Where would we be without the structure of time?

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
835
15
Time is everything to us, it structures all we do. Perhaps time is our true "god"? My question is, where would life be without the structure of time? The consistency of days, rotations around the sun, the phases of the moon etc...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Originally posted by Kerrie
Time is everything to us, it structures all we do. Perhaps time is our true "god"? My question is, where would life be without the structure of time? The consistency of days, rotations around the sun, the phases of the moon etc...
Probably in some other dimension, beyond the earthly "physical" plane.
 
  • #3
Dissident Dan
234
2
I don't view time as an object or substance. I just think about how material is arranged one way, and then it is arranged another. I don't know what gives rise to the material interactions that allow us to perceive time.

I think that time could "speed up", and we wouldn't notice, because our perception of time is dependent on the rate of physical interactions that would speed up, so everything would stay in proportion.

I think that not having time is the same as not having change. From this would follow that there would be no life, because life is a system of interaction. My consciousness is none other than matter/energy moving around in my skull. If this interaction stopped, I would cease to be.

As far as how would the absence of regular cycles affect life, well that is a question that, I think, leaves a wild range of speculation. Obviously, life on Earth has evolved in the presence of certain cycles, and a sudden lack of these cycles would be disastrous...I would even dare say apocalyptic.

Could life have evovled without regular and frequent cycles? I think that, at least on a microscopic scale, yes. Aren't there, after all, microorganisms that live hidden away in places mostly unaffected by the cycles of day and year? Actually, even animals and plants (if they exist down there) live on the bottoms of the oceans, where I don't think the cycles that you and I are used to have much sway.
I think that it obvious that life would be very different with different or no cycles.
 
  • #4
Iacchus32
2,312
1
But what is time compared to Eternity? That which always was and that which always will be? The moment is Eternal and Ever-Present. Yet isn't it possible -- as Existentialists claim I believe -- to "live" within the moment?

Hey don't mind me, I probably have no means by which to elaborate on it anyway ... it's just a thought in passing.
 
  • #5
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Kerrie
Time is everything to us, it structures all we do. Perhaps time is our true "god"? My question is, where would life be without the structure of time? The consistency of days, rotations around the sun, the phases of the moon etc...
Why so cautious? Time is everything not only to us, but to anything. Time is fundamental ingredient of Existence. Without it, there would be no interaction, no motion, no measure, no space, no energy, let alone life.

For duration of planck time uncertainty energy conservation can be broken and you can extract energy from nothing, space. Interesting, isn't it - energy is function of space and time. Or maybe time alone?
 
  • #6
drag
Science Advisor
1,096
1
That's a philosophical question...
I have no idea. :wink:
 
  • #7
Eh
746
1
I wouldn't go that far. I can easily concieve of a universe where only some timeless, flat Euclidean space exists. Of course in our universe, space and time are inseperable. It doesn't mean time creates space. In fact, one could just as equally claim that without space, time would have no existence.
 
  • #8
Iacchus32
2,312
1
And yet if we had the ability to transport our essence/being/mind at will, from one end of the universe to next, then there would be no notion of time, just the experience of "being." Actually we already have this ability, we just don't know it.
 
  • #9
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Eh
I wouldn't go that far. I can easily concieve of a universe where only some timeless, flat Euclidean space exists. Of course in our universe, space and time are inseperable. It doesn't mean time creates space. In fact, one could just as equally claim that without space, time would have no existence.
Consider for a moment the following:

A signal is transmitted from point A to point B. A and B are separated by a finite distance. Consider three periods of time:

1) The signal is launched from A.
2) The signal resides in the space between A and B.
3) The signal arrives at B.

If (3) occurs simultaneously with (1) we say that the signal has traveled at infinite velocity. The signal has never resided in the intervening space and therefore there exists no space between A and B. A is virtually at the same point in space as B. For real space to exist between A and B it is necessary that a signal travelling between them be "lost" with reference to both points for a finite period of time.

For real space to exist between two points a signal travelling between them will propagate at a finite velocity. If a signal will not travel between two points, as in the case when v=0, then we can also conclude that there is no link or intervening space between them. We have no means of detecting either an infinite velocity-supporting space or zero-velocity space, so they do not exist as usable concepts. If space cannot accommodate a signal it has no function and no reality. We are left then with the only real space, the home of the real and virtual vacuum. Space which supports a finite, nonzero velocity.

---
I think of implications. Finite velocity of interaction is necessary. That means that arbitrary distance to be detectable must be covered in finite time. Thus, there must exist finite minimum meaningful (subplanck?) time unit, distance unit. Velocity isn't basic concept, its ratio of distance to time. Thus ratio of space to time is what causes holy velocity c, not either separately. Actual value of fundamental units of distance and time is arbitrary and irrelevant, its their ratio that counts. If either changes in local frame, it won't be necessarily detectable. We think c is constant. Then, any change in either unit would be detectable as distortion of space geometry. Time creates space for measuring observer.

Time is the only means by which you can differentiate physical space (euclidean or else), without it you can't have notion of motion over distance. Space can't create time, for time is essence of change, and static timeless space has no capacity to change. Therefore time seems more fundamental to me.
I guess geometry of actual space may be arbitrary, we have no means to detect other than rules of motion and interaction within given space. Like pixels in 3D game can't possibly know their physical location in computer memory, but only rules they obey. Aswell as pixels can't possibly know the real rate of their change and are thus constrained to their virtual time only, we also can't ever know about absolute time, but only our perceived time. Yet, time is unique in that virtual time can't exist without absolute time either.

Imo, space and time are inseparable in any universe. As soon as dynamics of change and interaction exists, its basically time and instantly creates some sort of space.

ps. experience of "being" IS to do with notion of time..
 
  • #10
Eh
746
1
How can you have change without "something" that can change first? Think about it. In the real world, what is time but an evolving gravitational field? Classically speaking, of course.

The flat Euclidean universe I mentioned, would be a place where nothing at all happens. Likewise, I can take the concept of time, and replace it with an extra spatial dimension, and still have a universe. There would be no change, but a static 4D space. So I don't see how change could possibly be more fundemental than space.
 
  • #11
quartodeciman
372
0
an epistemological problem:

how can anyone know that NO change occurs except that some kind of clock runs and the situation remains the same whenever it is checked.

D.C. Where would we be without the structure of time?
nowhere, I guess! Or would 'nowhen' be more apt?
 
  • #12
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Eh
How can you have change without "something" that can change first? Think about it. In the real world, what is time but an evolving gravitational field? Classically speaking, of course.
Yeah, its like 'how can you have energy without "something" that interacts to exchange energy'? What is 'evolving xxx field' without preassumption of concept of time? Without time it ought to be static. What is field, what is force without acceleration? How can acceleration of matter evolve, and then create concept of time? At some point fundamental enough it will get selfreferential anyway and has to be resolved with axioms.

Suppose you have a line of points of space whose only property is reaction time to interaction. How can you distinguish them from spheres of finite size, with finite medium velocity? Finite time gives finite size to dimensionless points. Let the line be made of points with different reaction times, in sorted order. You have a field, where probability of interaction is higher towards points with faster reaction time, or you have preferred direction of interaction, explanation of tendency towards lowest potential. While if you depend on some constant velocity like c to perceive reality and make measurements, then size of points gets perceived larger towards points with 'faster' time. You have acceleration. But observer won't notice size dilation, instead, it will notice space curvature. Points with slow reaction time - inertia.

Imagine that the points can exchange their properties. You have energy. Energy that has capacity to transform energy. With minimal set of mysterious ingredients - time. You have field, that creates curvature of space, basically gravity. You have inertia, thus mass. The only thing you need to let go is uniformity of local time, and you realise that theres nothing you can stick to as given, geometry, space or timeflow. You don't just think of relativistic time dilations, you think about QM level time fluctuations. And differences between matter, space, light and time slip away.

It isn't comforting to imagine time that way. But it isn't easier to imagine any of modern hyper quantums like loops or strings or 12dimensions either.
The flat Euclidean universe I mentioned, would be a place where nothing at all happens. Likewise, I can take the concept of time, and replace it with an extra spatial dimension, and still have a universe. There would be no change, but a static 4D space. So I don't see how change could possibly be more fundemental than space.
Really, you can't. You can shuffle around virtual time, but if you think about it, you'll see that you can't get away without true concept of time. If you imagine universe as a reel of 4D film, or 4th "spatial" dimension, then you still need to explain evolution of it, motion through that 4th dimension or whatnot. And you probably won't as a person accept view that universe is static fully predetermined 4D without any change or willed action possible in it, so why put that possibility on the table?
People rarely think about such things, but there is no concept of closer vs further without concept of time.
 
  • #13
nevagil
41
0
The Timer

Without time we would be late.
Um, no, I guess we would be obviously early.
Wait a minute, there wouldn't be any early or late. And would we still move or would we be fixed in position like a painting, inanimate?
 
  • #14
nevagil
41
0
flat euclidean universe

If nothing moved, could there be spirits?
When we think and dream no one sees any movement or time. There is alittle but not noticable. So if there are spirits, souls, or string-like things that are not usually noticed by us then maybe time doesn't matter to them.
Is gravity needed for time? Maybe not, but if it is then we should ask if there is anything unaffected by gravity, like strings or light etc that may therefore be unaffected by time.
Sorry, I think I did too many ifs.
ONE more if, --- if gravity affects everything then something far out in space virtually untouched by gravity and naturally lightweight itself may be without time for a while. But then what would speed or acceleration have to do with it?
 
  • #15
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by wimms
Yeah, its like 'how can you have energy without "something" that interacts to exchange energy'? What is 'evolving xxx field' without preassumption of concept of time? Without time it ought to be static.

Exactly. That's why it would be absurd to think time is any more fundemental than space. Both are aspects of the same fundemental thing, the gravitational field.

Really, you can't. You can shuffle around virtual time, but if you think about it, you'll see that you can't get away without true concept of time.

I can, because past present and future would then merely be different spatial locations in the 4D universe.

If you imagine universe as a reel of 4D film, or 4th "spatial" dimension, then you still need to explain evolution of it, motion through that 4th dimension or whatnot.

That's the beauty of it, there is no evolution nor motion through it. Instead, all of time is just a single 4D existence. To quote Einstein: It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."

But that's just speculation. Still, it shows we can concieve of a universe without change, where everything would be mere geometry.

And you probably won't as a person accept view that universe is static fully predetermined 4D without any change or willed action possible in it, so why put that possibility on the table?
People rarely think about such things, but there is no concept of closer vs further without concept of time.

That's why such a concept is somewhat unappealing. After all, time is as much part of our intution as space or anything else. But there is no reason time could not be a spatial dimension.
 
  • #16
Eh
746
1


Originally posted by nevagil
Is gravity needed for time?

From what I've read, no. Gravity is the curvature of space-time, but apparently it is possible to describe a flat universe (empty) where no gravity would exist. I don't know enough about GR to say for sure, but it seems that time is the evolution of the geometric relations that define the gravitational field.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Originally posted by wimms
And you probably won't as a person accept view that universe is static fully predetermined 4D without any change or willed action possible in it, so why put that possibility on the table? People rarely think about such things, but there is no concept of closer vs further without concept of time.
How about the concept of "intensity" or, the concept of "relativity," with respect to how closely things are related to each other (not in distance, but in likeness).
 
  • #18
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Eh
wimms: Yeah, its like 'how can you have energy without "something" that interacts to exchange energy'? What is 'evolving xxx field' without preassumption of concept of time? Without time it ought to be static.

Exactly. That's why it would be absurd to think time is any more fundemental than space. Both are aspects of the same fundemental thing, the gravitational field.
Absurd? Why? Space isn't really something real, its percept of observation. Crumpled rope is still perfectly straight for a 1D creature living there. What makes space is relative distances measured by travel time.
Gravitational field isn't fundamental, is it. Thus, both are not just aspects, but ingredients.

wimms: Really, you can't. You can shuffle around virtual time, but if you think about it, you'll see that you can't get away without true concept of time.
I can, because past present and future would then merely be different spatial locations in the 4D universe.
you can't because you have no means to explain states of different 4D locations in terms of evolution. You are forced to accept creationism then. You can't explain our apparent movement along that 4th dimension and inability to turn back. Why don't we exist all simultaneously? What limits speed of c?

That's the beauty of it, there is no evolution nor motion through it. Instead, all of time is just a single 4D existence. To quote Einstein: It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."

But that's just speculation. Still, it shows we can concieve of a universe without change, where everything would be mere geometry.
I'm lost here. How can you conceive moving, living, evolving universe as static 4D geometry? We could probably conceive 4D 'picture' of universe that way, but not a 'movie show'.

That's why such a concept is somewhat unappealing. After all, time is as much part of our intution as space or anything else. But there is no reason time could not be a spatial dimension.
No, what you are doing is to equate virtual time to 4th spatial dimension. Its useful in modeling. You are superimposing infinite number of copies of 3D universes on line of 4th dimension just for sake of explaining time. Relativity of time would need even more. And then, after all that effort, there is still not a single reason why would there exist such monstrum in the order of perfectly sane evolution.

There is damn simple reason why time can't be just spatial dimension: there is no way to explain a single change in this changing universe without a help of god.
 
  • #19
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by Eh
How can you have change without "something" that can change first? Think about it. In the real world, what is time but an evolving gravitational field? Classically speaking, of course.

The flat Euclidean universe I mentioned, would be a place where nothing at all happens. Likewise, I can take the concept of time, and replace it with an extra spatial dimension, and still have a universe. There would be no change, but a static 4D space. So I don't see how change could possibly be more fundemental than space.

First off, Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow for "nothing to happen".

Also, more importantly, the flat Euclidean universe that you mention would have to exist for some period of time, would it not?
 
  • #20
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by wimms
Yeah, its like 'how can you have energy without "something" that interacts to exchange energy'? What is 'evolving xxx field' without preassumption of concept of time? Without time it ought to be static.

Actually, it oughtn't exist at all, without time. After all, for what duration of time would it be static, if there were no time? You cannot be static for zero time can you?

You see, wimms, you have depended on the defining of time as though it were just the measurement of change - when, in fact, it is it's own dimension (according to Relativity), and exists regardless of whether anything actually occurs or not. Basically, changes occur over time, but time exists with or without them.

It would be like saying that space is just the measurement of the distance between objects. According to Relativity, space is a set of dimensions, and exists regardless of whether there are objects to measure between or not.
 
  • #21
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by wimms
Absurd? Why? Space isn't really something real, its percept of observation. Crumpled rope is still perfectly straight for a 1D creature living there. What makes space is relative distances measured by travel time.

So what? You still can't have time without first having the existence of something capable of change. In this universe, the geometric relations that define spacetime (the field) is that something.

Gravitational field isn't fundamental, is it. Thus, both are not just aspects, but ingredients.

Change seems to a property of the field, and you can't have time without it.

you can't because you have no means to explain states of different 4D locations in terms of evolution. You are forced to accept creationism then.

It has nothing to do with creationism. In a 4D timeless universe, past present and future exist in a static world. Nothing changes, because everything already exists.

You can't explain our apparent movement along that 4th dimension and inability to turn back. Why don't we exist all simultaneously? What limits speed of c?

It could be argued that experience only has any meaning if it experience one 3D slice at a time. At any rate, I'm only trying to show that we can just as well conceive of timeless universe.

I'm lost here. How can you conceive moving, living, evolving universe as static 4D geometry? We could probably conceive 4D 'picture' of universe that way, but not a 'movie show'.

There would be no moving or evolving in a timeless universe. It would just be an illusion due to our only being able to see it one 3D piece at a time.

No, what you are doing is to equate virtual time to 4th spatial dimension. Its useful in modeling. You are superimposing infinite number of copies of 3D universes on line of 4th dimension just for sake of explaining time.

No, I'm just showing that it's something we can well imagine.

There is damn simple reason why time can't be just spatial dimension: there is no way to explain a single change in this changing universe without a help of god.

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by Mentat
First off, Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow for "nothing to happen".

Classically, no. But some have attempted to create a quantum version of a 4D timeless existence. Instead of having a 3D evolving wave function, they simply add the extra dimension and call it a timeless 4D wave function. I don't know how this idea actually relates to anything in the world of physics though.

Also, more importantly, the flat Euclidean universe that you mention would have to exist for some period of time, would it not?

No.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, it oughtn't exist at all, without time. After all, for what duration of time would it be static, if there were no time? You cannot be static for zero time can you?
hi Mentat, good point. There are many more, but we can't flood them all together, or it would get too messy. Time is in so many concepts that its hard to ignore its fundamentality.

You see, wimms, you have depended on the defining of time as though it were just the measurement of change - when, in fact, it is it's own dimension (according to Relativity), and exists regardless of whether anything actually occurs or not. Basically, changes occur over time, but time exists with or without them.
please, I was promoting special importance of time. I don't define time as measurement of change, I'd rather think of it as of reason for change. Relativity doesn't deal with fundamentals, but with statistical cosmological scales. You put in purple your view, but what if Where there is no change, there is no perception of time? Besides, timeflow in SR is relative and depends on inertial frame velocity or mass. So its not very correct to say time exists independant from changes.

You cannot exist for zero time can you?
You cannot be static for zero time can you?
You cannot change in zero time can you?
You cannot detect time without change can you?

see, minimal change of time is necessarily finite and nonzero.
How do you define time between changes? Unless you have external reference, you don't. Thus, if you have two systems that go through given changes simultaneously:
A-B-C-D-E-F
a----------g
what is time for each system? They don't know. They can only take mutual reference as measure of time. Does it mean that time is a merely illusory product of change? At first it might seem so, but what was the reason why 1st system went through 6 states while 2nd only through 2 states? You might say that 2nd system was static during universal timeflow. and time dilation? Why does time flow differently?
Is it that there is difference in energy density that 'somehow' changes timeflow, or is it difference in timeflow that can be directly expressed into energy fields? I know its unconventional, but I'm amused that its almost impossible to find ponderings in such direction.

It would be like saying that space is just the measurement of the distance between objects. According to Relativity, space is a set of dimensions, and exists regardless of whether there are objects to measure between or not.
I know. We bow to Relativity in phys forums. Here we think relaxed. The set of dimensions you call space is put in place via constancy of velocity of light c. Its the measure of distance in cosmos, nothing else. Velocity depends on timeflow. Where c varies, Relativity fails, therefore it states that geometry of space varies, not c. it works.
As I've understood, in QM its not so sure that space exists between objects unless you measure.
But my point was different: not that space doesn't exist unless you measure, but that amount of it depends on how you measure. And that depends directly on time. Without time, lightyear and meter are equal. Its time that makes the difference. Thus, time allows you to differentiate space. Without it, there would be no space.
 
  • #24
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Eh
So what? You still can't have time without first having the existence of something capable of change. In this universe, the geometric relations that define spacetime (the field) is that something.
If something as untouchable as 'geometric relations' is something, then I see no reason why one can't define quantums of spacetime whose properties depend on value of time. You could reach same eventual geometric relations of space, on the way explaining few fundamentals.

Its chicken-egg problem anyway. You can't have geometric relations that change shape without concept of time, and you hardly can have concept of time without something that changes. Though, I'd ponder about time itself as the changing stuff.

Change seems to be a property of the field, and you can't have time without it.
Correction: you can't detect time without change. You are insider, so you depend on the time 'to exist' yourself. Act of change itself cannot happen, if there already isn't concept of time. Difference between real time and virtual time.

It has nothing to do with creationism. In a 4D timeless universe, past present and future exist in a static world. Nothing changes, because everything already exists.
I'm amused why you stop at the exciting example. 3D 'shots' differ from each other by minute changes on that 4th dimension. However you try to run, they are called CHANGES. They stare at you every day. 4D static universe or not, the damn universe appeared from somewhere somehow. If its STATIC, then how the hell it appeared as it is? god, whatelse.


It could be argued that experience only has any meaning if it experience one 3D slice at a time. At any rate, I'm only trying to show that we can just as well conceive of timeless universe.
How funny. Static 4D universe, and somehow we need to experience it 1 slice at a time in sequential order. I realise what you are trying, but I have tried, well before, and failed. I can't conceive 4D static universe without inherent concept of time. I think you only on surface believe you can. If you try honestly and hard enough, you'd find alot of problems.

There would be no moving or evolving in a timeless universe. It would just be an illusion due to our only being able to see it one 3D piece at a time.
at a time. And what is IT that 'changes' the one 3D piece that we see next???
And what a tremendous waste it is to have infinite amount of 3D copies of real universe just to offer illusion of time, instead of having one 3D universe and let it evolve.
This makes me imagine chess: first you need to have zillions of boards, all populated by a unique setup of game states, and only then can you play, by looking at single copy of board state at a time, instead of just moving pieces.

wimms: There is damn simple reason why time can't be just spatial dimension: there is no way to explain a single change in this changing universe without a help of god.

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever.
sorry. I thought its obvious that static 4D universe must come from somewhere somehow in such a way that it could offer illusion of evolution.
 
  • #25
Time

hi Mentat, good point. There are many more, but we can't flood them all together, or it would get too messy. Time is in so many concepts that its hard to ignore its fundamentality.

Time can't be fundmental to reality. For time to be fundemental, it must exist everywhere. Yet time ceases at the speed of light.

For those curious, an interesting book is "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. His picture of a timeless reality is similiar to Eh's explanation.
 
  • #26
Time is everything to us, it structures all we do. Perhaps time is our true "god"? My question is, where would life be without the structure of time? The consistency of days, rotations around the sun, the phases of the moon etc...

IMO, time defines our view of physical interactions within our 3D physical universe. When matter experiences cause and effect, we perceive time. Yet time is only loosely tied to our consciousness. Our consciousness easily moves from present to past events and processes future events as they arrive. The consciousness is independent of the present moment. Because the consciousness can freely roam throughout its existence, it functions in a timeless manner completely different from the functioning of purely physical matter.

If time didn't exist, what would be the consequences? First, there could be no beginning or ending-no creation, no birth or death, only eternal existence. All that exists has always existed and will always exist.

Movement would be instantaneous because without time, physical distance would also disappear. Whether movement exists at all is questionable. It is possible that without time, you would exist everywhere simultaneously.

So how would change occur within your consciousness if time did not exist? Change would occur in the same way changes occur in your consciousness now. Your consciousness changes as it comprehends and understand reality. As your comprehension grows, your consciousness grows. For example, dinosaurs existed. Yet if you have never heard of dinosaurs, to you they have never existed. Once you see or have dinosaurs explained to you, suddenly they exist to you. Dinosaurs have always existed and will always exist but are non-existent to you until you comprehend them. Now your consciousness has changed, has grown. It is different. This form of timeless change can occur independent of time since it is based on conscious comprehension rather than physical change.

IMO, these are some of the consequences of existence in a timeless reality such as experienced by light. It would be quite a different form of existence. Yet we know, light doesn't experience time and thus this form of reality does exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by wimms
If something as untouchable as 'geometric relations' is something, then I see no reason why one can't define quantums of spacetime whose properties depend on value of time. You could reach same eventual geometric relations of space, on the way explaining few fundamentals.

Why do you consider geometric relations to be untouchable? That is the only thing that gives the world structure. And while it's possible to concieve of a geometric that doesn't change, it makes no sense to talk about change without something (namely a geometric) existing in the first place.

Its chicken-egg problem anyway. You can't have geometric relations that change shape without concept of time, and you hardly can have concept of time without something that changes. Though, I'd ponder about time itself as the changing stuff.

They don't actually change shape in a timeless universe. As I said, "time" would be an extra spatial dimension.

Correction: you can't detect time without change. You are insider, so you depend on the time 'to exist' yourself. Act of change itself cannot happen, if there already isn't concept of time. Difference between real time and virtual time.

I don't see a difference here. Time is change.

I'm amused why you stop at the exciting example. 3D 'shots' differ from each other by minute changes on that 4th dimension. However you try to run, they are called CHANGES. They stare at you every day. 4D static universe or not, the damn universe appeared from somewhere somehow. If its STATIC, then how the hell it appeared as it is? god, whatelse.

A 4D universe would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. I don't see why a creator would be needed.

How funny. Static 4D universe, and somehow we need to experience it 1 slice at a time in sequential order.

You're just playing with words here.

I realise what you are trying, but I have tried, well before, and failed. I can't conceive 4D static universe without inherent concept of time. I think you only on surface believe you can. If you try honestly and hard enough, you'd find alot of problems.

You can try with a lower dimensional analogy, if it makes it easier. Think of a 2D manifold. Nothing changes. Wow, that was quite easy to imagine.

at a time. And what is IT that 'changes' the one 3D piece that we see next???

As I said, the change aspect would be an illusion. I don't know how one could explain the apparent direction of time, nor would I attempt to promote such a view. I am only trying to illustrate that we could easily imagine a manifold where nothing happens. But we cannot imagine change without something capable of changing in the first place.

And what a tremendous waste it is to have infinite amount of 3D copies of real universe just to offer illusion of time, instead of having one 3D universe and let it evolve.
This makes me imagine chess: first you need to have zillions of boards, all populated by a unique setup of game states, and only then can you play, by looking at single copy of board state at a time, instead of just moving pieces.

Geometry is wasteful. We have an infinite number of lines and then planes in our space to offer the illusion of volume. So what?

sorry. I thought its obvious that static 4D universe must come from somewhere somehow in such a way that it could offer illusion of evolution.

By definition, no.
 
  • #28
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Eh
Why do you consider geometric relations to be untouchable? That is the only thing that gives the world structure. And while it's possible to concieve of a geometric that doesn't change, it makes no sense to talk about change without something (namely a geometric) existing in the first place.
What is 'geometric relations'? Concepts of left/right, closer/further, curved/flat, up/down? Which of geometric stuff is absolute instead of relative alone? If relative, then relative to what? You still postulate some weird stuff that then has relations, be it spatial coordinates or whatever. You create geometry by postulating both its parts and its relations. Of course relations gives world structure eventually. Parts together with relations forms 'explanation'.

Whether geometry is real or illusion can also be argued. Sure, if you see time as 'just change' then you have problem you showed. But time isn't necessarily 'just change of something else', its subject to change itself, its what gives dimensionless points dimensions, and can also be viewed as that which gives world structure. The only difference is that you postulate properties of time quantum instead of geometric parts. Relations remain, although might become different. Q is like what comes first, geometry and then time, or time and then geometry.
Guess, one can view such time quantum as graviton, or loop or string..

They don't actually change shape in a timeless universe. As I said, "time" would be an extra spatial dimension.
To have illusion of time you need motion along it. What is dimension of time for such motion then? If time is equal spatial dimension to any other, then why have we illusion of it as something very special? Please understand my point, I realise that we can do this and that, and it computes. But thats only one facet. To describe time as spatial dimension, we have to postulate some weirdness somewhere else. We can call it 'yet unknown' and feel like being done with it. But it crops up again and again. Down to PoE.

If universe were 4D static, then there would be no reason to dismantle it into similar parts and seek relations that offer evolutionary and causal depenences. You'd need to seek for unique 4D shape of it without any further explanations.
Somehow, although remotely, this idea reminds me solipsism.

wimms: Difference between real time and virtual time
I don't see a difference here. Time is change.
If it was so simple. Aswell one could say that Energy is change. Time is not just change. If states between changes didn't exist for some finite (arbitrary) time, then ALL and ANY changes must occur at infinite velocity. There would be no way to distinguish events in time-ordered way. They would have to be perceived as simultaneous. We do not perceive that, so there is observation that velocity of events is finite, and pretty low (as is speed of light), and that we move through 4th dimension, so that you need to impose limits onto simultaneity, and somehow explain why frame A changes states from a..h, while frame B changed only once, explain essence of relative timeflow.

Why are there finite number of state changes in A for 'duration' of single state of B? We say that frame B was 'static' while frame A changed. Frames are equal in all respects. Why? Because observer in the frame cannot detect 'static' state, he can detect only changes. Static state is to say time pauses. Observer can't detect pause in timeflow or even changes in timeflow rate, for him timeflow would always be uniform. He can only become aware of timeflow changes by refering to external events.
What can in principle limit velocity to specific universal max in timeless universe? Only some postulate.

Attempt to explain time as 4th spatial dimension is nothing else but taking specific perspective to 'virtual time'. Its okay, but it isn't enough. Motion through it needs 'real time' for 'illusion' to occur at all. Existence of 4D in its specific shape needs some 'real time' as a glue. Without it there is no way to explain why its in this specific shape and not completely uncomprehendable.

A 4D universe would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. I don't see why a creator would be needed.
This is pure postulate, unjustified. If only to stop moaning about lack of explanation why and how it is as it is. This is no better than postulating god did it. There is even no meaning in 'simply be' without concept of time.

wimms: Static 4D and we experience it 1 slice at a time
You're just playing with words here.
No, I'm trying to hint that you are simply ignoring this aspect of existence. We are not in future and past concurrently. We exist in one spatial point. And we move.

You can try with a lower dimensional analogy, if it makes it easier. Think of a 2D manifold. Nothing changes. Wow, that was quite easy to imagine.
You didn't understand. I can imagine static manifold. What I can't do is getting from static universe to illusion of dynamic universe. Something, somewhere, somehow, has to be dynamic. Without it, there can be no illusion, no realisation of existence, nothing.

As I said, the change aspect would be an illusion. I don't know how one could explain the apparent direction of time, nor would I attempt to promote such a view. I am only trying to illustrate that we could easily imagine a manifold where nothing happens. But we cannot imagine change without something capable of changing in the first place.
We can imagine anything. What we can't do easily is to justify that.

Geometry is wasteful. We have an infinite number of lines and then planes in our space to offer the illusion of volume. So what?
Are you saying that 3D spacetime is continuum? Do you mean that planck scales don't limit our space to finite number of lines and planes? And function of what is planck scale? Function of planck time. Think about it.
 
  • #29
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by Eh
Classically, no. But some have attempted to create a quantum version of a 4D timeless existence. Instead of having a 3D evolving wave function, they simply add the extra dimension and call it a timeless 4D wave function. I don't know how this idea actually relates to anything in the world of physics though.

Very interesting. I've never heard anything like this before, and don't really understand it, but very intersting :smile:.

No.

No, it doesn't exist for any period of time? Then it never exists? Remember, if you posit that it exists at all, even for a moment, you necessitate time. However, if doesn't exist, not even for an instant, then it just doesn't exist.
 
  • #30
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by wimms
hi Mentat, good point. There are many more, but we can't flood them all together, or it would get too messy. Time is in so many concepts that its hard to ignore its fundamentality.

Very true.

please, I was promoting special importance of time. I don't define time as measurement of change, I'd rather think of it as of reason for change. Relativity doesn't deal with fundamentals, but with statistical cosmological scales. You put in purple your view, but what if Where there is no change, there is no perception of time? Besides, timeflow in SR is relative and depends on inertial frame velocity or mass.

So the "flow" of time is dependent on change. This is obviously true. It is also obvious (as you pointed out) that there can be no "perception" of time without change. But there is still time, the dimension. Now, of course, Kerrie's philosophical question has only to do with our perception of time, but I was addressing Eh's postulation of flat Euclidean space with no time.

So its not very correct to say time exists independant from changes.

You mean it's not very correct to say perception of time exist independent of change, right?

You cannot exist for zero time can you?
You cannot be static for zero time can you?
You cannot change in zero time can you?
You cannot detect time without change can you?

No. No. No. And no. I especially appreciate the wording of that last one, as it has to do with our perception. After all, just because we can imagine (percieve in our minds) a Universe and then say that it is without time (because we don't "observe" change), we must realize that we are percieving it for a certain amount of time.

see, minimal change of time is necessarily finite and nonzero.
How do you define time between changes? Unless you have external reference, you don't. Thus, if you have two systems that go through given changes simultaneously:
A-B-C-D-E-F
a----------g
what is time for each system? They don't know. They can only take mutual reference as measure of time. Does it mean that time is a merely illusory product of change? At first it might seem so, but what was the reason why 1st system went through 6 states while 2nd only through 2 states? You might say that 2nd system was static during universal timeflow. and time dilation? Why does time flow differently?

Is it that there is difference in energy density that 'somehow' changes timeflow, or is it difference in timeflow that can be directly expressed into energy fields? I know its unconventional, but I'm amused that its almost impossible to find ponderings in such direction.

I don't really understand what you are getting at. Yes timeflow is changed by energy, according to Relativity, but I don't get what you were saying about the time incriment between instantaneous occurances A-G. Could you expound on that please?

I know. We bow to Relativity in phys forums. Here we think relaxed. The set of dimensions you call space is put in place via constancy of velocity of light c. Its the measure of distance in cosmos, nothing else.

Whoah, stop right there. Space is not just a measure of distance, any more than time is just a measure of changes. After all, space and time (spacetime) warp and bend and are "curved" by the presence of matter/energy. This is surely not just a form of "measurement".

Velocity depends on timeflow. Where c varies, Relativity fails, therefore it states that geometry of space varies, not c. it works.
As I've understood, in QM its not so sure that space exists between objects unless you measure.
But my point was different: not that space doesn't exist unless you measure, but that amount of it depends on how you measure. And that depends directly on time. Without time, lightyear and meter are equal. Its time that makes the difference. Thus, time allows you to differentiate space. Without it, there would be no space.

No, without it there would be no measurement of space. Also, a lightyear is a measurement of a qualitatively different order than a meter. A meter doesn't require the use of c in it's calculation. A lightyear, OTOH, is directly dependent on it, for obvious reasons. So you see, while no measurement of space can be carried out if there's not time to do it in, not all measurements of space are based on c (or on time in general). Moreover, our inability to measure space (or time for that matter) would not disqualify their existence.
 
  • #31
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by Jagger2003
IMO, time defines our view of physical interactions within our 3D physical universe. When matter experiences cause and effect, we perceive time. Yet time is only loosely tied to our consciousness. Our consciousness easily moves from present to past events and processes future events as they arrive. The consciousness is independent of the present moment. Because the consciousness can freely roam throughout its existence, it functions in a timeless manner completely different from the functioning of purely physical matter.

You're talking about memory, right? Memory exists in the present, though, otherwise you wouldn't be "thinking" now, you would have already thought it, or not have thought of it yet. In other words, if memory is our consciousness traveling back in time to the past, then my thinking about the early twentieth century should already have happened (in the past), and I wouldn't be thinking about it now (in the present).
 
  • #32
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Originally posted by Mentat
You're talking about memory, right? Memory exists in the present, though, otherwise you wouldn't be "thinking" now, you would have already thought it, or not have thought of it yet. In other words, if memory is our consciousness traveling back in time to the past, then my thinking about the early twentieth century should already have happened (in the past), and I wouldn't be thinking about it now (in the present).
Can't you just become aware of "yourself" in the moment? This is what gives rise to your identity and, consciousness.

No, consciousness (i.e., you, your identity) is what accesses your memory.
 
  • #33
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Can't you just become aware of "yourself" in the moment? This is what gives rise to your identity and, consciousness.

No, consciousness (i.e., you, your identity) is what accesses your memory.

Yeah, but if you access that memory now, then it all makes sense, but if you have already accessed it (in the past) then you are not doing it now.
 
  • #34
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Originally posted by Mentat
Yeah, but if you access that memory now, then it all makes sense, but if you have already accessed it (in the past) then you are not doing it now.
The memory we're speaking about here is your own personal experience, which you can access at any time, i.e., "in the present." Or, if you prefer, you don't have to "consciously" dwell on the past, but consider something that might occur in the future, as I think Jagger2003 was trying to explain.
 
  • #35
Mentat
3,890
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The memory we're speaking about here is your own personal experience, which you can access at any time, i.e., "in the present." Or, if you prefer, you don't have to "consciously" dwell on the past, but consider something that might occur in the future, as I think Jagger2003 was trying to explain.

Well, sure, I could consider what might happen in the future, but I can't accurately predict it, proving that my speculation did not take my consciousness into the future at all.
 

Suggested for: Where would we be without the structure of time?

Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
Top