- #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html?pg=1&topic=physics&topic_set=
Has anyone read this? If so, what's your take on it.
Has anyone read this? If so, what's your take on it.
Tony11235 said:Humm...I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes a lot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.
Tony11235 said:Humm...I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes a lot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.
Pengwuino said:So what's your take on this ivan :D
Who are these "time theorists"?
Tony11235 said:Humm...I'm not sure what to say. Regardless, it takes a lot of gutts for somebody who has not even completed college to come out and say that Hawking is wrong.
Zantra said:At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.
More people should do that.
But so was a lowly patent clerk once judged.
At the very least he's thinking outside of the box.
I don't know if Lynd is right or not, but I agree that he isn't saying anything new. Let's give Parmenides some credit here. There is nothing shocking or new about saying some aspect (or all) of reality is an illusion, even though such talk still makes me squirm.chronon said:It is interesting to look at some of the response to Lynds' paper. Some people seem to be arguing about whether he is right or wrong. This seems to be a sterile argument - I would say that he is right but not saying anything new.
Interesting website you have there! But, is there an About page somewhere that tells a little about yourself and your background? I generally like to know something about an author before I spend a lot of time reading his or her articles.chronon said:I've written more about Peter Lynds and his work at http://www.chronon.org/Articles/ZenoLynds.html
No, I've been meaning to do such a page, but haven't got round to it yet. But I take your point, so I'll try to give it higher priority.jma2001 said:Interesting website you have there! But, is there an About page somewhere that tells a little about yourself and your background? I generally like to know something about an author before I spend a lot of time reading his or her articles.
I'm not sure that the 'sequences of events' are really part of Lynds' philosophy, this seems to be just the summary of the writer of the Wired article. They seem more like Julian Barbour's idea, which I think is the opposite of Lynds - I'm not surprised that the two fell out.zoobyshoe said:I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?
Right, I can picture Parmenides and Zeno mulling over a similar question only to determine that, well, sequences don't take place. But, maybe he thinks all sequences of events have already occurred, and our consciousness creates 'time', or the illusory sequence aspect of reality.zoobyshoe said:I don't think Lynds ideas make any sense. He says there is no time, only sequences of events. How can "sequences" take place in any medium but time?
If this is the case, then the only other idea he seems to be proposing to respond to is that time isn't quantized, that it is a smooth, continuous flow. I don't find that to be objectionable. As far as I know physics doesn't assert the existence of any quanta of time.chronon said:I'm not sure that the 'sequences of events' are really part of Lynds' philosophy, this seems to be just the summary of the writer of the Wired article.
I've done a lot of thinking about this. It seems that if our consciousness were analagous to a record player "playing" a pre-existing recording, it would still be playing it over time. The events it is watching may, indeed, all exist all at once, but the observation of them, in sequence, still has to take place over time.kcballer21 said:But, maybe he thinks all sequences of events have already occurred, and our consciousness creates 'time', or the illusory sequence aspect of reality.
selfAdjoint said:The real question of this thread is can you have succession of events without time?. I think you can.
Without knowing anything about either of these, I still notice they are referred to by the term "approach". What this suggests to me is that these are probably "means of analysis" which yield information that is of use in some way shape or form, but whose premises needn't have any literal reality for them to be effective.selfAdjoint said:The real question of this thread is can you have succession of events without time?. I think you can.
Consider the causal sets approach to quantum gravity or the causal dynamic triangulations approach. Both of these take cause to be prior to time. That if one event causes another, then the second one is later in time than the first is a theorem, or an emppirical discovery for them.
zoobyshoe said:Without knowing anything about either of these, I still notice they are referred to by the term "approach". What this suggests to me is that these are probably "means of analysis" which yield information that is of use in some way shape or form, but whose premises needn't have any literal reality for them to be effective.
Peter Lynds's reasonable and widely accepted assertion that the flow of time is an illusion (25 October, p 33) does not imply that time itself is an illusion. It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other. Crick compares our perception of time to that of space. Quite right. Space does not flow either, but it's still "there".
Thanks for digging that up, Art, but that quote just confused me more about what he is trying to say.Art said:Here's a quote I found from New Scientist 6th Dec 2003 which seems to better explain Lynds redefinement of time,
I'm not sure but how I read it is that it seems to suggest that all events occur (or could occur) simultaneously but to travel from one event to another requires movement (duration) which we perceive as the flow of time. I can't see how this makes any difference on a practical level but from a philosophical viewpoint it is probably important??zoobyshoe said:Thanks for digging that up, Art, but that quote just confused me more about what he is trying to say.
"It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other."
If you're sensitive to language, notice the syntactically hinky use of the word "duration." The sentence ends up not having any meaning I can fathom.
Conclusion:
In summary, it was shown there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical magnitudes and values at a time, for their continuity through time, although with the parameter and boundary of their respective magnitude and value being determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as described by the quantum hypothesis,(1) but with this indeterminacy in precise value not being a consequence of h and quantum uncertainty. This illustrated that in relation to indeterminacy in precise physical magnitude, the macro and microscopic are inextricably linked, rather than being a variable only directly associated with the quantum world. The explanation provided was also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician, Zeno of Elea.(9) It is not necessary for time to emerge from the quantum foam present just after the big bang at approximately (Gh/c3)1/2 scale,(2-7) and the proposals of Imaginary Time (2, 3, 5-7) and Chronons,(2, 8) have been shown to be incompatible with a consistent physical description, and would appear to be superseded on a theoretical basis.
I am not sure that anyone has ever claimed such a thing as a physical static instant. Maybe some people have gotten into trouble be taking arbitrary cutoff points like t=0 too seriously, but I'm not aware of it if they have.Art said:Ah, found some more on this. His central contention is that there is no such thing as a specific static instant in time his argument being that for time to be continuous it precludes the possibility of a physical static instant.
zoobyshoe said:Planck proposed a smallest possible measurement of time that has any meaning: the time it takes a photon to travel one "planck length", but this isn't the same thing as proposing a physically static instant.
Well! I better start crackin!Telos said:All this man did was become a psuedo-Buddhist new age Hindi poser. His book will sell millions, of course.
The main argument of the article is that the concept of time may not be as fixed and absolute as we perceive it to be. The article explores different scientific theories and experiments that challenge our understanding of time and its role in the universe.
Scientists define time as a measurement of the duration between events or the progression of events in the universe. It is often measured in seconds, minutes, hours, and so on, using clocks and other timekeeping devices.
Some theories that challenge the traditional concept of time include the theory of relativity, which states that time is relative and can be affected by factors such as gravity and velocity. Another theory is the quantum theory, which suggests that time may not be a continuous flow, but rather a series of discrete moments.
Our perception of time is often based on our personal experiences and can be influenced by external factors such as our surroundings and emotions. However, the reality of time may be more complex and influenced by various scientific factors that we may not be aware of.
These theories have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and its workings. They challenge our traditional understanding of time and may lead to new discoveries and advancements in science and technology. They also raise philosophical questions about the nature of time and its role in our existence.