Is Time an Illusion or a Tangible Entity?

[disregardthat]

I agree but I don't think this logic requires that which we call Pluto to cease to exist when it stop being 'known' (in a sense... or perceived etc.) as Pluto.

This is off topic though :P

This is certainly not off topic! You are right, but this is because existence in the realist sense is (hopelessly) entangled in our language. However, we can use logic and words while being aware of the meaning of the context in which they are being used.

 

[Sorry!]

This is certainly not off topic! You are right, but this is because existence in the realist sense is (hopelessly) entangled in our language. However, we can use logic and words while being aware of the meaning of the context in which they are being used.

This is true and as long as we understand that when we use terminology to define that which 'exists' we accept that it exists in reality as we perceive it and not make assumptions about that which 'actually exists' (as in it exists in the way we perceive).

So time does exist in reality because that's the only meaningful way we can 'know' of it. (This last sentence I'm having difficulties wording lol)

 

[Nebula815]

There is a book on this whole subject by a physicist named Julian Barbour called "The End of Time." His conclusion I believe (I have yet to read the book, so I am going by memory of the description) is that time is just a concept created by humans, but that it isn't any actual thing that exists.

 

[magpies]

I read that book. He was making an case for time not existing in the classical sense. I don't fully understand what he was thinking but it seemed like he was trying to say that things don't change as in the world is static but the perspective on that world does change. So its like looking at a puzzle of millions of peices scattered across space but instead of just looking at it one way instead we are looking at it from many different ways. Although the book wasn't very good in my opinion and the way he worded things left lots of room for guess work on the part of the reader imo.

 

[Dale]

I also read that book completely and was very dissapointed. I had expected that he would actually propose a coherent scientific theory without the use of time or at least show how one could be developed, which he did not. Instead, his whole book was simply an exposition on how Mach's principle applied to time.

 

[magpies]

Heh a scientifct theory without the use of time is like a beach without any water. The most you can ever do to argue that time doesn't exist is to say that our understanding of time isn't complete.

 

[debra]

Its so simple:
Time is needed to allow objects to move in a 3D space. Without the time quantity nothing could move at all. That is the reason for it. Time dilation etc is a simple cause and effect thing that pops out in simple mathematics.

Time itself is only a measure of state changes and has no significance apart from beating out the changes in space time caused by object movement - entropy etc.

 

[magpies]

"Without the time quantity nothing could move at all."
Minus the words "quantity", "the" and "move" and I think you got it.

 

[petm1]

Time is all that exists. Every measurement you can ever make will take place in the relative present as measured by clock time, temperature, position, inertia. A clock my count changes to motion, but it is time that motion needs to change within, not space. After all what is space but time as measured by relative rulers. And what are rulers but atoms that have been relative with each other in time for 13.7 billion years.

 

[mangaroosh]

Time does have very real qualities you keep saying 'physical qualities' time is not a spatial dimension it is a temporal dimension. Time is basically what allows motion to take place so if we notice a baseballs movement it occurs in stages the progress of these stages is what we call time... how small you measure these stages or how large is irrelevant. Time also has an apparent direction based on entropy.

Part of the reason that I attribute physical qualities to time is that it appears as thought it is sometimes assigned physical qualities, or at least it does when bundled together in spacetime. The bending and warping of spacetime could surely only happen if spacetime was physical. That in itself is a different issue, and you have better clarified the main issue with regard to time.

That is, the notion that it is time that allows motion to occur. This however is not the case, as it is motion that actually gives rise to the concept of time. The difference there is subtle but the nature of time is very different under both.

With regard to the movement of a baseball, it does not actually occur in stages, but rather one continuous movement. The attempt to break it down into stages is an entirely arbitrary process, and it involves the measuring non-reality against reality.

As a baseball moves through the air, it only ever exists in one place. If we try to map the progress of the ball through the air, it involves noting the co-ordinates of the ball at two different [arbitrary and imaginary] points along it's trajectory. Indeed if we take the starting position of the ball, then as soon as the ball moves at all, the co-ordinates of the starting position no longer accord with reality, as the ball is no longer there. This is our position of non-reality.

It is only once we attempt to measure this past position of the ball, against its current position, that the measurement of time comes into play. It is this comparison that gives rise to the concept of time, as opposed to time being required to facilitate the movement of the ball.

 

[mangaroosh]

How is this different from any other physics concept? In other words, is your concern that time is somehow given a different treatment from other physics concepts and you think it should be treated the same, or is your concern that time is not treated differently from other scientific concepts and you think it should be treated differently? Why are you singling out time as opposed to say voltage?

The issue is with regard to how time is treated and how it is perceived. It appears as though it is treated as something that exists in reality, with it's own intrinsic existence. This however appears to be an erroneus handling of the concept of time, based on a primary assumption, arising from a misinterpretation of physical phenomena.

I say primary assumption, as it is an assumption that is not specific to the world of science, but rather inherent in the human psyche, in a similar way that the belief that the world was flat, was also ingrained in the human psyche, or that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.

The reason I single out time, is because I have encountered this idea a number of times and have decided to explore its validity. If I come across similar ideas relating to anything else as fundamental as the existence of time, then I will likely give it due consideration.

I would encourage anyone to examine it logically and rationally and question the basic assumptions, first that time exists, second, that a clock actually measures something called time.

 

[mangaroosh]

You do seem to be confused about the nature of modelling here. We are pretty sure something time-like exists about reality. Things change, things move.

So then we invent a way to measure change and movement. One way is to treat time as a space-like dimension.

I have singled out the emboldened statement above, as this is the very crux of the issue. The fact that we "invent a way to measure change", means that it does not exist in reality, it is a human construct. It is fair enough to say that we treat it as a space-like dimension, for certain practical purposes, as long as it is remembered that it is not actually a real dimension, rather one that has been invented by man.

This has all sorts of well-known issues - space allows motion in both directions but time seems to move forward only. So other models of change are talked about. But treating time as a space-like dimension has proved very powerful in a general way - indeed, a general relativistic way. So science would not assume time exists. Science has found certain models of change, motion and development to be effective.

again, I have no doubt that treating time in this way has certain practical applications, but again it must be remembered that it is not really and existing dimension, but rather one that has been created by man. Time itself is not a law or a force or whatever other classification, of nature, it is a human concept.

 

[mangaroosh]

Time exists simply because there is an entity called time which we associate with our concept of reality. It is actually quite absurd to doubt that time exists in this sense. Also, the concept of time is implemented in our very language. We even use it unconsciously.

Just a number of issues with the above statement. Firstly, our concept of reality, is not necessarily what reality is. Secondly, it must be asked that if time is indeed an entity which exists, then there must surely be evidence to support it. What is this evidence?

Before this question is answered, it must be remembered that such things as time dilation in General Relativity is based on the questionable assumption that what a clock measures, is actually the entity called time.

Also, the suggestion that because time is implemented in our language, or that we subconsciouly use the notion of time, does not mean that it exists. Our subconscious use of time, and our use of it in our language, could be based on a misinterpretation of reality, just as the world would not have been referred to as "a globe", by those who believed that the world was flat.

 

[mangaroosh]

Time is the measurement of change. There is change, therefore time exists. So we can say it is independent of observation.

Time is indeed the measurement of change, there is of course change therefore the measurement system known as time exists. Time itself however is not something which can be measured.

Time is the measuring tape, as opposed to the entity being measured.

As measurement of change, involves arbitrarily recording the position of something and then measuring it against it's changed position. The issue with this is that the object can only exist in one place, so measuring the change of an object, involves the comparison of reality to non-reality.

Also, measurement is a human construct, created by the human mind and existing only in the human mind [that we can say definitively]. The act of measuing change is the act of taking two completely arbitrary, and usually imaginary points and comparing them. The arbitrarily chosen points, do not exist in reality.


As measurement only exists in the human mind, and time is only a form of measurement, time therefore only exists in the human mind and therefore does not exist in reality.

 

[mangaroosh]

It's 3:05 am. I go to work in 12 hours. I just hope time is correct so that I am not late.

if you are ever late in future, just tell them that time is a figment of their imagination, I'm sure they will understand

 

[mangaroosh]

apologies for hogging the thread by the way

 

[petm1]

Newton thought of absolute time with the apple falling from the sky. Einstein shows us time is a variable and because of the equivalence principle I can think of Newton dilating out into the apple. Both of these men, seems to me, talk about time as if it exists.

I like to think of time in Planck units, these relative units describe time as the duration of a photon traveling one Planck length i.e. a to b. First the photon is not time, it is the motion we measure as time or a motion of time. It is also a motion in one direction. I would think of time more like an area i.e. if both time and photon started at the same instant at a, the duration of time would be dilating in every direction outward while the photon would be moving out in one direction, to b. Makes time look more like the possible directions a motion could take, and if you had motion dilating out in all the possible directions relative to this point a?

I am glad that that I did take the time too read this thread, even if it is all in my mind.:shy:

 

[Galteeth]

Newton thought of absolute time with the apple falling from the sky. Einstein shows us time is a variable and because of the equivalence principle I can think of Newton dilating out into the apple. Both of these men, seems to me, talk about time as if it exists.

I like to think of time in Planck units, these relative units describe time as the duration of a photon traveling one Planck length i.e. a to b. First the photon is not time, it is the motion we measure as time or a motion of time. It is also a motion in one direction. I would think of time more like an area i.e. if both time and photon started at the same instant at a, the duration of time would be dilating in every direction outward while the photon would be moving out in one direction, to b. Makes time look more like the possible directions a motion could take, and if you had motion dilating out in all the possible directions relative to this point a?

I am glad that that I did take the time too read this thread, even if it is all in my mind.:shy:

There is the measurement of motion, but this is applicable when modeling that which has already happened in the past. In the sense in which we experience, time is a little more difficult to pin down, it is a constant flow that can only be meaningfully measured after it has happened, in a sense.

 

[planck]

Philosophically, time doesn't exist. Augustine described time as non-existent. The past is already gone, the present doesn't take up any time at all, and the the future isn't here yet.

I guess if you look at in the sense of the minimum amount necessary for information to be transferred or...whatever is necessary for something to occur--then time exists.

But if everything stood still and you lived outside of time, then I guess it would start making more sense.

Now you have a measure of creation.

 

[Grimble]

Hello, an interesting discussion!

Have you considered that, rather than being the measure of change, that time is a product of change.

Physical change does not happen 'in an instant' - it has a duration and we perceive the accumulation of change, as time passing.

Consder, if we had a volume of space that was completely empty, a perfect vacuum, then would time pass within that space?
If there was nothing there to change and, therefore no change happened, could we say that any time passed?

Take this a step further; if we had a body in that space, a totally inert body (this is a thought experiment, so I can stipulate a body with no motion whatever, not even atomic or sub-atomic motion) then, if it never changed, would time pass in that space?

And a further step; if we had a space that was subject to only very occasional change would time pass more slowly? Is the 'passage of time' subject to the prevailing conditions? Thanks to Einstein, and others, the answer has to be a resounding 'Yes'; but does that mean that 'time' is variable or merely, that it is the conditions under which we measure it, that affect the measurements?

If the rate of change is subject to the 'conditions' under which it happens, then we might assume that there was a 'normal' rate for the passage of time, or, more probably, different rates that prevail, under different sets of circumstances.

From this one might conclude that measurement under different circumstances would lead to different results, i.e. changing the circumstances of measurement might give cause for belief that time was passing differently, when it is the measurement that has changed, not the passage of time itself.

Hence an effect like time dilation occurrs. We know that it is only a perceived effect, as in the rest frame of the moving body, the measurement of time is still 'propertime'.

Grimble

 

[apeiron]

Consder, if we had a volume of space that was completely empty, a perfect vacuum, then would time pass within that space?
If there was nothing there to change and, therefore no change happened, could we say that any time passed?

A difficulty for this line of thought is that space is expanding (and so cooling). You can imagine a static space with no contents, but we exist in a universe where the thermodynamics is actually wired in.

It is true that at the heat death in a flatly balanced universe, there would be very little change - as little as possible change. But there would still be change. And the speed of light would still be the yardstick on this change.

 

[planck]

Take this a step further; if we had a body in that space, a totally inert body (this is a thought experiment, so I can stipulate a body with no motion whatever, not even atomic or sub-atomic motion) then, if it never changed, would time pass in that space?

But even something inert, as long as it exists in our universe, has to have mass and/or some motion within it to make it exist? Otherwise, wouldn't it just be nothing.

I'm not sure about the nature of massless particles, Is there something inside that moves or causes it to move?

 

[Grimble]

A difficulty for this line of thought is that space is expanding (and so cooling). You can imagine a static space with no contents, but we exist in a universe where the thermodynamics is actually wired in.

It is true that at the heat death in a flatly balanced universe, there would be very little change - as little as possible change. But there would still be change. And the speed of light would still be the yardstick on this change.

Maybe it could be a static space with no contents, but IF there exisisted a static space with no change happening within it, would time pass within it?

Is there any reason why it should?

Relativity tells us that there is no universal time, no absolute time, that time varies according to the prevailing conditions, therefore, I contend, there is no requirement for time to exist where there is nothing to measure it by.

Similarly if a body existed with a slow rate of change, if perhaps that change were not only slow but intermittent, for instance, experiencing an occasional flash of light, then would time pass slowly in that environment?

 

[Grimble]

But even something inert, as long as it exists in our universe, has to have mass and/or some motion within it to make it exist? Otherwise, wouldn't it just be nothing.

I'm not sure about the nature of massless particles, Is there something inside that moves or causes it to move?

What if it had mass but was inert?

 

[Galteeth]

Maybe it could be a static space with no contents, but IF there exisisted a static space with no change happening within it, would time pass within it?

Is there any reason why it should?

Relativity tells us that there is no universal time, no absolute time, that time varies according to the prevailing conditions, therefore, I contend, there is no requirement for time to exist where there is nothing to measure it by.

Similarly if a body existed with a slow rate of change, if perhaps that change were not only slow but intermittent, for instance, experiencing an occasional flash of light, then would time pass slowly in that environment?

Perhaps not, but such a condition (where there is nothing to measure by) would seem by our reckoning to be a state of non-existence, since in order for "something" to emerge again we need causality, and hence, time.

 

[apeiron]

Maybe it could be a static space with no contents, but IF there exisisted a static space with no change happening within it, would time pass within it?

I think you have to question the easy assumptions you are making here. That you can have space without the time.

The way I approach it is that a lack of something is a definite fact in any systems view. You have to do something extra to achieve the suppression or removal of a possibility.

So space~time is created as a dichotomy. The idea of locations is about the suppression of motions, the removal of changes. Pure space is defined as a 3D host of static co-ordinates.

Then time is defined dichotomously as the dimension which sees the remaining possibility for change. Locally, all is a static set of points. But globally, there is now all this space across which you can roam and revolve and accelerate.

So to have space, you must create its antithesis - time. And vice versa. To have stasis, you must also create the possibility of what it is not, that is flux. And to have flux, you have to have what it is not, that is stasis.

The two opposites always need each other. And GR was about a way to reconnect them after Cartesian co-ordinates and Newtonian mechanics had so crisply divided them.

GR said, well actually in our universe, there is no pure symmetry breaking into absolute space and absolute time. Instead, for massive objects, they live in a bounded spacetime. So objects will find that if they try to get very fast (at light speed, objects would experience no time), then the compression in the temporal direction becomes matched by an expansion in the spatial one. The object becomes very large (orthogonal to the direction of motion) and heavy.

So under GR, it becomes clear that you have a quantity of spacetime, and you can maximise one or other aspect - the locations or the motions - but you can't completely eliminate one or the other.

Space without the matching idea of time, stasis without the matching idea of flux, just does not make sense. Even if we can imagine - once we have these two possibilities - worlds in which one aspect has become so suppressed as to no longer "exist".

(In cosmology, it is actually quite common that people imagine a time without space. People say what came before the big bang? Nothing. There was just empty time. Of course, this again seems as wrong as imagining a space without time, but I'm just pointing out that this is a widespread thought that is out there.)

 

[russ_watters]

This should have been locked when it first started. It is even less of a philosophical question than it was a physics question. And as a physics question, it isn't a wrong question, it is just an easy one: yes, time exists.

Thread locked.

[edit] And FYI, the other lines of discussion, like 'does time exist in a vacuum' (yes - ask yourself if a vacuum has no time, how can we ever move through it?) and 'is mass required for existence' (no - ask yourself if you can attach a number to the mass contained in an empty box) are also just misunderstandings of physics and not philosophical questions either.

Hey, and while I'm at it - If a tree falls in the woods, does it still make a sound? Yes. Just in case anyone was curious...