What is time?

[Overdog]

...I am aware of few other ontological takes on relativity of simultaneity (or on "reality of the now-moment"), some more coherent than the others. I have no idea how many people here take see static spacetime as ontologically real. The actual reason I am bringing all this up is not to argue the ontological validity of one or the other view, but just to once again point out how these things have everything to do with how we define things in our personal model of reality. Just an attempt to open up your minds to see how one assumption constraints other assumptions and vice versa. (That's why I said "let's see if you can analyze your thoughts objectively" :doh:

 

Ok AnssiH, I thought I understood the metaphysical sense in your use of the word "Ontology" in your previous post, which was why I said "I have to agree...":)

 

So you are saying it all depends on your view, or "model" of reality, and that there may be different, yet equally valid, views of reality.

 

Did I get it right?

 

I have no idea how many people here take see static spacetime as ontologically real.

 

Hell, I have no idea how I see it...:phones:

 

Anyway, I think the point you are making is an insightful one.

[modest]

I'm cutting you out here because it seemed to me the rest was getting out of the topic a bit :phones:

 

I appreciate that AnssiH.

 

While I understand how an investigation into the nature of time can stray into issues of ontology, hopefully we can keep that in the context of Craig's thread here "what is time".

 

Luckily there are active threads in this very forum that deal with the epistemology of perception and reality so we don't need to unduly widen the scope here. :doh:

 

~modest

[Overdog]

While I understand how an investigation into the nature of time can stray into issues of ontology, hopefully we can keep that in the context of Craig's thread here "what is time".

~modest

 

That was where I was heading...

 

So the fundamental question is does time exist outside and independently of the lens through which we view it?

[Overdog]

I think most would agree that it does, and Modest's post with respect to the relativistic view shows it doesn't make sense to think of it independently of Space. It appears to be a fundamental property of the Universe, as we know it.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

That was where I was heading...

 

So the fundamental question is does time exist outside and independently of the lens through which we view it?

I say no, it doesn't. It's a function of how we perceive and deal with change and how we relate one change to another.

 

And if that is an accurate description of the world outside of the lens viewing it, then the concept of time resides inside of the lens and is a coping mechanism.

 

Whatever it is that drives change, drives it the same simultaneously throughout the universe and it is extremely consistent. It is that consistency that allows mathematics to work and which also allows us to express one change in terms of another.

[Overdog]

I say no, it doesn't. It's a function of how we perceive and deal with change and how we relate one change to another.

 

And if that is an accurate description of the world outside of the lens viewing it, then the concept of time resides inside of the lens and is a coping mechanism.

 

Whatever it is that drives change, drives it the same simultaneously throughout the universe and it is extremely consistent. It is that consistency that allows mathematics to work and which also allows us to express one change in terms of another.

 

I'm having trouble grasping what you are saying.

 

Would you also say that Space has no independent reality as well?

 

Are you defining time as "Whatever it is that drives change..."?

[Doctordick]

It appears to be a fundamental property of the Universe, as we know it.

The problem with that statement is the fact that it is, nevertheless, an assumed property and not a demonstrable fact. I am starting a new thread stating my concern with the duplicity currently surrounding the common concept of “The Philosophy of Science”. I think this is a very serious issue and worthy of careful thought which is something which might interest you since you seem to take these issues seriously.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Overdog]

The problem with that statement is the fact that it is, nevertheless, an assumed property and not a demonstrable fact. I am starting a new thread stating my concern with the duplicity currently surrounding the common concept of “The Philosophy of Science”. I think this is a very serious issue and worthy of careful thought which is something which might interest you since you seem to take these issues seriously.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Thanks, Doctordick, I look forward to the discussion. I have been following your other threads with interest, but the math is way beyond me. I try to comprehend as best I can. It was my fascination with one of your threads that brought me to Hypography in the first place!:)

 

Yes, an assumed property and an arbitrary definition as well, but one such that the equations posted earlier by Modest and AnssiH work to describe what we observe.

 

Those expressions suggest that a "working" definition of time, whatever we assume about it, is a variable dependent on one's frame of reference, which as I understand it, is one's position and velocity in space. It seems logical then that if time depends on frame of reference, and frame of reference depends on space, that time depends on space.

 

Of course you know all this...my only reason for saying it is to clarify that what I'm aiming at here with the notion of time is simply a "usefull" definition.

 

But I believe your point is that we are simply pointing to the variable "T" in the expressions and calling it time?

[modest]

Modest, in case you are wondering, that has got very little to do with the math of relativity. It just has to do with what kind of reality that math implies (or what sorts of realitites are still possible behind that math, many of which are not very evident from the math directly)

 

Agreed. Allow me to quote Dr. Kelly Ross (philosophy of science professor):

 

Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity, either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics.

 

Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.

 

The underlying "ontological" reality behind "time dilation" can be seen in many different ways,

 

Sure. There may well be no limit to variations on how it’s ”seen”. But, how many interpretations of space and time can derive time dilation, agree with all known observation, and be used to predict the future evolution of a system? It would not make good sense to me if the answer was greater than one in our one universe.

 

though all different views can agree it is predictionwise quite valid to describe the situation as "Tommy ages more slowly".

 

We can safely take it one step further and say we know how much slower Tommy ages. This situation was tested experimentally and the equation in my last post proven empirically in 1977. Bailey, Borer, and Combley-‘77 tested time dilation of muons traveling in a circular path at relativistic speeds to very high accuracy.

 

In terms of deriving relativity there are many options. The consistency of the speed of light between inertial frames is reflective of the more fundamental postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. More fundamental would be deriving from Lorentz covariance which ultimately boils down to the single postulate of Minkowski spacetime. You can start at the 'geometry' of Minkowski spacetime and end up saying exactly how much older Sally will be than Tommy.

 

So, I look at this situation and say that space and time as described by Minkowski are the axiomatic reality of our universe. Being axioms, they cannot be directly tested; and that is an interesting conundrum for a student of philosophy. But a physicist or mathematician will acknowledge the entirety of physics that is built on that axiom as both internally consistent and in agreement with observation which verifies the axiom beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

E.g. are Sally and Tommy passing through "time dimension" of "relativistic spacetime" in real ontological sense, or is spacetime just mental construction and the actual ontology is perhaps closer to, say, all natural processes in Tommy's situation are moving more slowly than in Sally's (rather like clock slowing down under stress) ...or is the root of relativistic time description found from our methods of defining entities in unknown data. To investigate that route, you might want to take a look at that epistemological analysis.

 

Here I think you’re trying to describe different interpretations or perhaps foundations for relativity. Some things like “just mental construction” I understand and would be able to refute. Other things like “our methods of defining entities in unknown data” are completely lost on me. I will say: the relationship between space and time that allows relativity to work is very well defined. To reinterpret time or space and end up deriving relativity which agrees with observation would be something quite amazing.

 

I was bringing up relativity of simultaneity instead of time dilation directly because that offers a fairly simple route to considering what ontological implications relativity makes on time and associated components;

 

Really, it’s all the same. The difference is between Galilean absolute time and Lorentz variable time. This is true regardless of which particular aspect of relativity you want to look at. The universe would work differently depending on which type of time it kept (I should say more properly - how the universe keeps time). By observation we know it isn’t Galilean or Newtonian absolute time but is truly relative in a way that follows the Lorentz transformations.

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I'm having trouble grasping what you are saying.

 

Would you also say that Space has no independent reality as well?

 

Are you defining time as "Whatever it is that drives change..."?

 

To the extent that 'nothing' exists as something, Space does have independent reality. But if it's truly nothing, then it would be more like a rainbow, i.e. something we attach identity to but which is really an illusion caused by how our perceptive ability functions.

 

I'm coming at the concept of 'time' as an effect of a conscious mind aware of change, not as the cause of change.

 

If we assume 'time' is the cause of change, we might make ourselves blind to the actual nature of change. It's just possible that the way we use time in our worldviews today stops us from seeing change in a different and more accurate light.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Modest:

So, I look at this situation and say that space and time as described by Minkowski are the axiomatic reality of our universe. Being axioms, they cannot be directly tested; and that is an interesting conundrum for a student of philosophy. But a physicist or mathematician will acknowledge the entirety of physics that is built on that axiom as both internally consistent and in agreement with observation which verifies the axiom beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Beautifully expressed Modest. If, however, the accuracy of our observation is not 100%, then there still remains a shadow of doubt on all of our beliefs. Until we can see the underlying activity of particles and verify our current models by seeing them in action, there will be at least some shadow of doubt.

[AnssiH]

Ok AnssiH, I thought I understood the metaphysical sense in your use of the word "Ontology" in your previous post, which was why I said "I have to agree...":)

 

So you are saying it all depends on your view, or "model" of reality, and that there may be different, yet equally valid, views of reality.

 

Did I get it right?

 

I would word it "...and it is always possible to model any system in many valid ways".

 

Hell, I have no idea how I see it...

 

Well, maybe start by spending some time thinking about what could be the real ontology behind a non-absolute simultaneity as it exists in special relativity, and see where all the different options take you. Just to open up your mind from the clenches of your worldview :hyper:

 

Modest's post with respect to the relativistic view shows it doesn't make sense to think of it independently of Space. It appears to be a fundamental property of the Universe, as we know it.

 

Relativity is a model where space and time get somewhat entangled to each others (because of what I explained regarding how a different notion of "simultaneity" affects the supposed geometry of a "moving" object). It is only if you are talking about relativity when you can say "it doesn't make sense to think of time independently of space".

 

But note that it is quite possible to build models where time and space do not get entangled that way. We do not know what is the reality lurking behind relativity.

 

Let me give you another specific example of ontological unknown. At the times of Newton, many people would have been inclined to think that quite undeniably there is such a force as gravity; we see the effect of that force every day.

 

It would have been more objective to just say we see something that we explain by such a defined concept as "gravitational force".

 

As you are probably aware, in relativity - when space and time are defined little bit differently - there is no such "force" at all. What we call "gravity" is seen in quite a different light, rather like a side-effect of spacetime, or how we have defined spacetime to behave near "matter". This still should not be seen as ontologically real even though the model works. We still see something, and we explain it by having defined time and space in such and such manner.

 

Would you also say that Space has no independent reality as well?

 

I know I would.

 

The concept of space is meaningless without defined concepts like, "distance" (between things we have defined); the idea of "location" is meaningless unless we relate it to defined "things". And dimensionality hinges on a definition; the exploitation of that fact allows us to build valid models where reality is described with different number of dimensions than 3. (Relativistic spacetime can be seen as 4 spatial dimensions, in the sense that it is possible to see future and past existing in static manner)

 

Well, please read this, see what you think;

Definitions on space

 

-Anssi

[Overdog]

Well, please read this, see what you think;

 

All right, I see that I have a couple of beliefs I have never really questioned, that I need to think about....

 

Thanks for the insights.

[AnssiH]

Allow me to quote Dr. Kelly Ross (philosophy of science professor):

...Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.

 

Or to be more exact "The mathematical form of each theory can be "conceptually interpreted" in a multitude of different ways"

 

Additionally, even when we stick with math, the same logic can be expressed in many different ways. These different mathematical forms may each imply different sort of ontology (i.e. people would have the tendency to make different conceptual interpretations).

 

Sure. There may well be no limit to variations on how it’s ”seen”. But, how many interpretations of space and time can derive time dilation, agree with all known observation, and be used to predict the future evolution of a system? It would not make good sense to me if the answer was greater than one in our one universe.

 

If you don't place any constraints onto how complex the worldview is allowed to be, an infinite number. Of course in such case most candidates would simply be too complex to amount to anything useful at all (as it would be practically impossible to even "think about them"

 

But since you are saying you'd expect only one interpretation to be possible, I must say I am little bit confused about what you might mean with "interpretation of space and time". I mean, don't all the different ontological interpretations of relativity count as different interpretations of space and time, since they amount to different assumptions regarding the reality of spacetime?

 

Actually I'm not sure how do you interpret relativity exactly; do you see reality in terms of static spacetime block?

 

We can safely take it one step further and say we know how much slower Tommy ages.

 

Yes, or in slightly more objective terms, a valid model of reality must explain all of our past, one way or another. That obviously includes experimental confirmations of relativity.

 

The consistency of the speed of light between inertial frames is reflective of the more fundamental postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

 

This is little bit off the track, but I must mention that I don't think the above is exactly fair assertion, although it is often heard. The assertion implies that if different inertial frames measured different speed for light, they could not be described by the same "laws"

 

But that all depends on what exactly is considered "laws" and what is considered "parameters" to those laws. I.e. it is possible to conceive a universe where "light" is not passed at isotropic speeds but the same "laws" still describe each inertial frame. After all, not all properties of light are isotropic; different frames measure different frequency for one. Just that they measure something differently doesn't mean the "laws" differ, depending on how those laws are presented.

 

Anyway, back to the actual topic;

 

So, I look at this situation and say that space and time as described by Minkowski are the axiomatic reality of our universe. Being axioms, they cannot be directly tested; and that is an interesting conundrum for a student of philosophy. But a physicist or mathematician will acknowledge the entirety of physics that is built on that axiom as both internally consistent and in agreement with observation which verifies the axiom beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

Yeah, the predictionwise validity of a model can be verified, at least for our past.

 

I'm not sure if your paragraph also implies that you see the additional ontological interpretations as unnecessary. If so I have to say I'd disagree. For one, any new predictive model is a result of someone having formed a new "conceptualized view", and expressing that in math. Whatever conceptual view of reality you have in your mind, will directly affect what kinds of models you can build on top of it. I.e, failure to recognize what parts of your thinking are "semantics" and what parts are pure logic, will prevent you from finding many valid models (because you are investigating them from within a "wrong" paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn might say... well not really investigating as they would not even occur to you as possibilities)

 

Here I think you’re trying to describe different interpretations or perhaps foundations for relativity. Some things like “just mental construction” I understand and would be able to refute.

 

By that you mean you can prove that spacetime is ontologically real entity?

 

Or just that you can prove that spacetime has got its roots in reality one way or another?

 

Or are you just referring to those time dilation experiments?

 

Other things like “our methods of defining entities in unknown data” are completely lost on me.

 

For that you need to investigate this;

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/14740-rather-unorthodox-view-relativity.html

 

I'm not that far myself yet so I don't understand all the steps of the logical proof. But I should warn you beforehead that that thread does not actually make any claims about what the ontology behind relativity is. It only has to do with how undefined data can be defined when not making any undefendable assumptions about the meaning of the data. The significant issue being that relativistic description arises as (predictionwise) valid description even when we have not made any claims about the true ontology behind that data whatsoever. Yes, "time dilation" would be valid concept in a model for that data.

 

That may sound impossible at first, but it is in fact quite possible, as long as you keep in mind that whatever you can conceive is part of your own definition of reality. Objects, space, time...

 

But like I said, I need to pick up the math of that thread much better before I could really see how it all unfolds in more detail. If that claim interests you, you should discuss it more in that thread with DD. (One of the main purposes of most of my posts in this thread has been to point out just in what sense relativity cannot be taken as ontologically granted just by the virtue that it makes correct predictions)

 

I will say: the relationship between space and time that allows relativity to work is very well defined. To reinterpret time or space and end up deriving relativity which agrees with observation would be something quite amazing.

 

Well each new "revolutionary" model has been like that. A new way to define reality, that simplifies all of our known past.

 

Besides, to my knowledge these kinds of models exist already? They just are complicated in some manner, or people don't accept transformation to some laws of physics between inertial frames. I'm not saying these models are "better" in any way. Just saying if they explain all of our past, they are "valid models". As long as people just didn't get so hung up on what kind of ontology different models seem to imply. :hyper:

 

Really, it’s all the same. The difference is between Galilean absolute time and Lorentz variable time. This is true regardless of which particular aspect of relativity you want to look at. The universe would work differently depending on which type of time it kept (I should say more properly - how the universe keeps time).

 

I need to still comment on this because this is just the kind of view that would prevent you from seeing what that "unorthodox view on relativity" thread is about. To be more objective, we should say the universe does not really keep time one way or another, we do. By that I mean, it is part and parcel of our definitions of reality, how we understand something like "time". What we see as "time dilation" can be validly explained by defining a relativistic spacetime & lorentz transformation between frames, or alternatively through defining very many things very much differently. Because we can define these things differently but still end up with valid model, we don't really know how and where the model grounds to reality exactly. We still don't know if reality is a static spacetime block, or something else.

 

By observation we know it isn’t Galilean or Newtonian absolute time but is truly relative in a way that follows the Lorentz transformations.

 

We know it is valid to model reality one way, but invalid to model it the other way.

 

I have a feeling you'll probably have a problem with some things I've said, so I'd still like to remind you that I'm not insisting on validity of newtonian time or invalidity of relativity. I am insisting on invalidity of seeing relativistic spacetime as the "only valid way of understanding reality". If you think it is, you are just constraining yourself into your personal worldview too much to see how many parts of it really can be moved. (And consequently how many parts of it have epistemological roots rather than ontological)

 

-Anssi

[modest]

...Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.

 

Or to be more exact "The mathematical form of each theory can be "conceptually interpreted" in a multitude of different ways"

 

No need to correct him. Ross isn’t talking about interpreting math. The “conceptual interpretation” refers to the theory or model.

• Consider some math:
  1.0 - 0.80 = 0.20
  
• and an explanation:
  At the convenience store I noticed a dollar bill on the floor. I picked it up and decided to go wild and buy myself a Snickers bar. I went home with a Snickers, two dimes, and a smile on my face.
  

You wouldn’t point out to the person in the explanation that there are 15 different things in the store that also cost $0.80 and therefore 15 different interpretations of the math - because we're not explaining math. We are explaining something real and the math is part of that explanation.

 

Additionally, even when we stick with math, the same logic can be expressed in many different ways. These different mathematical forms may each imply different sort of ontology (i.e. people would have the tendency to make different conceptual interpretations).

 

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “stick with math”, but it seems you most likely are still looking at this a bit backwards. The normal development of a theory in physics starts with a postulate, thought experiment, or a hypothesized understanding of the way something should work. A formal derivation can then lead to some prediction that will either agree with observation or not. You don't usually start with the math then work out an understanding - that would be backwards.

 

For example, Newton did not write down [imath]F = GMm/r^2[/imath] then try and figure out if the interpretation of the math meant gravity is an attractive or repulsive effect. Kepler did not write down [imath]P^2/a^3=k[/imath] then try and figure out if the orbits speed up or slow down with distance. That would we backwards.

 

By and large this is how laws, theories, and models develop.

 

Sure. There may well be no limit to variations on how it’s "seen". But, how many interpretations of space and time can derive time dilation, agree with all known observation, and be used to predict the future evolution of a system? It would not make good sense to me if the answer was greater than one in our one universe.

If you don't place any constraints onto how complex the worldview is allowed to be, an infinite number. Of course in such case most candidates would simply be too complex to amount to anything useful at all (as it would be practically impossible to even "think about them" :)

 

Ok, I was just asking about one specific example. I don't think we need an infinite number. Here is somebody who tried to use Euclidean geometry (or an Euclidean interpretation of space and time) to get relativity:

Euclidean Relativity

He is ultimately unsuccessful, and if you follow what he did, it becomes immediately clear the difficulties involved.

 

But since you are saying you'd expect only one interpretation to be possible,

 

Yes, only one ontology of space and time are correct to our universe. That, at least, sounds sensible to me. The only exception I see possible is if the strong equivalence principle is false.

 

I must say I am little bit confused about what you might mean with "interpretation of space and time". I mean, don't all the different ontological interpretations of relativity count as different interpretations of space and time, since they amount to different assumptions regarding the reality of spacetime?

 

Interpreting relativity isn't exactly what I'm talking about. I was talking about deriving relativity and making good predictions. There are assumptions you have to make about space and time in order to get relativity. You can't just start with any metric space. You can't start with any definition of space and time. Look at the online descriptions of Minkowski space. Is there a definition of causality there? What about a world line or proper time? Look at the spactime separation formula. There is already meaning there. dS and dT already have a definition in that formula - you can't just interpret it any way you like.

 

The consistency of the speed of light between inertial frames is reflective of the more fundamental postulate that all laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

 

This is little bit off the track, but I must mention that I don't think the above is exactly fair assertion, although it is often heard. The assertion implies that if different inertial frames measured different speed for light, they could not be described by the same "laws"

 

But that all depends on what exactly is considered "laws" and what is considered "parameters" to those laws. I.e. it is possible to conceive a universe where "light" is not passed at isotropic speeds but the same "laws" still describe each inertial frame. After all, not all properties of light are isotropic; different frames measure different frequency for one. Just that they measure something differently doesn't mean the "laws" differ, depending on how those laws are presented.

 

The fact that different frames measure a different frequency for the same source of light is key to relativity. Frequency is per unit time and time is relative. This shows how Einstein derived gravitational redshift which demonstrates. You are confusing variables with laws of physics. All laws of physics are postulated to be the same in all inertial reference frames - not just the speed of light.

 

Here I think you’re trying to describe different interpretations or perhaps foundations for relativity. Some things like “just mental construction” I understand and would be able to refute.

 

By that you mean you can prove that spacetime is ontologically real entity?

 

Or just that you can prove that spacetime has got its roots in reality one way or another?

 

Or are you just referring to those time dilation experiments?

 

Despite what you said, I can prove time dilation is more than "just mental construction" - of course. Something that's just a mental construction has no basis of fact in reality. Unless you're arguing from an entirely phenomenalistic point of view then time dilation has real effects. A person on a mountain ages faster. To say that's true because of a mental construction is unsupportable.

 

I have a feeling you'll probably have a problem with some things I've said, so I'd still like to remind you that I'm not insisting on validity of newtonian time or invalidity of relativity. I am insisting on invalidity of seeing relativistic spacetime as the "only valid way of understanding reality". If you think it is, you are just constraining yourself into your personal worldview too much to see how many parts of it really can be moved. (And consequently how many parts of it have epistemological roots rather than ontological)

 

-Anssi

 

Yeah, I got that. I think also we've minsuderstood eachother slightly on that I've been talking about what is necessary in order to derive relativity - assumptions about space and time that are necessary to get an equation that will predict effects of relativity. You've also been talking about interpreting relativity itself which is very much different.

 

But, this whole issue is difficult without a counterexample. Until there is some alternative way of treating time and space that has the consistency and validity of the current treatment - there's not much for me to argue against.

 

 

Modest's post with respect to the relativistic view shows it doesn't make sense to think of it independently of Space. It appears to be a fundamental property of the Universe, as we know it.

 

Relativity is a model where space and time get somewhat entangled to each others (because of what I explained regarding how a different notion of "simultaneity" affects the supposed geometry of a "moving" object). It is only if you are talking about relativity when you can say "it doesn't make sense to think of time independently of space".

 

Relativity is not a model. I normally wouldn't correct that, but it's important in the context of this discussion. Think of the solar system model of an atom that represents an electron as a planet. Relativity doesn't represent time with an analogous system. It's just time. Time in relativity is the same time in every other standard theory of physics.

 

Also, Overdog is right. Space and time are linked always. No measurement of duration that humans have ever made was independent of space. Everywhere is moving relative to somewhere else and everywhere has at least some gravitational field. Time depends on that gravitational field and that movement so it is never in isolation.

 

~modest

[modest]

Modest:

So, I look at this situation and say that space and time as described by Minkowski are the axiomatic reality of our universe. Being axioms, they cannot be directly tested; and that is an interesting conundrum for a student of philosophy. But a physicist or mathematician will acknowledge the entirety of physics that is built on that axiom as both internally consistent and in agreement with observation which verifies the axiom beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Beautifully expressed Modest. If, however, the accuracy of our observation is not 100%, then there still remains a shadow of doubt on all of our beliefs. Until we can see the underlying activity of particles and verify our current models by seeing them in action, there will be at least some shadow of doubt.

 

Quantum electrodynamics is a relativistic quantum field theory. It is built on the assumptions of space and time I've been advocating. The wikipedia article on QED accuracy says:

The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion [imath]10^{-11}[/imath]. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far, after special relativity, which currently is tested to [imath]10^{-21}[/imath]

So, I believe these theories are accurate to extraordinary precision which does indeed verify the axioms they are built on.

 

~modest

[Overdog]

So, I believe these theories are accurate to extraordinary precision which does indeed verify the axioms they are built on.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, this link may be relevant to where the discussion seems to have gone.

 

Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

6.6 Concluding Remark

Scientific realism is, by the lights of most of its defenders, the sciences' own philosophy of science. Considerations of the significant philosophical challenges which it faces indicate that it can be effectively defended only by the adoption of a metaphilosophical approach which is also closely tied to the science, viz., some version or other of philosophical naturalism.

 

Based on what I read in the above posted link, there appears to be no way to answer the question "What is time" without facing some seriously profound phiilosophical argument of one kind or another.

 

I'm not sure this is a question that will be settled anytime soon.