[Wittrs] Re: Change Without Time

  • From: Justintruth <justintruth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT)

1) Logically the fact that there is an objective state of affairs can
change such that the resulting new state of affairs does not change.
If it did this then there would be time without further change. This
logical possibility is excluded only by current physical law which is
itself subject to falsification.

2) This statement is not quite true: "Typical experiments by
physicists seem at bottom to rest on procedures which relate changes
of one sort, say the movements of a rocket ship, to changes of another
sort, typically the movements of a physical device that we by
convention refer to as a clock." Actually: "Typical experiments by
physicists seem at bottom to rest on procedures which relate THE
RECEIPT OF FINITE VELOCITY SIGNALS PRODUCED BY changes of one sort,
say the movements of a rocket ship, to THE RECEIPT OF FINITE VELOCITY
SIGNALS PRODUCED BY changes of another sort, typically the movements
of a physical device that we by convention refer to as a clock."
Without the signals being in the middle the relativity of time would
be impossible to establish. It is key that the velocity of these
signals cannot be measured but is rather a matter of convention. Once
the convention is agreed to the observation of the receipt of the
signals can be used to construct mathematically the different state of
affairs that are considered to be a given "present" relative to a
given class of observers. Without the mediation of light, or if you
prefer, with the mediation of light that travels infinitely fast, the
relativity of time would be impossible because the observed state
would constitute an absolute frame of reference.

3) The state of affairs can be conceived in such a way that objects in
it do not change and yet, given a correct set of "rules" in the
theoretical physics language game, are still capable of being used to
predict the changing experiences we have.



On Mar 9, 6:10 am, "Cayuse" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Excerpted 
> from:http://home.comcast.net/~robert_lloyd_pendleton/change_without_time.html
>
> It may be justly wondered how such a "change without time." can avoid the 
> quixotic "philosophy against physics" censured by Russell (1946: 700-701). Do 
> not scientists virtually define change in terms of time? Still, although 
> scientists purport to analyze change in terms of time, typical experiments by 
> physicists seem at bottom to rest on procedures which relate changes of one 
> sort, say the movements of a rocket ship, to changes of another sort, 
> typically the movements of a physical device that we by convention refer to 
> as a clock. In thus denying the empirically verifiable role of time in these 
> experiments we merely echo Wittgenstein's famous remark in the Tractatus:
>
> We cannot compare a process with 'the passage of time' --there is no such 
> thing--but only with another process (such as the working of a chronometer).19
>
> Geroch concurs, taking care to describe precisely the assignment of "times" 
> to the world lines of particles:
>
> Physically, the assignment is obtained by carrying a clock alongside the 
> particle and using the readings of the clock to obtain the "times" (Geroch 
> 1978: 79-80).
>
> From these quotes we may wonder where the claimed time phenomenon comes into 
> play in the familiar "temporal analysis" of change.
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/


Other related posts: