Time does NOT Exist - Math Proof

[Billy T]

I note that Barbour dismisses our classical idea of motion and space along with time. This makes his argument consistent imo, (and consistent with the idea that the universe is an illusion of some sort) whereas to get rid of time and keep motion and space, as (Billy) you seem to be doing here, appears self-contradictory.

I am not making any comments about the reality of space. I can not prove it non existent with mathematics as I did for time, which is a unique parameter. You should not draw any conclusion, certainly not that I am contradicting myself because of my silence on the issue of the reality of space. As I observed before, I have enough to do just defending the idea that time is not real without getting into discussions about space also.

 

[Billy T]

...when the marble is at the top...

From this, you ref to "marble," I know you have read my post 64.

You claimed that I did not really eliminate time in my math proof, but instead that:
"You 'replaced' it by relating previously unrelated systems together. The physical interpretation of this would be using one as a clock for the other."

You also claimed: that I could not reduce 100 equations with 99 variables plus variable "t" to a set of 99 equations that had no reference to "t."

To refute both these claims, in post 64, I set up specific example of a marble falling thru viscous oil. I gave two equations. One explicitly related the vertical position of the marble, Y, to time and the other also explicitly related the Potential energy, P, to time. Then, I reduced this two equation set to only one equation by eliminating the "t" variable. (This refuting the second of your claims, about what I could not do to the 100 equation set.)

I had expected you to defend your first claim (I was not "eliminating time", but only "replacing it" with a "clock varable") by noting that the vertical position of the marble was effectively a clock. This is why I noted that the oil was erratically heated and cooled. The resulting erratic fall rate of the marble would make any claim you advanced that the vertical position of marble was a "clock" replacing my "t" variable very strange, if not silly. The time indicated by that erratic "CLOCK" would not agree with any other clock nor be of any use (or validity) in any of the equations of physics. That is I was prepared to counter argue that your "replacement clock" was not a clock at all.

I asked you specifically, in post 64, to tell me what was the "replacement clock" in my final single equation for the marble falling thru erratically heated/cooled oil, but you did not reply. May I take this as concession that you were in error in both your claims? (Or will you now indicate which of the variable in the remaining single equation is the "replacment clock"?) I still claim that I have eliminated time, and even with the erratic heating my resulting equation is still completely valid. The burden of backing up your claims is yours, now that I have refuted both your claims.

 

[Billy T]

You conclude your post 66 with:

...The inverse function would even out the non-linearity.

This appears to be a very general claim about inverse functions. How do you know that they "even out the non linearity."
Perhaps I do not understnd you. I tend to need specific exampes to clearly understand what you are saying. Can you give any? I would think it especially useful if you could stick to the simple marble falling thru erratically heated/cooled oil that we have both been using.

I think you are trying to defend your claim that I have not eliminated the "t" variable, despite both my general statement about reducing 100 equations to only 99 and my specific example of two equations being reduced to one by elimination of "t" which appeared in both. I have already pointed out that the vertical position of the marble, erratically falling thru the oil, is a very strange, totally useless, "nonclock," but I am confused about what you are claiming now and an example, instead of general words, would help make it clear to me. If you need to , postulated a specific functional form for the changing viscosity, (terminal speed of marble fall) but only to show me what you are claiming - I want it to erratic heating and cooling to show your "replacement clock" is not a clock at all.

 

[Tournesol]

The marble example only works, inasmuch as it works, because so long
as you are asking questions about P.E, time is not very important
in that particular example.

Now, what about the frictional pendulum ?

And, of course, the metaphysical argument.

 

[Tournesol]

You also claimed: that I could not reduce 100 equations with 99 variables plus variable "t" to a set of 99 equations that had no reference to "t."

I never said that this was impossible mathematically. Any physical
system that has any kind of determinism is going to have 'redundant'
variables, precisely because some of its parameters can be predicted from others. But the correct interpretation of this is in terms of determinism, not
in terms of things not existing at all in the first place.

 

[Billy T]

... Any physical system that has any kind of determinism is going to have 'redundant' variables, precisely because some of its parameters can be predicted from others. But the correct interpretation of this is in terms of determinism, not in terms of things not existing at all in the first place.

Your prior ref to the pendulum was in post 66 where you ask /state:
"Consider, instead, a frictional pendulum. It's total energy decays with time. How can you rewrite that as a decay wrt space (or something..other than an external clock)."
I essentially did this already if I understand you. In the very first post of this thread, if memory serves (not looking at it as I type) I assumed an axample of swing, Amplitude, A, of the form:
A =15 sin(7t) and then inverted it for t = {arcsin(A/15)}/7. or in general terms t = a'(A). This as someone I thanked for doing so, is not fully correct as in general, many observables besides A would be required (For example where the pendulum is on the Earth, B, would be required as gravity is not uniform over all the Earth etc. Thus I readly conceeded that the correct general form is"
t = a'(A,B,C...) and so forth for t = b'(A,B,C,...) etc.
When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe, and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change. It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist, is not observable, is not needed, but is avery convenient parameter in the equations of physics as they are usually written.

Now it appears that you want the example where
A = exp(-t)15sin(7t)
OK, but I can not longer explicitly state the inverse, (no longer a simple arcsin) so I am forced to state the inverse in general notation as:
t = a"(A,B,C...) whre the function a" is no longer the arcsin.

So what!

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

 

[Tournesol]

When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe,

In exactly the sense that you can replace time-as-a-measurement
with clock readings. (And of course to admit there are such things
and changes and event-sequences is to assume Time, or at least to admit aspects of time other than the measurement aspect).

and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change.

Quite beside the point -- the idea that Time itself causes things is a nonsense-question, like asking where Space is.

It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist,

I have argued specificaly against that conclusion [#49, #50]. It is the metaphysics you
are getting wrong, not the maths.

is not observable,

You observe it with clocks !

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

You eliminination of 't' brings replaces it with other factors which effectively
consitute clocks.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

Try answering the question: eliminate 't' from the equation without substituting in a clock.

 

[RAD4921]

The end of Time

Your prior ref to the pendulum was in post 66 where you ask /state:
"Consider, instead, a frictional pendulum. It's total energy decays with time. How can you rewrite that as a decay wrt space (or something..other than an external clock)."
I essentially did this already if I understand you. In the very first post of this thread, if memory serves (not looking at it as I type) I assumed an axample of swing, Amplitude, A, of the form:
A =15 sin(7t) and then inverted it for t = {arcsin(A/15)}/7. or in general terms t = a'(A). This as someone I thanked for doing so, is not fully correct as in general, many observables besides A would be required (For example where the pendulum is on the Earth, B, would be required as gravity is not uniform over all the Earth etc. Thus I readly conceeded that the correct general form is"
t = a'(A,B,C...) and so forth for t = b'(A,B,C,...) etc.
When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe, and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change. It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist, is not observable, is not needed, but is avery convenient parameter in the equations of physics as they are usually written.

Now it appears that you want the example where
A = exp(-t)15sin(7t)
OK, but I can not longer explicitly state the inverse, (no longer a simple arcsin) so I am forced to state the inverse in general notation as:
t = a"(A,B,C...) whre the function a" is no longer the arcsin.

So what!

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

I dound your thread that got moved. My ideas on the illusions of time and motion come from a book by Julian Barbour called: "The End of Time" The book is endoresed by John A Wheeler on the back cover. I seen Barbour at a lecture in Chicago.

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics -- by Julian BarbourPaperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $12.57 -- Used & new from: $4.90

 

[Billy T]

In exactly the sense that you can replace time-as-a-measurement with clock readings. (And of course to admit there are such things and changes and event-sequences is to assume Time, or at least to admit aspects of time other than the measurement aspect).

No, as I haave often stated, Events cause events, not time passing. Certainly there are sequences of events, like a chain, one leading to the next.

It is a big leap to go from this observation to postualte the real existence of something that has no affect on anything. "CLOCK READINGS" ARE NOT TIME. Sunrises are not time. The only difference between "clock readings" and "sun rises", is that one sequence of events (hands pointing at 12x60 different positions on the clock dial) is a more finely marked sequence of events than the daily sun rise, but this is not any different in principle. Is "sun rise" time also? How about an even less frequent sequence of events: Neptune / Pluto conjunctions? Is that time? Point is: that any sequecnce of events, even the oscillation of the atoms in an "atomic clock" is just that, a sequence of events, not time. My basic claim is that I have eliminated time. You claim I have only relplaced it. Now at least you conceed that I have done so formally via my math, but not "metaphysically." I.e. time is still hidden in the various variables, such as clock hand positions, that correlate well with the "time I eliminated."

...I have argued specificially against that conclusion [#49, #50]. It is the metaphysics you are getting wrong, not the maths...You observe it with clocks!

I find metaphysical proofs much less persuavive than math. In fact, I don't know of anything proven so firmly by metaphysics that other philosophers can not argue just the contray! Consequently, I will stick with mathematical proofs.

Your eliminination of 't' brings replaces it with other factors which effectively consitute clocks.

I have already granted that when I eliminate time from all desctriptions of the universe, including sequences of events, that some of the remaining varriables do correlated well with clock hand positions, but I continue, as I just did above, to believe that clock hand positions are not time any more than Neptune/Pluto conjunctions are time.
You believe in the reality of time so firmly that I do not think I will ever convence you that something which can not be observed (don't tell me again that by looking at clock hand positions, your are observing time), and has no affect on anything, is not real. No more real than unicorns, which also have no affect on anything and can not be observed. Thus perhaps we should just "agree to disagree". You stick to your metaphysics, and I will stick to my math. OK?

 

[StatusX]

I'm sorry, I haven't read every post here, but it seems to me that you want to eliminate the variable t but have no problem with delta t's. I don't understand what you could mean by this. If delta t exists, then what's wrong with defining t as the delta t between now and the big bang, or any arbitrary point? I'm just not sure exactly what you're denying exists.

 

[Tournesol]

No, as I have often stated, Events cause events, not time passing. Certainly there are sequences of events, like a chain, one leading to the next.

And there are no bachelors, just men who happen to be unmarried.

It is a big leap to go from this observation to postualte the real existence of something that has no affect on anything.

Causality itself has no effect on anything. (or do you think it does...or
do you think it doesn't exist at all in the first place)

Is that time? Point is: that any sequecnce of events, even the oscillation of the atoms in an "atomic clock" is just that, a sequence of events, not time.

Since it is not a spatial sequence (like a row of praked cars), it is presumably
a temporal sequence. How can you have temproal sequences without time ?

My basic claim is that I have eliminated time. You claim I have only relplaced it. Now at least you conceed that I have done so formally via my math, but not "metaphysically." I.e. time is still hidden in the various variables, such as clock hand positions, that correlate well with the "time I eliminated."

Yes.

I find metaphysical proofs much less persuavive than math. In fact, I don't know of anything proven so firmly by metaphysics that other philosophers can not argue just the contray!

So my metaphysical arguements are flawed ? Yet you are unable to specify
what the flaw is,

Consequently, I will stick with mathematical proofs.

Mathematical proofs are fine for proving mathematical conclusions.
However, you are trying to establish a metaphysical conclusion:
"time doesn't exist" is just as metaphysical as "time does exist".

I have already granted that when I eliminate time from all desctriptions of the universe, including sequences of events, that some of the remaining varriables do correlated well with clock hand positions, but I continue, as I just did above, to believe that clock hand positions are not time any more than Neptune/Pluto conjunctions are time.

Note they are not; but the 't' in equations isn't all there is to time
either -- it is just the measurment of time, what I have been calling
time-as-a-measurment. For instance, the tendency of things to happen one after the other, temporal sequences, can be defined without any reference to measurement.
So you cannot claim to have eliminated time unless you have eliminated every aspect of time, and you cannot even start to do that with a purely
mathematical argument, since that can only eliminate time-as-a-measurement.

observed. Thus perhaps we should just "agree to disagree". You stick to your metaphysics, and I will stick to my math. OK?

To be frank, you are not doing good maths instead of bad metaphysics,
you are doing bad metaphysics instead of good metaphysics.

 

[Tournesol]

Notes on Barbour's theory:

1. Removing causality pulls the rug from under scientific epistemology

2. It also pulls the rug from under the notion of a 'time capsule'. Memory is disntinguished from imagination by having a certain kind of causal history. In the absence of that criteron, what is to stop me saying that my dreams are a 'time capsule' of the universe next door.

3. The mysterious role of proability in the absence of anything actually happening.
Apparently, more Nows of higher probability are 'more likely to be experienced'. Is that an
Appeal to consciousnessas a god of the gaps?

 

[Billy T]

I'm sorry, I haven't read every post here, but it seems to me that you want to eliminate the variable t but have no problem with delta t's. I don't understand what you could mean by this. If delta t exists, then what's wrong with defining t as the delta t between now and the big bang, or any arbitrary point? I'm just not sure exactly what you're denying exists.

Read short, simple, well illustrated by specific example, math proof of post 1 that the parameter "t" is not required, only convenient, in a description of the universe, including all the changes that occur as one event leads to another.
I have not said much, if anything, about "delta t" and if by this you mean some difference in time, then I would say that since time does not exist, neither does "delta t."
If however, by delta t, you are referring to fact that change exists, for example, the hands of a clock indicating 12:00 and this changes into 12:01, of course that is one of the many real sequences of event we can observe.
But by observing this change we are not observing or measuring time. What is happening is that the energy stored in the sping or battery is less when the hands show 12:01 than when they show 12:00. Time passing had nothing to do with this change. (Read post about me growing older having nothing to do with "time passing" also.)

Events cause other events, not time. Time can not change anything, can not be observed, in this regard time is like a unicorn.

Time is such a natural concept (a "natural assumption") in man's way of thinking and expressing himself that it is difficult to describe this to you without using words like "when" etc. but because I must use these words, does not imply time is real or the cause of anything. I also say "the sun rises." but that earlier common "natural assumption" is now widely recognized to be false. Slowly some of the more profound thinkers are beginning to realize that time is also oneof these "natural assumptions", not a real thing. See some of the web sites others have given. Someone other than me stated that this was Einstein's and Goebel's view also, but I do not know if that is correct. See my post about Kant agreeing. I am not originating anything, but may have been first to give the simple math proof that time is not real, however, I strongly suspect that it has been presented before by others also.

Several people have suggested that my math proof could be used to show that other thngs do not exist, mass and energy being the more common suggestion. A few have even had the courage to try, instead of just claim this is true. I have show the error in their demonstrations that mass and energy do not exist. Basically the "t" parameter in the equations of physics is unique. It is the same in an equation about the QEII and a jumping flea, but the mass parameter of the QEII, M, is very different from the mass parameter of the flea, m. Thus their attempts to set m = M to elimainate mass from all descriptions of the universe fail. If time were not a common unique parameter in all the equation, for example if time for the QEII were T and for the flea it was t, then my math proof would also fail and time would be real. But that is not the way physics is, Time is not real, can not be observed, has no power to change anything, I.e. time does not exist. It may make some sense to speak of "now", but I am not sure exactly what that means. Certainly it is possible to identify some events as leading to others. For example, a glass accelerating towards the kitchen floor in the gravity field of Earth leads to the event of a broom sweeping up many small pieces of glass, but time had nothing to do with this chain of events.

Hope ths helps. If not, read more of the thread and ask specific questions or challange my prior claims.

 

[Canute]

I agree with Tournesol about this. You cannot just show by mathematics that the variable t does not exist and then ignore the metaphysical consequences. What you have shown, let's say, is that t is superfluous to calculations of motion etc. But you cannot claim that time does not exist on this basis. The existence or non-existence of time is a metaphysical/ontological matter, not just a mathematical one.

Btw I don't think anyone argues that time is causal. Rather, it is a dimension in which causation operates or, if you like, one of the contingent conditions necessary to the functioning of causation. If time does not exist then all events must happen at the same time. This is the view of many people, but they do not argue that time does not exist but that events separated in time do exist, as you do, since it would be clearly self-contradictory.

I'm afraid there is no way you can stick to mathematics and avoid referencing the real world on this issue. The fact is that we experience the world as existing over time, and if time does not exist then this fact needs to be explained. I think it can be explained, but so far you've avoided this issue rather than dealing with it.

 

[CronoSpark]

I guess what Billy T was meaning to say was,

Our concept of time is not instantaneous layout of happenings throughout the past, present, and future, but rather it should be viewed as a function of the cause and effects.

A leads to B which leads to C. We introduce the variable "t" only because it would be simpler for prediction purposes. EG. How can one get from 1 to 10? 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, ..., 9+1=10. With "t", we can imagine that there would be "9 cause and effects to get to 10", so we just need to go 1+ 9(1) = 10.

Our perception of these "cause and effects" can only be utilized through our minds. Our brains can only process the scenario around us at various points of that sequence. Hence, our brains will simulate "time".

I thought about this a long time ago... I personally thought people already have thought about this and there was already a debate going on before... maybe I should read up on physics more.

 

[Tournesol]

For example, a glass accelerating towards the kitchen floor in the gravity field of Earth leads to the event of a broom sweeping up many small pieces of glass, but time had nothing to do with this chain of events.

Inasmuch as they don't happen simultaneously, it does.

 

[Tournesol]

I Our brains can only process the scenario around us at various points of that sequence. Hence, our brains will simulate "time".

Why do our brain only process one "point of the sequence at a time".
(well the usual answer it that brain-processes happen in time like everything
else. But you seem to be saying that time is "simulated" by the brain).

 

[CronoSpark]

Why do our brain only process one "point of the sequence at a time".
(well the usual answer it that brain-processes happen in time like everything
else. But you seem to be saying that time is "simulated" by the brain).

Why not? What happens if you lost all your senses and the ability to think and remember? I do not recall stating "at a time".
Would everything happen instantaneously?

 

[Tournesol]

Why not? What happens if you lost all your senses and the ability to think and remember? I do not recall stating "at a time".
Would everything happen instantaneously?

Let's take this from another angle: what are your grounds for saying that the
brain 'simulates' time ?

 

[CronoSpark]

Let's take this from another angle: what are your grounds for saying that the
brain 'simulates' time ?

Okay.

Would a second be the same for me as it is to another?

 

[Tournesol]

Okay.

Would a second be the same for me as it is to another?

maybe not -- maybe you don't like the taste of marmite, or see red
differently. But the point remains that what is basic about time
is that one thing happens after another -- being able to measure or agree about time-intervals is secondary.

 

[Billy T]

I agree with Tournesol about this. You cannot just show by mathematics that the variable t does not exist and then ignore the metaphysical consequences. What you have shown, let's say, is that t is superfluous to calculations of motion etc. But you cannot claim that time does not exist on this basis. The existence or non-existence of time is a metaphysical/ontological matter, not just a mathematical one.
Btw I don't think anyone argues that time is causal.

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?
How does time different in this regard from unicorns?
I grant humans tend to understand things as if time were some "flowing massless river, dragging event from past into the future" much more than unicorns are essential to their understanding of the universe and changes in it, but is this natural human disposition to believe time is this river, any basis for time being real, any stronger basis that the natural assumption that the sun goes around the Earth is a basis for that being true?

Rather, it is a dimension in which causation operates or, if you like, one of the contingent conditions necessary to the functioning of causation.

As stated earlier, I do not have much problem with time being a dimention, coordinate, or parameter. We have 10 or 12 dimensions now, zillions of coordiantes, and quite a few parameters also, but that does not confer ontological status.

If time does not exist then all events must happen at the same time.

To clearly expose your logic: If A does not exist, then B must happen concurrently with/in A! I can't follow this logic, not when A = time and B = events (or any other set of values for A & B.)

... The fact is that we experience the world as existing over time, and if time does not exist then this fact needs to be explained. I think it can be explained, but so far you've avoided this issue rather than dealing with it.

perhaps, but I think I deal with it when I I discuss my experience of the sun rising also. Not everything I infer from my experiences is correct. Some things are wrong, but still very convenient and common ways to speak of things and understand things.

 

[CronoSpark]

maybe not -- maybe you don't like the taste of marmite, or see red
differently. But the point remains that what is basic about time
is that one thing happens after another -- being able to measure or agree about time-intervals is secondary.

So you agree that it is probable that we do not percieve a second in a simular manner?

But since the argument has been switched back to the original...

I am losing your argument now. Are you saying that time is one thing happening after another?

 

[Tournesol]

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?

By dropping the rule that 'everything whatsoever has effects' (which leads
us into paradox if we apply it to causality itself), and admit that as
well as individual objects and events, there is a class of entities of
a universal anture, such as space, time and causality, which don't have to follow the same rules.

How does time different in this regard from unicorns?

It is an existent entity of the 'universal' class, not a non-existent entity of
the 'particular' class.

I grant humans tend to understand things as if time were some "flowing massless river, dragging event from past into the future" much more than unicorns are essential to their understanding of the universe and changes in it, but is this natural human disposition to believe time is this river, any basis for time being real, any stronger basis that the natural assumption that the sun goes around the Earth is a basis for that being true?

If that is your only complaint, why not say "time is not a river" rather than
"time does not exist".

As stated earlier, I do not have much problem with time being a dimention, coordinate, or parameter. We have 10 or 12 dimensions now, zillions of coordiantes, and quite a few parameters also, but that does not confer ontological status.

There must be something to the fact that some theories work better
than others, surely.

if A does not exist then B must happen at A! I can't follow this logic when A = time and B = events (or any other set of values for A & B.perhaps, but I think I deal with it when I experience the sun rising also.

If events aren't occurring in a temporal sequence, or separated by temporal
relations, then they are presumably occurring in some sort of atemporally, in some sort of undistinguished mass. It is difficult for us to even imagine this, which is why we fall back on the unhappy metpahor of 'happening all at once'.
But what does the shear difficulty of imagining Time away tell us ?

Not everything I infer rom my expereinces is correct. Some things are wrong, but still veryconvenient and common ways to speak of things and understand things.

But everything you have ever witnessed has been in a temporal sequence.
You cannot dismiss Time as an anomaly.

 

[Billy T]

Sure glad you came along CronoSpark

 

[Billy T]

By dropping the rule that 'everything whatsoever has effects' (which leads us into paradox if we apply it to causality itself), and admit that as well as individual objects and events, there is a class of entities of a universal anture, such as space, time and causality, which don't have to follow the same rules.

Thread is so hot just now I will only reply to this aqnd get back to remained later.

I did not state rule this way, I say: If "A" has no effect, can do nothing, can not be observed, etc. then there is no reason to think "A" exists.

 

[Tournesol]

Thread is so hot just now I will only reply to this aqnd get back to remained later.

I did not state rule this way, I say: If "A" has no effect, can do nothing, can not be observed, etc. then there is no reason to think "A" exists.

so there is no reason to think causality exists ?

 

[Tournesol]

So you agree that it is probable that we do not percieve a second in a simular manner?

variations in perception are down to perception...

I am losing your argument now. Are you saying that time is one thing happening after another?

Basically..

 

[CronoSpark]

variations in perception are down to perception...

I am hoping I do not have to define "perception" as well. I do hope that people are understanding on where I am getting at with my question.

So... how is that different from "cause and effect"?

 

[CronoSpark]

Actually, sorry. It was highly rude of me for posting my previous post.

If we were to percieve time in a different manner, then I would only think that our brain will "simulate" time in a different manner as well.

 

[Tournesol]

So... how is that different from "cause and effect"?

Good question. Since randomness is conceivable, a temporal
series of random events is conceivable, and time is possible
without causality. Maybe.

Is causality possible without time ? Something has to distinguish
cuasality from mere implications -- bachelors are not caused by being unmarried -- and a lot of people think it is time.

 

[sneez]

I think there is something to the argument that time might be just a perception. There is this illness which causes brain not to record "frames" of events into memory which causes a person perceive things not continually. Example: That person would see a car 100 feet away and the next time he/she would see the car would be 10 feet away without seeing how the car got there. Just like very slow frame rate in while watching movie.

 

[Billy T]

I think there is something to the argument that time might be just a perception. There is this illness which causes brain not to record "frames" of events into memory which causes a person perceive things not continually. Example: That person would see a car 100 feet away and the next time he/she would see the car would be 10 feet away without seeing how the car got there. Just like very slow frame rate in while watching movie.

You are correct. Not many people know about this. What is your field/ interest? Have you looked at my other "crazy idea" - See atachment to first post of thread "what price free will" in general philosophy. I am assuming you must know a good bit about cognitive science to report the above. In that attachment I give three proofs that the std cognitive scientist's view about perceptions is simply wrong and suggest an alternative which has a lot of "explanatory power." Making it posible for free will to real without any violation of physics or just an illusion based on the quantum mechanical chance events in the synaptic connections is just one minor detail that drops out of my new view. Would like to hear your view about it.

 

[Tournesol]

Of ocurse that doesn't support the 'time is just a percpetion' idea, since the whiole virtual reality thing starts with the idea of latencies -- processing delays, lapses of time --
in the brain which must be taken realistically ITFP.

 

[Canute]

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?

I'm not. I've agreed with you from the start that time does not exist (in a fundamental ontological sense). I'm saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If time does not exist then neither does change, motion, energy and so forth.

You haven't yet explained how or why it is that before we eat a cake we have to bake it, and after we've eaten it it's gone. If you can explain this curious temporal sequence then fair enough, but if you cannot then your hypothesis contradicts the obvious evidence that events are perceived as happening one after the other. At a quantum level time may be symetrical in both directions and perhaps cancel out, but not at a classical level.

I think that all this can be explained and so have no problem agreeing with your view of time. But you have argued that there is nothing to explain, and to me that view contradicts common sense.