What is time?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I'll take a stab at it since no one else has jumped in...

 

My interpretation is that entropy explains the changes, but the regular ticking of clocks, radioactive decay and other events that we use for measuring time intervals are all dependent on one's inertial frame of reference, according to relativity. (If "regular" is what you mean by "standard") The thing that is "Standard" is the speed of light, in all frames of reference.

Thanks for taking a shot at it. Maybe it boils down to a single question: Is entropy the cause of all change?

Before we can use one change or event as a standard, something causes the change or event to occur. If it's entropy, it's pretty regular and universal.

If we do consider the cause to be entropy, haven't we substituted one cause (time) with another without having gained anything in the way of information?

[modest]

Maybe it boils down to a single question: Is entropy the cause of all change?

 

Noticing that entropy only goes one way, perhaps a logical question would be: Is there any part of change that only goes one way? And, can both change and entropy be the result of this "thing"?

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Noticing that entropy only goes one way, perhaps a logical question would be: Is there any part of change that only goes one way? And, can both change and entropy be the result of this "thing"?

 

~modest

I like the way you put it. Yes, that is the question.

Answer that and we know a boatload more than we do now.

[Overdog]

I don't know if I would say entropy is the "cause" of all change but rather it is the "explanation" of it in a closed system.

 

So if you think of entropy as flowing like a river, there are eddy currents in places where the flow is in the opposite direction, leading to some local increases in order. Life on earth would be an example of this, powered by the greater entropy of the sun.

[Doctordick]

I sent you a private message discussing it to avoid dragging this thread too far off topic. Should we start a new thread?

A funny thing happened the other day. I got a pop up which said I had a new private message but when I went to look there was no message there. Then, last night before I went to bed, I checked my e-mail and there was a notification that I had a new private message from you. Of course there was a copy in the e-mail but I used the link to go to the message and there it was. Since I get few private messages, I suspect it was your message which caused that original notification. The only reason I comment about it here is that I think there are some subtle bugs in the message system.

 

Give me a little time and I will compose a response. Don't expect it fast because there are a number of subtle things which I think you need to understand. If it is all right with you, which I am presuming is true, I will answer that private message in a new thread.

Honestly! Look at that exchange. You knew just what I was asking for - why is your answer twice ambiguous?

I apparently have no idea as to what you were asking for and I still don't. I read the post you referred to and do not find it applying to your questions at all. But thank you nonetheless as I was apparently being quite sloppy when I wrote it. The sentence you quote, “Without the tau axis, there is no way of using points to represent all possibilities with points.” is quite ridiculous. I have edited that post and replaced that sentence with “Without the tau axis, there is no way of using points to represent all possibilities.” which is what the line should have said.

This post is where I found the answer you could have quickly given had you intended some basic explanation of your system rather than quick and unproductive responses that insult my intelligence:

Believe me, I had no intention of insulting your intelligence and I apologize for inadvertently doing so. I am very sorry.

So, I assume you have some t axis which is built on some four dimensional geometry.

It appears that you are jumping far ahead in my deduction without understanding exactly what has been proved. When I insert the tau axis, it is done for one single purpose only. At that point, I have a set of numerical indices representing references to specific ontological elements. I note that, if the representation is to apply to all possible flaw free epistemological constructs, then the possibility exists that the same ontological element may occur twice in a given boundary between the past (what is known) and the future (what is not known). That would mean that the same numerical reference would appear twice (or perhaps more times). But, in a geometrical representation of this information (these references being reduced to points on the x axis), two identical numbers would plot to the same point and the fact that this reference appeared more than once would be totally lost.

 

That is the reason the tau axis is there: to provide the possibility of plotting two points with the same x value (simply give them different tau values). That is the one and only purpose of the tau axis. At that point in the derivation I am plotting the information into a three dimensional Euclidean geometry with axes x, tau and time. There is no “four dimensional geometry” and my tau is certainly different from “proper time” as introduced by Einstein as an imaginary axis (multiplied by the square root of minus one).

 

Now later, after I derive Schroedinger's equation and define the Energy, Momentum and Mass operators; I will point out that what is derived is a one dimensional Schroedinger's equation. The fact that this implies any and all possible universes (and that would be bodies of information) can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics is a rather useless clue as the representation is one dimensional. If this is to apply to the universe we find ourselves in, we have some major problems. First, we must exist within that universe and all of what we know must be gained from interactions with the universe outside ourselves. Now in a one dimensional universe, there are only two directions (one way or the other, upstream or downstream) and the boundary between ourselves and the rest of the universe would be reduced to two points. What can we know of such a thing: i.e., the fact that the elements which go to make up that universe must obey Newtonian mechanics is of little use in such a world view.

 

There is a solution to this difficulty. We can select our numerical references in pairs and plot them in an x,y geometry. (We still need to add a tau axis because the possibility of identical pairs of x,y coordinates still exists.) When we go through exactly the same deduction I have already mapped out, we arrive at a two dimensional Schroedinger's equation. This circumstance is somewhat different from the previous result in that it essentially states that any and all possible universes can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a two dimensional space. We now have the possibilities of rotation and the boundary between ourselves and the rest of the universe is a line. We have a great number of possible interactions with the rest of the universe.

 

On the other hand, anyone who has made any attempt to design a two dimensional universe is well aware of some rather constraining restrictions on possibilities. That being the case, suppose we select our numerical references in triplets and plot them in an x,y,z geometry (the need for tau still stands). The same deduction then yields a three dimensional Schroedinger's equation. Now the fact that any and all possible universes can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a three dimensional space brings forth a much more complex set of possibilities; in particular, the universe as we tend to see it.

 

This last fact presents a very strong possibility. We could go on with this procedure and select our numerical references in sets of four. Clearly that would yield a four dimensional Schroedinger equation. That would clearly imply that all possible universes could be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a four dimensional space. Such a view would bring in a multiplying host of new possibilities. The question then arises, why don't we see reality as four dimensional? Perhaps the answer is quite simple; we see the universe as a three dimensional space because that is the smallest number of dimensions which yields a really usable mental model. It could be that our unconscious minds simply quit at that point.

 

If you have gotten this far without being totally grossed out, go have a look at the thread, “A simple geometric proof with profound consequences”.

Maybe I should just go admire your theory ...

Again, by continually referring to my presentation as a theory, you make it quite clear that you do not understand what I am presenting. Nothing I have put forward is theoretical. The entire thing is a factual presentation. It is a fact that all flaw free epistemological constructs can be interpreted in a manner which guarantees my fundamental equation must be valid.

 

You can move this post if you wish as being off topic but I don't think it really is. Everyone holds that my definition of time is invalid for reasons which I do not feel are sound and the definition of time is the topic of this thread.

Well, is seems to me that the very act of seperating the ontological basis and the epistemological contructs into two distinct sets implicitly adopts an epistemological point of view that recognizes a dichotomy. Your mathematical construct then, is based on this philosophical point of view. While the mathematical construct may indeed be pristine and indisputable, the philosophical point of view which recognizes the dichotomy is not accepted by some other points of view.

I have never referred to the ontological basis and the epistemological constructs as ”two distinct sets”. They are different fields of thought, neither has any meaning in the absence of the other.

Ontology is the study of what exists and the nature of what exists. It is, in short, metaphysics. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justification. Trying to determine which Laws of Nature there are, and what they are in and of themselves is to do ontology (or, alternatively, to do metaphysics). Trying to determine how we are justified in believing in these Laws of Nature, or believing anything about these Laws of Nature, is to do epistemology.

What I have done is to take the ontology as totally unknown and then solve the problem of “how can we represent all possible epistemologies. This is no more or less than a specific logical problem which I have demonstrated is solvable. A problem which generates some very interesting consequences.

Which gets me by to my original observation about the discussion being waged from different philosophical perspectives, seperated by an unbridgable paradigm shift in epistemology.

There is no philosophical perspective here; there are just the facts – nothing but the facts. Oh, it certainly suggests a paradigm shift but that is a consequence of the proof, not a source of the proof.

In that respect, I see your work as showing that any theory purporting to address ontology, when viewed in terms of an objectivist philosophy of knowledge, inevitably leads to the conclusion that whatever it is we think the theory says about about objective reality, it is, in the end, revealed as unknowable, and therefore an assumption.

 

Did I get that right?

I don't think so. What I am showing is that any flaw free epistemological construct conceivable (by which I mean it is 100% consistent with the information it is based upon: i.e., what you think you know) can be interpreted as a world view obeying certain rules; these rules, to a great extent, happen to be exactly the rules put forth by modern physics. What is important is the fact that the ontology behind my proof is “undefined” meaning my proof is valid no matter what the foundation of that world view (what we think of as reality) might be. That is why I always keep referring to “intelligence” as a data compression mechanism.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[modest]

If you have gotten this far without being totally grossed out, go have a look at the thread, “A simple geometric proof with profound consequences”.

 

Yes, you're right. I'm doing both you and this thread a disservice. I'll read your thread fully and be in a better position to discuss it there. :evil:

 

~modest

[casino.doug]

if time was just a mesurment of things happening then how do we mesure warping in time

[xersan]

if time was just a mesurment of things happening then how do we mesure warping in time

 

In my opinion time is a reality too. I can perceive it.

 

It does not require to feel by five senses as materials. There are some realities except materials. For example energy, intellectual activities and other derivation of energy.

 

Energy is final/largest reference for everything (materials, intellectual and spritual activites, time...everything that we can think/imagine)

 

Also the measurability is an effective quality for the time.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Doug!

if time was just a mesurment of things happening then how do we mesure warping in time

I’m not sure what you mean by “warping in time”. Can you give an example of what you’re referring to? Are you referring to time dilation?

:singer:

Of course, the definitive answer to “what’s the Time Warp?” is :singer: “It's just a jump to the left….” :)

[juggernot]

The following is my philosophical opinion. I'm not a scientist, and have not looked into time in relation to the theory of relativity.

 

In my understanding, Time is the record of matter, and the past is its history. I believe we can all agree that matter exists. Matter also has a state, which is all that is true about that object. Object state could include position, mass, density, etc. The position and properties of matter can change. Of course the original position of all matter was the gravitational singularity of the big bang, and since then matter has changed position and properties constantly due to forces and energy. If we call any change in matter due to other forces an event, than time is merely a list of events. It is clear to us that multiple events can happen at the same moment. To be clear, when I say change I do not mean a complete change such as the collapse of the star or getting a hair cut. I mean when the state of the object changes AT ALL. I would define a moment as a point in time, referring to a particular state of the object(s). Therefore the present refers to the object(s) state we are percieving currently. Therefore a period of time would refer to multiple object states, and the changes between them. The future is simply our interpretation of likely events based on past events. As humans we have the wonderful ability to record and recall object states that we percieve. This is of course, our memory.

This definition of time is dependant on trust of our senses. I believe I could explain this better, but I'm tired and must go to bed.

 

In summary, I submit that if there were no events, if all matter were stationary there would be no time. Therefore time is dependant on energy acting on matter.

[Rade]

Would everyone agree that:

1. The past cannot be changed.
   
2. Anything that is spatially separated from us (at any point in time) we cannot currently (at that point in time) experience. In other words, the only things we currently (at one point or slice of time) experience are the things touching us.
   

On first glance, it would appear that #1 must be an axiom of logic, that is, that time has an arrow of movement always to the future, hence it not possible to change any event in the past.

 

But, on the other hand, the words appear to get in the way of the logic, since I can think of many examples where the "past" clearly has been "changed". A few examples will do to show the problem. In golf there is the mulligan, the past drive into the swamp is changed to the present drive into the fairway, and your stroke score remains 1in both past and present but the past position of the ball has been changed. In American football is the instant replay--where the past decision of the call on the field is changed based on new evidence from the camera.

 

So, is it possible to restate #1 in such a way that the common sense logic of the axiom is maintained yet the exceptions I raise removed ? For, as it is now stated, I do not see how I can agree that statement #1 is always true for all uses of the words 'past' and 'change'.

[Moontanman]

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? About time! :hihi:

[modest]

But, on the other hand, the words appear to get in the way of the logic, since I can think of many examples where the "past" clearly has been "changed". A few examples will do to show the problem. In golf there is the mulligan, the past drive into the swamp is changed to the present drive into the fairway, and your stroke score remains 1in both past and present but the past position of the ball has been changed. In American football is the instant replay--where the past decision of the call on the field is changed based on new evidence from the camera.

 

It seems like you're describing situations where the past affects the present, but it doesn't sound like the past is being changed. The errant ball is still in the swamp and the replay doesn't change the official's first call, it merely gives him a chance to make a second call.

 

The largest problem I see with an axiom of "the past can't be changed" is the problem of testing it. If the past actually were changed, would we know? It may be like star trek where everything suddenly changes including everybody's memories and nobody notices.

 

~modest

[RanchDressing]

In various forms, this question seems to come up a lot on scienceforums, stirring considerable debate.

Answers include:

• time is something defined by any clock
  
• time is something defined by only certain kinds of clocks
  
• time isn’t defined by clocks of any kind
  
• time is a dimension that cannot be translated into other dimensions
  
• time is a dimension that can be translated into other dimensions
  
• time in quantatized (eg: can only be measured in multiples of 5.391 × 10-44 sec)
  
• time has something to do with increases in disorder/information/entropy
  
• there is no such thing as time – it’s just a psychic construct to prevent everything from being perceived at once
  
• Zeno’s paradox
  
• time exists, but can’t be meaningfully discussed in any natural language

Perhaps this discussion would benefit from if it left its various parent threads, and continued here. What’s do you believe time is, or is not, and why?

 

 

 

Simply put,

 

Time is a means that sequence is measured.

[Michael Mooney]

Moontanman:

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? About time!

Moontanman,

Ypu asked me this in my "spacetime" thread

QUOTE]

(" Do you have a better idea of what time is?

)

but never replied to my answer. Here it is again.

It belongs in this thread anyway as time-specific.

Two answers to consider simultaneously...

One:

It is the *concept/measure* of event duration, like

A: one rotation of earth (day and standardized divisions thereof... hours, minutes, seconds... nanoseconds)

B: one earth orbit around sun (measured three different ways giving three technically different *spans of time*)

C: the great cycle of the precession of the equinox

D: a complete "bang/crunch" cycle, if my favorite comology is true...

...You get the idea.

Two: Now, the present is always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos. As I've said many times, future is not yet real and present and past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Therefore "time" is not a natural reality in the strict ontological sense of what is real.

So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, year, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the convention, time. and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon.

 

It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.

But it doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind... See Two above.

Michael

[Little Bang]

Time is a variable dependent on the proximity of matter. It is also variable as inertia, an object has it's time slow down during acceleration. So why is that link there. what is it about the acceleration of matter that slows time?

[Little Bang]

Time is the distance between two events. If the universe were composed only of radiation of one frequency then time would be the distance between two peaks or two troughs.