Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Causality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    No offense Shunya, but that is scientific mumbo jumbo. It reminds me of Feymans quote, and I paraphrase, that "if you can't explain something simply, in simple terms, then you probably have no idea what you are talking about." The above doesn't explain anything, it just makes brash assertions.
    What you call brash assertions are simply how Methodological Naturalism is defined to keep it scientific objective evidence, findings and theories and hypothesis neutral and separate from any theological/philosophical questions where apologetics and theologians persist in misusing science to justify their own beliefs.

    I will take this as a specific failure to respond. It also reflects your continuing effort to manipulate science to justify your beliefs.

    Source: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933



    Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

    Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it
    When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The results were not pretty.

    It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-19-2018, 11:47 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I'm with JimL on this Shuny. What you have posted is an assertion that 'things are just this way'. What you might be trying to say is that time is an illusion and the universe is a static thing. what we call the past and the future are just fixed elements of some larger construct. The implications there are significant. And I am unlikely to buy into that as a reasonable explanation of the universe. Theologically, I believe free will plays a part in our existence and response to God. That belief is going to make me very reluctant to accept a view of the universe that says the future is as fixed a construct as the past, that who we are and more importantly who we will become is fixed and unchangable.

      Jim
      I will take this as a specific failure to respond. It also reflects your continuing effort to manipulate science to justify your beliefs.

      Source: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933



      Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

      Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it
      When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The results were not pretty.

      It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-19-2018, 11:47 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I will take this as a specific failure to respond. It also reflects your continuing effort to manipulate science to justify your beliefs.
        To the point of: 'continuing effort to manipulate science ...' - that is absolutely ridiculous Shuny. Good luck finding a clear example of such manipulation. To the point of my previous comments: saying I would be reluctant to accept a claim because of my religious beliefs - for example - is not 'manipulation'. It is disagreeing with you, and simply recognizing my own built in biases - something you might what to take a look at yourself.

        And since when did we move from friendly to unfriendly interactions?

        Originally posted by shunyadragon
        Source: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933



        Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

        Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it
        When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The results were not pretty.

        It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

        © Copyright Original Source


        This is one theory of time Shuny. It is not the only theory - or the only argument.

        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe

        Further, It does not claim that the Quantum world extends beyond our own universe to what this universe might have emerged from. And most importantly and to the point of this conversation: it does not discount the implication of my original statement (in its second, less confusing, form):

        [the concept that the universe was created] implies some sort of underpinning from which it emerged or 'began'

        Finally, even if the B-theory happens to explain certain aspects of reality, it does not impose a necessary fixedness on the universe in that the resolution of quantum indeterminancy by the observer is part of that reality. We are all 'observers', and God would be the ultimate 'observer'. Conceptually, there still can be a fundamental difference between what is future and what is past where the resolution of what the future is lies yet indeterminate relative to what is the present.



        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          To the point of: 'continuing effort to manipulate science ...' - that is absolutely ridiculous Shuny. Good luck finding a clear example of such manipulation. To the point of my previous comments: saying I would be reluctant to accept a claim because of my religious beliefs - for example - is not 'manipulation'. It is disagreeing with you, and simply recognizing my own built in biases - something you might what to take a look at yourself.

          And since when did we move from friendly to unfriendly interactions?




          This is one theory of time Shuny. It is not the only theory - or the only argument.

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe

          Further, It does not claim that the Quantum world extends beyond our own universe to what this universe might have emerged from. And most importantly and to the point of this conversation: it does not discount the implication of my original statement (in its second, less confusing, form):

          [the concept that the universe was created] implies some sort of underpinning from which it emerged or 'began'

          Finally, even if the B-theory happens to explain certain aspects of reality, it does not impose a necessary fixedness on the universe in that the resolution of quantum indeterminancy by the observer is part of that reality. We are all 'observers', and God would be the ultimate 'observer'. Conceptually, there still can be a fundamental difference between what is future and what is past where the resolution of what the future is lies yet indeterminate relative to what is the present.

          Jim
          Jim

          It is a legitimate widely held theory, and versions of it, and yes there may be alternatives. The point is your acrid one sided criticism with a religious agenda did not reflect that my post is legitimately grounded in a scientific hypothesis.

          Please note that I never suggested that this was the only hypothesis, because I said it was a 'major view,' and widely supported.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Jim

            It is a legitimate widely held theory, and versions of it, and yes there may be alternatives. The point is your acrid one sided criticism with a religious agenda did not reflect that my post is legitimately grounded in a scientific hypothesis.

            Please note that I never suggested that this was the only hypothesis, because I said it was a 'major view,' and widely supported.
            Acrid?

            Look - you misunderstood my original point. Then you responded with a quote in a vacuum that may or may not be related to the B-Theory of time. You gave no attribution - you tossed it out there like it was your own words - which is a SERIOUS lapse in a discussion of this sort.

            And then, in spite of your own mistakes, you are trying to act like I was somehow rude to you and then accused me of 'CONTINUOUSLY misrepresenting science to support my religious position, which is patently ridiculous.

            I've been as polite as I can to this point with you. But if you want to have any sort of useful conversation, you'll to acknowledge these mistakes and ratchet down the accusations. It's up to you at this point.


            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              What you call brash assertions are simply how Methodological Naturalism is defined to keep it scientific objective evidence, findings and theories and hypothesis neutral and separate from any theological/philosophical questions where apologetics and theologians persist in misusing science to justify their own beliefs.

              I will take this as a specific failure to respond. It also reflects your continuing effort to manipulate science to justify your beliefs.

              Source: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933



              Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

              Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it
              When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The results were not pretty.

              It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Shunya, none of that explains your claim, it merely asserts it. If you are going to make a claim then you need to understand what you're talking about, not just what is said. In other words how does time, cause, and effect emerge from qauntum entanglment? Just repeating scientific assertions doesn't help me to understand it.
              Last edited by JimL; 04-23-2018, 09:37 AM.

              Comment


              • From Shuny's link:


                But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

                In this case, Page and Wootters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

                But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

                This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.


                Amazing how this sounds like what I and others have been saying about time and God. To him the universe is complete, he knows all times equally, past, present and future. This doesn't eliminate free will because the knowledge of the "future" is the result of free will. God just knows what those choices will be because his observation point is the equivalent of a person far in the future looking back after everything has been completed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  From Shuny's link:


                  But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

                  In this case, Page and Wootters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

                  But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

                  This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.


                  Amazing how this sounds like what I and others have been saying about time and God. To him the universe is complete, he knows all times equally, past, present and future. This doesn't eliminate free will because the knowledge of the "future" is the result of free will. God just knows what those choices will be because his observation point is the equivalent of a person far in the future looking back after everything has been completed.
                  Give it up Sparko. You can't make sense out of non-sense, or logic out of the illogical. If an outside observer see's the world as static, then it is static whether those inside it experience the illusion of time or not.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Give it up Sparko. You can't make sense out of non-sense, or logic out of the illogical. If an outside observer see's the world as static, then it is static whether those inside it experience the illusion of time or not.
                    JimL, you obviously have no clue.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                    48 responses
                    135 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                    16 responses
                    74 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                    6 responses
                    47 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X