What is time?

[Solar]

Logically the universe as a whole has no "purpose", it is just concrete objects changing location.

Disagree. It is illogical for an entity to perceive of the existence of the quality of 'purpose'; then state that said quality is not a part of that throughout which the existence occurs i.e the universe. The 'purpose' of the universe is the perception Existence. They are one and the same. The 'Purpose', which I would define as 'reason', is the facilitation of the perception of Existence via allowing for the establishment of the spatial relationships between objects necessary to engender the perception of qualities inherent in that which exist, as individualized entities, via the 'differentiation' of Existence Itself.

[Plasmatic]

Purpose pertains only to living organsims. One "percieves" that only living entities have the state of goal directedness[purpose]. The reason is if they didnt they could not remain alive. Therfore life is the standard and goal [telos]and foundation of all living entites actions.

I reccomend THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF TELEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS by H Binswanger

[klypp]

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

Of course not!
I dropped posting a lenghty quote in order to keep the posting short, thinking the link to the site would provide the context. Didn't seem to work, so:

On The Autonomist Forum, I was asked whether it is proper for a non-experimental philosopher like myself to challenge scientists' interpretations of experimental data and their theories about parts of observable reality, such as light. The implication behind the question was that reasoning alone does not suffice to understand light, and that the highly particular observations of experimentalists are needed to make any sense of it.

I disagree with this premise. 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. They also have other data which is just as important: data on the ubiquitous qualities of entities, which states that all entities must have matter, volume, length, width, height, and time.

So, what do I read?

"The implication behind the question was that reasoning alone does not suffice to understand light, and that the highly particular observations of experimentalists are needed to make any sense of it."

This might be interpreted in two ways:
1. You can make sense of light without knowing all observations of experimentalist.
2. You don't need any experiments to make sense of light.

I have no problem with the first interpretation. I have a big problem with the second.
And to me it looks like Stolyarov goes for the second:
He starts by asking if "reasoning alone... suffice to understand light", and then concludes like this: "They have all the data they will ever need, and nothing is capable of contradicting that data."

Pretty strong, if you ask me...
The day I have all the data I ever need, and nothing is able to contradict it...
Well, I guess that's the day they put a label on my toe with a single word written on it:
Braindead.

[Plasmatic]

Klypp you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Simply ask yourself if the data from others experiences where aquired through thinking and perception. If so then it is logical to state that one can derive the same data oneself without the previous special knowledge of others. The data in question is that of perception.

I do not see Stolyorov as claiming 2.

Particularly when in the first chapter he states:

It is clear that, to base science, the quest for knowledge, on a doctrine that postulates man's perpetual ignorance and uncertainty, is a clear contradiction that fundamentally undermines the very purpose of science. The result is the sorry state of many of today's scientific branches.

To be clear, observation is critical to scientific progress; no man's mind can operate in a vacuum. Man's inherent capacity for rational thought is useless unless he has something to think about. However, true science, as a quest to systematize human knowledge, must depend on all observations, not just the esoteric or highly particular ones. In order to overcome the errors of empiricism-positivism, it is necessary to recognize that besides particular observations, there exist ubiquitous observations that any man can grasp and use to better understand reality.

And then theres :

http://rationalargumentator.com/errorsfysics2.html

[altonhare]

Thank you everyone for your thought-out and on-topic inputs .

Plasm:

I'll check that out Stolyarov as soon as I'm done with this response.

I like your post about the individual being capable, with valid senses, to discover existence all on his own. Every_single_person who ascribes to modern physics that I debate the topic with ends up appealing to authority at one point or another. They also _always_ cite this or that experiment as "proof" despite the fact that they can't even cite a valid hypothesis! How can an experiment mean anything if the scientists don't even know what they're trying to prove? I tell people to define time, which they define as a measurement. I tell them it is illogical to travel through a measurement or to dilate a measurement. They tell me that muon decay in the upper atmosphere "proves" time dilation and time travel... They're just as bad as the atheists and theists who claim they can either prove or disprove the "existence" of God. Besides the fact that proving existence is ludicrous, they skip right over defining "exist" and proceed to debating with each other in circles for hours. Modern mainstream thought is a madhouse of irrationality.

Birke:

Thank you!

Solar:

The universe as a whole cannot have purpose, only life can have purpose. The universe is not alive because, among other things, it is not a concrete object (all life is). As I said, space is a concept and therefore has no boundary/shape. The universe is "all objects and space". That which has no boundary cannot be said to be living.


Klypp:

No observational/experimental evidence is capable of refuting a theory of anything, including light. We do not filter theories/ideas based on experimental evidence. A theory can fail to explain a particular phenomenon, but this does not disprove nor refute the theory because it is unclear where to place the fault. Until the TOE experimental evidence will always be questionable. The fault may be the theory itself, but it may be poor understanding of experiment and observation.

The way we filter theories is by applying the scientific method, consisting of hypothesis, theory, and conclusion. In the hypothesis the proponent points to the concrete objects (or models thereof) involved in his theory and defines any strategic terms in his theory (words that are subjective, i.e. have different meanings to different people). The hypothesis is associated with "assumptions". If the proponent cannot point to the objects or at least to models of the objects, his theory is a "non-starter", he does not even have a valid hypothesis. In the theory section the proponent shows a movie or demonstration of how the aforementioned objects interact. He may show a movie of a planet hitting the earth, a billiard ball hitting another, a pulley working, etc. In each movie or demonstration he utters a word that refers to the action taking place, this word is a concept and refers to the particular motion shown. If he uses any object not presented in the hypothesis or contradicts a definition given in the hypothesis, his theory fails conceptually. This stage is associated with "conceptualization". Finally, in the conclusion, the proponent uses the concepts and objects presented/shown to explain observed phenomena. If he slips in any new strategic terms at this point, contradicts any definitions, uses a new object, or uses a new concept, his theory fails on inconsistency. After he is done explaining observed phenomena, and assuming the theory has not failed at this point, the theory is considered "valid". This does not mean it is True, it simply means it has passed the minimum requirements of the scientific method (many call this an application of the appropriate epistemology). The individuals may now decide for themselves if they will accept or reject the theory. There are two reasons to reject a valid theory. 1) Another theory explains all the observed phenomena but makes fewer/simpler assumptions or 2) There are observed phenomena the proponent did not explain in his presentation that another valid theory explains.

Note that the only way to reject one valid theory is to accept another, either on the basis of the assumptions or on the basis of the explanations. A hypothetical first valid theory ever presented must be accepted immediately, even if it only explains a single observation, until a new theory is formulated. Most scientific debate and discussion occurs in the last step of the conclusion. This step never really ends for a valid theory, though fewer and fewer people may talk or think about it as other valid theories have had more explanatory success or made fewer/simpler assumptions. This is objective, rational science the way it is supposed to be done.

[klypp]

althonhare wrote:

No observational/experimental evidence is capable of refuting a theory of anything, including light.

Nonsense! If you really want to investigate a phenomenon, you will put up some hypotheses and then carry out experiments that will refute some of them. I think it was Tyco Brahe who said something like: "You can make hundreds of experiments that confirms a theory. It takes only one to disprove it!"

There are two reasons to reject a valid theory. 1) Another theory explains all the observed phenomena but makes fewer/simpler assumptions or 2) There are observed phenomena the proponent did not explain in his presentation that another valid theory explains.

1) is Occam's razor. It doesn't refute any theory. It just makes it slimmer!
2) doesn't necessarily reject a theory. It just makes it incomplete. (Which, however, is a very common excuse these days for sticking with some insane idea...)

If you want to use thinking to validate a theory, you should look for contradictions, inconsistencies, absurdities and stuff like that...

[altonhare]

Klypp, you agreed with me while trying to disagree!

Indeed, an individual may pose a hypothesis and then do some experiments to see if they verify it. If they don't, it doesn't refute the theory outright. The person's experimental setup could be at fault. The person's understanding of the experiment could be at fault. It is up to the individual proponent's discretion if he thinks he can present a valid case for the theory although it does not explain X phenomenon. In the situation you described, where any one experiment can refute a theory, we must assume that we understand nature perfectly and can make a perfect interpretation of the experiment! This refutes the whole point of presenting a theory in the first place!

When the proponent presents his theory and an explanation of at least one observation the listener has no choice but to accept it unless another valid theory explains more phenomena or makes fewer/simpler assumptions to explain the same observation. What else will the listener do? Reject it and go on with an empty head? He may accept it then go about formulating his own theory with fewer/simpler assumptions, which he may later accept (at the expense of the former theory). This does not make his particular theory slimmer, it is simply a criteria for evaluating and accepting or rejecting valid theories (an epistemology if you like). It absolutely is a reason for an individual to reject a VALID theory. It doesn't invalidate the theory, however, and I think this is the subtle distinction I made that you did not quite pick up. As you said, if you want to invalidate a theory you look for inconsistencies in logic, absurdities, etc. This is EXACTLY what I described in the scientific method! Read it again! A VALID theory has passed the minimum test of the scientific method and, as such, is logically consistent, coherent, and without absurdity or contradiction. Whether an INDIVIDUAL accepts or rejects a VALID theory depends on the other valid theories available. If another valid theory makes fewer/simpler assumptions an individual may choose that valid theory. If another valid theory appears to successfully explain more observations then an individual may choose it. However, all theories that pass the minimum test of the scientific method (consistency, logic, etc.) are valid until we are all unanimously decided on the TOE.

[altonhare]

I just read through a chunk of "A Rational Cosmology" and he says a lot of the same things I said to Birke. I promise I didn't read it before speaking! haha

[altonhare]

A major problem I have identified is Stolyarov's declaration of time as a dimension. There is simply not a definition of "dimension" that can be used consistently that includes length, width, height, AND time. Time simply cannot be a "dimension". If it were, you could point in the direction of time the same as pointing in the three directions an object may possess extent.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=58

[Plasmatic]

Yeah Alton I agree on that.

[klypp]

Plasmatic, I've spent some time these last days pondering whether I should moderate what I said or not. And... no, I won't!

However, true science, as a quest to systematize human knowledge, must depend on all observations, not just the esoteric or highly particular ones. In order to overcome the errors of empiricism-positivism, it is necessary to recognize that besides particular observations, there exist ubiquitous observations that any man can grasp and use to better understand reality.

While this looks all right, it isn't!
"true science ... must depend on all observations" Fine, we all agree on that!
But then he says: "it is necessary to recognize that besides particular observations, there exist ubiquitous observations that any man can grasp and use to better understand reality."

What is this? Isn't all observations particulate observations? And if not, can there be observations that excludes other observations? Of course not! We just agreed that science must depend on all observations!
What is an ubiquitous observation anyway? A common definition of ubiquitous is "being everywhere at once". How can an observations be ubiquitous as opposed to particulate? How can it be ubiquitous at all?

Hmm...
Maybe the answer lies here:

If one's ubiquitous observations about light are evidently incompatible with a given theory that happens to fit the particular experimental data, then the theory, not the ubiquitous observations, must be rejected. Another theory must be devised that fits both the observations and the data. Developing such a theory is the task of philosophers, namely, rational cosmologists, since the natural sciences deal with only particulars through experimentation.

Replace "ubiqutous observation" with "idea" in the above quote, and you will have the purest and finest idealism you can ever have!
And look how well this fits with the last part of the quote where he excludes experimenters from the right to develop theories. Only philosophers - "namely, rational cosmologists" - can do that!

As for light, he rejects wave theory, particle theory and wave-particle duality. Some good arguments, but every now and then he falls back at his "ubiquitous observations" and the philosophers exclusive rights.

Why?
I think it all adds up when you look at his own theories. Light is a relationship between the source and the target. Doesn't say much and you would expect a theory to have some more blood and flesh than this.
But whenever he tries to develop this, he just ends up with garbage. So far, my favorite quote is:
"Unlike sound, however, light does not require the observer, even though the observer requires light."

There is a lot of these, but more important:
Nowhere will you find an experimental support for his theory.

Not a particulate experiment, nor a.... oh, whatever!!

[altonhare]

But then he says: "it is necessary to recognize that besides particular observations, there exist ubiquitous observations that any man can grasp and use to better understand reality."

What is this? Isn't all observations particulate observations? And if not, can there be observations that excludes other observations? Of course not! We just agreed that science must depend on all observations!
What is an ubiquitous observation anyway? A common definition of ubiquitous is "being everywhere at once". How can an observations be ubiquitous as opposed to particulate? How can it be ubiquitous at all?

-Klypp

I think I can clear this up some. While Plasmatic and I basically agree, Stolyarov speaks from the standpoint of philosophy (primarily the study of class 3 existents) while you and I come at a problem from the standpoint of physics (primarily the study of class 1 existents). Additionally I would like to clarify that P and I do not agree with everything Stoly says, he makes some good points in some places and kinda loses it in some others.

An "ubiquitous observation" is confirmed constantly by everyone and has never NOT been observed by someone. An example:

An object has shape. Nobody has ever seen an object without shape. If you try to look somewhere where there is no object you see nothing. When you turn your head to the side where there's a ball you see something because it has shape (you see a border, you can distinguish the object from what it is not). You cannot distinguish "some nothing" from "some other nothing".

The fact that objects have shape is an ubiquitous observation. If one proposes that some objects do NOT have shape they will simply have to furnish their definition of object plus an image/statue/model/etc. of this shapeless object. In fact this has never been accomplished. Physics is, in fact, the STUDY of objects. Refusing to accept that all objects have shape is a refusal of physics.

Thus, one can reject any theory that cannot show you the object(s) involved in the theory, or at least models of them, based on the ubiquity of shapes.

Replace "ubiqutous observation" with "idea" in the above quote, and you will have the purest and finest idealism you can ever have!
And look how well this fits with the last part of the quote where he excludes experimenters from the right to develop theories. Only philosophers - "namely, rational cosmologists" - can do that!

-Klypp

Again, what Stoly means by "ubiquitous observation" is simply an observation that has never been refuted (like the shape of objects). He doesn't mean some person's idealism, although he does make it sound that way. I agree that Stoly takes a bit of an arrogant standpoint when he declares that "only philosophers" can do such and such. I don't like dividing people into philosophers or physicists. I may approach a problem from the top down (starting with class 1's and moving to class 3's) or bottom up (starting with class 3's and moving to class 1's). Anyone can do this, you don't need the label of "philosopher". But your theory does have to pass the test of internal consistency.

Overall this series of essays isn't, imo, the best introduction to rational thinking. I knew which parts to "take with a grain of salt" and which parts made good points, but an unfamiliar person would not.

So far, my favorite quote is:
"Unlike sound, however, light does not require the observer, even though the observer requires light."

-Klypp

I'll try to explain what he means by this. In my opinion it's a poor comparison and can confuse more than clarify, however I'll take a stab at it for you. There are two definitions of sound. One is the alternating rarefaction and compression of a medium (or a longitudinal shear stress in a solid). The other is the perception of this phenomenon by an organism. The latter is what we all associate with sound (because we're all alive). The former isn't really "sound", it's just a bunch of collisions. Sound, in this case, is just a shorthand term to refer to a complicated set of gazillions of collisions. Collisions occur all the time in nature otherwise, so there really isn't any fundamental difference other than the fact that an observer has named it "sound". So, when he says "sound requires the observer" he means:

If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around there is no sound, everything just follows the normal laws of physics of collision. If someone's around there's a sound, because living things identify "sound" as something they perceive, not as a particular set of collisions.

However it seems one could make the same argument for light. We could say that light is our perception and that, in our absence, nature is "doing whatever it's doing". This is why I think it's a poor comparison.

[timeOtime]

You should really read this:

http://toph.synthasite.com

It's of course about time and time dilation. In a nutshell it's about the difference between ideal clocks and physical clocks. It exists and observers generally have different clocks (conceptually).

This means that measuring time in different frames of reference isn't the same (regardless of velocity).

The theory introduces a postulate that change in clock rate is proportional to probability that time can be measured equally.

The logic for this, pictures explaining and goodies are all at this web site.

The bottom line is that time dilation is a local phenomenon. It holds relatively near large masses and diminishes with distance. If you move away from Earth, it diminishes faster if your mass is bigger. Not only that, but time dilation is asymmetrical, i.e. it's not the same for both observers - it depends on the mass of object.

So relativity may be relative after all. It still holds near large masses and for very small objects (such as elementary particles). Every experiment we ever did on it was bound to work because we're close to Earth.

If this sounds eccentric, well it probably is. But it could eliminate the need for many other eccentric concepts, from expanding space to dark matter.

Or at least it could provide some more balance and sense to relativity.

After all not all clocks are the same. And while it's true that clock is no more time than odometer is velocity, it also may be true that when best possible clocks are built and there is no more room for improvement (not even in principle!), well then nature may be reading the script from the different book.

Kind of it does in Heiseinberg's Uncertainty principle.

Anyway, I think you'll find food for thought there.

And last, but not the least, the theory predicts that in deep space, a velocity of large object can exceed speed of light. Those fast receding galaxies may not be optical illusions after all....

[altonhare]

timeOtime:

I started reading and I have two major objections early on.

Measuring time is subject to...

The real change in clock speed at velocity V is equivalent to relativistic change in clock speed at velocity V multiplied by probability that time can be measured with same or higher accuracy from at-rest observer.

So firstly the theory discusses measuring time before it ever actually defines time. Surely they cannot propose to measure something when they do not even know what it is.

Secondly the theory takes relativity as its starting point, which itself is purely a theory of measurement, and does not itself define time. In this and other threads I have argued convincingly for a definition of time that renders "time dilation" an inherent contradiction. I have also posed, in this thread, a direct interpretation of what scientists have been calling "time dilation". The latter is best exemplified in the "bird-plane" scenario.

[altonhare]

Thing/Object: Shape, finite.

Distance: Separation between two objects

Location: The set of distances from an object to every other object.

Concrete object: Shape and location

Motion: Two or more locations of an object.

Velocity: The distance-traveled by an object A as object B traverses the distance D. Object A and B are assumed to be moving uniformly with respect to each other (over any distance-traveled d by either, the other always travels a distance n*d, where n is constant).

Time: The distance-traveled by an object B as object A traverses the distance D. Again object A and B are assumed to be moving uniformly with respect to each other.