Are Space and Time Real?

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm no physicist, so I'll just leave you with a quick tidbit and the article link for y'all to tear into:

Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Quantum physics is not my specialty.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Quantum physics is not my specialty.

That's okay. It's all the commie's fault anyway.

 

[SpaceYeti]

While Space and Time may not be the most basic, fundamental aspects of our universe, that doesn't mean they aren't real. That'd be like saying your car isn't real just because it's made of smaller parts.

 

[redbaron]

It's a given that we don't know and don't currently have anything independently observable that verifies the reality of the universe.

So it's taken on assumption that the universe is real, and that we can learn about it.

The discovery of this doesn't necessarily point to the conclusion that they aren't real and to be honest, in astrophysics time is not even accurately definable (seriously, ask an astrophysicist to tell you what time is). So if it was discovered that time was not real...it would almost be like discovering that this thing we didnt know was real or not anyway turned out to not be real.

I don't really have the patience to elaborate further while typing on my phone.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's a given that we don't know and don't currently have anything independently observable that verifies the reality of the universe.

So it's taken on assumption that the universe is real, and that we can learn about it.

The discovery of this doesn't necessarily point to the conclusion that they aren't real and to be honest, in astrophysics time is not even accurately definable (seriously, ask an astrophysicist to tell you what time is). So if it was discovered that time was not real...it would almost be like discovering that this thing we didnt know was real or not anyway turned out to not be real.

I don't really have the patience to elaborate further while typing on my phone.

I getcha.

 

[SpaceYeti]

So it's taken on assumption that the universe is real

It's not an assumption, it's a practical necessity. We must presume the reality we observe is real because observation is the only manner we have of gathering information about our environment in the first place. If what we observe is some sort of false reality, we won't figure that out until we observe it to be the case.

 

[just george]

It's a given that we don't know and don't currently have anything independently observable that verifies the reality of the universe.

So it's taken on assumption that the universe is real, and that we can learn about it.

The discovery of this doesn't necessarily point to the conclusion that they aren't real and to be honest, in astrophysics time is not even accurately definable (seriously, ask an astrophysicist to tell you what time is). So if it was discovered that time was not real...it would almost be like discovering that this thing we didnt know was real or not anyway turned out to not be real.

I don't really have the patience to elaborate further while typing on my phone.

The word "real" is subjective anyway. Time might be imaginary, space may be a delusion, but the reality of either is decided by the one(s) viewing them. ie so long as they're real to you and I, then they are.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The word "real" is subjective anyway. Time might be imaginary, space may be a delusion, but the reality of either is decided by the one(s) viewing them. ie so long as they're real to you and I, then they are.

Bullshit. If humans didn't exist, the universe would still function however it functions, we simply wouldn't be there to watch.

 

[just george]

Bullshit. If humans didn't exist, the universe would still function however it functions, we simply wouldn't be there to watch.

I didn't say that "the ones viewing them" had to be human. I meant that the decider of what is real are the entities encompassed by that thing that may or may not be real.

Bullshit your way out of that

 

[SpaceYeti]

I didn't say that "the ones viewing them" had to be human. I meant that the decider of what is real are the entities encompassed by that thing that may or may not be real.

Bullshit your way out of that

Nobody "decides" what's real. Observers observe. We try to figure out what's real, and can come to a consensus, but what we say about what's real doesn't have any effect on what's actually real. Saying the sky is blue is a reaction to observing the sky being blue, it's not blue because we say it is.

 

[just george]

Nobody "decides" what's real. Observers observe. We try to figure out what's real, and can come to a consensus, but what we say about what's real doesn't have any effect on what's actually real. Saying the sky is blue is a reaction to observing the sky being blue, it's not blue because we say it is.

I see. Would you like to define what "real" is?

 

[Cherry Cola]

everything that is is real, existence doesn't require proof because everything is proof of existence

 

[SpaceYeti]

I see. Would you like to define what "real" is?

"Existent". Things are real when they actually exist. I'm not trying to play word games, here, or something. This isn't complicated. A thing is real if it exists.

 

[Minuend]

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

*dons massive trollface*

Is there time and space within the Skinner box?

 

[WookieeB]

Minuend, that cartoon is hilarious.

 

[redbaron]

It's not an assumption, it's a practical necessity.

It's a practical necessity, yes. However it's still an assumption, because we can't actually prove the universe is real.

It's kind of tiring explaining this, because it never seems to sit well with certain people because they think I'm taking a swipe at science. I'm not.

I figure THD gets it because he's completed a scientific degree, and he understands that there are certain assumptions that all science makes in order to make any sort of progress and to build scientific knowledge.

> the universe and the things contained within it are real
> there are natural causes for things that happen in the universe and, we can learn about them using observation and evidence
> there is consistency in these natural causes, therefore providing the ability to form predictive models of reality

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

> the universe and the things contained within it are real
> there are natural causes for things that happen in the universe and, we can learn about them using observation and evidence
> there is consistency in these natural causes, therefore providing the ability to form predictive models of reality

The irony of using science to disprove reality.

Minuend, that cartoon is hilarious.

And ^this.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's a practical necessity, yes. However it's still an assumption, because we can't actually prove the universe is real.

Yet we also have no good reason to presume it's not real. The thing is, you determine a thing is real by gathering information about it, via your senses (there's no other possible way for us to gather information about our environment except through sensing it somehow). Our senses show us this universe, indicating that it's real*, at least effectively. That is evidence that it's real*. We have no evidence to suggest it's not real*, though. It might not be, sure, but giving the concept serious consideration without a reason is just as irrational as any other irrational line of thought.

> the universe and the things contained within it are real
> there are natural causes for things that happen in the universe and, we can learn about them using observation and evidence
> there is consistency in these natural causes, therefore providing the ability to form predictive models of reality

Just because they're assumptions doesn't mean they're not reasonable or necessary assumptions such that them being false is just as likely as them being true. Further, there's no formal list of scientific assumptions which includes "The universe is real". It's not an assumption so much as a logical necessity. Even if it turns out that the universe as we observe it is a matrix-like program, or the dream of some uber-being, or whatever, it's still real. It's simply real in a second echelon sort of way. It's really a program, or dream, or whatever; that's the form in which it actually exists. There is, absolutely and necessarily, a reality, or else the self would not exist to question such a thing.

If science is only discovering how the matrix or dream works, then it's still figuring out how this part of reality works, regardless that there's more to it than we can find. And, if there's more to it that we cannot know about, then we cannot know about it and it's irrelevant anyhow. If we can know about it, then with investigation and time it's bound to be discovered (or else it would count as something we couldn't discover and, once again, be irrelevant).

* "Real", in this sense, would be the highest order, basic level of reality, not a simulation or an otherwise lower layer part of a greater reality. A lower level part of a greater reality is still real, it's just a small part of what's real.

 

[Cherry Cola]

There is definite proof that something (however vague and indefinable) exists because there simply isn't anything that does not necessitate existence in order to be in the first place.

Thus if by something being real you do not mean anything more than that something is: things are real.

This don't got nothing to do with science, it's just logic and philosophy or something, whatever it is its real ; )

Reality is like the one definite truth we have available for exploring the universe : /

 

[Marshall]

Apparently the universe is shaped like a soccer ball, outside of that is "purgatory-like" space filled with other soccer balls. Which probably are just the molecules of even bigger soccer balls. We're all just insignificant balls floating around the emptiness of more balls. Welcome to the universe.

 

[redbaron]

Yeah.

It's kind of tiring explaining this, because it never seems to sit well with certain people because they think I'm taking a swipe at science. I'm not.

I'm actually not sure what you're even arguing about, because I never even claimed any of the things you seem to have a problem with?

I even said:

It's a practical necessity, yes.

That still doesn't mean that it's not an assumption. I didn't say it's a bad thing that it's an assumption. It's an assumption almost everyone (I say almost because you never know!) makes and is a necessary part of gaining understanding in the assumed universe around us.

It's kind of amusing watching you get worked up even though you're agreeing with me

 

[Cherry Cola]

Its not an assumption though, its the coldest and hardest of all facts and the only one truly deserving to be described as one.

 

[just george]

"Existent". Things are real when they actually exist. I'm not trying to play word games, here, or something. This isn't complicated. A thing is real if it exists.

I'm not trying to play word games either, or talk about some stick in the woods making a sound or not making a noise when no one is around to hear it.

I'm saying that reality depends on thought. That thought depends on proof. That proof has to be of a certain quality. The better the quality, the stronger the thought.

Mathematicians have shown that several dimensions exist on top of this one. No one has touched or seen those other dimensions. Hence, people say that those dimensions do not exist within this reality.

So then you start thinking "how can something exist at the same time and same place as something else, and not be part of that reality?".

Then it becomes clear that "real" and "existent" are different.

If you don't distinguish between these ideas, then you can't "prove" anything. Since proof is the foundation of science, then it's pretty important to get these two straight.

To cope with things existing that cannot be proven, science makes assumptions. The basic structure of this is to assume that one thing is real, and then base all other proofs on that, which is what Cherry Cola was talking about.

 

[Cherry Cola]

For something to be real it is only required to be, it need not be what we think it is, and we need not know at all what it is, for whatever it is it will still be. I am aware that this argument of mine (and Spaceyetis, because as far as I can tell we are saying the same thing) does not say anything about the nature if reality (in fact it makes no distinction between anything).

 

[Polaris]

You guys are talking about two things; theory vs. practical application.

For the purposes of practicality, we must assume that certain things we see are real, or exist (scientific method). Otherwise we'd just be sitting around talking about teapots orbiting the moon, etc. So we know for certain that the sky is blue; it's pragmatic.

For the purposes of philosophical discussion and to test the above mentioned assumptions, we could say that the sky is blue only because that is how the human brain interprets wavelength information relayed by the human eye. Other animals will interpret colours differently. And: colour does not really exist; it is the presence of light that brings colour into existence as interpreted by humans.

There really is no point in confusing the two, which is why the above discussion is going nowhere.

As for the questions of space and time....

It makes no sense to me that either of these actually exist. Space is defined by the presence of matter; time is defined by movement through space.

However, we must assume that either exist because it is more pragmatic to do so.

 

[redbaron]

Its not an assumption though, its the coldest and hardest of all facts and the only one truly deserving to be described as one.

Oh? So you can find something that independently verifies that the universe does indeed, exist?

You realise that if you did this you'd win a Nobel Prize.

 

[BigApplePi]

You guys are talking about two things; theory vs. practical application.

For the purposes of practicality, we must assume that certain things we see are real, or exist (scientific method). Otherwise we'd just be sitting around talking about teapots orbiting the moon, etc. So we know for certain that the sky is blue; it's pragmatic.

For the purposes of philosophical discussion and to test the above mentioned assumptions, we could say that the sky is blue only because that is how the human brain interprets wavelength information relayed by the human eye. Other animals will interpret colours differently. And: colour does not really exist; it is the presence of light that brings colour into existence as interpreted by humans.

There really is no point in confusing the two, which is why the above discussion is going nowhere.

As for the questions of space and time....

It makes no sense to me that either of these actually exist. Space is defined by the presence of matter; time is defined by movement through space.

However, we must assume that either exist because it is more pragmatic to do so.

@Polaris. Do you know I don't think I've ever met a female (or male for that matter) whom I imagine thinks as closely to the way I think as you? In another life-time we could be soul mates. I didn't think that possible in my wildest dreams. Now I'm going to scare you away. I will have to find my own floor boards I can crawl between.

Back to the thread. My current thinking is we observe these things and that can be called "practical." The blue sky is blue because of a relationship. The relationship is between the nature of the sky and the nature of our brain. <-- that is not expressed as I would wish.

Space and time are relationships between things. We see the relationship and forget that what is being related is different. When we analyze, we lose the relationship and then wonder what happened. We are synthesis. That is a mysterious thing that exists only as itself. Reminds me of ... pardon my fantasy:

Some enchanted evening
You may see a stranger,
you may see a stranger
Across a crowded room
And somehow you know,
You know even then
That somewhere you'll see her
Again and again.

Some enchanted evening
Someone may be laughing,
You may hear her laughing
Across a crowded room
And night after night,
As strange as it seems
The sound of her laughter
Will sing in your dreams.

Who can explain it?
Who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons,
Wise men never try.

Some enchanted evening
When you find your true love,
When you feel her call you
Across a crowded room,
Then fly to her side,
And make her your own
Or all through your life you
May dream all alone.

Once you have found her,
Never let her go.
Once you have found her,
Never let her go!

 

[Cherry Cola]

Redbaron: No I wouldn't, because I couldn't say anything of its nature, of space and time etc. In fact I couldn't say enough to warrant calling it the universe.

And besides its not like what Spaceyeti and I are saying is new shit. It's a part of existentialism for one.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You guys are talking about two things; theory vs. practical application.

For the purposes of practicality, we must assume that certain things we see are real, or exist (scientific method). Otherwise we'd just be sitting around talking about teapots orbiting the moon, etc. So we know for certain that the sky is blue; it's pragmatic.

For the purposes of philosophical discussion and to test the above mentioned assumptions, we could say that the sky is blue only because that is how the human brain interprets wavelength information relayed by the human eye. Other animals will interpret colours differently. And: colour does not really exist; it is the presence of light that brings colour into existence as interpreted by humans.

This is something that bothers me a lot. When we see blue, the fact that our quale of blue is not the same thing as the ray of blue light doesn't mean we're not really seeing blue, or that the light isn't blue, or that something is somehow not real or it's mysterious or whatever. Yes, we say the sky is blue because that's how the human mind interprets those waves of blue light... so what makes the sky not blue? Those blue rays of light aren't illusions, or something. They're actually there. The sky would be blue even if we didn't see it, we just wouldn't see it and, thus, would probably not have a word for it. The sky is also microwave-y, we just don't have a word for that similar to "blue" because we don't see microwaves with our eyes. Words describe things according to how we use them because that's how we use them. If we say something is blue, of course it's because our mind interprets blue rays of light such that we see it that way. There's no reason to discuss that point. At all. It's not a point, it's basic knowledge, it's axiomatic. It in no way makes anything less than real just because we understand that our mind is interpenetrating some chemical signal from our photo receptive cells. Knowing how something works doesn't make it not real!

There really is no point in confusing the two, which is why the above discussion is going nowhere.

I mostly agree with you. However, I also want to point out that theory follows from observation, and thus relies on pragmatism to exist in the first place. Discussing that things which are "real" are things which "exist" is really just a discussion of definition.

As for the questions of space and time....

It makes no sense to me that either of these actually exist. Space is defined by the presence of matter; time is defined by movement through space.

However, we must assume that either exist because it is more pragmatic to do so.

Just because something is an action, a process, it doesn't mean it's not real. Gravity is real. Time is real. We observe it happening directly, every single moment of life. Figuring out how it works doesn't make it not real.

 

[redbaron]

Redbaron: No I wouldn't, because I couldn't say anything of its nature, of space and time etc. In fact I couldn't say enough to warrant calling it the universe.

Right, and if there's nothing that independently verifies something, it's simply not a scientific fact. The existence of the universe is still scientifically speaking - an assumption that we make, in order to be able to build knowledge. I am speaking in scientific terms here, and was in my initial post in response to THD.

What THD as well as Polaris seem to understand is that the question of, 'Are Space and Time Real?' is at this point in time a question that simply can't be answered by science, because science can't even verify using its own standards that anything is even real.

And besides its not like what Spaceyeti and I are saying is new shit. It's a part of existentialism for one.

What I'm saying isn't, 'new shit' either - it's been an accepted foundational philosophical underpinning of science ever since...science.

The thing is, you're not really paying attention to what I am and am not saying.

I AM saying:

That the existence of the universe has not yet been verified by the scientific method, its existence is necessarily assumed by the scientific method.

I AM NOT saying:

- that it's an unreasonable or unrealistic assumption
- that we shouldn't make this assumption
- pretty much any of the things that people have raised issues about in this thread

~

I find it interesting that the people who have actually completed a scientific degree and understand the intricacies of the scientific method really understand this line of thinking quite easily.

While I didn't want to point this out because it might be kind of a shoddy argument from authority, it seems apparent to me that the misunderstanding stems from...well, not understanding the intricacies of the scientific method in the first place.

The thing is, the scientific method is not designed to be put through the rigours of human logic. The whole reason the method was designed, is because human logic is so often wrong. There's really only two things that matter within the scientific method, prior to the observation and experimentation phase:

- that the hypothesis fits with other accepted facts
- that the predictions of the hypothesis are falsifiable

That's it. There's simply no point in debating and speculating on the issue when you can observe and experiment - not until you can find a way to actually observe whether or not the universe exists, as well as develop a method of reproducible experiment.

At present we can't do it, which makes me wonder why people even bother trying to discuss it in scientific terms - the actual existence of the universe as currently established by the scientific method - is an unproven hypothesis. It hasn't even reached the stage of observation and experiment - until someone figures out how to move it to that stage, it's not even a scientific concept.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Oh? So you can find something that independently verifies that the universe does indeed, exist?

You realise that if you did this you'd win a Nobel Prize.

Nope. The universe is defined as everything that exists, and thus there is nothing independent of it in a manner that we could interact with it and it not count as part of the universe. The universe exists by necessity. It needs no verification. It's an assumption because it doesn't need to be verified.

 

[redbaron]

Gravity is real. Time is real. We observe it happening directly

Where have we observed time directly?

Where have we observed gravity directly?

We can directly observe something falling to the Earth, or the motion of celestial bodies as a result of gravity. But we aren't observing gravity, we're observing the effects of gravity.

This doesn't mean gravity isn't real, but to say that we observe gravity directly is simply wrong.

It's an assumption because it doesn't need to be verified.

Congratulations. You finally understand that it IS an assumption and that that's perfectly okay

Funny how you went from:

It's not an assumption, it's a practical necessity.

Disregarding that assumption and practical necessity are not mutually exclusive. Then apparently you figured it out and reached the conclusion:

It's an assumption because it doesn't need to be verified.

Still slightly wrong. It's an assumption because it hasn't been verified. Need doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not something is an assumption. Some things that we do need to be verified are still assumptions despite our best efforts.

In any case, you seem to have realised that it is indeed an assumption.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm not signing up on time is real nor gravity, totally get what you mean there Redbaron, but I agree with Spaceyetis last post. Nevertheless I'm not gonna just repeat myself like a broken record again, need to consider what you are writing more carefully even if it comes off as irrelevant to me :P

 

[BigApplePi]

This is something that bothers me a lot.

Same here. One would think one could figure this out.

When we see blue, the fact that our quale of blue is not the same thing as the ray of blue light doesn't mean we're not really seeing blue, or that the light isn't blue, or that something is somehow not real or it's mysterious or whatever. Yes, we say the sky is blue because that's how the human mind interprets those waves of blue light... so what makes the sky not blue?

The human mind interprets lots of things uniquely. What makes "blue" so special? My impression of the USA or my hand or this forum or a poster on this forum is mine and is never the same (exactly) as yours, so what is that impression? It's real isn't it even though it is unique? So why can't blue be like that? Unique even if strange. A color blind person doesn't see blue even though the real phenomenon that causes me to see blue is really out there. What happened to blue for the color blind person?

Those blue rays of light aren't illusions, or something. They're actually there. The sky would be blue even if we didn't see it, we just wouldn't see it and, thus, would probably not have a word for it. The sky is also microwave-y, we just don't have a word for that similar to "blue" because we don't see microwaves with our eyes. Words describe things according to how we use them because that's how we use them. If we say something is blue, of course it's because our mind interprets blue rays of light such that we see it that way. There's no reason to discuss that point. At all. It's not a point, it's basic knowledge, it's axiomatic. It in no way makes anything less than real just because we understand that our mind is interpenetrating some chemical signal from our photo receptive cells. Knowing how something works doesn't make it not real!

Wait a minute! The rays of light at that particular wavelength may be real, but that doesn't make "blue" real. How do you know this "blue" is there for the color-blind person? How do you know it isn't only in your and my mind?

I mostly agree with you. However, I also want to point out that theory follows from observation, and thus relies on pragmatism to exist in the first place. Discussing that things which are "real" are things which "exist" is really just a discussion of definition.

I would put it that blue is an emergent phenomenon and not there at all for the non-blue seeing.

Just because something is an action, a process, it doesn't mean it's not real. Gravity is real. Time is real. We observe it happening directly, every single moment of life. Figuring out how it works doesn't make it not real.

Einstein could say gravity is an illusion experienced by us. Gravity is more generally a curvature or distortion of space caused by the presence of matter. One could say those are the same thing. Yet who is savvy enough to say the heavy weight we feel when we try to jump high in the air is the same as a spaceship flying around the Earth?

 

[redbaron]

waves of blue light

Colours do not come from, 'waves of [insert colour] light'...

Study basic chemistry. There really is an overarching pattern that you just don't understand some very basic parts of science.

Just in case you somehow don't understand after reading that: objects contain colour because materials absorb different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

It's like how lasers are not actually coloured light - it's light filtered through materials that absorb particular wavelengths while reflecting others.

 

[TimeAsylums]

FFS.

another discussion falls to phenomenology

surprising?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Where have we observed time directly?

Every time a thing happens immediately after another thing, that's time.

Where have we observed gravity directly?

I shouldn't have said "directly", but we certainly observe gravity's effects constantly.

Funny how you went from

Yes, I'm used to people using "assumption" to mean that what's being assumed is baseless, so I dislike the word. I still consider it only technically correct.

The human mind interprets lots of things uniquely.

How do we know? We seem to agree when a thing is "spicy" and react similarily. Salty, lemony, whatever. We have no reason to presume someone interprets a sensation in a meaningfully different way. On the occasions we do, we can come up with a name for that difference, like when someone is color-blind and thus lack the ability to sense certain colors. There's no need to get into the whole, pointless, "Is your blue the same as my blue" bullcrap if we can agree that we can call that sensation "blue" and agree when we see it. Frankly, who cares if your blue is a different sensation than my blue? I don't. We cannot ever know what the other senses as our blue, and it doesn't matter. It's not meaningful to discuss that "problem" (it's not a problem).

What makes "blue" so special? My impression of the USA or my hand or this forum or a poster on this forum is mine and is never the same (exactly) as yours, so what is that impression? It's real isn't it even though it is unique? So why can't blue be like that? Unique even if strange. A color blind person doesn't see blue even though the real phenomenon that causes me to see blue is really out there. What happened to blue for the color blind person?

They didn't sense it. It's pretty much that simple. Just like a person who doesn't feel pain, or fear. Exactly why they didn't sense it, I sure can't say, but that they didn't sense it is... obvious.

Wait a minute! The rays of light at that particular wavelength may be real, but that doesn't make "blue" real. How do you know this "blue" is there for the color-blind person? How do you know it isn't only in your and my mind?

Because it's verified to exist with light sensing tools. We even know what the wavelengths for blue are. We also know that color-blind people simply don't sense (at least) one of the three basic colors our eyes detect.

I would put it that blue is an emergent phenomenon and not there at all for the non-blue seeing.

The light exists whether it's detected or not.

One could say those are the same thing.

Yet who is savvy enough to say the heavy weight we feel when we try to jump high in the air is the same as a spaceship flying around the Earth?

The people who calculate and correct the ship's path? Your question is too unspecific, though, since the relative forces are not the same.

Colours do not come from, 'waves of [insert colour] light'...

Except they do, they're simply not one specific wavelength, but rather a combination of different wavelengths.

Study basic chemistry. There really is an overarching pattern that you just don't understand some very basic parts of science.

There's an overarching pattern that people are using how a thing works to say it doesn't really exist. Also, yes color does come from wavelengths of light. Just because it's not only one wavelength doesn't make it not true. My being less than explicitly specific about the exact process doesn't make me wrong about that.

Just in case you somehow don't understand after reading that: objects contain colour because materials absorb different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

We only see what colors they reflect, yes, I said exactly that before in this thread, I'm pretty sure. If not this thread, I've said specifically that some other time on this forum, relatively recently.

It's like how lasers are not actually coloured light - it's light filtered through materials that absorb particular wavelengths while reflecting others.

... Thus they leave the non-absorbed wavelengths. So how is this relevant? What's the point?

 

[PhoenixRising]

I think it's likely that space is our perception of the relative placement of different instances of matter. However, taking some of the theories of cosmology and quantum physics into account, it seems it could be a substance as well. I'm not sure o.o

As for time, I'm not sure about this either. But, I do have a theory ^^ Reflecting on the Twin Paradox and Lorentz transformation, I believe that what we call time is the experience of the relative difference between the speed of light and all else that moves slower. In other words, since the Lorentz transformation states that time passes at zero when traveling at the speed of light, it seems logical to deduce that time is moving forward at light speed - i.e. we would 'catch up' with time when we reach light speed and therefore not experience the passage of time.

This idea could also explain time dilation due to the effects of gravity if the progenitors of time were in fact particles that travel at light speed. As the particles are caught in a gravity well, they would slow down slightly, therefore slowing down time - as well as the overall rate at which things move within the gravity well. Outside of the gravity well, things would move forward a bit faster (explaining why clocks tick faster in orbit.)

(btw, awesome article =D Nothing gets me excited quite like the refinement of scientific theory, especially when that refinement is a fundamental paradigm shift.. it seems like a step in the right direction at least.)

 

[BigApplePi]

@SpaceYeti. This is a response to SpaceYeti, but if anyone else picks up on what I'm trying to say and can say it better, please do.

How do we know? We seem to agree when a thing is "spicy" and react similarily. Salty, lemony, whatever. We have no reason to presume someone interprets a sensation in a meaningfully different way. On the occasions we do, we can come up with a name for that difference, like when someone is color-blind and thus lack the ability to sense certain colors. There's no need to get into the whole, pointless, "Is your blue the same as my blue" bullcrap if we can agree that we can call that sensation "blue" and agree when we see it. Frankly, who cares if your blue is a different sensation than my blue? I don't. We cannot ever know what the other senses as our blue, and it doesn't matter. It's not meaningful to discuss that "problem" (it's not a problem).

I didn't mean to imply your sense of blue is different from mine. I will grant you they are going to be about the same. Just think of wine tasters. I taste the wine. An expert tastes the same wine. Our taste is going to be close enough. It's just that the expert will pick up more details and be able to identify a slightly different wine while I won't be able to. Your blue is close enough to mine.

Because it's verified to exist with light sensing tools. We even know what the wavelengths for blue are. We also know that color-blind people simply don't sense (at least) one of the three basic colors our eyes detect.

The light exists whether it's detected or not.

I'm trying to say something different. I agree the blue light exists, but not as the blue of blueness ... only the wavelength. Even the color blind person will agree on the light. Blue, the name, will be defined by the wavelength. "Blue" is the name given to that wavelength and the colorblind person will agree the light has that wavelength (after suitable measuring instruments). But the blueness of the blue is seen only by the non colorblind person.

Allow me to present a more vivid example of what I'm trying to say. I hand you a rock. You agree it is a rock. I hand the rock to a blind person. They are not idiots. They agree this is definitely a rock. It's the same rock for you and the blind person. Yet each has a different experience. You blend your vision into your experience. The blind person blends a higher sense of touch into the experience. The rock remains the same. The experiences are different and both are real experiences. Now smash the rock. The rock no longer exists. Yet the memory of the rock, both different, exists differently in two different people.

BAP: Yet who is savvy enough to say the heavy weight we feel when we try to jump high in the air is the same as a spaceship flying around the Earth?
SY: The people who calculate and correct the ship's path? Your question is too unspecific, though, since the relative forces are not the same.

Both are the same in the sense of Newton's Law. Both use the same math'l formula, just as the blue wavelength is received by different people. I'm saying our experience of jumping and our experience of imagining a flying satellite is different. It's a different perspective. There are two different perspectives and both are real ... as perspectives.

 

[Polaris]

This is something that bothers me a lot. When we see blue, the fact that our quale of blue is not the same thing as the ray of blue light doesn't mean we're not really seeing blue, or that the light isn't blue, or that something is somehow not real or it's mysterious or whatever. Yes, we say the sky is blue because that's how the human mind interprets those waves of blue light... so what makes the sky not blue? Those blue rays of light aren't illusions, or something. They're actually there. The sky would be blue even if we didn't see it, we just wouldn't see it and, thus, would probably not have a word for it. The sky is also microwave-y, we just don't have a word for that similar to "blue" because we don't see microwaves with our eyes. Words describe things according to how we use them because that's how we use them. If we say something is blue, of course it's because our mind interprets blue rays of light such that we see it that way. There's no reason to discuss that point. At all. It's not a point, it's basic knowledge, it's axiomatic. It in no way makes anything less than real just because we understand that our mind is interpenetrating some chemical signal from our photo receptive cells. Knowing how something works doesn't make it not real!

You have completely misread my argument.

It seems you focused on the part of the argument that supported the need for philosophical inquiry/theory testing, and forgot about the fact that this is not the main point of my argument.

I never said we are not seeing blue. I explicitly stated in the previous paragraph that we do indeed, see the sky as blue. It is blue.

However, when you break it into how colour is perceived in terms of scientific observation; i.e, chemistry and biology (how the human eye's photoreceptors relay information differently to many animals; and how colour is only visible in the presence of light)...it is a bit more complex than just something being blue.

My point is: yes, you are right; there is no question that the sky is blue (on a fine sunny day...) however, when one looks further into scientific analysis of how humans perceive colour, it is suddenly not so simple:

From source:


"The difference in peak wavelength sensitivity between cones and rods can be appreciated by an apparent colour shift when light is dimming. The reader can verify this by sitting in a flower garden as the light dims at twilight and noting the apparent blueness of the flowers becoming exaggerated. This occurs because rods are more sensitive to the short (blue) wavelengths than are cones.



Colour discrimination, or the ability to detect differences in wavelengths of light, is a property only of cone vision. It is possible in humans by virtue of the retina containing three distinct types of cones: cones maximally sensitive to long, medium, and short wavelengths, often referred to as 'red', 'green' and 'blue' cones, respectively (Fig. 3.12 ).



Fig. 3.12 Sensitivity to different wavelengths for rods and the three types of cones in the human eye (S = short [blue], M = medium [green], L = long [red] wavelength, R = rods)


The responses of the three cone types are kept separate as they are transmitted in parallel through the visual system. Differences in wavelength are ultimately processed in the brain by comparing the responses of the three (relatively) independent colour systems. Thus, for example, a wavelength of 625 nm initiates a particular ratio of response in long and medium wavelength cones that ultimately gives rise to a sensation that we normally call 'yellow'. The sensation of 'white' arises when responses from all three cone types are approximately equal. Humans, however, possess only one type of rod, and therefore, wavelength discrimination or colour vision is not possible under scotopic conditions."

I mostly agree with you. However, I also want to point out that theory follows from observation, and thus relies on pragmatism to exist in the first place. Discussing that things which are "real" are things which "exist" is really just a discussion of definition.

So we do agree, then

Just because something is an action, a process, it doesn't mean it's not real. Gravity is real. Time is real. We observe it happening directly, every single moment of life. Figuring out how it works doesn't make it not real.

I never said they weren't real. What I am saying I doubt their separate existences. Sorry, I should have been clearer here.

My point (and BAP/redbaron/HabiDoc) is that things are not always what they appear to be. And I am not talking about magic (strawmen don't work on me, sorry) or reducing everything to phenomenalism. Scientific inquiry of this kind has nothing to do with magic or phenomenalism, sorry TA.

BAP pointed out (amongst other things that I may just...er....leave for now ) that the forces we observe as real may only be the result of emergence; and how it may be that space, time and gravity cannot be separated as isolated entities...they are real because of their inter-dependent relational influences. One would not exist without the other, and one cannot be separated from the other. The problem with human thinking is that we must sort things into entities in order to understand how all the components work as a whole. So we separate all the natural forces and possible dimensions, and this is where the confusion starts.

 

[redbaron]

Every time a thing happens immediately after another thing, that's time.

No, the measurement of time is time. Time is measurable by the existence of routine occurrences - the hands on a clock, the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

We are able to measure time because we've defined parameters for it to be defined by - similar to how psychologists aim to measure intelligence through IQ tests.

This is yet further misunderstanding of scientific concepts. Why would you use a word like, 'immediately' to describe time? How do you measure the immediacy between events in order to define time? At the very least, this is an original (if unreliable) line of thinking.

Do you have a hypothesis that demonstrates how we can use the immediacy of events ("a thing happening immediately after another thing" as you put it) to define time?

The parametrization of time is what allows it to exist in the first place. While you could certainly measure the immediacy between two events, immediacy itself relies on the definition of parameters to make sense in the first place.

This is why units of time need to be very precisely defined measurements. The length of a second is determined by certain intricacies of the period of caesium radiation rates. This is reliable because it is consistent - the rate is precise and routine. It's become the basis of modern atomic clocks.

I shouldn't have said "directly", but we certainly observe gravity's effects constantly.

Accurate.

Yes, I'm used to people using "assumption" to mean that what's being assumed is baseless, so I dislike the word. I still consider it only technically correct.

Who is doing this? Or do you mean people in general.

And it's literally correct, not technically

Except they do, they're simply not one specific wavelength, but rather a combination of different wavelengths.

Haha. Maybe Polaris' post will enlighten you. If it doesn't I guess I'll enjoy watch you backpedal harder than the Black Knight trying to justify your lack of understanding.

Or assuming it's just sloppy wording, answer me this. If you know how something works, why not explain it in the correct terms? It makes no sense to me that you would know what's correct, only to say what isn't correct. Sounds like a big steaming pile of bullshit to me, given how often you do it.

There's an overarching pattern that people are using how a thing works to say it doesn't really exist. Also, yes color does come from wavelengths of light.

Who is saying this? Me? Polaris? Or just people in general?

 

[Hawkeye]

By the definition of "real" when used in the context of physics, space and time are real in every frame of reference except light's.

 

[Deep_in_thought]

I would think so personally, after all, everything that exists is affected by both of them.

 

[The Introvert]

I think a point that everyone can agree on is that, for any purpose, be it practical or theoretical, we can assume that to define anything, we must first create the bounds by which we observe and conjecture.

I think then, that it is safe to say that (at least for conceptual purposes), the bounds we impose on whatever is real (real meaning not nothing, as SpaceYeti was attempting to explain) are arbitrary. We call a collection of atoms a couch

Spoiler

(using atoms simply because it's the easiest way to describe something in really small components that everyone can understand, but keep in mind that atoms are also subject to this rule, even if we do not know what composes atoms)

because an arbitrary collection of atoms can be formed into a shape that we recognize and define as "couch".

There is no couch.

There are no atoms.

All we know for certain, is that there is something. All other exclamations of what is and is not are used either for observational purposes or philosophical ones. Regardless of intent, our belief in the existence of compositions of atoms, just as our belief of the existence of a God or the belief that our car will start in the morning does not necessitate the other.

That is to say that things are, regardless of our interpretation or classification of them. Further, the fact that we classify and observe is unfortunately usually used to imply that it is the end-all be-all when anyone who actually understands would see that there's always something under the surface - something that's there but we (at least currently) cannot define.

More on this later.

 

[Brontosaurie]

The Introvert: i reckon you just took the thread to where it should be.

indeed all objective definitions (perceptual categories), including space and time, are utilitarian human constructs conceived either by the process of biological evolution or by the cognitive faculties that have sprung from it.

something is. that's what something does. something couldn't do anything else and, similarly, nothing couldn't do anything but not be, just like a couch couldn't do anything but have four legs, a seat and so on. aren't we as certain about the couch as we are about the something? aren't being and non-being our constructs too?

here a bunch of illustrative statements:

all we know for certain is that there is something

all we know for certain is that there isn't nothing

all we know for certain is that chairs have four legs and a seat

all we know for certain is that balls are round material objects within some size range

this line of reasoning boils down to universal skepticism and, while intuitively satisfying, doesn't tell us much on its own. however, it's a good starting point for a pragmatic epistemology. it also hints at a hierarchical view of real-ness; being appears, at least on surface level, to be the most fundamental construct - because its definition doesn't depend on other ones - but to confirm this we need to rely on a logocentric ontology. i can imagine a reversal of these terms such that being is actually the most complex and advanced concept and that's why it's inexplicable. ...so far.

now i know i may be being really stupid; perhaps i'm restating some stuff that was implicit in your post, or just plain making feeble sense. also i got this nagging feeling i'm equivocating. finally there's the perennial risk that i'm just stating the obvious.

if any of those or other embarrassing mistakes are present in my analysis, please do snub me. then i'll feel lots of shame and thereby initiate transformative resort to my plan B of converting definitively into INFP in this curious neuro-RPG.

 

[The Introvert]

@Brontosaurie

You've certainly made sense, and restated some of what I've said.

However, I like this:

this line of reasoning boils down to universal skepticism and, while intuitively satisfying, doesn't tell us much on its own. however, it's a good starting point for a pragmatic epistemology. it also hints at a hierarchical view of real-ness; being appears, at least on surface level, to be the most fundamental construct - because its definition doesn't depend on other ones - but to confirm this we need to rely on a logocentric ontology. i can imagine a reversal of these terms such that being is actually the most complex and advanced concept and that's why it's inexplicable.

I vote to continue with this. Don't have the time now but for others, ^^^

Also, partially because sometimes I enjoy tooting my own horn, and partially because it's relevant to the discussion here, I created this thread a while back.