Why Does Time Flow Forward?

[Pademelon]

I believe that the 'arrow of time', which is defined by increasing entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, is variable through spacetime. I believe that Planck's constant, the underlying constant of thermodynamics and quantum theory, is not a constant but varies through spacetime. For example if we were to travel linearly 'backwards' through spacetime to the 'big bang', Plancks constant would decrease until at the singularity at the big bang, Plancks constant would = 0 and time would essentially stop. However, traveling linearly further 'backwards' through spacetime, Plancks constant would have an increasingly negative value and the 'arrow of time' would be reversed from our perspective. This is the theoretical scenario if one could travel through the event horizon of a black hole. The arrow of time therefore is unique to each point in spacetime

Mick

 

[Tournesol]

There is no evidence for variation in Planck's constant.

 

[moving finger]

Then the question is why it has an arrow.

If there were no arrow of time, there would also be no intelligent life to ask the question why.

Life can only arise in a universe where there is an arrow of time.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

The implication of the BU/BS theory is that you should have. I agree you don't. That is how the BU/BS theory doesn't match observation.

No, the implication of the BU (Block Universe) interpretation is NOT that you should have direct awareness of other moments of time. You seem to think of consciousness existing “outside of” the BU, so that it can “experience” all times simultaneously – that is not how it works. Consciousness exists within the BU, not external to it..

It does under the BU/BS theory, because being conscious one-after the
other would require an A series, which it explictly lacks.

No. Under the BU interpretation there is no such thing as “at the same time” except as coincident points on the T-axis, because time exists only within the universe (as one of the dimensions of the universe), there is not necessarily any time dimension external to the BU.

what do you mean by "internal time" ? The mental contents are certainly different. But, by hypothesis, they call co-exist in the fourth dimension.

Yes, but they exist at different “points” in that 4th dimension, hence the “time” is different for each of them. In the BU interpretation, “time” is simply a way of measuring position in the 4th dimension.

Exactly. The BU is no different from 4D space. The fourth dimension is only time in an "honourary" sense. Every moment along the 4th dimension is "on all fours" with all others, so there is no way individual moments can be picked out to be conscious. They either all are equally, or none are.

They all are, but not at the same “time” – by definition they each exist at different times.

The 4th dimension of time is quite different to the 3 dimensions of space. It has very different properties.

The flow of time is subectively evident. It can be explained by Becoming without the paradoxes of the "motion" metaphor.

Indeed it is explained, as simply a subjective interpretation that conscious entities place upon their experience of the arrow of time.

BU theory predicts that consciousness must be much less localised than is observed.
BU theory is therefore false.

The BU interpretation predicts nothing of the sort.

Either time flows, or there is a block universe.
Since BU is false, FoT must be true.

BU is not necessarily false.

Which me ? The me *now*...the me *now*...?

Which *me* would you like to choose? The argument applies to every one of them.

Each "me" at each point in time is in exactly the same boat, according to BU/BS.

They are at different spacetime positions in that boat.

Either they are all conscious, or none are.

They all are, but at different points on the 4th dimension, hence at subjectively different times.

So the me at time T is conscious, and the me at time T-1 is conscious.

Agreed.

Now, you can argue that there is no reason that me(T-1) should have consicous awarness of me(T), because me(T-1) lacks information about me(T). But the reverse is not the case. Why shouldn't me(T) share me(T-1)'s conscious experience ? The natural model would be that my consicousness expands as it goes on, just as my information does

Why should it? Nothing “goes on” because there is no flow. The natural explanation simply that each conscious point on the T-axis exists in deterministic relation to each other point. There is no “expansion” of consciousness”, except insofar as there is a correlation between information between each conscious point due to the deterministic relationships between them.

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T0+T1)
Conscious(T0+T1+T2)

rather than the perceived

Conscious(T0)
Conscious(T1)
Conscious(T2)

The latter is the correct interprettation, as long as you remember that these conscious points are not uncorrelated.

Consciousness is delocalised over a small area of space, because the rich causal interaction inside the cranium do not extend outside the cranium. The perceived delocalisation is exactly line with the causal evidence--as far a s space is concerned.

However, every brains state of your existence is casually connected to every other
one. So we would expect, on the BU/BS theory, that you cosnciousness is "delocalised"
to you lifetime -- and not just a moment.

Not at all. The conscious experience is not delocalised over all time for the same reason that it is not delocalised over all space. The rich causal interaction inside the “now” does not often extend outside the now, in the same way that the rich causal interaction inside the “here” does not often extend outside the “here”. But when you look at a starry night sky, your consciousness is in (indirect) causal contact with spaces and times that exist in completely different regions of the BU – far away in space and far away in time.

Why should future events need to be causally determined by laws if they exist already ?

You are looking at our so-called “laws of nature” as being prescriptive. They are not, they are descriptive. They simply describe the regularities that exist in nature (they do not tell nature how to behave). One of those regularities is that given any state of the universe at time T1, all other states of the universe at all other times are “fixed” to be consistent with the state at T1. None of this implies an arrow of time or a flow of time.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

Your are correct in stating that there is no reason why the first perception must be grounded in some reality external to consciousness. The first perception might well be a hallucination. However, for the first perception to be meaningful (even if a hallucination) it must be identified or defined. However, identification and definition require some already-held knowledge, since the unknown can only be defined in terms of the known.

I disagree. “meaningful” is an entirely subjective state, and “knowledge” is based on justified belief. None of this requires any prior “known” entities. The first awakenings of consciousness will not be based on knowledge, but rather on perceptions. Only when the agent has been able to acquire a certain store of perceptions will it then be able to form opinions (beliefs) based upon those perceptions. None of this requires “already held knowledge”.

First experiences (first inputs) could have no meaning if they did not somehow relate to that already-held knowledge (bootstrap data).

First experiences (in the literal sense) have no meaning – it is only when an agent has acquired a certain store of perceptions/experiences that it can then try to assign any kind of meaning to them (according to the perceived inter-relationshiops between them).

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and if there is no access to certain truth , then we cannot justify the truth of a belief and, hence, cannot have knowledge.

Only if you believe that justification entails certainty (which would then entail that your definition of knowledge entails certain knowledge). Most people do not define justification (or knowledge) this way. Justification (legally as well as in common practice) usually means “beyond reasonable doubt”.

As for access to certain truth by the solipsist and us, is their anything uncertain or untrue about Aristotle’s laws of identity, excluded middle, or non-contradiction? Aren’t those laws the very foundations of, and touchstones for, certainty and truth?

Such propositions may be the foundation of human logic systems, but that doesn’t make them laws. If these propositions can be proven to be true, then they are laws. If they cannot be proven to be true, then by definition they are axioms (an axiom is a proposition which is assumed, but cannot be proven, to be true).

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

It combines CHDO and rationality. Look at the definition of FW at the beginning.

Your definition is :

Free Will : "the power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances"

At least two things here :

1) Indeterminism clearly allows your model to dissociate itself from external circumstances, but in what sense does your model "choose" to perform one action rather than another?

2) You don’t believe that free will entails ultimate responsibility?

For a detailed examination of the problems inherent in any naturalistic model of free will based on a combination of determinism & indeterminism, see :

http://www.geocities.com/alex_b_christie/Swamp.pdf

Best Regards

 

[Mickey]

Did you know that the instance of suicide has fallen in recent years? Since the introduction of Prozac, in fact.

For whom? I'm quite sure that the instance of suicide has risen for those in the 15-24 age group.

According the NMHA, the http://www.nmha.org/suicide/youngPeople.cfm since 1960.

 

[Fittler]

Time is a creation of man.

 

[moving finger]

Time is a creation of man.

wish I could create time. first thing I'd do is to pack 2 seconds into every 1.

Best Regards

 

[ValenceE]

Dear Madness,

It seems that your first question refers to the present moment; in the now.

As for your question about a scientific way of determining if times flows or not, well, what I can say is that, in many equations where time is used as a parameter, it serves the purpose of making both sides of the = sign work together, validating those same equations.

One of those states that; Speed = Distance / Time

This equation simply defines movement as opposed to rest.

What is particularly interesting about this equation is that, for it to take form, Time cannot be static (cannot equal zero) because both speed and distance just don’t exist on their own, they are constructions of each other through time. Hence, time, as showed in this simple equation, not only can be assigned any arbitrary value, but this value must be endowed with flow for movement to occur.




For your question in 2), I would respond by putting myself in the following context ;

… sitting on a rock by a brook on a sunny autumn day, looking at a leaf that had just fallen in the water, upstream, coming towards me, as I wonder if time flows, just like the water carrying the leaf does… the entirety of the universal laws are contained in that single experience, including the arrow of time and my perception of it.

In my mind, there is just absolutely no way that this experience could go backwards or sideways or any other way that is has… because it HAS happened the way it has. Past and future just don’t exist as separate entities they are all intertwined in the experience of the now. I can, in the now, remember seeing the leaf fall in the brook, as I can in the now, looking at it, envision it being carried further downstream.



VE

 

[jhe1984]

Didn't read all the posts, but if no one else has, I thought I'd add a passage from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols, in which he discusses our perception of events and subsequent, almost simultaneous, reordering of these events to match what we understand as likely to have occurred in the objective, physical world,

"The cannon shot appears in a causal mode, in an apparent reversal of time. What is really later (the causal interpretation) is experienced first — often with a hundred details that pass like lightning before the shot is heard. What has happened? The representations which were produced in reaction to certain stimulus have been misinterpreted as its causes."


In the example, Nietzsche describes hearing the boom of the cannon first (or perhaps the cannon ball wizzing over head, depending on distance I guess?) and from that event, immediately working backward to reconsruct a series of events leading up to the cannon shot: loading the cannon, aiming the cannon, being told to fire, igniting the cannon, etc. All of these reconstructed events lead up to the one experienced even that we hear as the cannon ball overhead (or the boom). But once we process these events, they all become real and the order of the sequence puts our actual experience somewhere towards the end, as opposed to the first.

The excerpt is by no means a final answer to this question which won't be solved here, but I thought it might add another voice to the discussion. [If in fact, no one's included it yet, lol.]

 

[myoho.renge.kyo]

This is a topic relating to physics but philosophical in nature. Physicists are talking about explaing why the "arrow of time" flows forward the way it does, instead of flowing in any other direction. My questions are these:
1) How do we know that time flows at all? is it not possible that we simply experience time to be flowing as a feature of our consciousness and that all moments in time simply exist with no flow from one to the next. Is there any scientific way to distinguish between time flowing or not?
2) Does it make any sense at all to ask why time flows in the direction it does? surely the direction of time being labelled as "forwards" is arbitrary. What would be strange is if time suddenly changed direction. But even then, would we even notice? If time were to change direction, we would have no idea as we ourselved would be going back in time, retracing our steps.
Basically, i have no idea what physicists mean when they ask why time has an arrow

i am going to try to answer the questions as when i was a kid.

"How do we know that time flows at all?"

if you take a piece of ice out of the freezer, it melts. water does not freeze out of the freezer. or if you put water in a freezer, it freezes, but you need a freezer to do that. that is how we know that time flows.

"Does it make any sense at all to ask why time flows in the direction it does?"

why is it that ice melts when you take it out of the freezer? why is it that water does not freeze out of the freezer? why is it the water freezes inside a freezer? `it is as good a question as any (i think).

 

[Evo]

if you take a piece of ice out of the freezer, it melts. water does not freeze out of the freezer.

It does if it's cold enough outside the freezer.

or if you put water in a freezer, it freezes, but you need a freezer to do that. that is how we know that time flows.

it would depend on the temperature in the freezer.

why is it that ice melts when you take it out of the freezer? why is it that water does not freeze out of the freezer? why is it the water freezes inside a freezer? `it is as good a question as any (i think).

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[mosassam]

Is there a mathematical or scientific proof for Time? If not we must assume that Time has no objective reality until such a proof arrives.
Is Time a byproduct of change? If so 'cause-and-effect' is also a byproduct of change.
Q: What causes change?
A: Change
Q: What is the effect?
A: Change
I know this is all bar stool philosophy but I'm driving at something important. Without proof of either, two fundamental buliding blocks of physics disappear.
Time and Cause-and-Effect are so blindingly obvious that they have been assumed to have objective reality. This does not mean that the history of physics and all its myriad applications are invalid, but it does mean that physics as a desription of reality is.
PS Can I descibe something as indescribable?

 

[Time is Unreal]

Time could be holding us back in our minds. Could it not? Can something be simualtaneous, and in the past at the same time? I don't think so . Yesterday, if you like calling it that is the past. I don't think so. Ithink it is just a simualtaneous motion in or at a point of space where when at that point all things are present . When you move into the future if you like to call it that. Same thing. How can a point that is always present, just because it changes distance from one point to another be called time?
It could just be eternity we are in. Always present and constant. This is just some ideas I wonder if they could ever be proven? Maybe time does exist, but hard to imagine it for me. I believe all matter, energy and everything in the universe are constant and present always. I guess what I'm saying is just because something was present over there point (a) and now is present here point (b) dose'nt prove any time has gone by. It just explains change in corrdinates for something and it is always present, at the point it rests or moves. I will be present and constant were ever that point may be realative too anything else or even nothing. If we are let's say 4 hours apart in "time" if you want too use that, we are present were we are in space; time does not apply to our presence , or any other matter , or gravity, or energy so why do we insist on using it when it confuses us? Distance, and motion does not give any reasonable answer for" time" if you consider presence while moving, or setting still. It is still present in a form whether it be energy, matter, mass, or gravity, or light.

 

[mosassam]

It could just be eternity we are in. Always present and constant

.
My continuous experience of 'reality' is as an ever-changing present. I have memory of the past, can make predictions about the future but these are just 'tricks' of the mind. My ongoing experience is always of NOW. I can make rational arguments demonstrating the reality of Time but these are more tricks of the mind. I am coming to the conclusion that time only exists in an abstract sense. However, although NOW is constant it is ever-changing. This changing, or unfolding, does not seem to happen in a random way. It gives the impression of "movement forward", and I don't know why this should be so.
Two things bother me -
Is my NOW the same as everyone/everything else's NOW?
Is there a mathematical model of reality that doesn't have time factored into it?

 

[heman]

I think
If however the arrow of time has had the same direction since the big bang or whatever started it all, then it is a pointless theory, unless it changes direction.

Why it will be a pointless theory in that case ?

 

[abhaiitg]

is velocity of time is equal to the velocity of light?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

is velocity of time is equal to the velocity of light?

It doesn't really make sense to ask a question like that because velocity involves both a change in time and a change in distance (and direction of movement, actually). Time just involve a change in time.

But if you want to talk about the rate of change of time, it's one second per second.

⚛​

 

[basePARTICLE]

Relavistic time can be defined as Tr = M/E, where M is mass and E is total Energy. A zero value corresponds to annhilation whereas 1 corresponds to timelessness. Seeing total energy is always greater than mass, Tr is never greater than one.

M can be written as M1 + M2 and similarily E can be written as E1 + E2.
If M2 is sufficiently small, along with E2, we have the wave function collapsing in dTr, as M+dM/E+dE. There are no arrows of time seeing the interval Tr, in essence represents a state in the block universe. However dTr has an arrow, a very specific band through the now moment, which implies that all possible movement backwards in time will occur during the foward cycle dTr!