Time

[AFTT47]

...how exactly did scientists ever bypass their own human biases in order to come up with an objective representation of the world?

By following the system. Furthermore, there are multiple scientists following the system and they keep each other honest. If one scientist falls prey to his/her limitations, another (perhaps with different biases and limitations) will expose it. In the end, the truth wins and that's it. Does it really matter if the truth is something you can intuitively understand? You should only need to understand the scientific method and the reliability of it.

[Excited Penguin]

As for your second question: No. I don't think so. -- How could they be moving since the distance between them doesn't change and there's no third (moving) object to compare their potential movement against?

But here's where you muddied the waters. I didn't presuppose that we are talking about a completely empty universe, for all intents and purposes. You didn't specify that. If that's the case, and there are just these two photons in this emply world then how come the observer? Where does he come in? Is it truly a void if there's someone to observe it? How do you observe this information without light? Wouldn't light pass through this void, therefore "contaminating" it and possibly changing the stationary pose of the two photons?

Do not get ahead of yourself.  I am trying to wrap your mind around this whole time thing.

Now.  You are in this void with the two photons.  Of course the distance between you and the photons is increasing at the speed of light, but is it the photons that are moving or are you moving or are you and the photons moving?

I have thought this three times over and I would have to settle on the third option. Since it's a void and there's no point of reference both me and the photons would be moving at the speed of light towards each other. At least that's how it would "appear" to a remote observer, I guess.

[Excited Penguin]

...how exactly did scientists ever bypass their own human biases in order to come up with an objective representation of the world?

By following the system. Furthermore, there are multiple scientists following the system and they keep each other honest. If one scientist falls prey to his/her limitations, another (perhaps with different biases and limitations) will expose it. In the end, the truth wins and that's it. Does it really matter if the truth is something you can intuitively understand? You should only need to understand the scientific method and the reliability of it.

I can see how you could be right, in a sense. So you're saying it's not that important that I intuitively understand every bit of information and how it would play out in the scenario described? But how could I ever hope to understand physics then?... You see, my problem is not not trusting the info, it's not comprehending it. What use would I have for it anyway, me personally, if I didn't even get what it's driving at?

[AFTT47]

...But how could I ever hope to understand physics then?...

Can't help you there. Not everyone is cut out to be a physicist - not me either. I just have an appreciation of what science can reveal.

[Excited Penguin]

...But how could I ever hope to understand physics then?...

Can't help you there. Not everyone is cut out to be a physicist - not me either. I just have an appreciation of what science can reveal.

I don't think that's true. You'ld have to be a neuroscientist to say that with any confidence.

[IATIA]

Ok. Let us go over the scenarios and bring time into it.

One photon in a void. It is moving at the speed of light because the laws of physics dictate it. We just cannot measure it in this environment.

Two photons side by side and again, they must be moving at the speed of light, but again, no way to measure it.

Effectively, there is no time in the first two scenarios because the photons will travel forever with nothing to dissipate them and they do not age. Nothing is changing. No matter how long they travel or how far they travel, they will always seem to be stationary and unchanged in the center of the void.

Now that we have thrown you into the void, we have time. We have measurable motion, though we still cannot say absolutely whether you are moving or they are moving. All the math, Newton, Einstein, QM, whatever, will say the same thing regardless of which is moving. All we can state as a fact, is that the distance is increasing.

Motion and change are interchangeable in this dialog. Without either, we cannot have time as there is nothing to measure, so existence does not equate to time. Now time did not magically come about just because you were thrown into the mix, but the ability to observe and measure change did.

Make sense to this point?

[Excited Penguin]

Ok.  Let us go over the scenarios and bring time into it.

One photon in a void.  It is moving at the speed of light because the laws of physics dictate it.  We just cannot measure it in this environment.

Two photons side by side and again, they must be moving at the speed of light, but again, no way to measure it.

Effectively, there is no time in the first two scenarios because the photons will travel forever with nothing to dissipate them and they do not age.  Nothing is changing.  No matter how long they travel or how far they travel, they will always seem to be stationary and unchanged in the center of the void.

Now that we have thrown you into the void, we have time.  We have measurable motion, though we still cannot say absolutely whether you are moving or they are moving.  All the math, Newton, Einstein, QM, whatever, will say the same thing regardless of which is moving.  All we can state as a fact, is that the distance is increasing.

Motion and change are interchangeable in this dialog.  Without either, we cannot have time as there is nothing to measure, so existence does not equate to time.  Now time did not magically come about just because you were thrown into the mix, but the ability to observe and measure change did.

Make sense to this point?

Yes, only it turns out time did magically come about just because I was thrown into the mix. At least that's what I'm getting at this end. And time might be defined as the deliberate observation and measurement of change, right?

[IATIA]

Correct. Nothing more and nothing less. Where the issue and disagreements come from all sides is whether 'time' causes change or change causes 'time'.

Myself, I believe there to be no time and just everything exists. Time from my perspective comes from the 'change' from one reality to the next. The realities do not change, nor does anything bounded within any reality. It does not matter 'how long' it takes to change reality as we are only aware of the change and not the reality itself. One could remain within a reality for 'eons' before 'changing' to the next one.

[Silver]

Consider me a simpleton, but I prefer to think of time as progression; if one can do any form of movement or thinking, then progression is happening and thus time is moving. Time is merely existence and existing, to be honest.

[IATIA]

On a really basic level perhaps, but the OP was more interested in the ramifications of time in relation to the universe. Causality in it's truest form leads to infinite regression, so there must be a better explanation. My studies in physics lead me to my interpretation of 'time'. Causality and time are not requirements of QM.