Chalnoth said:This doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Yeah.Drakkith said:A large part of this thread simply doesn't make any sense.
Chalnoth said:Yeah.
But in this case, equating entropy with time makes no sense whatsoever of a reversible adiabatic processes where entropy is conserved, but the system nonetheless changes.
junjunjun233 said:Adiabatic, reversible adiabatic, isentropic flow; everything that involve movements/changes has to do with time. And we fill each gaps with time.
Time only appears in the equation of physics but no one is sure about it.
Time is motion! You cannot have motion without time!junjunjun233 said:It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.
Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.
As I said earlier, time is a model that is useful for making sense out of our universe. It is most easily understood in physics as being a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions we are more familiar with.junjunjun233 said:How do you make sense of time then?
Chalnoth said:As I said earlier, time is a model that is useful for making sense out of our universe. It is most easily understood in physics as being a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions we are more familiar with.
tanzanos said:Time is motion! You cannot have motion without time!
That's the only real way to understand time. When you try to put the concept into colloquial words, you necessarily lose information.junjunjun233 said:I understand the importance of time in our equation to make a model of everything we need to measure in reality.
Neither of these make any sense at all to me. Time doesn't cause anything to move (or not move). And how is it that time can be a description that has nothing to do with time?junjunjun233 said:Either;
Time is the mechanism that causes everything to move (4th dimension) Or, Time is simply a description of that state in which it has nothing to do with time.
Chalnoth said:That's the only real way to understand time. When you try to put the concept into colloquial words, you necessarily lose information.
Neither of these make any sense at all to me. Time doesn't cause anything to move (or not move). And how is it that time can be a description that has nothing to do with time?
junjunjun233 said:Actually, it can be the other way around. You cannot have time without motion. Since motion always exists.
junjunjun233 said:I always thought that time is non physical and besides mathematically it is not needed, and to make sense of reality, we might as well make abstraction of time in our interpretation of Nature.
Somehow, in the case for matter, whatever the conditions, it is always set in motion for whatever reason that's why i came to that conclusion that time might be a separate physical entity that interacts with matter rather than non physical which is very unlikely.
Maybe I am just confused and try to make sense in a different way.
The only way to understand reality at a deep level is through mathematics.junjunjun233 said:I always thought that time is non physical and besides mathematically it is not needed, and to make sense of reality, we might as well make abstraction of time in our interpretation of Nature.
Chalnoth said:The only way to understand reality at a deep level is through mathematics.
Taking a famous scientist out of context is quote mining. It's not only lying, it's putting the lie in somebody else's mouth. It's disgusting.Homesick345 said:"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
Chalnoth said:Taking a famous scientist out of context is quote mining. It's not only lying, it's putting the lie in somebody else's mouth. It's disgusting.
Homesick345 said:mmm ...I wasn't lying, not even trying to put anything out of context (don't even know what is the right context, & I don't even understand Einstein quote fully, except that it deals with math application to reality, which was what you mentionned)- however a violent reaction of this sort, (that includes name-calling) is deeply disturbing. Why are you so angry?
SHISHKABOB said:well, if you don't understand the quote, or say that you do not, then why would you use it in an argument?
And anyways, he called what you *did* disgusting, not *you*.
I'm angry because you misrepresented a good scientist, making him appear to say something he almost certainly never intended to say. This action of your was the height of dishonesty.Homesick345 said:mmm ...I wasn't lying, not even trying to put anything out of context (don't even know what is the right context, & I don't even understand Einstein quote fully, except that it deals with math application to reality, which was what you mentionned)- however a violent reaction of this sort, (that includes name-calling) is deeply disturbing. Why are you so angry?
Chalnoth said:I'm angry because you misrepresented a good scientist, making him appear to say something he almost certainly never intended to say. This action of your was the height of dishonesty.[/
What in the world are you talking about? What dishonesty and what quote? THIS QUOTE BYBEINSTEIN ALWAYS PUZZLED ME...ALL I WANTED was what would be your comment about it...since it addressed seemingly a dichotomy math/reality...where do you see bad intentions from my part? And what makes you assume I'm I'll intended? Man, this is getting weird!
I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.Homesick345 said:"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
Chronos said:I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.
Chronos said:The boat is leaving the dock, and you missed it.
Chronos said:Hate is emotional, science is objective. You seem to struggle with this distinction.
I don't think that's quite it, especially since logic is just another form of math. Rather, that we shouldn't trust that we know the correct mathematics at all times: just because we can write an equation doesn't mean it's the right equation. Too often people trust something much more just because somebody wrote some math down near it. I don't think this is much of a problem in physics today, but perhaps it was in Einstein's time (I kind of doubt it, since at that time massive strides forward were being made in our mathematical understanding of the universe). It is, however, a big problem in many areas disconnected from physics. Economics is a good example.Chronos said:I agree with Chalnoth that you have misrepresented what Einstein was saying. Einstein never asserted 'reality' does not exist, his claim was that mathematics is a hammer used to attempt to forge perception to agree with observation. Translation - do not trust math to supercede logical reasoning. Math is a coded form of reason. Our inability to derive a perfectly coded form of reason does not invalidate logic.
Darken-Sol said:soo... yes or no. do we have proof time exists? or existed? will exist? if i take a picture of a tree then look at it ten years from now, would the picture prove time exists. its all fine to say it does, but does it really prove anything?
Darken-Sol said:we can only experience one "time" at a time. so how do we compare it to any other "times"? every tool you use will only mean something now.
Drakkith said:Define what you call "time" and "times", otherwise I cannot answer this.
Darken-Sol said:sorry. i was thinking past present future.
Chalnoth said:Consciousness has zero effect on the behavior of reality (except the obvious bits like building houses, computers, etc.).
Darken-Sol said:what i am getting at is : you could make a graph an hour. then wait one hour. upon examination it would seem to mark the passing of time. i could make the same the same graphs every two hours. when we compare these graphs they would appear the same. showing the same data. how would i prove they were different by the identical graphs? i can't even prove they existed a minute ago. all i have is some paper with data on it which exists only while i observe it.
claytonh4 said:I'd disagree, many theories show that the presence of an observer is absolutely necessary for the construct of what we consider tangible reality. Schrodinger's Cat is a perfect example, that observation is required for the wave probability to collapse into a fixed state. I believe that the universe would exist without an observer, but at the same time, I think certain parts of "reality" are observer dependent, for example, the subject matter of this thread: time
That's completely and utterly wrong. Experiments have been done where they've collapsed wave functions without actually doing any observations.claytonh4 said:I'd disagree, many theories show that the presence of an observer is absolutely necessary for the construct of what we consider tangible reality. Schrodinger's Cat is a perfect example, that observation is required for the wave probability to collapse into a fixed state. I believe that the universe would exist without an observer, but at the same time, I think certain parts of "reality" are observer dependent, for example, the subject matter of this thread: time
Max™ said:Would this not imply that time didn't exist without observers?
How did everything get into the state it was in which produced the first observer?
Did things simply appear in exactly the state to produce an observer, and at that point time began?
Perhaps the problem is due to our being unable to view time from the outside, and indeed having difficulty thinking in a fashion which doesn't assume the presence of time as a given.
We can do this mathematically though.
