Time does NOT Exist - Math Proof

HallsofIvy

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existance" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

Billy T

In earlier post I noted that the math proof only shows that it is possible to eliminate all reference to time in all descriptions of all details of the universe. Never claimed to show by math that time does not exist. The space available for titles does not permit one to be exact in the title.

moving finger

hehehehe... yes I agree, HallsofIvy..... and in light of this I am amazed that some people still insist that "time" is not simply a mental concept, but has some kind of real or absolute "existence"........

MF

Tournesol

Of course it is equally impossible to give a purely mathematical disproof of the actual
existence of something. Nonetheless, the conclusion has to be that time does not exist...and one thing keeps on happening after another, all the same.

Billy T

Your most recent post seems to reflect a slight change of heart, but perhaps I just do not understand it (or your earlier ones) relative to your post 111 which in part was: In fairness to you, I also noted while looking back at your old posts, that your in post 116, you had already pointed out some of the limitations of math proofs:
in my eariler reply to his I noted that in addition to not being required for a discription of the universe, (the math proof) time also has the property that it (1) can't cause any thing and (2) as a consequence, can not be directly observed. It is these three reasons why I think it unlike to have any ontological status.

lwymarie

how to measure the 'speed' of time? time's speed, is it measured by itself?

speed=distance/time. then how to measure the 'speed' of time? how can we say 'my time is faster than your time', etc?

HallsofIvy

Well, since "speed" of anything is defined as the change in that quantity divided by the change in time, the speed of time is clearly "change in time"/"change in time" and so is 1!

Starship

I find the existence of space as illogical as the existence of a time dimension.

In the sense of quantum nonlocality and nonspatiality, space or distance is also abstract. The so-called superluminal objection is flawed in my opinion, because it assumes the physical existence of space. Particles do not exist in space, they just exist. There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no distance between particles. This is not the same as saying that the distance is zero; distance simply doesn't exist in nature: it's abstract. More precisely, it is the abstract vector difference between two positional properties.

Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is that, in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must exist at a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical entity that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In other words, if space exists, where is it? This leads to a tautology.

The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to) individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic. We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only the absolute exists. So particles do not move from one location in space to another.

McGyver

You are close. Time would begin at the instant there were inception of all things. If existance ALWAYS was - then Time is mostly relevant measurements that define relationships, eg. length of events, light, sound, distance, particle make-up, eb and flow of (harmonics). Simply put, existance is interconnecting events. The deeper one looks, you begin viewing dimensions (including afterlife) and those dimensions again exists within Time. Math formulas have thus been created by humans to define the known relationships, and extrapolate end points which we assume, based upon proven formulas, to therefore exist. Bear in mind Time and Existance are ever-changing.

Starship

Space and time are abstract concepts. It does not exist in nature. In fact i don't believe relativity is a correct theory. The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.

How is the physical connection between electricity and magnetism related to the connection between abstract concepts such as space and time?

moving finger

I agree with the concept of work unification. Can I unify my job with someone else's job and take some time off?

MF


(ps - sorry, just a joke!)

Doctordick

I agree 100%. And my position is that causality exists as a mechanism to make our experiences easier to keep track of. And I will explain that position throughly if you have the patience to follow my reasoning.

I'm still reading your posts.

Have fun -- Dick

Doctordick

Absolutely correct! What I am trying to say is that you seem to recognize the problem but don't present a solution outside the common conclusions: i.e., presume that time is a real thing and not just a figment of your imagination.

Just reading your stuff!

Dick

Doctordick

I really think we need to talk!

Dick

Doctordick

Now this depends very much on your definition of those reference frames. The reference frames themselves have characteristics which need to be established. Units of measure and methods of making measurements just to name two. Your phrase "the choice of reference frame" has been assumed to be limited to a very specific set of reference frames. You should read a little about Hamiltonian Mechanics; it might expand your view of the concept "reference frame".

Have fun -- Dick

Ron

The argument as to whether or not time exists might be found at www.btinternet.com/~author.ron

The paper, ‘The Nature and Cause of Time’, suggests that the spacetime model, although an excellent mathematical model for determining the position of any point or object in space and time, appears to be confusing our understanding about the real nature of time itself. The paper puts forward a hypothesis that assumes time and energy to be the same thing. As we know, energy is the source of all activities, therefore the cause of change, and as most can agree, change is a prime feature of passing time. Without energy, mass would be inert and changeless, which would mean the universe would be a pretty dead universe indeed.

As the eminent physicist, Paul Davies, stated in his book titled, ‘About Time’, ‘time and energy goes hand in hand – no energy, no time’. Now this gives a strong indication that there is a direct relationship between time and energy, and the above link agrees with Davies statement but takes it further by assuming that time and energy are in fact two features of the same thing.

The idea of ‘energy’ always relates to the capacity to do work, while ‘time’ usually refers to the passage of events that is measurable. When energy is exerted and work is done the consequence of that work is ‘change’, and a sequence of changes gives rise to the effect of passing time that has duration, which is measurable. And as a matter of interest the measuring system of time is energy also based. Both mechanical and electrical timepieces all need ‘energy’ in order to ‘do the work’ of measuring time.

In answer to the question, does time exist; it would seem it does, in the form of energy?

Jonny_trigonometry

hey Billy T, how long did it take you to prove that time doesn't exist?