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

[Tournesol]

Okay.

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

maybe not -- maybe you don't like the taste of marmite, or see red
differently. But the point remains that what is basic about time
is that one thing happens after another -- being able to measure or agree about time-intervals is secondary.

 

[Billy T]

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.

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?
How does time different in this regard from unicorns?
I grant humans tend to understand things as if time were some "flowing massless river, dragging event from past into the future" much more than unicorns are essential to their understanding of the universe and changes in it, but is this natural human disposition to believe time is this river, any basis for time being real, any stronger basis that the natural assumption that the sun goes around the Earth is a basis for that being true?

Rather, it is a dimension in which causation operates or, if you like, one of the contingent conditions necessary to the functioning of causation.

As stated earlier, I do not have much problem with time being a dimention, coordinate, or parameter. We have 10 or 12 dimensions now, zillions of coordiantes, and quite a few parameters also, but that does not confer ontological status.

If time does not exist then all events must happen at the same time.

To clearly expose your logic: If A does not exist, then B must happen concurrently with/in A! I can't follow this logic, not when A = time and B = events (or any other set of values for A & B.)

... 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.

perhaps, but I think I deal with it when I I discuss my experience of the sun rising also. Not everything I infer from my experiences is correct. Some things are wrong, but still very convenient and common ways to speak of things and understand things.

 

[CronoSpark]

maybe not -- maybe you don't like the taste of marmite, or see red
differently. But the point remains that what is basic about time
is that one thing happens after another -- being able to measure or agree about time-intervals is secondary.

So you agree that it is probable that we do not percieve a second in a simular manner?

But since the argument has been switched back to the original...

I am losing your argument now. Are you saying that time is one thing happening after another?

 

[Tournesol]

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?

By dropping the rule that 'everything whatsoever has effects' (which leads
us into paradox if we apply it to causality itself), and admit that as
well as individual objects and events, there is a class of entities of
a universal anture, such as space, time and causality, which don't have to follow the same rules.

How does time different in this regard from unicorns?

It is an existent entity of the 'universal' class, not a non-existent entity of
the 'particular' class.

I grant humans tend to understand things as if time were some "flowing massless river, dragging event from past into the future" much more than unicorns are essential to their understanding of the universe and changes in it, but is this natural human disposition to believe time is this river, any basis for time being real, any stronger basis that the natural assumption that the sun goes around the Earth is a basis for that being true?

If that is your only complaint, why not say "time is not a river" rather than
"time does not exist".

As stated earlier, I do not have much problem with time being a dimention, coordinate, or parameter. We have 10 or 12 dimensions now, zillions of coordiantes, and quite a few parameters also, but that does not confer ontological status.

There must be something to the fact that some theories work better
than others, surely.

if A does not exist then B must happen at A! I can't follow this logic when A = time and B = events (or any other set of values for A & B.perhaps, but I think I deal with it when I experience the sun rising also.

If events aren't occurring in a temporal sequence, or separated by temporal
relations, then they are presumably occurring in some sort of atemporally, in some sort of undistinguished mass. It is difficult for us to even imagine this, which is why we fall back on the unhappy metpahor of 'happening all at once'.
But what does the shear difficulty of imagining Time away tell us ?

Not everything I infer rom my expereinces is correct. Some things are wrong, but still veryconvenient and common ways to speak of things and understand things.

But everything you have ever witnessed has been in a temporal sequence.
You cannot dismiss Time as an anomaly.

 

[Billy T]

Sure glad you came along CronoSpark

 

[Billy T]

By dropping the rule that 'everything whatsoever has effects' (which leads us into paradox if we apply it to causality itself), and admit that as well as individual objects and events, there is a class of entities of a universal anture, such as space, time and causality, which don't have to follow the same rules.

Thread is so hot just now I will only reply to this aqnd get back to remained later.

I did not state rule this way, I say: If "A" has no effect, can do nothing, can not be observed, etc. then there is no reason to think "A" exists.

 

[Tournesol]

Thread is so hot just now I will only reply to this aqnd get back to remained later.

I did not state rule this way, I say: If "A" has no effect, can do nothing, can not be observed, etc. then there is no reason to think "A" exists.

so there is no reason to think causality exists ?

 

[Tournesol]

So you agree that it is probable that we do not percieve a second in a simular manner?

variations in perception are down to perception...

I am losing your argument now. Are you saying that time is one thing happening after another?

Basically..

 

[CronoSpark]

variations in perception are down to perception...

I am hoping I do not have to define "perception" as well. I do hope that people are understanding on where I am getting at with my question.

So... how is that different from "cause and effect"?

 

[CronoSpark]

Actually, sorry. It was highly rude of me for posting my previous post.

If we were to percieve time in a different manner, then I would only think that our brain will "simulate" time in a different manner as well.

 

[Tournesol]

So... how is that different from "cause and effect"?

Good question. Since randomness is conceivable, a temporal
series of random events is conceivable, and time is possible
without causality. Maybe.

Is causality possible without time ? Something has to distinguish
cuasality from mere implications -- bachelors are not caused by being unmarried -- and a lot of people think it is time.

 

[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.

 

[Billy T]

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.

You are correct. Not many people know about this. What is your field/ interest? Have you looked at my other "crazy idea" - See atachment to first post of thread "what price free will" in general philosophy. I am assuming you must know a good bit about cognitive science to report the above. In that attachment I give three proofs that the std cognitive scientist's view about perceptions is simply wrong and suggest an alternative which has a lot of "explanatory power." Making it posible for free will to real without any violation of physics or just an illusion based on the quantum mechanical chance events in the synaptic connections is just one minor detail that drops out of my new view. Would like to hear your view about it.

 

[Tournesol]

Of ocurse that doesn't support the 'time is just a percpetion' idea, since the whiole virtual reality thing starts with the idea of latencies -- processing delays, lapses of time --
in the brain which must be taken realistically ITFP.

 

[Canute]

OK, if I must wade into the metaphysics swamp: How can one claim ontological status for something which has no effect, causes nothing?

I'm not. I've agreed with you from the start that time does not exist (in a fundamental ontological sense). I'm saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If time does not exist then neither does change, motion, energy and so forth.

You haven't yet explained how or why it is that before we eat a cake we have to bake it, and after we've eaten it it's gone. If you can explain this curious temporal sequence then fair enough, but if you cannot then your hypothesis contradicts the obvious evidence that events are perceived as happening one after the other. At a quantum level time may be symetrical in both directions and perhaps cancel out, but not at a classical level.

I think that all this can be explained and so have no problem agreeing with your view of time. But you have argued that there is nothing to explain, and to me that view contradicts common sense.

 

[Billy T]

I'm not. I've agreed with you from the start that time does not exist (in a fundamental ontological sense). I'm saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If time does not exist then neither does change, motion, energy and so forth.
You haven't yet explained how or why it is that before we eat a cake we have to bake it, and after we've eaten it it's gone. If you can explain this curious temporal sequence then fair enough, but if you cannot then your hypothesis contradicts the obvious evidence that events are perceived as happening one after the other. ...

I think I have, but I will say more, even though I bet it does not help, only confuses. I will admit it is essentially impossible to not think / understand that baking cake before eating it has something to do with "time," "past" being something preceeding "present" in time etc.

I think you agree with me that "events cause events" not time passing. The trend towards entropy increasing is observed because of statistics (and man's conceptual unification of "like sets"). This also reinforces thought patterns that understand event sequences as implying time is some how envolved. Let me both demonstrate why entropy increases and try to explain what I mean:

Consider a box which will just holds 100 marbles in one layer on the bottom. Put 100 black ones and 100 white ones in it, close the lid and shake box with steadly decreasing vigor (so that it is likely that no marble is in the "third layer." Now open the box. Would you be surprized to find all of the white ones on the bottom layer and all of the black ones on the second layer? I would be, but yet I know that this arrangement is just as probably as any particular other one. (each marble considered individually) It is natural for me to lump together all the many "mixed configuration" as if they were one arrangement. Entropy increases, not by some rigid law, but because the configurations we consider to be essentially one are infact a great set of different ones we do not conceptually distinguish.

Thus in example I gave earlier about glass accelerating towards the kitchen floor it is much more probable that this event will be followed by the event of broom picking up many small pieces of glass (a set of zillions of individual cases we consder to be one) than by the unique event of the intack glass bouncing back to land on the table again, exactly where it was.

That is we often presume that event A proceeded event B and caused it, but it is physically possible that event B proceeded and caused A, just that in the life of the universe, it has never done so yet. We construct our concept of time (if it is not innate) on many observations (actually inferences) of A being before B.

inserted by edit later:
Let "event M" be any particular one of the set of marble box configurations possible which we would tend to call "marbles all Mixed up" and "event O" be either of the two perfectly Ordered arranagements (only one color in each layer.) Assume that the box has been shaken zillions of times with pauses to note the marble arrangements after each shaking. Furthermore assume it is a mater of fact that one of these events (M or O)immediately preceeded the other in this long sequence of events.

You can not tell me if event O was before or after event M. The exact form of the shaking and the state of the box in the prior event is what caused the second event. In fact if event O is anywhere in the sequence, then some mixed state event M' plus shaking did cause the lower entropy state O.

The point is that you are sure the glass falling to floor preceeded the broom event because of the overwhelming probability that this was their order and fact you understand time as something real as evidenced by your ability to normally tell which of two events causally related events is cause and which is effect.

The odds against your eating the cake before it is sitting on the table uncut infront of you are so great that everyone will agree that it is imposible to eat it and then later have it in front of you uncut. Certainly, when one considers how many atoms are envolved (many more than my 200 marbles) and how unique their arrangement in the uncut cake was, it would not happen in many zillions of universe life times that these atoms were expelled from whatever functions as the cake consuming creature's stomach and reformed the uncut cake in front of it/him/her or whatever.

Usually it is obvious (or at least a very safe bet) which of two events in a causal relationship is cause and which is effect. I chose my 200 marble example to help you understand that this is true because of probabilities and the way man tends to form single event categories of many different events, not really because one is from "time past" and the other is happening "now." I admit that like everyone else, I think this way, unless I am being very careful to think logically with the aid of mathematics etc.

Cause and effect are real an usually easy to tell which is which. Mass is real, energy is real, etc. but time is not. My math proof shows that it is not even necessary as a parameter to describe the universe, and you already agree with me that it is not the cause of anything. Do not be confused by the lumping together of many particular cases as if they were one and the associated probabilities that result from comparing a truly unique event with this superset considered as one also.

The government runs a lottery in Brazil with less than 50% payout which is very popular. My wife plays often. Telling her it is not a good bet did nothing, so one day I surprized her by playing. (You pick 6 numbers from about 60.) I bet on 1,2,3,4,5,and 6. She said that was silly - my numbers would never win. She understood they were just as probable as hers, which involve people's birthdays etc, but like you with your belief in time, she knew I was just silly and too inclinded to believe in mathematical proofs. Never in the history of the lottery have four consective numbers turned up, much less the first six!

She was right. I was just being silly(She still pays the lottery). I no doubt am being silly now by trying to show that past, present, future have nothing to do with time, but rather are "event chains" for which we can usually infer which was the cause of which (or as you would no doubt say: which "proceeded" which.) My denying time, does not deny change, event chains, movement, mass, energy, change, etc. and you should not infer that my acknowledgment of even identified "A caused B" events in a chain is contradictory to the claim that (1) time does not exist AND (2) identified sequences of "A caused B" events occur.

See I can have my cake and eat it too, it is just not very probable.

 

[Billy T]

cutting the butter

It is not original with me but one event chain I'd like you to think about is a knife blade passing thru some soft butter: Is the knife passing down thru the butter because the butter is separating in front of the knife, or is the butter separating because the knife is passing down?

Most people want to try to complicate it by asking how warm is the butter or is any hand pushing down on the knife etc? But both butter temperature and hand pressure are continuously variable factors. Thus they will not resolve the questions in some narrow range. What is cause and what is effect is not always clear. Taken in isolation (of course that is not possible, but assume it were) it is not clear which is proceeding which. i.e. which is a "past" causing a "now." somemovie sequence can be reversed and you can not be sure. However most of us think a film sequence showing a building rising up out of a pile of ruble is a movie in reverse and this implies time is real etc. I will only grant that it is extremely improbably that the rubble reassmbles into a building. Many zillions of universe life times between such events.

 

[Tournesol]

Of course on can throw a ton of scepticism at the idea of the
directionality of time, time's arrow, without makin the slightest dent is time as a dimension...those ordered and disordered states aren't occurring on top of each other.

 

[Billy T]

Of course on can throw a ton of scepticism at the idea of the directionality of time, time's arrow, without makin the slightest dent is time as a dimension...those ordered and disordered states aren't occurring on top of each other.

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.

 

[sneez]

hey billy T,

i'd like to have more input of rather philosophical nature of time.

If man did not have memory, then his brain would not make such interpretations and therefore would never have formed the concept of time. The only reason why someone determines himself to be thirty years old is because he has accumulated information pertaining to those thirty years in his mind. If his memory did not exist, then he would not think of the existence of such a preceding period and he would only experience the single “moment” in which he lives. (try sclerosis..., kinda concept of time forgotten,in some heavy cases one have to remind a person everyday that what his/her name is and how old he/she is, in short only the moment exists for that person)

Flow of time is not "physical" rality. Since our brain is accustomed to a certain sequence of events, the world operates not as is related above and we assume that time always flows forward. However, this is a decision reached in the brain and is in itself relative. In reality, we can never know how time flows or even whether it flows or not. This is an indication of the fact that time is not an absolute fact, but just a sort of perception.

If let's say one could wihtstand to stay in black hole. There would be no time running for the person. (Time does not exists in there [as far as my limited education of black holes go]).

Dont get mad at me for the black holes if i got it wrong. But from phylosophical point of view time does not have to be absolute eternal thing.

 

[Tournesol]

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.

Yes, and that is most people, since most people think causal relations embed or
imply temporal relations. If you have another definition of causality, let's hear it.

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?)

Because time-as-a-dimension is conceivable seprately from time's arrow. There are
at least four major aspects to Time (dimension, measure, direction and change/becoming) and you really need to dispose of all of them.

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."

Since time is need for a Physics description of the universe, it is
a forteori needed for a physicalist one.

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.

Replacing time variables with clock-readings does not show that time is non-existent.

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.

May I suggest you work on you atemproal theory of causation rather than
repeating your mantra.

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.

If events are not separated by temproal intervals, what are they separated by ?

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.

My oriignal metaphysical argument is a reductio:

1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it [ the clock ] must have contradictory properties at the same time. [or atemporally, at no particular time ]
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

IOW

i) either time exists, or not.
ii) if not, things have contradictory properties
iii) so it exists.

Which is not circular. The existence of time is not assumed beyond the
non-existence of time -- it is just that out of the two assumptions, one leads
to contradiciton.

 

[Billy T]

hey billy T,

i'd like to have more input of rather philosophical nature of time.

If man did not have memory, then his brain would not make such interpretations and therefore would never have formed the concept of time. The only reason why someone determines himself to be thirty years old is because he has accumulated information pertaining to those thirty years in his mind. If his memory did not exist, then he would not think of the existence of such a preceding period and he would only experience the single “moment” in which he lives.

Glad to have your comments. You are almost entirely correct in the above observations. The famous case (David H or Henry H - I forget patient's name) where both sides of the hippocampal area were removed in effort to control his epilepsy resulted in his traject total loss of the ability to form any new declaritive memory. (And taught mankind the importance of this area for memory). - He has short term memory and can talk to you, but if you leave the room and return 5 minutes later, you will need a new introduction to him. While at JHU many years ago, I talked with one of the psychologists that did extensive study of XXXXX H.

The focus of this study was on the extent to which he could learn operations(had "procedural memory" still). The Tower of Hanoi puzzle was the main test item. (Three posts with object to move one ring at a time from one post to another, never placing a bigger ring on a smaller one.) XXXXX H, had no idea what the Tower of Hanoi puzzle was or puzzle's objective at the start of each new testing period, but he did become significantly more proficient as he learned. There are about four clearly distinct types of memory, but the main one is gone.

...Flow of time is not "physical" reality. Since our brain is accustomed to a certain sequence of events, the world operates not as is related above and we assume that time always flows forward. However, this is a decision reached in the brain and is in itself relative. In reality, we can never know how time flows or even whether it flows or not. This is an indication of the fact that time is not an absolute fact, but just a sort of perception.

I agree - Can't say it any better. Welcome aboard.

If let's say one could wihtstand to stay in black hole. There would be no time running for the person. (Time does not exists in there [as far as my limited education of black holes go]). Dont get mad at me for the black holes if i got it wrong. But from phylosophical point of view time does not have to be absolute eternal thing.

I am not much of an expert on BHs, but as I understand it the idea that BHs stop time is mainly related to the idea that if you watching someone fall into a BH (neglecting the fact that its gravity gradient would tear him apart) you would see longer (on your clock) intervals between ticks of his clock. Eventually your final view would be his clock is stopped. This is mainly, if not entirely, because he is accelerating and SRT time dilation is operating.

Appendix 3 of my book Dark Visitor has a very simple (not even calculus required) short proof that even a single proton falling all the way to BH singularity gains more than any finite amount of energy from the HB's gravitational field. I.e. BH is infinite energy concentrated in zero volume - much like the "Big Bang" which started our universe. (Could spawn other unverses?)

Problem is actually too complex to treat the way I do - Dark Visitor is my effort at recruiting student to physics, so I keep all the physics in it simple and hidden in a very scarey "cosmic disaster" story, which could be true. You will find more details about BHs etc. at www.DarkVisitor.com, if interested, including how to read entire book for free. (Not spamming for profit or fame as book is also by Billy T, not my real name.)

 

[Billy T]

...There are at least four major aspects to Time dimension, measure, direction and change/becoming) and you really need to dispose of all of them.

Post 1's math proof that time is not requied for a complete discription of universe did this. Burden of proof is now yours. Either (1) demonstrate error in my math proof. or (2) give some proof that at least one of these four is essentially real. I.e. has some ontological status outside of man's mind. IF you can do (1) I will conceed the "reality" of time. If you can do (2) with rigor of my math, then we will have an interesting conflict.

IMO, all of your efforts so far are circular arguments. You do not allow for the conceptual posibility that time does not exist and then show that this leads to some conflict. You sometimes claim, without any agrument in support, that if time did not exist (as you unstatedly, but circularly at the outset are assuming that it does) then something unobserved like "events on top of each other" is predicted. I reply to this, no, one event produces the next an man infers time is what is "separating them." Rather than make even this inferrence, I just accept fact that change is real, as is motion, etc. I do not postuate some special massless fluid in which to embed the changes. - Or whatever is the nature of your "real time" if not the popular "invisible massless flowing fluid dragging events along with its flow." You are the metaphysicist - tell me what time is, if it is real and you don't like this common view of "real time."

I thank you for telling me what I "really need to do," and now feel free to return the favor: You need to assume that time does not exist and prove (rather than claim) that this leads to a conflict. Your claim that a conflict exist with this assumption is based on your firm belief that time does exist - a circular "proof." More specifically later on your item (ii) at end.

Since time is need for a Physics description of the universe, it is a forteori needed for a physicalist one.

No it is not - Proved this in post 1 where I formally eliminated time for compete discription of the universe.

Replacing time variables with clock-readings does not show that time is non-existent.

Post 1 proof eliminates, not replaces time. I admit that many things that must be included in a complete discription of the universe can be considered to be clocks, motion of the planets, etc.

That is why I (in addition correcting other of your false interpretations of what I stated) set up the example of marble falling thru randomly heated and cooled oil. With this specific example, I refuted your false claim that I had only "replaced" time with a clock variable. Both equations of this example initially had time "t" explicitly in them. I reduced the set (despite your claim I could not) to one equation without any reference to time. I then asked you specifically: "What was the "clock variable?" (in the remaining equation which I had substituted for time.) You have yet to respond (and you can't; because of the random heating and cooling. There is nothing that looks like a clock in the motion of the marble as it falls thru the oil, randomly.

If events are not separated by temproal intervals, what are they separated by?

Sneez's answer was a good one. - Your perception. (I might not have been as kind and said: "your imagination," or Your "invented time.")

...
i) either time exists, or not.
ii) if not, things have contradictory properties
iii) so it exists.
Which is not circular. The existence of time is not assumed beyond the
non-existence of time -- it is just that out of the two assumptions, one leads
to contradiciton.

If not circular, then (ii) is an unsupported assertion. I will let you choose what to call the flaw in your defective logic.

(ii) is supported only by the unstated assumption that it is time which is keeping things from "being on top of each other"

I think there are other alternatives (for example Sneez's "separation in perception") but if you chose to claim (ii) is suported as time is the only way for example, that one can avoid clock a showing 12 o'clock and contradictorly showing 1 o'clock, (I would add "at the same time" except your ii begins under the "time is not existent case") then your agrument is circular.

Let me ask you specifically, in case I error: What do you claim is the basis for (ii)?

I think you think (ii) is supported and true "because time does exists and is separating otherwise contradictory things." That is why I think your argument is circular instead of just unsupported, but it is your right to state what is the nature of the flaw, not mine.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Summary: Time can not be observed. Time does not cause or modify anything that can be observed. Time is not necessary for a complete description of the universe or the changes of its state. Time’s existence is a “natural assumption” of most humans and a very useful parameter in the equations of physics.

I sort of agree with you. If you look at all the events of the universe you can say "this event caused this one which caused this one..." and so forth. Am I correct in that this is what you're trying to say? Looking at it in events causing events, it is true there is no need for an abstract measure that we make time to be.
But similarly can you disprove the need for three spatial dimensions? They also are something we made up to describe objects/events with each other. How are they different from time? If you lined up a bunch of objects in a row, and from one object you could tell which was in front and which behind, does there then exist no dimension for measurement?

Also, the fact that you can describe something with one variable instead of another does not mean one does not exist.
Just for ease of use, let's assume time exists.
I have a pendelum that's swinging back and forth. I can describe its X coordinate by its position in time, or its position in the Y dimension. If I say that it has some function x=f(t) does that mean the y dimension doesn't exist?

Can you also prove that there doesn't exist an event that requires time to describe it?

 

[Billy T]

I sort of agree with you. If you look at all the events of the universe you can say "this event caused this one which caused this one..." and so forth. Am I correct in that this is what you're trying to say? Looking at it in events causing events, it is true there is no need for an abstract measure that we make time to be.
But similarly can you disprove the need for three spatial dimensions? They also are something we made up to describe objects/events with each other. How are they different from time?

Time is unique parameter in the equations of the universe. My proof in post 1 only allows it to be eliminated from all equations (not space). I am avoiding comment on the reality of space.

You basically have me right, I think, but note that I am only trying to understand the implications of time not being required to describe anything, including change. (I already believed before the proof, that time does not cause anything. I discussed why I am growing old to show that time had nothing to do with it.)

Please actually read post 1. There you will see that not only did I eliminate the "t" parameter formally from all equations, I also gave a specific example which happened to be your pendulum case.

...Can you also prove that there doesn't exist an event that requires time to describe it?

I prove this only with my general post one argument. Obviously I can run thru a long list of events and still not prove anything about ones I have not considered. That is why I had to used abstract formalism. Don't be scared, post 1 proof is short, well illustrated by the pendulum example and easy to follow. Read it.

 

[Tournesol]

Post 1's math proof that time is not requied for a complete discription of universe did this. Burden of proof is now yours. Either (1) demonstrate error in my math proof. or (2) give some proof that at least one of these four is essentially real. I.e. has some ontological status outside of man's mind. IF you can do (1) I will conceed the "reality" of time. If you can do (2) with rigor of my math, then we will have an interesting conflict.

A purely mathematical proof cannot demonstrate anything (meta)phsycially by itself. There must be some means of bridging, or interpreting to (meta)physics.
You are implicitly appealing to some principle along the lines "if we can eliminate a variable from our equations, then what it represents does not
exist" . However, I am arguing that the standard approach in physics is to regard
redundancy in an equation as a sign of determinism.

IMO, all of your efforts so far are circular arguments. You do not allow for the conceptual posibility that time does not exist and then show that this leads to some conflict. You sometimes claim, without any agrument in support, that if time did not exist (as you unstatedly, but circularly at the outset are assuming that it does) then something unobserved like "events on top of each other" is predicted. I reply to this, no, one event produces the next an man infers time is what is "separating them."

You are confusing logical implication with metaphysical causality. If x is not odd,
x is divisible by 2; that does not mean x causes anything.

Bachelors are by definition unmarried men.
Threfore, If bachelors do not exist,
unmarried men do not exist.

Time is by definition, what separates events.
Then, if time does not exist, events are not separated.

Rather than make even this inferrence, I just accept fact that change is real, as is motion, etc. I do not postuate some special massless fluid in which to embed the changes. - Or whatever is the nature of your "real time" if not the popular "invisible massless flowing fluid dragging events along with its flow." You are the metaphysicist - tell me what time is, if it is real and you don't like this common view of "real time."

At last you are beginning to see that this is about how to characterise time.
If time is really best thought of as an invisible fluid, then you have an argument agaisnt it. If it is really what separates events, then I have an argument for it.

I thank you for telling me what I "really need to do," and now feel free to return the favor: You need to assume that time does not exist and prove (rather than claim) that this leads to a conflict. Your claim that a conflict exist with this assumption is based on your firm belief that time does exist - a circular "proof."

No it is based on a characterisation of time. To say
that "unicorns have horns" does not imply that unicorns exist.

That is why I (in addition correcting other of your false interpretations of what I stated) set up the example of marble falling thru randomly heated and cooled oil. With this specific example, I refuted your false claim that I had only "replaced" time with a clock variable. Both equations of this example initially had time "t" explicitly in them. I reduced the set (despite your claim I could not) to one equation without any reference to time. I then asked you specifically: "What was the "clock variable?" (in the remaining equation which I had substituted for time.) You have yet to respond (and you can't; because of the random heating and cooling. There is nothing that looks like a clock in the motion of the marble as it falls thru the oil, randomly.

No, but there is no prima-facia time dependence to be
eliminated either. The P.E is a function of x.
What you have yet to do

a) is take a physical situation with prima-facie time dependence (such as my example of a frictional pendulum,
to which yo never respondede)

and

b) eliminate time mathematically

without

c) introducing something that looks like a clock.

Sneez's answer was a good one. - Your perception. (I might not have been as kind and said: "your imagination," or Your "invented time.")
If not circular, then (ii) is an unsupported assertion. I will let you choose what to call the flaw in your defective logic.

I am aware that a response [*] to this argument is to suggest
something other than time is separating events. That is why I ahve been asking "what spearates events, if not time ?".

The response you suggest is in fact a bad one. Is "my perception" having a causal influence on events,
so that if I stop looking, they stop being separated ?
Was there no separation between events before the human race ? Or are events in "my perception" along with the
gaps between them ? Does this ability to generate time
indicate that the human brain works under exceptional
physical laws? And where does our ability to agree intersubjectively about time -- to keep appointments -- come from ? (And, ultimately, thuis is characterising time as subjective rather than flatly non-existent).

[*] There is at least one more.

I think there are other alternatives (for example Sneez's "separation in perception") but if you chose to claim (ii) is suported as time is the only way for example, that one can avoid clock a showing 12 o'clock and contradictorly showing 1 o'clock, (I would add "at the same time" except your ii begins under the "time is not existent case") then your agrument is circular.

What we need is a *good* alternative.

I think you think (ii) is supported and true "because time does exists and is separating otherwise contradictory things." That is why I think your argument is circular instead of just unsupported, but it is your right to state what is the nature of the flaw, not mine.

I don't need to assume the actual existence of time in
(ii), only that it is hypotheticaly characterised by the ability to separate events.

 

[russ_watters]

Billy_T, your premise is pretty straightforwardly flawed. If time didn't exist, then there would be no way to distinguish between past, present and future. So you must know what I'm going to say next...do you?

What we actually observe is something changing, not time. I'll take a changing observable related to time, the continuously moving hands of a clock, but any changing observable would do. (The mathematical formulation I give is general.) These hands advance in relation to some other change, specifically in the case of a grandfather clock, they correlate with the swings of the pendulum.

With what other physical process can I correlate the timing of nuclear decay?

There is always a base process after which you can't go further. You opened the door: the hands on the clock are based on the motion of the pendulum, so then what is the motion of the pendulum based on? And what is that based on? And what is that based on? You've forced yourself to provide an infinite list of physical processes on which other processes are based.

My proof in post 1 only allows it to be eliminated from all equations (not space).

Please provide an example. Eliminate all time paremeters from the equation for speed (speed=distance/time).

Please actually read post 1. There you will see that not only did I eliminate the "t" parameter formally from all equations, I also gave a specific example which happened to be your pendulum case.

No, you did not provide an example: the equations for simple harmonic motion (the pendulum) do not appear in your post. Rather, you claimed you can provide an example.

I am not growing older because of the passing of time. I am growing older because of causal events in my body. For example, in my joints small crystals are forming, when my cells divide, their telomares are growing shorter, etc. "Time passing" has nothing to do with my aging. Time causes nothing.

Maybe this is the problem: you don't understand what time is. Of course time doesn't cause anything. Neither does length. Does that mean length doesn't exist? Time, like length, is a scale on which to measure things - such as your aging. The causal sequence of events of your aging can be measured on the scale called time.

You do not allow for the conceptual posibility that time does not exist and then show that this leads to some conflict.

I'd say the inability to reference a sequence of events without time is a pretty fundamental conflict.

Post 1's math proof that time is not requied for a complete discription of universe did this. Burden of proof is now yours.

Sorry, Billy, that's not how science works. You're the one proposing the new idea. The burden of proof is completely yours.

 

[Billy T]

A purely mathematical proof cannot demonstrate anything (meta)phsycially by itself. There must be some means of bridging, or interpreting to (meta)physics. You are implicitly appealing to some principle along the lines "if we can eliminate a variable from our equations, then what it represents does not exist" .

No, it is not only because I have demonstrated that time is not required for a complete description of the the universe that I conclude time does not have any ontological status. This claim is also based on the two facts about which I think we have no dispute: (1)Time is not directly observable. (I am not saying that clocks do not exist, or that planets do not periodicly orbit the sun, etc.) and (2) Time passing is not the cause of anything, not why I am growing old, not why the hands of a clock advance, not why the sun rises etc.

I don't see how I could, but if I could eliminate the strong nuclear force from all equations of physics, that alone would not prove it does not exist, at least not until some new theory can explain how protons stay together inside the nucleus despite their mutual electricl repulsion. Perhaps some day some clever nobel-prize-winning physicst will produce such an alternative explanation and it is able to be unified with the theory of gravity etc, so mankind will conclude, as he did long ago about the very successful theory of the real existence of phlogiston, that the strong force does not really exist. (In case you do not know how successful "real philogiston" was, I will just note that all the results of calormetric measures were in accord with it being a real, massless substance, every much like your time )

However, I am arguing that the standard approach in physics is to regard redundancy in an equation as a sign of determinism.

I need an example to understand what is this "redundancy in an equation" The only time I have heard of this is that two different equations can be redundant. E.g. 2x = 10y is redundant with x = 5y. Please give an example so I will have some idea what you are talking about.

...{I skipped some of your comments about even and odd numbers and causality and about a characteristic of sub group (batchlors) appling to the entire gourp (men) or just to themselves but when using a another name (unmarried men) as not worth rebuttal, but perhaps I did not understand.}...Time is by definition, what separates events...At last you are beginning to see that this is about how to characterise time. If time is really best thought of as an invisible fluid, then you have an argument agaisnt it. If it is really what separates events, then I have an argument for it.

I tend to agree we are finnaly making some progress towards mutual understanding, if not agreement. I will agree that if you define time to (exist and) be the thing that separates events, then I can not agrue with you. I could equally well define philogiston to (exist and) be the thing that makes all caloric measurements as they are. Such a definition would not make either time or philogiston a thing with real ontological status.

I again admit that events change their nature, cause other events, etc. I just see no need for time (or philogiston) in any explanation for these things. It is just and observational fact that I perceive/ measure caloric results and events the way I do. (I hate to admit it to you, but on my left wrist as I type there is a timex, but I hasten to note its display is changing because a battery is keeping a small crystal ocsillator running and some logic division circuits are count the number of oscilations driving a LCD etc. - Nothing to do with time passing.)

...No, but there is no prima-facia time dependence to be
eliminated either. The P.E is a function of x.

This is simply not true. There was explicit dependancy on time in both of my original equations (both went as -t) One equation was for the PE and the other was for the marble's position, Y. In the original pair of equations there was no obvious relationship between PE and Y. That PE was proportional to Y was a result of eliminating the parameter "t" for both equations.

What you have yet to do ...

If you are going to again tell me what I need to do, I will again return the favor: You need to be more careful in what you claim I have done. I will just cite the original posts to prove you wrong in false claims (as I did and will do in next responce.)

a) is take a physical situation with prima-facie time dependence (such as my example of a frictional pendulum,
to which yo never respondede)

Again, simply not true. My responce is post 76 and RAD4921 even commnets on it in his post 78.
In my post 76, I modified, at your request, my original pendulum example:
A(t) = 15sin(7t) to be A(t) = exp(-t)15sin(7t), worked thru the math again to eliminate "t" and then, to quote myself, asked you:

So what!

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

It is you who have failed to respond.

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

and

b) eliminate time mathematically

without

c) introducing something that looks like a clock.

I will not answaer this more than four times. I set up the marble falling thru randomly heated oil example to illustrate that the equations after eliminating time have noting in them that resemples a clock (unless you are now claiming time proceeds randomly as that is the way the marble falls thur the oil). I continue to ask you to back up your cliam that I am only replacing time with a "clock variable" by telling me specifically which of the two remaining varialbel (PE or Y) is the clock variable, but you continue to make your claim that I only replace time with clock variable and never answer this question. What is the clock variable, PE or Y - those are your only choices. In contrast, I did adopt your damped pendulum example and demonstrrated it made no change in the ability to eliminate time from all the equations of the universe but you never responed to my So what? or subsequent comments reproduced from post 76 above.

I won't go on - there does not seem to be much point. You claim I do not respond, when this shoe fits you very well. You define away the question as to time's ontological status, by defining it to be the separation between events. You did not comment on fact someone else noted that not every one even perceives time as continuous (Car seen far away suddenly is seen at 10 feet etc.)

Long ago, I offered and sugested that we should just agree to disagree. Because of the immediately above stated, I am now adopting this policy unilaterally - I.e. I will not respond more. It has been a too onesided experience. If you respond to some of my repeated requests, I may reconsider.

 

[sneez]

Hey everyone,

Let me ask you. Do we have some particle called "..." that carries time? (just like photons or something?)

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

Can someone give me the smallest unit of time? If we take time t=d/c where c is speed of light the smallest time unit we can get is bound only by our measurement is it not? We can divide distance infinetelly. (sounds like zeno :) ). What are your toughts about this?

In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another which is considered the reference standard.

 

[Billy T]

Billy_T, your premise is pretty straightforwardly flawed. If time didn't exist, then there would be no way to distinguish between past, present and future.

If this is your reason for saying my premiss is flawed, please read post 106. There in the 200 marble in box example, it is shown that entropy (time's arrow pointing the way to the future), is not always increasing by some law, but only a very probable happening if the number of particles in the system becomes large. That is, we can only distinguish which way a movie is running (forwards or backwards) most of the time. Suppose for example I show you 3 seconds of a film in which a white billard ball is approaching 10 colored one arranged in a neat, mutually-contacting, triangle but in the last of the 3 seconds you observe these 10 separating form each other. I strongly suspect you will think this moving is being shown in the forward directions.

But let us now suppost I show a few seconds more in which you see all the colored balls stopped and some hands carefully aligning some laser beams to intersect the "original" locations of the colored balls when seen in the compact group and furthermore these laser beams are coming from small boxes with lables on top giving their name as "precise linear impulsers." Now you realize that your first 3 seconds were the end of the movie, not the start. Some people carefully set the real initial velocity vectors to make them all collide and stop in the traingle form.

Don't know if it helps, but we know the future form the past two ways: (1) we perceive time as some continuous flow from past to future (at least most people do) and (2) when many particles /atoms are envolved, entropy does tend to increase for an isolated system (To lower it usually takes enegry from outside the system.)

...With what other physical process can I correlate the timing of nuclear decay?

Good question, but you should be asking it of someone who thinks time is the cause of something or at least exists, not me. I have stated that "events cause events" Someone else has already asked what is the event that causes beta decay etc. I have already admitted that I do not know the answer, and noted that Einstein thought he did. - his "hidden variables" cause beta decay when the "combine just right" to cause this decay. My inability to explain everything is quickly admittted.

...And what is that based on? You've forced yourself to provide an infinite list of physical processes on which other processes are based. Please provide an example. Eliminate all time paremeters from the equation for speed (speed=distance/time).

I can not eliminate any variable that is explict and functional in a single equation. I need two independent equations that both contain the same variable. Then I can at least, in principle, eliminate it. As I have several times observed, the time variable is common to all equations that are of the form A = a(t), where the functional form a is not explicitly written. I call the inverse function for t a' (or b' or c' ...etc) and symbolically t = a'(A). Then in my proof/ demonstration, then I set a'(A") = b'(B) = c'(C) = ... etc. for all the quations of the universe. (This is as someone correctly pointed out, not strictly correct as in general function a' will depend on many observables, so it is really a'(A,B,C...) = b'(A,B,C,...) = c'(A,B,C...)... etc. but in either case time variable "t" is not required, only very convenient for describing the universe.

No, you did not provide an example: the equations for simple harmonic motion (the pendulum) do not appear in your post. Rather, you claimed you can provide an example.

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS: The pendulum equation I used as example (only to help mathematically weak understand - it does not enter into the proof) was A = 15sin(7t) and at Tournesol's request, in post 76, I added the damping factor exp(-t).
Your second statement is also wrong because the above is a mathematical demonstration, not an unsupported "claim," that time can be eliminated for all the equations of the universe, at least in principle.

Maybe this is the problem: you don't understand what time is. Of course time doesn't cause anything. Neither does length. Does that mean length doesn't exist? Time, like length, is a scale on which to measure things - such as your aging. The causal sequence of events of your aging can be measured on the scale called time. I'd say the inability to reference a sequence of events without time is a pretty fundamental conflict. Sorry, Billy, that's not how science works. You're the one proposing the new idea. The burden of proof is completely yours.

We disagree, I think, about the nature of time I have several times in this thread refused to speculate on the ontological status of space, length etc. and admit I can not apply my proof that they are not essential to a complete discription of the universe, because unlike time, they are not unique (Modern theory suggest there are 10 or 12 dimensions to space - I could at best eliminate only one.) As recently noted I wear a timex. Time flowng fro m past towards the future is very a useful, probably unavoidable way to think. Once this was true of other "natual assumtions"/ inventions of man, such sun rising, philogestion being conserved, etc. this does not make these "facts" real or give them ontological status. I think the fish bite better, just before sunrise. etc. I completely agree that life insurance companies should use "years" when calculating how much to charge you, that I should use what my timex dial indicates when meeting you for lunch etc. If this is what you mean by "how sciences works," I agree.
Galaleo did not have a timex. While presumably bored with the sermon, and noting that the chandeler's amplitude of swing, changing with the wind thru the windows in the church, did not seem to seem to change the number of times his heart beat per cycle etc. is in fact the way science is done. I worked 30 years as a PH.D. physicist and spent another 15 at two good universities earn it (I liked being a student and was in no hurry to leave the university.) so I do know a little about how sicience works. And BTW, time not being real is not my new idea. Read the post I made quoting Kant. If I have done anyting, and I doubt it, it is only to offer an easy to follow, well illustrated, demonstration (not claim) the time is not needed to describe the universe (very probably not even the first to do so.)