What is "time"

One approach to getting your answer; one that is virtually guaranteed to incite a vigorous discussion, no matter what the subject, is to post your question disguised as a statement of fact. Asking a question from this angle is very effective - but you might want to don a firesuit first. What makes it so effective is that it leverages a rather odd view peculiar to our modern-day culture. Specifically, this view: You are free to believe in anything you want, just so long as you don't claim it to be true.

--Europium

Thank you for the perspective. I truly appreciate it, however it puts me in a corner. If I even disguise my question with my theory, it could reveal the answer. This in itself could cause extreme negative reprecussions at this time in our history, for so many reasons I can't even go into here. Understand that if I am correct, which I cannot find a single reason it is not true, and the individuals I have shared this with cannot either, could fundamentally alter (not necessarily change) our perspective of quantum and astro physics. I asked the question as I did to discern the cumulative knowledge of the scientific community so that I may understand the impact this "theory" could have.

I'd like my perspective altered. Please, go right ahead, don't keep it to yourself. Unless you're afraid of facing disaggreement because it's like a work of art you have pride over. I doubt it will cause a catastrophy for mankind even if what you say is correct; humans have a way with denial. The only way I can imagine a definition of time will cause trouble is if it would allow manipulation of time... which would be great too.

I think time is a perception. Units of time have been made up to quantify time, like all other dimensions. It seems to pass more quickly as our memory increases in magnitude. The definition I've heard is, "Time is what keep everything from happening at once." Of course there is relativity with time dilation etc.

Even though I'm certain I'll be disappointed with what you say will alter mankind, Lets hear it.

Guest writes: "I doubt it will cause a catastrophy for mankind even if what you say is correct; humans have a way with denial."

You are speaking here from personal experience, perhaps?

Rather than discussing your take on the Essence of Time at this point, I feel that you may find it a much more productive use of your time (that word again) by taking the approach of Dorothy's dog Toto in the storyThe Wizard of Oz. Following Toto's lead, you may wish at this point to disregard Oz himself and pull the curtain aside to reveal the Real Man Behind the Curtain.

Don't be at all surprised that this endeavor will take a great deal of intellectual honesty on your part - not to mention exceptional courage - to plumb the depths of your psyche and confront whatever demons you may find there.

--Europium

Time has always been thought of in a conceptual way. We see the effects of "time" but do not understand why. Time is NOT what keeps everything from happening all at once, rather it is what keeps anything from happening continually for ever, (at the sub-atomic level). Just as light is a cause of life, time is a cause of death, again think in quantum terms. Time is not a concept, it is real, it really happens. It happens relative to speed. Dark energy = death at the sub-atomic level - light energy = life at the sub-atomic level. We quantify and measure light, we can also quantify and measure "time".

If you were talking to me, the one you quoted, yes, the personal experience of watching the news for the last few years. I'd tell you to take your own advice, but don't. Just leave me alone and stop being condecending. I've often been dissapointed by what was supposed to be earth shaking. I'm only responding because I want to clarify this is not the original poster... and he or she can continue. If it's beyond my comprehension, they don't have to worry about this pandoras box wrecking the masses. So, your judgment of my intellect, courage and demons doesn't matter this time.

Back to the subject, I want to hear the theory, period

I suspect that there is some confusion here. There are two guests, and it's a little difficult to tell them apart. Perhaps tagging a name to the end of each post would help.

There is a bank that credits your account each morning with $86,400.

It carries over no balance from day to day.

Every evening deletes whatever part of the balance you failed to use during the day. What would you do? Draw out ALL OF IT, of course!!!!

Each of us has such a bank. Its name is TIME.

Every morning, it credits you with 86,400 seconds. Every night it writes off, as lost,

whatever of this you have failed to invest to good purpose. It carries over no balance. It allows no overdraft.

Each day it opens a new account for you.

Each night it burns! the remains of the day.

If you fail to use the day's deposits, the loss is yours.

There is no going back. There is no drawing against the "tomorrow."

You must live in the present on today's deposits. Invest it so as to get from it the utmost in health, happiness, and success!

The clock is running. Make the most of today.

To realize the value of ONE YEAR, ask a student who failed a grade.

To realize the value of ONE MONTH, ask a mother who gave birth to a premature baby.

To realize the value of ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.

To realize the value of ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.

To realize the value of ONE MINUTE, ask a person who missed the t! rain.

To realize the value of ONE-SECOND, ask a person who just avoided an accident.

To realize the value of ONE MILLISECOND, ask the person who won a silver medal in the Olympics.

Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time.

And remember that time waits for no one.

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery.

Today is a gift. That's why it's called the present!!!

Hi Guest, here is my take. Time really doesn't exist. We are aware of the passage of time as external to our mortality. We are born, age and die in sequence. This has no effect on the universe and and the universe is unaware of the process.

In our post-modernist society, I think the credo is more along the lines of "You are free to believe in anything you want (except God), you can even claim it to be true as long as you acknowledge that it is not necessarily true for everyone.

That being said, I see your point.... I can't understand the venom of some peoples' responses when someone expresses their view or belief. Does not the very act of believing a thing, automatically imply that you believe it to be true?

Perhaps I am being redundant.

According to Wikipedia:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines time as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole." ^[1] The American Heritage Dictionary defines time as "a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in an apparently irreversible succession." Encarta, Microsoft's Digital Multimedia Encyclopedia, gives the definition of time as "System of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events."

When I get a chance I will see what the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says. I would expect that to be much more meaningful to this discussion.

Hey, that's St. Louis Engineer's answer. Another left brain (Don't Show Me; I show you) succumbing to the tyranny of the dictionary?

Ah, but I only used Wikipedia as a contrast to the far richer and grossly more entertaining 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', thrid revision.

However, I seem to have misplaced my copy. Anyone seen an electronic book with large friendly printing on the cover...

i think time has three area. by principles, by use, and time it self.

by principles as commonly known- time is directly proportional to distance and inversely proportional to its velocity.

by use- i think it is the only resources that being given and shared by mankind equaly

time it self- time is the elapse of milisecond

"by principles as commonly known- time is directly proportional to distance and inversely proportional to its velocity." should read, "by principles as commonly known- time is directly proportional to distance and inversely proportional to its relative velocity."

Velocity cannot be an isolated constant in observing relative time. It requires a relative relationship to another body to determine the velocity/time relationship.

Many have tried to offer one, many have failed. I would not worry too much about negative reprocutions (its not like your offering to prove god or free energy or anything), the scientific world seems to be in quite a state of flux at the moment with new ideas on time, space and the fabric of the universe being put forward, so now is likely as good a time as any to ease the theory into the mainstream. Theories are like baking a loaf of bread, it takes time for them to grow, develop and become ready but if you dont start, nothing will happen (works well for either the bread representing the scientific community or the theory).

I ran into something sort of (loosely) similar. There was an (rare scientific incident I guess you would call it) I weighed up the pros and cons and figured that the absolute worst case scenaro possible was that my actions (which I will not mention here) would result in the complete destruction (or there abouts) of time and space itself (the probability of this occuring was actually reaaallllllly low). I went ahead anyway and am glad I did. Good old human curiosity.

Tell us. We all await with baited breath.

Oh, and if anyone is interested, nothing bad happened (but I did learn something very interesting) .

Time as in my opinion is a definite and quantitative ascertainment of any event happened between a period.

In simple terms

Time = Later-Now ,

Time = tomorrow - Today.

is it not simple ?

After-before=time

curiously, if the theory is correct it will lead to the discovery of both, god and free energy.

I think you've discovered a new word: reprocutions (repercussions?) I like it!

reprocution: A rare cause of death resulting from an attempt to bathe, reproduce, and use an electric hair dryer all at the same time. Most often occurs in multiples of two, but odd multiples are sometimes seen as well. The record is still held by a case which occured in New York City at the turn of the century, where twenty-three participants expired simultaneously in what is still considered by many authorities to be the world's largest garden tub. The famous tub, dubbed the "Tub of Eternal Death" by an obscure cult bearing the same name, is now on permanent display at the Smythsonian Museum.

(Sigh) Several people have privately expressed an interest in the specific circumstances surrounding the potential death-by-reprocution of one person, and have asked me to revise the definition to include a description of the circumstances surrounding the event. Consequently, here is the new, revised definition. Please proceed with caution:

-------------------------

reprocution: A rare cause of death resulting from an attempt to bathe, reproduce, and use an electric hair dryer all at the same time. Most often occurs in multiples of two, but odd multiples of one are sometimes seen as well - including one itself. Circumstances surrounding the latter, a case which seems to have occurred only once as far as anyone knows, still remain unclear. Some investigators concur that the death was the result of a successful suicide attempt, given that the term reprocute, by definition, always implies at least two participants. Others disagree. Close friends of the victim - an unusually compliant but rather literal fellow - assert that the victim was merely attempting to follow-through after being told in a heated argument with a friend to go "fuck" himself. Although the role of the electric hair dryer still remains somewhat unclear, there is speculation that the victim was merely attempting to use the device in an alternative fashion when the first attempt to comply with the friend's request failed. The current record for the largest number of reprocutions occuring simultaneously at one location is still held by a case which occured in New York City at the turn of the century, where twenty-three New Millenium partygoers expired together in what is still considered by many authorities to be the world's largest garden tub. The famous tub, dubbed the "Tub of Eternal Death" by an obscure cult bearing the same name, features a gourmet kitchen, a well-stocked wet bar, and a colorful, illuminated water slide. The tub is now on permanent display at the Smythsonian Museum along with other, rather curious, artifacts dating from the cult's early demise.

-------------

--Europium

"If [we] wait with 'bated breath (i.e., abated breath) we figuratively hold our breath in anticipation of what we might hear."

--------

I don't especially mind either Mr. Dick or Mr. George waiting with 'bated breath'- just so long as it isn't figurative and they don't exhale - at least not until the next election.

--Europium

PS: "Whenever I feel blue, I just start breathing again" - seen on a bumper sticker in Austin,TX

without motion there is no time. time is generally thought of as a commodity or something tangible. time is only a factor. motion and the speed of that motion is time . time divided by distance is speed (or if you prefer velocity). time x velocity is distance. it is a factor and only a factor. Einstine says time slows down as you increase velocity. but that doesnt change the fact that time is a factor. sorry if i have stated the obvious but it is.

You're absolutely right. I've been sitting here absolutely motionless for the last three hours and it is still 1:49 AM.

Perception encoded in language, Bro.

Events are time marks. You can say that one event is a better time marker than all other events because it may be somewhat linear for many other events and makes you feel confortable to predicts things in relationship with event which is taken as a time marker by you.

You also derive ideas from other knowledge that predicts if time marker is stable. For example sharpness of the optical emission of lines. More sharp means less perterbed more predictable and good as time ,arker. So you get Cs clock or for that matter any other clock.

We see things happening, so we relate these to time. By itself time has no identity. Without time there is no interaction, no change, no perception, no knowledge, no idea of the world. The moment we have an idea, we also have time parameter coming in. Past is present knowledge and the pointer always moves that way even for the knowledge of the future. We always get idea from the event has has occured and not from going to occur. However, we get some feelings of what may occur from events we have seen as time marker.

In wave theory, we give good looking shape to events and time (something we feel it should be not what it is). If all events are funny then time is also funny but may look very linear otherwise as we trust event as our linear timemarkers. It is what we believe and understand as real. There is nothing real except for pain and pleasure we feel as ignoring that means we ignore ourselves.

logically speaking....your answer begs the question...a form of fallacious reasoning.

I read all of your perspective here about time.....i observed no one tried to relate it with biological sense. You see humans created the concept of time....why??? they saw, the sun and the moon and the environmental changes.....but what is most important that they saw they are changing gradually, and the environment changes accordingly (e.g. a tree)......so they observed these stages of changing and created the concept of time (It's my view)...now come to the relativity part...which states that time is relative....ofcourse it is relative....pls go through the thory of time dilation (does it make any sense??? yes it does), to me it is the logical answer of the presence of a soverign power ( God ).....cause your life time indicates how many times your heart will give a beat...and the relativity theory rcan be related to this biological phenomenon...like when you are going at a certain velocity the clock(human) ticks slowly...which is time dilation...then only question to me arises that who created the HUMAN CLOCK?????

Au contraire, my friend,

Look a few posts up. Your observation is subsumed there.

You Wrote: "then only question to me arises that who created the HUMAN CLOCK?????"

I'm guessing the Swiss. Those guys are master timekeepers and they weren't bad pikemen back in the day either.

Yeah! And does anyone have a copy the owner's manual?

I'm still trying toi figure out how to set mine for daylight savings time!

Actually, humans are not alone with the concept of time. Animals also exhibit an understanding of time.

For instance, dogs can and do understand time intervals, although it is not to the level that we do. Nevertheless, they can differentiate between long and short intervals.

the human clock is written into the dna of life on this planet, and may be the oldest piece of the code. In addition, if earth dna came here from an extraterrestrial source, from meteor strike, it would be even older... and of course, there is idea that all things spring from the potentials of nature, and therefore, DNA, and clock within is inherent in the nature of the universe.

Good grief.

I think if you found a way to alter time in any way, I think you shouldn't do it. After all, look what happened to Marty in "Back to the Future"!

Time is the one thing that is constant.

Sure, we can buy it, we can sell it, we can waste it, we can use it. But once it's gone, it's gone.

A wise use of time would be spending it in fruitful endeavors that would (selfishly) benefit yourself or better yet, (unselfishly) others.

Albert Einstein theorized about time and the speed of light. To approach travel at the speeds (theoretically) needed to feel the effects of altering time is not only beyond our technical capability, it is beyond our physical ability.

Feel free to dream away, but great minds make things better for everyone, not just a few. Make wise use of the time you are given making things better and not trying to define something which needs not be defined further.

According to the Bible, the greatest personage in existence cannot lie. The record states that he created all things. Using Einstein's theory of relativity, that would mean it took a lot of power to create mass and intelligently. Never does it say that he planned or executed a reversal of time or even altered time. In one account he made " The sun stand still" but that could be just stopping the rotation of the earth, the interesting phenomenon which baffles scientists today - the rotation of the earth, why is it still spinning?

But I digress. Altering time is a fantasy of humans and is the stuff of fairy tales and science fiction. It would be nice to be able to control such a commodity. But honestly, would you allow that responsibility to anyone you know?

Thank goodness it will never come to that!

Didn't I hear that not too long ago that a group of physicist sent a proton two seconds back in time? I'll have to research it. It could be that they kept it at a high relative velocity for a while, so it was "younger" and then proclaimed it went back in time. However, as it was explained, they were quantum physicist working on teleportation.

You'll have to check the validity of this yourself, but time is not exactly constant and there is infinite wonder in everything.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the backgrounds or vacua. The set of these universes or vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape". Leonard Susskind has argued that the existence of a large number of vacua puts the anthropic reasoning on firm ground; only universes with the remarkable properties sufficient to allow observers to exist are beheld while a possibly much larger set of universes without such properties go utterly unnoted.

I would like to point out that the constraint of time to one sense is simply an extension of the anthropic principle. If we lived in a universe where it was posiible for an intelligent being to go back in time: then inevitably some "intelligent jerk" would "go back" and destroy everything.

Some would argue that you don't even need to go back in time to destroy everything!

As always the argument resorts to personal belief - and hence to God. I recall a story about a man who thought he was all powerful. His friends advised him to see a psychiatrist. So he did. The psychiatrist said that it was a classic 'God complex' case that could be cured, but recovery would be gradual over a course of five lessons - payment in advance.

The first lesson starts with a simple test to disprove his powers. OK says the psychiatrist, make that pencil float in the air. And it did. Alright then, that was a bit too easy - make the chair float. And it did. OK, says the psychiatrist, something a little harder. See that church on the hill, well make it disappear. And it did. Alright make the whole street disappear. And it did. OK then, says the psychiatrist, getting a bit annoyed, make everything disappear. The man says OK, everything has gone! No Sun, no stars, blackness everywhere, nothing.

Aha!, says the psychiatrist, gotcha! - you can't be God - everything did not disappear - because we are still here!.

That's right, says the man, you haven't cured me yet, and there are four more lessons to go.

Priceless!

Time is matter in motion.

Did you meant time is associated with motion or motion is associated with time or matter is associated with time or matter in motion is time?

I thought time is without matter also.

Matter is born in time. Perhaps 3 second big bang theory etc may give more clue about time. Perhaps, it is more like my time, your time and time of the universe and time of the time machine.

Time is never negative. Events appearinig in time in similar pattern is return to the past but it is not real time that negative. Our thinking becomes negative.

I disagree with you. Without matter there would be no time. There would be no way to measure it. Nothing to measure it with or against. Nothing to compare it to. Therefore it would not exist.

Jowens writes: "Without matter there would be no time. There would be no way to measure it."

-----------

And so, if we weren't here to mind, it wouldn't matter?

For myself, I believe a TV commerical years ago hit the nail right on the head when they said, "If you've got the time, we've got the beer." The first time I heard this commerical, I sat there stunned and unable to breathe, shocked by the deep implications of this statement. They had, unknowingly and quite obviously, stumbled upon a Fundamental Axiom of Nature, which states:

Without Time, there'd be no Beer.

Consequently, in terms of chickens and eggs, Time came first. But it happens only on a per-individual basis.

I have since given this theory a great deal of thought and consideration and have performed a number of well-designed experiments using a variety of six-packs, twelve-packs, cases, and even a keg, to verify the validity of this assertion. Time after time the results were uniformly conclusive: this theory is indeed true. That makes it a scientific law. Even Relativity itself is still called a theory. Just a theory. It should hang its head in shame.

Personally, I think the Grand Old Man of Science should've kept a few more brewskies in the fridge.

muiporuE--

there is only now. there is little or no evidence that the universe keeps a record of change, or that what is to come is defined in anyway... so there is only now, and now is simply a 'change' from an instant ago. We don't know whether the change is quantum, and therefore 'time doesn't exist' or anything. all is theory.

there is no evidence of past or future. just heaps of dirt in which we get buried, composted, and reborn. That is only evidence of change. there is only now. If there was a past or a future, we could probably go there. If you disagree, please present your proof!

Chris

May I ask a few questions, mostly just out of curiosity? Do you mind?

If there is no past, then how do explain the fact of your existence?

Are your great-great-great-great-grandparents just a fiction? Or are they trapped in some kind of "Continuous Now?" which I'm dying to hear you describe in exhaustive detail.

How do you explain "evidence of change?" in light of your proposed static interpretation of Time? At the very least, doesn't change imply two endpoints?

How do you explain more fundamental, physical things like motion, separate from time as flowing from a past to a future?

How do you solve math problems whose independent variable is truly a variable, t, and not a constant, K, for instance, and which represent actual physical processes, like Homo Sapiens?

How do you explain an echo?

--Europium

Though I don't want to speak for Chris, I would say that he has an interesting point insofar as the only time that anything ever happens is "now". You can't really do anything in the future because once the time comes that you do what you wanted to do, that moment would be then considered "now", no longer the future. Tomorrow may only be a day away, but if you try to wait for tomorrow to arrive, you could be waiting for a very long time indeed.

Additionally, this does not necessarily say that the future or past dont "exist", per se, just that they are in essence shadows of "now"'s that have already happened. None of the past events were ever done in the past, but in their respective "now"s, which have been conglomerated to shape the appearance and exsistence of the current now. Once a moment has passed, we have no conclusive proof that it did exist - for all we know we could all just have appeared this nanosecond with memories of our entire lives that didnt necessarily happen, but since we have the memories, it seems logical that there was a past.

This also doesnt preclude the constancy of time. It can very much be a variable still, with positive time defining some moment in the future, and negative some moment in the past. Velocity is just the difference in position divided by the time between this now and the next...You can predict what happens in certain moments in the future, but those dont exist until we get there and they are 'now', and then after that moment passes, its imprint is left on the new moment and we continue on to the next moment. The past exists in the sense that something happened some while ago and it has had an impact on the current now, but its never something that we can return to, nothing that we can change, nothing that is physical in any way except for the way that it leaves the current 'now'.

To condense this point somewhat (no pun intended, I think, but I'm getting a little 'ahead' of myself, which may or may not be a pun in its own right), and put it into a geometric perspective, "Now" may be thought of as a point on a line. It's 'movement', from past to future, traces a line. But as it is a point, it necessarily cannot be a line. Furthermore, the line itself is only a trajectory.

I think I get your point.

--Europium

Sorry, haven't had a chance to respond here since friday.

After re-reading all the postings here, I would like to say that, while there are many excellent perceptions; that nothing can be resolved here. it is too subjective.

The only way to truly prove that we understand something is, not only to manipulate it, but to create it!

With Time, we must first imagine a universe without time. This is a critical question, because it leads us down the road of how thoroughly time is involved in matter and energy. I will no longer say what I believe, because, after all this, it is such chaos, and proof is now required. enough theorizing about what it is and is not.

We must perform experiments with Time itself, or at the very least, create a computer programmed simulation that models Time and all dependencies (matter and energy, motion and gravity, etc.), such that, when complete, we will have a best fit Working Model. After this, we can take the mathematical model, and all the theories, and try to figure out what Time is.

So my question is, scientifically, what are the complete requirements, for a thorough model of time? What are all the dependencies?

Europium,

I'm just saying, looking at the Evidence, that I don't see a 'past' or 'future'. I only see now. What is the reasoning for proposing anything else. Quantum mechanics, or probability theory says that there is the possibility of an infinite number of universes. If each universe has a complete past and future all its own, things get more complicated. If each universe is a snapshot; a singe instant, then it matches. Subsequently, it might follow that Time is something we do perceptually like 'read' the multiverse.

but really, my point was, scientifically, there is only evidence of 'now', and even that is based on us being observers. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but most of this discussion has been subjective and philosophical, I didn't see a problem putting in alternative ideas. no one has proof of accuracy here. I'm looking for a model that fits observations.

Chris

AFTER-BEFORE=TIME

by Guest poster P. Fleet

After-before=0

Time therefore does not exist, which, in fact may be correct. But that does not tell you "what" time is.

The mathematical correlary is a point in space. No dimensional physical existance, just a "place", not a "what".

Former President Clinton would probably agree that time is an "is", whatever that is.

Hope I have been clear. ;)

Time is Gods' way of keeping everything from happening at once.

Close. Time is God's way of keeping you from being confused by the fact that everything IS happening at once!

MrInvestor writes: "Former President Clinton would probably agree that time is an "is", whatever that is. Hope I have been clear."

Wasn't Former President Clinton from Hope? Arkansas?

muiporuE--

I often see a common theme in any discussion on the nature of time, this thread is no exception. The common theme seems to be the belief that time is merely a construct of our minds.

Time is involved in many of our formulae and equations, it is measurable, we can observe its effects etc. Therefore, I would say that time is a very real and physical thing. Space is not just a word we use to describe the absence of something, it is, like time, a tangible, measurable, observable entity.

Time should be regarded as being as real and tangible as an automobile or a photon. Simply because we can't feel it's weight in our hand or see it's colour, we should not condem it to being nothing more than a word or idea.

Like the experiments being carried out to detect gravity waves (or particles etc), I believe time will also be found to be an actual physical quantity.

I think I would have to agrue with this idea. What we measure when we measure time is in fact duration. I am defining duration as the period between events measured using an arbitrary unit called "seconds". I don't believe that "seconds" has any relevance to the universe at large. In addition, our perception of time is not constant, as anyone who has shot skeet or driven a race car can tell you. Since the perception of time varies by the viewer, I don't believe that it has any "reality" in the physical sense.

I think I might have to argue with your idea, if you'll permit. One of the largest problems with defining time is that we don't seem to differentiate between the mind's view of time (ie. time flies when having fun), and the physical time (ie. general relativity). As with my post to the comment one level up, I'll use mass again as a counterexample.

You comment that time is relative based on various personal factors - enjoyment, nervousness, lateness for a job interview etc - because for each of these time seems to take varying lengths (despite the fact that 10minutes spent playing hockey is the same length (neglecting relativity effects) as 10 minutes spent in a job interview). I pose this to you now: if you just wake up, your body is still half asleep, and you go and try to lift (I'm still a student so...) your backpack full of textbooks and it feels like it weighs 1kN, but in the middle of the day you go to lift it and it only feels like 500N. Assuming its before lunch or you bought your lunch elsewhere, the bag has the exact same contents as before, but your perception of its weight (and therefore mass since gravity is effectively constant) has changed dramatically. In that sense, does mass have any "reality" in a physical sense, considering that it can feel heavier or lighter at different times, despite being the same value throughout?

While I agree that time deserves to be considered as an equal to mass, force, length, and other tangible quanta, I question whether that shifts time into the "real" category, or rather shifts those others into the "construct of our minds" category. I believe that nothing that we can see, feel, or interact with necessarily has the characteristics that we believe it has. Ok, I can see this getting confusing fast... basically, all the constituents of the universe that we know of are effectively just approximations to what is actually there based on our current ability to predict/understand them via equations, experiments, and observations.

Take a commonly accepted trait: mass. Mass is nothing but a body's resistance to movement, and is the ratio of the net force applied to the acceleration of the body. I know of no other way to calculate mass other than through that equation (in one form or another). Mass is a concept, just as much as time is, to discern the properties of the world around us. Mass is no less affected by relativity than time, and therefore no less variable depending on your accelerated frame of reference, and yet we don't question its validity. Why not?

It seems like I haven't really said much to validate my suggestion, but most of the people reading this thread are probably pretty bright and would hopefully see what I mean given some thought. Basically, there are neither real or imaginary traits to the universe - everything is a construct created by us to explain what we observe around us. Similarly, if we can define mass as force/acceleration (or some similar arguement based on quantum or string or relativity theory), why cannot we just suffice to say that time is equal to displacement/velocity (or other similar equation) and put it on par with more 'physical' traits (as relativity begins to do with time and length). Naturally any theory proposed now is only a stepping stone between the last theory and the next one, and we can only progress by questioning what we currently believe; but unless there is some other way to approach time (and in my opinion, any other quantification of the universe), is there really much point in arguing over whether time really 'exists' or not...?

The main arguement about time is that it is seen as a continuum, not discretized at all. Then again, we have not proven that mass is entirely discretized either...it's just a much easier concept to grasp because objects obviously come in different masses, so it seems logical to say that there is a base mass that everything is a multiple of. I realize that string theory predicts the Higgs Boson, supposedly the particle that conveys mass to an object, which would seem to be the smallest, indivisible mass unit. They said that about atoms too...and quarks... Another point is that, for us, we can only discern time at the rate at which electrical impulses can travel from our point of sensory input to the receptors in our brain. For example, our eyes function at around 24Hz (I think, lets use that number for the time being). If quantized time is smaller than 1/24 seconds (which it naturally would have to be), then, until we developed accurate timepieces, we would have no inkling that it is anything other than a continuum, just as people had no idea air wasn't a continuum until the advent of atomic and molecular physics. "But Mr. Poster, you could say the same thing about mass!" True, and I do say the same thing, and the only reason that we can discern any masses below the limits of our own tangible senses is because we have the equipment to do it. Due to the uncertainty principle and quantum effects, we can only derive theoretical estimates of masses below a certain point; why would time be any different? Both the measuring equipment and the measured object are affected by mass and time, yet we believe that the mass we read is accurate because the theory said so, and similarly we believe the time a clock shows is accurate too. The problem is, to measure the infinitesimal times, one cannot take samples at half the length of the time quanta and show that there are two quanta in that certain time, just as one cannot measure a mass's quanta by intervals of half that quanta of mass (except through theoretical equations).

Ok, well that turned out a lot longer than expected, I hope that it all made sense, and I would enjoy hearing what you folks have to say on that idea, assuming a thread isnt already started further down the page here...

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." -- Orville Wright

You wrote:

"Time should be regarded as being as real and tangible as an automobile or a photon. Simply because we can't feel it's weight in our hand or see it's colour, we should not condem it to being nothing more than a word or idea."

My question would be "why". I believe that electromagnetic waves are real, though I cannot see, feel, taste, hear or smell most of them. But I can build systems to detect, create and negate them. I cannot (at this point) do that with time. Also time has a strange uni-directional perception built into it. If you are a quantumista, then a "quantime" (my word, hereby officially copyrighted by Harry V. Toll, October 27, 2006!) may be more like a picture frame in a movie film. It flashes by and is no longer seen, but still exists and can be accessed again, if you control the projector. As such, we could debate whether time is the frame itself, or the fact that the frame was seen/detected. Fun and interesting thinking about this stuff

I am not making the case that this view is right, just that we are talking theory, and should not presume in any absolute way that a particular theory is right or wrong, until proven. But then, of course, once proven, one way or the other, it is no longer a theory! Yes that is logical Mr. Spock!

Best regards.

You wrote

"My question would be "why". I believe that electromagnetic waves are real, though I cannot see, feel, taste, hear or smell most of them. But I can build systems to detect, create and negate them. I cannot (at this point) do that with time."

Is that not the point I was making?

Did elecromagnetic radiation exist before our ability to detect it? Of course!

Assuming the universe is finite in size (which an expanding universe must be by definition), and you were able to travel to the edge, would time exist there? What if you crossed the boundry? My answer is no, time was created along with energy, space and everything else. Now, perhaps the term "nothing" which lies outside the universe must be defined, but that seems obvious.

Because we cannot detect the time particle/wave whatever, does not make it a purely mental construct.

I feel lightheaded, is that the luminiferous aether I smell or is it just my caloric aftershave?

Actually, my statement did not make your point, but that is neither here nor there (or is that "then and now"? ), but your point is clear. You believe that there are (my word) "quantimes". That is perfectly fine, and perfectly useable as a theoretical assumpive basis for further discussion/thinking. My point was that the fact that you believe it and want to use it as a fundamental assuption does not necessarily make it correct. Don't get me wrong, not arguing here what IS correct, only pointing out that we should not assume you are correct. It might blind us to what is correct when the opportunity to discern it arrives.

On your statement "Assuming the universe is finite in size (which an expanding universe must be by definition)...". It seems to me that something that is finite in size cannot expand, by definition! (just kidding, presume you meant infinite).

Presuming you meant infinite, that would suggest that it has stopped expanding because it has acheived "infiniteness" or that it is still expanding as it grows to become infinite. In the latter case, where there is a theoretical edge to the unverse, I have to question why it would be that time would not exist beyond that edge. Is there a quantum or relativistic reason for this? Stated another way, at the theoretical edge of the expanding universe, at a point in space beyond the outermost wave, is it your position that time does not exist, then, once the wave passes, time suddenly does exist at that same point? What was going on at that point before the wave got to it?

I have a couple of other questions that are similarly problematic (such problems in physics usually patched by boundary assumptions). If there was no time before the big bang, how did the big bang happen (at any point before the big bang there was not time, therefore the big bang could not happen!)? Usual answer, it all starts here (at the bang). Ok, so what went bang? And if neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed, there must have been something with a lot of energy density that went bang. So that something existed at the time 0 of the big bang. Where was it before?

Its too bad more people don't spend a little time thinking about and discussing this sort of thing. It beats crossword puzzles.

I don't think that we should assume there was a bang either. For example, there is no bang in an electromagnetic waveform, when it crosses over from electric wave to magnetic wave - it simply changes into another dimension. Why can this not be what happens with the universe?

Chris

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/polarizedlight/emwave/index.html

Mr. Investor:

You write: "On your statement 'Assuming the universe is finite in size (which an expanding universe must be by definition)...'. It seems to me that something that is finite in size cannot expand, by definition! (just kidding, presume you meant infinite). "

I think you misconstrued the post you are quoting. Something that is infinite cannot expand. To what size would it expand: something bigger than infinite? In order to sense and measure expansion, the instantaneous size must be finite. The poster goes on to mention the edge of the universe, something that would not be found in an infinite universe.

Beyond the universe, presumably, there is nothing. If there is nothing there is no time.

Nothing is perfect. I am nothing. Therefore I am perfect.

Actually I was kidding the person that had written the previous post wherein he said that the universe was finite in size yet expanding. You and I agree.

My suggestion to you both would be to read "A brief history of time" by Steven Hawking. At one point he asserts a proof whereby the conclusion is that the universe is not only expanding and finite, but has no boundary either (ie like the surface of a balloon). Neither view is necessarily right, but I would tend to give at least some credit to one of the greatest scientific thinkers of our time...

Hawking also postulates that time could be a function of the expansion of the universe. So assume time is actually fluctuating. As an analogy, assume that time is accelerating, but as it goes past we only perceive a velocity:

Within the last few seconds a year could have pasted but we would not know. So how could we compare our perceived passage of time and this acceleration of a universal time frame? (Or non-universal time frame?) We can not find a point that does not move. (Maybe the center of the big bang?) But I'd guess the only frame of reference that a person could percieve this would be c. That is the only current universal constant that everyone seems to agree on. It's impossible I guess, plus the travel time of light across any distance from the lights perspective is supposed to be zero, but if a photon witnesses variation of the universe on it's travels then time would be changing with respect to some universal time right? Does that make any sense?

So next time you talk to a photon, ask it for me, it's not my job.

post #88 tag = guest not asking original = guest2

I get it, he's going to say time is money.

tag = guest2

You wrote: "and you were able to travel to the edge, would time exist there? What if you crossed the boundry? My answer is no, time was created along with energy, space and everything else. Now, perhaps the term "nothing" which lies outside the universe must be defined, but that seems obvious."

-----------

I don't want to rain on your parade, but the geometry of the Universe is both more complicated and at the same time simpler than what you might think by throwing around terms like boundary, edge, and outside.

Let's start with outside. There isn't one. (I didn't say this would be easy.)

Since there isn't an outside, there isn't a boundary, either.

And since there is neither an outside nor a boundary, it is meaningless to even talk in terms of there being an inside. The reason why the term inside is meaningless in this context, not to mention the term boundary, is because outside, boundary, and inside are meaningful only in relationship, and you need all three for any one of them to be meaningful. Otherwise, you might find yourself doing silly things like discussing the "inside of air" in front of your mom's friends and making a complete ass out of yourself. You might want to stay from crowds in general.

A boundary serves the essential purpose of separating an inside from an outside. If there's no outside, then what is the boundary a boundary between?

It's fine to talk about the inside, outside, and the boundary so long as you stick to things that actually have all three - like an egg. But when it comes to talking about the Universe, you're talking about a different beast entirely.

Thought you'd wanna know.

--Europium

Ever wonder if Time, like so many other properties of our universe, is quantized?

--Europium

You wrote...

"Ever wonder if Time, like so many other properties of our universe, is quantized?"

I have wondered that for some "time" now.

I do believe that it can be, further, I believe that it is a physical entity and not just a mental construct.

My reasons lie in my faith, but that is for another discussion.

"Ever wonder if Time, like so many other properties of our universe, is quantized?"

Right now is the US dollar, but many are fighting to make it the Euro.

I think you were close with the beer, but I have a different theory. Obviously, there appears to be a connection between time, money, and beer.

It has been said that time = money, but there needs to be some form of a constant in that equation and I propose to you that constant is beer!

So, the new equation has the form:

T= bM

Where T is time, M is money, and b is beer.

If you look at the lables for each component then it works out as:

T is in seconds

M is in dollars

b is in Stouts

And as long as there is a constant amount of beer, there will always be the time to consume it, given the money.

I hope you made that up yourself, because I'd sure like to shake your hand!

High Five!

--Europium

Working with this theme, my son just handed me a note which defines time:

Time = Money

Money = Power

Power = Energy/time

Therefore: Time = energy/time

Money = sqrt evil

Time = sqrt energy

Time = sqrt evil

The concept of 'time' was created in order to assist in the definition of events and to be able to discus them in a logical manner.

If there were no reasoning beings to contemplate events, then there would just be events and no such thing as time.

2-cents please

If there were no reasoning beings (I will include almost all life in this, as earlier it was stated that dogs have a, if somewhat undeveloped, sense of time, I see no reason to suggest that any lower life doesnt also have a sense of time, just a varying degrees of astuteness), then there would be nobody to perceive the universe. Therefore, would anything really exist at that point...? Time would not necessarily be alone in the category of traits that would be forgotten. There might not be anyone around to say "yes, this event happened before that event", but, assuming the universe still exists at this point, if a meteor crashed into the desolate earth, there is still a theromodynamic and observable arrow of time (though nobody is around to observe it).

I'll leave you with this: If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time is the phenomena that all "mass" in the Universe (including the quantum universe as well), is in motion. It speaks to the kinetic interaction of "mass" in relationship to other "mass". We perceive time because we are conscious beings, capable of "seeing" or observing this interaction all around us.

A better question to ask is what is consciousness?

That's my 2cents.

wndrtch

Ok, post number four then time to get back to work...I was waiting for someone to directly bring this up; I appologize for the possible wordiness of the following...

Preamble: I am relatively spiritual, though not religious. For lack of a better understanding, I will henceforth differentiate between two planes of consciousness, the conscious thought, and the conscious 'knowing'. That thought that just crossed your mind ("Umm...ok, this guy is wierd...scientific respect for this post dropping...") would fall into the conscious thought category, while you could probably think of the knowing as the pre-staging area where your mind/spirit/metaphasicquantumbeing conjures up the proper string of words to convey that thought. It is this exact phenomenon that perplexes me the most about time.

Focus for yourself if you dont believe me. Think of any statement and say it to yourself in your thoughts ("A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" works). Everyone knows that it takes time to say something. "Hello" takes just under a second to say, "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" takes significantly longer, but the thing is that there is a connected train of thought from one syllable, from one linguistic quanta to the next so that you dont end up saying helicopter instead of hello. If you focus on saying a single word in your head, why is it that you know exactly what you will say before you begin, half way through, and once your done, despite having had to spend the full 1 second to consciously say it. That knowledge seems to occur a split second ahead of conscious thought and keeps your mind on the proper track.

Perhaps this is a segment from buddhism where nirvana is when you exist in that knowing spot where you dont consciously have to think full thoughts to process what you know, but short of nirvana, there still seems to be a time component of thought that is unavoidable, as well as a somewhat distinct time component of 'knowing'. It seems that the conscious thought is what pulls the knowledge from knowing into proper consciousness, but it always seems to be one step ahead of the conscious thought. Almost like a square wave clock signal where the knowing occurs on the step-up and the thinking/execution occurs on the step down.

I have no idea if this is just me, if I am just crazy, or if there is actually anything in this idea, but it struck me a week back and I've been curious to see what others think about it. If this was too random or vague or new-age for anyone, post a reply and I'll try to answer it because I want to get some of your ideas on it too.

Guest asks: "A better question to ask is what is consciousness?"

--------

If I were to take seriously, for a moment, the claims of the Evolutionists - many of whom assert that our origin as a species can ultimately be traced to a chance formation of amino acids in some primordial ocean - and subsequently explore the deepest, most profound implications of these claims, then I would be forced to concede that consciousness - and everything that consciousness implies - is nothing more than an artifact of a biochemical process.

--Europium

...and...?

Does there have to be some greater meaning than that something just is? Be it come from the touch of God or the chance collision of amino acids...

Talented Fool writes: "Does there have to be some greater meaning than that something just is? Be it come from the touch of God or the chance collision of amino acids..."

--------

Go deeper. Much deeper. Think about this strictly from an Evolutionist viewpoint: Concepts like meaning, greater, something, touch, God, chance, come - even the concept of a concept - spring from consciousness. Your question itself springs from consciousness, does it not? Evolutionary theory makes no provision for the existence of external, independent, proactive agents, such as a God. If its claims are true, and if we are simply the latest individual manifestions of a long, increasingly complex biochemical process (which is all we are if its claims are true) then the peculiar artifact of this process, an artifact which we call consciousness, makes your question - as necessarily being a product of consciousness - completely irrelevant.

--Europium

"If its claims are true..."

I neglected to point out in my previous post that Truth, itself, is also a product of consciousness which, in turn, is nothing more than a peculiar product of biochemistry. Rocks, for example, don't trouble themselves over concepts like Truth, Kindness, Integrity, Love, Value, Honesty, and so forth, because their chemisty doesn't support this kind of behavior. That rocks do not do so is neither bad nor good - it simply is and we don't worry about it. To speak of a rock as finding meaning in its existence, for example, is silly - but only in the context that our biochemistry makes such a judgement possible.

Taking the Evolutionist view, I do what I do because that's my chemistry - and nothing more. You might object, but that's your chemistry. You might add a little quantum-mechanical seasoning to the mix, but otherwise that's pretty much what we all are in the Evolutionist View - once you tighten your belt and strip the belief right down to its very socks. Taking the Evolutionist View to the extreme (which I highly recommend doing as often as possible) - but without sidestepping or violating a single one of its underlying principles - we really can't escape the fact every time, that we are all - every single one of us - biochemical things among countless other things in a universe that itself began as a random, quantum fluctuation.

For any us to have meaning (let alone intrinsic meaning) that is not a product of the complex biochemistry that produces consciousness (as what else could in the Evolutionist view?), a meaning apart from ourselves, a meaning whose own existence transcends ourselves as biochemical things - an intrinsic meaning - has to come from outside. Otherwise we have no more claim on having meaning (whatever the hell that is in this context) than does a rock. Were we to fully subscribe to the Evolutionist view while still somehow able to hang onto our intellectual integrity, we would have to finally confront the full implications of its claims that: We are ultimately just things. All of us. Not only just things, but things having their ancestral origins in random, completely meaningless events in a universe having an equally random and meaningless origin.

This is so comforting. Where do I sign?

--Europium

Europium:

You say, playing devil's (no pun intended) advocate: "We are ultimately just things. All of us. Not only just things, but things having their ancestral origins in random, completely meaningless events in a universe having an equally random and meaningless origin."

And you fail to find comfort in that?

What could be more comforting than to know that these things, us, have sprung from nothing yet can create meaning not only for ourselves, but for all other things as well. We've created hundreds of different creation myths and zillions of religious views… and we've created science, to give the other half of our brain some exercise, too. All that from these complex proteins. We are GODS!

Blink writes:

"What could be more comforting than to know that these things, us, have sprung from nothing yet can create meaning not only for ourselves, but for all other things as well. We've created hundreds of different creation myths and zillions of religious views… and we've created science, to give the other half of our brain some exercise, too. All that from these complex proteins."

--------------

In the Evolutionist view, what is comfort? What is meaning? Knowledge? Consciousness? GODhood?

Look, if it's the engine you wanna be looking at, mightn't it help to lift the hood?

--Europium

By all means, open the hood!

But be prepared to find an incredible tangle of pieces, without immediately apparent functions. (Why is there this tube connecting the guilt module to the sex control unit?) Having found that mess, do you then start to take things apart to find out what makes it all tick, or do you simply close the hood again, and look to some authority for an explanation? Or do you make up a plausible lie? Or do you say, "Whoa! Way to complicated. I wanted something easy and quick. What's on TV?"

I can't speak for evolutionists (although I certainly believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur) but I suspect they find comfort in the same things that many of us do: the search for truth, the smile of a child, the smell of fresh coffee in the morning, the satisfaction of a life well led, compassion, love. Evolutionists might devolve GODhood to goodhood to goodness. Or perhaps not.

The fact that we make it all up doesn't make it any less real.

While I don't particularly feel like entering into a whole philosophical debate over evolution vs creation (I am assuming this would be the other side of the coin from whence your opinions stem), I will just say this much.

First off, the major debate between evolution and creationism is centered around beliefs on both sides, and all too often is seen as a black or white issue. As the Jehova's witnesses point out every time they come by my door, the <i>theory</i> of evolution is full of holes and missing links, which is true, and it takes a certain amout of unsubstantiated belief to believe that this theory is true. I point this out to show that this is not hard science vs whimsical religion, but a meeting of two belief systems. Secondly, as they are two competing belief systems, not strictures that must be adhered to to the letter, there is room for a grey area in between (consider that God created the universe, and left it to proceed on its own through evolutionary means from whenever it was created). If I were to use your same arguements to discredit creationism, I would be holding you to the creation of the universe in 6, 24 hour days, and would suggest that the belief that god made the universe means that we can never even begin to comprehend it so that our entire scientific progress is all for naught. I would assume this is not the case, and I don't want to speculate about what your beliefs are, as I would appreciate that you dont about mine, but just enough to say that, like the whole discussion on time as it stands, there are many viewpoints and the likely solution might end up somewhere in between.

I, personally, take comfort in knowing that, while we might be the most significant beings on this planet, we are still, biologically speaking, compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and other elements, but we are also so much more. I am an evolutionist, insofar as I don't believe in God creating the universe as we see it today (perhaps he is responsible for whatever there was in 'the beginning' of the universe [big bang?]) but that does not preclude me to believe that we are lifeless, soulless beings with no meaning to our existence. The evolutionist view doesn't eliminate the possibility for some spark of life in the spiritual sense to come forth, but then again, maybe thats just my chemistry speaking...

Thank you for your post. It was levelheaded and succinct - and thoughtful.

My intent in discussing this view, as I've tried to make clear, is not one of contrasting one view against another. This is not a Them vs Us sort of discussion. I've tried to keep the topic unpolluted by allusions to other beliefs as much as possible. And just to set the record straight, I don't succumb to many of more popular claims of the Creationsist view. Nor am I in the middle of the Road. It's far more complex than that. There are elements in both views that I find objectionable from my perspective, and enough so that I can say, to my credit, that I don't subscribe to either one wholeheartedly. C vs E has become extremely politicized both in the schools and in the pulpit. I've been to churches where, if were to be 'found out' as not fully subscribing to the Creationist View in all respects, I might just as well rent an interstate billboard and announce my "godless heresy" for all the world to see. The reaction would be vitriolic, and I know this to be true because I've seen it. I might just as well as spit in Dick Cheney's or Donald Rumsfeld's face my criticism of this current Administration (Regime?) and be declared by either one as not only un-Patriotic and un-American, but as a virtual traitor to my country. Were it Rumsfeld's face in which I spat, I would most certainly be branded a Fascist. The extent of the polarization on all these fronts is extreme and, to be quite honest, downright scary.

--Europium

Europium:

You say: "Evolutionary theory makes no provision for the existence of external, independent, proactive agents, such as a God."

Nor does physics theory, nor chemistry theory, nor biological theory, nor cosmology. The provision is not necessary to the superficial understanding physics any more than it is for the superficial understanding of life processes. On the other hand, for a deeper understanding of any subject, one must seriously consider whether there are or have been external independent proactive agents.

Perhaps consciousness is not simply an artifact of a chemical process but the main product of that process.

Timothy Leary had something to say about the effects of chemicals on consciousness.

You wrote: "Nor does physics theory, nor chemistry theory, nor biological theory, nor cosmology. The provision is not necessary to the superficial understanding physics any more than it is for the superficial understanding of life processes. On the other hand, for a deeper understanding of anysubject, one must seriously consider whether there are or have been external independent proactive agents."

-----------------------

I completely agree on all points. On the other hand, please allow to remind you that, all along, the scope of this discussion has been deliberately limited to a particular theory - not a broader, more general carte blanche discussion of all of them.

I especially agree with this statement: "On the other hand, for a deeper understanding of any subject, one must seriously consider whether there are or have been external independent proactive agents."

Absolutely! However, many of those who subscribe to the Evolutionist view, in particular, seem to have approached this theory having already dismissed any possibility of an external agent before making even an initial attempt to probe the theory's deeper implications. I seldom see this curious cart-before-the-horse approach in my discussions about various other scientific theories. So, naturally, I want to know why. Why is it that many of those who subscribe to this view approach any deep exploration of this particular view differently? It often seems to me, in my discussions with with many of those who subscribe to this view, that for them this view is useful not so much as an objective description of historical events, but as some sort of objective, conclusive "proof" to bolster their own preconceptions about the existence of external agents. Specifically those preconceptions which automatically exclude any possibility for the existence of external agents.

While subscribing to the superficial claims of this theory, many of these same people seem either extremely reluctant to explore its deeper implications as I've tried to do here, or they simply accept the theory on faith that it is indeed proof that no such external agent exists. Strangely, these are almost always the same folks who decry faith as being the lingua franca of those foolish enough to sport a religous point of view. Hypocrisy takes strange forms indeed.

--Europium

For many people, perhaps most, the notion of having evolved from apes or ape-like creatures is very troubling, for two reasons. First, it is humiliating, in the literal sense of the word: it forces a humility upon us that we may find uncomfortable: are we just slightly "better" than a mere "animal"? Second, it conflicts with many creation stories that are at the heart of our various religions. Some might say that these religious beliefs are our most dearly held beliefs. (Others might say that if those beliefs were really so deeply held, then why do we find it so easy to act in direct conflict with the word and apparent intent of the great religious texts? Is it not simply that we say we believe – perhaps out of a sense of propriety, yet act as if we do not… that we talk the talk, but cannot walk the walk?)

So, for many people, the theory of evolution is offensive, or at least uncomfortable. There is probably no fundamental concept in science that is so controversial, and steeped in emotion, right now, and particularly in the US. Why the controversy right now? Back when I was a kid in the fifties and sixties, acceptance of evolution was essentially a done deal, and science was riding high. We (in the US) had a cold war to win and needed to be first in space. (We had to beat the godless communists!) SAT scores were never higher and we were cranking out loads of scientists and engineers. Now the pendulum has swung the other way. SAT scores have plummeted. We have a guy in the White house who doesn't read newspapers, who can't put together more than one clear sentence in four, and who seems to wallow in the simplistic views and macho posturing of a redneck. But he sure can thump a bible, and without the support of the religious (far) right, he would not be president. So religion has been politicized, and like politics, polarized. We have the Creationists on one side, the Evolutionists on the other.

Too many in both camps are saying "You're with us or you're against us!" pulling those in the middle to each end. Although I would not call myself an evolutionist, my own exposure and experience has probably pulled me toward the evolutionist end of the spectrum. It often seems to me, for instance, that (rewriting your words a bit) many of those who subscribe to the Creationist or Intelligent Design view, in particular, seemed to have approached their theories having already dismissed any possibility of a rational explanation before making even an initial attempt to probe their theory's deeper implications, improbabilities, and inconsistencies. Most of the Creationists I've met have never read either the Origin of the Species or The Descent of Man.

Certainly, we're not at opposite ends of the spectrum. But even if we were, I would no doubt continue to value your posts here. However, intrigued as I was by your definition of reprocution, I was saddened to see that you missed an important aspect of the word, a word so pregnant with nuances in meaning that it verily oozes. While we are still working to find a direct etymological link between reprocution and reprobation, we believe it is clear that even if we cannot find that link, there is still a strong connotative link. What more appropriate end for those subject to reprobation than reprocution?

I think our views are a bit closer, quite actually, than it might seem at first glance. I deliberately constrained the scope of my discussion to the Evolutionist View, in order to probe its depths without spurious distractions. My approach might be described as that of one who had no world-view whatsoever - neither a Them nor an Us view - and who is shopping for one. This isn't the case, of course, but as a view-shopper I want to get the best deal for my money, and so you can be damn sure I'm gonna look under the hood before I buy.

I'd also like to say how refreshing it is to talk to someone who has actually bothered to plumb the depths of his or her beliefs - even if I might not happen to agree with the conclusions. I value intellectual honesty; especially so as it seems to be an extremely rare commodity these days. I'd much rather talk to an honest atheist, for example, who knows why he is an aetheist and can explain why he is an atheist, than to talk to a Christian, for example, who doesn't have a clue why he believes as he does and who has not given it a moment's thought other than to say "the Bible told me so." This is bullshit. And I absolutely cannot stand to talk to either a lukewarm atheist or a lukewarm Christian - or a lukewarm anything else, for that matter. I only tolerate hearing such nonsense from these folks because they are known to be an important source of protein. Not to mention being excellent bad examples.

I personally believe Bush & Sons falls into this latter category. And as a Texan, I bristle every time someone rides me as being from "Bush Country." Bush is a Connecticut Yankee. You can even smell it even in his wake. And as for his being a Texan, Mr. Bush is, as we say here, "All Hat and No Cattle." I might point out that he was governor here over a lot of folks objections. Insofar as Mr. Bush's thumping the Bible, I tend to think that for him - given his human rights record alone - the Book is truly nothing more than a percussion instrument.

My opinions. And I've got a lot of them, to be sure. And don't even get me going on the Creationist View.

--Europium

You wrote:

"However, intrigued as I was by your definition of reprocution, I was saddened to see that you missed an important aspect of the word, a word so pregnant with nuances in meaning that it verily oozes. While we are still working to find a direct etymological link between reprocution and reprobation, we believe it is clear that even if we cannot find that link, there is still a strong connotative link. What more appropriate end for those subject to reprobation than reprocution?"

----------------

Then here's a new word for you to connotate, you reprobate: collaborate

--Europium

Strange you should mention "collaborate." It is so often confused with the word "collarborate" that I keep them both on my list of "difficult" words, and bring them up alternately when in a pedantic mood, which is most of the time. I must flee, but will try to pontificate later on the more important distinctions.

I looked up both words just to make sure. It seems dictionary.com knows about collaborate, the word I had intended, but was still scratching its head when I kicked it off and googled collarborate. Surprisingly, it seems that Hewlett-Packard, General Motors, Hitachi, NASA, Sun Microsystems, and probably a lot of other big outfits do most of the actual collarboration.

Google, bless its heart, also suggested the alternative spelling collar borate - itself a term veritably oozing with potential.

I dunno. My guess is that individuals collaborate, whereas large corporations collarborate.

It's gotta be those damn suits they wear. It's a well-known fact that ties and tightly-buttoned starched/borated collars restrict oxygen flow to what's left of the corporate-climbing, ass-kissing, back-stabbing lackey brain. Most remarkable of all is that the effect is directly proportional to the number of promotions you've received, squared, plus a large constant. Consequently, the more 'executive' you get, the more pronounced the effect and the less oxygen available to those few remaining neurons. You find that dextroamphetamines seem to compensate somewhat, by driving what's left a little harder.

If you survive this interminable stage and have not keeled over stone cold dead from a stress-induced heart attack or from some freakish irridescent skin cancer that mysteriously appeared on your face after last week's midnight tour of the company's latest toxic waste site, you finally cross over the threshold into the blissful, corporate nirvana of the executive stratosphere.

After years of unrelenting oxygen depravation, you are now clinically brain-dead. Natually, you receive your 'terminal' promotion and find, much to what would have been your surprise had you any faculties left to register it, you are now CEO of a giant, multinational corporation (except that you can't seem to remember it's name. Hmmm....was it..um...Genron? nah!). You've now reached the pinnacle of corporate power. Your struggles are finally over.

People call you sir.

--Europium

(sorry ladies: Lady execs don't wear ties, so their promotions follow a different pattern).

I googled "collarborate" also and was surprised to see how casually the term is used. As you probably also found, GM and Daimler/Chrysler are to collarborate on hybrids. As we both know, collarborating is rarely fun, and is often followed by a relatively complex procedure, the collaboration.

I was quite young when first introduced to both words. I can still hear the shouts next door: "If you don't shut up I'll shove this tree up your…" The last word was garbled. Not long after that, an ambulance arrived, and Mrs. Bartholomew was taken to the hospital, where she was met by her proctologist. They'd first attempted the removal through a simple incision on the side of the torso, the well known "collateral" procedure. Turns out (as it often does in these cases, I later learned) the more elaborate extraction procedure was required, namely the collaborate, the cure of last resort for those who have been collarborated. (The careful and thoughtful reader will note that there seems to be a superfluous "l" in collarborate. Some of my best people are working on an explanation – but so far they come up with nothing.)

Given this background, you can imagine how shocked I was to see that GM and Daimler/Chrysler would be performing collarborations on top of hybrids. I suppose better on top than inside a hybrid, but to whom are they doing this? My guess would be people from Toyota, whose hybrids are probably the ones to be used, GM and DC having failed miserably at bringing one to market. Frankly, if they successfully perform these reprehensible acts, I hope they are reprocuted.

As a little break from all this gibberish about words and their proper use, let's think about punctuation. It ticks me off when people run two independent phrases together with only a comma between, this sentence is a good bad example. Instead of a comma there should be a semicolon. Perhaps in the next lesson we can talk about the proper use of the colon.

Ken writes: "Perhaps in the next lesson we can talk about the proper use of the colon."

So are you proposing that I get the colonoscopy, or were you thinking of someone else here more deserving of this dubious honor, your honor?

By the way, did they ever get all the splinters out of Mrs. Bartholomew's thingamabob? Or was the proctologist barking up the wrong tree?

--Europium

Doesn't reprobation leave warts on your hand?

(checking...) Yes.

Consciousness was defined as a bilogical clock of 38.2Hz and was observed by Bhudhist monks in meditation. I think they have good control on their minds so their observation may be reasonable. They can make the body so hot to dryout cloths or can cool their bodies as animals do to hibernate. Consciousness is not fully used by all. Some are not conscious about the capability of their consciousness itself.

Sankaracharya an Indian monk defined the mind and consciousness differently. There are two identities - mind and one that know about the mind. I think there are more and there are some that even mind does not know and are part of the consciousness.

Our knowledge is through senses and these are after effects of actions by mind. Some go without notice as they produce no pain or pleasure like heat beat. It keeps doing job as per need and as we think.

While I was asleep, some one was banging the dore of my house. My heart bumped in same way as he bangs the dore. They were having direct effect. Hence, brain and its reactions are not just what we think and do. There are something that work without thinking.

It is 11:30 PM in India. Bye.

"Consciousness was defined as a bilogical clock of 38.2Hz and was observed by Bhudhist monks in meditation. I think they have good control on their minds so their observation may be reasonable."

---------------

I must say, yours is one of the clearest, most succinct examples of perfectly circular reasoning I've seen in at least a decade. There's gotta be an award for this.

(BTW, you might want to avoid operating any heavy machinery for awhile.)

--Europium