Quora replies

reply to David Chidakel QUORA 

Hi David

 

Hope you’re good. Thanks for the reply.

 

‘Time – is the elephant in the room wearing the emperor’s new robe ?

 

First re Proof

I put a lot of effort into my replies, and you are of course right,

Re Speaking generally,  scientific ideas aren't based on proof. They are based on accumulating evidence

 

Of course one can’t prove anything, however one can be fairly sure certain things – e.g. the tooth fairy – are not proven to exist.

 

I use the term proof loosely, because it is extremely tiring to keep typing sentences like  "an experiment as per the scientific method to provide evidence to support the hypothesis" , i.e. being ultra precise, esp on free forums in relies read by few people – I am that accurate in the book however,

 

As I say I write a lot of stuff, and I generally get the impression, from the replies I receive, that though I write very carefully it is not always read as carefully, but you seem professional and intelligent so I’ll put some effort in here. (please let me know if you are reading my replies carefully or not  - so we are not just talking at each other)

 

So, I must stress again, there is very little point you reading my replies if you are only considering your own current pov and defending it – because if so then that is all you will be seeing.

 

 

The Emperors new robe a logical analysis.

You must be pretty logical to be an engineer so consider the vital importance of the parable of the ‘emperors new robe’

 

If you are told you are seeing an emperor wearing a totally invisible robe then what you see matches perfectly with what you think – therefore it seems obvious the situation has been fully understood and no further investigation is necessary...

 

And, I assume you would agree - It must be that anyone who questions your correct view must be wrong – and therefore there is no point even considering what they are saying.....

 

Or – hopefully not, and you can see the importance of considering either the emperor is wearing an invisible robe – or – he may be JUST as he seems , naked.

 

So, it is essential in science that one considers All logical possibilities, and does not just stop at the first one one hears or likes.

 

And, anyone reading this, i.e. hopefully including you,  must be honest with yourself...( i cannot do this for you ) - in that you have to honestly consider that you may be only "considering " one pov , and if that is all you are doing then that is all you will see.

 

Whether the pov i offer is closer to the truth, right, or wrong, you cannot know this if you are not considering it) - e.g. this preamble is important because if I have a genuinely new paradigm to offer, then you won’t see it unless you are honest with yourself re are you considering what I am saying , i.e. actively thinking about it and trying it out – as opposed to Only trying to think of ways to doubt it ?

 

Re your points

 

Re I would say that time is inferred by state change. Without time,  nothing changes. Conversations don't happen. Quorans don't swap ideas.

 

 

I would say :  state change is state change, without energy nothing is changing Conversations can’t be happening. Quorans can’t be swapping  ideas.

 

 

It is scientifically ‘provable’ that without energy things don’t change, for the claim ‘a thing called time is needed also’ – you need an experiment to show this – and not just an experiment that shows things near black holes are changing more slowly – and experiment that shows there is a future/past/ and thing called time that is slowed etc.

 

Re :One can argue about the essential meaning of time but the fact that things happen ( at least give the the illusion of doing so) implies time.

 

David, you may be right or wrong, but we aren’t able to confirm the truth from an invalid starting point.

 

Consider if I say “One can argue about the essential nature of Ghosts but the fact that we hear unexplained noises , and mysterious witness accounts implies Ghosts.

 

Then you can see how I am jumping to a conclusion.... I'm already assuming what my observations will conclude.

 

Re this – please check out this excellent video on confirmation bias

2,4,8 16 Can You Solve This? (by  Veritasium )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

 

the elephant in the room

 

so Re :One can argue about the essential meaning of time but the fact that things happen ( at least give the illusion of doing so) implies time.

 

I would say : One can argue about the essential meaning of time Or one can question whether we may be completely wrong from the outset to assume a thing called ‘time’ exists, so as to possibly have a meaning .

 

(hopefully as a logical guy you can see this approach doesn’t start with an assumption – nor does it stop us getting to a point where we conclude  time – if – such a thing exists)

 

 

Re - but the fact that things happen ( at least give the illusion of doing so) implies time.

 

I would say: - the fact that things exist move and are interacting seemingly only in a ‘now’ , implies that things exist move and are interacting seemingly  only in a ‘now’

 

hopefully again you can see this approach doesn’t start with an assumption etc.

 

Ie imo it is absolutely essential to consider the first, most simple and obvious possibility initially – and at this point you will either understand that or not .

 

i.e. can you see that from your replies I can tell  you have never even considered that things “may just exist and move ?”

 

note I'm not asking you at this stage if you think things “may just exist and move ?” –

I'm asking you  “ can you see that you have never even considered that things “may just exist and move ?” “

 

Ie you may have dismissed the possibility without ever having seen or considered it – and this is the point that led me to write the entire book – ( as I say in this vid at 2:00 ish) realising that Ptolemy, romer, Galileo kepler plato newton Einstein hawking tegmark plank Maxwell Lorentz Aristotle descarte kant hubble Feynman and hawking etc etc etc all have wonderful writings apparently about a thing called ‘time’ – and yet not a single one asked, answered or dismissed the possibility ... that ...

 

“if matter just exists and interacts – not heading into afutur nor leaving a past – we might fool ourselves otherwise if we don’t realise our own ‘memories’ are just part of this system.”

 

And like you, and virtually all of us, all these people are happy to accept that a undefined, invisible, intangible unobservable  past and future exist.. apparently in a way we can’t even imaging...unless someone can ‘disprove‘ this..

 

 – this is In my opinion so stunningly unscientific that no one even notices it ( the elephant in the room)

 

more general aspects of 'time' v ‘Time-lessness’

Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSJ8A-w78xM

 

 

RE : What sort of proof would you require to satisfy yourself that there is a past and a future? What experiment would you suggest? How would we acquire the necessary evidence?

 

Ok , re this – this is either going to be a turning point for you if you grasp what I'm saying, or you will feel a smug sense of satisfaction and confidence if you miss my point , and this will be accompanied by a sense of superiority...stemming perhaps from confirmation bias.

 

RE : What sort of proof would you require to satisfy yourself that there is a past and a future?

 

You have to understand, if YOU are claiming he existence of this extra ‘intangible’ things or places, then you – or anyone supporting the theory that a thing called time exists has to define and ‘prove’ what they are on about.

 

You ( they ) have to provide the definition of what you think exists, and the experiment and evidence –

 

You can’t ask someone who thinks the world is “just as it appears”, and who thinks they can show the theory of time to be moot,  to define an experiment to prove the existence of something even the experts can agree a definition of.

 

So, David, you are confident at this point you need only to consider that ‘time’ exists, so please give me your definition, and of the past and future, and the experiment you think confirms the past, and the future are not just ideas formed on our minds because the world is just full of matter that is just moving and interacting.

 

Re What experiment would you suggest?

 

See 02 Pit falls and Honey traps.‎ > ‎

∆-4 The onus of proof.

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/pit-falls-and-honey-traps/the-onus-of-proof

 

I say, What experiment would you suggest? David, your confident the thing exists, so you must know a lot more about it than me – surely it doesn’t quite make sense to strongly believe in something, and reject alternative povs, if...

 

-not only don’t you have an experiment to provide supporting evidence for your belief, but also

-you can’t think of one anyone has even produced an experiment to test the belief

 

This stunning failure of so many scientists to apply the scientific method to the theory of time amazes me.

 

 Re How would we acquire the necessary evidence?

I’ve no idea, I'm not a supporter of the theory , but consider, if you believe in something, and you have no idea what evidence might support it, or how to acquire the evidence, and if the evidence you think you have ( eg  patterns in our minds called memories, can be explained a far simpler scientifically testable way), then it may be worth thinking more carefully about an idea you may have just accepted without much thought.

 

 

Re: To most scientists, time is implied or, if you won't accept that, axiomatic.

 

I would say:  most scientists use different definitions of time in different places  - e.g. they will say its ‘the position of a hand on a dial’, or its ‘operational’, or its ‘really real’, or its ‘probably emergent’, or its ‘really is a dimension’, or it “really isn’t a dimension, or ‘no one knows etc etc etc.

 

And I hope re this you can see the other elephant in the room ???

Please...find me a post by a scientist who has not just tried to define a thing called time, but one who has also  ‘considered’ that they may be wrong to assume time, and instead things may just exist and move.

 

Re: To most scientists, time ... , axiomatic. ( self-evident or unquestionable.)

 

And yet new scientist calls ‘time’

 

 

 

 

Comments