Inane ramblings

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn

Show me the number 1 as it exists in this universe. Or the number 3. All numbers are abstractions of reality, and infinity is in the same class. I can more easily give you one apple than I can infinity, but I can never give you 1 in itself.

So you agree that infinity doesn't exist.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
How do you figure? My experience of time is that it's very linear. Even science hasn't been able to prove otherwise. "It is possible that time is linear."

Ah, but let's talk science. The way time acts on the macro and the micro level doesn't necessarily appear linear. That's one of the reasons that relativity screws everybody up. Time is bent by gravity just like space, "linear" is just a metaphor we place on top of the "dimension" (another metaphor) of time. I think that we could probably come up with a better metaphor...

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
So you agree that infinity doesn't exist.

Only if you agree that the number 2 doesn't exist!

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
I think that we could probably come up with a better metaphor...

Possibly, but the metaphor isn't a bad one. Linear doesn't imply consistency.

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Only if you agree that the number 2 doesn't exist!

I agree.

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
I can more easily give you one apple than I can infinity, but I can never give you 1 in itself.

You can't give me infinitely many apples. Not with the limitation of time. Ever. That number of apples doesn't exist.

**Toby** · 07/27/2001, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
How do you figure? My experience of time is that it's very linear.

Key word being experience. Time is relative.

Even science hasn't been able to prove otherwise.

Just because something has yet to be proven doesn't mean that it has necessarily been disproven.

"It is possible that time is linear."

What does it matter? Time is a human construct anyway.

Ok. Give me infinite apples.

How about I give you a handful of seeds, and you keep planting the seeds which result from those fruit?

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Only if you agree that the number 2 doesn't exist!

There is no spoon.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
You can't give me infinitely many apples. Not with the limitation of time. Ever. That number of apples doesn't exist.

Probably not, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the number infinity. You can't measure pi meters exactly. You can't create a perfect 90 degree angle. You can't measure exactly the side of a square with an area of 2. There are a lot of way that you can't implement the abstraction of numbers, there's nothing special about infinity.

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Toby
Key word being experience. Time is relative.

But it exists. It's existence is determined (in part) by it's characteristics. According to the proof we have now, time is linear.

Just because something has yet to be proven doesn't mean that it has necessarily been disproven.

My orgasm proof, all over again.

What does it matter? Time is a human construct anyway.

It's a universal process that affects everything given a human interpretation

How about I give you a handful of seeds, and you keep planting the seeds which result from those fruit?

How much time do I have?

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
...there's nothing special about infinity.

Au contraire, mi amigo. There is a lot special about infinity. One is that it and time are mutually exclusive in the same space.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
Au contraire, mi amigo. There is a lot special about infinity. One is that it and time are mutually exclusive in the same space.

No, time and the implementation of the abstraction we call infinity are mutually exclusive in the same "space." But so is time and the implementation of any irrational number. Or time and the perfect measure of any angle. Infinity is just a number.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 12:03 PM

Mods:

Maybe there should be a special tag we can put at the beginning of any message called <semantic bantering> that lets people either ignore it (i.e. normal people) or pay an abnormal amount of attention to it (me, D-R & Toby).

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
No, time and the implementation of the abstraction we call infinity are mutually exclusive in the same "space." But so is time and the implementation of any irrational number.

Agreed.

Or time and the perfect measure of any angle.

How do you figure? Any three objects in space measure some angle perfectly at a given time.

Infinity is just a number.

I think we're going to have to let this one slide. You're not convincing me, and I can tell the opposite is true.

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 12:12 PM

I have a question regarding relativity. Einstein supposedly began the theory by looking at a clock that read 4:00pm and thinking that if he could ride that light beam, it would be 4:00pm forever. Why wouldn't it be 4:00pm plus however long he rode the light beam (I agree that when that light beam hit something able to interpret it would read 4pm, but why isn't the time in transit considered?)? Why is light the barrier that can't be broken any more than sound? If I had the ability to freeze time across the universe right now, wouldn't it be 12:09 regardless of distance?

I guess the question is, "How are light and time related?"

**Toby** · 07/27/2001, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
But it exists.

Does it? Without looking at a watch or clock (or sundial, etc.), tell me exactly what time it is right now.

It's existence is determined (in part) by it's characteristics.

Characteristics assigned by whom?

According to the proof we have now, time is linear.

No, our perception of time is linear.

It's a universal process that affects everything given a human interpretation

Who said it was universal?

How much time do I have?

If I could tell you that, I really would be starting my own religion (or making lots of money off the stock market, lottery, etc.)

Originally posted by ****-richardson
I guess the question is, "How are light and time related?"

Perception. You see the 'time' on the clock by the way that your brain interprets the light reflected from its face. If Einstein was riding the light beam, he would always see the same image reflected, hence the clock would always show 4:00 regardless of the duration of 'time' that he was riding the light beam.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 12:50 PM

It's relative to more than perception, it's relatively absolutely (as if that makes sense). It's not just that Einstien, riding the light, sees 4:00. It IS 4:00 for Einstein, forever, although time passes "normally" for us.

The classic example: If you lived in orbit for your entire life, time would move more slowly for you because you'd feel the effects of Earth's gravity less. So, at the end of our lives, you'll have experienced less aging, less time than me. IOW, light and time are related in that they both are measured relative to something else, not absolutely. Nothing can be measured absolutely.

re: infinity discussion: ok, but I wonder what it is about infinity that you think sets it apart from other numbers?

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Toby
Does it? Without looking at a watch or clock (or sundial, etc.), tell me exactly what time it is right now.

That akin to saying without a yardstick, there is no distance between between us. Time is both our measurement and the thing being measured. The measurement doesn't exist without human interpretation, but time does.

Characteristics assigned by whom?

God?

No, our perception of time is linear.

And our perceptions (if the universe itself is more than mental) are of actual characteristics.

Who said it was universal?

Good point.

If I could tell you that, I really would be starting my own religion (or making lots of money off the stock market, lottery, etc.)

My point was that the yield from handfull of seeds and n number of generations is determined (in part) by how much time I have. As long as time exists, I will have a concrete number of apples.

Perception. You see the 'time' on the clock by the way that your brain interprets the light reflected from its face. If Einstein was riding the light beam, he would always see the same image reflected, hence the clock would always show 4:00 regardless of the duration of 'time' that he was riding the light beam.

But what about the watch on his wrist? Sure, he can't read it unless it's held directly in front of his face with it's own light source, but why wouldn't his watch continue ticking off the seconds that are passing while he's sitting on that light beam?

**errqre** · 07/27/2001, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
If you lived in orbit for your entire life, time would move more slowly for you because you'd feel the effects of Earth's gravity less.

But would a watch working independantly of gravity tick off time differently than it would on earth, and if so, why?

Nothing can be measured absolutely.

what about the gravitational constants, the weak and strong force, etc.?

re: infinity discussion: ok, but I wonder what it is about infinity that you think sets it apart from other numbers?

Its characteristics.

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
But would a watch working independantly of gravity tick off time differently than it would on earth, and if so, why?

Such a watch does not exist in our universe. All matter warps the universe via gravity, so all watches do, in fact, tick differently.

what about the gravitational constants, the weak and strong force, etc.?

<<My element>> | <<my location>>

I don't see where you're going... Out of my element or just plain stupid... I don't remember much about weak force vs. strong force.. a little help?

Ets characteristics.

Right.

such as?

**Dieter Bohn** · 07/27/2001, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by ****-richardson
That akin to saying without a yardstick, there is no distance between between us. Time is both our measurement and the thing being measured. The measurement doesn't exist without human interpretation, but time does.

According to most quantum physicists, nothing exists outside human interpretation. It's in a quantum state, neither being or unbeing. Dang it.. I'll find the two-hole experiment and blow your mind... where is it.. arg!

But what about the watch on his wrist? Sure, he can't read it unless it's held directly in front of his face with it's own light source, but why wouldn't his watch continue ticking off the seconds that are passing while he's sitting on that light beam?

Time moves more slowly the faster you move relative to something else. I believe that relativity calls for the speed of light to be the only constant in the universe. So, at the speed of light, time stops. Help?

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions