, and 41 puffs of the cigar in process c.

After that you've completed process a, b and c, three different whole processes, and their duration is x, y and z, algebraic values (these values are later translated into their equivalent number-values which aren't values like you know it like seconds, minutes etc., but relational values, or properties if you'd like, Boolean logic values maybe even we can call it). Now, through the epistemological method I presented first in my original post, the concept of human layering through imprinting of information, you get a really complicated way of saying that obviously one of them can be seen completed first, one of them can be seen completed last, and one of them can be seen completed in-between.

The natural equivalent of these is 1 for first, 2 for last, and 1.5 for anything in-between, or alternatively 1-2-3, as you'll see that those numbers contain the exact same properties as the relational values of processes a, b and c.

The calculation, your point 1) I'm just gonna quote myself in answering:

But! I'm skipping part the calculations! Let me go through them: so a (shortest), b (middle) and c (longest). If a = M then b = shortest and c = longest. If b = M then a equals shortest and c = longest. If c = M then a = shortest and b = longest. So, a is twice shortest, b is once shortest and once longest, c is twice longest. The number equivalent here is a = 1, b = 1.5, and c = 2, as 1 is always shortest, therefore "a" = 1/1 = 1; 2 always longer than 1, therefore "c" = 2/2 = 1; while "b" therefore 1/2. The result we come up with is that "a" has disparity-average 1 , "b" has disparity-average 0.5, and "c" has disparity-average 1. This is easily proven in a more simplistic way by stating that as a is shortest, it is a = 1, c, being always longest also longer than b, is c = 3, and b being always in-between, b = 2. Here the "difference" between "c" and "a", "a" and "c", is 2 from both sides! While the difference between b (2) and a (1) and b (2) and c (3) is always 1, half of both a and c.

And then some more information which I might have forgot resides in the original post.

ALL calculations ever made uses excessively large numbers merely to compensate for their inability to tackle the infinity of simple objects, as the actual "value" hidden in natural numbers and their derivatives are relations. The number 1 000 000, one million, has an insane amount of such relational properties, which I'm not going to enumerate, but one, maybe the most atomic of them all, is "before", "after", combining these among algebraic values, like a, b, c, z, y, x and so on will give you the equivalent of a given number.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, V of T, but I'm still puzzled. You said in your last post that:

Now, through the epistemological method I presented first in my original post, the concept of human layering through imprinting of information, you get a really complicated way of saying that obviously one of them can be seen completed first, one of them can be seen completed last, and one of them can be seen completed in-between.

However, I thought from your first post that you assume the people know which process finished 1st, which 2nd, and which 3rd through simple, common observation (similar to establishing that they all began at the same time). Here is the material in your first post that gave me this impression:

All the processes, while we cannot confirm the exact difference of layering as in counting layers, we can say such things with certainty of mind that, x y and z, are either before or after each other in completing, in that each and every one of them are either completed in the last layering, in the former layering, or in the layering in-between those.

So you can see why I assumed we already knew the ordering of the processes in terms of relative duration (order of finishing). Now are you're saying it's complicated?

I don't understand how my example set-up differs from your first post introducing this topic. I believe it's set up for you to demonstrate your theory. That's why I think you can now show us which process to use to measure duration, and what those durations are. (I'm referring to my post illustrating process a, the dripping faucet; process b the woman playing notes, and c the man taking puffs on a cigar.)

If my set-up is not according to your theory, please set up for us a different concrete scenario (with three processes) with which you can illustrate your theory.

[The Voice of Time]

I don't really know what you're saying is complicated, but I never said your example was complicated if that's the one.

The formula, or recipe, to demonstrate the theory in the real world, as an experiment, is very simple, however, to carry OUT the experiment, is not so simple, because this is mainly a thought experiment, and bringing it to the real world would bring a lot of problems with it, and as I noted: 3 people, with 3 processes, may be the highest amount of different processes you can do this with in practical terms because of each person has to in relation to each other person and everybody knows that 2 is couple, 3 is a group and 4 is crowd, and so all groups of people beyond 3 people would have escalating problems.

Also, human layering in terms of "imprints" isn't exact neuroscience, though much is true about it if you adjust the original theory popped by this English epistemologist I can't remember the name of, and give it a modern interpretation (the term "layering" btw was something I invented for this thread specifically, but it makes sense if you know the epistemological theory).

So I can't demonstrate the theory, I could of course make a YouTube-video and try to portray it but I'm too lazy to do that, so it'll remain a thought-experiment.

However, a lot of information remain unsaid here. And I'll address the challenge you pose at the bottom of your last post

That's why I think you can now show us which process to use to measure duration, and what those durations are.

1) The process to use is process "x", or the calculated result, among set [a, b, c] with proven least-disparity in relational value when compared to its fellow members.
2) The duration "d" of any process "n" compared with "x" is x * n = d. Or the multiplication of any x, like '2x', '6x', '51885x', or just 'x', with any simultaneously initiated and then counted process "n" yielding the duration as the count of how many "n"s combined from the amount of "x"s.

The thought experiment is formal logic, mathematics.

[Mike Strand]

V of T, you said:

I don't really know what you're saying is complicated, but I never said your example was complicated if that's the one.

If you check my last post, you'll see that I was saying that you said (in a recent post) that it was complicated to determine which process ended first, which second, and which third. And I said that, according to your first post introducing the topic, these determinations were natural and simple through human observation.

I agree that your theory as it stands can't be demonstrated in terms of being able to calculate the durations of the three processes in terms of one of them. More information is needed. I can calculate durations under various other assumptions. In my example, if the "process a" sponsor happens to count the number of notes played by the "process b" sponsor after "process a" ends, and subtracts this from the total number of notes played during "process b", this gives the duration of "process a" in terms of number of notes. I don't think your thought experiment, as it stands, with its limited preconditions, can yield numerical values for durations.

I believe that your thought experiment has epistemological value, though, in that it is a natural and human attempt to characterize or "know" time. First, you have used the idea of processes that contain repetitive events that can be counted. Second, you have used the idea of easy-to-know ordering of the beginnings and endings of processes in time -- the human ability to easily observe "before", "simultaneous", and "after". To simplify your particular thought experiment, you assumed three events that begin "simultaneously".

All of these notions of "knowing" time are the basis for the development and use of clocks, which are simply processes with uniform frequency of repeated events, "ticks", to use as "master" or "standard" or "reference" processes against which to measure the duration of other processes, whether those other processes contain repeating events or not. This points out another limitation of your thought-experiment -- you assumed processes that contain repeating events.

In practice, only one such process is needed: A clock.

[The Voice of Time]

All of these notions of "knowing" time are the basis for the development and use of clocks, which are simply processes with uniform frequency of repeated events, "ticks", to use as "master" or "standard" or "reference" processes against which to measure the duration of other processes, whether those other processes contain repeating events or not. This points out another limitation of your thought-experiment -- you assumed processes that contain repeating events.

In practice, only one such process is needed: A clock.

hugely wrong you are. How can you know that the frequency is uniform? Ay, you can see it on a screen, but how can you know the screen is portraying real uniformity? It's like a question of gods existence. In other words, this is an infinitely incrementing question. And I didn't, never said, the processes needed repeating events, and I treated the processes as "wholes" meaning that the counts of subprocesses didn't make any difference. It could happen only once. Nothing changes then, but for instance it would be a huge limitation if something happened "0.5" times because in numbers the only way to achieve an exact one half requires huge amounts of foundational mathematics I don't possess knowledge of (I'll probably will have to read the Principia Mathematica once, but it's vastly long and complicated so not anytime soon that's for sure), they say that in that book just to agree that 1+1=2 takes a lot of complicated reading. But as a quite fair guess I think it is largely possible had I tried to solve that problem.

I don't think your thought experiment, as it stands, with its limited preconditions, can yield numerical values for durations.

answer:

ALL calculations ever made uses excessively large numbers merely to compensate for their inability to tackle the infinity of simple objects, as the actual "value" hidden in natural numbers and their derivatives are relations. The number 1 000 000, one million, has an insane amount of such relational properties, which I'm not going to enumerate, but one, maybe the most atomic of them all, is "before", "after", combining these among algebraic values, like a, b, c, z, y, x and so on will give you the equivalent of a given number.

Numbers = relational algebra

I can calculate durations under various other assumptions. In my example, if the "process a" sponsor happens to count the number of notes played by the "process b" sponsor after "process a" ends, and subtracts this from the total number of notes played during "process b", this gives the duration of "process a" in terms of number of notes.

What do you mean by counting "after process a ends". That makes no sense. As long as "a" has initiated, and has not ended, you'll count "b". When "a" ends, you'll stop counting "b". Or alternatively if you want to count "2a" or "4a" and process "a" repeats then you'll continue to count until you're out of "a"s to count.

But I just have to remind you that this doesn't really got so much to do with clocks as it got to do with the foundations of time. In any domain where clocks are recognized this experiment wouldn't work because authority has already been predetermined. It is a completely different game, if you can call it that, where clocks "cheat" because people will lay their bias upon them.