Time

[Faux Real]

If Einsteins theory of relativity is true...

We have the technology to see stars, planets, and galaxies millions of light years away. They are presumed to be images of those very same objects but in the past.

From another point in the universe, looking back on earth, is it possible that the being watching earth sees it in the future? Or rather, more simply, is it possible we have already 'happened' and are just not aware of it, or aware of it and just can't do anything about it?

I am not convinced on the subject of free will vs determinism, and am not trying to bring that argument in here.

[Faux Real]

Doh, moved from philo to science & environment. :(

I thought this would apply to there because I am questioning our existence and nature, though totally understand why it could have been moved; that there is the Einsteinian scientific theory behind it.

Ideas, arguments, and comments welcome...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry about that RevOlt, I moved it.

Since you involved Einstein, it is clearly a scientifc question.

You might like to read this alternative way of looking at time:

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt4.html

It's a bit odd at first, but stick with it.

[Faux Real]

Time Travel

H. 'Going back in time'. Clear off a table top; this space (i.e. the table top) will now be our universe, and we will be the universe's deity. Then place a few objects on the table top; these will be the elements of our universe. Call this situation 'time number-one' (or, t1). Now move one of the objects; call this 'time number-2' (t2). Now return the object to its original position. Then with that replacement we are back in t1: we have "gone back in time".

We think: But it's not really t1. -- Oh, but it really is t1, because there is no other standard of time in our universe except that of the arrangement of objects on the table top. Now move the object to where you moved it before; then it's t2 again: we have "gone forward in time".

Our concept 'time' is connected with our concept 'change'. Without change there is no time. (Cf. "Heaven is an eternal moment.")

The theater -- the stage -- is the universe. And time there is whatever the playwright (the old man) says it is. And with every performance the universe is "carried back in time": Hedwig shoots herself (rather than the wild duck) time and time again. -- Though actually, we may want to say, she does it only one time: it's t1 over and over again (from the perspective of our universe, or of Hedwig's deity, not of Hedwig).

The director moves the actors on-stage, he moves them off-stage; -- he moves the universe "backwards" or "forwards" in time at will. Director: "Let's have t3 now. No, rather we'll do t4 now, and t3 this afternoon."

I. But if there is nothing more than stage-settings, then how can we arrange them in order, beginning to end? We remember. Without memory there is no time. (There is also, of course, the uniformity of nature to consider: some combinations of events don't "make sense" based on our life's experiences. But is there only one way to put a puzzle together? Cannot imagination supply many others, however implausible they may be? And then we say, "Come now, be reasonable." But we also say, "Stranger things have happened" and "There are more things in heaven and earth ...")

These sections really did illuminate me the most(possibly because they were practical examples). Thank you for the wonderful article, a great read! :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It illustrates something I have been trying to underline in the Philosophy section for 18 months.

Our language and experience of the material world is far richer than we think; certainly than is dreamt of in the theories of ruling class philosophers.

When we read their work we are persuaded to forget that rich heritage (which has been put there by centuries of working class experience), and we enter a wierd world, where we do not know our way about.

So no wonder it descends into paradox and confusion.

And that is why I have been trying to push Wittgenstein's method here (for this guy uses it).

[Edgar]

Minutes and seconds are passing us by. The tea is getting cold.

[Sand Castle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:44 pm
They are presumed to be images of those very same objects but in the past.


Not exactly. I think that applies to stars mainly. Their light hasn't reached the Earth yet, so we see the light they sent out so many years ago. The further away the star is, the longer it takes for light to reach us. All the more recent images of a distant star are hidden behind the light still coming to us (I think thats what they told me anyway).


From another point in the universe, looking back on earth, is it possible that the being watching earth sees it in the future? Or rather, more simply, is it possible we have already 'happened' and are just not aware of it, or aware of it and just can't do anything about it? No, No, No, No. That is impossible. They would see the light the Earth reflects from X amount of years ago because it hasn't reached them yet. Therefore, aliens would see us (or the light we reflected, I should say) in the past.

If they are to see us in the future, I would say their conditions would have to be the opposite of those who see us in the past. To see the past, you must be far away. To see the future, they probably would have to be closer to Earth than you or I.

[gilhyle]

People without memories die.

Change neverr starts and never stops, so time is irreversible because there is no moment from which to reverse it.

Time is always local and localities are universal: time is universal.

(just trying to wind the clock)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice exercise in a priori dogmatics there Gil.

Of course, you are assuming there is one thing and one thing only we are talking about when we use the word 'time'. [Augustine's problem.] And 'change', and ...

How that can be proved beats me.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 11:05 am
Nice exercise in a priori dogmatics there Gil.


People without memories die - a posteriori

Change never stops - a posteriori

Time is local everywhere - a posteriori

I assume only for the purpose of discussion, quite happy to unassume....I can be quite unassuming.

As to seeing, we dont see the 'light', we see the object....that is the point. On reflection, we realise there is light.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Change never stops - a posteriori

A priori.

How do you know that tomorrow it won't.


Time is local everywhere - a posteriori

A priori

Unless, of course, you have been to the outer fringes of the universe, and checked?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:44 pm
If Einsteins theory of relativity is true...

We have the technology to see stars, planets, and galaxies millions of light years away. They are presumed to be images of those very same objects but in the past.

From another point in the universe, looking back on earth, is it possible that the being watching earth sees it in the future? Or rather, more simply, is it possible we have already 'happened' and are just not aware of it, or aware of it and just can't do anything about it?

I am not convinced on the subject of free will vs determinism, and am not trying to bring that argument in here.
No, it think you misunderstood the theory of relativity, an alien viewing the earth would not see 'future earth', they would see 'past earth' in much the same way we would see a 'past version' of their world. Unless they were viewing us from a wormhole which is quite unlikely.

I dont know if you're up to speed with the physics, but a light beam travels at 3*10^8 ms^-1 (or 3 00 000 000 metres a second) because the distance between the earth and star is many billion times this this is why the image (by the time we recieve it) is often many centuries or even many millenia old.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 08, 2007 08:27 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 08, 2007 08:27 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 10:44 pm
From another point in the universe, looking back on earth, is it possible that the being watching earth sees it in the past?
No, it think you misunderstood the theory of relativity, an alien viewing the earth would not see 'future earth', they would see 'past earth' in much the same way we would see a 'past version' of their world. [/b]
The underlined is my [late] edit... sorry folks. Can't believe I let that slip!

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 03:26 pm
Gil:


Change never stops - a posteriori

A priori.

How do you know that tomorrow it won't.


Precisely because you can reasonably ask that question, its a posteriori, i.e. it can be falsified by experience.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Precisely because you can reasonably ask that question, its a posteriori, i.e. it can be falsified by experience.

In that case, you would have posted this:

"Change might never end"

Now:

"Change will never cease" cannot be falsified.

What would even look like its falsification?

My question "How do you know" was aimed at bring out the fact that you could only even know this a priori.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Fine...being picky then I assume you mean the first to translate 'all' the 1844 manuscripts....unless you were lucky enough to be taught by CLR James.

That's my girl; we will make an analytic philosopher of you yet.

Only, we need you to focus on philosophical questions, not factual ones.

No, he translated the Paris MSS.


I assume if I talked about a case where the optic nerve was cut that might work...or maybe ischemic anterior optic neuropathy....given particularly that the optic nerve is usually considered an extention of the brain, rather than part of the eye. But maybe you'd insist on my example speculating on dysfunction of the optic chiasm.....what does it all matter ?

Nice attempt to blind me with science.

But this is a conceptual issue, not a scientific one.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 12:05 am


"Change might never end"


Actually this claim is almost certainly a priori (except for a rather pointless possible worlds argument). If someone found a time/place where change had ended, the proposer of this could argue that it did not falsify his/her statement since while change had actually stopped it doesnt affect the fact that change 'might' never end. This would be so on the basis that sometimes situations that might happen do not happen, but still might have happened at the time the proposition was uttered.

By contrast, finding a time/place where change had ended would falsify the statement that 'change will never end'. Thus experience can falsify this claim.


Also, your other comment puzzles me:

1844 Manuscripts = Paris Manuscripts.

For example: "The 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844' (also known as the 'Paris Manuscripts' or '1844 Notebooks'......."http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmht_79.htm


(out of interest the rest of this site is worth a look : http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmpg.htm and for example http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmht_1.htm. There is a Japanese researcher trying to do the same thing with the German ideology.)

[Floyce White]

Revolt, the farther away you are from an object, the less clearly you can discern its features. Time is not the problem. Distance is the problem. There is no way to overcome this problem. That's why they send satellites to take pictures of Jupiter and Saturn and their moons--and then the pictures are sent by radio to Earth.

Yes, if you could look at far-away planets, you would be seeing what happened there a long time ago. If the inhabitants of far-away planets looked at Earth, they would be seeing what happened here a long time ago.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Actually this claim is almost certainly a priori (except for a rather pointless possible worlds argument). If someone found a time/place where change had ended, the proposer of this could argue that it did not falsify his/her statement since while change had actually stopped it doesnt affect the fact that change 'might' never end. This would be so on the basis that sometimes situations that might happen do not happen, but still might have happened at the time the proposition was uttered.

Well, I find it hard to follow this argument, but what little I grasped seems to apply to your original sentence:

G1 "Change never stops"


By contrast, finding a time/place where change had ended would falsify the statement that 'change will never end'. Thus experience can falsify this claim.

Not so, the use of those verbs in the very act of reporting this alleged incident show that change is still proceeding. Indeed, and at the very least, to falsify something changes its logical status.

So, nothing would count as falsifying G1.

A priori (and necessary) as I said.

I am sorry, this mystified me too:


Also, your other comment puzzles me:

1844 Manuscripts = Paris Manuscripts.

For example: "The 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844' (also known as the 'Paris Manuscripts' or '1844

Notebooks'......."http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmht_79.htm


(out of interest the rest of this site is worth a look :

http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmpg.htm and for example http://home.freeuk.net/lemmaesthetics/epmht_1.htm. There is a Japanese researcher trying to do the same thing with the German ideology.)

Have you taken a crash course on writing enigmatically?

[gilhyle]

Ah dont worry about it....its all of the point of this thread anyway. We can discuss a priori some other day.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, now that is a posteriori!

[Vinny Rafarino]

If Einsteins theory of relativity is true...


Where have you been ?

There have been so many experiments and observations confirming both Special and General Relativity that only only a fool would think otherwise.


From another point in the universe, looking back on earth, is it possible that the being watching earth sees it in the future?

No.



Or rather, more simply, is it possible we have already 'happened' and are just not aware of it, or aware of it and just can't do anything about it?


No.