Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[Les Sleeth]

No, I am noting that sequentialness is part of time, and always has been. For instance, McTaggart's famous a-series and b-series arguments are all about sequentialness. It is you who are out of step with the history of philosophy.

A condescending argument that often seems typical of you. Can't you just pretend once in awhile like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

The measurement or quantification is. But the word "time" does not standardly refer to measurement alone. Your whole argument is based on idiosyncratic defintion.

And as smart as you think you are, you still haven't gotten my point. I know the "standardly" way most people think of time, and I claim THAT is what is if not idiosyncratic, then is a projection. Time, as anything more than the rate of change, is an imagined property stemming from projecting part of our own psychology onto reality.

You can show me change, you can show me space, but you cannot show me time. You can slow the rate of time keeping devices, and then project onto reality "time" has slowed when all that's slowed is the rate of change of that frame of reference. But go ahead and believe time has properties beyond the rate of change if you want, but I'll never agree with you since I've yet to observe these properties, and no one else can make them observable either.

Our projection with time comes about because there are things which exist now but didn't before, and won't exist in the future. It's all passing. Some of it will be left when we pass, some will pass before we do. All this constantly reminds us of how much time we have to do things and to exist. But I am saying that all that's really going on is change, and that in this universe, it's change toward evermore an entropic condition.

The change is relentless, it never stops. The part of our psychology that is mystified by both our existence and our temporariness may see time as a magical property that is partially responsible for existence and nonexistence. You can''t just call that "rate of change" now can you? No, time is SOMETHING.

You can exalt the fact that the changing universe has made human consciousness possible, but that doesn't mean the rate of that change is anymore than the rate of change. What we have is x amount of changing matter, and when that matter has all disintegrated, then there will no longer be the basis for any sort of change that can produce a human being. So the amount of changing matter left in the universe represents all the potential for "time" we have left.

I have not said, or at least meant to say, that time is only a measurement. I am trying to say that change and its rate covers the whole story until you want to measure the rate of change, and then its useful to have another term to help refer to that measurement system.

 

[Tournesol]

A condescending argument that often seems typical of you. Can't you just pretend once in awhile like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Who is arrogant ... the guy who reads the literature, and learns what others have had to say about a subject ... or the guy who thinks he doesn't need to ?

 

[sd01g]

You can exalt the fact that the changing universe has made human consciousness possible, but that doesn't mean the rate of that change is anymore than the rate of change. What we have is x amount of changing matter, and when that matter has all disintegrated, then there will no longer be the basis for any sort of change that can produce a human being. So the amount of changing matter left in the universe represents all the potential for "time" we have left.

I agree with you that empirically time is movement/change, but why do you think the universe is running out of time? New stars are being created in the universe and gamma-ray bursts are redistributing matter/energy that gravity has concentrated. The universe is a dynamic system in which dying/dead stars are being replaced by new stars. If the human race can progress for another 1000 years, we might be able to travel to other planets outside of our solar system. We might even survive after our star is recycled.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Who is arrogant ... the guy who reads the literature, and learns what others have had to say about a subject ... or the guy who thinks he doesn't need to ?

Why would you assume I don’t think it necessary to be well-read on the subject? I’ve read it and forgotten most of it (except for Leibniz) because, as you know, the nature of time is an ancient argument, and for the most part the debates have been almost entirely rationalistic. In the case of McTaggart, I neither saw the relevance of the A series/B relations argument nor did I want to turn our debate into a another tired, old rationalistic exercise that typifies McTaggart and his dissenters.

McTaggart’s A series point is not relevant because I was talking about sequences of physical changes, and he simply tried to show the contradiction in the concept of past-present-future time. In my opinion, McTaggart’s contradiction is created by his assumption (that at any time all A properties must exist); but as is so typical of the rationalist, he doesn’t find it necessary to confirm that his assumption is true yet goes on to philosophize endlessly anyway. And then he argues against the complaints to his assumption with more rationalistic arguments. It’s rationalism, in my opinion, that has made philosophy seem like “mental masturbation” to so many today.

If you had to select anyone to claim my point of view represents I would have thought you’d choose Leibniz, except I think my view is even more radically event-dependent than his because I claim the “time” you speak of is nothing more than a psychological sense created by our from-birth, never-ending awareness of the incessant changes in physical events that go on around us, and to us, every moment we exist. I say that outside that psychological sense there is no actual “dimension” of time beyond the rate of change of physical events.

People who carry around the psychological sense of time (and I think most of us do) may project their subjective experience onto objective reality so that time to them is not in their head, but part of the fabric of physical reality. That perspective seems reinforced when relativity tells us time can be messed with (I believe it is subjective projection combined with knowledge of relativity effects which has created the fairy tale of time travel).

Yet when we look we can’t find this “dimension” of time anywhere. That’s why, if you look back at my answers to you, I have opposed what I see as your Platonic view by constantly referencing observable physical reality, what is actually there. When we study reality we find only physical change and the space for that to happen in; and then within the realm of physical change we can see the trait of rate of change along with the fact that the rate of physical change can be affected by relativistic effects.

So what is the basis for the belief in a “dimension” of time? I have never, not once, seen one iota of objective evidence for it. Every single argument for time is merely a claim or an appeal to intuition, but without anything actual to observe as s “dimension.” I say parsimony demands that we remove time from subjective interpretations and rationalistic analysis, and limit our definition to what we have evidence to support.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree with you that empirically time is movement/change, but why do you think the universe is running out of time? New stars are being created in the universe and gamma-ray bursts are redistributing matter/energy that gravity has concentrated. The universe is a dynamic system in which dying/dead stars are being replaced by new stars. If the human race can progress for another 1000 years, we might be able to travel to other planets outside of our solar system. We might even survive after our star is recycled.

New stars are being created, but not new hydrogen, and hydrogen is being consumed like crazy. Overall, since the universe is expanding, less energy is available to do work or maintain mass in any given location with each passing moment. Following this trend, at some point what was the universe may become some huge expanse of energy (or potential energy?), except without mass there won't be anything to move, and without movement there is no time.

 

[sd01g]

New stars are being created, but not new hydrogen, and hydrogen is being consumed like crazy. Overall, since the universe is expanding, less energy is available to do work or maintain mass in any given location with each passing moment. Following this trend, at some point what was the universe may become some huge expanse of energy (or potential energy?), except without mass there won't be anything to move, and without movement there is no time.

How do you know that new hydrogen is not being created? We do not know what is happening inside dark quark bodies (black holes). It is quite possible that new hydrogen is being created and released as gamma-ray bursts. There is still a massive amount of knowledge about the universe that we do not know yet. Dude, be optimistic. Note: There have been times when there was no time, but there has never been a time when there was no existence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How do you know that new hydrogen is not being created? We do not know what is happening inside dark quark bodies (black holes). It is quite possible that new hydrogen is being created and released as gamma-ray bursts.

Okay, I'll adjust my statement to say as far as what has been observed there is no new hydrogen being created.

There is still a massive amount of knowledge about the universe that we do not know yet.

True, but I can't see a reason to postulate hydrogen is being created by gamma bursts. Do you know something I don't? (That's a serious question, I haven't ever heard anything about hydrogen creation.)

Dude, be optimistic.

Lol. I AM optimistic, mainly because I don't necessarily think consciousness needs the universe to exist.

Note: There have been times when there was no time, but there has never been a time when there was no existence.

Well, we agree on that, but as you must know, not everyone agrees and there is no way to prove you are right.

 

[Tournesol]

Why would you assume I don't think it necessary to be well-read on the subject?

So why get so het up about my mention of McTaggart ?

I’ve read it and forgotten most of it (except for Leibniz) because, as you know, the nature of time is an ancient argument, and for the most part the debates have been almost entirely rationalistic.

There is clearly some sort of empirical evidence for time, so arguments *against* time have to be rationalistic -- to the extent of inviting the reader to
ignore the evidence of his senses. However, I am not arguing against time.

In the case of McTaggart, I neither saw the relevance of the A series/B relations argument nor did I want to turn our debate into a another tired, old rationalistic exercise that typifies McTaggart and his dissenters.

There is nothing new of fresh about the declaration that time is a subjective, psychological phenomenon; it goes back to Parmenides.

McTaggart's A series point is not relevant because I was talking about sequences of physical changes,

Indeed: my point was that for Mctaggart and every other philosopher, a sequence of changes *is* a temporal sequence.

and he simply tried to show the contradiction in the concept of past-present-future time. In my opinion, McTaggart's contradiction is created by his assumption (that at any time all A properties must exist);

IMO it is created by his assumption that pastness, presentness and futureness are *inherent* properties of world-states.

but as is so typical of the rationalist, he doesn’t find it necessary to confirm that his assumption is true yet goes on to philosophize endlessly anyway.

But if we choose to argue against him, we can replace his incorrect assumptions with correct ones, and learn something about time in the process.

And then he argues against the complaints to his assumption with more rationalistic arguments. It's rationalism, in my opinion, that has made philosophy seem like “mental masturbation” to so many today.

If you had to select anyone to claim my point of view represents I would have thought you'd choose Leibniz, except I think my view is even more radically event-dependent than his because I claim the time you speak of is nothing more than a psychological sense created by our from-birth, never-ending awareness of the incessant changes in physical events that go on around us, and to us, every moment we exist.

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of conteadictory states.
Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

I say that outside that psychological sense there is no actual “dimension” of time beyond the rate of change of physical events.

Note that the problem of showing how change occurs without contradiction is completely independent of whether the change in question
is psychological/internal or physical/external.

People who carry around the psychological sense of time (and I think most of us do) may project their subjective experience onto objective reality so that time to them is not in their head, but part of the fabric of physical reality.

Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else
worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

That perspective seems reinforced when relativity tells us time can be messed with (I believe it is subjective projection combined with knowledge of relativity effects which has created the fairy tale of time travel).

Actually, it was Kip Thorne's work on closed timelike loops. But, as I said before, you can believe in time-as-a-dimension without
believing in time travel.

Yet when we look we can't find this dimension of time anywhere.

Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order
to explain them ? Are you saying that we don't 'find' a time dimension in some naive, direct way ? Or that a time dimension
doesn't feature in our more sophisticated, scientific explorations ? The latter is surely wrong.

That's why, if you look back at my answers to you, I have opposed what I see as your Platonic

If you mean by "Platonic" that I am shutting my eyes and trying to figur out everything rationalistically, that is not what I am doing.
Nor am I engaging in the kind of one-legged empiricism that leads to idealism or solipsism.
It is possible to look *and* think.

view by constantly referencing observable physical reality, what is actually there.

Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it
is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't
appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

When we study reality we find only physical change and the space for that to happen in; and then within the realm of physical change we can see the trait of rate of change along with the fact that the rate of physical change can be affected by relativistic effects.

If we want to make *sense*of reality, we have to posit all sorts of things we cannot see with the naked eye, whether atoms, gravitational
fields or a time-dimension.

So what is the basis for the belief in a dimension of time? I have never, not once, seen one iota of objective evidence for it.

1) Relativity posits one in order to explain observed results

2) Relativity predicts observed results to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

Every single argument for time is merely a claim or an appeal to intuition, but without anything actual to observe as dimension.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuitionin that ?

I say parsimony demands that we remove time from subjective interpretations and rationalistic analysis, and limit our definition to what we have evidence to support.

Solipsism it is, then!

 

[Les Sleeth]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis, I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in “time” in the first place? As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can’t see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I’m describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you’d have to also call science solipsism.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others. So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, “time” is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so “time” is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

Where’s the time dimension except in our mind? Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

 

[Gir]

all you're really doing is calling time by another name.

 

[SteveDB]

I saw the post title, and had to respond.
I suppose the reality of the past is based entirely on whether or not one was here to witness their version of it. I.e., were you born today, or sometime in a past where you could witness the events of that past unfold.
I for one have been around for over 45 years so I've witnessed my share of a past. Then there are those who were young adults in the 1960's and say that if you remember them, you weren't really there. But we know that was based entirely on their experience with LSD, and other mind-altering devices of the day. I for one was a young adult in the late 70's, and for some reason unknown to me, actually remember those days. So, to use a phrase of my elders, perhaps I really wasn't there. However, there were at least two years missing during my high school years, so based on the statements made above, perhaps I really was there.
Granted, LSD was more strychnine than psychadelic by then, so who knows.
Then, we must remember Steven King's movie in the mid 90's. Little robotic monsters will eat all caught up too deeply in a past that has already been lived. And lastly, we cannot forget the admonitions of one who said-- those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I for one think memories are there to keep us from killing ourselves, or doing stupid things that could forever alter our ability to comprehend what lies before us in the future.
Imaging having to re-discover Einstein's work every day that comes along. No thanks.

 

[Les Sleeth]

all you're really doing is calling time by another name.

I don't think so. The discussion has been what is it that the word "time" represents. The debate between Tournesol and myself at least has been primarily about what time actually is, and I don't see how our different perspectives can be generalized by a mere "another name." If you can explain how we are both defining time the same way with different terms, then I would like to hear that.

 

[nameless]

were you born today, or sometime in a past where you could witness the events of that past unfold.

Am I witnessing the events of the 'past' unfold right now? The 'future'? I am witnessing 'right Now'. All I can ever witness is 'right NOW'! One can close one's eyes and imagine, through thought (memory) all kinds of imaginary past and future, but all I have ever found 'round about me' is RIGHT NOW! Even your strolls down memory lane, even in both directions, is still an event that is happening in the NOW!
You might be interested to read your way through the entire thread to find varying perspectives on the matter at hand, many addressing your 'perspective' both pro and con...

 

[Tournesol]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis,

I am referring to the argument that the statements
a) Edward VII is alive
and
b) Edward VII is dead
are contradictory , whereas
c) Edward VII was alive in 1900
and
d) Edward VII is dead today,
the point being that the addition of a time-index, which distinguishes c) and d), is essentially
the intorduction of time-as-a-dimension (above an beyond mere change).

I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in time in the first place?

You tell me: that is the assumption you end up with if you do not admit time-as-an-index. If you hold that change occurs,
but do not hold that there are different "times" (analogous to places) for different states (such as being alive and being
dead) to occur in, then they must occur "on top of each other" -- thereby incurring contradiction, as in a) and b).

As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

That just *is* the indexing strategy, expressed in a naive form. It is for you to explain how the
past differs from the present, etc, without constituting some sort of series -- ie a dimension.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

The empirical evidence is the evidence for change; the contradiction comes when you don't allow
that there are different times -- time-as-a-dimesion -- for otherwise contradictory descriptions
of change to be indexed against.

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

And to make sense of change we need time-as-a-dimension.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

What a puzzling comment. Do you mean that the apparently empty gaps between objects are filled with matter ? Do you mean empty space has no dimensional qualities ? Do you mean space is relational, not absolute (ie, cannot exist in the absence of matter) ?

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

The "effect" of time is that change can occur without contradiction.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

You have not explained how you avoid contradiction without positing a dimension. Saying "it is all we need" does not address the problem.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can't see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I'm describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you'd have to also call science solipsism.

The point is the difference between a "shallow" empricism , that amounts to solipsism, and a "deep" one that posits not-directly-observable entities in order to make sense of what can be seen.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others.

That would be shallow empiricism.

So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, time is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Well space does have dimension, whether it says so in your model or not. The motion of a body in space can be described using sets of
not more than 3 numbers. Hence, space is 3 dimensional.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

OK. So when *you* say dimension , you mean *spatial* dimension, and when you say *spatial* dimension you mean "extension of a physical body"
just as Descartes did. Well, of course time-as-a-dimension is only going to be *analogous* to a spatial dimension. But that is an
artifical problem. Some water has passed under the bridge since Descarte's day; we now have the concept of a spatio-temporal
dimension available. Are you thinking inside a box ? Or is a True Scotsman argument -- "it isn't a dimension unless it's a
spatial dimension".

(And the Cartesian concept of a dimension still doesn't work; a point particle moving in space needs to be described
by 3-vevtors. The dimesnionality is there without the extension).

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so 'time' is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

time-as-a-dimension is what allows cnahge to occur without incurring contradiction.

Where's the time dimension except in our mind?

Not in our mind, and not in a spatial location. To insist that an answer has to fall into either of those
categories is to beg the question.

Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

I have already given you the real reason for time-as-a-dimension. Since you have in no way refuted it, there is no
need for a psychological explanation to account for belief in time.

 

[Tournesol]

It remains the case that time-as-a-dimension is needed to explain change, particularly to avoid the problem of contradictory states.

If you are still referring to McTaggart’s analysis,

I am referring to the argument that the statements
a) Edward VII is alive
and
b) Edward VII is dead
are contradictory , whereas
c) Edward VII was alive in 1900
and
d) Edward VII is dead today,
the point being that the addition of a time-index, which distinguishes c) and d), is essentially
the intorduction of time-as-a-dimension (above an beyond mere change).

I see it as merely a language trick to create an apparent logical conundrum where there isn’t any. What was his justification for assuming all states must exist simultaneously in time in the first place?

You tell me: that is the assumption you end up with if you do not admit time-as-an-index. If you hold that change occurs,
but do not hold that there are different "times" (analogous to places) for different states (such as being alive and being
dead) to occur in, then they must occur "on top of each other" -- thereby incurring contradiction, as in a) and b).

As critics have pointed out, all you have to do is say the past state was, the present state is, and the future state will be, and then there are no contradictory states.

That just *is* the indexing strategy, expressed in a naive form. It is for you to explain how the
past differs from the present, etc, without constituting some sort of series -- ie a dimension.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Moving time inside our heads does nothing to show how change can occur without contradiction. It also makes everything else worse, since you then go down the road of supposing that people are exempt from or unique within the universe.

What contradiction can you describe that can be empirically confirmed?

The empirical evidence is the evidence for change; the contradiction comes when you don't allow
that there are different times -- time-as-a-dimesion -- for otherwise contradictory descriptions
of change to be indexed against.

No one is saying people are exempt from anything. Their physical bodies are doing exactly what the rest of the universe is doing: changing.

And to make sense of change we need time-as-a-dimension.

In my last post below I will try another approach to explain why there is no actual or implied contradiction.

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Hmmm. can we 'find' dimensions of space ? Do we see them ? Or do we see gaps and shapes, and posit dimensions in order to explain them ?

Yes we can see space, but the dimensions are actually matter, not space

What a puzzling comment. Do you mean that the apparently empty gaps between objects are filled with matter ? Do you mean empty space has no dimensional qualities ? Do you mean space is relational, not absolute (ie, cannot exist in the absence of matter) ?

Originally Posted by Tournesol
Are you seriously asserting that what we can directly observe is *all* that is there -- that we cannot infer anything else, even if it is needed to explain what we can see ? So, when we see objects falling, we have to stop there and regard it as a brute fact; we can't appeal to an unseen force of gravity as explaining it.

Well, I am saying you have to be able to either observe something directly, or an effect of something. We can see at least traces of atoms, and we can see the effects of fields. Time, on the other hand, has no traces and no observable effects.

The "effect" of time is that change can occur without contradiction.

We *see* change. We are forced to posit a dimension in order to make sense of what we see. Where is the appeal to intuition in that ?

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the Platonic view of time, that like space, we need a dimension for change to happen within. All we need is space and something changing.

You have not explained how you avoid contradiction without positing a dimension. Saying "it is all we need" does not address the problem.

Solipsism it is, then!

I can't see how solipsism applies here. If you say that because I claim time is a psychological sense, then projection is the proper term for what I'm describing. And if you say that because I insist on the epistemology of observation of traces/effects, that is the basis of empiricism, and so you'd have to also call science solipsism.

The point is the difference between a "shallow" empricism , that amounts to solipsism, and a "deep" one that posits not-directly-observable entities in order to make sense of what can be seen.

Refusing to analyse the concept of change is not a response.

But I have analyzed it. You are convinced time is a dimension, and I suspect you aren’t going to accept any other view of time. I too am convinced of my view, although I believe I would change my mind if someone could demonstrate a time dimension to me. To date, I have never experienced a time dimension in any way, shape or form except in the mind of myself and others.

That would be shallow empiricism.

So let me try another way of explaining time that jives with something I have experienced.

Assume there is only one true absolute; let’s call it existence. I will define existence as “neutral” (i.e., not matter and not mind), assume that existence cannot not exist, and that there cannot be a beginning or end of existence; so neither time nor boundaries are properties of “pure” existence (i.e., existence is eternal and infinite).

If existence is the most basic state, then all that we see is some form and/or condition of existence. In other words, there is one pure existence, but a great many forms and conditions of existence. Although we can see how forms or conditions may be relative to other forms or conditions, ultimately every form and condition is relative to the absoluteness of pure existence.

For physical forms of existence, time is a condition. A physical form has a beginning where it arises from pure existence, and then so many changes before it loses its form and becomes pure existence again.

Physical forms also have the condition of dimensions. A dimension is extension along a unique plane, and of course within the infinite, eternal realm of pure existence. In this model, space doesn’t have dimensions, physical objects do. Space is a finite condition of existence (itself infinite) that allows extension.

Well space does have dimension, whether it says so in your model or not. The motion of a body in space can be described using sets of
not more than 3 numbers. Hence, space is 3 dimensional.

Is time a dimension? A physical form of existence is extended in at least three planes of D x W x H. A physical form also can be described metaphorically as extended in terms of duration, but it isn’t at all like the original meaning of a dimension. A virtual particle has very little “extension” compared to proton because it pops in and out of existence faster. Time becomes associated with dimensions in relativity where, say, acceleration affects physical extension as well as duration. But all that really happens is the form’s rate of change, change that will eventually end in pure existence, is slower than a non-accelerating frame of reference.

OK. So when *you* say dimension , you mean *spatial* dimension, and when you say *spatial* dimension you mean "extension of a physical body"
just as Descartes did. Well, of course time-as-a-dimension is only going to be *analogous* to a spatial dimension. But that is an
artifical problem. Some water has passed under the bridge since Descarte's day; we now have the concept of a spatio-temporal
dimension available. Are you thinking inside a box ? Or is a True Scotsman argument -- "it isn't a dimension unless it's a
spatial dimension".

(And the Cartesian concept of a dimension still doesn't work; a point particle moving in space needs to be described
by 3-vevtors. The dimesnionality is there without the extension).

So time as a dimension is metaphorical. If we want to say time is a dimension, then we have to redefine dimension and come up with a new term for physical extension. Overall time is the condition of temporariness of physical forms relative to the absoluteness of pure existence. The march toward pure existence is entropic change, so 'time' is both how many entropic changes a physical form has left, and the rate of those changes.

time-as-a-dimension is what allows cnahge to occur without incurring contradiction.

Where's the time dimension except in our mind?

Not in our mind, and not in a spatial location. To insist that an answer has to fall into either of those
categories is to beg the question.

Consciousness is conditioned by entropic change just like we are conditioned by light, sound, taste, gravity . . . Constant, unrelenting entropic change is part of our conscious experience from the moment we are born, long before we are able to contemplate it intellectually. So we are quite unconsciously conditioned to accept temporariness as part, or a “dimension,” of the world in which we live. That is why I think time (as a dimension) is projected from the sense of our own limited duration as we watch ourselves and everything else change right out of sight.

I have already given you the real reason for time-as-a-dimension. Since you have in no way refuted it, there is no
need for a psychological explanation to account for belief in time.

 

[Psi 5]

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

Interesting but pure BS, there is only now. Only life has memory so the concept of the past or even time only exists in our minds. The inanimate universe knows nothing of past, present, future or even movement because it has no memory. The human brain invented the concept of time because we can see movement and change. We recognize this because of the one faculty that distinguishes us from all other matter in the universe, we have memory so we know things move and change. Without memory you know no movement or change. The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics. A good example is music. Music can only be appreciated because of memory of previous notes and it is better appreciated after listening to the song several times because then you can remember coming notes as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting but pure BS, there is only now. Only life has memory so the concept of the past or even time only exists in our minds. The inanimate universe knows nothing of past, present, future or even movement because it has no memory. The human brain invented the concept of time because we can see movement and change. We recognize this because of the one faculty that distinguishes us from all other matter in the universe, we have memory so we know things move and change. Without memory you know no movement or change. The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics. A good example is music. Music can only be appreciated because of memory of previous notes and it is better appreciated after listening to the song several times because then you can remember coming notes as well.

Interesting. Are you a world class physicist like Greene?

 

[Psi 5]

Am I a world class physicist? The fact that you are asking means your implication is meaningless.

Do I need to be to know how memory works? Do I need to be to understand how I appreciate music? Do I need to be to know that there isn't a single bit of evidence that the universe exists elsewhere in all it's infinite past forms? Do I need to be to know that there isn't a single bit of evidence that disproves that now is all there is and that it's simultaneous throughout the universe? Do I need to be to know that physics doesn't know what time is and still argues about it? Can you disprove anything I said in my previous post?

 

[jimmie]

there is only now

I KNOW that you are right.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am I a world class physicist? The fact that you are asking means your implication is meaningless.

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

 

[Psi 5]

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

You might as well say he takes his opinion from yesterdays models for all that means. Maybe I take mine from tomorrows since time is so fluid. Arrogant? Maybe, so what. Incorrect? My opinion opposes his, I don't care where he gets his. Mainstream just means that it isn't universally accepted and mainstream is often wrong. Just like string theory might be mainstream someday, it doesn't make it right. I'll come back and eat my words when it's proven that I can, until then I'll just chug along in the now knowing you and he are in the same one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You might as well say he takes his opinion from yesterdays models for all that means. Maybe I take mine from tomorrows since time is so fluid. Arrogant? Maybe, so what. Incorrect? My opinion opposes his, I don't care where he gets his.

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics.

 

[nameless]

The idea that the past exists is nothing but metaphysics, not physics..

The Metaphysists don't accept the mental fantasy of time any more than QM does. The equations still are symmetrical if you reversed (or eliminated) the time elements. It it just part of the dream so that our dream universe can exist. There is truly nothing ever been found but NOW! And a 'Planck NOW is 'timeless'.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

Just a small point. The issue of time doesn't belong to the physicists. It has meaning to physics, so some physicists believing physicalness is all there is have have claimed time to be only physical. But time has been around a lot longer than physicists, and it belongs to all of us who care to contemplate it.

Maybe you'll tolerate an analogy. If someone creates a beautiful symphony in this universe, they must express it through physical means. There is math to it, there is physics to it, there is human physiology to it. A person might come along who only looks at the physical aspect of things and say "see, all physical." But is it? How does pure physicalness account for the creativity that organized those notes into a beautiful piece of music? Sure, there are theories how that might happened only physically, but they are all put forth by individuals already committed to a purely physical explanation for existence.

I think Psi 5 has a point to insist that he has a right to evaluate how the universe works without a physics degree. Afterall, who made physicists the gurus of truth? They might have the inside track to physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean they know everything.

 

[nameless]

It means that you are speaking from a limited frame of reference. Greene takes his opinion from the physical models used in today's physics. It is arrogant and incorrect to talk about his statement as if it was in opposition to mainstream physics.

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and none aught to be taken for dogma. 'World class physicists' once taught that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the 'center of the universe', that gravity came from matter, and on and on...
Gather as much 'data' as possible and think for yourself. Your opinion is a 'valuable' as any celebrity's.. no matter how many 'groupies' (that can't think for themselves) agree (see Earth as center of universe.)

Argument from 'authority' and argument from 'numbers' (of 'believers') are both cognitive fallacy.

"A true seeker could not accept any teachings, not if he sincerely wished to find something. But he who found, could give his approval to every path, every goal; nothing separated him from all the other thousands who lived in eternity, who breathed the Divine."
-Herman Hesse in Siddhartha

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

[Bokonon]

 

[Psi 5]

You attacked the credibility of his statements and not whether or not his opinion is correct. His is an opinion based on the physics. Yours is almost certainly an opinion based on emotion.

My opinion is based on a lifetime of contemplation on the subject, not emotion. I don't have a physics degree but I do have a couple of engineering degree's and I read a lot of science. I can talk to anyone about almost any subject intelligently. I didn't arrive at my opinions either yesterday or out of thin air.

Physicists make the great error that everything can be described by an equation, it can't now nor will it ever. So to give someone more credence because he is a physicist postulating theories based on the flavor of the month currently popular in the physics world is TRULY arrogant. Especially when the subject is something that has absolutely no mathmatical model, theoretical or otherwise, to explain what it is. Discussing what time is is just as valid in the philosophical arena as it is in the physics arena.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An engineer with two degrees who doesn't understand the role of mathematics in physical models. Hmmmm.

 

[Psi 5]

An engineer with two degrees who doesn't understand the role of mathematics in physical models. Hmmmm.

A physicist who doesn't understand english, how did you get to be a mentor? :yuck:
Just out of curiosity, which one of my statements did you twist the meaning of to come up with that? Feel free to quote this time. Also I would like to see a mathmatical model that explains what time is and shows how to access a past configuation of the universe, say around 1947, I'd like to know what really happened in Roswell.

 

[meL]

Posted - 2005 Oct 29 : 17:19:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see it while it last..ho ho ho
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=77232&page=4
Gaijin #46

and the others there!

boo hoo..my post were automatically deleted
from the physics thread...Time in QM
..very convenient for me :-)

They could at least just throw books at me(us)
and not delete.

They delete there but not the philosophy threads.


The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

What does that WARN monitor mean?

i am NOT vulgar. i talk about the what-is
in the physics thread.

The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

nevermind...the warn question...$$$ and fear

The forum where i have been for 2 years
has no ads, no money problems.

i will pay. ho ho ho

The creation, impermanence continues...
~~~

 

[meL]

A physicist who doesn't understand english, how did you get to be a mentor? :yuck:
Just out of curiosity, which one of my statements did you twist the meaning of to come up with that? Feel free to quote this time. Also I would like to see a mathmatical model that explains what time is and shows how to access a past configuation of the universe, say around 1947, I'd like to know

what really happened in Roswell.

i worked with the USAF group that created
the Roswell event...a high altitude balloon crash.

aliens will not come here...what for??

we are too dangerous at this *time*.

 

[meL]

R.E.M

Out Of Time
:-O

THIS is the future...always

THIS is the end of time
AND
THIS is the end of time

dont faint
keep singing and dancing

THIS is heaven
There is no death

.

 

[meL]

P.S.

Sorry...

i forgot to give credit to JC, JK, UGK (there are others of course)
for my time, heaven and no death statements.

 

[meL]

i have no degree's.
i am not a thiest.

i am not an athiest.

i need to stop and see what happens *next.