Welcome to Fractal Forums

  I apologize, my english isn´t really good, let´s try.
  What about the fractal nature of time?
  We know that a year is a standard time measure, but we see months , weeks and days, too, all natural time periods.
  This lies on cosmic motion, and we know that the sun himself is moving too, around Sirius, I think, this means that there are also bigger natural  time divisions.
   This all means for me that time has a fractal nature, time is geometry, if time is geometry, theres no start and no end.
   I´m really lost?
   I would like to hear your viewpoints.

Maybe you're about right. Time is often considered geometry, e.g. 'the geometry of space-time' where both can warp and bend.
The year, month, days etc are orbital periods, which increase with size, and since there is a (perhaps fractal) spread of sizes, it follows that there are a range of orbital periods.

i don't see anything fractal-ish in time.
Having different words to define different duration of an event doesn't change anything

if time is geometry, theres no start and no end. <- what ?  :hmh:

PS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Personally I do not believe in "time" as a "dimension" - I would say it is simply the consequence and/or definition of change/s of state (the change/s of state probably being analogous to iteration or rather iterations - many separate simultaneous and asynchronous ones).
Under that model/definition then the nature of time is most definitely fractal-related ;)
If that's the case then you may ask - "Then what's the 4th dimension ?" and I'd say unnamed but most definitely related to mass/gravity etc. and probably analogous to the normal 3 spatial dimension such that a "rotation" causes conversion of mass <-> energy......
But then again I'm not a physicist - in fact I never got any formal qualifications beyond "A" level ;) However my 2nd cousin did point me at a paper along the above lines but it was a little "above his head" and he's a fundamental particle physicist currently studying electron clouds so I didn't spend much time trying to decipher it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass)

So planck mass is not smallest possible mass.

i thought plank is the name for the smallest time interval?

I am not a physicist, but I think it Planck is the name of a few things. I didn't know it applied to mass, but the ones I knew of where length and time. Anything smaller than the planck length doesn't really make sense anymore (chaotic space?) and the same applies to time (smallest unit of time that  still makes sense?).

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae281.cfm

the idea behind the three basic planck units (mass, time, length) is, to unify the three units. all planck units are products or quotients of powers of  the reduced planck constant, the gravitational constant and the speed of light. setting theese constants to 1 makes it possible to express all three units with one unified unit for example eV.

the planck units (maybe except mass - it's pretty big) represent the lower limit of reasonable evidence. this does not meaen that there is no sense below - we only can't say anything about.
in quantum field theories, everything below those units is full of unpredictable fluctuations, which can be seen as some sign of "fractalish" structure, but this can also be due to the assumption of infinitely small (0-dimensional) particles. in string theories, where particles are made of 1-dimensional strings, those fluctuations do not occur. (see brian greene "the elegant universe" for a very vivid description)

To me, it´s an evidence, any observable phenomena has a cyclic nature, and cyclic means recursive.
There´s strong evidence that ancient cultures understood the fractal nature of time.
 Ancient people had a vital need of knowing when rains will come to their countries, I don´t know about native americans, but is well know that natives around the world guide themselves trough cyclic time.
  That´s why they create the Zodiac, the most impressive human achievement, imagine a clock with seven needles, and each position of each needle has  a definite meaning related to weather, I know, it sounds strange, but there´s still in the spanish market an annual prediction of weather done 1 year in advance,this prediction it´s always correct and it´s based in Astrology, even if the founder was astronomer.
    Peolple that lives in the country  uses the first 12 days of August to have a glimpse of the next 12 months, in south america they use the first 12 days of January, this is based in the idea of fractal time.

at the moment ;)

Any thing has width, length,  height and time, if things had not an extension in time, they should dissapear, so, time is a dimension, moreover, the mentioned dimensions are interchangeable, this means that they are of the same nature, geometry.
   You can say that the next village is  at a distance of 1 hour, or 1 km., time and space are interchangeable.
   Maybe you know Pulfrich movies, these can be viewed in relief only by placing a dark filter in front of an eye, what happens is that light speed is reduced in the darkened eye, creating a discrepancy between the images received by each eye,thus creating the stereoscopycal effect, what has happened is that time has become space.

Just a comment: the Planck units does not mean that time or space is quantized or made discrete. Positions are not restricted to a high resolution grid, and time does not proceed in small steps. At least not according to the two main theories that define modern physics: general relativity (which describes gravity) and the standard model (a quantum field theory describing all other forces). Here time and space form a continuum. Several theories have been put forth suggesting a discrete and quantised spacetime, but there is no experimental support for any of them.

So I think it is safe to say that nothing suggests that time or space exhibit an intrinsic fractal structure.

Of course an object or phenomenon might display fractal properties in space or time. For instance, I could imagine a audio waveform showing self-similarity over many different time scales.

I mean that if time is geometry, the BigBang theory and a lot of associated concepts are purely imaginary, just like Plank units

  Fractal nature of time is what justifies  old sayings like Bible´s " Wheels inside wheels" can anyone give a better description of fractal cicles?
  the other is "As above, so is below" pure fractal thinking.

   I was sure that fractals were discovered by Mandelbrot until I learned a bit more, the fact is that fractals are well known long time ago.
 I had 10-12 years when I did a lot of drawings around the fractal tree below, I was fascinated by the way things fell at place following so simple rules, later I learned to do the same with more tridimensional shapes, ie. truncated cones, forming branches and sub branches.
   If 10-12 years old boy could perceive such relationships, what can have done full civilizations based in Geometric knowledge such as Babylon, Egypt, etc, I find it logical that they kenw and use fractals in their lives.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/7120885085_78caaac059.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79496297@N03/7120885085/)
fractaltree (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79496297@N03/7120885085/) por LLeonet (http://www.flickr.com/people/79496297@N03/), en Flickr

Let me write it before it eludes me.
 Take a big cycle, a year for instance, this can be considered as a expansion-contraction process, right? half of the year things expand and contract the other half.
  We can see the same thing if we consider a month, the moon increases and decreases in this time.
  And if we take a day, there´s the same scheme, it expands until half-day and contracts the other half.
  But there are also other expansion-contraction cycles, mainly the hearth motion, and the breathing motion, these are fractal derivatives, we are talking about a fractal process extended from smaller living things to galaxies.
  Also think about breathing as a natural time measure, and you will face a totally different idea of the cosmos we live in.
  

   Suppose you are an alien that has just landed on earth, you know nothing about the planet nor his inhabitants.
   You are near some buildings, a church and a prison.
   So, you take your Laser gun and blow them to pieces, you want to find the smaller component of the buildings because you think you will discover everything about them this way.
    Finally you find the smallest component, a brick, and you decide that you know that buildings are originated by bricks, so you develop a theory around bricks evolving, etc.
    You´ll never know what the buildings were, what was his function, you´ll never know the difference between a church and a prison "Studying" bricks.
      And this is all, if someone comes and explains you that the origin of the buildings was AN IDEA, you´ll never believe him because you KNOW that buildins are built by bricks.

all your considerations share one weakness. you declare the frame to be equal to the image.
would you say, the plane is fractal, just because a 2d fractal shows up on that plane?
i would not!

regards ;D

I´m sorry, english is not my native language, and in the school I learned french, so I have learned a bit by reading things in the net and there is a lot of things I miss.
    Can you explain your viewpoint a bit more? I can´t imagine why you say this.

Things can have a fractal distribution in time, such as earth's orbit (year), moon's orbit (month), earth's spin (day). That doesn't mean that time itself is fractal.
There is a thread you might like, about the idea of dynamic fractals: http://www.fractalforums.com/ifs-iterated-function-systems/fractally-animating-fractals/


Les chose peut avoir une distribution fractal en temps, comme l'orbite de le terre (un an), l'orbite du lune (un mois), le circulation de la terre (jour). Ca ne veut dire que le temps lui meme est fractal. (Pardon le mal Francais)
Il y a un thread(?) que vous pourrez aimer, en sujet du l'idee de les fractals dynamique: http://www.fractalforums.com/ifs-iterated-function-systems/fractally-animating-fractals/

Thanks for the explanation, Tglad.
 Well, first of all someone must define what is time other than cosmic  motion, because if time is created by cosmic motion, it can´t exist as a frame for time, that´s obvious.
  The reference frame is always relative, a year is a reference frame for our lives, but is also referred to a bigger frame, let´s say one cycle of the sun around Sirius an so on,.
That´s it, in a fractal construct, each level is the reference frame for the following level, since our perception is somewhat locked to Three dimensions, if we move up or down, we lost one dimension and gain another.
  Being the Universe a fractal construct it have no start and no end, there can´t  be a reference frame for time created by time itself, it´s impossible.

   But ancient cultures had solved this problem long time ago, time being some kind of unperceived geometry for us, they placed this geometry in a reference frame: Eternity.
   Eternity means an Ethernal Now from this viewpoint, all things are and happen Now, but we can´t perceive such a construct being locked to 3 dimensions and need time to preceive such a complex universe, just like you need time to visit a city, even ifthe whole city exists in full right now.

 

 Hi, I can´t follow the full reasoning in this thread but I understand that time is the key to show life, in fact I´m interested in create some animations around this idea, being a living fractal the ultimate purpose, so, If you have any ideas, I will be glad to make the animations.
   Many thanks for the french translation, it´s really kind from your part.

If current theories are true, time does indeed have a beginning  (not sure about an end).  Time started with The Big Bang because under such strong gravity, time was "stopped" or essentially non-existent.

The notion of "before" that is meaningless.  To ask about "before time began" is a contradiction because the word "before" implies the passage of time, and therefore one can not sensibly discuss time passing when it is either stopped or non-existent.

A bit hoopy, but it's an ancient argument dating back to St. Augustine when asked what god was doing before he made The Universe, and has withstood "The Test Of Time"  

From my viewpoint, time being a condition of our perception, can´t be related in any way with the beginning of the Universe.

We know that the scale goes to infinity in both directions, up and down, so, we can´t imagine the true shape or size of the Universe.
The BigBang theory (it´s a theory), it´s based in the fact that the Universe is expanding, but anything in this Universe expands and contracts alternatively, so, we can assume that we are witnessing the expansive phase of something, thinking fractally, the breathing of a Living Universe.
I will believe in the BigBang theory when you show me a man that was a kid that exploded.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell those who say "Evolution is only a theory" - So is Gravity, but I don't see you jumping out of any buildings, and nothing ever falls up when I drop it.

It may be only a theory, but it's the best explanation we have.


Most cultures have Creation Mythology.  In all of them, The Universe is brought into being from nothingness.  The Cyclical Universe of endless expansion/contraction scenarios still allows for a beginning of time and the distinct fact that while it is possible to speculate about things on either side of our current cycle, nothing meaningful can be said about those states of being.  Thus the assertion that discussing such things is meaningless.

Fun.

But meaningless.  

Nothing can be proven, or even examined, about such things.  It's all idle speculation which amuses and provokes thought, but it's a dead end.

I will agree with you in most parts but not to the "dead end" conclusion.

The best proof for the big bang theory was found by a micro wave background radiation coming from all directions of the universe.
It fits perfectly because this light was predicted by the theory when the density of the universe decreased after a short time after the "bang" so photons could travel between the matter.
We can now in the present receive this light, so presence is connected with the past, that is why cosmology reveals so much about the past.

Science is much more intersting and living than most people guess, i guess.
 :beer:

   The BigBang model doesn´t fit with any human experience, exactly the same happens with the Evolution theory, this only is enough to take care.
"As above, so is below", this is the guide for a fractal Universe like ours, that´s always been called analogy.
    And, while there are analogies for a breathing universe, there aren´t for an exploding universe, if you understand fractals you must see it, all living things expand and contract, but no living things explode, seems strange to have to say such things.
    And is strange because you and me know that nothing coherent can result from an explosion, try it a million times but you´ll never obtain a cathedral blowing up a bunch of rocks.
     So, to say that it´s the best explanation we have   sounds very strange, since there are better explanations from more than 2000 years ago.   

The "dead end" I mentioned was the big bang.  In theory we can study events virtually up to it, but absolutely nothing before it.


"As above, so is below" is a statement used in religious dogma, I have never heard it used in any serious Scientific argument.

The so-called better explanations from more than 2000 years ago do not hold up to analysis. 

And yes, there are living things that explode.  That's how many spores spread.

Remember the fractal analogy you are using - if the formula is bad, no patterns emerge.  Given the right formula though ...   :mandel:

Similar to the language barrier, yes.  :dink:

Maybe we will find information that give us more insight, but for now the beginning seems to be also the start of time and space itself.

So the big-bang is not an explosion in spacetime but more an explosion of time and space itself.


You would not call scientists humans?

 :rotfl:

Well, let´s go back to the main idea, the fractal nature of time.
 Hindú music is based in harmonics, this means that each note contains a full scale, and each note of this inner scale contains a new full scale and so on, to our ears it sounds monotonous, but hindús can perceive those inner scales and found this music full of beauty.
 This is another proof that ancient people knew and use fractals, troath chants with harmonics can be also found in Mongolia,Armenia, and some other countries.
  But  even the Bolero from Ravel has a fractal structure.
  So, time has been "fractalized" in music long time ago.
 

I think you are mistaking the canvas for the painting.  If anything, your argument demonstrates that music has been "fractalized" in time long time ago -  Not the other way around.

exactly what i tried to say earlier in this thread.
without doubt every natural fractal has a time component. clouds for example do not appear instantly, they appear over time. and further the form of a cloud strongly depends on how long it took to sculpt. but nothing in this cloud can tell anything about time itself. in simple words: clouds depend on time - time does not depend on clouds!  ;D

Agreed.  The notion of fractal vs plane seemed to cause confusion, so I tried that phrasing.

And stereoman - I should take a moment to point out that I like your enthusiasm for this, and respect your persistence.

I'm just not at all convinced  (yet).  I'm open to the idea, and if you can devise an argument consistent and unambiguous enough - I'll be the first to admit the possibility. 

Time is, at it's most fundamental level, mysterious and not fully understood.  So I do not deny that you *may* be right. 

But due to the subtle distinction between Things Distributed In Time, and Time Itself, you have a Monumental Task before you!

Remember : Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof!

I don't think stereoman is trying to make a scientific argument - only an observation. To say that nothing can be learned about time from watching a cloud - then how was special relativity conceived? Did Einstein see time? No. He saw light and deduced the connection between space and time. We don't get to see the canvas. That said, Stereoman has a lot of math to do before being taken as seriously as Einstein.

And I think the same,you are mistaking the canvas for the painting, what ancient people manipulated was time, not music, music is a way to structure time.

OK I will try, but let me say one thing, All it´s Geometry, if I were where you are, I would see what you see, but if you were where I am, you would see what I see.

You´re right, I talk about what I see, I can´t do the maths, but here are a lot of people that can, What I can do is to explain what I see because I´ve been trained for this, from an artist´s viewpoint, it´s really interesting to discover that "fractalism" is hidden behind a lot of art forms, like the Matrioskas from Russia, the nested puppets.
  Or behind the gothic cathedrals, The hindú temples and a lot of artwork playing with mirrors, I even heard of a room covered by small mirrors and lighted with candles with millions of reflections, this must have been something amzing to see, and this all was done by ancient artist that understood the fractal nature of this Universe.

  C´mon.
  One day, a man told to others that Earth was circling around the sun, it was so difficult to believe such a thing that, even today we talk as if the sun moved around us.
   It´s the same with time, all your assumptions are based in the passing of time, but, acording to Einstein, Time is Geometry, and Geometry can´t flow, Time, as space, can´t pass.
    Then follows that we move trough time.
     And this changes all.

     Take two cities, linked by a road, our perception is a car in this road, leaving th first city, at this moment, the other city is in the future of the car, while the road is simultaneously in the two cities, and is there ever, the only time that can be measured is the time taken by the car in his displacement, if there´s no car, there´s no measureable time.
      So, it follows that passing time is a condition of our perception, let´s say, our perception turns unperceived space into time for us, but time itself its only space.


       I will follow, but I would like to hear you before.

Wow - 4 posts in a row!

But I am still nowhere near convinced.


I can't agree with that at all.  Music has zero effect on time.  Sorry.

Time exhibits absolutely no fractal properties that we can observe.  Time is geometry, but not all geometry is fractal.

In music I see time as the "iterator" - nothing more.  Fractals need iterations but those iterations are not fractal.  Iterations create fractals, but are not themselves fractal (The Creator does not create itself).

If I were to try and structure an argument in favor of the fractal nature of time I would leave out any units of time which we can measure and focus on durations below the Heisenberg Limit.  It is said that much weirdness happens in those tiny intervals of time.

Sounds like a better place to seek chaos than any units of time we can observe.

There is just few shure known physical processes who deffinetely are fractal;)

Hofstadter's butterfly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_butterfly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_butterfly)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Hofstadter%27s_butterfly.png/220px-Hofstadter%27s_butterfly.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Gplot_by_Hofstadter.jpg/220px-Gplot_by_Hofstadter.jpg)

and
Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser tori
(http://www.jstor.org/literatum/publisher/jstor/journals/content/philscie/2003/phos.2003.70.issue-2/375472/production/images/small/fg7.gif)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Arnold%E2%80%93Moser_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Arnold%E2%80%93Moser_theorem)

Well, I will stop it here, it has been my fault, I had some idea, but without mastering the language this only can lead to confussion.

IMHO only time being fractal would be a jewish religious time. Week have seven days with the weekend - sabbath at the end. After 6 years, seventh is considered sabbath year, and 7x7= 49th year is some supersabbath year. So according to religious laws, land must go fallow in each 7th (sabbath) year.

Not a physical time, but still somewhat fractal concept;)

      Hi all, this is to announce that I´ve started a series of animations around the time geometry concept in my site.
      I hope I´m not spamming, but I don´t want to upload this stuff to YouTube or any other site , at least until the whole series be finished.
      But people here interested in this thread can find it interesting enough, I think.
      I´ve done it in spanish language, but images are self explanatory most of time.
      The first animation can be found in the page labeled NOVEDADES.
      I hope my viewpoints will be clearly exposed, maybe then we can share some toughts.
      Best to all.
      my site.  www.sargodeatargatis.es

--again, I bring up an old topic, but I don't think everything has been said, so here I go again
and after all, if time IS fractal, than it's just natural that similar shape--..topics come up from ..ehh.. time to time  -- ;)

Stereoman, I totally share your view and don't think you're lost but on the exact correct path.
I think that most scientists (and many users here) focus too much on the pure science and what can be directly seen&measured, or on what is the current "accepted view of reality".
Don't let the usual blocks and barriers (that the micro-view on fractals of most people produce), discourage yourself!

I certainly don't mean to offense to "most people" with a different view! This is just my personal opinion - after all discussions would be quite boring if everyone thought the same ;) )

I believe that "fractal thinking" needs to go even further - but you have to sharpen your view and be open to recognize the fractal patterns in things that are not optical. And then, it's not easy to explain these thing scientifically - at least for me.
I would for example say that the way my cat leaves the house everyday and the different choices are clearly fractal branching, influenced by external circumstances. But I'm not the kind of guy who is able to explain this in a 100% agreeable way (if that is possible at all).

Would you mind giving an update, where is your thinking at the moment, about two years later? (I'm german and can't speak spanish, the videos on your site that I can find won't load..)

If you really think that, what exactly are we doing in this forum? Isn't this sentence in a way the essence of fractals??

If we stay in the analogy: the fully zoomed out mandelbrot, zoomed out so far that you only see an evanescent point, a singularity - the zoom in is the big bang. I don't see any contradictions here..

Cheers everybody!

Never a problem bumping an old discussion if you have something to add to it!  I have difficulty understanding forums who make rules about re-visiting old topics.


I do really think what I said!  I draw a distinct line between Mathematical Constructs, and the Universe we live in.  While fractals display such self-similarity on an infinite scale, I whole-heartedly deny the existence of anything infinite in the real world.  

Not for lack of any proof - infinity by it's very nature can never be proven  (or disproven!), but simply based on what I choose to believe due to my lifetime of observations.

There are things in the world which seem to follow fractal rules in their structure, but they are quite finite.  That's the distinction I am trying to draw - the difference between Fractals as a mathematical construct, and real-world objects built with a fractal-like structure.  The two are not identical.  

While, as you say, this concept is in a way the essence of fractals, fractals do not exist in the real world.  Time does.  This imposes certain restrictions on the nature of time, foremost of which is that it cannot be infinite because that would be extending a mathematical construct from a purely mental exercise to a real world thing.

My argument is equally nonsensical, faith-based, and unprovable as it's opposite.  Neither one is a topic that can be reduced any further than opinions, intuitions, and guesses.

But this way of seeing things is the world view that makes the most sense to me, and the way I choose to perceive things.

I have no issues with others holding whatever world views they like; however, I do reject all world views incompatible with my own  (to do otherwise would be self contradictory!).

As for what exactly we are doing in this forum...  We are discussing and playing with those mathematical constructs I mentioned to make Art and possibly draw some understanding of The Universe in the process.  

It's possible to make a case for fractal structure of space-time at small scales, as Laurent Nottale does in his book "Scale relativity and fractal space-time -- a new approach to unifying relativity and quantum mechanics" with some reasonable arguments and no shortage of physics. Whether it leads to anything, I don't know, but it can't be dismissed just by arguing that space-time is fixed and things happen within it, because theoretical physicists are far from unanimous about that. More generally, to say that space and/or time "is" fractal tells you nothing without specifics.

perfectly acceptable!
I'm just starting to finally find my way and to make sense of "all this", without anyone(religion, school, tv etc) telling me but only through my personal observations - and in the center of these observations, are (not by my choice) the things that I use to call fractals.

which brings me to an obviously pretty important point.
I get the impression that everyone seems to describe and define fractals in a different way. I realized this just some hours ago, reading through the "fractals in nature"-section here, in one thread there were like 5 totally different definitions of what the word "fractal" descibes for the individual. (sorry, I don't find that thread now)

For you an important point seems to be the infinity that pure, mathematical fractals have.

For me, it doesn't need all mathematical properties 100% to call something fractal.
Self similarity, branching, spirals.. each of these for me are typical for fractals and having only one of them is enough for me to call something "sort of fractal" ;)
I guess you wouldn't..
But that's probably "simply" a meaning of finding a congruent language to describe things..
For me, "fractal" is the family name. Branching, self similarity, spirals, infinty- these are the children or individuals that couldn't exist without the family. And I know they belong to that family when I see them.

I second that. I understand your distinction.
I think that mathematical fractals are perfect fractals.

Natural fractals are "imperfect".
I'm starting to think that natural fractals are multifractal(?) meaning that the variables of the equations themselves change in a "fractal", self similar way, especially when external forces come into play
A perfect example might be evolution. With fractal branching and self similarity, responding to external influences like meteorites and friends ;)

Thank you for sharing!
I was a little afraid of the reactions that my opinion/observations might provoke. But your open answer shows that everyone is somewhat alone out there, trying to make sense of all this.
And although we might see/define things different your answer made me feel good. :) not really what I was expecting.  :happy:

Regards!

ps: thank you xenodreambambulious ;) for focussing on the topic and pointing out 'high brain' evidence. (I'm serious now!) but my brain isn't made for this stuff. I have to be satisfied with my (very!) limited math/physics-knowledge and focus instead on my observations and gut-feelings.
To see that 'serious scientists' are backing some of that stuff is great, even if I could never understand their explanations.

Hi Chillheimer, glad to find anyone who can understand me, it´s really hard.
So, this is for you, (and for the rest of you all, bunch of materialists) :crazyeyes:

As far as I've seen, what we call fractals, is the sixth dimension of things.
As we know, a point, generates a line, a line, generates a plane, a plane generates a solid.
But this solid needs to have some extension in time in order to be there, tomorrow, an the next year, the fourth dimension.
We call this, the line of time, yesterday- today- tomorrow, due to time-space geometry, this line follows a curved path,a circle, thus creating the perception plane, where we live, the second dimension of time, and the fifth dimension of space.
But also due to cosmic motion, (the earth following the Sun, the Sun following Sirius and so on) this circular path, with its associated plane, becomes a spiral, this is the third dimension of time, the sixth dimension of space.
Notice that our brains can just perceive three dimensions at a time, and because "As above is below", and the Universe has a fractal, that is, iterative, structure, we can understand what we can´t see trough what we actually see, ie. by analogy, we see that the structure o time (wich we can´t see) must follow the structure of space (wich we see clarly)
Let's see it this way.
Take a 3D pic of a man sitting in a chair.
This image has three dimensions and some extension of time, but this is not enough, nothing happens.
Now we look at the same scene in video, now we have a definite amount of time in the three dimensional scene, but still nothing happens, there's no amount of time enough to change anything.
This means that the fourth dimension is geometry, is time-space,
But for something to happen, we need something more, something that can't be found in the fourth dimension as we have seen.
We need options, this is the fifth dimension.
Now think about a video game in 3D, it has the three dimensions of space, and the three dimensions of time, the game need some amount of time to be played, the fourth dimension, the game has options, without this, we have a 3d movie, but with options we enter a new dimension, literally,since this is the basis of the play.
And here comes the sixth dimension, be patient.
The sixth dimension allows us to play again each time we want, the sixth dimension, as we saw, is the iterative process which allows us to learn from the game and eventually, master it.
Physically, the movie you see in the screen, needs a screen to be seen, this comes from an absolute different dimension than the movie itself.
The commands that allow you to play the game, don't belong to the same dimension tan the monitor where you are playing, or, better said, they symbolize different dimensions.
       

So fractals show us the sixth dimension of things, fractals occur trough time, but are geometry, space.
Iteration is the main fractal process, seen through time, is always a spiral, self repeating ad infinitum.

The full seven dimensional scheme is called a kosmos, wich, in turn, is part of a fractal theme wich includes the macroKosmos, tritoKosmos, and microKosmos, according to ancient greeks, also know as "El heptacordo de Apolo" by romans, the seven chords instrument of Apollo.

                  It seems to me that there´s an unnoticed inner failure that must be seen.
                 According to general knowledge, the science must discover  the inner laws of the world, for this to be posible, inner laws must exist.
                 But, also according to some "science",there can´t be laws in a world created by an explosión, the fractal structure of our cosmos makes it imposible , since fractals means laws and order.
                  Kaos is the original state of things, or things, before the existence of the kosmos, or maybe, besides it.out of it., kosmos means order.

                  The idea of an Universe created by an explosión, destroys science, destroys all the science known by man, wich was based in the existence of God, whose laws we can learn trough science.
                   There are laws in our kosmos, and they AREN´T, accidental, there are not accidental laws anywhere in the Universe.

Maybe there are not really any Laws at all.   O0

These so called "Laws" are still just a really strong Hypothesis, nothing more.  That's why there are so very few of them,  Physics is mostly full of Theorems, Principles, and Tendencies - much more so than Laws.

It's impossible to prove any Law will hold for All Cases as it would take more time than ever was, is, or will be.  Even the alleged Laws Of Physics break down in a Singularity, so there is your exception to the rule, re-introducing Chaos to The Universe at the Very High Iterations of Gravity one finds beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

I see no paradox given that the Laws you are objecting to arising from Chaos break down at a certain point and become meaningless.  They really only apply to The Universe we experience, not to The Rest Of The Universe   :ugly:

    we are born and live under laws and nobody can avoid them, I can´t understand your viewpoint, seriously.
    I don´t talk about words, but true laws, it´s a law you must eat to live, and therés really few things you can do about it.
    And so on, the  full Universe exist because of the laws , and where there´s no laws, there is kaos, the opposite to kosmos, there´s no point on this.

These "Laws" don't apply to all things and under all circumstances, so they are really more like guidelines than anything else.  Life is a special case and is so rare in the observable universe that in can be ignored as statistically inconsequential.

Rocks don't need to eat to exist, only that strange - even Chaotic - thing we call Life.

The Laws that structure the universe break down and are not Universal.  In my view this invalidates them and they cannot properly be called Laws at all.

But this is an old argument and has been carried out by people far smarter than either of us, and no conclusion has been agreed upon.   I see Chaos far more than Order in The Universe, especially in those places where The Standard Model of Physics breaks down and stops making sense.

Remember, the Laws under which we are forced to exist are only local - they vary in other parts of the universe, thus : Chaos   O0

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83988592@N07/11846156884/

Once, G.I Gurdjieff , told P. Ouspensky the following sentence : "Time is Breath".
  By reference to the approximately 3 seconds it takes the human breathing apparatus and using a factor of 300,000 as multiplier and divider , obtained the figures in the following table .
  The factor is set as a valuable difference from zero to infinity , and is not random at all.
  What the numbers show is that there is an effective relationship between the time of breathing and other times we can measure or references we have , for example, for the Protocosmos times , we find almost exactly the same periods  Hindus attribute to respiration of Brahma, Brahma 's dream , or Brahma´s lifetime .
    These times are also found below the human level. shows an interconnection of all levels of absolutely organic type , to confirm this , note the blue lines indicate logarithmic spirals , the spiral of life .
     The system of the cosmos is not a free invention, it is a way of knowing where we are in an absolutely indescribable universe, levels within levels of " wheels within wheels " because, " As above , so below ."
    Ouspensky numbers have been arranged in this chart so that they make visible internal logarithmic spirals . What we see here is the vibration of life trough the nested structure of the kosmos
     Notice that levels below man have too short lifespan to be perceived, this left the traditional seven cosmos scheme.
    
    

Ancient philosophy distinguishes very clearly between kosmos and chaos, at the origin , is chaos, and is the power of intelligence that creates order out of chaos , creating a kosmos .
      Therefore, no one denies the existence of chaos, but it is not a place where a man can live .
      Nor is the basis for anything, so that something makes sense , should be taken out from the crowd and led to the kosmos .
      And there aren´t kosmos without laws , laws define it  .
      Are you sure that the laws that control us are not universal ? , I do not think so, but that idea is diametrically opposed to what fractals show , namely , that the same laws apply up and down. That is precisely the value of the judgment.
      Using logic and common sense along with geometry , it becomes clear that we are not only under a series of laws , we are under many sets of laws , and that indicates we are well down this structure, notes that those under all laws have to suffer more than others, those who are in prison, for example because they live under more laws than you. While other live under less laws.
       Suppose continuity of vibrations, is what says the experience , there can´t be different original laws , there is only one law , to grow and multiply , is generating successive levels of laws , there can´t be anywhere a universe with different laws , I I say this , and you can not prove otherwise , then your argument is irrelevant .
        But let's imagine that there is a universe with different laws , how  does that affect me? , I have to live under these laws, deny , or deny the laws its quality only means that I don´t know where I live , because the laws continue to operate .
       One last point , life is not a special case at all , life is everywhere we look, we've never seen anything that is not alive , that this universe is a living entity,  where do otherwise would come life? .

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9WvBKAK2S9kRMHng5XrPeQ

Take a look at the "Corpo transparente" clip.
Of course, there´s kaos OUTSIDE of the kosmos.

You do realize that you claim most of what I say can not be proven, then make equally unsupportable claims yourself, right?  Who says the universe is alive?  I'd love to see any quantifiable evidence you may have to support that theory.

The laws of physics do indeed break down in areas around and inside black holes.  This is a logical consequence of The Standard Model of Physics, and to deny it means throwing out that model.  It's one of the biggest problems in Cosmology and to dismiss it would require Extraordinary Proof!

And I hate to break your bubble, but life is only prevalent on this one tiny, insignificant, planet.  No life has been found anywhere else in the universe and therefore it is statistically insignificant.

In fact, if one accepts that the universe is infinite, it can be argued that life does not exist anywhere at all.  Consider : In an infinite universe with life existing on any finite number of planets you wind up with a finite number being divided by infinity to determine the ratio of inhabited worlds to uninhabited worlds.

Now, any finite number divided by infinity is always zero and therefore there is no life in the universe at all and any people you happen to meet along the way are merely the product of a deranged imagination.

Sokratease, tell me, when you go to see an exhibition, you spend the time looking at the empty spaces?

Most likely,we both live in different worlds, since the real world is the inner world, this said, I can only say that MY universe is a living being.
     Judging by your words, yours, no.
     What each man sees must be real.  ( or not ?)
    Anyway, I agree with you in one thing, matter does not exist, but this left spirit alone :dink:

Though chaos and order are hard subjects, I think life in general only adds to the chaos. Just look around. Possible all things that start with some kind of nucleus (rivers, bubbles, rain, drops, cracks, cells, crystals, solidification points, embryos, ideas, molecules, stars, galaxies, dunes, flowers, etc) do stand out of the rest of their environment. This brings more diversity in the totality, which I see as chaos. Think of a room with stuff, neatly (humanly) ordered and sorted. Then grind everything to dust and spread evenly. Regardless of the universe around it and even it's own history (of energy flows) ... which situation will qualify as more chaotic ?

Can't we just say that if space is fractal, then time must be the same (since it technically *is* the same) ... ?

About "true laws" ... probably no such thing. Almost every law ever invented or discovered turned out to be just a statistical high probability. How many real laws of nature are left anyway?

Have you ever heard about "gnomon" ?

Just the opposit is correct. I would go so far to state that all physical processes are fractal!
The problem is that we have good mathematics for linear processes, for which we can give solutions.
For non linear processes the number of solutions decreases rapidly.

Time on the scale of our daily live is flat and not fractal!

This changes drasticaly if one goes to the scale of partical physics.
Then the fundamental law of energie and time uncerenty take control over time and space.



If time is very small can become very big until particles out of nothing can apear for a very short amount of time.
Spacetime is like cooking water on microscopc scale.

In particel physics it is also possible for particels to move forward and backward in time.

For example a positron can be seen as an elektron moving backward in time. Below is a Feynman diagram showing the positon elekton anhilation to produce a light particel (photon). Time runs from bottom to top in this diagram. To particles an elektron and a positron come from the past and move into the future to produce photons.

The diagram can also be read differeant. A elektron travels from the past into the futur and the is shattered back into the past by two photons comming from the future.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Mutual_Annihilation_of_a_Positron_Electron_pair.svg/200px-Mutual_Annihilation_of_a_Positron_Electron_pair.svg.png)

There is a new universe of fractals to be discovered by visualisation of physical processes.

Hermann

No. Just googled it and it can be a art school, a figure, ... but perhaps you mean something else?


Maybe a better way of putting this is to say that to possible solutions to chaotic* systems increase and therefore the predictability decreases.

* Chaotic in the meaning of great sensitivity to initial conditions

Depends on how you look at it. I'm not sure if time has an intrinsic shape or geometry. They way we represent it has both linear and fractal. Historybooks are full of linear of semi-linear (log) timelines. Our calanders works like the movements of our solarsystems and planet, which don't really fit mathematically nice. Every now and then suddenly we need a little of big jump to correct it.

If there was only space without movement, would there be time? Or does time only exist because of things moving through space?

Thanks youhn,

for the fast response on my post.

I think it is a littel bit difficult to explain it in words. If we see the sun from the earth we see it as a circle.
A view on the spectrum of the sun may lead us to the assumtion that it has te spectra of a black body.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Black_body.svg/303px-Black_body.svg.png)

But if we take a detailed look with an appropirate teleskope we can see this:

(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-369328-galleryV9-ftlu.jpg)

I would also like to mark Space, Time and Matter can not be seen independently. So I have to make this also abit clearer.
Mass tells spacetime how to curve. And curved spacetime tells mass how to move. I think that is the essence of Einsteins field equation.

The third thing is far more difficult to explain. Even if we have empty space and you look on tiny time intervalls you will have particls apear and disapear from nothing. This process will become even more intense if one chooses the time intervall smaller. This can also be seen as boiling spacetime an is a very fractal process.

Hermann

Gnomon, geometrically, is the name given to a form which, added to the original, retains its shape and proportions.
  In the picture we have a case of gnomonic and fractal growth.
  In the cut of the brain, we see a nuclear form, which has been replicated via gnomon.
   As the brain is built trough time-space overlays, it follows that the time  is locked inside, we can see this clearly in the shell of a Nautilus, the gnomonic growth allows us to see all her life at once.
    In the brain is obvious that the growth has been much more complex, but the idea that time is locked in the interior, is confirmed by studies that speak about three brains from different ages.
   
    

 That´s because space is effectively fractal, space has the dimensions of the observer, it´s not easy to explain, as you said, but I have found the same trying to find  a geometrical point,
     mark a cross, the point, is where the lines cross, then draw a circle around the central point to make it visible, (if the circle is not drawn, the point is  not visible  to the observer)   the circle is now a point, but in his center, there´s still the lines crossing in an inner point,if you zoom over it , you can keep doing the same at infinitum, theoretically., In fact you can do it in a 3D modeling program.
    

Like this, more or less,  (click the image to show motion)

To understand the idea that time is somehow locked inside of things, we can take as an example the old game of spinning tops.
         The time the top is spinning his "lifetime" depends on the length of the rope that is thrown.
         The force of the shot is another important factor, but for our purposes, we don´t take it into account.
         The important thing is that the "lifetime" of the top depends on the length of the string, ie, has a preset limit from the time of release, time,unwinds like a spring .
         From this it follows that every living entity has a predetermined duration depending on its place in the scale.
         Indeed, our time, is inside of us.
        So it follows that, being spacetime our main reality, and assuming that fractals are a Universal process, time must have a fractal structure as we see in the nested times of our own organs, cells , mollecules and electrons , each of wich have it´s own time.
           On the other side, cosmic motion shows the same nested structure as years are made of months, months are made of weeks, and weeks are made of days, and so on.
          This same nested structure can be found in music, where each note, creates a series of nested harmonics, music occurs trough time.
         From the viewpoint of space, alone, it´s quite obvious that´s fractal.

While I agree on most statements of this post, I have to disagree on the statement above. You completely ignore other factors that will influence the lifetime of the spinning top. For example the air flowing around and against it, the shape and roughness of the surface on which it spins. Therefore the conclusion only holds if you really strip down to a universe where there is only the spinning top (with the string seen as long gone big bang ... or perhaps inflation is a better comparison).

Organs could have their own time-cycles or rhythm, but they share (about the same) lifespan as all other organs, which are connected within the living creature.

I like the comparison with music. That's a pretty hard subject to analyse, because it is so very ... subjective. Which makes it interesting of course. I have read some analyses on details like songs, chords(progressions), etc. But how about an analysis on the grammar within melodies, seen over a timespan of a lifetime. If anyone knows anything in that direction ... please let me know.

 I  have not taken account of any other factor, because I was trying to make visible the idea that the life of everything is predetermined, I agree that there are many other factors, but a human being does not live 800 years.
         However, the idea that a cell lives while the organ lives is completely wrong, every 7 years every cell in your body have been replaced, which keeps your organized body, are not cells, but the ratio.
          The lifetime of an electron is undetectable, what we can detect is the repetition of its orbit, its sixth dimension.
          The old music was Objective Art, search in that direction.

Understandably mathematicians wish to clarify all based on numbers, it is quite true that the number is behind things.
       But the fact remains that the problems of space-time are of geometric nature, not mathematics.
       And geometry was not only the principal of Sciences, but is the source of them all.
       Geometry is traditionally represented as a highborn lady, while mathematics is represented by a common midwife,
       Geometry is the daughter of drawing, wich in turn is the son of the eye, wich it´s just the lens of our inner being.

Well said. Mathematics is just a tool to interpret and predict our world in a scientific-quantitative manner.