Time is relative too

Hey Brodix,

Here some more thoughts.
(Quotes from Brodix)

___

"It is like a loop of rope being braided out of strands pulled from what was already braided."

I'm still trying to picture that...

___

"Because there is no universal point or frame of reference, there is no universal timeline. "

Yes, it's safe to say that every modelled element should have its own frame of reference and timeline.
But depending on the model it may be possible to define universal time and space. A model containing singularities will always struggle with this definition.

___

"This is because to record new information, you have to destroy old information."

If the old information is destroyed, the new information isn't really being recorded, is it?
We can predict the future motion of our solar system just as bad as we can predict (postdict?) it in the past.
There is definitely a symmetry in our concept of time here. As for the planets ... they simply do what's necessary in the present. If only we could be that wise.

___

"...otherwise our ability to sense these distortions would also be affected."

Hehe, yeah, but what about the distortions we aren't able to sense?

___

Greetings, Michiel.

Michiel,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, it's safe to say that every modelled element should have its own frame of reference and timeline.
But depending on the model it may be possible to define universal time and space. A model containing singularities will always struggle with this definition. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, But this universal time is an averaging of all the other motion. The reason cesium atoms work so well as a clock is that they all decay at the exact same rate. (Meanwhile the energy they are shedding is radiating back out into the larger process, to eventually be incorporated into other systems.)

Just as temperature is the general level of motion against a scale. Time is the average rate of motion of individual points of reference against their context. This context is not an absolute, but is moving opposite the point of reference. Think of a boat moving through the water. As the bow pushes water out of the way, a similar amount is being sucked into the wake. While most of the effect is distributed across the larger body of water, there is some movement of water in the opposite direction of the boat being created. Ultimately all motion balances out.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the old information is destroyed, the new information isn't really being recorded, is it?. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The energy is always in some position, so there will always be more information then we can ever consider.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We can predict the future motion of our solar system just as bad as we can predict (postdict?) it in the past.. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, that is the thread we are in the middle of, but the further you look in either direction, the less you can predict, or analyze, because the information of the past breaks down and the potential factors of the future multiply.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is definitely a symmetry in our concept of time here. As for the planets ... they simply do what's necessary in the present. If only we could be that wise.. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The more basic the principles are, the more universal they are.

Hehe, yeah, but what about the distortions we aren't able to sense?. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What we don't know is infinite.

regards,

brodix

Hello Brodix,

Great to have the opportunity to have this chat with you.

Brodix:
"Yes, But this universal time is an averaging of all the other motion."

I agree, this universal reference frame we choose would be an average of all motion we know about.

___


Brodix:
"The reason cesium atoms work so well as a clock is that they all decay at the exact same rate. "

The cesium atoms don't decay in a radioactive sense. They resonate, emitting energy they recieved earlier.
The reason they work so well as a clock is that they are modelled as a stable, indivisible element.
If we wanted to model the atom internally, I wonder, would we need to invent a new clock?

___


Brodix:
"Ultimately all motion balances out."

Yes indeed, this in turn because the universe is modelled as an element.

___

Brodix:
"What we don't know is infinite."

That's a planet-sized wisdom. (Or a bigbang-sized wisdom for bigbangers)

___

See you soon, Michiel.

<i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
If we wanted to model the atom internally, I wonder, would we need to invent a new clock?

Or maybe a new model of motion. The basis of our logic is of the unit(noun), with process(verb) as a consequence. Waves, particles and now strings are attempts to finalize the concept of the unit, yet they have all been unsuccessful in doing so. As my point about time suggests, maybe unit and process are indivisble concepts that need to be considered in a dualistic relationship.

Obviously, there is much thought along these lines, but as the mind is a process and its units are the thoughts produced, it is difficult to develop the idea and not conclude with some sort of conceptual object.

regards,

brodix

Michiel,

You have to disagree with me to really get me thinking.

Here is a good example of someone who is taking swings at my pitches;

www.book-of-thoth.com/forum-20.html

regards,

brodix

Hi Brodix,

Brodix:
"You have to disagree with me to really get me thinking."

Well, I disagree. We could have a sound discussion without disagreement. We could learn from it or even invent new concepts.
Then when a fundamental difference of opinion came up we would disagree and try to convince eachother.
I'm not a polemicist. People who are often end up stuck to some wrong point of view.


Brodix:
"Here is a good example of someone who is taking swings at my pitches"

I don't play baseball, but I do play darts. In this game every player throws his own darts.
It's interesting to read the 'same' discussion on another forum, though.

___

Brodix:
"Waves, particles and now strings are attempts to finalize the concept of the unit, yet they have all been unsuccessful in doing so."

The Meta Model attempts to finalize (as in 'kill') the concept of the unit. It assumes that there are always smaller or larger scales to be found. Are you up to speed with the basics of the Meta Model?


Brodix:
"Obviously, there is much thought along these lines, but as the mind is a process and its units are the thoughts produced, it is difficult to develop the idea and not conclude with some sort of conceptual object."

The mind can only hold concepts. All we need is a logical model that describes what we can sense. That seems simple enough, but of course is not. What we sense depends on the model, and what's logical is an axioma.
The model doesn't have to be perfect as long as you know its limitations. And the ultimate test is verification by experiment.


All the best, Michiel.