Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[lengds]

At time zero nothing exists? I do not mean at the beginning of the universe. As time elapses to zero, nothing has happened, no photons emitted, no fields emitted, I would sense nothing and I would not exist myself to even observe. Forms have to change to show time and nothing would change, nothing could be observed.

 

[Gyvor]

Time does not exist. Only movement. Our brains interperet change as time. Without an observer (a brain) a particle in space simply changes position relative to other particles. As a human we need to put those movements into an order and to us this means past present and future. Thus past present and future only exist in our minds. You may think "the particle was over there and now it is over here, therefore time has gone by" but that is how your brain is constructed to think. You are using memory but to the particle it has just changed its relative position. There are other observations that I believe are just human perceptions but do not exist in reality. These are movement, mass, and size. A little thought experiment you can do to understand this is to do the following. First we have to decide on two possible realities for our universe. One it is either infinite in all directions or it has finite borders. If we assume it is infinite the the thought goes like this. We place a bowling ball into this picture. It is the only matter that exists. If we could magically observe this bowling ball without existing ourselves, then how could it be seen to move without being relative to anything. How could it have mass without being relative to anything. How could it have size without being relative to anything. Now place a small marble into the picture. All of a sudden it has observable movement,mass, and size. Because now it is relative to something else. Now notice that throughout the above thought experiment we have an observer ( a brain). This observer witnessed movement and size (mass would be a "feel" sense) only when there was something else relative to the other object. I am not totally sure what to make of this but I suspect that what really exists is only matter-energy and space(nothingness). What we observe and interperet as movement, mass and size is only the difference in energy levels of discrete formations of matter. This idea is still in the beginning stages, any input would be appreciated.

 

[Hillary88]

Our brains interperet change as time.

Yes! Thank you! I've been trying to put this into words for about 2 weeks now...ha ha thank you, I think your whole reply is very accurate.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Gyvor, the problem seems to be that what we interpret as distance and mass seem to be heavily correlated with how those particles change positions relative to each other, which gives the impression that it's a bit more fundamental

 

[madphysics]

Are you saying that time doesn't exist, that we see change as time?
Whouldn't that mean every thing takes place at once?

 

[out of whack]

It's not quite that time does not exist as much as the word "time" is superfluous. The subject of interest is actually change. It is redundant to say that a clock measures time when it fact what it measures is its own internal change, e.g. how many times its pendulum has changed position. Likewise, a ruler doesn't measure any distance other than its own length. It's when an observer put it close to other entities that he uses it to measure the length extent of other things; it's when an observer puts a clock near an observed event that he uses it to measure the extent of change in the event.

 

[DaveC426913]

Time does not exist. Only movement. Our brains interperet change as time. Without an observer (a brain) a particle in space simply changes position relative to other particles. As a human we need to put those movements into an order and to us this means past present and future. Thus past present and future only exist in our minds. You may think "the particle was over there and now it is over here, therefore time has gone by" but that is how your brain is constructed to think.

Really? So rocks previous to man's evolution did not start off at the top of a cliff and end up at the bottom? A cloud of dust and gas did not start off dispersed and end up as a solar system?

I know you're not really saying that but, what makes the time after the creation of creatures with spinal chords (and thus brains) different than the time before that?

It's when an observer put it close to other entities that he uses it to measure the length extent of other things; it's when an observer puts a clock near an observed event that he uses it to measure the extent of change in the event.

Chemical reactions don't proceed at set paces unless there's someone watching them? All that ancient quartz underground begs to differ.

 

[out of whack]

Chemical reactions don't proceed at set paces unless there's someone watching them?

Says who? I expect changes to happen even when I don't measure them.

 

[Moridin]

I will adopt Einstein's operational definition of time - it is what you read off a clock. Also not that the Big Bang was not an event, since you cannot assign it x,y,z,t coordinates.

(The Big Bang is actually the expansion of the Universe; my above mention is the pop-sci bastardization of the term).[/size]

 

[DaveC426913]

Says who? I expect changes to happen even when I don't measure them.

Kinda my point. So time exists whether we are around to observe it or not.

 

[octelcogopod]

IMo time has nothing to do with clocks.
Clocks are mechanical objects that move back and forth in the same interval, many things could be used as a clock then.
In theory if I were able to, I could walk back and forth in a straight line, using exactly the same amount of TIME on each length.
And other people could watch me and use me as a reference.

Time is not the measurment of how long something takes, but rather what makes something move.
It is not certain that time moves at the same pace either, if pace were heightened in an area at the same period, nobody would notice it.

Of course it's all relative again to other objects.

 

[out of whack]

Kinda my point. So time exists whether we are around to observe it or not.

Well, it sounded like you were contradicting me but you were talking about something else. My point was that "time" is a word that should not receive so much press given that nobody seems to agree on its definition. What actually matters is the fact that all things do not remain in a constant state, and the word used to describe this fact is "change". I find it more useful to say that "change happens whether we observe it or not" instead of saying that "time exists whether we observe it or not".

Why does it matter? Because "change" is easily defined whereas "time" is controversial and the subject of endless debates. Because the concept of change is necessary to the concept of time, which in my view makes it more fundamental. Because a clock that does not undergo any change cannot report time either. Because "what a clock measures" is its own change of state. Because a "time unit" is in fact defined by a specified number of changes in the position of a pendulum, in the state of a crystal, in the amplitude of a wave, or any other change that seems regular enough to be useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

But time can pass even if there is no change.

 

[out of whack]

But time can pass even if there is no change.

If nothing changes, what is the difference between time that passes and no time that passes?

 

[Gyvor]

If nothing changes, what is the difference between time that passes and no time that passes? Whack hit it on the mark. If the universe was devoid of all matter would there be time? NO! There would not. If only you existed would you age? Absoulutly. Because the cells in your body move and movement is change. How could you stop aging. Well it would not be by stopping the "non-existant flow of time" but rather by freezing yourself solid and stopping all movement. We all have "time machines" in our homes. The freezer. Put an steak in the freezer and it lasts a year. Keep it on the counter it lasts a day or so. Why, because we have slowed down movement thus slowing down change. Movement is the key. You stop ALL movement and your imaginary "time" disappears. You stop movement for one thing (like the steak) and "time" ceases to exist for it. Until you pick it up and throw it at me! See it is very hard to get the concept of time out of our heads because it is such a vital part of how we think and deal with the world. We have to by our very nature put all movements in an order for us to understand them. That order is past ,present, and future. Well the past and future do exist, but only in our minds. Time does not exist for a rock because it can't think.

 

[DaveC426913]

If nothing changes, what is the difference between time that passes and no time that passes? Whack hit it on the mark. If the universe was devoid of all matter would there be time? NO! There would not.

How do you defend this? Is it so just because you sat it is?

If only you existed would you age? Absoulutly. Because the cells in your body move and movement is change. How could you stop aging. Well it would not be by stopping the "non-existant flow of time" but rather by freezing yourself solid and stopping all movement.

This does not stop movement, nor does it stop time. Your atoms are still vibrating.

We all have "time machines" in our homes. The freezer. Put an steak in the freezer and it lasts a year. Keep it on the counter it lasts a day or so. Why, because we have slowed down movement thus slowing down change. Movement is the key. You stop ALL movement and your imaginary "time" disappears. You stop movement for one thing (like the steak) and "time" ceases to exist for it.

Oh nonsense. This is just metaphorical pseudoscience.

 

[octelcogopod]

Gyvor, but what about the 'pace of time'?

In your theory the movement of any object(s) is completely random, but here on Earth things move at roughly the same pace.
If I throw a ball into the air on another planet which has much less gravity than on earth, it may take a longer amount of time for it to fall down than it would on earth, does that mean time has gone slower on the planet if we use the ball as a measurement device for time?

Usually on Earth time is controlled by the Earth's rotation, and day/night time.
But let's say Earth started spinning faster, leading to faster progressions of day/night, wouldn't 24 hours on the clock still be the same amount of time as it was before the rotation accelerated?

I guess my point is that no matter what objects we use to measure the passage of time, the pace at which time progresses is always the same.

It seems to me that there needs to be some kind of limiter to keep at least the macroworld keeping a coherent time, rather than everything just moving randomly leading to nothing being coherent.

Any thoughts on this appreciated.

 

[out of whack]

To clarify my point of view...

Freezing a steak does not alter the fact that all things are not constant inside the freezer. It does not affect the "change" aspect of reality which is, again, the fact that things are not constant. While temperature cannot change this fact, it does affect a specific type of event (the chemical process) but not subatomic activity or the rate at which radiation traverses everything in the freezer. A clock inside a freezer reports the same time as a clock on the kitchen counter, so the nature of change is not affected by temperature. In the same sense, change applies to a rock just as much as to an busy bee: both are immersed in a common reality where change happens.

But if the freezer moves, then something interesting happens. Albert described how the rate of change within the freezer would be reduced compared to the rate of change on the stationary counter. Here's a bit of imagery to illustrate: a natural limit seems to exist for the relative extent of change. When the freezer as a whole approaches this limit then whatever is inside cannot maintain the same rate of change: adding the amount of internal change to the freezer's external change in position would exceed this natural limit. If the freezer could move at light speed (the natural limit of change) relative to the kitchen counter then no further change would be possible within the freezer itself (relative to an observer sitting on the counter). What we refer to as "time" would appear to stop, or in terms of change then no more change at all could occur within the container that already undergoes its maximum. But slowing down the freezer would allow some internal change to resume within the freezer.

 

[Hillary88]

But time can pass even if there is no change.

No...Time cannot exist without change. Even in the absence of ALL other elements, the time itself would still be changing.

 

[friend]

No...Time cannot exist without change. Even in the absence of ALL other elements, the time itself would still be changing.

And if time cannot pass without change, then the universe cannot "come into existence" without time because coming into existence is itself a change from non-existence. The same might be said about space. It is impossible to describe anything without a space to describe it in. So the very first instants must have been the creation of space and time. And the very first thing that spacetime did is expand. It expanded from nothing into existence, so the first function of spacetime is expansion, or inflation if you perfer.

 

[out of whack]

Clearly I agree that time cannot exist without change. Note also that change cannot exist without time. Given these two reciprocal implications, you can draw the obvious conclusion as to the exact nature of time and why I am saying that this word is expendable.

 

[ripcurl1016]

Change exists without time...but it is not a change in events as most perceive it. Events themselves cannot change, there is only an order of events that changes. Much like the alphabet events are only in an order, such as A, B, C... they change from one to another but involves no actual change. Time is a construct that allows us to make sense of this order.

 

[DaveC426913]

No...Time cannot exist without change.

I don't know why you insist on claiming this to be true. Back it up.

 

[out of whack]

I don't know why you insist on claiming this to be true. Back it up.

If nothing changes, what difference is there between some time passing and no time passing?

 

[DaveC426913]

If nothing changes, what difference is there between some time passing and no time passing?

OK
That is not a defense of the statement, that is putting the onus on someone else to refute the claim; one which has not yet been accepted.

 

[out of whack]

OK
That is not a defense of the statement, that is putting the onus on someone else to refute the claim; one which has not yet been accepted.

I wasn't trying to shift the burden of proof, it was actually a rhetorical question. The answer follows directly from the question, but I can expound.

If there were a difference between some time passing and no time passing, then there would be something (anything) different as a result of these two "different" situations. But since the initial premise is that nothing changes, there is no difference. Consequently, in the absence of any change, some time passing is the same as no time passing. This renders the already ill-defined notion of time completely meaningless in the absence of change.

I could have asked my rhetorical question differently: how much time does it take for nothing to change?

 

[octelcogopod]

The problem is if time works in another fashion, like say a dimension or energy (anything) which we have not observed yet, then everything that we can observe can stand still(reality) and be frozen, but this time "entity" can still be in motion.
But of course now I am applying something we do not know of, of which makes the argument a bit useless.

 

[out of whack]

The problem is if time works in another fashion, like say a dimension or energy (anything) which we have not observed yet, then everything that we can observe can stand still(reality) and be frozen, but this time "entity" can still be in motion.

If an alleged "time entity" is something other than "change" itself and if it is in motion then it is changing. But this is ruled out in the premise. We don't need to know the nature of the entity in question, we only need to decide if the premise holds for it or not. If it does then we are done.

But if we decide for the purpose of this discussion that the premise should not hold for time itself then we need to reword the question. And to be on the safe side, we should avoid saying that time is changing in order to reflect true independence of time and change. Let's just assume that time is something unspecified that "exists" and you can apply any meaning you wish to it. The question becomes:

If nothing changes except time, what difference does it make if time exists or not?

Again, the question contains its own answer: nothing changes regardless. So if nothing changes then what is the significance of this "time exists" possibility? This is another self-answering question: this possibility has no bearing with regard to anything else. If the concept of time is irrelevant to anything then it should be discarded, except by mystics for hire of course.

But of course now I am applying something we do not know of, of which makes the argument a bit useless.

 

[madphysics]

If a tree falls down in a forest...

 

[DaveC426913]

A thought experiment: What if we put this unchanging thing in a box. We let an hour pass and then open the box. Even of nothing changed in the box, does that mean time stopped passing inside the box? Does that imply that, when the box is opened, there will be a one hour lag between the time inside the box and the time outside the box? (If that means anything.)

I don't know the answer to this, I'm just seeking an answer to the original question.

 

[out of whack]

So far I have been talking of change as "the fact that things are not constant". In this respect, change happens in the universe (all that exists) as long as just one thing changes within it. From this point of view, it does not matter if some constant item does not change while other things do. If some constant entity exists, it must still interact with the changing universe in some way. If it did not then it would be immaterial and irrelevant to anything, we could not even claim that it exists so we would not be talking about it. Regardless, one constant entity would not prevent other changes from happening. In other words it would not "stop time" (to use a bad word).

What if we put this unchanging thing in a box. We let an hour pass and then open the box. Even of nothing changed in the box, does that mean time stopped passing inside the box? Does that imply that, when the box is opened, there will be a one hour lag between the time inside the box and the time outside the box?

My point of view is that using the undefined word "time" renders this thought experiment invalid. Efforts to make sense of undefined text are wasted. Since I find "time" meaningless in the absence of change, the experiment sounds like this to me:

We put a constant item in a box, count 3600 swings of the pendulum and open the box. Does it mean that no change happened inside the box? (Yes, the item was constant.) Is there a difference in the extent of change inside and outside the box? (Yes, change happened outside, no change happened inside.)

Simple. Clear.

The problem with this "time" thing is that it is entrenched in popular culture. Time travel in particular is a popular topic. We spend a good deal of our time in impossible fantasies about it. We encounter paradoxes that probably exist only because of an impossible premise: if you see that time is just change then you realize that you can't really travel through "the fact that things are not constant". Furthermore, if you get rid of the notion of time in favor of change, science still works: a second is already defined by a specific number of changes.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

So your premise describes a situation that does not exist.

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

 

[out of whack]

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

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

So your premise describes a situation that does not exist.

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

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[out of whack]

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

My work is done!

 

[octelcogopod]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[out of whack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[castlegates]

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

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

 

[out of whack]

@castlegates:

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

---

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

 

[castlegates]

Your interpretation is imagery, not rationale

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

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

Why would I replace time with something unrelated?

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

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

and/or changes could occur without time

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


Time is as simple as this.


10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000000000100000000001
Where time is zero and the markers for time are represented by one in the line above. Think of the ones as events, and that which is in between those events is depicted as a non-event.

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

 

[out of whack]

10000000001000100000001010001010100000000000001000000000100000000001

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

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

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

 

[castlegates]

Your intervening sequences of 0's are redundant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly

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

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

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

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

 

[out of whack]

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

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

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

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

 

[castlegates]

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

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

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

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

 

[JoeDawg]

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

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

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

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

 

[out of whack]

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

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

 

[JoeDawg]

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

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

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

 

[friend]

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

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

 

[out of whack]

Time is a complex concept. It involves comparing states of one thing with another.

But "comparing states of one thing with another" is essentially observing changes.

Its not just about change but how the change in state of one thing relates to another. Time also has an apparent direction, at least in the way we perceive it. And all we can honestly talk about is how we perceive it.

Given a set of states, they can either be perceived in a particular order or not. If they are not then we have chaos. But what we perceive instead is an order that allows us to described changes with rules and equations. We perceive an ordered set of states. Would you give a name to "the fact that the set of states is in some order"? Would you call this fact time? Or would you instead call this fact the natural order, the laws of nature? Something else?

Change is a simpler concept. You are trying to reduce something we don't understand to something simple, but the fact is, its something we don't understand.

That's not exactly what I am trying to do. I am trying to clarify language. I don't think we really fail to understand changes and how they happen. Our science uses units and measurements of all sorts, and one of them is a unit of change: the second. This unit is defined using a certain amount of something that changes, therefore it is essentially a change unit. I have not found any use for the word "time" so far, although the "order of changing states" might be something that can make use of the term.

You might notice that time exist simply because of the observation of change. But that does not enable you to measure time. In order to measure time, you need to see how some things change with respect to how other things change.

Actually what I measure is change, as described in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1540137&postcount=37".

But what if there were only the tick and tock? Then we would not be able to measure time.

Or equivalently, we would not be able to measure change.

For we would not know whether it was just our perception as to whether there was equal time between every tick of the clock. Some ticks might actually have more time between them. How would you know unless there were other processes (changes) to compare it with?

Indeed we would know nothing of this mysterious "time" quality. It would be immaterial if there were more or less of "some other property other than change" included between a tick and a tock. The only relevant information would be the change from tick to tock, and even then it would only be relevant to itself and nothing else.

So you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure time. There has to be an expansion rate of the universe with respect to which the rate of other processes are measured. Expansion alone can not be measured without other things in the universe happening in order to compare expansion rate with some other process, and visa versa.

Or equivalently you need more than the universe coming out of non-existence to measure change.

You would need a standard changing device that you can use to compare against (measure) other changes.

 

[JoeDawg]

But "comparing states of one thing with another" is essentially observing changes.

Like I said, you are oversimplifying. Now you are equating comparing and observing. One can do either or both. And make many observations about time:

Measuring time involves an arbitrary selected standard created from an initial observation, a conscious agent, and things to measure.
Our experience of time is different. Its simply an observed sequence to events via cause and effect. (includes the problem of induction...)
Relative time... ala Einstein... shows us that our experience of time may differ from that of another conscious agent. And that, although it appears different, it can be thought of like a dimension of space.
The arrow of time only goes in one direction, so it is not just change of state, but involves a very specific kind of change, ie entropy.

I certainly think this is a worthy discussion, but you seem to be intent on limiting it beyond what is reasonable. Time is not so simple and we don't have a clear understanding of it yet.