Solving the Infinite Time Paradox: Zeno's Argument Explained

In summary, this argues that as time does not flow infinitely backwards, there must be a beginning or creator to time.
  • #36
Deepak Kapur said:
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.

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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
DaveC426913 said:
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?

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.
 
  • #38
Deepak Kapur said:
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.
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?


Deepak Kapur said:
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.
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?



Deepak Kapur said:
Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.
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?
 
  • #39
DaveC426913 said:
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?

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.}
 
  • #40
Deepak Kapur said:
Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure.

...

I go by (b)
:confused: (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)
 
  • #41
Deepak Kapur said:
FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor.

{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.}
What about Quantum field theory.
 
  • #42
Deepak Kapur said:
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.

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.

Deepak Kapur said:
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.
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.

Deepak Kapur said:
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.}

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.
 
  • #43
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?
 
  • #44
DaveC426913 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #45
Deepak Kapur said:
I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.
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.
 
  • #46
ryan_m_b said:
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?

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.
 
  • #47
Deepak Kapur said:
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.

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

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 traveling along the Y axis i.e. how do you move through space without moving through time?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
alt said:
Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters. To quote part of the Wiki article;

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.


My underlined .. it seems most cosmological arguments reduce to this. The first cause; God, or Big bang .. personally, I'm not to sure about either.

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.
 
  • #49
ryan_m_b said:
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 there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?
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?

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.
 
  • #50
Hells said:
If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?

Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.
Hells said:
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.

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?
 
  • #51
ryan_m_b said:
Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.
What difference is there then? Educate me. I'm not saying I'm right, just that at my current level of physics knowledge I don't see a difference.

Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space.

I don't see the basis for saying that.
 
  • #52
Time is duration, space is distance, motion is change in relative position over a duration. Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both. There are lots of differences between time and motion these are just a few off the top of my head. :smile:
 
  • #53
But we define time in movement. For example per " 299 792 458m a photon in vacuum travels", more generally: t =1/"lenght traveled by uniform constant motion" or pr xx rays of a cesium atom, or more old school, a time glass. When we measure motion we just compare it to other form of motions we know are constant. Time is derived from motion

Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both
I assume you refer to time dilation. I thought briefly about it and don't think it changes anything. It's the constants that govern the rate of interaction that are "local". The end result is the same, which is exactly what I'm arguing for :D
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Time or motion, there can not be movement without the time needed for the change, but having time with no motion happens all the time. Think of a pulsar, we measure a burst of photons and when they stop we will measure the gap between the bursts as if it were moving at the same speed as the photons, a measure of time without motion? How would Morse code work without the constant dilation of time even without a signal?
 
  • #55
i thought time was a catalogue of change
 
  • #56
Darken-Sol said:
i thought time was a catalogue of change

Simplistically time is a dimension and we measure passage through that dimension. Cataloguing is to time as tape measures are to space; they observe rather than create.
 
  • #57
Gabe21 said:
time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesn't really exist

it should not matter if "time" has an end beginning or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldn't our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?
 
  • #58
andiamaj1431 said:
it should not matter if "time" has an end beginning or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldn't our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?

I have no idea what you mean by if time ends or even if that statement makes sense but perception is a process that occurs through time. Therefore it is impossible for us to perceive without time and thus because we are perceiving we know that time exists and continues to exist.
 
  • #59
i was just trying to understand if the question was referring to time ending, kinda puzzles me when time is talked about
 
  • #60
Over speculative posts deleted. Thread closed.
 
<h2>1. What is Zeno's paradox and how does it relate to the infinite time paradox?</h2><p>Zeno's paradox is a philosophical concept proposed by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea. It argues that motion and change are impossible because in order to reach a destination, one must first travel half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so on infinitely. This relates to the infinite time paradox because it suggests that time is also infinite and cannot be divided into smaller units.</p><h2>2. Why is the infinite time paradox considered a paradox?</h2><p>The infinite time paradox is considered a paradox because it presents a contradiction between our understanding of time as a continuous and infinite concept, and our understanding of motion and change as a series of finite events. It challenges our perception of time and raises questions about its true nature.</p><h2>3. How have scientists attempted to solve the infinite time paradox?</h2><p>Scientists have proposed various theories to solve the infinite time paradox, including the concept of a "block universe" where past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and the idea of time as a series of discrete moments rather than a continuous flow. Some also suggest that the paradox may be resolved by understanding time as a human construct rather than a fundamental aspect of the universe.</p><h2>4. Can the infinite time paradox ever truly be solved?</h2><p>It is difficult to say for certain whether the infinite time paradox can ever be fully solved. As our understanding of time and the universe evolves, new theories and perspectives may arise that challenge our current understanding of the paradox. It is possible that the paradox may never be fully resolved, but rather continue to spark new discussions and debates among scientists and philosophers.</p><h2>5. How does the infinite time paradox impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>The infinite time paradox challenges our perception of time and raises questions about the nature of the universe. It forces us to reconsider our understanding of concepts such as infinity, motion, and change, and may lead to new theories and discoveries about the fundamental nature of time and the universe. It also highlights the limitations of our human understanding and the complexities of the universe we inhabit.</p>

1. What is Zeno's paradox and how does it relate to the infinite time paradox?

Zeno's paradox is a philosophical concept proposed by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea. It argues that motion and change are impossible because in order to reach a destination, one must first travel half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so on infinitely. This relates to the infinite time paradox because it suggests that time is also infinite and cannot be divided into smaller units.

2. Why is the infinite time paradox considered a paradox?

The infinite time paradox is considered a paradox because it presents a contradiction between our understanding of time as a continuous and infinite concept, and our understanding of motion and change as a series of finite events. It challenges our perception of time and raises questions about its true nature.

3. How have scientists attempted to solve the infinite time paradox?

Scientists have proposed various theories to solve the infinite time paradox, including the concept of a "block universe" where past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and the idea of time as a series of discrete moments rather than a continuous flow. Some also suggest that the paradox may be resolved by understanding time as a human construct rather than a fundamental aspect of the universe.

4. Can the infinite time paradox ever truly be solved?

It is difficult to say for certain whether the infinite time paradox can ever be fully solved. As our understanding of time and the universe evolves, new theories and perspectives may arise that challenge our current understanding of the paradox. It is possible that the paradox may never be fully resolved, but rather continue to spark new discussions and debates among scientists and philosophers.

5. How does the infinite time paradox impact our understanding of the universe?

The infinite time paradox challenges our perception of time and raises questions about the nature of the universe. It forces us to reconsider our understanding of concepts such as infinity, motion, and change, and may lead to new theories and discoveries about the fundamental nature of time and the universe. It also highlights the limitations of our human understanding and the complexities of the universe we inhabit.

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
401
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
8
Replies
254
Views
14K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
448
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
Back
Top