$0 Challenge

[K Buckmaster]

Those familiar will relativity will know that what we call "now "has no special significance in the physical world...in which scheme of things, all of what we call past, present, and future, are held to exist equally: the world does not evolve in time. Furthermore, we have no physical proof that the universe is otherwise.

To quote Einstein:

"For us believing physicists, the division into past, present and future has merely the meaning of
an albeit obstinate illusion"

This is contrary to the view of almost all, who presume, or more likely are taught, that their present reality is somehow the frontier of existence... otherwise expressed as the unfolding now, 'temporal becoming' and so forth.

I raise this challenge in this place, because I have a conviction that there are the (physical, not 'supernatural') phenomena of telepathy and precognition. So to the sceptics here - I ask them to recognise the forest in their own eye.

If you believe, and you almost certainly do, this unproven notion - that we live in a world that evolves through the coming into existence of 'the future', then the challange (to escape hypocrisy) is some proof: that our present moment is an objective physical reality; really exists and not just to us; some proof that our world evolves in accordance with our now - rather than simple being the static world described by relativity.

(The $0 is a reflection on my wallet, not my confidence)

Any takers?

(James Randi?)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I submit that if space-time were static and the passage of time merely an illusion, then time travel would be possible. And if time travel were possible, our present day would be littered with annoying tourists from the future.

But I could be wrong.

~~ Paul

 

[fuelair]

Submitted for your consideration: in another dimension where brain farts pass as reasoned thought a sock-puppet or new version of liteislife, start.illogic,truthweaker4695 and equivalents writes among us and with little thought writes he (it woul help if he could spell Randis' name but....Ah well, this R Duckmeistrd shall pass.....gas.....(.....trolling.........trolling........trolling on the ri-i-ver!!!!!)

 

[K Buckmaster]

I submit that if space-time were static and the passage of time merely an illusion, then time travel would be possible. And if time travel were possible, our present day would be littered with annoying tourists from the future.

But I could be wrong.

~~ Paul

In the static universe time travel paradoxes can't occur because those paradoxes require that the universe is changeable... tourists from the future aren't here now, and so, in the static view, there is no possibility of some future time-travellers reinventing our present to include them: the whole universe is fixed once and for all and is not up for being re-written.

If the universe is static it does not mean backwards time travel is necessarily possible. Strictly speaking, in a static world, nothing 'travels'.

 

[K Buckmaster]

Submitted for your consideration: in another dimension where brain farts pass as reasoned thought a sock-puppet or new version of liteislife, start.illogic,truthweaker4695 and equivalents writes among us and with little thought writes he (it woul help if he could spell Randis' name but....Ah well, this R Duckmeistrd shall pass.....gas.....(.....trolling.........trolling........trolling on the ri-i-ver!!!!!)

Well, if yours is going to be a typical response, then I will indeed have to accept the gist of it... that I'm clearly in the wrong place.

 

[Yahzi]

If you believe, and you almost certainly do, this unproven notion - that we live in a world that evolves through the coming into existence of 'the future', then the challange (to escape hypocrisy) is some proof: that our present moment is an objective physical reality; really exists and not just to us; some proof that our world evolves in accordance with our now - rather than simple being the static world described by relativity.

Sounds like it's time for the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).


Step 1: Obtain a baseball bat.

Step 2: Fix your mind firmly on the notion that the future does not proceed from the present.

Step 3: Strike yourself forcefully in the head with the bat until Step 2 is no longer possible.


Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Yahzi]

And if time travel were possible, our present day would be littered with annoying tourists from the future.

You are clearly wrong.

Out of the infinity of times future travelers could visit, why would anyone come here?

 

[K Buckmaster]

Step 2: Fix your mind firmly on the notion that the future does not proceed from the present.

Its the other way round... the static view is (or should be) the sceptic's position.

All that is held to exist is the world we can measure, what we call objects at times and places - the physical world. The two views agree on all those events - and everything that is contained within the universe of the static view.

The non-static view (clearly yours) is that there is some additional quality to the world, of which we have no experimental proof or measurement to show that it is there.... a coming into and passing away of existence in step with our conscious experience.

 

[Iamme]

... all of what we call past, present, and future, are held to exist equally: the world does not evolve in time. Furthermore, we have no physical proof that the universe is otherwise.

I keep rereading this.

"...to exist". Hmm. Well, the past exist-ED. The future exist-S now, and the future does not yet exist, but we know that it will because the past at one time, led to the future, which became our present. So even though the 3 components will exist equally, at any one given instant, only the past 2 things have been or are, with HOPE the a future does take place, based on past history. See what I mean?

Now, "the world does not evolve in time". Please explain what you mean.

Regarding your last sentence; it would be befuddling to imagine any space-time realm where say you only had a present and future, and no past, let's say. After contemplating this, we could all move over to the migraine thread someone started.

 

[K Buckmaster]

"...to exist". Hmm. Well, the past exist-ED. The future exist-S now, and the future does not yet exist, but we know that it will because the past at one time, led to the future, which became our present.

That is your conscious experience... from which you make the assumption that the universe is also like that - coming into and out of existence.

Consider 'your' body aged 5, and now.

It is clearly not the same body: it is a totally different shape.

It is not the same matter: it is now made up of food from a thousand different fields.

It is not the same consciousness: are you feeling, seeing, experiencing what that 5 year old is feeling, seeing? Similarly it is not the same 'awareness'.

The static view, the world of relativity, the world of all the measurements we have is that there is the 5 year old THERE and you now - and that is it. The sense that they are in some sense 'the same' (you) arises solely from your (fleeting) conscious experience. We have nothing else to say that that is the case.

In the static view - in existing - neither precedes the other. Objectively the two exist alongside each other in the fixed 'all there' history of the world.

Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise and show that your fleeting consciousness isn't just a manifestation that arises out of a static world - but is a 'real' physical feature of a world that comes into and out of existence in step with your consciousious experience.

 

[CapelDodger]

Those familiar will relativity will know that what we call "now "has no special significance in the physical world...in which scheme of things, all of what we call past, present, and future, are held to exist equally: the world does not evolve in time. Furthermore, we have no physical proof that the universe is otherwise.

To quote Einstein:


This is contrary to the view of almost all, who presume, or more likely are taught, that their present reality is somehow the frontier of existence... otherwise expressed as the unfolding now, 'temporal becoming' and so forth.

I raise this challenge in this place, because I have a conviction that there are the (physical, not 'supernatural') phenomena of telepathy and precognition. So to the sceptics here - I ask them to recognise the forest in their own eye.

If you believe, and you almost certainly do ...

So you caviliarly and gratuitously accuse sceptics of having a "forest in their own eye", then follow it up with "If ..." and "... almost certainly ...". Did nobody ever teach you any manners? You come in here, accuse us flatly of hypocrisy, then invent something to back it up. Screw you, you flatulent twat.

...this unproven notion - that we live in a world that evolves through the coming into existence of 'the future', then the challange (to escape hypocrisy)

Again with the hypocrisy if we don't jump to your will. What are you on, steroids?

... is some proof: that our present moment is an objective physical reality; really exists and not just to us; some proof that our world evolves in accordance with our now - rather than simple being the static world described by relativity.

(The $0 is a reflection on my wallet, not my confidence)

Any takers?

(James Randi?)

"I refute it thus!" said Dr. Johnson, kicking a rock. Objective reality exists. try it, it's a remarkable place. Watch what you do though - actions have consequences out here.

 

[K Buckmaster]

I haven't called anyone anything. I wrote "to escape hypocrisy" as in "so as not to be a hyprocrite". However, the abuse I've been getting clearly tells me - I am indeed in the wrong place.

 

[Loss Leader]

Its the other way round... the static view is (or should be) the sceptic's position. .

I love when people come here, assign us beliefs and then demand that we defend them.

Buckmaster or Lifegazer or whoever you are, I cannot see any practical difference between either of the two universes you describe. So long as effect follows cause, I cannot figure out why it would matter. I am sure, however, that you see a difference and that you are just waiting for someone to make some sort of statement favoring one or the other so that you can spring your trap, feel superior and then reveal your pet philosophy. I will thus save you the work: I have no idea what you're talking about, don't care and am pretty confident that your pet philosophy will not logically follow from this static/fluid universe thing you have going on.

Good luck to you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Out of the infinity of times future travelers could visit, why would anyone come here?

To read this thread, of course.

~~ Paul

 

[Dilb]

Those familiar will relativity will know that what we call "now "has no special significance in the physical world...in which scheme of things, all of what we call past, present, and future, are held to exist equally: the world does not evolve in time. Furthermore, we have no physical proof that the universe is otherwise.

To quote Einstein:

"For us believing physicists, the division into past, present and future has merely the meaning of
an albeit obstinate illusion"

I find this questionable. Before and after have a very real meaning in relativity. You can look at either local time, and determine whether events occured before or after each other, or you can look at any possible time, and conclude whether events are time-like separated (everyone, regardless of their reference frame, agrees one thing happened before another) or space-like separated (some reference frames have one occur before the other, some have the order reversed).

It's commonly said, when discussing some of the implications of relativity, that faster than light travel implies going back in time. This works the opposite way, that going back in time implies faster than light travel. Either case would be a huge problem for a century of experimentally confirmed physics. For this reason, unless you have evidence that I can recreate myself I'm going to ignore your claims about precognition.

 

[Horatius]

Its the other way round... the static view is (or should be) the sceptic's position.

Actually, if there is no experiment we could do to prove the nature of existence one way or the other, the skeptic's position should be agnostic - both positions have equal scientific value, as they both make exactly the same predicitions.

So the real question is, if there is any experiment we could do to distinguish the two?

All that is held to exist is the world we can measure, what we call objects at times and places - the physical world. The two views agree on all those events - and everything that is contained within the universe of the static view.

The non-static view (clearly yours) is that there is some additional quality to the world, of which we have no experimental proof or measurement to show that it is there.... a coming into and passing away of existence in step with our conscious experience.

I would say that the "additional quality" that you seek is entropy. In every case we've ever meausured, the entropy of a closed system has always increased. If the whole of space-time is a fixed entity, there is no reason to suppose that entropy would have a fixed direction. We would expect to see some cases (probably a 50-50 split) wherein entropy would decrease.

Since we don't ever see that, we can clearly distinguish between the past and the future. A fixed space-time should not have any such clearly definable differences. Thus we can distinguish between the staic and the dynamic views of space-time.

And we're dynamic. You can't unburn a piece of paper.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a serious straw-man argument going on. I'm a skeptic, and yet I don't accept the "static view" as you're defining it. You're talking about an immutable, predetermined future. I don't buy that at all, and I don't believe relativity implies any such thing.

If I understand your challenge--you defy anyone to prove the existence of the present objective reality--it sounds like a question of philosophy. I don't think you can prove that (I could be asleep and dreaming absolutely everything), and you also can't disprove it (the nature of hypothesis testing is that you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis to begin with).

 

[fuelair]

I, for one, think it's cute that iamhe and Borkmeister have met up now!! Could somebody let truthweaker6971, coburst, stiralogic, litelife and buds know? Please?! That could really be entertaining!!

 

[K Buckmaster]

Before and after have a very real meaning in relativity

That's not the subject of dispute. In the static view (and in relativity) those events of the universe are all that there is. In the view most people have of the world there is an addtional quality of 'coming into existence'.

As for ignoring my claims about precognition - that goes to the root of my challenge... I'm pointing out the selective application of sceptism of those who reject such a phenomena on sceptical grounds - awaiting proof, whilst holding other views, such as the one I've identified, regardless of their being no evidence for those.

I could have chosen instead - existence of the external world - or many other beliefs that those describing themselves as sceptics tend to (non-sceptically) accept but I'm confronting you with one I believe to be false.

(partly to the most abusive reaction I've ever had in a forum which itself speaks)

 

[K Buckmaster]

Actually, if there is no experiment we could do to prove the nature of existence one way or the other, the skeptic's position should be agnostic - both positions have equal scientific value, as they both make exactly the same predicitions.

No - because one view adds something that the other doesn't - its for those who believe in that added something to show that its really a feature of the world. There's no better statement of the sceptical position.

So the real question is, if there is any experiment we could do to distinguish the two?

that's my challenge exactly.

If the whole of space-time is a fixed entity, there is no reason to suppose that entropy would have a fixed direction. We would expect to see some cases (probably a 50-50 split) wherein entropy would decrease.

Your arguments need support. Why would we expect that?

A fixed space-time should not have any such clearly definable differences.

Why not?

And we're dynamic. You can't unburn a piece of paper.

Your argument is that because time is what we call temporally anisotropic (of which entropy is an example) it therefore comes into existence and can't be static. That doesn't follow - you need to explain why that's necessarily the case.