Eternity

Originally posted by black beetle
No.

As "observer" in this context (check "The epiontic principle, Time and the laws of Physics" by Acerbi, http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Acerbi_acerbiepionticprinci.pdf) I define a physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality ( an observer is made of elements of reality (an element of reality is any exchangeabl ...[text shortened]... rizes and process information in different ways, and each observer is a phenomenon in flux😵

I like two statements, both on p6:

"...there is no such a thing as one past, but there is a set of equivalent pasts,
which have the only requirement of being compatible with the current elements
of reality."

"The EP is not directly veriable per se, because it is a principle and not a full-fledged theory; we can however prove its physical corollaries or the predictions
made by models which follow the EP."

Especially appreciated: The notion that some beliefs; principles, are not the sort of think to be verified or dis-verified. Occam's Razor is an example I refer to at times, to contrast principles and facts.

However, on p 8, he says of a slit experiment, "These results, besides corroborating the EP,..." which seems to smack of verifiability or at least confirmability. I am noodling on this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Time, as it is understood by science, is affected. You are talking about a concept of time that is of no practical use. Its like having a ruler that doesn't actually measure space - what use is it? All that really matters is 'from a practical point'. Hypothetical entities that have no effect on the universe are of little interest. The very laws of physics ...[text shortened]... nstant time' component and thus your concept of 'constant time' is of no use practically.

I'd say what we can monitor can be affected you are assuming time is, which sort
of flys in the face of your other beliefs about not making a connection where you
really don't know. You are not treating time as you seem to want to do with
reasons and causes.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Time, as it is understood by science, is affected. You are talking about a concept of time that is of no practical use. Its like having a ruler that doesn't actually measure space - what use is it? All that really matters is 'from a practical point'. Hypothetical entities that have no effect on the universe are of little interest. The very laws of physics ...[text shortened]... nstant time' component and thus your concept of 'constant time' is of no use practically.

Where time is useful to you or not doesn't really matter in my opinion, it will be
what it is no matter what. Even if time is not dependent on anything else what
we have come up with is useful, but that does not mean we are looking at it
correctly. It also would come into play when looking at the beginning as well, you
have in the past I believe said that time started when there was matter/energy
and so on started, but if that isn't true your views about the beginning have to
be altered which would mean you'd have to rethink everything.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say what we can monitor can be affected you are assuming time is, which sort
of flys in the face of your other beliefs about not making a connection where you
really don't know. You are not treating time as you seem to want to do with
reasons and causes.
Kelly

I cant make head or tail of what you are saying.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where time is useful to you or not doesn't really matter in my opinion, it will be what it is no matter what.

What 'will be'? Most of physics is a model of the universe, it isn't the universe itself. Our concept of time is not an existent entity, but rather a concept. Its rather like the difference between the earth going round the sun, or the sun going round the earth. Both are 'correct', but one model is more useful than the other.

Even if time is not dependent on anything else what we have come up with is useful, but that does not mean we are looking at it correctly.
Who is to say there is a correct way of looking at it? More importantly, why would you look for any other way of looking at it if that other way is of no practical value and our current way has immense value?
Do you have religious reasons for thinking there is some universal (non-relative) time that is independent of gravity? If not religious reasons then why?

It also would come into play when looking at the beginning as well, you
have in the past I believe said that time started when there was matter/energy
and so on started, but if that isn't true your views about the beginning have to
be altered which would mean you'd have to rethink everything.
Kelly
No, I wouldn't have to re-think everything, because I am talking about time as defined in relativity, not your concept of time. So my claims are valid regardless of what your concept of time might be. My concept of time is as a dimension of the universe, without a universe, the dimensions make no sense. It is meaningless to talk of 6km past the edge of the universe, or 6 years before the universe - unless you invent new dimensions in a new larger universe, but then one must ask whether these new dimensions map to the current universe and whether or not we should change our concept of what constitutes 'the universe' to include this new space.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I cant make head or tail of what you are saying.

I think you are looking at what is being affected and assuming that time itself is
being affected as well. Which again goes against how you choose to treat both
reasons and causes.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
What 'will be'? Most of physics is a model of the universe, it isn't the universe itself. Our concept of time is not an existent entity, but rather a concept. Its rather like the difference between the earth going round the sun, or the sun going round the earth. Both are 'correct', but one model is more useful than the other.

[b]Even if time is not dep hould change our concept of what constitutes 'the universe' to include this new space.

[/b]"defined in relativity" This is like a set of blinders for you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Time holds us in place, it is like the film of a movie where the movie is going on
but the film itself doesn't depend on there being a movie on the film.
Kelly

what do you mean by 'held in place'? we are physically held by gravity and the other fundamental forces. so are you referring to spiritually being held in place?

Originally posted by black beetle
No. Mount Everest does not envelop motion, however it will too dissolve into quantum uncertainty. Even if you argue that it moves because Earth moves, then motion is impossible without matter and therefore the sole thing time requires in order to exist is matter😵

not exactly. if matter is not moving, time has no function. however, my earlier statement was somewhat simplistic. being relative, time requires different rates, vectors and/or frequencies of movement. time also has no function if all [relative] particles are moving at the same rate, vector and/or frequency.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
not exactly. if matter is not moving, time has no function. however, my earlier statement was somewhat simplistic. being relative, time requires different rates, vectors and/or frequencies of movement. time also has no function if all [relative] particles are moving at the same rate, vector and/or frequency.

Even if matter is not moving, it remains a causal field and its state is under constant change; so time is used in order to let us monitor not its relative movement, but the changes matter goes through
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Free from the mortal coil, as in you/he look forward to death?
Kelly

No. The line is from Bob's "Redemption Song", and the preceding line is "Emancipate Yourselves from mental slavery"--have a listen to the whole song sometime for a larger metaphorical context.


EDIT: As with all poetry, there are multiple possible interpretations, and sometimes that is intended by the poet/songwriter. The listener/reader is expected to participate in "meaning-making" out of her own experience. Aside from all that, there is a larger Rastafarian context--and some Rasta conceptualizations (e.g., I 'n' I) get pretty nondualistic. There is no dogmatic-orthodox RastafarI.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you are looking at what is being affected and assuming that time itself is
being affected as well.

Its not so much an assumption as what works best mathematically. One can see the sun and the planets as going around the earth, or one can see them going around the sun. Neither is 'correct' or 'wrong' or 'false'. But one works better mathematically. The same applies with relativity. All the equations work out better if we work with a version of time that is affected by gravity.

Which again goes against how you choose to treat both
reasons and causes.
Please expand on that because it is not clear what you are saying.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"defined in relativity" This is like a set of blinders for you.
Kelly

In what way? What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by vistesd
No. The line is from Bob's "Redemption Song", and the preceding line is "Emancipate Yourselves from mental slavery"--have a listen to the whole song sometime for a larger metaphorical context.


EDIT: As with all poetry, there are multiple possible interpretations, and sometimes that is intended by the poet/songwriter. The listener/reader is expected t ...[text shortened]... ions (e.g., I 'n' I) get pretty nondualistic. There is no dogmatic-orthodox RastafarI.

As a songwriter I tend to use lyrics with a mind to open interpretation.
There is some sort of message that comes through, but because of its poetic style, it never means exactly the same thing to different people.

Great example, BTW. 🙂

Great song to learn and play for guitarists.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
As a songwriter I tend to use lyrics with a mind to open interpretation.
There is some sort of message that comes through, but because of its poetic style, it never means exactly the same thing to different people.

Great example, BTW. 🙂

Great song to learn and play for guitarists.

You’re right—and that’s why I had to go back and edit my “No”.