Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 04:53pm PT
|
Like you know every person on this planet ........
Not only do I know every person on this planet, I've been making a list and checking it twice...
The issues might be so broad and fundamental that a new or revised understanding could reconfigure how we consider our immediate focus.
I suspect time is like gravity, free will, god, etc. - endlessly studied and speculated upon which is great and interesting in some global scope, but a case where life goes on oblivious to whether we have a definitive answer for them. I personally don't believe knowing what time 'is' will add any particular value or insight into how time-based and time-synchronous biological systems work, what mind is, or how it might arise from mere meat.
But as I said, plenty of interesting discussion around the topic :
The concept of time in philosophy: A comparative study between Theravada Buddhist and Henri Bergson's concept of time from Thai philosophers' perspectives
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 05:12pm PT
|
I agree, HFCS, let's let this thing rest. If you agree with everything Harari wrote in those snippets I provided in my last post, then we are on the same page, basically. Harari is great at saying a lot in few words and getting to the heart of these questions. Thinking about the problem in terms of determinism, randomness, and freedom is the way to go, IMO.
If the universe is fully determined, then your experiences were determined at the point of the Big Bang. End of story. There is no room for freedom.
If the universe is not fully determined-- if quantum effects and chaotic systems allow for outcomes that are not fully predetermined, then the actual decisions you make were not necessarily predetermined at the beginning of the universe, but they were determined for you sometime BEFORE you made the decision. Just because the event is not predetermined, that doesn't magically give you the ability to freely choose how to react to it. That's still done automatically and probably largely subconsciously. Again, you have no freedom. That's Harari's point.
In both cases, the decider -- what I have been calling the decision engine, which is likely comprised of a bunch of competing biochemical algorithms, has no freedom. 100 percent determinism vs. mainly determinism with some randomness mainly has a bearing on the world that you are confronted with -- the events that you experience -- not so much on the mechanics of your decision-making.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 05:15pm PT
|
There is certainly timeless to be found in any large expanse of shoveling, sweeping or mopping that's ripe for the taking.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 05:49pm PT
|
If the universe is fully determined, then your experiences were determined at the point of the Big Bang. End of story. There is no room for freedom.
Does freedom, in the sense that you use it here, mean freedom from physics, as we understand it?
My sense is that all you have done is construct a tautology.
Very human of you.
Physics as we now know it is likely to see revision. Contradiction seems much more unlikely, but that would make the world more interesting.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 05:50pm PT
|
My ridiculous example
On this thread we are students of the ridiculous.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
|
I agree, HFCS, let's let this thing rest. -eeyonkee
Okay. So I'll assume what followed in your post - and then re-pasted below as memoranda - are your resting thoughts. So fair enough, I'll be submitting my "resting" thoughts shortly.
EEyonkee:
1. If the universe is fully determined... There is no room for freedom.
HFCS: For the record, I disagree. Which kind of freedom?
2. That's still done automatically... Again, you have no freedom.
HFCS: For the record, I disagree. Which kind of freedom?
3. the decider -- what I have been calling the decision engine, which is likely comprised of a bunch of competing biochemical algorithms, has no freedom.
HFCS: For the record, I disagree. Which kind of freedom?
Sorry to sound like a broken record there.
...
Finally, for dessert, just in case I forget to include it in my resting summary...
You quoted Harari here...
... If by free will we mean the ability to act according to our desires, then yes humans have free will, but so do chimpanzees, dogs and parrots...
Repeat: "If by free will we mean the ability to act according to our desires, then yes humans have free will..."
Exactly. :)
THEN YES HUMANS HAVE FREE WILL.
And let's remember, Harari is "just" a historian, he's not a bioengineer whose specialty is biocircuitry in animal control systems (nervous, endocrine, musculoskeletal systems) incl human.
HFCS resting thoughts to follow...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 07:01pm PT
|
Way to piss in the pool.
Your post is totally baseless.
don't post up your usual sh#t that involves attacking other people posting personally -Jim B
Talk about sh#t posting.
....
Well, eeyonkee and moose, we had a good run there for awhile.
Enough said. I'll just sum of my resting remarks in a couple sentences:
We can have freedoms (different kinds) NESTED inside a 100% fully-caused deterministic system whether the GIVEN deterministic system is a living organism, eg., or a subsystem of the living organism (e.g., a nervous system) or a solar system or the universe at large. That is my claim - as a reconcilist - and I think it's entirely consistent with control engineering, the many sciences, and life experience. I exercise my FREEDOM now (from the Systems perspective) to give it a "rest". It was fun. :)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2017 - 08:53pm PT
|
Largo asks: So Ed, what would be involved in developing Lund's idea a little further?
the first thing involved is the commitment of time to actually try to understand what Lynds is trying to do, that time would be considerable and the decision to try to understand would have to be stacked up against other things that require time. One asks oneself: having understood this, was it worth the effort?
We never know for sure, but in this case it seem rather unlikely that it would.
Lynds "idea" is stated in the first sentence of his abstract:
It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined.
If we address this from classical mechanics, the dynamical equation is given by:
F = ma
which is Newton's Second Law of Motion. F is a force external to the body, m is the body's mass and a its acceleration.
In modern notation, we replace the acceleration a by the second time derivative of the body's position:
F/m = d²x(t)/dt²
The position is found by integrating the over time twice:
x(t) = ∫dt∫dt F/m
where F (and even m) might be a function of time.
Taking this integral over an instant described by Δt which we take to be very small, we can approximate this as:
x(t+Δt) ≈ x(t) + Δt dx(t)/dt + Δt² d²x(t)/dt² + ⋅⋅⋅
we don't loose generality if we take dx(t)/dt = 0 (the velocity of the body is zero at time t) and we can identify the next term from Newton's laws:
x(t+Δt) - x(t) ≈ Δt² F/m + ⋅⋅⋅
taking the "error in the position" to be ε = x(t+Δt) - x(t) for an instant described by Δt, that "error" is not given by Δt² F/m + ⋅⋅⋅ to any order according to Lynds: "...there is not a precise static instant in time...at which the relative position of a body in relative motion...would theoretically be precisely determined."
By our standard understanding of Newtonian physics and mathematics, Newton's second law would be incorrect.
That is because when we ratio [x(t+Δt) - x(t)]/Δt² and take Δt → 0 the ratio is finite even though 1/Δt² → ∞ , and the ratio equals F/m.
This is the usual resolution of Zeno's paradox.
Lynds tells us something else is going on and that the estimates we perform are not valid.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 06:27am PT
|
Ed,
of Lynd
It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined.
Okay, he is arguing infinitesimals here when he says precisely. And I am not sure what static is to mean here. Does the meaning of his premise change if we leave out the word 'static'?
Two different things are going here. Math & physics. He puts his interpretation squarely in physics when he states a dynamical physical process.
He is also careful to phrase not a precise static instant in time , which is the case when talking about infinitesimal differences?
I will give him his 2 cents for an infinite amount of infinitesimals adds up to nothing. Differential Geometry still holds as math. But I suppose that one could argue by his measures that even classical mechanics (physics) has an amount of [infinitestimal?] uncertainty. But our predictions work quite well.
But the Newtonian math - calculus take on uncertainty is that if a derivative exists there is no uncertainty at any level of an infinitesimal interval.
But if his physics postulate for the way the universe is made, there is not a precise static instant in time, then so be it and its results. In essence change of time is erratic?
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 06:38am PT
|
so A Merry Christmas?
So
a half a ho ho ho
just for kicks. What Say?
see
thats how it works
give all pennies. prescribed amounts
to each in amounts in line with their position
just enough,and never enough to change the station
hope being that; any extra to the masses goes to opiate the masses,
almost exclusively? What will the few extra bucks after all 'sudden emergence expenses' put off fixes, a new dish washer ? what?.
I'll tell you what;
A one time, for real, more than just a weekend trip, for the fsamily, poof! - all so - spent more
at the other end of the spectrum, Booze Canabhds, Wine And (Better) beer.
then wait
&
like magic the divide is so wide,
only Vail - Aspen And
TO HELL YOU RIDE
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 07:29am PT
|
Lynd,
After providing a summary of other approaches to tackling the question (placing a particular emphasis on ideas about quantum creation from nothing), in this paper I argue that such an answer is to be found through the conclusion that, contrasted to a universe with a beginning a finite time in the past, only an eternal universe can possibly provide an answer to the PEQ, because at no stage during its eternal lifetime is its non-existence ever an option. I then argue that, because of this and an inescapable need for a necessary explanation for existence (contrast to a contingent one or no explanation), the universe must also be eternal. The implications of this conclusion for cosmology and theology are then discussed.
Wait a minute, if one universe came and gone, entirely, could not another one arise like the first.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 07:36am PT
|
Wow, Ed!
Good way to keep a simple person busy. I recognize a few of the words but flunking linear algebra in second year university was proof enough that I was not for math.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Poincaré group is the group of Minkowski spacetime isometries. It is a ten-dimensional noncompact Lie group.
The classical groups are defined in terms of forms defined on Rn, Cn, and Hn, where R and C are the fields of the real and complex numbers.
a bilinear form on a vector space V is a bilinear map V × V → K, where K is the field of scalars.
Many (but not all) symmetries or approximate symmetries, for example the ones above, form Lie groups. Rather than study the representation theory of these Lie groups, it is often preferable to study the closely related representation theory of the corresponding Lie algebras, which are usually simpler to compute.
----------------------------------------------------------
Some kinds of knowing do take work to achieve. As our daughter once said, "Math is hard."
An earlier and more accessible production of hers:
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 10:13am PT
|
love the letter MH2, Newton certainly believed he was revealing the works of The Creator...
here is the Lorentz Group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group
the metric tensor, the place where a "simple" sign changed would make our universe very different, is discussed,
Mathematically, the Lorentz group may be described as the generalized orthogonal group O(1,3), the matrix Lie group that preserves the quadratic form
(t,x,y,z)↦t²-x²-y²-z²
on R⁴. This quadratic form is, when put on matrix form (see classical orthogonal group), interpreted in physics as the metric tensor of Minkowski spacetime.
The path of this set of posts takes us to the idea that the symmetries of space-time are related to conservation laws that can be used to formulate much of modern physics. Dave Hilbert, working on some aspects of General Relativity, needed to find the connection between symmetry and conservation laws, and wandered down the hallways of his home institution to Emmy Noether's office to find a solution. She delivered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
which leads to a deeply aesthetic notion connecting the mathematical properties of "space-time" to physical conservation laws.
The interesting question, and perhaps one that Lynds is grasping at too (but who knows), is how space-time came to have these particular properties. That is the subject of work for the "pre-geometers," a "cult" spun off of J. A. Wheeler's work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Understanding this connection is not limited to Wheeler, however, interesting musings can be found earlier, for example, Garrett Birkhoff's Lattice Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Birkhoff
a book written in a particular style of the time, very terse, very dense, but rewarding for both its wit and the deep ideas that are raised. Interestingly, one could see that if the structure of space-time generates "logic" and if space-time itself is a result of some dynamical process, then mathematics has a physical origin, a consequence of the properties of the universe. This inverts the usual idea that mathematics "is beyond" physics, but solves the mystery why mathematics is the appropriate language to describe the universe.
If space-time is the stage upon which natural laws perform, how was the stage built?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 10:27am PT
|
If space-time is the stage upon which natural laws perform, how was the stage built?
By a probability generator. Once our space-time universe became probable then it was generated. The stages of other universes are built in the same way.
Perhaps Gnome agrees?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 03:36pm PT
|
I appreciate your comments about time.
In mathematics, Δt is normally thought of as defining an interval on the time axis, even though Δt=.001 as an instant makes sense. In elementary calculus the student is introduced to the concept of the derivative by drawing an image of a function in the t,x plane where Δt represents an interval that shrinks to zero. Certainly, the common integral is defined with respect to a measure of small intervals Δt on the t-axis that shrink to zero. The measure is of course the normal span of the interval.
All the above lies in the province of standard real analysis. However, there is a non-standard real analysis that has its origins in antiquity, and used by both Newton and Leibnitz. Infinitesimals, ε, take the place of tiny intervals Δt. Here 0<ε<r for all positive real numbers r. There is a simple arithmetic of these numbers, and elementary calculus can be taught using them and largely avoiding the limit notation.
Are there infinitesimals of time? A kind of granular structure that lies beyond the very concept of interval measurement? I suspect Lynds was not conversant with this idea, nor others associated with it. Maybe I'm underestimate the young man, and somewhere in the metaphysical babble he wrote these things appear. After reading a bit of his essay I began skimming. I have little patience in my old age with verbal excesses.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 03:37pm PT
|
I'm not sure there is a precise physical definition of "naturalness" and certainly not a physical theory that directs us.
The idea of naturalness grows out of the considering all the possible universes that might be. The one we're in somehow was "chosen" from all those that are possible, and while we could consider ourselves "the lucky winners," we (physicists, at least some of us) would feel better if we could say that this universe was highly probable.
So the anthropic principle plays a role here too, another principle that has no underlying physical reason.
Choosing one theory over another on the basis of naturalness would be somewhat fraught, in my opinion, unless the specific reasons are stated, the absence of "fine tuning" is yet another aesthetic which is more a prejudice than a principle.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2017 - 03:51pm PT
|
I like aspects of this thread.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!