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

[lwymarie]

how to measure the 'speed' of time? time's speed, is it measured by itself?

speed=distance/time. then how to measure the 'speed' of time? how can we say 'my time is faster than your time', etc?

 

[HallsofIvy]

Well, since "speed" of anything is defined as the change in that quantity divided by the change in time, the speed of time is clearly "change in time"/"change in time" and so is 1!

 

[Starship]

I find the existence of space as illogical as the existence of a time dimension.

In the sense of quantum nonlocality and nonspatiality, space or distance is also abstract. The so-called superluminal objection is flawed in my opinion, because it assumes the physical existence of space. Particles do not exist in space, they just exist. There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no distance between particles. This is not the same as saying that the distance is zero; distance simply doesn't exist in nature: it's abstract. More precisely, it is the abstract vector difference between two positional properties.

Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is that, in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must exist at a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical entity that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In other words, if space exists, where is it? This leads to a tautology.

The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to) individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic. We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only the absolute exists. So particles do not move from one location in space to another.

 

[McGyver]

You are close. Time would begin at the instant there were inception of all things. If existence ALWAYS was - then Time is mostly relevant measurements that define relationships, eg. length of events, light, sound, distance, particle make-up, eb and flow of (harmonics). Simply put, existence is interconnecting events. The deeper one looks, you begin viewing dimensions (including afterlife) and those dimensions again exists within Time. Math formulas have thus been created by humans to define the known relationships, and extrapolate end points which we assume, based upon proven formulas, to therefore exist. Bear in mind Time and Existance are ever-changing.

 

[Starship]

Space and time are abstract concepts. It does not exist in nature. In fact i don't believe relativity is a correct theory. The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.

How is the physical connection between electricity and magnetism related to the connection between abstract concepts such as space and time?

 

[moving finger]

The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.

I agree with the concept of work unification. Can I unify my job with someone else's job and take some time off?

MF


(ps - sorry, just a joke!)

 

[Doctordick]

Causality doesn't cause anything. But events cause other events, so
causality must exist ...in some sense.

I agree 100%. And my position is that causality exists as a mechanism to make our experiences easier to keep track of. And I will explain that position throughly if you have the patience to follow my reasoning.

I'm still reading your posts.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Well, quite. That is the traditional problem of time, causality etc -- how best to characterise them. Trying to dismiss them totally doesn't help because it doesn't work.

Absolutely correct! What I am trying to say is that you seem to recognize the problem but don't present a solution outside the common conclusions: i.e., presume that time is a real thing and not just a figment of your imagination.

Just reading your stuff!

Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Notes on Barbour's theory:

1. Removing causality pulls the rug from under scientific epistemology

2. It also pulls the rug from under the notion of a 'time capsule'. Memory is disntinguished from imagination by having a certain kind of causal history. In the absence of that criteron, what is to stop me saying that my dreams are a 'time capsule' of the universe next door.

3. The mysterious role of proability in the absence of anything actually happening.
Apparently, more Nows of higher probability are 'more likely to be experienced'. Is that an
Appeal to consciousnessas a god of the gaps?

I really think we need to talk!

Dick

 

[Doctordick]

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.

Now this depends very much on your definition of those reference frames. The reference frames themselves have characteristics which need to be established. Units of measure and methods of making measurements just to name two. Your phrase "the choice of reference frame" has been assumed to be limited to a very specific set of reference frames. You should read a little about Hamiltonian Mechanics; it might expand your view of the concept "reference frame".

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Ron]

Time does exist?

The argument as to whether or not time exists might be found at www.btinternet.com/~author.ron[/URL]

The paper, ‘The Nature and Cause of Time’, suggests that the spacetime model, although an excellent mathematical model for determining the position of any point or object in space and time, appears to be confusing our understanding about the real nature of time itself. The paper puts forward a hypothesis that assumes time and energy to be the same thing. As we know, energy is the source of all activities, therefore the cause of change, and as most can agree, change is a prime feature of passing time. Without energy, mass would be inert and changeless, which would mean the universe would be a pretty dead universe indeed.

As the eminent physicist, Paul Davies, stated in his book titled, ‘About Time’, ‘time and energy goes hand in hand – no energy, no time’. Now this gives a strong indication that there is a direct relationship between time and energy, and the above link agrees with Davies statement but takes it further by assuming that time and energy are in fact two features of the same thing.

The idea of ‘energy’ always relates to the capacity to do work, while ‘time’ usually refers to the passage of events that is measurable. When energy is exerted and work is done the consequence of that work is ‘change’, and a sequence of changes gives rise to the effect of passing time that has duration, which is measurable. And as a matter of interest the measuring system of time is energy also based. Both mechanical and electrical timepieces all need ‘energy’ in order to ‘do the work’ of measuring time.

In answer to the question, does time exist; it would seem it does, in the form of energy?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

hey Billy T, how long did it take you to prove that time doesn't exist?

 

[tino lin]

This idea of time do not exist/exist got me thinking about The Matrix.
My appology if this discussion has already been made since I did not have
time to read this whole thread.
Since it is hard to prove that time do not exist/exist in our world.
Let try to think of what kind of world that time DO exist?
My answer to this question (my answer may or may not make sense) would be the world like in The Matrix, where it is a simulated world tick by each CPU instruction, or actually CPU cycle by an oscillating crystal. Now this we can clearly say that time exist.
Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.

 

[Ron]

Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.

In the natural world time exists because of atomic oscillations, that is, because of the emission / absorption of quanta. This results in atomic change, where change creates the effect of passing time.

 

[tdunc]

I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathematics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundamental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, I am not going to read it.

(for those who don't know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)

 

[Ron]

I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathematics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundamental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, I am not going to read it.

(for those who don't know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)

Be careful when you consider yourself a genius, you might be taken for a crackpot. Einstein was classified as being a genius but he never, ever admitted it publicly. If you are a genius why are there so many spelling mistakes within your postings? A professional scientist would be put off by them and stop reading your ideas. I often rush through my writing and sometimes make spelling mistakes in the process, so I always use a spell-checker before posting. This is just a piece of advice so please don’t take this personally.

As for your remark that you will not be reading our postings, well that is your privilege, but by doing so you will be advertising your immaturity as well as missing out on some interesting counter arguments. That’s what this forum is here for, to ask questions, share ideas, and to offer counter arguments to any idea we oppose. Personally, I do not accept you view of time, but having said that I still find it interesting to read. Amongst professional scientists / philosophers and even undergraduates and post-graduates there are differing opinions. Some say time exists, others say it doesn’t, and because of that we discuss our differences with hopes of drawing up a common conclusion. We don’t get one scientist or undergraduate shutting the other out or say I refuse to read your work because it doesn’t agree with mine. That’s an unhealthy attitude that will grind progress to a halt. But, as I said, that’s your privilege. You will miss out on some healthy discussions by doing that.

As for my hypothesis that explains the nature and cause of time, I am not claiming my work is THE answer to time’s dilemma. It’s simply a logical deduction based on our current knowledge and understanding of physics that appears to give an answer to the problem of time. Professional and non-professional scientists have read my work with mixed feelings. Some have responded very positively by saying that my work appears to offer an interesting answer regarding the nature of time, while others have expressed some doubts. That’s how it is with research. A new hypothesis or theory is only acceptable as being a viable one through validating it through repeatable experimentation, which then becomes an accepted fact.

Personal Website: The Nature and Cause of Time.
www.btinternet.com/~author.ron[/URL]

 

[Solasis]

Aetherial Temporal

I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if this has been said already, and if it has, just ignore me, but Time is the medium through which change flows; I'm with Billy inasmuch that Time does not cause change; rather, time allows change to occur. It's like the ancient Aether through which matter flowed.

 

[tdunc]

You misunderstood the context in which I said I thought I was a genius. I'll tell you right now I'm not a genius. The more I know, the less I think I know. Understanding what time is, was a personal breakthrough if you will in understanding "how it all works" and I reasoned that the solution of "what is time?" is quite simple, and it is.

You say you do not accept my view of what time is...

Well Ron let me just reply to this. I read your article, nicely done, and I agree with it damn near word for word. You get it congrats, I mean you took it upon yourself to personally figure out what time is; that aside from what others think. Makes you wonder what we thought time was otherwise? I don't even remeber, its not important, what's important is that the question is answered, my personal curiosity has been satisfied, I have 'solved time' in my mind and have long since moved on to other questions; so you'll understand why I do not wish to read and ingage in a lengthy discussion about it. Change is a keyword indeed. So when you say that you do not agree with my view of what time is, you don't really mean it because you know time like I know time I just probably do not express my thoughts out as well as you do (in the past, I'm getting better as a writer) and felt it unnecessary to go into elaborate detail as you have done. But again I would like to comend you for your effort, and will recommend anyone to read it. I'd would even ask you to go write something on wikipedia under time or make changes where you feel necessary. Ya sure we could add more to it discuss it more, but again I personally just don't have the desire to do such, you'll have to excuss the way in which I entered this thread; I got an email link from this forum and it caught my eye with the amount of replies it had, not based on the fact I find the topic interesting anymore. I just don't see what there is so much to talk about... I guess I'll never know ;) Or I don't want to know, some people really get carried away. Keep things simple when the answer is simple is my moto.

 

[Ron]

Hello tdunc. Thank you for your kind reply. It's been a pleasure speaking with you.

 

[agnostictheist]

It seems to me, not that i have read the thread totally, that at the beg of this thread. Time is cusality, need it be so?

currently and i ask the physics mind people hear help me out or correct me if need be, time is defined to be the lenghts between points (however certian elements need to use our notion of time to formulate "qunatities", even "timeless descritpions" while themselfs require no need of time, what of the elements that are used?? .


When we talk of an event, assumingly in time, if such a case is true maybe time is not about just "change", or rather while chnage is a suffient condition of time, chnage is not nesscery for time. simlaiy motion is simply the characterisic descriptions of "interactions" of energy, or lack of exchange, both would still count as an event, an effect - but both would not be described as cause and effect, or T2 was caused by T1 in fact maybe we should talk about two sense of time, the tenseless, and "tenser" theories of time...in one Time merely stops all things happening at once, its treated merely has a demension! this needs not required a sense of chain of events, or causal relationship, rather the relations are referred via over-generalistions, based on induction.

But current theories seem to suggest when talking about time, motion etc such things are not absolute and for that matter the importance to things lies in relationships between points (which can differ, from oberver A to that of B, even those they are reffering to the same thing) not adding the concept of time to it, as it does not change the system. However even if time loses its importance or its centre stage that's no reason to assume time is an illusion rather it might bring back the question, what is time? or is there a different type of time. its been argued before that time is motion (but that solves nothing for motion is having different spatial dimensions at different times! - this is a function of/in? time, not time itself!), but if we can talk of things merely in "acts" or "events" and NOT case Cause and effect, rather merely action then it might suggest that time need not be "change", for there is no chnage in something going from state A to state A (the special relationship of to itself!), even those there is a state of affairs eg ( an effect). tenseless!

time as we know it, or rather infer it, dependent on lang, and a contigency in "reality".

 

[Ivegottheskill]

I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes)

It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion

 

[timestill]

This was meant for the top POST

The math that you worked out, I think that it can not be validated at the quantum level... especially in describing the spin proprieties of fermions...
I am not a pro but I also think that being that the arrow of time does not change it implies that it represents a strong argument on the reality of time as a dimension... Abstract constructs as light cones are another argument...

 

[cronodragon]

Do we notice time because of the repetive events? Would be notice time in a place where nothing happens twice? :/

 

[eNathan]

I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes)

It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion

So your saying that time is just the measurment of motion? Yes, I agree. Motion exists, and varies with respect to v. You can also call this a variation in the interval between two events (or motions).

 

[eNathan]

By the way, Ivegottheskill, you titled this thread with "Math proof". Can you demonstrate some mathematical proof therefore?

:)

 

[Tournesol]

The thread was started by "Billy T"

 

[Rade]

If time does not exist, then the second law of thermodynamics also does not exist, that is, the events of the second law (order to disorder) cannot obtain without an "arrow of time".

 

[Gir]

I think time travel is impossible on dynamic grounds: The universe, as I see it, is a big non-linear dynamo in its chaotic regime. Think of the Lorenz Attractor: Trajectories NEVER cross. Same for the Universe in my opinion: to travel back in time would require crossing trajectories and to do so would entail "jumping" to another attractor (a different universe). Anyway, looking at it that way works for me.

Salty

time travel may not be possible, time viewing on the other hand SHOULD be possible if time is a fourth dimention. time must exist in one form or another or we would not have the ability to form memories. if time doesn't exist then how is it that we experience the passage of it?

with that said, say time is a dimention which we are simply not able to see through, that wouldn't mean that it doesn't exist. if you're sitting on one side of a brick wall, does that mean that what's on the other side doesn't exist just because you can't see it? we can only see in three dimentions granted, but again, there are things all around us at all times that we can't see, but we don't say air doesn't exist and we can't see that with our bare eyes.

if time doesn't exist, then nothing really exists, it's all just a trick of the mind.

 

[Gir]

Billy T

I completely agree with this concept.

"Time is just the change of state of information about universe registered in human brain compared to the innitially stored states relative to each other."

The above statement is my own, please don't delete it even though its not yet proved.

so nothing exists until a human sees it?

 

[Gir]

Why did at the time of big bang matter was thrown only in three dimensions ?

The best evidence of time will come only when at least information travels from future to past.

matter is part of the three dimentions that we can SEE. the fact that the big bang happened at all just reenforces time existing since it is a past event. if time doesn't exist, then everything must happen at the very same instant.

 

[Gir]

Your (2) postulates that time does not exist, then you go on to speak of T1 and T1. Frankly, I can not follow your thinking here. It seems to be self conflicting to speak of two different times under the assumption that time does not exist. (I am not trying to be difficult. I admit we are so use to speaking of time T1 and T2 etc that it is hard to communicate without doing so.)

Let me again explain why you can observe clock showing 12 o'clock and also showing 1 o'clock even though time does not exist and consequently can do nothing. The clock hands advanced, not because of the passage of time, but because the spring or battery is changing to a lower energy state.

I never have said that sequences (changes) do not occur, only that time passing has no causal effect on anything. Unfortunately, I am growing older, but not because time is passing. As explainded earlier: Events cause events. With each cell division, my telemars are getting shorter, small crystal are accumulationg in my joints, the sun is drying my skin, etc. Time has nothing to do with my aging. (or anythng else - it does not exist.)

My math proof in initialpost shows that although it is very convenient to describ the universe'schanges as if the were functions of time, it isnot necessary to do so. In truth every change has a non temporal cause. (Some other thing changing, like the spring running down in above text about the moving of the clock's hands.)

you're contridicting yourself all over the place here, how can things change at all if time doesn't exist?

 

[Gir]

Thanks for the ref. Hav not read it all as must leave now, but on second page, I find:
"BARBOUR: My basic idea is that time as such does not exist. There is no invisible river of time. But there are things that you could call instants of time, or 'Nows'."

This is exactly what I have been saying based on my math proof.

Thanks again.

eliminating a variable from a math problem does not mean that said vaiable doesn't exist, it just means that it's not that important a variable for that problem.

 

[Gir]

I am not making any comments about the reality of space. I can not prove it non existent with mathematics as I did for time, which is a unique parameter. You should not draw any conclusion, certainly not that I am contradicting myself because of my silence on the issue of the reality of space. As I observed before, I have enough to do just defending the idea that time is not real without getting into discussions about space also.

givin the possiblity that time is a fouth dimention in our visibly 3 dimensional universe you cannot talk about one without the other.

 

[Gir]

No, as I haave often stated, Events cause events, not time passing. Certainly there are sequences of events, like a chain, one leading to the next.

It is a big leap to go from this observation to postualte the real existence of something that has no affect on anything. "CLOCK READINGS" ARE NOT TIME. Sunrises are not time. The only difference between "clock readings" and "sun rises", is that one sequence of events (hands pointing at 12x60 different positions on the clock dial) is a more finely marked sequence of events than the daily sun rise, but this is not any different in principle. Is "sun rise" time also? How about an even less frequent sequence of events: Neptune / Pluto conjunctions? Is that time? Point is: that any sequecnce of events, even the oscillation of the atoms in an "atomic clock" is just that, a sequence of events, not time. My basic claim is that I have eliminated time. You claim I have only relplaced it. Now at least you conceed that I have done so formally via my math, but not "metaphysically." I.e. time is still hidden in the various variables, such as clock hand positions, that correlate well with the "time I eliminated."
I find metaphysical proofs much less persuavive than math. In fact, I don't know of anything proven so firmly by metaphysics that other philosophers can not argue just the contray! Consequently, I will stick with mathematical proofs.
I have already granted that when I eliminate time from all desctriptions of the universe, including sequences of events, that some of the remaining varriables do correlated well with clock hand positions, but I continue, as I just did above, to believe that clock hand positions are not time any more than Neptune/Pluto conjunctions are time.
You believe in the reality of time so firmly that I do not think I will ever convence you that something which can not be observed (don't tell me again that by looking at clock hand positions, your are observing time), and has no affect on anything, is not real. No more real than unicorns, which also have no affect on anything and can not be observed. Thus perhaps we should just "agree to disagree". You stick to your metaphysics, and I will stick to my math. OK?

alright, but if time doesn't exist, then how does one thing cause another? if time truly didnt exist everything would happen in an instant and then be over.

clock readings are a measure of time, they are not in themselves time. you are constantly contradicting yourself and it's starting to become slightly amusing. on one hand you say time doesn't exist, and on the other you say events happen. if events happen time quite simply HAS to exist.

sure everything we see around us is technicly not what is really happening, only what our eyes are able to see, but there are forces at work which are not visable and yet we still accept that they are real.

the only problem with your "mathimatical proof" is that it isn't really proof. all you're doing is taking out a variable. it still takes time for an object to get from point A to point B, even if you're not measuring it.

you equate time to unicorns, apples and oranges anybody? time is a force, you can't observe gravity either but it's always a factor. I will grant you that clocks are not time, only an easy to understand measuring stick for the passage of said time. movement isn't time, but the fact that things can move means time must exist.

 

[Gir]

I think there is something to the argument that time might be just a perception. There is this illness which causes brain not to record "frames" of events into memory which causes a person perceive things not continually. Example: That person would see a car 100 feet away and the next time he/she would see the car would be 10 feet away without seeing how the car got there. Just like very slow frame rate in while watching movie.

yes, but if someone were watching this happen it isn't as though the person would fade from existence during that time. the person with said disorder would still be there, meaning simply blanking out doesn't cause time for that person to stop. time passes no matter if we're aware of it or not, it maynot flow perfectly, but it would be fair to equate it to a river since rivers very rarely flow perfectly, there are bends and ripples.