Is Time an Illusion or a Tangible Entity?

[mangaroosh]

Hey, I just want to be open about the fact that I have already tried to discuss this in the General Physics Forum, but it was dismissed as more of a philosophical issue, so hopefully this section of the Forum will be more open to the discussion.

Having had a glance through some of the other threads in here, it certainly is not a new idea or notion, but it is one I am trying to get a better understanding of, or at least hear a logically coherent refutation of the issue as I perceive it.

I didn't post this in any of the other threads that appeared relevant to the issue as this query appeared to be more basic, and I did not want to derail any of the threads.

I must apologise in advance, as it is more than likely my own understanding that will be developed by, hopefully, drawing on the undoubtedly vast knowledge base in this forum. I doubt I will be providing any mind-blowing insight for anyone, but hopefully you guys won't mind too much indulging a lay person, with an inquisitive mind.


To get to the crux of the issue as I have so far discussed, I am of the opinion that time is not a measurable force/entity/law of nature, but rather a system of measurement akin to the metric system. More pointedly, that time does not actually exist, but is rather the subjective rationalisation of mankind, based on the misinterpretation of naturally occurring phenomena.

One point that seems to be made in support of the existence of time, as a real force of nature, is time dilation, and the experimental results that verify its validity.

The issue I have with this is that time dilation is based on a self-contained set of assumptions that, upon investigation, appear to be fallacious.

The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures time


Now the issue that I have is with the assumption that a clock measures the force that is known as time. The example I am most familiar with is the atomic clock, where the microwave emissions of changing electrons are noted as the measurement of the force of time. This however, as far as I can see is a non sequitor. To say that the microwave emissions of changing electrons is a measurement of the force known as time, does not follow logically, and is merely an arbitrary interpretation.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this inquiry.

 

[Sorry!]

Hey, I just want to be open about the fact that I have already tried to discuss this in the General Physics Forum, but it was dismissed as more of a philosophical issue, so hopefully this section of the Forum will be more open to the discussion.

Having had a glance through some of the other threads in here, it certainly is not a new idea or notion, but it is one I am trying to get a better understanding of, or at least hear a logically coherent refutation of the issue as I perceive it.

I didn't post this in any of the other threads that appeared relevant to the issue as this query appeared to be more basic, and I did not want to derail any of the threads.

I must apologise in advance, as it is more than likely my own understanding that will be developed by, hopefully, drawing on the undoubtedly vast knowledge base in this forum. I doubt I will be providing any mind-blowing insight for anyone, but hopefully you guys won't mind too much indulging a lay person, with an inquisitive mind.To get to the crux of the issue as I have so far discussed, I am of the opinion that time is not a measurable force/entity/law of nature, but rather a system of measurement akin to the metric system. More pointedly, that time does not actually exist, but is rather the subjective rationalisation of mankind, based on the misinterpretation of naturally occurring phenomena.

One point that seems to be made in support of the existence of time, as a real force of nature, is time dilation, and the experimental results that verify its validity.

The issue I have with this is that time dilation is based on a self-contained set of assumptions that, upon investigation, appear to be fallacious.

The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures timeNow the issue that I have is with the assumption that a clock measures the force that is known as time. The example I am most familiar with is the atomic clock, where the microwave emissions of changing electrons are noted as the measurement of the force of time. This however, as far as I can see is a non sequitor. To say that the microwave emissions of changing electrons is a measurement of the force known as time, does not follow logically, and is merely an arbitrary interpretation.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this inquiry.

I think you've been misled... time is not a force. A force is defined as something that causes a change in motion F=ma F=mg etc. etc.
Another misled assumption is that clocks are measuring what time is. They aren't measuring 'time' in the way you think. They measure or portray what a second is or a minute or an hour. Other methods of measuring time could be different sizes of pendulums swinging or the moon cycle or the stars.

I wouldn't even consider the fact that time exists as an assumption anyways. Why would you say that time is an assumption? Can you show any other way?

 

[mangaroosh]

I think you've been misled... time is not a force. A force is defined as something that causes a change in motion F=ma F=mg etc. etc.
Another misled assumption is that clocks are measuring what time is. They aren't measuring 'time' in the way you think. They measure or portray what a second is or a minute or an hour. Other methods of measuring time could be different sizes of pendulums swinging or the moon cycle or the stars.

I wouldn't even consider the fact that time exists as an assumption anyways. Why would you say that time is an assumption? Can you show any other way?

apologies, I am having difficulty in classifying time, or trying to pin down what it actually is, or how it is treated in physics.

what is leading me to this questioning, is the way in which time appears to be dealt with in physics - this could just be a fundamental misunderstanding - but time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.

 

[Sorry!]

apologies, I am having difficulty in classifying time, or trying to pin down what it actually is, or how it is treated in physics.

what is leading me to this questioning, is the way in which time appears to be dealt with in physics - this could just be a fundamental misunderstanding - but time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.

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.

 

[Dale]

time appears to be given very real qualities, in its bundling together with space, in spacetime. It appears that it is purported to exist as either some external entity/law of nature/etc., however it is labelled it appears that it is treated as a real "thing", that exists, as opposed to a concept that was created in the human mind. This appears to be true in the sense that it is said that gravity can exert influence over time, that time itself can potentially be manipulated.

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?

 

[apeiron]

The basic assumptions appear to be:
1. That time exists
2. That a clock measures time

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. 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.

 

[dirkgently]

"Time (and space) are conventions,not experiential realities. What one observes as the passage of time or past time objects/events can only be verified when some change occurs. The only sense of time as actually existing is as the casual sum of changes which is experienced in the 'now'. Thus one may have a memory of past event or object such as ones youth but what one does not have a direct experience of time but only the various signs of ageing, which amounts to a variety of changes. Any physical qualities that one tries to give to time as a reality amounts to some observed change. If there was not any change in something, or relational change between things then there would be not any way to measure time at all. As some changes are regular it possible to make a standard measure known as time. For instance the motion of celestial bodies or the decay of atomic particles. These kinds of changes are regular under 'normal' conditions but when the conditions are altered (under higher energy conditions for instance) then the regularity of change ceases. All that is definitely verifiable comes down to the experience of change which under certain conditions is regular and can be shown to follow certain laws whilst those conditions hold. Time as a conventional reality depends completely on this."

Is this right?

 

[apeiron]

"The only sense of time as actually existing is as the casual sum of changes which is experienced in the 'now'.

From the cognitive neuroscience point of view, awareness is anticipatory. Or what philosophers might call intentional. So we don't even naturally experience the now. We are oriented towards what is coming next (based on accumulated prior experience).

We can make attempts to catch the "now" - focus on some fleeting event. But it takes about a third of a second to achieve such a state of attention (about something that has already happened, like the flash of a light). And we have to suppress awareness of events to either side of that instant.

So our experiencing of time is quite complicated. And remembering itself is just anticipation - rousing an expectation of "what it would have been like to be back at that place".

 

[disregardthat]

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.

 

[dirkgently]

From the cognitive neuroscience point of view, awareness is anticipatory. Or what philosophers might call intentional. So we don't even naturally experience the now. We are oriented towards what is coming next (based on accumulated prior experience).

We can make attempts to catch the "now" - focus on some fleeting event. But it takes about a third of a second to achieve such a state of attention (about something that has already happened, like the flash of a light). And we have to suppress awareness of events to either side of that instant.

So our experiencing of time is quite complicated. And remembering itself is just anticipation - rousing an expectation of "what it would have been like to be back at that place".

yes that accords with my experience - there is an intentional aspect of the cognition of change is always present in any experience. But I don't think that it is even possible to a have a direct experience of the 'now' aside from this intentional aspect which as you say is anticipatory based on previous experiences of change.This has important implications for how we relate to the 'changiness' of phenomena - especially to do with how shape our experience through that intentional function.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

How does the time-energy uncertainity come in here? Is time analogues to position and energy analogues to momentum like the quantum uncertainty principle? Is measuring position in quantum mechanics like measuring time in general relativity? What is the time of quantum mechanics?

 

[the_awesome]

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

 

[DrClapeyron]

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

 

[Galteeth]

yes that accords with my experience - there is an intentional aspect of the cognition of change is always present in any experience. But I don't think that it is even possible to a have a direct experience of the 'now' aside from this intentional aspect which as you say is anticipatory based on previous experiences of change.This has important implications for how we relate to the 'changiness' of phenomena - especially to do with how shape our experience through that intentional function.

Yes, when modeling the evolution of a system over time, you can point an arbitrary time co-ordinate and describe the state. However, time is a constant forward moving flow, the point is more so a useful abstraction then an absolute physical reality.

 

[the_awesome]

Time does not exist in our head. Concepts of time does. Time is a dimension of our universe, and as such, does exist outside of our minds. If it was just an idea in our head, then why can't we move backwards in time? Why can we only remember the past, and not the future? If its not real, then what separates cause from effect?
Just as we measure gravity in man-made terms, we measure time in man-made terms. Gravity and time are real, and have a relationship. If time was not real, then how can it be effected by gravity? You can look at gravitational time dilation, and space-time.

 

[apeiron]

How does the time-energy uncertainity come in here? Is time analogues to position and energy analogues to momentum like the quantum uncertainty principle? Is measuring position in quantum mechanics like measuring time in general relativity? What is the time of quantum mechanics?

The two could be seen as reflections of particle vs waves descriptions. So there is the uncertainty of particles in terms of the locations and motions or kinetic energy of point-like objects. And then the uncertainty related to a wavelength view where the more narrow the temporal window of obervation, the more uncertain becomes the number of cycles contained within that temporal expanse.

QM occurs in time - the wavefunction evolves in time. And is also collapsed at some point in time.

Where things get really interesting though is the experimental evidence for retrocausality - quantum eraser, hopefully Cramer's planned new experiment, etc. So QM, if taken seriously, must change our conception of time as a simple "motion" from a past to a future "location".

Time could be treated as an extrinsic dimension in the Newtonian model, and an intrinsic dimension in GR, but another kind of model would be demanded as a result of accepting retrocausality.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

The two could be seen as reflections of particle vs waves descriptions. So there is the uncertainty of particles in terms of the locations and motions or kinetic energy of point-like objects. And then the uncertainty related to a wavelength view where the more narrow the temporal window of obervation, the more uncertain becomes the number of cycles contained within that temporal expanse.

QM occurs in time - the wavefunction evolves in time. And is also collapsed at some point in time.

Where things get really interesting though is the experimental evidence for retrocausality - quantum eraser, hopefully Cramer's planned new experiment, etc. So QM, if taken seriously, must change our conception of time as a simple "motion" from a past to a future "location".

Time could be treated as an extrinsic dimension in the Newtonian model, and an intrinsic dimension in GR, but another kind of model would be demanded as a result of accepting retrocausality.

thanks apeiron. I was worried that would be a really stupid question.

 

[disregardthat]

Time does not exist in our head. Concepts of time does. Time is a dimension of our universe, and as such, does exist outside of our minds. If it was just an idea in our head, then why can't we move backwards in time? Why can we only remember the past, and not the future? If its not real, then what separates cause from effect?
Just as we measure gravity in man-made terms, we measure time in man-made terms. Gravity and time are real, and have a relationship. If time was not real, then how can it be effected by gravity? You can look at gravitational time dilation, and space-time.

Everything "exists in our heads" if I must speak your language. Time is a structure in which our minds interpret perceptions. The thing-in-itself have no spatial or temporal properties. Time does not "exist" independent of the mind. The temporal construct is however necessary for human experience, and thus it is naturally firmly implemented in our language.

 

[the_awesome]

Everything "exists in our heads" if I must speak your language. Time is a structure in which our minds interpret perceptions. The thing-in-itself have no spatial or temporal properties. Time does not "exist" independent of the mind. The temporal construct is however necessary for human experience, and thus it is naturally firmly implemented in our language.

Time is a measurement of change, so it certainly exists outside of our minds. To say that everything exists in our heads is just baloney, yes it is true to some extent, but you have to remember that things exist without observation.

The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not a result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. Nature in short, is mathematical.
Remember
- The laws are not the observations

 

[disregardthat]

Time is a measurement of change, so it certainly exists outside of our minds. To say that everything exists in our heads is just baloney, yes it is true to some extent, but you have to remember that things exist without observation.

The rules that describe nature seem to be mathematical. This is not a result of the fact that observation is the judge, and it is not a characteristic necessity of science that it be mathematical. Nature in short, is mathematical.
Remember
- The laws are not the observations

Is it baloney? Yes, time is incorporated in the meaning of change, and we can indeed measure it with respect to the concept of quantity. How does this imply in any way that it "exists" outside our minds? You say things exist without observation. Does it really make sense to say that? It is actually the very act of observing a thing that makes it senseful to talk about its existence.

Yes, nature is mathematical, but for diametrically different reasons than what you might think. Mathematics is twisted and formed to apply to nature, thus nature is "mathematical" in the same sense as mathematics is "natural".

The natural laws are deliberately over-simplified principles to aid our understanding of natural processes. Natural laws in general does (deliberately) not take the overall complexity of natural processes in account, but captures the essential parts which we can make use of.

 

[the_awesome]

Is it baloney? How does this imply in any way that it "exists" outside our minds? You say things exist without observation. Does it really make sense to say that? It is actually the very act of observing a thing that makes it senseful to talk about its existence.

Okay let me ask you a question. If there were no humans on Earth - all not existing. Then would the world still exist? The simple answer is YES. You could also refer to the animals on earth. THEY know that they exist, and they know that their environment exists.
In fact, they'd probably be very happy if we didn't exist.

 

[disregardthat]

Okay let me ask you a question. If there were no humans on Earth - all not existing. Then would the world still exist? The simple answer is YES. You could also refer to the animals on earth. THEY know that they exist, and they know that their environment exists.
In fact, they'd probably be very happy if we didn't exist.

When you speak of a world in the absence of human beings, are you not thinking of the world in the sense you are now? How does this make sense unless you are assuming your own perspective of an objective mind-independent world? The world is the manifestation of perception. Perception is obviously dependent on the perceiver, thus the world exists for the individual iff the individual is aware of it.

 

[the_awesome]

When you speak of a world in the absence of human beings, are you not thinking of the world in the sense you are now? How does this make sense unless you are assuming your own perspective of an objective mind-independent world? The world is the manifestation of perception. Perception is obviously dependent on the perceiver, thus the world exists for the individual iff the individual is aware of it.

Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?

Well we've been able to observe different forms of data which shows that Pluto exists. I would change Jarles word of 'observe' to simply perceive... some people may argue semantics over the word observe, so .

However, that doesn't mean that when no one is observing Pluto that it ceases to exist.

 

[the_awesome]

However, that doesn't mean that when no one is observing Pluto that it ceases to exist.

Exactly, it's there whether we know it is or not. It's simple logic

 

[disregardthat]

double post

 

[disregardthat]

Sorry but I don't have that belief. How do you know that Pluto exists? Have you yourself observed pluto in anyway? Or have you just been told that it exists?

Belief? It is the rejection of the belief in an objective world. It is not me who are doing wishful thinking.

Perception is not restricted to direct perception. I "perceive" Pluto because its existence is held in our community. If I had never heard of Pluto, it would be meaningless for me to say "Pluto exist".

"Ceasing to exist" is only absurd in the realist perspective. It is only absurd if you are believing in the objective world independent of mind. "Ceasing to exist" does not mean the same if you are rejecting this perspective. That pluto "cease to exist" means that "our perception of pluto ceases".

 

[Sorry!]

Belief? It is the rejection of the belief in an objective world. It is not me who are doing wishful thinking.

Perception is not restricted to direct perception. I "perceive" Pluto because its existence is held in our community. If I had never heard of Pluto, it would be meaningless for me to say "Pluto exist".

"Ceasing to exist" is only absurd in the realist perspective. It is only absurd if you are believing in the objective world independent of mind. "Ceasing to exist" does not mean the same if you are rejecting this perspective. That pluto "cease to exist" means that "our perception of pluto ceases".

Yes this is true Jarle everything you have written I agree with. However just because our perception of Pluto ceases to exist does not necessarily mean that Pluto ceases to exist. It's hard to explain it I guess but I believe things do exist outside of our minds continuously regardless of our perceptions. We give them names and apply laws to them etc. but at a more fundamental level of reality than we understand through our perception things are really there.

 

[disregardthat]

Yes this is true Jarle everything you have written I agree with. However just because our perception of Pluto ceases to exist does not necessarily mean that Pluto ceases to exist. It's hard to explain it I guess but I believe things do exist outside of our minds continuously regardless of our perceptions. We give them names and apply laws to them etc. but at a more fundamental level of reality than we understand through our perception things are really there.

I can agree with that there is some externality which we must accept, but I also think you will see that we can not impose any structure whatsoever on this "world". However, calling it external or outside our mind is misleading as they (necessarily) have nothing to do with what we associate with the words "external" and "outside". (actually it is something we must remain silent of - words are useless and meaningless detached from experience)

So, the more or less literal picture of that we are closed inside our minds in an external world is wrong. It suffers from the imposition of spatial and temporal structure to the "external world".

"That" which we perceive as Pluto has no properties whatsoever. It is misleading to call "it" "that" ("it" is no object!), and grotesquely misleading to call "it" "Pluto".

 

[Sorry!]

I can agree with that there is some externality which we must accept, but I also think you will see that we can not impose any structure whatsoever on this "world". However, calling it external or outside our mind is misleading as they (necessarily) have nothing to do with what we associate with the words "external" and "outside". (actually it is something we must remain silent of - words are useless and meaningless detached from experience)

So, the more or less literal picture of that we are closed inside our minds in an external world is wrong. It suffers from the imposition of spatial and temporal structure to the "external world".

"That" which we perceive as Pluto has no properties whatsoever. It is misleading to call "it" "that" ("it" is no object!), and grotesquely misleading to call "it" "Pluto".

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

 

[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