Time

[I and I]

(25-09-2012 12:16 AM)cufflink Wrote:  

(24-09-2012 11:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Every GPS system in use today, is adjusted for the fact that Relativity accurately predicts the relative DIFFERENCES in spacetime, secondary to relative speed, and position.

i had no idea about that. Totally awesome.

This explanation helped me understand the process a little better.

Did you guys know that China only has one time zone? Is this the correct time or the wrong time?

[Chas]

(24-09-2012 10:40 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(24-09-2012 10:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The moon is made of green cheese.
You can assert anything you want. It does not make it true.

Obviously you have no clue about Physics and Relativity.
If I have 2 atomic clocks, and send 1 up in a plane, and it goes faster for a period of time, than the one which is on Earth, the one that comes back, tells a DIFFERENT time than the one that stayed on Earth. So, whatever it is, it is NOT just in your mind, and *something* is obviously going on that is EXTERNAL to your mind, or the clocks could NOT be different, and both be right.

The perception problem you mention does not refute the reality of time. (Dr. David Eagleman, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eagleman ), (many YouTube vids, and Ted talks), in Texas, among many others, has worked on the time perception problem). The fact that your perception may not be accurate, in no way refutes time as real. All the perception experiments prove, is that our perception may, at times, not record EVENTS IN TIME, correctly. The mis-perception of events, does not refute time itself.

I am not making an "it's all in your head" amataur philosophy statment. I am saying that events and things do exist outside our minds and our attempts to conceptualize them through memory and "understanding" is what creates the sense of what we call time. This method of understanding the events around us is in our head, the objects and events we are attempting to understand us are not "just in our heads".

Events do not happen all at once, therefore they happen over a duration of time.

[Bucky Ball]

(25-09-2012 07:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(24-09-2012 10:40 PM)I and I Wrote:  I am not making an "it's all in your head" amataur philosophy statment. I am saying that events and things do exist outside our minds and our attempts to conceptualize them through memory and "understanding" is what creates the sense of what we call time. This method of understanding the events around us is in our head, the objects and events we are attempting to understand us are not "just in our heads".

Events do not happen all at once, therefore they happen over a duration of time.

Isn't that a perceptual "summation" ? Whatever the "event" is, is really a series of (infinitely) small changes, summed by our brains. So the question is, is there a minimum unit of change ? That (event) still is not time itself. The changes are perceived IN time, and, given a "viewer" which is good enough, the "events" could be perceptually slowed to very small units of change. There STILL is change, no matter how small the unit seen. Something external to what is perceived, is driving the change. So, since we know that the minimum time unit possible is Plank time, (for reasons Physics knows), it brings us back to waiting for Quantum Gravity to be understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

[Chas]

(25-09-2012 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 07:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Events do not happen all at once, therefore they happen over a duration of time.

Isn't that a perceptual "summation" ? Whatever the "event" is, is really a series of (infinitely) small changes, summed by our brains. So the question is, is there a minimum unit of change ? That (event) still is not time itself. The changes are perceived IN time, and, given a "viewer" which is good enough, the "events" could be perceptually slowed to very small units of change. There STILL is change, no matter how small the unit seen. Something external to what is perceived, is driving the change. So, since we know that the minimum time unit possible is Plank time, (for reasons Physics knows), it brings us back to waiting for Quantum Gravity to be understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

How we perceive time does not have much, if anything, to do with the existence of time. We, and everything else, exist in a four-dimensional space whether we're here to perceive it or not.
Two things don't occupy the same point in four dimensions, each dimension has extent.

[I and I]

(25-09-2012 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 07:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Events do not happen all at once, therefore they happen over a duration of time.

Isn't that a perceptual "summation" ? Whatever the "event" is, is really a series of (infinitely) small changes, summed by our brains. So the question is, is there a minimum unit of change ? That (event) still is not time itself. The changes are perceived IN time, and, given a "viewer" which is good enough, the "events" could be perceptually slowed to very small units of change. There STILL is change, no matter how small the unit seen. Something external to what is perceived, is driving the change. So, since we know that the minimum time unit possible is Plank time, (for reasons Physics knows), it brings us back to waiting for Quantum Gravity to be understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Time will always be a perceptual problem since time is what we call the spaces and gaps that make up our existence due to the fact we can't memorize everything in our experiences. "something external to our perception" sounds like some mystical god like explanation. How does one go about proving that something exists if one already admits it is outside of our perception?

[Vosur]

(25-09-2012 02:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Isn't that a perceptual "summation" ? Whatever the "event" is, is really a series of (infinitely) small changes, summed by our brains. So the question is, is there a minimum unit of change ? That (event) still is not time itself. The changes are perceived IN time, and, given a "viewer" which is good enough, the "events" could be perceptually slowed to very small units of change. There STILL is change, no matter how small the unit seen. Something external to what is perceived, is driving the change. So, since we know that the minimum time unit possible is Plank time, (for reasons Physics knows), it brings us back to waiting for Quantum Gravity to be understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Time will always be a perceptual problem since time is what we call the spaces and gaps that make up our existence due to the fact we can't memorize everything in our experiences. "something external to our perception" sounds like some mystical god like explanation. How does one go about proving that something exists if one already admits it is outside of our perception?

Time is not outside of our perception, it is independent of it. Time exists whether we percieve it or not.

[I and I]

(25-09-2012 02:56 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 02:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  Time will always be a perceptual problem since time is what we call the spaces and gaps that make up our existence due to the fact we can't memorize everything in our experiences. "something external to our perception" sounds like some mystical god like explanation. How does one go about proving that something exists if one already admits it is outside of our perception?

Time is not outside of our perception, it is independent of it. Time exists whether we percieve it or not.

Time is not independent of human minds. Time is a concept that advanced brains with minds use to understand the outside world.

[Bucky Ball]

(25-09-2012 02:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  "something external to our perception" sounds like some mystical god like explanation.

I already proved it with clocks.
The rest is YOUR problem. YOU are the one with the problem here. Apparently no one else has one. You STILL cannot separate perception from external events. Things "happen" whether you are there to perceive them or not.

[I and I]

(25-09-2012 03:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 02:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  "something external to our perception" sounds like some mystical god like explanation.

I already proved it with clocks.
The rest is YOUR problem. YOU are the one with the problem here. Apparently no one else has one. You STILL cannot separate perception from external events. Things "happen" whether you are there to perceive them or not.

nobody ever said that events and things don't exist outside perception.

If a person loves their wife, their wife really exists independent of their perception, however love is a concept and is not independent of a human mind, it's the same with time. A rusty gate really exists independent of our perception however it takes a human mind with a general concept of time to say or think "the gate was once not rusty and became rusty over time" time is the concept we use to help understand and relate to the outside world.

[Bucky Ball]

(25-09-2012 03:12 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 03:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I already proved it with clocks.
The rest is YOUR problem. YOU are the one with the problem here. Apparently no one else has one. You STILL cannot separate perception from external events. Things "happen" whether you are there to perceive them or not.

nobody ever said that events and things don't exist outside perception.

If a person loves their wife, their wife really exists independent of their perception, however love is a concept and is not independent of a human mind, it's the same with time. A rusty gate really exists independent of our perception however it takes a human mind with a general concept of time to say or think "the gate was once not rusty and became rusty over time" time is the concept we use to help understand and relate to the outside world.

No. There are photos of the gate in both conditions.