time cannot be circular?

[devance]

Its very good to think about time and try to get a grasp on terms and a model.

I take my sources where I can get them and try to comprehend the units that are mentioned.

Heres the latest one which I make no claim to understand except that it gives some reasoning to thought crunch and pick what one wants out it.

http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

'The distance to the sun is not a constant; so as the distance to the sun increases the difference in energy causes the length of the lunar orbit to change. When the Earth-moon system exits the solar system 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day becomes equal to the speed of light. Hence, if it is defined inside the gravitational field of the sun then this definition will be wrong with time; however since it is defined in free space (outside the gravitational field of the sun) then this definition will be true for ever!'

But the lunar calender exists and so do angels but is the connection correct.

Physic will prove one way or the other.

[Thelema]

Look, I don't mean to be offensive but all that sounds like theocratic numerological nonsense-spinning to me. The main point is: is the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated if time is circular?

Nietzsche thought of eternal reccurance as a moral conscience, and others have spun the argument, using the principle of plenitude, that whatever happens will- given an infinite amount of time- happen again.

Now, given the law of causation, or the directive of determinism that a total duplication of cause will result in a total duplication of effect, if time were to repeat itself then this could only entail a net global entropy of zero.

In fact, I believe that infinite strings are not guaranteed to duplicate themselves. For a particular example consider Chaitins omega number. That cannot contain a portion of itself that duplicates itself.

Therefore if the amount of information in the universe is not finitely representable as a string, then the principle of plenitude is not necessarily true.

[ThunderIdeal]

i could be mistaken, but i don't think so:

the diagram i just posted, although it's only a 2D rendition, does not repeat itself. it never returns to the same state so it cannot ever be cyclical. when i say it tracks a complex system, it's a pretty damn simple system compared to a small piece of the universe. infinity stretches out to.. infinity. given an infinite amount of time, the universe will be configured an infinite number of ways. i think. i am agreeing with the thread title, but in less of a physics-head way.

[devance]

Well there is scientific JuJu or mombo jombo.

But unlike philosophical unprovable speculation there is facts on evidence of math.

http://www.physorg.com/news146160767.html

'"By creating this much anti-matter, we can study in more detail whether anti-matter really is just like matter, and perhaps gain more clues as to why the universe we see has more matter than anti-matter," said Peter Beiersdorfer, a lead Livermore physicist working with Chen.

Particles of anti-matter are almost immediately annihilated by contact with normal matter, and converted to pure energy (gamma rays). There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely anti-matter, and what might be possible if anti-matter could be harnessed. Normal matter and anti-matter are thought to have been in balance in the very early universe, but due to an "asymmetry" the anti-matter decayed or was annihilated, and today very little anti-matter is seen.

Over the years, physicists have theorized about anti-matter, but it wasn't confirmed to exist experimentally until 1932. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere produce minute quantities of anti-matter in the resulting jets, and physicists have learned to produce modest amounts of anti-matter using traditional particle accelerators. Anti-matter similarly may be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur. The presence of the resulting anti-matter is detectable by the gamma rays produced when positrons are destroyed when they come into contact with nearb'

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/technology/grs.html

'When exposed to cosmic rays (charged particles in space that come from the stars, including our sun), chemical elements in soils and rocks emit uniquely identifiable signatures of energy in the form of gamma rays. The gamma ray spectrometer looks at these signatures, or energies, coming from the elements present in the Martian soil.

By measuring gamma rays coming from the martian surface, it is possible to calculate how abundant various elements are and how they are distributed around the planet's surface. Gamma rays, emitted from the nuclei of atoms, show up as sharp emission lines on the instrument's spectrum. While the energy represented in these emissions determines which elements are present, the intensity of the spectrum reveals the elements concentrations. The spectrometer has added significantly to the growing understanding of the origin and evolution of Mars and the processes shaping it today and in the past. For detailed results, please see the "Mission Success" story.

Nuclear radiation from a planetary surface. How are gamma rays and neutrons produced by cosmic rays? Incoming cosmic rays--some of the highest-energy particles--collide with atoms in the soil. When atoms are hit with such energy, neutrons are released, which scatter and collide with other atoms. The atoms get " excited" in the process, and emit gamma rays to release the extra energy so they can return to their normal rest state. Some elements like potassium, uranium, and thorium are naturally radioactive and give off gamma rays as they decay, but all elements can be excited by collisions with cosmic rays to produce gamma rays. The HEND and Neutron Spectrometers on GRS directly detect scattered neutrons, and the Gamma Sensor detects the gamma rays.'

So both spirit and science will agree with enough math, brainy people and instruments too let the brainy people too get the facts.

[devance]

http://www.physorg.com/news146398685.html

'The type of space-time that enables time traveling involves “closed time-like curves” (CTCs), and, besides personal fates, CTCs can also provide insights into quantum information and computing. In a recent study, computer scientists Scott Aaronson of MIT and John Watrous of the University of Waterloo have discovered that, if closed time-like curves exist, then quantum computers would be no more powerful than classical computers.

But researchers shouldn’t stop working on quantum computing technology just yet, as no one has any evidence that closed time-like curves actually exist. Closed time-like curves are strange: sometimes physicists describe them as a piece of paper folded over on itself, so that opposite ends touch and create a shortcut. A person standing at the front end could then easily step onto the back end, thereby easily stepping into the past.'

Like I said not a circle, but a spiral.

A possible quantum computer model if two things are looked at.

A circular model would overload a quantum computer and a spiral model, [ the correct one would bleed a quantum computer] and happens too fast to probably test except from a math computer model.

But science marches on so physcists have new tools to test stuff.

But my idea is a device that does spiral time and circular.

A unitary philosopy between singualarity and duality.

Physicists are good at creating devices which breach the gap between math models and actual models for testests although a expensive process.

Need highly educated Physicists [engineers,math] and the resources which are available in a university to construct a small expensive scale model for tests.

[Thelema]

I doubt that a test can be conducted to show that closed time like loops exist.

[Mr Griffin...]

think infinity loops ( number eights on their sides) splitting time and space dimensions with lots or "Random number generators", "imaginary numbers" and "Chaos Theory" with a bit of "Religion".

[t st tantra]

experientially,for what its worth.........

currently i'm experimenting with with the spinal shaft my chakras sit in.

initially i expanded it one chakra in each direction........above the head into the future,below the feet into the past [?].

when i expanded a long distance in each direction i was viewing most of a loop but the far side was not visible......the image of a figure 8 as a symbol of infinity appeared........do the lines cross at a point or are they separated by some space?

t s t .

Edited November 23, 2008 by t st tantra

[woof woof woof]

i think that time is an illusion. the only moment is NOW.

the problem is that we try to understand everything through human perspective...... and also identifying ourselves with our bodies.

all developments appear to be rythmic....... like a repeat..... like hystory repeating itself, through cause and effect..... however the moment still stays unique........

so time is only born out of human perspective, but does not necisicarily reflect reality completly.

energy is from our perspective is a 2 way deal........... energy comming in and energy going out. the interaction point with your enviroment between the two (the in and out) is also the moment NOW!

the only way to see wat matter really is is to think outside the box. matter is condensed energy........ opposing matter is ofcourse antimatter.... that does not mean that antimatter is Nothing.... antimatter is just the finest energy you find throughout the universe...... condensing antimatter means that you are creating matter........ sounds familiar...... yogis having things materialize!.....??

not too good with physics..... but can only tell you that if laws of thermodynamics are conflicting themselfs then you are not looking at it right!!!!!!

philisophical reasoning from the right angle should make you see that they should compliment eachother.

[apothecary]

For the second law of thermodynamics to hold true, we must assume that the universe is an isolated physical system.

That is quite an assumption.

I find this thread soooo very amusing because Peter Lynd actually wrote a paper on the possibility of time being cyclical using the second law of thermodynamics as his supporting base! Hahaha

[ballzac]

For the second law of thermodynamics to hold true, we must assume that the universe is an isolated physical system.

That is quite an assumption.

Okay, so the universe could be floating in a thermal reservoir, so within the universe the second law need not hold, but that makes

universe+reservoir=isolated system

and we still have a problem.

There is a simple way around this. The second law is based on probabilities. Hence why the science that ties thermodynamics to quantum mechanics is called statistical mechanics. According to statistical mechanics, a system with a large number of particles will have entropy that only increases because there are so many more possible microstates with maximum entropy than there are with lower entropy, so the probability of being found in a state with lower entropy than the system started with is extremely low. But what does this mean? It means that there is a real, though small, probability that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated. Given sufficient time - say an eternity - even a system as large as the universe may move to a state of low entropy due to random processes.

[ThunderIdeal]

physics overload (doesn't take much)

err tst, in the strange attractor which i posted, there is no crossover, since it exists in a 3D space. it is a non-cyclical pattern, it has definite boundaries inside and out.

[The Dude]

physics overload (doesn't take much)

err tst, in the strange attractor which i posted, there is no crossover, since it exists in a 3D space. it is a non-cyclical pattern, it has definite boundaries inside and out.

I thought that the definition of a "pattern" is something that repeats itself. So although at no point is there a cross-over, the fact there is a recognition of pattern implies a repetition of form.. even if it is an infinite evolution of that form. Like fractals are at no point repeated exactly, there is a recognition of self similarity. It only appears similar though, as each iteration is totally unique.

Every moment is unique, although within the eye of the beholder there is a recognition of a self similarity of moments in time. Never the SAME moment, but there is a recognition or deja vu or further abstract interpretations. This is both comforting in its familiarity and inspiring in it's infinte novelty.

Resevoir? so somethingness is sitting in the resevoir of another somethingness, which as of now has not yet reached our planet to prove its existence. It is like the idea that god was created by some even higher being and so on. This does not answer anything until it proves itself to us through our ideas/theories/hypothesis and experiments... which then prove we still know sweet fuck all so we CREATE further investigations... and so on and so on, until perhaps oneday, the definition of god as the creator.. becomes self apparent.

^^^The idea of somethingness becoming out of nothingness in an eternal flux.

I'm more comfortable with a reality tunnel of supposedly free will and self determination than to keep looking at the sky for direction. Time in this interpretation (seeing as it's all a matter of interpretation anyway) is less dependent on some physicists theory and more on mine. Where I can recognise familiar forms or loops and improvise along with them, having less pre-determined ideas to control my timeline.

[edit] As for the idea of there needing to be a 'place' for the universe to be contained so that it is a closed system?... It seems a bit close minded Think of the space between words, or the pause between beats which forms the rythm, there is a presence in nothingness only seen with the somethings it creates. Nothingness is the perpetual womb of immaculate conception.

Edited November 26, 2008 by The Dude

[ThunderIdeal]

as usual i'm in awe of your post, but let me try to clarify a couple of things since i'm now familiar with much chaos theory up until the year 1987.. maybe you'll run with it and come up with some more gold.

"I thought that the definition of a "pattern" is something that repeats itself. So although at no point is there a cross-over, the fact there is a recognition of pattern implies a repetition of form.. even if it is an infinite evolution of that form."

as i understand, this is why strange attractors caused a stir. they depict the inherent order in chaos. they also depict stability without cycle. i think before chaos science, systems were thought to fall into equilibrium, which i guess you could call a normal attractor, eg a pendulum's attractor is no movement, pointing down. if it's driven, it's attractor is swinging, same speed (even if bumped it returns to this attractor). so yes there is a repetition of form, if the information is depicted properly it is rather visible (if not it would have appeared like a jumble of data). i guess none of this is very new anymore and i wonder what developments there have been.

here's an interesting one. there are nonlinear equations whose solution requires an initial guess. the location of the guess determines which of the possible solutions you will find. say there are three solutions, you can trisect imaginary space and colour them red green and blue. each three answers is an attractor, so if your initial guess is in the green section of imaginary space, you will get the green answer. you would expect there to be a boundary between green and red, simply, but there isn't. every boundary touches all three colours, so along the boundary of green and red are bits of blue, the more you "zoom in" you just keep seeing more tiny bits of blue touching with a pattern of green and red, the boundary isn't simple at all, it's infinitely complex (and a beautiful fractal).

"Like fractals are at no point repeated exactly, there is a recognition of self similarity. It only appears similar though, as each iteration is totally unique."

that's true of the mandelbrot set, for instance, but i believe mandelbrot's originial definition of fractal wasn't really self-similar, it was self-identical (symmetrical at different scales). i think there are pretty simple examples of this, like punching smaller and smaller square holes into a square. i think beyond immaculate mathematical models, natural fractals are self similar not self identical.

i make no big secret of my belief that i've seen god. in my vision god looked like a many-dimensional fractal. it featured time, and wormholes, and of course it was conscious.

[devance]

Theres a problem duality math and singularity math.

There is no math if the primary outlook is singularity which would be a hologram outlook.

On section of a holograph film produces the same image. etc.,etc.

So all dualistic math can prove is there many points and dimensions.

But not circular as theres a time drift in only one direction per universe would be only minutely different lets say twelve total.

But perceptions are more convincing than math and the first lens is that life creates physic not the other way around.

Very soothing to ones nerves when one looks at that way.

So no inanimate physics universe or the horrible matrix universe where everything is a software program.

[devance]

Well lets say that holographic model is correct.

A supercomputer experiment would be can a hemispheric brain function.

We have one so the answer is yes.

I don't see why our hemispheric brains is not a model for supercomputer simulation.

IBM is trying to model nerve synapes as a learning supercomputer.

Modeling both might give a technological development lead to a all most alive supercomputer.

But not militarily useful as would be extremely delicate.

[ThunderIdeal]

i said imaginary space, but obviously should have said something like the plane of imaginary numbers.

this is interesting and like the chaos scientists, i think it must open up to vistas of future thought if understood better.

bear with me and assume that god's power to create is actually finite. well, in less chaotic systems, which act predictably, god might produce lots of creation from very little input of what you could call information (since a small bit of information will convey the essence of many predictable occurrences). consider that the mandelbrot set is supposedly infinite but produced from a very very finite formula. it ties in with the holography principle, sort of, in that a small bit of information is extrapolated into something much bigger, in fact it can be extrapolated infinitely.

[Undergrounder]

Yeah i think i said something similar in another thread. Leibniz posited that God need only be the thing that set the initial conditions of the universe, and all the infinite complexity evolved from there. The first uncaused cause so to speak.

[t st tantra]

rudy rucker is a scifi writer i enjoy.

also a lecturor in mathematics ,into imaginary numbers and infinity.

'white light' his first book ,i think,is a mix of drug cuture, the astral plane and imaginary numbers/infinity.

usual story,enjoyed it so much i wanted to share it,but it never returned,hopefully it still circulates.........

t s t .

[Thelema]

Interesting fact:

Did you know that Rudy Rucker is in fact the great-great-great grandson of Hegel, the famous philosopher?

[t st tantra]

no.

t s t .

[Thelema]

such brevity! you sound positively unimpressed.

For what it's worth, to wrap up this post, I believe that time actually IS in some sense finite but unbounded, and possibly holographic in some way. I'm struggling to rewire myself around such an image 'tho.