The nature of time

[phision]

What is the proof for the existence of time, or is it meerly implied? please let me know?

[CraigD]

Time is a well defined physical quantity – that is, using it as a mathematical variable, we can make many useful predictions about future events in the physical universe, which when tested experimentally (or practically, in the everyday operation of natural or artificial systems), are correct.

 

Where most of questions along the lines of “does time exist?” become complicated, I think, is when we assume that the question “does time exist?” is semantically identical, except for a change of one term, with “does the pile of 3/4 inch gravel in my driveway exist?” Our intuitive, informal (that is, not represented by a collection of logical and arithmetic expression that can produce unambiguous truth values) understanding of the quality “exists” tends toward a definition like “when placed on a scale, registers a weight”. Piles of gravel exist in this sense. Time does not.

 

This question, then, is really a question of language semantics. We’ve discussed it at exhaustive (and at 890 posts to date, exhausting ) lengths in thread 3650. In the interest of not repeating old lines of inquiry, if you’ve not yet pored through that thread, phision, I recommend you do.

[Pyrotex]

What is the proof for the existence of time, or is it merely implied? please let me know?

First of all, we must first carefully define the item of interest -- in this case, TIME.

Second, we must define EXISTENCE. In other words, what is required for something to "exist"? Must it be visible? Must it be tangible? Does "love" exist? If so, note that it is neither visible nor tangible. So what what properties of existence must we look for in TIME?

Third, we must define PROOF. How shall we demonstrate the properties of existence for TIME? Can we set up an experiment to do this? Can we rely upon human experience? Will we need a clock?

 

Is there any similarity between "the experience of time" and the "experience of light"? In both cases, our human senses and our brain "tells" us that time IS and light IS. In the latter case, we have a sense organ (eyes) that directly sense the carriers of light, photons. But we have no sense organ that directly senses the carriers of time.

 

If TIME exists, does it require a "carrier"?--like the photon is the carrier of light? In all of our observations, it has never been necessary to assume a carrier of TIME. The nature of TIME as we understand it, makes it almost certain that no such carrier exists. There are no "elementary particles" of TIME.

 

TIME is not a "thing" or a "stuff" that has thing-like or stuff-like attributes. One of the attributes of "thing" is boundary. But TIME has no boundary. You cannot say, "here is TIME, but there is not TIME." TIME is not a "relationship". Love may be defined as a relationship between two people. You cannot say, "TIME describes the relationship between those two things; the one thing is in TIME with the other."

 

Take CraigD's advice. Go read the other thread. This subject is really DEEP.

[phision]

This question, then, is really a question of language semantics. We’ve discussed it at exhaustive (and at 890 posts to date, exhausting ) lengths in thread 3650. In the interest of not repeating old lines of inquiry, if you’ve not yet pored through that thread, phision, I recommend you do.

 

I've read several of the messages in the suggested thread and feel this represents opinion rather than definitive proof. I propose that, as so much of science is dependant on time, to explain nature, that it should either be proven or other means be used to explain the nature of the universe!

 

What perception of the universe would we have if time were not used?

[Pyrotex]

... to explain nature, that it should either be proven or other means be used to explain the nature of the universe!...

Without TIME, we could have no understanding of the universe at all. So, let me take a different approach to your question.

 

All human beings experience time. Time shows up in our language, in our speaking. If you use the past tense or future tense in your speaking, then you are acknowledging that you experience time. So, I don't have to "prove" time exists to you. You already experience it. And indeed, you know how to use the word "time" appropriately! You know what referent the word "time" points to! The concept of time is all-pervasive through the entirety of everything we know, feel, want, desire and believe.

 

If you could not sense / be aware of / measure / use TIME, then it is highly unlikely that you could think at all, certainly no more so than an insect, such as an ant.

 

The problem is NOT proving that it exists. You already KNOW it exists. We all do.

 

The problem is understanding the NATURE of TIME.

[phision]

 

All human beings experience time.

 

Humans experience change not time! Time has been invented to explain the changes, that doesn't make it real.

[sanctus]

Energy is the generator (in the mathematical sense) of time, just as translations are the generators of momentum. Hence no time means no energy...

[phision]

The problem is NOT proving that it exists.

You already KNOW it exists. We all do.

 

YES! the problem is proving it exists that is the difference between a fact and an opinion.

 

The problem is understanding the NATURE of TIME.

 

 

Without A proof, for time, it's nature remains a convenient convention. We need a proof!

[Pyrotex]

YES! ...Without A proof, for time, it's nature remains a convenient convention. We need a proof!

Good luck with that.

 

When you find the proof, let me know.

[phision]

Good luck with...the proof, let me know.

 

 

 

Perhaps, Bufford has an insight on this subject! Could you conscript his assistance,on my behalf?:shrug:

[Pyrotex]

Perhaps, Bufford has an insight on this subject! Could you conscript his assistance,on my behalf?:shrug:

Who is Bufford? :shrug:

[REASON]

Humans experience change not time! Time has been invented to explain the changes, that doesn't make it real.

 

This is what CraigD was talking about when said that this "is a question of language semantics." To say that we can experience change and not time is a false notion, because for any change in nature to occur a period of time is required. Without a time reference, change cannot be exerienced. In fact, without a time reference, there are no experiences. Time is integral to change. Change occurs over time.

 

Semantics.

[Pyrotex]

Reason is absolutely right. The very definition of 'change' depends upon some non-zero time interval.

[Boerseun]

Hmmm... the nature of time... lemme see:

 

What's the nature of left? Or right, for that matter?

 

Like normal, everyday dimensions, time is fundamental and cannot be described in any other way but in terms of itself.

[Moontanman]

I think time is a fundamental property of reality, with out time you have nothing. Most people, when they talk of or think of dimensions, start out with length, then width, then height and only them do they think of time, often as some sort of add on. i think time is the fundamental basis all other ideas of dimensions are built on. For any other dimension from 1 to 3 to 11 to 121 to 1331 have to have time to exist. IMHO

[phision]

To say that we can experience change and not time is a false notion, because for any change in nature to occur a period of time is required.

 

Your just saying, change equals time, and time equals change! That`s circular logic and should be avoid to reason clearly.

 

Reason is absolutely right. The very definition of 'change' depends upon some non-zero time interval.

 

The definition of change found at, Change | Define Change at Dictionary.com, doesn`t mention time! So change doesn`t equal time.

 

Epictetus, the Greek Philosopher, would be concerned by the way yous think! He said

"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are."

[coldcreation]

"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are."

 

I might be wrong, but it seems that nothing users here at Hypography write in this thread will convince you that time is an irreducible aspect of the physical world, real, fundamental, natural (as opposed to something invented by the human imagination).

 

One note on your post above. Your straw man is that change equals time. Change and time are inseparable, that doesn't mean they are the same thing, or equal to one another (any more than ketchup and hamburgers are equal to one another).

 

 

“The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.”

(Albert Einstein)

 

 

 

CC