What is time? Does time even exist?

[Myuncle]

 

Ah, maybe that is the problem. Some of us also have the ability to judge the time between events as well; it is built into the brain.

 

Those of us with this "miraculous" ability struggle to see why someone would think time doesn't exist.

All of us have the ability to judge the time between events, and that's absolutely fine. Yes, it is all in our brain, like many other ideas. Does love, or hope, exist in our brain? Yes, they do exist, but they are not dimensions. Fear is an idea, does it exist? Yes, in our brain, as a state of mind, but we would never say that fear is a dimension. The same is for time, it does exist in our brain as an idea of things and events flowing. The word "time" can mean three things:

1 Speed of motion according to our clock (it does exist in space, and can be measured and compared with our clock)

2 The idea of events flowing (it does exist in our brain, just like any other ideas, love, fear, etc)

3 Time as a dimension (it doesn't exist, and never existed).

[swansont]

3 Time as a dimension (it doesn't exist, and never existed).

Which only brings us back to the unanswered question of why everything doesn't happen at once. How can you cross the street, since there's a bus there that will hit you?

[Strange]

3 Time as a dimension (it doesn't exist, and never existed).

 

That is a such profound argument supported by so much overwhelming evidence and sophisticated logic that I think my only response is:

 

Yes it does.

[Myuncle]

Which only brings us back to the unanswered question of why everything doesn't happen at once. How can you cross the street, since there's a bus there that will hit you?

Why should everything happen at once? It's like asking why subatomic particles don't move at once in every direction.

 

That is a such profound argument supported by so much overwhelming evidence and sophisticated logic that I think my only response is:

 

Yes it does.

Evidence?? Are you joking? Which evidence?

[Strange]

Evidence?? Are you joking? Which evidence?

 

That was exactly my point. You are expressing a (flawed) opinion with the certainty of proven fact.

Why should everything happen at once? It's like asking why subatomic particles don't move at once in every direction.

 

Because you claim time doesn't exist and so everything can't happen at different times. Therefore it must all happen at once.

[Daniel Foreman]

 

Ah, maybe that is the problem. Some of us also have the ability to judge the time between events as well; it is built into the brain.

 

Those of us with this "miraculous" ability struggle to see why someone would think time doesn't exist.

 

That's ok, I understand your struggle. It's because time is treated more or less as a story all the time. It's a wonderful plot device. The time the murder killed the victim. The time traveller changing the past. Seconds ticking away in 24.

 

It's only natural people will think in a narrative sense (that is, convert the world into stories) or try to relate something they don't understand to something they do understand even if it is wholly different from the original.

 

Time is a measuring tool, nothing more. But again, I remind you. We do not measure "time" as we do space. With space we slap down a stick, put some regular marks on it, then call it an inch. That stick doesn't change or move (unless you cause it to). You can look at it for as long as you like and it will always take up the same amount of space.

 

Now, time on the other hand isn't the same as this stick. With the stick you can look at the left side, then the right side, then the middle as and when you please. With time, you can either record a frame, or predict a frame or observe a frame. What you can not do is look at the past, You can only look at a recording of the past or a memory of the past, but you are always doing so in the moment. The same with the future, we can never see that, we can only guess at it, and use some clever tools to predict it. But those tools get less and less accurate as you go further into the future.

 

So, I can observe space freely. I can not observe time freely. And until you build a time machine or someone else does, then time simply can not exist as many people believe it to.

 

 

All of us have the ability to judge the time between events, and that's absolutely fine. Yes, it is all in our brain, like many other ideas. Does love, or hope, exist in our brain? Yes, they do exist, but they are not dimensions. Fear is an idea, does it exist? Yes, in our brain, as a state of mind, but we would never say that fear is a dimension. The same is for time, it does exist in our brain as an idea of things and events flowing. The word "time" can mean three things:

1 Speed of motion according to our clock (it does exist in space, and can be measured and compared with our clock)

2 The idea of events flowing (it does exist in our brain, just like any other ideas, love, fear, etc)

3 Time as a dimension (it doesn't exist, and never existed).

 

I 100% agree with everything you just said.

 

 

 

Which only brings us back to the unanswered question of why everything doesn't happen at once. How can you cross the street, since there's a bus there that will hit you?

 

Err, well. You just move. I feel this is the kind of trap people think themselves into. What you are basically doing here is crediting time as the all powerful god of the universe, organising matter into frames so everything doesn't happen all at once. You've taken the simple premise that all matter can not exist at the same point in space all at once, and therefore time must be separating it. But to do this time must have influence over every piece of matter in the universe as well as forces and dimensions.

 

That is an extremely over complicated answer. The reason everything doesn't exist at the same point in space, is because there is plenty of space! If the Big Bang theory demonstrates anything, is that stuff likes to move. Matter flying freely around space freely is a far simpler answer than making time a universal influence on everything.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[Strange]

I 100% agree with everything you just said.

 

So you both share the same baseless opinion. <shrug>

 

If either of you had any evidence or logic to support your personal opinions, it might be a different matter. Can you show that Newtonian physics, GR or QED work better without time? What practical benefits are there to pretending time doesn't exist? Why is this in the Physics forum rather than Philosophy (being generous)?

[Myuncle]

 

So you both share the same baseless opinion. <shrug>

 

If either of you had any evidence or logic to support your personal opinions, it might be a different matter. Can you show that Newtonian physics, GR or QED work better without time? What practical benefits are there to pretending time doesn't exist? Why is this in the Physics forum rather than Philosophy (being generous)?

I am not an expert, but Newtonian physics, GR or QED can work perfectly with time as 1 Speed of motion according to our clock (it does exist in space, and can be measured and compared with our clock), or 2 The idea of events flowing (it does exist in our brain, just like any other ideas, love, fear, etc). I think nobody is perfect, including Newton and Einstein, maybe considering time as a dimension it was the "trend" of that period. Certainly if Newton and Einstein were still alive, I would like to ask them: dear Isaac, and dear Albert, many of us are confused by the way you used the word "time", do you seriously believe time is a dimension, and if yes, how can you prove its existence?

[swansont]

Why should everything happen at once? It's like asking why subatomic particles don't move at once in every direction.

 

How should things occur of there is no such thing as time? How can you have an ordering of events without it?

[Strange]

how can you prove its existence?

 

I don't think there is a need to prove the existence of time (after all the time people have spent discussing it in this thread).

 

It might be interesting if someone had a slightly more compelling argument than, "it doesn't exist".

 

But, using the same level of complex argument, I guess my "proof" would be: yes it does.

[Daniel Foreman]

If either of you had any evidence or logic to support your personal opinions, it might be a different matter. Can you show that Newtonian physics, GR or QED work better without time? What practical benefits are there to pretending time doesn't exist? Why is this in the Physics forum rather than Philosophy (being generous)?

 

 

You want evidence? Here you go.

 

Now as soon as you provide some kind of experiment that demonstrates time exists, perhaps a nice time machine, I will be happy to listen to your evidence. But as you can see from that video, I can easily demonstrate motion exists. You however can not demonstrate that time exists. Even GPS doesn't prove it, it simply demonstrates that it takes two radio signals different amounts of time to arrive to a receiver. Which frankly only goes to demonstrate that motion of radiowaves exists, aka they travel through space.

 

But again, please if you have any experiments you can record and throw up on youtube demonstrating that time is a real observable element of the universe I'm happy to view your evidence.

 

 

 

I don't think there is a need to prove the existence of time (after all the time people have spent discussing it in this thread).

May I just take this moment to say...

 

lol

 

 

 

If either of you had any evidence or logic to support your personal opinions, it might be a different matter.

 

Both those quotes are from you Strange. First of all you try to defeat the idea by demanding evidence, then you turn around and say "well like, time don't need evidence to exist." to paraphrase you. "It just does".

 

Well, I've demonstrated motion, now it's on you to demonstrate time. If you can't, then you're the one making baseless claims with no evidence to back it up.

 

If you're going to set the rules, don't change them mid game.

Also I would like to point out that newtons mechics work just fine without time.

 

You can keep the existing time measurement system and simply relabel it "State of Universe" (SU) after all that's all time does in mathematics, compare previous states of the universe, to current states of the universe and possible states of the universe.

 

Previous states is recorded information based on prior observation, current is active ongoing observation, and future predicted states can only be tested against active ongoing observation of prior information.

 

Prior = Proven information

Current = Real Time information (which after captured takes time to process and therefore gets converted to Proven information and compaired)

Predictive = What we expect to happen theoretically but have not tested yet.

 

Having the one word "Time" to describe these three states is very inaccurate, and I feel it gives the wrong impression.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[Strange]

 

First of all you try to defeat the idea by demanding evidence, then you turn around and say "well like, time don't need evidence to exist." to paraphrase you. "It just does".

 

I am not the one making unsupported claims. The burden of proof is on you. My "it just does" is just an example of an obvious counter-argument using exactly the same level of logic and evidence as you and myuncle (i.e. none, in case you miss the point).

 

I find your opinion mildly puzzling but the certainty with which you state it, with no apparent reason, extremely odd. It seems to be purely a matter of faith.

 

I'm afraid I can't (easily) watch videos. However, as I have seen movies featuring zombies and aliens, I am slightly surprised the medium would be considered a scientific resource.

 

But I am curious: how long is the video (you know, in minutes and seconds)? After all, I don't know if I have time to watch it.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Strange

[Myuncle]

 

How should things occur of there is no such thing as time? How can you have an ordering of events without it?

 

As long as subatomic particles move, things happen, and the order of events is just dictated by their movements. Matter can move only in a single direction at once, otherwise is going to split. This is how subatomic particles move. But if you ask me why they can't move at once in every possible direction, I can't answer that (nobody can answer that), it's just the way universe works.

 

You want evidence? Here you go.

 

Hehe, I detected those movements with my eyes (I didn't touch them, heard them, or smell them, but my eyes detected their motion), for me it's enough evidence

Edited August 30, 2013 by Myuncle

[Strange]

Hehe, I detected those movements with my eyes (I didn't touch them, heard them, or smell them, but my eyes detected their motion), for me it's enough evidence

 

As time doesn't exist, I assume you mean, "I am detecting those movements with my eyes .. I am not touching them ... my eyes are detecting them..."

 

Odd, that a sequential medium is used to disprove the existence of the very thing that allows a sequence of images...

[Daniel Foreman]

As long as subatomic particles move, things happen, and the order of events is just dictated by their movements. Matter can move only in a single direction at once, otherwise is going to split. This is how subatomic particles move. But if you ask me why they can't move at once in every possible direction, I can't answer that (nobody can answer that), it's just the way universe works.

 

I'll agree with that. After all, clearly the objects were sitting "on my desk" so they were limited in their Y axis movement, so when matter comes against other matter it takes a lot of force to make them pass through or merge into each other, and the result is going to be somewhat messy. So yes there are restrictions in movement.

 

 

 

Odd, that a sequential medium is used to disprove the existence of the very thing that allows a sequence of images...

 

Odd that you're notably not coming up with any experiments that demonstrate time.

[pears]

 

Matter can move only in a single direction at once, otherwise is going to split. This is how subatomic particles move. But if you ask me why they can't move at once in every possible direction, I can't answer that (nobody can answer that), it's just the way universe works.

 

But your sentence presupposes the existence of time by using the concept "at once". Time is a concept required to make sense of the world. As someone stated above we have a sense of time and perceive it with our minds in the same way that we have a perception of space and also perceive it with our minds. We perceive it visually. The rendering of it might somehow make the concept 'feel' more real to us, but it is still a perception. Why would it be any more real than our perception of time?

[Daniel Foreman]

The English Language contributes to many inaccuracies. After all, when you say the word "table" it has a general meaning, while at the same time fitting no specific table at all. Even gross generalisations such as "a blue table" or a "circular blue table" is open to massive interpretation.

 

We use time in the same way, we talk about time as if it is past events, present events and future events all at the same time. I can say

 

"Remember the time we did this?" Or "If you have some spare time can you do this" or "What time do you think it will rain today?"

 

Now in the context of the sentences it makes sense. But time, is used in each one.

 

This goes back to what I was saying with universal state. By setting the time variable in a sum to future, past or present events we give the false impression that time itself is a dimension and thus flexible. Mathematics is all about precision. I can't help but feel a better way of expressing time is as I demonstrated.

 

Past State, Present State, and Future State.

 

However in mathematics, a sum can only be verified in the Past State sense. That is, we have previous states to compare other previous states to. This is because, even so called "real time" events, require a period to convert into data, store, and process. By which time, the present "real time" has already moved on and we've converted it into "Past State" for comparison.

 

As for Future state, we can guess what that will be with some clever prediction tools and we might even get it right, but we won't know until Future state has passed through Present state and been recorded into Past State, and then compared to prior previous states, in an effort to better predict future states and present states.

 

Now when someone invents an experiment that allows us to merge the three states together, past, present and future so you can experience being in your mothers whom, on your death bed and at the prime of your existence along with everything in between. Then that is a valid demonstration of time. However, as we all know this isn't possible.

 

Therefore my conclusion is, that time doesn't exist outside being an analytical tool.

[pears]

Now when someone invents an experiment that allows us to merge the three states together, past, present and future so you can experience being in your mothers whom, on your death bed and at the prime of your existence along with everything in between. Then that is a valid demonstration of time. However, as we all know this isn't possible.

 

How and why would this be a valid demonstration of time?

[Myuncle]

 

But your sentence presupposes the existence of time by using the concept "at once". Time is a concept

Yes, you answered your question, I have no problem in understanding the existence of time as a concept, and as chemical reaction in our brain. But has anyone ever detected time outside our brain?

[pears]

But you could apply the same argument to space, or anything. How do you know space exists outside the brain?

[Daniel Foreman]

 

How and why would this be a valid demonstration of time?

Why wouldn't it be? Try suggesting your own demonstration of time. Why do I have to do all the work?

 

 

Yes, you answered your question, I have no problem in understanding the existence of time as a concept, and as chemical reaction in our brain. But has anyone ever detected time outside our brain?

Not as far as I know. As far as I'm aware there is absolutely no device in existence that directly analyses or detects time. We only have tools that detects matter itself.

 

But you could apply the same argument to space, or anything. How do you know space exists outside the brain?

Because my iPad just recorded that it does in wonderful 2D. My iPad doesn't have a brain, in records the light bouncing off surfaces, into a sensor then converts it into a 2D presentation.

 

Now the problem with treditional camera sensors is that the light is focused through the lens then recorded. So you're stuck with that image. But there is a device called the Lytro Light Field Camera that doesn't prefocus the light but instead captures the angle and intensity of the light. The net result is that the 2D image can be "refocused" with some of the extra 3rd dimension of space that traditional photographs lose.

 

You can view this device here

and is on sale publicly.

 

It's the fact that we can produce tools like this, work with angles, and independently use tools to measure the depth of your surroundings then reproduce it in a consistent way, that demonstrates that something exists.

 

Now you are more than welcome to spend your life trying to explain "why it appears to work, yet is in fact something completely different" but until you do, this is established fact.

 

The ability to regularly reproduce an experiment, and get the same results over and over again at the hands of many different people world wide is the difference between perception, and reality.

[pears]

Your ipad doesn't perceive 2-D. You do.

[Myuncle]

But you could apply the same argument to space, or anything. How do you know space exists outside the brain?

 

We can't be certain 100% of anything, I have never seen Napoleon or Julius Ceasar, but I tend to believe their historical existence much more than Santa Claus. How do you know time exists outside your brain?

[pears]

I infer it because it makes sense of the world. In the same way that I infer space exists because it makes sense of the world.

[Myuncle]

Not as far as I know. As far as I'm aware there is absolutely no device in existence that directly analyses or detects time. We only have tools that detects matter itself.

 

I was talking about time as idea in our brain, not as a dimension. You can detect any brain activity with a brain scan, which of course has got nothing to do with detecting time as a dimension.