Time.

[DarkStar8]

Motion appears to slow time. Therefore a stationary observer experiences Time passing at a Maximum rate. But what produces this feeling of positive forward feeling of Time of one second per second. To me a forward passing of Time would require some inverse of motion.

Mmm, what if the expanding universe was occurring at the large scale, and an equal and opposite effect of contraction was occurring in the void of space at the small scale. Would this do it?

 

[swansont]

It does more than "appear" to slow time, it actually does. Clocks in an inertial frame will run slow if moving, regardless of the type of clock.

[machapungo]

I agree with "roosh" that time is not a real physical thing. It is a mental construct.

Roosh points out that "how we measure time" is a big clue to it's true nature.

It is always done using one repetitive motion to measure another motion and this is what is called a clock.

Einstein is quoted as saying words to the effect, "Time is what you read on a clock".

I think he was dead serious.

roosh also points out that the memory of a thinking entity is required the unserstand past and future.

It is also required to understand motion, which is the thing that defines time.

The eyes see a thing that is moving and transports via nerve signals to the brain and the brain records these images in the sequence that they occur.

Then the brain processes this old sequence of information information via internal mechanisms that have been embedded in us by evolution.

We automatically sequentialize everything we sense and store the information in memory for processing with ideas that we have learned.

Our ideas about time have come a long way since we posessing a small brain crawled out of some primeval soup.

 

Now it is time to realize that thinking time is a real physical thing is confusing the observed and the observer.

When we observe motion we automatically understand it to some degree because of how we are mentally constructed.

Then when enough education has taken place we can understand complicated relative motions of multiple things.

We have built ckocks into all of our computers and other motion measuring devices such as oscilloscopes .

 

Roosh also makes an excellent point when he says " every observer can only ever experience the present moment" and he points out that a real past and a real present

cannot co-exist with a real present. but what is a real "present"? what is the "now" and what is our relationship to it? The now, as we mentally perceive it, is really the recent past that has been processed

eyes, ears, nerve cells, and converted into electrical signals that go to and are saved in our very short term memory. Our conscious brain then processes the encoded information and comes to an understanding. These electro-chemical biological functions do not happen instantaneously. There is a delay. So, you see, we actually mentally exist in the recent past which we call the present because

we can't defy the laws of physics and do any better. Technicaly, we always mentally live in the past and our brains draw all conclusions, develop all thoughts, achieve all understanding based on records (memories) of past events. There are many kinds of records, such as, books, electronic recordings, fossils, sedimentary layers of minerals, etc. From these records of past events we construct a mental life

that uses the shorthand notion of time to deal with events caused by motion. Motion is and was and will be a real physical thing and it is a form of energy.

 

Here is a little mental exercise:

Imagine our early universe, full of objects in relative motion, and a mythical god snaps her fingers and all thinking entities vanish.

Given this situation would motion still exist?

Of course it would, and this is consistent with all of the motions in our young universe existing before thinking entities arrived on the scene.

However, there is no way to measure the motions without the thinking entity even though there are plenty of repetitive clocks.

Planets are orbiting stars and spinning on an axis and Cesium atoms are decaying at a very constant rate.

However, these natural clocks have no way of being viewed or used as clocks without a thinking entity.

Therefore, time is dependent upon the existence of thinking entities but motion and space are not.

I think it is obvious that anything that is dependent upon the existence of a thinking entity to perceive it, cannot be an independent real physical reality. For example, all gods.

 

Time is not a physically real thing and a time travel machine will never exist. It;s just a smart ape's mental tool.

 

[swansont]

 

Planets are orbiting stars and spinning on an axis and Cesium atoms are decaying at a very constant rate.

 

However, these natural clocks have no way of being viewed or used as clocks without a thinking entity.

 

Therefore, time is dependent upon the existence of thinking entities but motion and space are not.

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent. You are equating time measurement with time existence, but they are not the same thing. Ordered events happen, independent of observation. A tree grows and then dies and falls over without anybody watching.

 

BTW, atomic clocks do not depend on the decay of Cesium.

[machapungo]

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent. You are equating time measurement with time existence, but they are not the same thing. Ordered events happen, independent of observation. A tree grows and then dies and falls over without anybody watching.

 

BTW, atomic clocks do not depend on the decay of Cesium.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firist, I must confess my error in saying that atomic clocks made using cesiun are dependend on radioactive decay. Thanks for correcting my error. However, this error is not relative to my opinions about time.

 

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent,

ONLY IF A THINKING ENTITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THESE MOTIONS.

 

BY WHAT MECHANISM IS ANY MOTION PHYSICALLY CAUSED BY OR PHYSICALLY DEPENDENT ON YOUR NOTION OF TIME.?

IF THE UNIVERSE HAD NO THINKING CRITTERS HOW WOULD THAT PHYSICALY AFFECT THE PULSE OF A CESIUM ATOM OR THE SPIN OF PLANET EARTH?

 

YOU ARE INVENTING TIME EXISTENCE OUT OF PURE THOUGHT.

 

ORDERING IS A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT REQUIRES THE THINKER TO POSESS MEMORY CAPABILITY, OTHERWISE, HE OLNY UNDERSTANDS ONE STATIC VIDEO FRAME (ONE CONFIGURATION OF CONSTANTLY CHANGING ENERGY) AT A TIME AND THAT IS NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL. ORDERING IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OBSERVER AND HIS MOTION RELATIVE TO THE MOTION OF THE OBSERVED AND I THINK YOU WILL AGREE THAT THIS IS ACCEPTED PHYSICS.

 

YES, NOW YOU GET IT! THE MOTIONS INVOLVED IN GROWING, DYING, AND FALLING OVER ARE INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER AND HIS SEQUENTIALIZATION. MOTION HAPPENS AND YOUR NOTIONS OF TIME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

 

YOU ARE ASSERTING MOTION MEASUREMENT AND OR UNDERSTANDING IS A REAL PHYSICAL THING APPART FROM AN OBSERVER

.

IT TAKES A THINKING CRITTER TO MEASURE OR TO UNDERSTAND AND THAT IS WHERE YOU FALL INTO THE TRAP OF MIXING THE OBSERVED WITH THE OBSERVER.

 

Regards

[swansont]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firist, I must confess my error in saying that atomic clocks made using cesiun are dependend on radioactive decay. Thanks for correcting my error. However, this error is not relative to my opinions about time.

 

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent,

ONLY IF A THINKING ENTITY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THESE MOTIONS.

So what makes a planet only spin or rotate if a "thinking entity" needs to understand the motion? Changing this motion requires an external torque, or else angular momentum is conserved. What is the source of the torque?

 

Also, there is NO NEED TO SHOUT.

 

BY WHAT MECHANISM IS ANY MOTION PHYSICALLY CAUSED BY OR PHYSICALLY DEPENDENT ON YOUR NOTION OF TIME.?

None. I have not claimed that time causes motion.

 

IF THE UNIVERSE HAD NO THINKING CRITTERS HOW WOULD THAT PHYSICALY AFFECT THE PULSE OF A CESIUM ATOM OR THE SPIN OF PLANET EARTH?

It wouldn't. If I'm reading it right, it was your claim that time requires a thinking being, not mine.

 

 

YOU ARE INVENTING TIME EXISTENCE OUT OF PURE THOUGHT.

 

I'm not the first, so I'm not inventing anything, but it's based on observation. Some things consistently happen in an order and some things cause other things but not the reverse.

 

ORDERING IS A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT REQUIRES THE THINKER TO POSESS MEMORY CAPABILITY, OTHERWISE, HE OLNY UNDERSTANDS ONE STATIC VIDEO FRAME (ONE CONFIGURATION OF CONSTANTLY CHANGING ENERGY) AT A TIME AND THAT IS NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL. ORDERING IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE OBSERVER AND HIS MOTION RELATIVE TO THE MOTION OF THE OBSERVED AND I THINK YOU WILL AGREE THAT THIS IS ACCEPTED PHYSICS.

In some cases event order can change, but not causal events. If someone lights a fuse on a bomb and then later a bomb blows up, there is no frame where the bomb blows up first.

 

YES, NOW YOU GET IT! THE MOTIONS INVOLVED IN GROWING, DYING, AND FALLING OVER ARE INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER AND HIS SEQUENTIALIZATION. MOTION HAPPENS AND YOUR NOTIONS OF TIME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Trees don't move a whole lot. Time is affected by motion, but not effected by it.

 

YOU ARE ASSERTING MOTION MEASUREMENT AND OR UNDERSTANDING IS A REAL PHYSICAL THING APPART FROM AN OBSERVER

No, I don't think I am.

 

 

[machapungo]

So what makes a planet only spin or rotate if a "thinking entity" needs to understand the motion?

The same as before the entity felt a need to apply the notion of time to aid his understanding of the motion observed. The observers thoughts do not affect the motion because his analysis, using the notion of time, is confined to his brain.

Changing this motion requires an external torque, or else angular momentum is conserved. YES, I agree

What is the source of the torque? NNTA (No Need To Answer because It is not relevant to the issue at hand!)

 

Also, there is NO NEED TO SHOUT. haha!! My apologies. I only mean tto visually separate our text. I also apologize for all bad spelling and typos.

 

..

 

None. I have not claimed that time causes motion. Okay! But are you not asserting that time is physically bound to motion? What are you claiming?

 

It wouldn't. My point, exactly.

If I'm reading it right, it was your claim that time requires a thinking being, not mine. Yes that is my claim, but I'm not claiming that motion requires a thinking being to exist.

 

 

 

I'm not the first, so I'm not inventing anything, but it's based on observation. Some things consistently happen in an order and some things cause other things but not the reverse.

Okay, not first / not inventing and your observation tells you that some natural events will be ordered.and you can see and understand cause. But, nature contains the motion and your head contains the time.

 

In some cases event order can change, but not causal events. If someone lights a fuse on a bomb and then later a bomb blows up, there is no frame where the bomb blows up first.

Nature contains the motion but it does not know or care about cause and effect. You the observer assign the order and the cause and effect relationship and name it an event.

In nature motions happen because motion is a form of energy that came into existence when another form of energy transformed and became the motion.

Energy behaves in ways that are consistent with its nature and the nature of a local energy environment. We can pose questions about these natural motions and offer explanations that make sense to us. As a physicist you call these explanations "laws of nature" but it is you that crafted the law as an abstraction of your observations. The law can be stated in words or mathematical symbols but they are independent of the physical reality of nature. Nature is energy and it does.what is natural for it to do. People used to assign the ways of nature to supernatural gods but now enlightened humans assign the ways of nature to abstract symbols that we have created. We have no direct mental contact with the reality of nature. Our sensors always suffer delay, and so we are always mentally processing abstract records.

 

Trees don't move a whole lot. Time is affected by motion, but not effected by it. Now and then I commit the sin of affect when I mean effect. Sorry! Time is effected by motion only in our brains. Motion being physical effects only the physical. in a real non mental way.

 

I previously said "You are asserting motion measurement and or understanding is a real physical thing apart from an observer..

You replied ,"No, I don't think I am".

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position. You do speak of "time existence" and " time measurement" as "not the same thing". I took your word existence as meaning a real physical thing which would be a form of energy since energy is all that exists in one form or another. If that is your meaning then that is our point of disagreement and I would like to hear your explanation of that position.

 

Regards.

 

[roosh]

Orbits and spins and motion and decay rates are all time dependent. You are equating time measurement with time existence, but they are not the same thing. Ordered events happen, independent of observation. A tree grows and then dies and falls over without anybody watching.

 

BTW, atomic clocks do not depend on the decay of Cesium.

 

 

Orbits, spins, motion, and decay are not time dependent, the measurement of them is. None of them are evidence that time is physical. Neither is the order in which events occur; the tree growing, dying, and falling over doesn't demonstrate that time is a dimension of the universe. Each stage of the process ceases to exist as the following one manifests; each stage exists only in "the present moment". That makes it dimensionless.

 

For time to be a dimension of the universe it requires that past, present, and future co-exist. If only the present moment exists then time is not a dimension.

[swansont]

 

For time to be a dimension of the universe it requires that past, present, and future co-exist.

 

Quite the opposite. The fact that they don't co-exist is evidence of time. Two macroscopic objects — you and a speeding bus — can't be co-located at the same time without killing you. How do you differentiate between two objects having the same spatial coordinates?

[roosh]

 

Quite the opposite. The fact that they don't co-exist is evidence of time. Two macroscopic objects — you and a speeding bus — can't be co-located at the same time without killing you. How do you differentiate between two objects having the same spatial coordinates?

 

One of the consequences of Einsteinian relativity is that past, present, and future have to co-exist - which is what gives rise to the concept of the block universe.

 

We differentiate between two objects having the same spatial co-ordinates by using a man-made, system of measurement which we call "time". We use "clocks", or repetitive processes, as standardised units of comparison for that purpose. This however is not evidence that time exists or is physical, because nowhere in the process of a clock is something physical, called "time", ever measured. What is actually measured in a clock is the number of times the repetitive process occurs.

 

 

EDIT:

Two objects never have the same spatial co-ordinates in any given moment, but because only one moment ever exists there is no dimensional quality to "time". Objects have spatial dimensions, but not temporal ones, for that reason.

Edited November 8, 2013 by roosh

[swansont]

 

One of the consequences of Einsteinian relativity is that past, present, and future have to co-exist - which is what gives rise to the concept of the block universe.

 

We differentiate between two objects having the same spatial co-ordinates by using a man-made, system of measurement which we call "time". We use "clocks", or repetitive processes, as standardised units of comparison for that purpose. This however is not evidence that time exists or is physical, because nowhere in the process of a clock is something physical, called "time", ever measured. What is actually measured in a clock is the number of times the repetitive process occurs.

 

 

EDIT:

Two objects never have the same spatial co-ordinates in any given moment, but because only one moment ever exists there is no dimensional quality to "time". Objects have spatial dimensions, but not temporal ones, for that reason.

 

What do you mean by physical in this case?

 

If one moment only exists, then how can there be more than one moment? That argument make less sense that last Tuesdayism, because now you are arguing that nothing in the past ever existed — even your argument against time!

 

Spatial dimensions are equally a concept. Why is it that you argue against time but not length?

[roosh]

 

What do you mean by physical in this case?

 

If one moment only exists, then how can there be more than one moment? That argument make less sense that last Tuesdayism, because now you are arguing that nothing in the past ever existed — even your argument against time!

 

Spatial dimensions are equally a concept. Why is it that you argue against time but not length?

 

Physical in the sense that it is a dimension of the physical universe; that it makes up part of the physical universe that we exist in.

 

The present moment is dynamical, it is constantly changing, or at least the configuration of particles in the universe is constantly changing. "Now' in itself is not a physically existing thing, 'now" is just a label we apply to the configuration of matter in the universe. The argument is not that nothing in "the past" ever existed, it's that it no longer exists; more accurately, that the configuration of the universe that we refer to as 'the past" no longer exists.

 

We can observe the three spatial dimesions of macro objects with the naked eye, we never observer objects having a temporal dimension; we only ever observe objects in a single moment, not extended in time. We might remember past configurations of matter and be able to imagine future configurations (as well as predict them) but this doesn't mean that the objects are "extended in time", because past configurations no longer exist and future ones do not exist; they only ever exist - according to empirical observation - in a single, dynamical, dimensionless moment, "the present moment"; hence, they do not have a temporal dimension.

[swansont]

Physical in the sense that it is a dimension of the physical universe; that it makes up part of the physical universe that we exist in.

 

The present moment is dynamical, it is constantly changing, or at least the configuration of particles in the universe is constantly changing. "Now' in itself is not a physically existing thing, 'now" is just a label we apply to the configuration of matter in the universe. The argument is not that nothing in "the past" ever existed, it's that it no longer exists; more accurately, that the configuration of the universe that we refer to as 'the past" no longer exists.

How is there change without time? Look at two configurations for the universe. How do you label them, to identify them? I use time. I can have two objects at the same physical location, but only if the time coordinate is different. How do you do this without a fourth dimension?

 

 

We can observe the three spatial dimesions of macro objects with the naked eye, we never observer objects having a temporal dimension; we only ever observe objects in a single moment, not extended in time.

So? Since when is observation a requirement for being a dimension?

 

We might remember past configurations of matter and be able to imagine future configurations (as well as predict them) but this doesn't mean that the objects are "extended in time", because past configurations no longer exist and future ones do not exist; they only ever exist - according to empirical observation - in a single, dynamical, dimensionless moment, "the present moment"; hence, they do not have a temporal dimension.

I don't know what you mean by "extended in time". Points only exist in a single dimensionless place, so being infinitely narrow in extent is not a disqualifying factor.

 

You can't identify a non-static configuration without a fourth dimension.

[xyzt]

 

we only ever observe objects in a single moment, not extended in time.

False, think about the trajectory described by an object moving with respect to the observer.

[roosh]

False, think about the trajectory described by an object moving with respect to the observer.

We only ever observe objects in the present moment (not to be confused with "the present moment in time"), in what we term as "now". The trajectory of an object represents past states, or locations, which no longer exist, as well as possibly representing future states of the object. When an observation is made, it can only made in the present moment - we can't observe "the past" we can only observe the present.

 

That's not to say that "past" observations were never real, they were, but they have ceased to be real. So the trajectory of an object, moving with respect to the observer, represents configurations of the object which are no longer real ("past" configurations) and configurations which are not yet real ("future" configurations).

 

The object is not extended in time, as it is extended in space, it exists only in the now, the present moment.Objects, therefore, do not have a temporal dimension, it is our memory of "past" states and imaginings of "future" states, which lead us to believe that they do. But those memories and imaginings are not physically real, they are mental constructs.

[xyzt]

We only ever observe objects in the present moment (not to be confused with "the present moment in time"), in what we term as "now". The trajectory of an object represents past states, or locations, which no longer exist, as well as possibly representing future states of the object. When an observation is made, it can only made in the present moment - we can't observe "the past" we can only observe the present.

 

That's not to say that "past" observations were never real, they were, but they have ceased to be real. So the trajectory of an object, moving with respect to the observer, represents configurations of the object which are no longer real ("past" configurations) and configurations which are not yet real ("future" configurations).

 

The object is not extended in time, as it is extended in space, it exists only in the now, the present moment.Objects, therefore, do not have a temporal dimension, it is our memory of "past" states and imaginings of "future" states, which lead us to believe that they do. But those memories and imaginings are not physically real, they are mental constructs.

This false, when you take a series of timestamped snapshots of a batted baseball or of a football thrown by a quarterback you get a set {x,y,z,t} of "points" in 4D. Contrary to your claims, "t", as a coordinate, has equal footing with the rest , i.e. with "x,y,z".

The quartet (x,y,z,t) is the foundation of the Minkowski space.

[Endy0816]

We only ever observe objects in the present moment (not to be confused with "the present moment in time"), in what we term as "now". The trajectory of an object represents past states, or locations, which no longer exist, as well as possibly representing future states of the object. When an observation is made, it can only made in the present moment - we can't observe "the past" we can only observe the present.

 

That's not to say that "past" observations were never real, they were, but they have ceased to be real. So the trajectory of an object, moving with respect to the observer, represents configurations of the object which are no longer real ("past" configurations) and configurations which are not yet real ("future" configurations).

 

The object is not extended in time, as it is extended in space, it exists only in the now, the present moment.Objects, therefore, do not have a temporal dimension, it is our memory of "past" states and imaginings of "future" states, which lead us to believe that they do. But those memories and imaginings are not physically real, they are mental constructs.

 

 

You are assuming that we are incapable of observing the past due to its non-existance.

 

We could just be incapable of observing the past instead.

 

 

Universe can be likened to a frozen tangle of threads. We only see our particular slice. What we term the present is the unreal construct.

[roosh]

@swansont

How is there change without time? Look at two configurations for the universe. How do you label them, to identify them? I use time. I can have two objects at the same physical location, but only if the time coordinate is different. How do you do this without a fourth dimension?

Change doesn't require time to occur, it's our observation of change that leads to our idea of "time". We see systems change and we remember (record) "past" states and imagine (predict) "future" states, but "past" and "future" states aren't real, only the present configuration of a system is real.

 

Just because time is not real, that doesn't take away it's usefulness as a system of measurment. We can still use "time" to label different configurations of the universe but this doesn't mean that "time" is a dimension of the universe. If we take two configurations of the universe, "the past" configuration and the present one. Only the present configuration is real, the past configuration has ceased to be real, it is now just a memory or a record. We make empirical observations of objects in the universe as being extended in 3 dimensions and objects in the universe are spatially separated in 3 dimensions, however, only the present configuration of the universe is real, it, or objects within it, are not extended temporally, because neither "past" nor "future" configurations are real.

So? Since when is observation a requirement for being a dimension?

Since empiricism?

 

I don't know what you mean by "extended in time". Points only exist in a single dimensionless place, so being infinitely narrow in extent is not a disqualifying factor.

 

I'm sure you understand the idea of objects having length, breadth, and heighth, this is what it means to be extended in 3 dimensions; also, objects within the universe are spatially separated along 3 dimensions. For time to be considered a dimension of the universe the universe, or objects within it, would have to be extended in theis, so-called, 4th dimension i.e. they would have to be extended in time - otherwise time cannot be said to have a dimensional quality, or the universe, and the objects within it, cannot be said to have a temporal dimension.

 

Saying that points exist in a single dimensionless place is somewhat telling, because it says that points don't have dimensions, therefore, being infiinitely narrow is a disqualifying factor. The issue is that the universe isn't made up of a single points, but rather a collection of points, which themselves are spatially separated along 3 dimensions. Also, macroscopic objects are made up of a collection of points and those macroscopic objects are observed to be extended in 3 spatial dimensions.

 

The same, or even similar, is not true of time, however. Only the present moment, or rather, the present configuration is real. "Past" and "future" are not, so neither the universe, nor objects within it, are extended in a temporal dimension; hence, time is not a dimension.

 

 

You can't identify a non-static configuration without a fourth dimension.

You can, and we do. A 4th dimension isn't required for a non-static configuration, all that is required is for change to occur, and the amount of energy in the universe is sufficient to ensure that the configuration doesn't remain static.

 

Our notion of time as a dimension comes about from our observation of change, or at least, our misinterpretation of that observation. We remember "past" configurations and imagine "future" ones, but only the present confiugration is real and physical. The universe doesn't have a temporal dimension, we just imagine it to have one because of those memories and projections.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

You are assuming that we are incapable of observing the past due to its non-existance.

 

We could just be incapable of observing the past instead.

 

 

Universe can be likened to a frozen tangle of threads. We only see our particular slice. What we term the present is the unreal construct.

Likening the universe to a frozen tangle of threads is essentially the block universe concept, but it requires the assumptions that both past and future are real, as well as the assumption that time is real/physical and can be measured. Part of the latter assumption requires the assumption that clocks measure this property called "time", even though this cannot be demonstrated.

 

Further, in a universe where the worldlines of objects are like frozen threads i.e. static and unmoving, there would be no relative motion, without some other mechanism to explain it, which in itself would require a further assumption.

 

We can drop all of those assumptions, however, and investigate the concept of time and the idea that clocks measure this property called "time" and realise that nowhere in the process of a clock is something called "time" ever actually measured. In an atomic clock, for example, what is actually measured is the microwave emissions from the electrons of a caseium-133 atom, say; these emissions are measured and counted and this count is used as a standardised unit of comparison. Nowhere is a secondary, physical property, or dimension, measured.

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

for some reason the replies to endy and swansont are getting lumped together. I've tried separating them - quoting specific posts and replying and replying independently using the quick reply function - but whenever I submit the separated posts, they just get lumped back in together.

 

EDIT: and I see this one has too

Edited November 12, 2013 by roosh

[StringJunky]

 

We can drop all of those assumptions, however, and investigate the concept of time and the idea that clocks measure this property called "time" and realise that nowhere in the process of a clock is something called "time" ever actually measured.

 

 

If time didn't exist as a measurable parameter, clocks travelling at different velocities, with gravity being the same, would remain synchronised at all times.

Edited November 12, 2013 by StringJunky

[swansont]

@swansont

Change doesn't require time to occur, it's our observation of change that leads to our idea of "time". We see systems change and we remember (record) "past" states and imagine (predict) "future" states, but "past" and "future" states aren't real, only the present configuration of a system is real.

 

Just because time is not real, that doesn't take away it's usefulness as a system of measurment. We can still use "time" to label different configurations of the universe but this doesn't mean that "time" is a dimension of the universe. If we take two configurations of the universe, "the past" configuration and the present one. Only the present configuration is real, the past configuration has ceased to be real, it is now just a memory or a record. We make empirical observations of objects in the universe as being extended in 3 dimensions and objects in the universe are spatially separated in 3 dimensions, however, only the present configuration of the universe is real, it, or objects within it, are not extended temporally, because neither "past" nor "future" configurations are real.

 

Define "real", because all of this depends on your definition of real. Is temperature real? Is pressure real?

 

 

Since empiricism?

Empiricism requires naked-eye observation? Baloney.

 

I'm sure you understand the idea of objects having length, breadth, and heighth, this is what it means to be extended in 3 dimensions; also, objects within the universe are spatially separated along 3 dimensions. For time to be considered a dimension of the universe the universe, or objects within it, would have to be extended in theis, so-called, 4th dimension i.e. they would have to be extended in time - otherwise time cannot be said to have a dimensional quality, or the universe, and the objects within it, cannot be said to have a temporal dimension.

Objects persist, thus they exist "extended" in time, using time as most people use it.

 

You can't use this to support your definition because that's a circular argument.

 

Saying that points exist in a single dimensionless place is somewhat telling, because it says that points don't have dimensions, therefore, being infiinitely narrow is a disqualifying factor. The issue is that the universe isn't made up of a single points, but rather a collection of points, which themselves are spatially separated along 3 dimensions. Also, macroscopic objects are made up of a collection of points and those macroscopic objects are observed to be extended in 3 spatial dimensions.

I disagree that objects are made up of a collection of points. They exist within that framework but the points themselves are not physical objects.

 

The same, or even similar, is not true of time, however. Only the present moment, or rather, the present configuration is real. "Past" and "future" are not, so neither the universe, nor objects within it, are extended in a temporal dimension; hence, time is not a dimension.

Again, I need a definition of real, because it sounds like you are saying the past is an illusion, and didn't happen.

 

 

You can, and we do. A 4th dimension isn't required for a non-static configuration, all that is required is for change to occur, and the amount of energy in the universe is sufficient to ensure that the configuration doesn't remain static.

And for anyone to specify the configurations, one needs a fourth, non-spatial, variable, which is orthogonal to the spatial ones, i.e. the requirements of a dimension.

 

[roosh]

 

If time didn't exist as a measurable parameter, clocks travelling at different velocities, with gravity being the same, would remain synchronised at all times.

not if the mechanisms of the clock itself, as opposed to time, are affected.

[Strange]

not if the mechanisms of the clock itself, as opposed to time, are affected.

 

It is odd how all mechanisms are affected by exactly the same amount though ...

[swansont]

not if the mechanisms of the clock itself, as opposed to time, are affected.

 

Then discover what these mechanisms are. Physics has a model, and the model works. If you want to replace it, come up with something at least as successful.

[roosh]

Define "real", because all of this depends on your definition of real. Is temperature real? Is pressure real?

By real I simply mean physical as in a part of the universe. The universe is real, or perhaps it might be more definitive to say that the universe exists; what form it exists might be a separate question.

To say that time is not real is simply to say that it does not make up part of the universe.

 

Empiricism requires naked-eye observation? Baloney.

No, but it does require measurement or detection. It can't be demonstrated that time is measureable, unlike the 3 spatial dimensions.

 

 

Objects persist, thus they exist "extended" in time, using time as most people use it.

 

You can't use this to support your definition because that's a circular argument.

 

Although they persist, they only ever exist in the present moment, hence they are not extended in time, or do not have a temporal dimension. There is no circularity in that.

 

I disagree that objects are made up of a collection of points. They exist within that framework but the points themselves are not physical objects.

The point is that objects are extended in 3 spatial dimensions but not in a temporal one.

 

 

 

Again, I need a definition of real, because it sounds like you are saying the past is an illusion, and didn't happen.

It's not to say that the past didn't happen, it's that it no longer exists. We have records and memories of it, but it is no longer physically real, or physically exists - in the manner that it used to exist.

 

In order for time to be considered a dimension of the universe, then past and/or future have to physically persist, otherwise there is no dimensionaly quality to time.

 

 

And for anyone to specify the configurations, one needs a fourth, non-spatial, variable, which is orthogonal to the spatial ones, i.e. the requirements of a dimension.

We can use a 4th, non-spatial variable but it's use in a mathematical sense doesn't mean it physically exists. Indeed, we can only make it orthognal to the spatial dimensions by removing one of the spatial dimensions (keeping it's value as zero) and putting in the time "dimension".

 

Still, however, even when specifying the configurations, only one configuration - corresponding to a single value of the 4th variable - is ever real. The configuration isn't extended in that 4th dimension, whereas it is extended in the 3 spatial dimensions.

[Strange]

It can't be demonstrated that time is measureable, unlike the 3 spatial dimensions.

 

 

That is dissapointing. Do you think it is too late for me to ask for my money back on this expensive watch?

 

On the other hand, maybe we can measure time. And we can measure the effects of velocity and gravitation on time, exactly as predicted by theory.