What is time?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

 

Time is not synonymous with 'cause'. Time does not cause change, time describes/measures it.

 

lol. Good point. That would be the 'royal we'.

 

"Time heals all wounds". "The ravages of Time". I refer to the way it is generally used, not the way I look at it or apparently the way you look at it either.

 

Perhaps that would be a good thing to poll. The jist of my point is that it is a construct to fill the causal gap by perhaps 99% of the people on the planet.

 

Poll: "What causes change?"

 

A. Time.

B. We don't know

C. The underwear gnomes

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Profound. I'd like to hear Doctordick's opinion. His work is directly related.

Have you been following the discussion he and AnsiiH have been having? Fascinating. I think something wonderful is happening there.

 

They seem to use mathematics in a way that I barely glimpsed when I was young. Like a tool to perceive things clearly. If I had the time ( :) ) I'd attempt to understand the math.

 

I have come to my conclusions about time from a different direction.

[modest]

Well, change takes place. But unless there is a conscious mind there to perceive it, then only now exists. I do not mean to imply that consciousness causes change. But it takes a conscious mind to be aware of it.

 

I think you're saying that only a conscious mind can remember the past and "predict" the future therefore only in the conscious mind do those things exist. Everywhere else is just 'now' - the past is 'gone' and the future is 'not yet'.

 

I really don't like this characterization. It distinguishes too greatly between the human mind and any other physical process. Let's say we have a mirror that falls off a wall and breaks into dozens of pieces. The present moment is a broken mirror. The past moment is one mirror. This is true if someone saw it break or not. The person doesn't give the broken mirror a past. Only by having a past can there be a broken mirror - the past is therefore independent of the person - as is time.

 

Things evolve in time unobserved.

 

We perceive consecutive states of existence and see change. We see motion and we see things change, like ice melting.

We call the 'distance' between two states 'time'.

We say, 'time causes change'.

But time was something we created to explain that distance between two Nows.

 

Time is both a concept humans invented to describe time and something that was around before humans ever existed. It is both. When physics describes time they are referring to the dimension that is real in our universe. Ice melted before people invented the concept of time.

 

We project 'time' into existence as the causative agent for change.

 

Both time and space are needed for change and I assure you we don't cause them to exist by observing them.

 

But we have no proof that time is the cause of change. It could very well be an internal construct and to treat it as an actual existent might actually be a neurotic activity, universal though it may be.

 

But if time isn't the cause of change, what is?

 

You cannot properly describe location without time. You need 4 coordinates. You have to say where something is in latitude, longitude, elevation, and time. If you don't include time then you are saying that thing has always been and always will be at the three locations. Or, you're implying it is there "right now" which is a time. If the thing is going to move, it needs a time coordinate to describe its location. The only way to have things move is to have time. The only way to properly describe something real is with time.

 

Time is not equivalent to change. Consider a ball that rolls forward then rolls backwards to where it started. If time = movement then time went forward then backward. But, that isn't the case. So, there is something independent that is distinguishable from movement. We call it time.

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Modest, you pointed out some things that I didn't state very clearly. Thanks. When I said, 'But it takes a conscious mind to be aware of it', I meant to imply that the thing to which we refer when we say time is a mental construct that our minds are built to create. But I mean as an internal construct only. Not something outside of ourselves.

 

We are aware of two basically different sets of existents: mental constructs and things outside of ourselves that we perceive through our senses. As conscious entities we are built to create certain internal constructs automatically because they help us deal with the change that is taking place.

If an antelope didn't detect motion, well, it wouldn't be an antelope for long.

 

Something drives change. Something drives chemical reactions. Something drove motion and/or continues to drive it. Our internal concept of time is one hint to its identity but we really haven't got a clue because we obviously cannot perceive it. The closest we come is to perceive the internal construct of time.

 

The further I get in understanding this stuff the stranger the universe gets and the more I see that I don't understand. There is an adrenaline rush with the uncertainty of it all, eh?

[steve 9]

Alright, I have been notified that I have received an infraction at this form for

“Making/Refusing to defend unsupported claims”

 

I have been posing the question to those that say time exists as a real thing in this universe to show some evidence of this either in the form of a scientific dictionary or reference, or some observational/experimental data. There has been no evidence of time’s existance as a physical thing that has been put forward yet. Yet some say that they have given the evidence, but if you look, they never actually show any evidence of the physical reality of time.

 

I have stated that time is just a consideration and in no way actually exists as a thing in this or any physical universe.

 

Just to be clear, I say time does not exist as a physical thing, if anyone disagrees with this statement the burden of proof lies with them to give evidence that time indeed exists as a physical thing.

 

My statement that time is not a physical thing is based on the fact that THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE, DEFINITION OR OBSERVATION that states time is a physical thing.

 

In the notice of my infraction was a post by Modest where this person explains time. I can only assume that this was included in my infraction as a reference that my question of time being a physical thing was answered.

 

I will let the public decide. Here is the original post by Modest:

 

(page 33, post 330 of this thread)

 

All of my comments will be in italics.

 

 

Originally Posted by modest

Time, space and matter (when I say matter I include energy and electric charge) are all real quantities that exist in our universe.

 

(Modest says that time, space and matter are real quantities that exist in our universe. I do not disagree that matter indeed exists in this universe, but as far as space and time, what scientific evidence or reference is Modest using to back up these claims of time and space? Modest even adds more of a description to matter to drive the point home. Great, but I was asking about time. Unless you are inferring that time and mater are the same, this extra bit of info is unnecessary. I am asking for some evidence that time is a physical thing. In this section of this post is there scientific evidence that time is a physical thing? NO.)

 

(continue with Modest post)

Time and space form the geometry that governs matter which is the interaction of all physical or tangible reality.

 

(No explanation of the physics of how time and space do this forming of geometry. Besides, what is geometry? Is IT a thing, a physical thing? No mention of what is actually being formed. Look, if you want to prove that time is a physical thing then just show the reference. What exactly does this above statement prove about time being a physical thing? Did this section give undeniable evidence that time is a physical thing? No)

 

 

 

 

As such, it is ever present and never absent. It is impossible to describe any real system in our universe without time, space, and matter/energy in the description.

 

(Does this section of the post describe how time is a physical thing? No)

 

Consider the possibility of measuring matter and space without time. Without time there is no physical existence, no temperature, no properties of matter to measure - such a thing is impossible. Consider measuring time and matter without space. Impossible to measure something that has no space to exist. Considering time and space without matter is more difficult- but when Einstein developed general relativity it truly showed the impossibility. I won’t get into the particulars except to point you here: Hole argument where it is described that distance cannot be though of as separation of coordinates only, but require two test particles.

 

(I know that I am being simplistic here, but, does anyone see any scientific proof or reference that states time is a physical thing? No. If I was to ask for evidence that rocks, water, light, cats, or books were real physical things, don’t you think that with all of the definitions and references on those items that it would be very easy to prove that they are indeed real physical things? Of course, so why can't anyone just give the evidence that time is a physical thing? Where is the difficulty? Again, does this section of this post provide a reference or evidence that time is a physical thing? No.)

 

I therefore believe nothing is more basic, more real, and more necessary to our universe than space, time, and matter. Nothing is real if it lacks any one.

 

(This is a belief.)

 

 

As an example, here is your description of time:

 

 

You use two words here “movement” and “velocity” to describe time. Velocity is change in space over change in time. Your definition of time therefore recognizes the necessity of its existence.

 

(Does Modest provide any evidence, reference, definition that shows that time is a physical thing? NO. Has any scientific evidence or reference been stated thus far in this post to provide undeniable proof or evidence that time is a physical thing? No.

 

So far the claim that time is a physical thing has not been supported by any science in this post. Lets continue.)

 

 

As both your definition of time and my idea of time require it to be real we have a common footing from which to advance this subject productively.

 

(WOW, My definition of time is taken it out of context. This is an effort to put words into my mouth, and make it seem that I said that time is a physical thing. I have stated many times in plain simple English that time is not a physical thing. My definition of time is taken out of context and compared to an IDEA of time and then put forward as some scientific proof that time is a real physical thing. Does this section of the post provide any evidence that time is a physical thing. NO.

 

 

As both your definition of time and my idea of time require it to be real we have a common footing from which to advance this subject productively. The next question becomes: what are the properties of space and time. As you say:

 

The examples you give, however, are properties of energy and matter. Space and time are fundamentally different from matter and energy therefore none of these properties apply. Space and time have different properties that equally would not pertain to matter and energy.

 

(Does this provide evidence that time is a physical thing? NO.

 

 

 

I can give some properties of spacetime, but I must qualify this by saying - some of these properties are perhaps only applicable to the model describing spacetime while others clearly apply to space and time themselves.

all dimensions are orthogonal to other dimensions

 

Does this provide evidence that time is a physical thing? NO)

 

Time is different from space in a manner reflected here:

 

(Does this provide any evidence? NO.)

 

Time and space describe motion (a geodesic)

(Does this provide evidence that time is a physical thing? NO.)

 

Time and space influence gravity

(Where is the description that provides evidence that time is a physical thing?

 

Energy curves spacetime (This is a statement about energy)

 

Time is not symmetric (Does this provide any evidence that time is a physical thing? NO.

 

Time is unidirectional (Does this provide any evidence that time is a physical thing? NO

 

Space is not unidirectional (This is about space)

 

As you can clearly see, these properties are different from "color" and "solid" and the other examples you give.

 

(Nothing so far makes it clear that time is most definitely a physical thing. There has been no reference to any scientific data that is backed up by observation or experiment.

Am I wrong in stating this? Does anyone see any evidence that time is a physical thing so far? If time is a physical thing then just simply state the definition or reference that supports this.

 

Much of the history of physics is the discovery of these properties that pertain to the fundamental units and how they relate to one another. For example: What is the best way to describe force? Mass times acceleration has the units:

 

which is mass times space divided by time squared. Therefore it is very useful to understand how the fundamental units interact. To understand relativity and time dilation we need to understand the structure of spacetime. The consistency of the speed of light is a property of space, time, and matter. The relationship Einstein gave these things as matter moves is very insightful and very useful.

 

(Now this section is going off in some other direction, it does not simply state that time is a physical thing.

 

 

I guess to sum up, I'd say space and time are physical.

 

(According to what scientific reference, definition, observation or experiment? Physical in what way? This post has not described time as a physical thing in a standard scientific way.

 

 

 

In this post it is stated that: “Space and time are fundamentally different from matter and energy therefore none of these properties apply. Space and time have different properties that equally would not pertain to matter and energy.”

 

 

O.K. So this post tells what time is not and what it is different from, but I am asking for the scientific reference that states that time is a physical thing.

 

Now, since time does not exist as a physical thing there is no scientific evidence or observation that will support this claim. The obvious fact that there is no evidence or observation that time exists, supports my claim. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that time IS a real physical thing. Where is the scientific evidence that supports your claim?

 

Using this post that was presented as evidece to prove that I am making unsupported claims, I would have to say that I have presented my case that IS supported by science, and the post used as proof against me, is what is lacking in any support for the claim that time is a physical thing.

 

Anybody have any comment on this?

 

Thank You.

 

Steve 9

[Little Bang]

steve9, Let's look at a specific photon that was created in the Big Bang 13 some odd billion years ago. That photons wave length has gotten longer as the universe expanded. Now let's run the expansion of the universe in reverse. No matter how close we get to the Big Bang that photon will have a wave length, albeit a very short wave length and it can only have a wave length if there is time. Without time knowing can exist.

[Doctordick]

I am afraid steve9 merely complicates the situation with confused prose though much of what he says is valid. His problem is that he fails to define anything and simply presumes everyone else is working with the same concepts he finds so real.

steve9, Let's look at a specific photon that was created in the Big Bang 13 some odd billion years ago. That photons wave length has gotten longer as the universe expanded. Now let's run the expansion of the universe in reverse. No matter how close we get to the Big Bang that photon will have a wave length, albeit a very short wave length and it can only have a wave length if there is time. Without time knowing can exist.

I am going to presume you meant to say, “without time, nothing can exist” as the statement, “without time knowing can exist” makes little sense when taken in the context you have presented. I will comment that your knowledge of physics is somewhat limited as certainly time has little to do with “wave length”. The concept “wave length” can be applied directly to a photograph of the sea where no motion is at all evident.

 

But back to the comment, “without time, nothing can exist”. You are confusing things existing with the explanation of things existing. I would agree that, without the concept of time, no acceptable explanation of what exists can be consistent with what is known as without time nothing can change and if nothing changes we must be aware of everything: i.e., such an explanation would require us to be all knowing.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Little Bang]

Please explain to me how you can have a wave length without time and be gentle, remember I have a very limited understanding of physics. Another point, I would bet my Dick, pardon the pun, that as a waveform approaches the center of a black hole it's wave length approaches zero, but what the heck time has nothing to do with it huh Doc.

[steve 9]

steve9, Let's look at a specific photon that was created in the Big Bang 13 some odd billion years ago. That photons wave length has gotten longer as the universe expanded. Now let's run the expansion of the universe in reverse. No matter how close we get to the Big Bang that photon will have a wave length, albeit a very short wave length and it can only have a wave length if there is time. Without time knowing can exist.

 

So is this a proof or evidence that time is a physical thing that exists in this universe? Yes/No.

 

 

In all of the reasons or explanations that I have been given that time is somehow a real physical thing, no one has just simply stated a reference, definition, observation or experiment that gives evidence to the existance of time as a physical thing.

 

Look, in your above post you mention the existance of a photon and it's wavelength. I do not have a disagreement with the idea of a photon’s existance, I agree that light is a real physical thing. Although, I did not gain this certainty from the theory of the Big Bang. I came to the conclusion that light is a physical thing because of personal observational and all of the undeniable scientific experiments and all of the scientific references that empirically show that light is a physical thing.

 

Using the theory of the Big Bang as proof that time is a real physical thing is basing your idea of time being a physical thing on the belief that the Big Bang is the creation of the universe. This is far fetched.

 

Just to show you how unscientific your example is, imagine if I had a disagreement with the idea that rocks, dogs, sound, or computers were real physical things. Would you remove all doubt that those things were real by mentioning a theory about some explosion that is said to have mysteriously happened billions of years ago? NO. You would tell me to Google any of those items and find out for myself. If I did this I would find undeniable data that would confirm that those items are in some form a real physical thing. My point being is, if someone says dogs do not exist, show them a dog. If someone says light is not a real physical thing show them light, have them see for themselves, the least you could do is tell them to look up the definition of light. This is the way to provide correct information to a person regarding the existance of a physical thing.

 

If time is a real physical thing than provide some evidence of this in the form of a definition, reference, or observation.

 

It may help if you explain how you came to believe that time is a real physical thing, have you come to this conclusion on your own through personal experiences or by the authority of others?

 

Just remember, if time is a real physical thing, then why is there no scientific reference or evidence to support this view. You say time is a real physical thing, what does science say?

[steve 9]

I am afraid steve9 merely complicates the situation with confused prose though much of what he says is valid. His problem is that he fails to define anything and simply presumes everyone else is working with the same concepts he finds so real.

 

 

 

 

Alright lets un-complicate this situation for you. This is a thread that is dedicated to the discussion of time.

 

I have stated numerous times that time is not a real physical thing.

 

There are those who disagree with my statement and have attempted to provide evidence that time indeed is a real physical thing. No scientific evidence, observation, definition or reference has been given yet to support the idea that time is a physical thing. Read through the whole thread if you want to check the validity of this.

 

You mention that much of what I have said is valid, so that would mean that you find some things that I have said to be invalid or not true. Fine, I am willing to discuss with you or anyone what they find to be invalid about what I have said about time up to this point.

 

You said I have failed to define ANYTHING. What is it that you want defined? I have said that time is not a physical thing. All definitions of time do not state that time is a real physical thing, nor do any definitions or scientific references support the idea that time is a real physical thing. What is it that you think I need to define?

 

 

His problem is that he fails to define anything and simply presumes everyone else is working with the same concepts he finds so real.

 

I presume that everyone who is discussing this topic of time IS working with the same concepts that I am, because everything that I have said, every word and term that I have used are to be used as the were intended according to standard definitions of those terms in any standard dictionary. If someone is working with "some" other concept of the terms as they are defined in the English language dictionaries, I will tell them to get with the program and participate in this discussion by using the terms as they are defined in any English language dictionary. If you find what I am saying to be complicated then use a dictionary to resolve your confusions.

 

So now, just to get everything straight here, I would like to get a better understanding of what point of view you have on this debate about time.

 

Do you think that time is a real physical thing? Yes/No.

 

(I mean what I say, every word in the above question is used as it is defined in a dictionary and as it pertains to the context of question.)

[Jet2]

Time is money.

[modest]

If time is a real physical thing than provide some evidence of this in the form of a definition, reference, or observation.

 

The problem steve (which you are about to fail to recognize) is that this is a false dichotomy. By asking if time is a “real, physical” thing you present the adjectives as if they are the same. It’s like saying a banana is either a yellow rock or it’s not. People tell you it is yellow and describe how yellow it is but this doesn't satisfy. This is why you have been repeatedly asked if you believe time is real. As far as I know, you've never answered that question. I request you do so in order to advance the conversation.

 

As far as your repeated question:

 

If your definition of physical is very much like my definition of tangible (and all signs point to that being the case) then time is not physical. It is, however real. As is space. Time describes how our universe works, not a tangible thing. Much like gravity. You can’t pick up gravity and pass it around, but it’s real - It has effects, it can be measured - much like time.

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

I've inadvertently echoed Inow's false dichotomy observation from a post in this very thread:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/3650-what-time-31.html#post215727

 

All credit is his :eek_big:

[modest]

Please explain to me how you can have a wave length without time and be gentle, remember I have a very limited understanding of physics. Another point, I would bet my Dick, pardon the pun, that as a waveform approaches the center of a black hole it's wave length approaches zero, but what the heck time has nothing to do with it huh Doc.

 

I think you're on to something here LB.

 

As time dilation reaches infinity so does wavelength reach infinity. It would be hard to conclude that wavelength is independent of time.

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

Exactly Modest, as time approaches zero so does wave length.

[modest]

Yup. It's often helpful to think in terms of frequency. If there's no time - frequency is zero. Frequency obviously depends on time (being cycles per unit time).

 

I think this does fall under your category of: without time nothing can exist. I also do not object to Dr.D's qualification to that - saying nothing would exist as it does now. I think that's valid.

 

~modest

[steve 9]

I have to thank you for your concise post. I think that slowly we will un-ravel the exact nature of time.

 

Lets start with your last post in response to me.

 

Originally Posted by steve 9

If time is a real physical thing than provide some evidence of this in the form of a definition, reference, or observation.

 

Response by Modest

The problem steve (which you are about to fail to recognize) is that this is a false dichotomy. By asking if time is a “real, physical” thing you present the adjectives as if they are the same. It’s like saying a banana is either a yellow rock or it’s not. People tell you it is yellow and describe how yellow it is but this doesn't satisfy.

 

There is no dichotomy in my direct question. I ask for some evidence that time is a real physical thing. It is a request, not an either or question.

 

 

As far as your example using a banana in place of time, yes people have given THEIR idea of what a banana (time) is, but it is a personal idea, and not a scientific reference. People are all too happy to give me their ideas about how time is a real thing, and if you notice people all have their own personal idea, they vary from person to person. There is no standard definition that is consistent from person to person. This action of people giving different definitions of time means time is a concept and is different things to different people. This only goes to point out what I have said about time earlier in this thread.

 

 

 

"Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why you have been repeatedly asked if you believe time is real. As far as I know, you've never answered that question. I request you do so in order to advance the conversation.

 

Just to be clear, time is not a physical thing that exist as some form of energy in this universe. Time is a consideration, a concept.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as your repeated question:

 

If your definition of physical is very much like my definition of tangible (and all signs point to that being the case) then time is not physical. It is, however real. As is space. Time describes how our universe works, not a tangible thing. Much like gravity. You can’t pick up gravity and pass it around, but it’s real - It has effects, it can be measured - much like time.

 

 

Good. We are making some progress. You say time is real, but not physical. I have to ask you, in what way do you think time is real? Which definition of real are you using when you say time is real.

 

If you say time is real, but not physical then in what way does it exist?

 

We can narrow this down right now.

 

Is time a physical thing? I say no. You say no.

 

Is time a consideration, a concept? I say yes. You say______?

 

If you know of any other way in which something can be real to someone other then the two options I have given, please let me know.

 

Saying that time is neither, but is real is not possible. If time is real it exists as something in some form. In this universe all things that we call real are either those things that are in some form of energy, or those things that we imagine or can conceive of in our mind.

 

By all means, if you can describe a different way in which something exists as a real thing please explain.

 

 

Thank you steve 9

[modest]

I have to thank you for your concise post. I think that slowly we will un-ravel the exact nature of time.

 

Lets start with your last post in response to me.

 

If time is a real physical thing than provide some evidence of this in the form of a definition, reference, or observation.

The problem steve (which you are about to fail to recognize) is that this is a false dichotomy. By asking if time is a “real, physical” thing you present the adjectives as if they are the same. It’s like saying a banana is either a yellow rock or it’s not. People tell you it is yellow and describe how yellow it is but this doesn't satisfy.

 

There is no dichotomy in my direct question. I ask for some evidence that time is a real physical thing. It is a request, not an either or question.

 

I’m not trying to play a word game steve. Your false dichotomy in its proper syntax is as follows:

Time is either real and physical or it's not real and physical.

• False Dichotomy
  
• False Dilemma
  

 

You’ve mistakenly equated real and physical and mistakenly left out the possibility that time is not-tangible yet real. You've actually left out any possibility that the real and physical are different at all. That’s the problem. This is what (to borrow a quote from the matrix) “brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end.”

 

Your definition of real (being based on ‘tangible’ as it is) leaves out any description of how the universe works. By your definition gravity isn’t real. You cannot describe it as real. You can’t define motion. Your definition of real precludes motion from reality. That’s just not useful.