Infinite time paradox

Deepak Kapur

I think that there is no 'time'. Motion { of quarks, electrons, atoms (including those in our brain), planets, galaxies etc.} is the only thing that creates a simulation of time.

DaveC426913

And how is this 'simulation of time' different from actual time?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what makes you think it's not a duck?

Deepak Kapur

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure. Hands of a clock 'move' and are only physical variables. So we see physical variables (hands of a clock) as a function of some other physical changeables. It is only 'represented' that everything is moving in time.


2. A scene. Motion of every particle in this universe stops. The universe will be in the same state even after billions and billions of yeras. What has happened?

a) Time has stopped.

b) Motion has stopped.



I go by (b) in both the cases.



Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.

DaveC426913

And how exactly does this make it illusory?

Before clocks were invented, before life formed on Earth, the universe ticked by happily. Were atom,s suffering from delusions too?


Despite this being an utterly speculative and fabricated hypothesis, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument.

How does this make it illusory?

When my engine stops my car stops too. Is my car therefore illusory?



This says nothing.

You have avoided the question. What makes something that is experienced by every fibre of our universe get relegated to the lowly status of illusion? What is your definition of illusion as distinct from reality?

Deepak Kapur

You deliberately or due to some delusion ( or doggedness) have not understood the clock example. An electon moving around the nucleus can also be taken to be the hand of a clock.

It doesn't reqire 'time' to stop your car's engine but the 'movement' of car's key and all the other 'movements' associated with this process.

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor. Moreover, even thermodynamic equations are blind to the direction of time (a strange thing).

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future. But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

Hurkyl

(b) is obviously false, and that fact has nothing to do with physics. If time is defined to be what clocks measure, then by definition, clocks measure time. (no matter what "clock" or "measure" might mean)

cragar

What about Quantum field theory.

DaveC426913

Please don't accuse me of delusions. You brought up the clock as an example for your case. It's trivial to refute it.

An electron in an orbital of a nucleus is fine. You have not explained how it is illusory though.

Your claim is: if all molecules stop, time stops. This is proof that time is illusory.
So, things that can be stopped are illusory? You see how it does not follow.

Please don't fall back on insults. Invocation of "arrogance" and "status quo" complaints is the first resort of a crackpot. You're not a crackpot, right?

You presented an argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I haven't said you are wrong, I have simply shown that you haven't made your case.

Ryan_m_b

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

Deepak Kapur

I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.

[/QUOTE]So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.

Deepak Kapur

So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.[/QUOTE]





Hi all,

The 'ban' imposed on me has expired.

One thing is for certain. This forum stifles mercilessly any opinion that it does not like.

Deepak Kapur

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.

Ryan_m_b

Absolutely untrue. What this forum does do is provide a platform for discussion of subjects so long as those discussions come with A) logical arguments and B) references to peer-reviewed literature.

Your problem was that you attempted to prove that time was illusionary without either of these. It would have been better if you looked up current physical understanding of what time is and worked from there rather than claiming time = motion and providing no evidence for this (other than faulty scenarios) and not accounting for how this conflicts with current understanding.
Motion occurs through space and time. Draw a spacetime diagram with space on the X axis and time on the Y axis. Put A somewhere a long the X axis and B somewhere else on the X axis. How do you move from A to B without also travelling along the Y axis i.e. how do you move through space without moving through time?

JordanL

It's my understanding that the Big Bang, or rather the point where the Universe began, does not represent an absolute beginning in the sense that most people think of it as. It represents a point in the timeline we share where all information about what was before it was normalized into a single point.

Hells

If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?
Isn't that just the chicken and the egg? EG a meaningless debate. Whether movement creates time, or time creates movement, I don't see any difference.

Ryan_m_b

Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.
Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space. If I walk across my room am I creating the space I'm walking into? No, so why would I be creating the time?

Hells

What difference is there then? Educate me. I'm not saying I'm right, just that at my current level of physic knowledge I don't see a difference.

I don't see the basis for saying that.