Would you believe? Time doesn’t really exist?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 24, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Good news for those racing a deadline. This from mathematician and philosopher Sam Baron:

So we know we need a new physical theory to explain the universe, and that this theory might not feature time.
Suppose such a theory turns out to be correct. Would it follow that time does not exist?
It’s complicated, and it depends what we mean by exist.
Theories of physics don’t include any tables, chairs, or people, and yet we still accept that tables, chairs and people exist.
Why? Because we assume that such things exist at a higher level than the level described by physics.
We say that tables, for example, “emerge” from an underlying physics of particles whizzing around the universe.
But while we have a pretty good sense of how a table might be made out of fundamental particles, we have no idea how time might be “made out of” something more fundamental.
So unless we can come up with a good account of how time emerges, it is not clear we can simply assume time exists.
Time might not exist at any level.
Sam Baron, “Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay” at The Conversation (April 14, 2022)

Most readers are likely way too young to remember Maxwell Smart and Would You Believe? But couldn’t resist so here anyway:

Comments

Let me see what I understand you to be saying, SA. I wrote, “if God is eternal, and if at all moments of his existence he has also manifested himself in reality, does not that mean that reality has had a “a beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events?” You replied, “You used the term “reality” there in a way that can be read in two senses. First, there is God manifesting himself “in reality” and then after propose that reality itself would be a succession of events.” I don’t see what two senses you are talking about. I am assuming that there is a reality of some sort other than our universe out of which our universe came, and I am assuming that reality is a creation of God’s: it is a manifestation of God in reality. I am also assuming that that reality has things happen in it - events that happen in succession. I know these are just speculative assumptions, but I don’t see how I am using using the concept “reality” in two senses. You write, “God is infinite, completed, actualized (no potential) being. So, God cannot travel through a succession of events from past to present to future. That would be the absurdity of an infinite, beginningless timeline. So God’s existence is in the “eternal now” – fully complete being, existing.” Yes, God does not “travel”: for him, any and all moments are as much “now” as any other moment. For him, moments don’t happen as a succession of events even though he is aware of the succession of events that are part of the reality that is his creation. And, to return to putting this in math terms, God is holistically aware of the entire completed infinite set of integers even though the idea of “traversing them” is inapplicable. Then you write, “We could say “God manifested himself in the physical universe” – but that wouldn’t be all of reality since reality would have to include God himself. I don’t understand this. First, I hope it’s clear I’m not just talking about our universe. I’m talking about the entirety of what reality encompasses. But generally I think God is thought of as being other than reality. He creates reality and may be immanent in reality, but his essence is transcendent and other than reality. So your sentence doesn’t make sense to me. So back to my point. If an eternal God, in all his infinite “nows”, creates a reality that contains events that happen in sequence, then the conclusion would be that there are also an infinite number of events in reality.Viola Lee_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I make a sarcastic comment to a ridiculous comment and a lengthy analysis that no one will read ensues. Actually the sarcastic comment contains some logic which is at the heart of the issue but was ignored.jerry_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Jerry, we observe a cosmos as a whole and first, we identify what cosmological scale time is for that cosmos. As the OP I gave this morning and added a further plot on interpreting cluster HR diagrams shows, we see a burning down candle effect, where BTW observed clusters run to ~10 BY using the large H-rich gas ball prone to become a fusion furnace astrophysical model. Our galaxy is commonly estimated at 12 BY. Not coincidentally. More broadly the NASA chart plots 13.7 BY, it is from some years back. It is useful to note that these are estimates and are subject to change. Hubble expansion and red shift point to 14 BY. Have done so for generations, near as I can tell. So, we see how we come to look at time as a causally connected flow of events with rates, trends and processes we can calibrate and use as clocks/calendars. Events that, as discussed in outline, are strongly thermodynamically connected. With entropy as closely connected to direction and as a key cumulative effect of time. This goes into clocks, whether the thought exercise cosmological clock or our local one. Here, I clip the lead part of an Arxiv paper:
The thermodynamics of clocks. G. J. Milburn Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, Australia 4072. ARTICLE HISTORY Compiled July 7, 2020 ABSTRACT All clocks, classical or quantum, are open non equilibrium irreversible systems sub- ject to the constraints of thermodynamics. Using examples I show that these con- straints necessarily limit the performance of clocks and that good clocks require large energy dissipation. For periodic clocks, operating on a limit cycle, this is a consequence of phase di?usion. It is also true for non periodic clocks (for example, radio carbon dating) but due to telegraph noise not to phase di?usion. In this case a key role is played by accurate measurements that decrease entropy, thereby raising the free energy of the clock, and requires access to a low entropy reservoir. In the quantum case, for which thermal noise is replaced by quantum noise (spontaneous emission or tunnelling), measurement plays an essential role for both periodic and non periodic clocks. The paper concludes with a discussion of the Tolman relations and Rovelli’s thermal time hypothesis in terms of clock thermodynamics.
Now, let us remind ourselves, courtesy Wiki speaking inadvertently against interest, on clocks for the cosmos scale:
Cosmic time, or cosmological time, is the time coordinate commonly used in the Big Bang models of physical cosmology.[1][2][3] Such time coordinate may be defined for a homogeneous, expanding universe so that the universe has the same density everywhere at each moment in time (the fact that this is possible means that the universe is, by definition, homogeneous). The clocks measuring cosmic time should move along the Hubble flow. Cosmic time t[4][5] is a measure of time by a physical clock with zero peculiar velocity in the absence of matter over-/under-densities (to prevent time dilation due to relativistic effects or confusions caused by expansion of the universe). Unlike other measures of time such as temperature, redshift, particle horizon, or Hubble horizon, the cosmic time (similar and complementary to the comoving coordinates) is blind to the expansion of the universe. There are two main ways for establishing a reference point for the cosmic time. The most trivial way is to take the present time as the cosmic reference point (sometimes referred to as the lookback time). Alternatively, the Big Bang may be taken as reference to define t {\displaystyle t} t as the age of the universe, also known as time since the big bang. The current physical cosmology estimates the present age as 13.8 billion years.[6] The t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} t=0 doesn't necessarily have to correspond to a physical event (such as the cosmological singularity) but rather it refers to the point at which the scale factor would vanish for a standard cosmological model such as ?CDM. For instance, in the case of inflation, i.e. a non-standard cosmology, the hypothetical moment of big bang is still determined using the benchmark cosmological models which may coincide with the end of the inflationary epoch. For technical purposes, concepts such as the average temperature of the universe (in units of eV) or the particle horizon are used when the early universe is the objective of a study since understanding the interaction among particles is more relevant than their time coordinate or age. Cosmic time is the standard time coordinate for specifying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions of Einstein's equations.
Notice, how carefully things have to be factored in to get to a reasonable theoretical clock. Next, let us use Wiki as a convenient way to peek into the weird world of a quantum vacuum, thus "foam":
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force.[3] Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs.[4] Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are not directly observable.[4][3] The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by[5] delta E * delta t GTE 1 /2 ? where 1/2 ? ? 5.27286×10^?35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy delta E and lifetime shorter than delta t are continually created and annihilated in empty space. Although the particles are not directly detectable, the cumulative effects of these particles are measurable. For example, without quantum fluctuations, the "bare" mass and charge of elementary particles would be infinite; from renormalization theory the shielding effect of the cloud of virtual particles is responsible for the finite mass and charge of elementary particles. Another consequence is the Casimir effect. [vacuum forces] One of the first observations which was evidence for vacuum fluctuations was the Lamb shift in hydrogen. In July 2020, scientists reported that quantum vacuum fluctuations can influence the motion of macroscopic, human-scale objects by measuring correlations below the standard quantum limit between the position/momentum uncertainty of the mirrors of LIGO and the photon number/phase uncertainty of light that they reflect.[6][7][8]
This is of course the general context of onward theorising of cosmi popping up as grand fluctuations out of "nothing," a regrettable terminology as true nothing is non being. We can draw upon the Casimir Effect:
In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect is a physical force acting on the macroscopic boundaries of a confined space which arises from the quantum fluctuations of the field. It is named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, who predicted the effect for electromagnetic systems in 1948. In the same year, Casimir together with Dirk Polder described a similar effect experienced by a neutral atom in the vicinity of a macroscopic interface which is referred to as Casimir–Polder force.[1] Their result is a generalization of the London–van der Waals force and includes retardation due to the finite speed of light. Since the fundamental principles leading to the London–van der Waals force, the Casimir and the Casimir–Polder force, respectively, can be formulated on the same footing,[2][3] the distinction in nomenclature nowadays serves a historical purpose mostly and usually refers to the different physical setups. It was not until 1997 that a direct experiment by S. Lamoreaux quantitatively measured the Casimir force to within 5% of the value predicted by the theory.[4] The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence of macroscopic material interfaces, such as conducting metals and dielectrics, alters the vacuum expectation value of the energy of the second-quantized electromagnetic field.[5][6] Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the materials, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects. [--> hence, vacuum force] Any medium supporting oscillations has an analogue of the Casimir effect. For example, beads on a string[7][8] as well as plates submerged in turbulent water[9] or gas[10] illustrate the Casimir force.
That aside, at once we see that empty space 'ent. Truly empty, that is. Coming back, our imagined truly empty vacuum zone will, within our cosmos, be part of the wider cosmos experiencing cosmological time and replete with the non-empty emptiness. And so forth. In short, once we have enough of a zone to have thermodynamics, time will be there. Where, apparent macroscale emptiness is in fact not so empty after all. And we could go on and on, digging in deeper and deeper, with no material difference especially on the cosmological scale of interest. Time is deeply entangled with thermodynamics, energy, time and dissipation, i.e. entropy. KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

VL
To return to this question, if God is eternal, and if at all moments of his existence he has also manifested himself in reality, does not that mean that reality has had a “a beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events?”
You used the term "reality" there in a way that can be read in two senses. First, there is God manifesting himself "in reality" and then after propose that reality itself would be a succession of events. God is infinite, completed, actualized (no potential) being. So, God cannot travel through a succession of events from past to present to future. That would be the absurdity of an infinite, beginningless timeline. So God's existence is in the "eternal now" - fully complete being, existing. We could say "God manifested himself in the physical universe" - but that wouldn't be all of reality since reality would have to include God himself. So, there can't be any development in God's being, which is what would happen if he was confined to a sequence of time (there would have to be some source for additional knowledge, strength, growth other than God himself - and what would that be and where would it come from?)Silver Asiatic_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

WJM, we reckon time from the inside, e.g. the singularity was most recently estimated at 13.8 BYA. Antecedence comes from necessary being character of the source; where though strange to us(our education being impoverished) it is clear enough; framework to any possible world so without beginning or end; we see that for twoness, and much more. We then understand eternality in that sense and recognise it is qualitatively different from contingent existence. And note, thermodynamic character is not an occult circumstance, it emerges from energy and the microparticle level with thermal energy of translation, rotation, vibration. That too is why thermal energy cannot wholly become work -- forced, ordered motion -- but work can be reduced wholly to heat and thence thermal energy. KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

If we could create a perfect vacuum, which we can’t, your logic suggests that time wouldn’t exist in a perfect vacuum
Thank you for agreeing with me! Since our universe is finite and discrete, are there places such that there is no change because nothing is there? This brings up another question. Can “nothing” change? I am certainly not a physicist and don’t maintain I have unusual understanding. But I do understand logic. And infinite/eternal physical existence implies certain things. And if we do not find what infinite/eternal existence implies, then the logical thing to do is question that such thing existed. This is what I have done here and on other threads before this one.jerry_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Jerry: If nothing physical existed before this then this is the beginning of time.
If we could create a perfect vacuum, which we can’t, your logic suggests that time wouldn’t exist in a perfect vacuum.JHolo_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

The fact is, we don’t know that time began at the Big Bang because we don’t know what happened or what existed at the very earliest stage of the Big Bang.
They believe they know what it was like at the earliest stages. At least some physicists do.
Combination of Particles At a hundred billionth of a second after the big bang, the universe was at a quadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000) degrees. At that temperature, typical collisions between particles were just a little weaker than the strongest collisions we can currently produce in particle accelerators, so we can experimentally probe the kinds of events that were happening at that time. The universe a hundred billionth of a second after the big bang was a dense collection of elementary particles too hot to bond into larger units. In addition to being just about the earliest time whose conditions we can recreate in a lab, a hundred billionth of a second was also the moment of a major transition in the early universe. That transition, called the electroweak phase transition, had to do with the forces between particles. There are four forces that act between particles: gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Before the major transition that occurred a hundred billionth of a second after the big bang, you could not classify one interaction as being due to the electromagnetic force and a different interaction as being due to the weak force. Those two forces acted identically, as a single electroweak force. But after that moment, when the temperature dropped below a quadrillion degrees, that one force started acting like two separate forces that behave in different ways. One of those is the electromagnetic force, and the other is the weak force. That’s still the behavior we see today. The next major transition occurred after a hundred thousandth of a second. While that may seem like a very short time, it’s a million times longer than the time before the electroweak phase transition. By that time, the universe was too cold to produce most unstable particles, and almost all of the unstable particles had decayed. What remained, then, were the few particles that are stable—meaning that, when left alone, they last indefinitely without decaying into anything else. A hundred thousandth of a second is a very long time compared to most particle physics processes. The First Few Minutes of the Universe When the universe reached a hundred thousandth of a second, it primarily consisted of the same particles and other forms of energy it does today: quarks, electrons, neutrinos, electromagnetic radiation, dark matter, and dark energy. The one other big ingredient at this time was antimatter. The biggest difference between the particles then and now is that today all of the quarks are bound up in protons and neutrons. But at this early time, they were all flying about freely. Quarks combining into protons and neutrons was the universe’s first example of a process that was introduced in Lecture 1: As the universe cooled, particles combined into ever-larger structures. But after the formation of protons and neutrons, the next big change wasn’t about particles combining but instead about particles being destroyed.
Maybe some should get to this guy and tell him that his course is being used by ID people. That should horrify him. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-big-bang-and-beyond-exploring-the-early-universe If nothing physical existed before this then this is the beginning of time. We tend to map our understanding of time onto the creator of our universe as if it were the same thing.jerry_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

KF: JH, that alternative failed decades ago,
Not according to many physicists. the problem being as usual entropy accumulation. Each cycle has less available high quality energy, each expansion is bigger, it goes up to ~ 100 cycles. That’s ringing not true permanent oscillation. KF
This may be true based on current knowledge, but physicists are still conducting research into the possibility of an oscillating universe. Time is a necessary factor in the second law, but if time began at the Big Bang, as you and others claim, then does the 2nd law exist at the exact time of the Big Bang/Big Crunch? The fact is, we don’t know that time began at the Big Bang because we don’t know what happened or what existed at the very earliest stage of the Big Bang.JHolo_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

SA says, "A beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events runs into logical contradictions even outside of an entropic and thermodynamically bound entity." To return to this question, if God is eternal, and if at all moments of his existence he has also manifested himself in reality, does not that mean that reality has had a "a beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events?"Viola Lee_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

SA said:
A beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events runs into logical contradictions even outside of an entropic and thermodynamically bound entity.
So does a non-infinite timeline with a beginning.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

The question that I don't remember ever being asked after I posited "potential" as a way of conceptualizing W0 is this: what is it that has potential? Can "potential" be separated from that which has or offers potential? What would be the root world "thing" that "has potential"? What is the difference between potential and actual? What is "activating" some potential into actual? I have other things to do right now, so I'm going to write something down here to return to later: We're mis-conceptualizing potential in that the only difference between potential and actual is limited conscious perspective. In "unlimited" conscious perspective (if there were such a thing, which I don't think is possible) all possible things are actual. Later.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

If this universe was created, it had to have been created in an already-existent timeline, presumably one not entropic and thermodynamically bound; if heaven exists as billed, it occurs in a timeline not bound by entropic thermodynamics.
A beginningless, infinite timeline of successive events runs into logical contradictions even outside of an entropic and thermodynamically bound entity.Silver Asiatic_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

KF, If you're going to invoke an "open system" as a means of sustaining heaven, I'm inferring that you mean a thermodynamic word can be sustained from a beginning onward forever from an endless resource of additional energy from "outside" or "under" that world, counterbalancing entropic effects. Simply put, time would not rely on the observation/experience of entropic effects. Buildings don't have to decay, bodies don't break down, etc. So let's say you've preserved thermodynamic entropy but have negated it's ongoing effect by bringing in an "outside" endless resource of energy. Fair enough, let's say you've solved the "Heaven" problem. You still have the original "creation" problem to contend with. You've said that the root-of-being is not thermodynamically constrained - that it is not a thermodynamic system, but rather creates or produces a thermodynamic system. One might visualize that as a thermodynamic system riding on a non-thermodynamic system. The rider has a specific, limited quantity of energy imbued in it from the non-thermodynamic system that is "shut off" from that outside source of energy, so we witness universe-wide entropic effects from "big bang" onward. The apparently intractable problem here is one of logic, not physics: how do you logically account for the "beginning" of something from a W0 where time is not passing? How do you logically represent that W0 "doing" anything, much less "thinking" or "deciding" anything, unless it is experiencing passing of time? Even if we take a deliberate God out of the equation, how does a non-thermodynamic q-foam "generate" or "begin" a thermodynamically constrained universe riding on it? This logically requires the q-foam to exist in some kind of timeline, a before and after the thermodynamically-constrained universe "was generated, and a W0 timeline where that world runs its course after being generated. I don't see any answer to this other than we are mis-conceptualizing the nature of time. I agree that W0 necessarily exists; I agree it cannot be temporal or thermodynamic in nature. How then, does anything happen from W0? This doesn't need to be answered by physics; it only needs to be answered conceptually, in principle, logically. W0 cannot cause anything to happen at any point because that requires time before and after causation. Whatever "causation" is, whatever "time" is, whatever the phenomena of a spatial entropic thermodynamic world is, it cannot be what those things are normally conceived as being because that idea runs into the self-contradictory concept of either time-space beginning, or an infinite regress (or expansion) of space-time framing. Neither of which is logically sustainable.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

It certainly seems possible that God could also have been indefinitely (that is, for an infinite period) sustaining the "quasi-physical quantum foam" world that you sometimes mention by also injecting energy. That is, the heat death argument is basically a deistic, non-interventionist position whereby God has created and then lets things run down on their own. But in the world, whatever it is, out of which our universe came, it is possible that God maintains the energy level so there is no heat death. Perhaps heat death is only applicable to created universes, but not to whatever else there is out of which universes come. In this case, that world would be eternal, and not subject to the heat death argument. I don't believe that you could know whether that is the case or not.Viola Lee_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

WJM, heaven would not be eternal in itself if thermodynamic, it would be a sustained entity. This is as opposed to heaven being imagined eternal in itself. That is, I have refused the notion of heaven as by definition necessary being. That is, heaven if thermodynamic is not an isolated system; in effect it would be a conserved world if thermodynamic. We can know that God can manifest himself in a domain like our world so that as is generally suggested that God lives in heaven does not undercut that principle. Isolation, thermodynamic sense, is key to heat death, which is why 120+ years ago and up to the 60's those advocating a steady state universe were willing to give up energy conservation. That too is part of my thinking. Of course, that theory ran into a wall of empirical difficulties. And more. KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

A backgrounder https://uncommondescent.com/physics/globular-cluster-m55-as-illustrating-apparent-aging-of-our-galaxy-cosmos/kairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

KF said:
I am not clear, per logic of being analysis as to ontological status of what we call heaven [here, considered a possible world],
Well, let me clear up the logic for you, KF. Heaven cannot be eternal if it is a entropic, thermodynamically-constrained world. We cannot do or think as sentient beings in heaven unless we experience time passing. If as you have said, that time IS necessarily rooted in an entropic, thermodynamically constrained world like this one, then you've doomed heaven to an eventual heat death as well at some point in the future. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either there is a way to experience the passing of time outside of an entropic, thermodynamically-constrained world, or there is not. If not, then you have no explanation for how "God" created this world (the act of creation necessarily referring to a time before and after creation, thus a logically necessary preceding time,) and you have no explanation for how anyone thinks or does anything in Heaven, or how it can be "eternal" in duration. We don't have to know anything more than this to realize: you've plunged yourself into a self-contradictory position that you avoid by, essentially, saying "I don't know how to avoid that logical self-contradiction, but I know I'm right about time and it is necessarily derived from an entropic, thermo-dynamically constrained world." There is an easy, obvious answer to this: time - whatever it is - is not limited to, caused by, dependent on or derived from an entropic, thermodynamically-constrained world. If this universe was created, it had to have been created in an already-existent timeline, presumably one not entropic and thermodynamically bound; if heaven exists as billed, it occurs in a timeline not bound by entropic thermodynamics. See how easy that was? IOW, you must - logically speaking - be wrong about what time is and how it occurs. The only question is whether or not you can admit to being wrong.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

WJM, there are many things we do not know. These should not prevent us from acknowledging what we do know. W0, as an inference on root of reality, exists. Its nature we can identify in part, in part we just do not know enough to confidently claim. I am not clear, per logic of being analysis as to ontological status of what we call heaven [here, considered a possible world], as opposed to that of God as serious candidate necessary being and root of reality; where, I cannot find any good reason to hold God impossible of being as a euclidean plane square circle is. For sure, I am in no position to speculate on the physics of heaven other than to say that there would be a resource to sustain it as a going concern going forward, if it is in fact sufficiently close to our world to be thermodynamic: particles, energy, distributions, radiation, conduction, convection, other energy processes that tie back into thermal energy, from such, time as reflective of causal-thermodynamic process with definable rates [so, underlying dynamics with forcing terms and inertial terms] and measurable by clocks and calendars etc. And on the tradition I have, there seems to be talk of transformation of our world that would fit with that. But such things go well beyond the considerations behind logic of being matters. For sure, they do not shape the logic of being matters. What else we can and do know is our world is thermodynamic and q-foam worlds too, also suggested oscillatory worlds and so forth. Physical worlds such as we inhabit are inherently thermodynamic. And beyond particular worlds there is the sum of what is, reality that can be considered as the superverse or something like that. I doubt that there are separate realities, instead we see misnomers for possible and perhaps actualised worlds within the grand domain of reality. KF PS, a HR plot for our galaxy shows breakaway to the giants band: https://itu.physics.uiowa.edu/labs/advanced/hertzsprung-russell-diagram-and-star-clusters This is consistent with ages typically on order 6 - 12 BY. Notice this discussion of clusters, with a clear aging pattern with breakaway and apparent loss of the stars expected to run down first: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l7_p5.html PPS, yes this implies effective randomness of thermally related energy at particle level. Brownian motion is an observable empirical support. BTW, a significant part of Einstein's Nobel Prize.kairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

KF, are you going to answer my question about heaven? Is heaven an entropic, thermodynamically-constrained world? If not, how is there any sense of time passing (doing, thinking, speaking, etc.) if time is intrinsically the product of an entropic, thermodynamically-constrained world?William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I don't see you jumping in and solving the time dilemma. Did time begin, or not? 1. Time began: logically, how can one say "time began" if there was not a time before "time began" where it had not yet begun? 2. Time did not begin: how does this not mean infinite regress? I await your non-farcical response.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

and is a possible universe that is potentially eternal, in both temporal directions
And an infinite number of identical repeating entities and scenarios. This identical comment has/will happen an infinite number of times. As has/will every other possible entity/scenario. All the anti ID people can offer is one farce after the other. Aside: I don’t believe any of this. I’m just pointing to the absurdity that results from certain positions. Absurdity that they then deny which means they are denying their original assumptions. The Asimov story just shows that any advanced civilization will try to implement/seek immortality somehow. A phenomenon which we are currently seeing in our very young universe. As such is there is any limitation on intelligence or is it essentially infinite?jerry_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

VL said:
You mentioned an infinite number of Gods, which certainly may not be possible. I guess I don’t even know what you are saying, so I’ll let it drop.
I think there's a more fundamental issue with how Jerry (and some others) think about the supposed "absurdity" of "infinite" universes, such as the many-world interpretation of quantum physics, where there is a "universe" for every planck-time variation of something even at the smallest scale. We end up with infinite versions of me, you, the universe, god, gods, etc. One might call that the absurdity of infinite quantity. I think the absurdity of the concept is entirely derived from the perspective that he/they are talking about a quantity of things that have material self-existence independent of the experience of consciousness. The idealism/mental reality model provides infinite version capacity that doesn't fall into absurdity because we're not talking about a infinite number of self-existent things. Referring to the story in Sev's #48, "potential" might be substituted for all possible arrays of "pigeon-holes." What is in each pigeon-hole is a segment of all potential as information that produces some sort of experience in some aspect of consciousness. The "light" is one consciousness, one mind. Particular sequences of pigeon-holes might be considered the sense of self-continuity experienced as an "individual." An "individual" would not be a separate mind/consciousness, but that one mind/consciousness as experienced through that particular sequence of information, or "pigeon holes." So, could that one consciousness/mind experience "being" an infinite number of beings, including gods that create their own universes? Of course. My perspective is that every possible sequence of pigeon holes is being manifestly experienced in the now. This is basically the same idea that Bernardo Kastrup refers to as "dissociation;" the one mind/consciousness experiences "other sequences" as "other people," but they are in fact just dissociated "versions" of itself experienced through the lens of each particular sequence. This actually corresponds very nicely to several mystic and spiritual perspectives about how we are all "one," or are God experiencing itself from many different perspectives, and about how all of reality -all possible worlds - lie within each of us. Many people have reportedly experienced something approaching - at least - that "oneness with God" or "oneness with all" via various spiritual practices, via some NDEs, spontaneous mystical/spiritual experiences, meditation, or the use of psychoactive drugs. These people often report experiencing other worlds, other realities, other universes, even meeting and talking to past versions of themselves, future versions, or alternate versions.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Sev @48, That was super-amazing. Yesterday morning in a forum on Reddit I was discussing analytic idealism with someone and making the case that there was only one consciousness/mind in existence, not billions of individual minds/consciousnesses, and the sense of individuality and "time passing" was exactly what you quoted in your story. Last night I noticed the new season of "Undone" was on Amazon Prime, and binged the whole season. It has to do with this same stuff - a multiverse of possible timelines, different states of individual being-ness, and being able to tap into the capacity to rearrange your experiential reality. Even if you were able to go into the past, or hop around from past to future, to the person it would seem like a continuous flow of time from their own perspective. One person explained/understood it via physics, all things and people being part of the same one thing, and another explained it via some cultural mysticism. Also yesterday, in between the Reddit discussion and finding that new season of Undone on Amazon, I had a 2-hour zoom group discussion where the main topic was about using emotional/psychological connection to access interaction with these other realities, including the afterlife, instead of trying to figure out linear mechanistic practices that conform to the standard model of sequences necessary to achieve these things, like astral projection. In the new season, the emotional/psychological connection was how they were accomplishing this non-linear "jumping" from one timeline-reality to another, or from one dimension to another. Then this morning I get up and read your post. That's a pretty cool sequence of events to occur in less than 24 hours.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry said:
I said anything possible has got to happen an infinite number of times. Tell me what is not possible? Universes exactly like our universe have got to happen an infinite number of times.
The problem lies not in the logic, but in your premise about what the nature of existence/reality is.William J Murray_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

JH, that alternative failed decades ago, the problem being as usual entropy accumulation. Each cycle has less available high quality energy, each expansion is bigger, it goes up to ~ 100 cycles. That's ringing not true permanent oscillation. KF PS: a perfect sinusoid is eternal, what we see on oscilloscopes is what settles down to good enough when we turn on oscillator circuits. PPS, for simplicity, note from 27:
let’s start with classic isolated system, || A –> B || where as A is hotter dQ flows to B, and we have dQ = TdS, T absolute temperature and S entropy. Convert to a rate, dQ/dt = T * (dS/dt), i.e. rate of rise of entropy is directly connected to heat flow rate. Time is inextricably bound up in the causal processes connected to heat flow at a rate and linked entropy. Using for simplicity — this is not utterly rigorous and general, but this toy helps us see — S = k log W, W omega number of accessible distributions of mass and energy etc across available possibilities. A actually loses entropy as flow dQ is away from it but as B is at lower temperature, the inflow so multiplies accessible possibilities that net S for the system rises. Causal, energy flow/work driven events are such that heat is inextricably involved. Work is forced, ordered motion, heat transfer of energy by radiation, conduction, convection. Temperature is an index of avg random kinetic energy per degree of freedom of micro particles.
Once you have light sharing around, that is radiation and is inherently dissipative. Entropy increase is baked in.kairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

KF: Infinite regress of physical, thermodynamically constrained worlds is not feasible physically . . . heat death . . . and on need to have traversed order type omega finite stage steps.
An oscillating universe does not violate the conservation of energy, and is a possible universe that is potentially eternal, in both temporal directions.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Sev, the just above would help you. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

JH, playing mirror talking points doesn't work. You need to work through the logic of being i/l/o possible worlds speak, to understand what is vs is not possible of being, then of what is possible what is contingent, what is necessary. Impossibility is like euclidean plane square circles; contradictory core characteristics so such cannot be instantiated in any possible world. Contingent beings are in effect caused, necessary ones are framework to any possible world. Try imagining a distinct possible world without twoness in it. Not possible as distinct identity already embeds twoness, 'distinct." This leads to why worlds don't come from utter non being [= utter non reality, which has no causal powers]. If non reality ever were so, nothing would ever be. That a world is implies something always was, a necessary being capable of causing worlds, so of course world zero W0. Infinite regress of physical, thermodynamically constrained worlds is not feasible physically . . . heat death . . . and on need to have traversed order type omega finite stage steps. Circular retrocausation is appeal to a world from non reality. So we have a beginning to physicality, and rooted in necessary being, where that physical reality massively manifests fine tuning. A sign of design. Move to the world of life and we have embedded algorithmic code, language and goal directed stepwise procedures. Design pervades the physical and biological worlds. Then, we are rationally, responsibly free and morally governed, on pain of reducing our intellectual dimension to self discrediting grand delusion. These do not sit well with the evolutionary materialist scientism and/or fellow travellers preferred by dominant elites, but that simply means the new magisterium is off kilter and heading for a big fall. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Seversky To me, the current situation of being faced with two absurdities – either an infinite causal chain or an uncaused first cause
What is the first cause of your thoughts? Is caused or uncaused that first cause of your thoughts?Lieutenant Commander Data_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply