6 ms·

I'm glad you've bothered to answer. I don't need a fancy proof either - any proof would be enough. What we both can agree is that things or processes are happe

I'm glad you've bothered to answer. I don't need a fancy proof either - any proof would be enough. What we both can agree is that things or processes are happening. They don't need time for that. Constant change, constant mutation doesn't require past or future, but now only. But as I said, we - intelligent species - need a concept of time to predict how the change will proceed. What we measure in clocks depends on a clock - a sand falling down in a sand glass, a pendulum or a spring cycle and so on. After this we make a relation from this event and start to measure other events with it. Still it's just things happening, not a prove of a time existence. If you say that you experience time. Well. That's how neural network works - they are shaped by events/impulses which happened to the network and accessing this information gives you illusion of a past - but this information encoded in your brain exists now. > Doesn't matter. It's enough that we can measure it, we don't care for the "thing in itself" or if it's merely some illusion. We live in a universe where whether it's an illusion or not, it has the same effects for us (e.g. we grow old, things change state, our clock dials rotate). So we agree in a part that things change state and this is enough to imply growing old and rotating clocks. I don't agree it doesn't matter - as if the time doesn't exist, we don't need to have a pointless discussion about "travelling in time".

coldtea 8y ago
>Constant change, constant mutation doesn't require past or future, but now only. The change itself might not, but to perceive something as having changed, e.g. to understand that what is in N state now was in some N - 1 state before, and N - 2 before that, presupposes time (or rather, can be considered the same thing as time). >So we agree in a part that things change state and this is enough to imply growing old and rotating clocks. I don't agree it doesn't matter - as if the time doesn't exist, we don't need to have a pointless discussion about "travelling in time". It wouldn't be pointless as to the actual phenomena we'd experience. It would the same as asking "since we see we can grow old, or see the clock hand rotating, can we somehow manage to go to the now moment when we were young, or where the clock hand was 1 hour before?".
- madmaniak 8y ago
  So the question is, when you broke a vase can you glue it back to the previous state - and the answer is yes. The more exact state you'd like to achieve the more effort it will require. But having the same state again doesn't mean you've travelled in time, but only that somehow the same state occur one more time (or better to say once again ;) ).
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I think what the parent is getting at is that the progression of states is time. If you think of time as just the entire universe morphing through a progression of different quantum states, and then find a way to modify the quantum state of the entire universe so that it is equivalent to a previous quantum state, then "traveling through time" would easily be a colloquial way of saying what you've done. Though I suppose you didn't really travel; you reset everything -- including yourself -- to a previous state/time. If you could isolate yourself, and then return the rest of the universe to some previous state (while finding a coherent place for your personal newer state in the old rest-of-universe state, possibly editing out the parts of the universe's state that contain the old you), then "traveling" would make more sense. > but only that somehow the same state occur one more time Assuming that state transitions are deterministic (apart from your meddling that allowed you to return to a prior state, that is), then this is equivalent to rolling back time, so the distinction doesn't really matter. If you pick a quantum state that occurred 10 years ago (by your subjective perception of time), then everyone will be 10 years younger, people who were born in the last 10 years will no longer exist, and people who died in the last 10 years will be alive again. Also remember that everyone has their own reference frame when determining time. There's no such thing as "absolute time", or even the absolute passage of time. But that's ok; we don't need that to be the case for this to work out.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    That's for a vase. Why would it have to be the same for time? This presupposes that time is unidirectional -- which it was supposed to prove.
- CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
justinpombrio 8y ago
At some point you're going to realize that this kind of argument applies to everything else as well, not just time. When that happens, I do hope you'll give us back the word "exists". It's a useful word.
- madmaniak 8y ago
  Word exists is useful, the same like the concept of time. I don't take it anywhere no worries. "This kind of argument" you mean "argument"? Arguments applies to everything, agree. This kind of argument applies first of all to time and possibly to something else by analogy. Beauty of reasoning. But if in some hypothetical universe, you realise by arguments, that nothing exists - what's the reason of "giving back the word" which in this hypothetical universe has no meaning? I don't follow this logic.
  - justinpombrio 8y ago
    > This kind of argument applies first of all to time and possibly to something else by analogy. I think you'll find that your argument that time does not exist also applies to literally everything else. Space does not exist. Matter does not exist. People do not exist. There is no clearly defined moment of birth or death, or boundary between a person and the rest of the world; thus "people" don't exist. To use your words: If you say that you experience seeing distinct people. Well. That's how neural networks work - they categorize the events/impulses which happened to the network into distinct objects that didn't exist in the events/impulses themselves. > But if in some hypothetical universe, you realise by arguments, that nothing exists - what's the reason of "giving back the word" which in this hypothetical universe has no meaning? I don't follow this logic. If you define a word such that it never applies, you're communicating badly. By the above arguments, nothing exists. And by the definition of the word "exists" that you're using, that's correct: nothing exists. But that's a dumb way to define "exists". It's a perfectly useful word. And you should give it a more reasonable definition such that time, space, and people exist.
    - madmaniak 8y ago
GoblinSlayer 8y ago
If there's only now - that's zero dimensional time, but it's still existing time, it's just not an extended dimension.
- madmaniak 8y ago
  Which also implies there's nowhere to travel in this case.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Not really. A reconfiguration of the matter on the world on the same state would still be exactly equivalent to a travel back in time (to that "now") in that case. And such a time travel might not even take active agency to happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theor...
    - madmaniak 8y ago
      It would be an equivalent but not travelling in time itself. If I will go by car to point B I can't say I was travelling by train just because of the same result. Occurring the same state is obvious on condition of finite amount of state and infinite amount of mutations. The question is if amount of states are finite.

coldtea 8y ago

>Constant change, constant mutation doesn't require past or future, but now only. The change itself might not, but to perceive something as having changed, e.g. to understand that what is in N state now was in some N - 1 state before, and N - 2 before that, presupposes time (or rather, can be considered the same thing as time). >So we agree in a part that things change state and this is enough to imply growing old and rotating clocks. I don't agree it doesn't matter - as if the time doesn't exist, we don't need to have a pointless discussion about "travelling in time". It wouldn't be pointless as to the actual phenomena we'd experience. It would the same as asking "since we see we can grow old, or see the clock hand rotating, can we somehow manage to go to the now moment when we were young, or where the clock hand was 1 hour before?".

madmaniak 8y ago
So the question is, when you broke a vase can you glue it back to the previous state - and the answer is yes. The more exact state you'd like to achieve the more effort it will require. But having the same state again doesn't mean you've travelled in time, but only that somehow the same state occur one more time (or better to say once again ;) ).
- kelnos 8y ago
  I think what the parent is getting at is that the progression of states is time. If you think of time as just the entire universe morphing through a progression of different quantum states, and then find a way to modify the quantum state of the entire universe so that it is equivalent to a previous quantum state, then "traveling through time" would easily be a colloquial way of saying what you've done. Though I suppose you didn't really travel; you reset everything -- including yourself -- to a previous state/time. If you could isolate yourself, and then return the rest of the universe to some previous state (while finding a coherent place for your personal newer state in the old rest-of-universe state, possibly editing out the parts of the universe's state that contain the old you), then "traveling" would make more sense. > but only that somehow the same state occur one more time Assuming that state transitions are deterministic (apart from your meddling that allowed you to return to a prior state, that is), then this is equivalent to rolling back time, so the distinction doesn't really matter. If you pick a quantum state that occurred 10 years ago (by your subjective perception of time), then everyone will be 10 years younger, people who were born in the last 10 years will no longer exist, and people who died in the last 10 years will be alive again. Also remember that everyone has their own reference frame when determining time. There's no such thing as "absolute time", or even the absolute passage of time. But that's ok; we don't need that to be the case for this to work out.
- coldtea 8y ago
  That's for a vase. Why would it have to be the same for time? This presupposes that time is unidirectional -- which it was supposed to prove.
CuriousSkeptic 8y ago

justinpombrio 8y ago

At some point you're going to realize that this kind of argument applies to everything else as well, not just time. When that happens, I do hope you'll give us back the word "exists". It's a useful word.

madmaniak 8y ago
Word exists is useful, the same like the concept of time. I don't take it anywhere no worries. "This kind of argument" you mean "argument"? Arguments applies to everything, agree. This kind of argument applies first of all to time and possibly to something else by analogy. Beauty of reasoning. But if in some hypothetical universe, you realise by arguments, that nothing exists - what's the reason of "giving back the word" which in this hypothetical universe has no meaning? I don't follow this logic.
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  > This kind of argument applies first of all to time and possibly to something else by analogy. I think you'll find that your argument that time does not exist also applies to literally everything else. Space does not exist. Matter does not exist. People do not exist. There is no clearly defined moment of birth or death, or boundary between a person and the rest of the world; thus "people" don't exist. To use your words: If you say that you experience seeing distinct people. Well. That's how neural networks work - they categorize the events/impulses which happened to the network into distinct objects that didn't exist in the events/impulses themselves. > But if in some hypothetical universe, you realise by arguments, that nothing exists - what's the reason of "giving back the word" which in this hypothetical universe has no meaning? I don't follow this logic. If you define a word such that it never applies, you're communicating badly. By the above arguments, nothing exists. And by the definition of the word "exists" that you're using, that's correct: nothing exists. But that's a dumb way to define "exists". It's a perfectly useful word. And you should give it a more reasonable definition such that time, space, and people exist.
  - madmaniak 8y ago

GoblinSlayer 8y ago

If there's only now - that's zero dimensional time, but it's still existing time, it's just not an extended dimension.

madmaniak 8y ago
Which also implies there's nowhere to travel in this case.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Not really. A reconfiguration of the matter on the world on the same state would still be exactly equivalent to a travel back in time (to that "now") in that case. And such a time travel might not even take active agency to happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theor...
  - madmaniak 8y ago
    It would be an equivalent but not travelling in time itself. If I will go by car to point B I can't say I was travelling by train just because of the same result. Occurring the same state is obvious on condition of finite amount of state and infinite amount of mutations. The question is if amount of states are finite.