Would Proving Time Isn't Real Challenge Our Understanding of the Universe?

[ThomasT]

You never know.

But i am not liking this theory of chemical reactions in brain (seems very loose terminology)

But are we going into randomness or time here.

Time in mind is just reference points from our observation point
and what you are saying we can't have negative time, unless we are unconsciously living in negative time.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, or where it came from. I think I don't understand what this thread is about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The two statements...

1. The direction of time is not real.
2. Time is not real.

...are not equivalent.

We don't know that. Define "real".

The direction of time is a far more difficult issue.

How?

 

[ThomasT]

The two statements...

1. The direction of time is not real.
2. Time is not real.

...are not equivalent.

We don't know that. Define "real".

I think what russ means is that the 'direction' of change that time indexes of the physical world reveal isn't synonymous with the index, 'time', itself. One can at least imagine, say, advanced waves, or ctc's, etc., as well as produce them vis accepted theory, even if we never see them.

Because there isn't yet a unifying fundamental dynamic in physics, TIME doesn't imply any particular direction of change.

The direction of time is a far more difficult issue.

How?

Because we observe that our time indexes of the physical world reveal a particular 'direction' of change (away from lower ordered configurations) wrt the incongruent spatial configurations that the time indexes contain -- and physics has no fundamental dynamic(s) to explain that (eg., the 2nd LoT isn't an explanation, just a generalization of what's observed).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Because there isn't yet a unifying fundamental dynamic in physics, TIME doesn't imply any particular direction of change.

Because we observe that our time indexes of the physical world reveal a particular 'direction' of change (away from lower ordered configurations) wrt the incongruent spatial configurations that the time indexes contain -- and physics has no fundamental dynamic(s) to explain that (eg., the 2nd LoT isn't an explanation, just a generalization of what's observed).

Without being able to specifically follow what your saying, it's clear that the concept of "direction" wrt time is a manner of speaking that's been adopted for lack of any better. We speak of ourselves as going "forward" in time, or of time going "forward" or of ourselves standing still while "time passes", but all these analogies to physical motion are essentially arbitrary. There's no real reason we couldn't get everyone saying "up in time" rather than "forward in time" and have the same understanding of what we're all saying. The "direction" of time might be called real or unreal depending on what you think the question means; what level of rigor it aims for. Your earlier point about rigor was a good one.

One question on the poll demonstrates the need for rigor really well: "Are hallucinations real?" Both Yes and No, are correct answers depending on what you assume or decide the question means. The poll doesn't really give a sampling of what scientists think about the reality of various things. It serves, instead, to separate those who sent it back unanswered, or with "It depends." written in, from those who decided they understood the questions and committed to a yes or no answer when they probably should not have.

 

[ThomasT]

Without being able to specifically follow what your saying, it's clear that the concept of "direction" wrt time is a manner of speaking that's been adopted for lack of any better. We speak of ourselves as going "forward" in time, or of time going "forward" or of ourselves standing still while "time passes", but all these analogies to physical motion are essentially arbitrary. There's no real reason we couldn't get everyone saying "up in time" rather than "forward in time" and have the same understanding of what we're all saying. The "direction" of time might be called real or unreal depending on what you think the question means; what level of rigor it aims for. Your earlier point about rigor was a good one.

One question on the poll demonstrates the need for rigor really well: "Are hallucinations real?" Both Yes and No, are correct answers depending on what you assume or decide the question means. The poll doesn't really give a sampling of what scientists think about the reality of various things. It serves, instead, to separate those who sent it back unanswered, or with "It depends." written in, from those who decided they understood the questions and committed to a yes or no answer when they probably should not have.

What was it that you didn't follow or agree with. Often I don't agree with something I've said, or the way I've said it, after I give it more thought.

From what you've written, I think we pretty much agree on the salient points.

I do think that a 'direction' of time, is as good a way as any to speak of a dynamic (the archetypal example of which is the radiative 'arrow of time') that seems fundamental to the evolution of all physical systems.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What was it that you didn't follow or agree with. Often I don't agree with something I've said, or the way I've said it, after I give it more thought.

You said: "Because we observe that our time indexes of the physical world reveal a particular 'direction' of change (away from lower ordered configurations)..."

It's not clear to me why past things might be considered of a "lower" order.

and: "...wrt the incongruent spatial configurations that the time indexes contain..."

Why would the spatial configurations be "incongruent" as opposed to simply "changed" or "different" ? The choice of the word "incongruent" makes me wonder.

Also, I haven't read anything, really, about this and wasn't aware that people spoke of an "archtypical radiative arrow of time". I'm not sure what that might mean or why people suggest that as a good model; the 'radiative' part.

 

[ThomasT]

You said: "Because we observe that our time indexes of the physical world reveal a particular 'direction' of change (away from lower ordered configurations)..."

It's not clear to me why past things might be considered of a "lower" order.

I should have said lower in the order. Say you have a set of pictures of some street corner in New York City, each picture taken on January 1 of every year from 1900 to 2009, and you label each picture with the number corresponding to the year it was taken in. Then the lower the number, the farther back in the past is the picture it's associated with. The farther back you go, the more different the pictures look than from where you started.

and: "...wrt the incongruent spatial configurations that the time indexes contain..."

Why would the spatial configurations be "incongruent" as opposed to simply "changed" or "different" ? The choice of the word "incongruent" makes me wonder.

Some people think geometrically, so I threw that in there. It means essentially the same as 'different' or 'changed'. The thing is, in any set of time indexed photos of some part of our Universe every picture is unique. Represented geometrically, every picture would be incongruent with every other picture.

Also, I haven't read anything, really, about this and wasn't aware that people spoke of an "archtypical radiative arrow of time". I'm not sure what that might mean or why people suggest that as a good model; the 'radiative' part.

It's a simple way to demonstrate the difference between the past and the future. Also, if the boundary of our Universe is an isotropically expanding, more or less spherical, shell or wavefront, then the radiative 'arrow of time' that we can observe is a product and an example of that archetypal, prototypical, fundamental universal dynamic.

Of course, that could be wrong. Maybe our Universe isn't that way at all. But, imho, there are some good reasons to believe that it is.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I should have said lower in the order. Say you have a set of pictures of some street corner in New York City, each picture taken on January 1 of every year from 1900 to 2009, and you label each picture with the number corresponding to the year it was taken in. Then the lower the number, the farther back in the past is the picture it's associated with. The farther back you go, the more different the pictures look than from where you started.

Some people think geometrically, so I threw that in there. It means essentially the same as 'different' or 'changed'. The thing is, in any set of time indexed photos of some part of our Universe every picture is unique. Represented geometrically, every picture would be incongruent with every other picture.

It's a simple way to demonstrate the difference between the past and the future. Also, if the boundary of our Universe is an isotropically expanding, more or less spherical, shell or wavefront, then the radiative 'arrow of time' that we can observe is a product and an example of that archetypal, prototypical, fundamental universal dynamic.

Of course, that could be wrong. Maybe our Universe isn't that way at all. But, imho, there are some good reasons to believe that it is.

Thanks much for the explanations! It all made sense this time.