Julian Barbour & Time

[anart]

What you wrote above seems like an attempt on your part to engage in abstract philosophizing - argument for the sake of proving your point.

I tend to agree.

 

[bngenoh]

I do not think "universe" as used in the article is similar to the sense in which you are using the term "universe". What you wrote above seems like an attempt on your part to engage in abstract philosophizing - argument for the sake of proving your point.

That is true, but it was in the spirit of exploring a line of reasoning. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just exploring, but that may just be the mask that a program which was triggered is using to rationalize. From what we know here it is probable. Mirror mirror on the wall... ;)

Glass doesn't have bizarre properties, objectively speaking. It just happens to appear transparent to our eyes because of the limited spectrum we can perceive. If we had a different kind of eyes it would appear opaque and other materials would appear transparent.

But objectively speaking, there is no supernatural or paranormal, only natural & normal. ;)

Are you saying that the properties of glass and "bizarre/supernatural/paranormal" are in the same category? [/quote]

Only in the sense of the unknown.

Bngenoh, generally, you bring up interesting topics to discuss in the forum and that is appreciated. In recent times, it seems like there is a trend in some of your posts where you get carried away with some of the stuff you are reading and mix apples and oranges. Your last post has a reactive tone to it. Maybe something worth exploring - if you choose to do so.

Edit: Maybe you are going too fast? If you want to exercise your critical thinking muscles, you would need to slow down a bit. At the moment, it seems that you are skewed more on the side of associative thinking.

Slow down I shall, bear with my immaturity please.

 

[Buddy]

I do not think "time" as understood by the article you quoted and the sense in which "time" is used in the above transcript is the same - but I could be mistaken.

FWIW, I think you are not mistaken. That article uses "time" in the singular tense as if everyone knows what time [it] is.

Contrasted with:

A: Time "stops" for many at many times according to their individual sensitivity levels.

...makes me think of relationships involving the "time" it takes for sensory data input to translate into cognition. Perceptual-cognitive speeds vary between a person's intellectual, feeling and moving centers. Perceptual-cognitive speeds seem to vary depending on energy levels as well and all that's just within a person! Environmental elements, processes, life forms and other goings on seem to have their own speeds and "timings" too.

One could consider the mantid family for an example of relativity here: From what I've read, a preying mantis can reach out to snag its prey and be already munching on it in the time it takes for two human neurons to make a synaptic connection. Who's fast and who's slow? Whose or whats' "time" is "the time"?

An observed system should not be considered in isolation from an observer, OSIT.