AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Time's Fabrication, or the Argument Burrito Supreme

50 25960
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

I was watching Lucy the other day, and through the disappointment at the movie, came something surprising. At one point, Lucy said "Time is the only true unit of measure, it gives proof to the existence of matter, without time, we donât exist."
For an attempted cerebral movie, I found this to be shockingly ignorant and Van Voorhis-esque. Before you flip your table in outrage, let me outline the facts. Please understand I am making a case against probably everything you believe in this thread. Bear with me here.

Throughout mankind's history, we have saught to understand, or at least account for what we cannot explain. Some of the best examples are magic, and in a somewhat directed format, religion. Since we're talking about time's validity, let's start from the beginning.
Artifacts from the Paleolithic suggest that the moon was used to reckon time as early as 6,000 years ago. This information was generally used to track crop cycles to know when to plant seeds. Basic survival stuff. But as villages formed, so did society diversify. There was more free time to sit around and think, "What in the actual **** is going on?" So came about leaders, philosophers, laws, mathematics, and measurements of time. We'll come back to this in a bit.

There are many measures of time, from a jiffy to a million years, the terms all vary. But what IS time? Most people agree that time is the flow of events, from past to present, stems from the beginning of time and disappears to the end. Here is where it gets sticky. We all know know time is going somewhere, but according to what some guy said, it all has to be recycled. That leads us to one of two conclusions:

Time is on a loop like a round treadmill, with a wall somewhere in the middle (wait, in the middle of a circular track? But where does it start and end?) That light you see at the end of the tunnel? That's the big bang. All matter and energy start to pile up, then finally pop through the wall, rearrange their ruffled feathers, and continue the cycle. Think fast, evolution.

Or:

Time is as much an illusion as color. Just another label for a reflection of something we barely understand. The thing we call "time" is simply a measure of points of events. Everything we invented to tell "time" is just based off of cycle reading. There is no time in a cycle. A cell does not know what hour or day it is. It splits on a cycle based on how many nutrients are available. The moon's cycle is based on an orbit induced by gravitational pull. We based our months off of the moon's cycle. We based our days off of the months, the weeks and hours off of days, the minutes off the hours, the seconds off the minutes, and so on. A cycle continues regardless of "time", and is only stopped by wear and tear or an outside influence. This means that "time" is neither linear nor circular, it is vast emptiness of nonexistence, and the great dates and deadlines we set are little more than buoys in the bay of reality. Once we escape the illusion of age and lack of time, we become free to be who we truly are. But doesn't that mean certain religions are...? No. In fact, I have a cute little tie-in argument.

Take a trip in imagination with me; it's 38,000 BCE, and we see a rudimentary ancestor of modern humans carving away at a little statue of a half-man half-lion. Is it a deity, or has our friendly whittler been making fire with the wrong plants?
Fast forward about 8000 years. the San peoples in northwestern Botswana are painting pictures on the walls of Tsodilo hills, believing that it was the sight of creation, and that disturbances or death near the hills would stir up some bad juju spirits.
By 9130 BC, early peoples had constructed Göbekli Tepe as a permanent place of worship over an ancestral holy site. Many archealogists believe the actual structure could actually be from as far back as 11,000 BCE, which predates the so-called Neolithic revolution. Go figure.
Now after all this history, at around 3750 BCE, proto-semitic peoples appeared in the Arabian people and moved around.

So, by the time abrahamic christianity showed up, religion had been around for something like twenty thousand years. These old pre-civilization deities predate modern religion by a bunch. So how do people still believe their religion is true?

Well, as I went from going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it, I came upon two Christians discussing with each-other what it means to be a Christian, or some such. I barged in, quite uninvited, and asked them about the concept of "faith". Well, being but followers, not actually knowing anything, they stumbled around verbally, preaching to me and condescendingly quoting bible verses about doubt and temptation to each-other. The conversation went on until I explained to them this:

Religion is a social construct. Way back in history, some leader of a tribe of cavemen (don't take that too literal) got wise and realized with a large group of people, you can't just let everyone do whatever they want. So he thought to himself, "Hey, if I tell people if they hurt or steal or are disrespectful to deities, when they die they're go to place full of dead people and fire. Dead people and fire are scary." And so the afterlife was born. If you notice, most religions have a guideline of being a better person to other people and just in general. Ceremonies were the earliest form of organization and rules. And that's where religion comes from, and what it does.

How does this tie in? Well, here goes!

So, if time never ends, there is no religion, what's the point of all of it?
Short answer: Reproduction. Making sticky. Doing wang chung.
Long answer: The point of life is whatever you make it about. With modern technology you don't have to worry too much about starvation, or dying of a small cut on our hand. You can make babies, or be an artist, or make art and paint babies. Hell, you could pretend to be crazy, or kill someone and be fed and taken care of for the rest of your life. It's up to you.

What SHOULD you do with your life?
You realize we live on the most biologically challenging planet in the known universe? We beat the Neanderthals out, even though they were smarter, faster, stronger, and grew faster than us. The Denisovans probably got smart enough to realize out they were screwed anyways and just sat there waiting to die. (Romeo, it's just that the time was wrong. Tear, tear.) We lived through floods, starvation, the host of venomous critters, ravenous beasts, our local apex predators. We conquered everything. All with under 10% of our brain's functioning capacity. For a long period worshiped deities that controlled the crops, fertility, the sun, the moon, sickness and health. We worshiped the gods of war and their ability to sunder armies. For our entire history, we have worshiped power. We have always had the idea that there is some powerful thing behind our success.

The human race has become like a race of demigods. We control the whole world. There is nothing we can't change, if we put our minds to it. We are the ultimate beings on this planet. I think everyone should try to further their own perfection. We may not become perfect in one or two generations, but in a few hundred years, we will be close.

Around the world, people are being discriminated against because of their color, their beliefs, their social status. And it will always be that way until we realize that we are the highest power. We are all equally capable of becoming perfect, through genetic research. Our grandchildren could have twice our lifespan, due to recent discoveries. I'm not saying immortality will be pretty, but I know the humans have already written their destinies across the stars. With understanding and discipline, we could spread across the universe infinitely.

In conclusion, mankind is bound by chains of dogma and imagined limits. Our weakness is ignorance, the fear of the unknown, insecurity in what is new. Our strength is in numbers, in our resilience, in our intellect, in our capacity for discovery.

I don't expect any more than to be ridiculed by some, and thought of as crazy by the rest. But there's always the low probability that someone will put the pieces together, and that's why I decided to post this. I will try to be timely in my responses, so give me your best shot, lurkers and skeptics alike. I apologize in advance for any errors in grammar or verbiage.

  • 50 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I'm not arguing against measuring time, I'm saying that the universe has no beginning, nor and end. That time is just little white jots on an infinite black paper, and the jots make a somewhat straight line.

You repeat again and again that time does not exist, and now it exists as, what... little white jots, whatever that foggy analogy means? But later on you repeat again that time is inexistent, but then what are we measuring? Why do things happen after each other?

You understand the pressure differences between here and space, correct? And you understand that machinery tends to slow down when it's cold. And I'm no expert, but the only thing keeping astronauts from frying in direct sunlight is their suits and a spaceship. I'm pretty sure there's heat distortion in space. Not to mention a constant barrage of space dust which is like a tiny, super fast bullet. But don't let me get in the way of you because I heard a couple things off some documentary.

I know I did the same mistake in the post you quoted, but that's all technical details. Noone ever placed a clock near a black hole, nor is it going to happen. The clock analogy is a thought experiment to exemplify how gravity affects time, according to the theory.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Oh god. I hate to ask.... Are you a theist or something?


I'm a determinist. It isn't the same thing.

I am not DESTINED to do anything. I can be moved towards doing something by the combination of my own psyche and environmental factors, but I am not set along a certain path that is unchanging.


A lot of people dislike the idea, but it's really just the necessary outcome of the laws of physics not suddenly and inexplicably disappearing whenever consciousness is mentioned. You can't change something before it exists, so whatever you end up doing is the unchanging path that you are destined to choose. You have a reason for every choice you make, and that reason is not subject to random interference. That's all there is to it.

If I told you that, all my playful banter would go to waste and this would just get so much more challenging. Perhaps I will tell you after this thread is dead and long gone.


Then it is of no relevance or consequence.

[quote]When the adjustment is equally incorrect and presented with evidence which invalidates it, yes.


[broken link to image which casts crazyape's behaviour in unflattering light][/quote]

I admit that I don't fully understand your insistence upon self-deprecation.

That WAS a proper retort. Google is your friend, Bubbles. Dictionaries work too.


Another failed attempt at evading the subject. If you really don't want to discuss it, just leave it alone.

I'm saying the thing we are measuring is nonexistent.


We measure distance by observing differences in our observations across two points. Distance is not a tangible substance. It neither affects, nor is affected by, anything. Therefore distance does not exist.

We measure mass by observing differences in our observations across two objects. Mass is not a tangible substance. It neither affects, nor is affected by, anything. Therefore mass does not exist.

So many times, I've said it. Time is not inert, because it does not exist.


That's circular reasoning. You're starting with the premise that time doesn't exist, and rejecting the alternative on the grounds that it doesn't exist in order to conclude that it doesn't exist.

I already said this, and you responded with something like time flies like a banana. Read the quote very carefully.


No. You quoted someone speaking of an entirely different matter in an entirely different context which hasn't the vaguest hint of relevance to this discussion. I therefore quoted in kind.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

You repeat again and again that time does not exist, and now it exists as, what... little white jots, whatever that foggy analogy means? But later on you repeat again that time is inexistent, but then what are we measuring? Why do things happen after each other?


I'm saying what we're measuring doesn't exist.

Define after.

I know I did the same mistake in the post you quoted, but that's all technical details. Noone ever placed a clock near a black hole, nor is it going to happen. The clock analogy is a thought experiment to exemplify how gravity affects time, according to the theory.


according to the theory


theory


Gravity is a force pulling together all matter (which is anything you can physically touch). The more matter, the more gravity, so things that have a lot of matter such as planets and moons and stars pull more strongly.

Mass is how we measure the amount of matter in something. The more massive something is, the more of a gravitational pull it exerts. As we walk on the surface of the Earth, it pulls on us, and we pull back. But since the Earth is so much more massive than we are, the pull from us is not strong enough to move the Earth, while the pull from the Earth can make us fall flat on our faces. In addition to depending on the amount of mass, gravity also depends on how far you are from something.

Can we touch time? Does is have mass? Is it near or far from us?

I just want it to remain clear that what we're discussion is, for the most part, theoretical.

@FishPreferred: Obviously our discussion is going nowhere and I have a sinking feeling that you aren't trying to learn from this discussion. Let's try this a little different; I will only reply to statements that are valid arguments. You remain free to say anything you'd like, but I will save us a lot of useless friction by swerving.

A lot of people dislike the idea, but it's really just the necessary outcome of the laws of physics not suddenly and inexplicably disappearing whenever consciousness is mentioned. You can't change something before it exists, so whatever you end up doing is the unchanging path that you are destined to choose. You have a reason for every choice you make, and that reason is not subject to random interference. That's all there is to it.


I have to agree with you on most of this, although some parts don't really make too much sense, scientifically. The truth is, while our situations are set up by the environment (be it social or natural) and our options are generally a certain set also provided the situation, our psyche (a result of nature and nurture) has the ability to choose the unexpected. That's what gives humans an edge. We are known to be irrational, and not follow patterns. You understand that at any time, we can override our fight or flight instinct. This is because our psyches act more like guidelines than rule books. We are more likely to act one way if we are used to acting that way regularly, but we can choose to act a different way. And the choices we make are ultimately what determines the direction our life goes. I understand that you are determinist, and I respect that you have your own individual beliefs that you chose. But it's as useless to try to convince me that your personal beliefs are correct as it would be for me to tell you that yours are incorrect. Do you understand?

That's circular reasoning. You're starting with the premise that time doesn't exist, and rejecting the alternative on the grounds that it doesn't exist in order to conclude that it doesn't exist.


You're right, my argument seems circular. I'll elaborate:
You're saying that time exists, because it can be measured.
I'm saying that just because someone decides to attach a measurement system to something, doesn't mean it exists. I can measure my Force potential in medichlorians, but that doesn't mean the Force exists.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

You're saying that time exists, because it can be measured.


Just to clarify - at least within philosophy - anti-realists about time would reject the above claim. In other words, our clocks aren't really measuring time - they're not measuring anything!

I'm guessing my previous post was a bit too in depth, but here's something to mull over (this is especially important since we're looking at things from a purely theoretical standpoint). Some realist positions are what we call ontologically bloated. That means that they posit the existence of a lot of things. Modal realism is an example of this. The modal realist holds that possible worlds (e.g. a world in which I'm standing right now instead of sitting) are real. So to say that something is possible is to say that it actually obtains in at least one of these worlds.

One of the objections to this view is that the ontological costs outweigh the benefits. After all, the modal realist has to posit that an infinite number of worlds are just as real as our own! Even with this claim, modal realists think that the above objection is wrong. The explanatory value of positing these worlds is just too much to turn down.

Now let's shift gears and look at the kind of realism in question here. Positing the existence of time is way less of a commitment than modal realism. And the explanatory power is just about incalculable. Even setting aside the benefits of having a causal chain and the ability to interact with the world around us, there are many more benefits to be found. By including time as a fourth dimension (along with the three dimensions of space) many of the physical laws of the universe are much easier to explain. Also many of the equations that describe these laws become much simpler with the dimension of time added.

tl;dr - If you're going to be a realist about anything, you should be a realist about time - at least from a theoretical standpoint.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Obviously our discussion is going nowhere and I have a sinking feeling that you aren't trying to learn from this discussion. Let's try this a little different; I will only reply to statements that are valid arguments. You remain free to say anything you'd like, but I will save us a lot of useless friction by swerving.


Then we're at a standstill, because we both refuse to argue with someone who does not produce a valid argument.

The truth is, while our situations are set up by the environment (be it social or natural) and our options are generally a certain set also provided the situation, our psyche (a result of nature and nurture) has the ability to choose the unexpected. That's what gives humans an edge. We are known to be irrational, and not follow patterns. You understand that at any time, we can override our fight or flight instinct.


None of this in any way conflicts with determinism. It has nothing to do with predictability or hardcoded behaviour.

I understand that you are determinist, and I respect that you have your own individual beliefs that you chose. But it's as useless to try to convince me that your personal beliefs are correct as it would be for me to tell you that yours are incorrect. Do you understand?


I believe it because it's mandated by logic. I neither need nor care to convince you.

You're right, my argument seems circular. I'll elaborate:
You're saying that time exists, because it can be measured.


No, actually. That's why I said your initial argument was mostly sound. I'm saying that intangibility and unchangeability are not sufficient grounds to conclude that it doesn't exist.

Just to clarify - at least within philosophy - anti-realists about time would reject the above claim. In other words, our clocks aren't really measuring time - they're not measuring anything!


The harmonic oscillator in a working clock produces a reading that differs depending upon at least one variable. They, like all measuring devices, are quantifying a change in something. Therefore, "not measuring anything" is incorrect; they are measuring change.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

@Moegreche

Once again, you present a good argument. But may I point out a serious weakness:

physical laws of the universe are much easier to explain.


Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's right. If the easy way was usually the right way, we'd probably be a couple of solar systems over by now.

None of this in any way conflicts with determinism. It has nothing to do with predictability or hardcoded behaviour.


I must have completely misread the definition. Google is not my friend, it would seem.

I'm saying that intangibility and unchangeability are not sufficient grounds to conclude that it doesn't exist.


You're shifting the burden of proof. Remember, I'm the skeptic, and you are the apologist.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

Besides, you defined gravity as though it exists, when you cannot touch it, weigh it or judge its distance between any number of points. Make up your mind.


Gravity exerts a force on everything.

Time is no longer theoretical. It is a &quothenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met." In other words, it is a scientific law (dictionary.com).


The world used to be flat, and the universe used to revolve around earth.

Here's food for thought: Do the Laws of Physics Evolve?

You understand science and innovation don't stem from "this is what someone else said, so it must be true", right? This thread is supposed to be food for thought, and I have learned quite a bit since the OP. I can't claim to have all the answers though. I'm not a physicist or an expert.

Open your mind up to new possibilities. You never know what you might learn.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's right. If the easy way was usually the right way, we'd probably be a couple of solar systems over by now.


I see your point, but we're looking at things from a theoretical perspective, right? Two of the hallmarks of a good theory are explanatory power and simplicity. There is considerable debate concerning whether (and when) we should say that a particular theory is correct or true. But simplicity and explanatory power are two of the main ways of determining whether a given hypothesis holds water (and could become a theory).

I had assumed the following point to be read, but let me make it explicit. The only reason to reject realism about time has to do with Occam's Razor. We don't want to posit the existence of entities that serve no theoretical purpose. But being a realist about time actually meets the standards of Occam's Razor - in fact, I would say it exceeds these standards.

In short, equations and explanations with the acceptance of realism about time are much, much simpler. So the standards by which we measure the 'truthfulness' of a theory would suggest that we should be realists about time. In other words, this ease or simplicity that I mentioned - far from being a weakness - is in fact an important strength!
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That doesn't entail a change upon time; only on the clock.


And what is being changed upon the clock? The mechanics both clock remain the same. The passage of time is different in an environment with less gravity is where we get the change. This is also why we need to compensate the clocks on satellites so that GPS works accurately.

You understand a clock is a machine, that we engineered to count units of measure that we invented, right?


You understand the mechanics of the clock aren't being changed right? That being the case they should continue to show the same number of units measured when compared.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

Irrelevant. You cannot see it, weigh it or measure the distance of it. Again, make up your mind.


It's tangible, and you can FEEL it's effects.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

crazyape:

You're shifting the burden of proof. Remember, I'm the skeptic, and you are the apologist.


Erm. No. I'm an extreme skeptic of the logical positivist caste. The fact that your claim challenges a widely held notion does not make you a skeptic or me an apologist. The burden of proof was never mine, because you have never given reasonable grounds for your assertion. In other words, you are the claimant, and I am reviewing your claim.

Matt:
Theory: "An idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" (Merriam-Webster)


That's the colloquial definition only. When dealing with science, a "theory" is something which has been tested exhaustively and found to conform exactly to our observations and existing theory.

crazyape:
Gravity exerts a force on everything.


Distance doesn't. Mass doesn't. I suppose that means they are just made-up names for things that don't exist.

You understand science and innovation don't stem from "this is what someone else said, so it must be true", right?


Exactly, so why do you expect to be believed in the absence of supporting evidence?

Mage:
And what is being changed upon the clock? The mechanics both clock remain the same. The passage of time is different in an environment with less gravity is where we get the change. This is also why we need to compensate the clocks on satellites so that GPS works accurately.


Whatever change in the surrounding environment that can be said to affect time can as easily be said to affect the clock. Therefore, I posit that the frequency of the harmonic device is different in such an environment, and not time itself.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Open your mind up to new possibilities. You never know what you might learn.

If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.
-Tim Minchin

And my definition of 'after'? Things happen in sequence. You seemed to agree to that at some point in the thread, now you challenge this notion. You're inconsequent and trying too hard.

I grant you that the topic of time is interesting and our conventional concept of it is shaky. But just because the movie Lucy blowed your mind with its science fiction doesn't mean that nothing exists. If I asked of you to give me evidence that things happen in sequence, you'd find loads of it. That's time. My work here is done.
Jagatai_Khan
offline
Jagatai_Khan
312 posts
Nomad

Lucy blowed


In the OP, I pointed out that Lucy was incorrect. The movie was lackluster, in my opinion, and thus it was not something that I would say "blew my mind."

Distance doesn't. Mass doesn't. I suppose that means they are just made-up names for things that don't exist.


Well now that you tempt me with such an offer, I could argue that mass and distance never changes. If you cut off a piece of wood from a board, the mass or length does not change, it is merely displaced. But I don't want to quibble about that.

"feeling the effects"


You mean our senses. Perception.

And my definition of 'after'? Things happen in sequence. You seemed to agree to that at some point in the thread, now you challenge this notion. You're inconsequent and trying too hard.


Like I said, I don't have all the answers. Merely a hypothesis, just so that we are all clear.

And there is no proof that things don't happen in a sequence. But it's ridiculous to think that just because our "time" follows a sequence of events based on cycles that were going long before our kind stepped out of the trees and shat in caves, that "time" (a measurement of numbers between day and night, the cycles of the moon, the seasons, becoming more and more complex as society advanced) exists.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Whatever change in the surrounding environment that can be said to affect time can as easily be said to affect the clock. Therefore, I posit that the frequency of the harmonic device is different in such an environment, and not time itself.


An observer along with it wouldn't measure a change in the function of the device.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

In the OP, I pointed out that Lucy was incorrect.

I know. Still it seemed to affect you, what with the 10% of brain myth (which, as a fun fact, I heard the director of the movie himself call a myth during an interview just recently).

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. Merely a hypothesis, just so that we are all clear.

Doesn't excuse you from being inconsequent in your argumentation.

But it's ridiculous to think that just because our "time" follows a sequence of events based on cycles that were going long before our kind stepped out of the trees and shat in caves, that "time" (a measurement of numbers between day and night, the cycles of the moon, the seasons, becoming more and more complex as society advanced) exists.

I never said anything about cycles myself. Also you should use a different definition of time than the one in parantheses; the measurement of time certainly does exist, I can prove that by counting the units measured on my watch. A second does exist, a minute does exist, an hour does exist, etc.; because we defined them. A clock is a device calibrated to display the units with which we measure time. Your issue is that according to you, a clock is calibrated on an inexistent thing; I ask you, how is that even possible? You cannot measure nothing.
Just imagine for a moment this situation: on the small scales (atomic, subatomic or smaller), some processes (events) always happen with the exact same event interval, for physical reasons. Now you make a device that makes a tick every time such a rhythmic event occurs. If I'm not misled this is the basic principle of an atomic clock. This clock is not measuring nothing; it is measuring a perfectly rhymthic event, which we like to call time.

Now I will agree that there are some things about our mental visualisation of time that are flawed. Time is not a force, nor is it a dimension; it is the simple fact that events happen after each other. We cannot "move" through time because the past or the future does not exist, only the present. But time can still be affected by gravity, for example, because gravity can act on those small events, it distorts the interval between them by affecting the physical process in some way; it makes our hypothetical atomic clock near the black hole tick differently than our real atomic clocks here on Earth. Thus time is affected by gravity.

Of course, like you I don't have the answers to everything either, I'm not even a physicist. I am presenting my view of time, as you, but I have the audacity to claim that my argumentation in favour of the existence of something we can call time is sound.
Showing 31-45 of 50