Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning no time like the present

What the hell *is* the present, anyway?

If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time it
is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?

Kind of like those large clocks that try to show the *present* and
have right hand digits that are flying by so fast that the present
nothing but a *white blur??*

Perhaps the *present* is just the moment we *perceive* something, but
Gene Ward Smith says that doesn't work.

In fact, it seems that the present is somewhat a "definitional"
phenomenon, going from the instant of perception, mentioned above to,
possibly, a definition in seconds "see you in a couple seconds, this
instant!" to an hour: "I'll be there presently!" to a day "The
meeting is *today* we think in the *present!*" to a week, month,
year... "no time like the Present!" to 5 years.

Possibly even a *decade!* "We're living in the *present*, man!"

Has anybody ever considered the present as being *longer* than a
decade? I guess not *usually*, but certainly in the realm of *music*
it is.

Modern music?? Since 1900, I guess.

Has anybody written these philosophical issues up in a more,
specifically, *scientific* way?

I would love to read such a study, if it exists!

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> What the hell *is* the present, anyway?
>
> If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time it
> is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?

it's even smaller than you think. einstein showed that 'simultaneity'
has no meaning across different points in space -- so the 'present'
really has no meaning outside the tiny speck of space 'you' happen to
occupy! i'd suggest a search on 'light cones' and 'special
relativity' -- you might find something that's clear and not too
mathematical, if you're lucky . . .

-paul

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@...>

i found a good set of webpages for you, joseph. it's from a physics
105 class for nonscience undergraduates. spend a couple of hours with
it -- i'm sure you'll learn something!

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/introduction.html

of course, your particular question may turn out to be
more 'philosophical' than 'scientific' in the present century --
though of course one era's philosophy often becomes the next era's
science . . .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2148.html#2150

> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > What the hell *is* the present, anyway?
> >
> > If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time
it
> > is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?
>
> it's even smaller than you think. einstein showed
that 'simultaneity'
> has no meaning across different points in space -- so the 'present'
> really has no meaning outside the tiny speck of space 'you' happen
to
> occupy! i'd suggest a search on 'light cones' and 'special
> relativity' -- you might find something that's clear and not too
> mathematical, if you're lucky . . .
>
> -paul

***That's cool, Paul... I'll look into it!

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2148.html#2152

> > --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > What the hell *is* the present, anyway?
> > >
> > > If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time
> it
> > > is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?
>
> i found a good set of webpages for you, joseph. it's from a physics
> 105 class for nonscience undergraduates. spend a couple of hours
with
> it -- i'm sure you'll learn something!
>
> http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/introduction.html
>
> of course, your particular question may turn out to be
> more 'philosophical' than 'scientific' in the present century --
> though of course one era's philosophy often becomes the next era's
> science . . .

***This looks neat, Paul...

Thanks!

🔗clumma <carl@...>

Hi Joe!

>What the hell *is* the present, anyway?
>
>If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time it
>is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?

How do you define "is"? I wouldn't even know what to suggest.

But if you have a real number line, I think you can pick a
point on it. The details of doing this have been studied --
I'm sure Gene knows more. There's something called the
Axiom of Choice which may be worth looking into here.

Infinitely small... you mean, is there a smallest unit of time?
I've read that there is a smallest unit of action defined by
the Plank constant -- Paul probably knows more -- which means
that the real number line case (above) wouldn't be applicable
to the real world.

>Perhaps the *present* is just the moment we *perceive*
>something, but Gene Ward Smith says that doesn't work.
>
>In fact, it seems that the present is somewhat a "definitional"
>phenomenon, going from the instant of perception, mentioned
>above to, possibly, a definition in seconds "see you in a couple
>seconds, this instant!" to an hour: "I'll be there presently!"
>to a day "The meeting is *today* we think in the *present!*" to
>a week, month, year... "no time like the Present!" to 5 years.

This is a very different question, and one which interests me
the most. Here, "present" means a sample of the activity on
a person's 'sensory cortex' [the term is an expedient only;
nobody has any idea yet what this might be]. Defining sample
here should also be quite involved.

>Possibly even a *decade!* "We're living in the *present*, man!"
>
>Has anybody ever considered the present as being *longer* than a
>decade? I guess not *usually*, but certainly in the realm of
>*music* it is.

Yet a third, completely different question. This time about
cultural change. One interpretation of catastrophe theory says
that cultural change as a function of time is lumpy (periods of
stagnation marked off by abrupt changes), but Kurzweil says if
you zoom out enough it's just plain exponential growth. Is he
right?? We'll know in 20 years.

Aside from Special Relativity, you might want to look into
sampling theory, Claude Shannon, Fourier transform, Wavelet
transform, etc.

-Carl

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> Infinitely small... you mean, is there a smallest unit of time?
> I've read that there is a smallest unit of action defined by
> the Plank constant -- Paul probably knows more -- which means
> that the real number line case (above) wouldn't be applicable
> to the real world.

not necessarily. action is energy times time -- so an arbitrarily
small increment of time is possible if the energy is high enough.
however, some ideas that go beyond quantum mechanics (which is what
carl is referring to here), and attempt to unify it with relativity,
do suggest that there a shortest possible unit of time, the 'planck
time', which is about

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Paul!
What is the difference between the two formulas on the linked page?

and i tried to figure out if you multiply this in octaves you get
1.650531609
1.510801531
is this correct?

Maybe we should be tuning to this if we want JI! :-)

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > Infinitely small... you mean, is there a smallest unit of time?
> > I've read that there is a smallest unit of action defined by
> > the Plank constant -- Paul probably knows more -- which means
> > that the real number line case (above) wouldn't be applicable
> > to the real world.
>
> not necessarily. action is energy times time -- so an arbitrarily
> small increment of time is possible if the energy is high enough.
> however, some ideas that go beyond quantum mechanics (which is what
> carl is referring to here), and attempt to unify it with relativity,
> do suggest that there a shortest possible unit of time, the 'planck
> time', which is about
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2148.html#2156

> Hi Joe!
>
> >What the hell *is* the present, anyway?
> >
> >If we look at a "timeline" and we really want to know what time it
> >is, wouldn't it be like a number line and infinitely small?
>
> How do you define "is"? I wouldn't even know what to suggest.
>
> But if you have a real number line, I think you can pick a
> point on it. The details of doing this have been studied --
> I'm sure Gene knows more. There's something called the
> Axiom of Choice which may be worth looking into here.
>
> Infinitely small... you mean, is there a smallest unit of time?
> I've read that there is a smallest unit of action defined by
> the Plank constant -- Paul probably knows more -- which means
> that the real number line case (above) wouldn't be applicable
> to the real world.
>
>
> >Perhaps the *present* is just the moment we *perceive*
> >something, but Gene Ward Smith says that doesn't work.
> >
> >In fact, it seems that the present is somewhat a "definitional"
> >phenomenon, going from the instant of perception, mentioned
> >above to, possibly, a definition in seconds "see you in a couple
> >seconds, this instant!" to an hour: "I'll be there presently!"
> >to a day "The meeting is *today* we think in the *present!*" to
> >a week, month, year... "no time like the Present!" to 5 years.
>
> This is a very different question, and one which interests me
> the most. Here, "present" means a sample of the activity on
> a person's 'sensory cortex' [the term is an expedient only;
> nobody has any idea yet what this might be]. Defining sample
> here should also be quite involved.
>
>
> >Possibly even a *decade!* "We're living in the *present*, man!"
> >
> >Has anybody ever considered the present as being *longer* than a
> >decade? I guess not *usually*, but certainly in the realm of
> >*music* it is.
>
> Yet a third, completely different question. This time about
> cultural change. One interpretation of catastrophe theory says
> that cultural change as a function of time is lumpy (periods of
> stagnation marked off by abrupt changes), but Kurzweil says if
> you zoom out enough it's just plain exponential growth. Is he
> right?? We'll know in 20 years.
>
>
> Aside from Special Relativity, you might want to look into
> sampling theory, Claude Shannon, Fourier transform, Wavelet
> transform, etc.
>
> -Carl

***Thanks, Carl, for your response. Paul got me started reading up a
bit on this. I'm not surprised to find that scientists have been
thinking about these questions (which, admittedly, I've probably
*muddled* into one big group :) ) and using the modern tools of
science to try to answer them!

I'm going to read more about it.

best,

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2148.html#2157

> --- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > Infinitely small... you mean, is there a smallest unit of time?
> > I've read that there is a smallest unit of action defined by
> > the Plank constant -- Paul probably knows more -- which means
> > that the real number line case (above) wouldn't be applicable
> > to the real world.
>
> not necessarily. action is energy times time -- so an arbitrarily
> small increment of time is possible if the energy is high enough.
> however, some ideas that go beyond quantum mechanics (which is what
> carl is referring to here), and attempt to unify it with
relativity,
> do suggest that there a shortest possible unit of time, the 'planck
> time', which is about
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckTime.html

***I appreciate the references, Paul, and, in fact, I'm rather
surprised I never encountered the "light cone" idea before. I'm
surprised I wasn't introduced to it in high school physics classes
and such like, although perhaps they weren't teaching it in the
60's...

Of course, thinking about it, the idea of "time" as you suggest
becomes rather vague, and associated with "space." The simple
experience of watching a lightning bolt and hearing the sound later
seems to show this to a degree. Which event *is* actually happening
in the "present?" Well, *light* generally would "win out..." :),
but what if there was no window in the room?? :) I would tend to
think that the "lightning bolt" was the "real" instance.

And, also, what of the night sky, with stars that we realize we are
seeing hundreds of thousands of years ago. Are we looking at
the "present" there??

It's obviously all *quite* relative, and I appreciate the scientific
references, and am not at all surprised that people have been using
modern tools to try to figure some of this stuff out!

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2148.html#2156
>
> Yet a third, completely different question. This time about
> cultural change. One interpretation of catastrophe theory says
> that cultural change as a function of time is lumpy (periods of
> stagnation marked off by abrupt changes), but Kurzweil says if
> you zoom out enough it's just plain exponential growth. Is he
> right?? We'll know in 20 years.
>
>

***Hi Carl!

From the above, it suggests that you are thinking that
something "big" is going to happen. Is that so??

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

>> Yet a third, completely different question. This time about
>> cultural change. One interpretation of catastrophe theory says
>> that cultural change as a function of time is lumpy (periods of
>> stagnation marked off by abrupt changes), but Kurzweil says if
>> you zoom out enough it's just plain exponential growth. Is he
>> right?? We'll know in 20 years.
>>
>>
>
>***Hi Carl!
>
>From the above, it suggests that you are thinking that
>something "big" is going to happen. Is that so??

It isn't me, but Kurzweil's theory that predicts things
will happen in 20 years that should be easy to test for,
yet completely unpredicted by traditional linear history.
KurzweilAI.net has tons of info. Note that it isn't K's
idea -- this is singularity theory, which has been around
for a while. It's just found a strong champion in K.

-Carl

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

>
> and i tried to figure out if you multiply this in octaves you get
> 1.650531609
> 1.510801531
> is this correct?

i get

1.35125e-43 second * 2^143 = 1.50669409747573 second

5.39072e-44 second * 2^144 = 1.20217073156623 second

perhaps you're using some other units or something?