Is Time an Illusion Created by Consciousness?

[out of whack]

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

Alright, I will respond to these two paragraphs in light of what I already responded to.

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.)

My interest is not in a fictitious universe other than our own. I may at times make assumptions like the one that a single state exists but it is qualified as such: as a premise to an argument used to reach a conclusion. Otherwise I am interested in what is real. The observation that more than a single state exists applies to our universe, our reality (the one where many people discuss time without a clear understanding of its nature). You challenge me to establish a full framework but you don't even accept a simple definition. It's not possible to explain the complex until the simple is explained in a way you can relate to.

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"?

Again, the whole point of using the word "tsheinj" instead of "change" is that you refuse to abide by a unique definition of the word in the context of this discussion. I had to create a new word just for you. I would have preferred to stick to "change" and other participants in this thread appeared to understand what it stands for, but I tried to accommodate you.

Regarding the claim that tsheinj is fundamentally true, this was discussed at post #59:
"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."

Also at post #100:
"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."

Also at post #102:
"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."

If you claim that reality is unchanging, that it has a single state then we cannot possibly understand each other. But if you agree that reality has more than just one state as a self-evident truth (like the self-evident truth of your own existence) then it becomes an axiom, something fundamentally true about reality. Think about this carefully. Read this section again if necessary. Then tell me if you agree or disagree. And remember that tsheinj is the fact that reality has more than a single state. If you accept this then you accept tsheinj. As I already explained, it's just a word, nothing complicated and not a model.

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.

I refrain from using the word "time" when it is not necessary to the presentation because the point is to define what time is. I cannot make meaningful use of the word until its meaning is established. But we know that a clock exhibits tsheinj: we can recognize more than a single state of the clock. The concept of tsheinj is sufficient here, we don't need to introduce an as-yet undefined word to explain that the clock exhibits tsheinj. I introduced the tik as a tsheinj-only concept explicitly to avoid talking about time before we define what time is. Time remains undefined at this point.

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.

You're going off on a tangent again. Before you start discussing ordering of states you need to either agree or disagree that reality has more than a single state. It sounds like you agree but you refrain from saying so. Then you postulate that states are equidistant and that their intervening states are uncountable. You are building a model under your own terms. I hope you won't assign your creation to me for the fun of demolishing it. I can already tell you it is unsubstantiated.

(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.)

Talking about order is premature. You don't realize why because you don't understand the start. I introduced clocks early in our discussion because I assumed you understood the words I was using. Since you didn't, it is better to postpone the clock discussion as well. I will skip your next paragraph on clocks.

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

Golly gee. Tsheinj is not responsible for tsheing. Tsheinj is tsheinj. In spite of everything I said and explained and repeated, you still don't understand that a word is not a thing you can hold responsible for its definition. Tsheinj is the fact that there are multiple states. What you have just said is that "the fact that there are multiple states is only responsible for the fact that there are multiple states".

If that all fits we can go on to the next step.

Nope. None of what you added fits. You jump to speculations left and right and keep introducing redundant concepts in what feels like a malicious effort to derail the process. Maybe it's not malicious at all so understand that I am not accusing you of this, it's just how it feels at my receiving end.

Regrettably, I have to end our exchange. It's just not worth the aggravation. Best of luck to you.

 

[baywax]

Alright, I will respond to these two paragraphs in light of what I already responded to.



My interest is not in a fictitious universe other than our own. I may at times make assumptions like the one that a single state exists but it is qualified as such: as a premise to an argument used to reach a conclusion. Otherwise I am interested in what is real. The observation that more than a single state exists applies to our universe, our reality (the one where many people discuss time without a clear understanding of its nature). You challenge me to establish a full framework but you don't even accept a simple definition. It's not possible to explain the complex until the simple is explained in a way you can relate to.



Again, the whole point of using the word "tsheinj" instead of "change" is that you refuse to abide by a unique definition of the word in the context of this discussion. I had to create a new word just for you. I would have preferred to stick to "change" and other participants in this thread appeared to understand what it stands for, but I tried to accommodate you.

Regarding the claim that tsheinj is fundamentally true, this was discussed at post #59:
"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."

Also at post #100:
"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."

Also at post #102:
"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."

If you claim that reality is unchanging, that it has a single state then we cannot possibly understand each other. But if you agree that reality has more than just one state as a self-evident truth (like the self-evident truth of your own existence) then it becomes an axiom, something fundamentally true about reality. Think about this carefully. Read this section again if necessary. Then tell me if you agree or disagree. And remember that tsheinj is the fact that reality has more than a single state. If you accept this then you accept tsheinj. As I already explained, it's just a word, nothing complicated and not a model.



I refrain from using the word "time" when it is not necessary to the presentation because the point is to define what time is. I cannot make meaningful use of the word until its meaning is established. But we know that a clock exhibits tsheinj: we can recognize more than a single state of the clock. The concept of tsheinj is sufficient here, we don't need to introduce an as-yet undefined word to explain that the clock exhibits tsheinj. I introduced the tik as a tsheinj-only concept explicitly to avoid talking about time before we define what time is. Time remains undefined at this point.



You're going off on a tangent again. Before you start discussing ordering of states you need to either agree or disagree that reality has more than a single state. It sounds like you agree but you refrain from saying so. Then you postulate that states are equidistant and that their intervening states are uncountable. You are building a model under your own terms. I hope you won't assign your creation to me for the fun of demolishing it. I can already tell you it is unsubstantiated.



Talking about order is premature. You don't realize why because you don't understand the start. I introduced clocks early in our discussion because I assumed you understood the words I was using. Since you didn't, it is better to postpone the clock discussion as well. I will skip your next paragraph on clocks.



Golly gee. Tsheinj is not responsible for tsheing. Tsheinj is tsheinj. In spite of everything I said and explained and repeated, you still don't understand that a word is not a thing you can hold responsible for its definition. Tsheinj is the fact that there are multiple states. What you have just said is that "the fact that there are multiple states is only responsible for the fact that there are multiple states".



Nope. None of what you added fits. You jump to speculations left and right and keep introducing redundant concepts in what feels like a malicious effort to derail the process. Maybe it's not malicious at all so understand that I am not accusing you of this, it's just how it feels at my receiving end.

Regrettably, I have to end our exchange. It's just not worth the aggravation. Best of luck to you.

"Change":

change | ch ānj|
verb
1 make or become different : [ trans. ] a proposal to change the law | [ intrans. ] a Virginia creeper just beginning to change from green to gold.
• make or become a different substance entirely; transform : [ trans. ] filters change the ammonia into nitrate [ intrans. ] | computer graphics can show cars changing into cheetahs.
• [ intrans. ] alter in terms of : the ferns began to change shape.
• [ intrans. ] (of traffic lights) move from one color of signal to another.
• (of a boy's voice) become deeper with the onset of puberty.
• [ intrans. ] (of the moon) arrive at a fresh phase; become new.
2 [ trans. ] take or use another instead of : she decided to change her name.
• move from one to another : she changed jobs incessantly | change sides.
• exchange; trade : the sun and moon changed places.
• [ intrans. ] move to a different train, airplane, or subway line.
• give up (something) in exchange for something else : we changed the shades for vertical blinds.
• remove (something dirty or faulty) and replace it with another of the same kind : change a light bulb.
• put a clean diaper on (a baby or young child).
• engage a different gear in a motor vehicle : [ trans. ] wait for a gap and then change gears | figurative with business concluded, the convention changes gear and a gigantic circus takes over the town.
• exchange (a sum of money) for the same amount in smaller denominations or in coins, or for different currency.
• [ intrans. ] put different clothes on : he changed for dinner.
noun
1 the act or instance of making or becoming different : the change from a nomadic to an agricultural society | environmental change.
• the substitution of one thing for another : a change of venue.
• an alteration or modification : a change came over Eddie's face.
• a new or refreshingly different experience : couscous makes an interesting change from rice.
• [in sing. ] a clean garment or garments as a replacement for clothes one is wearing : a change of socks.
• ( the change or the change of life) informal menopause.
• the moon's arrival at a fresh phase, typically at the new moon.
• Baseball another term for change-up .
2 coins as opposed to paper currency : a handful of loose change.
• money given in exchange for the same amount in larger denominations.
• money returned to someone as the balance of the amount paid for something : I watched him pocket the change.
3 (usu. changes) an order in which a peal of bells can be rung.
4 ( Change or 'Change) Brit., historical a place where merchants met to do business.
PHRASES
change color blanch or flush.
change hands (of a business or building) pass to a different owner. • (of money or a marketable commodity) pass to another person during a business transaction : no money has changed hands.
change one's mind adopt a different opinion or plan.
change off take turns.
a change of heart a move to a different opinion or attitude.
change step (in marching) alter one's step so that the opposite leg marks time.
change the subject begin talking about something different, esp. to avoid embarrassment or the divulgence of confidences.
change one's tune 1 express a different opinion or behave in a different way. 2 change one's style of language or manner, esp. from an insolent to a respectful tone.
for a change contrary to how things usually happen; for variety : it's nice to be pampered for a change.
ring the changes vary the ways of expressing, arranging, or doing something. [ORIGIN: with allusion to bell-ringing and the different orders in which a peal of bells may be rung.]
PHRASAL VERBS
change over move from one system or situation to another : crop farmers have to change over to dairy farming.
DERIVATIVES
changeful |ˈ ch ānjfəl| adjective
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French change (noun), changer (verb), from late Latin cambiare, from Latin cambire ‘barter,’ probably of Celtic origin.

Thesaurus
change
verb
1 this could change the face of television | things have changed alter, make/become different, adjust, adapt, amend, modify, revise, refine; reshape, refashion, redesign, restyle, revamp, rework, remodel, reorganize, reorder; vary, transform, transfigure, transmute, metamorphose, evolve; informal tweak, doctor, rejig; technical permute. antonym preserve, stay the same.
2 they've changed places exchange, substitute, swap, switch, replace, alternate, interchange. antonym keep.
noun
1 a change of plan alteration, modification, variation, revision, amendment, adjustment, adaptation; remodeling, reshaping, rearrangement, reordering, restyling, reworking; metamorphosis, transformation, evolution, mutation; informal transmogrification.
2 a change of government exchange, substitution, swap, switch, changeover, replacement, alternation, interchange.
3 I don't have any change coins, loose/small change, silver; cash, petty cash; formal specie.
PHRASES
have a change of heart. See heart .

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Regrettably, I have to end our exchange. It's just not worth the aggravation. Best of luck to you.

"A set of possible states of the universe" or the existence of that set does not remotely resemble any concept of what "change" is that I'm familiar with. It has perhaps been uncharitable of me to suspect that it might take on other characteristics as the discussion proceeded and I apologize if this was unforgivably uncharitable of me.

I hope you can see that you were trying to force me to declare that tsheinj is something which is "real" with no conflict with any of the various points I brought up against that, and also force me to declare that it is fundamentally essential to time, before saying anything about what time is or even being able to articulate what a clock is in relation to tsheinj. I'm sorry you've gotten too aggravated to go on but please realize I'm not the only one who has been unreasonable.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Another thing, on the definition of states: if you were to concede that the concept of time implies a continuum and talk about a way of dividing it up into regions, with rules for how the boundary between these regions are laid out and how to decide which side of a region boundary is inclusive and which side is a limit, with some kind of Bayesian principle so that every space-time coordinate is ensured to be included in exactly one region, I would be more inclined to regard it as compatible with GR and perhaps accede to you using time regions the way you want to use the "states" you're talking about. But the scenario you've been trying to push on me really is a set of discrete states, not a continuum, (I've never heard the word "state" applied to a bounded region before) and it has the handy property for you that you can talk about how one state "changes into" another state without having to deal with inconvenient things like blurred or contoured time boundaries. And hanging on to that while beating your "Undeniable! Undeniable! Undeniable!" drum hasn't endeared me to this talk of multiple states of reality.

Another tack - you could also just say "suppose reality has multiple states" instead of trying to force me into agreeing on that assumption and assumptions about its relationship to time. Then you could just go through your presentation and get to what you think time is and why you think it's equivalent to change.

 

[Boy@n]

I've got a "most stupid" question to ask...

How is it possible that we can move? E.g. how is it possible that you can move your hand from one place to another?

I am sure you are thinking now that this is the stupidest question you ever heard, right?

Bear with me for a minute and let's see if that's really so.


As you know TV displays 30 Frames Per Second (that's in USA, in EU it's 25 FPS), so, how many FPS is reality?

If I record your hand with a perfect camera moving from point A to point B, how many FPS would I record?

One answer is to say that there are infinite steps, but if so, then how is it possible that you moved your hand from A to B if there are infinite steps?!

And if there are finite steps, then how many are there, how many FPS would a perfect camera make? As many as there are distances of plank constant? (Since nothing real can be smaller than that.) But then again, how is it possible you made billions and billions of steps in such a short time and with so little energy?

See, I think that it's function of time which makes this possible, which makes space-time a continuum and not something discrete, where only changes count, it's time which somehow converts infinity to finity.

Your thoughts?

 

[baywax]

I've got a "most stupid" question to ask...

How is it possible that we can move? E.g. how is it possible that you can move your hand from one place to another?

I am sure you are thinking now that this is the stupidest question you ever heard, right?

Bear with me for a minute and let's see if that's really so.


As you know TV displays 30 Frames Per Second (that's in USA, in EU it's 25 FPS), so, how many FPS is reality?

If I record your hand with a perfect camera moving from point A to point B, how many FPS would I record?

One answer is to say that there are infinite steps, but if so, then how is it possible that you moved your hand from A to B if there are infinite steps?!

And if there are finite steps, then how many are there, how many FPS would a perfect camera make? As many as there are distances of plank constant? (Since nothing real can be smaller than that.) But then again, how is it possible you made billions and billions of steps in such a short time and with so little energy?

See, I think that it's function of time which makes this possible, which makes space-time a continuum and not something discrete, where only changes count, it's time which somehow converts infinity to finity.

Your thoughts?

Your hand is everywhere at the same time. Its your brain that can't see that.

 

[out of whack]

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.

Delayed reaction to your post...

I don't see how this could works, how a change could be prior to any change. Also defining time as something that is "prior to" anything does not advance us because being "prior to" already requires time, which is what you are trying to define, which makes a definition like this circular.

2. If you entangle two photons

I cannot address this second point. I am not familiar enough with entanglement. It's an intriguing concept but I have not been intrigued enough to research it yet. You could search the quantum physics forum for "entanglement" and post a question if you don't find your answer in existing threads.

How is it possible that we can move?

Now, that's an ultimate question. By what magic can we ever change position? Here's another ultimate question: by what magic can we even exist?

The trouble is that these questions ask for a cause or a mechanism or some principle that must exist and be active and effective in order to account for existence or the ability to change position. And here's the rub: if you were able to describe this cause then you would have to ask "Where does this cause come from?" And this question would repeat again for the cause of the cause of the cause...

The short of it is, asking for the cause of the first cause is a nonsensical question. The assumption that the first cause has a cause is self-contradictory, which sadly makes the question invalid.

This realization is frustrating at first but then liberating as well. It is frustrating to realize that some questions cannot even be asked rationally, let alone be answered. But, after a short period of this frustration, it become liberating to realize that this gives us two very strong concepts: existence and change. In my world view, these two concepts are at the base of everything that matters. Other concepts require at least these two, they derive from this base. Of course, not everyone agree on this.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

One answer is to say that there are infinite steps, but if so, then how is it possible that you moved your hand from A to B if there are infinite steps?!

This is a very ancient question in the form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno%27s_paradox" which has been debated for nearly 2500 years. I don't know if you'll find an answer there but it definitely gives you lots to chew on.

 

[DaveC426913]

As you know TV displays 30 Frames Per Second (that's in USA, in EU it's 25 FPS), so, how many FPS is reality?

Well, a Planck unit is 10^-43 seconds. That is theoretically the "atom" of time.

 

[Boy@n]

Your hand is everywhere at the same time. Its your brain that can't see that.

Good explanation! If not the only one...

That's what I imagined too. That everything possible already exists at once as one.

Here is an analogy to describe that:
Let's say that whole of exitence is a photo. Now, if you've got "infinite" awareness then you can see this photo at once as one thing (that's perhaps how some "Ultimate Being" sees it), and since our human awareness is limited, or better to say, very "narrow", then it means that we see this photo bit by bit (from moment to moment). Just like a scanner which scans photo bit-by-bit, line-by-line, into computer, and after certain time whole of photo is stored into computer. Scanning would thus represent evolution. (It's then when we get self-realized, or say, God-realized.)


This would then mean that we never move at all...

So, instead of imagining that which IS (all that which exists) to be moving, it's much easier to imagine that one does perceiving of all that which is, in own unique way, defined by own state of awareness.

Since all there IS is ultimately information and awareness of it, or say, infinite thoughts, then we are simply limited awareness which perceives just certain thoughts out of infinite ocean of thoughts.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Let's say that whole of exitence is a photo. Now, if you've got "infinite" awareness then you can see this photo at once as one thing (that's perhaps how some "Ultimate Being" sees it), and since our human awareness is limited, or better to say, very "narrow", then it means that we see this photo bit by bit (from moment to moment).

One of my points in the aborted "time versus change" discussion without of whack above was that given the observations of general relativity it seems difficult to regard moments as separate ("discrete" is the way I was saying it.) In GR thanks to acceleration and gravity moments curve, blur together, and intersect with one another.

I don't know if that has direct bearing on the Xeno's Paradox thing, though.

BTW, as far as the "Ultimate Being" vantage point you might want to check out "Laplace's Demon." That's how this concept has been expressed in the past.

 

[Boy@n]

I don't see how this could works, how a change could be prior to any change.

Imagine one state of beingness, such which is perfect per-se, ultimately joyful, wholey fulfilled (one might name that God).

That's kinda "solid" or "constant" state of existence, even if perfect. Now, the only thing this state doesn't have is change. And idea of change is born. Now, how would one make the most interesting "experiment" of change? By starting at very beginning. From "solid" state, which would "explode" and be "filled" with void.

So, if once all there was, was, say, infinite white cube, then creation of Universe would happen by event which would "break" (part of) that solid cube into most tiny pieaces possible and so creation of fundamental particles happens. From then on not much is needed to create all possible states of existence as we know it (formation of atoms, molecules, cells, life forms...).

If you look at cellular automata it's obvious that very complex patterns can be created out of very simple rules. Thus, there might be a VERY simple set of rules, or just one rule, upon which whole known existence got created.

Also defining time as something that is "prior to" anything does not advance us because being "prior to" already requires time, which is what you are trying to define, which makes a definition like this circular.

Well, not exactly. There can be various sets of "time". Time in our Universe is just "ours" time, before our Universe coming into existence there might of been previous and different kind of existence (say, "static cube" as I described above). Time in our Universe begins with our Universe, since all we know as "our kind" of existence happened since initial (Big Bang) event.

Now, that's an ultimate question. By what magic can we ever change position? Here's another ultimate question: by what magic can we even exist?

The trouble is that these questions ask for a cause or a mechanism or some principle that must exist and be active and effective in order to account for existence or the ability to change position. And here's the rub: if you were able to describe this cause then you would have to ask "Where does this cause come from?" And this question would repeat again for the cause of the cause of the cause...

The short of it is, asking for the cause of the first cause is a nonsensical question. The assumption that the first cause has a cause is self-contradictory, which sadly makes the question invalid.

This realization is frustrating at first but then liberating as well. It is frustrating to realize that some questions cannot even be asked rationally, let alone be answered. But, after a short period of this frustration, it become liberating to realize that this gives us two very strong concepts: existence and change. In my world view, these two concepts are at the base of everything that matters. Other concepts require at least these two, they derive from this base. Of course, not everyone agree on this.

The cause of our known existence might be as simple as some "abosolute awareness" imagining and desiring change.

Anyway, whatever the cause is, our very existence proves that something exists since ever, or else nothing would ever exist, we'd not exist.

And, since infinity is one very "long thing", it means, to me anyway, that "something" had to reach "absolute-ultimate awareness" (absolute knowingness, absolute joy, absolute state of beingness).

And with such incredible & ultimate "all-knowing mind" what cannot be possible?

 

[dst]

This is a very ancient question in the form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno%27s_paradox" which has been debated for nearly 2500 years. I don't know if you'll find an answer there but it definitely gives you lots to chew on.

Xeno's paradox was solved long long ago, he just didn't take time into account. And his paradox is a good description of an exponential function (or its inverse), but nothing binds you to travel half the distance of the previous in the same amount of time. What he was effectively saying is something along the lines of speed = e^-dt which is a bit retarded.

 

[Boy@n]

One of my points in the aborted "time versus change" discussion without of whack above was that given the observations of general relativity it seems difficult to regard moments as separate ("discrete" is the way I was saying it.) In GR thanks to acceleration and gravity moments curve, blur together, and intersect with one another.

I agree, if space-time is not a continuum but rather something discrete, then any change would have infinite steps, and thus, nothing could ever happen, because nothing would ever have an ending. In bit different words, any change from state A to state B has infinite changes in between, except if there is something which defines beginning and ending of every change, which seems to be function of time?!

I don't know if that has direct bearing on the Xeno's Paradox thing, though.

BTW, as far as the "Ultimate Being" vantage point you might want to check out "Laplace's Demon." That's how this concept has been expressed in the past.

Thanks for both pieces of info, checking them out right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno%27s_paradox"

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Xeno's paradox was solved long long ago, he just didn't take time into account. And his paradox is a good description of an exponential function (or its inverse), but nothing binds you to travel half the distance of the previous in the same amount of time. What he was effectively saying is something along the lines of speed = e^-dt which is a bit retarded.

I don't know where you're getting the "travel half the distance of the previous in the same amount of time." All the formulations and analyses I've seen of it involve taking less time to cover the shorter distance. Though I don't think he was specifying that, his premise is simply that each fractional distance takes some amount of time.

I'm partial to the solutions involving a convergent mathematical series myself but not everyone finds them entirely satisfying.

(By the way, throwing up an equation like that and then calling Xeno retarded, two millenia before Newton or Leibniz when, for example, they didn't have the concept of an equals sign, is a bit retarded.)

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Cover story on whether time is illusory in this week's New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/contents.ns?query=issue:2639

 

[Cale Carter]

Help. Noobie trying to learn something.

For time to exist Mass must be present and and velocity must be less than or equal to the speed of light.

Is that statement right or wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

It's ... not even wrong.

We don't know what time is, or whether it is dependent on mass. I'm not sure what you mean by "present". Do you mean 'locally', or 'in the universe'?

As for "velocity must be less than or equal to the speed of light", velocity of what?

I get the feeling you're looking at this from a non-valid frame of reference but I'm not sure.

Can you reword your question?

 

[Cale Carter]

It's ... not even wrong.

We don't know what time is, or whether it is dependent on mass. I'm not sure what you mean by "present". Do you mean 'locally', or 'in the universe'?

As for "velocity must be less than or equal to the speed of light", velocity of what?

I get the feeling you're looking at this from a non-valid frame of reference but I'm not sure.

Can you reword your question?

Agreed.

I was wondering what you had to have to have Time.. what it was made up of.

My first thought was that time requires mass and velocity to be present.

If you have no mass and velocity there is no time.. or time does not pass.

I am sorry as english is not my best language..

If there is no mass present there is no time.
If that mass has no velocity (or velocity exceeds the speed of light) there is no time.


Time requires mass and velocity (c-x)?


Perhaps this is philosophy instead of physic?

I am thanking you.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no reason to think that the absence of mass means the absence of time, nor is there any reason to think that the absence of movement would mean the absence of time.

Here is a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=202306" on that very topic, but it's quite long. It's tempting to just read the last few posts but I advise you start from the beginning as some of the things you're asking about (mass, movement) are dealt with in the first few pages.

 

[Cale Carter]

Hmm all this is interesting.

I have read the banter back and forth.

I am working with the premise that time is not an illusion but is a quantity just like the other three dimensions.

For example.. if I tell you to meet me at X degrees longitude and Y degrees Latitude at 1,000 feet above sea level and we will talk...That would not be enough information to determine the meeting location without us being at the location at the same time.

It would be the same effect as me not telling you one of the other coords...


This was not created in our heads, the fact that we must be present at that location is dictated by fact, not by idea.


My background is in philosophy and not Physics, and my grasp of them is still in the growing stages..

My opinion

Time is made up of Mass and a velocity that is allways less than C.

If you have a given area where there is no mass of any kind and no movement of any kind time does not exist in that given area.

I do not like the word Change is required.. because that requires an observer to change and an observer is not required.

Time is a construct of mass and any velocity of mass (as long as that velocity does not exceed the speed of light.)

T=M+(c-x)

Where

T = Time
M = Mass
C = Speed of light
X = unknown modifyer to the velocity of C

Forgive me I am working on english and scientific notation at the same time.

I appreciate your reply and learning from your wisdom.

 

[rewebster]

I have read the banter back and forth.

I am working with the premise that time is not an illusion but is a quantity just like the other three dimensions.

For example.. if I tell you to meet me at X degrees longitude and Y degrees Latitude at 1,000 feet above sea level and we will talk...That would not be enough information to determine the meeting location without us being at the location at the same time.

It would be the same effect as me not telling you one of the other coords...


This was not created in our heads, the fact that we must be present at that location is dictated by fact, not by idea.


My background is in philosophy and not Physics, and my grasp of them is still in the growing stages..

My opinion

Time is made up of Mass and a velocity that is allways less than C.

If you have a given area where there is no mass of any kind and no movement of any kind time does not exist in that given area.

I do not like the word Change is required.. because that requires an observer to change and an observer is not required.

Time is a construct of mass and any velocity of mass (as long as that velocity does not exceed the speed of light.)

T=M+(c-x)

Where

T = Time
M = Mass
C = Speed of light
X = unknown modifyer to the velocity of C

Forgive me I am working on english and scientific notation at the same time.

I appreciate your reply and learning from your wisdom.

It sounds like you're trying to mix Newtonian time and Relativity time. To me, they are in different realms.

 

[jdg812]

Time does not exist. Only movement. Our brains interperet change as time.

My opinion is:
Time exists.
Flow of time in our brains exists as well.

May be there are other creatures exist, different from human, that have other flow of time, opposite to ours in direction, or discrete, or integral reception of time or whatever they wish.

But WE have no choice. We linked to OUR flow of time and cannot escape from our flow of time. For us this flow of time is the only possible reality. All other concepts of time are possible for other forms of existence, but those concepts are not relevant to our form of existence.

 

[Cale Carter]

Time must exist

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?

Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

 

[Evo]

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?

Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

Coordinates which pinpoint an object on Earth don't use time. Think GPS, for example. I can post latitude and longitude coordinates, for example, nothing whatsoever to do with time.

 

[Cale Carter]

Coordinates which pinpoint an object on Earth don't use time. Think GPS, for example. I can post latitude and longitude coordinates, for example, nothing whatsoever to do with time.

This is true.. but the GPS coord your stateing ASSUME that your talking about now.


Go to any GPS point you wish and tell me the coord.

If I go there when your there I will find you.

If I go there 300 years ago.. I wont.

Location assumes present time unless otherwise stated.

Your includeing time as a default in your coord.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree with Cale Carter. The "ruler" that we use to define length is tied very closely to the speed of light. This in turn requires the existence of both space AND time. We know this to be the case because in Special Relativity, we can no longer simply define coordinates. This is no longer sufficient to locate an object and will not describe completely the dynamics of that object. That is why the 4-coordinate that includes time must be defined.

This consideration is what is typically missing when people argue about time. They seem to forget that whatever they say about time, the same fate will be suffered by space as well. Yet, no one seems to be picking on space.

If the speed of light "c" is one of the fundamental constant of our universe, and there are many indication that it is, then it is obvious that the concept of time must exist and be on the same level as the concept of space. If not, space is undefined.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Agreed.

I was wondering what you had to have to have Time.. what it was made up of.

My first thought was that time requires mass and velocity to be present.

If you have no mass and velocity there is no time.. or time does not pass.

I am sorry as english is not my best language..

If there is no mass present there is no time.
If that mass has no velocity (or velocity exceeds the speed of light) there is no time.


Time requires mass and velocity (c-x)?


Perhaps this is philosophy instead of physic?

I am thanking you.

and

Without using time how can one pinpoint the location of anything in the Universe?
Someone who thinks time is only a creation of the mind please tell me the location of anything... without using time.

I still think you're mixing up Newtonian and relativity a little too much for this. Time, I believe, doesn't need velocity.

 

[Cale Carter]

and

I still think you're mixing up Newtonian and relativity a little too much for this. Time, I believe, doesn't need velocity.

Not only do I believe that it needs matter and velocity, it needs velocity less or equal to the speed of light.In an absolute state of 0 velocity time cannot be present.

Please understand I am not suggesting that change is required for time to be present..in fact the inverse is true. Time must be present for change to take place.As for the limitation of speeds that are faster than C referenced above... Anything that exceeds the speed of light will no longer be in this time/space continuum.

 

[out of whack]

In an absolute state of 0 velocity time cannot be present.

Please understand I am not suggesting that change is required for time to be present.

You say that velocity is required for time. But change (of position) is required for velocity.