Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[SelfSim]

I don't follow you, assuming you're not lapsing into solipsism.

Solipism would rule out the possibility of there being 'something' which exists independently from (human) minds. If I've inadvertantly done that, then I apologise, because that is not my intention. Feel free to point it out to me, as I acknowledge that I sometimes tread a fine line. (Precision about that is important for sustaining the integrity of the mind dependent concept, here).

There is evidence that the predictive model and the external world from which the senses obtain their data are different - and the sensory data itself is used to attempt to minimize the significant differences.

I think you're making the distinction here between theoretical models (predictive) and empirical observations(?) Both can be developed by following the scientific process, and there should be an objective test and resulting evidence signifying this.

However, one cannot objectively test for the mind independence of the 'external world' part of this. Assuming the existence of such, typically represents a departure from the scientific process.

Having said that, the 'external world' component is typically what we like to believe as 'being true' and the adoption of this belief usually has no impact on the key aspects of what you say above. So I think(?) we're in agreement, with this added qualification.

It's virtual in as much as we experience a model or simulation of the world our senses detect (what's commonly called the 'real' world).

Ok .. I understand your meaning of 'virtual' then.

I also acknowledge that 'real world' is what many of us call 'what we detect by our senses' (incorporating the usual meanings associated with it). However, the process they follow in arriving at those meanings can be retraced (tracked) and is almost always not the scientific process. Whilst the scientific process can be used to do it, the meanings in so doing, are fundamentally different.

Its also fair enough to say that philosophy and science are highly blurred in this forum. I stand for maintaining the distinctions between the two, seeing as most conversations are about topics which acquire their objective meanings by following the scientific process.

 

[Michael]

Solipism would rule out the possibility of there being 'something' which exists independently from (human) minds. If I've inadvertantly done that, then I apologise, because that is not my intention. Feel free to point it out to me, as I acknowledge that I sometimes tread a fine line. (Precision about that is important for sustaining the integrity of the mind dependent concept, here).

I think you're making the distinction here between theoretical models (predictive) and empirical observations(?) Both can be developed by following the scientific process, and there should be an objective test and resulting evidence signifying this.

However, one cannot objectively test for the mind independence of the 'external world' part of this. Assuming the existence of such, typically represents a departure from the scientific process.

In my experience, what you're calling the "scientific process" is often very subjective and still has a "virtual" component to it. Hubble looked at the redshift "observational" evidence for instance, and he personally "interpreted" it to be caused by "tired light" processes. You however "interpret" the same raw observation in terms of redshift being caused by "expansion of space" in spite of the fact that an expansion interpretation of the redshift observation has failed two important 'observational tests" in the last two decades.

Even your notion of being able to apply a "scientific process" to that question of the cause of redshift looks quite subjective since Chen has empirically demonstrated a cause/effect link in a lab to plasma redshift to support Hubble's assumption as to cause, whereas your assumption as to cause grossly violates known conservation of energy laws and *cannot* be verified or falsified in the lab, now or in the future. How is that not a subjective choice on your part and how does your opinion as to cause square with the "scientific method" from your perspective?

I think FB is right that there's ample enough evidence of time dilation to suggest that it is a "real" (or at least repeatable) phenomenon, but even the concept of "time" and the concept of "time dilation" might simply be an 'interpretation" of repeatable observation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you're making the distinction here between theoretical models (predictive) and empirical observations(?)

Not really; my comments were specifically about how the brain models the world, as being revealed by neuroscience.

Both can be developed by following the scientific process, and there should be an objective test and resulting evidence signifying this.

However, one cannot objectively test for the mind independence of the 'external world' part of this. Assuming the existence of such, typically represents a departure from the scientific process.

Sure. But people don't use the scientific process in the navigation of their everyday lives. They (in general) assume that their senses are windows on a real external world that they experience, whereas it seems that they actually perceive and experience a simulation, a virtual world, an internal model of the external world.

Having said that, the 'external world' component is typically what we like to believe as 'being true' and the adoption of this belief usually has no impact on the key aspects of what you say above. So I think(?) we're in agreement, with this added qualification.

OK.

I also acknowledge that 'real world' is what many of us call 'what we detect by our senses' (incorporating the usual meanings associated with it). However, the process they follow in arriving at those meanings can be retraced (tracked) and is almost always not the scientific process. Whilst the scientific process can be used to do it, the meanings in so doing, are fundamentally different.

OK.

Its also fair enough to say that philosophy and science are highly blurred in this forum. I stand for maintaining the distinctions between the two, seeing as most conversations are about topics which acquire their objective meanings by following the scientific process.

OK.

My only comment on this would be that there are different levels of discourse available, and to maintain effective communication it is best not to mix them.

 

[Michael]

Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards

 

[SelfSim]

Not really; my comments were specifically about how the brain models the world, as being revealed by neuroscience.

Ok .. I see .. (no worries).

Sure. But people don't use the scientific process in the navigation of their everyday lives. They (in general) assume that their senses are windows on a real external world that they experience, whereas it seems that they actually perceive and experience a simulation, a virtual world, an internal model of the external world.

Sure .. whenever I bump into the door frame that was plainly visible before I attempted to go through it, I'll keep that in mind .. (ouch!) .. Even scientific thinkers do that occasionally, too: 'Was the door frame's location somehow concealed in nature .. or was my thinking too narrowly focused on where I thought it 'must' have been located?' (All more evidence of a mind always seeking to explain its own perceptions .. and itself).

My only comment on this would be that there are different levels of discourse available, and to maintain effective communication it is best not to mix them.

.. in an ideal world, eh?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards

That's an old and strangely confused article - in 1999 Lawrence Schulman showed how regions of reverse time could coexist with regions of 'normal' time; Sean Carroll described a similar, but entropic mirror universe in 2004, not just a single entropic arrow of time (he and Alan Guth have a better model in the works).

Lee Billings (Scientific American) seems to be confusing low complexity with low entropy, but they're not the same thing at all - for example, our universe will reach maximum complexity very early on in its life, while its entropy will continue increasing as its complexity reduces.

 

[Michael]

That's an old and strangely confused article - in 1999 Lawrence Schulman showed how regions of reverse time could coexist with regions of 'normal' time; Sean Carroll described a similar, but entropic mirror universe in 2004, not just a single entropic arrow of time (he and Alan Guth have a better model in the works).

Lee Billings (Scientific American) seems to be confusing low complexity with low entropy, but they're not the same thing at all - for example, our universe will reach maximum complexity very early on in its life, while its entropy will continue increasing as its complexity reduces.

Ya it's confused alright, and I'm not sure it's actually a 'mirror universe' of the Big Bang model which is based on GR theory:

To test the idea, the theory’s proponents assembled a simple model with nothing more than 1,000 particles and the physics of Newtonian gravity'.

How does "spacetime" contract or expand in Newtonian gravity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ya it's confused alright, and I'm not sure it's actually a 'mirror universe' of the Big Bang model which is based on GR theory:

...
How does "spacetime" contract or expand in Newtonian gravity?

It's possible the model was using Newtonian dynamics for simplicity, to demonstrate the time-direction-evolution principle. Spacetime expansion per-se probably wouldn't make much difference beyond a predictable distortion.

 

[Michael]

It's possible the model was using Newtonian dynamics for simplicity, to demonstrate the time-direction-evolution principle. Spacetime expansion per-se probably wouldn't make much difference beyond a predictable distortion.

I'm sure that it was done for the sake of simplicity but it's rather dubious then to claim that it is a "mirror" of the LCMD model without GR or spacetime or space contraction/expansion. I have no idea how it's even similar without the core properties of GR to make it work right. Where you you put "dark energy" or space expansion in a Newtonian formula? How do you define "spacetime" without GR?

 

[RDKirk]

In Christianity, time exists independently.

Inasmuch as most Christians believe that time was created along with the rest of Creation, what is time independent of? When did time ever exist independently of anything else that was created?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sure that it was done for the sake of simplicity but it's rather dubious then to claim that it is a "mirror" of the LCMD model without GR or spacetime or space contraction/expansion. I have no idea how it's even similar without the core properties of GR to make it work right. Where you you put "dark energy" or space expansion in a Newtonian formula? How do you define "spacetime" without GR?

They make no claim about it being a mirror of LCMD, the 'mirror' refers to the mirror symmetry in the forward-time and reverse-time universes resulting from the start point.

They describe it as:

"an exceedingly simple proxy for our universe, a computer simulation of 1,000 pointlike particles interacting under the influence of Newtonian gravity."
​

It was simply a demonstration that a mirror-universe configuration can emerge as a result of gravitational interactions alone.

 

[juvenissun]

Inasmuch as most Christians believe that time was created along with the rest of Creation, what is time independent of? When did time ever exist independently of anything else that was created?

The message I responded to says: time is dependent on motion (no motion, no time). That is the time-space idea. God creates time before He creates space. That is the independence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In my experience, what you're calling the "scientific process" is often very subjective and still has a "virtual" component to it. Hubble looked at the redshift "observational" evidence for instance, and he personally "interpreted" it to be caused by "tired light" processes. You however "interpret" the same raw observation in terms of redshift being caused by "expansion of space" in spite of the fact that an expansion interpretation of the redshift observation has failed two important 'observational tests" in the last two decades.

Even your notion of being able to apply a "scientific process" to that question of the cause of redshift looks quite subjective since Chen has empirically demonstrated a cause/effect link in a lab to plasma redshift to support Hubble's assumption as to cause, whereas your assumption as to cause grossly violates known conservation of energy laws and *cannot* be verified or falsified in the lab, now or in the future. How is that not a subjective choice on your part and how does your opinion as to cause square with the "scientific method" from your perspective?

I think FB is right that there's ample enough evidence of time dilation to suggest that it is a "real" (or at least repeatable) phenomenon, but even the concept of "time" and the concept of "time dilation" might simply be an 'interpretation" of repeatable observation.

As for cosmological redshift you are quite correct. It has nothing to do with a magical expansion of nothing, but is merely caused from the interaction of light with charged particles in space.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

The greater the distance, the more particles are interacted with, hence the increase in redshift with distance.

It is a shame that they keep trying to use Hubble’s name in association with expansion when he himself did not agree that this was the cause of cosmological redshift.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The message I responded to says: time is dependent on motion (no motion, no time). That is the time-space idea. God creates time before He creates space. That is the independence.

Actually time starts with creation, hence an evening and a morning, one day......

 

[RDKirk]

People keep saying "time is the measurement of movement."

No, time is the measurement of change.

Movement is a kind of change, but it's not the only kind of change.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

People keep saying "time is the measurement of movement."

No, time is the measurement of change.

Movement is a kind of change, but it's not the only kind of change.

What other kind of change is there?

It all involves movement at the basic scale.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As for cosmological redshift you are quite correct. It has nothing to do with a magical expansion of nothing, but is merely caused from the interaction of light with charged particles in space.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

The greater the distance, the more particles are interacted with, hence the increase in redshift with distance.

It is a shame that they keep trying to use Hubble’s name in association with expansion when he himself did not agree that this was the cause of cosmological redshift.

Here's an interesting commentary on the issue: Seeing Red.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's an interesting commentary on the issue: Seeing Red.

Mainstream just doesn’t want to abandon their belief that they can determine distances by redshift. Because without this correlation they have no way to determine distance.

So even if Hubble’s law requires that recessional velocity be directly correlated to redshift, they still use this to determine distance. The problem is they don’t believe it is the recessional velocity, but the expansion of space that causes the redshift.

Hubble’s law can not be used to determine distance since IF it is not recessional velocity but expansion causing the redshift, then his law is irrelevant.

Once technology advanced and the z values got to high, they abandoned redshift caused by recessional velocity and instituted expansion of space. This prevents any falsification of their belief since expansion can never be tested.

Even if it is already falsified since it is no longer recessional velocity causing the redshift, and so Hubble’s law can not be used....

Also too much conflicting data has been discovered about supernova to continue with the belief they can be used as standard candles.....

What the article fails to mention is their survey is based upon distances determined from calculations based upon redshift that require recessional velocity to be the cause of that redshift. Then don’t mention that they don’t believe redshift is caused by recessional velocity, but by expansion of spacetime.

In other words the light isn’t redshifted because of the velocity of the galaxy away from us, but because space is expanding causing an elongation in the wavelength.

No experiment or observation has correlated any magical expansion of nothing to a redshift caused by the velocity of an object away from the observer.

Also it is interesting to note that no experiment has shown any redshift outside of a medium. This is why Doppler is explained with sound waves moving through a medium. Then they tell you the redshift of light is just like that except there is no medium.

In reality they have no explanation except to tell you about how it happens in a medium then tell you it is just like that, only different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Mainstream just doesn’t want to abandon their belief that they can determine distances by redshift. Because without this correlation they have no way to determine distance.

There are other measures, and they broadly agree with the Hubble redshift.

So even if Hubble’s law requires that recessional velocity be directly correlated to redshift, they still use this to determine distance. The problem is they don’t believe it is the recessional velocity, but the expansion of space that causes the redshift.

As I've said previously, recession velocity is not an alternative to the expansion of space, it's simply the speed of increase in distance of some object away from a point of reference. It can be due to the expansion of space or proper motion, or both. This makes the rest of your diatribe moot - unless you want to reword it using terms that will make sense.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually time starts with creation, hence an evening and a morning, one day......

Earlier than that. "In the beginning ..."
It is amazing that the Bible starts with the creation of time.