Time Zero Nothing Exists

**out of whack** · Dec12-07, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Except that there is nowhere in the universe - including hard vacuum - that change does not happen. All matter is in a state of change, all energy is in a state of change.

I don't really know. Do you have a rationale to support the view that nothing real can ever be constant? I don't see this as essential to the current discussion but I am interested.

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

So your premise describes a situation that does not exist.

My premise is actually yours, the unchanging item is what you used in your thought experiment. If it is an impossible premise then the experiment is moot on a second count.

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Since all that exists has the precondition of change, and change means time, then we're right back to where we started; time is everywhere.

If indeed nothing constant can possibly exist. I would not see a problem with that. My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing, except that the word "change" is more clearly defined than "time". Have you also reached this conclusion by now?

**DaveC426913** · Dec12-07, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by out of whack

I don't really know. Do you have a rationale to support the view that nothing real can ever be constant?

It's not that it can or can't be, it's that there simply isn't anything.

Matter, energy and lack of either pretty much sums up the contents of the universe as we know it.

Originally Posted by out of whack

If indeed nothing constant can possibly exist. I would not see a problem with that. My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing, except that the word "change" is more clearly defined than "time". Have you also reached this conclusion by now?

I confess, I'm having trouble defining time as an entity distinct from change.

**out of whack** · Dec13-07, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

I confess, I'm having trouble defining time as an entity distinct from change.

My work is done!

**octelcogopod** · Dec13-07, 11:01 AM

Alright that's fine out of whack, but what about this.

If time equals change, how do we measure the time it takes for something to get done?
What makes it so that it appears that while all things move and change faster and slower, they all appear to happen in the same *time span*

Granted, we're always measuring after another changing thing, like the pendulum on a clock or day/night time, but does this mean that all change is in essence unrelated to each other?

There are a lot of things that change in the universe, but it all appears coherent, is that our consciousness or maybe because all things are made up of the same primordial entity?

It always take the same amount of time to do something, relative to everything else, or so it appears anyway, which makes me wonder why it's all so rigid in a way.
Maybe a bit off topic this last paragraph but certainly his my point well.

**out of whack** · Dec13-07, 01:07 PM

Oops, my work is not done. "How" is a short question that takes a long explanation...

Originally Posted by octelcogopod

how do we measure the time it takes for something to get done?

Measuring something is done in two steps. First, select some arbitrary unit that exhibits the same property as what you want to measure. Second, see how many times your unit fits in what you want to measure.

Selecting a unit is a trial and error exercise. What seems suitable at some point can later turn out to lack accuracy. You wouldn't use a rubber band as a unit of length for obvious reasons, a metal ruler is much more consistent. It is still subject to temperature changes, so a wooden ruler may be better. But humidity affects it. The reliability problem arises no matter what unit we pick. Even the kilogram is reported to have lost weight.

Recognizing that nothing is perfect, we fall back on what is most useable, something apparently regular and that does not vary wildly under different conditions of use. In the case of change, a pendulum appears regular under many conditions compared to other changes so clocks were build around it. Atomic clocks use a much more reliable change but even these cannot be considered perfect, just the best we can manufacture.

The second step, taking a measurement, is done by matching what we want to measure against our unit. In the case of length, we would place a ruler as close as possible to the item we want to measure and observe how it fits against it. The device we use as a unit does not measure anything other than itself so it is up to the observer to apply sufficient skill to obtain an accurate match and measurement. In the case of change, we place our clock in the same frame of reference as the event we want to measure and see how it fits against it. If the clock ticks 30 times between the start and end of a race then we have measured the amount of change (aka time) of the race to be 30 clock ticks. If the clock also ticks 30 times between the start and the end of a television commercial then this is also the amount of change that corresponds to this other, separate event. The race involved a change in position whereas the commercial involved a change of images, but both exhibited the common property of change and both could be measured using the same unit.

What makes it so that it appears that while all things move and change faster and slower, they all appear to happen in the same *time span*

I am sorry, I am not clear on what you are asking. The fact that you put *time span* in asterisks gives me a hint that you may not be entirely clear on it either. When this happens, it is sometimes useful to think in terms of length instead of change and reword:

"What makes it so that it appears that while all things are longer or shorter, they all appear to exist in the same *space span*"

...hummm... it didn't help this time.

does this mean that all change is in essence unrelated to each other?

I don't see this as a conclusion. All things are related. A change in some aspect of reality causes another.

There are a lot of things that change in the universe, but it all appears coherent, is that our consciousness or maybe because all things are made up of the same primordial entity?

I think we just interpret it as cause-and-effect relations. It's how our consciousness makes sense of whatever reality is made of. As in "everything is matter and energy" and it all works together. If it didn't then could not make sense of it.

It always take the same amount of time to do something, relative to everything else, or so it appears anyway, which makes me wonder why it's all so rigid in a way.

If things were not consistent then we would never know what will happen next. If there are laws of nature then there must be consistency.

~~castlegates~~ · Dec13-07, 04:57 PM

My contention was simply that time and change are the same thing

Have to disagree here completely. Time has nothing to do with change. Time is the nothing that lies between markers. Time does not exist but for the fact that we can sense that which does not exist by way of markers (that which does exist). With the markers, time becomes a unit of measure (one unit of nothing at all). Time cannot be removed by any means whatsoever. It is whats left over should we remove all that does exist. Removing all markers does not make time go away, it just removes tick and tock. Just remember that time is the equivalent of nothing at all, and it all fits into place as an unchanging constant in an everchanging world we live in.

**out of whack** · Dec13-07, 05:46 PM

@castlegates:

Your interpretation is imagery, not rationale. Replace the word "time" with "change" and your paragraph works pretty much the same way. If time and change were unrelated then time could pass without change and/or changes could occur without time. But neither is meaningful as you will see if you read the whole discussion.

---

Actually we discussed in details how time requires change but not how change requires time, so let me cover this part right away. If A changed into B and no time passed then A and B would coexist at the same time. But this would make A and B separate cases and not a change from one to the other, so change requires time. Done. (And the time:change equivalence is complete.)

~~castlegates~~ · Dec14-07, 12:20 AM

Your interpretation is imagery, not rationale

Time is not a rational entity. So I'm spot on.

Replace the word "time" with "change" and your paragraph works pretty much the same way.

Why would I replace time with something unrelated?

If time and change were unrelated then time could pass without change

Yes time would pass without change (markers). We just wouldn't have any sense of it.

and/or changes could occur without time

No, because time cannot be removed. It is nothing after all.

Time is as simple as this.

10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000 000000100000000001
Where time is zero and the markers for time are represented by one in the line above. Think of the ones as events, and that which is in between those events is depicted as a non-event.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.
---

**out of whack** · Dec14-07, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by castlegates

10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000 000000100000000001

Since the 0's represent nothing, non-events, let me pare your idea to its meaningful components: "11111111111". Your intervening sequences of 0's are redundant. If they represent nothing then you can remove them without loss of meaning. You could have inserted any other redundant symbol that represented any meaningless concept you can imagine that also does nothing, with the same result.

Now since there is little sense in talking about things that don't matter. Let's return to what does matter. What matters is the difference between events. This difference is called change. Change is observable when a clock ticks, something most people call time. I have shown how these two concepts are equivalent and the word "time" is redundant. You have not objected to any of it either.

Of course I could now take this redundant "time" word, redefine it as something meaningless and start inserting this nothing here and there with no actual effect. But I fail to see any point in doing that.

~~castlegates~~ · Dec14-07, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by out of whack

Your intervening sequences of 0's are redundant.

I don't really have to put a 0, or 0's in between the ones, but on a message board a sequence of 0's can show various lengths of time. It's an example.

If they represent nothing then you can remove them without loss of meaning.

That would be correct, because a series like this 1111111111111111 has the same meaning, albeit less understandable on a message board.

You could have inserted any other redundant symbol that represented any meaningless concept you can imagine that also does nothing, with the same result.

I sure could, but it would certainly muddy up the waters on a message board.

Now since there is little sense in talking about things that don't matter. Let's return to what does matter. What matters is the difference between events.

Exactly

This difference is called change. Change is observable when a clock ticks, something most people call time.

Time is not observed, what is observed is a quantity, that quantity is one.

Of course I could now take this redundant "time" word, redefine it as something meaningless and start inserting this nothing here and there with no actual effect. But I fail to see any point in doing that.

Time is not something that can be inserted, for it is everywhere apparent. That's like being in the middle of a lake, underwater I might add, and saying you're going to insert water into the equation. In our universe ... you are swimming in a sea of nothing, wherein quantities of one show up from time to time. The tick and tock of a clock is a perfect example of ones butted up against nothing.

**out of whack** · Dec15-07, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by castlegates

Time is not observed, what is observed is a quantity, that quantity is one.

When I observe the difference between two states what I observe is a change, not a quantity, and certainly not 1 specifically.

Originally Posted by castlegates

Time is not something that can be inserted, for it is everywhere apparent. That's like being in the middle of a lake, underwater I might add, and saying you're going to insert water into the equation. In our universe ... you are swimming in a sea of nothing, wherein quantities of one show up from time to time. The tick and tock of a clock is a perfect example of ones butted up against nothing.

This is more imagery again, not rationale. You offer nothing to substantiate what you imagine. Piling up the examples will not make it true.

~~castlegates~~ · Dec15-07, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by out of whack

When I observe the difference between two states what I observe is a change, not a quantity, and certainly not 1 specifically.

The only difference to be noted is non-existence butted up against existence. These are the only two states available in this universe. This is the universe stripped naked to the bare essentials. All things observable come to you in ones ( no acceptions), and they can only come to you one at a time, time being the nothing between those observables.

This is more imagery again, not rationale. You offer nothing to substantiate what you imagine. Piling up the examples will not make it true.

Apparently you wish to compare apples and oranges, notice a difference, and call that time. I'm not the least bit swayed by this.

**JoeDawg** · Dec15-07, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by castlegates

The only difference to be noted is non-existence butted up against existence. These are the only two states available in this universe. This is the universe stripped naked to the bare essentials. All things observable come to you in ones ( no acceptions), and they can only come to you one at a time, time being the nothing between those observables.

If all you can observe is 'ones' how can you claim the universe has two states?

This sounds like a crackpot theory, rather than a philosophical stance.

I'm not going to go so far as say time is equal to change, I think that is an unjustified equivocation, but what you have said here seems confused and incoherent.

**out of whack** · Dec15-07, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JoeDawg

I'm not going to go so far as say time is equal to change, I think that is an unjustified equivocation

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

**JoeDawg** · Dec15-07, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by out of whack

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

Time is a complex concept. It involves comparing states of one thing with another. Its not just about change but how the change in state of one thing relates to another. Time also has an apparent direction, at least in the way we perceive it. And all we can honestly talk about is how we perceive it. Change is a simpler concept. You are trying to reduce something we don't understand to something simple, but the fact is, its something we don't understand.

Its certainly an interesting discussion, I just think the conclusion is premature, likely incorrect and ultimately unsupportable.

**friend** · Dec15-07, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by out of whack

Hi JoeDawg. I didn't know I equivocated, or that my conclusion was unjustified. I explained why the concept of time implies the concept of change. I also explained why the concept of change implies the concept of time. Then I concluded from this double implication that both concepts are equivalent. I'm interested to hear objections on any part of my presentation.

You might notice that time exist simply because of the observation of change. But that does not enable you to measure time. In order to measure time, you need to see how some things change with respect to how other things change. We have the tick and tock of a clock to compare how fast other things change. But what if there were only the tick and tock? Then we would not be able to measure time. For we would not know whether it was just our perception as to whether there was equal time between every tick of the clock. Some ticks might actually have more time between them. How would you know unless there were other processes (changes) to compare it with? So you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure time. There has to be an expansion rate of the universe with respect to which the rate of other processes are measured. Expansion alone can not be measured without other things in the universe happening in order to compare expansion rate with some other process, and visa versa.