The forum discussion centers on the philosophical and theoretical implications of time, questioning its existence and nature. Participants argue that time is a measurement of change rather than a physical entity, with references to theories in physics, including those by Sean Carroll. The conversation highlights the relationship between consciousness and the perception of time, suggesting that time may be a construct shaped by human experience. The discussion concludes that while time is a useful model for understanding the universe, its true nature remains elusive and complex.
PREREQUISITESPhilosophers, physicists, and anyone interested in the nature of time, consciousness, and their implications in understanding reality.
Homesick345 said:Time as our psychological interpretation of events, whether they occur sequentially or all at once. Could time be our mind's way to arrange things, regardless of how they exist or occur really?
Drakkith said:Except that the movements/changes/transformations don't all occur at once. They take time.
We measure time through change and movement but this does not mean we do not experience it.
SHISHKABOB said:are you suggesting that things that are observed to happen in one order could "really" happen in some other order? What would "really" be "reality" in that case?
junjunjun233 said:Take away the concept of time and all we have are observations that are stored in our memory projected as experiences. We still don't have the technology to reached an absolute based starting point for time on a micro level. Well, we do have quantum clock (aluminum ion) near to a zero point precision but unless we can narrow it down to zero vibration state. And it is unlikely to find zero resistant particle.
A bit fuzzy. but i don't consider the existence of time because it is always relative to the movement, mass and state we are in. We can only measure that state and called it time.
Experience is how the brain perceived of the leaps from one state to another and eventually stored as information in the brain as memory.
Drakkith said:Define an "absolute based starting point for time" and "zero resistant particle".
The existence of time is the only way two objects can occupy the same points in space. They do it at different times.
I don't see how this is related to time in any way. Whether we are here to experience it or not the universe has time.
junjunjun233 said:Zero point energy in a vacuum. And maybe it has to do with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics that particles can't be stop completely. However, some behavior of specific particles interactions came close such as bosons given even number of electrons,protons and neutrons. When subjected to low temperature, bosons become a Bose-einstein condensate, in which a ground state occurs and the closest you can get to stopping their motion. However, there is always a fermion in each quantum state and obeys pauli excl principle that instead of going through a ground state, they fill all the lowest states in the system. Perhaps "Time" doesn't exist as objective but subjective. I might be wrong. Ill remain agnostic about it.
Drakkith said:I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
junjunjun233 said:It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.
Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.
This doesn't make any sense at all to me.junjunjun233 said:It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.
Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.
Chalnoth said:This doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Yeah.Drakkith said:A large part of this thread simply doesn't make any sense.
Chalnoth said:Yeah.
But in this case, equating entropy with time makes no sense whatsoever of a reversible adiabatic processes where entropy is conserved, but the system nonetheless changes.
junjunjun233 said:Adiabatic, reversible adiabatic, isentropic flow; everything that involve movements/changes has to do with time. And we fill each gaps with time.
Time only appears in the equation of physics but no one is sure about it.
Time is motion! You cannot have motion without time!junjunjun233 said:It simply means that time might not exist, just entropy. Or Time is the cause for entropy.
Motion replaces time and time no longer exist. We live in motion not time.
As I said earlier, time is a model that is useful for making sense out of our universe. It is most easily understood in physics as being a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions we are more familiar with.junjunjun233 said:How do you make sense of time then?
Chalnoth said:As I said earlier, time is a model that is useful for making sense out of our universe. It is most easily understood in physics as being a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions we are more familiar with.
tanzanos said:Time is motion! You cannot have motion without time!
That's the only real way to understand time. When you try to put the concept into colloquial words, you necessarily lose information.junjunjun233 said:I understand the importance of time in our equation to make a model of everything we need to measure in reality.
Neither of these make any sense at all to me. Time doesn't cause anything to move (or not move). And how is it that time can be a description that has nothing to do with time?junjunjun233 said:Either;
Time is the mechanism that causes everything to move (4th dimension) Or, Time is simply a description of that state in which it has nothing to do with time.
Chalnoth said:That's the only real way to understand time. When you try to put the concept into colloquial words, you necessarily lose information.
Neither of these make any sense at all to me. Time doesn't cause anything to move (or not move). And how is it that time can be a description that has nothing to do with time?
junjunjun233 said:Actually, it can be the other way around. You cannot have time without motion. Since motion always exists.
junjunjun233 said:I always thought that time is non physical and besides mathematically it is not needed, and to make sense of reality, we might as well make abstraction of time in our interpretation of Nature.
Somehow, in the case for matter, whatever the conditions, it is always set in motion for whatever reason that's why i came to that conclusion that time might be a separate physical entity that interacts with matter rather than non physical which is very unlikely.
Maybe I am just confused and try to make sense in a different way.
The only way to understand reality at a deep level is through mathematics.junjunjun233 said:I always thought that time is non physical and besides mathematically it is not needed, and to make sense of reality, we might as well make abstraction of time in our interpretation of Nature.
Chalnoth said:The only way to understand reality at a deep level is through mathematics.
Taking a famous scientist out of context is quote mining. It's not only lying, it's putting the lie in somebody else's mouth. It's disgusting.Homesick345 said:"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
Chalnoth said:Taking a famous scientist out of context is quote mining. It's not only lying, it's putting the lie in somebody else's mouth. It's disgusting.
Homesick345 said:mmm ...I wasn't lying, not even trying to put anything out of context (don't even know what is the right context, & I don't even understand Einstein quote fully, except that it deals with math application to reality, which was what you mentionned)- however a violent reaction of this sort, (that includes name-calling) is deeply disturbing. Why are you so angry?