What is time?

[dkv]

Perhaps you are right Mike that time is fundamental however no scientist has ever understood its properties as you claim to say so. It is quite possible that spacetime is fundamental and not time.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Michael, I said I believed your worldview had Time as the driver of all change, I did not say I knew that. I also said, 'if it is not' - yet you concluded that had already made up my mind. Forgive me for not having read every applicable post you've made on the subject.

Also, my mind kind of just turns off whenever I see a reference to 'space-time' or time compression or whatever it is called.

I have a totally different view on the subject and firmly believe that it is a concept of consciousness for consciousness. Without the concept of Time we couldn't order events (as DoctorDick has said), make comparisons between them and we could never predict anything at all.

I suspect that such is the case with yourself too.

But what causes events to happen? I think there is a single underlying cause and driver and I know what mine is, what is yours? If Time doesn't drive change, then what does? An explosion? That's all I seemed to get out of your last response to me. So, my fingers typing on this keyboard are driven by an explosion or the echoes of an ancient explosion?

If there is a single driver for all events across the universe which affects everything, every particle and every conglomerate of particles exactly the same (as would seem to be the case because we can relate events and changes to other events and changes and the result is consistent), then that also means it is driving our perceptions too.

 

If it is an explosion, it's incredibly consistent and ongoing and it doesn't seem to be petering out. It would also stand to reason that the 'energy' in the explosion would be causing particles to combine into elements, into molecules and into other structures that persist either more or less depending on their relative stability. In short, it would seem that we live on the bleeding edge of that explosion. I guess what I'm saying is that if change is caused, not by time, then it is caused by the original explosion or by some other agent not yet identified.

Another observation on that theme is that combinations of particles into atoms would seem to be a function of the energy of the driver. In other words, the makeup of a hydrogen atom is what it is because of the energy currently operating on the particles from which it is made. As the explosion peters out, wouldn't that change the structural makeup of the universe of atoms? Just wondering how that all fits into this.

But again, if we are on the bleeding edge of that storm or explosion, whatever was is gone, whatever will be hasn't happened yet and we perceive only what is now. Except time, of course. How is that? It seems to be very closely connected with our ability to see the memory of past events and other past events or what we are seeing now, which, strictly speaking is already a past event by the time we are aware of it. So, our perception of time is really the perception of the 'space' between past events. And that makes it an internal entity to our consciousness.

So how, short of projecting it into existence (the bleeding edge of now) did it find a rebirth in the concept of 'space-time'?

And if 'space-time' is a made up concept and is being used as a pillar of our science, how solid is that structure?

Just wondering, Michael.

[Michael Mooney]

Hi ...steve,

You say:

Without the concept of Time we couldn't order events (as DoctorDick has said), make comparisons between them and we could never predict anything at all.

I suspect that such is the case with yourself too.

 

Yes, with an emphasis on the concept of time as the "duration" of whatever is the focus, i.e., the selected event being observed.

The whole cosmos is always in motion, on all scales. As per my summary of "time" in post 584, there is no "time" between future and past, neither of which, obviously, are present. So the "ongoing present" (always now) is (everywhere) regardless of what has been or will be (or where in the whole universe.)

 

But what causes events to happen?

 

Well... certainly not time as the agent of change.

The basic law of conservation of matter/energy ( and let's include the transitional state, plasma) states the universal law that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed but only change form.

 

So *all of it* always exists (and always has existed/will exist.) How it changes form is the subject of all investigation of cause and effect, no "matter" what the focus of investigation.

 

So, we have fusion explosions, plasma launches, eventual cooling into the elements and compounds we call masses... in all forms and on all scales everywhere.

 

What "drives" it all? Energy in all its forms... and mass can be thought of as energy manifest into form. Plasma, again, is the state of transition. Conversely, energy can be thought of as mass's energy released.

And of course we can all agree that all movement/change "takes time"... as long as we do not reify the latter.

Michael

[dkv]

I have come to the conclusion that the life is an illusion and notwithstanding what my friends will say I will insist that the experience is false.Or is similar to a lie. With the property that great men can change its nature itself. In other words there is no permanent or absolute definition of time but only useful definition time.

However all said and done it nothing less than a miracle that our dear scientists have failed to reach to any conclusive definition of time.Most of the readers are surprised at the absence of even a single useful definition of time at the micro level.(since we already have clock for macro level)

Enchanted time cant be measured at unless observer is itself not influencing the time and how easily modern science ignores this fact.

[clapstyx]

Thats all interesting.

 

I dont have any clocks in my life I juts do things whenever I can whenever I feel like it basically. For me I measure time by how long a particular moment goes on for before it changes into a new event. For example if I'm working on one of my books the moment might last for as long as it takes to make a new realisation. If I am building say a hen house I might go continuously on through moments until I cant maintain continuity at the task or to be more exact when I cant keep improvising a direct progress. Basically I measure time based on the number of experiences in the day. If I am playing guitar then its different. Ive been in a moment where I havent failed to meet the calibre of resolve to greater artistry of musicians on record for nearly 5 years. So if I were to fail to exceed my own previous equivalency or fail to hold the equivalency of the artist I'm listening to and playing along with on record then that would be a new moment for me and time would change. Time I guess is just a perception that works. The Australian Aboriginals measure seconds as marking points for tribal realisations..so 10 realisations ago could be half an hour or a thousand years to them it doesnt matter.

[Little Bang]

I have described gravity, inertia. electromagnetic energy and mass as a function of time here. http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/20552-gravity-and-its-relationship-with-time.html Admittedly the idea’s are moot but if they are not then one could argue that Einstein’s E =MC^2 is the simplest equation describing the Universe in that the C is a function of time. Given this argument then the question isn't what is time but rather why does time change moving into denser and denser energy fields?

[dkv]

clapstyx, I am unaware of the Australian story which you are telling.I will be glad to hear more if you can discuss.

[Rade]

....why does time change moving into denser and denser energy fields?

It my view, time is that which is intermediate between two moments, space is that which is intermediate between two existents. Thus space-time is that which is intermediate between two moments of existents. Time is thus a type of number, a number of motion. Given these definitions, it is clear why time and space would 'change' when moving into denser energy fields, thus away from lesser energy fields. That which is intermediate (space-time) between the two energy densities is not linear but curved and the extent of the curving becomes more pronounced closer to denser fields--as predicted by GR of Einstein.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Rade:

It my view, time is that which is intermediate between two moments, space is that which is intermediate between two existents. Thus space-time is that which is intermediate between two moments of existents

.

We don't need more than that to prove DoctorDick's assertion that Belief is the worst human invention ever. Rade, your belief system includes the past and future as existents, now. I understand your belief and have contemplated it. You have not contemplated the idea that only now exists and that the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet.

We have no external evidence suggesting that all three co-exist. Only now exists.

You can contemplate them because you have memory and imagination. But you cannot touch either the past or the future, except in your imagination. And even 'now' is untouchable because by the time you become aware of it, it's gone. The whole concept of space time is like a structure of fog. Space is nothing and time is an internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind, i.e. it doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind.

[freeztar]

Space is nothing and time is an internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind, i.e. it doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind.

 

Hmmm...

 

That speaks of subjective idealism to me.

 

Time is more than an "internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind". I can understand why that statement could be produced, but I don't agree with it entirely.

 

In the sense of "What time is it?". Yes, I agree that time is an arbitrary measure of events, but in the sense of Relativity Theory, it's more profound, whatever arbitrary unit of measure we use.

[Doctordick]

Yes, I agree that time is an arbitrary measure of events, but in the sense of Relativity Theory, it's more profound, whatever arbitrary unit of measure we use.

I presume you mean "Einstein's Relativity Theory". Has it occurred to you that Einstein could have been "wrong". :hyper: :eek2:

 

Perhaps it is not so profound after all.

 

Of course that my require a little thought.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[freeztar]

I presume you mean "Einstein's Relativity Theory". Has it occurred to you that Einstein could have been "wrong". :hyper: :eek2:

Wrong? No. Not quite right? Maybe.

Einstein's theories explain empirical phenomena quite well. Until some other theory comes along that has even higher precision with regards to explanations, then we can move on to that.

Perhaps it is not so profound after all.

I disagree. It's like saying that Newton's theories of gravity were not profound. They may not be perfectly correct, but they are still profound, evidenced by the fact that they are still used and taught today.

 

Of course that my require a little thought.

Can you define "little thought"? Is it just like a normal thought, but shorter?

[Doctordick]

Freeztar, I think you and I have a rather different opinions on the whole issue here. You are interpreting the word “wrong” to mean that the results are consistent with experiment. Under your definition, Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles of the celestial spheres would be “right”. Anyone who understands that “deep and profound” explanation of the motion of the heavenly bodies (which is not easy: i.e., it requires intellectual depth and insight) comprehends that any motion may be duplicated via a sufficient number of cycles and epicycles (that would be to any precision desired). On top of that, Ptolemy's solution stood the test of time for over a thousand years; but I doubt anyone today would attach the word “right” to it.

Taken from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Profound (as an adjective, which is the way it is being used here): a having intellectual depth and insight or b difficult to fathom or understand.

Under that definition (considering the idea that profound means requiring deep understanding or is difficult to understand), I don't think “profound” is an accurate description of Newton's insight at all. His realization with regard to gravity was that the answer was unbelievably simple as opposed to either the arguments standing behind astrology or the analytical work of Ptolemy. Newton's greatness was that he realized that there was nothing profound about it at all: the moon could be seen as simply falling towards the earth.

 

What was profound were the consequences of that simple thought. That required an understanding of rational logic which appears to be beyond the ability of most people. As I said, it requires a little thought; and “a little thought” is more than “none”: i.e., the amount of thought most people put into their beliefs.

They may not be perfectly correct, but they are still profound, evidenced by the fact that they are still used and taught today.

So is astrology and theology, as I have pointed out, there are a great many professional practitioners making a good living in both of those fields. Now that is a “profound” thing (difficult to fathom or understand).

 

Have fun -- Dick

[freeztar]

Freeztar, I think you and I have a rather different opinions on the whole issue here. You are interpreting the word “wrong” to mean that the results are consistent with experiment. Under your definition, Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles of the celestial spheres would be “right”. Anyone who understands that “deep and profound” explanation of the motion of the heavenly bodies (which is not easy: i.e., it requires intellectual depth and insight) comprehends that any motion may be duplicated via a sufficient number of cycles and epicycles (that would be to any precision desired). On top of that, Ptolemy's solution stood the test of time for over a thousand years; but I doubt anyone today would attach the word “right” to it.

 

I agree. Good point.

 

Under that definition (considering the idea that profound means requiring deep understanding or is difficult to understand), I don't think “profound” is an accurate description of Newton's insight at all. His realization with regard to gravity was that the answer was unbelievably simple as opposed to either the arguments standing behind astrology or the analytical work of Ptolemy. Newton's greatness was that he realized that there was nothing profound about it at all: the moon could be seen as simply falling towards the earth.

But there's two definitions for profound, per your quote. I think I'm using the first definition and you are using the second. Therein lies the miscommunication.

What was profound were the consequences of that simple thought. That required an understanding of rational logic which appears to be beyond the ability of most people. As I said, it requires a little thought; and “a little thought” is more than “none”: i.e., the amount of thought most people put into their beliefs.

I agree.

So is astrology and theology, as I have pointed out, there are a great many professional practitioners making a good living in both of those fields. Now that is a “profound” thing (difficult to fathom or understand). :phones:

Yes, it is difficult to understand how those belief systems have thrived for so long. But I wouldn't say either have "intellectual depth or insight". Perhaps we should do away with "profound" as it carries paradoxical meanings for the purpose of this discussion.

[Michael Mooney]

AnnsiH,

Looks like our exchange dead ended, but I had asked, here and in other threads how your perspective differs from subjective idealism.

 

Maybe, and I'm guessing, it is that subtle difference between Berkeley's subjective idealism and Kant's transcendental idealism.

 

For the casual reader, from Wikipedia, the latter is:

... a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Kant's doctrine maintains that human experience of things consists of how they appear to us — implying a fundamentally subject-based component, rather than being an activity that directly (and therefore without any obvious causal link) comprehends the things as they are in and of themselves.

 

Simple question: Are you a transcendental idealist?

A direct answer, with whatever explanation you would offer, would be very much appreciated.

(And this does relate directly to the thread topic addressing the ontology of time.)

Michael

[AnssiH]

AnnsiH,

Looks like our exchange dead ended, but I had asked, here and in other threads how your perspective differs from subjective idealism.

 

It's probably best described as constructivism.

 

I'm only concerned by the mechanism which allow a worldview to be built. I.e. how our ideas of reality are related to the information from reality in its raw form (i.e. how to to interpret that information in any sense at all, beginning from the very lowest level)

 

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

It's probably best described as constructivism.

 

I'm only concerned by the mechanism which allow a worldview to be built. I.e. how our ideas of reality are related to the information from reality in its raw form (i.e. how to to interpret that information in any sense at all, beginning from the very lowest level)

 

-Anssi

Thank you.

Still, one must ask why clocks slow down and speed up at different velocities (having been subjected to differences in acceleration to bring them to different velocities.)

The leap from the above observable fact to "time dilation" (making "time itself" into an entity) seems to me to be the ontological heart of this thread topic.

 

But, of course, as long as relativity and its epistemology *rules* the above ontology will not even be addressed.

 

Michael