/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1345378
Hmm, yes, quite.

>>1345378

>>1345378
I'm not OP, but I actually want to ask a question as there tend to be many physifags here:

Is there any physical reason time works the way it does? I'm mean, I only know about the simple parts of physics. And within all the formulas I know it didn't matter which way time would work. If Object C is at location x1 at time t, then it is at location x2 at time time t2 and it doesn't really matter which one actually comes first. It amazes me because the only irreversible process I can think of is human memory.

About anything else, I would only have to adjust the formula to make claims like "the cannon ball is put into the cannon at t1 because it is flying at t1 + 10s". You get what I mean?

>Is there any physical reason time works the way it does?

>asking questions like this and not understanding why the answer is simply "it just does"

>>1345560
We don't know yet. We can't know yet.
Why do you need to have things like this explained to you? It's like asking why cells need to use water as a base.

>>1345560
>It amazes me because the only irreversible process I can think of is human memory.
Actually, entropy makes the entire universe irreversible. It's not based on human memory. Rather, human memory is tied to entropy, just like every other process in the universe.

>>1345586
and Human memory is anything but irreversible. People can forget things. We may even develop technology some day to download, upload, delete, or even create memories. It's just electrical impulses after all.

>>1345605
Hmm. I think rather than forgetting, the better question is "why do we remember the past and not the future?" It's possible to remember the future, just very unlikely.

It's like if you had a container with a partition through the middle. On one side, blue-colored water, and on the other, red-colored water. If you remove the partition, they mix together and make purple water. After mixing together, what are the odds that the molecules will bounce off of each other in the exact way necessary to "un-mix"? Extremely unlikely. That's what remembering the future is like... it's like a liquid self-unmixing.

>>1345605
I meant irreversible in the mathematical notion like in "reversed function". Your brain always operates on past thoughts to generate future ones. You cannot reconstruct your memories by living your future. (Hence, we CAN forget.)

>>1345586
Thanx. This was really helpful. I wiki'd a bit and found an article to exactly match my needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29
I'd still be interested, if could construct a universe with an incredible high entropy and adjust the laws of Thermodynamics to "pretty much always" decrease entropy?

>>1345632
Are you fucking high? We don't remember the future because we haven't observed it yet!
What has not been observed cannot be remembered.

>>1345664
You're missing the point, which is about reversibility. Think about tossing a ball up in the air. Neglecting air resistance, it comes back down with the same speed as it went up. Because process in the forward direction of time is indistinguishable from the process in the reverse direction, we say that the process is reversible. All physical laws would be reversible, if it were not for entropy.

So, the question is, if all physical laws are reversible, what is so special about the past that we remember that and not the future? And the answer is, because of entropy. A liquid will not self-unmix.

>>1345689
actually, if you give it time, the ball would speed up as it fell due to gravity, accelerating to terminal velocity. Your analogy doesn't hold up. This philosophy bullshit doesn't belong on this board. If the future happened before the past, it would be called "the past." It can't be reversed, because the past is defined as what has happened, and the future as what will happen. What will happen cannot occur before what has happened, it's a matter of past/future tense.

>>1345689
Well why do we think of the past and the future as different things? Assuming time is merely a tool to observe motion, then the past, present, and future are all the same in "reality". In this case, perhaps your past really was your future, and your memories are of things yet to come. Everything is reversible, therefor why isn't the human concept of linear time?

>>1345706
Don't be stupid. Of course the ball slows down. It slows down because of entropy. That's why I said to neglect air resistance. If you toss a ball in a vacuum, there is no terminal velocity.

This isn't philosophy. Entropy isn't magic. It's the one thing determining the perceived direction of time, in other words, the direction of our memories. You can't define the past as "what has happened" and the future as "what will happen" without having a direction in place already. I could just as easily say that entropy causes us to remember "what has happened" instead of "what will happen" because it's the same fucking thing.

>>1345635
I like your post.

>>1345722
Because everything ISN'T reversible with entropy. That's the point.

>>1345739
Oh. right. But what if it was?

>>1345744
Then the past would be indistinguishable from the future. There would be no "direction" to time.

>overwhelming pedantry
Sage'd.

>>1345755
>complaining about pedantry on the SCIENCE and MATH board
Ugh. I suppose you'd rather have another God vs. evolution troll thread.

>>1345775
I was actually hoping to discuss some science and math...

>>1345786
We're discussing physics. Would you like to join?

>>1345726
It appears we have reached an impasse.

>>1345804
I see it as a misunderstanding. Let me put it this way.

Entropy is the property of physical systems that causes them to occur in one direction, but not the other.

Memory is a physical system that occurs in one direction, but not the other.

Therefore, entropy causes memory to occur in one direction, but not the other.

>>1345819
/thread

>>1345819
Let's pack up folks, I think there's a religion thread somewhere in the bog of suck that needs us.