TIME & The Evolution of Systems/Software

[RainmanTime]

I would have to say that a great many of the people on this site that are serious about investigating TIME and how to "travel" through it (from a scientific understanding) have often agreed that an understanding of WHAT TIME IS would be a reasonable pre-requisite for being able to come to some conclusions about how someone might "travel through Time".

Many others have discussed and debated the proposition that "Time is an illusion" or to describe this concept in many other ways we might say:

"Time is a Creation of our Perception."
"Time is something manufactured by our concsiousness."
"Time is the ordered cataloging of experiences observed from our unique vantage point as a human being."

We could go on and on with similar statements, I am sure. Please, if anyone totally disagrees with this, speak now. I don't mind if people can refute (falsify) what I am saying. But I do believe that the above statements reflect the views of several folks who have gathered here to share insights about the Science of Time and Consciousness.

Since I have a good deal of experience in dealing with Time-based systems which CONTROL physical elements as a means to achieve certain OBJECTIVES, I guess I would be very interested in a discussion with like-minded folks about the following topics:

1) How PERCEPTION (measurement, observation) of Matter in Motion affects our understanding of what constitutes TIME.
2) How the historical, chronological evolution of SYSTEMS in our physical human world from "Hardware Only" to a much more sophisticated model of "Hardware + Software" may help us understand not only how we view Time, but how our advancement of intelligent systems stands to MODIFY how we think about Time.
3) Thoughts about our immediate future, and how our education and discoveries about the relationship between ENERGY and INFORMATION, when viewed from the evolution of human-designed SYSTEMS, will change our world in such a way as to completely alter what we think of as "being alive and living through Time".

Anyone?
RMT

 

[bogz]

I wont have a very profound take on this but I'll try. I dont believe time is an illusion. I think it exists so that matter can interact with the universe in predictable ways. Matter moves through time at a default rate similar to how energy moves through space at a default speed, imo.

I think the term "intelligent" needs to be changed. Fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, neural nets are all powerful tools but very little about them constitutes intelligence. Sure the claim is made that they learn but really it's nothing more than repetitive trial an error. In the end, the output from an intelligent system is arrived at using basic arithmetic, not because the system is intelligent.

These systems are only tools to help us reach an objective, like calculus. 1000 years from now there will be new toolsets far more advanced and people will laugh at us for using the term. I can't conceive how these systems that crudely emulate nature will change the way we understand time. I'll hold this belief until someone can present a physics problem that can only be solved using an intelligent system.

Here is a comment from someone who saw a screening of the new movie Deja-Vu starring Denzel Washington:

I did not expect a time-traveling movie, but I wouldn't have argued if it was believable. From the minute we are introduced to a computer that can go four days in the past and show us footage through walls without the use of cameras, I sorta lost interest. There's suspension of belief, and then there's this.

I totally disagree with this guy. I think this will happen in my lifetime. This is exactly the way I think time travel will happen. A computer, using a physics equation, will be able to simulate matter and simulate moving it back and possibly forward in time. It could be centuries before we actually get to move real matter, but a simulation could be right around the corner.

My guess is we need some sort of way to measure and record the properties of information. If you record information for a week, then run it through the simulation, you'll be able to see back in time for a week. Maybe you only need to take 1 measurement and recording a week of data would be pointless. I dont know - but I do think real information will have to be fed into the equation to get any output.

AMD has promised 80 core 1-teraflop cpu's on our desktop in 5 years time so the average joe will have the horsepower to experiment.


Gorillaz-Sunshine in a bag

I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
I got sunshine, in a bag
I'm useless,but not for long
The future is coming on
I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
I got sunshine, in a bag
I'm useless, but not for long
The future is coming on
It's coming on
It's coming on
It's coming on


Yeah... Ha Ha!
Finally someone let me out of my cage
Now, time for me is nothing cos I'm counting no age
Now I couldn't be there
Now you shouldn't be scared
I'm good at repairs
And I'm under each snare
Intangible
Bet you didn't think so I command you to
Panoramic view
Look I'll make it all manageable
Pick and choose
Sit and lose
All you different crews
Chicks and dudes
Who you think is really kickin' tunes?
Picture you gettin' down in a picture tube
Like you lit the fuse
You think it's fictional
Mystical? Maybe
Spiritual
Hearable
What appears in you is a clearer view cos you're too crazy
Lifeless
To know the definition for what life is
Priceless
For you because I put you on the hype [censored]
You like it?
Gunsmokin' righteous with one toke your
Psychic among those
Possess you with one go

(cut short)

 

[Packerbacker]

RMT:

Your points require more than an off-the-cuff response, so I'll get back to that.

What strikes me is that so much of our curent language and way of thinking is still an off-shoot of the Middle Ages. How does one make a reasonably reliable definition of "God," "time," and so many other expressions? It's like swimming in a pot of soup (actually a better metaphor is trying to pick up a bar of Irish Spring on the shower floor} /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi bogz,

I dont believe time is an illusion. I think it exists so that matter can interact with the universe in predictable ways. Matter moves through time at a default rate similar to how energy moves through space at a default speed, imo.

Certainly I can understand and respect this view. Any maybe describing Time as an "illusion" is not really what I was getting at. Certainly Time is not an illusion to our conscious minds. We perceive it and we share that perception with other humans. If we all agree that we perceive the passage of Time, then it would be hard to call it an illusion. Perhaps another way to say what I am trying to say is that "Time is a byproduct of perception, sentience, cognition."

Now, I also think that your comments on matter interacting with the universe in a predictable way are going in the right direction for how we would describe (and measure) Time. I've pointed out before that every single means that we humans have to "mark Time", as we perceive it, is derived from MATTER in MOTION. Indeed, our very definition of a "day", as 24 hours, is semi-arbitrary in that it corresponds to the amount of TIME required for the MASS of the earth to complete one complete rotation of MOTION about its axis.

So now to modify my statement in quotes above, I would also classify "Time as being a byproduct of MATTER in MOTION." Or perhaps "Time is dependent and derived from MATTER that is in MOTION." And indeed the science of Albert Einstein has even shown this to be true because of what happens to the perception of Time as a moving reference frame reaches relativistic speeds.

I think the term "intelligent" needs to be changed.

I completely agree, and I would even go further and say that the term "intelligent" is not a fixed (static) quantity, but rather a constantly-changing dynamic. Since there are a lot of people around this forum that seem to get kicks out of predictions, I will toss out one here:

I PREDICT THAT: Once someone creates a form of "AI" that consistently passes the Turing Test (as administered by several testers), mankind will once again re-set the bar for what constitutes "intelligence." And that, BTW, is a very good thing. For it ensures us that we as humans are not merely "intelligent" (as if it is a place you can "arrive at" and "stay at"), but rather we are EVOLVING our intelligence constantly, as a species. And this is not even taking into account current conceptual ideas of "spiritual intelligence". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sure the claim is made that they learn but really it's nothing more than repetitive trial an error.

And isn't it funny (and interesting!) that this pretty much sums up the arguments of Evolutionists... that our "ascension" to our current status as "the most intelligent form of life on our planet" came about through a long series of trials and errors. And if this is the truth about us as an "intelligent" species, then I would think it would hold true for any other "intelligent" species which arises from.... wherever!

These systems are only tools to help us reach an objective, like calculus.

As you know, I like to focus on the concept and reality of "Systems". I am fascinated by the human body as a system... one which we all certainly agree supports "intelligence".

It is an interesting coincidence because my chiropractor (who is also a good friend of mine) and I were discussing the amazing systemic architecture of the human body system and its subsystems. We had quite a spirited discussion about it over lunch just yesterday. She and I always are amazed by the knowledge the other exhibits in their profession. She knows SOOOOO much about the human body and its systems, and she does a great job helping me understand what she knows so I can keep my system in decent shape! And then she will always exclaim in surprise about how it is amazing the things I do and the complex control systems I design that literally fly airplanes autonomously.

That was when we both looked at each other and our eyes grew wide: Closed-loop control systems! It is the single most important concept behind the work that BOTH of us do. Suddenly we began to discuss a cooperative project for our future. I build operational, functional, and physical models (using computer modeling tools like MATLAB/Simulink) of complex aircraft and their complex systems. I model system inputs, system transformation functions, and system outputs. Inasmuch I develop extremely accurate models of how the integrated airplane works.

What is to stop us from developing similar extremely complex models of the human body, and all of its closed-loop transformation systems, their performance, and its inputs and outputs? Nothing, of course. That lead to some excellent ideas for collaboration that we are going to be working on in the coming months.

My guess is we need some sort of way to measure and record the properties of information.

As you know from some of my other posts, bogz, I am in strong agreement with you on this. And I think the key is in being able to model various levels of: Mass, Matter, Space, Motion, Time, Force, Energy, and finally (at the top) Information. An integrated model of all of these "aspects of reality" that describes their interrelationships and dependencies can become a very powerful tool indeed.

And in terms of human evolution, I believe we are approaching a point where we will be able to integrate a VAST amount of accumulated human knowledge on: Mass, Matter, Space, Motion, Time, Force, Momentum, Energy, and Information.

And this is why I tend to have an extremely POSITIVE view of our future (quite the opposite of so many of our alleged time traveling visitors to this site).

We are EVOLVING, not DEVOLVING! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT

 

[Packerbacker]

RMT (not the French-Canadian intellectual, rmt):

There is a subject I would like to address before going on to other things.

Roger Boscovich made the comment that the universe could expand and contract daily without our being aware of it. For this to be true, there would have to be a direct relationship between time and space.

For example, if everything suddenly got twice as large, then the speed of light would be half of what we would expect it to be unless the length of the 'second' was stretched out to be twice as long. In other words, unit=of-length/unit-of-time = a constant.

But since our metric units are arbitrary, we can make the constant c.

I call this relationship the Gauge Rule, although others may have expressed it differently or called it by another name.

Actually, although we do not know that a gauge change occurs, it is a necessary implicit assumption of Newtonian mechanics (where unit-of-length and unit of time are constants and hence not necessary to consider). But if gauge change occurs, then it is essential for a physical discription.In this case it becomes (am I correct?) a differential equation.

I do not think there is an overall dimension of time. I think that every "fundamental mass unit" has its own time, and that what time seems to be a single dimension because all of these hypothetical smallest units of mass all have parallel time paths. :D

 

[bogz]

"Time as being a byproduct of MATTER in MOTION." Or perhaps "Time is dependent and derived from MATTER that is in MOTION."

I think that's a great way to say it.

Once someone creates a form of "AI" that consistently passes the Turing Test (as administered by several testers), mankind will once again re-set the bar for what constitutes "intelligence."

Yep I agree. When something can pass a turing test, people will say the magic comes from a well implemented natural language parser and it will have very little to do with AI. A new test will have to be devised with a stronger emphasis on quantifying the ability to think. Playing a tape recording of teachers from Kindergarten to Grade 12 and then seeing if the system can graduate highschool for instance

What is to stop us from developing similar extremely complex models of the human body, and all of its closed-loop transformation systems, their performance, and its inputs and outputs? Nothing, of course. That lead to some excellent ideas for collaboration that we are going to be working on in the coming months.

Sounds fun. What are some of these closed loop system in the body? The only one that comes to mind is equilibrium, keeping our balance. I'm sure there are lots but I just can't think of them.

And I think the key is in being able to model various levels of: Mass, Matter, Space, Motion, Time, Force, Energy, and finally (at the top) Information. An integrated model of all of these "aspects of reality" that describes their interrelationships and dependencies can become a very powerful tool indeed.

Finally a practical application for the Smalltalk programming language (little coders humour there)

Any thoughts on the type of hardware needed to "record" or a take a snap shot of information inside a definite volume of space?

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi bogz,

I am always heartened (and enlightened) by folks who really do wish to discuss topics about science and the push towards understanding Time (and maybe someday, time travel). Thanks for contributing to this thread.

Sounds fun. What are some of these closed loop system in the body? The only one that comes to mind is equilibrium, keeping our balance. I'm sure there are lots but I just can't think of them.

You're right, there are lots... and these are the things I am just starting to learn from Beth (my chiro-friend). The most amazing (and powerful) closed-loop subsystem in the entire human body is the endocrine system. Each gland uses feedback as a means to regulate the body's chemistry with respect to those hormones that the gland can provide. This is the subsystem that Beth and I decided we should work on first in our efforts to model the body. I've got a lot to learn, but it sure does look like it is going to be fun and educational!

Of course, the closed-loop means you refer to that help us maintain balance (the inner ear's semi-circular canals) are but one of the senses our brain uses in relating to the external world. Of course it is easy to see that our eyes provide "feedback" to our brain so we can navigate our body around objects. We are going to try to restrict our modeling to internal subsystems of the body for now, because our major goal is to build a simulation tool that Beth can use in her practice to help her patients understand their body and how to take care of it.

Finally a practical application for the Smalltalk programming language (little coders humour there)

:D HEY THERE! Now this is an interesting coincidence that you bring up Smalltalk! One of the other systems engineering tools that I use in my work is called Core (developed by a company called ViTech). We use Core for modeling all of the relationships between Operational, Functional, and Physical elements of any system design. And it just so happens that Core is based on Smalltalk! Indeed, this was a good choice because what I know about Smalltalk is that it is an excellent language for defining, maintaining, and traversing relationships within an ontological structure. Am I correct?

The scripting language for Core requires a good knowledge of Smalltalk (alas, a language I do not understand well enough to be useful!). I know I could do some really powerful systems modeling if I could employ Core's scripting language. Can you point me to any references on the Net where I can start to teach myself the basics of Smalltalk? That would be great if you could!

Thanks again,
RMT

 

[bogz]

One of the other systems engineering tools that I use in my work is called Core (developed by a company called ViTech). We use Core for modeling all of the relationships between Operational, Functional, and Physical elements of any system design. And it just so happens that Core is based on Smalltalk!

Interesting, I had never heard of CORE so I downloaded a copy but it's complaining about a license. Maybe I'll get to play with it someday.

Indeed, this was a good choice because what I know about Smalltalk is that it is an excellent language for defining, maintaining, and traversing relationships within an ontological structure. Am I correct?

I'm not sure what traversing relationships means but as far as defining and maintaining go I'd say there is nothing better.

Can you point me to any references on the Net where I can start to teach myself the basics of Smalltalk? That would be great if you could!

IMO, the best support for Smalltalk is by Cincom. http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/
You can download a VisualWorks (Cincom's smalltalk development environment) free of charge. It's a big download but it comes with lots of documentation in PDF format. The free version is restricted to non-commercial applications. The introduction is AppDevGuide.pdf in the /docs folder but it's a LONG read.

There is a collection of free out of print books at http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html but they are even longer than the Cincom documentation, not to mention out of date.

I couldn't find an easy introduction I liked. I could write one up in this thread when time permits. It would be best if we had something specific, yet not complex, to model, somehow related to time or time travel so we stay on topic.

 

[Darby]

Ray,

"Time is a Creation of our Perception."
"Time is something manufactured by our concsiousness."
"Time is the ordered cataloging of experiences observed from our unique vantage point as a human being."

I agree that those definitions of "time" are consistent with the Psychological Arrow of Time. They don't, however, fully explain the other arrows of time - Cosmological, Weak, Thermodynamic, etc.

It's a start. Thanks

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Darby,

I agree that those definitions of "time" are consistent with the Psychological Arrow of Time. They don't, however, fully explain the other arrows of time - Cosmological, Weak, Thermodynamic, etc.

Of course, I totally agree with this assessment. I have only addressed those aspects of Time associated with consciousness. And the explanation of these other arrows of Time (being that they are based on physics) all deserve physical explanations. And this is precisely where I wish to make the connection between our universe of "Massive SpaceTime" (which is at the lowest level of our understanding of existence) and those levels of existence that we know are process-based....meta-physical... the Mind, Soul, and Spirit.

Indeed, while I have not given a full explanation of these other (physical) arrows of Time, I think you might agree that I have started down that path: Matter in Motion, as described in our physical Laws of Conservation, are certainly the basic elements of physics that establish a framework for explaining the other arrows of Time. And as I always say, I think arriving at such a "complete" (of course, nothing is ever "complete") explanation of Time will involve falsifying some aspect of Einstein's work, so as to extend them... in the same tradition of how Einstein falsified Newton to extend our knowledge.

RMT

 

[wa1ex]

Who came up with the word "TIME"?

Who came up with it?
Who influenced this knowledge or word into other tribes or people?
Who foretold that this concept was going to influence/change the way we behave?

I'm sure that tribes back then only grasped the concept of destiny, but time?
That must of been quite a conversation between a chief and a tribe member while contemplating
a nice fire under a clear sky...while under the influence of a herb or alcohol .....