Intoscience

"I'm just pointing out that to understand if time exists then we may need to understand fundamentally what time is. Since it appears that relativity breaks down at the small extremes, where time may fundamentally emerge from, then maybe relativity is not the key to answering this question" I have nothing to add in terms of relativity. Relativity is consistent to our observations and predictions and is currently the best model of space-time we have. I just refer you to this (my quote) in one of my previous posts. Thanks Thanks, I may start a thread on this topic since the talk I listened to was very interesting, when discussing the smaller distances and high energies of the LHC quantum probing experiments. I just have no expertise and have limited knowledge on the subject.

Again, I agree, no argument there. Maybe, perhaps we do agree then? Anyhow it's perhaps not that relevant to the discussion in hand. The discussion is about inclusion and disclusion due to gender identity.

Of course people are tempted to cheat, that's why we have rules, limits and any other classification.

I just have, I don't agree that competition is "just a game" and I don't agree that unfairness should be ignored. Both of which you seem to be asserting. I don't see what substance either argument has. If you play a game and there are no rules then what is the point of playing?

I apologise, for posting this in the relativity thread (my bad) I shan't continue to add to this discussion further.

More because I don't agree with your point of view, and your arguments lack any substance. Your comment that it's just a "game" and the direction you were heading with this line of thought is one I'm not in favour of. It's the same as the latest trend, the idea that kids should learn to just participate and that there is no need for competition. Well this might be true dependent on the context, age and circumstance, but completely abolishing all competition from society is not an healthy state. We are genetically wired to compete, stemming from our survival instincts coded in over millions of years of evolution. To suddenly supress this natural instinct will only result in it manifesting in some undesirable way. Competition, especially sporting competition is a healthy way to regulate natural instincts, desires and can teach us to control our aggression in a positive way. And also as I said previously the value of the game depends on the individual playing it and what effect it may have on that person's life, positive or negative, or non at all.

To be honest, no disrespect, but I've stopped reasoning over your replies. They seem to be either attempting to derail the discussion or just go round in nonsensical circles.

Thanks, I'll pass on your compliments. Yeah she is something else, they nicknamed her "The Terminator" because of her stamina and shear determination to carry on regardless. Not many would match her in this respect. I actually agree, I think maybe the solution is to take the focus offer gender identity and focus on other aspects for classification. You've lost me on this one 😵

Contrary to physical law? I'm positing conditions that are at the extremes of our understanding and ideas from respected physicists who specialize in this field. Non of this is my own idea, I'm just pointing out that to understand if time exists then we may need to understand fundamentally what time is. Since it appears that relativity breaks down at the small extremes, where time may fundamentally emerge from, then maybe relativity is not the key to answering this question.

I don't entirely disagree, It would be an interesting and maybe fruitful experiment to ditch the old regime of gender classification and introduce such a system as you suggest. I maybe mis-interpreting you, but I don't like your insinuation. I'm not sexist in anyway, I advocate equal opportunity regardless of gender! My argument is for the rights and fairness of all gender identities. My wife was in the forces, she is an accomplished athlete, she gives as good as she gets regardless her adversary. She has fought and beat men in many disciplines (she is tough, and scary at times). But she recognises and accepts the physical advantages the majority of males have over her. Is she wrong to have this view?

So why have gender classification?

Ok, thanks, So all female athletes have potentially has much strength and power as their male counter parts in each and every discipline? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in how this is determined? Exactly. I'd like to rephrase the question slightly, so does this mean now we identify multiple genders, that each gender has potentially equal strength and power capabilities ?

Is this meant to be sarcastic or a genuine reply? I asked a reasonable question that I don't know the answer to. Society has taught me that male and female classification in sports was due to the physical advantage a male may have over a female. So my question is, is this a fact and if so is this reasoning outdated? Generally - strength

I don't disagree, but is the gender classification not fundamentally based on the physical advantage one gender may hold over another in the first place? What was the original reasoning behind male & female classifications? Does this reasoning still hold true or is it out dated? I'm not arguing for one or the other, I have stated position many times. I'm just asking these questions to get a better understanding of the situation.

Maybe, but I did explain why I considered this concept based on Roger Penrose's cyclic universe hypothesis. Again, you are mis-understanding my point. Maybe I'm not making myself very clear. I'm focusing on what time is, i.e the definition of time as a single concept. We know time exists if it can be measured in some way. But if it can't be measured, where there is nothing to measure it with (like in Penrose's idea) then does it exist anyway independently? In other words is time and also space (since they are entwined) a fundamental property or is it emergent from something else?

I think we are at a mis-understanding, By empty space I'm talking about no existence of anything, no measuring device to do the measuring, in other words no motion, no temperature, no change. In fact, what does empty space mean when we consider there is no way to measure it? Roger Penrose describes such an idea in his cyclic model of the universe, whereby the universe "forgets" how big and old it is. AFAIK, The expansion of space continues to accelerate and rip all the matter and radiation apart to the point where all the fundamental particles become causally separate from each other thus making it impossible to measure the distance and time between them. In this state the universe has no way of measuring a definitive size or age, so "forgets" how big and old it is. Space-time becomes arbitrary, thus can randomly start again in another big bang. Its a wild idea and one I struggle to fully understand but, I get the basic concept. Regarding the "doomed" space-time, yes I agree and I believe this is the idea, that space-time like Newtonian physics, works just fine for the everyday general theories. I think they are aiming at the extremes.

Well this is sort of the point, can something said to exist if it can't be measured, or experienced in someway? How would you measure time in this situation then? The point I was trying to make was whether or not space-time is emergent from something more fundamental. Is it a state that emerges from the birth of existence (something measurable), or is it a fundamental underlining property to the laws of nature that govern our universe? I was listening to a talk from one of the leading theoretical physicists who's working at CERN and the LHC. (I will try to find a link to the talk) He mentions that there is a popular notion that many scientists believe that spacetime is "doomed". They know that if they probed deeper into smaller distances (Planck scales) of space and time using higher energies required, space time collapses to form tiny blackholes. I don't know the full details on why they assert that spacetime is doomed, but it appears that it has something to do with the fact that it cannot be measured below a certain limit.

But weight and other classifications are generally sub-categories within the 2 main classes - male and female - in many sports. The 2 main classifications of male and female discriminate against the other gender identities. However, they do offer a fair equal opportunity rights that women have been fighting for years. If we abolish this classification, so not to discriminate against any gender, then we will be in a situation where male athletes will dominate most sports. The vast majority of national and world champions will be male. I'm not sure if this would be the best way forward? So again, the purist in me wants to give all an equal and fair opportunity that results in an equal and fair outcome. This is probably unrealistic, but the closer we can get the better society will be. I don't know the answer to solving this? You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can aim to please most of the people most of the time.

"Here we have the age old situation that it is impossible to be equal in all directions since one cannot have equality of opportunity and equality of result" I agree I'm too short for basket ball, too weak for weightlifting, to slow for running... well at least in the male category. Maybe there is no requirement for a transgender category, maybe a male that has transgendered to female should have as much equality as any cisgender female in sports. I'm not an authority on the subject or ever claim to be. But I would somewhat sympathise with cisgender female athletes who may feel "done out of" a win IF there was clear scientific evidence that they were at a distinctive physical disadvantage, where they ( I mean all the cisgender females) had no chance of a fair competition. But then, my sympathy would extend to the transgender competitors that may be labeled as cheats or discriminated against because of their gender identity, this would be very unfair and rather appalling. I really think its a difficult situation to resolve even though it may not be a bigger an issue as the media may often lead us to believe. The purist in me wants to set a fair playing field across the board for all, with equal opportunity for all. This ideal is clearly non achievable and would never work. If all categories were scrapped and every person had an equal opportunity then we would be back to this - "Here we have the age old situation that it is impossible to be equal in all directions since one cannot have equality of opportunity and equality of result"

It's quite interesting how our perception of time changes so dramatically depending on the situation and our cognitive mental state at the time. They say, time fly's when you are having fun, drags when you are bored or impatient, slows down when you are falling or involved in a crash... yet it still measures 1 second per second for each observer in their own time frame. I've been under general anaesthetic a few times and the experience was as you mentioned quite unique compared to sleeping. I often wonder if a slow natural death would be a similar experience to general anaesthetic - rather sudden, or more like going to sleep. Going back to the OP, to determine if time exists independently I would think we have to define what time is. I view time as part of a frame work (space being the other element) that allows for change. A simple analogy is a photograph, yes, the physical photograph goes through constant change, but the subject matter is fixed. So that, if there is no change then there is no requirement for time. So for example if you have completely empty space (which might not even be a thing anyhow) where there is absolutely nothing happening, can time be measured or said to exist?

Thanks, hey you made me spit my coffee out chuckling (my bold) that was very witty. 😆 Ah... I see where you are going on this. Yep that is one perspective, I guess it depends on the value of that game to each individual, and if or what effect it has on their lives. I get disgruntled, then I just let it go, since other than my short term emotional state, it doesn't really affect my life in any real detrimental way. However, if it was my professional living and the winning pay cheque was important, I may have a different view point.

So if its a competition winning or losing doesn't matter? I play all sorts of games, especially sports. I play because I enjoy them, but I also "compete" to try and win. I learn lots from playing, winning and losing, its good for my metal stability among other things. I get disgruntled if I lose when someone cheats to win, why shouldn't I ??

You could well be correct, I don't know enough to argue the stats. It may have escalated into transgender attacks, I'm sure this is might be the case. I am a purist when it comes to rules and fairness, but in reality I realise that this is unachievable. I'm just stating my view point on the matter of fairness in sporting competition, especially in professional sports where people are directly affected. Depends on the game, and what you are playing for. If its a competition then the aim is to win. Your point? So you may as well argue that everyone can cheat to win if they like? No point in rules, limits or even competition for that matter then.

About setting limits and rules that are consistent for each category in any particular sporting activity at the professional level.

I don't have any examples, which is why I stated I don't have an opinion on whether there is or not any advantage. My point was "if" there is a possibility which might have an effect then should it not be considered and then perhaps investigated in a scientific professional manner? All I'm saying is if you have a category in place that works, in this particular discussion male/female then there is a clear definition between the advantages/disadvantages that may arise in competition. You can't argue that in general, in some disciplines, male professional athletes have a physical advantage over females. If this was not the case then female athletes would compare the same in performance, times, weights etc... But they don't. I'm not saying it would be the case if transgender athletes compete against female athletes they would have an unfair advantage. I'm not an expert and don't have the relevant evidence to suggest or have an opinion either way.