Time.

[roosh]

Defining time out of existence by asserting that only "now" exists and therefore the universe has no temporal extent is circular reasoning; specifically, begging the question.

 

How do you know that only "now" exists? Because the universe is not temporally extended.

How do you know the universe is not termporally extended? Because only "now" exists!

 

We don't need circular reasoning, we can just ask the questions:

Can we make empirical observations of "the past"? The answer is no.

Can we make empirical observations of "the future"? The answer is no.

 

We can only make empirical observations in, and of, the present moment. Hence, only the position that "now" is all that exists is supportable by empirical observation.

 

It might be tempting to say that we made empirical observations "in the past", or that we will make empirical observations "in the future", but when we made those empirical observations we did so in what was then the present moment, and when we make empirical observations "in the future" it will also be the present moment.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what "the lack of such" refers to. Are you trying to say that time doesn't exist because you can't measure it with a ruler?

 

Of course there is the exact equivalent of events being separated spatially (ie. not being in the same place): it is called not-happening-at the-same-time.

 

"the lack of such" refers to the lack of a physical, temporal distance, empirically, observable between events. That events don't happen at the same time doesn't mean that the universe is temporally extended, because unless "past" events continue to exist (within the overall structure of the universe) then there is no temporal extension, and certainly no physicality to the temporal separation of events.

 

The fact that we cannot make empirical observations of "past" or "future" events means that "the temporal dimension" is unempirical.

 

 

p.s. I'll look for a citation for the point about the reconciliation of QM and relativity.

Citation needed.

apologies, I did a p.s. on the post above; I'll try to dig one out.

 

 

 

You can't have one without the other.

 

That isn't supported by any empirical evidence; we only have empirical evidence of one-way "time" dilation, we have to assume that it happens both ways. Again, from what I can gather - I'll have to dig out a citation for this as well - Lorentz's theory is equally supported by any empirical test of Einsteinian relativity and Lorentzian relativity doesn't involve two-way "time" dilation, it only has one, bcos it relies on an absolute reference frame", partly bcos his theory was based on absolute time. I would argue that such a preferred reference frame isn't required if "time" is not real, if it doesn't exist as a dimension; this is bcos there would be no absolute time, as there would be no time at all.

 

 

Why not just answer the question? It would have taken less words than waffling about why you don't want to answer it,.

 

It's not pertinent to the issue being discussed.

 

Also, I haven't really given it much consideration.

 

 

 

a) You haven't demonstrated anything; you have just asserted it.

 

b) We have evidence (a working theory) that time is a dimension

 

c) We have no evidence (beyond your assertions) that time is not a dimension

 

d) Hoping that a future theory might change that is just wishful thinking, not science or rational argument.

 

Remember that you can't prove a negative, so it is not possible to "prove" that "time" doesn't exist; instead, the onus is on whoever wishes to claim that it does, to provide evidence that it does. What can be done is question whatever evidence is presented

 

In order for time to be considered a physical dimension of the universe (or a dimension of the physical universe), from an empirical standpoint, it would have to be empirically demonstrable that the universe, or matter within it, is physically, temporally extended. Since we can't make empirical observations of "the past" or "the future", then it isn't a position, which is supported by empirical evidence, that time is a dimension of the universe.

 

Speculating that future scientific theories might reflect this fact isn't necessarily the core argument being made, it's simply a manner of highlighting the fact that, although we have a working theory now - which is not yet compatible with another eqaully successful theory - it doesn't mean to say that the theory won't be refined; since that is what happens to scientific theories.

 

 

If it is a subject you enjoy thinking about and discussing, I would have thought you might have come up with something other than an assertion.

 

 

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. You are basing your belief on the vagaries of human perception rather than objective evidence. That makes sense (as in, that explain why it is a personal belief rather than science).

 

Not that I think it is relevant, but it seems fairly clear that even the human perception of a single "now" is an illusion.

It's being based on the limitations of empirical observation/evidence. We cannot make empirical observations of "the past" or "the future" so there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that the universe, or matter within it, is temporally extended, at least not in any phyiscal sense.

 

 

 

 

No, you only perceive it in the present, which isn't the same thing at all. Your use of words like past and future indicates that, really, you know that time exists (even if you try and pretend it doesn't by putting them in scare quotes). Give it up: you've been rumbled.

And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky kids

 

We can only make empirical observations in and of the present moment.

 

The use of words such as "past" and "future" reflect the evolution of the human language and our capacity for remembering/recording configurations of matter that we once observed in the present moment, but which have subsequently changed and can no longer, empirically, be considered physical; as well as our capacity to imagine/predict configurations of matter which will only ever manifest in the present moment, which equally cannot be considered physical. The use of quotes is not to scare, but to highlight that "past" and "future" never actually exist, they are never physical; they are only mental constructs and we only ever experience - and make empirical observations of - the present moment.

 

 

 

 

That is a very limited definition of existence. There are all sorts of things we consider to exist that we have no direct experience of.

 

All of which explains why science relies on objective tests rather than personal opinions, which can be so flawed.

My understanding of science is that we only, generally, accept things to exist if we have empirical evidence of them.

 

There is no empirical evidence of "the past" or "the future".

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Bad analogy. Horses are physical objects and unicorns don't exist as physical objects, but since nobody is claiming that time is a physical object, this is nothing more than a straw man you've knocked down.

It wasn't a straw man. The specific point which was being addressed was:

 

 

 

You can't have or talk about a past without time.

The same is true of unicorns; you can't talk about unicorns without reference to a horse-like creature with a horn protruding from it's forehead.

 

There are no objections to the idea that "time" is not physical, the issue is that it is being suggested that time makes up part of the overall structure of the physical universe. If the position is that the universe is not entirely physical, but partly metaphysical - as it would have to be, if it is being argued that time makes up part of the structure of the universe but isn't physical - then that is entirely different.

 

The contention here is that "time" does not make up part of the physical universe; it is not a dimension of the physical universe; that it does not exist; or that the idea of the universe having a temporal dimension, is not supported by empirical evidence.

 

 

 

 

Length only exists as a mental construct, too, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. You can only be in one place at a time — you can only be "here", you can never be "there". The same semantic games you play with time can also be played with space. Which is why such games are useless.

 

The thing is, physics doesn't bother with the semantic games. It doesn't discuss here, there, now or anything like that.

There is no dispute here that "length" is just a mental construct; the difference is that we can make empirical observations of physical objects which are spatially extended, as well as spatially separated objects; while we are "here" we can make empirical observations of objects over "there"; whereas we never observe objects being temporally extended in any physical sense, and we can't make empirical observations of objects in "the past" or "the future"; hence the idea of a temporal dimesnion is unempirical, and certainly not physical.

 

Physics does appear to deal with empirically observable evidence.

 

 

 

And this is the point where I once again ask how you can describe non-static systems with only three variables. Which I expect you once again to dodge.

That we use 4 mathematical variables doesn't mean that the universe has a temporal dimension. This is the point where we ask for a demonstration of how it does.

 

Again, for the universe to be considered - in any physical or empirical sense - to have a temporal dimension, we would need empirical evidence that "the past" persists in the overall structure of the universe and/or that "the future" forms part of the overall, physical structure of the universe. If no such evidence can be provided, then we either agree that the idea of a temporal dimension is unempirical or that the temporal dimension is not physical - it could be argued that it is metaphysical perhaps, but I'm not sure that is a position that would sit too well amongst physicists.

 

 

 

 

That implies if you're sitting in a chair at a desk you can never be anywhere else but sitting in a chair at that desk. If a pick a coordinate system here is a unique (x,y,z) that describes your state. Nobody can ever observe you at a different set of coordinates or sit in that chair, because you occupy it.

 

Which, of course, is BS. As is the claim that you can't "observe" the past. Your ability to observe the past is limited to data that was recorded. IOW, photos don't go blank.

The contention here isn't that "time" isn't useful as a "system of measurement" - we have to be careful about what it is that we think we are measuring though. We can still use 't' co-ordinates to distinguish between events and to describe non-static systems but if we question what the 't' co-ordinate actually represents then we can see that, originally, what was being said was that, when the earth was in a certain point of it's rotation - with respect to the sun - you were sitting in a chair; but when the earth was at a difference point in it's rotation - with respect to the sun - you were standing up.

 

What we are actually doing here is using movement, within the spatial dimensions of the universe, to describe other spatially extended events/systems; we're just taking a particular, spatially extended, system/event as a standard unit and using it to describe others. With the advent of more sophisticated clocks, we're just doing the same; with an atomic clock what we are saying, for example, is that when the counter read 1sec you were sitting in the chair, but when it read 10secs, you were standing up. What is being measured by the atomic clock is the number of oscillations of the caesium-133 atom, say, not a "temporal dimension"; what is being measured by a "second" is the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun, not a "temporal dimension".

 

Neither the clock, nor the Earth, nor the Sun is temporally extended; at least not in such a way that is supported by empirical evidence of the physical universe.

 

 

 

 

No, the conclusion that time is not a dimension is only true for your straw man version of time. And I don't disagree with that. Your version of time doesn't exist, but your version is not what everyone else is using.

As has been mentioned, we can try and avoid problematic words such as "exist", by questioning whether or not "time" is a dimension of the physical universe.

 

For "time" to be considered a dimension of the physical universe, then the universe would have to be physically extended in time - "past" and/or "future" configurations would have to make up part of the physical structure of the universe, and this would have to be supported by empirical evidence (as opposed to being assumed) - otherwise the idea of the universe having a temporal dimension would be unempirical and/or the temproal dimension would have to be metaphysical.

 

That photos don't go blank is not evidence of this bcos photos are taken in the present moment and the photo which remains is not the phyiscal configuration of the matter which was photographed - it's a record of it - and it also is only ever observable in the present moment.

Edited November 21, 2013 by roosh

[swansont]

Again, all you have shown is that your version of time, i.e. time as you want it to behave, doesn't exist. Congratulations on destroying a straw man.

[roosh]

Again, all you have shown is that your version of time, i.e. time as you want it to behave, doesn't exist. Congratulations on destroying a straw man.

Can you demonstrate that the universe, or objects within it, are temporally extended in a physical sense?

 

EDIT: Bear in mind that the onus is on anyone trying to demonstrate a positive; someone trying to demonstrate a negative just has to outline how the evidence for the positive position is inaccurate or misinterpreted.

 

2nd EDIT: The empirical support for Einsteinian relativity is well known, so any links to any evidential support for it will be followed up with the question of how any specific experiment demonstrates that the universe is temporally extended, or how objects within the universe are temporally extended.

Edited November 21, 2013 by roosh

[Strange]

 

We don't need circular reasoning, we can just ask the questions:

Can we make empirical observations of "the past"? The answer is no.

Can we make empirical observations of "the future"? The answer is no.

 

That is your circular reasoning. You have chosen to only allow definitions of "empirical observation" that support your point of view. We can make empirical observations of the past just as easily as we can the present, and we can make predictions about the future (*). This is an almost perfect example of begging the question.

 

 

(*) you might not get much objection from me if you said the present doesn't exist: as soon as you define something as the present it is already the past. Plus it is probably an illusion generated by our brain to maintain the pretence of consciousness.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Strange

[Endy0816]

That's not saying much though, it's just saying that we don't perceive the universe as frozen, but we would if we were looking at things from outside. It doesn't explain how relative motion can arise from "frozen strings", because it shouldn't, without some additional mechanism to explain it.

 

 

 

Two pieces of yarn. I lay one down and I lay the other so that they both intersect at one end. >

 

From a 4 dimensional viewpoint, neither piece of yarn is moving.

 

From a 3 dimensional viewpoint I see two dots moving closer together.

 

 

Motion "real" in one dimension becomes unreal when considered from a higher dimension.

[swansont]

Can you demonstrate that the universe, or objects within it, are temporally extended in a physical sense?

 

 

No, I cannot satisfy your straw man of time.

[roosh]

No, I cannot satisfy your straw man of time.

Just to be clear, what is being said is that it cannot be demonstrated, or that there is no empirical evidence, that the universe, or the objects within it, are temporally extended. This begs the question then, as to how exactly "time" can be considered a dimension of the physical universe.

[StringJunky]

roosh, on 22 Nov 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:roosh, on 22 Nov 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

. This begs the question then, as to how exactly "time" can be considered a dimension of the physical universe.

That which can be measured is a dimension. Time can be, so it is.

Edited November 22, 2013 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Just to be clear, what is being said is that it cannot be demonstrated, or that there is no empirical evidence, that the universe, or the objects within it, are temporally extended. This begs the question then, as to how exactly "time" can be considered a dimension of the physical universe.

No, what is being said is that it's not possible using your definition, because you have conveniently defined it to be impossible. Which makes it a circular argument, so it actually shows nothing.

[decraig]

'Time' is a word. Define it any which way you want.

 

 

Einstein defined time as that measured with a clock. This is my preferred definition.

 

Notice that this definition does not define things such as when time is zero. Intervals of time are defined.

 

Absolute time in this sense was not addressed by this man. Physicists would say the that the laws of physics are classically "gauge invariant" with respect to time.

 

(PAM Dirac proposed otherwise.)

Edited November 23, 2013 by decraig

[roosh]

 

 

That is your circular reasoning. You have chosen to only allow definitions of "empirical observation" that support your point of view. We can make empirical observations of the past just as easily as we can the present, and we can make predictions about the future (*). This is an almost perfect example of begging the question.

 

 

(*) you might not get much objection from me if you said the present doesn't exist: as soon as you define something as the present it is already the past. Plus it is probably an illusion generated by our brain to maintain the pretence of consciousness.

 

We cannot make empirical observations of the past. We may have made empirical observations in, what we refer to as, "the past", but when those observations were made, it was "the present" (not present moment in time however). We cannot make make an empirical observation of something that happened 10yrs ago, we can't even make an empirical observation of what happened 2 seconds ago. Nor can we make empirical observations of "the future"; we can make predictions of "the future" but when we make the empirical observations to verify those predictions, it will be done in what we call "the present".

 

As has been mentioned before, it might be more useful not to think in terms of "moments", indeed, "the present moment" doesn't, essentially, exist; there is no physical thing called "the present moment"; instead we've got configurations of matter in the universe. "The present moment" is simply a term we apply that means "now", which is the only "moment" in which we can make empirical observations.

 

 

It's this lack of empirical evidence, that the universe is temporally extended, which means we should question the idea of time as a dimension.

 

 

Two pieces of yarn. I lay one down and I lay the other so that they both intersect at one end. >

 

From a 4 dimensional viewpoint, neither piece of yarn is moving.

 

From a 3 dimensional viewpoint I see two dots moving closer together.

 

 

Motion "real" in one dimension becomes unreal when considered from a higher dimension.

 

This still doesn't explain how you see two dots moving closer together, from two pieces of yarn which themselves are not moving. The question is how 2 static pieces of yarn, even if that is in 4 dimensions, can give rise to relative motion in the 3D universe. Simply stating that this is the case isn't sufficient

[Strange]

 

We cannot make empirical observations of the past.

 

You are still making the same circular arguments:

 

1. Time does not exit; therefore we cannot observe the past

2. We cannot observe the past; therefore time does not exist

3. Go to 1.

 

1. Time does not exist; therefore things do not have temporal extent.

2. Things do not have temporal extent; therefore time does not exist.

3. Go to 1.

 

You define "observe the past" (in as much as you define it at all) in such a way as to make your argument trivially true. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

 

As has been noted, the evidence contradicts your belief so there isn't really much point just endlessly repeating the same thing. Except as a proof that time exists and you are wasting it.

 

If the future exists, then I predict that in it you will repeat the same fallacious argument. Prove me wrong!

Edited November 25, 2013 by Strange

[roosh]

That which can be measured is a dimension. Time can be, so it is.

We can measure a multitude of things, but I don't think that makes them a dimension of the universe.

 

For example temperature and velocity aren't considered dimensions, are they?

 

 

 

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

No, what is being said is that it's not possible using your definition, because you have conveniently defined it to be impossible. Which makes it a circular argument, so it actually shows nothing.

It hasn't been defined to be impossible, it's simply a questioning of the empirical evidence available to us. There is empirical evidence that objects within the universe are both spatially extended and spatially separated; there is no empirical evidence that the universe, or the objects within it, are temporally extended, or temporally separated (in any physical sense).

 

This is what leads to the conclusion that the idea of time as a dimension of the universe is unempirical and non-physical.

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

'Time' is a word. Define it any which way you want.

 

 

Einstein defined time as that measured with a clock. This is my preferred definition.

 

Notice that this definition does not define things such as when time is zero. Intervals of time are defined.

 

Absolute time in this sense was not addressed by this man. Physicists would say the that the laws of physics are classically "gauge invariant" with respect to time.

 

(PAM Dirac proposed otherwise.)

It's one thing to say that "time is what is measured by a clock" but another thing entirely to say that the universe has a temporal dimension. A clock provides a standardised unit for comparing systems which are spatially extended. However, neither the clock, nor the system being quantified, is temporally extended. So "time" doesn't a appear, empirically speaking, to be a dimension of the universe, or the objects within it.

 

 

 

 

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

 

You are still making the same circular arguments:

 

1. Time does not exit; therefore we cannot observe the past

2. We cannot observe the past; therefore time does not exist

3. Go to 1.

 

1. Time does not exist; therefore things do not have temporal extent.

2. Things do not have temporal extent; therefore time does not exist.

3. Go to 1.

 

You define "observe the past" (in as much as you define it at all) in such a way as to make your argument trivially true. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

 

As has been noted, the evidence contradicts your belief so there isn't really much point just endlessly repeating the same thing. Except as a proof that time exists and you are wasting it.

 

If the future exists, then I predict that in it you will repeat the same fallacious argument. Prove me wrong!

Again, there is no circularity in the reasoning; it's simply an investigation of the empirical evidence available to us.

 

We don't start with" "time does not exist"; we start by observing objects within the universe being spatially extended and noting that there is no empirical evidence that the objects are temporally extended. From that we arrive at the conclusion that the idea of a temporal dimension is unempirical and/or non-physical.

 

 

As for "observing the past", that is simply an impossibility, because observations can only ever be made in, and of, "the present moment". Indeed, when it comes to verifying your prediction, you will have to do so by reading this post in "the present moment".

Edited November 26, 2013 by roosh

[Strange]

Again, there is no circularity in the reasoning; it's simply an investigation of the empirical evidence available to us.

No. It is simply interpreting evidence and making unsupported claims in order to support your beliefs.

 

We don't start with" "time does not exist"

 

It doesn't matter where you start: the argument is circular. Swap (1) and (2) if you wish.

 

we start by observing objects within the universe being spatially extended and noting that there is no empirical evidence that the objects are temporally extended.

 

So you claim, in order to support your belief.

 

Obviously things which existed in the past, exist now and will continue to exist in the future are temporally extended. I know you have to deny that in order to maintain your beliefs.

 

Stating that they are not, in order to support your argument, is known as "begging the question".

 

 

As for "observing the past", that is simply an impossibility, because observations can only ever be made in, and of, "the present moment".

 

Again, you are trying to use human perception to define whether things exist or not. By the same logic, we can say that I can only observe "here" therefore things are not spatially extended; ergo, the rest of the universe doe not exist.

 

You have been given many different arguments and lines of evidence. But you are only able to repeat the same empty claims over and over again. I'm not going to waste any more time on what is, essentially, a religious argument.

 

 

when it comes to verifying your prediction, you will have to do so by reading this post in "the present moment"

 

No, I read it in the past.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Strange

[swansont]

 

It hasn't been defined to be impossible, it's simply a questioning of the empirical evidence available to us. There is empirical evidence that objects within the universe are both spatially extended and spatially separated; there is no empirical evidence that the universe, or the objects within it, are temporally extended, or temporally separated (in any physical sense).

 

This is what leads to the conclusion that the idea of time as a dimension of the universe is unempirical and non-physical.

 

 

You have asserted that things are not temporally extended, and yet admit that the past was real. I can't reconcile those two, except in light of having defined time to not exist.

 

What is the the fourth orthogonal variable (dimension) that allows one to calculate e.g. a trajectory? You need to answer this at some point.

[decraig]

It's one thing to say that "time is what is measured by a clock" but another thing entirely to say that the universe has a temporal dimension. A clock provides a standardised unit for comparing systems which are spatially extended. However, neither the clock, nor the system being quantified, is temporally extended. So "time" doesn't a appear, empirically speaking, to be a dimension of the universe, or the objects within it.

 

"...but another thing entirely to say that the universe has temporal dimension," you say.

 

You are putting words in my mouth. Argue this with someone who claims it.

 

"A clock provides a standardised unit for comparing systems which are spatically extended," you say.

 

And yard sticks, and thermometers too, but so what?

 

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

 

What is this straw horse, swansont is talking about? Is your argument: Time does not exist, therefore physics or reality is a social construct, and we can get back to animism, post-realism or the lastest -ism currently fashionable to the postmodernist left?

Edited November 26, 2013 by decraig

[roosh]

 

 

No. It is simply interpreting evidence and making unsupported claims in order to support your beliefs.

 

The only unsupported claim is that the universe has a temporal dimension or that it, or systems within it, are temporally extended, because when we examine any supposed evidence which supports that claim we can see that, in actual fact, it doesn't support it at all, it is simply assumed; the empirical observation doesn't actually support it.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter where you start: the argument is circular. Swap (1) and (2) if you wish.

 

So you claim, in order to support your belief.

 

Obviously things which existed in the past, exist now and will continue to exist in the future are temporally extended. I know you have to deny that in order to maintain your beliefs.

 

Stating that they are not, in order to support your argument, is known as "begging the question".

We don't need to beg the question and we don't need to swap (1) and (2) above; where we start is with empirical observation and then draw our conclusions from there.

 

While objects or systems do persist - they existed in the past, exist now and will exist in the future - they are only ever observed in the present. When we say that an object was observed "in the past" what we actually mean is that we made an observation in what was the present configuration of the universe but that configuration has changed. When we say we will observe an object "in the future", what is actually the case is that the present configuration of the universe will continue to change and when we make the later observation of the object it will also be the present.

 

If we could make empirical observations of the future then we could know what tomorrow's winning lottery numbers are going to be, but we can't; instead we predict what they are going to be and we confirm or refute those prediction in what will become the present.

 

 

Thought experiment

It might be useful to consider an experiment, where we make an empirical observation of a clock. I'm thinking that a clock with hands might be easier to visualise, but we can use an atomic clock if needs be. Observing the clock we can see that the clock is only physically extended in 3 spatial dimensions; while the second hand of the clock moves around the face - with the precision of an atomic clock - we only ever observe clock, and the hand, extended in 3D spatial dimensions.

 

While we might be able to remember where the hand was and predict where it will go, we only ever make our observations in the present. We can't make an observation of where the hand was, or will be, we only ever make an observation of where the hand is.

 

Video recording

It might also be suggested that we make a video recording of the clock and then we can re-wind the video and see where the "past" states of the clock; but what we will actually be looking at is a video image of the clock on equipment which is only extended in 3 spatial dimensions.

 

 

 

Again, you are trying to use human perception to define whether things exist or not. By the same logic, we can say that I can only observe "here" therefore things are not spatially extended; ergo, the rest of the universe doe not exist.

 

You have been given many different arguments and lines of evidence. But you are only able to repeat the same empty claims over and over again. I'm not going to waste any more time on what is, essentially, a religious argument.

It isn't a case of using human perception, it's a question of what the empirical evidence actually demonstrates. The claims remain the same because none of the "evidence" actually refutes the claim or demonstrates a temporal dimension.

 

The question of whether we can only observe "here" is an interesting one, and it is one which would lead it's proponents to a position of extreme solipsism, a position that the rest of the universe doesn't exist, as you allude to. It isn't the position being advocated here though, because it would certainly seem that we can observe more than just "here". Our empirical observations would lead us to believe that we can also observe locations that are not "here", locations that are over "there", locations we can move to. Our observations would lead us to believe that the rest of the universe does exist, that objects are spatially extended, and that they can move around in 3D space. What we don't observe, however, is objects which are temporally extended and which move around in a temporal dimension.

 

Even if the position of extreme solipsism were true, and it isn't the contention that it is, that would simply mean that scientific investigation is an investigation of the solipsistic universe, and we still wouldn't have any empirical support that objects within that solipsistic universe are temporally extended.

 

 

 

 

No, I read it in the past.

When you were reading it though, it was the present. Try taking a hard copy of a book, read a page of it, then tear the page out and burn it. Can you read that page? No, bcos it is only possible to read the book in the present, or in it's present configuration.

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

 

 

 

You have asserted that things are not temporally extended, and yet admit that the past was real. I can't reconcile those two, except in light of having defined time to not exist.

 

We have to be careful what we mean when we say "the past was real". Let's just pretend we're having this discussion in "real time" for the sake of avoiding confusion. If we consider the configuration of the universe as it is now - let's refer to it as "now 1". Because the universe is constantly changing - or the matter within it is constantly moving - the configuration of matter that corresponded to "now 1" has subsequently changed. We refer to "now 1" as "the past", but when we said now, we said it in what was the present.

 

So essentially, "the past" is never real and never was real; what was real, was the configuration of the universe in what was "the present".

 

 

 

 

What is the the fourth orthogonal variable (dimension) that allows one to calculate e.g. a trajectory? You need to answer this at some point.

It might be useful to distinguish between the 4th variable and the 4th orthognal variable, because our empirical observations, of the physical world, don't actually bear out the idea that there is a 4th orthognal dimension; we make observations of objects moving around in 3 orthoginal spatial dimensions, but not in a 4th orthognal temporal dimension. The 4th orthognal dimension is a mathematical construct that is essentially arrived at by removing one of the other 3 orthognal dimensions - keeping the co-ordinates of one of the axes as 0.

 

 

As for the 4th variable, what that is, is a value provided by an object/system which is spatially extended in 3 dimensions and which moves within those 3 spatial dimensions. What we are effectively doing is taking 3 dimensional motion, which happens to be very regular, and using it as a standard unit, which we use as the 4th variable.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

"...but another thing entirely to say that the universe has temporal dimension," you say.

 

You are putting words in my mouth. Argue this with someone who claims it.

Apologies, I was just in "reply mode" and didn't realise at the time that you hadn't replied directly to me.

 

With regard to the definition of "time", I think Einstein's statement translates to "time is what we read from a clock". That is the definition I would agree with myself. I wouldn't say that "time" is measured by a clock bcos this would suggest that "time" is something which is physically measurable. In the case of a an atomic clock what is actually being measured, or detected, is the microwave emissions of the electrons of caesium atoms, as they change energy. These emissions are simply detected and counted; there is no secondary property of the physical universe being measured or detected.

 

 

 

 

"A clock provides a standardised unit for comparing systems which are spatically extended," you say.

 

And yard sticks, and thermometers too, but so what?

 

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

 

What is this straw horse, swansont is talking about? Is your argument: Time does not exist, therefore physics or reality is a social construct, and we can get back to animism, post-realism or the lastest -ism currently fashionable to the postmodernist left?

These two points are related, so I've taken them together.

 

The strawman that swansont is talking about is the claim that I am using a strawman definition of time and saying it doesn't exist. The point has been modified, however, to avoid what was proving to be a problematic term, the term "exist". Instead what is being argued is that our empirical observations of the physical universe don't support the contention that the universe has a temporal dimension or that matter within it is temporally extended; they only support the contention that matter within the universe is only spatially extended and/or that the universe only has 3 spatial dimensions - no temporal one.

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by roosh

[decraig]

Apologies, I was just in "reply mode" and didn't realise at the time that you hadn't replied directly to me.

 

With regard to the definition of "time", I think Einstein's statement translates to "time is what we read from a clock". That is the definition I would agree with myself. I wouldn't say that "time" is measured by a clock bcos this would suggest that "time" is something which is physically measurable. In the case of a an atomic clock what is actually being measured, or detected, is the microwave emissions of the electrons of caesium atoms, as they change energy. These emissions are simply detected and counted; there is no secondary property of the physical universe being measured or detected.

 

 

 

 

These two points are related, so I've taken them together.

 

The strawman that swansont is talking about is the claim that I am using a strawman definition of time and saying it doesn't exist. The point has been modified, however, to avoid what was proving to be a problematic term, the term "exist". Instead what is being argued is that our empirical observations of the physical universe don't support the contention that the universe has a temporal dimension or that matter within it is temporally extended; they only support the contention that matter within the universe is only spatially extended and/or that the universe only has 3 spatial dimensions - no temporal one.

 

 

I don't have much disagreement with you.

 

Of course time doesn't exist. How hard is that to understand. But, in the consensus, it seems to be a major conceptual problem.

 

However, I take issue with your time measurement problem.

 

What does a volt meter measure? It indirectly measures voltage. Perceptually I measure the position of the needle over a card, or the opacity of some liquid crystals in an LCD display. Time is what is measured with a clock be it Cesium or a mechanical escapement. That's what they are made for. The outputs of these two devices are bijective: one-to-one and onto.

Edited November 27, 2013 by decraig