I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

Time is analogue

I would expand the above statement to include space.

Space and time feel the same as you move through it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

Time is analogue

I would expand the above statement to include space.

Space and time feel the same as you move through it.

but, your time/space can appear different to someone in another place, if i remember ‘relativity’ correctly through this alcohol-induced haze.

I have that book too.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

Time is analogue

I would expand the above statement to include space.

Space and time feel the same as you move through it.

but, your time/space can appear different to someone in another place, if i remember ‘relativity’ correctly through this alcohol-induced haze.

True, everyone is moving through space and time relative to each other.

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

I love this stuff, I contemplate it a lot but I think all our paradigms of the big picture are wrong, science is fumbling with it, the maths are not up to the task. religions fall short.
But you get the feeling that it’s simple if we think differently but our thinking is linear and everyone is using the same process that is fundamentally flawed, even the great scifi authors, some of whom are brilliant, are still trapped in the same process.
I just don’t think we’ve got the tools.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Time is analogue

I would expand the above statement to include space.

Space and time feel the same as you move through it.

but, your time/space can appear different to someone in another place, if i remember ‘relativity’ correctly through this alcohol-induced haze.

True, everyone is moving through space and time relative to each other.

Two drivers are moving through space time, one driver has never been on this road before, the other driver travelling this road every day.

Their experiences will be slightly different. but, space and time will still be relative to each other.

So both same and different can apply.

I think.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

but, your time/space can appear different to someone in another place, if i remember ‘relativity’ correctly through this alcohol-induced haze.

True, everyone is moving through space and time relative to each other.

Two drivers are moving through space time, one driver has never been on this road before, the other driver travelling this road every day.

Their experiences will be slightly different. but, space and time will still be relative to each other.

So both same and different can apply.

I think.

As Einstein put it ‘sitting on a hot stove for a few seconds can seem like an eternity, but an hour in the company of a pretty girl lasts only a moment’.

I think this refers to the Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, it’s a pretty good book and builds up to the concepts slowly. He used an analogy of slices of time like slices of bread. Different observers of a train journey will see it at various stages so at the same time the traveler can just be getting ticketed, or on the journey, or getting of at the other end. All are valid and mathematically equal and occurring at the same time. Of costs the analogy fails Dow a like bit because in the real world, the same train passengers world has arced into the sun and he has been dead a Brazilian years, even if the time slice does show him reading a paper whilst waiting for his train.

There is a woman who appears on the Drum regularly spruiking up aboriginal cosmology but she is more annoying than anything informative.

AwesomeO said:

There is a woman who appears on the Drum regularly spruiking up aboriginal cosmology but she is more annoying than anything informative.

I didn’t mind it so much, I guess once captain cook got out here, the skies got anglicized for all, the folk cosmology of the natives wasn’t much interest

transition said:

AwesomeO said:

There is a woman who appears on the Drum regularly spruiking up aboriginal cosmology but she is more annoying than anything informative.

I didn’t mind it so much, I guess once captain cook got out here, the skies got anglicized for all, the folk cosmology of the natives wasn’t much interest

Well, ‘aboriginal cosmology’ is no more or less relevant and accurate a description of the birth and evolution of the Universe than is the book of Genesis.

We can also consider as being equally worhty of regard what Emanuel da Veiga said in the 16th century:

‘Others hold that the earth has nine corners by which the heavens are supported. Another disagreeing from these would have the earth supported by seven elephants, and the elephants do not sink down because their feet are fixed on a tortoise. When asked who would fix the body of the tortoise, so that it would not collapse, he said that he did not know’.

As well, the lady’s cosmology is her learning of it. To name it ‘aboriginal cosmology’ is rather presumptive. Perhaps other aboriginal groups had their own and rather different ideas about where it all came from?

I think the time problem is analogous to the invisible man trying to see himself, directly, but perhaps more so a mirror

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

I have no idea about the Aboriginal concept.

My understanding of the standard physicist/cosmologist concept is the same as yours.

I don’t know of any convincing evidence to support this concept, and I think it is probably wrong.

I may well be wrong about that of course.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

I have no idea about the Aboriginal concept.

My understanding of the standard physicist/cosmologist concept is the same as yours.

I don’t know of any convincing evidence to support this concept, and I think it is probably wrong.

I may well be wrong about that of course.

I have trouble with the “future” bit. The “past” bit is pretty easy.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

I have no idea about the Aboriginal concept.

My understanding of the standard physicist/cosmologist concept is the same as yours.

I don’t know of any convincing evidence to support this concept, and I think it is probably wrong.

I may well be wrong about that of course.

I have trouble with the “future” bit. The “past” bit is pretty easy.

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have no idea about the Aboriginal concept.

My understanding of the standard physicist/cosmologist concept is the same as yours.

I don’t know of any convincing evidence to support this concept, and I think it is probably wrong.

I may well be wrong about that of course.

I have trouble with the “future” bit. The “past” bit is pretty easy.

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

well the past bit is what we experience whenever we look through a telescope or just observe something that is further away from us than us.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have trouble with the “future” bit. The “past” bit is pretty easy.

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

well the past bit is what we experience whenever we look through a telescope or just observe something that is further away from us than us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfHrTRrf32o

The Fabric of the Cosmos The Illusion of Time Brian Greene

50mins.

You have probably seen this.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I have trouble with the “future” bit. The “past” bit is pretty easy.

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

well the past bit is what we experience whenever we look through a telescope or just observe something that is further away from us than us.

So the question is: “if space-time is a uniform 4D space in all four directions, how come we can only see backwards in it?”?

OK, seems a reasonable question.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

well the past bit is what we experience whenever we look through a telescope or just observe something that is further away from us than us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfHrTRrf32o

The Fabric of the Cosmos The Illusion of Time Brian Greene

50mins.

You have probably seen this.

I may have seen it, but don’t recall it.

I did read a Brian Greene book in the distant past, but space-time seems to become fudged in the time direction.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Really? They seem pretty similar to me.

well the past bit is what we experience whenever we look through a telescope or just observe something that is further away from us than us.

So the question is: “if space-time is a uniform 4D space in all four directions, how come we can only see backwards in it?”?

OK, seems a reasonable question.

because the speed of light, and thus information, is finite. afawk

I’m not sure what you mean about the aboriginal concept of all time being the same. Can you elaborate, please?

dv said:

I’m not sure what you mean about the aboriginal concept of all time being the same. Can you elaborate, please?

While westerners focus on chronological time almost as a resource, “Aboriginals… treat it more from a descriptive point of view and give at least equal weight to time as an eternal quality” . For Aboriginals history is a concept that “moves across past, present and future” . Much of this eternal quality comes from Aboriginal cosmology which is centred on ‘The Dreaming’. https://www.sarmy.org.au/Resources/Articles/reforming-society/Eternity-Now-Aboriginal-Concepts-of-Time/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Beliefs-and-aesthetic-values Aboriginal people saw their way of life as already ordained by the creative acts of the Dreaming beings and the blueprint that was their legacy, so their mission was simply to live in agreement with the terms of that legacy. There was thus no notion of progress and no room for competing dogmas or rebellion against the status quo. Everything that now existed was fixed for all time in the mythic past, and all that the living were asked to do, in order to guarantee the continuance of their world, was obey the law of the Dreaming and perform correctly the rituals upon which physical and social reproduction were said to depend. Human creativity was not excluded but was explained away. The Dreaming legacy was not a static deadweight of tradition but was forever being added to and enlivened, despite an ideology that proclaimed non-change and the need only to reproduce existing forms.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I’m not sure what you mean about the aboriginal concept of all time being the same. Can you elaborate, please?

While westerners focus on chronological time almost as a resource, “Aboriginals… treat it more from a descriptive point of view and give at least equal weight to time as an eternal quality” . For Aboriginals history is a concept that “moves across past, present and future” . Much of this eternal quality comes from Aboriginal cosmology which is centred on ‘The Dreaming’. https://www.sarmy.org.au/Resources/Articles/reforming-society/Eternity-Now-Aboriginal-Concepts-of-Time/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Beliefs-and-aesthetic-values Aboriginal people saw their way of life as already ordained by the creative acts of the Dreaming beings and the blueprint that was their legacy, so their mission was simply to live in agreement with the terms of that legacy. There was thus no notion of progress and no room for competing dogmas or rebellion against the status quo. Everything that now existed was fixed for all time in the mythic past, and all that the living were asked to do, in order to guarantee the continuance of their world, was obey the law of the Dreaming and perform correctly the rituals upon which physical and social reproduction were said to depend. Human creativity was not excluded but was explained away. The Dreaming legacy was not a static deadweight of tradition but was forever being added to and enlivened, despite an ideology that proclaimed non-change and the need only to reproduce existing forms.

That doesn’t seem to make much sense.

I wonder who wrote those words.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I’m not sure what you mean about the aboriginal concept of all time being the same. Can you elaborate, please?

While westerners focus on chronological time almost as a resource, “Aboriginals… treat it more from a descriptive point of view and give at least equal weight to time as an eternal quality” . For Aboriginals history is a concept that “moves across past, present and future” . Much of this eternal quality comes from Aboriginal cosmology which is centred on ‘The Dreaming’. https://www.sarmy.org.au/Resources/Articles/reforming-society/Eternity-Now-Aboriginal-Concepts-of-Time/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Beliefs-and-aesthetic-values Aboriginal people saw their way of life as already ordained by the creative acts of the Dreaming beings and the blueprint that was their legacy, so their mission was simply to live in agreement with the terms of that legacy. There was thus no notion of progress and no room for competing dogmas or rebellion against the status quo. Everything that now existed was fixed for all time in the mythic past, and all that the living were asked to do, in order to guarantee the continuance of their world, was obey the law of the Dreaming and perform correctly the rituals upon which physical and social reproduction were said to depend. Human creativity was not excluded but was explained away. The Dreaming legacy was not a static deadweight of tradition but was forever being added to and enlivened, despite an ideology that proclaimed non-change and the need only to reproduce existing forms.

That doesn’t seem to make much sense.

I wonder who wrote those words.

Not I. The first part is from the Salvos. The second is from Britannica.

buffy said:

I am presently reading “God and the New Physics” by Paul Davies. It was written in 1983, so I don’t know how much of physics theory has changed since he wrote it. Now, I found this passage interesting:

“The physicist’s attitude to time is strongly conditioned by his experiences with the effects of relativity and can appear quite alien to the layman, although the physicist himself rarely thinks twice about it. He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there, and time extends in either direction from any given moment in much the same way as space stretches away from any particular place. “

When I read that, it reminded me of the Australian aboriginal concept of time – as I probably imperfectly understand it – of all time being the same. Have I understood either or both of the physics explanation and the Aboriginal concept correctly?

As for aboriginal, I haven’t read anything specifically about it, but they have to be aware of seasonal plants and the timing of animal migrations. More than a few were known to have a patience that exceeds the duration of that of any white man. But they seemed to be unable to concentrate for periods of time much exceeding a few days. So perhaps “long periods of boredom interspersed with brief periods of terror” is the best explanation.

For the physicist, it depends on the physicist. I work Newtonian physics, so can either treat time as a fixed framework in which things happen or as a linear progression. My most useful techniques are all “time stepping” techniques. Start at the beginning and extrapolate forward a step in time. Then repeat for however long I want … but … since extrapolation is by definition inaccurate I will also take a predictor step forward in time, find the error, correct the initial conditions and take the timestep again and again. Inb my talest computer program each timestep was traversed four times.

Then there’s the quantum physicist who works in quantum communications or subatomic particles. The speed of light is no longer a limit for “spooky action at a distance” and “quantum tunnelling”. But otherwise, the treatment of time is Newtonian.

Then there’s the physicist who works with black holes. Put quite simply, time is no longer a sufficient measure of time. So a black hole physicist will look around for a surrogate, something that makes more sense than time and space, such as Penrose coordinates or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal-Szekeres_coordinates or, to be more general, using the metric of General Relativity as a stand-in for time.

To top it off, there’s the physicist who works with superstrings and m-theory. “In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional (nine spatial dimensions, and one time dimension), while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional (ten spatial dimensions, and one time dimension).” I’ve looked at the equations here on two occasions and given up on them twice. I might understand them if I looked at them again but I’m not inclined to try.

> He does not regard time as a sequence of events which happen. Instead, all of past and future are simply there

This is, in general, false. In General Relativity, time varies along space-like curves called geodesics. Time behaves differently along each geodesic.

However, it may be true for M-theory specialists, or for quantum field theory specialists.

transition said:

I think the time problem is analogous to the invisible man trying to see himself, directly, but perhaps more so a mirror

thermodynamics forces a moment, the now, the more local or immediate now, as the greater the area (mass etc) any representation (of) becomes computationally prohibitive, less tangible, an oblivion essentially (as past recedes), you can however take some information (a representation of structure) and migrate it forward, which includes structure detached or separated by space, and have them interact or even (re)combine in the future

human reality is a very small part of reality, there’s dark matter, and a very large or infinite universe of stuff

importantly, you’re invisible to most of the mass of the universe

the other whatever, dark matter is like a second gas in a refrigeration circuit, working opposite, the gasses don’t exchange energy (viewed from inside from our physics) when they occupy the same space

I’m read God and the New Physics when I was a lad.

I’d like to read a summary of aboriginal views on time written by an aboriginal person.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I’m not sure what you mean about the aboriginal concept of all time being the same. Can you elaborate, please?

While westerners focus on chronological time almost as a resource, “Aboriginals… treat it more from a descriptive point of view and give at least equal weight to time as an eternal quality” . For Aboriginals history is a concept that “moves across past, present and future” . Much of this eternal quality comes from Aboriginal cosmology which is centred on ‘The Dreaming’. https://www.sarmy.org.au/Resources/Articles/reforming-society/Eternity-Now-Aboriginal-Concepts-of-Time/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Beliefs-and-aesthetic-values Aboriginal people saw their way of life as already ordained by the creative acts of the Dreaming beings and the blueprint that was their legacy, so their mission was simply to live in agreement with the terms of that legacy. There was thus no notion of progress and no room for competing dogmas or rebellion against the status quo. Everything that now existed was fixed for all time in the mythic past, and all that the living were asked to do, in order to guarantee the continuance of their world, was obey the law of the Dreaming and perform correctly the rituals upon which physical and social reproduction were said to depend. Human creativity was not excluded but was explained away. The Dreaming legacy was not a static deadweight of tradition but was forever being added to and enlivened, despite an ideology that proclaimed non-change and the need only to reproduce existing forms.

While I’d have thought TIME IS & Travels in ONE Direction,
A Butterfly can not turn back into a caterpillar..
and The Aborigines obeyed the movement through time
as seen that they consciously travel with the seasons,
but then againt, I can understand their concept of time
being infinite and cyclical, as opposed to linear.

So like the hypothetical people watching the moving train
or the Worm Ouroboros, can not TIME simply be ones PoV?

I think our understanding of time is flawed and hampered by the fact that we’re stuck in it. Consider the double-slit experiment with a single photon: if the experiment’s conducted without any change except for the single photon (and probably a photographic film instead of the screen Young originally proposed), the interference pattern is the same as for the many photon experiment, so the photon behaves as a wave. If the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears and the image becomes what we’d expect if the photon were a particle.

Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment suggests that it makes no difference when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through: it can even be after the photon has reached the screen. When a delayed-choice double-slit experiment was conducted a few years ago, the behaviour was confirmed: it doesn’t matter when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through. (I’ve got some crticisms of the experimental method, but the results are still consistent.)

A philosophical suggestion put to me some years ago was that, since a photon only delivers its energy — and thus makes its existence known — when it’s destroyed, there’s no actual need for the photon until it’s needed, so a “virtual” photon is emitted. If it finds that it’ll be absorbed, time “unwinds” and a real photon is emitted instead of the virtual one, and is then absorbed when it’s needed. (This is a dramatic simplification of the actual theory, for illustration purposes). It seems to me that the delayed-choice single-photon double-slit experiment is consistent with this notion.

btm said:

I think our understanding of time is flawed and hampered by the fact that we’re stuck in it. Consider the double-slit experiment with a single photon: if the experiment’s conducted without any change except for the single photon (and probably a photographic film instead of the screen Young originally proposed), the interference pattern is the same as for the many photon experiment, so the photon behaves as a wave. If the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears and the image becomes what we’d expect if the photon were a particle.

Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment suggests that it makes no difference when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through: it can even be after the photon has reached the screen. When a delayed-choice double-slit experiment was conducted a few years ago, the behaviour was confirmed: it doesn’t matter when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through. (I’ve got some crticisms of the experimental method, but the results are still consistent.)

A philosophical suggestion put to me some years ago was that, since a photon only delivers its energy — and thus makes its existence known — when it’s destroyed, there’s no actual need for the photon until it’s needed, so a “virtual” photon is emitted. If it finds that it’ll be absorbed, time “unwinds” and a real photon is emitted instead of the virtual one, and is then absorbed when it’s needed. (This is a dramatic simplification of the actual theory, for illustration purposes). It seems to me that the delayed-choice single-photon double-slit experiment is consistent with this notion.

The double slit experiment is discussed in this book. At least that was a bit I had some sort of handle on, given the optics angle.

:)

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

That makes more sense to me than the Britannica piece.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

Thank you. That ties fairly well with my understanding. It’s not easy to put into words.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

Thank you. That ties fairly well with my understanding. It’s not easy to put into words.

+1

dv said:

I’m read God and the New Physics when I was a lad.

I’d like to read a summary of aboriginal views on time written by an aboriginal person.

I decided to have a look for such a thing. None of my books have it. This has a small section. It seems you have to look for “Dreaming” rather than time concept.

http://shareourpride.reconciliation.org.au/sections/our-culture/

buffy said:

dv said:

I’m read God and the New Physics when I was a lad.

I’d like to read a summary of aboriginal views on time written by an aboriginal person.

I decided to have a look for such a thing. None of my books have it. This has a small section. It seems you have to look for “Dreaming” rather than time concept.

http://shareourpride.reconciliation.org.au/sections/our-culture/

Yes.

A more recent (2014) book which I have is God and the Multiverse, by particle physicist Victor Stenger, his last book (he died the same year).

>An advocate for removing the influence of religion from scientific research, commercial activity, and the political process, Stenger coined the aphorism: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

Bubblecar said:

A more recent (2014) book which I have is God and the Multiverse, by particle physicist Victor Stenger, his last book (he died the same year).

>An advocate for removing the influence of religion from scientific research, commercial activity, and the political process, Stenger coined the aphorism: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

I’ve liked that quote before.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

Yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

That makes more sense to me than the Britannica piece.

Yes.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I have tried and failed to properly comment on this thread and I can’t express it the way I want to so I’m giving up. In simple terms Aboriginal Australians saw time as very cyclical with past and future events having an effect on the present. This all ties in with language, identity, ancestry and environment and is all part of the Dreamtime landscape through which people acted in their daily lives.

Thank you. That ties fairly well with my understanding. It’s not easy to put into words.

In our words, no.

dv said:

I’m read God and the New Physics when I was a lad.

I’d like to read a summary of aboriginal views on time written by an aboriginal person.

I’ll make an effort to ask one to do so.

Bubblecar said:

A more recent (2014) book which I have is God and the Multiverse, by particle physicist Victor Stenger, his last book (he died the same year).

>An advocate for removing the influence of religion from scientific research, commercial activity, and the political process, Stenger coined the aphorism: “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

none of which inclined evolution, or motivate most of the rest of the living world, or universe

btm said:

I think our understanding of time is flawed and hampered by the fact that we’re stuck in it. Consider the double-slit experiment with a single photon: if the experiment’s conducted without any change except for the single photon (and probably a photographic film instead of the screen Young originally proposed), the interference pattern is the same as for the many photon experiment, so the photon behaves as a wave. If the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears and the image becomes what we’d expect if the photon were a particle.

Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment suggests that it makes no difference when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through: it can even be after the photon has reached the screen. When a delayed-choice double-slit experiment was conducted a few years ago, the behaviour was confirmed: it doesn’t matter when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through. (I’ve got some crticisms of the experimental method, but the results are still consistent.)

A philosophical suggestion put to me some years ago was that, since a photon only delivers its energy — and thus makes its existence known — when it’s destroyed, there’s no actual need for the photon until it’s needed, so a “virtual” photon is emitted. If it finds that it’ll be absorbed, time “unwinds” and a real photon is emitted instead of the virtual one, and is then absorbed when it’s needed. (This is a dramatic simplification of the actual theory, for illustration purposes). It seems to me that the delayed-choice single-photon double-slit experiment is consistent with this notion.

“Albert Einstein did not like these possible consequences of quantum mechanics.”

And he was not alone.

btm said:

I think our understanding of time is flawed and hampered by the fact that we’re stuck in it. Consider the double-slit experiment with a single photon: if the experiment’s conducted without any change except for the single photon (and probably a photographic film instead of the screen Young originally proposed), the interference pattern is the same as for the many photon experiment, so the photon behaves as a wave. If the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears and the image becomes what we’d expect if the photon were a particle.

Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment suggests that it makes no difference when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through: it can even be after the photon has reached the screen. When a delayed-choice double-slit experiment was conducted a few years ago, the behaviour was confirmed: it doesn’t matter when the experimenter measures which slit the photon passes through. (I’ve got some crticisms of the experimental method, but the results are still consistent.)

A philosophical suggestion put to me some years ago was that, since a photon only delivers its energy — and thus makes its existence known — when it’s destroyed, there’s no actual need for the photon until it’s needed, so a “virtual” photon is emitted. If it finds that it’ll be absorbed, time “unwinds” and a real photon is emitted instead of the virtual one, and is then absorbed when it’s needed. (This is a dramatic simplification of the actual theory, for illustration purposes). It seems to me that the delayed-choice single-photon double-slit experiment is consistent with this notion.

The double slit experiment is a pain to understand completely. A photon passes through all space, even outside the visible limits of the universe, and through much of time, both future and past time, on the path between the source and the screen.

Unless, of course, classical QM is wrong.