Julian Barbour: "My ideas about time all developed from the realization that if nothing were to change we could not say that time passes. Change is primary, time, if it exists at all, is something w

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

ONLY BALD PEOPLE KNOW TIME!

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
-- saying that was more witty before they started putting it on bumper stickers

― it was a different shark (wetmink2), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:47 (twenty years ago)

So if I understand this correctly, we're all immortal, and it isn't going to do us a damn bit of good. And at NO POINT do I get to go and screw around in my first year of Uni again.

Nevertheless, gosh.

― Matt (Matt), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:58 (twenty years ago)

Time and distance is based on that fact that we move at less than the speed of light.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Thursday, 6 October 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

I'm completely baffled by this. Time exists insofar as we perceive it as an aspect of existence. Barbour is right that, absent change, we could not say time passes, but change is intrinsic to the physical nature of the universe. The DeWitt extrapolation that's mentioned in the Discover article could as well lead to a theory of infinite branching in which all possibilities progressively come exist, as to Barbour's "Spring and Fall, to a Young Child" theory/sensibility of an infinitude of simultaneous states and relative positions. Neither theory is provable or testable, nor would either, were it the case, be perceived differently from the one that would not be the case. Also, neither might be the case, since, as celebrated physicist D. Rumsfeld has noted, we don't know what we don't know.

― M. V. (M.V.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 18:31 (twenty years ago)

"...come to exist..." Or did I already type that?

― M. V. (M.V.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 18:34 (twenty years ago)

The point is that the theories being developed should be testable, and he seems to think it will be possible to get to that stage. As it stands, it is not incoherent, and surely removing any use of time from equations from the quantum level up is going to make lots of differences, so the work should lead to testable predictions.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 6 October 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

Julian Bar Bore

― Frogm@n Henry, Thursday, 6 October 2005 20:15 (twenty years ago)

You think rocks give a shit what day it is?

― Old School (sexyDancer), Thursday, 6 October 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

maybe it's because i'm immortal that i'm so lonely. *sigh*

then again, you're immortal too. we're doomed. or not. let's bone.

― andrew m. (andrewmorgan), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:33 (twenty years ago)

Time causes a lot of problems!
I really like the theory that objects in different positions is what it's all about. And of course the theory of "now", which is pretty old as far as spirituality goes. I'm glad freelance theoretical physicists are talking about it. But it's hard (for most people) to reconcile with the way we've constructed our world, especially with the ol' capitalism.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.