Greg Boyles

Where does this get us as far as the arrow of time/events? If we assume that time is like a ruler under us and that we move along the ruler, is it not fair to say that this is entirely equivalent to the ruler moving beaneath us? If I am in space and I move x kilometers right then is it not effectively equivalent to the universe moving x kilometers to my left? Where I was is not to my left or in my past in the case of time.

Modified coordinate A not observable by us - understood and accepted. We would only be able to observe the evidence of coordinate A as we and our present reality experienced it. But I still don't see how this precludes an arrow of time/events - interchangeable as far as I can see.

We hve currently have no way of detecting and measuring the Higg's Boson particle. But does that amount to absolute certainty that it does not exist? Same principle if the universe was totally devoid of matter and energy. What about space itself - it is supposed to not be empty. Perhaps it you looked close enough at the fabric of space you could discern events moving across the ruler of time even if there is no matter an energy.

If the universe retainied its present size but all matter and energy vanished, then how could we say with certainty that time would cease to exist. Granted there is no easy way to discern events moving across the ruler of time with not matter and energy, but that does not necessarily mean that time is still not there. The only way that time could disappear would surely be if the universe entered contraction back to a singularity.

OK coordinate A is empty - accepted. Apart from the lasing evidence of coordinate A in our memories, fossil and geological record etc. OK. So it might be more valid to say that there is an arrow of events rather than an arrow of time. But please note in my previous post that I said that it is equally valid to say that the ruler is moving under us as it is to say we are moving along the ruler. In which case an arrow of events and an arrow of time amount to the same net result. New universe.......since puting something else in coordinate A will change the results in coordinate B........understood. But that is sort of irrelevant with respect to arrows.

This is great so far - thankyou very much. OK then. So time might be viewed as a ruler where the intervals are fixed. Events, objects and human perceptiom move along the ruler rather than the ruler moving underneath them. Would that be correct so far? Assumung it is, how does this get us any further in this debate? If your car travels at 60km/h and hits another car, then the results will be indentical to if the other car travels at 60km an hour and hits your car. So instances travelling along the stationary ruler of time still results in the same net effect. You can't reverse the flow of instances and travel back in time, an egg can't be unbroken........ It would be equally valid to say that the ruler of time does indeed move under the events, objects and human perception.

Can you suggest a link for further reading? I am trying to comprehend how it can be that there is no arrow of time but failing.

Give me friggin break swansont! I remembered the statement because it flew in the face of common sense from my non physics point of view. But I am not that great with retaining names at the best of times. I seriously doubt that he is the only phycist that has and does postulate such a scenario and I don't think anyone in here, including you, would contend that it is the flight of fancy of a crackpot within the physics community. So I really don't think that watching the video all over again so I can post his name in here is going to add anything significant to the discussion. What about causality? Consider throwing a stone into a pond such that ripples eminated out from the entry point of the stone into the water. If there is no arrow of time then causality goes out the window. Theoretically ripples could eminate out from a point before the stone enters the water. Surely causality demands that there is an arrow of time despite the possibility that the past, present and future exist simultanously some where in space time. Einteins theory dictates that you can only travel forward in time, i.e. when your time slows down due to light speed. That indicates an arrow of time surely?

I don't remember his name but he was featured in the documentary mentioned in my original post. The documentary is available on youtube if you are interested.

I think we are arguing around semantics here. Of course the past and present don't litterally exist for us in the present, at least not in a way that we can perceive them. Although einstein's theory states that time is a physical dimension and therefore the past, present and future literally exist simultaneously some where in space-time. Science is supposed to eliminate human subjectivity and does a god job on the whole. Therefore our enquiries into geology, plate tectonics and evolution objectively prove that there is an arrow of time, not withstanding the specifics about how humans subjectively mark the passing of time individually.

Then you would be effectively saying that there is no possible way we can be sure about evolution, the fossil record, the geological record and plate tectonics because interpretation of these is dependant upon our subjective epxerience of and interpretation of chronology. Sorry but I don't see how you can sustain such as argument. I think I subscribe to the previous suggestion that the problem is not with the arrow of time but rather with our mathematics that currently describe it as undefined. Yes but the direction of flow appears to be a widesspread local phenomenum, at least in our tiny corner of the universe. And since our perception cannot encompass more than our tiny corner of the universe....... I would agree that the rate of flow of time, and possibly even the arrow, is probably not universal across the entire cosmos.

If it is not linear then what is it? There has to me some significance to the fact that all creatures experience forward linear time identically to us in terms of aging and death etc. There has to some signficance to the fact that ALL geological features progress in a manor that is consistent with our perception of forward linear time. I.E. We have never found a mountain range that has grown as a result of water flow and wind etc. Although I agree that individuals' perception of the rate of flow of time can be subjective.

What is the conext of this? A slice of potato under a microscope? Generally within a whole potato plant?

In the afore mentioned documentary.

I don't understand how any theoretical physicist can credibly argue that the arrow of time is entirely a product of human perception and that it doesn't really exist when we have such things as the fossil record that clearly demonstrates that time has proceeded long before there were humans around to perceive it. Just been watching the documentary Through the Wormhole - Does Time Really Exist?

Almost 100% identical but there are never the less differences. And even the small number of different genes amounts to quite a few given that we have tens of thousnads of them. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna

You could use methylated spirits (ethanol) instead and end up with ethyl acetate. But it wont be pure due to the additives in metho. I assume you intend to use vinegar as acetic acid but I suspect it wont be concentrated enough to get an appreciably reaction.

Fair enough,, Australopithecus was earlier still. But futher down that Wikipedia page:

1.5 million to 800,00 years ago was the time of our ape like ancestors Australopithecus which had not yet developed language. Hence it it would be more likely that the garden of eden myth etc originated from 75,000 years ago when our ancestors had most likely developed at least rudimentray language.

Interesting. Not yet having looked at the links, did these occur during the stoneage?

Just watching this doco: http://topdocumentar...age-apocalypse/ Was thinking that, assuming this really did occur, that it could be the source of the biblical adam and eve creation myth and other similar myths. It could be a highly distorted and symbolised account of real events that have been passed down through thousands of generations, where stoneage survivors did indeed find a realtively unaffected region that allowed them to survive.

Interesting about the pyramidal cells. While a recognized the name I had long since forgotten exactly what they were about. But it would seem that they for some sort of controlling master circuit within the brain. I suppose an analogy would be the role of the computer operating system in mediating the interactions between software and hardware.

From Wikipedia Was just reading about this in relation to consciousness. Some reasearchers have suggested that the gamma waves observed in EEGs may related to consciousness. And that the reduction of gamma waves by expert Tibetan mediators can induce a state of 'selflessness' where consciousness is modified or eliminated, at least as we normally experience it. I must get a copy of ' The Emperor's New Mind ' and see how ideas of quantum consciousness fit into this.

A classic case is his climate change issue. The position of the vast majority of people, particularly the science uneducated, is based on emotion rather than rational thinking. There have been pschological studies, that I was quite recently listening about, that details that the position of climate change deniers and vaccine critics alike are very often further entrenched by the presentation of evidence that clearly refutes their respective positions on these issue. So insulting or not, less of our collective behaviour and attitudes are driven by rationality than you would prefer to believe. It is not about insulting my fellow humans, it is about accepting the reality of our humanity and dealing with it. Anyway, I feel that acknowledging this about myself give more more control over my reactions not less. It is likely to give me pause for thought knowing that, in some circumstances, I may be prone to an emotional rather than a rational response.

Why? Acknowledging this fact about our idividual humanity does not diminish you as an individual or us as species. In fact it acknowledging this may allow us to avoid the worst extremes of human behaviour through engineering social conditions specifically to minimise them. And in your case reflection on this aspect of your humanity may encourage you to make decisions based more upon rationality and less upon instinct and emotion. We can never be free of primitive instincts and emotion but we certainly can minimise their impact on our decision making.