As a layperson, time travel seems impossible to me. Prove me wrong!

I think that this might well be the crux of your argument/view. Define abstract and concrete as you are using them for this topic.

ETA: I posted before I saw the last post. I still want to know the definitions because I am not sure whether I agree with you or not, other than by agreeing with you that time is not an illusion.

 

The abstract is that which exists in the mind, but is functionable (and therefore, not an illusion), such as mathematics, the meaning the mind projects onto objects ( such as 'rose' 'pencil' 'car', etc ), the concrete is that which you can touch, quantify, contain, affect by other real things, etc.

So, the mind contains both imaginative things and things that are not imagination, ( though they were discovered by curiosity and imagination) i.e., that which is functionable, like mathematics, metrics ( of which time is part), etc., and I would apply the term 'existing in the abstract' to those things existing in the mind which are functionable.

They are functionable because we use them to function in the concrete world. For example, the number 'one', does not exist in the real world, it it exists in the abstract, but it is used to function in the concrete world.

See? The number is a value contained in the mind projected onto the concrete. The same is true for all things. The concept of 'Rose', exists in the abstract, but we use it to identify a particular flower, and this ability to use the abstract allows us to function in the concrete world. Also, it is noted that that area of math which is not applied to real things is referred to as 'abstract mathematics'. However, I contend that all math exists in the abstract, I don't want to confuse my use of the term with the more academic use of the term in which 'abstract math' is math dealing with the purely theoretical.

Without the abstract, and the mind's ability to use it to function in the world, think about it, if you removed the abstract from the mind you would look out into the universe an see nothing but amorphous color, you would not be able to distinguish one thing from the next, it would look similar to a Pollock painting and you certainly would not be able to use mathematics.

The abstract is functionable part of the inner universe, and the inner universe is as opposed to the outer universe, the concrete. An ancient mystic would say 'the outer and the inner are two sides of the same coin,' a scientist would say 'the concrete and the abstract, i.e., space and time, are two sides of the same phenomenon' ( or at least, I would ). It is on this particular point where I contend (believe) Zen and Science meet.

 

I would say that the past can be considered abstract in that it is not specific. There are events that happened yesterday. They aren't abstract in that the specific time and place are known.

 

Great!

I was interested to find that description of "presentist", which sounded close to what you were pointing to. I certainly wasn't aware of that view. In fact, I wasn't aware that there was more than one view being actively followed!

 

I think an abstraction is a collection of objects and ideas that qualify when a set of rules are applied.

I think mathematics is mathematics.

There is a field that specializes in learning and advancing ways to apply math to help solve problems and form descriptions in the physical world - called "applied mathematics". That is about how to use math in that way.

 

I did not say they are abstract, which is a difference use of the term as I am using it.

I said they exist in the abstract. they might be crystal clear, but they exist in the abstract, nevertheless.

To clarify my meaning I wrote a reply in another post which I will repeat here, below.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-prove-me-wrong.595435/page-8#post-1073178623

The abstract is that which exists in the mind, but is functionable (and therefore, not an illusion), such as mathematics, the meaning the mind projects onto objects ( such as 'rose' 'pencil' 'car', etc ), the concrete is that which you can touch, quantify, contain, affect by other real things, etc.

So, the (conscious) mind contains both imaginative things and things that are not imagination, i.e., that which is functionable, like mathematics, metrics ( of which time is part), etc., and I would apply the term 'existing in the abstract' to those things existing in the mind which are functionable.

They are functionable because we use them to function in the concrete world. For example, the number 'one', does not exist in the real world, it it exists in the abstract, but it is used to function in the concrete world.

See? The number is a value contained in the mind projected onto the concrete. The same is true for all things. The concept of 'Rose', exists in the abstract, but we use it to identify a particular flower, and this ability to use the abstract allows us to function in the concrete world. Also, it is noted that that area of math which is not applied to real things is referred to as 'abstract mathematics'. However, I contend that all math exists in the abstract, I don't want to confuse my use of the term with the more academic use of the term in which 'abstract math' is math dealing with the purely theoretical.

Without the abstract, and the mind's ability to use it to function in the world, think about it, if you removed the abstract from the mind you would look out into the universe an see nothing but amorphous color, you would not be able to distinguish one thing from the next.

The abstract is functionable part of the inner universe, and the inner universe is as opposed to the outer universe, the concrete. An ancient mystic would say 'the outer and the inner are two sides of the same coin,' a scientist would say 'the concrete and the abstract, i.e., space and time, are two sides of the same phenomenon' ( or at least, I would ). It is on this particular point where I contend (believe) Zen and Science meet.

The term 'abstract' of course, has other meanings, such as abstract art, but that is not the sense it is being used here.

 

I'm not calling numbers 'abstract', I am saying they exist in the abstract.

By 'exist in the abstract' I mean the functional universe of the mind ( as opposed to the fanciful ).

There is no number 'one' in the concrete world. It is a value your mind projects onto the concrete world.

The projector is the mind.

That is what I mean by 'exist in the abstract', the functional universe of the mind.

 

I would say that the number one is one of the results of the Peano axioms that form the basis for our arithmetic - not having to do with anything physical.

However, the system resulting from the Peano axioms and other math can be used to help describe our physical world.

It seems far more like description than projection. With projection, the projector and its information are in some amount of control, aren't they? And, math is not in control of our physical world. In any exploration of physics the math part of the description being used may be just as wrong as any text description or test procedure. And, there is plenty of math that doesn't help describe how various physical systems work - so, nobody applies (projects?) that!

There is a divide there between the math and the physics. I struggle to understand what the other terminology adds. And, I don't see how it leads to physicists deciding what bits of math to use in any particular situation.

 

I'm only trying to make a very simple point, and everything else is an aside.

I'm simplifying the entire subject of math with an analogy, represented by the number one ( it could have been any number, or any equation. however complex, it does not matter), which is all that is needed for my point.

Regardless of the historical origins of math, the data and information of which is not necessary to improve, nor invalidate, my point, which is that the number 'one' is a value. That value exists in the abstract, which is to say, in the mind and is projected ( as in applied to ) the concrete. I mean 'projected' in the simplest form of the word, or I could have used 'applied to'

There is no 'one' in the concrete universe, it's a value assigned to something.

That is why I state it exists in the abstract.

Another similar would be the word 'rose'.

The flower exists, but the word 'rose' is a value applied to the flower, and therefore, similar to the number one, it is a value assigned to, applied to, projected on or upon, an object ( a particular flower, in this case).

These things exist in the abstract.

They are not abstract unto themselves, they merely exist in the abstract, which is to say, the functionable region of the conscious mind.

Values exist in the mind, they are applied to the concrete, and in that sense, they exist in the abstract.

In my usage of the term 'abstract', I'm using it interchangeably with 'functionable region of the conscious mind', or just 'the mind' to state it even more simpler.

These words on the computer, without values that exist in our mind, these words, typing, wouldn't mean anything.

If you do not speak any Arabic, look at Arabic writing, it's just a sea of ink, It might have patterns, so we've seen enough patterns to assign that much value to it.

The values we assign to objects, they exist in the abstract, the mind.

That is my only point.

 

I had a conversation with my brother a week ago.

That is not abstract to me. It is highly specific. I don't see the movement of that specific event to my memory as an act of abstraction.

It isn't "now". But, there is nothing about it that has to do with generalization - the task of creating an abstraction.

Another way to look at it is that an abstraction may be applied to may instances. For your "rose" example, one can have an abstraction of "rose" and use that abstraction for hunting for roses or categorizing a physical object as "rose" or "not rose".

 

"Rose" is not an abstract thing. The idea merely exists in the abstract. Your memory of your conversation, no different.

I thought I clarified that point in another post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-prove-me-wrong.595435/page-8#post-1073180996

 

I explained it in detail, here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-prove-me-wrong.595435/page-8#post-1073180996

 

Physical time travel may or may not happen in the future but if you do travel through time, you better have a space suit with unlimited oxygen as the earth is never in the same place. Ever.

As the earth rotates around the sun, so does the galaxy rotate. Meaning the earth never exist in the same space as it continues to move through space.

You would have to calculate the exact position of the earth in a pre determined axis for the time you wanted to visit then pray you don't appear inside a pre existing tree, pre existing building, or under the ground.

 

I was asking to be proved wrong on the point that time travel, as portrayed in HG Wells 'Time Machine' is impossible.

Since you haven't proved that it is possible, you haven't proved my assertion wrong.

 

I wasn't really trying to prove anything. I was just explaining the nuances of what needs to be overcome to time travel.
I love every movie ever made about time travel. I find it fascinating. But just like in Time Machine, (which is a very cool movie by the way) you never hear a discussion about the movement of the earth through space so using a time machine that keeps appearing in the same location doesn't seem likely.

Movies like
The tomorrow war
Time travelers wife
Somewhere in time
Deja Vu
The edge of Tomorrow

All make the same mistake (in my opinion)

The only one I have seen that is the most plausible would be interstellar.

But my favorite would be About Time.

 

That one lost me at "functional region of the conscious mind".

Besides questions about the regions of mind, I'd point out that abstractions can be written on paper, for example.

 

I knew someone was going to try and make that a distinction, but in point of fact, In the mind, or on paper, or on film, it still exists in the abstract, or rather, more simply put, your mind.

These words you are reading now exist in the abstract, which is to say, your mind.

Without the meaning your mind applies to the words, you would not be able to read.

All meaning exists in the abstract, which is to say, your mind.

You've just gotten so used to it, you take it for granted that you forget the distinction between the concrete and the abstract. I might be even hard for you to understand this given you/we take it for granted.


Look at a picture of a rose in your mind, or on paper, and try not to think 'rose'.

Just look at the flower, and try not to think 'flower'.

Look at it like new born babe.

All that you learn, the learning exists in the abstract, i.e., your mind.

You apply the meaning to objects, in order to function.

The mind exists in the abstract. Or, rather, the abstract exists in the mind.

They are one and the same.

 

There is a whole field of philosophy about this kind of thing.

I started looking around, because of these ideas you bring up.

From what I hear, physicists are the last to accept a lot of the distinctions being made by philosophers on this topic.

The thing about numbers is that they ARE very real. One can ask questions about them in exactly the same way as one can ask questions about physical objects. Plus, much of physics happens at scales where there is no direct human interaction and with models that are entirely words on paper.

To me, the problem is that "abstract" has another definition as I've pointed out. And, that is a HIGHLY important definition, not to be ignored or superceded by suggesting that it only identifies everything that is in ones mind.

This is NOT just because we're "used to it". There ARE abstractions as I've described. When one sees an object one very well may do the mental work of noticing that it fits the abstraction "flower". It may also fit the abstraction "rose".

I've not denied that. Abstraction is an important tool.

I just don't see the value in calling EVERYTHING an abstraction. If you want to, maybe that is ok. However, I don't seen ANY value in doing that. But, it's not a tool that helps make progress. It doesn't provide for a useful distinction. And, it subtracts from the usefulness of a tool that IS incredibly important - a tool we know as "abstraction".

I don't know what frees philosophers to say some of the things they say. Maybe it is that we now have the hard sciences, so philosophers are much less involved in how this universe actually works than once was the case. I don't mean to suggest there is some hard line between philosophy and science. That's not true. But, when someone starts suggesting that almost nothing is actually real, I don't see that as helping the investigation of how this universe works.

Today, we can ask very real questions about numbers, for example. These questions can be the same kinds of questions we could ask of anything else, though one always has to consider the space being questioned. We can ask how many of a certain type exist, for example. We can unambiguously identify a member of the collection. We can count them. Etc.

 

I have to clarify some points. Yes, the term 'abstract' has a number of nuanced meanings -- quite distinct from how I'm applying it here. I'm not referring to 'abstractions' as in things that are vague are hard to understand, that is one meaning, such as an abstract painting. I'm not using it in that sense.

I'm using it in the sense of that which exists in the abstract

In other words, the mind. These two terms, as I am using them, are basically interchangeable, but 'abstract' is more specific than 'mind'.

The term 'mind' is very broad, it contains things that we use to function, and the mind also contains things that are vague, nebulous, fanciful.

I'm not calling anything in the concrete, as abstract.

I'm saying that the meaning behind things, that is what is real, that they it exist in the abstract.

the meaning behind things, though they exist in the abstract, these are what makes everything real.

Note; don't lose sight of the subject, verb, object. Ie., extracted from the aformentioned sentence:

Meaning exists in the abstract.

And I've stated, unequivocally, that math is real.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that math exists in the abstract, ( the mind ).

But what makes it real?

Not that it's concrete, as in a block of wood, it's not concrete at all, math exist purely in the mind, in the abstract.

What makes it real is that it allows us to function in the concrete universe. Math functions, it's real in that context.

Math functions, though it does so in the abstract. Math allows us to predict, to build, to engineer, to measure, etc.

That's all time is, time is durational measurement of the rate of change, the rate of the ever changing now.

Time is a type of math.

I found this on the internet:

We live in a 4 dimensional realm of existence, of length, width, height and depth. Time is an abstract measurement, not a dimension, throughout our dimensional realm.

in the above quote, time is defined as an abstract measurement. I define it as a measurement of the rate of the ever changing universe, the ever changing now, the measurement of which exists in the abstract. I feel my definition is more precise, but it's basically the same thing.

If fact, all meanings behind objects, 'rose' 'pencil' 'dog' the meanings all exist in the abstract, but the meaning is real in that it allows us to function in the concrete universe. The abstract side of the concrete world is what makes the concrete 'real'. Without the abstract layer, the world would be just a blob of color and you would not be able to function, you'd be like a new born babe with eyes wide open struggling to make sense of your surroundings.

They are real in the sense that it allows us to function.

That is why i say 'the functionable region of the mind' ( as opposed to the purely imaginative. vague and fanciful ).

 

I just have to add that "Abstract" does not mean vague or hard to understand. In your painting example, the "hard to understand" was added by the different understandings of the painter and you.

The same is true in other endeavors, including physics and math. Some percent of humans may see it as vague or hard to understand - especially if they don't spend the required time to understand it. Physicists from one subject area may need to work to understand another area, etc.

An abstraction can be very clear and concise. For example, an abstraction of a triangle can be three edges connected at the end points. In this case, the definition is an abstraction.

So, an abstraction isn't a concrete object - obviously. It is an idea that can be written or remembered. A "concrete" idea?

In fact, when physicists are working to understand how this universe works I would claim they are mostly NOT working with any concrete objects. Experimentalists are devising experiments that involve concrete objects, but particle physicists never seen the particles they care about, nor is any individual particle treated as an individual object. Theoretical physicists don't see the "strings" many care about, etc.

Anyway, I don't see the point in attempting to divide up our mental capacity by terms like "functional" or whatever.

Just to be concrete about it, I don't see how it helps physics progress.

 

I was just trying to make a simple point.

 

Which one? To my knowledge there are at least 2. I enjoyed both.

I agree with you that is a factor that one never heard about. Probably because despite the fact we know we move around the sun, we have no real perception of it or of the solar system or the galaxy moving as well.

Mind you with fiction, we can assume that this is compensated already in the design. After all there is rarely an explanation of how they are actually moving in time, yet alone if they are moving through space. But here is a possible explanation, especially when viewed via the Time Machine movies. Since the machine is already moving through space via the earth moving, then it remains ties to the physical spot on the planet via gravity, even as it slips up and down the time axis. Even with the more instantaneous methods, it could well be that the medium through which the two points of time are connect flow over that space that the planet has moved through in the time interval.

At least with Legends of the DC Universe and Dr. Who, those machines travel via a temporal vortex or similar, thus allowing for the movement through space as well.

 

OK, I just want to say that I don't see the value in that point.

It seems like a distinction without a difference.

 

But would not all this put both time and space into the concrete, as much as air and gravity and radiation are concrete. Yes our meanings of them, and measurements of them and all that are in the abstract, but they are still the concrete things to which we apply the abstract.

 

I am trying to understand how they got those 4 dimensions. I can define two of them separately.

Height: the distance from the point closest to the pull of gravity to the point furthest.

Depth: the distance from the point closest to the measurer, to the point furthest away.

But I cannot come up with a way to define length and width separately.