Universe and Time

Your guess is wrong.

That is right.

Do you know whether there is symmetry of time in our universe or not?

Have you ever observed time symmetry?

Have [size=104]you[/size] ever observed time symmetry, Phyllo?

And have you ever been to other places outside of the planet Earth, Phyllo and the other members of this forum?

I don’t think so. I honestly don’t know what it would look like.

Why ask me the question? You are proposing it, so you should have a reason why you think it exists. A reason like … you, or someone else, has seen it.

No . And I don’t need to go outside of the planet Earth. What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is :
We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe.

IOW, physics operates the same everywhere.

We can’t prove it but without that principle, there is no possibility of knowledge about anything : everything which is observed could just be a local anomaly.

I thought that I made it pretty clear that I know that time cannot run backwards. I can know it as an absolute fact because it is merely a logic issue.

Time, Distance, Mass, and Energy are things that cannot have a negative value except with respect to an arbitrarily chosen standard.

Time is the measure of change. There cannot be negative amount of change, only a negative-direction of change.
Distance is the measure of immediateness of spacial contact. There can be no negative immediateness of contact.
Mass is a measure of existence. There can be no negative existence.
Energy is the measure of ability to cause change. There can be no negative of the ability to cause change.

Each of those have a range of zero upward to more. None can have a negative, from zero to less than zero.

There cannot be a less than zero;
Change,
Immediateness of contact,
Existence, nor
Ability to cause change.

Reversal of time could be crudely simulated by reversing the direction of motion of some items of concern. A ball rolling “forward” could be reversed such as to roll “backward” instead. The spacial direction of motion, vector, can be reversed for specifically chosen objects. That would give the appearance of motion moving backward as long as someone knew of a “forward” with which to compare it. But it is limited to the chosen objects and their situation.

Time can be circled such as to advance objects in spacial directions that lead to their return to a prior state that can then be called “a state of history”. Chosen situations can be returned to a prior state. But their prior state cannot automatically advance to yet a pre-prior state in most cases due to the combinatorial effects of interaction.

Because there is no negative mass, there can be no negative gravity (mass and gravity being essentially the same thing). Thus an object such as a meteor being affected by gravity and striking the Earth could be given a reversed vector, but will not be able to find or maintain its prior course. The following situation cannot be reversed. Reflecting the photon will not cause the photon to reverse its path.

Logic is omnipresent and omnipotent. It applies to all of reality regardless of location. So you could be teleported 1000 trillion light-years away and logic would still apply and still demand all of the same “laws of physics”. A totally blind, deaf mute bestowed with logic and enough intelligence can discern the laws of physics without the slightest observation of them. If he was teleported far away and inside a steel vessel with no portals or outside measuring devices, he could still tell you a great many things that would necessarily be true about what was outside the vessel.

And that is the situation of every mind. It is inside a vessel from which it must deduce what is outside the vessel. The sensory ability it has merely reports on the current situation, not the eternal laws governing it. Those senses can be flawed and thus cause a misrepresentation of his current situation. But if his logic ability is not flawed, he will still know the laws of physics - “God is within you”, but cannot be seen, merely known.

The Gordian Knot can be untied from within. In the film The Matrix, the superhero, Neo working for the Zionists, defeated the evil System agents by revealing “the light of God” from within them, “The Light of Logic”.

In short, you can change the location and directions of things, but you cannot change what they essentially are. What they are is what causes them to automatically change their locations and directions. Thus as long as things are what they essentially are (such as mass and energy), their automatic directions and locations will be determined in the same way as always. And that is what someone calls “Forward” or “Advanced” or the “Arrow of Time”.

And no universe can exist without mass and/or energy as its fundamental elements (although named a variety of things, such as “body” and “will”).

You are reflecting both Schopenhauer and Fixed Cross’s ontology (mixed with elements of RM:AO). FC calls it “self-valuing”. Schopenhauer called it “Will”. It is an ancient ontological concept. And the issue with all of such onologies is that they do not distinguish “intent”, the distinction between living will and unwillful action. So define “intent” in your ontology, else you will be merely recreating an ancient, less useful, ontology.

But you cannot conflate the concept of time with that of will. Time is the actual difference between states whereas will is the cause of that difference. Don’t conflate a cause with its effect.

I know your theory quite well, but not in any detail. So please explain for all members of this forum what the following picture illustrates, what “photon path” exactly means, what “affectance gradient” exactly means, what “infinite mass” exactly means, and what “light fall” exactkly means:

B.t.w.: For physicists, the time asymmetry is in the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, thus: in the entropy.

And just as entropy is not universal in that it can be and often is defeated (by every subatomic particle), the Second “Law” of Thermodynamics isn’t a universal “Law”, merely a tendency and most common occurrence. But “time symmetry” requires more than merely defeating entropy.

Photon ≡ an amount of radiant electromagnetic radiation.
Photon Path ≡ the sequence of spatial locations of a photon through time.
Affectance Gradient ≡ a variation in affectance field density, “a gravity field”.
Infinite Mass ≡ maximum density of changing affects, maximum affectance density (although never actually infinite).
Light Fall ≡ the path of a photon as affected by an affectance gradient, gravity.

The anime is an emulation of a photon’s reaction to a gravity field immediately surrounding it associated with an immensely strong concentration of “mass” (location of high affectance density). Note that the light, the photon, does not maintain a straight path (as noted in astrophysics, “the lensing effect”). Note that the speed of the light is also affected such as to come to nearly a complete stop (would be a complete stop if the mass were truly infinite).

The direction and speed of light is not constant in a gravity field. And then because a gravity gradient cannot be reversed, the path traveled cannot be reversed.

The speed of light can only be observed as a constant (Theory of Relativity) as long as the observer is within the same constant field as the light. And a constant affectance field cannot be obtained if there is a mass within the field. The Theory of Relativity is relative to the scale and completeness of the observation.

Why can a gravity gradient not be reversed? And why can a path not be reversed?

Again, in a limited way, one could reverse the direction of the gradient, but not what gravity is. True anti-gravity is a logical impossibility that would require negative existence (less than being non-existent).

And since mass accumulates in 3D spherical concentrations, the “reverse” direction for its gradient is that of being greater outside the spherical mass and less inside. One would have to arrange for the surrounding “space” of a particle to be the accumulation of affectance (the mass or solid) and the particle to be the lack of mass within that solid, exchanging space and mass. That would require that space (nothingness) automatically accumulated (hence having affect yet being nothing = no affect) and dispersed mass (somethingness = affect). And that would require that when two quantities of affect added, their sum was less that either of them (the reversal of absolute zero with absolute infinity, “2+2=0 and 2-2=4”). The result of that is that the distances would add to be less than the original distance.

Geometrically, it would mean that you have to have the outside of a box smaller than the inside of that box in order to reverse time, which is why they have that effect in the Dr Who TV time travel series.

But even with that magically arranged, the photon would still not follow a reversed course. If reflected exactly, the photon would leave the (formerly) massive object and bend upward into the (formerly) space vertically, not along the originally horizontal path. It would require the reversal of “A is A” including “vertical is horizontal” and “forward is backward”. But vertical and horizontal are not the only directions. With which do you reverse “far and near” (the Z-axis)?

Everything actually doesn’t have an opposite, despite popular propaganda. A truly negative universe cannot be arranged. Negative is opposite direction of positive, but not equally opposite affect. And the Higgs theory (of opposites) is a fallacious ontology.

So, should we “close” this thread? I mean: what you said in your last post is not new - I know -, but this thread should enable something like a discussion, but if the question, whether there is an asymmetric time, allows only one answer, then we can “close” this thread, can’t we?

This is a philosophy forum, and philosophy - as well as mathematics - has no limits of thought, no thinking borders … Probably I am as well a rational human being as you are, but I am not generally against the so called “irrationality” because irrationality has often been changed into rationality since the beginning of thinking. Is the proposition that asymmetric time is possible really absolutely irrational?

Yes. And that is why the closing of the thread doesn’t make sense.

I am proposing arguments concerning the absolute necessity of “time asymmetry” (as it has been defined), but you are basically just say, “yeah maybe… maybe not”. You don’t appear to be looking to see what, if anything, I have over looked in the logic, but rather merely saying that maybe I have.

If I am possibly in error on some point, other than the conclusion, where is that error? And if not, then there should be no remaining “maybe” question about it. Yet you keep expressing a “maybe”.

Yes, James …, but … why not?

I think a thread with the topic “Universe and Time” requires straightforwardly a “maybe” when it caomes to talk about the possibility of time
symmetry or the negation of the time arrow and so on.

Do you not think so?

Once you include Logic, “possibilities” become very limited. If you want to fantasize about magical, fun things, then leave logic out of it. It is a question of whether one is pursuing philosophy or fantasy.

A scientist can never say: “I have finished my work”. A “scientist” who says that is no scientist.

This thread has many scientific dues, but also many philosphical dues. Therefore a “maybe” is not generally wrong or false, besides: the probability indicates this too.

The scientist who refuses certainty of what he has done (properly) can never understand the complexities of reality. Understanding is built up from one certainty to another to another. The questions should always be at the top of a mountain of certainties, else the top of the uncertainties will be nothing but so uncertain as to be not worthy of building upon. Clouds just produce more clouds, not mountains. But a scientist is not a philosopher, merely a technician.

If you have a confidence level of 80% for each of 20 dependent issues, what is your confidence of the conclusion concerning the issue?

0.80^20 = 0.011529% probability of being right.

If one is not willing to find certainty and build upon it, one never finds confidence nor courage.
And if one builds upon mere probability of being right, one will be very probably wrong before long.
Slaves are made out of the doubtful.

So you are saying that scientists are slaves. Okay, maybe (ah: „maybe“ again :slight_smile: ) you are right.

But scientists want to find certainty - as well as capitalists want a monopoly -, but they can’t find certainty because they are scientists, and only few of them find certainty, but when they have found it they are no longer scientists, but bought slaves. For comparision: only few capitalists catch a monopoly, but when they have caught it they are no longer capitalists, but communists, socialists, globalists - because they have no competition, rivalry anymore.