Does Time Truly Exist or Is It Merely a Human Construct?

[K.J.Healey]

Fact that can't predict the future is not much of a problem for me. I will even go so far as to agree that a lot of things that seem to require time (your "momentum, velocity, kinetic energy" etc.) even "change in general" are damn usefull ways to understand things. You speak of the "probability function" - not sure you are referring to the state function of quantum mechanics, but being in a generous mood at the "moment" I will assume you are and even grant that QM's equations are time based and strictly deterministic in their evolution with time ("equations", not the observational results predicted.) I will however, again note that I have little problem with the idea that the separation between two events can be measured by clocks etc. BUT my clock (in my inertial frame) gives it as 5 seconds and yours gives it as 10. The very fact that the metric between these two events can have any value you like should at least make you think that perhaps it is not anything real, but just that - a convenient metric.

Thats what I am trying to say. Time isn't some dimension we have control over, its merely a metric for indexing the order of events. I won't go as far to say its man-made, but ANY observation from ANYTHING requires it to describe the events. See how I said observation, I don't mean things can't happen without time, just that they cannot be observed. Animals have feelings of time passing as well, but they don't undertand it. Its still only a metric, but what isnt?

And yes, I was speaking in pseudo-QM terms, and there are the very very basic time independent equations that are based on energy and a spatial dimension, and you can determine the probabilities of location (quantum well).

 

[learningphysics]

define movement without using time... you can't do it unless you also don't use space... but you can still define movement through a series of energy transfers... define a system based on nothing else, and it is still definable...

Please give an example of the above without reference to time.

What kind of "series of energy transfers"? If there is no time... there is no ordering to this series. How do you get the first, second, or last in the series without using time?

 

[Lucretius]

Anyone here read stuff on time by Carlo Rovelli?

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

Go to that page and download his PDF called "Time". For some reason "Presymplectic Mechanics" does not seem to work on my computer very well.

 

[rvolt24]

god i love scientific philosophy

I'm not dumb,

of course, i did not mean to imply such... your very presence here indicates a vital mind...

right, but how can you remember if there is no time?

what is memory?... aren't these electrical impulses which we relate as sight and sound (etc.) transmitted to our cerebellum and stored as "memory"?... memory is just a construct, too... we index these electrical pulses and use other pulses to read them... I/O just like a computer...

Its just labeled "index n in the series" rather than "second n in time"

EXACTLY!... and space is "unit n in distance" instead of "potential energy differential matrix of molecular masses"... let's get real here... does anyone still believe matter is solid?... it's energy in high valence bonds with other energies (string theory notwithstanding)...

So you can't measure distances in spatial dimensions because there is no energy associated with those distances? I don't understand that.

what is distance?... there are energies which keep all objects apart as well as energies which bring them together... distance is just our construct for dealing with these concepts... remove our perception and all becomes energy transfers...


:shy: listen... i know this is a difficult concept... humans have relied on vision and hearing and feeling and tasting and smelling for so long that we have a difficult time removing these things from any equation... and the truth be told, it IS much easier to use space and time to describe things... you can't tell someone who is blind what "Red" is... you will have to tell them the properties of the color... wavelength and such... differences between red light and blue light (or microwaves or infrared)... "Red" is a construct... but it is a simple way to describe an apple's skin... is water really "Wet" or are the particles formed in such a way as to attach loosely to other materials, but not have enough viscosity to leave a thick film... once you accept that all is energy, losing time and space is so simple... trust me... would i lie to you?

 

[rvolt24]

reference...

Please give an example of the above without reference to time.

What kind of "series of energy transfers"? If there is no time... there is no ordering to this series. How do you get the first, second, or last in the series without using time?

the problem with a reference is that we need a COMMON reference... right now, your reference requires (by definition) space and time... let me see if i can explain a larger concept which may be helpful...

what is a year without time?... the time-based definition is "the quantity of time required for one orbit of Earth around the Sun" (or something similar)... but what is really happening?... the Earth (mass-1) has gravity (force-1) pulling it toward the Sun (mass-2)... centripetal force (force-2) roughly perpendicular to force-1 is also being applied to mass-1... the tilt of mass-1's axis provides a viewer on mass-1's surface to see mass-2... as these forces act upon mass-1, the viewer would observe mass-2 move from an apex (summer solstice) to a nadir (winter solstice)... observations would show that this replicates a slightly modified sine wave... one year is one full cycle of this wave... mass does not require time to exist... yet many would say that, by definition, a force has a time component... not so... break it down into energy transference... voltage, if you will... potential energy and kinetic energy... force-1 is potential... force-2; kinetic...

but the important factor is that time; that one year; is not a measurement of any actual thing... it is a constructed reference of predicatable events... we can calculate months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, etc. from these common references... there are whole schools of science dedicated to defining time... vibrations of cesium atoms... it's still just counting cycles of energy transfers...

again... use time and space as common reference points... common language... but don't for one "second" think it's real...

 

[moving finger]

the important factor is that time; that one year; is not a measurement of any actual thing... it is a constructed reference of predicatable events... we can calculate months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, etc. from these common references... there are whole schools of science dedicated to defining time... vibrations of cesium atoms... it's still just counting cycles of energy transfers...

again... use time and space as common reference points... common language... but don't for one "second" think it's real...

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events. I don't think rvolt24 is suggesting that causation is an illusion, or that the ordering of events is an illusion (please correct me if I am wrong), but that what we humans call time is simply an internalised concept manufactured to help us to understand the causation and ordering we observe around us.

A suggestion : The same argument can be applied to space, to show that space does not really exist in the same way that time does not exist. What is space but an ordering of entities in relation to each other. There is a telephone on my desk and there is a stapler on my desk, the way they stand in relation to each is an ordering in something that we call space, but take away all objects and can we say that this space still exists? No, space is simply a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of objects "in" space. In the same way, time is a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of events "in" time.

MF

 

[Billy T]

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events. I don't think rvolt24 is suggesting that causation is an illusion, or that the ordering of events is an illusion (please correct me if I am wrong), but that what we humans call time is simply an internalised concept manufactured to help us to understand the causation and ordering we observe around us.

A suggestion : The same argument can be applied to space, to show that space does not really exist in the same way that time does not exist. What is space but an ordering of entities in relation to each other. There is a telephone on my desk and there is a stapler on my desk, the way they stand in relation to each is an ordering in something that we call space, but take away all objects and can we say that this space still exists? No, space is simply a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of objects "in" space. In the same way, time is a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of events "in" time.

MF

Have not been very active here of late, but just wanted to say "Well done/ Well stated."

I agree with you on space also, but have been avoiding saying it, until "now" as unlike time, which is unique parameter I can eliminated from all descriptions of the universe (Math of post one as later refined under pressure, especially from Reilly) I can not mathematical eliminate the spatial coordinates/ parameters from all descriptions of the universe.

I have already noted, but it won't hurt to repeat, that anyone who is confident in the ontological status of either space or time ought to be at least a little bothered by facts (1) any two events can be separated by any number of seconds you like and (2)any two objects can have various number of meters separating them as you like. Both (1) & (2) "adjustments" just require choosing the frame you want to view them from.

 

[learningphysics]

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events.

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

 

[moving finger]

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

I think the point that is being made is that time is nothing more nor less than the ordering of events. There is no such thing as "time" in itself, and we should not think of events being ordered "in time", rather the ordering of events is what defines time. Take away the events, and time vanishes too.

The same applies to space.

All we are saying is that there is no basis for the Newtonian view that "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration"

Nobody is suggesting that the ordering is an illusion. But if we think that there is some fundamental reality to the thing we call time which is above and beyond the ordering of events, that is the illusion.

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%

 

[moving finger]

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

I think the point that is being made is that time is nothing more nor less than the ordering of events. There is no such thing as "time" in itself, and we should not think of events being ordered "in time", rather the ordering of events is what defines time. Take away the events, and time vanishes too.

The same applies to space.

Nobody is suggesting (I believe) that ordering of events is an illusion. What is being suggested is that there is nothing more than "ordering of events". Adding the concept of time doesn't actually add anything to our understanding (in fact introducing the concept of time can cloud our understanding because there is then a tendency for some people to think of time as a kind of pre-existing backdrop against which ordered events happen, and it leads to misconceptions like the flow of time etc).

All we are saying is that there is no basis for the Newtonian view that "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration"

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%

 

[Tournesol]

I have already noted, but it won't hurt to repeat, that anyone who is confident in the ontological status of either space or time ought to be at least a little bothered by facts (1) any two events can be separated by any number of seconds you like and (2)any two objects can have various number of meters separating them as you like. Both (1) & (2) "adjustments" just require choosing the frame you want to view them from.

Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on
the choice of reference frame.

 

[Tournesol]

All we are saying is that there is no basis for the Newtonian view that "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration"

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%

OK, sio space and time are relative and not Newtonian, as everybody knows.
Why should that be paraphrased as "space and time do't exist" ?

 

[learningphysics]

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%

Ok. That's cool.

 

[Billy T]

Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on the choice of reference frame.

There are lots of constructed constants. One of the most commonly use is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. If we, who question the ontological status of time, should be worried by the constancy of some construct you can make using space and time parameters or coordinates (don't care too much about the name), then I guess we should be equally worried by the constancy of the ratio of the value you can construct from two parameter of the circle. (3.1419...)

 

[Tournesol]

Of course I was talking about invariant spacetime intervals, not mathematical constants.

 

[rvolt24]

i hate to stir a hornet's nest, but...

guys, i KNOW time and space does not exist... but i am not qualified to give a mathmatical proof... maybe you can help me out...

IF:
e=mc^2

THEN:
Joules=kg*((3*10^8)*m/s)^2
J=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/s^2
s^2=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/J
s=sqrt(kg/J)*m*(3*10^8)

****excuse any mathmatical errors... the theory should work independently****

THEREFORE:
AS: m=0::s=0
AS: kg=0::s=0
AS: J approaches 0 :: s approaches infinity
AS: J approaches infinity :: s approaches 0

IF:
time (s) exists and space (m) exists

IF:
matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

THEREFORE:
we can surmise, in an finite universe (finite quantity of mass-energy[sqrt(kg/J)]), there is a finite quantity of time...

THEREFORE:
finite space

THEREFORE:
at "Time-Zero" (bigbang theory) there was a ratio of kg/J where kg approximated 0 and J approximated the highest finite quantity of energy possible...

THEREFORE:
at "Time-End" the ratio turns around to kg approximates the highest finite quantity and J approximates 0...

*************************
also... does this mean that a proton, accelerated to the speed of light, becomes pure energy?... does this mean that light, stripped of it's speed, becomes mass?...

then what is a particle which moves half the speed of light?... what moves twice the speed of light?...
*************************

awfully complicated... but... what if time and space do not exist?... then that formula would be reduced to the following:

e=mK

WHEREAS:
K=universal constant (9*10^16)

THERFORE:
J=kg*K

IF:
kg=1

THEN:
J=1*K=(9*10^16)

THEREFORE:
90 quadrillion joules of energy are contained in one kilogram of mass... as the amount of mass approaches zero, the amount of energy approaches zero... DUH!... there is no need to involve time at all... one proton (mass 1.627*10^-27) contains 1.5048*10^-10 joules of energy...

in a nuclear fusion, suposedly 7% of mass is converted to energy... the two protons have less mass together than appart... energy is released...

space and time need not apply...

 

[moving finger]

guys, i KNOW time and space does not exist... but i am not qualified to give a mathmatical proof... maybe you can help me out...

IF:
1) e=mc^2

THEN:
2) Joules=kg*((3*10^8)*m/s)^2
3) J=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/s^2
4) s^2=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/J
5) s=sqrt(kg/J)*m*(3*10^8)

****excuse any mathmatical errors... the theory should work independently****

THEREFORE:
AS: m=0::s=0
AS: kg=0::s=0
AS: J approaches 0 :: s approaches infinity
AS: J approaches infinity :: s approaches 0

Excuse me if I paraphrase your argument, I have also numbered your relationships to help in clarification. I have not checked whether your stated relationships are correct, I take them at face value.

What you are saying is that since s is inversely proportional to J (equation (5)), then s necessarily tends to infinity as J tends to zero. This does not follow, since there are other terms in your relationship (5) (eg kg) which may also vary. If kg tends to zero as J tends to zero then s is indeterminate (from equation (4) or (5)); if kg tends to infinity as J tends to infinity then s also is indeterminate (from equation (4) or (5)).

IF:
time (s) exists and space (m) exists

IF:
matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

THEREFORE:
we can surmise, in an finite universe (finite quantity of mass-energy[sqrt(kg/J)]), there is a finite quantity of time...

I do not see why this necessarily follows? Can you explain?

THEREFORE:
finite space

THEREFORE:
at "Time-Zero" (bigbang theory) there was a ratio of kg/J where kg approximated 0 and J approximated the highest finite quantity of energy possible...

Nope. Energy has an equivalent mass, this is the whole point of the e=mc^2 relationship. Any non-zero quantity of energy will have an equivalent non-zero mass, and vice versa.

also... does this mean that a proton, accelerated to the speed of light, becomes pure energy?... does this mean that light, stripped of it's speed, becomes mass?...

Again, no. You are I think confusing the e=mc^2 relationship as meaning that an entity can have only mass or energy but not both. What the relationship is actually telling us is that energy and mass are equivalent, that all entities with non-zero mass or energy have both mass and energy through that relationship.

MF

 

[moving finger]

OK, sio space and time are relative and not Newtonian, as everybody knows.
Why should that be paraphrased as "space and time do't exist" ?

Let us look at the opposite argument. Can we defend the statement "space and time do exist"?

What do we mean by "exist"? Can anyone tell me? My suggestion would be that if one cannot define exactly what one means by the phrase "space and time exist" then one has no right using the phrase.

My whole point is that the property of "existence" is bestowed upon the human concept of time only by virtue of the ordered relationship of events; in the absence of such events then time has no meaning and does not exist. In other words, time is not some pre-existing entity against which events are measured, time is simply an emergent property of a universe which contains ordered events.

The same argument can be applied to space.

In this sense, time is like the colour red (and other qualia!). The human sensation of the colour red does not have any independent "existence", it is simply a human construct which we apply to allow us to discriminate between certain wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. red is not something intrinsic in the universe which has any kind of independent existence, it is an emergent property which depends on the pre-existence of a visible spectrum (and other things). Take away the visible spectrum, and red has no meaning and does not exist.

MF

 

[Tournesol]

My whole point is that the property of "existence" is bestowed upon the human concept of time only by virtue of the ordered relationship of events; in the absence of such events then time has no meaning and does not exist. In other words, time is not some pre-existing entity against which events are measured, time is simply an emergent property of a universe which contains ordered events.

It maybe the case that you can't have time without events; it might equally
be the case that you can't have events without time. If you are going
to object to things on the basis of their being emergent or secondary,
you need to specify what is primary.

In any case, we do not usually equate "not fundamental" with non-existent;
chairs depend on wood and carpenters, but we do not usually class them
as non-existent.

In this sense, time is like the colour red (and other qualia!). The human sensation of the colour red does not have any independent "existence", it is simply a human construct which we apply to allow us to discriminate between certain wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. red is not something intrinsic in the universe which has any kind of independent existence, it is an emergent property which depends on the pre-existence of a visible spectrum (and other things). Take away the visible spectrum, and red has no meaning and does not exist.

But the visisble spectrum depends on photons, which depend on electromagnetism... what is primary here ?

 

[moving finger]

But the visisble spectrum depends on photons, which depend on electromagnetism... what is primary here ?

In most cases it is fairly easy to identify a hierarchy of meaning or existence.
The concept "red" exists (as a neuro-physiological concept), but it depends on the prior existence of a number of things, such as photons with varying wavelengths and a perceptive consciousness to represent "red" internally. Take away photons, and "red" (as we understand it) no longer exists and has no meaning.

The same does not work the other way around. The existence of photons is not dependent on the prior existence of the concept "red". If perceptive consciousness did not exist, or we were conscious but all colour-blind, then the concept "red" would not exist; but photons would still exist.

MF

 

[Tournesol]

"It maybe the case that you can't have time without events; it might equally
be the case that you can't have events without time. If you are going
to object to things on the basis of their being emergent or secondary,
you need to specify what is primary"

So what makes events more primary than time ?

 

[rvolt24]

clarification

Excuse me if I paraphrase your argument, . . .

thank you for pointing out the logical errors of my equations... by attempting to prove the "time is real" theory, i wish to point out its flaws... i think it may have been misunderstood as to the intention of the "proof"... i should have said, "all other things being equal, energy (J) is inversely proportional to time (s)"... the point of which is an attempt to prove time (or space) as a thing on par with mass and energy... we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

I do not see why this necessarily follows? Can you explain?

matter and energy cannot be destroyed (insofar as we know )... therefore, there is a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of energy; making the assumption that this is a finite universe... as mass is transformed into energy (i.e. sun) and energy is transformed into mass (i.e. black hole), there is a finite relationship between the quantity of each... doesn't it logically follow, if e=mc^2 is correct in its units, that there is finite time and finite space?... the only way to have infinite time is to have an infinite space... which, if infinite, we lose the whole point of time (or space) being similar to mass or energy... conundrum... again, time is not "real" as we define mass as "real"...

Energy has an equivalent mass, this is the whole point of the e=mc^2 relationship. Any non-zero quantity of energy will have an equivalent non-zero mass, and vice versa.

just noting that (according to the "time is real" thought) when the ratio of mass to energy is such that it is equivalent to 0, time is equivalent to 0... [#(kg)/infinity(J)*m(space)=0(time)]... and when the ratio of mass to energy is equivalent to infinity (#/0), time is equivalent to infinity... so, if time exists and is marching on relentlessly, on the whole of the universe, energy is being converted to mass... :zzz:
this is not what i am trying to prove... i am just stating that, if time exists as it has been defined, than this is the order of the universe according to e-mc^2...

Again, no. You are I think confusing the e=mc^2 relationship as meaning that an entity can have only mass or energy but not both. What the relationship is actually telling us is that energy and mass are equivalent, that all entities with non-zero mass or energy have both mass and energy through that relationship.

sorry again for the confusion... i was trying to point out the absurdity of the notion that time and space have anything at all to do with the relationship... mass IS energy... energy IS mass... "mass times the speed of light squared" is ridiculous even to einstein, but he had no other way of describing it to us... one Joule equals 1/9*10^-16 kg... or, better said, one kg contains 9*10^16 Joules of energy... in the fusion of hydrogen, which releases 7% mass as energy, one kg of hydrogen releases 6.3*10^15 Joules of energy; and leaves a mass of .93 kg of helium... time and space are not necessary for this relationship to work...
time and space do not exist as we define mass and energy to exist... the c^2 part of e=mc^2 is just a sufficiently large enough number to display the massive quantity of energy within what we see as matter...

 

[rvolt24]

Take away photons, and "red" (as we understand it) no longer exists and has no meaning.
. . .
If perceptive consciousness did not exist, or we were conscious but all colour-blind, then the concept "red" would not exist; but photons would still exist.

from reading your posts along this thread, i can see that we both believe the same thing in regards to time and space... our only differences come within our semantics of description...

 

[moving finger]

we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

I'm not sure we can.
Mass is a concept that we use to allow us to mathematically describe (for example) the behaviour of matter in a gravitational field or an inertial frame of reference.
Energy similarly is a concept that we can use to describe (amongst other things) the static mass and dynamical behaviour of a body.
They exist as concepts. But do they exist in any other way?
What does a unit of "mass" look like? What does a unit of "energy" look like? We have no idea.

matter and energy cannot be destroyed... therefore, there is a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of energy

But perhaps they can be created. Quantum particles can be created spontaneously out of the vacuum; one theory is that the entire mass-energy of the universe arose this way. And the exponentially expanding universe with non-zero vacuum energy idea (which seems to be accepted) means that the total energy locked up in the vacuum will soon be increasing exponentially - where does all this energy come from?

making the assumption that this is a finite universe...

That's quite an assumption!

as mass is transformed into energy (i.e. sun) and energy is transformed into mass (i.e. black hole), there is a finite relationship between the quantity of each... doesn't it logically follow, if e=mc^2 is correct in its units, that there is finite time and finite space?...

I agree that our universe cannot be infinite in both space and time (see Olber's paradox), but that does not mean it cannot be infinite in space and finite in time.

the only way to have infinite time is to have an infinite space...

I don't see how this follows? Why could we not (in theory) have a model universe which has existed, and will exist, for infinite time but is finite in space?

Sorry, I got lost in the rest of your post...

MF

 

[rvolt24]

I'm not sure we can {define mass}.

by definition mass is the amount of matter (which, by definition, matter is anything with mass)... but for simplicity's sake, everyone can agree that there are things which are definable by their causation of observable results through the interaction with other things of similar nature... (i.e. objects bumping, light bending, etc.)... time is not definable in these terms as it is just an imagined demarkation of energy states and forces... matter/energy continue to exist and interact without observation...

Sorry, I got lost in the rest of your post...

quite understandable... I'm not sure i can help clarify it, either...

but here's the main thrust of my point...

"mass times the speed of light squared" is ridiculous even to einstein, but he had no other way of describing it to us... one kg contains 9*10^16 Joules of energy... in the fusion of hydrogen, which releases 7% mass as energy, one kg of hydrogen releases 6.3*10^15 Joules of energy; and leaves a mass of .93 kg of helium... time and space are not necessary for this relationship to work...
time and space do not exist as we define mass and energy to exist... the c^2 part of e=mc^2 is just a sufficiently large enough number to display the massive quantity of energy within what we see as matter...

"the speed of light squared" is just a sufficiently large constant which einstein used to keep this discussion from happening while he was around...
smoke and mirrors, baby!

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Before eisntein, amny people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of spac and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the 4rth dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still ant to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the cientific comunity has stopped to doupt since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

 

[rvolt24]

Before {einstein}, {many} people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of {space} and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the {4th} dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still {want} to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the {scientific} {community} has {stopped} to {doubt} since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

I: thank you for your permission...
II: einstein disbelieved in time...
III: just because the "scientific community" believes in something, that doesn't make it true...
III-A: it wasn't that long ago that they didn't believe in virii or hygiene in hospitals...
III-B: it was VERY recently that they believe everything is energy and that "solid" is a perception of how atoms in valence bonds react to one another when their relative electro-magnetic fields interact energetically...

so... please prove time... or allow us to discuss these things in a polite, theoretical, and philosophical manner... thanks for your input... :zzz:

 

[moving finger]

Sorry to correct you, rvolt24, but you misquoted me.

Of course we can "define" mass. I did not say that we cannot define mass.

I was referring to your earlier post where you said :

we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

and I said :

I'm not sure we can.

(by implication - "I am not sure we can prove that mass and energy exist")

I can define anything I like. I can define a squirtle to be a red quark with the mass of a proton and charge +3, but that does not prove a squirtle "exists".

"Mass" is a concept that we have defined which allows us to make sense of things we measure, such as the weight of an object in a gravitational field, the inertia of an object, etc etc. But to say that mass "exists" (in absence of the weight, inertia etc that we measure) is a metaphysical leap into the dark equivalent to saying that time "exists" in the absence of events.

MF

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.
Rene Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637

 

[moving finger]

Before eisntein, amny people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of spac and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the 4rth dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still ant to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the cientific comunity has stopped to doupt since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

I agree with rvolt24, Einstein did not believe in time and space the same way that you seem to. The accepted paradigm before Einstein was based NOT on a denial of time, but on a notion of absolute time endorsed by Newton :

Newton : "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."

And this is what Einstein had to say on the "reality" of time and space : "Neither the point in time at which an event takes place nor the point in space in which a thing takes place have any physical reality, but only the event itself, ... so that neither an absolute spatial relation nor an absolute temporal relation exists between two events, but only an absolute spatio-temporal relation. ... It is impossible to divide the four-dimensional continuum into a three-dimensional spatial continuum and a one-dimensional temporal continuum in any way that makes sense from the objective point of view."

and also from Einstein (talking about the death of a colleague) : "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

(my emphasis)

MF

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
The Rubôayôat of Omar Khayyôam, translated by Edward Fitzgerald (1953)

 

[rvolt24]

Sorry to correct you, rvolt24, but you misquoted me.

i stand corrected... you are absolutely correct...

 

[HallsofIvy]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

 

[Billy T]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

In earlier post I noted that the math proof only shows that it is possible to eliminate all reference to time in all descriptions of all details of the universe. Never claimed to show by math that time does not exist. The space available for titles does not permit one to be exact in the title.

 

[moving finger]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

hehehehe... yes I agree, HallsofIvy... and in light of this I am amazed that some people still insist that "time" is not simply a mental concept, but has some kind of real or absolute "existence"...

MF

 

[Tournesol]

Of course it is equally impossible to give a purely mathematical disproof of the actual
existence of something. Nonetheless, the conclusion has to be that time does not exist...and one thing keeps on happening after another, all the same.

 

[Billy T]

Your most recent post seems to reflect a slight change of heart, but perhaps I just do not understand it (or your earlier ones) relative to your post 111 which in part was:

...My oriignal metaphysical argument is a reductio:

1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it [ the clock ] must have contradictory properties at the same time. [or atemporally, at no particular time ]
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

IOW

i) either time exists, or not.
ii) if not, things have contradictory properties
iii) so it exists.

Which is not circular. The existence of time is not assumed beyond the
non-existence of time -- it is just that out of the two assumptions, one leads
to contradiciton.

In fairness to you, I also noted while looking back at your old posts, that your in post 116, you had already pointed out some of the limitations of math proofs:

A purely mathematical proof cannot demonstrate anything (meta)phsycially by itself. There must be some means of bridging, or interpreting to (meta)physics.
You are implicitly appealing to some principle along the lines "if we can eliminate a variable from our equations, then what it represents does not
exist" .

in my eariler reply to his I noted that in addition to not being required for a discription of the universe, (the math proof) time also has the property that it (1) can't cause any thing and (2) as a consequence, can not be directly observed. It is these three reasons why I think it unlike to have any ontological status.