Time Is Run of Clocks

[amrit]

According to my research there is no time behind run of clocks.

Universe is timeless.

see more typing in google two words:

amrit vixra

 

yours amrit

[Rade]

Questions. If the "universe is timeless", is it then not a logical conclusion that "the universe is motionless", given that time and motion are united, that is, motion not possible without time and time not possible without motion ? If so, that is, if you conclude that the "universe is motionless" how then do you explain experimental evidence that the universe (as a whole) is expanding ?

 

Also, what if the universe we know is only intermediate between two others, that is, that our universe transformed into existence from another and will transform out of existence into another. In this way, would there not be a "time" for our universe between the two moments (the begin and the end) ?

[Pyrotex]

According to my research there is no time behind run of clocks.

Universe is timeless.

see more typing in google two words:

amrit vixra

According to my research there is no curious behind run of vixra.

Universe is curiousless.

see more typing in google two words:

pyro tex

 

:shrug:

[Rade]

Not sure the meaning of the last post--but the OP author provided a link (via Google) to many manuscripts that I think they would like to discuss ? See here:

 

viXra.org e-Print archive, Amrit S. Sorli

[C1ay]

Amrit's a hit and run poster with no intent of discussing his post here. Just as well since his point is worthless. Time existed long before mankind and his creation, clocks, and it will be round long after man is gone; for eternity actually.

[Ben]

Time existed long before mankind and his creation, clocks, and it will be round long after man is gone; for eternity actually.

How, exactly, do you know this to be true? This is not self-evident, as far as I can see. Do you have some argument to support this assertion?

[Tormod]

How, exactly, do you know this to be true? This is not self-evident, as far as I can see. Do you have some argument to support this assertion?

 

Since we're in the P&M forums I'd say we can accept the existence of time before that of mankind without resorting to philosophical byroads. We have evidence of many things which are older than our history. We use geological processes, for example, or astronomy, or particle physics, etc, to "prove" the existence of time in a physical sense. "What is time" is a different question IMHO.

 

Time in a metaphysical sense, or as a sensory illusion, should be discussed elsewhere.

[C1ay]

How, exactly, do you know this to be true? This is not self-evident, as far as I can see. Do you have some argument to support this assertion?

 

Everything happens all at once or there is time, that which separates events. Time is just a label we give to the period between events. Maybe it's a dimension, maybe it's not. IMO it is self evident that not all events happen simultaneously.

[Ben]

So we have this

Time existed long before mankind and his creation, clocks,

and this

Time is just a label we give .....

Any problems in logic here, anybody? Am I alone in thinking that this "label" is nothing more or less than the hands on some clock?

[Pyrotex]

So we have thisand thisAny problems in logic here, anybody? Am I alone in thinking that this "label" is nothing more or less than the hands on some clock?

No. You're not alone.

 

The concept of time has been around since the dawn of civilization, indeed, since the dawn of human language. There's a reason for this. There's a reason that "today" is not the same as "tomorrow". There's a reason that today (with the sun in the sky) is not the same as last night (with the stars in the sky).

 

Time is perceived. We perceive it to "progress" and "pass". You cannot do otherwise. YOU perceive time. If you say otherwise, we have no choice but to conclude that you are either attempting to deceive us, or you are poking fun.

 

We ALL perceive the "passage" of time. Change is the essence of time. We see change all about us constantly without exception. To question this basic and undeniable observation is to be contrary to no purpose.

[Tormod]

I think Ben's point is that the logic behind the concept of time is circular. We say that time is change, and change is what proves time.

 

But the fact that we don't know what time is, doesn't mean that we can't prove that it exists.

[Ben]

There's a reason that "today" is not the same as "tomorrow".

And that "reason" is?

 

Time is perceived. We perceive it to "progress" and "pass" {. ......} If you say otherwise, we have no choice but to conclude that you are either attempting to deceive us, or you are poking fun.

Either the "you" here is Ben, or PyroTex is horribly abusing syntax. So... why should I attempt to deceive or poke fun? I find these comments uncharacteristically nasty.

 

We ALL perceive the "passage" of time. Change is the essence of time. We see change all about us constantly without exception. To question this basic and undeniable observation is to be contrary to no purpose.

Yes we do, and I count myself as no exception, regrettably. But my point remains:

 

yes I have an intuition of the passing of time, yes I have an intuition that the change from state A to state B takes place in "real time" as computer geeks call it.

 

But from what little physics I know, intuition here is a fickle mistress, and I do know this is certainly true in mathematics.

 

Tormod if you thought I was getting philosophical, rest assured. I have almost as little interest in philosophy as I do in non-figurate numbers and fine-structure constants.

 

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

[Pyrotex]

... So... why should I attempt to deceive or poke fun? I find these comments uncharacteristically nasty.

Please, I was not being nasty. The sad fact is, we do have visitors who take great pleasure in deceiving us, poking fun at science, or otherwise making our lives difficult by appearing to have valid intentions when, in fact, they have malicious intentions. ;)

...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 deposits etc

Well, I just googled "Wikipedia Time". Here is some of what I found:

 

Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

 

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence.

 

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events.

 

Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience... In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events.

 

Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought, and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. ... However, these arguments often center around what it means for something to be "real". Modern physicists generally consider time to be as "real" as space

 

So, there you have it, Ben. The ugly little secret that physicists don't want you to know! Well, one of the TWO ugly secrets. The other one is how to lose weight and still eat anything you want for just two dollars a day. ;)

 

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. And Love. Before you go down that tunnel, I suggest it might be worth the effort to decide up front exactly what you mean by "Real".

 

If by "Real" you insist on an object, a thing, a substance, a stuff, a physical entity -- then, okay, you win. Time is not real.

 

Woops, look at the Time! I've got to go now.

[Ben]

Ya, well, since this thread is destined to go nowhere very soon, let me tell you a story:

 

My distaste for philosophy stems from the fact that both my father and his father were professional philosophers. I loved and hated them both in equal measure.

 

Sunday dinner was always "philosophy talk" between Dad and philosophy friends or students; you mention Kant, whose critique I am passing familiar with (oops, grammar). In these dinner discussions Kant was always pronounced "Kunt". Can you imagine the stifled glee with which we kids heard this? Talk about indigestion......

[lemit]

According to my research there is no curious behind run of vixra.

Universe is curiousless.

see more typing in google two words:

pyro tex

 

;)

 

You make fireworks?

 

--lemit

[Pyrotex]

You make fireworks?

 

--lemit

No. I hold up mirrors. ;)

 

--Pyrotex

[Pyrotex]

Ya, well, since this thread is destined to go nowhere very soon, let me tell you a story: My distaste for philosophy stems from the fact that both my father and his father were professional philosophers. I loved and hated them both in equal measure.... Talk about indigestion......

Yeah, some things should NEVER be mentioned at the supper table. ;) :lol: ;)

 

Now, there is 'philosophy' and there is 'natural philosophy'. I can't see why you would balk at the latter. The 'existence' of Time is a conversation in the latter. As is the nature of 'existence'.

 

On the other hand, my father and his father were both grocers. I had my differences with them, sure, but I have no problem eating vegetables and porkchops. :D

 

And why should this thread go nowhere? We already have a nothing thread.

 

Is it okay with you if Time is not real? Do you take that as a "failure" of science? Or as some kind of conspiracy of physicists? I would be saddened if you did.

 

It's amazing how much this question reminds me of the debate over "energy" that flared up here several years ago. Many people want energy to be this kind of stuff, substance, aether, or magical fluid that "flows" from one place to another. "Pure Energy". Energy = LIght. Concentrated Energy. (like orange juice) And it's just NOT. Energy in physics is a mathematical relationship among the measurable units of mass, velocity and position. It ain't "real".

 

Now personally, I find that fascinating and very satisfying. But many folks do not. :shrug: