Where would we be without the structure of time?

[Eh]

Time has no definition without change. So no, a static universe would not exist for any length of time, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Why? GR is the only theory of space and time we've got, and it works. We don't need to bring up any poorly defined notions, as all it will do it complicate things.

Well, I'm not trying to dispute GR, obviously. GR is model that works. Hope that's enough to relax you from trying to defend it. But, it has limits. These limits are at fundamental Planck levels. Something there must pop up that would lead to GR. There are many ways probably. Scientists are 'working on it'. I'm not one, so I'm not making science here, I'm doing thought exercise. If you are scientist and want to bring me down, its obvious that you could, so that's useless as a goal. I'm trying to think below GR. I have no hopes in that I have anything new, no. I just try to ponder from different perspective instead of just stay with one model. It helps to comprehend.

If they (field lines) are fundemental, they are not made of anything. The geometric extent is a property that defines them.

This is okay for model. But I'm not happy with it, and I think they are not fundamental, but 'made of' something. Look, you define 'field lines' - parts, define their properties - geometric extent, and then define their relations. okay. But then, without notice, you go ahead and implicitly define time, hiding behing defining it as 'change' of relations. You define actually your parts to already include concept of time, and then only show that time as we perceive it needs no more independant time concept. Its redundant. Yes, in this way it is redundant, but you close your eyes on fact that you introduced time anyway, without actually defining it. You introduced it by defining that properties can change. We use dT and calculate changes, at the same time saying that those changes are reason for dT. Isnt it circular?

Yes its arbitrary, but irrelevant to whether or not time can exist without them. GR says no.

GR says you don't need independant time to calculate anything GR has to say. Thats different. GR deals with relativity of time, not its essence. If you like, constancy of c is what defines independant time, in a twisted way.

Yes, true. But I am basing it on GR, a theory of time that is well defined and gets results. I don't see any other definition of time that is as coherent.

There is no need to dispute GR to think about something else. I have no idea if something else can lead to coherence as you mean it, but we still want to ponder about it.
Say, there should be possible to express GR in different form, so that its relations stay about same, but initial grounds and understanding changes.

Again, I'm just going by what works - GR. No need to fix what isn't broken.

Not fix (its complete), but explain why its so. Go beyond initial definitions.

Since we don't need any independent time to explain our universe, why use it at all? Worse yet, I haven't seen any kind of absolute time defined. What is time if not change? Can you define it?

Why? you don't do without it, you can just ignore it. No, I think I can't exhaustively define it. Perhaps only some of its properties. Note that I'm not talking about absolute time reference! I'm talking about distinction between detectable time by means of measuring change, and independant intrinsic time as enabler for change. Neither is absolute nor unchanging.

Maybe simplest would be to distinguish between 'change' and 'duration', with 'duration' being time and 'change' being timeless instant of interaction. When you combine them together, you get 'duration of change' and can drop notion of static states, or have 'duration of static state' included.

As I also said, change seems to be a fundamental property of the field. But you can't have change without the field in the first place, and it would be absurd to claim it is more fundemental.

What you effectively say is that independant time is fundamental property of the field, and that we perceive it is as our counted time through detecting changes in the field. What you don't want to say is that change seems to take nonzero time duration. dT > 0. If it weren't so, then for any event X there could occur infinitely long event chain Y. Whats there to limit the rate difference? Between any 2 points you can fit infinite number of points. To have finite amount of them, they need to have size.

But that doesn't matter if you say time exists independently of change anyway.

Oh, it does. It allows you to dismantle field lines into points and timeunits. There must be minimum meaningful finite unit of time, as zero time has no sense. Therefore you have (anthropic?) explanation of fact of fundamental Planck unit of time, and you can use it as means to quantify the field into spacetime quantums. Now you have explicit definition of spacetime quantums that seems to have fundamental property of change. Further, you can think of what can change, and ask if the fundamental property of time itself could be the only thing to change. The very property that gives meaning to quantified extent, velocity and change.
If you give up uniform geometry and make it depend on inherent time, you get quite some stuff, like fields, energy, inertia. Geometry is unavoidable anyway, but its illusion would heavily depend on time.

do you mean that conscious mind is the only fool who has the illusion of time and existence?
Yes.

Thats very interesting. Can you expand? I thought entropy and lowest-energy direction are objective evidence of time.

Physicists would like to see evidence that time has independent existence from events. What is this evidence you have in mind?

Its not a matter of direct evidence, our only means to measure time is by counting events.
a) Events occur for finite duration of time. b) States between events persist for finite duration of time. One of these must be true.
speed of light is finite for some good reason.

But fact that similar chain of changes can flow at differing rates shows that change alone is not real essence of time.
Err, why?

Because rates of change can differ by finite factor? Heat doesn't change timeflow?

'just change' is not correct definition of time, since change isn't involved in all forms of it.
Name one example.

Duration for which state doesn't change. Thats not something you can detect, but you can have evidence of it indirectly. Quantum fluctuations of vacuum do not occur at infinite rate, thus vacuum has static states for nonzero duration.

In geometry, cubes do contain an infinite amount of squares,

Infinite times zero is zero. I mean, in reality, there must be finite fundamental size to be possible to create cube.

You would have to actual define time in the first place, for it even to be a concept.

Time is too weird to be defined easily. Maybe that's why we try to get away without it. Time can't come alone, it'd lead to other concepts. We could try to define it if you could let GR be for awhile.

Time has no definition without change. So no, a static universe would not exist for any length of time, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

Thats one result of defining time as change alone. Obviously, there is no measure of time without change, thus no length to talk about. This doesn't mean zero time though. I think math term infinity fits here well. Pathetically low limits of values.
Better tell what is time when one point in such static space goes through infinite changes. And some other point goes through half that many changes :) What is it that allows or forbids for factor of 2 of change rate difference?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Time has no definition without change. So no, a static universe would not exist for any length of time, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.

You keep saying that, but you haven't proven it. Time does indeed have definition without change: It is a dimension.

Space would have no "meaning" or "measurable quality" without the presence of some matter, but it still exists, even in an empty Universe where there is no matter.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, I'm not trying to dispute GR, obviously. GR is model that works. Hope that's enough to relax you from trying to defend it. But, it has limits. These limits are at fundamental Planck levels.

Yes. But I don't know of any attempts at quantum gravity that treat time as anything but an evolving set of relations. Maybe you're thinking of discrete space and time, but in such case you've merely got discrete events, and still no independent existence for time.

This is okay for model. But I'm not happy with it, and I think they are not fundamental, but 'made of' something. Look, you define 'field lines' - parts, define their properties - geometric extent, and then define their relations. okay. But then, without notice, you go ahead and implicitly define time, hiding behing defining it as 'change' of relations. You define actually your parts to already include concept of time, and then only show that time as we perceive it needs no more independant time concept.

As I said, "change" seems to be a property of the field (or loops, whatever you want to call fundemental). But the loops or lines do not need it for definition, even if they are inseperable in the real world.

Its redundant. Yes, in this way it is redundant, but you close your eyes on fact that you introduced time anyway, without actually defining it. You introduced it by defining that properties can change. We use dT and calculate changes, at the same time saying that those changes are reason for dT. Isnt it circular?

I'm not sure I follow you. How is defining time as change in geometry circular?

GR says you don't need independant time to calculate anything GR has to say. Thats different. GR deals with relativity of time, not its essence. If you like, constancy of c is what defines independant time, in a twisted way.

The whole point is that GR leaves independent time (and space) redundant. Much like space, I have never seen a logical reason why time must have any separate existence, so such notions might as well be discarded when we've got a working model. In this case, I haven't seen any independent time defined at all.

Maybe simplest would be to distinguish between 'change' and 'duration', with 'duration' being time and 'change' being timeless instant of interaction. When you combine them together, you get 'duration of change' and can drop notion of static states, or have 'duration of static state' included.

I think I see where the confusion is coming from. This is the same problem you'll find as with continuous space. With continuous time, it is assumed any given event is itself made of a collection of smaller events. Much like how you can always divide any volume into smaller volumes infinitely, you can also break any arbitrary event into a collection of smaller events. This is one place where yucky infinities show up.

Maybe it would help if a theory of discrete spacetime is found. In such a case, I suppose you could have a smallest unit of time possible. In such a case, all other events would be a large but finite collection of these primordial events. I don't think it would make sense to ask about what it fundementally means for "how long" a smallest amount of time lasts for, since duration would be entirely defined by the set of discrete events. In other words, the shortest unit of time would be just that - and could not be broken down into smaller times. Is that at least what you had in mind?

Thats very interesting. Can you expand? I thought entropy and lowest-energy direction are objective evidence of time.

Without conscious beings experiencing the illusion of progression of A to B, who would notice entropy?

Sorry I haven't been quick to respond, as other events had me tied up.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
You keep saying that, but you haven't proven it. Time does indeed have definition without change: It is a dimension.

Until you define it as a temporal dimension, as opposed to spatial. A temporal location has no definition without relation to events, which of course depend on change.

Space would have no "meaning" or "measurable quality" without the presence of some matter, but it still exists, even in an empty Universe where there is no matter.

Even space in a vacuum universe is relational, as it would be defined by the relations of loops and knots.

 

[Kerrie]

wow, this thread went places i never expected...

my original question was aimed more at how our human life would be affected if the Earth didn't rotate or didn't orbit the sun suddenly...how would we define a day, a week, a month? everything we do is structured ultimately by time, as there is no "eternity" that we know truthfully because of the cycles of time...

 

[wimms]

Kerrie, sorry, if you see it as offtopic, maybe you can split the thread, but I'd really like to continue discussion in this direction.

Originally posted by Eh
Yes. But I don't know of any attempts at quantum gravity that treat time as anything but an evolving set of relations. Maybe you're thinking of discrete space and time, but in such case you've merely got discrete events, and still no independent existence for time.

It occurred to me, that when speaking of space, we first define 3D infinite continuum of axes, and then define measures of distance along them. Then we deal with set of relations between those measures of distance, that are necessarily finite (>0). But with time, we deal only with relations of measures, without speaking about what we really measure. But somehow, we DO measure something finite. Because we can compare it.

Yes, I am thinking about discrete space and time. And I'm thinking about what is meaning of a discrete event without independant concept of time. dX/dT, if dT is 0 this leads to infinite (or fault). For discrete change, there must be finite time.

As I said, "change" seems to be a property of the field (or loops, whatever you want to call fundemental). But the loops or lines do not need it for definition, even if they are inseperable in the real world.

Look, loops or lines do not need time for definition, IF they do not posess property of "change". Time as concept behind change is what makes them applicable to real world. In any formula, you introduce time when you use "for n=1..X evaluate F(n)"

I'm not sure I follow you. How is defining time as change in geometry circular?

We say dX/dT=1. When asked, what is T, we answer, it is change dT=dX. When asked how fast X changes, we say at rate of dX/dT. When asked what is X, we easily say its distance, energy, etc. When asked what is T, we don't have answer, only fud. We measure rate of change dX in terms of dX. Its always 1, ie cannot change.

The whole point is that GR leaves independent time (and space) redundant. Much like space, I have never seen a logical reason why time must have any separate existence, so such notions might as well be discarded when we've got a working model. In this case, I haven't seen any independent time defined at all.

Yes, and that's precisely why I wanted to leave GR alone for awhile. GR does not answer why c is finite and constant. It only postulates it and then uses as a glue to fit all timeless geometry together.

I think I see where the confusion is coming from. This is the same problem you'll find as with continuous space. With continuous time, it is assumed any given event is itself made of a collection of smaller events. Much like how you can always divide any volume into smaller volumes infinitely, you can also break any arbitrary event into a collection of smaller events.

I know. I'm not about divisibility. With continuous space, you don't attribute meaning of distance to 0. You can have meaningful distance only if it is above zero. And when it is above zero, you can always divide it into smaller pieces infintely. And I'm about precisely that. I don't care how divisible time is, but only about the fact that to be divisible there has to be something nonzero first. If you want to tell me that uniform continuous change in anything is measure of time, then you have to admit that variations of change rate are basically variations of timerate and any sinusoidal vibration is variation of time. Then ask what is justification to use uniform timeflow to measure varying changes? Then all changes must be uniform and equal.

Maybe it would help if a theory of discrete spacetime is found. In such a case, I suppose you could have a smallest unit of time possible. In such a case, all other events would be a large but finite collection of these primordial events. I don't think it would make sense to ask about what it fundementally means for "how long" a smallest amount of time lasts for, since duration would be entirely defined by the set of discrete events. In other words, the shortest unit of time would be just that - and could not be broken down into smaller times. Is that at least what you had in mind?

Yes, that's exactly the direction I had in mind! But, I have to makes few corrections. It is true that it makes no sense to ask for the value of the duration of primordial time unit. It is irrelevant. We are beings dependant on it and can only measure relative durations of events. For that we need the primordial unit to be whatever but it must be finite. Only then can we compare relative rates of otherwise in all sense identical chains of events. Only then can different by a finite measure relative timeflow rates exist.

Now, I go further and speculate that this primordial time unit is NOT constant, but subject to change locally itself. I even dare to think that it is in fact the ONLY thing that has capacity to change. I want you to ponder that if dX were const in dX/dT=1, then variable dT is equivalent to uniform time and variable dX, or change. All our models rely on uniform flow of time locally. I undermine this assumption and think about fluctuating local primordial timeflow that only averages out due to formations of more complex structures that have other levels of interactions.

Imo it is impossible to detect directly fluctuations of timeunit, as it is the very unit that defines rates of events that try to measure it. Therefore, every attempt to measure it would produce constant and uniform timeflow. But, its fluctuations would manifest as uncertainty in spatial properties and energy.

Further, think about spatial distances in real world. The only way to sense them is to travel them (light). Distance is a measure of traveltime. Travel is a series of interactions, chain of changes. If chain of changes occurs at variable rate, then velocity varies. But, if the only means to measure rate is change, there is no means to detect variations in velocity either (const c). The only means to notice anything is by comparing different chains of events (spatial directions) that might produce different traveltimes (space curvature).

Imagine that rate of change was infinite. Then any finite distance would be covered by infinite velocity. But as we can't know rate of change, we take as a measure something universal, c. Then, if rate of change were infinite, any distance would be zero. Therefore, finite primordial time unit also defines meaning for spatial distance by setting limit to change rate that manifests as finite velocity of c.

Now, conglomerate of such primordial time units 'upon' which all events occur forms inertial frame, where all laws of physics hold equally with any other frame, independant of value of their average primordial timeunits. Thus, differing frames can have differing average timeflow. But when chain of changes crosses the frames, velocity of it varies, but each frame measures it at same value (c is same for any inertial frame)

Further, primordial time unit gives obvious explanation to inertia as a limit to a rate of change. From there, mass is effectively measure of that inability, or relative value of primordial time unit. From this follows that change in primordial time unit itself is basically energic interaction. Value of primordial time unit is effectively energy.

I believe that same sort of relations are encoded into claim that energy "can change" and somehow curve spacetime, but there stress is put onto other things that make it difficult to explain things like c, inertia, energy while here they fall out naturally. The only difference is focus, allowing time independant existence.

Vacuum is then sea of nearly equal primordial units with unspecified value. Vacuum interactions produce no effects. But vacuum is subject to change by complex objects whose time rate differs. Matter forms concentric fields of time units where center is measure of highest mass/energy and slowest change rate. Matter evaporates into the vacuum, much like sun evaporates radiation, creating extending fields of varying timeflow, which is basically curvature of empty space.

Single change step through primordial time units with differing values is equivalent to different spatial extents. spherical time field is "bigger inside than outside". Or geometry of space isn't any given either, its also completely determined by timeflow in it. In extreme even that far that nice uniform 3D is merely illusion.

imho quite some stuff to work with.

 

[Kerrie]

wimms, i am going to let the topic go...there is so much to read now, and i am assuming that you are talking about the structure of time and how it affects us...

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms

It occurred to me, that when speaking of space, we first define 3D infinite continuum of axes, and then define measures of distance along them. Then we deal with set of relations between those measures of distance, that are necessarily finite (>0). But with time, we deal only with relations of measures, without speaking about what we really measure. But somehow, we DO measure something finite. Because we can compare it.

We deal with the relations of events. Like I said, in continuous time, an event is separated by a serious of events, which themselves can be broken into smaller events continuously.

Yes, I am thinking about discrete space and time. And I'm thinking about what is meaning of a discrete event without independant concept of time. dX/dT, if dT is 0 this leads to infinite (or fault). For discrete change, there must be finite time.

Welcome to the world of mathematical points.

Look, loops or lines do not need time for definition, IF they do not posess property of "change". Time as concept behind change is what makes them applicable to real world. In any formula, you introduce time when you use "for n=1..X evaluate F(n)"

But you haven't defined time as anything beyond change, and so aren't really arguing anything. Like I said, loops do seem to have change as a fundamental property, and that seems to be enough to give us a working definition of time.

We say dX/dT=1. When asked, what is T, we answer, it is change dT=dX. When asked how fast X changes, we say at rate of dX/dT. When asked what is X, we easily say its distance, energy, etc. When asked what is T, we don't have answer, only fud. We measure rate of change dX in terms of dX. Its always 1, ie cannot change.

That doesn't give a definition of time, and as such is hardly an example of "change" being a circular definition itself. When we ask how fast something changes, we are always comparing it to our reference frame. Whether you want to take that notion and break time into discrete events that can vary, or a continuum is another story.

Yes, and that's precisely why I wanted to leave GR alone for awhile. GR does not answer why c is finite and constant. It only postulates it and then uses as a glue to fit all timeless geometry together.

For c, I think you want electromagnetism.

I know. I'm not about divisibility. With continuous space, you don't attribute meaning of distance to 0. You can have meaningful distance only if it is above zero. And when it is above zero, you can always divide it into smaller pieces infintely. And I'm about precisely that. I don't care how divisible time is, but only about the fact that to be divisible there has to be something nonzero first.

I understand exactly what you're saying, and this is similar to continuous space in geometry. Take a line, and you can divide it into an infinite number of smaller lines. But the line itself is ultimately an infinite collection of points, which themselves are zero dimensional. In fact, points have no existence without the line. Either a line or point without the continuum have no existence. You must have the infinity of the line in the first place, in order to go anywhere else. That's just the problem with continuous space.

The same will apply to continuous time.

Yes, that's exactly the direction I had in mind! But, I have to makes few corrections. It is true that it makes no sense to ask for the value of the duration of primordial time unit. It is irrelevant. We are beings dependant on it and can only measure relative durations of events. For that we need the primordial unit to be whatever but it must be finite.

Finite value? Only relative to larger events.

Now, I go further and speculate that this primordial time unit is NOT constant, but subject to change locally itself. I even dare to think that it is in fact the ONLY thing that has capacity to change.

A fundamental unit, by definition would be constant. Even so, if you want to argue for time without change, you'll need to define it first. Otherwise, you're not really arguing for anything.

How far have we gone from the claim that time cannot have any existence without space? I haven't seen any arguments that support either that, or the notion that time itself is more fundamental than space. As per my original claim, take away space and time would be gone with it.

 

[quantumcarl]

doing without the "structure" of time.

Eh wrote: "You would have to actual define time in the first place, for it even to be a concept."

I've defined time... here is my definition:

"Time is a tool that is used to measure the various dimensions of change." (Carl, 2002)

What would we do without the structure of time?... we would invent it, or something like it, again.

It would be as though we had lost the tape measure and all its increments... we, of course, would end up re-inventing the measuring device.

It would be like we lost the concept and the tool, the barometor. We would use something else to measure atmospheric pressure changes, (like being aware of our popping eardrums or expanding nasal cavities).

 

[Eh]

Without time, we could not think. So it seems time is essential to our very existence, and that is one of the biggest problems with a static 4D universe I mention. We need "change" in our brains to perceive of changes elsewhere.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
We deal with the relations of events. Like I said, in continuous time, an event is separated by a serious of events, which themselves can be broken into smaller events continuously.

Eh, we still can't get on the same page here.
I repeat, my main point is that there is no meaning for relation of rates of events if there is no comparison between duration of similar discrete events. Continuity doesn't change this the slightest. It only obfuscates this.

Given 2 chains of events: a) 1->2->3 and b) 1->2 where each change is precisely +1, we can say chain (a) has 2 times the rate of chain (b). BUT, if you don't have finite duration for each individual change, then there is no cause in principle WHY such finite rate difference can exist, why the rate ratio isn't infinite.
Its obvious that if we assign chain (b) duration=1 then chain (a) event 1->2 has duration 1/2. If we claim that there is no concept of duration for events, then we must assume that (b) duration =0 and (a) 1->2 duration=0/2=0. For correlation to be possible, duration of any event must be >0.

But you haven't defined time as anything beyond change, and so aren't really arguing anything. Like I said, loops do seem to have change as a fundamental property, and that seems to be enough to give us a working definition of time.

Of course, I haven't even tried. Whats the point in trying to define it if you don't even agree that there is merit in that. You CAN do without it as is obvious from our successes, but it gives birth to MANY mysterious properties instead of just few when dig into fundamentals. Things don't fit together easily.

Btw, maybe you can give working definition of 'change' through which you try to define time. As I see it, without underlying time there can be only one way: change is instantaneous, zero duration event, and as such, infinite amount of changes is possible for ANY other pair of relative discrete events.
The only way to get away without time is to postulate static 4D universe, where everything already is.

That doesn't give a definition of time, and as such is hardly an example of "change" being a circular definition itself. When we ask how fast something changes, we are always comparing it to our reference frame. Whether you want to take that notion and break time into discrete events that can vary, or a continuum is another story.

There is no 'our reference frame' without separate time. Every single fundamental event is separate frame. How can we compare anything at all if we don't have a 'glue', ground for finite ratios for difference of duration?

I understand exactly what you're saying, and this is similar to continuous space in geometry. Take a line, and you can divide it into an infinite number of smaller lines. But the line itself is ultimately an infinite collection of points, which themselves are zero dimensional. In fact, points have no existence without the line. Either a line or point without the continuum have no existence. You must have the infinity of the line in the first place, in order to go anywhere else. That's just the problem with continuous space.

The same will apply to continuous time.

Consider segment: -- when you take any segment of line, you can always divide it into 2 equal segments. You get 1 point that separates the segments. You can continue that infinitely. But always you will have 1 segment more than there are points. You take position that there are infinite amount of points and that therefore line consists of points, but that is misleading. Line consists of infinite amount of finite segments that are separated by imaginary points of coordinates. When you collapse segments to 0 length, you loose line and segments, and all that's left is single unique point. There is no way how you could get (in)finite amount of points between coordinates 0 and 0. Yet you can safely say that there are infinite amount of points and segments in a line or segment. Because in coordinate centric geometry you care about points, that becomes definition of line, ignoring segments as secondary.

Same with time. You speak of points in continuum of time, ignoring that you need to have segments. When you bend spacetime, you work with point coordinates, but infact are changing lengths of segments. While you make calculations of equations, it doesn't matter, points and segments are pretty much equivalent, but when you talk about definition of time concept, you can't confuse time coordinates for concept of time itself. To have points on time axis, you need to define segments too.

I propose that we should not ignore the segments as undefinable, but ponder about this, instead of just hiding them into properties of loops and defining that time is just points of the contiinum.

Finite value? Only relative to larger events.

Whatever. It (minimum time duration) just can't be zero.

A fundamental unit, by definition would be constant. Even so, if you want to argue for time without change, you'll need to define it first. Otherwise, you're not really arguing for anything.

Fundamental means undivisible into components with new properties. It doesn't mean constant. By your view field lines can't be fundamental, geometry can't be fundamental if can be curved. You talk about fundamental Constant, not fundamental unit of existence.

I am NOT arguing anything. You still don't get that all I'm doing is to try to make you consider that time has 2 aspects not one: one aspect is what we call change, event sequence whose relative rates we can detect and correlate, and other aspect that you so strongly want to ignore - aspect that is the REASON that different rates can exist at all. This aspect is present in all theories in some form, I only try to take it out for a review.

I'm saying that any defined fundamental unit in current theories can be split into distinct timeless properties, and their change dynamics, where latter can't be separated from concept of time.

How far have we gone from the claim that time cannot have any existence without space? I haven't seen any arguments that support either that, or the notion that time itself is more fundamental than space. As per my original claim, take away space and time would be gone with it.

Take away energy, and universe will be gone with it. What kind of argument is this? Of course space is crucial component of existence.

What is fundamental concept? That which is common to all things is fundamental. How many spacetimes can you construct? 1D, 3D, 32D? How many time dimensions can you introduce to make it dynamic? 1 is enough for any number of spatial dimensions. Time is common for spacetime with any number of dimensions, any kind of geometries. Time as concept is fundamental for any kind of dynamics.

Problem with space is that it isn't absolute. Any 2 distinguishable concepts can be immediately praised as 'space'. So when you say remove space, WHAT space are you talking about? Number space, 1D space, 32D space, fractal space, chess move space, hilbert space, thought space?
When I say "time makes space" I mean it quantifies single anything (incl continuum) into comparable finites. Flat or curved 3D space is only subset of many possible realities, and its time that makes distances comparable, ie illusion of uniformity and structure.

Singularity of existence whose property is unspecified finite time duration between changes (for eg. split into 2), will give rise to space of distinguishable points. Whether that space is geometric or is at some point perceived as geometric is secondary.

 

[Eh]

This is getting us nowhere, mainly because we've drifted so far from the main point. There is no need for 1000 word essays on philosophical interpretations of discrete events, duration of events, line segments, etc. if we can't even get past the initial argument.

So once more, my claim is that without space (wilson loops or whatever) time has no existence. Take away the field, and time would disappear with it. Do you at least agree with that?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
This is getting us nowhere, mainly because we've drifted so far from the main point. There is no need for 1000 word essays on philosophical interpretations of discrete events, duration of events, line segments, etc. if we can't even get past the initial argument.

My experience shows that compressed writing leads to deep misunderstandings. You discarding my effort makes me afraid you want to turn this into closedminded discussion.
At such levels philosophical approach is unavoidable, imo. My disagreement with initial argument is the result of such philosophical ideas.

So once more, my claim is that without space (wilson loops or whatever) time has no existence.

disagree, for sake of this thread. Its conventional assumption and I'm not trying to be a crackpot, but I'm bringing it up to think about it.

Take away the field, and time would disappear with it. Do you at least agree with that?

It depends. Your question is leading. Seems you are not willing to look at it from other perspective.

Your question must be answered yes, BUT, you shall not assume it obvious that therefore time is merely result of field and space. My point is that time is causing dynamic field/space formation, therefore if you remove dynamic field/space, you are not removing cause of time, but infact result of existence of time. In effect, you are removing time.

I'm suggesting you to split time in two, a cause of dynamics, and 2nd as measure of time. Equally, you can realize that we can talk about distinct things: conceptual static field, and 2nd, dynamic changing reality where models with static fields are applied and compared with observation. I claim that this same time concept is present in any theory as hidden axiom. Why not expose it?
to you

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
My experience shows that compressed writing leads to deep misunderstandings. You discarding my effort makes me afraid you want to turn this into closedminded discussion.

Well actually, I'm trying to condense it because I don't feel my argument is all that complicated. It's not that the deeper issues of time aren't worth discussing, (they are) but the issue of how fundamental time actual is, seems to be a much clearer case. See what I mean below.

Your question must be answered yes, BUT, you shall not assume it obvious that therefore time is merely result of field and space. My point is that time is causing dynamic field/space formation, therefore if you remove dynamic field/space, you are not removing cause of time, but infact result of existence of time. In effect, you are removing time.

Ok, here is the the crux of the issue. If time cannot exist without the field (which means it can't exist without space) then I don't see how anyone could possibly justify that claim that time is more fundamental than space. This is especially true if I can always point to a logically consistent model of space where nothing happens. That is, I can define space without time. Can we consistently describe a spaceless universe where time still exists? It seems not.

That's really all there is too it, in terms of fundementals. If you want to say that time is not just an optional function of spaces in the real world, but is a fundamental property of the field as much as space, that's no problem. But I don't see how one can claim that time is somehow more fundamental than space, since you can't have it without.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Ok, here is the the crux of the issue. If time cannot exist without the field (which means it can't exist without space) then I don't see how anyone could possibly justify that claim that time is more fundamental than space. This is especially true if I can always point to a logically consistent model of space where nothing happens. That is, I can define space without time. Can we consistently describe a spaceless universe where time still exists? It seems not.

I understand what you mean, and here lies one confusing difficulty with time. When you say you can have timeless universe, you actually won't have our universe. It can be vast, but it'll be static, no dynamics at all. Its not what we have. To have honest comparison, you'd have to allow for spaceless universe where time exists - it could be unstructured, void, but it is not logically inconsistent. It'd be just not our universe, equally. Our universe requires both.

That's really all there is too it, in terms of fundementals. If you want to say that time is not just an optional function of spaces in the real world, but is a fundamental property of the field as much as space, that's no problem. But I don't see how one can claim that time is somehow more fundamental than space, since you can't have it without.

ok. When I say "more fundamental", I don't mean like you that we can have universe after we remove one. Its more like I can recreate it again..

Let's take triangle. Which of its tips is most fundamental? Obviously none, as soon as you remove any of them, you don't have triangle anymore. But if you have it standing on the ground, you have 2 tips as foundation and 3rd can be derivered. That makes 2 of them like slightly more fundamental. Today we have space and relation equations as the foundation, and time is derivered. Its a convention. We can also take time and relations, and derive space.

Now what you try to convince me in and I can't understand, is that you can remove time-tip from the triangle, and still have triangle, but if I remove space-tip, then I won't have a triangle. They seem equal. But we can derive either of them from one and relations. Now we want to sort them in some order of importance to decide which path to take. Today it seems to me no one really considers seriously that time could be foundation to derive dynamic space. Instead, time is injected transparently into space to make dynamic changing space, at the same time refusing to admit that to do so one freely without definition is adding time.

We can construct dynamic spacetime when we have time and relations. We can construct static space without time, but it can't be dynamic. Now, if either case requires time to be present, and case where time is placed before space has it all, then isn't time then more fundamental than space?

You have to ask how can one derive space from time alone. Naturally, we assume that 3D space must appear immediately. I'm wondering about space as illusion, result of relationships between instants of time.
[sum] dT(x) = [oo] is it 1D spacetime? If dT is varying, isn't it field? Primordial dT of 0D space is basically singularity, within it, time is "stopped". You can always divide primordial dT/n and continue infinitely. Instant dT at x itself defines rate of 'progress' locally. Relationships between them can be expressed in terms of energy. Changes of dT itself is interactions, and propagation of them is basically ground for construction of spatial extent (equidistant coordinates in terms of propagation time) with more dimensions.

It is hard to conceive what time is, and what is meaning of it changing. I don't know how to make use of it, but I haven't also seen anyone trying. I just think that we need to define few properties of primordial dT and from there can explain inertia, energy, vacuum, curvature of space, limit of c, etc. Of course, I'm not sure in that, it just seems to have capacity to produce more with less axioms. It would be like sort of chaotic automata with variable timesteps.
What makes it different from current ideas is that it throws away locally uniform flow of time making it relative at fundamental level aswell, and undermines assumption that space is something independant from time in deeper sense than spacetime suggests.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
I understand what you mean, and here lies one confusing difficulty with time. When you say you can have timeless universe, you actually won't have our universe. It can be vast, but it'll be static, no dynamics at all. Its not what we have.

I agree. But the point was that we can at least imagine a logically consistent timeless universe, whereas I'm not sure we can do the same with time.

To have honest comparison, you'd have to allow for spaceless universe where time exists - it could be unstructured, void, but it is not logically inconsistent.

And that's what it comes down to. How do you even define this spaceless universe in the first place? How can you define duration without events? And without space, how can you define events either?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
And that's what it comes down to. How do you even define this spaceless universe in the first place? How can you define duration without events? And without space, how can you define events either?

Whats the problem? Assume time had beginning. Then it must have started acausally. Event. It could as well disappear acausally, another event. Duration of existence inbetween - time. If it had appeared and disappeared without finite existence period or out of order, it would invalidate logic. 0D Universe that exists for duration of single primordial unit of time.

We can divide any finite duration into parts. What separates subsequent durations then? Coordinate point, or perhaps call it event in time domain? Event that causes change to time dimension.

 

[Eh]

Much like the geometric point which has no existence without at least a line, a point in time has no existence on it's own. No event, no points of zero duration.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Much like the geometric point which has no existence without at least a line, a point in time has no existence on it's own. No event, no points of zero duration.

Inertia has you :) You still stick to assumption that events is all there is to time.
How can we arbitrarily divide geometric line with points? According to you, points must first exist in some form to be possible to divide a line. What is geometric point then? no "something", no point of zero extent..
Time duration is that 'at least a line', in this case, segment of finite duration. When result of event output is same as input, its as if there was no event, no change. Why can't we divide time line by points of null-events?

Seems you want to measure the duration with events, you want reference. You can't measure it if you don't have anything to relate it to. Yes, measure of time and duration is meaningless for single primordial time segment. But we still can deduce that it must exist for finite duration. Else it can't be logically consistent.

Doesn't acausal begin and end of time mean event to you? It is finite nonzero segment of time duration. What could exist "between consecutive" end of time and next beginning? We can't express this in terms 'nonexistence time'. There is no separation. Its a point in time. Point where time disappears and reappears instantly, which is event.
Though, I'm not sure if "consecutive" has any sense for segments of time separated by nonexistence (of time). Perhaps they all should exist concurrently, in reference to concept 'exist'. This would lead to picture that all possible combinations of segments of time would appear together, but die out at relatively different moments.. (which sounds wild enough) This would be infinite dynamic space of time without any geometry. Patterns of coincidence would become illusion of geometry.
Obviously, I've let my mind wandering way too freely..

How to define duration? duration D(dT=1)>0sec always. Time dT is count of change-events between any 2 points on time axis. Minimum meaningful value for dT=1. Two chains of events with equal dT can produce different relative duration: D1(dT1=23) [x=] D2(dT2=23) which allows for differing relative timeflow. It means that some units of duration must differ. Fact that relative timeflow can change means that units of duration themselves can change, which must be property of duration. We could think of some universal minimal finite [del]D constant of which all others are multiples of, but I can't think how such constant could be justified.

You know that time issue is still very open. After all that lots of words I still haven't got any idea can you actually agree that there might be a place for time duration concept or you don't. What are your ideas on mystery of time?

 

[Eh]

You know that time issue is still very open. After all that lots of words I still haven't got any idea can you actually agree that there might be a place for time duration concept or you don't. What are your ideas on mystery of time?

Well at the very least, I thought we could at least agree that time would disappear if you were to somehow switch off the field, as GR says it would. If so, then I at least got my point across. I wasn't intending to go on and on about geometric points, lines and what not.

As to whether there is more to time than events, I think the more important issue is whether or not an event is required to define it in the first place. It's the same as geometry. Points do not have meaning without location, and a location requires space. So a mere geometric point would have no meaningful definition without space. You can talk about points in time, but without reference to finite events you don't have a concept at all. If the notion of points and lines sounds paradoxical, that's just what you get when dealing with space and time as a continuum.

You seem to have a lot of thoughts and questions about geometry as well as time. This geometry board (part of the superstringtheory site) has a lot helpful members who have the patience to discuss it. http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/geomboard/index3.html

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
Well at the very least, I thought we could at least agree that time would disappear if you were to somehow switch off the field, as GR says it would. If so, then I at least got my point across.

I was never against GR. My point (that I wasn't able to get across) was that you could have timeless field, but when you have dynamic field, its different thing and you can't switch it off without also removing time. You can't also remove time from dynamic field without changing its deepest identity. Question whether time is mere perception of mystical events on mystical dynamic field geometry, or whether time has capacity to form topological space and geometry is relative perception, remains open.

As to whether there is more to time than events, I think the more important issue is whether or not an event is required to define it in the first place.

Well, imo, even more important issue is if you can even define 'event' without concept of time. Thats the crux of it all - you need time to define event, and only then you need event to observe and measure time. You discard time as necessary to define event just because GR seems to get away without it. But it doesn't, it has it hidden in postulates of c, inertia, dynamics of space geometry as mystery, etc.

It's the same as geometry. Points do not have meaning without location, and a location requires space. So a mere geometric point would have no meaningful definition without space. You can talk about points in time, but without reference to finite events you don't have a concept at all.

I don't get, why you on one side equate points-in-time to points-in-line, and then immeditely turn away and say that time continuum has no meaning without events alone. I have very well a concept without events. What I don't have, is reference of measure. But I can easily define any point in time as point of reference and have comparable 'distances' between any other imaginable points. More so, I can define 'measure of distance' in terms of time, or define finite velocity and spatial extent, whereas there is no way to define finite velocity in geometric space without artificially adding concept of time.

Time is not exactly same as geometry, what makes it special is its intimate relation to concepts 'exist' and 'real'. At some point it faces paradoxes of philosophy and existence. Is that the reason why everyone tries to avoid attacking the time issue seriously?

You seem to have a lot of thoughts and questions about geometry as well as time. This geometry board (part of the superstringtheory site) has a lot helpful members who have the patience to discuss it. http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/geomboard/index3.html

Sigh, does this mean that you've got enough and are delicately sending me off to the Moon? This forum is awful mess..

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wimms
I was never against GR. My point (that I wasn't able to get across) was that you could have timeless field, but when you have dynamic field, its different thing and you can't switch it off without also removing time. You can't also remove time from dynamic field without changing its deepest identity. Question whether time is mere perception of mystical events on mystical dynamic field geometry, or whether time has capacity to form topological space and geometry is relative perception, remains open.

I won't argue against that, because time is as I said, a fundamental part of the real world. Although certain attempts to make time in another spatial dimension (the no boundary proposal) would remove any free room for defining time, we can go with a working definition where the universe is an evolving unified field. However, under this picture there is no room to claim time has independent existence, or is any more fundemental.

I don't get, why you on one side equate points-in-time to points-in-line, and then immeditely turn away and say that time continuum has no meaning without events alone.

Do not equate points in time with events, much as you would not mistake a geometric point for a line. Compare a continuous line of space to a line of time. The geometric line will be space, and the time line will be an event. In both cases, the continuum necessarily contains an infinite amount of points. But when you isolate any given point, it has no meaning without it's location on that line. In fact, that is the only existence a point has, so one cannot define a point in time or space without the whole.

Sigh, does this mean that you've got enough and are delicately sending me off to the Moon? This forum is awful mess..

Yes, I am. But that's only because I feel the original point I wanted to get across has been made. We aren't really arguing about that point. But the link to the boards I gave you would be useful if you further want to discuss geometry and continuums, since they are similar to time. I find discussions about both to be very time consuming, and that isn't the direction I want to go.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Eh
we can go with a working definition where the universe is an evolving unified field. However, under this picture there is no room to claim time has independent existence, or is any more fundemental.

My proposal is that unified field is illusory manifestation of evolving independant time, which isn't even necessarily continuum. You don't accept ex nihilo ideas? Time is perfect candidate for beginning, and its most fundamental for any evolution.

The geometric line will be space, and the time line will be an event.

I see. You say that any event occurs for finite duration with no static states between events. I rather think events are timeless instants between durations of static existence. In this view, null-events are possible, and exactly same energy interaction can flow at differing rates. In other view, null-events are not possible, it requires stuff that then interacts, time is continuum. Frequency of field defines time, higher frequency (and energy) means faster timeflow. Which is somewhat reverse. high energies are slowing time down. Therefore some weird inverse seems true - time slowdown means more energy (inertia), frequency does not mean timeflow change, but relative frequency of interaction, that can be seen as energy aswell.

But when you isolate any given point, it has no meaning without it's location on that line. In fact, that is the only existence a point has, so one cannot define a point in time or space without the whole.

The only property of point is its coordinate. I know. But GR also tells us not to give too much weight to the whole. Point {0,0} is well defined. To distinguish points in time, we have concepts of past and future. Any point is instant
separating "now" and past or now and future. No point has meaning relative to the whole, all it has is relative measures. Whole is abstraction, much like our extrapolation of 'current' location of objects receeding at >2c. Its not a point that moves along time axis, but unique 'now' that exists, defines time and evolves itself, in relation to that closest to it, whatever that means.

link to the boards I gave you would be useful if you further want to discuss geometry and continuums, since they are similar to time. I find discussions about both to be very time consuming, and that isn't the direction I want to go.

I don't think time is geometry or continuum, so I can't just jump in there with my crazy phil ideas.