Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: demalk on 21/11/2017 13:11:56

Title: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 13:11:56
Is 'time' fundamental? Does it actually exist at the most fundamental level of reality, or can't we seem to rhyme quantum with relativity, or figure out deterministically how quantum works because we are applying the concept of time to both ontological categories whereas in reality it only applies to one at most?

What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time. Because the thing we are looking at is actually timeless. The electron is timeless. The photon is timeless. The entire fundamental universe is a static and timeless network of informational bits, but our mass is preventing us from interacting with the whole thing at once and limits us to a series of snapshots instead. We can never interact with the next snapshot, only with the current one. So it seems to us like the future doesn't exist yet. But a photon doesn't have this impairment, it does experience the whole universe in its static entirety, which is how it flawlessly incorporates information that will be created in the future into its behaviour 'now'. There is no future. All the data is already there, at the most fundamental level of our existence. We just think it is the future because we have no choice but to view the world through our temporally distorted goggles. We have to wait for the next snapshot to interact with it. So when we look at this static information itself, i.e. 'quantum', we do so through a temporal filter. So it doesn't make sense. It seems jittery. Uncertain. Dual in its existence even. In fact, what is jittery is our temporal perception of it. The thing we're looking at is as static and fixed as can be.

In other words: what if  'c' is just the margin of error by which time-prone matter experiences a fundamentally timeless, informational universe?

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 13:46:26

Is 'time' fundamental? Does it actually exist at the most fundamental level of reality, or can't we seem to rhyme quantum with relativity, or figure out deterministically how quantum works because we are applying the concept of time to both ontological categories whereas in reality it only applies to one?

What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time. Because the thing we are looking at is actually timeless. The electron is timeless. The photon is timeless. The entire fundamental universe is a static and timeless network of informational bits, but our mass is preventing us from interacting with the whole thing at once and limits us to a series of snapshots instead. We can never interact with the next snapshot, only with the current one. So it seems to us like the future doesn't exist yet. But a photon doesn't have this impairment, it does experience the whole universe in its static entirety, which is how it flawlessly incorporates information that will be created in the future into its behaviour 'now'. There is nu future. All the data is already there, at the most fundamental level of our existence. We just think it is the future because we have no choice but to view the world through our temporally distorted goggles. We have to wait for the next snapshot to interact with it. So when we look at this static information itself, i.e. 'quantum', we do so through a temporal filter. So it doesn't make sense. It seems jittery. Uncertain. Dual in its existence even. In fact, what is jittery is our temporal perception of it. The thing we're looking at is as static and fixed as can be.

In other words: what if  'c' is just the margin of error by which time-prone matter experiences a fundamentally timeless, informational universe?



To the question of time-prone matter in a timeless informational universe, it is a rich environment for though experiments. Getting right to the crux of the matter, it seems that if we can alter the future, the answer is no, “c” is an actual physical limit imposed by the natural laws of the universe.

Why do I equate the two? Your argument for timelessness fails if the future isn’t deterministic to the extent that the path of every photon is pre-established. If I can alter the path of one photon, timelessness as you imply it, is false.

How do we answer that question about whether or not we can force our will on the path of a photon? It begins to go to the mechanics of consciousness. Just because we think we can have an affect on the future, the philosophical question is, can we really have freewill, or not. We take sides on that issue, but we cannot establish a testable experiment that will lead to irrefutable proof that convinces both sides.



I am on the freeill side.


Once I have altered the path of a photon, the history of the new path is fixed in the historical profile of the wave-energy density of the universe. That means that the event is recorded as it happens, but not pre-recorded.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 15:16:42
Quote
To the question of time-prone matter in a timeless informational universe, it is a rich environment for though experiments. Getting right to the crux of the matter, it seems that if we can alter the future, the answer is no, “c” is an actual physical limit imposed by the natural laws of the universe.

Of course, this implies a completely fundamentally deterministic universe. There is no free will in this model whatsoever. Every act of free will and every 'random' event is already present in the fabric of the universe. The illusion of free will is implied by the illusion of time.

Quote
Why do I equate the two? Your argument for timelessness fails if the future isn’t deterministic to the extent that the path of every photon is pre-established. If I can alter the path of one photon, timelessness as you imply it, is false.

You aren't altering anything. Your action is already present in the universe before you do it. No free will. No alteration. All the data is already there.

Quote
we cannot establish a testable experiment that will lead to irrefutable proof that convinces both sides.

We already have testable proof, and the best part is that we still have no conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that proves this, only a very good description. The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time. This clearly implies that to it, there is nothing random about the process. Clearly to it, there is nothing random or even 'future' about our 'random', 'future' 'choice'. What more proof could you wish for? It is our direct insight into the static nature of fundamental reality. Certainly QM doesn't provide an explanation of this retrospective behaviour, only a description which leads to accurate predictions, but no explanation about how it came to be that way. This is an explanation. A very logical one it seems to me. If Einstein calculates that a photon doesn't experience time, and we perceive with our own data that indeed, it doesn't seem to be bothered by time at all, then maybe we should stop seeing that idea as a theoretical quirk, and consider the possibility that the photon is right, and we are wrong. All you need to do to marry the ideas of QM and relativity, is to assume that the photon is what experiences and responds to the quantum world in the 'real' way. The 'instant' way. And that we are 'weird', our 'view' is distorted. Weird jittery time creatures.

Then it is required that 'c' isn't actually the speed of light. It cannot have any velocity, it is timeless. It is static. We are the ones experiencing time and because of that we must perceive light as if it were travelling too. Then it follows that 'c' can only be the rate of our illusion. The rate with which we perceive light, not the rate with which it travels.

Quote
I am on the freewill side.

I am most certainly not :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 15:42:49
Nice to meet you.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 16:25:55

We already have testable proof, and the best part is that we still have no conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that proves this, only a very good description. The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time.
I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.
Quote
This clearly implies that to it, there is nothing random about the process. Clearly to it, there is nothing random or even 'future' about our 'random', 'future' 'choice'. What more proof could you wish for?
I believe in random, but that too falls under the subjectiveness of refutability; am I right?

Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png)



Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 16:32:23
Nice to meet you.

Likewise :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 17:01:14
Quote
I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.

Fair point, but we can at least try :) If your argumentation makes sense to me, I will change my mind. I have no idealistic connection to determinism, it just seems to make the most sense to me right now, based on this timeless universe model.

Quote
Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.

Yes, this seems to be one version of the type of setup I am referring to but your summary, though I'm sure intentionally brief, seems to emit the one vital thing that differentiates this experiment from the standard double slit version, and vital to my point: namely the fact that the 'random' decision whether or not to store the which path information, is made in the future, i.e. after the photon has already hit the screen and therefore 'already completed' its path. Apparently the photon experiences a deterministic universe because we consistently observe it to perfectly incorporate our 'random 'future' decision into its present or past behaviour. It never gets it wrong. So evidently, to it, the world is as deterministic as can be. To it, there is no random event, or even a future event, the event is already there and the photon interacts with it just like everything else does at quantum: instantly.

I am curious about your comments though. Thus far I have only found QM to be descriptive and predictive about this 'delayed choice' phenomenon, but by no means explanatory. The fundamentally static, informational universe, whether one would agree with it or not, is an explanation where the predictions of relativity seem internally consistent with the quantum results. If you assume that time is real at quantum scale, there is no way, or at least none has been found yet as far as I know, to marry the two.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 17:27:32

Quote
I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.

Fair point, but we can at least try :) If your argumentation makes sense to me, I will change my mind. I have no idealistic connection to determinism, it just seems to make the most sense to me right now, based on this timeless universe model.

Quote
Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.

Yes, this seems to be one version of the type of setup I am referring to but your summary, though I'm sure intentionally brief, seems to emit the one vital thing that differentiates this experiment from the standard double slit version, and vital to my point: namely the fact that the 'random' decision whether or not to store the which path information, is made in the future, i.e. after the photon has already hit the screen and therefore 'already completed' its path. Apparently the photon experiences a deterministic universe because we consistently observe it to perfectly incorporate our 'random 'future' decision into its present or past behaviour. It never gets it wrong. So evidently, to it, the world is as deterministic as can be. To it, there is no random event, or even a future event, the event is already there and the photon interacts with it just like everything else does at quantum: instantly.

I am curious about your comments though. Thus far I have only found QM to be descriptive and predictive about this 'delayed choice' phenomenon, but by no means explanatory. The fundamentally static, informational universe, whether one would agree with it or not, is an explanation where the predictions of relativity seem internally consistent with the quantum results. If you assume that time is real at quantum scale, there is no way, or at least none has been found yet as far as I know, to marry the two.


You are correct, there is an erasure feature, but the experiment, after the erasure, gives results, where the interference pattern appears on screens D-1, and D-2, but not on D-3 and D-4, if I am seeing it right. Does that agree with the results that you are familiar with?

There are a couple of things that make this experiment controversial, and one is what you pointed out …
“The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time.”

I interpret that to mean that because you see the universe as timeless, that there is nothing new under the sun, if you get my drift. The universe knows, because there is only one grand “now” and it is all stored in the information that “is the universe”.

My “freewill” and “randomness” influenced reply is that neither the photon, nor the universe, knows anything in advance. The future unfolds as time passes.

The second thing that makes the experiment controversial is the nature of a particle. Wave-particle duality is a growing consensus, but even so, the nature of particle that can display the duality, i.e., both the particle nature and the wave nature at the same time, as in this experiment, isn’t a consensus. If a photon wave-particle can go through both slits, one in its particle state, and the other in its wave state, there is an explanation for the interference pattern.

Notice in the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus, the paths to each coincidence counter (detection screen) is marked with either the color red, or blue, or both. Note that screens D-0, D-1, and D-2 have both a red path and a blue path, while D-3 and D-4 have only one color (in the case of D-3 it is blue, and in the case of D-4, it is red.

If you see that, and agree with my observations of the diagram and the color of the paths, then I will try to make my point.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 18:09:19
Quote
You are correct, there is an erasure feature, but the experiment, after the erasure, gives results, where the interference pattern appears on screens D-1, and D-2, but not on D-3 and D-4, if I am seeing it right. Does that agree with the results that you are familiar with?

The photon is split into 2 entangled photons so one of them can hit the screen 'undisturbed' as we manipulate the other. The left one (let's call it left) is the one that ends up on screen D0. This is the photon creating one pattern or the other. Its entangled partner is passed through the whole randomising system on the right, randomly ending up at D1 through D4. 2 of these D's allow us to know the which path information, 2 of them don't. If after the experiment we have D0 only display the photons of which we cannot know the which path information because its entangled partner's path was randomised, you see an interference pattern. If however we only display the photons of which the entangled partner's path wasn't randomised, i.e. we can know the which path info, then you get the particle pattern. So each and every photon already incorporated the exact outcome of our future randomising event with 100% accuracy before the event of randomisation was even completed. There is nothing random or future about this to the photon, apparently. I utterly fail to see a way around that.

Quote
I interpret that to mean that because you see the universe as timeless, that there is nothing new under the sun, if you get my drift. The universe knows, because there is only one grand “now” and it is all stored in the information that “is the universe”.

Yes! That is a great way to put it. Just to be clear: by speaking of a 'knowing universe' in this context, we aren't referring to anything spiritual or religious. It isn't a conscious 'knowing' like that of a God. It is just that every bit of information about our reality, past present and future is already there.

Quote
My “freewill” and “randomness” influenced reply is that neither the photon, nor the universe, knows anything in advance. The future unfolds as time passes.

That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?

Quote
The second thing that makes the experiment controversial is the nature of a particle. Wave-particle duality is a growing consensus, but even so, the nature of particle that can display the duality, i.e., both the particle nature and the wave nature at the same time, as in this experiment, isn’t a consensus. If a photon wave-particle can go through both slits, one in its particle state, and the other in its wave state, there is an explanation for the interference pattern.

How do you feel about the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave model? According to it, the photon actually travels as a particle with definite position all the way through one slit to the screen, but it interacts with its own pilot wave and thereby creates a wave that passes through the other slit. So it seems to us that it went through both slits, but one slit just had the wave, the other actually had the particle (and the wave). Since there are still 2 waves interacting on the other side of the slits, you still get an interference pattern even though all photons actually only went through one slit.

Quote
Notice in the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus, the paths to each coincidence counter (detection screen) is marked with either the color red, or blue, or both. Note that screens D-0, D-1, and D-2 have both a red path and a blue path, while D-3 and D-4 have only one color (in the case of D-3 it is blue, and in the case of D-4, it is red.

If you see that, and agree with my observations of the diagram and the color of the paths, then I will try to make my point.

It has been seen, let us have your point! :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/11/2017 18:35:38
You really need to understand what the problem of time actually means.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: evan_au on 21/11/2017 20:02:21
Quote from: demalk
What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time.
Quantum interactions involving just 2 particles (eg a photon and a free electron) can be run forward and backwards, with no hints about which direction time is flowing.

However, you can see the effects of time's arrow in single quantum-level events like beta decay:
Carbon 14 breaks down to Nitrogen + electron + neutrino
14C → 14N + e + νe

As soon as you have 3 or more particles in an interaction, you can identify the direction of time with high probability.
Because the probability that 3 (or more) particles would happen to be in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right energy and momentum is effectively nil.

This is a thermodynamic/entropy argument about time, but extended to the quantum level.

Quote from: Problem of Time
time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers but absent for external observers of the universe
I am wondering where they found the observers from outside the universe?  :o
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/11/2017 20:27:38
Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/11/2017 21:07:34
Yes! That is a great way to put it. Just to be clear: by speaking of a 'knowing universe' in this context, we aren't referring to anything spiritual or religious. It isn't a conscious 'knowing' like that of a God. It is just that every bit of information about our reality, past present and future is already there.

It makes sense to derive that position from a strict deterministic universe. Not “God did it”, but instead, anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. One way to understand it is the way you describe.
Quote
That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?
It might very well violate both, darn me.

I know you wanted me to get to it, so this is an executive level summary of the explanation:

In regard to special relativity, time dilation and length contraction are deemed to be physical changes to objects in time and space as a result of relative motion, as I understand it. I don’t invoke those effects in my own model (I have a model that I discuss out in “New Theories”), but instead, I invoke the idea that when an object is accelerated, relative to a rest position, the moving object experiences an elevated energy density environment.

Objects are made up of “wave-particles”, and wave-particles function slower, relative to a rest position, when accelerated. That is why I mentioned the wave energy density profile of space earlier. That concept is a speculation that at all points in space, there is wave energy (gravitational and electromagnetic), coming and going in all directions at the speed of light. So when you move, you are moving into an onslaught of wave energy in the direction of motion, while the rest object is not experiencing that motion. Hence the moving object faces higher wave energy density in the direction of motion than the rest object. Therefore the particles in the moving object function slower (a moving astronaut will age slower).

You may or may not want me cluttering up your thread with the description of the wave-particle, and the photon as a wave-particle with mass, but it is part of my explanation about what is going on in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Wave-particles are both a wave and a particle at the same time, and at all times, until they are observed, and then they are one or the other, depending on the nature of the observation. (I will have to give you some details of the mechanics of how that works, but you may wave all this off before that becomes necessary).

As a result of the wave-particle duality of states (not talking superposition of states), they can display both states, when sent one by one, through the apparatus. The particle state is registered as a hit on a detector; the wave state is registered as an interference that affects the path of the particle.

Quote
How do you feel about the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave model? According to it, the photon actually travels as a particle with definite position all the way through one slit to the screen, but it interacts with its own pilot wave and thereby creates a wave that passes through the other slit. So it seems to us that it went through both slits, but one slit just had the wave, the other actually had the particle (and the wave). Since there are still 2 waves interacting on the other side of the slits, you still get an interference pattern even though all photons actually only went through one slit.
I will address the details of my view on de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics in a separate post later, if you like, but suffice it to say that I don’t invoke the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM.

Quote
It has been seen, let us have your point :) .
The point is that you do not get interference unless there is a path to the detector from both slits, i.e., you need a red line and a blue line in order to get the interference pattern. The reason is, that in the single particle experiment, in order to get interference, the wave state of the particle goes through both slits, while the particle state goes through only one or the other. The interference that alters the path of the particle state must be allowed to form, and in order to form, the wave must go through both slits. (If we get to the discussion of my alternative interpretation of QM, I’ll be able to explain, but I am on thin ice in regard to hijacking your thread, and that is not my intention.)


Let me know when to stop (it may be too late, lol).
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 23:23:10
Quote
You may or may not want me cluttering up your thread with the description of the wave-particle, and the photon as a wave-particle with mass, but it is part of my explanation about what is going on in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Wave-particles are both a wave and a particle at the same time, and at all times, until they are observed, and then they are one or the other, depending on the nature of the observation. (I will have to give you some details of the mechanics of how that works, but you may wave all this off before that becomes necessary).

Nope, not in the business of waving anything off ;) On the contrary, I would be very interested in more details on the observation mechanics and their nature. Please do share. What I don't see in the above idea (yet), is any explanation of the apparent violation of time/causality. It addresses the 'mechanism' of particle-wave duality, but how would this idea in itself address the observation that the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be?

Quote
As a result of the wave-particle duality of states (not talking superposition of states), they can display both states, when sent one by one, through the apparatus. The particle state is registered as a hit on a detector; the wave state is registered as an interference that affects the path of the particle.

Makes sense.

Quote
I will address the details of my view on de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics in a separate post later, if you like, but suffice it to say that I don’t invoke the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM.

I would love to get your thoughts on that.

Quote
The point is that you do not get interference unless there is a path to the detector from both slits, i.e., you need a red line and a blue line in order to get the interference pattern. The reason is, that in the single particle experiment, in order to get interference, the wave state of the particle goes through both slits, while the particle state goes through only one or the other. The interference that alters the path of the particle state must be allowed to form, and in order to form, the wave must go through both slits.

I get that line of reasoning (I think). But still, this is addressing only the particle-wave duality issue. Not the causality defying one. Unless I'm missing something.

Quote
If we get to the discussion of my alternative interpretation of QM, I’ll be able to explain, but I am on thin ice in regard to hijacking your thread, and that is not my intention.

Not at all, lets discuss it. But since the thread is about the fundamental existence of time, lets try to stick to that. So please, tell me, how does your model explain the apparent causality violation of the photon?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 23:26:37
Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.

Hahaha it doesn't sound easy at all, trust me  ;) Please elaborate more. What do you mean by 'a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames'?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 21/11/2017 23:44:37
Quote
As soon as you have 3 or more particles in an interaction, you can identify the direction of time with high probability.
Because the probability that 3 (or more) particles would happen to be in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right energy and momentum is effectively nil.

That makes sense, but it also sounds like a relatively straightforward thing, why do physicists claim that at the quantum level time could flow in any direction? Have they not thought to add a third particle? Or are they just ignoring this to make popular statements about the quantum world?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bill S on 22/11/2017 00:21:35
Over the past few days a small “rash” of threads seems to have arrived between which there is considerable crossover.  As I have neither time nor inclination to become involved in repetitive, multi-thread posting, but want to have a say in some of these threads, I’ll give it some thought, decide which thread is most appropriate for any response, and cross-reference where appropriate. 

I hope that will work.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 22/11/2017 00:33:05
Over the past few days a small “rash” of threads seems to have arrived between which there is considerable crossover.  As I have neither time nor inclination to become involved in repetitive, multi-thread posting, but want to have a say in some of these threads, I’ll give it some thought, decide which thread is most appropriate for any response, and cross-reference where appropriate. 

I hope that will work.

Yeah, since our discussion had drifted a bit from information to time, I figured I should probably just start a new thread about time. But of course information comes in in this discussion as well so in the end perhaps it was pointless :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2017 01:07:24

Nope, not in the business of waving anything off ;) On the contrary, I would be very interested in more details on the observation mechanics and their nature. Please do share. What I don't see in the above idea (yet), is any explanation of the apparent violation of time/causality. It addresses the 'mechanism' of particle-wave duality, but how would this idea in itself address the observation that the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be?
Ok, coming up …
Quote
I would love to get your thoughts on that.
I look forward to it …
Quote
I get that line of reasoning (I think). But still, this is addressing only the particle-wave duality issue. Not the causality defying one. Unless I'm missing something.
The “line” thing is meant to highlight the fact that the mechanics of the wave-particle is responsible for what might otherwise appear as a spooky knowledge on the part of the photon.

Quote
Not at all, lets discuss it. But since the thread is about the fundamental existence of time, lets try to stick to that. So please, tell me, how does your model explain the apparent causality violation of the photon?
Maybe I should try to address that first.

It goes back to …
Quote
That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?

In regard to the above quote, I went on to explain the difference between special relativity, in regard to time dilation and length contraction, and my explanation that the wave energy density of space is responsible for the slowing in the rate that particles function when accelerated; two different sets of cause and effect.

The part that I didn’t address is time/causality, where you are interpreting the delayed choice experiment results as evidence that “the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be”. You refer to that as an example of time/causality, if I understand correctly.

I argue that the photon doesn't display such timelessness, and there is no causality violation, because the future isn’t already embedded in the information record; the future is not the result of determinism. The photon doesn’t already know the future, and so I don’t interpret it as a violation of time causality.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 22/11/2017 01:44:56
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/11/2017 02:39:10
Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?
I do enjoy your views, and our discussion, but there is a place for hard science, which is generally accepted, and there is a place for unprovable layman ideas about the “as yet” unknowns of science, like mine.

If you approve, I will respond to your questions in a post that I will write in my thread, “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple Big Bang events”. When that post is ready, I will come back to this post and edit in the link to the appropriate response, written to you, on my thread out in the “New Theories” sub-forum.

Then I can address your questions in an environment where layman ideas can be discussed freely, without having to worry about young readers getting misled, and where our views as layman science enthusiasts won’t be confused with science done by professionals. That is in accord with the forum guidelines, and relieves the moderators from having to decide if the guidelines have been crossed.

I hope this is not an inconvenience to you. Go to that post using this 'link" now active. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg528559#msg528559)

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 22/11/2017 02:51:38
Quote
I hope this is not an inconvenience to you. Go to that post using this ”link”. (http://link) which I will edit tomorrow to actually contain the link that I haven’t written yet :)

Not at all, looking forward to it :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/11/2017 12:32:20
Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.

Hahaha it doesn't sound easy at all, trust me  ;) Please elaborate more. What do you mean by 'a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames'?

I will reply to this later as I on lunch break at work at the moment.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/11/2017 17:49:33
OK let's take a step into Heisenberg's world. The energy of an oscillating particle is
f27351a86d80308af9cdae82d34fac80.gif
If w = 76a04c96a651f52be11396cb4697ed96.gif and p = mv then we can restate this as
2827a9b433d7f3c5ccb555a812c49e59.gif
If we then replace p with matrix P and x with matrix Q we have
a172a33d93e7efe3ce19b5be177839d1.gif
This is quantised oscillator energy. The classical and quantum versions are both linked by proper time
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/11/2017 20:19:06
It may be worth also reading about imaginary time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/11/2017 21:59:37
Now above it should be noted that P is the momentum matrix and Q is the position matrix. This can be used to derive the uncertainty relationship.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 25/11/2017 21:23:01
Quote
Now above it should be noted that P is the momentum matrix and Q is the position matrix. This can be used to derive the uncertainty relationship.

I understand that everything about QM implies time. I am not proposing to just erase time from the equations. That wouldn't make any sense. Of course the equations are right to include time. They are describing what we see and so we need it represented in our formulas if we want to make predictions. All I am saying is that this is what they do: they describe the world we live in. They don't describe the underlying layer, if any, and if it were a static informational layer, there would be no way to prove or disprove that through QM's equations just like a pre-QM argument about QM could never have been proven or disproven using any of Newton's equations.

Now, I understand you firmly disagree with this, so please, explain to me how :) What is so certainly fundamental about QM that absolutely nothing more fundamental could possibly exist?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/11/2017 13:39:24
The matrices P and Q are both infinite. From these it can be determined that energy comes in set discreet amounts. There is not an energy continuum. That is as fundamental as it gets.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/11/2017 13:54:53
Read here about the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg himself misinterpreted this.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 26/11/2017 17:20:51
Quote
The matrices P and Q are both infinite. From these it can be determined that energy comes in set discreet amounts. There is not an energy continuum. That is as fundamental as it gets.

There is of course a good chance that these equations do indeed say something about their own fundamentalness which I am currently missing due to my lack of understanding and if so, I am keen to find out about them. But any argument to be taken seriously will certainly have to entail a bit more logic than the above. Your statement that discrete amounts = fundamentalness is a fallacy. By that reasoning, the first person to have discovered that all living tissue consists of discrete cells could have said the same thing: look, all life consists of discrete amounts, I must have hit the fundamental level of reality. Whereas the cel of course consists of molecules which consist of atoms, which we now know have their own special inner workings and their elementary bits can be broken up further yet if we apply enough energy like in the LHC. In other words: there is nothing about finding discrete amounts in itself that guarantees fundamentalness. It just means you've hit a deeper layer of reality than before. Nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 26/11/2017 18:40:53
Quote
Read here about the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Heisenberg himself misinterpreted this.

I am not disputing the math, what I am questioning is its interpretation. The contradiction here is quite obvious: the 'fundamental' uncertainty is attributed to wave-like systems. But every child understands that a wave is caused by something. If nothing acts on the water, it sits still. Any wave has to have a cause. As soon as there is cause, then there is mechanism, and as soon as there is mechanism, fundamental unknowability evaporates. The only thing left to be fundamental here, perhaps, is our inability to include the cause in our formulas. That is already a vastly different proposition than that of Copenhagen.

By stating that the foundations of reality are probabilistic, Copenhagen essentially claims that there is no cause. There is no mechanism. That is directly perpendicular to the concept of a wave-like system which according to the very same model underlies everything. It simply cannot be true that what underlies everything fundamentally, is causeless waves. It is an inherently internally inconsist claim. Furthermore, as long as QM and relativity haven't been married while both seem to be ultimately true, and fundamental mysteries remain such as dark matter and dark energy, then it seems a little premature to make any definitive claims about fundamentalness based on any existing math whatsoever.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/11/2017 20:00:51
Both quantum mechanics and relativity agree with observation. If they didn't then you may have a point. They agree do therefore you don't. Disputing something for the sake of it is not the best way to learn.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 26/11/2017 22:49:15
Quote
Both quantum mechanics and relativity agree with observation. If they didn't then you may have a point. They agree do therefore you don't.

The fact that they agree is central to my whole point. Which apparently you've missed completely.

Quote
Disputing something for the sake of it is not the best way to learn.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 27/11/2017 06:24:26
Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'? I don't consider time to be 'relative' in relativity as suggested in that text though. Your clock, the 'wristwatch' you use won't give you a longer (or for that sake 'shorter') lifespan, whatever trick you try, unless you find a way to freeze yourself down to then revive you. Doing that won't allow you to consciously enjoy those days passed in a frozen condition though, and according to everything we know time still pass even when you don't know it.

Time is a local constant, just as 'c' is one.
=

Using my analogy, now try to make time a result of entropy :)
=

The text is based on general assumptions about how and what a universe 'is', sort of like you watching a 'whole universe' through a telescope. Doing so you then define 'islands of time' slower and faster than your wristwatch, but locally measured, aka in a same frame of reference, all clocks 'ticks' alike. It's not relativity that is wrong, it's just our presumptions about what a universe is.

Actually, what is important here is the stipulation that ones 'lifespan', locally measured, never will change, no matter what speed, mass, etc etc you find yourself to be in/at. It's simple, time is a local constant and one proof of it is being in a same frame of reference.

Btw: so is 'c' :)

A local constant I mean, every constant is, or has its base from local observations. 'repeatable experiments' (observations) creates them,  those all being of a local nature. It's just us lifting them up to a global representation
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/11/2017 12:55:10
Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'?
That is a good point. “Outside” seems best accessed in a thought experiment. "Local" is where your clock runs true; outside, it is open to relative motion affects.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bill S on 28/11/2017 20:35:48
Quote from: Demalk
The fact that they agree is central to my whole point.

Please could you "distil" that for a hitch-hiker with little time to review the thread?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/11/2017 21:31:32
Let's look at the original question.

Things happen, and the universe changes. If there is a detectable difference between "before and "after" then the concept of time has meaning, and if there are consistent differences between different systems, its meaning must be universal. If we count sunrises and the grass gets a bit taller as the count increases, there is a common dimension for astronomy and horticulture, which we call time.

At the quantum level I think a lot of confusion is caused by the word "uncertainty", which colloquially implies some involvement of an observer or arbiter. A better translation is "indeterminacy", which doesn't. It's the difference between guessing the position of a raindrop (uncertainty) and knowing you are in fog. Wave mechanics is simply a mathematical model that helps us predict how the universe evolves: it doesn't imply that electrons are waves any more than your income tax code implies that you are a number on paper, but both can be used to predict the probable evolution of something in time.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/11/2017 22:52:15
Alan cuts through the BS once again with the scalpel of truth. Good on you sir. AND you got best answer. Wow! Top form.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 29/11/2017 01:35:03
Quote
Let's look at the original question.

Things happen, and the universe changes. If there is a detectable difference between "before and "after" then the concept of time has meaning, and if there are consistent differences between different systems, its meaning must be universal. If we count sunrises and the grass gets a bit taller as the count increases, there is a common dimension for astronomy and horticulture, which we call time.

At the quantum level I think a lot of confusion is caused by the word "uncertainty", which colloquially implies some involvement of an observer or arbiter. A better translation is "indeterminacy", which doesn't. It's the difference between guessing the position of a raindrop (uncertainty) and knowing you are in fog. Wave mechanics is simply a mathematical model that helps us predict how the universe evolves: it doesn't imply that electrons are waves any more than your income tax code implies that you are a number on paper, but both can be used to predict the probable evolution of something in time.

Thank you for your well-put and thoughtful contribution. I will try to reciprocate as thoughtfully as I can :)

I agree with you, of course, that time has meaning. One should even argue it has more than just meaning. The concept of 'time' is implied in that of 'prediction' and prediction is arguably what all of physics and most other sciences are all about: creating models that are as accurate as possible at predicting how the world behaves. So needless to say, 'time' has tremendous meaning.

The question here however is not whether time is meaningful, but whether it is fundamental. There are a lot of things that are very meaningful but nowhere near fundamental. Love. Chair. Internet. Child. Understanding. Drums. Elephant. All extremely meaningful. But the fact that I can pick up the chair, hold it over my head and throw it straight through the window, doesn't make the chair or my head or the window the least bit fundamental. All these things either exist as concepts stored in our neural networks or as macroscopic objects or both, but none of them are fundamental in any way. 'Gold' means nothing to an electron, let alone 'wood' or 'chair'. So these things can never be fundamental.

So what is fundamental? Well, the photon seems pretty fundamental to me. It has no mass, its speed equals the maximum speed of causality, it interacts sub-atomically as well as macroscopically and we need it by definition to observe anything. Seems like a great starting point. If we can figure out how a photon experiences the world, perhaps we can get a step closer to what the world really is like fundamentally.

So what does the universe look like from the perspective of a photon? How is its perspective different from ours? Well, according to special relativity a photon doesn't experience time. If you would travel at the speed of light, everything would seem to happen at once. Of course this seems like a theoretical quirk because a) mass could never travel at that speed, and b) clearly everything doesn't happen all at once. Time actually passes. Right? But why wouldn't we assume that the photon may be right? Clearly it interacts with the world in a much more fundamental way than we do? With the whole being absorbed and emitted by individual electrons at the speed of causality and all, perhaps we should take its 'theoretical' perspective a bit more seriously? Maybe we can find some experimental evidence that this theoretical timelessness of photons might actually be a more accurate representation of the fundamental universe than the timefulness of mass?

Turns out, yes, we can. In the quantum eraser experiment we are affecting the behaviour of photons in hindsight. After the photon has already travelled through the slit(s), and has already been absorbed by one of the atoms in the screen, we are able to modify its past behaviour. We could even set up the experiment so that the choice would be delayed for billions of years after the photons have completed their paths. And still somehow they will have incorporated that distant future event into their behaviour. No matter how hard we try, we cannot fool the system.

How much more proof could we want? Isn't it obvious that the concepts  'time' and 'random' mean nothing to these photons? Isn't that exactly what we'd expect if the idea that a photon experiences no time weren't theoretical at all? If time and future and random are emerging phenomena carrying meaning only to that which has mass, then what is left at the fundamental level, the level that a photon 'sees', is a static, timeless, informational, pre-determined layer. Just like the software of a computer program being executed by a processor. The causal relations are "real", but only from the internal perspective of that which is being executed. At the most basic fundamental layer of it all lies a static, timeless 'hard drive' containing all the predetermined code - informational bits which dictate everything that will ever happen throughout the duration of the program. In other words: a fundamentally deterministic "reality".
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 29/11/2017 03:35:23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 29/11/2017 03:53:20
How time emerges from quantum entanglement:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691)

How quantum entanglement = informational bits

Quote
http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Colin2B on 29/11/2017 15:24:10
The question here however is not whether time is meaningful, but whether it is fundamental.
A viewpoint. One fundamental aspect of physics is measurement. If we look at the dimensions required to define all other measurements we find that length, mass and time are fundamental measurements, so in that respect I would say time is fundamental.
I would also say that spacetime is a very fundamental concept.

So what is fundamental? Well, the photon seems pretty fundamental to me. It has no mass, its speed equals the maximum speed of causality, it interacts sub-atomically as well as macroscopically and we need it by definition to observe anything. Seems like a great starting point. If we can figure out how a photon experiences the world, perhaps we can get a step closer to what the world really is like fundamentally.
Here you are using a different definition of fundamental. The photon is not a dimension or a measurement, so in that way is not comparable to time or space.
I agree that understanding the photon is important to understanding much of our universe, but is it more fundamental that say quarks?

So what does the universe look like from the perspective of a photon? How is its perspective different from ours? Well, according to special relativity a photon doesn't experience time. If you would travel at the speed of light, everything would seem to happen at once.
I don’t think this is what relativity actually says.
As an object travels closer to the speed of light the distance between its current position and destination shrinks, so it takes less time to travel that distance. In the extreme (approaching c) the distance between the points tends towards zero, but can we say that those points are no longer evolving and changing over time? Only the distance has shrunk, not the time, at best we can say that the photon ‘sees’ its destination at only one snapshot in time.
Certainly relativity raises interesting questions about our perception of time and simultaneity and our understanding of the photon plays a part in that, but in GR it often makes little sense to separate spacetime into its individual components.

Turns out, yes, we can. In the quantum eraser experiment we are affecting the behaviour of photons in hindsight. After the photon has already travelled through the slit(s), and has already been absorbed by one of the atoms in the screen, we are able to modify its past behaviour.
There is a growing body of thought that this way of looking at the experiment is mistaken and comes from our trying to place classical view onto atomic scale objects eg the photon take a single path through the slits. That in reality when we try to measure/detect something we determine or affect its nature, eg wave or particle, by the way we conduct the measurement and has to do with the indeterminacy Alan mentioned.

Isn't it obvious that the concepts  'time' and 'random' mean nothing to these photons?
No, I don’t think it is.

If time and future and random are emerging phenomena carrying meaning only to that which has mass
Over the past few years an increasing number of experiments have started to investigate the wave/particle nature of atoms and molecules. Have a look at this one from 2015 which indicates that helium atoms can also display delayed choice behaviour. Note the comment near the end which picks up the evolving view of wave/particle behaviour.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/may/26/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2017 17:17:12
Let's have a critical look at the quantum eraser.

I set up a double-slit experiment and record a single photon interfering with itself. Really? An interference pattern is dispersed in space and is recorded by photons transferring energy to, in the classical case, photographic film. Now one photon only has enough energy to blacken one silver halide crystal,i.e. to form a point image. If I claim to have dispersed the photon across several crystals and to have blackened them all, I have created energy from nowhere. Either the most fundamental law of physics is bunk, or the photon has not "interfered with itself" and the interpretation of the experiment is wrong.

Now create an interference pattern, record it on film, present it to a king, and be rewarded for your efforts with a hundred concubines. Father a thousand sons. Then erase the interference pattern. What happens to your heirs and successors?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Colin2B on 29/11/2017 18:19:14
Let's have a critical look at the quantum eraser.
....
....
Sorry alancalverd, apparently we can’t nominate 2 best answers per topic but this deserves another.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/11/2017 19:57:54
Let's have a critical look at the quantum eraser.
....
....
Sorry alancalverd, apparently we can’t nominate 2 best answers per topic but this deserves another.

My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 30/11/2017 07:14:35
I would like to address the question "Is 'time' fundamental?" once more.

In quantum mechanics time is a necessity, in General Relativity not so.
Have a read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

And as I said, in Relativity it depends on what you think is more correct. A generalized 'universe' or a 'local universe'. Einstein saw it as a 'whole universe', then 'time' becomes a 'global variable' definable from your local wristwatch, as well as relative motion and mass. If you treat it locally though, it's no longer a variable, instead it becomes a constant 'time evolution', just as thought in quantum mechanics.
=

What one have to see here is that using your wristwatch as some golden standard stops making sense as soon as you accept the idea of time being a chimera. It actually includes that wristwatch you're using too, if so.

Do you die?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: puppypower on 30/11/2017 12:14:35
One source of confusion about time is we don't measure time in a way that parallels the nature of time. Time moves in one direction, to the future. However, we measure time using clocks that are based on a cycling phenomena. Clocks do not measure time in a way that parallels the observed behavior of time. It is like measuring the weight of an elephant with a meter stick. I suppose if we artificially define a convention and everyone plays along this may seem correct.

Cyclic clocks measure waves, which is more appropriate to energy, which is composed of a time plus a distance parameter; frequency and wavelength. One parameter is assumed by the other. We conceptually use something with the parameters of space-time, to measure time, leading to conceptual confusion. We take this tradition for granted. 

A concept, already in use, that better parallels the working nature of time is entropy. Like time, entropy spontaneously moves in one direction; increases, according to the second law. Time moves forward. This is a better conceptual fit than an energy/wave clock.

A possible measuring tool, which simulates time, would be the dead fish clock. With the dead fish clock, we start with a fresh fish from the market and place it on the counter. When it starts to stink, this is a basic unit of entropy time. Just as time cannot spontaneously reverse and repeat itself every twelve hours, like a wave based clock, the dead fish clock can only go to the future and cannot un-stink itself and start as fresh fish. This is where we need to begin so we can conceptualize the question of time being fundamental.

What is interesting about the dead fish clock is the rate of measured time propagation will be dependent on hot and cold. The fish will last much longer when refrigerated, than at room temperature. The time dilation; time until it stinks, will be energy dependent. This makes sense since entropy needs energy to increase.

If we start with a dust cloud, in space, and let it collapse into a star, space-time will contract. We go from higher gravitational energy potential to lower gravitational energy potential. Time slows because the dead fish clock becomes refrigerated due to less energy potential. If we want the stink time to speed up, all need at add energy much as expanding against gravity.

One of the earliest entropy clocks was the hour glass, where the sands of time, flowed. This entropy clock was not spontaneously cyclic, but needs a human to make it cycle. This led to need for labor saving wave/energy clocks. The sands of time continued to have an entropy connection, since the sand is shuffled, each time it is turned, never to perfectly repeat like a wave clock. Eventually, even that was taken away when we started to measure time as though it was space-time; wave.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2017 18:45:05
Alas, you have missed a crucial point. The hourglass is a "before and after" phenomenon. So is gestation. By experiment we discover that there are always 24 hourglasses (and 2 tides) between sunrises, 28 sunrises between moonrises, and 9 moonrises between conception and birth. Thus there is something common between several singular phenomena and several cyclic phenomena. Hence time (that elusive commonality) is fundamental to natural processes.

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/11/2017 19:48:48
Time is something that can be talked about endlessly :) .

But there are some experiments that have been done that show that the rate of time passing, as measured by two identical clocks in relative motion, will be different, relative to the acceleration profile of the individual clocks; the result is time dilation between the two clocks.

If so, is it true that science attributes the difference in time dilation to the difference in the relative acceleration of the two clocks?

If the experiment was performed again, using a different acceleration profile by different pilots, and with a different resulting amount of time dilation, can the difference between the two experiments be attributed to the different acceleration decisions made by the two pilots?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Colin2B on 30/11/2017 23:16:12
Time slows because the dead fish clock becomes refrigerated due to less energy potential.
As Alancalverd says, you are missing the crucial points here. Time does not slow when the fish is refrigerated, it is the chemical reactions that slow. This is very different from time dilation.

is it true that science attributes the difference in time dilation to the difference in the relative acceleration of the two clocks?
Both relative constant speed or relative acceleration will result in time dilation when one observer measures the other.

If the experiment was performed again, using a different acceleration profile by different pilots, and with a different resulting amount of time dilation, can the difference between the two experiments be attributed to the different acceleration
If the relative speed or acceleration differs between two scenarios then the degree of time dilation will also differ.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/12/2017 10:59:42
In an inertial frame of reference there is no way of knowing the difference between stationary and moving. It can be inferred from external observations but never proved. Also there is no way of determining if acceleration is positive or negative. So that whether or not your speed is increasing or decreasing is also unknown. Again it can be inferred from external observation but is always relative.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: puppypower on 01/12/2017 12:07:15
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 12:14:35
Time slows because the dead fish clock becomes refrigerated due to less energy potential.
As Alancalverd says, you are missing the crucial points here. Time does not slow when the fish is refrigerated, it is the chemical reactions that slow. This is very different from time dilation.

I was using the dead fish clock as the measuring tool. I am using an entropy clock. I am not using an energy/wave clock, to measure the dead fish clock, since that will return me to the conceptual inconsistency of using a 2-D wave tool to measure 1-D time.  That will lead to conceptual problems, which will make time hard to define in terms of a fundamental phenomena. If you use a meter stick to measure the weigh of the elephant there is a conceptual disconnect even if made useful; spring.

Relative to the hour glass clock; entropy clock, say we made a tunnel from the surface to the core of the earth. If we moved the hour glass down the tunnel, time will slow as the sands of time, slow. This entropy clocks slows because the gravitational potential energy will decrease as we move toward the core. Again, I am using an entropy clock as the time piece, since it acts in a way that parallels the propagation of time; time moves one way, and not as a repeating wave, like energy.

With the hour glass and dead fish clock, both clocks go one way and do not repeat. In the case of the hour glass, this can be made to repeat but we need to add human interaction to flip the clock. This can also be done mechanically with a machine. However, left to its own device both entropy clocks go through one cycle and then end. We will need to place a new fish to start the clock, again. The entropy clock is quantized, with gaps between the each fresh fish, or the next cycle of the hour glass. We can never flip the hour glass ,perfectly without a slight gap between cycles. The old time concept of reincarnation, uses the human body as the entropy clock. This entropy clock has to become a new state for the next cycle. They sensed the quantum nature of time based on entropy clocks.

There is a conceptual connection between entropy clock time and the more traditional wave clock time, because entropy needs energy to increase. That which impacts space-time and wave clocks, will also impact the entropy clocks. The problem with entropy clocks is there is no consistency between cycles, so one may ask how would that be useful for measuring time. The answer depends on whether a time or space-time convention is more important for measuring time.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/12/2017 13:42:37
The question that I was going for in my post, and that comes up in the context of the discussion on Demalt’s thread, is about whether the decisions made by the two pilots are the explanation for the different outcomes, or are the pilots simply automatons, mindlessly carrying out predetermined actions somehow imposed on their minds without their willful participation?


A believer in determinism says that though the pilots believe they control the rate of acceleration, they actually don’t; all human actions are predetermined by a set of invariant natural laws, and outside of the control of any human intervention.

On the other hand, if there is freewill, the pilots have control of the acceleration decisions, because the pilots are making decisions on their own, on the fly, in real time, without the influence of determinism.

It is a matter of if there is, or is not a case for determinism, based on the fact that all natural laws are invariant. I accept that all the natural laws are invariant, but that different sets of those invariant laws can come into play, governed by the circumstances. I can see how the human mind can intercede to affect the circumstances, and thus to determine the particular set of invariant natural laws that come into play at the time of some physical event.

For example, I can think about moving my arm, or not moving my arm, without moving my arm, i.e., independent of the different set of invariant nature laws that would come into play if I do or do not move my arm. The fly is buzzing around and I am thinking of swatting it. I decide to swat it in real time. I swat it and the fly dies. If I decide not to swat it, the fly lives. My decision takes place before the action of swatting, but causes the act of swatting, and so I have affected the various mix or set of invariant natural laws that come into play at the time of the physical event of swatting or not swatting.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Colin2B on 01/12/2017 17:13:18
I was using the dead fish clock as the measuring tool.
The point you are missing is that your clock does not measure time dilation. For that to be true you would observe that all clocks at that location would slow, be they chemical, mechanical or atomic, and they would slow by the same amount.

I am using an entropy clock. I am not using an energy/wave clock, to measure the dead fish clock, since that will return me to the conceptual inconsistency of using a 2-D wave tool to measure 1-D time.  That will lead to conceptual problems, which will make time hard to define in terms of a fundamental phenomena.
There is no conceptual inconsistency. You are confusing the difference between a phenomena and the methods used to measure it.
Putting aside why you think a wave is a 2D tool - which it isn’t in the measurement of time - time measurement is a case of using a series of regularly occurring events to measure the time displacement between 2 other events, see previous post by Alancalverd. With an atomic clock we use the count (1D) of peaks, with a mechanical clock we use degrees (1D), etc. However, there is no reason why we should not use a 3D event eg volume of burnt candle wax, or volume of dripping water. Techniques like these are common eg using degrees to measure volts or amps. None of these present any conceptual problem.

If you use a meter stick to measure the weigh of the elephant there is a conceptual disconnect even if made useful; spring.
No disconnect whatsoever. Either use the stick as the arm of a balance to compare against a standard weight or measure the displacement of a (3D) spring. Again, no conceptual disconnect, except in your mind.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bill S on 01/12/2017 17:58:48
#36.

You have some gems in your cabinet, Alan.  I particularly like the raindrop/fog illustration.  It appeals to my simplicity of thought.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: phyti on 02/12/2017 17:36:56
puppypower #46;
Quote
Time moves in one direction, to the future. However, we measure time using clocks that are based on a cycling phenomena. Clocks do not measure time in a way that parallels the observed behavior of time.

What is 'the observed behavior of time'?
Time doesn't move and it doesn't flow. There is a mental influence. The mind processes perception sequentially. The memory of the previous perception when compared to the current perception lends itself to an  interpretation of a continuous process, especially if the mind cannot detect any differences due to limited resolution. This is similar to the mind interpreting a fast sequence of still photos on a screen as 'motion pictures'.
A repeating cycle is just a convenient method of time keeping. Though the clock starts over at midnite, the day count has increased by one. Time doesn't cycle, it accumulates.
We are currently at 2017 yrs. from the year 1 ce.
When describing events of interest, we correlate them to standard clock events, which provides an ordered record for future use.
_________________________________
If the time of an event is assigned after perception of the event, and perception is always after the event occurs, how does time determine what happened?

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bill S on 03/12/2017 11:40:10
Quote from: Phyti
Time doesn't move and it doesn't flow ………Time doesn't cycle, it accumulates.

I’m not arguing with your basic thoughts on time, but I wonder how time would “accumulate” if it didn’t “flow”.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2017 12:09:06
A step is not a road. We measure distance by counting the number of steps it takes to get from A to B. We measure the diameter of a shotgun barrel by the weight of a lead ball that just fits it. We measure the kinetic energy of a hydrogen bomb by the mass of TNT that would make the same size hole in the ground.

Quantities and units are not the same thing.

The requirement of a unit is that it should be adequately reproducible. We have no reason to believe that a hyperfine transition of a cesium atom is any different here and now from what it was there and then, so it gives us a useful unit of time.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: phyti on 04/12/2017 18:09:13
I’m not arguing with your basic thoughts on time, but I wonder how time would “accumulate” if it didn’t “flow”.
I pointed to the movies, and the 'moving' images on your computer screen, to show the mind supplies the 'flow'. Events continue to happen, and people continue to perceive them. Our 'now' is the few milliseconds our brain requires to analyze and store the sensory input. 
People waking from a coma do not have any memory of the elapsed time, nor do people with impaired brain functions.(the mind connection)
Time is a human convention for monitoring an amount of activity,
The latest standard is x number of wavelengths of light, a distance, as it has been throughout history.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 04/12/2017 18:12:58
Thank you Colin!


Quote
A viewpoint. One fundamental aspect of physics is measurement. If we look at the dimensions required to define all other measurements we find that length, mass and time are fundamental measurements, so in that respect I would say time is fundamental.

Agreed, time is a fundamental aspect of measurement and therefore fundamental to our science of physics. However, I am interested in the foundations of reality, not those of the sciences. More about this later.


Quote
I would also say that spacetime is a very fundamental concept.

Again, fundamental to science, but not necessarily to reality. The idea of an underlying informational reality seems to be gaining traction among an increasingly credible scientific audience (Erik Verlinde, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark to name a few). We should at least entertain the possibility that such a thing might be true, and when we do, we cannot do without reconsidering everything we thought to be fundamental. And yes, that should include the photon as well. More about that later.

Quote
Here you are using a different definition of fundamental. The photon is not a dimension or a measurement, so in that way is not comparable to time or space.

This is the definition I intended all along. Fundamental to reality, not science, measurement, observation or anything else. The fact that the photon is not comparable to anything else, is my point exactly. It is the only thing that actually experiences the world objectively.

Quote
I agree that understanding the photon is important to understanding much of our universe, but is it more fundamental that say quarks?

Complexity arises from simplicity. Therefore the deeper into reality you peer, the simpler things should become. The incredibly complex structure of the human psyche for example arises from much simpler processes of neurobiology, which emerge from yet simpler processes of chemistry, etc. Get to the periodic table and you're left with 118 (for now) items to describe all of matter. And when we get all the way down to quarks; all of psychology, all of biology, all of chemistry and all of nuclear physics is reduced to six flavours of one and the same particle. Now, we haven't been able to peer any deeper than the quark so from a scientific point of view there is no other option but to assume that this it is the most fundamental particle. And perhaps it will turn out that yes, when it comes to matter, the quark is indeed the most fundamental thing we'll ever find. But...does that also mean it is just as fundamental to reality as the photon? Let's see.

Photons do not interact with the Higgs mechanism. However, high-energy photons can be converted into fermions which do. Quarks are fermions. So once the photon has converted into something with mass, that which it has become is less fundamental in its nature. It has jumped up a level of interactional and existential complexity, from where it is then able to give emergence to atomic nuclei, electrons, all the 118 atoms we know of, all of chemistry, biology and ultimately what we call 'consciousness'. But for any of that to arise, photon-like energy had to be infused with the Higgs field so to say, before it could materialise. IF we define fundamentalness as the deepest level of simplicity that underlies everything else, for now the photon seems to be far ahead of the quark.

Quote
Over the past few years an increasing number of experiments have started to investigate the wave/particle nature of atoms and molecules. Have a look at this one from 2015 which indicates that helium atoms can also display delayed choice behaviour. Note the comment near the end which picks up the evolving view of wave/particle behaviour.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/may/26/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed

Thanks so much, will look into that right now :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 04/12/2017 18:47:42
Quote
For example, I can think about moving my arm, or not moving my arm, without moving my arm, i.e., independent of the different set of invariant nature laws that would come into play if I do or do not move my arm. The fly is bussing around and I am thinking of swatting it. I decide to swat it in real time. I swat it and he fly dies. If I decide not to swat it, the fly lives. My decision takes place before the action of swatting, but causes the act of swatting, and so I have affected the various mix or set of invariant natural laws that come into play at the time of the physical event of swatting or not swatting.

Ok. Let’s try to dissect that situation and see if we can find any evidence of free will there.

So, you’re sitting in a room and notice a fly. The thought appears in your mind that you could swat it. You make a decision whether or not to act on that thought. The first important thing to note here is that you did not choose to observe the fly. The conscious observation of the fly arose based on a gigantic network of non-conscious processes, including your sensory input being converted to a specific pattern of neural activity, which passed the ‘test’ of something that requires your attention thereby entering your consciousness as an observation. This process is just as non-conscious as the heart beating or your DNA replicating. "You", as in that which is reading these words, have no choice in the matter.

Once the observation has entered your conscious mind, you instantly think of the possibility of swatting the fly. But you did not choose to have that thought either. It emerged because the concepts of ‘fly’ and ‘swatting’ are very closely related in the neural networks of your brain. You did not choose to organise your neurons in such a way. It happened because you grew up in a world where flies are abundant, and in a culture where swatting them is a very natural thing to do. Had you grown up in an isolated society which considers flies holy, the relationship between the concepts of ‘fly’ and ‘swatting’ would not exist in your brain and the thought of swatting it would not emerge. Furthermore, to choose our own thoughts would require us to think what we think before we think it. We can do something like that when we try to focus on something or retrieve something from memory. These are exercises of consciously steering our own thoughts, but it takes a lot of effort. 99% of our thoughts emerge to us without our conscious self having any part in that whatsoever. As Sam Harris puts it: "you author your next thought as much as you author my next word".

So if neither the observation nor the subsequent thought were the result of your free choice, what about the decision whether or not to act on that thought. Surely that is up to you?

Turns out that no matter how you look at it, if you look closely enough every free choice can be ultimately reduced to prior causes. There is the specific situation you’re in. If your infant is in the room, you may be more inclined to kill (the fly, not the baby) than if it were just you and your dog. Or if the room were smaller, you may be more inclined to kill than if were bigger (just because the fly is more annoying in a smaller room).

But even if we would consider all those external circumstances equal, there is still nothing free about your decision. Consider your mood of the moment. Did you choose that? Did you choose whether or not someone said something nasty that really got to you that morning? Or whether you slept well that night? What is the state of your hormonal and microbial balance? Digestive cycle? Menstrual? How has your personality and thought-structure developed over the years? In what cultural context? What was your environment like when you were growing up? What were your influencers like? Classmates, teachers, idols, siblings, parents?

All your choices are ultimately determined by prior causes one way or another. The network of these prior causes is just much too complex for us to predict, and so we attribute terms like ‘free will’ and ‘random’. In reality, these two concepts are directly opposed to the notion that every effect has prior cause.

We lack the computing power to process all the information required to make deterministic predictions (i.e. know for sure that tomorrow at 4:12 PM you will bump into that friend you haven’t seen for 20 years). Hypothetically speaking one could unravel all the prior causes of both of you being there at the same time and predict 100% accurately that you will meet there tomorrow at that time. The only reason we can’t do that is because we can’t unravel all causes and all effects to the smallest detail throughout the entire universe all the way down to 20 years ago when you last saw each other, or in fact all the way down to the beginning of time. We could never do that of course, but in principle in a universe where everything is the effect of prior causes there can be no such thing as free will or fundamental randomness.

‘Random’ means we don’t have enough information/computing power to predict deterministically an event of which the lead cause is not assumed to be the intent of a conscious being/a ”self”.
‘Free will’ means we don’t have enough information/computer power to predict deterministically an event of which the lead cause is assumed to be the intent of a conscious being/a ”self”.

A conscious being/a “self” is an illusory static entity which in fact is ever changing in structure, function, health, age, process, knowledge, experience, thoughts, personality and even (sub)atomic content (in the sense that the individual electrons and atoms in your body today are different ones than those that comprised you when you were born).

If the difference between randomness and free will is the involvement of a self, and the self or at least its static nature (static in the sense that you feel like the same person today as you were yesterday), is in itself illusory, then randomness and free will are one and the same thing: the absence of enough information/computing power to predict something deterministically. This leaves no room for fundamental “self”, fundamental “freedom of choice” or fundamental “randomness” whatsoever.


Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/12/2017 01:07:45

If the difference between randomness and free will is the involvement of a self, and the self or at least its static nature (static in the sense that you feel like the same person today as you were yesterday), is in itself illusory, then randomness and free will are one and the same thing: the lacking of enough information/computing power to predict something deterministically. This leaves no room for fundamental “self”, fundamental “freedom of choice” or fundamental “randomness” whatsoever.
I respect your belief. The fact that there is logic behind the idea that the laws of nature are invariant, supports determinism. But there is known science and there is “as yet” unknown science, and in my view, somewhere in the as yet unknown is a law that precludes determinism from being the ultimate expression of nature. Maybe that law is what lets my freewill govern that tiny portion of the events which I might consciously wish to influence.
   
As I predicted early in our discussion, neither of us seems to be swayed by the objections of the other :) . It may be true that everything is predetermined, and I can’t falsify that belief, but on the other hand, I don’t think the existence of freewill can be falsified either.


I stand on the conviction that the logic of freewill supersedes the logic of determinism, and am okay if I am wrong, as long as I am free to believe I am right. 
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 05/12/2017 01:28:53
Quote
I respect your belief.

And I yours :)

Quote
The fact that there is logic behind the idea that the laws of nature are invariant, supports determinism. But there is known science and there is “as yet” unknown science, and in my view, somewhere in the as yet unknown is a law that precludes determinism from being the ultimate expression of nature. Maybe that law is what lets my freewill govern that tiny portion of the events which I might consciously wish to influence.

You can consciously influence a great deal. In fact, you can change the world single-handedly as many have done before you. I am by no means preaching fatalism. Go and change the world! All I am saying is that whether you make one conscious choice or another, is ultimately determined by prior causes outside of your control. Even that tiny portion of 'freedom' you are referring to.
   
Quote
As I predicted early in our discussion, neither of us seems to be swayed by the objections of the other :). It may be true that everything is predetermined, and I can’t falsify that belief, but on the other hand, I don’t think the existence of freewill can be falsified either.

I believe it can and has been falsified :) I strongly recommend Sam Harris' account of free will. If that doesn't convince you, I certainly never will. There's a fascinating 1,5 hour talk on youtube, in case you are behind on any ironing work or, say, embroidering ;) There's also a 2,5 minute version in case you're more of a sweatpants and t-shirt kinda guy.

Quote
I stand on the conviction that the logic of freewill supersedes the logic of determinism, and an okay it I am wrong, as long as I am free to believe I am right.

Haha nice.

You have the right to believe that you are right. But the fact that you do, is still due to prior causes :)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: phyti on 06/12/2017 16:53:25
demalk #60;
Quote
..then randomness and free will are one and the same thing

The only statement I can agree with in all that verboseness.

If I see a fly, I grab a swatter and neutralize it. I made the decision/choice to do this, many years prior, to avoid flies in my face, and on my food. The choice was part of forming a set of values for future situations. The encounter with the fly is random. Random in my book is unpredictable.
Unless you know a person, as it pertains to habits and preferences. human choice is random. That's why marketing spends millions of dollars monitoring personal buying habits.
Given two persons, both hungry. One eats to maintain their health. The other fasts believing it improves their health. Why doesn't the 'law' of hunger produce the same results?
The difference is free will to choose.
In your effort to explain human behavior in mechanical terms, physical states, you omit the key factor, motivation. An intangible something science can't examine or measure.
Science is philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool.
If it can't measure it, it can't study it (in any meaningful way). Eg. science can't tell us how much love a liter can hold.

Determinism has no basis since the current state of the universe, excluding the local (solar) system cannot be known for the purpose of making predictions. Observing a distant star, there is no certainty that it's still there. At the local level, quantum outcomes are probabilities. Then there's the lottery.
All determinism also includes silent assumptions, that nothing new will happen. But that's the future and is unknowable.

A person buys a gun and kills someone. You say he had no choice since the outcome results from a series of prior conditions beyond his control.
The deceased's family wants to hold someone accountable. The gun salesman, the gun manufacturer, the killers mother, (for giving birth)...and where does it end?
With the person with the gun! The person makes a choice, good or bad. The victim is alive prior to the choice, but not after.
The news media reports; a person was killed, the innocent victim of circumstances, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That fits your description of circumstances beyond their control, i.e. for the victim, but not for the assailant.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/12/2017 17:38:16
The fluctuations of the vacuum could be the basis of what we determine as free will. For any two apparently identical actions the state of the vacuum at the time of occurrence could produce different outcomes. So the vacuum chooses.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/12/2017 00:09:20
...
I believe it can and has been falsified :) I strongly recommend Sam Harris' account of free will. If that doesn't convince you, I certainly never will. There's a fascinating 1,5 hour talk on youtube, in case you are behind on any ironing work or, say, embroidering ;) There's also a 2,5 minute version in case you're more of a sweatpants and t-shirt kinda guy.
...
Would you post a link to the 2.5 minute summary. I can search out the Youtube video. The book is for sale on line, but let me start slow.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 07/12/2017 00:11:11
Quote
The fluctuations of the vacuum could be the basis of what we determine as free will. For any two apparently identical actions the state of the vacuum at the time of occurrence could produce different outcomes. So the vacuum chooses.

I like that thought :) Reminds me of how transistors can glitch due to quantum fluctuations sometimes and therefore computers need to contain error correction to make sure we don't notice it when it happens. The comparison works because just like computers, our brain is a binary system. A neuron either fires, or it doesn't. 1 or 0. Our entire consciousness and everything that isn't conscious but happens anyway, emerges from that binary system.

However, the comparison fails when it comes to quantum fluctuations affecting the system. The transistors in a computer are in the nanometer range. They are so tiny that every now and then a 1 can appear where there should be a 0 due to quantum randomness. Neurons however are in the micron range. They get as wide as 0.1mm and as long as several feet. Are there any known objects of that size that are subject to quantum fluctuations? Isn't the whole idea that at that scale, all these random jitters average out to a classical, predictable world?

Look at a system with 2 neurons, and you'll find nothing random about their activity. Stimulate one, it will stimulate the other. Period. The fact that our brain consists of hundreds of billions of these neurons, just makes it a lot more complex. Not fundamentally different and suddenly subject to quantum effects, randomness or free will. It is all just an extremely complex reflex.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 07/12/2017 00:13:27

Quote
Would you post a link to the 2.5 minute summary. I can search out the Youtube video. The book is for sale on line, but let me start slow.

There you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfHpXuUWGQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfHpXuUWGQ)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 07/12/2017 01:07:26
Quote
The only statement I can agree with in all that verboseness.

Thanks for your feedback. I've been working on a more succinct way of expressing myself, but I still have a long way to go. Thank you for being my sketch pad though :)

Quote
Unless you know a person, as it pertains to habits and preferences. human choice is random. That's why marketing spends millions of dollars monitoring personal buying habits.

In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information. What you are saying is: if something is random (like consumer behaviour), just do some research, gather some information, and the randomness disappears. Suddenly google can predict with 100% accuracy that I want to go to Timbuktu, and now is able to present me with relevant ads. If you agree that randomness can be solved by 'getting to know someone', i.e. by gathering information, and you agree that free will and randomness are the same thing in essence you have agreed that free will is fundamentally predetermined. Either your internal logic is failing or you agree with a wee bit more of my previous statement than you care to admit ;)

Quote
Given two persons, both hungry. One eats to maintain their health. The other fasts believing it improves their health. Why doesn't the 'law' of hunger produce the same results?

Because prior causes.

Quote
In your effort to explain human behavior in mechanical terms, physical states, you omit the key factor, motivation. An intangible something science can't examine or measure.

Motivation has been and continues to be widely examined, measured, described and documented from the perspective of at least five difference sciences - psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology and neurology. We know roughly which areas of the brain are involved, we are starting to understand the chemical interactions of neurotransmitters involved, and we are moving so fast that over 90% of what we know on this front has been discovered in the last 10 years. This is because discoveries in the field of neurology are so closely linked to the rate of technological advancement (measuring devices, computing power, etc.). In short: there is a lifetime worth of scientific reading on the subject of motivation.

Quote
Science is philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool.
If it can't measure it, it can't study it (in any meaningful way). Eg. science can't tell us how much love a liter can hold.

That is the first thing you've said that I can fully agree with.

Quote
Observing a distant star, there is no certainty that it's still there.

That is besides the point. We are talking fundamental randomness. So the question here would be 'is whether it still exists or not determined by prior causes or could there be some fundamental randomness to its existence leaving a percentage of chance for it having disappeared without cause. If we admit that no, a macroscopic object like a star needs cause to disappear, then we are back to lacking information about the system. Which was my point about what randomness, and therefore free will are, to begin with.

Quote
A person buys a gun and kills someone. You say he had no choice since the outcome results from a series of prior conditions beyond his control.
The deceased's family wants to hold someone accountable. The gun salesman, the gun manufacturer, the killers mother, (for giving birth)...and where does it end?
With the person with the gun! The person makes a choice, good or bad. The victim is alive prior to the choice, but not after.
The news media reports; a person was killed, the innocent victim of circumstances, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That fits your description of circumstances beyond their control, i.e. for the victim, but not for the assailant.

The apparent dilemma you point to here, is a very logical and easy mistake to make. Someone did you wrong, you want retribution. But you are right to point out that from this determinist perspective, or rather preterminist perspective, there should be no room for retribution in our judiciary systems. The murderer should be put in jail but only for safety purposes, only so he can't do it again. Not for retribution. Not to 'punish' him. He shouldn't be tortured. He shouldn't be raped by other inmates. He shouldn't be put to work like a modern-day slave. He should be removed from society for the purpose of being removed from society. Period.

I just posted a link to a 2.5 minute video on the subject. Sam Harris, the speaker, a cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher, explains it very well. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfHpXuUWGQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfHpXuUWGQ)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: phyti on 08/12/2017 19:13:23
demalk #68;
Quote
In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information.
'ignorance': lack of knowledge (information)
'random'; lack of pattern, no obvious cause, unpredictable
My definition of random is different from yours, therefore you will interpret my words differently than intended.
People are creatures of habit, enabling us to sometimes make correct predictions about their behavior,.
An actuary can predict the number of deaths for a sample size of people, based on statistical records, but cannot predict which specific members, yet has information.
You can know all the possible sequences of numbers for the lottery, but can’t predict the winner.
The star example was to demonstrate the impossibility of prediction for a deterministic world. If you don't know the current state, due to vast distances, you can't predict the next state. It's not complicated.
In the murder case, the family wants justice, in the form of accountability for actions. It's not about mistreatment or abuse. The things you mentioned are a whole other issue, and related to the ongoing debate of incarceration vs rehabilitation.
The judicial system is on my side. Go rob a bank, and try to convince the court that it was out of your control.
I watched the Sam Harris video. Not impressed.
from wikipedia:
DNA was first isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. Its molecular structure was first identified by James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, 
The two were recognized for their intellectual achievement in discovering the genetic code. Shouldn't intelligence be required to invent the code?
My question for you is: What is the origin of DNA?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 09/12/2017 00:10:23
Ah, intelligent design is what you're after. I'm sorry, I didn't catch on to that earlier. A bit slow on my part.

Look, there are replicated studies where the measuring device already shows what the participant's decision will be seconds before the decision is made, that is, while the participant still feels like he is exerting his freedom of choice. You still feel like you're weighing your options, but the machine measuring your brain activity has already produced accurately the result of your decision. This should pretty much end the discussion, no?

All our choices are made in our unconscious mind. We merely witness them and then make up a story to make it fit our sense of free will. That too, has been elaborately studied. For example you can manipulate people's decisions by giving them a warm cup to hold rather than a cold one. Afterwards, all participants produce rationalisations as to why they behaved as they did. Of course none of these stories have anything to do with the actual reason: the temperature of the cup they were holding. There is no way around it, this is really how it works and it has been shown in labs all over the world in all kinds of different experimental setups over and over again.

The only reason it hasn't been completely accepted even in the scientific community, is because it doesn't feel pleasant. It feels like something is being taken away from you. Like suddenly nothing matters anymore, as if you can't make a difference in people's lives anymore. But this isn't the case. Determinism isn't fatalism. You still matter. Your love still matters. Your actions still matter. You are still accountable for them. There are still very important distinctions to be made between a premeditated crime and one of passion or self-defence, between lucid people and those who aren't aware of their actions. These things still carry as much meaning and weight as they did before we acknowledged that free will is ultimately illusory. It is simply the admission that you are as much an integral part of the chain of causes that is our world, as is anything else. The sense that you are somehow special, that your 'self' somehow stands above the causal chain of events and manipulates parts of it at will, from a purely empirical point of view (and in my opinion from a philosophical point of view as well) is wrong.

Since in your previous post you made the bold, well, utterly ignorant but still bold statement that motivation cannot be studied scientifically, I strongly recommend you dig a little deeper on the subject. Unless you feel comfortable digging around in scientific papers, a great starting point, and I know you weren't impressed with the 2.5 minute excerpt, but still I maintain that a great starting point would be Harris' 1 hour talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g)

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2017 09:37:01
Regarding DNA, its origin is the inevitable consequence of carbon chemistry and the hydrogen bond, which are universal, and the particular temperature and mass of one planet being suitable for the self-replication of the molecule. It's entirely possible though very unlikely that other selfreplicating molecules have evolved on planets without liquid water, and both probable and rather more likely that something very similar to DNA has evolved on planets like ours.

The fact that casinos make a profit is entirely due to the existence of free will. In a wholly deterministic universe we would all bet on the right number every time and the joint would go bust in one evening. "Faites vos jeux" and "rien ne va plus" determines the sequence of events and hence the irreversibility of time.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: puppypower on 09/12/2017 12:15:29
Regarding DNA, its origin is the inevitable consequence of carbon chemistry and the hydrogen bond, which are universal, and the particular temperature and mass of one planet being suitable for the self-replication of the molecule. It's entirely possible though very unlikely that other selfreplicating molecules have evolved on planets without liquid water, and both probable and rather more likely that something very similar to DNA has evolved on planets like ours.

The fact that casinos make a profit is entirely due to the existence of free will. In a wholly deterministic universe we would all bet on the right number every time and the joint would go bust in one evening. "Faites vos jeux" and "rien ne va plus" determines the sequence of events and hence the irreversibility of time.

Random is a concept that is more associated with manmade things, instead of natural things. Dice and cards are manmade things that are designed not to follow natural laws. These inventions were a type of free will thing. For example, a six sided dice is equally weighed on all sides, so the odds of each side appearing, are all equal. This is not how quantum states work in nature. In nature, each quantum state; side of the natural dice, will have a distinct energy level or energy equivalence. It cannot roll in a random way, like the artificial dice, since the natural dice is loaded, based on the free energy differences of each side. The hydrogen atom has distinct quantum energy levels, and will not roll between levels in a random way, like dice. The background energy makes these dice roll a specific way.

The cards in a deck of cards are all the same in terms of size, shape, weight, and heat of combustion. The difference, connected to randomness, is arbitrary based on the decorations decided on by man.

Random and statistic has been so useful in factories and for the casino sciences of manmade things, it has been wrongfully extrapolated to natural; blindman's prophesy. Before the age of enlightenment, its was assumed the universe was ruled by the whim of the gods. This is early random theory. This was put to rest with the dawn of modern science. It was reintroduced when man started playing god; atheism, and making the universe subject to his whims; artificial. 

Take a perfect cube of ivory. Drill holes into each side, so it looks like a dice. Since we have removed different amounts of material from each side, the dice is now loaded and weighs differently in each side. It will no longer follow the expected rules of dice. To make it follow those rules for the casino, we need or tool the dice so random can appear. We can do this by manufacturing a slightly loaded cube, which will become uniform, after we drill out the holes. Now the random universe can appear; manmade. It is willful illusion.

If you look at water and DNA, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element of the universe, while oxygen is number three, behind number two helium. Oxygen is number three, because of its nuclear stability. In terms of chemical reactivity, oxygen and hydrogen are the two most reactive atoms, of the top three, making oxygen and hydrogen; abundance and reactivity, the chemical potential foundation of the universe.

It is not coincidence that life's energy bandwidth is within the range of oxygen and hydrogen. There are only a few species of bacteria that can use the entire bandwidth.This bandwidth was, itself, defined by the extrapolation of elementary particles. It is not random. The number four atom of the universe is carbon. In terms of molecules, the three most abundant molecules in the universe are H2, H2O and CO, which is the foundation of life.

Relative to water and organic life, what makes water special, beyond its prominent place in the universe, is connected to the water and oil affect; hydrogen bonding and van der Waals bonding. Water and oil do not mix. Instead these will phase separate into two layers. The value of this, in terms of carbon based life, is water and organics can induce each other into lower entropy. Water allows the organic system to go from random into order, driven by free energy.

Other solvents tend to dissolve organics better or become more dissolved into organics, meaning they maintain a more random chemistry for carbon, which is not natural to the needs of forming life, beyond the the manmade theory factory.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 09/12/2017 14:47:51
Quote
Regarding DNA, its origin is the inevitable consequence of carbon chemistry and the hydrogen bond, which are universal, and the particular temperature and mass of one planet being suitable for the self-replication of the molecule. It's entirely possible though very unlikely that other selfreplicating molecules have evolved on planets without liquid water, and both probable and rather more likely that something very similar to DNA has evolved on planets like ours.

Flawless victory!

Quote
The fact that casinos make a profit is entirely due to the existence of free will. In a wholly deterministic universe we would all bet on the right number every time and the joint would go bust in one evening. "Faites vos jeux" and "rien ne va plus" determines the sequence of events and hence the irreversibility of time.

Far from flawless sir!

First of all, assuming a fundamentally probabilistic reality, could you clarify the implied analogy in your words between free will and randomness?

Secondly: all we would need to predict with 100% accuracy which number the ball will land on in a roulette spin, is a complete picture of all the classical elements influencing the ball's behaviour. This does not require any quantum effects to be included in the calculation and therefore the energy required to make the calculation can be contained within our universe. In principle, it is possible to build a system capable of such complex calculations. The only reason why the house always wins, is because the gamblers do not possess such a device. The issue here lies in our ability to create such a device, not in the fundamental randomness of the casino results.

Consider a highly advanced robot rolling a perfectly weighted dice. The robot knows exactly the properties of the materials comprising the dice, the atmospheric pressure and molecular motion in the room, the exact properties and distribution of the materials comprising the surface the dice will land on, etc. In short: the robot has complete information about the classical elements that will affect the behaviour of the dice. This robot can predict 100% accurately which number it will roll because it knows the exact angle and velocity it will give the dice when rolling it, the exact trajectory of the dice, the subsequent bounce it makes, the exact angle of its spin, etc. The randomness disappears as soon as complete classical information has been collected. Therefore randomness exists (in a classical sense) only in the eye of the beholder, by the sheer absence of complete classical information to determine the actual deterministic reality. Perhaps we will one day create an AI capable of such trickery. Maybe not. But in any case we must concede that the information is present in the universe and is therefore fundamentally knowable.

The reason casinos are so successful is that they have deliberately programmed the minds of their susceptible victims to return on a regular basis and mindlessly jam their hard-earned cash into a slot. There are people who drive to the casino every day swearing and cursing themselves for their inability to get out of this vicious cycle. They know they will always lose on the long run but they still have to go because who knows, they may win 200 bucks and experience a 10 minute high because of it. There is no free will in this. There is no free will in addiction. You can't just tell someone with a compulsive urge to 'just not do it'. If it were that simple, addiction wouldn't exist. These people have a condition which they did not choose. They exert behaviour based on that condition, which they do not choose.

But this doesn't just go for the addicted brain. Nobody chooses their brain. Nobody chooses their thoughts and if you just look one level deeper, you will find that the same goes for the ability to convert thoughts to actions or to refrain from doing so. You did not choose your ability to resist an impulsive urge, just like you did not choose your ability to create red blood cells.

If you persist in something difficult, apparently your brain was in the right mode to persist. You may have consciously contributed to that performance by focusing, by telling yourself not to quit, by forcing yourself to set very high standards, all that stuff is deliberate on your part and meaningful. But the only reason you have those tools at your disposal is because you happen to have the brain that you do, and that is not something you can take credit for. Your brain happened to you just like your height and your heart did.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 09/12/2017 15:10:08
Quote
Random is a concept that is more associated with manmade things, instead of natural things. Dice and cards are manmade things that are designed not to follow natural laws. These inventions were a type of free will thing. For example, a six sided dice is equally weighed on all sides, so the odds of each side appearing, are all equal. This is not how quantum states work in nature. In nature, each quantum state; side of the natural dice, will have a distinct energy level or energy equivalence. It cannot roll in a random way, like the artificial dice, since the natural dice is loaded, based on the free energy differences of each side. The hydrogen atom has distinct quantum energy levels, and will not roll between levels in a random way, like dice. The background energy makes these dice roll a specific way.

The cards in a deck of cards are all the same in terms of size, shape, weight, and heat of combustion. The difference, connected to randomness, is arbitrary based on the decorations decided on by man.

Random and statistic has been so useful in factories and for the casino sciences of manmade things, it has been wrongfully extrapolated to natural; blindman's prophesy. Before the age of enlightenment, its was assumed the universe was ruled by the whim of the gods. This is early random theory. This was put to rest with the dawn of modern science. It was reintroduced when man started playing god; atheism, and making the universe subject to his whims; artificial. 

Take a perfect cube of ivory. Drill holes into each side, so it looks like a dice. Since we have removed different amounts of material from each side, the dice is now loaded and weighs differently in each side. It will no longer follow the expected rules of dice. To make it follow those rules for the casino, we need or tool the dice so random can appear. We can do this by manufacturing a slightly loaded cube, which will become uniform, after we drill out the holes. Now the random universe can appear; manmade. It is willful illusion.

If you look at water and DNA, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element of the universe, while oxygen is number three, behind number two helium. Oxygen is number three, because of its nuclear stability. In terms of chemical reactivity, oxygen and hydrogen are the two most reactive atoms, of the top three, making oxygen and hydrogen; abundance and reactivity, the chemical potential foundation of the universe.

It is not coincidence that life's energy bandwidth is within the range of oxygen and hydrogen. There are only a few species of bacteria that can use the entire bandwidth.This bandwidth was, itself, defined by the extrapolation of elementary particles. It is not random. The number four atom of the universe is carbon. In terms of molecules, the three most abundant molecules in the universe are H2, H2O and CO, which is the foundation of life.

Relative to water and organic life, what makes water special, beyond its prominent place in the universe, is connected to the water and oil affect; hydrogen bonding and van der Waals bonding. Water and oil do not mix. Instead these will phase separate into two layers. The value of this, in terms of carbon based life, is water and organics can induce each other into lower entropy. Water allows the organic system to go from random into order, driven by free energy.

Other solvents tend to dissolve organics better or become more dissolved into organics, meaning they maintain a more random chemistry for carbon, which is not natural to the needs of forming life, beyond the the manmade theory factory.

Fascinating! Thank you! Much to digest, do you have any suggestions for further reading?

Quote
The background energy makes these dice roll a specific way.

In your view, is this statement compatible with Copenhagen's notion that the nature of the quantum world is fundamentally probabilistic? If the quantum dice are rolled by something that is contained within our universe and behaves according to its laws, i.e. background energy, isn't it then fundamentally knowable how the dice will land, i.e. isn't the information to calculate it present in the universe, and isn't it then only due to our inability to calculate it that it seems fundamentally probabilistic?
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 09/12/2017 22:23:19
Demalk, that's definitely wrong "In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information. "

If you think of entanglement you will see why.
And HUP.

It's not about a absence of information, it's what modern physics builds on, probabilities. And 'free will' could be seen as an 'conscious' extension of those principles.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 09/12/2017 22:35:24
You have to be wrong there Demalk, either that or the physics we define :)
So, wanting to prove that idea will involve overthrowing physics, which is a slightly bigger task than convincing me.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 10/12/2017 11:05:13
You also write " If the quantum dice are rolled by something that is contained within our universe and behaves according to its laws, i.e. background energy, isn't it then fundamentally knowable how the dice will land, i.e. isn't the information to calculate it present in the universe, and isn't it then only due to our inability to calculate it that it seems fundamentally probabilistic? "

No, we can't even predict a planetary orbit if we calculate far away enough into the future. It's not just about us missing 'information', it's more of a principle. This universe are built on principles, 'properties' and 'laws', and physics are just the tool(s) we use to understand it. That's what a probability is, a statistical tool for defining possibilities, created from experiences of outcomes and educated guesses finding their proof in reproducibility. To me that thinking belongs to the Victorian era preferring everything to be deterministic but that one, I would say, is already passed.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 10/12/2017 11:21:13
What one need to see is that modern physics is a paradigm change. In the Victorian era (as well as some people before) we thought that everything could be calculated, but that's no longer true. Everything becomes 'fuzzy' given enough time. We still have those principles laws and properties though, and we presume those to hold locally where ever we are, which is amazing enough I think, considering the 'fuzzy ness' you meet extrapolating into the future by iterations for example.

Thinking of it 'time' seems to be a very local constant.
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 10/12/2017 15:18:47
Quote
You have to be wrong there Demalk, either that or the physics we define :)
So, wanting to prove that idea will involve overthrowing physics, which is a slightly bigger task than convincing me.

Hahaha, well, physics is in the process of being overthrown on a daily basis by people much smarter than me so luckily I don't have to ;) Secondly, one should never allow any limitations to one's thoughts based on what is deemed conventional. Thirdly: there is nothing about QM that affects macroscopic determinability. Lastly: Relativity did not overthrow Newton, and QM did not overthrow relativity (or Newton). They are all correct, it just depends how you look at it. That to me is a clear indication that we haven't yet found the most fundamental layer of reality.

Quote
Demalk, that's definitely wrong "In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information.

If you think of entanglement you will see why.
And HUP.

Quantum randomness and classical randomness are two very different things. They can and should be discussed separately. Quantum randomness evens out to classical predictability. That's why a chair will never disappear or exist in two places at the same time or get 'entangled' with other chairs. None of that stuff matters when you zoom out far enough to see the chair. When we look at larger-than-quantum objects, Newton's laws still stand. So do Einstein's. Those laws are fundamentally deterministic. So in the context of whether a 'star is still there', it is pointless to involve any QM mechanisms in your argument. That star is a classical object. It will not exist in two places at once. It will not disappear and re-appear in a different corner of the universe. The ways in which it can 'disappear' are very well-known in cosmology and there is nothing mysterious or fundamentally random about it.

Quote
It's not about a absence of information, it's what modern physics builds on, probabilities. And 'free will' could be seen as an 'conscious' extension of those principles.

If free will is based on fundamentally random events, then where is the freedom of that will?  To me that idea is even more incompatible with free will than mine. Randomness doesn't give you will. It just gives you randomness.

Quote
No, we can't even predict a planetary orbit if we calculate far away enough into the future. It's not just about us missing 'information', it's more of a principle.

If the same calculation about the same planetary orbit were made by an alien race much closer in space and time to the orbit than we are, they would be able to make it more accurately. The determining factor here is not that the reality of the orbit is more fundamentally mysterious when we measure it, but rather that we have less information than they do, due to our distance in space and time. There is nothing fundamentally mysterious about the orbit.

We can discuss the fundamentalness of quantum randomness, but to re-introduce fundamental randomness to the classical world based on the existence of QM is to say that all of engineering has become invalid since we know about QM. Engineering is based on fundamentally deterministic Newtonian rules. The macro world still works like that. We know for sure under which circumstances a bridge or a skyscraper will collapse and in so far as we get it wrong, it is due to human error, not any fundamental mysteriousness to the nature of the bridge or the forces acting on it. It will not ever collapse due to quantum entanglement or vacuum jitters.

Quote
This universe are built on principles, 'properties' and 'laws', and physics are just the tool(s) we use to understand it. That's what a probability is, a statistical tool for defining possibilities, created from experiences of outcomes and educated guesses finding their proof in reproducibility.

Exactly! But that statement is in favor of my point of view. Statistics is just a tool that we need when we don't have enough information to do any better. If we play a game of cards but I am cheating, the results seem random to you so you need to do statistical calculations in your mind to try and get an edge over me. But the cards are not at all random to me. You just lack the information to know what is going on. Until you figure me out at which point the randomness disappears and you no longer want to play with me. I have cheated by informing myself in a situation that was supposed to remain random. Randomness is a matter of perspective. As long as it pertains to classical physics, there is no science whatsoever that needs to be overthrown to support that statement.

Quote
To me that thinking belongs to the Victorian era preferring everything to be deterministic but that one, I would say, is already passed.

Incorrect. Not even Bohr himself would claim that macro objects can exhibit quantum behaviour. I know that we've been able to reproduce quantum experiments with "macroscopic" objects, but these (i.e. buckyballs) are still extremely tiny compared to the world of stars and chairs. The larger you go, the less sense it makes to include quantum effects into the argument. I would accept this Victorian comparison in a discussion about quantum randomness (where, admittedly, I would also argue for fundamental determinism but based on a completely different set of arguments). But when discussing macroscopic objects, there is nothing outdated about determinism. Even relativity is fundamentally deterministic (just ask Albert) and as of yet QM has not been able to account for relativity as far as I am aware (please do correct me if I am wrong).


Quote
What one need to see is that modern physics is a paradigm change.

Agreed, but that doesn't require it to be the final paradigm change. There can and will still be many more to come.

Quote
In the Victorian era (as well as some people before) we thought that everything could be calculated, but that's no longer true. Everything becomes 'fuzzy' given enough time.

Of course, because the chain of events becomes increasingly complex over time. The passing of time doesn't change anything about the fundamental reality of the objects in it, it makes everything more "fuzzy" precisely because the amount of information available to us becomes increasingly small in relation to the total amount of information required for a deterministic prediction.

Quote
We still have those principles laws and properties though, and we presume those to hold locally where ever we are, which is amazing enough I think, considering the 'fuzzy ness' you meet extrapolating into the future by iterations for example.

Amazing considering the fuzziness you get when extrapolating into the future...not at all once you understand that this fuzziness is created by the mere increase of information required to calculate it accurately compared to the information available to us.
 
It seems to me you are drawing conclusions about classical physics and relativity based on findings in QM, as if QM has overwritten these truths. It has not and I have yet to find a credible source to make such a claim. Certainly Bohr or Heisenberg would never make such claims, they would admit to the truths of relativity (deterministic) and Newton (deterministic) but they would argue that underlying that deterministic world, when you zoom in far enough, what you find is fundamental probability. That is a vastly different line of thought, and much more difficult to argue with, than yours. 
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: puppypower on 11/12/2017 12:00:45
A related question is, is time a potential? For example, say we had an experiment where all the forces of nature are active in the lab. What I will do is take a still picture, so I can simulate stopping time, so I can see the impact. What you will notice are the forces of nature are no longer active. Without time, everything has reached steady state and never changes from that point on. The entropy has reached a constant amount and remains there.

Another thing one will notice, in the still photograph, is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in action. This is reflected in an affected call motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the action is faster than the shutter speed. Motion blur gives us the impression of motion. However, with time stopped in the photo, time associated with motion, is being expressed via uncertainty in position. In the photo below, places that are in focus, allow us to know position, but we cannot determine the momentum since it looks stopped. While where the image is blurry with motion blur, we can sense momentum, but we can't determine position.

In the case of the motion blur, time is being approximated by uncertainty in distance. This gives us a sense of action wth time stopped. This seems to indicate that time potential lingers in the still photo but becomes converted to distance potential since the photo does not stop distance from expression. This also suggests that time moves in a quantum step fashion, going from motion to motion blur, as it propagates on and off. We call the composite affect space-time and Heisenberg Uncertainty, but it is really composed to two separate affects; time and distance potential both of which are connected to time potential.

Say we added extra time potential to space-time. We get acceleration which is d//t/t. In the photo, we have stopped time therefore both space-time and acceleration are no longer expressed. While the appearance of motion, due to force and acceleration is still expressed as uncertainty in distance or distance potential.

(https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~ben-shahar/Teaching/Computational-Vision/StudentProjects/ICBV121/ICBV-2012-1-KerenDamari-BenSimandoyev/4.jpg)
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: phyti on 11/12/2017 17:36:16
demalk #70;

Quote
All our choices are made in our unconscious mind.

You can only make conscious decisions. (check your dictionary)

Quote
Look, there are replicated studies where the measuring device already shows what the participant's decision will be seconds before the decision is made, that is, while the participant still feels like he is exerting his freedom of choice. You still feel like you're weighing your options, but the machine measuring your brain activity has already produced accurately the result of your decision. This should pretty much end the discussion, no?

Studies by neurologists show there is a lag of a few 100 ms, between the application of a stimulus and a persons awareness of it, and a persons decision to act and the physical act. The complexity of brain functions requires a finite amount of time. Perception of an event occurs after the event (per Relativity Theory), otherwise it's magic.

Quote
You are still accountable for them.
Not if the person is without free will. If their actions are predetermined, they have no motive.  Just as in the insanity defense. 

The same person who forms an addictive habit, also chooses to quit, using the same brain for both choices.

You can connect live wires to a dead frog and make it twitch, but the frog is still dead.
All this demonstrates is how the nervous system works.

Quote
Secondly: all we would need to predict with 100% accuracy which number the ball will land on in a roulette spin, is a complete picture of all the classical elements influencing the ball's behavior.
That idea is dependent on an ideal world, which only exists in the mind.
In the real world of quality control, there are small scale variations which are accepted as insignificant and normal, unless methods are refined. At the quantum scale, there is a limit to precision of measurement.

I was anticipating you explanation of DNA to be based on the mechanics of matter, in keeping with your previous statements, but no response.
The honors for scientific discoveries like DNA, should be rescinded, since the inanimate elements can achieve more than humankind, according to popular opinions
If DNA is the blueprint for forming a human, and is transferred in the process of conception, and requires two donors, what is its origin?
The human life form is carbon based, but molecules are composed of atoms. Speaking metaphorically, how would the elements know which basic units are needed, and what sequences will form the varied processes, such as the immune system.

Would you place a stone on the dining table, go to work, and return home expecting dinner?
If you have money to invest, do you seek advice from inanimate matter, or a person?

Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: yor_on on 12/12/2017 16:23:46
No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP
Title: Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
Post by: demalk on 19/12/2017 17:31:07
No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP

Thanks for pointing that out. I am aware that I am probably wrong. I just really love these discussions and also they are extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of things. I will be looking into all the input from yourself and others in this thread more closely over the next period of time, and return with a new post/comment as soon as I have something to say that I haven't said already. Until then, thank you all for your contributions!