查看完整版本 : 時間既存在性

good709394 2006-6-28 23:47

[quote]原帖由 [i]kackevin[/i] 於 2006-6-28 10:44 PM 發表

我並不是要回覆你的帖子
相反我認為你的簽名真是很灰
為何你不能強姦命運要由命運擺佈
正所謂我命由我不由天
當然生死例外
工作就像輪姦
那麼你就要永遠都要比別人強
甚至不惜一切都要佔著
這個你懂嗎
... [/quote]

呢幾句野係網上流傳左一段時間
好多人都讚嘆~
我都係copy番黎~

我覺得作者用另一種方式去表達,
世上一D無得選擇,又無奈,不公...... 既現實!!!!

至於你話人類既 "時間計算" 遲D唔o岩用
認同一半!!!
"時間制式" 係根據地球計出黎
甚至 "光年"都係~

所以我認為適合地球,未必適合計算宇宙~~

[[i] 本帖最後由 good709394 於 2006-6-29 12:33 PM 編輯 [/i]]

joencc 2006-6-29 00:51

[quote]原帖由 [i]lovinghsbc[/i] 於 2006-6-28 12:15 PM 發表


我亦聽過時間是附屬性質素 (Dependable Property) 這一個說法.

我嘗試用中文簡單寫出重點, 請honeyesee1君指正.


1. 若物質沒有移動, 則時間是無意義亦不存在的.

2. 所以時間的存在是附屬於物質移動 ... [/quote]

閣下的翻譯很有問題。除1、3可改之外,基本上是閣下的意見(而且人家是無眼睇1號,不是蜜糖e看1號)

1. 若物質沒有移動,則時間是無意義。
 【沒有說不存在的】

2. 所以時間的存在是附屬於物質移動的.
 【也沒有這麼說過】

3. 所以時間是宇宙中的一種[color=Red]特性[/color], 不能[color=Red]在不變化中被觀察[/color]的質素.
 【是一種特性(Property),或是常理(Norm)】


我大膽的將無眼睇1號君的原本翻譯一下吧:

I would not termed time as a "noun", rather I tend to consider time as a "property". A dependable property of our current universe, or a "norm" of that universe.
(我不會將時間定義為一個「名詞」,反而偏向將時間當作屬性,一個我們現存宇宙的可靠屬性,或是說是我們宇宙的「常理」。)

Also, someone once wrote (Hawkin? not sure, anyway) , "Time has no meaning is our universe if our universe is idle", which is quite true.
Consider a set with some elements, say 3 elements and is always has three elements and nothing else. If someone asked, "How many members within the Set {A}?". The answer is always 3. If we implement "Time", (some would like to consider time as a "Concept", I tend not to) to this set, which is quite absurd, since "Time" has no actual meaning on describing the number of elements of this set. Nevertherless the structure holds.
(另外,有人曾寫下(可能是霍金吧?):「當我們的宇宙是不變的話,時間就沒有意義」,而我覺得很對。 假設有一組合內有一些部件,例如3件部件,並且永遠也只是有這3件部件。當有人問:「這個組合A內有多少個成員?」答案永遠是3。當我們加上「時間」(有人認為是概念,我不認為如此)入這組合之中,這其實是很可笑的:因為「時間」對於描述部件的數目並沒有實質的意義,無論部件的置配如何。)

Reconsider our {A} if we further define "metrics" to this set, and also some algebric structure, then if we spot out that the elements within {A}
has some dynamics within (lets say all elements of {A} is approaching one another), then the implementation of "Time" becomes vital and meaningful on  describing "How close they are at some particular instance". (The number of elements of {A} is still 3)
(當我們為我們的組合A定義「韻律」(按.這些名詞比較難譯,可能有錯),及定義一些數理結構,然後當我們發現組合A內的部件發生變化(例如組合A內的部件互相靠近)),那麼,在講述「每一個剎那各部件靠得有多接近」時,「時間」的投入就變得有意義而且極為重要了。(組合A內的部件數目仍然是3))

I tend not to think "Time" is a concept, because "Concept" can be a separable derivative that depends on nothing at all, (I carefully not to use the word 'axiom' hereby) and upto this moment, "some of us still thinking of going back time". If it is a "property", one of the properties of our universe, then we would not say that again, since it is merely a state, an instance of our universe.
(我不認為「時間」是概念,因為「概念」可以不基於任何東西而個別衍生(在此我避免使用邏輯上的公理一詞),而至目前為止,「還會有人想到有時間倒流」。如果這是「屬性」(按.不帶有附屬的意思),是我們宇宙眾多屬性的其中之一,我們不會再如此說,因為這只不過是一個狀態,是我們宇宙之中的一剎那。)

Please consider the following,
if one of the instances of our universe can be described in such a way that the instance
X at tj
Xtj=[tj,N1,..,Nn,P1,...Pk,you,me,hers,my(hands),my(computer), my(...), his(...)........]
(這段就不譯了,大致上是說每一剎那 tj 之中,宇宙就是所有的東的集合。)

I would not think of going back through time under this construct, well, because we donot own the property, it is only a property of the our universe. A property that denotes the varies dynamics of our universe.
(在這基礎之上,我不會去想回到過去,因為我們沒有擁有這個屬性,它只是我們宇宙的屬性。一個註釋我們宇宙不同變化的一個屬性。)

So, what I meant was,
"Time" is a "property" of our universe,
and it is only menaingful if our universe is not idle.
(所以,我是說:
「時間」是我們宇宙的一個「屬性」,
只有在我們的宇宙不是不變時才會有意義。)

Agree? Please comment.
(同意嗎?請評論。)

(p.s. Well in a sence, only universe itself can reverse the clock, but who knows we are not experiencing a backward time?! )
(附註:某個角度來看,只有宇宙本身才可以倒轉時鐘(逆轉時間),但誰會知道我們正身處於逆轉時間之中?)

Certainly, if we are one of the members in this universe, then we are tagged.
(當然,當我們是這個宇宙中的一份子,我們就被囊括其中。)

[[i] 本帖最後由 joencc 於 2006-6-29 01:02 AM 編輯 [/i]]

it-po 2006-6-29 03:23

依康德言, 時間只係直覺o既邏輯,
按我理解, 大約可以用一d 實例去証明時間係虛幻的.

1. 細個時的時間特別長. 大人o左, 要讀書, 要番工, d 時間通常吾夠用.

2. 你等條女揀衫shopping, 等一二個鐘你都覺得可以接受, 但係你等廁所柯屎, 等一分鐘都難捱.

所以, 人有事情放在心上, 或者閒極無聊時, 時間係吾一樣的.

如果放在宇宙的角度, 宇宙不會去關心人事, (正如道家講以天地以萬物為芻狗).
時間只係呢個舞台上細小的蟻民的出場次序.
所以時間係吾實在的

joencc 2006-6-29 10:12

[quote]原帖由 [i]good709394[/i] 於 2006-6-28 11:47 PM 發表
至於你話人類既 "時間計算" 遲D唔o岩用
認同一半!!!
"時間" 係根據地球計出黎
甚至 "光年"都係~

所以我認為適合地球,未必適合計算宇宙~~ [/quote]

「光年」係距離單位wo~~

響哩個帖好多人都話「時間」係根據地球計出黎~
真係唔好自己諗就當係真wo~~

中國人以前用時辰、刻、分做時計標準;
希臘人出名的日規,但係就唔知量度時間的單位點分~~

其實有無人知道我地宜家用緊的時、分、秒,係由邊個定義,由乜野做標準呢?

我聽過,每一秒等於用微電流刺激白石英而產生的震動頻率。

ps.認為時計標準因為由人設定而話時間唔存在,甚至未必適用於宇宙的各位網友,你知道這是什麼意思嗎?即是說,現在的物理學原理,包括光子物理學、相對論、星體理論、熱力學、輻射學、甚至經典物理學,全部都是錯的。

如果你地話時間的量度單位可以改,仲合理D。時間唔存在?
你地勁過牛頓、愛因斯坦、霍金、費曼,無得頂~

[quote]原帖由 [i]it-po[/i] 於 2006-6-29 03:23 AM 發表
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
依康德言, 時間只係直覺o既邏輯,
按我理解, 大約可以用一d 實例去証明時間係虛幻的.

1. 細個時的時間特別長. 大人o左, 要讀書, 要番工, d 時間通常吾夠用.

2. 你等條女揀衫shopping, 等一二個鐘你都覺得可以接受, 但係你等廁所柯屎, 等一分鐘都難捱.

所以, 人有事情放在心上, 或者閒極無聊時, 時間係吾一樣的.

如果放在宇宙的角度, 宇宙不會去關心人事, (正如道家講以天地以萬物為芻狗).
時間只係呢個舞台上細小的蟻民的出場次序.
所以時間係吾實在的 [/quote]

唔記得出處,對於時間的量度,人有3個時鐘:心理時鐘、生理時鐘、物理時鐘。

人愈係年輕,細胞愈活躍,因此神經元處理脈衝訊息的速度會比年長的更快捷及有效,因此對於小朋友,單就以大腦處理感官訊息的量就比成人為多,換句話說小朋友的一日真的比成年人長。

心理時鐘的話,就是人對時間流逝的感覺。等待的時候往往感覺是漫長,而忙碌的時候時間往往是倉猝的。

物理時鐘,就是你這個個體於身處空間的時間流逝度。在同一個時區之中(即速度相近,如地球表面),所有物體的時間流逝度都是一致的。根據相對論,物體的速度愈快,時間在該物體上流逝愈慢,而光速的物體上時間是停止的。

時間的確唔劃一,咁可以講係唔實在,但係唔可以因此就話無「時間」哩樣野。

[[i] 本帖最後由 joencc 於 2006-6-29 03:28 PM 編輯 [/i]]

lovinghsbc 2006-6-29 11:06

[quote]原帖由 [i]joencc[/i] 於 2006-6-29 12:51 AM 發表

閣下的翻譯很有問題。除1、3可改之外,基本上是閣下的意見(而且人家是無眼睇1號,不是蜜糖e看1號)

1. 若物質沒有移動,則時間是無意義。
 【沒有說不存在的】

2. 所以時間的存在是附屬於物質移動的.
 【也沒有這麼說過】

3. 所以時間是宇宙中的一種特性, 不能在不變化中被觀察的質素. [/quote]

1. 我的翻譯很有問題只是因為和你的立場不同吧?

2. 大佬, 我亦無話我的翻譯一定對, 我都叫原作者指正(對不起, 我寫錯名). 咁可唔可以遲D你先講出你的高見呢?

good709394 2006-6-29 12:27

[quote]原帖由 [i]joencc[/i] 於 2006-6-29 10:12 AM 發表


「光年」係距離單位wo~~

響哩個帖好多人都話「時間」係根據地球計出黎~
真係唔好自己諗就當係真wo~~

中國人以前用時辰、刻、分做時計標準;
希臘人出名的日規,但係就唔知量度時間的單位點分 ... [/quote]

現時既制式......

我們已經知道依據地球自轉過程中,觀測太陽的縱跡或竿影,而確定出一天和 24 小時。接著我們可以進一步地用「六十等分法」,將一個小時細分成 60 「分鐘」。然後再進一步地,將一分鐘又細分成 60 「秒鐘」。也就是說,我們已經將一個完整的晝與夜之 24 小時分成了 1440 分鐘,再細分成 86,400 秒鐘。我們可依據自己對於時間長短精準的需求,在一天當中用小時、分和秒來表示時刻。近代科學家發明單擺鐘及石英震盪器,利用單擺或石英晶體的震盪週期來計時,只要震盪週期乘上每秒震盪次數就是一秒鐘。但上述計時方式易受環境、溫度、材質、電磁場甚至觀測者觀測角度等影響,並不穩定,須由天體(地球自轉、公轉、月球公轉)的週期來校正。

1960 年以前,CIPM(世界度量衡標準會議)以地球自轉為基礎,定義以平均太陽日之 86400 分之一作為秒定義。即 1秒 = 1/86400 平均太陽日。然而地球自轉並不穩定,會因其他星體引力的牽引而改變。1960~1967 年 CIPM 改以地球公轉為基礎,定義西元1900年為平均太陽年。秒定義更改為:一秒為平均太陽年之 31556925.9747 分之 一。

光年係距離
光年條式需要時間去計算!!!

我無否認過"時間"既存在
有人話 "時間" 代表 "空間"  "移動物質".....
而我既愚見係 "過程"
而我既 "時間",係一種制式,單位......格式化 "過程",用共通既定義去方便大眾jar~


順帶一提,我唔係科學家,天文學家......
對社會沒甚麼大貢獻,
就算俾個奬我,我都唔敢領啦~~~~

大家只係黎討論,探究下,
唔係個個人都有豐富知識,
無須去批判人 !!!

[[i] 本帖最後由 good709394 於 2006-6-29 12:51 PM 編輯 [/i]]

good709394 2006-6-29 12:36

[quote]原帖由 [i]good709394[/i] 於 2006-6-29 12:27 PM 發表

"時間" 係根據地球計出黎 (誤會)

[color=Red]"時間制式" [/color]係根據地球計出黎 (對)

[/quote]

之前個post有點誤會,
我只係回應番 "時間計算" 遲D唔o岩用~

joencc 2006-6-29 15:18

[quote]原帖由 [i]lovinghsbc[/i] 於 2006-6-29 11:06 AM 發表
1. 我的翻譯很有問題只是因為和你的立場不同吧?

2. 大佬, 我亦無話我的翻譯一定對, 我都叫原作者指正(對不起, 我寫錯名). 咁可唔可以遲D你先講出你的高見呢? [/quote]

閣下的翻譯有問題不是因為和我的立場不同(我出手的原因才是因為立場不同),而是閣下的翻譯內容和無眼睇1號君的內容有出入。

翻譯工作是很嚴謹的,是擔任言語不通者的橋樑。在翻譯作品上歪曲作者原意,是對作者的冒瀆,而且是對依賴你的翻譯的讀者的愚弄。

當然,如果無眼睇1號君和我的立場很不同,我或許不會花時間去整篇翻譯,或許會是直接批評他的文章內容。


我譯果陣都覺得應該由原作者出手先,但係,除左(按)左佢兩野之外,基本上係照譯,我估佢唔介意卦~~

如果我譯得個文章有錯,就唔好意思囉~~

[quote]原帖由 [i]good709394[/i] 於 2006-6-29 12:27 PM 發表


現時既制式......

我們已經知道依據地球自轉過程中,⑽N是說,我們已經將一個完整的晝與夜之 24 小時分成了 1440 分鐘,再細分成 86,400 秒鐘。我們可依據自己對於時間長短精準的需求,在一天當中用小時、 ... [/quote]

多謝你的資料提供,我會印低留底,夾響本「the Universe in a Nutshell」度,好好記著。thx:smile_15:

光年係由光速乘以時間。
由於速度係d/T,再乘以T’的時候,由於時間的量度基準會是劃一,因此乘左上去之後,時間因素就會被抵消,剩低距離囉~

又由於光速是不變的常數,因此光年這個距離亦是不變的常數。

我都認同唔係個個都有豐富知識,基本上無人會乜都識。但係有D人鍾意講就當真,我就希望佢地搵下資料支持。

我語氣唔好叫人去申請諾貝爾獎,轉頭我會DELETE佢,唔好意思。

[[i] 本帖最後由 joencc 於 2006-6-29 03:24 PM 編輯 [/i]]

lovinghsbc 2006-6-29 16:08

[quote]原帖由 [i]joencc[/i] 於 2006-6-29 03:18 PM 發表


閣下的翻譯有問題不是因為和我的立場不同(我出手的原因才是因為立場不同),而是閣下的翻譯內容和無眼睇1號君的內容有出入。

翻譯工作是很嚴謹的,是擔任言語不通者的橋樑。在翻譯作品上歪曲作者原意, ... [/quote]

多謝發言.

noeyesee1 2006-6-29 19:31

Thank you for your response (lovinghsbc, joencc) and sorry for causing such dispute.

Apologize for I could not write this in Chinese. (shame on me being a HongKongers)  


I shall soon rephrase my post in details.

I need to think this over again and relook into my books which I had left behind years ago.

Please allow me sometime

Regards

lovinghsbc 2006-6-29 19:55

OK. 我熱切期待和你討論.

Lacolus 2006-6-30 01:47

'時間',其實係人類意識日月交替、光陰流逝時已證明其存在,中國人將佢稱為'時間',英文語系人稱之為time。我地可以俾唔同既名、單位佢,例如我地香港人叫一小時做一粒鐘,但係本質冇變,所以去左火星都好,除非果到係冇時間流動,火星人都會係有相應用黎形容時間既term。

時間係日日同我地擦身而過、甚至羅黎賣,但係又觸摸唔到既野。但係咁唔代表佢唔存在。佢有實體既一面,如一秒;亦有概念既一面,如時間既不可觸摸。

顏色係我地日日見到但係係唔同情況下就會唔同,但係佢會變唔代表佢唔存在。只要我地有需要就物件反射所發出既色彩作出形容,就會有'顏色'。我地發覺顏色會變只會啟發我地去尋找顏色既本質。當我地發現左顏色既本質,顏色唔會消失或者唔存在,我地只係對真相多一份了解。

所以,當我地意識到光陰會流逝,我地已經證明左佢既存在(或者講係認知到佢既存在)。我地既思考方向應該係了解清楚'時間'既本質係乜,而唔係佢存唔存在。

yman26 2006-6-30 12:33

[quote]原帖由 [i]good709394[/i] 於 2006-6-29 12:27 PM 發表


現時既制式......

我們已經知道依據地球自轉過程中,⑽N是說,我們已經將一個完整的晝與夜之 24 小時分成了 1440 分鐘,再細分成 86,400 秒鐘。我們可依據自己對於時間長短精準的需求,在一天當中用小時、 ... [/quote]

唔岩
一秒係defined by石英震盪
that is definition
你可以查下

至於你所講既天體調教
純粹因為石英震盪既一秒同天體運行計出黎既一秒唔同,所以為左實際應用而作出調教
但係一秒都係用石英震盪次數來計

paolo.forest 2006-6-30 16:54

good!! ~~~

good709394 2006-6-30 19:31

[quote]原帖由 [i]yman26[/i] 於 2006-6-30 12:33 PM 發表


唔岩
一秒係defined by石英震盪
that is definition
你可以查下

至於你所講既天體調教
純粹因為石英震盪既一秒同天體運行計出黎既一秒唔同,所以為左實際應用而作出調教
但係一秒都係用石英震盪次數 ... [/quote]

OIC~~

[url]http://www.stdtime.gov.tw/Time/time/second.htm[/url]

好奇心問下
時間定到最準
當地球自轉快左/慢左會有咩影響?

joencc 2006-7-1 01:06

[quote]原帖由 [i]good709394[/i] 於 2006-6-30 07:31 PM 發表


OIC~~

[url]http://www.stdtime.gov.tw/Time/time/second.htm[/url]

好奇心問下
時間定到最準
當地球自轉快左/慢左會有咩影響? [/quote]

你意思係唔係問:假設時間的量度標準穩定不變,以此基準量度地球的自轉速度。當地球自轉速度增加/減少,會產生什麼現象?

如果地球自轉速度增加,由於向心力及慣性作用的抵消,地球的引力會減少,因而與月球的距離、圍繞太陽的軌道距離會增加。軌道距離增加,在軌道運行的速度會同時增加。因此每日的時間短了,而月與年的時間則視乎軌道行走的速度增加或減少。

再加上相對論,時空曲率因為引力減少而減少,即是地球上的時間流逝快了。

由於地球上的時間流逝快了,雖然自轉速度增加,但互相抵消(因為時鐘跑快了),一日還是有24小時。

(記得中學時好似亞SIR講過~)

noeyesee1 2006-7-5 01:14

By means of "Dynamics", I meant all sorts of dynamics, not just dynamics that concerning displacements only. We grew hair is a dynamics, we speak is a dynamics, anything that differ from the very previous instance of our universe generates a dynamics, as I defined previously.

If a universe exists without any dynamics at all, it is then, just exists. "Time" can still and always be implemented to this universe, however, has lost is meaning. Take for an example, we would like to describe an object "O" in the following way O={size,shape,color} (very very rough definition), but then if we want to describe O in a more precise manner such that
O={time,PosX,PosY,PosZ,size,shape,color}, and we would expect O to have different x,y,z coordinates (I assumed the usual 3 dimensional manifold hereby)  at different times. But then if I tell you that the object is a forever static, would these properties be too redundant to implement upon?

We are, of course, freely to add indefinitely as many properties as we can to perfect our description for O, but then it is easy to be seen that in this case, they are all redunant and unnecessary, or shall we say they are meaningless in regard to describing the object.

Please also be reminded that I also avoided to use the word "Exist" for "Time" since, this will implies "Time" has its physcial impression(s).
Instead I would suggest, "Time" is a dependable property of our universe"

(Someone in previous post quote : " We should focus on the nature on Time instead of questioning its existence")
That was also what I were trying to imply.

Back to "Time". Recall of what I suggested.
Lets assume our X is described as I were mentioned previously,
Xtj=[tj,N1,..,Nn,P1,...Pk,you,me,hers,my(hands),my(computer), my(...), his(...)........]

It is easy to be seen that all this "Times" (tj) would induces a subset of X, and if X is a metric spaces (in other words having the notion of "distance"), then we can start to talk about "How we could further quantifying time".


By means of quantifying time, I refer to how you we would count/denote/define time.
How old am I? 40 years and 6 days 10 hours 7 mins 65 secs ??? or
How old am I? 2000 sunsets old
How old am I? I am 10,000,000 paces old for each pace a 1/2 meter long
or even I am younger than my parents, my grandparents , my........... and older than A,B,C,D,.....
and I donot think anything wrong about it, do you?

Yet, why we always trying to precise "Time"? (From sundial to Quartz Virbations).

Quoted from somebody, "this is all about 'Forecasting'". Agree/Disagree? (I agree personally)
More precise we can define time imply more accruate we can be able to forecast, and so more we can expect results that we are expecting (fusions, econometrics, etc..) , and so more accurate to describe our universe.

To sum up, I agreed with what Lacolus's written, "we should put our focus on the nature of Time, not its existence";
Since, it is, as I suggested, merely one of the dependable properties of our universe.
How we would measure time is equivalent to how well we are denoting our universe and so to describe it.
Personally, I donot think even upto this moment of time, our time measure is good enough, it is only fair enough;
Since, (if it is a property of our universe) we donot exactly know where is the centre of our universe, nor its size, nor whether it is bounded.
With all these, how could we know the "Time" we are using is effective? We don't.
We just hope it works. So all this sciences we had developed up to this very moment, if it worked as we had been expecting, then we assumed it is OK or totally absurd otherwise. And yet, upto this very moment of time, we are still struggling whether our science that we had developed over centuries of times were utterly nonsense at the end. (the wellknown Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
Upto this moment of time, we are still using what we have on earth to develop a system to denote this property, a property that we donot own, and that is what I mean by fair enough. It is also maybe the reason of why we have some bizarre results when dealing with extreme time-space situation.
We can live without time certainly, (the property), however we are idle, so does our universe. So it is the necessary property that we have to bear with from our ever changing universe.
If one would agree that it is a dependable property of our universe, then we would not talk about its "existence" or it is equivalently to talk about whether "Character" exists or not, while it is merely a property to describe a person's nature. (in a sense)
If the universe donot exists at all (and yet we are still surviving), we can still, of course freely to denote the void with time, however, is this meaningful?

noeyesee1 2006-7-5 01:20

I withdrawn the statement:-

I am younger than my parents, my grandparents , my........... and older than A,B,C,D,.....
and I donot think anything wrong about it, do you?


since it is absurb, it is not a quantiative measure.

joencc 2006-7-5 17:31

[quote]原帖由 [i]noeyesee1[/i] 於 2006-7-5 01:20 AM 發表
I withdrawn the statement:-

I am younger than my parents, my grandparents , my........... and older than A,B,C,D,.....
and I donot think anything wrong about it, do you?


since it is absurb ... [/quote]

翻譯開始:

By means of "Dynamics", I meant all sorts of dynamics, not just dynamics that concerning displacements only. We grew hair is a dynamics, we speak is a dynamics, anything that differ from the very previous instance of our universe generates a dynamics, as I defined previously.
[color=Green]有關「動態」,意指所有的動態,不單只是指位置移動的動態。我們的頭髮生長是動態,我們說話是動態,任何在我們宇宙之中,比較早的一瞬間有所不同的,就會產生動態,即如我較早前定義一樣。[/color]

If a universe exists without any dynamics at all, it is then, just exists. "Time" can still and always be implemented to this universe, however, has lost is meaning. Take for an example, we would like to describe an object "O" in the following way O={size,shape,color} (very very rough definition), but then if we want to describe O in a more precise manner such that
O={time,PosX,PosY,PosZ,size,shape,color}, and we would expect O to have different x,y,z coordinates (I assumed the usual 3 dimensional manifold hereby)  at different times. But then if I tell you that the object is a forever static, would these properties be too redundant to implement upon?
[color=Green]當一個宇宙存在時不包含任何動態,那麼,它就僅是存在而已。「時間」依然可以,而且必能應用於這個宇宙,不過,已經失去意義。舉一個例子,我們形容一件物件 O ,如下:O = { 時間、X軸位置、Y軸位置、Z軸位置、體積、形狀、顏色 }(這只是很簡陋的定義)。當我希望描述 O 再精準一點,所以在 O = { 時間、X軸位置、Y軸位置、Z軸位置、體積、形狀、顏色 } 之中,我們會期待X軸位置、Y軸位置、Z軸位置(假設是我們常用的3維空間)會在不同的時間發生改變。假如我告訴你這物件是永恆不變的,難道你不會覺得將這些特性投放其上是多餘的嗎?[/color]

We are, of course, freely to add indefinitely as many properties as we can to perfect our description for O, but then it is easy to be seen that in this case, they are all redunant and unnecessary, or shall we say they are meaningless in regard to describing the object.
[color=Green]當然,為了完美地描述 O,我們任意加上多少特性也可以,但顯然易見,這情況之下是無必要且多餘的。我們可以說,描述這物件已經沒有意義。[/color]

Please also be reminded that I also avoided to use the word "Exist" for "Time" since, this will implies "Time" has its physcial impression(s).
Instead I would suggest, "Time" is a dependable property of our universe"
[color=Green]請留意我小心地避免使用「存在」來講述「時間」,而令「時間」彷彿有一些物理上的形象。我寧可建議,「時間」是我們宇宙中的一個可靠的屬性。[/color]

(Someone in previous post quote : " We should focus on the nature on Time instead of questioning its existence")
That was also what I were trying to imply.
[color=Green](有人在之前的貼文上寫道:比起研究的存在與否,我們應集中於時間的特性。)
這正是我打算做的。[/color]

Back to "Time". Recall of what I suggested.
Lets assume our X is described as I were mentioned previously,
Xtj=[tj,N1,..,Nn,P1,...Pk,you,me,hers,my(hands),my(computer), my(...), his(...)........]
[color=Green]回說「時間」,回想一下我曾提及的。假設我們的 X 如我前文描述的:Xtj=[tj,N1,..,Nn,P1,...Pk,you,me,hers,my(hands),my(computer), my(...), his(...)........]
(按:即是在一瞬間 tj 之中,X 是世界的總集合)[/color]

It is easy to be seen that all this "Times" (tj) would induces a subset of X, and if X is a metric spaces (in other words having the notion of "distance"), then we can start to talk about "How we could further quantifying time".
[color=Green]很容易你會發現所有的這些「時間」(瞬間 tj )都包括 X 的一部分。而當 X 是一個數理空間(換句話說是包含了距離的概念),那麼我們可以開始討論「我們可以如何量化時間」。[/color]

By means of quantifying time, I refer to how you we would count/denote/define time.
How old am I? 40 years and 6 days 10 hours 7 mins 65 secs ??? or
How old am I? 2000 sunsets old
How old am I? I am 10,000,000 paces old for each pace a 1/2 meter long
[color=Green]要說量化時間,我利用一下我們用來數算/指稱/定義時間的方法:
我年幾多大?40歲又6日10小時7分65秒?還是
我年幾多大?2000個日落了~
我年幾多大?我有 10,000,000 步老了,而每步有半米長。[/color]

Yet, why we always trying to precise "Time"? (From sundial to Quartz Virbations).
[color=Green]然而,為何我們經常渴望求得準確時間?(從日晷到石英震動)[/color]

Quoted from somebody, "this is all about 'Forecasting'". Agree/Disagree? (I agree personally)
More precise we can define time imply more accruate we can be able to forecast, and so more we can expect results that we are expecting (fusions, econometrics, etc..) , and so more accurate to describe our universe.
[color=Green]引用於某君,「這是由於「預測」」。同意嗎?(我個人同意)
我們將時間定義得愈是精準,我們就可以預測得更準確,而我們甚至可以預先得到我們期望的結果(溶合(按:是指合併嗎?)、經濟計量學等等),與及更準確的描述我們的宇宙。[/color]

To sum up, I agreed with what Lacolus's written, "we should put our focus on the nature of Time, not its existence";
Since, it is, as I suggested, merely one of the dependable properties of our universe.
How we would measure time is equivalent to how well we are denoting our universe and so to describe it.
Personally, I donot think even upto this moment of time, our time measure is good enough, it is only fair enough;
Since, (if it is a property of our universe) we donot exactly know where is the centre of our universe, nor its size, nor whether it is bounded.
With all these, how could we know the "Time" we are using is effective? We don't.
We just hope it works. So all this sciences we had developed up to this very moment, if it worked as we had been expecting, then we assumed it is OK or totally absurd otherwise. And yet, upto this very moment of time, we are still struggling whether our science that we had developed over centuries of times were utterly nonsense at the end. (the wellknown Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
Upto this moment of time, we are still using what we have on earth to develop a system to denote this property, a property that we donot own, and that is what I mean by fair enough. It is also maybe the reason of why we have some bizarre results when dealing with extreme time-space situation.
We can live without time certainly, (the property), however we are idle, so does our universe. So it is the necessary property that we have to bear with from our ever changing universe.
[color=Green]總結而言,我同意 Lacolus 君所寫的:「我地既思考方向應該係了解清楚'時間'既本質係乜,而唔係佢存唔存在。」而且,如我曾提及的,我們的宇宙並不只有一個可靠的屬性。我們如何量度時間,等於我們如何詮釋我們的宇宙,與及描述宇宙。

個人認為,到現在為止,我們的時間量度還未可以稱得上好,只配是合格而已。何況(當時間是我們宇宙的其一屬性),我們還未準確知道宇宙的中心在哪裡,不知道宇宙的大小,也不知道宇宙有沒有邊界。由此可見,我們如何知道我們正在使用的「時間」是有效的?我們不知道。我們只希望這是正確的。直到目前為止建立的所有科學,只有在時間一如我們所想的情況下才有效,否則可以全部推倒。然而,直到這一瞬間,我們仍然對我們數百年以來建立的科學是否一派胡言而掙扎(這是著名的 Heisenberg 不確定原理)。至今為止,我們依然源用我們在地球上的時間來產生一個詮釋這屬性的系統。這屬性不屬於我們,而這就是我所指的僅是合格。

這可能是我們在極端的「時空」情況下會出現奇異結果的原因。我們可以在不確定時間的情況下生存(指屬性),但我們會變成無目的的,就如宇宙一樣。因此,時間是我們面對不斷變化世界的一個必要屬性。[/color]

If one would agree that it is a dependable property of our universe, then we would not talk about its "existence" or it is equivalently to talk about whether "Character" exists or not, while it is merely a property to describe a person's nature. (in a sense)
If the universe donot exists at all (and yet we are still surviving), we can still, of course freely to denote the void with time, however, is this meaningful?
[color=Green]假如你同意時間是一個可靠的宇宙屬性,那麼我們就不可以論及時間的「存在性」,就如討論「性格」存在與否,而「性格」只是(某情況下)一個描述人類特質的一個屬性。

當宇宙並不存在(當然假設我們還是生還的),我們依然可以隨意詮釋時間的有效性。但是,這有意義嗎?[/color]


PS.嘩,我想收錢呀釋到。幾長呀~:smile_27::smile_27:

[[i] 本帖最後由 joencc 於 2006-7-6 09:49 AM 編輯 [/i]]

wing00 2006-7-8 12:14

時間係的確存在
但我地看到/知道的時間是之前一秒
一秒又是幾多......這只是前人黎說
60s=1min
60min=1hs
24hs=1day
這都是不定的,,所以我地感到1秒1秒過去,可能唔係

hoikittsang 2006-7-8 21:55

(只以現在而言)時間是有存在性的,因為無論怎樣抽取時間的後天,都沒有抽取時間的先天→時間是流動的,不會停止不前,這種特質就無可置疑地表示了時間有存在性的.

p.s. 我所指的"存在性"是指無論從概念(或理論)(或經驗)上,包括所有有形與無形的特質的存在.

lovinghsbc 2006-7-9 11:49

當大家討論的時侯, 可否給以下詞語一個定義?

1. 時間

2. 客觀存在

其實當大家講的定義唔同的時侯, 討論都會變得無意義.

gh748596 2006-7-18 12:51

時間確定係存在
你都可以話唔係....點解咁講呢
我覺得自有x宙大爆炸開始(我地先相信住x宙既存在係由於大爆炸所形成)
時間同空間同時就存在....話佢唔存在...只係可以話時間本身既名稱唔係叫時間
但我相信時間呢樣野本身既狀態係有係度

szthomas01 2006-7-20 05:39

你地講d野好學術性
我個人就好簡單  時間係代表左一個運行速度
例如人老既速度
當然我地對時間計算唔係新陳代謝速度
而係日月交換既速度
  好多時   我覺得
係人類對一d事物比個名咁架ja   好似爸爸點解要叫爸爸  媽媽點解要叫媽媽
時  分  秒  只係用我地既知道既概念比個名叫時間
  死火啦  打打下唔知自己打左咩.....希望有人睇得明>.<

joencc 2006-7-20 09:55

[quote]原帖由 [i]szthomas01[/i] 於 2006-7-20 05:39 AM 發表
你地講d野好學術性
我個人就好簡單  時間係代表左一個運行速度
例如人老既速度
當然我地對時間計算唔係新陳代謝速度
而係日月交換既速度
  好多時   我覺得
係人類對一d事物比個名咁架ja   好似爸爸點解要 ... [/quote]
你咁講唔係唔得,不過就混淆左時間同速度囉~

先唔好講相對論哩d將時間講到會變化的理論,講返日常生活。

比喻車速限80,即係點解?即係限制車輛速度唔可以超過每小時80公里。
哩度除左時間,仲有距離~

比喻一個杯麵要焗3分鐘,又係點解?即係倒完熱水望住個鐘等3分鐘過。
哩度就得返時間~見唔到速度。

我估你所講的「速度」,其實係指「變化的指標」。例如我比十年前的我老,例如太陽比一個小時前在更西方~我地睇到變化,就知道時間過左。

至於算唔算只係比左個名,我就認為唔止。我地應該係比左個「量度」時間,好似我地比個「量度」距離,叫做厘米、米、千米。點叫並不重要,點用先至緊要。

真鬼

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

真鬼

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

真鬼

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

真鬼

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

joencc 2006-7-23 17:59

[quote]原帖由 [i]真鬼[/i] 於 2006-7-23 02:24 AM 發表
差唔多再回應番joencc曾經舉過,
無時間, 片段就永遠播放唔到,
無時間, 汽油就唔可以一點一點的分開使用

其實有呢個諗法,
只係忽視左"片段可以播放", 同"汽油可以一點一點分開使用"既基 ... [/quote]

我記得響有一篇講相對論的討論入面,lovinghsbc 君引用過愛因斯坦同霍金的原裝句子,話時間要由觀察者都證實。

閣下的水樽說法其實又係差唔多。我地響水樽之外時間流動,並唔可以證明水樽入面時間同樣流動。唯一的方法係放個表入去,我地先可以知道水樽入面時間一樣流動。不過再講極端d,我地只可以證明時間響個青度發生作用,亦證明唔到水樽入面個空間有時間。

至於播片同攤分汽油,其實係指有一個活動。活動亦係一種變化,而只有有時間先至容許變化發生。

我好明白要證明「時間」存在會變成循環論證:有時間先會容許變化,觀察到變化就證明有時間。等於我地要證明「長度」存在,證明「存在」存在,都會流於循環論證。可以咁睇,「時間」、「長度」、「存在」都只係一種現象,而我地要說明哩d現象,首先要界定佢。響觀察發現有合乎界定的東西出現,我地就可以說明該現象是真有的。
頁: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
查看完整版本: 時間既存在性