The Passage of Time

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

Goodspeed wrote:Imagining an outside frame of reference makes the concept much easier to understand/explain.

Not actually. An outside frame of reference is necessary for this to mean something.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by Goodspeed »

Yes that too. That doesn't mean it isn't also a good way to explain the concept?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

Well calling the most crucial part of the concept a good way to explain it is a poor use of language, isnt it?

So obviously there is space, one thing is in a place and another is in a different place until all objects are placed. But why does space take space? If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference. If you measure space you're just measuring how much place an object is taking up or something, ie: this chair takes up so much space relative to how much space this table takes up. If you go really fast in a car, space goes by really fast, so does space even take space? So space is just the perception of the placement and size of objects relative to other objects as perceived by our brains? So hypothetically if the entirety of all things in the universe were reduced an equal amount in time, couldn't it be that our huge universe would actually be only the size of an atom?

Note how this argument would only mean something for an observer outside of the loop.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by Dolan »

Problem with these ideal/external frames of reference is that they are epistemologically misleading. You think you have a privileged point of view, but it's actually just another relative frame of reference from which you're speaking. And practically, it can only be so. When talking about physical dimensions, you surely can't just abstract yourself from the world setting.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

The real problem is that it's a theoretical idea that, while not impossible, has little meaning because it would only apply to an outside being and not to the actual universe we live in.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by Goodspeed »

Jerom wrote:Well calling the most crucial part of the concept a good way to explain it is a poor use of language, isnt it?
The concept is that the pace at which one experiences the passage of time depends on how quickly their brain processes thoughts, not on the (objective) pace of the passage of time itself. Hence the objective pace of time is only relevant to an outside observer, but I wouldn't call that a crucial part of the concept. Rather it's a conclusion you draw based on it.
The real problem is that it's a theoretical idea that, while not impossible, has little meaning because it would only apply to an outside being and not to the actual universe we live in.
That the pace of time is in the eye of the beholder applies everywhere. I don't think it has little meaning, either. It applies to virtual reality, for one, which we are already experiencing in our everyday lives. If we manage to copy (parts of) our brains into a VR, we can experience entire virtual lives hundreds of years long within 10 seconds of real time. It could make us immortal, in a way. So in other words I don't agree that it doesn't apply to the universe we live in.
Dolan wrote:Problem with these ideal/external frames of reference is that they are epistemologically misleading. You think you have a privileged point of view, but it's actually just another relative frame of reference from which you're speaking.
Who said anything about privileged? Yes it's all relative. That's rather the point.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

Jerom wrote:Well calling the most crucial part of the concept a good way to explain it is a poor use of language, isnt it?

So obviously there is space, one thing is in a place and another is in a different place until all objects are placed. But why does space take space? If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference. If you measure space you're just measuring how much place an object is taking up or something, ie: this chair takes up so much space relative to how much space this table takes up. If you go really fast in a car, space goes by really fast, so does space even take space? So space is just the perception of the placement and size of objects relative to other objects as perceived by our brains? So hypothetically if the entirety of all things in the universe were reduced an equal amount in time, couldn't it be that our huge universe would actually be only the size of an atom?

Note how this argument would only mean something for an observer outside of the loop.


It is actually even more complicated than that because it assumes that qualities can also be scaled up in away that would somehow be equivalent to other things on different scales-

" If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference."

Using size or space here as the model in which we observe this relativity means we are in a physical setting which brings out physical qualities- for instance if our world and us in it were scaled up it would look the same but the physical quality of, for example, bone density would also have to be scaled up and what if this were not physically possible? it suggests that qualities are real things that have a relationship with scale.

If we used a different ruler to measure the relativity of 'things' ( I'm not using this word in the 'einsteinian' sense btw) such as ,for example, speed- then we already have this confirmed- just plotting one of these things inside it's own 'field' as it were is massively complex even in a static environment- trying to scale up those things and dealing with qualities as well has barely been conceived of, proposing that one could inter-relate even two of these things such as speed and space and some how do some kind of 4D factorisation of the scales and the qualities is just immense and hard to even express.

And even if one did this one would only have a discription of how one might do something and not an ability to do it.

For me personally the indication that even the merest deviation for our current position in even one field instantly brings about qualitative differences gives massively strong probability that not only are we in a goldilocks solar system we are also in a goldilocks universe.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

Imagine time as a dimension. The OP is basically saying: "woah what if time moved twice as fast along the axes but everything also happened twice as fast!?" which is a meaningless statement since it doesnt mean anything. Wow, what if you know time passed twice as fast so every second 2 seconds would pass but the earth also rotates and moves twice as fast!? Spoiler, then everything would be the same and we've just constructed something that's just redefining the definition of a second. Time is actually just a measure for how long certain processes take, like how long it takes for the earth to rotate along its axis, how long it takes for a certain particle to decay, how long it takes for an object to fall on the ground from a certain height, how long it takes usain bolt to run 100m. If we speed time up and everything along it, then nothing happened. Usain bolt isn't faster, particles don't decay faster, an object still falls equally fast, we still perceive time the same way. So yes, one could speed up time but it wouldn't mean anything because literally everything in the universe would still be the same. It's a construct that doesn't add anything, can't be measured and simply complicates our understanding of the world if we would asssume it to be true. In other words, it's a useless construction.

Now if we phrase it like this: If we simulate something, we can speed up the simulation. That would be a more clear formulation. Thats really all the original post is saying, but it has a misplaced "wow mind is blown" aspect to it. In any case, yes you can speed up a simulation, just like how you can speed up a youtube video.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

oats13 wrote:
Jerom wrote:Well calling the most crucial part of the concept a good way to explain it is a poor use of language, isnt it?

So obviously there is space, one thing is in a place and another is in a different place until all objects are placed. But why does space take space? If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference. If you measure space you're just measuring how much place an object is taking up or something, ie: this chair takes up so much space relative to how much space this table takes up. If you go really fast in a car, space goes by really fast, so does space even take space? So space is just the perception of the placement and size of objects relative to other objects as perceived by our brains? So hypothetically if the entirety of all things in the universe were reduced an equal amount in time, couldn't it be that our huge universe would actually be only the size of an atom?

Note how this argument would only mean something for an observer outside of the loop.


It is actually even more complicated than that because it assumes that qualities can also be scaled up in away that would somehow be equivalent to other things on different scales-

" If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference."

Using size or space here as the model in which we observe this relativity means we are in a physical setting which brings out physical qualities- for instance if our world and us in it were scaled up it would look the same but the physical quality of, for example, bone density would also have to be scaled up and what if this were not physically possible? it suggests that qualities are real things that have a relationship with scale.

If we used a different ruler to measure the relativity of 'things' ( I'm not using this word in the 'einsteinian' sense btw) such as ,for example, speed- then we already have this confirmed- just plotting one of these things inside it's own 'field' as it were is massively complex even in a static environment- trying to scale up those things and dealing with qualities as well has barely been conceived of, proposing that one could inter-relate even two of these things such as speed and space and some how do some kind of 4D factorisation of the scales and the qualities is just immense and hard to even express.

For me personally the indication that even the merest deviation for our current position in even one field instantly brings about qualitative differences gives massively strong probability that not only are we in a goldilocks solar system we are also in a goldilocks universe.

You can theoretically adjust all aspects of nature to account for this (ie light speed, strenght of forces etc) so it's not really a big deal. Its kinda interesting though. If you speed up the video something rotating, then that actually means the centrifugal forces would be much larger. Stuff like that needs to be adjusted for but that's not impossible at all. And then in the end you still just measure the stuff compared to the time so it all is perceived the same.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

Jerom wrote:
oats13 wrote:
Jerom wrote:Well calling the most crucial part of the concept a good way to explain it is a poor use of language, isnt it?

So obviously there is space, one thing is in a place and another is in a different place until all objects are placed. But why does space take space? If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference. If you measure space you're just measuring how much place an object is taking up or something, ie: this chair takes up so much space relative to how much space this table takes up. If you go really fast in a car, space goes by really fast, so does space even take space? So space is just the perception of the placement and size of objects relative to other objects as perceived by our brains? So hypothetically if the entirety of all things in the universe were reduced an equal amount in time, couldn't it be that our huge universe would actually be only the size of an atom?

Note how this argument would only mean something for an observer outside of the loop.


It is actually even more complicated than that because it assumes that qualities can also be scaled up in away that would somehow be equivalent to other things on different scales-

" If space is just the place where all objects are placed, you could hypothetically 'shrink' the universe and everything would work out the same. We would be smaller too and all the things we would see would be smaller too so we wouldn't notice a difference."

Using size or space here as the model in which we observe this relativity means we are in a physical setting which brings out physical qualities- for instance if our world and us in it were scaled up it would look the same but the physical quality of, for example, bone density would also have to be scaled up and what if this were not physically possible? it suggests that qualities are real things that have a relationship with scale.

If we used a different ruler to measure the relativity of 'things' ( I'm not using this word in the 'einsteinian' sense btw) such as ,for example, speed- then we already have this confirmed- just plotting one of these things inside it's own 'field' as it were is massively complex even in a static environment- trying to scale up those things and dealing with qualities as well has barely been conceived of, proposing that one could inter-relate even two of these things such as speed and space and some how do some kind of 4D factorisation of the scales and the qualities is just immense and hard to even express.

For me personally the indication that even the merest deviation for our current position in even one field instantly brings about qualitative differences gives massively strong probability that not only are we in a goldilocks solar system we are also in a goldilocks universe.

You can theoretically adjust all aspects of nature to account for this (ie light speed, strenght of forces etc) so it's not really a big deal. Its kinda interesting though. If you speed up the video something rotating, then that actually means the centrifugal forces would be much larger. Stuff like that needs to be adjusted for but that's not impossible at all. And then in the end you still just measure the stuff compared to the time so it all is perceived the same.


Well theoretically adjusting something is quite different than actually doing it but I don't think that is your point- ofc if you just reduce this universe to two dimensions and then observe it from only those two dimensions that is not 'cosmic' in anyway- after all even young children understand concepts like percentages- I think everyone agrees on that.

Your idea of a video is a good analogy- the video is a simulation of something and that can be sped up without increasing the centrifugal forces but in the real world when you speed it up those forces increase- this is what I meant by a description- I think that you simplify how all the dimensions and qualities could be accounted for because they obviously don't scale according to one factor but even if you could do that you would simply have a very good description of something as opposed to a real thing.

It is like that old kinda childhood riddle about how you can move halfway across a table infinite times without ever reaching the edge- because we learn about the world according to what we already know about it we only move halfway across the table- we afford ourselves ever more accurate descriptions of the world but we can always ask the question 'what is inside that' or 'what made that' etc. so we just find ourselves stuck between infinity in and infinity out- like I said in my first post in this thread- existence and non-existence are essentially all that are needed- call that god or truth or ultimate reality or w/e you want.

Just as Camus said that “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that”

So we decide wether to take the universe seriously or not, all abstractions away from that are just sophisticated ways of avoiding the question.

Even if we did perfect our understanding of something we would only have the best possible description of that thing- like we could understand gravity working perfectly on an external object but that doesn't mean we could manipulate gravity- we would just be observing it.

So then the question would be- even if we perfected all of the things needed to be perfected in order to describe this simulation is the probability pointing towards that being an actual possibility or not?

For me it seems more than highly probable that the reason that the physical laws in our universe perfectly match those needed for this universe to exist is because our universe is actually physically real and not a simulation and if I had to bet either way it would be on that eventuality.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by Jam »

Jerom wrote:
Jam wrote:
Dolan wrote:Well, that's the problem with the OP's thought experiment. There is no outside frame of reference relative to what is happening inside a universe (no privileged point of observation). A frame of reference can only be had from within the universe.

And at that point you're dealing with relative quantities between different frames of reference.
I wasn't talking about an frame of reference outside the universe.

But then what does your first statement even mean?
The fast-forwarding statement is literally just an analogy to convey the perception of time, you can ignore it, the whole simulation thing is off topic. Of course it wouldn't make a difference if you sped up everything in the universe by the same amount, that's the point of the analogy. The whole point is that the perception of time is different things happening relative to processes in the brain, which is completely compatible with relativity and does not to do with external or special reference frames, in fact the point is that there is no 'magic clock' keeping track of time for the universe. "If you measure time you're just measuring the oscillation of something, ie: these events happened at the same time as this other thing oscillated so they took 1 oscillation worth of time." You're misunderstanding what I meant, and I think I'd know considering I wrote it.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

oats13 wrote:
Jerom wrote:
Show hidden quotes

You can theoretically adjust all aspects of nature to account for this (ie light speed, strenght of forces etc) so it's not really a big deal. Its kinda interesting though. If you speed up the video something rotating, then that actually means the centrifugal forces would be much larger. Stuff like that needs to be adjusted for but that's not impossible at all. And then in the end you still just measure the stuff compared to the time so it all is perceived the same.


Well theoretically adjusting something is quite different than actually doing it but I don't think that is your point- ofc if you just reduce this universe to two dimensions and then observe it from only those two dimensions that is not 'cosmic' in anyway- after all even young children understand concepts like percentages- I think everyone agrees on that.

Your idea of a video is a good analogy- the video is a simulation of something and that can be sped up without increasing the centrifugal forces but in the real world when you speed it up those forces increase- this is what I meant by a description- I think that you simplify how all the dimensions and qualities could be accounted for because they obviously don't scale according to one factor but even if you could do that you would simply have a very good description of something as opposed to a real thing.

actually if you were to calculate forces in a sped up video then they would clearly be larger.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

er ...............? it's a video- there are no forces :? like it's just a piece of celluloid or digital information arranged to form a visual description of an act.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

oats13 wrote:er ...............? it's a video- there are no forces :? like it's just a piece of celluloid or digital information arranged to form a visual description of an act.

If you just look at the acceleration per real life second in a fast forwarded video then the forces are larger. Thats where you are this external observer.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

No- if you video'd a real life event of someone swirling around a ball in a cup just below the level at which centrifugal forces would force it up the wall of the cup and then watched the video on fast forward way past the speed that the force would kick in normally then the balls would not go up the cup- because no forces are in play (and because it never actually happened ofc). That's what I mean about qualities altering as well as the visual side of it- even if you could somehow create this 'observer status' it would only look the same- a description of only the visual side of the event. In the simulation you could make it look equivalent to how it would in real life but that doesn't explain how one could actually create the forces which would be there in real life- basically I'm just saying that we don't even begin to have an interface with time yet.

Quoted from @Jam- " Of course it wouldn't make a difference if you sped up everything in the universe by the same amount, that's the point of the analogy."

No it would make a difference if you only sped things up- because you would not have increased the qualities as well and so at 1 million miles per hour me walking down the street actually smashes my entire body into pieces. Certain things might look the same (although even that is open to question) but they wouldn't be the same.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

oats13 wrote:No- if you video'd a real life event of someone swirling around a ball in a cup just below the level at which centrifugal forces would force it up the wall of the cup and then watched the video on fast forward way past the speed that the force would kick in normally then the balls would not go up the cup- because no forces are in play (and because it never actually happened ofc). That's what I mean about qualities altering as well as the visual side of it- even if you could somehow create this 'observer status' it would only look the same- a description of only the visual side of the event. In the simulation you could make it look equivalent to how it would in real life but that doesn't explain how one could actually create the forces which would be there in real life- basically I'm just saying that we don't even begin to have an interface with time yet.

Quoted from @Jam- " Of course it wouldn't make a difference if you sped up everything in the universe by the same amount, that's the point of the analogy."

No it would make a difference if you only sped things up- because you would not have increased the qualities as well and so at 1 million miles per hour me walking down the street actually smashes my entire body into pieces. Certain things might look the same (although even that is open to question) but they wouldn't be the same.

You don't seem to get it. Of course scaling up time would mean other quantities would have to be adjusted since many quantities are relative to time (force included), but what Jam is trying to say is that you scale up time and all relevant quantities appropriately to keep the order in tact. With that being said, you cannot determine if your time is sped up or slowed down or determine a non-relative absolute measure for time since it simply doesn't exist. Our universe can be described both as being slowed down, sped up or exactly the same speed.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

NO - he literally didn't say that- Quoted from @Jam- " Of course it wouldn't make a difference if you sped up everything in the universe by the same amount, that's the point of the analogy."

and what makes anyone think that the other qualities are linked to time according to the factor one might choose to 'speed it up' by?

The proposition is that time is kind of an arbitrary thing and it isn't, at least when related to any physical object.

To make it the same you have to continually reduce it to only to two positions which is why I talked about percentages being the same.

In reality you can't do that so it isn't the same, you just can't arbitrarily link the qualities like that.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

Yes the formulation isnt perfect. Yes you insist on nitpicking the f out of it. Yes Im out.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

How is falling at the first hurdle nit-picking? it's actually important to ask this particular line because it teases out the question of whether time is fundamental or emergent.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by spanky4ever »

can a humble person like myself (lol), ask you, what the usage of this Time thingy is all about? Did you watch some game shows, and took the meta for granted? (west world and Matrix?) Im only curious? Is this usefull at all :?:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by spanky4ever »

what is a banana? it only a conscript that you made of it. There is no banana, only your perseption of it. And its not yellow. The one colour it is not., is yellow! cos that is the only color your eyes can receive, THUS it is def not yellow. :cry: :cry: :biggrin:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by spanky4ever »

:P hope you are having fun, and not so much of a head ache :biggrin: sorry if I interupted your mind games, Im only asking for the usage of this meta knowlegde (if that is what it is "knowlegde") :shock: Guess I am more of the Aristopoles schooling :unsure:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

@spanky4ever- conventionally you need a linear concept of time in order for the second law of thermodynamics to make a certain kind of sense and the second law is considered to be very important and then some- if we understand time better then we can possibly better understand any laws of physics- that's a very general way of putting it.

There is no contradiction between measurement and meaning, they both have value in the practical and emotional 'realms' as it were, and we live in both.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by momuuu »

You're in over your head here I fear. I don't even think the second law of thermodynamics has something to do with time tbh.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: The Passage of Time

Post by oats13 »

You must have had unscrambled eggs for breakfast then.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV