Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[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?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Actually, and I'm not being snarky here, I'm not entirely with you because your use of the word "state" isn't totally clicking for me.

By state as related to tsheinj, you're talking about the configuration of matter and energy in the universe at a particular moment. Yes, there can be many different states of the universe this way, but tsheinj must be more than that the way you're talking about it; it also involves placing an order on a series of these states, right? And again just because of the way you're talking about it, something returning to the same configuration, like if you learned something and then forgot it, those would be different states because they appear at different locations in the order, right? Which means that "states" are not unique but may be duplicated.

I'm really not trying to oppose you or mess with your presentation, it's just that you went very quickly from "reality has multiple states" to "tsheinj is a fundamental undeniable property of reality" but seem to have come through that with a lot more than multiple states. So I just want to make sure - tsheinj is constituted not only by the multiple states but also the order/sequence upon them and has the property that two states of the universe (for example, a white-hot big bang and a white-hot big crunch) might have the same configuration of matter and energy but are different states because they're at a different location in the order. (I'm a computer programmer and we have to make really specific distinctions between states and processes to get things to work.)

But I could be wrong about any of those properties of tsheinj, please feel free to correct me.

Another question I have to ask because it seems salient - assuming that the states of the clock also have an order, are there states between tiks? If there are, what distinguishes these interstitial states from tiks? (Xeno's Paradox basically, it's material if you're going to talk in terms of discrete states. This question unlike the ones above is presenting an objection to your definition so far.)

 

[out of whack]

Actually, and I'm not being snarky here, I'm not entirely with you because your use of the word "state" isn't totally clicking for me.

That's fair, we can work on that. We may have started on the wrong foot but I'm sure we can get somewhere once we start using a common language.

By state as related to tsheinj, you're talking about the configuration of matter and energy in the universe at a particular moment.

...but to avoid possible circularity I would exclude the word "moment" since it involves time, time being our topic. I'm not exactly sure how to avoid this but I would venture that a state is what is detectable with a single observation. Of course in practice one observation is limited, it cannot grasp the entire universe. But we can make a philosophical assumption that one observation can capture at least all items of interest when we use the term. I am open to counter suggestions if you have something more workable.

Yes, there can be many different states of the universe this way, but tsheinj must be more than that the way you're talking about it; it also involves placing an order on a series of these states, right?

No, it's not something more than what I defined. Placing an order on these various states is done through models that follow a principle of cause and effect or a probabilistic system. For the moment we only agree (do we?) that there is more than one state.

And again just because of the way you're talking about it, something returning to the same configuration, like if you learned something and then forgot it, those would be different states because they appear at different locations in the order, right? Which means that "states" are not unique but may be duplicated.

Well, if there is no difference between two states then they are the same state. We only have two possibilities:

As a programmer you know that if a deterministic algorithm processes a given state, the next state is pre-determined. If the same state returns then you will have an endless loop where all states will repeat as the previous iteration of the loop is reproduced exactly. You may have only three states A, B and C that change infinitely as ...ABCABCABCAB... You would still have only three states, not an infinite number of them since there is no difference between state B and state B.

If on the other hand we assume non-deterministic rules then state A can be followed by either state B or C. The ordering of states loses some of its meaning because the rules of the game are different. We still have tsheinj but now order loses the relevance it has under determinism because the state that follows the current one is undefined. There is still no difference between state B and state B. What differs is the algorithm.

As an aside, note that we have no irrefutable proof that reality is either deterministic or non-deterministic. This is a whole different debate. But we do know that there are multiple states and we don't need anything more at this point of this discussion.

I'm really not trying to oppose you or mess with your presentation, it's just that you went very quickly from "reality has multiple states" to "tsheinj is a fundamental undeniable property of reality" but seem to have come through that with a lot more than multiple states.

The rationale is this. It is undeniable that reality has multiple states as you can confirm by having a thought. You don't need to believe that the thought occurred either deterministically or non-deterministically and you don't need to observe a specific order in your thoughts. You only have to observe / believe / accept / recognize that your consciousness has more than a single state as you do when you change your mind. We cannot discuss anything that involves different states unless you accept that at least your consciousness does. This reality is what matters at this point, nothing more.

...but I just realized why you brought up the order: it's the clock. If we are to measure tsheinj then the states of the clock must be assumed to match other changes. Is that right?

assuming that the states of the clock also have an order, are there states between tiks? If there are, what distinguishes these interstitial states from tiks? (Xeno's Paradox basically, it's material if you're going to talk in terms of discrete states. This question unlike the ones above is presenting an objection to your definition so far.)

If there is a sequence of states between tiks, then the clock is not precise enough to count them, whether there are a finite number of them or an infinite number. What makes these different is our device's inability to count its own internal states. We would need a separate, more accurate clock to do so, with the possibility that it also cannot count its own internal states. Now we look in Xeno's direction and wonder: is there a finite number of states between any two, or there is an infinity of them?

In the first case, we can imagine a device that measures its own ordered tsheinj, some counter whose state is nothing more than a number, and this number conveniently increases by one at each state. In the second case no such device could possibly exist since the number would just be infinity, which is not even a number. As far as I can tell tsheinj applies either way. The difference is only in the accuracy of possible measurements, a problem that arises when we try to measure length as well.

 

[octelcogopod]

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.

Ok, I hope this post is allowed as it is somewhat in the 'original' category, but it is just my opinion and I'm not presenting it as anything more.

Time can still be change, but be its own 'thing' TO the perceiver.
The universe has certain rules, like quantum mechanics or thermodynamics, all these rules, and all these restraints, create what I would call 'order.'
Now order doesn't have to be just making sense, it can also mean that things move at a certain speed, or that time passes relatively at the same pace, because the underlying physics "tells it to."

The thing is when we can't measure any matter/light, in an empty space, then no time can have passed.
How can time be applied to something which doesn't exist?
And a perfect vacuum doesn't exist, so even in space there will always be something moving.

Now, if physics were to guide most things, then if things always moved based on these rules, they would behave in the same way all over the place, because that's the way the system worked.
In theory then we could alter how time would function by changing the underlying physics, and their values.

As an example, the world and surrounding universe is a big place, but if we removed most of it and was only left with a perfect vaccum, a box with a cat inside and an observation box to be in, then it is my contention that we would have no way of verifying any sense of time except to the degree that we can measure the minutes it takes for the cat to die, or measuring even the air molecules in our box and how they moved, time must always be measured in comparison to something right?

The world just seems to have order and in a sense 'time' because imo the underlying physics have rules that guide how all the mass moves, and this creates sensible order to us humans, but that doesn't mean any of these objects have a time dimension, or any other time 'thing', which so far nobody has been able to really scientifically measure outside of measuring matter.

Do you think this makes sense? If not I'd love to hear your opinion, where I lack understanding and so forth.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

But we can make a philosophical assumption that one observation can capture at least all items of interest when we use the term. I am open to counter suggestions if you have something more workable.

No, go right ahead with that definition if you would like. Though I would point out that in talking in terms of discrete states of things we're creating possible problems in describing a relativistic view of the universe, certainly general relativity.

Placing an order on these various states is done through models that follow a principle of cause and effect or a probabilistic system. For the moment we only agree (do we?) that there is more than one state.

All right, very good. But I want to make the point right now that an unordered collection of states is dissimilar from the concept of time; you're undoubtedly aware that you'll need to sew that up to establish the equivalence.

Well, if there is no difference between two states then they are the same state.

Very good then, we are using the same definition of "state", that makes things easier.

As an aside, note that we have no irrefutable proof that reality is either deterministic or non-deterministic. This is a whole different debate. But we do know that there are multiple states and we don't need anything more at this point of this discussion.

Yes, definitely. In absence of Laplace's Demon and with quantum physics being rather ornery and uncooperative about scrounging up a method of predictability, we have no way of asserting either determinism or non-determinism to the sector of change I'd call the future.

...but I just realized why you brought up the order: it's the clock. If we are to measure tsheinj then the states of the clock must be assumed to match other changes. Is that right?

Yes. Though even with a way to do that, your current definitions open the possibility that a universe-state can correspond to more than one clock-state, which is again disharmonic with my experience of time. But maybe a Hindu would speak differently.

If there is a sequence of states between tiks, then the clock is not precise enough to count them, whether there are a finite number of them or an infinite number. What makes these different is our device's inability to count its own internal states. We would need a separate, more accurate clock to do so, with the possibility that it also cannot count its own internal states. Now we look in Xeno's direction and wonder: is there a finite number of states between any two, or there is an infinity of them?

In the first case, we can imagine a device that measures its own ordered tsheinj, some counter whose state is nothing more than a number, and this number conveniently increases by one at each state. In the second case no such device could possibly exist since the number would just be infinity, which is not even a number. As far as I can tell tsheinj applies either way. The difference is only in the accuracy of possible measurements, a problem that arises when we try to measure length as well.

Yes, I think you're hitting the issue on the nose. For one thing, without an order placed upon the tiks your clock is rather unlike the device called a clock that we use for measuring time (And isn't then the order part of tsheinj, if it's part of the clocks? The clocks aren't some kind of special objects that are outside the normal properties of the universe, are they?). But even given such an order:

Assuming a finite number of states in between tiks would not be compatible either with the observations of science or with our sense of how reality operates, I think.

But if there is an infinite number of states between tiks, and even with a way to correlate tiks with the states of other objects besides the clock, you have no easy way of determining that the tiks are "evenly spaced" over the infinity of other states of the clock. You either have to assume some kind determinism that permits you to establish a cyclical function to flag the tiks across the infinity of other clock-states (and where that cyclical function might come from without an independent concept of time, I can't say), or you need a separate orthogonal continuum like time which the clock states are located within to "pace" the clock-ticks with.

That is, without a concept like time, no clock as defined in your framework can have any accuracy whatsoever. You have no reason to believe that the state, um, "spacing" between adjacent ticks A and B is not a million times larger than the state spacing between adjacent ticks B and C. (Even, in fact, were you to assume an infinite number of states in between each tick; mathematically one infinity can be "larger" than another, through things like countability proofs.)

 

[CaptainQuasar]

And a perfect vacuum doesn't exist, so even in space there will always be something moving.

If that's going to be your assumption (which I think is kind of arbitrary) doesn't it mean that there are no periods of time during which no change occurs, rendering your question about changelessness causing non-existence of time the same as my point about empty space causing non-existence of space?

The world just seems to have order and in a sense 'time' because imo the underlying physics have rules that guide how all the mass moves, and this creates sensible order to us humans, but that doesn't mean any of these objects have a time dimension, or any other time 'thing', which so far nobody has been able to really scientifically measure outside of measuring matter.

Referring to time as a dimension is simply saying that mathematically time represents a degree of freedom in describing the physical world, it's not science-fiction-type "other dimensions" as in other worlds. (I'm not trying to denigrate your understanding of this, I'm just clairifying.) You could also call temperature a dimension - it's a continuum along which things can be measured - but that isn't conventionally done.

Do you think this makes sense? If not I'd love to hear your opinion, where I lack understanding and so forth.

I think that time and space definitely represent a separate framework or coordinate system, an order as we've been saying, within which other phenomena can be fixed or located relative to each other. This order may be illusory or have significance quite different from what we imagine it to be, but I think that it represents something equally substantial as the phenomena we're ordering using it.

 

[out of whack]

All right, very good. [...]
Very good [...]
Yes, definitely. [...]
Yes. [...]
Yes, I think you're hitting the issue on the nose.

I think you said a couple of other things too but these are the parts I remember...

Kidding aside, we are out of the gates with at least a few starting points on which we agree. That's good. Please don't think I am ignoring the many other points you have mentioned in your last post. But I cannot address them until we agree on a few more elementary concepts, otherwise we will start to miscommunicate again. I will try to build on our initial agreements in small manageable steps and cover one topic at a time.

The next small step in my presentation is to agree (or disagree) that time requires more than a single state of reality (tsheinj).

If we made the assumption that there is only a single state of reality then it would make no difference if some time passed or if no time passed. What is real would remain unchanged either way, the single state of reality would be unaffected. In terms of our definition of "state", only one observation could apply so it would not matter to it if time passed or not. In terms of other possible definitions of "state" the same reasoning would certainly apply as well. Since time is irrelevant to anything under the premise of a single state then it does not matter, it does not exist.

Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality?

 

[baywax]

Aren't you describing timekeeping instead of time?

Timekeeping is the root of time as in: as soon as we put sand in an hourglass and measure the exit of that sand against the Earth's movement against the stationary sun we have invented "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?

A second can only be derived by comparison to another second or minute or degree. You can't discern time without the comparison of one change against the other. This practice and method is how we arrived at the concept of time.

Why is one (1) change insufficient to recognize time? Isn't the concept of simultaneity moot given relative time?

In order to perceive one change there must be a constant or slower or faster change with which to compare that "one change". This too is a practice and method that confirms the concept of time... yet is rooted in the natural phenomenon of change.

Put mildly, without change there would be no time. Show me how the concept of time can exist in a static, motionless universe. Better yet, show me how the concept of time can exist in a universe where all things change at the same rate, regardless of scale.

 

[baywax]

Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality?

Since reality is relative to the observer (and the position of that observer) there is no shortage of realities. There does, however, have to be more than a single rate of change taking place for time (change) to be measurable. Moreover, rate of change may also be relative only to the observer in which case; time, change, distance etc... could all be considered an illusion. And often are.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality?

(I actually said a "yes" to this before with a suspension-of-disbelief-qualification but since you're asking it again you're going to get the full works!)

Given the time implications of GR I think it may be an inaccurate approximation to talk about discrete states of the entire universe. For example, the way the passage of time occurs near the surface of or within black holes may result in a single state of the black hole having approximately the same time-coordinates as multiple states of other objects in the universe.

But laying that part of science aside I'll at least grant you that parts of reality, particular objects, have characteristics that vary along many different axes and time is one of them. So you'll have to judge if this is an equivalent statement, but the most I'll grant is that particular objects have characteristics that vary with time, just not necessarily in complete concert with the entirety of the object. For example, again given GR, it seems not entirely kosher to regard the surface of the Earth as passing through all the same moments as its core, or at least that the entirety of the Earth is passing through time in such a way that one time coordinate really corresponds to one discrete state of the Earth.

(Aside from being an objection against discrete states, this brings up problems with the uniqueness of states... even if you said that the surface of the Earth has one state and its core has its own state, the fact that multiple states of the surface are blurring into each state of the core means that the identity of a core state has to do not only with its own configuration but with which surface states are blurring into it, which ends up being a time-like relationship outside of the tiking of the clocks)

(Another tack you might take could be to talk about human experience instead of reality, because I'm bound to bring into any discussion of reality what I know of science's observations.)

-

Also, from that previous discussion - did we establish at this point that tsheinj, or at least tsheinj and clocks if clocks have special properties, include both an order upon states as well as the set of multiple states?

 

[out of whack]

Timekeeping is the root of time as in: as soon as we put sand in an hourglass and measure the exit of that sand against the Earth's movement against the stationary sun we have invented "time".

You are saying that time does not exist unless we measure change, time is a measurement of change, right? I've come across this interpretation in the past.

A second can only be derived by comparison to another second or minute or degree. You can't discern time without the comparison of one change against the other. This practice and method is how we arrived at the concept of time.

Except for your use of the word change (where I would have used the word state) I think I follow what you are saying. You must compare one state against another state to notice that a change has happened and that time has therefore passed, except that you cannot measure anything yet because you only have one manifestation of change. If you can identify various manifestations of change then you can measure it by comparing one instance that you pick as standard against another change that you want to measure. This makes your definition of time a measurement of how changes happen relative to each other, if I read you right.

Put mildly, without change there would be no time. Show me how the concept of time can exist in a static, motionless universe.

We are in complete agreement on this point. Time implies change, it has no meaning without it.

Since reality is relative to the observer (and the position of that observer) there is no shortage of realities.

Just a side note on this. My own use of the word "reality" means the collection of all realities in the way you interpret it. Your own reality matters to you directly, but you are part of my reality which affects me, therefore your reality is part of mine by transitivity. In other words, your reality matters to me because it affects me (through you). Since it matters, it's real to me too. Something must be completely detached from me and from anything or anyone who affects me either directly or indirectly before I can claim that it isn't real. It if matters, it's real. If it's not real, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, I'm not even talking about it...

Moreover, rate of change may also be relative only to the observer in which case; time, change, distance etc... could all be considered an illusion.

...or simply be considered relative, which seems to work well.

Overall we're not far apart in our interpretation. I say that a time unit is a unit of change while you say that a time unit is a unit of the measurement of change.

 

[out of whack]

I actually said a "yes" to this before

Good to get confirmation. We agree that time requires tsheinj.

Given the time implications of GR I think it may be an inaccurate approximation to talk about discrete states of the entire universe.

Maybe. It could be that the granularity of tsheinj is finer than detectable, or it could be that there are truly infinite states. I have not committed to either discrete or atomic states because I think either interpretation can be made to work. Scientific theories are commonly approximations waiting for more accurate theories.

For example, the way the passage of time occurs near the surface of or within black holes may result in a single state of the black hole having approximately the same time-coordinates as multiple states of other objects in the universe.

We make two observations that each include our lab and the black hole. We may as well include some flying saucer traveling at half c. The differences between both observed states that include these three locations will be different in degree, clocks have not ticked as much as in our lab. We can either say that time has slowed down over there or that state differences are less over there.

So you'll have to judge if this is an equivalent statement, but the most I'll grant is that particular objects have characteristics that vary with time, just not necessarily in complete concert with the entirety of the object. For example, again given GR, it seems not entirely kosher to regard the surface of the Earth as passing through all the same moments as its core, or at least that the entirety of the Earth is passing through time in such a way that one time coordinate really corresponds to one discrete state of the Earth.

No objection. My observation of both ends of some object will be different from your observation of both ends of the same object. States are relative to the observer, therefore so are manifestations of tsheinj.

(Another tack you might take could be to talk about human experience instead of reality, because I'm bound to bring into any discussion of reality what I know of science's observations.)

I touched on this above in my reply to baywax. My reality includes your reality and baywax's reality (because your realities affect my own) even though my observations may be different from yours. I'm just giving my interpretation of the word, by the way, not opening up a new debate on definitions (I hope).

Also, from that previous discussion - did we establish at this point that tsheinj, or at least tsheinj and clocks if clocks have special properties, include both an order upon states as well as the set of multiple states?

Not yet. I can at least agree right now that clocks are subject to the same rules as everything else, be it deterministic or non-deterministic. But their specific discussion is best held until after another small step I need to take on a more basic matter.

Before I proceed with this next small step I should give you a chance to respond to this post in case something else needs to be clarified first.

 

[baywax]

You are saying that time does not exist unless we measure change, time is a measurement of change, right? I've come across this interpretation in the past.



Except for your use of the word change (where I would have used the word state) I think I follow what you are saying. You must compare one state against another state to notice that a change has happened and that time has therefore passed, except that you cannot measure anything yet because you only have one manifestation of change. If you can identify various manifestations of change then you can measure it by comparing one instance that you pick as standard against another change that you want to measure. This makes your definition of time a measurement of how changes happen relative to each other, if I read you right.



We are in complete agreement on this point. Time implies change, it has no meaning without it.



Just a side note on this. My own use of the word "reality" means the collection of all realities in the way you interpret it. Your own reality matters to you directly, but you are part of my reality which affects me, therefore your reality is part of mine by transitivity. In other words, your reality matters to me because it affects me (through you). Since it matters, it's real to me too. Something must be completely detached from me and from anything or anyone who affects me either directly or indirectly before I can claim that it isn't real. It if matters, it's real. If it's not real, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, I'm not even talking about it...



...or simply be considered relative, which seems to work well.

Overall we're not far apart in our interpretation. I say that a time unit is a unit of change while you say that a time unit is a unit of the measurement of change.

Far out! Let's present our findings to the Nobel Prize Committee. The Queen of Sweden loves a big party and has a nice big place for parties. Although I have issues with accepting money from the production of dynamite, what the hey.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Good to get confirmation. We agree that time requires tsheinj.

Whoa, whoa, you're totally overreaching here. At the very most I agreed that some of your words were usable as a description, not that your tsheinj concept is some undeniable necessary component of the universe. Let's finish constructing your definition of tsheinj before we declare it as the undeniable bedrock of reality, can we? Making statements like that is simply assuming you're right before you've even finished articulating your argument. That you keep doing this despite avowing openness of mind with your "I'm just waiting for clairification" comment is one of the things that has annoyed me.

Maybe. It could be that the granularity of tsheinj is finer than detectable, or it could be that there are truly infinite states. I have not committed to either discrete or atomic states because I think either interpretation can be made to work. Scientific theories are commonly approximations waiting for more accurate theories.

But you are assuming discrete states - that's what you're trying to describe! If you can't separate one state out from another, you can't say that one state changes into another.

And we already have a more accurate theory. We already have general relativity, you don't need to wait for it before you come up with a definition of time that takes its observations into account.

We make two observations that each include our lab and the black hole. We may as well include some flying saucer traveling at half c. The differences between both observed states that include these three locations will be different in degree, clocks have not ticked as much as in our lab. We can either say that time has slowed down over there or that state differences are less over there.

This is one of the more fundamental things that you're missing: in a non-discrete continuum of differences, sequences of states aren't "less different" or "more different". Time is not simply talking about the differences, it's external to that. Remember how I described a special relativistic scenario where the exact same changes happen at the exact same pace, but in one case they're time-dilated and in the other they're not? The change is exactly the same, there isn't any more difference or less difference, it's the qualities of time that are different.

(By the way, are you implying that somehow bringing general relativity into this is equivalent to talking about UFOs? If there's some part of the conclusions or observations of modern science that you don't believe or don't agree with, feel free to say so and we'll work around it.)

(You realize that general relativity says a lot more than "things look different to different people", right? In fact what special and general relativity are saying is that things look different from different perspectives within space-time - and then it goes on to demonstrate that the rules really are the same everywhere and everywhen, they're not actually relative.)

No objection. My observation of both ends of some object will be different from your observation of both ends of the same object. States are relative to the observer, therefore so are manifestations of tsheinj.

That's a new one. So tsheinj involves a set of different states, there might be an order upon those states, and there's the property that states are different to different observers? Is the set of states relative? I.e. are there some states that may appear to some observers but not others? Is the order of states relative?

I touched on this above in my reply to baywax. My reality includes your reality and baywax's reality (because your realities affect my own) even though my observations may be different from yours. I'm just giving my interpretation of the word, by the way, not opening up a new debate on definitions (I hope).

Bringing up the observations of science isn't quite like subjective reality. But I'm glad to hear that the observations of science are admissible to this model.

Not yet. I can at least agree right now that clocks are subject to the same rules as everything else, be it deterministic or non-deterministic. But their specific discussion is best held until after another small step I need to take on a more basic matter.

Like I said, to me your clocks appear to either need determinism or an external concept of time to be like clocks in the real world. If you can take your next step without talking about clocks go ahead; if it's going to depend on some particular behavior or property of clocks I need a better definition of a clock and why you think they work the way they do in your tsheinj-defined time-free universe. You're pushing really hard to go to the next step without addressing many of the things I've brought up about what you've said so far - you keep assuming properties to states and clocks and objects that I'm pointing out can't be derived from your definitions alone but you refuse to add things to your present definitions.

 

[Boy@n]

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.

I enjoy reading this thread, thanks!

I'd like to mention two things:

1. We could use word "time" as a term to describe "primordial change". Time is a change which is prior to any change and is included in all which exists and keeps changing, it's everywhere.

Time is result of initial expansion of Universe. Universe didn't come into existence from nothing, since only nothing can come out of nothing, Universe came into "existence", movement actually, from some constant state of "beingness" - which, IMO, was a conscious choice. (Of who or what? Well, let's save this question for some other time ;)

So, change doesn't happen just so, but because of Universal expansion, which started via Big Bang event.

This expansion (pull-to-all-directions) is what give rise to initial movement to all particles. At the same time it is this initial event which also "created" particles out of something solid. Once you have particles and movement it's not hard to imagine how atoms, molecules, cells etc. formed.

In a way "time" itself also changes (or should we say that rate of time changes? Well, not that it really matters for our practical reasons.) since we can observe that Universe is not just expanding but also accelerating in expansion.2. If you entangle two photons and then put them far apart, even light years apart, and if you then change state of first photon the state of second photon would instantly change accordingly to first photon!

But this tells me two things:
a) That there is no "natural" limit for change to happen, and
b) Time is proven to not exist (it's more like cosmic microwave background radiation)

Lastly, since all is, fundamentally, information, we could imagine doing all sort of things with entanglement. E.g. "telescopes" which could bring us pictures from light years away in an instant, computers which can calculate (change states of 1 and 0) instantly, instant-internet (anyone want to copyright that term for me? j/k) etc.Thoughts on this?

 

[baywax]

Suppose "tsheinj" is awareness. As in: "awareness of change" or "awareness of the passage of time".

With awareness being tsheinj then the granularity of it would equal the scale of neurotransmitters... etc...

 

[Boy@n]

(duplication of my post. mods, please remove this post.)

 

[out of whack]

Whoa, whoa, you're totally overreaching here.

OMFG, I though we were actually agreeing at least on terms. If you are feeling frustrated, I share the sentiment.

I gave you a definition of tsheinj: the existence of more than a single state. I asked "Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality?" I'm pretty darn sure you said yes to that. Now you say that this is not what you said yes to.

So let me ask again. Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality? Please clearly state if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, please explain in what way time relates to a single state of reality.

The rest of your post is too out of whack even for me. I clearly said that I do not assume discrete states and you insist that I do based on claims that states cannot be separated from each other while our definition of a state clearly allows it. You don't seem to understand what a difference is between the various parts of two states. You imagine that I try to denigrate GR because I used a flying saucer in an example; I could have used a Saturn rocket but they don't reach c/2. You keep trying to extend the definition of tsheinj beyond what I stated. Overall you completely fail to remain within the most basic parameters but persistently try to extend it well beyond what we have so far agreed upon, which now appears to be absolutely nothing after all.

On second thought if, like me, you are throwing your arms in the air on your side, maybe we are simply unable to communicate at all. I'll understand if you chose not to answer the question I asked above.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

OMFG, I though we were actually agreeing at least on terms. If you are feeling frustrated, I share the sentiment.

I gave you a definition of tsheinj: the existence of more than a single state. I asked "Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality?" I'm pretty darn sure you said yes to that. Now you say that this is not what you said yes to.

As I said before I actually said a "yes" to this before with a suspension-of-disbelief-qualification. When you asked it a second time I laid out all of the qualifications and you have appeared to ignore them or at least somehow interpret them as unqualified agreement. You're also rather freely switching back and forth between talking about multiple states of reality and swapping in "tsheinj", which I clearly have NOT acceded to.

So let me ask again. Do you agree or disagree that time requires the existence of more than a single state of reality? Please clearly state if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, please explain in what way time relates to a single state of reality.

As I keep pointing out, your tsheinj model is considerably more complicated than a set of multiple states of reality. To paraphrase what I said, combining your model with the observations of general relativity results in a difficulty actually saying that reality has multiple states.

I'm not arguing that time is a single state of reality but tell me this: how does your model prohibit time in a single state of reality? You've said that a state of reality can be attached to multiple clock tiks without considering it having been duplicated. So the clock can be ticking while nothing is changing. Isn't that in complete contravention to the basic idea of what you're saying?

You keep trying to extend the definition of tsheinj beyond what I stated.

No, you keep trying to make statements within your own framework that would require the definition of tsheinj to be extended beyond what you stated (assuming that you will refuse to bring time in as a separate entity from tsheinj, which would make your whole argument pointless because you're saying they're the same thing.) If all you have is a set of states with no order on them you have nothing remotely resembling time and you don't have ticking clocks, but you proceed with trying to use ticking clocks to ask questions and posit other parts of the model.

To bring up one of my assumptions that perhaps is not clear: if you are proposing that time and tsheinj are equivalent and redundant concepts, you have to come up with a framework explaining the phenomena we see in our universe using only tsheinj. You can't leave major aspects of our universe or experience unexplained and expect me to fill in the blanks, unmentioned, using my familiarity with the concept of time. So you have to get everything working properly before you declare "tsheinj is equivalent to time!" or "tsheinj is fundamental to time!" or anything else related to your conclusion: time doesn't exist in the universe you're talking about. But right out of the gate here your time-free tsheinj-only universe is falling flat on its face because it lacks some basic properties of our universe (as well as some sophisticated properties.)

If I've misconstrued the way you're trying to do this - if you're intentionally starting from a universe that initially requires both time and tsheinj as separate concepts - you need to be specific about what properties of the universe time is causing which tsheinj is currently leaving out and later go one-by-one and prove that tsheinj causes those things too. But even if you're using that approach you're still leaving tsheinj partly undefined so you still shouldn't be saying "tsheinj is fundamental to time!" - you're talking as if I've written you a conceptual blank check when you're asking me questions about a completely alien, undefined concept. Which is the whole point of using the term "tsheinj" instead of "change", isn't it? To start off with an undefined concept so that we don't make any assumptions based upon the meaning of "change"?

 

[out of whack]

As I said before I actually said a "yes" to this before with a suspension-of-disbelief-qualification.

If a "suspension of disbelief" means that you now believe it then all you said was yes. If you means that you don't believe it but agree anyway then you are double talking and you will not be understood. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I laid out all of the qualifications and you appeared to ignore them or at least somehow interpret them as unqualified agreement.

I ignored them because they were immaterial to the more elementary point we were discussing. You jumped the gun. You spoke of time-related topics that are premature since at that point we were just starting to establish if a relation between time and tsheinj even exists. When you jump the gun it makes it hard to reach any agreement on basic concepts.

I tried already to indulge your eagerness to discuss relativity by sketching how it will come together through tsheinj. I do this because you include many side comments to your replies and bring them back if I don't address them. But you won't really see how it works if we can't even agree on basics. From now on (if we continue this) I will just tell you that we are not there yet.

You're also rather freely switching back and forth between talking about multiple states of reality and swapping in "tsheinj", which I clearly have NOT acceded to.

There is nothing to acceed to. I gave you the meaning of tsheinj: the fact that there is more than one state. It's a definition of a word I invented. There is nothing to discuss about a definition. I had to invent a word because of your refusal to adhere to a single definition of the word "change". If you use words with different meanings in different contexts then you will remain ambiguous. I want to be understood. When I say tsheinj it means that that multiple states exist. I'm not switching back and forth between concepts, they are one and the same. One is a word, one is the meaning of the word. Am I being understood?

As I keep pointing out, your tsheinj model is considerably more complicated than a set of multiple states of reality.

Tsheinj is not a model. It's a word that means multiple states of reality. It's not more complicated than that.

To paraphrase what I said, combining your model with the observations of general relativity results in a difficulty actually saying that reality has multiple states.

We're not there yet.

I'm not arguing that time is a single state of reality but tell me this: how does your model prohibit time in a single state of reality?

I explained this more than once in this thread, including when I was talking to you directly. You can read back to get the details, but essentially if there were a single state then it would make no difference if time exists or if time does not exist. If you say time would make a difference, please point out this difference.

You've said that a state of reality can be attached to multiple clock tiks without considering it having been duplicated.

No. I said that if there is no difference between two states then it is the same state when we were discussing a succession of different states in a deterministic and non-deterministic reality. This discussion involved tsheinj, the fact that there is more than one state. Surely you can see that this was a different question.

So the clock can be ticking while nothing is changing. Isn't that in complete contravention to the basic idea of what you're saying?

You got confused. If the clock is ticking then something is changing (the clock) so we necessarily have different states. State A can be followed by states B and C and then A again, as the clock keeps ticking. By the time state A returns, the clock has to be in the same state as it was at the previous occurrence of A otherwise we will not have A again but something else. This succession of states is an entirely different premise from the question at hand where only one (1) state is said to exist. Do you now see the difference? Please say if you don't. I don't want to proceed with the assumption that you do only to learn two replies later that you did not after all.

No, you keep trying to make statements within your own framework that would require the definition of tsheinj to be extended beyond what you stated

That's not how definitions work. They only give the meaning of words, they are not a model and they don't require extensions. It is possible to understand relationships and concepts that involve words without extending the definition of these words.

(assuming that you will refuse to bring time in as a separate entity from tsheinj, which would make your whole argument pointless because you're saying they're the same thing.)

The point of my presentation is to show, not just claim, that the concept of time is equivalent to the fact that there are multiple states. I am not just stating this equivalence as fact, I am explaining step by step why this is the correct conclusion. Providing this explanation to you has been an exceedingly laborious endeavor that has been interrupted, side-tracked and back-tracked. If you cannot even agree on the definition of one word then I may be unable to complete my presentation in a language you can understand.

If all you have is a set of states with no order on them you have nothing remotely resembling time and you don't have ticking clocks, but you proceed with trying to use ticking clocks to ask questions and posit other parts of the model.

We have not addressed order yet, it's premature. I don't use ticking clocks to ask questions. I don't posit a model. You make a lot of assumptions.

---

I see you've edited your post while I was writing this. I will look again tomorrow, it's late and I'm grouchy.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm sorry about the edit, it was the last couple of paragraphs I added in case I'm misinterpreting your approach.

I guess another thing that confused me, then, is that you've been talking about time-like concepts but refraining from mentioning time for the most part as well as coming up with the new word "tik" for the time-related concept of a clock tick.

So let me try my parsing of it: We have tsheinj which is a set of possible states for the universe. Because of some property of the universe (or maybe just a property of clocks), call it "tyme" those possible states can have a linear order placed upon them. Because of this order we can have an object in the universe called a clock, which is a device intended to track the progress of the universe along this order. The clock has states called "tiks" which are regarded as equidistant along that order - equidistant in some way that does not involve counting the intervening states, evidently? So the tiks permit relative measurement of the correlated states of the rest of the universe by whatever standard through which the tiks are considered to be equidistant.

(Yes, as you said in one of your earlier responses, I don't think that talking about order is premature because it seems like you can't have a concept anything like a clock without an order and you've already introduced clocks. I apologize if I'm being presumptuous about the nature of clocks but since you didn't come up with a new word I assumed that I was to take it as familiar. Also let me apologize if I'm being presumptuous about the reason that distinguishes "tiks" as special states of clocks.)

Also, since we're talking about clocks, I want to point out that your discussion (perhaps purely an example only analyzing part of the relevant attributes of clocks, so I may be stating a position here that you already hold) of a clock as a device that goes from state A to state B to state C and back to A again, continuing the cycle, is not a sufficient definition for a clock; there could be a device that cycled through states like that but if it completed the cycles in variable amounts of time it wouldn't be a clock. (I'm not talking about accuracy here, I'm pointing out that a separate concept of time is necessary in addition to a cyclical series of states, otherwise how are you to judge whether the cycles are completed within the same amount of time or not? I.e. "these three marker states passed add up to a tick state reached" doesn't make sense unless you already have the concept that the marker states are measurably distant from each other along some continuum.)

If that correctly sums up where we are so far and tsheinj is only responsible for the fact that there are multiple states of the universe, then within this framework I'll say that tsheinj is fundamental and inextricably related to both "tyme" and the standard through which the tiks are considered to be equidistant (which may also be tyme if you want). But I'm not yet ready to declare that this framework is identical to the reality observed by science, though so far it seems to fit human experience pretty well. If that all fits we can go on to the next step.