View Single Post
Old 02-28-2006, 07:59 AM   #31
Rhinoqulous
The Original Rhinoqurilla
 
Rhinoqulous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somewhere Not-So-Cold with Mountains
Posts: 4,829
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Quote:
Rhinoqulous wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
First you have to define time. I see it as no more than the delta between configurations.

A bouncing ball has no inherent property of motion. Each successive image captured by your eyes builds on the previous image to reinforce the sense that the ball is moving. There is nowhere that the ball exists previously to the considered moment, other than as a memories in your mind and maybe the air molecules it interacted with.

Time dilation is a difference in the measured rate of time between two entities, hence the term relativity.

The timeless theory is more aligned with quantum logic, and does not require a pre-defined shape space within which to operate.
Yes, but as I stated above, couldn't you make the same argument for space (I had no idea there were so many Kantian's here :P)? The only contemporary physicist I've read who endorses timeless theory is Julian Barbour, so I can't claim to be an expert on the subject.

I should state I'm a Presentist, a theory where time exists, but only the present moment of time has ontological status, the past and the future are non-existent.
That's like being a time-agnostic. C'mon, Rhino, give it up! :)

Barbour puts forth the best layman's description of timelesness. His book is a good start. You might have recognized my bouncing ball example as his kingfisher in flight example.
Time-agnostic? Blasphomy! I actually believe that time exists, you silly Kantian.

You never answered my question on whether you think that space exists. You could construct an argument similar to your bouncing ball/kingfisher in flight but for space. The great thing is, this was done already 2500 years ago! One of Zeno's paradox's was about how you can never reach a destination because before you go the complete distance, you need to go half the distance, and before that half that, etc., etc. So space must be an illusion, as if it existed you would never actually be able to get anywhere.

How do you answer this? Zeno's thought experiment seems as valid as Barbour's, so is all of time and space an illusion (and since it's actually space-time, it would seem if one were illusory the other, by definition, would be as well)?

Wait just a minute-You expect me to believe-That all this misbehaving-Grew from one enchanted tree? And helpless to fight it-We should all be satisfied-With this magical explanation-For why the living die-And why it's hard to be a decent human being - David Bazan
Rhinoqulous is offline   Reply With Quote