Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Time and Space
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 136 of 204 (237149)
08-26-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Ben!
08-26-2005 1:54 AM


Re: question
Information about information, the basic root of what something and the universe is.
In other words, things don't exist first as part of space and time, but exist whether space and time are evident or not. They exist as a design, as information. The universe is not made up then of space and time as primary defining characteristics, but exists whether space and time are evident.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-26-2005 02:01 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 08-26-2005 02:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Ben!, posted 08-26-2005 1:54 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Ben!, posted 08-26-2005 2:10 AM randman has replied
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 08-26-2005 10:15 AM randman has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 137 of 204 (237151)
08-26-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
08-26-2005 1:58 AM


Re: question
Information isn't a "thing". Information is a representation of SOMETHING. Information doesn't make any sense without an observer. Saying "information of information" is meaningless. At the base there has to be SOMETHING.
I don't know how why you're postulationg a "basic something." How is your "basic something" different from space and time? Why aren't space and time the "basic something" which the information is derived off of?
They exist as a design, as information. The universe is not made up then of space and time, but exists whether space and time are evident.
A design is not a thing. And neither is information. I can't make sense of what you mean. Physics is simply the formulation of a set of theories that try to explain the observable world. What is "design" without a medium? What is representation (information) without a thing to represent (a thing to inform about)?
The universe is not made up then of space and time, but exists whether space and time are evident.
Why postulate things in this way? I don't see what this buys you as a theory. What is the advantage of postulating this unobservable "basic something", from which all observables are based off of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 1:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 11:19 AM Ben! has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 138 of 204 (237246)
08-26-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
08-26-2005 1:58 AM


Re: question
I'm not sure if you have read Gerald Schroeder or not. I found his latest book fascinating. Here is his web site.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 1:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 4:40 PM GDR has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 139 of 204 (237268)
08-26-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Ben!
08-26-2005 2:10 AM


Re: question
Well, we don't observe gravity directly, but we know it's there from it's effects, right?
Same with information being fundamental. The reason to postulate the "basic something" as information is there is evidence that when space and time don't exist, as they would not if measured from a photon's perspective, the universe would still be there. So what is it?
It doesn't disappear, just less fundamental components would not be present, variables dependant upon the perspective, and it appears space and time are such variables since, and I am willing to entertain reasons otherwise, it seems that at the speed of light, they don't exist.
This same principle occurs in QM to a degree. The probability pattern exists even when a particle is popping in and out of existence and when it changes form or behaviour.
So we detect the design or information via watching physical observables, but it's really the other way around from how you express it. The physical observables are by-products of a pre-existing design. The physical is the result of the information, which is what something is at root.
What is representation (information) without a thing to represent (a thing to inform about)?
It's the other way around. The thing is the information, and the representation is a physical manifestation or measurement of the thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Ben!, posted 08-26-2005 2:10 AM Ben! has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 140 of 204 (237459)
08-26-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
08-26-2005 10:15 AM


Re: question
Thanks for the tip. I haven't read his work, but it sounds interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 08-26-2005 10:15 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 08-26-2005 5:42 PM randman has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 141 of 204 (237495)
08-26-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by randman
08-26-2005 4:40 PM


Re: question
His book "The Hidden Face of God" relates exactly to your post about information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 4:40 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Damaris, posted 10-01-2005 1:55 AM GDR has not replied

  
Damaris
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 204 (247870)
10-01-2005 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by GDR
08-26-2005 5:42 PM


Re: question
Time is a gift.
Space is where we get to use it.
Isaiah 40:22-31
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.
27 Why do you say, O Jacob,
and complain, O Israel,
"My way is hidden from the LORD;
my cause is disregarded by my God"?
28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.
30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;
31 but those who hope in the LORD
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 08-26-2005 5:42 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2005 10:49 AM Damaris has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 143 of 204 (247908)
10-01-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Damaris
10-01-2005 1:55 AM


TOPIC!
Hi, welcome, Damaris.
You're new here so I'd like you to spend a bit of time reading over some existing posts before you jump right in and post. Some of the links in my signiture may help too.
This post of yours is nice but it does not belong in one of the science forums and is off topic here.
We try (with some limited success) to keep threads on the topic set out in the OP (Opening post). Please take a moment before posting again and see if your post actually belongs in the thread you are posting it. Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Damaris, posted 10-01-2005 1:55 AM Damaris has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 204 (250584)
10-10-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
07-29-2005 7:45 AM


quote:
I'm sure there are better answers, but my short answer is that of course the universe can have no one size or age from all perspectives. That's what relativity tells us. The amount of time that has passed between events, and the amount of space that exists between two points, is relative to the observer's reference frame. There is no one right answer.
Interesting. I think we can have one age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 07-29-2005 7:45 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by simple, posted 10-17-2005 12:02 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 204 (252303)
10-17-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by simple
10-10-2005 9:26 PM


So do I.
Perhaps when we discover observers somewhere other than on and right near earth, we can worry about what we think they might observe somewhere far away!
Maybe if less money was spent theorizing, and more on the observers we know we do have here on earth, we would be better off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 9:26 PM simple has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 146 of 204 (306273)
04-24-2006 9:53 AM


Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
The following a segment of an interview with Roger Penrose. I don't have any technical knowledge in this field so I can't enter into any kind of debate but I'm interested in knowing what others on this forum think of this whole concept of time and space being a function of consciousness.
Do those with some expertise agree with Penrose that time is an illusion that stems from consciousness? If not why not?
Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.
Narrator : Illusion or not, our perceptions emerge somewhere between the cosmic scale of Relativity where the flow of time is frozen and the quantum scale, where flow descends to uncertainty.Our world is on a scale governed by a mixture of chance and necessity.
Roger Penrose : My view is that there is some large scale quantum activity going on in the brain.Physics does not say that Quantum Mechanics takes place in small areas, but also take place over larger areas. I think this has to do with the consciousness. I think we need a new way to look at time, not either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.
Narrator : If Quantum Mechanics is taking place in the brain then the same randomness of outcome and unpredictability might explain our ability to make sometime random choices. Opening up the future to the possibility of change would provide the first step of restoring to physics the flow of time it currently denies.
Physicist : I don't think time flows, I feel that time flows, but I feel we can only understand this if we have a better understanding of how consciousness works. I think human consciousness probably has the secrets as to how and why we think of time as going by.
Roger Penrose : I don't think we have the tools, I don't think we have the physical picture to accommodate these things yet. We're not very close to it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 3:44 PM GDR has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 147 of 204 (306318)
04-24-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by GDR
04-24-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
I found a link to where Penrose said some of these things.
Do those with some expertise agree with Penrose that time is an illusion that stems from consciousness?
I don't agree. Penrose has a history of non-traditional views on consciousness. Some of this is described in wikipedia, and in another wiki entry.
Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.
There seems to be a tendency for physicists to jump into metaphysics. Perhaps that could even be considered an occupational hazard of doing physics.
In some respects, physics treats time much as it treats distance. We don't think about a flow of distance. Rather, we think of objects at different distances as being always in existence. So why not consider all of time to have existed forever? That's the kind of thinking that leads some physicists to question our understanding of time.
For example, the wave equation treats time and distance in very similar ways. However, the heat equation does treat time differently from distance, and fits well with the idea of a flow of time.
The mistake (of Penrose) in my opinion, is to lose track of the distinction between the reality and the science. The scientist constructs a mathematical framework, in order to study reality. The tendency (the occupational hazard) is to come to believe that the framework is reality, and to forget that it is merely a framework to be used for studying reality.
Here is the problem I see with Penrose's idea. If time, and the flow of time, is the kind of illusion that Penrose thinks it is, the those parts of science where the flow of time makes sense are also illusory. That would make biological evolution an illusion. It would make human consciousness an illusion. And then science itself, which is a product of human consciousness, must be taken to be an illusion. In my opinion, this "illusion" idea is self-impeaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by GDR, posted 04-24-2006 9:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by GDR, posted 04-25-2006 12:58 AM nwr has replied
 Message 157 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:00 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 158 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:19 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 204 (306321)
04-24-2006 4:30 PM


That would make biological evolution an illusion.
I just want to be sure on what you're saying here.
Let's just take the evolution of a single species.
Let's say from a fly with a feeler to a fly without a feeler.
If one considers evolution from a "Block Time" point of view all you have is a 4-D "shape". A 3-space slice of which, at one end looks like a population of flies with a feeler and, at the other end, a population of flies without a feeler.
You would feel something is missing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 5:20 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 149 of 204 (306324)
04-24-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Son Goku
04-24-2006 4:30 PM


That would make biological evolution an illusion.
I just want to be sure on what you're saying here.
Okay, I was skimpy on detail there.
Biological evolution is, most importantly, about a process of change, a process of adapting to changing conditions.
If the flow of time is an illusion, then the idea of a process is also an illusion. In particular, the idea of adaptation is an illusion.
f one considers evolution from a "Block Time" point of view all you have is a 4-D "shape". A 3-space slice of which, at one end looks like a population of flies with a feeler and, at the other end, a population of flies without a feeler.
If it all exists at once, then there was no process. Rather, the whole slice was laid out. It begs for a creationist explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Son Goku, posted 04-24-2006 4:30 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ramoss, posted 04-25-2006 7:54 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 150 of 204 (306382)
04-25-2006 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
04-24-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
Thank you so much for your reply. that helped a lot.
I make no secret of the fact that I'm seriously out of my depth here but I came across one thing in one of the wiki sites that made me think there is something to what he is saying.
Thus one implication of the Orch OR model is that consciousness is a sequence of discrete events, rather than a continuum. Yet conscious experience is subjectively uninterrupted, analogous to a movie appearing continuous to observers despite being a series of frames. The difference is that in Orch OR, each conscious event is itself an intrinsic, subjective observation. Moreover the frequency of conscious events may vary, 40 Hz being an average. If someone is excited and conscious events occur more often, (e.g. at 60 Hz), then subjectively the external world seems slower, as great athletes report during peak performance. By E=/t, more frequent conscious events correspond with greater E, hence more tubulins/neurons per conscious events and greater intensity of experience. Thus a spectrum of conscious events may exist, similar to photons. There exists a spectrum of conscious quanta-like events ranging from longer wavelength, low intensity events (large t, low E) and shorter wavelength, higher intensity events (small t, large E).
I have had experiences, as have most of us, where time definitely slowed for me. One case in particular. I was riding a bike and the peddle snapped off. My leg went under the bike and I rolled over backwards with the bike going over top of me. The process probably took about .5 secs but in my personal time frame it probably took about 3 secs. I remember thinking that I was going to wreck the white jacket I was wearing, and that I was going to have to lift my head and put my chin on my chest or I would crack my coconut on the pavement. Time definitely changed for me and that fits with the above quote and, as I see it, gives credence to his theory.
As far as everything being an illusion is concerned it seems to me that could very well be credible. When you look at what constitutes an atom it seems that everything is virtually nothing, at least in the terms that we perceive something to be something.
I have no scientific background but it does seem to me from my reading that the more scientists learn the more they learn they don't know. I'm reading Lisa Randall, (Warped Passages) right now. She asks, "Have we reached a point of scientific discovery so advanced that the laws of physics as we know them are simply not sufficient? Will we all soon have to accept explanations that previously remained in the realm of science fiction?"
Thanks again nwr, that was really helpful and interesting.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 3:44 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 04-25-2006 8:42 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024