Is There A Universal Now?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Cyperium, Jun 14, 2022.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    You can take previous post and swap time for distance and it works

    All distance measurements are arbitrary in same way time measurements are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    My view is only SINGULAR NOW EXIST

    Na small capitals not have the same draw attention impact

    Not going for credibility - that should arise from the discussion - the all in capitals is to emphasise the FUNDIMENTIALNESS of the matter and also for emphasis

    Will swap for colouration

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Well they created what they call time, but what they call time has no fundimential existence and, to coin a phrase, can be said to exist only in a definition state

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    The Universe being in existence is its own now

    Humans not required

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Now is not defined as such in the few dictionaries I looked at

    Which makes

    moot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Michael:
    There's no need. I understood you the first time, I think. Didn't I? Did I get something wrong about your position?
    What way is that, exactly?

    In my previous post, I was careful to distinguish the thing itself from a measurement unit for the thing.

    It's probably easier to start with length than with time.

    Length is a thing. We can measure length in metres or feet or furlongs or light years or some other unit. The units are something we can choose, so in that specific sense they are arbitrary. But the units being arbitrary has no bearing on whether the thing itself - length, in this case - is arbitrary.

    When you walk down to the local shops, the distance you need to walk is a thing. You'll feel more tired if you walk a longer distance than a shorter one, for instance. That's a statement that says nothing at all about units; it's a statement about length.

    Length is the thing that stops everything from being in the same place. Unless you believe that, actually, everything is in the same place, then denying the existence of length is ludicrous. And if you do believe, for some reason, that everything is actually in the same place, then you have a lot of explaining to do as to why you get more tired walking 30 miles than 3 feet.

    If it is your claim that humans created length, then you have the same problem you have with time. What was the universe like before humans evolved and created length? When, exactly, did that act of creation happen? How did the creation of length by human beings change the physical universe? And what was the mechanism for that change?

    Similarly, time is the thing that stops everything from happening simultaneously. If time doesn't exist, then how do you account for any change at all? What does it even mean for something to change, in a timeless universe?

    If humans created time, when did that occur? What did the universe look like before time was created by humans? What mechanism changed the physical universe when a human created time?
    A reference frame refers to something. The hint is right there in the name.

    Your claim is not just that units of time are arbitrary, but that time itself is either arbitrary or doesn't exist, if I understand you correctly. Which is your claim, by the way? Does time exist in some arbitrary way, or does time not actually exist? Not the units, understand, but the thing itself: time. I don't want to waste time on a misunderstanding of your position.

    As opposed to what?

    And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Thanks for the clarification.

    As I understand it, then, your claim is that time does not exist. Is the word "fundamental" important to your claim? What would a "non-fundamental" existence of time look like?
    Previously, you said that humans create time. But here you are saying that the universe has "its own now". Is "now" a time, or not? If it is, then aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that the universe's "now" doesn't need humans to create it?

    Alternatively, if the universe's "now" is something other than time, can you please tell me what the "now" is?
    Forget dictionaries.

    Tell me your definition of "now". We can go from there. (P.S. It's fine if you want to rely on a particular dictionary definition; just tell me which one.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    An observer need not be human or even be alive for that matter. It is the simultaneous interaction that counts , not the symbols humans attach to them.
    Newton's Third Law does not require a human observer.

    As a singular (expanding) object, the universe does have its own timeline. It's called the worldvolume, the entirety of the 3D geometry. Every 2D surface time slice of that worldvolume represents a universal NOW.
    The Universe is not infinitely large. It is a singular object with a singular existence.

    Time does not grow 3 dimensionally. Time has a single direction and therefore each instant of time represents a 2D surface of duration and ageing of the worldvolume. It is only inside the universe that things happen relative to each other.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,867
    That says it all, this is nothing more than a silly philosophical and semantics stand.
    Here is what the rest of us call time using your concept. I order a beer in a SINGULAR NOW I receive my beer in a different SINGULAR NOW, the duration between those events is called a passage of time. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is just rather silly.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Will try to simplify my position

    Stuff (let's go the Universe) exist

    Fundimential to its existence it has properties

    These properties exist humans present or not

    Humans come along and begin to codify the stuff (language)

    Arising in language there came labelling ideas (ideas which had no backing of stuff), my existing only by being defined

    Enter fundimential existence and only existing
    only by being defined
    • fundimential existence
    • has the backing of stuff, where's
    • existing only by being defined
    • does not (concept)
    I try to keep the distinction clear in my posting but obviously I am not

    From a point to another point we give a name. Arbitrary point to arbitrary point a arbitrary distance unit name

    There does not exist a fundamental point to point distance which we human can / could discover which could be taken to, and matched with, an alien point to point distance in another galaxy


    In a singular NOW it does

    Correct almost - I think - is the wording
    • humans create time or
    • humans created time
    Whatever - the human version is arbitrary and since my position is no fundimential time exist of no consequence

    As opposed to what?

    A line up of a multitude of NOWs

    And what kind of evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

    Said line up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    My goto is Merriam-Webster
    at the present time or moment is given as the first definition from my app - along with many others which at a glance did not appear to be relevant

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    The singular now being referred to is the Universe's singular now

    Within the Universe each atom / collection of atoms have their own singular now subservient to the Universe singular now

    If you think you have more than one now ie one orders the beer - one receives it (in your words a different singular now) there must be a lot of you running around with beer at / in different stages of consumption

    Question according to the time you and the rest are using what would be the interval between
    your different now's?

    For the record my answer would be - a singular now does not have intervals

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
    Write4U likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Can you tell me how a cell can count NOWS? They have no hearts that go tick tock. They do have plasma circulation and cellular comunication.
    Apparently it is the cytoskeleton of the cell that can store memories, albeit of the short-term variety.
    It has been tested and proven. Slime mold can learn timed intervals and after a while learn to anticipate the change before it actually happens

    If you take the time to watch this discussion between biology scientists, you will find many answers on the subject of interspecies communication and a certain awareness of environmental conditions by even the most simple organisms and turns out that there is no such thing as an independently simple organism.

    This discussion clearly explains that age old mantra of "everything is connected to everything" does not just apply to pure physics but also to biological interactions of all life on earth.


    And then there is mention of "mycilia" in the root systems of plants.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,867
    Write4U likes your post... I rest my case, you must be wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Write4U is on my Iggy list so sorry does not count

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    That statement just shows your ignorance, not mine.

    And as far as Michael is concerned, I don't have to like him personally (or vice versa) as long as our interpretation is compatible I can offer my agreement with the statement.

    I am not here for a popularity contest. I am just amazed at the lazy thinking displayed by many " learned fellows". You no longer feel it necessary to learn. Your loss.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    This confirms that slime old does in fact do have internal clocks.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    "Now" doesn't come from "there". It comes from "then" that was once "now"
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  21. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    732
    Neddy;
    We agree on the above.
    Unfortunately, the clock synch convention was conceived about 1900. It could only have been implemented for no more than 120 yr. The method would have synchronized clocks within a 60 ly radius. Beyond that, distances are speculations, dependent on theories.
     
  22. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    732
    Write4U;
    We are elements/members of the universe, so our view can only be from the inside.
    We can only see/perceive the universe as an historical sequence of images.
    The pdf is the general case for reciprocal observations by two observers with a relative velocity. Clock synchronization is a special case when the relative velocity is zero.
    Plant and animal life forms are essentially programmed. The human has biological clocks for life support functions, as do plants and animals.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Yes and therefore we cannot objectively see the universe as a singular object from witout.
    Anytime there is reference to a human observer rather than an imaginary external observer, the argument changes to relativism, not objectivism.
    This is a non-relativistic picture of ................................................................... NOW.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    See thread : http://sciforums.com/threads/is-con...-in-microtubules.161187/page-125#post-3703803
     

Share This Page