Killing Time

Pentcho,

With Einstein's children you certainly meant the many of his fellows. I just heard by chance that Einstein had a disabled child which he neglected.

Eckard

Someone else was Brouwer. I regret that even he just tried to replace Cantor's set theory by a substitute instead of humbly admitting that infinity and continuity in their original meaning (cg. the definition by Peirce) and irrational numbers are simply qualitatively outside the realm of sets of rational numbers.

Of course, intuitionism relates to what is called the Urintuition of counting. Counting requires to abstract a unit that can alternatively be identified.

In contrast to counting for the purpose of taxing, ancient geometry was somewhat aristocratic for good reason. While mathematics on the basis of natural numbers provides exact results, every primary identification is a process with more or less uncertain result. Leibniz had it: After one has chosen a unit, the realm of belonging commensurable values is defined.

Eckard

Eckard,

To grasp the nature of time is necessary to "grasp" the dialectic triad of nature at the deepest ontological level. Understanding - it means "to grasp" structure ( G.Gutner Ontologija matematicheskogo diskursa" / "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). And then imagine eidos of ontological (primordial) structures of nature. That is, to "draw" the primordial structure of the Universum. Hegel his "triad" crucified on the tripod, but not painted. Marx did not understand "abstruse" Hegel and went into political economy. Engels did not complete his "Dialectics of Nature". It is necessary to go back to Heraclitus and Cusa with all the knowledge accumulated by mankind to XXI century, and then to "dig" deeper than Hegel, to make "great synthesis" - "to grasp" the structure of space and only then - "to grasp" the nature of time. "Dragon" has to live. But as the mathematics work in eternity, then for "gripes" primordial (basic) structure of the Universum (the structure of eternity) "dragon" can be taken out of the brackets for a while (put in «the cage»- our mind) . Mathematicians want to "close the physics" (Ludwig Faddeev "Uravnenie zlogo duha"/"The equation of the evil spirit"), but the mathematics - the fundamental sign system without ontological justification, as well as physics. The problem of the justification (foundation) of mathematics for over a hundred years...

Sincerely,

Vladimir

The very beautiful timekeepers of our galaxy are the pulsars and there are now thousands known. The millisecond pulsars are especially interesting and precise and here is a plot of about 350 from the pulsar handbook that show a trend in their decays that seems to agree with the 0.283 matter decay constant for a shrinking universe.

Interesting that the measured spin down decay of earth seems to agree with the same decay constant as well...also the reported decay of the earth-moon orbit seems to agree with pulsar decay constant. The one thing that seems to be certain about our best clocks is that they all decay over time in very regular fashion. There are actually many different ways that pulsars decay and increase by radiation and accretion, including gravity waves. But somehow millisecond pulsars all seem to have march to a common drummer.

The electron spin and hydrogen atom decays, which are assumed in matter time to decay at this rate as well, are simply beyond the current measurement precision.

pulsar decays

Vladimir,

While the triad thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is undoubtedly valuable, according to Wiki, Hegel himself used this introduced earlier by Fichte classification only once. Instead, Hegel's dialectic is that things or ideas have internal contradictions. Popper meant: Hegel's system formed a thinly veiled justification for the absolute rule of Frederick William III. Marx spoke of abstruse Hegelei in the sense of Hegelishness like childishness as to express disapproval.

Eckard

Steve,

Elderly people like me tend to prefer black text on white background.

I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works.

Eckard

Eckard,

Understand the nature of time - is to see and understand the dialectics of nature, see the "coincidence of opposites" in the very nature and design the primordial generating structure of a hierarchical universe. Today it is necessary to climb on the shoulders of great thinkers Kant - Fichte - Hegel and see more, to see the deep ontology and the dialectics of nature. Unfortunately, physics as a fundamental system of signs - is a science without ontological justification (substantiation). For such substantiation just need the dialectical method.

Karl Popper reduces the dialectics to Hegelian and Marxist variants. Dialectics of Popper as a cognitive movement from thesis to antithesis, and from it to the synthesis. It's too narrow interpretation of dialectics. K.Popper, as it does not see any particular sphere, which is engaged in the dialectic - the sphere of opposites. M. Cornforth, well-known critic of Karl Popper, pointed out that the dialectic is interested in the connection of opposites. In the integrity of the development of German idealism gradually formed the dialectical method, which must be applied to grasping of a primordial structure of the Universum and "grasp" the nature of time. The dialectic is not a whim, not an invention, not artifice, it has roots in reality and its theoretical understanding.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve,

Good image of the "pulsar" in Cosmos for the "grasping" of the primordial ontological structure of the Universum and the nature of time. They are clearly visible the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) and the primordial structure of space. From the structure of space - another step towards the nature of time as a polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. We are accustomed the time to "measure" and "calculate". But now it is necessary to understand, otherwise it will be to "kill". And it's bad for fundamental science and for society.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

I am also fascinated by the problem of time. And to reiterate, time is what clocks measure.

"I appreciate your attitude to defend the measure time, and I also admit that I don't yet understand at all how the precisely reproducible decay works."

The decay and speed up of pulsars occurs due to radiation or accretion of matter, by and large, but pulsars in orbit around another star are affected by that as well. Millisecond pulsars have particularly stable decays and periods, that is all. In other words, the best clocks that we have are ones that not only tick, but decay in time as well as tick.

The fact that millisecond pulsar decay seems to follow the mdot decay constant and that decay constant reflects the spin down of earth and of the earth-moon orbit seems more than a coincidence. Our science accepts that our clocks vary with our frame of reference and that any decay is due to radiation, including gravity wave radiation. Any common decay is just an illusion, not a constant.

Steve,

And you throw all the clocks and think deep the ontology of Universum. From where force was born? From where energy was born? What the primordial structure of the Universe with all the observation of nature: in Cosmos and on Mother Earth? From "point"? What structure has a "point"?

Should be ontology of measures and ontology forms. Only when we understand and draw the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer.

Regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?

Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then. On the other hand, an abstract notions that describes an item is indivisible. For instance, you as a unique living person cannot be divided into identical smaller units. Futile ontological guesswork including Hegel's idealist rejection of atoms were nurtured by some inability to consequently separate between reality and abstraction.

Eckard

Vladimir,

Do we really need to understand time? Maybe it is already a big success to admit that time in reality, i.e. past time and abstract time including time expected to come are essentially different.

Tom quoted Einstein's metaphors of marble and wood as to distinguish the putative realities which SR and GR are thought to refer to. This reminds not by chance to Cantor's different infinities.

In case of really past time and abstract time, such metaphors are really justified.

Eckard

Eckard,

Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?

Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible

Has no parts, does not mean not extended. It means the smallest possible extension that cannot be further divided into smaller parts.

Then, think what does 'divided' mean. A knife can divide a loaf of bread continuously until the smallest slice is even smaller than the knife edge. At that point, the slice of bread can have "no parts". That does not make it have zero extension.

In geometry, what divides objects are lines. A line of zero width can divide infinitely but can such a 'knife' exist? No, except in the mathematical realm. Lines that exist in the physical realm have width and can continue dividing until they encounter the smallest extended object of same width as the line. Then the line undergoing division stops having further parts. You have arrive at the 'point'.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

We agree on that there are limits to divisibility in physics but not in Euclid's mathematics. I wrote: "Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then." Mathematics provides a continuous scale to physics, not the other way round.

Euclid's definition clearly means that a point has no extension at all. Even the smallest mathematical extension could be divided endlessly. Peirce defined, according tho what he learned from Leibniz, a continuum as something every part of which has parts. Therefore, contrary to set theory, one must not imagine a continuum composed as a set of ideal points. Spinoza still confirmed this logical necessity because he understood infinity as something that cannot be enlarged.

Present mathematics follows Dedekind and Cantor who equated irrational expressions with their approximation by means of an unspecified huge number of ratios.

In other words, they ignored Cauchy's qualitative distinction between what has no quantifiable difference. Effectively they understood points like you as infinitesimally small pieces of a line. Is this redefinition of a point better than Euclid's? I don't think so. Imagine two lines crossing each other within one point. Even the smallest pieces of them have different directions. They cannot both be the same point. Points are not infinitesimal but they have simply zero dimension. In physics, singular points, lines, and areas are fictions.

This opinion of mine is at the root of my disagreement with Tom.

Eckard

Time is not alone...

"Only when we understand and draw the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer."

Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe. These things simply are the way they are because the universe is the way it is. After all, that is what an ontology is. We can only ever understand time, an axiom, in terms of the other two axioms, matter and action.

The matter and action of the universe define time...think of a clock. Time and matter define action...think of the change of matter as action. Time and action define matter...think of how we sense objects.

With this simple ontology that I call the trimal, a whole universe evolves...

Eckard,

On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time. I stand outside the brackets the concepts of mathematics of Euclid and use only the ontological mathematics in the spirit of Plato ("Platonic solids", "heavenly triangle"). Today mathematics - a sign system without ontological justification.

"Point" as a source of a process which has the structure. In Russian the words "point" - "source" - " justness" have the same root: «toch-ka» - «is-toch-nik» - «toch-nost». I consider the Universum as the holistic process, which includes a consciousness and a man - "the measure of all things" (Protagoras).

First ONTOLOGIA and only then - MATHEMATICS. That is, I will consider the ontology of the simplest mathematical objects in the light of all the accumulated knowledge of mankind. I do not separate "absolute idea" from the «matter» - it is the holistic process of the generating of structures. "Absolute idea" as a process of self-motion "logos" ("triune logos"), manifested as the "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory" , creative new material structures at all levels of the Universum as a whole.

Yes, scientific metaphors can and should be used, but in the end it is necessary to build the "general framework structure" - "generating structure" for the fundamental knowledge that gives us insight into the time at the deepest ontological level. The philosophy of Heraclitus - Aristotle - Plotinus - Cusa - Descartes - Kant - Hegel - the first assistant in the ontological construction of the "generating structures" .

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve,

Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts:

«Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.»

The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Nothing is outside of the brackets of the universe.

" Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts: «Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.» The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind."

By nature and mind you seem to mean the basic duality of our world, mind and body. I am with you, but that duality still exists inside of the brackets that are the universe. Nothing is outside of the brackets including the clock, which is the quotient of action and matter and that clock is within the universe.

So your "nature" appears to deal with matter, time, and action, which is the trimal of our Cartesian representation while your "mind" deals with a complementary relational representation. The trimal of origin, destiny, and purpose describes the stories that we experience, remember, and tell about the relations of objects and that is how our mind and consciousness works.

There is a dual representation for the universe that roughly corresponds to the perpetual philosophical discourse on dualism. The Cartesian representation is all about the ontology of matter, time, and action, what you call "nature." The relational representation is all about the ontology of origin, destiny, and purpose, which are the stories of consciousness, what you call "mind." These are not two different ontologies or realities but rather these are two representations of the same common reality or ontology.

Notice that I am very careful to leave particular stories out of my ontology. The points, lines, planes, and volumes of Euclidean space and Plato's solids and triangle, these are all stories that help us predict action in space. Since the generating structure of the universe is the action equation that describes the change in matter with time, space then becomes a result of action and not the place where action occurs.

"On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time."

The universum that you describe has a "beginning" (an origin), a "generating process" (a purpose), and a "generating structure" (a destiny). These are the stories we tell about our relational reality and from those stories we do indeed "grasp" a Cartesian time as well as matter and action. Of course your "generating process" is both the purpose and the action that results in structures or objects.

Steve,

I construct my ontological model of the Universum based on one axiom (super-axiom): "In the beginning was the Logos (the meta-law) ...", the simple ancient principles: triunity of the absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence of matter (absolute states), "that on top, and bottom", " coincidence of opposites" (Cusa) and the base method - the method of ontological construction. The result of the construction - "The absolute generating structure" as the framework, carcass and basis of fundamental knowledge.

The primordial structure of the Universum gives an insight into the ontological dimension of the absolute space: three "linear" dimension three "vortex" three "wave", as well as an understanding of the nature and essence of time as the multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural, space) memory substantiate the integrity of the Universum and its structure.

Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - is that all creates.

Steve, but you have not shown the ontological structure of your Universum.

With regard to the "clock", then it's not about the natural "clock", and the clock, which we "measure"- they should be taken out of the brackets, ie, we first need to understand the nature of time, and then "measure".

Sincerely,

Vladimir