Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[out of whack]

Like I said, you are oversimplifying.

That's not impossible. If I am ignoring essentials aspects that change alone cannot account for then you will be able to point them out and I will be able to address them as I will do right now.

Now you are equating comparing and observing.

You said the concept of time involves comparing states of one thing with another. I equated comparing states with observing a change because when you compare states, you see a difference and when you observe a change, you see the same difference. I thought it was being clear in the context that what your concept of time involves is simply the observation of a change from one state to the other.

Measuring time involves an arbitrary selected standard created from an initial observation, a conscious agent, and things to measure.

I discussed this in post #37.

Our experience of time is different. Its simply an observed sequence to events via cause and effect.

This observed sequence describes changes using rules of cause and effect. We have rules and we have the changes they describe, which is sufficient. No other concept is required.

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.

I discussed this in post #18.

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.

You didn't address my last comment on this. If changes didn't happen in accordance to specific rules then we would have chaos. Instead, the order that we observe indicates that one state changes into a new state according to certain rules (that scientists attempt to discover), entropy being one aspect of this. The direction of the arrow you speak of matches an increase of entropy, and of course the reverse direction matches a decrease. All of this is change of course, or a difference between states if you prefer, or the fact that things are not constant as I usually say.

I certainly think this is a worthy discussion, but you seem to be intent on limiting it beyond what is reasonable.

I don't think am not ignoring objections or brushing them aside, I hope to address them all. If in the process I show that some elusive concept is not required to our understanding of reality where change itself is sufficient well, this is the point, isn't it. It seems that we can directly describe all changes in relation to each other, including the ticks of a clock.

IMPORTANT EDIT: ...and if it seem to you that I did brush something aside that you considered important then please bring it back and ask for further discussion about it! Like most mortals I am able to overlook things.

Time is not so simple and we don't have a clear understanding of it yet.

What is not so simple is the word itself. It remains ill-defined because it does not correspond to a meaningful or necessary concept. If this obscure time thing magically stopped but change continued business as usual then nobody would notice because clocks would go on ticking, planets would keep orbiting and debates about it would continue.

 

[JoeDawg]

What is not so simple is the word itself. It remains ill-defined because it does not correspond to a meaningful or necessary concept. If this obscure time thing magically stopped but change continued business as usual then nobody would notice because clocks would go on ticking, planets would keep orbiting and debates about it would continue.

You made some interesting points, but ultimately while 'change' is certainly a part of any understanding of 'time', it may even be an essential element, that doesn't mean it is equivalent to time. Your argument seems to center around an inability to separate the two... but that doesn't mean time is nothing more than 'change'. And what is 'change' really? If time is like a space dimension then a 'change' in time is like the difference between blue and violet. Its simply in a different place on a spectrum. Just because violet always follows blue, doesn't mean blue causes violet, nor that any 'change' is happening, it could be that it just appears that way because of times arrow.

And I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just saying we don't really know.

Your theory of time is as valid as any other, but based on what I read, I still think its incomplete.

 

[Hillary88]

But time can pass even if there is no change.

No...the time would be changing

 

[DaveC426913]

... while 'change' is certainly a part of any understanding of 'time', it may even be an essential element, that doesn't mean it is equivalent to time. Your argument seems to center around an inability to separate the two... but that doesn't mean time is nothing more than 'change'.

This is where I stop too. I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

 

[DaveC426913]

No...the time would be changing

That is a circular argument. We are trying to determine what's different other than time. Until we do, we have no way of separating 'time' and 'change'.

 

[out of whack]

I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

We are trying to determine what's different other than time. Until we do, we have no way of separating 'time' and 'change'.

I'm not dissatisfied with this position. Most people first assume that there is time on one side and change on the other, then try to work out a connection between the two. My approach was to acknowledge change first because it is undeniable. Then I tried to see if we needed an additional concept in order to make sense of reality at least as much as we already do. I ended up with a redundant word.

But hope is not lost for time lovers. If someone can identify something that requires a concept greater than change in order to account for something then we will have an available word for it. Something that comes to mind is the creation of the universe itself, for those who believe in creation. One problem is to explain what time was doing during the eternity that came before there was change. But there may be other angles to the question.

 

[Oerg]

This is where I stop too. I'm not prepared to say they're equivalent but, being unable define a difference between the two, the counter-argument is indefensible.

Well, I guess that depends on how we define time. We can define time to be totally independent on change because as mentioned, there can be no universe without change, so there can be no counter argument/

We measure time in terms of changes in this universe, like the swing of a pendulum.In the change of a swing of a pendulum, many other changes might have taken place, and yet, only a fraction of certain changes have taken place. We measure time by changes, but that does not necessarily mean that time is change.

Time, as I have defined for myself as above, is a totally different entity that I only measure by changes for convenience as long as I do not define time as change.

 

[JoeDawg]

My approach was to acknowledge change first because it is undeniable.

No, change of states is something we observe. That is far from being undeniable. We observe lots of things that are illusory, ie not what they appear.

Do the words in a book change when we read them? No. Change in this sense may not occur at all, it might all be an illusion created by consciousness. What is consciousness? I don't know. Neither do you. And there is enough QM stuff implying all kinds of things about 'observation'... and its effects, to make me have my doubts. The math is beyond me, but your conclusions seem premature and unsupported.

The problem with measuring a 'change in state' is that we need to use some other change of state as a yard stick. So does change really happen, or is it a function of our attempt and way of measuring?

Our experience of time is something different than just change, because it involves the comparison of different changes via consciousness, and the latter is something we don't really know much about.

Is time an illusion? I don't know.

Once again I think you oversimplify. But I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.

 

[out of whack]

On the contrary JoeDawg, I think you are over-complicating. I could bet you a million dollars (which I conveniently don't have) against a penny that change happens. If I am right, I will be a penny richer! If I am wrong then it's not a problem at all and I will not lose my million because that would be a change, which would make me right and earn me a penny. It's a bet I cannot lose.EDIT: ...well yeah, since I don't have that million there would be no change... but you get the idea.

 

[octelcogopod]

OK let's say for arguments sake that change = time = motion.
I mean what's the difference here between something changing and something moving, in any sense of the word.
If nothing was moving would change stop?

Regardless, motion may equal time, but it's peculiar why things are moving to begin with, and why something even exists. (but i won't get into that here)
It seems to me that ultimately for anything to get moving, so to speak, it would need something more than just one 'unit' of itself.
For instance if there is a primordial unit.
If there only was one primordial unit then even if it moved nobody could tell right because only it existed.

So two questions arise
1. Do we always need more than one unit to have time?
Or is time something inherent in the very existence OF something?
I mean, if you think about it. Let's say we have ONE unit of primordial soup, only one.
Nothing else exists. Now imagine that existence is temporal, even if it's just one unit it must also have some kind of temporal dimension.

There is a change from when it didn't exist to when it did exist, you can't deny this change, but if time is change, time didn't exist before the unit existed, nor does it exist after it is created, because only one thing changed, namely the existence itself.

So I'm wondering what this means.

 

[sysreset]

There is a change from when it didn't exist to when it did exist, you can't deny this change, but if time is change, time didn't exist before the unit existed, nor does it exist after it is created, because only one thing changed, namely the existence itself.

So I'm wondering what this means.

Perhaps high energy collider physics could shed light on the concept of time because collisions sometimes result in particles that decay rapidly and sometimes in particles that do not decay, the only variable between the two is persistance in time. The same thing can be said about radioactive substances which decay at a particular rate with a half-life measured in time. Think of a block of uranium. Some of the particles persist over 'time', some decay. The only difference I can see between one particle vs another in these situations is passage of time, independent of motion or change.

 

[out of whack]

OK let's say for arguments sake that change = time = motion.

Note how I say that change = time instead of saying that motion = time. Motion is a change of position (in space), a specific type of change. But I cannot prove that it is the only type, or that all changes can be reduced to changes of position. JoeDawg was just saying that all changes may only happen within our consciousness. Until we define consciousness we cannot assume that it involves space. In this regard, change would still happen but not motion, time would be just "changing our minds".

It seems to me that ultimately for anything to get moving, so to speak, it would need something more than just one 'unit' of itself.

I agree, you cannot tell anything about a single "unit" since you cannot compare it with anything else. By the way, you would not even be there to compare it. The thought experiment assumes there is no thought either.

Do we always need more than one unit to have time?

Same rhetorical approach as before: with a single unit, what does change mean? (No meaning.) What difference is there between time that passes and no time? (None.)

There is a change from when it didn't exist to when it did exist, you can't deny this change

You assume that existence began. Of course you can deny this, it is an assumption without proof. It is equally likely that existence never began. Since we never see anything popping out of nothing but everything being transformed instead, why assume creation? The apparent paradox of change at creation only exists because we assume it. We assume a paradox that we then try to resolve, like we could assume that up is down without any reason.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, I guess I'm all out of ammo then ;)

Makes sense to me anyway, at least what I/we know today.

 

[ripcurl1016]

The A Series: "..the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future.." McTaggart further declared that "the distinctions of past, present and future are essential to time and that, if the distinctions are never true of reality, then no reality is in time." He considered the A series to be 'temporal', a true time series because it embodies these distinctions and embodies change.

The B series: "The series of positions which runs from earlier to later.." The B series is temporal in that it embodies direction of change. However, McTaggart argues that the B series on its own does not embody change.

The C Series: "..this other series -- let us call it the C series -- is not temporal, for it involves no change, but only an order. Events have an order. They are, let us say, in the order M, N, O, P. And they are therefore not in the order M, O, N, P, or O, N, M, P, or in any other possible order. But that they have this order no more implies that there is any change than the order of the letters of the alphabet…" According to McTaggart the C series is not temporal because it is fixed forever.

 

[baywax]

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.

If all matter etc... stopped changing (ie. "energy destroyed", which is not supposed to be able to happen) would time continue to exist?

This is impossible to know since we, as observers, would have to stop existing to initiate the experiment. This is a similar dilemma to proving infinity in any other way than with mathematics.

However, movement is inextricably tied to energy... ie: energy is movement. And Einstein has shown "time and energy" to comprise a dimension we call the 4th dimension. So, were energy to be halted or "destroyed" one would think that time would be halted or destroyed as well... according to Einstein.

Disclaimer: I've never met Einstein.

 

[dst]

If all matter etc... stopped changing (ie. "energy destroyed", which is not supposed to be able to happen) would time continue to exist?

This is impossible to know since we, as observers, would have to stop existing to initiate the experiment. This is a similar dilemma to proving infinity in any other way than with mathematics.

However, movement is inextricably tied to energy... ie: energy is movement. And Einstein has shown "time and energy" to comprise a dimension we call the 4th dimension. So, were energy to be halted or "destroyed" one would think that time would be halted or destroyed as well... according to Einstein.

Disclaimer: I've never met Einstein.

How about if we had a universe with perfect energy spread, completely homogenous and in heat death, would that be "frozen time" or is there still a "flow of time"?

Is it actually valid to imagine the universe as a 3D object sweeping a path through a 1D time?

 

[baywax]

Is it actually valid to imagine the universe as a 3D object sweeping a path through a 1D time?

"Valid" is relative.

"Sweeping a path" requires 3 dimensions.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Sweeping a path" requires 3 dimensions.

A point cannot sweep a path on a line or a plane?

 

[baywax]

A point cannot sweep a path on a line or a plane?

A point is not a 3D object. Its 1D. And a "sweep" involves a curve which is 2 dimensional whereas the question involves a 3D object "sweeping" through a 1 dimensional "time". (?)

Edit: A 3D object can pass through a point or plane. But the point or plane are purely abstract concepts of anthropocentric origins.

 

[dst]

A point is not a 3D object. Its 1D. And a "sweep" involves a curve which is 2 dimensional whereas the question involves a 3D object "sweeping" through a 1 dimensional "time". (?)

Edit: A 3D object can pass through a point or plane. But the point or plane are purely abstract concepts of anthropocentric origins.

It's up to you if you want to get lost in semantics, but what I meant was whether it would be valid to just think of the universe moving through a 1D time. And a point particle moving through 1D would sweep out a line.

 

[DaveC426913]

A point is not a 3D object.

I didn't say it was. I was merely questioning your claim that sweeping requires a 3D object. Who said so?

Its 1D.

Even that's not right. A point is 0D.

And a "sweep" involves a curve which is 2 dimensional

Where did you get this definition from?

 

[baywax]

It's up to you if you want to get lost in semantics, but what I meant was whether it would be valid to just think of the universe moving through a 1D time. And a point particle moving through 1D would sweep out a line.

That's an interesting concept. So we could imagine that time is this 1 dimensional condition through which the 3D universe is passing. We experience the effects of the condition (1D time) in the form of change. Without the 1D condition of time we would be static and without the benefit of energy. Its an interesting concept but why do you want to make "time" a separate condition from "energy"? edit: Is this separation for the sake of your thought experiment?

 

[baywax]

I didn't say it was. I was merely questioning your claim that sweeping requires a 3D object. Who said so?


Even that's not right. A point is 0D.


Where did you get this definition from?

I hadn't realized how long its been since I studied Geometry (or any math) until you came along DaveC426913! Thank you.

 

[DaveC426913]

I hadn't realized how long its been since I studied Geometry (or any math) until you came along DaveC426913! Thank you.

I'll bet it hasn't been as long as me...

 

[baywax]

I'll bet it hasn't been as long as me...

But of course you can see right here how dst's idea won't work because the amount of time passing since studying geometry would depend on "how long" it's taken for the universe to pass through a 1 dimensional "field of time". This would be impossible since there would be no "distance" when passing through the 1 dimensional "time field".

What I'd like to know is how there can be a distance assigned to the 1 dimensional field and how a 3 dimensional object could ever be considered to be passing through it.

Further to that, I was under the distinct impression that if a line is one dimension and cube is 3 dimensions then the line would either not effect the entire cube or it would effect only a single plane within the 3 dimensional object.

However, we must remember that some physicists claim that the universe is as flat as a plane... yet, for it to pass through and be effected by a 1 dimensional "plane of time" this would require that the plane of the universe be oriented at the same angle as the plane of time. This would require 3D space.

My answer to all of this is that you cannot have time without movement (energy) and so the 3 dimensional object would not "pass" through anything since it would (appear to) be void of energy unless it reached the "plane of time" (which it wouldn't do because it isn't moving). I think trying to separate time from energy is difficult to get away with.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

If change and time are the same, what is the difference between different inertial reference frames in special relativity? It seems that there is the same latitude for change within each of them, yet identical changes within both frames differ in degree or magnitude or something of this thing we call "time". It seems as though this time thing, whatever it may be, is able to exert constraint upon change?

Smaller objects have lesser magnitude of length, slower changes have lesser magnitude of time?

 

[out of whack]

A finite limit necessarily exists in the rate of change relative to an observer, a maximum that cannot be exceeded. If there were no such limit, an object could be said to change position instantaneously: the same object could co-exist in two separate places. But this would not be a true change in position, it would be two separate objects, each occupying its own position. True change therefore precludes an infinite pace. In other words, change is necessarily limited to some finite, maximum rate. As far as we can tell, this maximum matches the speed of light.

Given that a limit exists in the rate of change, the "slowing of time" in a fast-moving satellite can be seen as a figure of speech for what happens under the restrictions imposed by this limit. Within each inertial frame, observers cannot not feel this limit since changes seem to occur at a normal pace relative to the tick of their own clocks. But observation from a stationary base show that they are internally changing at a lesser pace relative to the tick of a stationary clock. The ticks of a satellite's clock drop out of sync relative to a stationary one. The rate of change in the position of the satellite contributes towards the maximum, along with its internal changes.

This interpretation just shows a different angle, by the way. Theories that deal with anything that changes can be reworded in terms of these changes relative to each other instead of making reference to time. It won't change the fundamental relationships expressed by the theory but a new angle can help to clarify.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm just saying, in terms of coming up with a definition of time that is separate (though certainly not independent) from change, maybe "the thing that determines the relative pacing between change in different inertial frames" could help. (Maybe you're responding to that, I'm just having trouble parsing it out of your response.)

 

[out of whack]

Ah okay. No, I was not responding to your post correctly so let me try again.

My approach was not focussed on finding a definition for the word but on showing that it is redundant. I feel that reality is better understood if we drop time because what actually matters is change and Occam's razor works well with language too. Given my stance on this, I see no reason to define the word except perhaps as a synonym of change (or maybe "the fact that changes happen") until someone clarifies why a concept other than change is needed.

 

[baywax]

Ah okay. No, I was not responding to your post correctly so let me try again.

My approach was not focussed on finding a definition for the word but on showing that it is redundant. I feel that reality is better understood if we drop time because what actually matters is change and Occam's razor works well with language too. Given my stance on this, I see no reason to define the word except perhaps as a synonym of change (or maybe "the fact that changes happen") until someone clarifies why a concept other than change is needed.

"Time" is the method and practice of measuring change so I'd say it's as valid a piece of vocabulary as the word "ruler". Nice definitions etc...!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Given my stance on this, I see no reason to define the word except perhaps as a synonym of change (or maybe "the fact that changes happen") until someone clarifies why a concept other than change is needed.

Hmmm. But paced, clock-tick-type coordinates - which seem to be a different thing from change itself - seems rather important to our analysis of special relativity. And, come to think of it, time is rather important even to basic applications of calculus - how would you express something "changing over time" rather than "changing over distance"? It seems like you'd have to say "changing over change" or something. That seems to be removing more than redundancy.

And for that matter, why dispense with time in particular? It seems like instead you could dispense with space and describe everything as "changing over distance" instead of ever talking about length, width, or depth.

Can't you basically toss out any characteristic that varies, whether along time, distance, or continuum x, and replace it with the concept "changes over x"?

 

[baywax]

Hmmm. But paced, clock-tick-type coordinates - which seem to be a different thing from change itself - seems rather important to our analysis of special relativity. And, come to think of it, time is rather important even to basic applications of calculus - how would you express something "changing over time" rather than "changing over distance"? It seems like you'd have to say "changing over change" or something. That seems to be removing more than redundancy.

And for that matter, why dispense with time in particular? It seems like instead you could dispense with space and describe everything as "changing over distance" instead of ever talking about length, width, or depth.

Can't you basically toss out any characteristic that varies, whether along time, distance, or continuum x, and replace it with the concept "changes over x"?

I don't think you can measure space without using the concept of distance. Space is a natural phenomenon, distance is the measurement of that phenomenon. You can't measure the phenomenon of change without employing the concept of time. The method of "timing" uses comparative analysis between perceptively slower and faster changes. You can't have change without energy and so the natural phenomenon of change gives us the opportunity to measure energy with "rulers" like time, distance etc...

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Sure you can. If you're doing what out of whack is talking about and removing words, you would just talk about direction of motion, duration of motion, and change in what you see at each point.

It's like the "periplus", the way that people would navigate before they invented maps. You follow a particular road or coast or river and the periplus is a list of things you'll run into as you travel. It's the same thing as using an accelerometer to track your location instead of a GPS system triangulating off of satellites.

Yeah, replacing "space" with "change" for describing it is clumsy and takes lots more time than describing lat and long on a map or x,y,z, but it's possible. It's just as possible as replacing a rectangular coordinate system with a radial one. I'm saying that out of whack's proposal to replace "time" with "change" is just as possible but just as unfruitful.

It's like pretending that our standards for describing modern physics are being handled by Phoenecians.

 

[baywax]

Sure you can. If you're doing what out of whack is talking about and removing words, you would just talk about direction of motion, duration of motion, and change in what you see at each point.

It's like the "periplus", the way that people would navigate before they invented maps. You follow a particular road or coast or river and the periplus is a list of things you'll run into as you travel. It's the same thing as using an accelerometer to track your location instead of a GPS system triangulating off of satellites.

Yeah, replacing "space" with "change" for describing it is clumsy and takes lots more time than describing lat and long on a map or x,y,z, but it's possible. It's just as possible as replacing a rectangular coordinate system with a radial one. I'm saying that out of whack's proposal to replace "time" with "change" is just as possible but just as unfruitful.

It's like pretending that our standards for describing modern physics are being handled by Phoenecians.

Ah, I get ya. Nothing as sophisticated as knowing that the "distance between the tree and the rock" is filled with "space".

I'm not sure how to prove this to you but I think the Phoenecians or their peers actually had the knowledge that the Earth was a sphere and that it revolved around the sun with 9 other planets. Some of the evidence is in their art and literature. Not all that "primitive" for a bunch of 5000 year olds!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Have you read the rest of this thread? It's about terminology, what words to use. If you think I'm saying that the Phoenecians didn't understand the concept of space, not only do you not understand what side of the argument I'm on, you don't have any idea what we're arguing about.

 

[out of whack]

"Time" is the method and practice of measuring change so I'd say it's as valid a piece of vocabulary as the word "ruler". Nice definitions etc...!

You must realize that your definition of time is not shared by all and has a number of problems (as well as so many other definitions propounded by others). When people talk of time slowing down, they do not talk of the method and practice of measuring change slowing down. A time unit is not a unit of some method or practice either. Fans of time travel will plainly object to your definition as well. Coming up with a universally acceptable definition of time is a nasty exercise. Comparatively, change is rather simple and clear (and sufficient).

Hmmm. But paced, clock-tick-type coordinates - which seem to be a different thing from change itself - seems rather important to our analysis of special relativity. And, come to think of it, time is rather important even to basic applications of calculus

The term "time" is used, but calculations don't require this word. Pick another word and everything still works.

how would you express something "changing over time" rather than "changing over distance"?

The first expression "changing over time" is redundant; just "changing" describes everything there is to express. I'm not sure what the second expression "changing over distance" indicates.

The reason to dispense with the word "time" instead of the word "change" is that change is clearly understood whereas time is has exceedingly diverse definitions and connotations that foster confusion and misunderstandings. Since change and time are equivalent concepts, it seems reasonable to drop the obfuscated word.

I don't quite follow the examples you give about the use of time in various expressions so I will offer my own to illustrate my view, starting with elementary dimensions or fundamental aspects of reality. "Change" is the fact that all things are not constant in the same way that "space" (distance, area, volume) is the fact that all things are not at a single point. We have units of space such as the linear meter and we have units of change such as the second. But the second is mentally linked to time rather than change so I will use a different unit for change and call it the clock tick or just the "tick". Speed becomes distance over change expressed as meter per tick. Acceleration is speed over change expressed as meter per tick per tick. A change in position implies of course that change happened and that distance was covered, so it implies a speed. A change in "something else" implies that change happened so ticks will be part of the measurement along with whatever unit of that "something else" applies.

Now for a disclaimer...

Having explained all this, I am not at all suggesting that we should start changing textbooks to reflect my out of whack vocabulary. I got involved in this discussion to point out that what science handles is simply the difference between states of reality, the fact that states go from one to the other, which is nothing more than change. Conflicts in attempts to define time and understand its nature are resolved if we realize that all that matters is how entities change relative to each other. Time units are units of this reality: they are measurements obtained from a device that changes, pure and simple. Change is necessary and sufficient. Time is only essential to writers of fiction.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think that "change" does not have the elementary meaning you're pairing with it and that's one reason why you didn't understand some of the things I was saying. One sense of "change" simply means "difference". Consider the following two sentences: "Here is your receipt and here is your change, sir." and "The foliage on the West Coast changes dramatically between Baja and Seattle."

I've heard calculus described as the mathematics of computing rates of change. You might figure out the rate at which the total mass of a bathtub changes over time as water drains out of it or you might calculate the rate at which pressure decreases over the height of a vertical pipe filled with water.

I notice that the formulas you're using above are algebraic ones. They only work if speed is constant or acceleration is constant. If speed changes over time, you need calculus to figure out the average speed, if acceleration changes over time, you need calculus.

(Don't let this confuse you but our good Mr. Newton discovered that speed changing over time actually is acceleration. With calculus you can untie an air-filled rubber balloon and let it flutter all over the room and if you can get its path down - just know its position x,y,z at time t - you can calculate its precise speed and acceleration at every instantaneous moment and its average speed and acceleration over any interval of time, because from a certain angle (i.e. with respect to time) distance, speed, and acceleration are sort of different flavors of the same thing. It's really fascinating to study if you ever get a chance.)

So while I understand your notion that change over time and time itself are very closely akin to one another, and while I agree that you probably could construct a way that the word time could always be replaced with an expression including the word "change", "time" is neither a redundant word nor redundant concept. The possibility of replacing it or other words with variations on "change" isn't a facet of the concepts involved but rather is a consequence of the flexibility of human language.

 

[out of whack]

I doubt that you are confusing the use I made of the word "change" with its various other unrelated meanings. If your point is that the English language is ambiguous, I agree. But this discussion has been about the observation that reality has more than a single state, that it is not frozen in a single, constant state. I think I was already clear that this is the topic, and not the differences in the foliage of various towns...

 

[octelcogopod]

Quasar, then what "is" time?

Can you give an example where time is in its purest form, where it is not dependent on change nor changing over a distance?
It's becoming more clear to me that time is actually when something moves in space, and that there is no further concept of time beyond this. The only way this can be debunked is to prove that there exists time outside of change over distance.

Everything that changes, must change from one place to another, even if it is a miniscule change.
Even just morphing something would move the atoms and molecules around, if nothing could move nothing would have time right?

The best instance of proving time is not change, is to talk about consciousness.
Now briefly one could say that consciousness experiences time, but if you think about it all change in consciousness comes from the movement of the body, and the environment, and of course the brain.
If I couldn't move my eyelids, and my body was frozen, I would not have consciousness, unless it can be proven that time exists outside of change.

This is what I'm starting to conclude after reading this thread.

Edit: also as a funny sidenote, I'm having issues defining anything as being outside of motion.

 

[baywax]

You must realize that your definition of time is not shared by all and has a number of problems (as well as so many other definitions propounded by others). When people talk of time slowing down, they do not talk of the method and practice of measuring change slowing down. A time unit is not a unit of some method or practice either. Fans of time travel will plainly object to your definition as well. Coming up with a universally acceptable definition of time is a nasty exercise. Comparatively, change is rather simple and clear (and sufficient).

Let me modify my definition slightly. Time is the practice and method of comparative analysis by an observer between 2 or more changes that are taking place simultaneously.

So here I can explain that observing the clock in a rocket ship traveling at a rate of c (changing at c) from the POV on Earth which is changing at a rate of x is how I arrive at the observation that time slows and or stops at the rate of c. This is because I have a reference or references between different (rates of) change(s). This also explains why someone, (who actually lives through c on the rocket ship), would not notice time slowing down or stopping. edit: (Because they are lacking an independent reference).

But, I wonder if someone traveling at c with a monitor to a camera on Earth would observe time speeding up on Earth rather than their own time reference slowing down?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

out of whack, the "difference" meaning of change is not unrelated to the meaning you're using. You're talking about difference change over time as opposed to difference change of foliage over the West Coast or difference change of the force of gravity over the length of a tall radio tower. I'm not making a wild wacky non-sequitur-like association here, these are very related meanings of the word "change".

As I mentioned before the alternate terminology you're suggesting isn't unique; you could also replace the concept "difference over space" with the word "change" if you tried hard enough.

I think that you've generally been focusing on replacing very imprecise uses of the word "time" with "change". That's why it seems so straight forward to you. If you get into these more precise uses of "time" in mathematics and science it's not so simple, you would have to use complex expressions involving "change" to be able to distinguish between change over time and change over space or other continuums or to accurately describe phenomena like relativistic time dilation.

baywax, the only way events in other reference frames appear to speed up is through Doppler-like effects on light. If you think there's such a thing as an "independent reference" I'm sorry to have to say that you are fundamentally misunderstanding relativity.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Here's maybe another math-like way of saying it: time is a particular degree of freedom in the physical world, but you're construing that variation along that degree of freedom is the same thing as time itself.

It's like saying that a bank account and the amount of money within the bank account are the same thing. In one particular sense they're the same thing but in lots of other senses, not. And I think you'd actually be imparing your ability to understand what a bank account is and flexibly think about bank accounts if you were to linguistically force a lack of distinction between the amount saved and the bank account.

 

[out of whack]

Let me modify my definition slightly. Time is the practice and method of comparative analysis by an observer between 2 or more changes that are taking place simultaneously.

Aren't you describing timekeeping instead of time? By your new definition time is still a practice and method but since a "second" is a unit of time then how does it fit? Why is one (1) change insufficient to recognize time? Isn't the concept of simultaneity moot given relative time?

out of whack, the "difference" meaning of change is not unrelated to the meaning you're using.

I beg to differ. The difference between what is here and what is there is fundamentally different from a change of what is here and from a change of what is there (to say nothing of the pocketful of change you also mentioned). We are talking about different concepts: what you describe is a better match for space than for time.

Here is the problem. I have repeatedly defined "change" throughout this discussion to be the fact that reality is not constant, but you use the verb for cases where no change happens. Yes, I do understand that it is also commonly used to express relationships that exist even in the absence of change: foliage depends on latitude and gravity varies with altitude. Do you see what I just did? I used verbs other than "change" to avoid confusion. It's easy to do.

I think that you've generally been focusing on replacing very imprecise uses of the word "time" with "change".

Yes, I have said this more than once.

If you get into these more precise uses of "time" in mathematics and science it's not so simple, you would have to use complex expressions involving "change" to be able to distinguish between change over time and change over space or other continuums or to accurately describe phenomena like relativistic time dilation.

It only becomes complex if you don't follow the definition and start using change to express things other than time. You do this when you say things like "change over time" which actually means "change over change" and is probably not what you intended. On the other hand a "difference over time" works in our context.

you're construing that variation along that degree of freedom is the same thing as time itself.

I was careful to avoid that. I said "extent of change" and "rate of change" where appropriate instead of just "change" unless I got sloppy. I do realize the difference.

It's like saying that a bank account and the amount of money within the bank account are the same thing. In one particular sense they're the same thing but in lots of other senses, not. And I think you'd actually be imparing your ability to understand what a bank account is and flexibly think about bank accounts if you were to linguistically force a lack of distinction between the amount saved and the bank account.

An amount of money does not imply a bank account and a bank account does not imply an amount of money (the account can be inactive). On the other hand this thread has shown that change implies time and that time implies change, which makes them equivalent concepts.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

We are talking about different concepts: what you describe is a better match for space than for time.

Now you're being just as arbitrary as you're accusing the users of the word "time" of being. What if I think the word "time" is a better match for temporal change than "change"?

Here is the problem. I have repeatedly defined "change" throughout this discussion to be the fact that reality is not constant, but you use the verb for cases where no change happens.

! Don't you see that it only seems that way to you because you're fixated on your own definition of "change" as a concept inextricably related to time? Of course I use "change" in a way that someone who doesn't accept your definition might, because I don't! I'm using the word in ways it's actually used, I'm not making them up!

I used verbs other than "change" to avoid confusion. It's easy to do.

Yes, and it's equally easy to insist on using "change" in a way that causes confusion about the precise ways in which time works, which is what you're doing. This is what I mean about the flexibility of language.

You do this when you say things like "change over time" which actually means "change over change" and is probably not what you intended. On the other hand a "difference over time" works in our context.

Except that "difference" in mathematics usually connotes a constant difference, the meaning of "change" in the case of "moneychanging". A degree of difference which differs, a difference which varies, is usually referred to as "change".

Now I'm saying this in regards to how I've seen them used in U.S. English in particular, I don't know if British or Indian mathematicians talk the same way, but constant difference and varying difference are, uh, different concepts. In getting rid of "time" and appropriating "change" for it you'd be creating a situation that would prevent me from using "change" to mean "varying difference" when I'm talking about time, you're simply rearranging the language to your taste.

What about the word "temporary"? Are you going to replace that with an expression involving change? Because it's got the word "time" in it.

You still also haven't explained how you would re-word the way we describe and discuss special relativity without making it horrendously more complex than it already is. Here's an example that might make you think: you could have the exact same set of changes happening to two different electrons, at the exact same clock ticks, but one set of changes is happening in dilated time and one is happening in the same time as the clock. You can get rid of the point where I used "changes" there and replace it with "differences" so that you can use "change" in place of where I've used "time" but don't you see you're just juggling words?

An amount of money does not imply a bank account and a bank account does not imply an amount of money (the account can be inactive).

Actually, I would say that an inactive account might still have a balance, but that's another terminology argument. Maybe you're talking about an account that is empty? It would be equivalent to the amount of money 0, no money.

It prompts another question though, how would you reword the sentence "Time passed but no changes occurred"? Or would you declare it meaningless in your new regime of change? (Tee hee, change of regime, regime of change)

On the other hand this thread has shown that change implies time and that time implies change, which makes them equivalent concepts.

If you've demonstrated that time implies change then I have also demonstrated that space implies change.

I really think you're juggling with terminology for fun or in trying to make some kind of philosophical point while I'm getting the impression you're only familiar with, or at least only thinking of, a limited number of the situations in which the word "time" is used.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, or Canadian mathematicians, or mathematicians from any other English-speaking countries. My sincere apologies to any Canadians who are reading for being an arrogant American.

 

[out of whack]

Oh wow, did I cause you personal insult?

Maybe a time out is in order.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No, you didn't cause me a personal insult. Did I cause you to need to contrive an implication that my arguments are irrational?

What you're saying really does sound like arguments I've heard philosophy students make about the concept of time being meaningless, if you're feeling as if that suggestion is arising out of malice. Please don't take offense to any of this stuff or take it personally, I just like discussing this sort of thing and have done so often and with vigor. So your earlier statement [I see no reason to define "time"] until someone clarifies why a concept other than change is needed came as a bit of a challenge. I'm a-clairifyin' with gusto and meeting your stubbornness with my own. Assertions like Time is only essential to writers of fiction after I've pointed out a reason why it might be essential to science don't exactly cool my ardor for wringing this out either.

And shouldn't that be "a change out is in order"? Oops, we ran into another place where some terminology tetris is needed.

 

[octelcogopod]

But, how can you say there is time when nothing has changed?
Does there exist time outside of change?
If so what is time?

That is the core essence of this discussion.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I beg to differ. The difference between what is here and what is there is fundamentally different from a change of what is here and from a change of what is there...

I missed this before, I'm having trouble following in which cases you're discarding time-referential words and in which cases you aren't. To use the time-like wording: you consider "the difference between what is here and what is there" to be fundamentally different from "the difference between what is now and what was then"?

Maybe your understanding of the word "fundamentally" is different from mine also.

But, how can you say there is time when nothing has changed?
Does there exist time outside of change?
If so what is time?

That is the core essence of this discussion.

Changeless periods of time, were they to exist, would be in some ways equivalent to empty space. In the context of your question, "change (over time) must be the same as time" is equivalent to saying "matter must be the same as space" and asking "does space exist when there's nothing there?"

Notice also that one characteristic of empty space would be "no change across distance" - rather similar, indeed fundamentally similar I might say, to a period of time when nothing has changed.

I don't know what time is but I don't need to define it to demonstrate that the words "time" and "change" aren't equivalent, even within the peculiar poorly-delimited definitions of "change" that out of whack is focused on.

Maybe what's tripping you guys up in the comparison of time with space is that time is directional and space is not, i.e. we can move in any direction in space but we can move in only one direction in time? (And of course there are three dimensions / degrees of freedom in space but only one in time.) That's a salient distinction, it's the reason why theoretical physicists who are constructing superstring theories employing eleven or more dimensions distinguish between "spacelike dimensions" and "timelike dimensions". But it doesn't have anything to do with change being equivalent to time.

 

[out of whack]

Alright CaptainQuasar, let's continue. But we are having communication problems so we need to step back a little. I had restricted my own use of the word "change" to one narrow meaning to avoid the difficulties we are now having. Since you insist on retaining all possible meanings of the word, I will have to use a different one to speak with you without ambiguity.

I invent the word "tsheinj" to represent the fact that reality (the universe and what applies to it) has more than a single state. It's my word, I own it, you cannot extend its meaning. To further clarify its definition, we witness tsheinj whenever something happens: an object moves, an atom decays, a season passes, we learn something. These examples are all manifestations of tsheinj, a fundamental, undeniable property of reality that we all know directly at least within our own consciousness since we know we change our mind. The facts that different objects occupy different positions and have different characteristics is not tshenj, these facts are what defines one state of the universe. Tsheinj manifests itself as variations in the relationships between objects.

We can measure this aspect of reality using some instrument that manifests tsheinj in the same way we measure distance using some instrument that manifests length. A clock is a device that exhibits more than a single state. Perfect, let's use it as a standard. I call a transition from one state of the clock to a different state a "tik" (also my word, it means what I just said). Now we have tiks to measure tsheinj so we can measure any other manifestation of tsheinj in tiks.

Are you still with me?