Only the concept of time exists.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby old6598 » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:26 pm

Why complicate something very simple ? There is no time or space or anything, just COMBINATIONS.

A very simple example: say that the universe is made of only one number (0 to 9) and there are only three time intervals in the whole lifetime of this universe. How large is it really ?

Well 10*10*10 are all the possible combinations, that is the possible sequences of this one number times the 3 time intervals. Now just extrapolate this to any large number of particles, having any large number of states times any large number of time intervals for any universe.

It would be something like Z to the X times Y, where X is the number of possible states and Y is the number of time intervals. Z is the number of particle states and/or number of particles.

Z^X*Y. This is a universe, with all time and space included. Obviously an insanely huge number, but mathematically and conceptually very simple.
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby Ingenium » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:58 pm

old6598 wrote:Why complicate something very simple ?


Why indeed?

Motion, the moving object and its destination are all relative to each other. So space, time and motion have no inherently independent existence. Things are always things-in-flux and time is always flux-in-things. There isn't 'time' and 'phenomena that endure through time', but only the changing of phenomena.
User avatar
Ingenium
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:11 am
Location: Misogyny-free Zone

Postby old6598 » Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:14 am

old6598 wrote:Why complicate something very simple ? There is no time or space or anything, just COMBINATIONS.

A very simple example: say that the universe is made of only one number (0 to 9) and there are only three time intervals in the whole lifetime of this universe. How large is it really ?

Well 10*10*10 are all the possible combinations, that is the possible sequences of this one number times the 3 time intervals. Now just extrapolate this to any large number of particles, having any large number of states times any large number of time intervals for any universe.

It would be something like Z to the X times Y, where X is the number of possible states and Y is the number of time intervals. Z is the number of particle states and/or number of particles.

Z^X*Y. This is a universe, with all time and space included. Obviously an insanely huge number, but mathematically and conceptually very simple.


Even more interesting is the space to time converter or viceversa. Conside that all the combinations Z^X*Y can be equivalent to 2^N so instead of having many particles and states you can have a universe with only one bit of information that can follow a sequence of combinations that contain all the possible combinations of a universe, like a DVD is a stream of bits that design a 2 hour movie. In this case it is a universe with ONE bit having many (huge number!) of time intervals (N).

Or you can convert it to a universe having a given huge number of BITS but that is still because it contains all the possible combinations. So in this case it is a universe with a huge number of bits (or particles if you like) but with only one time interval, hence no time.


2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby nameta9 » Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:04 am

old6598 wrote:Even more interesting is the space to time converter or viceversa. Conside that all the combinations Z^X*Y can be equivalent to 2^N so instead of having many particles and states you can have a universe with only one bit of information that can follow a sequence of combinations that contain all the possible combinations of a universe, like a DVD is a stream of bits that design a 2 hour movie. In this case it is a universe with ONE bit having many (huge number!) of time intervals (N).

Or you can convert it to a universe having a given huge number of BITS but that is still because it contains all the possible combinations. So in this case it is a universe with a huge number of bits (or particles if you like) but with only one time interval, hence no time.


2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.


So if you imagine a modified brain eye (technological singularity scenario) that can read in all 40 billion bits of a DVD in parallel, and can execute the movie in parallel and see it all and feel all the experiences in parallel, this brain could see a 2 hour movie in a microsecond. That is if it really executes the movie in parallel. That would require a completely different brain - mind structure, emotion subsystem etc. Or alternatively just read in all the bits in a register and execute the movie at lightning speed using the traditonal mind - emotion system, hence time to space conversion.

The idea is probably not new, the universe is just pure information, the it to bit physics, so all possible combinations of these bits mapped to everything we can imagine is just a small subset of what is possible. The laws of physics seem to select only a very few combinations, but the superset of all combinations is the real size of the universe or any possible universe, so that is true reality, not what we feel with our senses.

The real universe is infinitely much large than the physical one.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Postby old6598 » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:24 pm

So lets take this up to another level. Just how big is our universe then ?

Lets consider something like 10^1000 particles and call that N. Each particle can be in maybe 10^100 different states and call that S.

So S^N are all the possible combinations of all these particles through all their states and call that C. Now lets throw in time, and say that there are maybe 10^1000 time intervals and call that T. So that would be C^T all possible combinations of all particles for all of time. Of course our real universe is only a very small subset of this, but it maybe really isn't as big as we think.


S=10^100 no. of different states for each particle;

N=10^1000 no. of particles;

C=S^N no. of all possible combinations of states and particles;

T is the number of time intervals, 10^1000;


SIZE of UNIVERSE=C^T

SIZE=((10^100)^(10^1000))^(10^1000)

This number can be converted to 2^X where X is probably really big. So the universe is just a simple number, 2^X.

2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby nameta9 » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:37 pm

old6598 wrote:SIZE of UNIVERSE=C^T

SIZE=((10^100)^(10^1000))^(10^1000)

This number can be converted to 2^X where X is probably really big. So the universe is just a simple number, 2^X.

2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.


The problem is what external space are these bits or particles or numbers occupying ? They must be floating in some other material, or item. It is this item that can create experiences, consciousness, reality and matter as parts of these combinations of bits are grouped as people and life and experiences. Very odd, but makes some sense....
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Postby mosassam » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:56 pm

old6598 wrote:
Why complicate something very simple ? There is no time or space or anything, just COMBINATIONS.


Combinations of what?
mosassam
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 3:55 am

Postby mosassam » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:58 pm

nameta9 wrote:
old6598 wrote:
The problem is what external space are these bits or particles or numbers occupying ? They must be floating in some other material, or item. It is this item that can create experiences, consciousness, reality and matter as parts of these combinations of bits are grouped as people and life and experiences. Very odd, but makes some sense..

Can you expand on the nature of this "item"?
mosassam
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 3:55 am

Postby Lollipop King » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:01 pm

Most issues can be resolved when one stops thinking of time as something that “exists”.
Time is to exist.

Consciousness being the separation of a small piece of temporal flow that observes the rest of it.
Matter being a manifestation of temporality.

Space being possibility.

When you start thinking of time as something….something that then exists within something else or when you think of space as a substance or fabric then you fall into error.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby old6598 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:59 am

mosassam wrote:
old6598 wrote:
Why complicate something very simple ? There is no time or space or anything, just COMBINATIONS.


Combinations of what?


Combinations of what?

Combination of numbers, or bits, or any item - entity that can be distinguished from another. A pure number - item in an abstract mental space. A pure measurement.... everything we perceive is a sequence of measurements, numbers and comparisons between said measurements. At least according to the scientific - physics decoding of the world (and also a language with symbols mapping onto the comparisons ?)


2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.


I am not getting into the language - semantics complications of it all, but just trying to show that it seems that if we just view the universe as information - mathematics the entire deal is just a combination of numbers that can eventually be mapped onto any kind of decoding and encoding of this information into any kinds of categories desired; the combinations, group of bits, can be broken up or merged in any way possible.
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby nameta9 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:05 am

Satyr wrote:Most issues can be resolved when one stops thinking of time as something that “exists”.
Time is to exist.

Consciousness being the separation of a small piece of temporal flow that observes the rest of it.
Matter being a manifestation of temporality.

Space being possibility.

When you start thinking of time as something….something that then exists within something else or when you think of space as a substance or fabric then you fall into error.


check out:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi ... p?t=151880


sounds similar ...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Postby old6598 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:02 am

This is just an extrapolation of a universe as a series of bits just as a DVD contains 40 billion bits and can produce a 2 hour movie. This is the informational content, or measurements of the entire universe, or state space it can occupy. We are a small subset of bits of this number. The laws of physics are just a series of strong filters allowing mostly only the major combinations, but quantum physics kind of tells us that all the combinations are possible and do indeed exist.

The laws of physics seem to be simply the combinations that have the highest probability of being repeated. I think this view could be a better view of the many worlds theory of quantum physics since in a pure combinational view all the combinations exist, only that we find ourselves within a given combination. Odd but somehow related to the many worlds - infinite parallel universe theories .....

But then again if all the combinations exist, we simply find ourselves in a quirk combination that seems to follow very strict laws, but these laws don't really exist they are just a design or pattern or painting superimposed on a subset of the combination of bits.
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby Old timer » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:55 pm

I have already explained why time does not exist during my previous incarnation as Pinnacle of Reason

Time is change. When we say time changes, what we are really saying is that things have moved. for instance the clock shows time change by moving. in fact you can't tell time has changed if nothing moved.

So movement is time. but time is not some abstract concept, it's simply comparing movements against an absolute stationary object.
User avatar
Old timer
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:24 am

Time you ask?

Postby WillNZ » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:47 am

Time doesn't exist. There are parallel universes which are like the slides of a slide show. Each is an infinitely small increment of what we see as time. Each is slightly different from its parallel counterpart. Our present state is only a perceived transition from one to the next.

Sorry if this is a bit rough, but I wrote it as it came out. Anyway, does this make sense to anyone? If not I can try and explain it a little better.


A wise man once asked a wiser man, "is it possible to step into the same river twice?" The wiser man, upon deliberating for many a slide show, answered, "ah, but I would question the idea of stepping into the same river ONCE."

Time is a river. We are pebbles floating down the river of time. There is point A, the beginning, and point B, the end. Time is what fills the gap in between the transition periods, and ultimately what prevents A from being joined/merged/at one with B.

Therefore, one could argue that the purpose of time is to prevent the unison of matter and energy into one singular, thus recreating the 'X' which was in existence right before the big bang occurred.

:^o
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son".
WillNZ
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:13 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby heavenly_demonic » Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:00 am

Impenitent wrote:kant's irremovable goggles have been removed...

-Imp


HUH?
User avatar
heavenly_demonic
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Peru

Postby Impenitent » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 am

heavenly_demonic wrote:
Impenitent wrote:kant's irremovable goggles have been removed...

-Imp


HUH?


two of the primary tenents in kant's epistemology are his proofs for space and time... for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Re: Time you ask?

Postby old6598 » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:29 pm

WillNZ wrote:Time is a river. We are pebbles floating down the river of time. There is point A, the beginning, and point B, the end. Time is what fills the gap in between the transition periods, and ultimately what prevents A from being joined/merged/at one with B.

Therefore, one could argue that the purpose of time is to prevent the unison of matter and energy into one singular, thus recreating the 'X' which was in existence right before the big bang occurred.

:^o


What makes A different from B ? they can be transformed into each other mathematically, and you need an external observer that measures the difference between them. But are they really different ? It could go from B to A and it would be the same, only change is being measured. Why should any configuration tend to go to any other ? If they were merged they would be the same, but maybe they are the same anyway even if they "appear" different. Maybe our mind invents differences. The universe is a point like object for a large enough observer, the observer couldn't see the detailed changes.

Our pain/pleasure - sensation circuits are the only thing that measures differences. A is equal to B in another reference system, hence no time...
old6598
Thinker
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:08 pm

Whenever I think a philosophical conversation is getting too fundamental (if there is such a thing) I get a humorous professor voice and say things like "But what is the isness of it? Or is it?"

It might be one of those occasions. Time itself is an important and interesting issue, but I cringe at boiling the universe down to one property. Because then I go back to . . . the universe.
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Postby adolpho » Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:26 am

Impenitent wrote:
heavenly_demonic wrote:
Impenitent wrote:kant's irremovable goggles have been removed...

-Imp


HUH?


two of the primary tenents in kant's epistemology are his proofs for space and time... for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp


No, space and time are inherent conditions to how WE see the world. They didn't have to truly exist. At least that's what I red, translations are really bad in here. I think that's what he wrote though
adolpho
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby Impenitent » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:05 am

adolpho wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
heavenly_demonic wrote:
Impenitent wrote:kant's irremovable goggles have been removed...

-Imp


HUH?


two of the primary tenents in kant's epistemology are his proofs for space and time... for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp


No, space and time are inherent conditions to how WE see the world. They didn't have to truly exist. At least that's what I red, translations are really bad in here. I think that's what he wrote though


that's why they are goggles.

we must wear them according to kant or the external world (external to humans) cannot exist...

"... Kant argues that space and time are both pure forms of intuition and pure intuitions. They are pure forms of intuition because they must precede and structure all experience of individual outer objects and inner states; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time..."

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby adolpho » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:42 am

Impenitent wrote:that's why they are goggles.

we must wear them according to kant or the external world (external to humans) cannot exist...
"... Kant argues that space and time are both pure forms of intuition and pure intuitions. They are pure forms of intuition because they must precede and structure all experience of individual outer objects and inner states; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time..."

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

-Imp

Yeah, but they don't have to exist, in Kant. They are conditions to which we must submit ourselves to view the world. That's why it's the so called representations - the world isn't time and space, but we must see it that way, in Kant's view.
adolpho
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby Impenitent » Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:12 pm

adolpho wrote:
Impenitent wrote:that's why they are goggles.

we must wear them according to kant or the external world (external to humans) cannot exist...
"... Kant argues that space and time are both pure forms of intuition and pure intuitions. They are pure forms of intuition because they must precede and structure all experience of individual outer objects and inner states; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time..."

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

-Imp

Yeah, but they don't have to exist, in Kant. They are conditions to which we must submit ourselves to view the world. That's why it's the so called representations - the world isn't time and space, but we must see it that way, in Kant's view.


exactly. that's why they are kant's (must - irremovable) - (see - goggles)...

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby adolpho » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:31 pm

two of the primary tenents in kant's epistemology are his proofs for space and time... for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp

Was refering to this. That metaphor was perfect, I would like to use that myself :P
adolpho
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby Impenitent » Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:33 pm

adolpho wrote:
two of the primary tenents in kant's epistemology are his proofs for space and time... for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp

Was refering to this. That metaphor was perfect, I would like to use that myself :P


notice: "space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby adolpho » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:41 am

Impenitent wrote:notice: "space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events...

-Imp

"To" indicates purpose, not condition.

Well, the "exist" is arguable. "Exist" as in an absolute existance is wrong in Kant's philosophy, the "Exist" as in exist to particulars (empiric beings) might work in that case, but that doesn't look like Kant's view, and I'd use another term or specify.

But that doesn't really matter, I accidentally got us into a silly uninteresting discussion :P
adolpho
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users