Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

time

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 11:27:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is a physical entity and a psychological entity. In the physical realm, it's effects are most fundamentally demonstrated through the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Entropy increases with time, although one could just say time is the conversion of an ordered state to a disordered state.

The psychological arrow is arguably a (subjective?) measure of entropy. We percieve states of higher order and do not perceive the lower ordered states, which remain in the "future." Perhaps there are other organisms which percieve the future but not the past...

What would life be like for these people? They would notice the universe contracting, despite this gravitic force that seems to push everything away from each other. Living on planets would be sort of difficult for them.

And since we are destructive when we are being productive (due not only to the Second Law but economics as well), does that mean they would be productive when they are destructive? Perhaps they are creating this environment for us by continuing to destroy everything they can. (Somebody call Geo and tell him I think I know who brought down the two towers.) Perhaps we become one of them through death.
Rob
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 1:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 11:27:19 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Time is a physical entity and a psychological entity. In the physical realm, it's effects are most fundamentally demonstrated through the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Entropy increases with time, although one could just say time is the conversion of an ordered state to a disordered state.

I agree that time is both physical and conceptual, and there are different ways we interact with each conception of it.

However, I would not define all of time itself -- which in reality, I believe is dimensional and conceptually, the perception of aggregate forces -- by any single scientific law. Entropy refers to the present or potential force that always exists in the interest of equilibrium with the rate or quantity of a given force field.

So, for example, an ice cube sitting on the kitchen table in a kitchen that is room temperature.

The ice cube will always melt. Why? Because there is an imbalance in the distribution of energy between the ice cube and the rest of the room. Therefore, energy will radiate from the room and table into the cube, and it will gradually become too warm to maintain a solid state.

It is the foundation of all mechanical engineering that exists. On the other hand, lets say everything were to presumably reach a state of equilibrium. That wouldn't necessarily stop the flow or flux of energy. Energy would still flow, transfer, and interact; it's would just do so in such a way that it doesn't affect the matter through which it travels. In other words, the clock would shut off, but that doesn't stop time itself.

The psychological arrow is arguably a (subjective?) measure of entropy. We percieve states of higher order and do not perceive the lower ordered states, which remain in the "future." Perhaps there are other organisms which percieve the future but not the past...

Please define higher- and lower-ordered states?

Are you suggesting a consciousness that perceives the flow of matter, and thus the flow of time, in reverse?

The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems. It puts a lot of things in perspective; concepts like predetermination and celestial balance make a lot more sense.

Fascinating concept...

What would life be like for these people? They would notice the universe contracting, despite this gravitic force that seems to push everything away from each other. Living on planets would be sort of difficult for them.

That's not the way I pictured it. As I pondered the concept, I saw a universe for people that begins with spontaneous life from explosions, then eventually degrades and shrinks until it reaches this primordial form. Inexplicably, things degrade around you and yourself continues to degrade, but as you do so, you become fresher, newer, and less corrupt. Eventually, they reach transcendence by recombining with nature and the world continues in this fashion until it explodes... again. In the same way it did in the end. Or rather, the beginning. Then, it could continue moving forward again.

Crazy thought, dude. It's awesome.

And since we are destructive when we are being productive (due not only to the Second Law but economics as well), does that mean they would be productive when they are destructive? Perhaps they are creating this environment for us by continuing to destroy everything they can. (Somebody call Geo and tell him I think I know who brought down the two towers.) Perhaps we become one of them through death.

Wouldn't they be creating everything they can? And, this creation is literally necessary for us to destroy, which is what propels us in this reality.

So, in other words, we in this reality are innately destructive given our direction in the flow of time, whereas they would be innately for creation.

Because, don't forget, we're moving toward destruction, they're moving toward creation. Before that creation was nothing. And after it is nothing.

And it all makes sense. O.O
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 1:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've had a little "hm, interesting" moments as well Ren. But is this to suggest that time is solely linear? What about the case that perhaps there are more than one timeline? How does that impact the aforementioned ideas?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 2:01:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 1:32:57 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I've had a little "hm, interesting" moments as well Ren. But is this to suggest that time is solely linear? What about the case that perhaps there are more than one timeline? How does that impact the aforementioned ideas?

Well, wait. In what way would you say that matter interacts with more than one timeline, if they were to exist?

What I mean is, let's say that time is a straight line. All matter as we know it travels along this line.

If there's more than one timeline, how would that translate in this example? How would it look? Would it be a line that diverges and branches like veins or the wrinkles on our palms, or would it be like a network of parallels and intersections that together look like shattered glass?

I mean, am I making sense?

Because, I think that would be necessary to ponder how it might work in reverse.