Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[kvantti]

I'm sorry for being so unclear, what I posted was a thought experiment, not one to try in the lab.

Well, I don't know what would happen if it were possible to stop every particle from moving... probably there wouldn't be any motion at all and the entropy of the system wouldn't increase. But that doesn't mean that time ceases to exist; just that there is no energy in a particular system. But in the real physical world, this is impossible: even in the lowest possible energy state there is zero point energy present.

edit: I also want to mention that I was speaking about the fundamental particle, not atoms or molecules physically frozen.

The zero point motion applies to every quantum system, especially to fundamental particles.

 

[octelcogopod]

Well that is beside the point, HYPOTHETICALLY if /everything/ stopped moving, as if it were frozen, would time stop?

That is the thought experiment.

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

 

[kvantti]

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

Time wouldn't stop proceeding, it is a property of the universe ("4th dimension"), but the subjective experience of time would stop. For example, if everything in my whole body (including my brains) would suddenly just "freeze" in place, as you suggested, and then after one hour it would become normal again, I wouldn't notice anything. Subjectively I just didn't experience the one hour time interval between "frozing" and "de-frozing". So I would think that "I leaped one hour to the future".

 

[-Job-]

Well that is beside the point, HYPOTHETICALLY if /everything/ stopped moving, as if it were frozen, would time stop?

That is the thought experiment.

You mentioned something about how time doesn't necessarily cease to exist in such a situation, would you elaborate a bit on that?

That's the same question as: "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum, would time stop?"

 

[Doctordick]

Yes, time is a figment of your imagination!

That's the same question as: "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum, would time stop?"

And the answer is YES! The problem here is that most all of you have made no real effort to understand what "time" is all about (and I include most all scientists in that category). Our personal knowledge changes: i.e., what we knew (or thought we knew) is not a universal unchanging thing. "Time" is a concept introduced to make sense of those changes themselves. All you really know is, "what you know changes". Your personal state of being as an entity changes. The "past is what you know (or think you know)", which changes continually, and the "future is what you do not know", even when you think you do. The present is the boundary between the two and consists exactly of those "changes in what you know".

Some changes are repetitive and, as they occur over and over and over ... (like the phenomena we call sunrise or ticking of a clock), we attach a parameter to express this repetitiveness called "t". When we discuss what we know, we reference these changes with that t. And that is all there is to it. The past can not change because all changes occur in the present. The concept of a time machine is nothing more than a consequence of faulty thinking.

In the same vein, causality is a figment of your imagination. That fact is right in front of you embedded in the origin of the English language if you only took the time to look. The word "cause" is no more than another word for the concept "explanation". Why does something happen? The answer is, "[that] be [for the] cause ...". And explanations change from time to time as people think of better reasons. Why does the sun rise in the morning? Why, be [the] cause, [that] the God Helios wants to ride from East to West in his golden chariot. To think that everything has a cause is to believe that an acceptable explanation exists for everything. Well, maybe so, but that doesn't mean that "cause" is correct!

And speaking of time, a scientist in California performed an interesting experiment the other day involving the perception of time. People regularly report time seeming to slow in dangerous and fast moving circumstances. As bungy jumping seemed to be such a circumstance, this scientist decided to test the thing. He set a wrist watch type digital display to flash through a set of random numbers when started. He set the flash rate just above what people were able to read and then had them attempt to read the numbers on a bungy jump. Apparently all of his subjects had no trouble reading the numbers when they were bungy jumping indicating that the perception of slow time passage in dangerous situations was a real measurable phenomena. The article also commented that there were drugs which could cause the same effects. Anybody want to get high?

So I say, time is an imaginary construct we use to denote changes in what we know. If what we know ceases to change in any way, time will clearly serve no purpose. Another way to say that is to understand that the time between changes is a figment of your imagination.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Paul Martin]

So I say, time is an imaginary construct we use to denote changes in what we know.

I agree. ... And I think you gave a convincing "explanation".

Now, the next thing that I think needs explaining is what you mean by "we". From "my" point of view, being one of "us", it seems that "I" know about a world. It also seems that "my" world also includes the rest of "you". And from "your" reports, it seems as if "our" worlds are one and the same even though "we" don't all know it in exactly the same way.

So how do we explain the multiplicity of "us" in a singular world? Could it be that "we" are actually one, and that what seem to be individual consciousnesses are that one traversing different world lines? If not, why not?

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[-Job-]

And the answer is YES! The problem here is that most all of you have made no real effort to understand what "time" is all about (and I include most all scientists in that category). Our personal knowledge changes: i.e., what we knew (or thought we knew) is not a universal unchanging thing. "Time" is a concept introduced to make sense of those changes themselves. All you really know is, "what you know changes". Your personal state of being as an entity changes. The "past is what you know (or think you know)", which changes continually, and the "future is what you do not know", even when you think you do. The present is the boundary between the two and consists exactly of those "changes in what you know".

Two things:
- i have put effort into understanding time.
- when i pointed out that octel's question was equivalent to "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum would time stop?" i wasn't suggesting whether or not that is the case, just making the point that time can be both a human concept and/or have a physical implementation (i.e. a dimension) and that i don't think you can tell which is the case.

 

[cliowa]

I feel this discussion is leading nowhere, and in my opinion not a single sensible or interesting "explanation" has come up (until now).

First of all: You're all oversimplifying so much, that the conclusions, which have thus far been drawn, hardly seem convincing or even legitimate.

As mentioned before, defining time via change is circular, as change implies comparing the state of something at different times! If you want to define what time is, you certainly are not allowed to use the concept of change.

Then there's this "now is present" and "before is past" stuff. This is, in my opinion, also very, very problematic, as two different observers will in general not agree on the present (think of relativistic effects), although they live in the very same space. If you now turn this objection down by arguing about the subjectivity of time, you should consider that time is not that subjective, because if it were we could hardly agree on mechanical devices to measure it.

As far as I'm concerned I don't think that time can be expressed in more fundamental terms.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Paul, it's nice to know we agree about something. (No, I think, fundamentally, we see a lot of things the same way.) Our true differences reside in that "explanation" thing. You want to start from the perspective that your world view is an approximation to reality and not just an explanation of reality and, from my perspective, they are quite different things. My desire is to "understand" reality: i.e., comprehend exactly what is behind that "world view" we have all managed to achieve (as it is "reality itself" which stands behind it and it is "reality itself" we would like to understand).

Now, the next thing that I think needs explaining is what you mean by "we". From "my" point of view, being one of "us", it seems that "I" know about a world. It also seems that "my" world also includes the rest of "you". And from "your" reports, it seems as if "our" worlds are one and the same even though "we" don't all know it in exactly the same way.

From my perspective, the rest of you (that there are others in the universe similar to myself) are mental constructs whose existence "explains" a lot of phenomena. Fundamentally, it's any explanation in a cold wind. What I want to understand is what stands behind those explanations and what I can honestly depend upon. I really have very little interest in explaining anything; my subconscious does a fine job of coming up with explanations and, until specific flaws are detected within those superstitions (for that is what they really are) I won't worry about them being right or wrong.

Could it be that "we" are actually one, and that what seem to be individual consciousnesses are that one traversing different world lines? If not, why not?

"Could" is an awfully big arena and I am not going to judge what could or could not be unless I have some very good reasons (the issues I have tried to introduce). There are plenty of people out there trying to invent "explanations"; my prime interest is understanding explanations themselves. Without that, I think we are wasting our time.

i have put effort into understanding time.

I wasn't trying to insult you. Everyone thinks they have made a strong effort to understand time but, in fact, they invariably overlook some very important aspects of the issue. To use a common phrase, everyone is so inured to "thinking in the box" that they simply cannot comprehend approaching the issue objectively.

when i pointed out that octel's question was equivalent to "if everything were moving with the same direction and momentum would time stop?" i wasn't suggesting whether or not that is the case, just making the point that time can be both a human concept and/or have a physical implementation (i.e. a dimension) and that i don't think you can tell which is the case.

What you have missed is that "change" and "time" are not equivalent concepts. "Time" is usually seen as a continuous thing whereas "change" is a discreet concept. My point was that the mental picture I think his comment was trying to represent, "everything were moving with the same direction and momentum", was the absence of change even though that isn't what he really said. All we really know is that "things change"; that the change is continuous is a assumption.

I feel this discussion is leading nowhere, and in my opinion not a single sensible or interesting "explanation" has come up (until now).

First of all: You're all oversimplifying so much, that the conclusions, which have thus far been drawn, hardly seem convincing or even legitimate.

As mentioned before, defining time via change is circular, as change implies comparing the state of something at different times! If you want to define what time is, you certainly are not allowed to use the concept of change.

Now that depends upon which you take to be the underlying concept. If you take "time" to be the underlying concept and change is to be defined in terms of time then you have essentially presumed continuity. I my head, taking "change" as the primary concept and defining time in terms of change allows that continuity to be part of your explanation and not a necessary aspect of reality but rather a mental construct used to explain your experiences.

Then there's this "now is present" and "before is past" stuff. This is, in my opinion, also very, very problematic, as two different observers will in general not agree on the present (think of relativistic effects), although they live in the very same space. If you now turn this objection down by arguing about the subjectivity of time, you should consider that time is not that subjective, because if it were we could hardly agree on mechanical devices to measure it.

Oh, that is the case is it? I think I would differ with you sincerely. If you understand logic and mathematics, I believe I can put forth some rather convincing evidence that the agreement you require is quite easy to achieve and, in fact, leads directly to exactly the observed relativistic effects.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[roamer]

Doctordick,
Intuitively I have always felt time to be nothing more than a mental construct, it is a mental invention that makes explanations work (cause and effect). However this still leaves the question of what a clock is actually measuring. I keep on coming up with explanations but they all contain the construct of time! I am willing to try to consider what you are saying but the concept of time seems very imbedded in all my thoughts and ideas. It seems like throwing out the continum idea of time would leav es a huge gaping whole in our "knowledge". What is it that we actually know?

 

[kvantti]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_time
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#8

 

[Doctordick]

Kvantti, your references are almost the definition of "thinking inside the box"! To quote:

"For example, special relativity has shown that the concept of 'simultaneity' is not universal"! In actual fact, what is shown is that "simultaneity" can not be defined; a much more stringent impediment to the conventional picture. That is sort of like division by zero which just happens to be the central difficulty (continuity is the other side of the division by zero issue). I am personally of the opinion that the central issue of Zeno's paradox is the impossibility of continuous time being a valid aspect of reality.

"It is uncontroversial that physical objects are typically extended in both space and time." Yes, it is "uncontroversial"; but that, in no sense, can be taken as proof that it is true! Physical objects themselves are mental constructs. A "vehicle", for example, is a category for a particular collection of elemental entities (which are real, or at least presumed to be real), a "bus" may be a vehicle but that does not require all vehicles to be buses. My point being that it is the representation of the information which constitutes a "physical object" and it is the mode of representation (a mental thing) which requires space and time, not reality; all reality requires is the "information" itself. Or I could say reality requires "some" of that information; our mental image of reality fills in the rest. What is, and what is not a figment of our imagination is a question which cannot be settled. In fact, the figments of our imagination change regularly with changes in our explanations of reality; anyone who believes the future will contain no more changes in their fundamental beliefs is without imagination: ninety percent of our lives is lived in superstition even by the most rational of us. (And yes, the "is" is the right case to use there.)

Space and time are mental constructs we create in order to organize our experiences into handleable pieces. There is a division in thought which receives attention far below what is needed. That division can be referenced by the words "deduction" or "induction"; "logical" or "intuitive"; "science" or "superstition"; "thought" or "feeling"... Let us just call them "type A" and "type B" mental activities. All human languages (save mathematics) are based on "type B" mental activities. That's why communication is so difficult! You can not prove the words you use mean the same thing to others as they do to you. Unless they happen to be analytical truths as defined by Kant (analytic propositions are those which are true simply in virtue of their meaning); in that case we either agree with the definition and can use the term to communicate or we disagree and simply are not talking about the same thing.

And finally, roamer, if you have a good understanding of mathematics and logic, I can show you some relationships which must be valid no matter what we know or don't know. If you can understand what an analytical truth is and can follow the logical consequences of my definition of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm , there are a lot of the aspects of reality (anyones reality) which become quite clear.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[AnssiH]

Well, the thing is that relativity strongly implies that time does not tick away but that future and the past exist all the time. So that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

I have heard people talking about how everything is happening at once. That is interesting. Do you know where I can ontain more information about this
RAD

Looks like Kvantti already posted some links.

Few words still; it would be wrong to say "everything is happening at once" because just the word "happening" implies motion. We should say "everything exists at once". May sound like splitting hair, but it's too easy to confuse the idea of motion to spacetime and I see people doing it far too regularly without realizing it.

And why relativity implies static spacetime is that it assumes simultaneity is not absolute but it is relative to your direction of motion (and by this assumption we can assert that the speed of light is the same to all observers). This is the basic building block of relativity and needs to be understood properly.

Thought experiment; let's say there is a spaceship approaching us at great speed. By assuming the light is approaching us at speed C, we can figure out what is the "real" moment when the spaceship is just passing Alpha Centauri, assuming it is moving at a steady speed. We decide to put up a signal beacon at the same moment.

Now, SR says the moment we put up the beacon and the moment the spaceship passes Alpha Centauri are not "really" simultaneous in any inertial frame but in our. When the spaceship receives a signal from our beacon, it can figure out when did the beacon go up, and assuming the speed of light to be C in its own inertial frame, it will conclude that the beacon went up much much earlier than when it was passing Alpha Centauri.

This means that when the spaceship had not yet even passed Alpha Centauri in your frame, in its own frame you had already put up the beacon long time ago; your future had already happened I.e. your actions are deterministic since they have already happened from the point of view of many inertial frames. (Determinism is not problematic part though; it is not particularly hard to show that the idea about free-will is nonsensical anyway)

It also means that if the spaceship now accelerates (brakes) to the same direction of motion where you are, it will come to share the simultaneity with you. For example, if in its original frame you had put up the beacon three weeks before it reached Alpha Centauri, then when it brakes, the clocks and everything on Earth rewind back to the moment when you were just putting up the beacon.

But this doesn't really make sense as is, so if you assume simultaneity to really be relative, you will also feel strong need to assume reality is a spacetime where future and past actually exist all the time; that "time is just an illusion".

It would also mean that time exists as a real dimension in which all the events that ever happened and will ever happen are marked. And in this spacetime NOTHING could actually move. If you assume time "causes" motion, and you assume any motion in spacetime, you also need to assume a new time dimension which causes/describes the motion inside spacetime, and this leads to infinite regress. If you are not convinced of this, please think more.

So I hope now everybody have some idea about why relativity strongly suggests static spacetime.

And the reason I say "strongly" is that relativity doesn't allow for any direct observation of the relativity of simultaneity. We cannot actually see the clocks moving backwards or anything like that. Strictly speaking, what we can measure is that different objects move at different rates in different situations, and this doesn't actually require that future and past exists all the time; ALL the observable effects of relativity could work by universal notion of simultaneity, but to describe the reality this way would not be "geometrically simple" the way that SR is simple.

However, read on...

The problem here is that most all of you have made no real effort to understand what "time" is all about (and I include most all scientists in that category).

Spot on. And I had almost lost all hope already. I keep hearing these unthoughtful claims about how "motion could not exist without time" and all sorts of ideas that mix up the concepts of motion and time into incoherent whole, and it's just driving me insane...

"Motion could not exist without time" is simply invalid assertion. Of course it could exist without time; motion could be fundamental feature of nature! It is not in any sense "more likely" that time is what is fundamental instead of motion. One needs to understand how we understand the world. We create semantical assumptions and concepts about what we observe, and by observing motion, we can derive the semantical concept of time! When we say "It takes 60 seconds to boil water" we are saying "by the time the little hand on the clock has done full circle, the water is boiling". This is nothing but a comparison of TWO MOTIONS.

Just like in a universe with just one object there is no "speed" for the object to measure, so there is no "time" for it to measure. There is no backdrop called "empty space", this is a figment of imagination. Similarly, we cannot measure time itself. That's right, time cannot be measured. We cannot claim that "time" moves at certain speed at all. If you feel the need to reply "I measure time with my wristwatch all the time", think more.

Few words about one particularly interesting case of "mixing up concepts incoherently". It is asserted that spacetime was created in the big bang 15 billion years ago (give or take some). If this sounds unproblematic idea, think more.

Imagine a 3D-block. Let's say this is the whole reality for 2 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. At the bottom parts we have the "past" and at the top the "future" (=entropy increases upwards).

When we imagine the moment when this spacetime is created, it would be immediately wrong to imagine that it starts to grow from the bottom; this growing would require motion to exist (instead of time). No, the creation event is just one "pop" and the whole thing comes to exist in a static sense, with the beginning, the middle and the end.

Except that even a concept of this "popping" event is something that makes sense only inside spacetime, not outside. We can only say something pops into existence if there is real motion and evolution to a system. When we say the spacetime was created 15 billion years ago, we are saying that at the bottom of the spacetime there is an event which caused the whole spacetime to "pop" into existence, including that "first" event itself. Think about this for a while. Is this very clever idea?

The original assertion was made by extrapolating the expansion of the universe backwards in time until you get to singularity. At that point you can imagine that the whole spacetime curls into a singularity, only this curling is also motion! You cannot say there existed a time when spacetime was curled into a singularity any more than you could say the spacetime is wiggling around.

This is just one instance that drives me crazy, and I'm almost certain this post will also trigger few replies from people who don't think I understand properly what it means that "spacetime didn't exist before big bang". Please... This is just elementary idea and the issue of time is much deeper than some vague idea about how nothing "is" before big bang.

Oh, and entropy, it's a neat idea and all, but it is becoming more and more difficult concept in my worldview, which is becoming increasingly darwinistic. Super-darwinism I could say. Self-organization does not agree very will with absolute (overall) entropy. Yes, dropping a rock on pavement will cause chaotic heat release, but things also fall into all sorts of stable patterns.

I'm thinking entropy and self-organization could both "really" exist, and that could be why there is a universe in motion but still stable; it could be that it will always stay stable, that there will always be chaotic things getting organized and organized things becoming chaotic. Maybe, just maybe... At any rate, self-organization seems like a good way to understand any system (including the brain).

Anyway, if the post I linked to didn't seem to make sense to you before, perhaps after thinking through this post it makes more sense;
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1100575&postcount=130
(There is a larger issue with time and motion when you get to the philosophy of mind... If this issue does not exhaust you... think more :)

 

[AnssiH]

Yes exactly Mr. Dick.

I certainly hope people in general either spent more time actually thinking about this thing we call "reality", or alternatively shut the hell up :)

 

[cliowa]

Now that depends upon which you take to be the underlying concept. If you take "time" to be the underlying concept and change is to be defined in terms of time then you have essentially presumed continuity. I my head, taking "change" as the primary concept and defining time in terms of change allows that continuity to be part of your explanation and not a necessary aspect of reality but rather a mental construct used to explain your experiences.

Alright. I could of course also define time in terms of my very special feeling about "quetzcoatl". You obviously feel that there is an advantage when taking change to be more fundamental than time. Why do you think that change is any more fundamental then time? Why would you argue that - as a fundamental - change works better than time?

In my opinion many decisions concering philosophic issues are governed by our quest for comfort. We choose to take some things (observations, conclusions) for granted for the benefit of our own pleasant life. Now I don't mean to go religious, not at all.
So in my opinion one should choose as the underlying notions things which are, in general, intuitively pleasing, as long as this is okay with scientific results. Of course new scientific discoveries will alter our perception and thus our philosophy of the world. But I would still argue, that in science and in "real" life time still plays a dominant role. As I know time is on an equal footing with space, as showed us Einstein, but we still treat time differently from the other spacetime dimensions.

If you understand logic and mathematics, I believe I can put forth some rather convincing evidence that the agreement you require is quite easy to achieve and, in fact, leads directly to exactly the observed relativistic effects.

I'm all set, go ahead!

Best regards...Cliowa

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

I ‘d like to respond to Octel’s thought experiment …

Since, imo, time and our thought processes to explain it, are immaterial, it would still be in existence. It would only be a temporary ‘now’, and in fact would be stopped as it could not be perceived by any thought process, until we all thaw and regain our senses.

Giving it’s suggestive notion back, while asking ourselves “man, what happened ? ..”


VE

 

[kant]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind. There is no time, all things are just constantly changing? Nothing ever really leaves us... and nothing is ever really born new in terms of energy. So all that we have is all that we have and it never goes anywhere except for changing into differenent physical, dimensional, and material states? So everything is not really passing... only changing. Time will never leave us, we must learn to leave time.

That is some nice crack you are having. Strong stuff! More of that stuff, and you would be morphing into a butterfly, and fly away like in the red bull commercial.


anyways, Whatever the hell you want to called something, it should have some direct connection to other stuff in the universe to be meaningful. Otherwise, you are delusional. Matter needs to change, and if time is needed, than it is meaningful.

 

[AnssiH]

anyways, Whatever the hell you want to called something, it should have some direct connection to other stuff in the universe to be meaningful. Otherwise, you are delusional. Matter needs to change, and if time is needed, than it is meaningful.

The question of course is "is time needed"? The answer is not simple. But, at least, people need to understand that it is wrong to assert that time is a prerequisite of motion (and I hear that far too often).

Well, I don't want to repeat myself so, post #73

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all !,

If time is an illusion, then everything is an illusion.

Part of an explanation I could subscribe to, would say that Time came in existence the moment the Big Bang occurred, both emerging from a pre-existing atemporal eternity .



VE

 

[Philocrat]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind. There is no time, all things are just constantly changing? Nothing ever really leaves us... and nothing is ever really born new in terms of energy. So all that we have is all that we have and it never goes anywhere except for changing into differenent physical, dimensional, and material states? So everything is not really passing... only changing. Time will never leave us, we must learn to leave time.

The problem with the analysis and understanding of time is that, the quality of what results depends entirely on the quality of the pervceiver. If the human sense of time is illusive, as it is being persistently claimed on this thread, then we must question the human perceiver who labours under it. Much as I say this, we must also acknowledge our ability to make useful predictions and estimates about reality in some of the available chances.

However, a fundamental question now arises as to whether the perveiver is scientifically improveable given that our current 'HUMAN LIFE FORM' appears metaphysically fixed. Can it be scientifically re-engineered? Will this improve the perceiver's habitual resolving of visual perspectives
into sensible forms or wholes?

 

[Doctordick]

You obviously feel that there is an advantage when taking change to be more fundamental than time. Why do you think that change is any more fundamental then time? Why would you argue that - as a fundamental - change works better than time?

The issue is quite simple: the concept “time” requires the concept “change” (without change of some type, time could not be defined); however, the concept “change” does not require the concept “time” (in a circumstance not involving time in any way, we can still talk about “change”). The shape of a tree changes as we consider different planer intersections of a tree. Thus is that we must comprehend the concept of change before we can comprehend the concept of time and this not only makes “change” more fundamental than time but has some very important subtle consequences.

In particular, the ordinary public concept of time is that it is a continuous parameter; however, when it comes to facts, you cannot prove that continuity. All you can really prove is that a change has occurred, not that the system passed through the intermediate states. In my personal opinion, this is exactly the issue of Zeno’s paradox; an issue the scientific community has swept under the rug. That is, change could be real, but time (as conceived) is most definitely a mental construct.

But I would still argue, that in science and in "real" life time still plays a dominant role. As I know time is on an equal footing with space, as showed us Einstein, but we still treat time differently from the other spacetime dimensions.

Are you sure the “other space-time dimensions” are real and not a convenient mental construct?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[The Deceiver]

Paradoxes, Paradoxes, Paradoxes, the contradicatories of two or more interpretations a phenomenon that can be argued to exist or to not exist. Motion is impossible because everything is in constant change, this is because motion can be defined as the change of postion in time, space, or dimension. There is an explanation of what Motion is; a paradox. Since Time exists only with motion and change, time does not exist without them. Since Time relies on a paradox to exist, is it not an illusion? Or better yet a shadow, something that exists, but yet, does not exist. However, all of this is just the perception of an individual's mind, some others might have different perceptions; therefore, those are also true. Relativism in a world built on the shoulders of Socrates. *Laughs* A foundations of shadow holds up only ideals.

 

[cliowa]

The issue is quite simple: the concept “time” requires the concept “change” (without change of some type, time could not be defined); however, the concept “change” does not require the concept “time” (in a circumstance not involving time in any way, we can still talk about “change”).

Well, I don't believe it's all that easy. Defining concepts without invoking our way of perceiving seems a little tricky. To me it seems little helpful talking about general issues like the existence of time without making contact with humans. Don't you feel that way? Questions like "Is there a moon if we don't look at it?" and "Are numbers independent of us humans?" seem profound, but must finally be left unanswered, as we close away our measuring instruments while trying to think about them. For the moon, our mental construct, our choice of convenience is that the moon is still there, even if we don't look. That way it's much easier.

Now, "Change" is a notion for which our perception is central. (Because of our perception, we can feel the change of certain things, but not of all. Maybe other beings have a completely different sense of change.) I think that change also requires the concept of time, because even if we look at spatial change (i.e. if we look at one moment in time), we need time to compare different states (light needs to find its way to our eyes, we need to think and so forth).

The shape of a tree changes as we consider different planer intersections of a tree. Thus is that we must comprehend the concept of change before we can comprehend the concept of time and this not only makes “change” more fundamental than time but has some very important subtle consequences.

I don't think that time and change can be so easily disentangled, as I explained above. We need to give either time or change a general background, which is independent of our perception, and then we can talk about the other.

In particular, the ordinary public concept of time is that it is a continuous parameter; however, when it comes to facts, you cannot prove that continuity.

Well, you can't really prove any basic property of our fundamental notions, right? But do we really need to prove it?

All you can really prove is that a change has occurred, not that the system passed through the intermediate states. In my personal opinion, this is exactly the issue of Zeno’s paradox; an issue the scientific community has swept under the rug.

We can (often) measure those intermediate states with a frequency so high, that time appears continuous to us. From there, it's only a matter of convenience to make time continuous. Mathematically it is obviously by far easier to have continuous, non-discrete variables.

That is, change could be real, but time (as conceived) is most definitely a mental construct.

I can't really follow your argumentation there, doctordick. May I ask whe you would consider something real, as opposed to being "only" a human mental construct?

Are you sure the “other space-time dimensions” are real and not a convenient mental construct?

Again, when is something "real" to you? And, of course, I'm not all that sure about virtually everything, but a good mental construct is all we're longing for, true?

Best regards...Cliowa

 

[SF]

Time is not just a "concept", a hallucination.
It's something measurable, something that obeys certain laws.

How do you explain the phenomenon of time dillation as an illusion?

 

[The Deceiver]

Oh, forgot to complete my defination of motion, sorry, I meant to say that motion the change of position and it only exists if there is a starting point, and since everything is in a state of constant change(which involves motion) the original starting point no longer exists and the relation of positon from the starting is also noexistant, so the motion never happened. A paradox and my apologies

 

[kvantti]

How do you explain the phenomenon of time dillation as an illusion?

This is something I would like to know aswel and yet no one gives a satisfying answer.

 

[AnssiH]

Time is not just a "concept", a hallucination.
It's something measurable, something that obeys certain laws.

How do you explain the phenomenon of time dillation as an illusion?

This was not directed to me but...

Time is a measurable quantity only if you interpret some phenomena that way. It is a semantical concept just like motion is a semantical concept. There is no ready way to choose which one is fundamental, but if you choose motion it tends to clear up some ontological issues elsewhere (like in the philosoply of the mind). Don't get locked up to the idea that time must exist to give rise to motion, because we can also claim that time cannot exist without motion. Neither claim can prove anything about the ontology of time/motion.

To answer your question, when we observe, say, the clocks on satellites moving at faster rate than those on earth, we can equally well claim they move through spacetime in such and such manner (as described by GR), or we can build a model where we say the natural phenomena at the satellites moves at faster rate in the environment where the satellite is in (not feeling any inertia) as compared to that on Earth (where the clocks feel inertial/gravitational acceleration. It is also quite trivial to build models that are almost identical to GR as far as observational phenomena goes)

So, it is possible to build such models in great many flavours, but I think as an answer to your question it suffices if you understand that if any physical motion occurs at different speeds in different environments, we can equally well claim it was because of time dimension or because of how observable motion exists metaphysically.

I don't think this issue can be completely cleared, but let it be said it should serve you well if you don't commit to the idea that time must exist metaphysically and consequently motion does not.

 

[AnssiH]

Oh, forgot to complete my defination of motion, sorry, I meant to say that motion the change of position and it only exists if there is a starting point, and since everything is in a state of constant change(which involves motion) the original starting point no longer exists and the relation of positon from the starting is also noexistant, so the motion never happened. A paradox and my apologies

Yeah, which says that motion through empty space is a non-sensical semantical concept (and also about the nature of inertia in different ontologies).

I suspect the above didn't really say anything to most people participating in this thread, and overall it seems like many people are making assertions without having really grasped what we are debating about.

It is also interesting that in forums about AI and in particular the philosophy of AI, most people seem to be able to much more readily understand this issue. This is clearly because they have been forced to spend some time thinking about how a conception of reality is formed by any natural system.

This debate about whether there is metaphysical time is also similar to the debate of whether there is metaphysical space. I hope the latter issue is somewhat easier for people to grasp since everybody knows about Newtonian relativity of motion. And when you grasp that, try to see how our conception of time is also about relative speeds of things;

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1125842&postcount=64

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Cliowa, I have been off seeing sights out of touch with the web. I found your post very rational and I would like to respond. If you will allow me, I will comment on the issues you bring up in a different order.

Well, I don't believe it's all that easy. Defining concepts without invoking our way of perceiving seems a little tricky.

Ah, it certainly is; but it needs to be done anyway otherwise we cannot really understand “perception”. (You should set my use of “understand” to be essentially equivalent to “explain”; if you cannot explain something how can you defend the idea that you understand it?) This fact is the central issue behind my work and is exactly why I consider “an explanation” to be the single most important concept to be defined in a scientifically objective attack on explaining anything. It provides a foundation from which all useful concepts must arise.

Again, when is something "real" to you? And, of course, I'm not all that sure about virtually everything, but a good mental construct is all we're longing for, true?

Yes, I would agree; a good mental construct is all one longs for; but, establishing a “good” mental construct would seem to include settling the question, “what is real and what is illusion?” A serious scientist should certainly have some interest in the question.

However, before one can answer that question, one must define what one means by the word “real”. Since our purpose is to determine if our perceptions are real, the definition certainly cannot depend upon our perceptions. I am sure you are well aware of the “solipsist/realist” controversy; the “brain in the vat” or “Matrix” image of one’s perceptions as opposed to the presumption that “what you sees is what is” proposition. Settling this controversy is not a trivial issue. There is no doubt that “illusions” exist as it is quite easy to show some of our perceptions to be erroneous and there exists no known proof that all of our perceptions are not illusions; however, conventional science pretty well relegates “illusion” to parlor games. The scientific presumption is, “if you can’t prove it’s an illusion, it’s real. This approach is clearly a self serving rationalization lacking objectivity.

The only objective scientific attack is to make sure that your approach does not eliminate either possibility. In an objective analysis, only those definitions which are analytical truths should be used in constructing a scientific explanation of anything.

Questions like "Is there a moon if we don't look at it?" and "Are numbers independent of us humans?" seem profound, but must finally be left unanswered, as we close away our measuring instruments while trying to think about them.

Unanswered yes; ignored no. To ignore possible alternate answers to these questions is to presume facts not evident. If your explanation relies on such a thing to be a fact, the fact of that presumption should be kept available through some mechanism: i.e., that the existence of the moon in such a circumstance is not a fact but a mental construct. In my opinion, that issue is the essence of Zeno’s paradox. As Zeno pointed out, proof of such a contention that the tree existed would require an infinite number of observations and “infinite” means the observation can not be made (no matter how many observations you make, you are not finished).

We can (often) measure those intermediate states with a frequency so high, that time appears continuous to us. From there, it's only a matter of convenience to make time continuous. Mathematically it is obviously by far easier to have continuous, non-discrete variables.

Yes, you are quite correct; a mental model with continuous time is much easier to deal with. All I am saying is that it must be kept in mind that one is making a presumption which can not be experimentally verified. That makes it into a wonderful candidate as an illusion. Certainly it is a known illusion when we go to the movies.

Now, "Change" is a notion for which our perception is central. (Because of our perception, we can feel the change of certain things, but not of all. Maybe other beings have a completely different sense of change.) I think that change also requires the concept of time, because even if we look at spatial change (i.e. if we look at one moment in time), we need time to compare different states (light needs to find its way to our eyes, we need to think and so forth).

What you are saying is that we need a parameter to describe these different observations. It is a leap of faith to believe that parameter “is” a continuous entity. To put it another way, to say that it cannot be a discrete index because it makes the mathematics too difficult is not a reason to set the concept of discreet time as wrong (or “unreal”). On the other hand, my paper on explanation gives an excellent reason for letting time be continuous in any physical explanation; because it is most definitely a very useful mental construct.

Well, you can't really prove any basic property of our fundamental notions, right? But do we really need to prove it?

No we don’t need to prove any of concepts are necessarily true but to assume they are may lead to failure to consider alternates which might yield better alignments with our perceptions. You ought to try a careful reading of my paper on explanation.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[vanesch]

If I may add my 2 cents: there are essentially 2 views on the physical concept of time: dynamical and geometrical. Of course, in all physical theories, there is a parameter called "t" or something, which is used to label different events/states/... and which implies an order. But there's also an "x" coordinate in physical theories. We don't put in doubt that the x-coordinate of space just "is" and that all values of "x" have an ontological existence. We could discover regularities as a function of x, (that is, if we knew some a situation at a certain value of x = x0, maybe we could find laws, or regularities, that allowed us to say something about the situation at x1 = x0 + dx), but we wouldn't consider that as a "dynamical law", but just some "symmetry of nature". However, wrt time, we are inclined to give a higher ontological status to a privileged value of the t-parameter, which we call "now" and that, moreover, this privileged value "changes".
The question is: is this changing of this privileged "time" a physical phenomenon, or is it just our subjective perception which "travels through" the different ontological manifestations of t ?
Before relativity, I don't think that the question was really on the order of the day: "time flows", said Newton. This was the dynamical view.

But GR gives us an entirely geometrical picture, of a 4-dimensional "block universe". Nothing "moves" in there, but there can be defined a geometrical coordinate "t" which has a similar status as x, or y or z. In that way, "all values of t" have an equivalent ontological status, and observers are simply "flattened" in the t-direction, and traveling in its sense: that is, they seem to experience an x,y,z slice, and then another x,y,z slice, and still another x,y,z slice... Nevertheless, all these slices have equivalent ontological status, but just one is picked out by the subjective experience of the observer to "be now".
One could imagine other kinds of observers, flattened in, say, the x-direction, which experience y,z,t at their "now" for x, and then at another "now" for x1 = x + dx and so on. Regularities as I talked about initially, in the x-direction, would then be interpreted by the observer as "dynamical laws" (while that observer would "experience" all t-moments simultaneously), instead of "symmetries in the x-direction". Other observers might experience the entire x,y,z,t "at once" and don't see any motion.
This is the geometrical view on time.

Physics doesn't really give us an answer to this question, because in all things physical, t is just a parameter, which can just as well be a "dynamical time", as a "coordinate". It relates events wrt to an observer. It doesn't say whether this observer is "travelling through" a geometrical time, or whether time is a dynamical phenomenon in itself. GR is highly suggestive of the geometrical view, though.