Utopia and Time Travel

Pianoro said:
Yes, that is my understanding of his/her statements as well.

Through scientific inquiry it has been shown that the ideas of a "universal now" or an objective state of the universe are not part our reality. Mechanics that assume a "universal now", like Newton's do, are incorrect. In order to provide a correct theory of mechanics, special relativity removes this assumption.

To be clear, there is no place for an "objective state" of the universe in special relativity or any other theory that conforms to observations. Special relativity does not just describe a "special subjective case" of how observers experience the universe, it is a universally applicable theory of mechanics.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure where this "Universal Now" issue began or it's point in this thread about time travel and utopia. However, the "Universal Now" seems to be merely a concept that, as stated, at any given instant the universe exists the way it exists.

How or why the different pieces of the universe interact with each other are best explained by SR. I am equally unsure how SR affects time travel and utopia.

It's seems there is plenty of room for both the objective and SR aspects of the universe, just perhaps not together. ;)
 
The Greater Fool said:
Imagine the two outer ships emit a signal at exactly the same instant.

Did you imagine this? Or were you unable to imagine it?

If you were able to imagine it, that is Navigator's 'universal now'
Click to expand...

Yes i can imagine what he's getting at but the only reference frame in which those events would be considered to be simultaneous is in a static universal reference frame, an aether,in any other reference frame they will not be simutaneous.
In your example, is the simultaneous emission by accident or by design? If it's by design then there is no way that thay could be desigmed to be simultaneous in navigators universal now, if it's by accident then there's no reference frame other than that of some sort of aether that it would be considered simultaneous.
 
Last edited:
Pianoro said:
Yes, that is my understanding of his/her statements as well.

Through scientific inquiry it has been shown that the ideas of a "universal now" or an objective state of the universe are not part our reality. Mechanics that assume a "universal now", like Newton's do, are incorrect. In order to provide a correct theory of mechanics, special relativity removes this assumption.

To be clear, there is no place for an "objective state" of the universe in special relativity or any other theory that conforms to observations. Special relativity does not just describe a "special subjective case" of how observers experience the universe, it is a universally applicable theory of mechanics.
Click to expand...

What you appear to be saying is that the universe cannot, as an holistic thing, be regarded as being able to exist in a constant state of NOW, simply on the grounds that it is not possible for any consciousness within it to go outside of it in order to see it that way.

Yet clearly, anyone with a smidgen of imagination can understand the universe in that way simply by thinking about it as a holistic thing which exists in wholeness in a state of NOW.

The universe has a state of NOW which is not relative to anyone's position within the universe. That "Through scientific inquiry it has been shown that the ideas of a "universal now" or an objective state of the universe are not part our reality" is to say that our reality is not part of the universe - that the two 'realities' are not in any way connected.
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
I'm unsure where this "Universal Now" issue began or it's point in this thread about time travel and utopia. However, the "Universal Now" seems to be merely a concept that, as stated, at any given instant the universe exists the way it exists.

How or why the different pieces of the universe interact with each other are best explained by SR. I am equally unsure how SR affects time travel and utopia.

It's seems there is plenty of room for both the objective and SR aspects of the universe, just perhaps not together. ;)
Click to expand...

RushR1 wasn't contributing anything practical in relation to the OP topic, and the thread has branched out into more productive discussion re *Time*

Objective and subjective are not of themselves polarized uncomplimentary concepts re the universe.
 
alexi_drago said:
Yes i can imagine what he's getting at but the only reference frame in which those events would be considered to be simultaneous is in a static universal reference frame, an aether,in any other reference frame they will not be simutaneous.
In your example, is the simultaneous emission by accident or by design? If it's by design then there is no way that thay could be desigmed to be simultaneous in navigators universal now, if it's by accident then there's no reference frame other than that of some sort of aether that it would be considered simultaneous.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this concept please alexi_drago.

What do you mean? What is "some sort of aether " and why is all this necessary in order for someone to be able to contemplate the unvierse as being in its own state of now, irrespective of the subjective points of consciousness within it?
 
By aether, im meaning some sort of structure to space or the universe that everything within the universe moves relative to, some sort of univesal fixed frame of reference. Only when measured against that will simultaneous events in your universal now appear to be simultaneous.
 
Last edited:
Well the mind is quite capable of doing that. The mind can understand the concept without having to see it. All that is required is;

The universe 

The minds eye 

There is not even the need to have the complete universe in all of its glorious reality in order to understand that it has to exist in its own now and that all change is happening simultaneously because - if not - then it cannot be regarded as one thing.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
And the mind would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Because the universe isn't one thing?

Or because time does not exist as a reality in relation to space?

Or, because the math proves that the universe doesn't exist without consciousness being within it?

or..well why exactly am I wrong about this Hokulele?
 
Navigator said:
Because the universe isn't one thing?

Or because time does not exist as a reality in relation to space?

Or, because the math proves that the universe doesn't exist without consciousness being within it?

or..well why exactly am I wrong about this Hokulele?
Click to expand...


Assuming that anyone can place a static frame of reference across the entire universe. This applies to spatial coordinates just as much as time coordinates. For example, we cannot describe earth's location in the universe in an objective sense, only in a relative one. Time is the same.
 
The universe has a state of NOW which is not relative to anyone's position within the universe.

Pianoro said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Assuming that anyone can place a static frame of reference across the entire universe. This applies to spatial coordinates just as much as time coordinates. For example, we cannot describe earth's location in the universe in an objective sense, only in a relative one. Time is the same.
Click to expand...

But is it really a question of static frame? I am not talking about a moment in time, but and overall Now moment moving with the entire universe.

It is easy enough for the individual to understand such a thing, so why is it difficult for you and others to do so?

The universe is real.

The universe is moving.

Time is involved, but does not have to be ONLY applied to to the subjective positions of conscious awareness within the universe. It seems to be your (and others) argument. In thinking about time, we HAVE to include the subjective AND ignore the objective simply 'because' no one can actually verify that the universe and spacetime are in fact representative of a universal NOW, ever changing and moving as it is?

Essentially why can we NOT think of the universe as all its parts moving in a state of simultaneous perpetual nowness, when it most obviously must be doing just that in order for it to be ONE thing?
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
You lost me right there.
Click to expand...
That's hardly surprising. You have a certain idea about how space and time should work and nobody (no matter how much smarter than you they are) is going to cause you to re-evaluate your idea.

Navigator said:
Its [the universal NOW] an objective thing related to the universe in its entirety, rather than what subjective povs are occurring within it.
Click to expand...
That is just your made up theory and the theory of Relativity proves you wrong.

No measurements can be made of any part of the universe except relative to a reference frame. There is no "universal" reference frame and there is no preferred reference frame. All reference frames are equally valid.
 
Really, I feel like this discussion would go a lot smoother if navigator would study up just a little bit on relativity. It doesn't matter if an observer is a part of the universe or an omnipotent being being aware of the totality of the universe. The easiest way to describe it is to say that the shape of the universe doesn't allow such a concept to exist. It's like asking for a universal up on the surface of the earth. Someone unaware of the shape of the earth would find it logically impossible for there not to be a universal up. Someone fully aware of the shape and nature of the earth would not just also find it impossible to assign a universal up, they would instantly see why such a concept is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
I don't buy yer BS sorry peps. If the universe exists as one thing then it has an overall now.

So cut the crap about the subjective relativity theories proving this is not the case.

If yas' cannot answer my straightforward question just admit it instead of 'explaining' to me that it is beyond my ability to understand.

Essentially why can we NOT think of the universe as all its parts moving in a state of simultaneous perpetual nowness, when it most obviously must be doing just that in order for it to be ONE thing?
 
Last edited:
Let's try to define a "now", and see if we can do it.

So I'm standing in a field, and off in the distance I see a boy playing with his dog. He throws a ball, and the dog goes and gets it. While watching this scene I'm tossing a rock up and down in my hand. At some particular moment, I see the ball leave his hand and feel the rock leave my hand. So, at first I think "These two events were simultaneous."

But then I remember that the speed of light is not infinite, it took time for the light from the ball to reach my eyes. No problem, I can account for that: I just calculate how long it took the light from the ball to reach my eyes and note that the ball left his hand that long before the rock left mine. Say he is 100m away: the ball left his hand 100m/c seconds before the rock left my hand. Of course I also have to take account of the fact that it takes time for the signal from the nerves in my hand to reach my brain (and similarly for my eyes), but again that's just some simple calculations. This done, I can write down a coordinate system and show when various events happened with relation to each other. Some events will be simultaneous but separated by space, others will be separated by time, some, of course, will be separated by both space and time.

In this way, standing in that field, I can make a coordinate system for the universe and say when events happen relative to each other.

To The Navigator: does this sound like a good way of defining the "Universal Now" that you're talking about?
 
The Greater Fool said:
Based on Navigator's statements, I interpret the "Universal Now" to be the objective state of the universe at a given instant.

SR explains how observers would subjectively experience this objective universe.
Click to expand...

Do you think my last post gives a good way of defining that "universal now"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom