Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » Dave, Arrow of time
Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114630] |
Do, 13 September 2007 17:12 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
CHAPTER 9
THE ARROW OF TIME
In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
have changed over the years. Up to the
beginning of this century people believed in an absolute time. That
is, each event could be labeled by a number
called Âtime in a unique way, and all good clocks would agree on the
time interval between two events.
However, the discovery that the speed of light appeared the same to
every observer, no matter how he was
moving, led to the theory of relativity  and in that one had to
abandon the idea that there was a unique
absolute time. Instead, each observer would have his own measure of
time as recorded by a clock that he
carried: clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily
agree. Thus time became a more personal
concept, relative to the observer who measured it.
When one tried to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, one had to
introduce the idea of Âimaginary time.
Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one
can go north, one can turn around and head
south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to
be able to turn round and go backward.
This means that there can be no important difference between the
forward and backward directions of
imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at Âreal time,
there's a very big difference between the
forward and backward directions, as we all know. Where does this
difference between the past and the future
come from? Why do we remember the past but not the future?
The laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the
future. More precisely, as explained earlier,
the laws of science are unchanged under the combination of operations
(or symmetries) known as C, P, and T.
(C means changing particles for antiparticles. P means taking the
mirror image, so left and right are
interchanged. And T means reversing the direction of motion of all
particles: in effect, running the motion
backward.) The laws of science that govern the behavior of matter
under all normal situations are unchanged
under the combination of the two operations C and P on their own. In
other words, life would be just the same
for the inhabitants of another planet who were both mirror images of
us and who were made of antimatter,
rather than matter.
If the laws of science are unchanged by the combination of operations
C and P, and also by the combination C,
P, and T, they must also be unchanged under the operation T alone. Yet
there is a big difference between the
forward and backward directions of real time in ordinary life. Imagine
a cup of water falling off a table and
breaking into pieces on the floor. If you take a film of this, you can
easily tell whether it is being run forward or
backward. If you run it backward you will see the pieces suddenly
gather themselves together off the floor and
jump back to form a whole cup on the table. You can tell that the film
is being run backward because this kind
of behavior is never observed in ordinary life. If it were, crockery
manufacturers would go out of business.
The explanation that is usually given as to why we don't see broken
cups gathering themselves together off the
floor and jumping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the
second law of thermodynamics. This says that
in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time.
In other words, it is a form of Murphy's
law: things always tend to go wrong! An intact cup on the table is a
state of high order, but a broken cup on the
floor is a disordered state. One can go readily from the cup on the
table in the past to the broken cup on the
floor in the future, but not the other way round.
The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what
is called an arrow of time, something that
distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.
There are at least three different arrows of
time. First, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction
of time in which disorder or entropy
increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the
direction in which we feel time passes, the
direction in which we remember the past but not the future. Finally,
there is the cosmological arrow of time. This
is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather
than contracting.
In this chapter I shall argue that the no boundary condition for the
universe, together with the weak anthropic
principle, can explain why all three arrows point in the same
direction  and moreover, why a well-defined arrow
of time should exist at all. I shall argue that the psychological
arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow,
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (1 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
and that these two arrows necessarily always point in the same
direction. If one assumes the no boundary
condition for the universe, we shall see that there must be
well-defined thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time, but they will not point in the same direction for the
whole history of the universe. However, I
shall argue that it is only when they do point in the same direction
that conditions are suitable for the
development of intelligent beings who can ask the question: why does
disorder increase in the same direction
of time as that in which the universe expands?
I shall discuss first the thermodynamic arrow of time. The second law
of thermodynamics results from the fact
that there are always many more disordered states than there are
ordered ones. For example, consider the
pieces of a jigsaw in a box. There is one, and. only one, arrangement
in which the pieces make a complete
picture. On the other hand, there are a very large number of
arrangements in which the pieces are disordered
and don't make a picture.
Suppose a system starts out in one of the small number of ordered
states. As time goes by, the system will
evolve according to the laws of science and its state will change. At
a later time, it is more probable that the
system will be in a disordered state than in an ordered one because
there are more disordered states. Thus
disorder will tend to increase with time if the system obeys an
initial condition of high order.
Suppose the pieces of the jigsaw start off in a box in the ordered
arrangement in which they form a picture. If
you shake the box, the pieces will take up another arrangement. This
will probably be a disordered
arrangement in which the pieces don't form a proper picture, simply
because there are so many more
disordered arrangements. Some groups of pieces may still form parts of
the picture, but the more you shake
the box, the more likely it is that these groups will get broken up
and the pieces will be in a completely jumbled
state in which they don't form any sort of picture. So the disorder of
the pieces will probably increase with time if
the pieces obey the initial condition that they start off in a
condition of high order.
Suppose, however, that God decided that the universe should finish up
in a state of high order but that it didn't
matter what state it started in. At early times the universe would
probably be in a disordered state. This would
mean that disorder would decrease with time. You would see broken cups
gathering themselves together and
jumping back onto the table. However, any human beings who were
observing the cups would be living in a
universe in which disorder decreased with time. I shall argue that
such beings would have a psychological
arrow of time that was backward. That is, they would remember events
in the future, and not remember events
in their past. When the cup was broken, they would remember it being
on the table, but when it was on the
table, they would not remember it being on the floor.
It is rather difficult to talk about human memory because we don't
know how the brain works in detail. We do,
however, know all about how computer memories work. I shall therefore
discuss the psychological arrow of
time for computers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the arrow
for computers is the same as that for
humans. If it were not, one could make a killing on the stock exchange
by having a computer that would
remember tomorrow's prices! A computer memory is basically a device
containing elements that can exist in
either of two states. A simple example is an abacus. In its simplest
form, this consists of a number of wires; on
each wire there are a number of beads that can be put in one of two
positions. Before an item is recorded in a
computer's memory, the memory is in a disordered state, with equal
probabilities for the two possible states.
(The abacus beads are scattered randomly on the wires of the abacus.)
After the memory interacts with the
system to be remembered, it will definitely be in one state or the
other, according to the state of the system.
(Each abacus bead will be at either the left or the right of the
abacus wire.) So the memory has passed from a
disordered state to an ordered one. However, in order to make sure
that the memory is in the right state, it is
necessary to use a certain amount of energy (to move the bead or to
power the computer, for example). This
energy is dissipated as heat, and increases the amount of disorder in
the universe. One can show that this
increase in disorder is always greater than the increase in the order
of the memory itself. Thus the heat
expelled by the computer's cooling fan means that when a computer
records an item in memory, the total
amount of disorder in the universe still goes up. The direction of
time in which a computer remembers the past
is the same as that in which disorder increases.
Our subjective sense of the direction of time, the psychological arrow
of time, is therefore determined within our
brain by the thermodynamic arrow of time. Just like a computer, we
must remember things in the order in which
entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost
trivial. Disorder increases with time
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (2 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases
You can't have a safer bet than that!
But why should the thermodynamic arrow of time exist at all? Or, in
other words, why should the universe be in
a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the
past? Why is it not in a state of complete
disorder at all times? After all, this might seem more probable. And
why is the direction of time in which
disorder increases the same as that in which the universe expands?
In the classical theory of general relativity one cannot predict how
the universe would have begun because all
the known laws of science would have broken down at the big bang
singularity. The universe could have
started out in a very smooth and ordered state. This would have led to
well-defined thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows of time, as we observe. But it could equally well
have started out in a very lumpy and
disordered state. In that case, the universe would already be in a
state of complete disorder, so disorder could
not increase with time. It would either stay constant, in which case
there would be no well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time, or it would decrease, in which case the
thermodynamic arrow of time would point
in the opposite direction to the cosmological arrow. Neither of these
possibilities agrees with what we observe.
However, as we have seen, classical general relativity predicts its
own downfall. When the curvature of
space-time becomes large, quantum gravitational effects will become
important and the classical theory will
cease to be a good description of the universe. One has to use a
quantum theory of gravity to understand how
the universe began.
In a quantum theory of gravity, as we saw in the last chapter, in
order to specify the state of the universe one
would still have to say how the possible histories of the universe
would behave at the boundary of space-time in
the past. One could avoid this difficulty of having to describe what
we do not and cannot know only if the
histories satisfy the no boundary condition: they are finite in extent
but have no boundaries, edges, or
singularities. In that case, the beginning of time would be a regular,
smooth point of space-time and the
universe would have begun its expansion in a very smooth and ordered
state. It could not have been
completely uniform, because that would violate the uncertainty
principle of quantum theory. There had to be
small fluctuations in the density and velocities of particles. The no
boundary condition, however, implied that
these fluctuations were as small as they could be, consistent with the
uncertainty principle.
The universe would have started off with a period of exponential or
Âinflationary expansion in which it would
have increased its size by a very large factor. During this expansion,
the density fluctuations would have
remained small at first, but later would have started to grow. Regions
in which the density was slightly higher
than average would have had their expansion slowed down by the
gravitational attraction of the extra mass.
Eventually, such regions would stop expanding and collapse to form
galaxies, stars, and beings like us. The
universe would have started in a smooth and ordered state, and would
become lumpy and disordered as time
went on. This would explain the existence of the thermodynamic arrow
of time.
But what would happen if and when the universe stopped expanding and
began to contract? Would the
thermodynamic arrow reverse and disorder begin to decrease with time?
This would lead to all sorts of
science-fiction-like possibilities for people who survived from the
expanding to the contracting phase. Would
they see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and
jumping back onto the table? Would they
be able to remember tomorrow's prices and make a fortune on the stock
market? It might seem a bit academic
to worry about what will happen when the universe collapses again, as
it will not start to contract for at least
another ten thousand million years. But there is a quicker way to find
out what will happen: jump into a black
hole. The collapse of a star to form a black hole is rather like the
later stages of the collapse of the whole
universe. So if disorder were to decrease in the contracting phase of
the universe, one might also expect it to
decrease inside a black hole. So perhaps an astronaut who fell into a
black hole would be able to make money
at roulette by remembering where the ball went before he placed his
bet. (Unfortunately, however, he would not
have long to play before he was turned to spaghetti. Nor would he be
able to let us know about the reversal of
the thermodynamic arrow, or even bank his winnings, because he would
be trapped behind the event horizon
of the black hole.)
At first, I believed that disorder would decrease when the universe
recollapsed. This was because I thought that
the universe had to return to a smooth and ordered state when it
became small again. This would mean that
the contracting phase would be like the time reverse of the expanding
phase. People in the contracting phase
would live their lives backward: they would die before they were born
and get younger as the universe
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (3 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
contracted.
This idea is attractive because it would mean a nice symmetry between
the expanding and contracting phases.
However, one cannot adopt it on its own, independent of other ideas
about the universe. The question is: is it
implied by the no boundary condition, or is it inconsistent with that
condition? As I said, I thought at first that the
no boundary condition did indeed imply that disorder would decrease in
the contracting phase. I was misled
partly by the analogy with the surface of the earth. If one took the
beginning of the universe to correspond to
the North Pole, then the end of the universe should be similar to the
beginning, just as the South Pole is similar
to the North. However, the North and South Poles correspond to the
beginning and end of the universe in
imaginary time. The beginning and end in real time can be very
different from each other. I was also misled by
work I had done on a simple model of the universe in which the
collapsing phase looked like the time reverse of
the expanding phase. However, a colleague of mine, Don Page, of Penn
State University, pointed out that the
no boundary condition did not require the contracting phase
necessarily to be the time reverse of the expanding
phase. Further, one of my students, Raymond Laflamme, found that in a
slightly more complicated model, the
collapse of the universe was very different from the expansion. I
realized that I had made a mistake: the no
boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to
increase during the contraction. The
thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when
the universe begins to recontract, or
inside black holes.
What should you do when you find you have made a mistake like that?
Some people never admit that they are
wrong and continue to find new, and often mutually inconsistent,
arguments to support their case  as
Eddington did in opposing black hole theory. Others claim to have
never really supported the incorrect view in
the first place or, if they did, it was only to show that it was
inconsistent. It seems to me much better and less
confusing if you admit in print that you were wrong. A good example of
this was Einstein, who called the
cosmological constant, which he introduced when he was trying to make
a static model of the universe, the
biggest mistake of his life.
To return to the arrow of time, there remains the question: why do we
observe that the thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows point in the same direction? Or in other words,
why does disorder increase in the same
direction of time as that in which the universe expands? If one
believes that the universe will expand and then
contract again, as the no boundary proposal seems to imply, this
becomes a question of why we should be in
the expanding phase rather than the contracting phase.
One can answer this on the basis of the weak anthropic principle.
Conditions in the contracting phase would not
be suitable for the existence of intelligent beings who could ask the
question: why is disorder increasing in the
same direction of time as that in which the universe is expanding? The
inflation in the early stages of the
universe, which the no boundary proposal predicts, means that the
universe must be expanding at very close to
the critical rate at which it would just avoid recollapse, and so will
not recollapse for a very long time. By then all
the stars will have burned out and the protons and neutrons in them
will probably have decayed into light
particles and radiation. The universe would be in a state of almost
complete disorder. There would be no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time. Disorder couldn't increase much because
the universe would be in a state of
almost complete disorder already. However, a strong thermodynamic
arrow is necessary for intelligent life to
operate. In order to survive, human beings have to consume food, which
is an ordered form of energy, and
convert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy. Thus
intelligent life could not exist in the contracting
phase of the universe. This is the explanation of why we observe that
the thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time point in the same direction. It is not that the
expansion of the universe causes disorder to
increase. Rather, it is that the no boundary condition causes disorder
to increase and the conditions to be
suitable for intelligent life only in the expanding phase.
To summarize, the laws of science do not distinguish between the
forward and backward directions of time.
However, there are at least three arrows of time that do distinguish
the past from the future. They are the
thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder
increases; the psychological arrow, the direction
of time in which we remember the past and not the future; and the
cosmological arrow, the direction of time in
which the universe expands rather than contracts. I have shown that
the psychological arrow is essentially the
same as the thermodynamic arrow, so that the two would always point in
the same direction. The no boundary
proposal for the universe predicts the existence of a well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time because the
universe must start off in a smooth and ordered state. And the reason
we observe this thermodynamic arrow to
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (4 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
agree with the cosmological arrow is that intelligent beings can exist
only in the expanding phase. The
contracting phase will be unsuitable because it has no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time.
The progress of the human race in understanding the universe has
established a small corner of order in an
increasingly disordered universe. If you remember every word in this
book, your memory will have recorded
about two million pieces of information: the order in your brain will
have increased by about two million units.
However, while you have been reading the book, you will have converted
at least a thousand calories of
ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the
form of heat that you lose to the air around
you by convection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the
universe by about twenty million million
million million units  or about ten million million million times the
increase in order in your brain  and that's if
you remember everything in this book. In the next chapter but one I
will try to increase the order in our neck of
the woods a little further by explaining how people are trying to fit
together the partial theories I have described
to form a complete unified theory that would cover everything in the
universe.
PREVIOUS NEXT
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114632 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114630] |
Do, 13 September 2007 17:31 |
duif
Boodskappe: 590 Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:12:00 +0200, Ferdi wrote:
> CHAPTER 9
> THE ARROW OF TIME
Baie dankie, Ferdi.
Dit was toe nie waar ek daarna gesoek het nie.
Dankie nogmaals.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114703 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114630] |
Vr, 14 September 2007 21:52 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795 Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ferdi haal aan:
> Suppose, however, that God decided that the universe should finish up
> in a state of high order but that it didn't
> matter what state it started in
Nou vra ek jou met trane in my groot blou oge.
Wie kan nou vir Stephen Hawking ernstig opneem
as hy met daardie computerstem van God praat.
Somtyds dink ek hy maak grappies, soos hy
obviously aan die einde van die deel wat jy aanhaal,
grappies maak. Hoekom voel ek verontwaardig, as
ek hoor dat Stephen Hawking van God praat,
terwyl ek nie verontwaardig voel as Dave van
God praat nie.
Gloudina
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114715 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114703] |
Sa, 15 September 2007 09:55 |
duif
Boodskappe: 590 Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:52:41 -0000, Hessie wrote:
> Hoekom voel ek verontwaardig, as
> ek hoor dat Stephen Hawking van God praat,
> terwyl ek nie verontwaardig voel as Dave van
> God praat nie.
>
> Gloudina
Die spanning is byna tasbaar tussen die deelnemers
in afwagting op die antwoord.
My ondersteuners se skouers raak byna aanmekaar
maar ek het beduie dat hulle moet ontspan en so
effe uitmekaar beweeg.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114716 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114715] |
Sa, 15 September 2007 14:16 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795 Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
dave skryf
> Die spanning is byna tasbaar tussen die deelnemers
> in afwagting op die antwoord.
> My ondersteuners se skouers raak byna aanmekaar
> maar ek het beduie dat hulle moet ontspan en so
> effe uitmekaar beweeg.
Dit klink of jy bietjie Wereldbeker-koors
onderlede het. Ek klop myself op die
skouer vir die skitterende manier waarop
ek die bal van die lyn af ingegooi het.
Tant Hessie in die tuin van Eden.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114717 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114716] |
Sa, 15 September 2007 15:52 |
duif
Boodskappe: 590 Geregistreer: April 2007
Karma: 1
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
hessie poog:
>
>
>> Die spanning is byna tasbaar tussen die deelnemers
>> in afwagting op die antwoord.
>> My ondersteuners se skouers raak byna aanmekaar
>> maar ek het beduie dat hulle moet ontspan en so
>> effe uitmekaar beweeg.
>
> Dit klink of jy bietjie Wereldbeker-koors
> onderlede het. Ek klop myself op die
> skouer vir die skitterende manier waarop
> ek die bal van die lyn af ingegooi het.
>
> Tant hessie op die pawiljoen
>
Nee, jy het die bal skeef ingegooi.
En as ons daaroor gaan skrum gaan jy vind die krag is duskant.
So hou by die reëls en moet nie 'n geel kaart uitlok nie.
Jy kry weer 'n kans.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114718 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114630] |
Sa, 15 September 2007 22:25 |
Noddy
Boodskappe: 50 Geregistreer: Julie 2003
Karma: 0
|
Volle Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi" skryf in boodskap news:aqrie3lpg38nnva31qccbkc5eqs2ctsua4@4ax.com...
> CHAPTER 9
> THE ARROW OF TIME
> In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
> have changed over the years. Up to the
bla, bla ens
Lees hier van i ander oogpunt, gestroop van hedendaagse mistisisme. Tyd is "in"
die univers, the univers is nie "in" tyd nie. Daar moes eers i univers bestaan
het voor daar iets soos tyd kon wees. Tyd is slegs i mensgemaakte konsep. Daar
is nie iets soos metafisiese tyd nie.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
Kantelberg.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114721 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114718] |
So, 16 September 2007 14:15 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795 Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Johannes" skryf
> Lees hier van i ander oogpunt, gestroop van hedendaagse mistisisme. Tyd is "in"
> die univers, the univers is nie "in" tyd nie. Daar moes eers i univers bestaan
> het voor daar iets soos tyd kon wees. Tyd is slegs i mensgemaakte konsep. Daar
> is nie iets soos metafisiese tyd nie.
Jy slaan die spyker op die kop. Alles, alles,
is mensgemaakte konsepte. In ons mense
se koppe. Daar is heelwaarskynlik n hele
ander klomp referensiepunte in die kop van
die diere.
Gloudina
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114745 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114703] |
Di, 18 September 2007 08:04 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:52:41 -0000, Hessie wrote:
> Nou vra ek jou met trane in my groot blou oge.
> Wie kan nou vir Stephen Hawking ernstig opneem
> as hy met daardie computerstem van God praat.
'n Hele klomp mense vat hom nogal ernstig op.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114746 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114718] |
Di, 18 September 2007 08:42 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:25:06 GMT, "Johannes" wrote:
4ax.com...
>> CHAPTER 9
>> THE ARROW OF TIME
>> In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
>> have changed over the years. Up to the
> bla, bla ens
>
> Lees hier van i ander oogpunt, gestroop van hedendaagse mistisisme. Tyd is "in"
> die univers, the univers is nie "in" tyd nie. Daar moes eers i univers bestaan
> het voor daar iets soos tyd kon wees. Tyd is slegs i mensgemaakte konsep. Daar
> is nie iets soos metafisiese tyd nie.
So? Dis mos wat Hawking ook sê.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114747 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114721] |
Di, 18 September 2007 09:02 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:15:31 -0000, Hessie wrote:
> "Johannes" skryf
>
>> Lees hier van i ander oogpunt, gestroop van hedendaagse mistisisme. Tyd is "in"
>> die univers, the univers is nie "in" tyd nie. Daar moes eers i univers bestaan
>> het voor daar iets soos tyd kon wees. Tyd is slegs i mensgemaakte konsep. Daar
>> is nie iets soos metafisiese tyd nie.
>
> Jy slaan die spyker op die kop. Alles, alles,
> is mensgemaakte konsepte. In ons mense
> se koppe. Daar is heelwaarskynlik n hele
> ander klomp referensiepunte in die kop van
> die diere.
>
> Gloudina
Gloudina as jy die hoofstuk 'n slag sou lees, sal jy sien dat dit ook
is wat Hawking sê - as ek dit nou reg onthou.
Tyd is die naam wat ons gee aan die progressie van iets. 'n Minuut
gelede is verby en 'n minuut van nou af is nog nie hier nie. Tussen
die twee is ek in progressie tussen die twee. Daai progressie ervaar
ek sensories en logies. Ek sien dit gebeur en ek is gemaklik met die
logiese konsep wat uit die sensoriese saamgestel is.
Dis 'n lang paragraaf om elke keer te herhaal daai.
In plaas van aan iemand sê "Ek sal aandag aan jou gee, gee my net gou
< 'n Minuut gelede is verby en 'n minuut van nou af is nog nie hier
nie. Tussen die twee is ek in progressie tussen die twee. Daai
progressie ervaar ek sensories en logies. Ek sien dit gebeur en ek is
gemaklik met die logiese konsep wat uit die sensoriese samgestel
is.>
- sê ek eerder "Ek sal aandag aan jou gee, gee my net gou"'n
TYDjie".
Dus is "tyd" die naam vir daai progressie die dimensies in ens. ens.
Maar - NET SOOS JY - sê Hawking gister vandag en more bestaan logies
"reeds" as deel van dit wat ons die universum noem.
Maar anders as jy - klaarblyklik - het hy gaan staan en wonder: As
gister reeds gebeur het en ek weet daarvan en more is ook reeds in die
konstruksie wat ons die universum noem, waarom weet ek nie van môre
nie"?
Die hoofstuk the arrow of time is eenvoudig 'n redelike spekulasie oor
hoekom ons gister kan ken nie môre nie. Hoekom ons as wesens daai
progressie net een kant toe met ons geheue kan ervaar.
Voorts: Jy het ernstige beswaar as Hawking - of wie ook al - dit durf
om godsdiens te meld in wetenskaplike besprekings. Dis 'n goeie punt,
maar iewers is godsdiens mos maar primitiewe filiosofie en is
wetenskap mos maar filosofie. Mens maak obviously denkfoute as jy
elemente van die goed deurmekaar weef om die uitkoms te gee waarvan jy
hou - of daai verkose uitkoms nou filosofies, godsdienstig of
wetenskaplik is - , maar dis nie moontlik om te vra "kan ons vra waar
kom die big bang vandaan?" sonder dat iemand langs jou die woord "god"
noem nie. Dis die werklikheid waarin ons leef. dan kan jy die ou of
flat ignoreer vir alle tye wat baie ongeskik is of jy kan hom
antwoord. En dan praat jy van God in 'n wetenskaplike antwoord! Maar
praat van beteken nie jy weef dit in jou antwoord nie.
(Get a life on this! As ek sê: "Dit is inderdaad waar dat baie
misdadigers wegkom met wat hulle doen en dat 'n mens soms wonder of jy
nie 'n bank moet berof nie, maar dit sal 'n verkeerde besluit wees...
blah blah.." dan het ek mos van misdaad gepraat in 'n etiese antwoord.
En dan het ek mos nie misdaad gekondoneer nie! Jy wil argumenteer dat
as 'n mens 'n etiese uitspraak maak, dan durf jy nie van misdaad praat
nie!)
En Hawking het baie duidelik - in A Brief History of Time- gesê "sorry
ek praat nie daaroor (van voor die big bang) in fisika nie want dit is
nie moontlik om te weet wat voor die universum is was kon wees of wat
ook al nie. Ons kan net in hierdie universum weet met fisika.
Dis na my mening 'n hoogs logiese en sinryke antwoord.
Nou terug na jou toe: Meng jy nie godsdiens en wetenskap nie? Met
ander woorde doen jy nie juis dit waaroor jy uitvaar nie? Jou
godsdiens verskil mos net in denominasie van hawking s'n!
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114757 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114718] |
Di, 18 September 2007 11:27 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:25:06 GMT, "Johannes" wrote:
"Ferdi" wrote in message
> news:aqrie3lpg38nnva31qccbkc5eqs2ctsua4@4ax.com...
>> CHAPTER 9
>> THE ARROW OF TIME
>> In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
>> have changed over the years. Up to the
> bla, bla ens
>
> Lees hier van i ander oogpunt, gestroop van hedendaagse mistisisme. Tyd is "in"
> die univers, the univers is nie "in" tyd nie. Daar moes eers i univers bestaan
> het voor daar iets soos tyd kon wees. Tyd is slegs i mensgemaakte konsep. Daar
> is nie iets soos metafisiese tyd nie.
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
>
> Kantelberg.
This is the sort of empirical confirmation that a theory of the sort
here criticized truly deserves. 1. The First Moment of Time Why do all
people so stubbornly resist the conception of a beginning of Time? Why
does it come so natural to them, upon hearing of this or that Creation
Theory, be it the "Big Bang" of the physicists or the "Let there be
Light!" of the Scriptures, to continue pressing on with the question,
"yes, fine, but what was there before that?"
Dit is mos sekerlik 'n legitieme vraag? Watter "tyd" was daar voor die
"tyd" waarin ons is tot stand gekom het, is 'n ander manier om die
vraag te vra.
En die vraag impliseer GEENSINS dat tyd as 'n afsonderlike entiteit
van die res van die werklikheid bestaan nie.
Anders gestel, wat laat jou filosoof so seker wees dat die tyd en
ruimte wat hier om ons tot stand gekom het/aan die tot stand kom is
die enigste moontlike sodanige konstruksie is?
En as dit moontlik is dat dit nie die enigste een ooit moontlik is
nie, dan is die vraag "OK watter ander dan voor dit/na dit" mos
logies?
'n Sinnelose vraag as mens werk met die fisika en die sigbare,
meetbare, onthoubare van hierdie universum, maar 'n legitieme vraag...
Of wil jou filosoof 'n verbod of sulke vrae plaas?
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114761 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114747] |
Di, 18 September 2007 12:02 |
Torreke
Boodskappe: 1165 Geregistreer: April 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
"Ferdi" Tyd is die naam wat ons gee aan die progressie van iets. 'n Minuut[/color]
> gelede is verby en 'n minuut van nou af is nog nie hier nie. Tussen
> die twee is ek in progressie tussen die twee. Daai progressie ervaar
> ek sensories en logies. Ek sien dit gebeur en ek is gemaklik met die
> logiese konsep wat uit die sensoriese saamgestel is.
Vir my is "tyd" gewoon 'n konsep waarmee ons uitdruk hoeveel verandering in
die fisiese werklikheid plaasgevbind het.
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114764 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114747] |
Di, 18 September 2007 12:40 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795 Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ferdi skryf
Maar - NET SOOS JY - sê Hawking gister vandag en more bestaan logies
> "reeds" as deel van dit wat ons die universum noem.
>
> Maar anders as jy - klaarblyklik - het hy gaan staan en wonder: As
> gister reeds gebeur het en ek weet daarvan en more is ook reeds in die
> konstruksie wat ons die universum noem, waarom weet ek nie van môre
> nie"?
>
> Die hoofstuk the arrow of time is eenvoudig 'n redelike spekulasie oor
> hoekom ons gister kan ken nie môre nie. Hoekom ons as wesens daai
> progressie net een kant toe met ons geheue kan ervaar.
>
> Voorts: Jy het ernstige beswaar as Hawking - of wie ook al - dit durf
> om godsdiens te meld in wetenskaplike besprekings. Dis 'n goeie punt,
> maar iewers is godsdiens mos maar primitiewe filiosofie en is
> wetenskap mos maar filosofie.
Gaan terug na die hoofstuk en sien waar bring hy
God in. Die hoofstuk lees nou mooi en logies
en verstaanbaar en alles is reg in die fisiese staat
van Denemarke. En dan skielik, uit left field,
praat hy van God. Dis asof die man skielik
vergeet waaroor hy praat, wat die parameters
is van die onderwerp waaroor hy praat.
Nou, as mens godsdiens wil meld in
wetenskaplike besprekings, dan het ek daar
vrede mee. Baie filosowe doen dit en mens
volg hulle logika en verklarings. Maar om
n stuk taamlik eenvoudige uitlegging van
n ondermaanse werklikheid te bespreek,
en dan skielik die konsep van God in te
bring, en dit net so skielik weer te los,
dit verbyster my net.
Gloudina
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114765 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114747] |
Di, 18 September 2007 12:48 |
bouer
Boodskappe: 4795 Geregistreer: Desember 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Ferdi skryf
> En Hawking het baie duidelik - in A Brief History of Time- gesê "sorry
> ek praat nie daaroor (van voor die big bang) in fisika nie want dit is
> nie moontlik om te weet wat voor die universum is was kon wees of wat
> ook al nie. Ons kan net in hierdie universum weet met fisika.
>
> Dis na my mening 'n hoogs logiese en sinryke antwoord.
Natuurlik. So, ek vra jou weer met trane in my
groot groen oge, wat bedoel Hawking wanneer
hy van God praat in die middel van n fisika-
bespreking. Ek kan hom net nie langs daardie
paadjie volg nie. Praat hy van God soos Newton
van God gepraat het, as n deus ex machina
(iets wat William Blake vreeslik kwaad gemaak
het. Hy het daardie konsep van God n naam
gegee - old nobodaddy.)
Gloudina
|
|
|
Re: Dave, Arrow of time [boodskap #114770 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #114765] |
Wo, 19 September 2007 13:41 |
Ferdi
Boodskappe: 561 Geregistreer: Maart 2007
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:48:25 -0000, Hessie wrote:
> Natuurlik. So, ek vra jou weer met trane in my
> groot groen oge, wat bedoel Hawking wanneer
> hy van God praat in die middel van n fisika-
> bespreking. Ek kan hom net nie langs daardie
> paadjie volg nie. Praat hy van God soos Newton
> van God gepraat het, as n deus ex machina
> (iets wat William Blake vreeslik kwaad gemaak
> het. Hy het daardie konsep van God n naam
> gegee - old nobodaddy.)
Ons haal verskillende dinge uit daai stuk.
Ek haal daaruit 'n imponerende stuk logika en 'n hoogs interessante
redenasie. Die verwysing na God pla my nie. Dis nie waarvoor ek dit
lees nie. Ek lees dit vir die ophelderende logika sodat ek my eie mind
kan opmaak.
Dit kan ek doen omdat hawking in sy ligiese redenasie, wel, suiwer
logies was - en nie God gebruik het om tot die of daai konklusie te
spring nie.
Jy lees dit om te sien of hy iewers ook na 'n God verwys. En dalk om
hom dan daaroor te kruisig, so to speak. En dan sy goeie logika ook
weg te gooi omdat hy durf verwys het na 'n Boedda, ag, sorry, 'n God.
Ek dink bv nie 'n mens moet Newton se helder logika oor baie dinge om
ons weggooi omdat hy na God op 'n sekere manier verwys het nie.
Want dan, Gloudina, sal ons Blake dalk moet weggooi omdat sy
verwysings na wetenskap nie goed is nie.
|
|
|
|
|
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [ ]
Tyd nou: Sa Nov 23 11:00:56 MGT 2024
|