Are Time and Space Real?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon Why do you think it doesn't yeild a single exposure mark? Simply because there was the chance they could hit different areas?

However, they do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where all the previous electrons appeared on the screen and in what order tells us nothing about where the next electron will hit.

This proves that the effect of the pattern can not be linked to the cause of firing the photon.

[Technosoul]

Perhaps what you are suggesting is that "reality is just an opinon"? But what ever opinon we use we must create some sort of reality so that our existance can be explained. Otherwise we and everything is else is just one big blob with no way of measuring where one part of the blob ends and another part of the blob originates.

but then one could say that reality is a philosophy and not depandant upon science or technology for it's creation and or discrptions. Only our personal abilty to conduct a perception of our surroundings and then to hold whatever we wish to call the truths to be our self evident truth, according to our personal (and often limited) powers of reasoning things out.

So we can select button A - confusion. Or button B - for order and logic. Depending on what makes us feel intelligent or happy, or some other feeling that we think we need. eh?

[Tycoon]

This proves that the effect of the pattern can not be linked to the cause of firing the photon.

As I said, there are probably lots of other causes involved! Chance is not a physical thing that can randomly select places for them to hit in the way a computer can be programmed for random selection.

Perhaps what you are suggesting is that "reality is just an opinon"? But what ever opinon we use we must create some sort of reality so that our existance can be explained.

I am just trying to destroy the beliefs out there that time travel is possible, or that the universe would collapse if such and such happened to time or space.

[triad]

Time exists physically because humans seemed to have developed a 'sense of time'. Needless to say, if you were trapped in a dark cave for one month, you wouldn't know what day or what time it is. However, if you are in a dark cave, you also wouldn't be able to see. Vision is a sense that is affected by environment. You would have a better sense of time being outside, with the sun and moon indicating if it is day or night... which are both symbols of time (A.M. and P.M.). We can all agree that vision is a sense therefore it exists.... if we have a sense of time, then it too must also exist.

Humans are cyclical beings, our measurement and natural reactions to time prove this. For example, your body produces hormones such as melatonin which control your sleep/wake cycle. Connected to 'time', the sun sets our biological clock by triggering these chemicals, and lack of sun (night) causes them to dissipate. The fact that the body has a biological clock and experiences biological rhythms should be enough evidence to prove time as a concrete thing. It may be natural phenomena, but time does indeed exist in our bodies, the environment, and space. The only thing linear is our imaginations; everything else in the human body is cyclical - with aging being the only exception. Guess what aging is a result of? Time. We feel its affects, therefore it exists.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon As I said, there are probably lots of other causes involved! Chance is not a physical thing that can randomly select places for them to hit in the way a computer can be programmed for random selection. I am just trying to destroy the beliefs out there that time travel is possible, or that the universe would collapse if such and such happened to time or space.

Time travel has been a long time fantasy of science fiction for many years, but I would agree that there are no "gates", windows, wormholes, and warp speeds that can send us back into the past, or into the future.

I once had a sort of "former life" experience. And some think they can take people back in time through hypnotic suggestion. But I do not agree with those beliefs.

However our DNA can remember many things from relatives that had lived in the past, from our great grandfathers, etc. And those memories are passed down as genes - such that we might have red hair because someone way back when had red hair.

DNA is the only true time travler although the DNA is always in the present moment, if we can concider a moment as part of the "time concept".

It might be possible for our current brain to tap into some DNA memory of someone who is a distant relative in by-gone years. That would be a rare happening, needless to say. All thought not proven scientifically as yet if seems scientifically possible. If for example the right kind of chemical or drug would open our access to that memory gene that was passed down from piror generations. eh? To create a cross generational flashback.

I know this is speculation on my part, but so much of the brain is yet un-discovered that anything is possible in that respect.

Now if I say a door on the other side of the room, and I walked through the space between here and the door and then reached the door, would I be in the future relative to where I now am at, which would then be the past? Or am I in fact still in the moment, and creating time by the motion that I generated with walking and changing my point of preception about my surroundings?

Of course that space is full of dormat energy, or invisible light, as well as radio waves and so forth. Unseen and unfelt by me. Space being like the the air unless a wind starts to blow such that we can then feel and notice it's existance.

But the idea of changing things that have been changed back to the way they once were, in reality, is not possible. Nor can we change things or the shapes of things to come before they change, in order to see what is next. So what we are really talking about is not space or time, but about changes. Changes caused because visible objects can be moved about, and because growth can result in growing older, and what not.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon Chance is not a physical thing that can randomly select places for them to hit in the way a computer can be programmed for random selection.

The experiment proves that this statement is false.


You can never predict where a particle fired at a double slit will strike the photographic plate.


You can only build up probability of where it's motsly likely to strike.

[xyzer]

I think science is still tossing around the dilema of dark matter which occupies what can not be observed in space? Plus 'Black Holes' which devour matter?
In the 'Black Hole' theory gravity becomes so intense as to draw time, light and visible matter into an infinitely intense compact entity where there is no longer time, space or light. We have to assume the dark matter is drawn in also?
In this instance can we consider time and space real? Does what existed still exist? Can we reconstruct anything so destroyed by going beyond the 'event horizon'? What happened to the matter and light that gravity drew into the Black Hole? Does it still exist? techno brings up this problem. Would memories still exist in such a cauldron of the unknown?

[Tycoon]

Time exists physically because humans seemed to have developed a 'sense of time'.

That is just humans becoming used to the system. It doesn't prove anything.

The experiment proves that this statement is false.

No, it doesn't! There are obviously very small causes affecting the results! Probability is not a physical thing, and therefore cannot physically affect anything! There have to be other causes that create the varied results of this experiment.

[triad]

Quote by: Tycoon That is just humans becoming used to the system. It doesn't prove anything.

Either start debating your own thread and quit with the pretentious bullsh*t or concede and go away.

You replied to the first sentence of a post full of evidence... what a cop out. You have weakened your argument because now you just blow everything off with your opinion that it is false. As I said before, as long as we feel the effects of time, it exists. Space feels the effects of time because of different matter passing through it. Empty space experiences time because the point it became empty to the point it becomes occupied represents a time frame.



This is all semantics anyways; time is just the word we use to describe the linear movement of matter. The system we use is a cyclical measurement because we cannot call every passing moment a consecutive fragment of time. If you believe in the big bang or the creation of the universe... either way there is a start point to time. Once that occurred every action in between then and now has resembled time. Quit whining about the use of the word 'exists' and explain why you think it is impossible for our understanding of time and what it represents to be a physical thing. You use your shower curtain to keep water from splashing out of the tub to the bathroom floor. Is it important to know the semantics behind 'shower curtain'? NO, the sentence above explains what it is perfectly. You use time to represent the passing of physical rhythms, such as the speed at which a turtle turd flows down a river. If time was not physical, then that turd would be motionless. You can't pick up a second and play with it, but you can pick up a rock... the motion you use to do so is time. Time is everything; it is the effects of movement and no-movement. When something moves, then it has experienced time from start point to end, when something is motionless then the point at which it became motionless to the point it experiences motion is a fragment of time. It doesn't have to be in our own measurement, like hours or years. If it continues to be motionless for infinity, then it is experiencing time. Infinity is just time with no end, but it is still time. If empty space remains empty for infinity....


Are you going to post something filled with honourable rebuttals or are you going to brush this off like you have every other post since you've started this thread?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon There have to be other causes that create the varied results of this experiment.

The only cause is firing the photon.


The effect can't be predicted.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison The only cause is firing the photon. The effect can't be predicted.

I think his point is that there are possibly causes that we cannot observe. Basically, unless you can prove that blergs (particles currently unobservable by humans that interfere with light) don't exist, you can't say that you have disproved determinism. Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I really don't think you can disprove determinism through empirical experiments. Any experiment can just as easily have "random" results because of unobserved causes as actual random occurences.

[another day]

Quote by: Tycoon There is no such thing as empty space. "Empty space" would only be a potential place for matter to exist in in the future. I know it's like saying the same thing, but I would word it as objects existing independently from space. As I said, space is simply a potential place for matter to exist. So, I would say that space exists dependant upon matter.

Like you said yourself, it's saying the same thing. "Space" may not be defined like matter, but it is a concept that exists. Like you said, a potential place for matter to exist. His apple example is very apt at conveying this. Just like "nothing" is a concept, so is space. You say matter defines, space, but without the space, the universe would be nothing but a solid mass of undefined matter, so in truth, they both define each other. The whole system rests on this space. If it were all full, nothing could exist. May this be what the big bang was? The creation of that space. An explosion that separated matter from it's big concentrated ball of nothingness into the possibility of it's arrangement to make the world we know today, within the realm of space. I don't know a whole lot about the big band but that's just speculation.

Perhaps space is what defines the universe. The space is constantly expanding to create more room for matter to develop within it. The two are co-dependent properties, without each other they would both become "nothingness". Matter completely filling everything, and hence becomes a solid nothing, and space without matter, being what it is, empty, nothingness.

[Merge]

Quote by: triad Time exists physically because humans seemed to have developed a 'sense of time'. Needless to say, if you were trapped in a dark cave for one month, you wouldn't know what day or what time it is. However, if you are in a dark cave, you also wouldn't be able to see. Vision is a sense that is affected by environment. You would have a better sense of time being outside, with the sun and moon indicating if it is day or night... which are both symbols of time (A.M. and P.M.). We can all agree that vision is a sense therefore it exists.... if we have a sense of time, then it too must also exist. Humans are cyclical beings, our measurement and natural reactions to time prove this. For example, your body produces hormones such as melatonin which control your sleep/wake cycle. Connected to 'time', the sun sets our biological clock by triggering these chemicals, and lack of sun (night) causes them to dissipate. The fact that the body has a biological clock and experiences biological rhythms should be enough evidence to prove time as a concrete thing. It may be natural phenomena, but time does indeed exist in our bodies, the environment, and space. The only thing linear is our imaginations; everything else in the human body is cyclical - with aging being the only exception. Guess what aging is a result of? Time. We feel its affects, therefore it exists.

I would be more inclined to group time with things such as length and depth. While length and depth are part of the physical world in that they are properties of matter, they are not actually part of the physical world. Maybe time is a "property" of change.

As far as the "sense of time," maybe this can be described as a "sense of change" instead. We also have a sense of depth, but that doesn't mean that depth is a thing of the physical world.

We can say that we feel the effects of change, rather than time.

I don't know if this view makes any sense, but it seems compatible with all the evidence of the existence of time that you gave.



Space on the other hand isn't dependent in any way on matter, so I think it can be considered different.

[triad]

Quote by: Merge I would be more inclined to group time with things such as length and depth. While length and depth are part of the physical world in that they are properties of matter, they are not actually part of the physical world.

That is what everyone here is grouping time with, the non-physical. I understand the concept of time is very abstract and is not physical. However, all concepts are not physical. The concept of fiber optics is not physical, however the execution of laser-radiation through an optic cable is physical. Time works the same way, we may measure time with intangible, nonphysical ideas, however the execution of time is real. Which I am glad you brought up this next point....

Maybe time is a "property" of change.

I say it is the other way around. Change is a property of time. Time is the period between two certain points of current-to-potential existence. This would be the change that takes place when events that occur affect matter. If nothing occurs and matter is not affected, then you have time between the last point it was affected to the next point it will be affected. If it never changes, then like I stated earlier - infinty is time with no end, but is still time.

As far as the "sense of time," maybe this can be described as a "sense of change" instead. We also have a sense of depth, but that doesn't mean that depth is a thing of the physical world.

I don't understand how some people can think that just because humans have a certain way to describe/measure something via concepts means it is not physical. Your example of depth is accurate when we are talking about the idea of depth, but what it measures is always physical. It is just the name we give that measurement that is confusing some of you. If there is a one inch layer of sand on the ground, then you are right... you can't physically pick up the inch, but you can pick up an inch of sand. That is just the name we give that amount. Using this logic, when you touch a tree, you are not touching a tree. The word 'tree' is only a concept based on the english language and is the name humans have chosen to give it. However, it really is not a tree. Other languages exist that have different names for 'a tree', and it is just a blob of matter that we recognize as a 'tree'. According to some of the people in this thread, the actual tree does not exist. An inch of sand is a certain amount of sand that we recognize as 'one inch of sand'. See how simple this really is when you grind it down? The OP is just using wishy-washy semantics that don't matter when talking about things such as time and other measurements.

We can say that we feel the effects of change, rather than time.

Yes, but again change would not occur if there was no time. Time is the ultimate motion of the entire universe. It is the constant moving forward of everything, and change is just the result of time.

I don't know if this view makes any sense, but it seems compatible with all the evidence of the existence of time that you gave.

It makes sense, but it just needs to be developed further. Much like the OP.

Space on the other hand isn't dependent in any way on matter, so I think it can be considered different.

Space is very dependent on matter. If matter is present in one area, then it is filling space. If one type of matter fills space completely, then it is no longer space... but absolutely that type of matter. Confusing, isn't it?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge I think his point is that there are possibly causes that we cannot observe. Basically, unless you can prove that blergs (particles currently unobservable by humans that interfere with light) don't exist, you can't say that you have disproved determinism. Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Your attempt to save your hypothesis by claiming that there are "things" that are really the cause but we just can't see them yet is not original.


Einstein tried to pull the same s***: Hidden variable theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You can always try to say that your hypothesis might still be true by claiming that we can't yet obtain the information that would make it true.

It's a cop out.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: MplsBison Your attempt to save your hypothesis by claiming that there are "things" that are really the cause but we just can't see them yet is not original. Einstein tried to pull the same s***: Hidden variable theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You can always try to say that your hypothesis might still be true by claiming that we can't yet obtain the information that would make it true. It's a cop out.

A theory is a speculation supported by other facts that were collected to give it a good support system as a possible. Not a total cop out to predict that it can be proven with some additional discovery yet to happen due to a current lack of technology, etc. That is the difference between a theory and a fact. If the theory did not contain some doubt due to some still hidden factor, or because not enough testing has been done, then it would be fact not theory, or it would not be anything at all other then something like unto a myth or fantasy. In my uneducated opinon.

In a courtroom of peer reviews the abundance of evidence would be balanced between the lack of evidence to see if the scales tip in favor of the theory (aka - predictable fact in question). eh?

[Tycoon]

You can always try to say that your hypothesis might still be true by claiming that we can't yet obtain the information that would make it true.

Your expiriment isn't part of a scientific law. It's still just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven and still can be disproved (and in my opinion will be).

How do you even know that when you fire the photon it fires the photon in the exact same direction with the exact same force every time?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon Your expiriment isn't part of a scientific law. It's still just a theory, which means it hasn't been proven and still can be disproved (and in my opinion will be). How do you even know that when you fire the photon it fires the photon in the exact same direction with the exact same force every time?

There might be tiny invisible spaghetti monsters that slightly deflect the path of the photon!

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Technosoul Not a total cop out to predict that it can be proven with some additional discovery yet to happen due to a current lack of technology, etc.

Not in all cases, no.


In the case of the double slit experiment, though, there is no doubt because the experiment can be verified (and it has been) over and over and over again.

Many people in many different locations get the exact same result.

[Tycoon]

There might be tiny invisible spaghetti monsters that slightly deflect the path of the photon!

Skrew it. You couldn't even answer my question, you don't try a single ounce to see the other side of the argument... Don't expect me to debate with you anymore, especially when you say things like the above quote that make you look like this: .