# Time does NOT Exist - Math Proof

by Billy T
Tags: exist, math, proof, time
P: 352
 Quote by Ivegottheskill I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes) It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion
So your saying that time is just the measurment of motion? Yes, I agree. Motion exists, and varies with respect to v. You can also call this a variation in the interval between two events (or motions).
 P: 352 By the way, Ivegottheskill, you titled this thread with "Math proof". Can you demonstrate some mathematical proof therefore? :)
 P: 732 The thread was started by "Billy T"
 P: n/a If time does not exist, then the second law of thermodynamics also does not exist, that is, the events of the second law (order to disorder) cannot obtain without an "arrow of time".
P: 33
 Quote by saltydog I think time travel is impossible on dynamic grounds: The universe, as I see it, is a big non-linear dynamo in its chaotic regime. Think of the Lorenz Attractor: Trajectories NEVER cross. Same for the Universe in my opinion: to travel back in time would require crossing trajectories and to do so would entail "jumping" to another attractor (a different universe). Anyway, looking at it that way works for me. Salty
time travel may not be possible, time viewing on the other hand SHOULD be possible if time is a fourth dimention. time must exist in one form or another or we would not have the ability to form memories. if time doesnt exist then how is it that we experience the passage of it?

with that said, say time is a dimention which we are simply not able to see through, that wouldnt mean that it doesnt exist. if you're sitting on one side of a brick wall, does that mean that what's on the other side doesnt exist just because you cant see it? we can only see in three dimentions granted, but again, there are things all around us at all times that we cant see, but we dont say air doesnt exist and we cant see that with our bare eyes.

if time doesnt exist, then nothing really exists, it's all just a trick of the mind.
P: 33
 Quote by 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 dont delete it even though its not yet proved.
so nothing exists untill a human sees it?
P: 33
 Quote by RoboSapien 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.
matter is part of the three dimentions that we can SEE. the fact that the big bang happend at all just reenforces time existing since it is a past event. if time doesnt exist, then everything must happen at the very same instant.
P: 33
 Quote by Billy T 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 with out 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.)
you're contridicting yourself all over the place here, how can things change at all if time doesnt exist?
P: 33
 Quote by Billy T 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.
eliminating a variable from a math problem does not mean that said vaiable doesnt exist, it just means that it's not that important a variable for that problem.
P: 33
 Quote by Billy T I am not making any comments about the reality of space. I can not prove it non existent with mathematics as I did for time, which is a unique parameter. You should not draw any conclusion, certainly not that I am contradicting myself because of my silence on the issue of the reality of space. As I observed before, I have enough to do just defending the idea that time is not real without getting into discussions about space also.
givin the possiblity that time is a fouth dimention in our visibly 3 dimentional universe you cannot talk about one without the other.
P: 33
 Quote by Billy T No, as I haave often stated, Events cause events, not time passing. Certainly there are sequences of events, like a chain, one leading to the next. It is a big leap to go from this observation to postualte the real existence of something that has no affect on anything. "CLOCK READINGS" ARE NOT TIME. Sunrises are not time. The only difference between "clock readings" and "sun rises", is that one sequence of events (hands pointing at 12x60 different positions on the clock dial) is a more finely marked sequence of events than the daily sun rise, but this is not any different in principle. Is "sun rise" time also? How about an even less frequent sequence of events: Neptune / Pluto conjunctions? Is that time? Point is: that any sequecnce of events, even the oscillation of the atoms in an "atomic clock" is just that, a sequence of events, not time. My basic claim is that I have eliminated time. You claim I have only relplaced it. Now at least you conceed that I have done so formally via my math, but not "metaphysically." I.e. time is still hidden in the various variables, such as clock hand positions, that correlate well with the "time I eliminated." I find metaphysical proofs much less persuavive than math. In fact, I don't know of anything proven so firmly by metaphysics that other philosophers can not argue just the contray! Consequently, I will stick with mathematical proofs. I have already granted that when I eliminate time from all desctriptions of the universe, including sequences of events, that some of the remaining varriables do correlated well with clock hand positions, but I continue, as I just did above, to believe that clock hand positions are not time any more than Neptune/Pluto conjunctions are time. You believe in the reality of time so firmly that I do not think I will ever convence you that something which can not be observed (don't tell me again that by looking at clock hand positions, your are observing time), and has no affect on anything, is not real. No more real than unicorns, which also have no affect on anything and can not be observed. Thus perhaps we should just "agree to disagree". You stick to your metaphysics, and I will stick to my math. OK?
alright, but if time doesnt exist, then how does one thing cause another? if time truely didnt exist everything would happen in an instant and then be over.

clock readings are a measure of time, they are not in themselves time. you are constantly contradicting yourself and it's starting to become slightly amusing. on one hand you say time doesnt exist, and on the other you say events happen. if events happen time quite simply HAS to exist.

sure everything we see around us is technicly not what is really happening, only what our eyes are able to see, but there are forces at work which are not visable and yet we still accept that they are real.

the only problem with your "mathimatical proof" is that it isnt really proof. all you're doing is taking out a variable. it still takes time for an object to get from point A to point B, even if you're not measuring it.

you equate time to unicorns, apples and oranges anybody? time is a force, you cant observe gravity either but it's always a factor. I will grant you that clocks are not time, only an easy to understand measuring stick for the passage of said time. movement isnt time, but the fact that things can move means time must exist.
P: 33
 Quote by sneez I think there is something to the argument that time might be just a perception. There is this illness which causes brain not to record "frames" of events into memory which causes a person perceive things not continually. Example: That person would see a car 100 feet away and the next time he/she would see the car would be 10 feet away without seeing how the car got there. Just like very slow frame rate in while watching movie.
yes, but if someone were watching this happen it isnt as though the person would fade from existence during that time. the person with said disorder would still be there, meaning simply blanking out doesnt cause time for that person to stop. time passes no matter if we're aware of it or not, it maynot flow perfectly, but it would be fair to equate it to a river since rivers very rarely flow perfectly, there are bends and ripples.
P: 33
 Quote by Billy T Who is suggesting this straw horse: "on top of each other"? Only someone who is only able to conceive of a chain of events, one causing another, as something that requires time be real would suggest such a thing. Certainly not Billy T. One thought can lead to another, one event can lead to another, Time has nothing to do with this. Part of the purpose of my prior post was, as you correctly guessed, to show that even "the arrow of time" (entropy increasing points to the future) is just statistically likely, not necesarily true. If you can not even be sure which way is future and which was past, how can you think time real?) Calling demonstrations such as my marble box demo a "ton of scepticism" is not much a reasoned argument. It is border line name calling, and not your first either (see below.) Time is not required for complete discription of the universe, thoughts included if you are a physicalist, not an idealist, or one of their ilk who assumes thoughts are given to you by some "spirit." That is, I have demonstrated mathematically that every equation describing physical events, including their changing characteristics, can be written without any reference to time. I.e. the conection from event to event is direct, without using time as an intermediary. This is possible and demonstrated. QED in post 1. Only a person firmly holding a limited view ("time must exist") and incapable of understanding other alternatives would persist in thinking "events must be on top of each other" if not "displaced in time" (Ergo time is real.), rather than understanding the obvious: "Events cause events" (not time) - The mantra I have been chanting in more than a dozen posts. This counter proof: "time must be real because if it were not, then events would be on top of each other and since they are not, time must be real." Is circular reasoning, question begging or whatever you want to call it, and not the first time you have so violated the only really universally accepted rule of your beloved metaphysics. I challenge you to show time is real, without first assuming it is as part of your "proof." That is give me a proof, even a metaphysical one, but a math proof would be much stronger, that time does exist, which does not effectively begin by the assumption that it does. Your above counter proof: "Since events are not on top of each other (but distributed in time - only alternative you recognize as possible) then yes they are distributed in time and consequently time must exits" is more clearly seen as circular if expanded to fully expose your "logic" as I have just done. You concluded an earlier post by stating that I do bad metaphysics (and or Math - I forget which, but will dig it out if you like and cite other examples of your circular reasoning also if requested.) Although I don't put much weight in metaphysical arguments, I would at least avoid circular ones.
okay, you're looking at the universe as a machanical device, machanical devices require time passing in order to get these prosesses going. enforcing the idea that time is real. moving of an object takes time, Im not saying motion IS time, only a reference to a point in time. a visable clue that things are not the same as they once were.

if time does not exist then how would anything ever happen? you seem to be missing the fundimental flaw in your idea, if time doesnt exist, then either nothing would happen at all, or all things would happen in less than an instant. we observe the passage of time as things around us move. your little math solution only works if you dont need to know how fast your marble is moving. you're confusing the issue Im afraid. saying that things happen as a series of events in itself implies that time exists. if there is no time there can be no movement.
P: 19
 if time does not exist then how would anything ever happen? you seem to be missing the fundimental flaw in your idea, if time doesnt exist, then either nothing would happen at all, or all things would happen in less than an instant. we observe the passage of time as things around us move. your little math solution only works if you dont need to know how fast your marble is moving. you're confusing the issue Im afraid. saying that things happen as a series of events in itself implies that time exists. if there is no time there can be no movement.
Any movement is triggered by anything but time itself.

On one hand time truely has no meaning or point to exist, but yes, it is questionable.

We are forgetting one moment. All definitions currently used in physics are separated into definitions themselves to HELP our mind to cope with understanding of physical reality of any sort. Example: If we look at anything out there, it can be interpreted in either terms of mass, velocity, temperature etc., or otherwise in terms used to define the activity of moving particles within object.

Mass can be "adjusted" as a property to a particular object or particle.
Relative velocity can be a property of any object.
Quantity of particles can be a property of an object.
Activity and degree of freedom of particles can be a property of an object (otherwise known as temperature).

Time is one of primary terms used in physics to set a virtual axis, from where other calculations or assessments can be made. Classical physics only presumes that time exists. It means that it is set as a term or definition in the first place, i.e. there is no possible proof that it can exist by itself, without judging the change.

There is no set quantity of time, no seen start of time, no seen end of time. It is only "measured" in terms of periodical change occuring in the "time measuring machine" (i.e. sand clock or atomic clock).

Once again as any primary definition (such as temperature) it is set to assist our brain to process information about reality, otherwise we would not be able to judge events.

Our consciousness it trapped within its own setup and the setup of our brain, in other words our brains are made in such way that we only see one "moment of time", now, and can clearly define it as reality. We can remember the past, not witness it and we can foresee the future, not witness it.

There are speculations that reality we experience can be virtually "casted from somewhere else", i.e. stipulated by something that we do not see or witness clearly now, because some of us claim they may foresee. It may also imply that the past exists because it is "casted to somewhere else", because we may remember or see something from the very deep past i.e. claim to have "past life experiences". Again this is only one of the ways to think about it.

However it does not mean that time, as such, is an issue. It is only a primary definition used in classical physics, and there are other alternative ways to enterpret reality and the thread of events.

Classical physics is a pure realistic approach in understanding something that in fact has a dual nature, both organised and chaotic, and is not entirely understood yet. It is based on definitions, such as time, mass, relative velocity, formulas and equations.

It is set this way because it suits human brain best. Using this rationalistic approach, the more we discover, the more definitions we need to introduce, because quite often we come accross something that does not fit into the given set of definitions. Yes, there are many areas where we "stumble" in understanding, but on contrary this approach has worked best for us so far.

Classical physics hopes that one day we would not need to seach for any more definitions, i.e. we will clearly understand reality. It would mean that human knowledge would have achieved utmost understanding.

 Related Discussions General Discussion 69 General Physics 207