Dear Akinbo, (Steve, Georgina, Jim, Amrit, et al Hi :)
I don't always join discussions like this but yours seem to be sensible and open minded. I came across your discussion because I have entered 3 videos in the FQXI "Show Me the Physics" on this site, and they are all about "time", or more accurately "the possibility that we may be completely wrong to assume something like "time" exists in anyway at all".
(e.g. "Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past". "
On that matter, Akinbo, you suggest a dialectic ("discussing all the possibilities and reductio ad absurdum type arguments."), and I think you are very much on the right track, and have written the book 'A Brief History of Timelessness', in that format - i.e. a (imo) very thorough investigation of the truth of opinions re the theory that a thing called time may exist.
However, (with respect), to varying degrees you each may have 'automatically' incorporated a critical error in to the discussion, from the very outset, making it (imo) impossible to resolve unless the (possible) error is seen, and very carefully considered.
Fundamentally, the error may be that you are sure you are discussing to some degree at least, "a thing called time", and, trying to work out what "it" is...
The problem being, if "it", is absolutely nothing, (other than a useful idea), then even where the conversation gets close to seeing how the theory of "time" may be completely unfounded, people try to explain and describe this... in terms of a thing called "time". (i.e. there seems to be an ingrained assumption, which just won't quit).
Can I suggest therefore that you start any dialectic with a mind free from every rumor or theory you know, and starting from the most basic observations of what you in actual fact, actually, directly observe.
I would suggest that what we seem to actually and only observe is...
1- that matter exists, and,
2- matter is able to move, interact and change.
What I would also suggest is movement, change and interactions only happen where there is energy/momentum present, and they happen in essentially simple physical ways e.g. as a bowling ball hits some pins ( as a large scale example).
But... what , in my opinion, as things are existing and moving etc, we do not observe in any way at all that there is also a thing called "time" that exists, and is needed for, or part of, motion etc.
i.e. despite hearsay and opinion, I personally do not see anything "come out of a future", or "disappear into a past", or extra to energy "need an intangible thing called 'time' to be happening".
- And therefore, if you want the conversation to be scientific, and logical, I would suggest it is invalid for anyone to "just" use terms like "time, or "the past" or "the future", without providing a clear explanation of exactly what they think they are talking about - and - detailing a scientific experiment , as per the scientific method , that they think proves the existence of the "thing" they think needs explaining or incorporating into our understanding of the world.
(this complete lack of science , by the scientific community, re the apparent subject of "time" , is what I call "the elephant in the room, wearing the emperor's new robe", - i.e. its amazing that so many experts are happy to talk about something no one can see or describe, and ignore the fact no experiments exist to prove any aspect of it : )
( this (with respect Georgina : ) may avoid confusions like
"Tomorrow doesn't move Akinbo it doesn't exist. When it comes into being it is -Now."
as - "the term Tomorrow is useful but(unless prove to exist), scientifically, completely invalid - the sun is emitting light, and the earth IS spinning, and we may be constructing thoughts about how the universe IS, and calling them thoughts about a place or thing called 'Tomorrow'.
But for the sun to shine, and the earth to spin, and for us to have any thoughts , or label them in any way (imo) proves only that matter exists and can interact.
To expect there to be a valid explanation for a term like "tomorrow", the questioner would have to define what this thing "is", and provide reasonable proof that it exists, and justifies explanation, or incorporation into any understanding of the world )
The key thing to consider here, imo, is that part of the matter that exists, moves and changes in the universe, is of course, the physical matter that make up ourselves and our minds.
If we consider very fully, and carefully how every single "memory" we have, is in fact something that just exists, and thus proves only that matter exists, and can be in stable (or unstable) formations - then we may see how - (no matter how strongly we may feel otherwise), the patterns we "call" , memories of "the past"...
1- do show that matter exists and can form stable formations in our minds...but
2- do not show in any way at all that there is a thing called "time" - OR - that there is a thing or placed called "the temporal past" - or "the temporal future".
In short (Akinbo), if you wish to have a valid dialectic, it might be worth you considering what I call (in abh Timelessness) the Key Question, specifically.
"If the universe is just filled with matter moving, changing, and interacting, including the matter in our own minds, would this be enough to mislead us into thinking 'a past', and thus 'time' exist"?
Or to put it another (falsifiable) way, "Can you produce an experiment to show that matter does NOT just exist, move and interact etc (but also needs a thing called time) ?"
All the best,
not quite sure how links work here, I`ll post some separately also to the FQXI videos, in case anyone's interested.
Matthew Marsden
(auth "A Brief History of Timelessness")
link:http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245]"Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past". "[/link]
(please post video comments on the FQXI site
