Solving the Infinite Time Paradox: Zeno's Argument Explained

[DaveC426913]

I think that there is no 'time'. Motion { of quarks, electrons, atoms (including those in our brain), planets, galaxies etc.} is the only thing that creates a simulation of time.

And how is this 'simulation of time' different from actual time?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what makes you think it's not a duck?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

And how is this 'simulation of time' different from actual time?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, what makes you think it's not a duck?

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure. Hands of a clock 'move' and are only physical variables. So we see physical variables (hands of a clock) as a function of some other physical changeables. It is only 'represented' that everything is moving in time.


2. A scene. Motion of every particle in this universe stops. The universe will be in the same state even after billions and billions of yeras. What has happened?

a) Time has stopped.

b) Motion has stopped.



I go by (b) in both the cases.



Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure. Hands of a clock 'move' and are only physical variables. So we see physical variables (hands of a clock) as a function of some other physical changeables. It is only 'represented' that everything is moving in time.

And how exactly does this make it illusory?

Before clocks were invented, before life formed on Earth, the universe ticked by happily. Were atom,s suffering from delusions too?

2. A scene. Motion of every particle in this universe stops. The universe will be in the same state even after billions and billions of yeras. What has happened?

a) Time has stopped.

b) Motion has stopped.

Despite this being an utterly speculative and fabricated hypothesis, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument.

How does this make it illusory?

When my engine stops my car stops too. Is my car therefore illusory?

Illusions look very much real but they are illusions after all.

This says nothing.

You have avoided the question. What makes something that is experienced by every fibre of our universe get relegated to the lowly status of illusion? What is your definition of illusion as distinct from reality?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

And how exactly does this make it illusory?

Before clocks were invented, before life formed on Earth, the universe ticked by happily. Were atom,s suffering from delusions too?



Despite this being an utterly speculative and fabricated hypothesis, I'll let it slide for the sake of argument.

How does this make it illusory?

When my engine stops my car stops too. Is my car therefore illusory?




This says nothing.

You have avoided the question. What makes something that is experienced by every fibre of our universe get relegated to the lowly status of illusion? What is your definition of illusion as distinct from reality?

You deliberately or due to some delusion ( or doggedness) have not understood the clock example. An electon moving around the nucleus can also be taken to be the hand of a clock.

It doesn't reqire 'time' to stop your car's engine but the 'movement' of car's key and all the other 'movements' associated with this process.

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor. Moreover, even thermodynamic equations are blind to the direction of time (a strange thing).

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future. But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

 

[Hurkyl]

Some examples:

1. Do clocks measure time?

a) Yes.

b) No, clocks do not measure time. Time is 'defined' to be what clocks measure.

...

I go by (b)

(b) is obviously false, and that fact has nothing to do with physics. If time is defined to be what clocks measure, then by definition, clocks measure time. (no matter what "clock" or "measure" might mean)

 

[cragar]

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor.

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future. But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

What about Quantum field theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

You deliberately or due to some delusion ( or doggedness) have not understood the clock example. An electon moving around the nucleus can also be taken to be the hand of a clock.

Please don't accuse me of delusions. You brought up the clock as an example for your case. It's trivial to refute it.

An electron in an orbital of a nucleus is fine. You have not explained how it is illusory though.

It doesn't reqire 'time' to stop your car's engine but the 'movement' of car's key and all the other 'movements' associated with this process.

Your claim is: if all molecules stop, time stops. This is proof that time is illusory.
So, things that can be stopped are illusory? You see how it does not follow.

FYE the equations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity are devoid of the time factor. Moreover, even thermodynamic equations are blind to the direction of time (a strange thing).

{Much of the facts that are taken for granted these days were utterly perturbing in the past. Same is true for future But doggedness (or overconfidence or arrogance or some strategy to maintain the staus quo) bypass such observations.}

Please don't fall back on insults. Invocation of "arrogance" and "status quo" complaints is the first resort of a crackpot. You're not a crackpot, right?

You presented an argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I haven't said you are wrong, I have simply shown that you haven't made your case.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Please don't accuse me of delusions. You brought up the clock as an example for your case. It's trivial to refute it.

An electron in an orbital of a nucleus is fine. You have not explained how it is illusory though.


Your claim is: if all molecules stop, time stops. This is proof that time is illusory.
So, things that can be stopped are illusory? You see how it does not follow.



Please don't fall back on insults. Invocation of "arrogance" and "status quo" complaints is the first resort of a crackpot. You're not a crackpot, right?

You presented an argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I haven't said you are wrong, I have simply shown that you haven't made your case.

I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.

[/QUOTE]So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

I haven't 'claimed' anything. I also don't like insulting anyone. The word 'delusion' was not used by me first.

So, things that can be stopped are illusory?[/QUOTE]

I don't get you. As per you molecules should be illusory. I haven't said that.[/QUOTE]





Hi all,

The 'ban' imposed on me has expired.

One thing is for certain. This forum stifles mercilessly any opinion that it does not like.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hi all,

The 'ban' imposed on me has expired.

One thing is for certain. This forum stifles mercilessly any opinion that it does not like.

Absolutely untrue. What this forum does do is provide a platform for discussion of subjects so long as those discussions come with A) logical arguments and B) references to peer-reviewed literature.

Your problem was that you attempted to prove that time was illusionary without either of these. It would have been better if you looked up current physical understanding of what time is and worked from there rather than claiming time = motion and providing no evidence for this (other than faulty scenarios) and not accounting for how this conflicts with current understanding.

Motion occurs through space only and an unbalanced force is responsible for it. Time doesn't have any role in this, I suppose.

Motion occurs through space and time. Draw a spacetime diagram with space on the X axis and time on the Y axis. Put A somewhere a long the X axis and B somewhere else on the X axis. How do you move from A to B without also traveling along the Y axis i.e. how do you move through space without moving through time?

 

[JordanL]

Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters. To quote part of the Wiki article;

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.

My underlined .. it seems most cosmological arguments reduce to this. The first cause; God, or Big bang .. personally, I'm not to sure about either.

It's my understanding that the Big Bang, or rather the point where the Universe began, does not represent an absolute beginning in the sense that most people think of it as. It represents a point in the timeline we share where all information about what was before it was normalized into a single point.

 

[Hells]

Motion can be how we measure time but if objects in a system cease in motion that does not mean that cease in time. If everything stopped then there would be no way of telling.

If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?

If time does not exist then nothing would be able to move, movement occurs through dimensions. One of these is time, it's foolish to say that motion is time because how do you get from one motion to the next? What media does motion occur through if not spacetime?

Isn't that just the chicken and the egg? EG a meaningless debate. Whether movement creates time, or time creates movement, I don't see any difference.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If there's no way in telling, what actual need is there to differentiate it from motion?

Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.

Isn't that just the chicken and the egg? EG a meaningless debate. Whether movement creates time, or time creates movement, I don't see any difference.

Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space. If I walk across my room am I creating the space I'm walking into? No, so why would I be creating the time?

 

[Hells]

Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.

What difference is there then? Educate me. I'm not saying I'm right, just that at my current level of physics knowledge I don't see a difference.

Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space.

I don't see the basis for saying that.

 

[petm1]

Time is duration, space is distance, motion is change in relative position over a duration. Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both. There are lots of differences between time and motion these are just a few off the top of my head.

 

[Hells]

But we define time in movement. For example per " 299 792 458m a photon in vacuum travels", more generally: t =1/"lenght traveled by uniform constant motion" or pr xx rays of a cesium atom, or more old school, a time glass. When we measure motion we just compare it to other form of motions we know are constant. Time is derived from motion

Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both

I assume you refer to time dilation. I thought briefly about it and don't think it changes anything. It's the constants that govern the rate of interaction that are "local". The end result is the same, which is exactly what I'm arguing for :D

 

[petm1]

Time or motion, there can not be movement without the time needed for the change, but having time with no motion happens all the time. Think of a pulsar, we measure a burst of photons and when they stop we will measure the gap between the bursts as if it were moving at the same speed as the photons, a measure of time without motion? How would Morse code work without the constant dilation of time even without a signal?

 

[Darken-Sol]

i thought time was a catalogue of change

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i thought time was a catalogue of change

Simplistically time is a dimension and we measure passage through that dimension. Cataloguing is to time as tape measures are to space; they observe rather than create.

 

[andiamaj1431]

time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesn't really exist

it should not matter if "time" has an end beginning or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldn't our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

it should not matter if "time" has an end beginning or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldn't our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?

I have no idea what you mean by if time ends or even if that statement makes sense but perception is a process that occurs through time. Therefore it is impossible for us to perceive without time and thus because we are perceiving we know that time exists and continues to exist.

 

[andiamaj1431]

i was just trying to understand if the question was referring to time ending, kinda puzzles me when time is talked about

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Over speculative posts deleted. Thread closed.