Is time merely a concept?

I. Newton had the idea that there could be "conspiring motions at rest" but discounted this possiblity in favor of some detailed chemistry.I tend to find the relations between forms of death (upper left corner) and biochemical possibilities to be so underdetermined that I do not yet need to try to fathom such things as atoms out of time. I think that Cantor' knowing of Russel's paradox BEFORE Russel and the failure to find this "fact" applied in empirical geometry trumps speculations of quantum mechanical discrete space and jumps etc, at least for now, for me, for my own intuition.

Well let’s hear it from to the Master- Isaac himself . “The Parts of all homogeneal hard Bodies which fully touch one another, stick together very strongly. And for explaining how this may be , some have invented hooked Atoms, which is begging the Question; and others tell us that Bodies are glued together by rest, that is, by an occult Quality, or rather by nothing; and others, that they stick together by conspiring Motions, that is, by relative rest amongst themselves. I had rather infer from their Cohesion, that their Particles attract one another by some force, which in immediate Contact is exceedingly strong, at small distances performs the chymical Operations abo ve-mentioned, and reaches not far from the Particles with any sensible Effect.”OPTICKS: OR, A TREATISE OF THE Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours OF LIGHT page 388 (I, Brad McFall, wrote on November 5th 1994 “Russel’s death” (”when I die I shall rot’) is Newton’s acidic deconstruction of Living Organism” “the decomposed organism is earth or salt?”(in Newton’s intention))A traveling atom, of( ) must unstuck or unhook or unglue or . uncohere or repulse according to Newton’s thought but rather than there being nothing here I. Newton “inferred” very near to the Particles that have to travel a performance of chemistry which in our more modern interpretation contains the orbitals mentioned in the OP for as near as the travel needs be.But if one thinks that this atom travel involves Parts conspiring relative amongst their own community of unstickynessing then indeed an occult Quality can dominate the nothing, a relativity amongst the fully touching at one time ones, or even the very materiality of rest.When Bertrand Russell dies, may he rest in peace, that too could also indeed be in here. I simply doubted that.Since it seemed to me that Russell’s materialism is fully in accord with Newton’s “above-mentioned chymical Operations” there seems no need to address time “smaller” with any other ligusitics than Newton’s. Sure one can just simply state motion where in “here the smallest time units are smaller than the smallest units of motion” but if this is supposed to NOT represent chemical or biochemical reactions NOR Newton’s relation of the FIGURE of THE EARTH to these bodies with parts hard and homogenal even in Life then indeed we seem to be rather on Kant’s duration of time instead of the atoms that the OP opened with and I can relate somewhat to our human “sense”. It is not illness I am afraid.Kant said,

quote:

---

“I am conscious of my own existence as determined in time. All determination in regard to time presupposes the existence of something permanent in perception. But this permanent something cannot be something in me, for the very reason that my existence in time is itself determined by this permanent something. It follows that the perception of this permanent existence is possible only though a thing without me, and not through the mere representation of a thing without me. Consequently, the determination of my existence in time is possible only through the existence of real things external to me. Now, consciousness in time is necessarily connected with the consciousness of the possibility of this determination in time. Hence it follows, that consciousness in time is necessarily connected also with the existence of things without me, inasmuch as the existence of these things is the condition of determination in time. That is to say, the consciousness of my own existence is at the same time an immediate consciousness of the existence of other things without me.”

---

(I. Kant Critique of Pure Reason page 150 Barnes & Noble edition)It seems that the Salamander tried to remove the immediate consciousness of the existence of other things outside us. I saw no need to do this and that is what I said.Thanks for asking for clarification. I would welcome some other representation than the one I offered but unless the perception or sense biologically is advanced by such, I find it useless with regards this time.

No-not for me.Russell was of the series that Kant's transcendental asthetic was invalid. I can read it. It is. Psychology is something altogether different. There may be more on time and Kant relative to this thread but I would like to await response bout the atoms vs quarks etc.

quote:

---

Salamander writes:
I was thinking over Zeno's dichotomy paradox. He states that we can never fully reach any point because to get to the point, we must first go half way to it, but before that, half way to the half way point, ad infinitum. Seeing as how we do reach points all the time (ie, I never have any problem getting to work), it seems there is no real paradox here, yet the reasoning is sound.

​

quote:

---

fgarbYou should be aware that this “paradox” was conclusively solved hundreds of years ago with the invention of calculus. The techniques developed for adding up an infinite number of things are known as integration. If the things you are adding up become sufficiently small (in this case, the time it takes to go each halfway distance) then the integration will result in a non-infinite result. There is no need for time intervals to have a definite smallest size for this to work.

---

​

---

Look- here is a presentation of an infinite ordinal What if flame spectra (which look like infinite fundamental series somewhat)indicated some kind of motion ONLY under a class of cardinals of some such infinite ordinal. It might be that Salamander's time is not integrable physically.I do not speculate about these potentially infinite jumps because it is very important to separate the effect of grammar on one’s view of science as a whole and the time it takes to establish any given perspective, regardless of the number of perceptions.Breifly, (Page not found : Earlham College) Peters felt that Kant provided both grammar and logic as means to a synthetic end.I am working on time following the quaternion axiom (http://www.hypercomplex.com/...h/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html). I started this here. If indeed there has been a missing component in Maxwell’s equations then the confusion of me with mental illness or simple stringing of words together can be easily explained. Heavyside refused to use quaternions but made great progress in understanding the loading of a cable with messages. I learned (my father worked in NYC for ATT and I grew up at a distance in NJ) that the phone NEVER contained the information on evolution I got from my Grandfather in or about Buffalo.The structure of grammar obscures the truth that has not been communicated or can not be communicated over phone lines but may be “encoded” in the quaternionic approach. How far I succeed with the internet remains to be seen, but I am losing ground every time people are distracted from the topic due to grammar as distinct from contradiction. A 9th grade level ensures that contradictions can be spotted.

I was trying to indicate in this post where in PHYSICS I felt there was a chance that Salamander may have a point. As I wrote througout however I can only follow this kind of discretness when I think it can enhance my own subjective view on/in time.For me that depends now, on fusing the temporal field of Maxwell's equations (temperature,electricity and magnetism now then form a 3 fold wave instead of merely what Herz accomplished) and the temporal extention of supramolecular subtance stability to populations by Gladyshev to resolve the debate between Dawkins and Gould etc. You would need to ask me to better explain the link I provided (I had not extended that content to the use of Cantor's real number classes (felt by Dedekind to be unnessary, but with a use this argument falls by the wayside) for each quaternion in different representations).The reason to think that the two views of time (quaternion and phenomenological thermo) are somehow describing the same range is that the domain of the "thermostat" seems to possibly be quantifiable if one can associate the temperature relations to e-m (under the quaternion push and pull) to a population genetics exemplar. My use of the digestive systems of small crustceans (on EvC before) may be gain said in this direction as they can respond to AC and DC differently. Now I need to do some experiments with temperature as well....Regardless there still has to be some kind of unstickynessing... and this could be in the data of flame spectra which describe orbits but one must think not only about individual elements but larger levels of organization as well. I was suggesting that Cantor's real number classes (A, B,C,....) (C and higher are redundant but have have different ordinal organizations) via quaternionic algebra might spell something like Salamander was thinking about. It is hard to know.I do know that there is some speculation among physicts about time units as you and other here have suggested.Perhaps you can tell me if there has ever been a physicist who tried to reformulate the balmer, lyman series etc in terms of transfinites?? I used to have a book by a Pittsburgh physicst who tried to use the hydrogen lines to explain all other element lines.
I just have no direct use for such things and I think biology would probably alter physics before physics alters biology with such a concept worked up. After reading about how Von Weiskaer used the BIOLOGICAL word "transmutation" to describe elemental changes I began to permit my biological predilication for what Cantor hoped to supply to Biology beyond Kant to also be applied to physics. I was able to correct Von Weisacker on the use of infinity in QM while he was misattributing to Aristotle what was Cantors.Edited by Brad McFall, : wrong word

No and Yes rather than yes and no.I started out saying how I felt that itti bitti time units were of no use to me.Then there was the monkey business about whether I was a serious poster or just having fun.THEN I tried to indicate the small extent that there might be something I can talk about.If we do not go back to the post with Kant then all is lost for me.The issue of (2) has to do with much of what I have said so far on EVC this fall. I am trying to understand time in terms of evolution. The question is can a thermostat be passed on across generations and is this not really what Fisher was getting at with his analogies to thermo- these are suspect for you for sure but they are what is sure for me and indicate the cases when I can talk on time.What I can not talk about with time I think about sometimes. It would be nice if Salamader responded to your last post. These are things that are more proper for this thread. It seems that we must not try to get too hung up on my claims that for biology this thread is useless. That is my opinion. I could be wrong.I will do a baby step posting later when I have time to mince up the meat.Best, Brad.

quote:

---

How would you add a time component to the electric field without messing that up? And finally, have you thought through the implications of this for QED, or does that all go out the window? If this somehow ties into QED, then would not this change in the EM potential alter the properties of the photon in a fundamental way?

---

The system I am trying to break down to atoms for discussion in this thread is:
Time is relative (no matter the potentially alternating frequency) to motion where both the livers meet the gut (in ontogeny and phylogeny).The energetic considerations must include the photosynthesizing utility of algae
inside the hepatopancreas ( I will next be dissecting some quantity of these livers and attempt to get oxygen evolution under artifical light).I will be merging two temporal concepts; that created by the quaternionic notion of Maxwell’s equations and that given by Gladyshev’s law.I do not yet know for sure if this implies time as an entity or not yet, nor am I quite ready to take your questions head on, sorry. I need to be more certain of some of the molecules actually involved. I am not certain that time in terms of photons needs enter my explanation. I am just not sure. The photons enter the algae at least.

Well, Tom Owens during Fellowship Time after Worship this morning, provisonally agreed to let me use his lab to determine if the green stuff is chlorophyll and if so if it is active.If these few hours of testing are postive we may be able to continue this discussion.As you know, or at least others do here, I am a student of biology, and only fairly recently have I started to pay interesting attention to physics (my two brothers have physics PHDs). I know who Feynmann and Dirc where and I know some physics. It may not be necessary for me to get beyond classical e-m for the points I am trying to make biologically. Direct influence of force on form is not accepted by prominent organismal biologists but only because they are afraid of reductionism. Adding time does not necessarily lead to that conclusion.However, as the liver has been suggested this summer to be a hematopoietic organ it would be quite exciting quantum wise if the ostracod is using the oxygen from the chlorophyll(either with the algae or by taking it from 'em) for use with haemglobin. This would definitely supply a system which would apply to this topic (I tried to use Feynman's QED book to discuss color in reptile skins but a Cornell Prof (expert on Faraday)who is a member of the Royal Society could not get it and failed me).Is it not the case that one can change the potentials' dimension with only structurally stable (topologically) changes in behavior?? If that is the case time may only affect the form of higher order catastrophe sets in so far as parallels are involved (sorry if this is incomprehensible to you you will have to wait till I incorporate more physics into my lingo).

Go for it, this is the great thing about the internet (some kinds of things might get done that others are not doing). It looks like I will be in the lab to do an extraction and make some optical measurements on Dec 3rd.Penrose is against (but Gladyshev is not against Penrose in general) the quaternionic approach (see below). (The Road To Reality by Roger Penrose page 200)I am interested however in the use that it may have to further experiment with the TWO KINDS of phenomenological EMFs (of Bridgman mentioned in the quaterionic link in this thread) (as I also noticed the issue when I designed what I used as an avatar a while back on EVC) and I am suspecting (I have no proof of this yet) that critters, such as my bugs, might be able to witness to that. We will have to wait till I can get some lab work done to be sure of what material I am dealing with. I was not however first coming to the use of quaternions from the emf perspective and because I came to this form of representation of 3-space from two different lines of reasoning, I became much more convinced of its potential. I need to use them to answer a question I placed to a couple of French biologists about the form of a computer program which is supposed to naturally extract hierarchical data from cladistic information.Penrose however never really gets to a discrete perspective (in the book as a whole) as his loops still depend on a full surface. But again, this may not be what I need for what is spoiled for Penrose may not be fermenting for me. I am interested in Boltzmann’s notion of atomic divisibility and thus if biology might not be suggesting something different to physics in the long shot. To a physicist it is certainly dubious just hearing biologists talk like I do, but I have completely worked over the linguistics of differences in positions in evolutionary theory and I have come to a conclusion that there is not going to be any changes unless there are theoretical changes.How far (or even if, to be conservative) they/I have to change physics I do not know. It may be that only better use of math in biology is required. It is important to notice however that strong and weak forces may not be somethings that really impact forced changes on the level of the biology ( unless there is some discovery about mutations I do not know about). I have no doubt however that there has been something missing at the level where one defines acids and bases and I tend to think (thanks to Faraday in part) that the missing relation IS to temperature. Supramolecular chemistry was not available when I was in the Chemistry Major at Cornell. There may be more to temperature than the simple change to random molecular motion as occurred for Einstein etc.I am not associated with an university at present. I am doing this on my own. The gist of Gladyshev’s law (arrow)can be gleaned from the following (a mention of EvC in Book Form can be seen in the last to thumbnails): Edited by Brad McFall, : tentative lab date

It is really not "a lot" when one considers how fast the discussion (can) stop(s). It is not that much as compared with the entanglement space of the threads on EvC in general. Whether we are to be talking about quanglement here, I do not yet know.

quote:

---

I do notice that there hasn't been much talk about the nature of space.

---

Perhaps this is because as Kant said,

quote:

---

I can consider a given point in time in relation to past time only as conditioned, because this given moment comes into existence only through the past time - or rather through the passing of the proceeding time. But as the parts of space are not subordinated, but co-ordinated to each other, one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other; and space is not in itself, like time, a series. But the synthesis of the manifold parts of space - (the synthesis whereby we apprehend space) - is nevertheless successive; it takes place, therefore, in time, and contains a series. And as this series of aggregated spaces (for example, the feet in a rood ), beginning with a given portion of space, those which continue to be annexed from the condition of the limitsof the former - the measurement of a space must also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned. It differs however, in this respect from that of time, that the side of the conditioned is not in itself distinguishable from the side of the condition; and consequently, regressus and progressusin space seem to be identical.

---

I intend on working with the two series (quaternion with time and gladyshev’s law)and from there down to the level where quantum discussion resides. My lab date is SET for the 3rd and I should have results that day to see if the talk gets darker or lighter from my side. Space only needs to be within the subordinated places the posts in this thread peek conditioned for the duration. One can obviate this by carrying-on the same conversation in a different thread.It seems to me that a simple quaternion input devise could be constructed by adding opposite signed magnets to the outside of a powerballand glove and record the two internal rotations and the one with respect to a handed glove as the ijk. This could permit a better heuristic tool for the use of quaternions then simply using one’s mathematical maturity(see original communicationto Dr. Gladyshev on use of powerballs in probing his differential equations). It might also permit one to haptically sense “time” without having necessarily to associate it with the scalar if the output is mathematically equivalent (given conventions on what is “right” and “left”).From such a vantage point I think I would be in a proper position to adjude if the time interval of this discussion does violence or not to reality. I think from thought beyond Aristotle that such an interval exists. This picture
may be approaching the region I have underconsideration as the circular area is homological to that where the focused light enters (my ostracods) what I presume is chrophyll moved via macrothermodynamical kinematics. The geometry of this material structure may bear the unique properties that Maxwell's non-quaternionic field system does not.Edited by Brad McFall, : picture of space

Dr. Radka Symonova wrote “Ultrastructure of hepatopancreas and its possible role as a hematopoietic organ in non-marine cypridoidean ostracods (Crustacea)”
and has been kind enough to send me a printable pdf of the article. Contained is a figure of the ostracod gut before and after significant ingestion.Temporality is being considered by me to be like the real line indicated below and as Eucledian to some approximation and is about perpendicular through the circular area depicted earlier in this thread. The multicellular formations are in black.How far this can be brought to an actual origin of/in time I do not know yet. I do now that when Hawking came out with his historical book you mentioned I was supposed to be meeting with a Cornell student AND a Romance Studies Prof who were supportive of my complaints against the rest of Cornell but a lecture on his book prevented me getting both of them together.Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling

quote:

---

So I wondered what the shortest amount of travel would be. We would have to break motion down into individual atom motions, like electron orbits (or some other subatomic motion I'm yet unaware of). How much time passes from an atom being at one distinct point to the very next possible point in motion? I labeled the first point of travel of an atom as A,

---

Tom and I found, using chlorophyll fluorescence, a definite spike like this today.There are definitely quantum changes going on inside the ostracods.Most of the rear guts were expelled of detritus but we can not rule out that the photons we saw fall to the ground state were coming from the fore gut rather than the blue-green hepatopancreas. We are going to try to starve the crustaceans for a couple of days and repeat the test. Hopefully they will have expelled all detritus by then.We obtained a yield difference (to a lower value) when all of the detritus ( accidentally left behind) not inside the organism was filtered out (out of the test tube). On the positive side it may be that heat dissipation and photochemistry are involved in situ as traits of the animal.Given that it has been supposed that ostracods are behavioral rather than physiological oxygen regulators and that this is supposed by evolution thinking to reflect an early time period of little oxygen, if this is indeed a signal not from the foregut but is active chlorophyll in the hepatopancreas, evolutionary thought about tissue oxygenization, and possibly the origin of eyes (more in the sequel) may need to be re-thought if the thermodynamics differentiates right and left by gene duplication (as occurred in compound ostracod eyes) depending on the difference of right and left operators in a quaternionic representation of Gladyshev’s law. It is possible that the "problem" is with the thought of a constant rate of speed. It may be that evolutionary thinking has been slowing down but let me not get philosophical too soon, too fast.Edited by Brad McFall, : fixed url

In context the time I am attempting to adumbrate in this thread was already paragraphed by Kant when he wrote in The Metaphysical Elements of Justice (page 14-15 The Liberal Arts Press 1965)

quote:

---

It has been shown elsewhere that we must have a priori principles for natural science, which has to do with the objects of the outer senses, and that it is possible - indeed, even necessary - to prefix a system of such principles, under the name of a metaphysical natural science, to physics, which is natural science applied to particular experiences. Metaphysical natural science, if it is to be universal in the strict sense, must be deduced from a priori grounds; although physics (at least when the purpose is to guard its propositions against error) may assume many principles to be universal on the testimony of experience, just as Newton adopted the principle of the equality of action and reaction in the influence of bodies on one another as based on experience and yet extended that principle to all material nature. The chemists go still further and base their most general laws of combination and dissociation of substances by their own forces entirely on experience, and yet they have such confidence in the universality and necessity of these laws that they do not worry about discovering any error in the experiments that they make with them.

---

In history there was someone who gave expression to this chemistry by deviating from Newton on specifics. This person was Mikhail Lomonosov. He saw material as "mixed bodies" and that there was no room for the speculation that Salamander opened this thread with (unless this is to be or have been associated with the notion of “ether”). I know we have gone a little beyond this so far in this thread but I think that demonstrating that I am was not the only person to respond to Newton's OPTICKS on rest vs relative rest etc. it might be helpful for readers to read some of his work in this place.Here is the first selection of his works in the book by Leicester(Lomonosov uses the words “chemical operations” in the second selection which can be seen at the end of the first I have copied).

quote:

---

---

What is spotted?What is the/a contradiction then?What is your idea of the relation between space and time??I tried to explain a psychological issue in that paragraph not how biology involutes the extension that chemistry gives to physics while math remains plura(vocal)lized.It's nice to think you have eyes that look over a back.You may be attributing an error to my self-teaching which rather is a prejudice if anything negative or not constiutative of the others' horizons. The problem is in the communication of the expereience not in the having of it.Edited by Brad McFall, : last 2 sentences.

Ho-Ho,Ok, sorry. I thought you saw something less about me.I'll take some time to answer/respond to you after work in the thread
"all about Brad McFall"
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II.
as what you are asking is really not about what I am trying to contribute in this thread.I have no problem slowing down and answering every one of your questions simply and succintly.God Bless.
Brad