What is time?

[Grey Cloud]

I don`t think that time is anything at all and it certainly is not a dimension!

As I see it: time is a law of nature (that just is) - not a dimensional phenomenon.

I agree that time has nothing to do with dimensions but I was wondering who or what is this nature (or even Nature) which can formulate laws. And where did the concept of 'law' come from; did nature conceive of that too? Do you have any evidence to suggest that anything 'just is'?

[Birkeland]

I agree that time has nothing to do with dimensions but I was wondering who or what is this nature (or even Nature) which can formulate laws. And where did the concept of 'law' come from; did nature conceive of that too? Do you have any evidence to suggest that anything 'just is'?

Philosopher Leonard Peikoff: What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.

Anything beyond this is pure religious speculation (as long as no observations suggests otherwise).

[altonhare]

There is no problem with the word "time" as long as it is used consistently.

One can define a concept "time" in terms of measurements. In this case one takes some reference standard that is assumed to change in a perfectly constant way and compares it to how something else changes. For example we may assume the earth always circles the sun with precisely the same frequency, always returning to precisely the same point at which it departed. The earth, then, is changing in a perfeclty constant/predictable way. We could then compare every other change we observe to the earth's change. How "long" did it take to build this house? Well, while we built it, we measured the position of the sun in the sky and determined that the earth went 1/5 of a rotation. This is mathematical/quantitative time.

The other way to define time is axiomatic, i.e. causality. The concept "time" is meaningless in a universe that violates causality. What can it mean to say "A happened then B happened" in a universe where, for whatever reason, it was also true that B happened then A happened? The word "time" simply means before/after. A happened then B happened then C...

Note that these two definitions may or may not be exclusive. The first definition depends on perception. From one perspective it's possible (but not necessary) to appear that A happens before B, and from another perspective B happens before A. The second definition is based on the assumption that the universe is knowable to humans and as such is axiomatic. Certainly it is impossible for a human to understand anything that violates causality.

This is the difference between science and mathematics. Mathematicians are concerned solely with quantities. These quantities may or may not have anything to do with existence. Scientists are first and foremost concerned with existence. To study existence a scientist starts from the assumption that the universe is, indeed, knowable (else science would be pointless!). A knowable universe must conform to the three axioms of first philosophy: locality, causality, and identity. The scientist then has the monstrous task of reconciling observations with these axioms. The mathematician works the other way around, he would rather disregard axioms if they do not conform with his calcuations and observations. The mathematician is in an incredibly ironic position. He claims that these axioms are subjective because they assume the universe conforms to human rationality and at the same time places all of his faith in observation and a man-made language (mathematics).

Thus, there is no problem with the word "time".

[Grey Cloud]

I agree that time has nothing to do with dimensions but I was wondering who or what is this nature (or even Nature) which can formulate laws. And where did the concept of 'law' come from; did nature conceive of that too? Do you have any evidence to suggest that anything 'just is'?

Philosopher Leonard Peikoff: What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.

Anything beyond this is pure religious speculation (as long as no observations suggests otherwise).

So how does this 'sum of that which is' conceive, formulate, enact and enforce laws?

[kevin]

Time,
The problem we have, is that we cannot percieve of time, how long is a second?
What do you measure time against?
Also , the detectors we have are long time focussed, they cannot detect the slowness of time, only the signal limitations imposed upon us by the detection methods we rely upon.
What occurs within the fractions of seconds, so many signals occur far too many times within a second for our detectors to register, so we cannot know the complexity of what occurs in a fraction of a fraction of a second, whole worlds could be created and destroyed, and we would be blind to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpURBJA4uA
Kevin

[Birkeland]

So how does this 'sum of that which is' conceive, formulate, enact and enforce laws?

Conceiving and formulating is up to us humans. Enact and enforce is what is - the laws of nature, formulated as such by us humans.

[Grey Cloud]

So how does this 'sum of that which is' conceive, formulate, enact and enforce laws?

Conceiving and formulating is up to us humans. Enact and enforce is what is - the laws of nature, formulated as such by us humans.

In order for we humans to formulate them (i.e. put them into words) they must already exist. So where did they come from? As far as mainstream science is concerned, thoughts, ideas, concepts etc can only come from the brain (or a brain). Therefore where is the brain of nature (or all that exists)?

Just realised I've been misspelling your nick, sorry.

[Birkeland]

In order for we humans to formulate them (i.e. put them into words) they must already exist.

No they do not - only concretes exist: existence is identity, consciousness is identification of attributes acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. As Peikoff states: Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. How nature act and interac is the law of nature. Man discoveres, defines, formulates and (hopefully) understands this in a non-contradictory way through reason and logic.

So where did they come from?

I do not know the cause of the universe - I don't think we will ever know. We can, however, find out how it functions.

As far as mainstream science is concerned, thoughts, ideas, concepts etc can only come from the brain (or a brain).

Yes.

Therefore where is the brain of nature (or all that exists)?

I do not think such a brain exist. The universe just is - amazing statement, but considering that nothing can't exist (it still would be something) it is understandable. My personal belief regarding these issues is that both time and the universe are eternal - Rand would disagree with me here, and claim that my position stands in contradiction to the law of identity, but then again: at "the end of the universe" there must be something on the other side. Something must have happened before "the beginning of time", and something must happen after the "end of time". What it is? I haven't got the faintest idea (this is where we enter the subjective realm of religion, faith, fantasy, speculations etc.) We only know what we know: Epistemology - the rest is up to science to discover.

[altonhare]

Birke:

There does not, in fact, HAVE to be anything "at the end of the universe". It is illogical to give the universe a beginning or end or a boundary. The universe is "all concrete objects and space". Space is conceptual, i.e. it does not have shape therefore it has no surface or boundary. To ask "what is at the end of space" is an incorrect question. Also, to say that the universe "began" is to say that it suddenly sprang into existence. This implies that something can come from nothing. To say that it "ends" is to say it ceases to exist, that something can become nothing. Another way to look at it is this. Only that which has a purpose begins and ends. Logically the universe as a whole has no "purpose", it is just concrete objects changing location. To imply that the universe has a purpose (is goal-driven) is to imply that it is living, which would mean a human is no different from a rock, therefore the universe cannot be said to have a purpose and also not a beginning or end. Finally, causality axiomatically denies a "beginning" of the universe. It makes much more sense to say that the universe did not begin nor will end. There is simply no good reason to think otherwise and plenty of good reasons not to think otherwise. A timeless universe does not require irrational, fantastical, or contradictory explanations and is consistent with the fact that time is man-invented.

[Plasmatic]

Alton and Birkeland, you will enjoy G. Stolyarov II and his book RATIONAL COSMOLOGY


Chapter II

The Universe



Essay V: What the Universe is and is Not-

Essay VI: The Universe Cannot Be Created-

Essay VII: A Refutation of Big Bang Theory-

Essay VIII: The Universe Cannot Be Destroyed-

Essay IX: The Requirements for Homogeneous Entities-

Essay X: The Impossibility of the Universe Having a Shape, Boundary, or Edge-

http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html

[Birkeland]

There does not, in fact, HAVE to be anything "at the end of the universe". It is illogical to give the universe a beginning or end or a boundary. The universe is "all concrete objects and space". Space is conceptual, i.e. it does not have shape therefore it has no surface or boundary. To ask "what is at the end of space" is an incorrect question. Also, to say that the universe "began" is to say that it suddenly sprang into existence. This implies that something can come from nothing. To say that it "ends" is to say it ceases to exist, that something can become nothing. Another way to look at it is this. Only that which has a purpose begins and ends. Logically the universe as a whole has no "purpose", it is just concrete objects changing location. To imply that the universe has a purpose (is goal-driven) is to imply that it is living, which would mean a human is no different from a rock, therefore the universe cannot be said to have a purpose and also not a beginning or end. Finally, causality axiomatically denies a "beginning" of the universe. It makes much more sense to say that the universe did not begin nor will end. There is simply no good reason to think otherwise and plenty of good reasons not to think otherwise. A timeless universe does not require irrational, fantastical, or contradictory explanations and is consistent with the fact that time is man-invented.

Brilliant!

[Birkeland]

Alton and Birkeland, you will enjoy G. Stolyarov II and his book RATIONAL COSMOLOGY

Thank you! This book looks very promising.

[klypp]

Plasmatic, I just skimmed through some of Stolyarov's book, and I'm sorry to say I'm not very impressed...

I was interested in what he had to say about light, but found it rather speculative and not at all based on experience and experiments. I think this quote says it all:

Philosophers are equipped to determine the nature of light, because they actually observe light through their senses in an unavoidable manner. They have all the data they will ever need, and nothing is capable of contradicting that data.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... e=2&cat=58

Seems like what he is saying is:
Just give me some time to think, and I'll solve all the mysteries of light. In the meantime, don't disturb me with any kind of facts!

I have encountered better ideas...

[Grey Cloud]

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, Le Quebecois Libre, Rebirth of Reason, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, The Liberal Institute, and The Rational Argumentator.

Education/Experience: Valedictorian: Glenbrook South High School, Glenview, IL

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/4 ... ov_ii.html

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic, I just skimmed through some of Stolyarov's book, and I'm sorry to say I'm not very impressed...

Seems like what he is saying is:
Just give me some time to think, and I'll solve all the mysteries of light. In the meantime, don't disturb me with any kind of facts!

I have encountered better ideas...

Klypp do you propose that one might grasp "facts" without valid senses and without thinking?

What he is saying is an active mind has all it needs to discover "facts" about any subject.The point being one with a proper theory of concepts along with ones valid senses one doesn't require credentials [looks at GC's citation ]. One can discover reality on his own[induction]. Certainly one needs to validate his induced generalizations with deduction and experiment though.

If more Physicist understood these simple premises instead of deferring to others minds and judgment we would not be in the crisis of religious science we are in.