Does Time Truly Exist or Is It Merely a Human Construct?

[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!

 

[Billy T]

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.

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.

 

[Billy T]

...when the marble is at the top...

From this, you ref to "marble," I know you have read my post 64.

You claimed that I did not really eliminate time in my math proof, but instead that:
"You 'replaced' it by relating previously unrelated systems together. The physical interpretation of this would be using one as a clock for the other."

You also claimed: that I could not reduce 100 equations with 99 variables plus variable "t" to a set of 99 equations that had no reference to "t."

To refute both these claims, in post 64, I set up specific example of a marble falling thru viscous oil. I gave two equations. One explicitly related the vertical position of the marble, Y, to time and the other also explicitly related the Potential energy, P, to time. Then, I reduced this two equation set to only one equation by eliminating the "t" variable. (This refuting the second of your claims, about what I could not do to the 100 equation set.)

I had expected you to defend your first claim (I was not "eliminating time", but only "replacing it" with a "clock varable") by noting that the vertical position of the marble was effectively a clock. This is why I noted that the oil was erratically heated and cooled. The resulting erratic fall rate of the marble would make any claim you advanced that the vertical position of marble was a "clock" replacing my "t" variable very strange, if not silly. The time indicated by that erratic "CLOCK" would not agree with any other clock nor be of any use (or validity) in any of the equations of physics. That is I was prepared to counter argue that your "replacement clock" was not a clock at all.

I asked you specifically, in post 64, to tell me what was the "replacement clock" in my final single equation for the marble falling thru erratically heated/cooled oil, but you did not reply. May I take this as concession that you were in error in both your claims? (Or will you now indicate which of the variable in the remaining single equation is the "replacment clock"?) I still claim that I have eliminated time, and even with the erratic heating my resulting equation is still completely valid. The burden of backing up your claims is yours, now that I have refuted both your claims.

 

[Billy T]

You conclude your post 66 with:

...The inverse function would even out the non-linearity.

This appears to be a very general claim about inverse functions. How do you know that they "even out the non linearity."
Perhaps I do not understnd you. I tend to need specific exampes to clearly understand what you are saying. Can you give any? I would think it especially useful if you could stick to the simple marble falling thru erratically heated/cooled oil that we have both been using.

I think you are trying to defend your claim that I have not eliminated the "t" variable, despite both my general statement about reducing 100 equations to only 99 and my specific example of two equations being reduced to one by elimination of "t" which appeared in both. I have already pointed out that the vertical position of the marble, erratically falling thru the oil, is a very strange, totally useless, "nonclock," but I am confused about what you are claiming now and an example, instead of general words, would help make it clear to me. If you need to , postulated a specific functional form for the changing viscosity, (terminal speed of marble fall) but only to show me what you are claiming - I want it to erratic heating and cooling to show your "replacement clock" is not a clock at all.

 

[Tournesol]

The marble example only works, inasmuch as it works, because so long
as you are asking questions about P.E, time is not very important
in that particular example.

Now, what about the frictional pendulum ?

And, of course, the metaphysical argument.

 

[Tournesol]

You also claimed: that I could not reduce 100 equations with 99 variables plus variable "t" to a set of 99 equations that had no reference to "t."

I never said that this was impossible mathematically. Any physical
system that has any kind of determinism is going to have 'redundant'
variables, precisely because some of its parameters can be predicted from others. But the correct interpretation of this is in terms of determinism, not
in terms of things not existing at all in the first place.

 

[Billy T]

... Any physical system that has any kind of determinism is going to have 'redundant' variables, precisely because some of its parameters can be predicted from others. But the correct interpretation of this is in terms of determinism, not in terms of things not existing at all in the first place.

Your prior ref to the pendulum was in post 66 where you ask /state:
"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)."
I essentially did this already if I understand you. In the very first post of this thread, if memory serves (not looking at it as I type) I assumed an axample of swing, Amplitude, A, of the form:
A =15 sin(7t) and then inverted it for t = {arcsin(A/15)}/7. or in general terms t = a'(A). This as someone I thanked for doing so, is not fully correct as in general, many observables besides A would be required (For example where the pendulum is on the Earth, B, would be required as gravity is not uniform over all the Earth etc. Thus I readly conceeded that the correct general form is"
t = a'(A,B,C...) and so forth for t = b'(A,B,C,...) etc.
When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe, and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change. It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist, is not observable, is not needed, but is avery convenient parameter in the equations of physics as they are usually written.

Now it appears that you want the example where
A = exp(-t)15sin(7t)
OK, but I can not longer explicitly state the inverse, (no longer a simple arcsin) so I am forced to state the inverse in general notation as:
t = a"(A,B,C...) whre the function a" is no longer the arcsin.

So what!

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

 

[Tournesol]

When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe,

In exactly the sense that you can replace time-as-a-measurement
with clock readings. (And of course to admit there are such things
and changes and event-sequences is to assume Time, or at least to admit aspects of time other than the measurement aspect).

and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change.

Quite beside the point -- the idea that Time itself causes things is a nonsense-question, like asking where Space is.

It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist,

I have argued specificaly against that conclusion [#49, #50]. It is the metaphysics you
are getting wrong, not the maths.

is not observable,

You observe it with clocks !

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

You eliminination of 't' brings replaces it with other factors which effectively
consitute clocks.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

Try answering the question: eliminate 't' from the equation without substituting in a clock.

 

[RAD4921]

The end of Time

Your prior ref to the pendulum was in post 66 where you ask /state:
"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)."
I essentially did this already if I understand you. In the very first post of this thread, if memory serves (not looking at it as I type) I assumed an axample of swing, Amplitude, A, of the form:
A =15 sin(7t) and then inverted it for t = {arcsin(A/15)}/7. or in general terms t = a'(A). This as someone I thanked for doing so, is not fully correct as in general, many observables besides A would be required (For example where the pendulum is on the Earth, B, would be required as gravity is not uniform over all the Earth etc. Thus I readly conceeded that the correct general form is"
t = a'(A,B,C...) and so forth for t = b'(A,B,C,...) etc.
When I eliminate "t" (and it appears that you are now conceeding that I can, at least formally, do this) from all equations describing eveything in the universe, including all changes that occur, you still are objecting that (if I understand you) that effectively "t" is still there because some of the observables (A,B,C,...) correlate well with time. I do not deny this. My only claim is that time need not be used to describe the changes or event sequences that we can observe, and that time itself consequently is not the cause of any change. It is powerless to affect anything. consequently it does not exist, is not observable, is not needed, but is avery convenient parameter in the equations of physics as they are usually written.

Now it appears that you want the example where
A = exp(-t)15sin(7t)
OK, but I can not longer explicitly state the inverse, (no longer a simple arcsin) so I am forced to state the inverse in general notation as:
t = a"(A,B,C...) whre the function a" is no longer the arcsin.

So what!

My formal elimination of "t" NEVER DEPENDED UPON THE SPECIFIC FORM OF THE INVERSE FUNCTION.

I must be missing your point. Please explain how making the pendulum decay changes anything.

I dound your thread that got moved. My ideas on the illusions of time and motion come from a book by Julian Barbour called: "The End of Time" The book is endoresed by John A Wheeler on the back cover. I seen Barbour at a lecture in Chicago.

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics -- by Julian BarbourPaperback (Rate it)
Buy new: $12.57 -- Used & new from: $4.90

 

[Billy T]

In exactly the sense that you can replace time-as-a-measurement with clock readings. (And of course to admit there are such things and changes and event-sequences is to assume Time, or at least to admit aspects of time other than the measurement aspect).

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 have argued specificially against that conclusion [#49, #50]. It is the metaphysics you are getting wrong, not the maths...You observe it with clocks!

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.

Your eliminination of 't' brings replaces it with other factors which effectively consitute clocks.

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?

 

[StatusX]

I'm sorry, I haven't read every post here, but it seems to me that you want to eliminate the variable t but have no problem with delta t's. I don't understand what you could mean by this. If delta t exists, then what's wrong with defining t as the delta t between now and the big bang, or any arbitrary point? I'm just not sure exactly what you're denying exists.

 

[Tournesol]

No, as I have often stated, Events cause events, not time passing. Certainly there are sequences of events, like a chain, one leading to the next.

And there are no bachelors, just men who happen to be unmarried.

It is a big leap to go from this observation to postualte the real existence of something that has no affect on anything.

Causality itself has no effect on anything. (or do you think it does...or
do you think it doesn't exist at all in the first place)

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.

Since it is not a spatial sequence (like a row of praked cars), it is presumably
a temporal sequence. How can you have temproal sequences without 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."

Yes.

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!

So my metaphysical arguements are flawed ? Yet you are unable to specify
what the flaw is,

Consequently, I will stick with mathematical proofs.

Mathematical proofs are fine for proving mathematical conclusions.
However, you are trying to establish a metaphysical conclusion:
"time doesn't exist" is just as metaphysical as "time does exist".

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.

Note they are not; but the 't' in equations isn't all there is to time
either -- it is just the measurment of time, what I have been calling
time-as-a-measurment. For instance, the tendency of things to happen one after the other, temporal sequences, can be defined without any reference to measurement.
So you cannot claim to have eliminated time unless you have eliminated every aspect of time, and you cannot even start to do that with a purely
mathematical argument, since that can only eliminate time-as-a-measurement.

observed. Thus perhaps we should just "agree to disagree". You stick to your metaphysics, and I will stick to my math. OK?

To be frank, you are not doing good maths instead of bad metaphysics,
you are doing bad metaphysics instead of good metaphysics.

 

[Tournesol]

Notes on Barbour's theory:

1. Removing causality pulls the rug from under scientific epistemology

2. It also pulls the rug from under the notion of a 'time capsule'. Memory is disntinguished from imagination by having a certain kind of causal history. In the absence of that criteron, what is to stop me saying that my dreams are a 'time capsule' of the universe next door.

3. The mysterious role of proability in the absence of anything actually happening.
Apparently, more Nows of higher probability are 'more likely to be experienced'. Is that an
Appeal to consciousnessas a god of the gaps?

 

[Billy T]

I'm sorry, I haven't read every post here, but it seems to me that you want to eliminate the variable t but have no problem with delta t's. I don't understand what you could mean by this. If delta t exists, then what's wrong with defining t as the delta t between now and the big bang, or any arbitrary point? I'm just not sure exactly what you're denying exists.

Read short, simple, well illustrated by specific example, math proof of post 1 that the parameter "t" is not required, only convenient, in a description of the universe, including all the changes that occur as one event leads to another.
I have not said much, if anything, about "delta t" and if by this you mean some difference in time, then I would say that since time does not exist, neither does "delta t."
If however, by delta t, you are referring to fact that change exists, for example, the hands of a clock indicating 12:00 and this changes into 12:01, of course that is one of the many real sequences of event we can observe.
But by observing this change we are not observing or measuring time. What is happening is that the energy stored in the sping or battery is less when the hands show 12:01 than when they show 12:00. Time passing had nothing to do with this change. (Read post about me growing older having nothing to do with "time passing" also.)

Events cause other events, not time. Time can not change anything, can not be observed, in this regard time is like a unicorn.

Time is such a natural concept (a "natural assumption") in man's way of thinking and expressing himself that it is difficult to describe this to you without using words like "when" etc. but because I must use these words, does not imply time is real or the cause of anything. I also say "the sun rises." but that earlier common "natural assumption" is now widely recognized to be false. Slowly some of the more profound thinkers are beginning to realize that time is also oneof these "natural assumptions", not a real thing. See some of the web sites others have given. Someone other than me stated that this was Einstein's and Goebel's view also, but I do not know if that is correct. See my post about Kant agreeing. I am not originating anything, but may have been first to give the simple math proof that time is not real, however, I strongly suspect that it has been presented before by others also.

Several people have suggested that my math proof could be used to show that other thngs do not exist, mass and energy being the more common suggestion. A few have even had the courage to try, instead of just claim this is true. I have show the error in their demonstrations that mass and energy do not exist. Basically the "t" parameter in the equations of physics is unique. It is the same in an equation about the QEII and a jumping flea, but the mass parameter of the QEII, M, is very different from the mass parameter of the flea, m. Thus their attempts to set m = M to elimainate mass from all descriptions of the universe fail. If time were not a common unique parameter in all the equation, for example if time for the QEII were T and for the flea it was t, then my math proof would also fail and time would be real. But that is not the way physics is, Time is not real, can not be observed, has no power to change anything, I.e. time does not exist. It may make some sense to speak of "now", but I am not sure exactly what that means. Certainly it is possible to identify some events as leading to others. For example, a glass accelerating towards the kitchen floor in the gravity field of Earth leads to the event of a broom sweeping up many small pieces of glass, but time had nothing to do with this chain of events.

Hope ths helps. If not, read more of the thread and ask specific questions or challange my prior claims.

 

[Canute]

I agree with Tournesol about this. You cannot just show by mathematics that the variable t does not exist and then ignore the metaphysical consequences. What you have shown, let's say, is that t is superfluous to calculations of motion etc. But you cannot claim that time does not exist on this basis. The existence or non-existence of time is a metaphysical/ontological matter, not just a mathematical one.

Btw I don't think anyone argues that time is causal. Rather, it is a dimension in which causation operates or, if you like, one of the contingent conditions necessary to the functioning of causation. If time does not exist then all events must happen at the same time. This is the view of many people, but they do not argue that time does not exist but that events separated in time do exist, as you do, since it would be clearly self-contradictory.

I'm afraid there is no way you can stick to mathematics and avoid referencing the real world on this issue. The fact is that we experience the world as existing over time, and if time does not exist then this fact needs to be explained. I think it can be explained, but so far you've avoided this issue rather than dealing with it.

 

[CronoSpark]

I guess what Billy T was meaning to say was,

Our concept of time is not instantaneous layout of happenings throughout the past, present, and future, but rather it should be viewed as a function of the cause and effects.

A leads to B which leads to C. We introduce the variable "t" only because it would be simpler for prediction purposes. EG. How can one get from 1 to 10? 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, ..., 9+1=10. With "t", we can imagine that there would be "9 cause and effects to get to 10", so we just need to go 1+ 9(1) = 10.

Our perception of these "cause and effects" can only be utilized through our minds. Our brains can only process the scenario around us at various points of that sequence. Hence, our brains will simulate "time".

I thought about this a long time ago... I personally thought people already have thought about this and there was already a debate going on before... maybe I should read up on physics more.

 

[Tournesol]

For example, a glass accelerating towards the kitchen floor in the gravity field of Earth leads to the event of a broom sweeping up many small pieces of glass, but time had nothing to do with this chain of events.

Inasmuch as they don't happen simultaneously, it does.

 

[Tournesol]

I Our brains can only process the scenario around us at various points of that sequence. Hence, our brains will simulate "time".

Why do our brain only process one "point of the sequence at a time".
(well the usual answer it that brain-processes happen in time like everything
else. But you seem to be saying that time is "simulated" by the brain).

 

[CronoSpark]

Why do our brain only process one "point of the sequence at a time".
(well the usual answer it that brain-processes happen in time like everything
else. But you seem to be saying that time is "simulated" by the brain).

Why not? What happens if you lost all your senses and the ability to think and remember? I do not recall stating "at a time".
Would everything happen instantaneously?

 

[Tournesol]

Why not? What happens if you lost all your senses and the ability to think and remember? I do not recall stating "at a time".
Would everything happen instantaneously?

Let's take this from another angle: what are your grounds for saying that the
brain 'simulates' time ?

 

[CronoSpark]

Let's take this from another angle: what are your grounds for saying that the
brain 'simulates' time ?

Okay.

Would a second be the same for me as it is to another?