Time does NOT Exist - Math Proof

[Tournesol]

Although, I continue to think time does not have any ontological status, that it is only a almost unavoidable "natural assumption" that man holds when understanding a sequence of events, I do not object to considering the separation of events that one follows another by a "dimension." I prefer to term it a parameter, because the "t" parameter has uses other than in the equations of physics, where thinking of it as a dimension is at least awarkward. For example a table of life insurance premiums, is often arranged as a funtion of age, or "time since birth," but this is just an index or parameter that indicates the probability of death in the next year etc. Nothing more, certainly not that there is something with ontological status existent about this probability.

The metaphysical argument can be put succinctly:

1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.

2. If time doesn't exist, it must have contradictory proeprties at the same time.

3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

Probability can be empiriacally observed with sufficient sample size, as the Life insurance companies do or computed in ome idealized cases (for example the probability of rolling only even numbers with n "honest" dice. This does not give "probability" ontological status any more that time has it .

But according to QM, it does have ontological status. You are giving
an argumetn that time is not necessarily real, nto an argument that it is
actually unreal.

Fortunately we do not imbelish probability with properties, like many do for time (It flows steadly, what ever that could possibly mean? or Time flows from the past into the future. Time can not be stopped. etc.)

There are a number of open questions about the best way to characteise
time, but there is no definite and specific case against time unless you can show that none of those characteristics is required.

I do not object to time being called a "dimension" because in my view they are not real either, but since there are three (or now 10 or 12) of them instead only the one unique dimension of time, you can invert all the equations of physics for only any single one of them. If you then set all the resulting inverted equations equal, you can not claim to have shown, as I have for the unique "t" variable or dimension, that the universe can be described without reference to "dimension." Time is a unique dimension (an any particular reference frame) and can be totaly eliminate for physics or any other use.

This confuses time-as-a-measurement with time as a dimension. Replacing
the real existence of time-as-a-dimension with really existing clocks is
hopeless, because we need time-as-a-dimension to make sense of how
a clock works. Likewise, replacing a temporal sequence with a causal
sequence fails because causal relations embed temporal relations.

He also would not have argued that probability, regardless of how evaluated, had ontological status just because it has an empirical value or can be calculated.

Probability has validity because it represents something that is going
on. It may not represent it literally, but there are still objective facts
that underpin calculations of probability. So, it is not a case
of "does time exist" but "what is the best way to characterise time".

Most concepts have no ontological status, the unicorn be a stellar example.

Most do.

For another, less obvious, example, "beauty" does not exist. This does not prevent you from saying "She is beautiful." just as the lack of there being any real thing corresponding to what we call time prevents me from saying "It is time to stop now or I will be late." (At least three temporal reference in only one sensentence!)

Beauty may not literally exist, but there is still some substance
to statements about aesthetics. As usual , the question is how to characterise them.

I anxiously await your continuation, especially the part that "time passing may be an illusion" and agree that there are a "bundle of issues here." No doubt, by mentioning fact that beauty and probability concepts also lack ontological "reality" I have made the bundle heavier for you to lift.

Your argument is basically that "statements about time cannot be taken seriously on the crudest and most literal reading, therefore they have ot be disposed of entirely". The problem is to find the right non-crude reading.

 

[Tournesol]

I think you're right about this. It doesn't really make sense to say that something which is only a concept does not exist, since clearly the person saying that it does not exist has a concept of it, and that's exactly what they're saying that it is, a concept, so it does exist.

it is better to say that the concept exists as a concept, but does not refer.

It seems to make more sense to say that time is epiphemomenal rather than that it does not exist. It certainly exists in that it appears to exist for us as ordinary human beings, but does not exist when seen from a fundamental perspective, has no ontological foundation.

Can you see from a fundamental perspective ? How does that work ?

As someone said above the problem with this idea, that time is illusory, is that our concepts of things like mass and energy (never mind life and death!) are time based. Take away time and mass/energy, as we think of it, cannot exist.

Well, quite. The perennial tendency of this type of debate is to attack
time with arguments which could easily show that nothing is real.
The difficult job is to give an account of all the other things
we normally assume to be real in which time does not -- even implictly --
feature.

 

[Canute]

it is better to say that the concept exists as a concept, but does not refer.

Exactly. Or rather, it refers to an epiphenomenon.

Can you see from a fundamental perspective ? How does that work ?

What I meant was that if time is not fundamental then from a fundamental perspective time is an epiphenomenon. I didn't mean to claim that I had reached this perspective, although many people claim to have done.

Well, quite. The perennial tendency of this type of debate is to attack
time with arguments which could easily show that nothing is real.
The difficult job is to give an account of all the other things
we normally assume to be real in which time does not -- even implictly --
feature.

Yes, I agree. As I mentioned above, this is the paradox that the 'non-dual' view avoids. To me it's no good saying that time is an epiphenomenon and then saying that energy, mass and so forth are not, it seems plainly self-contradictory. Any coherent argument for the 'non-existence' of time must surely also argue for the 'non-existence' of almost everything else.

Billy T - I wonder, having dispensed with time rather neatly, how do you deal with this issue?

 

[Billy T]

I wanted to reply to Canute's post 34 but there is so much in yours that seems to be wrong (or nonsense) that I will reply to you first:

The metaphysical argument can be put succinctly:
1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it must have contradictory proeprties at the same time.
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

No problem with (1), but (2) seems simply bad logic.

Are you really saying:
If "A" does not exist. then "A" must have at least two properties, "B" & "C" and that further more "B" must at least not agree or be the same as "C" ?
Note I have actually made your statement less ridiculus by requiring less of the the "B"/ "C" relationship. I.e in the softer version I have stated, "B" need only not agree, instead of your stronger "contradict."

By any logical standard I know of, If "A" does not exist, then "A" has NO properties. Often the truth of abstract statements can be easier to understand if specific example of them is considered. For example, I think we both agree that unicorns do not exist (A case where my "A" = unicorn.) You claim that unicorns must have two contradictory properties. Pray tell me what two properties that unicorns must have and how they contradict each other!

I'll pass over a few other statements of you and then question:

...Replacing the real existence of time-as-a-dimension with really existing clocks is hopeless, because we need time-as-a-dimension to make sense of how a clock works...

I have already noted that the hands of most clocks advance because the spring or battery is losing energy (over coming the friction of the clockworks). Time does not move the hands of the clock. I think time is totally incapable of doing anything because it does not exist.

If "A" = "time" in my text above, then perhaps this total lack of functional ability is one of your "two confliction properties." I.e. Inability to do anything is "B". If so, then the conflicting "C" must be:
"Time does everything." :rofl:

Late comers to this thread may want to go back and read why I am not growing old because of the passage of time and the mathematical proof (in first post) that time is not required to fully describe everything (an its changes) that happens in the universe.

A few poster have commented on the math proof, two of their posts I beat back completely, but I did agree with one that I have made my proof weaker than it need be (to keep it symple for philosopher). In my reply to him, I corrected it to his satisfaction. Thus it remains strong and valid. Time causes nothing, is not needed even for description, but is a such a natural assumption or "a prior gift" of man's evolution that it is essentailly impossible not to not rely up on the concept of time.

I'll also pass over the remainder of your post, but this does not mean I think it correct - just that it less obviously wrong. I want to reply to Canute, who I think does make some good points, but with which I can not fully agree.

 

[Billy T]

Exactly. Or rather, it refers to an epiphenomenon.
What I meant was that if time is not fundamental then from a fundamental perspective time is an epiphenomenon. I didn't mean to claim that I had reached this perspective, although many people claim to have done.
Yes, I agree. As I mentioned above, this is the paradox that the 'non-dual' view avoids. To me it's no good saying that time is an epiphenomenon and then saying that energy, mass and so forth are not, it seems plainly self-contradictory. Any coherent argument for the 'non-existence' of time must surely also argue for the 'non-existence' of almost everything else.

Billy T - I wonder, having dispensed with time rather neatly, how do you deal with this issue?

Perhaps we three can agree that time is an epiphenenomon. I do not know if it is something in man's conceptual structure from his experiences or if it co evolved with him. I strongly leqn towards the later and this would place me infull agreeemant with Kant. (See my prior post quoting Kant.)

Because they are so common in almost all cultures, I think it quite possible there are some other "epiphenomenon" in our heads. Some belief in angles or some type of spirits is one example. Jung spoke of innate "archtypes" and this is what I would prefer to call these inborn concepts, rather than "epiphenemonons", because to me epiphenemonons are the natural, but useless, powerless, consequences of some other process.
Many cognitive scienist think consciousness is such an epiphenemonon, in that it does nothing - brain processes that Libit has demonstrated occur before conscious awareness are the causes of our acts/ decisions etc.

If you really like to call time an epiphenemonon, I will not argue about what name to apply to this rose. I will continue to contend that time is without any ability to cause anything, not necessary to describe anything (as math proof showed) and only a convenience for descriptions.

As i can not see while responding what you were referring to by "this issue" I'll post this and try to get back to this and your post 34.

 

[Billy T]

...To me it's no good saying that time is an epiphenomenon and then saying that energy, mass and so forth are not, it seems plainly self-contradictory. Any coherent argument for the 'non-existence' of time must surely also argue for the 'non-existence' of almost everything else.

Billy T - I wonder, having dispensed with time rather neatly, how do you deal with this issue?

Hypnagogo had the same idea. See his post 11, the essence of which (the two paragraphs below) I cut and paste below to save you the trouble:

"The general strategy to this proof is to solve all time-based equations for the time variable and then equate these, thus eliminating any explicit mention of a time variable in the first place. However, as we can solve these equations for t, their units will necessarily be things we take to be measurements of time, such as seconds. How do we account for what a 'second' is without referring to time?

Also, it seems to me that this strategy can be reproduced for just about any singular physical variable for which we can solve. By the reasoning of this proof, can we not (say) solve all equations involving mass for m, equate them all, and thereby conclude that mass does not exist? (If this cannot be done with mass for whatever reason, there surely must be other physical variables that we can use and come to the same general conclusion."

My reply to this, said "NO" if you try to apply my strategy to mass, you must be willing to claim that the mass of a flee is the same as that of the QEII.

In his post 21 he then admitted his idea of applying my method to mass would not work, but suggested my proof suffered the same defect. I.e. that I would be seting different period as equal (30 seconds to one minute were his examples.)

My reply to this "counter attack" on my proof is post 24. In it I point out that my proof only refers to "t" an instant in time, not his "delta t" the period between two different events. That is, I never equate minutes to seconds in the proof. I think he has fully backed off now from attacking my proof. (He has made no further attempt, but perhaps he will and is just too busy to do so now.

Now with reguard to energy also being equally unreal:
In his post number 7, StatusX tried to do this by noting that E=hf. As i show in my post 29, he is making fundamentally the same error as Hynagogo. Namely F is not the recipicl of the "t" in my proof, but the recipicle of a period. I.e. something "spanning time" if you like.

I invite your to try to use my stratigy to show that either mass or energy is not real, as my proof shows time is not real. You will fail also because mass and energy are real. Please try to back up your words with action as Hypergogo did - I enjoy exposing logical flaws.

 

[Canute]

From a mathematical perspective you may be right, (that mass/energy can exist but time not exist). However in real life then things have to exist in time. By that I do not mean that there is some cosmic clock somewhere ticking away. Rather, if past, present and future are conceptual constructs then how can change not be a conceptual construct also?

It seems that you are arguing that there is no cosmic clock, but that time exists in the sense that changes occur ordered in time, and that these changes define time. I feel this is incoherent. I'm suggesting something more radical (and more in line with physics), namely that if time does not exist then neither does space (extension). They are equally forms of our perception/intuition. I would argue that this is why motion is paradoxical when one assumes the existence of instants and points.

"We come now to the question: what is a priori certain or necessary, respectively in geometry (doctrine of space) or its foundations? Formerly we thought everything; nowadays we think nothing. Already the distance-concept is logically arbitrary; there need be no things that correspond to it, even approximately."

"Space-Time."
Encyclopaedia Britannica
14th ed

My reply to this, said "NO" if you try to apply my strategy to mass, you must be willing to claim that the mass of a flee is the same as that of the QEII.

Not at all. I was suggesting that mass is an epiphenomenon along with time. But I was not suggesting that time and mass do not appear to vary. If time is an epiphenomenon it doesn't follow that all our watches must show the same time.

Now with reguard to energy also being equally unreal:
In his post number 7, StatusX tried to do this by noting that E=hf. As i show in my post 29, he is making fundamentally the same error as Hynagogo. Namely F is not the recipicl of the "t" in my proof, but the recipicle of a period. I.e. something "spanning time" if you like.

I would rather look at the real thing rather than a set of numbers representing it. If time does not exist then neither does energy, for how can a wave exist without being spread out in time.

I invite your to try to use my stratigy to show that either mass or energy is not real, as my proof shows time is not real. You will fail also because mass and energy are real. Please try to back up your words with action as Hypergogo did - I enjoy exposing logical flaws.

I don't want to use your strategy, I prefer mine. Can you use your strategy to show that mass and energy are fundamental qualities or quantities? As far as I know physicists haven't managed it yet.

 

[Canute]

Perhaps we three can agree that time is an epiphenenomon. I do not know if it is something in man's conceptual structure from his experiences or if it co evolved with him. I strongly leqn towards the later and this would place me infull agreeemant with Kant. (See my prior post quoting Kant.)

Mathematician George Spencer-Brown wrote that "Space is what would be if there could be a distinction. Time is what would be if there was an oscillation." I agree with him. Note that he says 'would' in both cases, suggesting the non-fundamental nature of both space and time.

Because they are so common in almost all cultures, I think it quite possible there are some other "epiphenomenon" in our heads.

Yes, like democracy, cricket, sin, kitchen tables and so on.

Some belief in angles or some type of spirits is one example. Jung spoke of innate "archtypes" and this is what I would prefer to call these inborn concepts, rather than "epiphenemonons", because to me epiphenemonons are the natural, but useless, powerless, consequences of some other process.

An epiphenomenon, in the sense that it is an emergent artefact of some underlying process, is not 'useless' or 'powerless'. A kitchen table is epihenomenal on waves and particles, but you can still eat your breakfast off it. Causation works both upwards and downwards in emergent complex systems. An epiphenomenon is a by-product, not a non-product.

Many cognitive scienist think consciousness is such an epiphenemonon, in that it does nothing - brain processes that Libit has demonstrated occur before conscious awareness are the causes of our acts/ decisions etc.

Yes, I thought Hypnogogue made a good point about Llibet's results. However there are a number of different interpretations of those results, and it is not at all clear what they tell us about the relationship between brain and consciousness. There is certainly no evidence yet that consciousness is not causal.

I'd agree with this analysis.

"It is in this way that space and time, that which Kant called the forms of intuition, seemingly enable us to reduce what is going-on and dynamic to what, to all intents and purposes, is static, to convert what is essentially activity into the shapes and forms which we call the objects of perception. These objects, then, are partly of our own making, artificial creations construed from the reports of our senses and given form by the superimposition of the formats of space and time. Additionally, perception involves interpretation in accordance with our previous experience, with our expectations, and with our feelings and emotions. Only after the addition of these ingredients to the raw material of our senses may we rightly be said to perceive.

So, can we say that minds create objects and hence matter? And would such a conclusion vindicate the idealist as against the materialist point of view? I think not, for mind is no less an artificial creation than objects. Matter and mind are not two things but two aspects of the same activity, the activity of intellectual perceiving. Thus the basic ‘material’ of our phenomenal universe is neither mind nor matter but that of which these are aspects, that is to say, consciousness, which not only comprises intellectual awareness but also encompasses experiences of any kind. Hence, we may conclude that mind no more creates matter than matter (which includes the brain) creates mind."

George Dupenois
‘Mind, Matter and Reality’
The Philosopher, Vol. LXXXVIII No. 1

 

[Billy T]

Replying to my:
"Some belief in angles or some type of spirits is one example. Jung spoke of innate "archtypes" and this is what I would prefer to call these inborn concepts, rather than "epiphenemonons", because to me epiphenemonons are the natural, but useless, powerless, consequences of some other process."

...An epiphenomenon, in the sense that it is an emergent artefact of some underlying process, is not 'useless' or 'powerless'. A kitchen table is epihenomenal on waves and particles, but you can still eat your breakfast off it. Causation works both upwards and downwards in emergent complex systems. An epiphenomenon is a by-product, not a non-product.

We use "epiphenomenon" to mean slightly different things. (This is why I generally try to avoid "philosophical jargin" - taking the trouble to try to say what I mean in more detail, using common terms, more likely to have more common agreement as to their meaning in the context they are used.) For me your kitchen sink is not an "epiphenomenon" - I would call it a "concept."

New insert here by edit: (In human brains about the function of a class of arrangements of atoms. A very intelligent alien, that happened to look like an Earth bird, might have an entirley different concept about the same collection of atoms. - perhapse more like your concept of a bathtub or toilet. That is, your epiphenomenominal "Kitchen sink" has nothing to do with the arrangement of atoms that make it up. "Kitchen sink" is a functional interpretation of this arrangement of atoms by a particular life form.)

We at least agree that "epiphenomenons" are a by-product of some more fundamental process. I think many use this term as I do to imply that the "epiphenomenon" is merely a by-product, without any causal power. In any case I plan to continue to use "epiphenomenon" in this sense and ideas in our heads that do have causal power (or functional use to us), I will usually refer to as "concepts."

To save space, I note here that I agree that there are many ways to interpret libet's interesting experiments with micro electrodes in alert patients, usually during surgery for "focal eplipsy." I have read at least 15 of his papers, but that was years ago.

... space and time, that which Kant called the forms of intuition, seemingly enable us to reduce what is going-on and dynamic...to convert what is essentially activity into the shapes and forms which we call the objects of perception. These objects, then, are partly of our own making, artificial creations construed from the reports of our senses and given form by the superimposition of the formats of space and time. Additionally, perception involves interpretation in accordance with our previous experience, with our expectations, and with our feelings and emotions. ...So, can we say that minds create objects {Yes in out perception} and hence matter?{No, not in the physical world, but yes in our perception of matter}

Very compressed by by Billy T and his comments are inserted between { and }. I also tend to agree with this view, but one must be careful to make clear wheather one is speaking of things of perception or things of the physical world. I think it interesting to note that man's concepts do some times literally create matter, at least cause it to be created with his tools. - for example a high energy particle physicist directing a high energy proton beam at a target.

 

[Thor]

If time isn't real, then energy isn't real, because QM tells us E=hf, where f is frequency and h is Plancks constant. But then mass isn't real either, because E=mc^2. The fact is, we don't know if any of our physical quantities are really real, but they are helpful in making predictions, and that's all they need to do.

Both time and energy are 'change related' phenomenon. Time is not a tangible. It is neither a field nor a fabric. It is nothing more nor less than the measurement of relative rates of change. Mathematically it is convenient to consider it as a 'dimension' but other than the physical changes it measures, it has no separate existence or reality of its own.

 

[Billy T]

Both time and energy are 'change related' phenomenon. Time is not a tangible. It is neither a field nor a fabric. It is nothing more nor less than the measurement of relative rates of change. Mathematically it is convenient to consider it as a 'dimension' but other than the physical changes it measures, it has no separate existence or reality of its own.

Thanks - I obviously agree.
Do you go even further, as I do? I.e. will you agree that time is (by itself) powerless to do anything? (Other than be a very useful, but non essential, parameter in many equations, greatly simplifing mathematical expressions of physics, life insurance premium calculations, etc.)

 

[Tournesol]

Are you really saying:
If "A" does not exist. then "A" must have at least two properties, "B" & "C" and that further more "B" must at least not agree or be the same as "C" ?
Note I have actually made your statement less ridiculus by requiring less of the the "B"/ "C" relationship. I.e in the softer version I have stated, "B" need only not agree, instead of your stronger "contradict."

No, I am not really saying that.

1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it [ the clock ] must have contradictory properties at the same time. [or atemporally, at no particular time ]
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

IOW there is not contradiction between the statements:

a. the clock shows 12 o'clock at time T1
AND
b. the clock shows 1 o'clock at time T2

But there is between

a'. the clock shows 12 o'clock
AND
b'. the clock shows 1 o'clock

 

[Tournesol]

Also, it seems to me that this strategy can be reproduced for just about any singular physical variable for which we can solve. By the reasoning of this proof, can we not (say) solve all equations involving mass for m, equate them all, and thereby conclude that mass does not exist? (If this cannot be done with mass for whatever reason, there surely must be other physical variables that we can use and come to the same general conclusion."

My reply to this, said "NO" if you try to apply my strategy to mass, you must be willing to claim that the mass of a flee is the same as that of the QEII

I don't see why that would follow. Your strategy is basically to replace
time as a parameter with clock-readings. You could just as well
replace space with rulers, or mass with scales

 

[Tournesol]

The problem with the argument that:

i) everything that exists is causal
ii) time itself is not causal
iii) time doesn't exist.

[ or variations like

i') everything that exists is somewhere
ii') space itself is not nowherer
iii') space doesn't exist.

]

Is that they pull the rug from under their own feet. If space doesn't exist,
how can everything be somewhere ? Either we abandon the sweeping claims
i), i'), etc, although they seem well-justified empirically...or we
admit that there are two senses to 'exist', the existence of individual
things (like books, treest, atoms, and planets) in space and time,
and the existence of general conditions, space time and causality themselves.

 

[Tournesol]

will you agree that time is (by itself) powerless to do anything?

Causality doesn't cause anything. But events cause other events, so
causality must exist ...in some sense.

 

[RoboSapien]

Billy T

I completely agree with this concept.

"Time is just the change of state of information about universe registered in human brain compared to the innitially stored states relative to each other."

The above statement is my own, please don't delete it even though its not yet proved.

 

[RoboSapien]

If there is causation, then there is time... How can there be causation without a sequence of events in time?
...
If it is an illusion, how can we maintain the idea of causation?

Why did at the time of big bang matter was thrown only in three dimensions ?

The best evidence of time will come only when at least information travels from future to past.

 

[RoboSapien]

Is frozen chicken some how slow down of time ?

What if we could pause someone for 100 years without damage (without cold freezing) and start him again. Wont he feel time travelled.

Could this be somehow a reason for TIME DIALATION expriments results ? But then how did scientist predicted them before the expriments ?

And what about the twins paradox ? It seems that when speed is more something slows down the revolutions of electrons of all atoms of that object or something like that.

 

[Billy T]

No, I am not really saying that.
1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it [ the clock ] must have contradictory properties at the same time. [or atemporally, at no particular time ]
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.
IOW there is not contradiction between the statements:
a. the clock shows 12 o'clock at time T1
AND
b. the clock shows 1 o'clock at time T2
But there is between
a'. the clock shows 12 o'clock AND b'. the clock shows 1 o'clock

Your (2) postulates that time does not exist, then you go on to speak of T1 and T1. Frankly, I can not follow your thinking here. It seems to be self conflicting to speak of two different times under the assumption that time does not exist. (I am not trying to be difficult. I admit we are so use to speaking of time T1 and T2 etc that it is hard to communicate without doing so.)

Let me again explain why you can observe clock showing 12 o'clock and also showing 1 o'clock even though time does not exist and consequently can do nothing. The clock hands advanced, not because of the passage of time, but because the spring or battery is changing to a lower energy state.

I never have said that sequences (changes) do not occur, only that time passing has no causal effect on anything. Unfortunately, I am growing older, but not because time is passing. As explainded earlier: Events cause events. With each cell division, my telemars are getting shorter, small crystal are accumulationg in my joints, the sun is drying my skin, etc. Time has nothing to do with my aging. (or anythng else - it does not exist.)

My math proof in initialpost shows that although it is very convenient to describ the universe'schanges as if the were functions of time, it isnot necessary to do so. In truth every change has a non temporal cause. (Some other thing changing, like the spring running down in above text about the moving of the clock's hands.)

 

[Billy T]

I don't see why that would follow. Your strategy is basically to replace time as a parameter with clock-readings. You could just as well replace space with rulers, or mass with scales

No that was not my stategy. I eliminated time from all equations descirbing the universe. They all use the same parameter, "t" which in some sense is "now" and "now" is equal to "now" in all the equations.

One can not eliminate mass from all the equations, because "m" in one equation is not equal to "M" in another. (My m in prior post was extracted from some equations relating to a flea. My M was extracted from some equations relating to the QEII. That is, I noted that Hypnagogo was trying to apply my stategy to mass envolved in two different equations, solving one for m and the other for M, but he could not eliminate any reference to mass (combine these two equations into one, reducing the number of equations and the number so variables both by one) as I had when I solved two different equations for the same parameter. "t" that appeared in both

If time for the QEII were not the same parameter as for the flea, my method would fail and time would be necessary for a description of the universe and all the changes that occur in it, but there is only one parameter "t' not "t" and "T" as there is for m and M.

If time were necessary for a description of change, I would conceed time exists. Hypnagogo tried again in a later post, but again failed. You are welcome to try to show that you can do to mass what I did to time parameter "t" - I hope you will , I like correcting errors.

 

[Billy T]

The problem with the argument that:

i) everything that exists is causal
ii) time itself is not causal
iii) time doesn't exist.

[ or variations like

i') everything that exists is somewhere
ii') space itself is not nowherer
iii') space doesn't exist.

]

Is that they pull the rug from under their own feet. If space doesn't exist,
how can everything be somewhere ? Either we abandon the sweeping claims
i), i'), etc, although they seem well-justified empirically...or we
admit that there are two senses to 'exist', the existence of individual
things (like books, treest, atoms, and planets) in space and time,
and the existence of general conditions, space time and causality themselves.

I am not sure I could eliminate all of the space parameters from every description of the universe. There are by modern accounts 10 or 12 of them. Time parameter is unique. There is only one, "t".

If you have a set of 100 equations with 99 variable plus "t" you can reduce the set to 99 equations and 99 variable that have no reference to time, "t". That is all my proof does, but for everything describlable with equations in the universe. Thus prooving that time is not essential to a complete discription of the universe, or that time is only a useful concept, a parameter etc. not something that actually exists or is necessary to understanding physics.

In any case, I have enough to keep me busy in this thread, without talking about the multitude of parameters we associate with space, so I decline to comment further on the reality or not of space.

 

[Billy T]

Causality doesn't cause anything. But events cause other events, so causality must exist ...in some sense.

I think we agree here but not sure in what sense "causality must exist"

In any case It was time, not causality, I stated does not exist. I will also avoid sayng anything about the existence or not of causality in some abstract sense, as I did for space in a post repluing to you of a few minutes ago.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T I completely agree with this concept.

"Time is just the change of state of information about universe registered in human brain compared to the innitially stored states relative to each other."

The above statement is my own, please don't delete it even though its not yet proved.

Glad to have you on board. We may not entirely agree on everything but at least I do not think I will need to defend my views from your attack.

I seem to be slowly winning converts to my strange view. Have you visited the thread, "What Price for Free Will?" - in its first post there is a view of mine (in attachment) that is even stranger, but I think correct. take a look and let me know what you think of that one.

 

[Tournesol]

If you have a set of 100 equations with 99 variable plus "t" you can reduce the set to 99 equations and 99 variable that have no reference to time, "t".

No you can't. What you can do is replace each 't' with a variable which
represents the state of a clock. The question is how that is actualy different.

In any case, I have enough to keep me busy in this thread, without talking about the multitude of parameters we associate with space, so I decline to comment further on the reality or not of space.[/

The point is that the same arguments demolish space too, if they are
valid at all.

 

[Billy T]

Is frozen chicken some how slow down of time ?

What if we could pause someone for 100 years without damage (without cold freezing) and start him again. Wont he feel time travelled.

Not a bad question. Perhaps it will help some to understand that time is not something steadly flowing from past to future. Did you read any of my posts in this thread about the Brigadoom story?

Could this be somehow a reason for TIME DIALATION expriments results ? But then how did scientist predicted them before the expriments ?
And what about the twins paradox ? It seems that when speed is more something slows down the revolutions of electrons of all atoms of that object or something like that.

I am a beliver in the standard SRT view. Time dilation is real - the fact that cosmic ray muons reach the Earth surface supports this. The twin that returns , the only one who had a period of acellertions (not a symetric suituation) will be younger than his brother etc.

 

[Tournesol]

I think we agree here but not sure in what sense "causality must exist"

Well, quite. That is the traditional problem of time, causality etc -- how
best to characterise them. Trying to dismiss them totally doesn't help
because it doesn't work.

In any case It was time, not causality, I stated does not exist.

If that *form* of argument works for one thing, it can work for others.

I will also avoid sayng anything about the existence or not of causality in some abstract sense, as I did for space in a post repluing to you of a few minutes ago.

Since one of your anti-time arguments is that causal relations exist instead
of temporal relations, and since causal relations quite plausibly
imply temrporal relations, perhaps you should be.

P.S Any comments on the revised 1-3 ?

 

[swirljem]

I highly recommend everyone to take a peak at an article about an interview with Julian Barbour, discussing this topic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html

When I first read Billy T's initial post, I find it hard to understand his point of view, but after reading this interview with Julian Barbour, I get the basic idea why the concept of absolute time (and absolute space to some extent) can be problematic.

 

[Tournesol]

Let me now state it more generally: Event "A" is an observable changing function of time, "t" or A(t) = a(t) where the functional form of a(t) could be 15sin(7t) if the observable event A were the oscillatory positions of a pendulum, swinging with amplitude 15 in some system of units. (I use this example, despite its having repetive occurances of "A" because the inverse function has a well know name and that helps in my specific illustration/example.) Likewise some other changing observable event, say B(t), which if you still need specifics you could consider to be the position of Mars in its journey around the sun, but let's be general.
We have two equations:
A(t)=a(t) and B(t)= b(t). Inverting (Solving each separately for "t") we get: t=a'(A) and t=b'(B). As I fear some are already confused, i.e. not with me any longer, I will briefly return to the specific example: This inversion of the equations with the prior specific example: A(t) = 15 sin(7t) leads to 7t = arcsin(A/15) or t= {arcsin(A/15)}/7 which for convenience and generality, I have called a'(A). (The function form of a' ,which was an "arcsin" in this specific example, is only expressible in the general case symbolically and I have chosen a'(A) to represent it.)

Becoming more general still by considering some other observable, C, I get:
t = c'(C) etc. for every observable in the universe. Now eliminating time from all equations of the universe (and this is the proof that it is not needed to describe all observables in the universe) we have:
a'(A) = b'(B) = c'(C) = ...
That is every observable in the universe can in principle be related directly to any other observable without any reference to time.

So how do you eliminate time from:-

A(t) = 15sin(7t) ...?

By transforming it into something like

15sin(7b'(B))

where B is some observable. But B has to vary, and it can't vary with space
or anything like that without making the actual physics wrong. So B
is just something physically observable that varies with time -- a clock.

And of course, that trick can be pulled off with mass. We can equally
well replace some particular 'm' with some particular reading from a
set of scales. The multiplicity of m's can be dealt with by a multiplicity
of scales (and if Einstein is right, t's are muliple too).

 

[Billy T]

No you can't. What you can do is replace each 't' with a variable which represents the state of a clock. ...

Any competent highshool algebra student will confirm that I can totally eliminate one variable from a set of N equations with n variables and produce a seti of (N-1) equations with (n-1) variables, but I will do you the curtisy of assuming that you did not really mean to state that I could not.

Let me give a physical example with two equations only. (I find that actual examples help avoid the nonsense that abstract words, especially philosophical jargin, can produce.)

Suppose a marble is falling down in Earth's gravity field thru some viscus oil. And further that in some set of units, its vertical location, Y, is Xo - t.

As it steadily falls in the gravity field, its potential energy, P, is decreasing and the oil is betting slightly warmer to conserve energy. Again chosing units to keep the equations simple, I can describe this changing potential energy as P= Yo -t, where Xo and Yo are constants. Now a standard theorm of algebra is that equals can be subtracted from equals and the results are still equal. That is, Y-P = Xo - Yo. or P = Y + Yo - Xo. a not too surprizing statement that the potential energy is directly proportional to the location variable Y, but not equal to it in these units. Note that there is no longer any reference to the time variable t and only one equation.- precisely what yous said was not possible. Time is not necessary to describe what is changing, how it changes, etc. Again, this is because, Time does not exist.

Please, in this simple example, tell me where and which variable I "replace each 't' with a variable which represents the state of a clock."

I don't mean to be hostile, cruel, etc. but you are just simply wrong, as any competent high school student of algebra knows. I can eliminate any reference to time from all descriptions of all the changing sequences of events in the universe, at least in principle. I do not need to "replace the time variable" with anything related to a clock.

I will however agree that you can claim that my body aging etc is a "form of clock", but as the frozen chicken question implies, I might be able to make any of your "repacment clocks" RUN AT A DIFFERENT RATE. For example if I eat right and work out for the next three months, my "body clock" will run at a different rate. WHAT SORT OF "CLOCKS" ARE THEY IF ALL RUN AT DIFFERENT RATES?

To return to the specific marble falling in oil example, let me cool and heat the oil in a erratic way. Is the falling marble a "clock?" - Note that even with this erratic heating, it is still true that P = Y + Yo - Xo, that is, only your "replacement clock" is silly, not my discription of the universe.

 

[Billy T]

...And of course, that trick can be pulled off with mass. We can equally well replace some particular 'm' with some particular reading from a set of scales. The multiplicity of m's can be dealt with by a multiplicity
of scales (and if Einstein is right, t's are muliple too).

show me. don't tell me you can.

 

[Tournesol]

As it steadily falls in the gravity field, its potential energy, P, is decreasing and the oil is betting slightly warmer to conserve energy. Again chosing units to keep the equations simple, I can describe this changing potential energy as P= Yo -t, where Xo and Yo are constants. Now a standard theorm of algebra is that equals can be subtracted from equals and the results are still equal. That is, Y-P = Xo - Yo. or P = Y + Yo - Xo. a not too surprizing statement that the potential energy is directly proportional to the location variable Y, but not equal to it in these units. Note that there is no longer any reference to the time variable t and only one equation.- precisely what yous said was not possible. Time is not necessary to describe what is changing, how it changes, etc. Again, this is because, Time does not exist.

No, it is because, in this convenient example, there is a 1-1 mapping between
time and space, so obviously one is redundant (it could have as easily been
space). 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).

Consider also, the concrete nature of the situation apart form the algebra. I it is not as if the marble actually is at every position simultaneously.

Please, in this simple example, tell me where and which variable I "replace each 't' with a variable which represents the state of a clock."

The position of the marble itself is a clock.

I don't mean to be hostile, cruel, etc. but you are just simply wrong, as any competent high school student of algebra knows. I can eliminate any reference to time from all descriptions of all the changing sequences of events in the universe, at least in principle. I do not need to "replace the time variable" with anything related to a clock.

You 'replace' it by relating previously unrelated systems together. The physical interpretation of this would be using one as a clock for the other.

To return to the specific marble falling in oil example, let me cool and heat the oil in a erratic way. Is the falling marble a "clock?" - Note that even with this erratic heating, it is still true that P = Y + Yo - Xo, that is, only your "replacement clock" is silly, not my discription of the universe.

But you are not replacing t directly with some observable physical
measure, you are doing it in conjunction with an inverse function.
The inverse function would even out the non-linearity.

 

[Billy T]

I highly recommend everyone to take a peak at an article about an interview with Julian Barbour, discussing this topic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html

When I first read Billy T's initial post, I find it hard to understand his point of view, but after reading this interview with Julian Barbour, I get the basic idea why the concept of absolute time (and absolute space to some extent) can be problematic.

Thanks for the ref. Hav not read it all as must leave now, but on second page, I find:
"BARBOUR: My basic idea is that time as such does not exist. There is no invisible river of time. But there are things that you could call instants of time, or 'Nows'."

This is exactly what I have been saying based on my math proof.

Thanks again.

 

[Tournesol]

But what Barbour is saying is a way of characterising time, as co-existing eternal nows, rather than a flow...

And it is difficult to see how what you are saying is the same. In hos theory,
when the marble is at the top of the slope it is in one 'now' and when it is
at the bottom, it is at another. He doesn't think the nows flow into one
another , and he doesn't think there is any time paramater beyond
the state of the universer...but there is still something you can parameterise the
position of the marble against.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Tournesol]

Barbour dismisses the absolute idea of space, which has been on the back foot for
over a century anyway...yet again, this is a case of characterising something differently
passed of as outright denial.

Note that Barbour is actually more realistic about time than some people,
since, unlike 'presentists', he thinks that past and future 'nows' all exist...
and nows which never happenned or will happen, from our perspective,
are real too!