Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Originally Posted by Xei

The job of physics is to create working models. A model for something unobservable with no empirical consequences is a nonsense. In my opinion, the statement "time existed before the universe started" (and its negation) are literally meaningless, and are symptomatic of the human tendency to vastly overestimate the efficacy of the thing we call 'thought'.

That was really my point as well. I guess it might not have come across all that well.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ But then again, remember that there is no such thing as time.

Time is a tool we use in order to lend order to our reality. You can't see it, touch it, change it, or make more of it. Its only true existence is as a control of sorts in the theoretical physics equations (maybe as the bit that helps the math make sense to us?).

I disagree with this statement. While we can't "touch it", we can observe the effects it has. There is no question that from our perspective things happen in order, and not all at once (though special relativity teach us that actions that are simultaneous in one reference system doesn't have to be simultaneous in another). Therefore time is an observable phenomenon, and thus "something".

If you both define the meaning of the word 'exists' precisely enough, you'll find your disagreement vanishes into a tautological agreement.

Originally Posted by Xei

If you both define the meaning of the word 'exists' precisely enough, you'll find your disagreement vanishes into a tautological agreement.

Not really.

The statement that things happen in order "from our perspective" does not lead in any logical way to the conclusion that "therefore time is an observable phenomenon, and thus 'something.'" The "something being observed" is the change of the object being observed, and not time. In other words, the only thing that ever "exists" is the object being observed, and time is simply a decidedly abstract and subjective tool of observation.

I guess we might be saying the same thing when "from our perspective" is considered, since that was sort of my point: time only exists because we need it to do so. But our perspective does not create existence; it only defines it. So if no sentient beings were around to use time as a measuring stick for reality, there would be no time.

You say "not really" but then you make no effort to actually counter my claim. You just used the word "exists" again between inverted commas... you still haven't defined it, so you have no idea if khh is using the same definition; that is, you could just be completely talking past each other.

Possibly.

I'd say time exists in the same sense that gravity exists. We can see neither with our eyes, but we can observe the effect they have on the objects around us.

Originally Posted by Xei

You say "not really" but then you make no effort to actually counter my claim. You just used the word "exists" again between inverted commas... you still haven't defined it, so you have no idea if khh is using the same definition; that is, you could just be completely talking past each other.

I think it's not us, but you, Xei, who seems lost in semantics. Those inverted commas are actually quotation marks meant simply to amplify the word, BTW. And yes, I did indeed make no effort to counter your claim. There seemed to be no need; sorry.

I don't need to define existence, and neither does khh, in order to say if something exists or not. That would be absurd. If we were talking about the Eiffel Tower, would we also first have to define Paris before we could talk? I don't think so. For what it's worth, though, on re-reading our posts, we both did seem to acknowledge similar definitions of "exist" without quoting the dictionary.

Khh and I do not have to agree on the definition of exist in order to express our ideas; I get no impression from him that he thinks something exists for reasons other than I do -- I'm not sure about from where you got that.

Originally Posted by khh

I'd say time exists in the same sense that gravity exists. We can see neither with our eyes, but we can observe the effect they have on the objects around us.

Actually, we have seen gravity with our eyes (ie, the observance of light bending as it passes near black holes or stars), and we have been able to experimentally confirm it as an actual force that can be observed, measured, and, theoretically, changed.

We still don't know what gravity is or much about how or why it works, but it does exist empirically. And no, I'm not going to define "exist;" I think you know what I mean. ;

Originally Posted by Sageous

Actually, we have seen gravity with our eyes (ie, the observance of light bending as it passes near black holes or stars), and we have been able to experimentally confirm it as an actual force that can be observed, measured, and, theoretically, changed.

We still don't know what gravity is or much about how or why it works, but it does exist empirically. And no, I'm not going to define "exist;" I think you know what I mean. ;

I don't see how observing that light bend due to gravity is different than observing that objects change over time. I'd say time can be observed, measured and, theoretically, changed just as much as gravity can. More, actually, as I don't see how gravity can be changed, while we have proven through experiments that time moves slower when you're travailing faster (compared to another reference system).

^^ Okay; one last shot, then I promise to give up:

Observing gravity bending light is different because, frankly, you're observing gravity bending the light, due to its own natural force, while the changes that occur to an object over time have nothing whatsoever to do with time itself -- other forces are causing the changes; time is just the tool used to measure that change. That is the difference.

As you approach the speed of light, your passage of time does indeed slow down, relative to people not moving at that speed... However, time appears to be passing at the same rate to you. Also, this experience comes not from changing time,but from changing other actual forces resulting in high speed.

One thing you keep mentioning is that time is relative, based on the perspective of the observer. Gravity and the electromagnetic forces are always the same, no matter who is observing, anywhere in the universe. Why is there a difference, if time is an actual force?

And for what it's worth, I don't see how gravity can be influenced, but I'm not a theoretical mathematician, either.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I think it's not us, but you, Xei, who seems lost in semantics.

Asking what something means, as opposed to how it's expressed, is the exact opposite of semantics.

Your disinclination to answer the question is what's causing a semantic disagreement.

If we were talking about the Eiffel Tower, would we also first have to define Paris before we could talk? I don't think so.

No? But how on Earth is this analogous? You would certainly have to define what you meant by the Eiffel Tower (if there was reason to suspect a disagreement) before you talked about the Eiffel Tower.

I don't need to define existence, and neither does khh, in order to say if something exists or not. That would be absurd.

Er. Yes you do.

What exactly do you think words are for?

I'll answer for you: they are for conveying a concept in your head, into the head of the person with whom you are communicating.

If you are using the word 'bat' to refer to a wooden object to hit a ball with, and khh is using the word 'bat' to refer to a winged mammal, that is a failure to use words for their proper function, and as a result any argument you have will be futile nonsense.

Define your criteria for something existing. If you can't manage this task, which should be simple, do some serious introspection about what it is that you are even doing when you debate existence.

I *think* I can settle this one.

I used to define time the same way Sageous, and say it's only an illusion, and that what people mean when they say time is really nothing but the human invention of clocks and calendars used to measure the movement of objects. But then I realized that's not truly time - no more than the arbitrary definition of inches or centimeters is actual distance. The very fact that movement exists is time. If objects couldn't move in relation to each other, then we wouldn't be able to walk around and measure distance to even understand movement. So to say that time is only a measuring tool is only to move the goalposts. (And you couldn't even do that if there were no time)

Sigh.

Okay, Xei, you win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm just an idiot, you're a genius. The conversation that khh and I have been productively exchanging, while fully understanding each other's definitions, is useless and meaningless simply because you say so. My English degree, the books I've written, my 30+ years experience communicating with others has been rendered meaningless by your superior intellect. You win. Feel better now?

I like to discuss ideas, Xei. Playing word games with sophomoric professors is not fun, or helping anyone. I hope you don't play these inane games in all of your conversations.

I will be careful not to let my inferior intellect darken your door again.

It's a very difficult question to answer simply because nobody knows. You can't be wrong or right when it comes to this kind of question. Although it has science for its base, there is no way anybody could explain how the universe initially came to be. As a general rule, to have an effect, something must first cause the effect but even if the big bang did have a cause, we'd then be back-tracking the cause of the cause and we would have an infinite loop. The only logical way to think about it is to assume that everything has always existed in some form or other; our observable universe is eternal.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Sigh.

Okay, Xei, you win. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm just an idiot, you're a genius. The conversation that khh and I have been productively exchanging, while fully understanding each other's definitions, is useless and meaningless simply because you say so. My English degree, the books I've written, my 30+ years experience communicating with others has been rendered meaningless by your superior intellect. You win. Feel better now?

I like to discuss ideas, Xei. Playing word games with sophomoric professors is not fun, or helping anyone. I hope you don't play these inane games in all of your conversations.

I will be careful not to let my inferior intellect darken your door again.

I was just explaining my philosophical stance on these kinds of discussion. It's not a competition. Where I use blunt language it's to be clear, not condescending.

Originally Posted by Sageous

if no sentient beings were around to use time as a measuring stick for reality, there would be no time.

Would things still move?

I've heard time defined as the 4th dimension, after width height and depth. By that definition, if there were no time, nothing could move.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I *think* I can settle this one.

I used to define time the same way Sageous, and say it's only an illusion, and that what people mean when they say time is really nothing but the human invention of clocks and calendars used to measure the movement of objects. But then I realized that's not truly time - no more than the arbitrary definition of inches or centimeters is actual distance. The very fact that movement exists is time. If objects couldn't move in relation to each other, then we wouldn't be able to walk around and measure distance to even understand movement. So to say that time is only a measuring tool is only to move the goalposts. (And you couldn't even do that if there were no time)

Well said, Darkmatters, that's pretty much what my wife tells me every time I announce to her that time doesn't exist! Though I have lots of responses (like, movement exists regardless of time -- though we observers do need time to measure and understand that movement, or that time is no more an illusion than is a yardstick or pocket calculator), many of them well rehearsed (and, yes, researched), I won't do so here, because enough has been said, and that really wasn't where I was trying to go with my original post; also, none of it had to do with the OP.

Thank you, though, for the infusion of reason, and all apologies to the forum if I got a bit rude back there.

Now back to the conversation, and relevant posts like Araishu's?

Wow, ok. Nice way to say talk to the hand, cause the face aint listening.

I am interested in how you think objects can move without the existence of time, but yet people need time in order to measure that movement. Are people not objects?

And yes, I do believe the nature of time is pretty essential to the original topic of conversation, even if it's not part of the title.

If you define time as only the measure of what everyone else calls time, then you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, can you?

Okay, forget what I just said, for a second.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Would things still move?

I've heard time defined as the 4th dimension, after width height and depth. By that definition, if there were no time, nothing could move.

Yes, things will still move. Time has no influence on movement, so movement happens regardless. It is our measurement of movement that demands time, not the movement itself.

Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension.

Not sure I understand - if things can move, then we'd be perfectly able to walk around with our tape measures, right? In what sense is time necessary for us to measure movement if it's not necessary in order for movement to exist?

But even more essentially, how could anything move if there's no time? You seem to be conflating the measurement of time with time itself - like saying if there's nobody to measure the distance between two rocks then there is no distance between them.

"Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension."

Dimensions as you're using the term refers to the measurement of things - the first 3 are measures of physical properties of objects, the 4th (the measurement of motion) is necessary only because things move. But the measurement of something is not the thing itself. Two rocks do have distance between them whether we measure it or not, and yes, the terms we created as names for our measures are arbitrary, but the distance itself remains the same no matter wheather we measure it in inches or centimeters. Unless of course they're moving, in which case we need to measure the rate of movement. The measuring is not the movement, the movement happens regardless.

What I'm clumsily trying to say is that the measurement of dimensions is a measurement of actual properties, so even though in one sense dimensions are only abstract conecpts, they refer to very real properties that have real effects. Including the dimension of time.

Example: You're standing in the highway and an object is moving toward you. Is it dangerous? In order to determine that, you need to take relative measurements of its dimensions - is the object a flea or a bus? The dimensions are vitally important. Including the rate of the object's movement. If it's a bus and it's hurtling toward you at 60 mph, I believe your reaction would betray that you believe time is very very real and that you need to make expedient use of it.

** Edit
It's clear that these are only semantic differences. In order for us all to have a meaningful discussion and understand each other, a little on-the-fly translation is necessary. Sageous, when you see one of us use the word time, you should substitute "movement". When you use the word time, we should substitute "the abstract measurement of movement, entirely independent of movement itself". In that way I think we'd all be talking about the same thing.

...And keep forgetting...

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I am interested in how you think objects can move without the existence of time, but yet people need time in order to measure that movement. Are people not objects?

People are objects, some more than others, but only in terms of of physical position in space. The part of people that requires time is decidedly not an object, however, that part being our sentient consciousness.

Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds. A ferret can move quite well, but, aside from genetic functions like circadian rhythm and timing a pounce on a fleeing mouse, that ferret has no concept whatsoever of time -- everything in its universe is here & now, period. Yet movement exists. And again, time is not required for that ferret to make its leap onto the mouse; it is simply what we use (and I suppose the ferret in an incredibly rudimentary way) to understand the mechanics of the pounce.

It is the fact that humans know they are moving that caused them to invent time, and build it into their reality as a force of nature -- it's easier to understand that way!

And yes, I do believe the nature of time is pretty essential to the original topic of conversation, even if it's not part of the title.

Yeah. I wouldn't have raised the "time doesn't exist" point if I hadn't thought it relevant. I guess it was the minutia we were dissolving into that I hadn't felt mattered.

If you define time as only the measure of what everyone else calls time, then you can't have a meaningful discussion about it, can you?

Time isn't the "measure of what everyone else calls time," it is the measure we all use to make sense of reality. We all use basically the same measure, so agreement as to our concept of the use if time is almost innate. Indeed, one of my problems above was that I was speaking to the premise that everyone in the room shared the same concept of time intellectually -- and, oddly, that concept need not change, whether time exists or not. Awareness (or use) of time is, after all, one of the defining aspects of sentience.

So yeah, meaningful conversation about the nature of a concept as hard-wired into all of us as time should be easily achieved.

I added a bit on the end of my last post, and what you've said here indicates I was right. Semantic differences. What you're calling time is what the rest of us refer to as an abstract human concept of time - the measuring of it.

Proof: "Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds."

If time doesn't exist until it's conceptualized by intelligent beings, then how could humanity have evolved in order to do that conceptualizing? The 'time' you're talking about obviously didn't exist until we dreamed it up, therefore it's only a conceptualization.

I think you're looking too closely into this. I was pointing out that time does not exist as a force or entity of nature. It has no energy, mass, or other force to define it. This is a global concept, I think, and not terribly detail-oriented.

That said:

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Not sure I understand - if things can move, then we'd be perfectly able to walk around with our tape measures, right? In what sense is time necessary for us to measure movement if it's not necessary in order for movement to exist?

What does time have to do with tape measures? When I compared time to a yardstick I was being analogous, not literal. Things can move, and we can measure them in terms we can understand, which to date are space and time. Time is not necessary to measure objects in space, unless you feel a need to record how long it took to measure lay out the tape measure. Time is necessary to measure velocity, of course, but again it is a measurement of the velocity, not a cause of it.

I'm not sure where you got that question from -- I've been saying from the get-go that movement exists, and did so before we invented time to track it. What am I missing here?

But even more essentially, how could anything move if there's no time? You seem to be conflating the measurement of time with time itself - like saying if there's nobody to measure the distance between two rocks then there is no distance between them.

Again, it isn't movement that requires time, it is our need to understand this movement that requires time. Things move, they always have, and they were doing so long before anyone noticed them moving. It was our need to lend order to that movement that led to the invention of time.

"Time was termed as a dimension, I personally think, because of its necessity in the math, even though it is not a force. And, since dimensions are really no more than definitions we attach to what we see in order to understand them, then yeah, I could see time easily considered a dimension."

Dimensions as you're using the term refers to the measurement of things - the first 3 are measures of physical properties of objects, the 4th (the measurement of motion) is necessary only because things move. But the measurement of something is not the thing itself. Two rocks do have distance between them whether we measure it or not, and yes, the terms we created as names for our measures are arbitrary, but the distance itself remains the same no matter whether we measure it in inches or centimeters. Unless of course they're moving, in which case we need to measure the rate of movement. The measuring is not the movement, the movement happens regardless.

What I'm clumsily trying to say is that the measurement of dimensions is a measurement of actual properties, so even though in one sense dimensions are only abstract concepts, they refer to very real properties that have real effects. Including the dimension of time.

Example: You're standing in the highway and an object is moving toward you. Is it dangerous? In order to determine that, you need to take relative measurements of its dimensions - is the object a flea or a bus? The dimensions are vitally important. Including the rate of the object's movement. If it's a bus and it's hurtling toward you at 60 mph, I believe your reaction would betray that you believe time is very very real and that you need to make expedient use of it.

I'm fine with all this, except one thing: Why are you equating movement with time, rather than the result of forces acting on physical objects? Why isn't time the measuring tool for movement, just as a ruler is the measuring tool for size, or a scale for weight? I don't understand why it gets elevated to a natural force or true physical dimension when it does exactly what a ruler does, except on moving rather than stationary objects. What am I missing?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I added a bit on the end of my last post, and what you've said here indicates I was right. Semantic differences. What you're calling time is what the rest of us refer to as an abstract human concept of time - the measuring of it.

Proof: "Most creatures actually get through their lives without any concept of time at all, yet movement exists in their worlds."

If time doesn't exist until it's conceptualized by intelligent beings, then how could humanity have evolved in order to do that conceptualizing? The 'time' you're talking about obviously didn't exist until we dreamed it up, therefore it's only a conceptualization.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Yes indeedy, I've been saying from the get-go that time is a human invention meant to lend order to what would otherwise be a chaotic universe. And that order wasn't necessary until some caveman looked around and said, "I am." Before that we were like any other critters, living in a timeless here & now, with no memory of yesterday or dreams about tomorrow. The amazing complexity of knowing there was a past and will be a tomorrow led us to need time, among a bunch of other new concepts, like religion and hope.

It's clear that these are only semantic differences. In order for us all to have a meaningful discussion and understand each other, a little on-the-fly translation is necessary. Sageous, when you see one of us use the word time, you should substitute "movement". When you use the word time, we should substitute "the abstract measurement of movement, entirely independent of movement itself". In that way I think we'd all be talking about the same thing.

Semantics is the wrong word, if you'll pardon the pun. You're saying that movement is really the same as time? Does everyone here think that? Is that what they're teaching in school now? I am deeply confused. I had always thought that movement was the result of force acting on an object, period. Where exactly does time step in to make an object move? Forgive my shortness here, but this is a bit disturbing, and "movement = time" is something I honestly had never heard before. It certainly explains my oddness, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Sageous

You're saying that movement is really the same as time?

Well, not exactly the same as... that's a bit of an oversimplification so I could express it in one word. To define it better for the sake of clarity, I'd say that time is necessary in order for motion to be possible. Using only the 3 spacial dimensions you can define only a static universe. For a universe with motion, you must include the 4th dimension - time. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the whole 4th dimension thing.

I completely agree that the human conceptualization of time marked a gigantic step foward for us from animals who can't consciously think about it in the abstract and so can't plan for the future or make sense of the past but can only react in the moment prompted by memory and instinct. The human concept of time is a tremendous milestone in our development. But, like language, it's only a symbolic conceptualization.

I don't really know a better way to define time itself. But think about what would happen if you could freeze time, or speed it up or run it backwards. I know, totally theoretical situations, if any such thing would really happen we'd be frozen or sped up or whatever right along with everything else so we wouldn't be aware of anything happening, but imagine standing outside of time. If you freeze time nothing can move - there can be no life. Without duration, there can't be thought, since thought requires movement of electrons. Maybe duration is a better term than movement. But honestly I think movement gets more to the heart of the phenomenon of time. The terms aren't completely identical, but movement is utterly dependent on time.

But I'm using too many words again. Guess I need to stop.