I can understand the viewpoint. It was only recently that scientists were even able to prove that times always moves in one direction. But time does exist outside of human thought. The most modern definition of a second refers to things which happen periodically in a fantastically stable isotope of Caesium. This is completely independent of humans and happens on other planets, in space, and at the edge of the universe (not that you'll find much Caesium there).
Perhaps it'd help to think of time as a number rather than an object. The same way we consider distance. If you and I stand three metres apart, that distance of three metres doesn't exist as a physical object. You can't pick up three metres and put it in your pocket.
As humans we're more used to the concept of distance because we can control it, and it is elastic. If I take four steps towards you, I am now one metre away as opposed to three metres. Time is elastic too; we just don't ever move fast enough to notice relativistic effects so we don't view time in the same way as distance. We should do, though.
The issue with the Caesium example is that it's still arbitrary. The fact that natural events occur with precision doesn't validate time, it just validates our measurement of it. And while I love relativity, it doesn't mean time isn't a "real thing", to use the OP's words.
The scientific principle we should be discussing is entropy, otherwise known as the second law of thermodynamics. Barring a few other rare forces, it is the only physical, universal law that REQUIRES temporal direction. It is the reason that eggs break but never spontaneously reassemble, and the reason that it is impossible (yes, impossible) for all the air particles in the room to suddenly compress into a corner of the room. Entropy is the arrow of time.
I almost went into arbitrariness and the difference between the measurement of time and time itself yesterday but I was up to three paragraphs in a trice and I could see another thirty looming.
You made me think about it again, though. My brain is too tired and hungover to put too much effort into the following question but I'm interested in your answer.
Entropy is so awesome. Such an underrated scientific principle.
I think the question that the OP is positing refers to the arbitrariness of time, or rather our structuralization of time, which is what you were getting at. As far as your question is concerned... my friend once asked me if I believe love exists. I said it must, if only for the fact that someone felt it strongly enough to name it that.
Eschewing any talk of quantum mechanics and collapsing wave-functions (I'm assuming you're not trying to go there), no, I don't think you can measure something that doesn't exist. It's a bit of an odd question though, because I'm no longer sure what you mean by "exist". It's like asking if we can create a word that doesn't have a definition... or what the sound of one hand clapping is.
I'm with you on entropy, by the way. When I studied physics most of the things I learned seemed like things I already knew, but entropy is something I hadn't really considered much.
I take your point about love, too. Although I'd amend it and say that it has a name because it's important enough for people to 'want' it to exist, not necessarily because it does. Same goes for God, ghosts, energy from crystals
Is my belief about time normal?
← View full post
I can understand the viewpoint. It was only recently that scientists were even able to prove that times always moves in one direction. But time does exist outside of human thought. The most modern definition of a second refers to things which happen periodically in a fantastically stable isotope of Caesium. This is completely independent of humans and happens on other planets, in space, and at the edge of the universe (not that you'll find much Caesium there).
Perhaps it'd help to think of time as a number rather than an object. The same way we consider distance. If you and I stand three metres apart, that distance of three metres doesn't exist as a physical object. You can't pick up three metres and put it in your pocket.
As humans we're more used to the concept of distance because we can control it, and it is elastic. If I take four steps towards you, I am now one metre away as opposed to three metres. Time is elastic too; we just don't ever move fast enough to notice relativistic effects so we don't view time in the same way as distance. We should do, though.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The issue with the Caesium example is that it's still arbitrary. The fact that natural events occur with precision doesn't validate time, it just validates our measurement of it. And while I love relativity, it doesn't mean time isn't a "real thing", to use the OP's words.
The scientific principle we should be discussing is entropy, otherwise known as the second law of thermodynamics. Barring a few other rare forces, it is the only physical, universal law that REQUIRES temporal direction. It is the reason that eggs break but never spontaneously reassemble, and the reason that it is impossible (yes, impossible) for all the air particles in the room to suddenly compress into a corner of the room. Entropy is the arrow of time.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I almost went into arbitrariness and the difference between the measurement of time and time itself yesterday but I was up to three paragraphs in a trice and I could see another thirty looming.
You made me think about it again, though. My brain is too tired and hungover to put too much effort into the following question but I'm interested in your answer.
Can you measure something which doesn't exist?
Not a trick or a trap, by the way.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Entropy is so awesome. Such an underrated scientific principle.
I think the question that the OP is positing refers to the arbitrariness of time, or rather our structuralization of time, which is what you were getting at. As far as your question is concerned... my friend once asked me if I believe love exists. I said it must, if only for the fact that someone felt it strongly enough to name it that.
Eschewing any talk of quantum mechanics and collapsing wave-functions (I'm assuming you're not trying to go there), no, I don't think you can measure something that doesn't exist. It's a bit of an odd question though, because I'm no longer sure what you mean by "exist". It's like asking if we can create a word that doesn't have a definition... or what the sound of one hand clapping is.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm with you on entropy, by the way. When I studied physics most of the things I learned seemed like things I already knew, but entropy is something I hadn't really considered much.
I take your point about love, too. Although I'd amend it and say that it has a name because it's important enough for people to 'want' it to exist, not necessarily because it does. Same goes for God, ghosts, energy from crystals
I never know if the things I write make any sense to other people.