The nature of time

[lawcat]

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

 

Phision, why don't you try giving your explanation?

[Pyrotex]

[sound of crickets]

[Doctordick]

On the nature of time.

 

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).

 

[imath]\cdots[/imath]

 

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

(Albert Einstein)

Or rather to avoid having one's explanation of realty presume everything is already known which, by the way, is exactly what Einstein's paradigm of relativity presumes and it is this error which explains why his paradigm is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

 

To begin with, I would like to point out that everyone's fundamental world-view is essentially well established at about the age of two years and they all certainly have a well developed concept of that world by the age of three. When I speak of their fundamental world-view, I am referring to the three dimensional world they find themselves in, populated by objects (parents, toys, food, etc.) and the fact that they begin to use the concept “time” (bedtime, “wait a minute”, we will do that tomorrow, etc.).

 

Very few of us have any inkling of the concept of logical analysis of such information before we have substantially completed our education: i.e., these ideas are ideas we never even consider doubting. That fact in itself should be taken as a warning sign that it could very well be that important analysis has, in fact, never been done. What I am trying to point out is that these ideas are created on a subconscious level without analytical thought whatsoever. These are ideas which we carry forward as so absolutely obvious that they require utterly no analysis whatsoever.

 

If you examine all the posts on this forum concerning the issue of time (and also the issue of space), you will find that they essentially constitute arguments that “anyone with any common sense” understands exactly what time is (or exactly what space is). The arguments in favor of the common concepts of time and space essentially discuss the internal consistency of the uses of these concepts; not the essence of the concepts themselves and/or why our subconscious came up with these concepts. It is simply presumed (without any logical analysis at all) that an intelligent understanding of reality can not be created sans such concepts: i.e., these concepts are presumed to be a known fact of reality.

 

I, on the other hand, have come to realize that time is nothing more than a mental mechanism created to handle the fact that we are not all knowing. This I can prove via deductions from my rather simple definition of time: the past is what we know and the future is what we do not know. Under that definition, the present becomes nothing more than a change in what we know. That is to say, some part of the future becomes part of the past; that part being what we call the present. Understanding the past (what we know) to be analyzable as linear list of presents (changes in what we know) has utterly nothing to do with reality and everything to do with simply handling the fact that we are not “all knowing”.

 

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read my posts should be fully aware of the fact that my definition of time ends up corresponding exactly, in every detail, to all aspects of the common mental image of time and to all the deductions common to that concept (except of course the possibility of time travel: i.e., time is not the same as space). Thus it is that I see most all discussions of time on this forum to be essentially facetious.

 

Against this I fully understand that my position will not be taken as supportable as it is clearly in conflict with the beliefs of most all. It is sadly the common perception that ones “beliefs” are beyond question and thus the presumption that space and time are facts of reality will continue to stand as unquestionable.

 

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[modest]

That is to say, some part of the future becomes part of the past; that part being what we call the present. Understanding the past (what we know) to be analyzable as linear list of presents (changes in what we know) has utterly nothing to do with reality and everything to do with simply handling the fact that we are not “all knowing”.

 

But, what if we were all-knowing? :eek:

 

This reminded me of something I read a long time ago written by Saint Augustine. I can't really find a great summary, but I'll throw the one I just found out there...

 

The theme of divine inscrutability shapes much of the story, despite the fact that the whole is itself addressed to God. I also note, briefly, that as he dwells on epistemology and memory in book X, and on the elusiveness of the infinitesimally divisible moment of consciousness that we call “the present” in Book XI (past and future do not exist; the present is an interval of no duration), he articulates a defining aspect of the absolute difference between God’s mode of being and ours. God is eternal; we are divided up, distended in time: “You are my eternal Father, but I am scattered in times whose order I do not understand. The storms of incoherent events tear to pieces my thoughts, the inmost entrails of my soul...” [...] Knowledge and understanding require retrospect, since the Present — a knife edge of reality poised between two different kinds of nonbeing, the Past and Future — slips by too fast.

 

St. Augustine and His Opponents ... - Google Books

 

~modest :naughty:

[Pyrotex]

I became all-knowing once. Really. It was back in graduate school, and I arranged to become all-knowing at about 11PM out on the baseball practice diamond on the outskirts of Mississippi State University, in 1972. All the lights had been turned off. The weather was crystal clear and the stars could not have been brighter.

 

I was all-knowing for about five or ten minutes. It's hard to tell. I took a brief spin out among the stars, but never got close to any one of them in particular. It was breath-taking, for sure. But after it was all said and done, I hafta tell you, being all-knowing is not that much different than being almost-nothing-knowing. It involves a lot more adrenalin, of course.

 

But even though I was all-knowing, I discovered that accessing all that near-infinite knowledge was such a hassle (what do I want to know right now? what do I hafta know first before I can know that? how much of that do I want to know? etcetera) that for all practical purposes, it was just the same as being almost-nothing-knowing. Sure, I whizzed back and forth in time from the far future to the far past, but at any given instant, it just looked like the present. And it was very tiring.

 

I know this isn't what you wanna hear, but I gotta tell you, being all-knowing isn't really worth all the effort. And the headaches afterward are freakin' killers.

[coldcreation]

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read my posts should be fully aware of the fact that my definition of time ends up corresponding exactly, in every detail, to all aspects of the common mental image of time and to all the deductions common to that concept (except of course the possibility of time travel: i.e., time is not the same as space). Thus it is that I see most all discussions of time on this forum to be essentially facetious.

 

Greetings Doctordick,

 

I have actually been following your posts in diverse threads, your discussions with AnssiH and others, and I eagerly await your development of a representation of a general relativistic transformation of x,y,z,tau, your representation of a "reality of no rules" (the explanation itself). Until then, I beg to differ with you on your interpretation of both time and space, and your suggestion that these are human constructs, "beliefs."

 

There is a wide gap between that which is empirical in nature and beliefs. While it is true that time and space are concepts, they are concepts derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory or beliefs. They are concepts based on practical experience rather than scientific proof, rather than by logic from first principles. Yet, certainly, the concept of time, like that (or those) of space, are subject, at least theoretically, to verification (even falsification), i.e., the concepts are testable.

 

 

Against this I fully understand that my position will not be taken as supportable as it is clearly in conflict with the beliefs of most all. It is sadly the common perception that ones “beliefs” are beyond question and thus the presumption that space and time are facts of reality will continue to stand as unquestionable.

 

Contrary to "beliefs," the concept of time (and space) are dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses, i.e., statements made about time and space are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Since information (data) regarding time and space are acquired by observation, experience, and experiment, it serve as a 'neutral arbiter' between competing theories that make use of the data (such as relativity or QM, and too, thermodynamics). Indeed, this empirical data is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use basic axioms (or postulated physical laws) and experimental results. These methods are opposed to theoretical Ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles (concepts with which you seem to be more inclined to believe; correct me if I'm mistaken ).

 

The concept of past, present and future—a notion consistent with a fundamental description of nature, the arrow of time (irreversibility), is one that is irreducible, one that cannot be done away with.

 

Do we know everything? Surely not. There are problems that remain to be solved. Non-dynamic models (or worldviews) are incapable of predicting, say, the average density of the universe in time, but the clear-cut separation between kinematics and dynamics in elementary particle physics has made for empirical lucidity of the concepts of time and space, each separated into its own compartment—whereas in general relativity, no such separation exists. This type of problem has been the source of ambiguities with respect to time reversible thermodynamic processes, where the arrow of time is no longer clearly defined; as well as uncertainties with regard to the integration or unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein was, of course, well aware of these problems, but was unable to resolve them.

 

What empirical evidence exists consistent with the fact that time is 'real,' fundamental, natural, physical, not a human construct? Back to thermodynamics: Generally, any spontaneous or stimulated change of state of a system is associated with a change in entropy. Indeed the evolution of the universe in directly related to the nondecrease of entropy with time. Entropy is a nonnegative property that increases as the universe evolves. Eddington very emblematically referred to entropy as the ‘arrow of time.’ Entropy is a time-dependent property because the state of a system cannot change instantaneously.

 

In his 1945 Treatise on Thermodynamics, Max Planck put in writing a propos the second law and the increase of entropy: “The gist of the second law has nothing to do with experiment; the law asserts briefly that there exists in nature a quantity which always changes in the same way in all natural processes.” The gist of the second law and its relation to time has nothing to do with human imagination, or with a belief system we humans invent.

 

Entropy is a time-dependent property because the state of a system cannot change instantaneously. This is but one of the empirical proofs that marks an arrow of time.

 

There is nothing facetious about time. It is precisely this contempt for explanations that lay behind Einstein’s remarks quoted above, and the question of understanding simply did not concern him, except as something to dismiss. He certainly did understand the enigmatic inscriptions encoded in the GR equations and the complicated liaisons they had with nature, with time and space, but he also realized their predisposition in the direction of abstraction. For this reason Einstein’s obduracy towards the synthetic (invented) concept of spacetime was clear enough.

 

 

As Ilya Prigogine once highlighted; “It is remarkable that irreversibility already emerges in simple situations involving only a few degrees of freedom.” He continued, “This, of course, is a blow to the anthropomorphic interpretation of irreversibility based on approximations that we ourselves are supposed to introduce.” (Prigogine, I., 1996, The End of Certainty, Time Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature).

 

 

 

CC

[phision]

Phision, why don't you try giving your explanation?

 

My explanation is that we inhabit a three dimensional space which is subject to change! This coincides with Doctordick's explanation quoted below.

 

On the nature of time.

 

To begin with, I would like to point out that everyone's fundamental world-view is essentially well established at about the age of two years and they all certainly have a well developed concept of that world by the age of three. When I speak of their fundamental world-view, I am referring to the three dimensional world they find themselves in, populated by objects (parents, toys, food, etc.) and the fact that they begin to use the concept “time” (bedtime, “wait a minute”, we will do that tomorrow, etc.).

 

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read my posts should be fully aware of the fact that my definition of time ends up corresponding exactly, in every detail, to all aspects of the common mental image of time and to all the deductions common to that concept (except of course the possibility of time travel: i.e., time is not the same as space). Thus it is that I see most all discussions of time on this forum to be essentially facetious.

 

Against this I fully understand that my position will not be taken as supportable as it is clearly in conflict with the beliefs of most all. It is sadly the common perception that ones “beliefs” are beyond question and thus the presumption that space and time are facts of reality will continue to stand as unquestionable.

 

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

 

Doctordick's quote above refers to the indoctrination of, "the concept “time”", with references to changes.

and the fact that they begin to use the concept “time” (bedtime, “wait a minute”, we will do that tomorrow, etc.).

In this way, time and change, come to mean the same thing to people, or at least become intrinsic to each other!

Which brings me to the supposed axiom proposed below. while this may be a generally accepted principle, it is NOT self-evident.

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).

The deep seated belief in time is hard for people to question as it has become the bed rock of how they interpret the world.

 

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).]

Beleif in something which has not been proven, is tantamount to religious beleif, and is defenestrated, as reason undermines and surpasses it.

[REASON]

My explanation is that we inhabit a three dimensional space which is subject to change!

 

How do you describe the rate at which change occurs?

[phision]

How do you describe the rate at which change occurs?

 

:hihi:That is the issue at the heart of this thread as stated in a previous post.

 

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!

 

:naughty:So far humans have only compared things by counting how many changes occur. Whether it be the light and dark changes which define a day or the more frequent changes in energy levels of caesium atoms used in atomic clocks. We need to make the leap to defining our universe without time or prove that time exists!:eek:

[coldcreation]

My explanation is that we inhabit a three dimensional space which is subject to change!

 

It's called a spacetime continuum.

 

 

Doctordick's quote above refers to the indoctrination of, "the concept “time”, with references to changes.

 

In this way, time and change, come to mean the same thing to people, or at least become intrinsic to each other!

 

Which brings me to the supposed axiom proposed below. while this may be a generally accepted principle, it is NOT self-evident.

 

But it is evident, that's why it's generally accepted

 

 

The deep seated belief in time is hard for people to question as it has become the bed rock of how they interpret the world.

 

Beleif in something which has not been proven, is tantamount to religious beleif, and is defenestrated, as reason undermines and surpasses it.

 

As regards time, your relation above is nonsense. As mentioned previously, in different ways, time is an aspect of the fundamental structure of the universe. It is a dimension in which events occur in sequence (or simultaneously, depending on the location of observers).

 

 

 

 

How do you describe the rate at which change occurs?

 

How do you describe the rate at which change occurs?

 

:hihi:That is the issue at the heart of this thread as stated in a previous post.

 

 

It's called time.

 

 

 

So far humans have only compared things by counting how many changes occur. Whether it be the light and dark changes which define a day or the more frequent changes in energy levels of caesium atoms used in atomic clocks. We need to make the leap to defining our universe without time or prove that time exists!:eek:

 

To define the universe without time is just as nonsensical (absurd, silly, inane, useless) as describing it without space.

 

 

I recommend, as CraigD here, that you read the What is Time? thread, as there is no need to cover the same material twice.

 

 

Time is money!

 

 

CC

[lawcat]

We need to make the leap to defining our universe without time or prove that time exists!:(

 

When you move your finger from your nose to your ear,that differential motion is enabled by the existence of something we call time--an infinite counter. If there was no such thing, then you would be still. Everything would be still. But more than that, really, nothing would exist. It really is that simple. Time is like space; if there was no space, location would not exist. If there was no time, change in location would not exist. That is the proof. The mere fact that location and change in location exist, is the proof that time exists. But more than that, the fact that something exists is the proof that both space and time exist. It can truly be said that everything is made of space and time.

[clapstyx]

For me, the question of whether time exists is as useful as whether God exists. I think we understand the general concepts that make up a sense of time fairly well at an intuiitive level but it is a fairly futile waste of time discussing it because inevitably the discussion doesnt resolve anything at all. Time passes. Its like discussing the presence of God in the sense that unless someone can actually come up with a way that is guaranteed to make God appear and this God can then prove that they are actually an omnipresent super power in the unversality of the concept of extreme well enough to eliminate all doubt the religious status quo isnt likely to change much at all from now until the end of time because there arent really many moves left on the board. As I see it the main script would suggest that Christ could come back and surpass the legend that has grown over the last 2000 years or there could be some more prophets but beyond those options I dont see many. The religions could theoretically come to a common sense of some kind and unite (which would fulfil the biblical prophecy)but the problem would seem to be that whoever lead them to a single pursuit of honest purpose wouldnt be able to be aligned to any one faith. If its an honest pursuit that unites them then conceptually speaking there would have to be a period of time in advance of that where everything that was said was perfectly litereally true so that the frequency of realisation accelerated (and again that puts pre-eminence in the Christian camp). To some degree global time and events still relate to what became known as the bible whether it should be that way or not. Armageddon is a good example because some see it as an event that must be experienced before world religious experiences can advance to something better so they can live their religion again and be in the moment.

[modest]

My explanation is that we inhabit a three dimensional space which is subject to change!

Here is a sequence of numbers:

1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81...

As you say, each number is subject to change. That is to say, each number is different from the number preceding it. So, Reason points out:

How do you describe the rate at which change occurs?

And, we can figure that out. Each number you should find (and do check me on this) is larger than the number before it by one and twice its square root. Starting with the number one which is the first in our sequence, and which we'll say is the first thing we know exists, we can find the next number by adding on to it twice its square root plus one:

[math]1 + [2 \times \sqrt{1} + 1] = 4[/math]

That correctly found four, the next number. It correctly found the rate of change. The next number should be...

[math]4 + [2 \times \sqrt{4} + 1] = 9[/math]

...nine. That is again the correct change. The next number should be...

[math]9 + [2 \times \sqrt{9} + 1 ]= 16[/math]

...sixteen. Yes! That is correct. Now we know that the things that exist in our 'universe' change by growing one more than twice the square root of what they were before. This explains our sequence of numbers. We now understand it. We can describe it and predict it.

 

 

But, we could also describe the sequence with [math]F(n) = n^2[/math]. By this method the first number in the sequence should be...

[math]F(1) = 1^2 = 1[/math]

...one. The second and third numbers:

[math]F(2) = 2^2 = 4[/math]

[math]F(3) = 3^2 = 9[/math]

are four and nine. The seventh number should be...

[math]F(7) = 7^2 = 49[/math]

...forty-nine. Yes, indeed, [math]F(n) = n^2[/math] seems to be a very good way of describing the numbers of the sequence.

 

 

But, now we get to the crux of the issue. You say that we can't prove that [math]n[/math] in [math]F(n) = n^2[/math] exists. You say that it may be a useful convenience,

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

but that belief in [math]n[/math] without proof is tantamount to religion,

Beleif in something which has not been proven, is tantamount to religious beleif, and is defenestrated, as reason undermines and surpasses it.

But, [math]n[/math] is just a placeholder. It's just a way of saying "the second number" or "the fourth number". That is no different in the epistemological sense that we're talking about from your concept of "the next number after this one". So, even if we could accurately paint the universe with your concept of 'the number after x changes at rate r' that is no more fundamentally provable than somebody else's concept of 'at n the number is x'. It is just two ways to describe the same sequence... neither being any more ontologically palatable or preferential than the other... even assuming your method is perfectly capable yet meaningfully different from the other method.

 

Or, to finally iron out this metaphor, I see no fundamental reason to accept change as something real that exists without proof while saying that time needs to be proven before we can say it is real and exists. It's like saying that change in position has an obvious and given ontology while distance does not and needs to be proven.

 

Why would you think change is the more easily-existent concept over time?

 

~modest

[phision]

 

Why would you think change is the more easily-existent concept over time?

 

~modest

 

:confused:I have witnessed change! Change is an axiom!

[IDMclean]

I believe the short answer to your question is that no proof has been supplied for time because it is assumed. Given time as an axiom, it is not subject to proof within the formal system that it is axiom of. That said, time can only be a theorem of a system which does not include it as an axiom.

 

So, if you want a proof of time, you need to develop a formal system which allows a theorem or a theory (a set of theorems) matching the properties of time. An informal sketch of proof would probably be advisable after you've devised the formal system from its axioms.

 

With that in mind, you need to ask yourself are you looking for a consistent or complete formal system?

[Doctordick]

Phision, you appear to be a very rational person; however, your arguments are somewhat facetious. I would like to point out a subtle problem with your assertion.

:confused:I have witnessed change! Change is an axiom!

Not really! What if I said to you, qwuifflegay is an axiom! Would you accept that as a reasonable statement? What you are missing is the fact that an axiom asserts some presumed relationship. In logic it is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but rather considered either self-evident or subject to a necessary decision. You can not simply assert that “change is an axiom” without defining “change” or rather that there is a quality of your knowledge which can be defined as “change” and that it is a necessary decision to include this quality in your definition of knowledge.

 

This is the reason I assert that it is the presumption that we are not “all-knowing” which requires our knowledge to include the quality of change: i.e., in common language, “what we know changes”. Now we do have some absolute idiots here who would rather make the presumption that they are “all-knowing” but I think any rational person would tend to avoid that as a reasonable opening proposition for any rational argument. It is most definitely a “religious” position.

That said, time can only be a theorem of a system which does not include it as an axiom.

As I said to phision, the first step is to define time. “Time”, as commonly understood, is neither a theorem nor an axiom; it is rather, a presumed (not very carefully examined) quality of reality. What is important is that you made that unexamined presumption (that it is a unquestionable required quality of reality) when you were no more than a mere toddler. See my post on Understanding Reality.

So, if you want a proof of time, you need to develop a formal system which allows a theorem or a theory (a set of theorems) matching the properties of time. An informal sketch of proof would probably be advisable after you've devised the formal system from its axioms.

No; what you need is a decent definition of time. That is exactly what I gave everyone when I defined time the way I did: i.e., the “past” is what is known and the “future” is what is not known. The “present” then becomes a change in what is known (the past is now different from what it was). I take it as self evident that “the past” can be seen as a finite collection of hypothetical “presents” indexed by “t” (it is that index which we commonly refer to as “time”). The index is an open variable until you have an actual explanation you want to express. You then use that variable, t, to express the supposed sequence that the information became available within your explanation of reality.

 

That time is a continuous variable is another presumption of your explanation. Your explanation requires it to be a continuous variable because the “t” you use does not index the presents (the changes in knowledge) you have personally experienced, but rather the change in knowledge your explanation presumes to be available to you (in common language, you often learn of events long after they supposedly have occurred in your supposed reality). Thus your explanation must allow for the insertion of a new specific indexed present between any two indexed presents already specified. That is the very definition of a continuous variable.

With that in mind, you need to ask yourself are you looking for a consistent or complete formal system?

Isn't that what all rational people would like their authorities to be searching for?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[phision]

What if I said to you, qwuifflegay is an axiom! Would you accept that as a reasonable statement?

I would say, "Thats interesting combination of syllables! Which I'm suprised to find at the fore of you consciousness!":confused:

What you are missing is the fact that an axiom asserts some presumed relationship.

The original assertion was...

My explanation is that we inhabit a three dimensional space which is subject to change!

Which I hope you agree does constitute an axiom.:)

No; what you need is a decent definition of time. That is exactly what I gave everyone when I defined time the way I did: i.e., the “past” is what is known and the “future” is what is not known. The “present” then becomes a change in what is known (the past is now different from what it was). I take it as self evident that “the past” can be seen as a finite collection of hypothetical “presents” indexed by “t” (it is that index which we commonly refer to as “time”).

Your definition of time indicates, to me, that time, is not an principal quality of our universe, as it needs values to be "known", which indicates the presence of a sentient being(man). No man, no time! This sound like time could be a human construct.

Isn't that what all rational people would like their authorities to be searching for?

No! People need to know that things are as definitve as they are told or assume. Continuing to define things in relation to "time" perpetuates this illusion.

 

Have fun -- Dick