Time Is Run of Clocks

[Ben]

I am confused by your argument. Like...

I think the key thing to keep in perspective here is that if you claim that "Time is Not Real", then you can also claim that "Space is Not Real" with the same validity--indeed, using the same arguments. With only a small stretch, you could also claim that "Energy is Not Real". And Entropy. And Temperature. And Length.

In contrast to this

Energy in physics is a mathematical relationship among the measurable units of mass, velocity and position. It ain't "real".

What am I missing here? Are the entities you refer to "real", in your world view, or are they not?

 

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that the two quotes above, taken together, do not promote a consistent world view.

[REASON]

I am confused by your argument....What am I missing here? Are the entities you refer to "real", in your world view, or are they not?

 

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that the two quotes above, taken together, do not promote a consistent world view.

 

I think Pyro's point is that whether something is real or not for some people depends on what their definition or "real" is. For some, if you cant put your finger on it, so to speak, then it isn't real in the natural world but rather some sort of human construct or imaginary concept. Some people see time this way. But I'm sure that Pyro would argue that time, space, distance, energy, temperature, and love are all real in the natural universe - even if you can't put your finger on any one of them.

 

I would too. :hihi:

[modest]

I was trying to get someone, anyone, to place "time" on a sound basis, if not exactly logical, but at least to construct a rigorous argument for it being anything other than the ticking of clocks, or some analogue like the laying-down of sedimentary deposists etc

 

Time is what clocks measure. This does not imply that the absence of clocks necessitates an absence of time.

 

In mechanics and dynamics time, space, and mass are fundamental quantities. They are defined and postulated much like things are in a geometry. Energy, for example, is a measure of length (L) squared times mass (M) divided by time (T) squared. Here are some others:

• Velocity = L / T
  
• Acceleration = L / T / T
  
• Kinetic Energy = M x L x L / T / T
  
• Force = M x L / T / T
  
• Momentum = M x L / T
  
• Volume = L x L x L
  
• Density = M / L / L / L
  
• Pressure = M / T / T / L / L
  
• Power = M x L x L / T / T / T
  

You can think of them like theorems while the fundamental quantities are like axioms. Time is a 'real' component of the universe in the sense that it is a fundamental component in a system which describes the universe usefully. But, this does not prove the truth of the nature of the thing clocks are measuring by any deductive means any more than Euclid's 5th proves the nature of parallel lines. Like they say, one geometry is not more true than another; it can only be more convenient.

 

~modest

[C1ay]

So we have thisand thisAny problems in logic here, anybody?

 

Is there any trouble with the logic that all events happen at once or they don't? If they don't then there is an order of events and that order is what we call time.

[Pyrotex]

I am confused by your argument. Like...What am I missing here? Are the entities you refer to "real", in your world view, or are they not?

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that the two quotes above, taken together, do not promote a consistent world view.

Aha! You are achieving enlightenment, Little Grasshopper!

 

Seriously, what you are missing is just a consistent definition of "real".

 

My favorite distinctions in this matter are:

 

"Exists" -- having physical existence; a substance or thing or object; detectable via the senses or technological analogs of senses; not dependent on human interpretation or elucidation.

 

"Real" -- everything that exists, PLUS, mathematical objects, language objects, linguistic structures, identifiable and predictable artifacts of culture, logic, human experience, emotions, memories, history, needs, desires, hopes, interpretations and relationships.

 

"Imaginable" -- everything that is real, PLUS, that which is not real but which can be imagined, described, posited, fabulized, fabricated, hypothicated or dreamed.

 

So, Love and Time are Real, but they do not Exist.

 

We must always keep in mind that we do not have "God's Eyes". That is, we have a limited number of physical senses with which we detect, measure and observe Reality. These senses give us a limited number of paradigms with which to understand Reality.

 

It may very well be that Time Exists, but we do not have the sense of Fyunchlik which is necessary to directly observe Time. For us, we have to deduce the attributes and properties of Time using intuition, experience and logic. Too bad. :hihi: And too bad that Fyunchlik is Imaginable but not Real.

[Pyrotex]

Is there any trouble with the logic that all events happen at once or they don't? If they don't then there is an order of events and that order is what we call time.

Well, no. And yes. :)

 

Our interpretation of Reality is that events occur in a sequence. An ordered sequence.

 

The sequence is ordered by the state of our memory*. If A and B are events, and we observe both of them, and if it is true that we observe A happening while simultaneously having a memory of B happening, then we say, "B occurred before A". On the other hand, if it is true that we observe B happening while simultaneously having a memory of A happening, then we say, "A occurred before B".

 

*Here, "memory" may refer to any recording of an event, either in the mind or in any technological or natural recording medium.

 

However, as Daniel C. Dennett so esoterically explained in "Consciousness Explained", our minds and our memory are not infinitely reliable. :hihi:

[C1ay]

Our interpretation of Reality is that events occur in a sequence. An ordered sequence.

 

But what if we weren't here to interpret reality at all? Would everything happen at once or not? That seems to me to be independent of our own existence.

[Ben]

"Exists" -- having physical existence; a substance or thing or object; detectable via the senses or technological analogs of senses; not dependent on human interpretation or elucidation.

 

So, {...}Time are Real, but they do not Exist.

Which more or less brings us full circle. Time is "detectable" via the ticking of clocks, and that alone. So by your definition time DOES exist. Modest made that point earlier.

 

PS I hope you all realize I am just fooling around. I am a pragmatist - if the concept of time as a dimension (or whatever) makes life a little easier, then I am all for it. Just as in the same way I am all for the imaginary unit.

 

I guess I was just trying to undermine the apparent hegemony of those posters here who like to use their calculators.....

[Pyrotex]

Which more or less brings us full circle. Time is "detectable" via the ticking of clocks, and that alone. So by your definition time DOES exist. Modest made that point earlier.... I guess I was just trying to undermine the apparent hegemony of those posters here who like to use their calculators.....

I would say that a clock measures a continuous change to a physical system. The change is displayed with hands or numbers. I doubt that the clock is "detecting" anything.

 

WHAT!?!? You would undermine the

HYPOGRAPHY TIME HEGEMONY,

and mock the LORDS OF CHRONOS ?!?!

 

You will pay for this, you puny mortal. We will go back in time and give your father a flat tire, so that he never picks up your mother and takes her to that drive-in that was showing the original Frankenstein movie, and impregnates her (with YOU) on the back seat during the 'mob with torches' scene.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Astrojan]

Love, Space and Time are Real, but they do not Exist. Delicious, Im agree.

 

Time and space are the (hu)man constructed ideas, physically does not exists, space and time does NOT arose with Big Bang nor anywhere else, WE had defined various mathematical space abstractions.

 

In the Universe ONLY matter exists.. And if space not exist, matter cannot bend it..

[Pyrotex]

... In the Universe ONLY matter exists.. And if space not exist, matter cannot bend it..

This may be true.

This may be a fact.

 

However, if you decide to ignore space, then the Equations of Motion for many problems will be very, very difficult to solve.

 

If you assume (just for convenience) that space "exists" and that gravity really does bend it, then the Equations of Motion for those tough problems become easy to solve. And ... they give correct answers!!

[Astrojan]

If you assume (just for convenience) that space "exists" and that gravity really does bend it, then the Equations of Motion for those tough problems become easy to solve.

No.

 

If you assume (just for convenience) that Dark energy (= DVAG) consists of gravitons (in other words, graviton exists) so DVAG gradient near masses really bend the route of light photons then the Equations of Motion for those tough problems become easy to solve.

 

Space trivially not exists, graviton may exist bacause it is a kind of matter..

 

Not the non existing space bended, but the possibly existing matter, the DVAG and his gradient will be the cause of gravity.

[Pyrotex]

No. ...

Astrojan,

you are in no position to say "No".

You have never solved Equations of Motion for two bodies orbiting each other.

 

I have.