Simple logical mathematical reasoning why time can not exist 'outthere' in the reality of the noumena

[Maartenn100]

 

What follows is what I believe to be a simple logical mathematical reasoning that explains why time cannot exist in the 'outside world', but that the experience of time is a property of a consciousness interacting with this 'timeless' outside world.

The assumption is that if duration actually existed 'out there', you would have to go back infinitely to get to the beginning. Possibly involving multiverses and so on. You would have an infinite past. Because even if there was nothing in the universe, there would still be a duration.

That is my assumption.

When you do x "minus infinity", you have the idea that you have moved x infinitely downward, towards an infinitely negative value. To return to x by adding numbers, you would theoretically need to add an infinite amount.

With respect to time, this would mean that;

When you go back to minus infinity in time and then let time pass to the now, it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now.

In other words: the 'now' could never be reached. Because it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now from an infinitely distant past.

Therefore, duration cannot be something of the reality 'out there', but duration is something that we experience or measure as a result of the interaction of a consciousness with the reality outside that in itself does not know a sequential order of events in time, as we experience it. As Immanuel Kant formulated it: the passage of time belongs to the phenomena not to the noumena.

Edited April 13 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In other words: the 'now' could never be reached. Because it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now from an infinitely distant past.

Sounds like one of Zeno’s paradoxes.

This, of course, has nothing to do with consciousness. There’s plenty of evidence that time passed without the benefit of conscious entities being around. But don’t let facts get in the way.

[Maartenn100]

Is yesterday still here? Does the past exist?

Is the future already here? Does the future exist?

No, there is only the 'now'.

And what is the duration of 'the now'?

The 'now' cannot have any duration because otherwise it would have a past and a future, which is not 'the now'.

So the duration of the now must be zero.

 

No past, no now (zero) and no future = no time.

 

So time does not exist.

[exchemist]

42 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

 

What follows is what I believe to be a simple logical mathematical reasoning that explains why time cannot exist in the 'outside world', but that the experience of time is a property of a consciousness interacting with this 'timeless' outside world.

The assumption is that if duration actually existed 'out there', you would have to go back infinitely to get to the beginning. Possibly involving multiverses and so on. You would have an infinite past. Because even if there was nothing in the universe, there would still be a duration.

That is my assumption.

When you do x "minus infinity", you have the idea that you have moved x infinitely downward, towards an infinitely negative value. To return to x by adding numbers, you would theoretically need to add an infinite amount.

With respect to time, this would mean that;

When you go back to minus infinity in time and then let time pass to the now, it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now.

In other words: the 'now' could never be reached. Because it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now from an infinitely distant past.

Therefore, duration cannot be something of the reality 'out there', but duration is something that we experience or measure as a result of the interaction of a consciousness with the reality outside that in itself does not know a sequential order of events in time, as we experience it. As Immanuel Kant formulated it: the passage of time belongs to the phenomena not to the noumena.

How then do you account for the age of the Earth, say? The decay rates of radioisotopes seem to me an objective measure of duration, applying to inanimate entities (atoms). 

[Maartenn100]

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

How then do you account for the age of the Earth, say? The decay rates of radioisotopes seem to me an objective measure of duration, applying to inanimate entities (atoms). 

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer. An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth. Time is relative. No absolute property of the universe in itself. Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties). 

 

Edited April 13 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer. An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth. Time is relative. No absolute property of the universe in itself. Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties). 

 

Which is irrelevant to the proposed issue of consciousness 

43 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Is yesterday still here? Does the past exist?

Is the future already here? Does the future exist?

No, there is only the 'now'.

And what is the duration of 'the now'?

The 'now' cannot have any duration because otherwise it would have a past and a future, which is not 'the now'.

So the duration of the now must be zero.

 

No past, no now (zero) and no future = no time.

 

So time does not exist.

If time doesn’t exist, how can anything have a duration? How can such a notion exist, without time?

How can your post exist, for me to respond to (now) if it did not exist in the past? There is an order to (causal) events, which tells us that time exists.

 

[exchemist]

53 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer. An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth. Time is relative. No absolute property of the universe in itself. Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties). 

 

The rate of time depends on the frame of reference, sure, but that does not make it subjective. The decay rate of the radioisotopes in your example would be affected in the same way, whether they were accompanied by an observer or not. Just as the decay rates of atmospheric muons are affected, without them being in any way conscious. So yes we can agree time ( and equally distance, by the way) are relative, but neither of them is dependent on the presence or absence of an observer.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

That is my assumption.

Philosophy that ignores science is a Lewis Carroll 'rabbit hole'.
And you know what they say of people who assume ...

[KJW]

7 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer.

Proper time, the time that clocks measure, is absolute, the same for all observers.

 

 

7 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth.

What an observer does has no effect on the age of the earth.

 

 

7 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties).

This indicates a misunderstanding of relativity. You appear not to understand what "time is relative" actually means. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article "Proper time".

 

 

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties). 

Given that you assume the theory of relativity to be valid, this will imply that an absence of time would also mean an absence of gravity between bodies. Clearly, this is not what we observe.

[Eise]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:22 PM, MigL said:

Philosophy that ignores science is a Lewis Carroll 'rabbit hole'.

Full ack (of course). Some kinds of philosophers, e.g. some outgrows of post-modernism, have still not understood that. For them everything is a a 'narrative'.

Another kind is self-proclaimed philosophers who think that philosophy is another way to the same 'truths' that science is investigating. By 'pure logic' they think to be able to refute even established science (like GR). Nearly always this 'logic' is both based on false assumptions and confused 'logic'. 

I like Swansont's comparison with Zeno's paradoxes. 

[MSC]

On 4/13/2024 at 1:22 PM, MigL said:

Philosophy that ignores science is a Lewis Carroll 'rabbit hole'.
And you know what they say of people who assume ...

Thank you! Nobodies making an ass of you and me today.

On 4/16/2024 at 1:53 AM, Eise said:

Full ack (of course). Some kinds of philosophers, e.g. some outgrows of post-modernism, have still not understood that. For them everything is a a 'narrative'.

Another kind is self-proclaimed philosophers who think that philosophy is another way to the same 'truths' that science is investigating. By 'pure logic' they think to be able to refute even established science (like GR). Nearly always this 'logic' is both based on false assumptions and confused 'logic'. 

I like Swansont's comparison with Zeno's paradoxes. 

This is why I think Cohen's preface to logic should be required reading. Sick of the magical thinking types of logic and everyone thinking they are Vulcan. I don't even know what is supposed to be meant by "pure logic". To me it's like saying you need a pure hammer or a pure screwdriver. "State of pure logic" is a pet peeve too, sounds like saying you're a complete tool. 

On 4/13/2024 at 11:05 AM, Maartenn100 said:

As Immanuel Kant formulated it: the passage of time belongs to the phenomena not to the noumena.

Well obviously, if you can put a name to it, then it can't be noumena can it?

On 4/13/2024 at 11:05 AM, Maartenn100 said:

Because even if there was nothing in the universe, there would still be a duration.

That is my assumption.

How do you define duration with no objects moving around to measure time with? 

On 4/13/2024 at 11:05 AM, Maartenn100 said:

The assumption is that if duration actually existed 'out there', you would have to go back infinitely to get to the beginning.

Why is this an assumption? I thought the beginning was 14-15billion years ago? 

Lets say I could actually time travel and I start going back, my plan is to travel infinitely back, so I never stop time travelling backwards. It's never time to start travelling infinitely forwards again because from my perspective I've not yet reached infinite. 

[Eise]

On 4/17/2024 at 1:18 PM, MSC said:

This is why I think Cohen's preface to logic should be required reading. Sick of the magical thinking types of logic and everyone thinking they are Vulcan. I don't even know what is supposed to be meant by "pure logic". To me it's like saying you need a pure hammer or a pure screwdriver. "State of pure logic" is a pet peeve too, sounds like saying you're a complete tool. 

Obviously, you do not know what formal logic is. It is a mathematical description of how 'truth can be conserved', and on the other side to recognise where chains of argumentations are invalid. Proposition logic and predicate logic are just as established as 1 + 1 = 2.

But when you start with propositions of which the truth is debatable, which is more often than not (as in science, philosophy and daily life  as examples), the usefulness of formal logic is (very) limited. Everybody with at least a modicum of knowledge of what logic is, would immediately agree.

The point is that many crackpots call 'logic', is in fact nothing more than intuitions put in words. Without any knowledge about (established) science (and logic), their minds are free to create ideas out of thin air, and think they have some revolutionary and correct ideas.

[MSC]

17 hours ago, Eise said:

Obviously, you do not know what formal logic is

Assumptions. I do have some understanding of what formal logic is, I am not good at using it to be fair to you, but I know what it is and most of the time when I've seen others use the term "pure logic" they aren't referring to formal logic but their own intuitions.

18 hours ago, Eise said:

The point is that many crackpots call 'logic', is in fact nothing more than intuitions put in words. Without any knowledge about (established) science (and logic), their minds are free to create ideas out of thin air, and think they have some revolutionary and correct ideas.

I agree with you. Which is why they should read Cohens preface to logic, as a start. 

Since you mentioned intuition though, I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint on the phenomenology of intuition. What is intuition to you? Avoid the magical thinking type definitions or explanations, obviously.