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.
Goodspeed wrote:Imagining an outside frame of reference makes the concept much easier to understand/explain.
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.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?
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.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.
Who said anything about privileged? Yes it's all relative. That's rather the point.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Jerom wrote:Jam wrote:I wasn't talking about an frame of reference outside the universe.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.
But then what does your first statement even mean?
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?