Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?
Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 10:04 am
You still don't understand the question.
EB
EB
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized. This is explained by General Relativity and experimentally verified.
If you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
I'm actually talking bollocks, just a bit of a thought experiment shared. I guess synchronisation is not the correct word, since the term must insist on a causal relationship (between the two clocks).Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:59 pmIf you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
Movement doesn't limit communication/interaction.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/lis ... p?id=26878
Unfortunately for your argument, if two clocks separate in spacetime, they cannot return to a starting point because it no longer exists. Spacetime is in flux. The universe is expanding, probably exponentially. The original starting point at the separation cannot be defined.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:44 pmSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:59 pmIf you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
Movement doesn't limit communication/interaction.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/lis ... p?id=26878
I'm actually talking bollocks, just a bit of a thought experiment shared. I guess synchronisation is not the correct word, since the term must insist on a causal relationship (between the two clocks).
'Time measured' per each clock and there comparison is more accurate to what I am bollocking on about.
If two clocks are in the same point in space - then accelerate away from each other at precisely the same acceleration and maintain identical velocity, then return to the same point in space (all other factors - gravity etc not involved). then their 'time measured' should be identical.
I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GLSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 amIt depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.
Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
I think he is telling you that you are using the wrong term in 'synchronize'. You should be talking about the 'time measured' on each clock. Synchronisation requires some causal relationship between the two clocks.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pmI've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GLSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 amIt depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.
Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
You said you have programming background, yes? You understand what concurrency/parallelism is, yes?Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pm I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GL
So you can think about it as two observers taking different paths through spacetime, who rendevouz at some other point in spacetime and compare notes on "how much time has passed since we parted ways?"Process synchronization refers to the idea that multiple processes are to join up or handshake at a certain point, in order to reach an agreement.
I prefer to keep my definitions as simple as possible, because complex definitions are commonly used to produce bullshit answers to interesting questions. My definition of synchronization is exemplified by a gang of Hollywood bank robbers about to execute a carefully timed plan. Their leader says to his (or her) henchmen: Set your watches to exactly 2pm on my three count. One, two, three. Everyone got it?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:47 pmI think he is telling you that you are using the wrong term in 'synchronize'. You should be talking about the 'time measured' on each clock. Synchronisation requires some causal relationship between the two clocks.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pmI've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GLSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 am
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"
Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.
Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
How could I resist the blandishments of thoughtful interloquitors, despite the forest fire burning just east of my domicile? -GL