Where would we be without the structure 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.