Explanation of Time

[PeterJ]

It's over my head most of this, but a few thoughts...

 

I would recommend Hermann Weyl's book on the continuum. He is clear. Time is not an empirical phenomenon but a creation of reason and intellect. He draws a careful distinction between the arithmetical view of time and the view by which it is a true continuum. For Weyl all co-ordinate systems would be emergent.

 

His view has explosive implications for all sorts of things but it seems to be largely ignored. Still. at least Fred should be able to call on Weyl for support.

 

Swansont makes the point that being real and being fundamental are not the same thing. I think this is wrong, but then I use the words differently. Time may be real in some sense but it cannot be fundamental and so cannot be independently real. All in all I'm with Fred on this.

 

Time is a philosophical problem and I see no use in referring to scientific experiments (Pauli etc) for support for any particular view of time. Rather, I'd say the foundations of analysis are a sensible place to start, following Weyl's lead.

[studiot]

 

Time is not an empirical phenomenon but a creation of reason and intellect.

 

So can you write down the Weyl Tensor, without making any reference to a varaible t (actually partial d/dt) called time?

[IsiacTorres]

This may seem really "deep", but if you think about it time and everything we know had to have a point when it didn't exist. If there was a point when existence and logic didn't exist, then there was a point when everything existed simply because nothing said it cant. But doesn't this leave us with a paradox? But everything can't just suddenly change into nothing again, because we have already experienced something. But this is philosophy.

[michel123456]

This may seem really "deep", but if you think about it time and everything we know had to have a point when it didn't exist. If there was a point when existence and logic didn't exist, then there was a point when everything existed simply because nothing said it cant. But doesn't this leave us with a paradox? But everything can't just suddenly change into nothing again, because we have already experienced something. But this is philosophy.

The problem with time is that a sentence with "when it didn't exist" presupposes Time not only once but three times.

"When"

"It didn't"

"Exist"

Edited May 18, 2014 by michel123456

[PeterJ]

Studiot - Sorry for the delay. No, I can't write down the Weyl tensor, and don't know what it is. But it is irrelevant. Weyl does not suggest we have to abandon mathematics or our ordinary view of time. He just points out that this cannot be the end of the story. .

[studiot]

Peter, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying here. I have not seen the book to which you refer so I don't know the context, or who said exactly what.

I am not sure where you are reporting Weyl's words verbatim and where you are adding your interpretation.

 

 

I would recommend Hermann Weyl's book on the continuum. He is clear. Time is not an empirical phenomenon but a creation of reason and intellect. He draws a careful distinction between the arithmetical view of time and the view by which it is a true continuum. For Weyl all co-ordinate systems would be emergent.

 

In particular, 'continuum' and 'continuum mechanics' have particular meanings in applied maths.

As far as I can see, the term 'emergent' is subjective, not the result of a chain of reasoning.

All I know of Weyl is some pretty well reasoned maths, leading for instance to the tensor I mentioned.

This tensor definitely includes time as a proper variable.

[PeterJ]

Weyl's view is quite simple, albeit that it would have profound implications. He draws a firm distinction between the continuum of empiricism and experience, and that of mathematics and extended space-time. His proposal is that the former is a true continuum, and that the latter is a construction of reason that, if it were real, if it really did model space-time, would be irrational. This is much more interesting as a metaphysical result than a mathematical one, but it does have a mathematical justification. I think he could be read as saying that mathematics cannot describe Reality.

 

But I daren't say too much off-the-cuff to a mathematician. I quote at length from Weyl in a recent article, trying to clarify his view. If you like I can PM a link to it. I won't unless invited.

[studiot]

 

I think he could be read as saying that mathematics cannot describe Reality.

 

I think pretty well all mathematicians from Euclid on would sympathise with that view, if we amend it to 'fully describe' or 'decribe completely'.

In particular the beginning of 'The Elements' makes that quite plain.

Have you ever seen the beginning set out? It makes interesting reading.

 

But this thread and its question was asked is the Physics forum, not the Philosophy one.

 

I think the difference between Science and Philosophy is that good Science includes a statement of limitation.

Philosophy tries to be all embracing and, in my view, sometimes ties itself in knots as a result.

 

Edited May 20, 2014 by studiot

[PeterJ]

Time is dealt with in philosophy, specifically metaphysics. It is not dealt with by physics. So we don't have much choice about which forum heading time should be under, and it isn't this one.

 

Not sure what you mean 'the beginning set out'. Spencer Brown sets it out mathematically in his 'Laws of Form', and in a manner that is exactly consistent with Weyl's analysis.

 

Philosophy does not tie itself in knots. But yes, philosophers often do. Often they ignore people like Brown and Weyl, and the result is many unsophisticated discussions about time.

[Fred Champion]

It's over my head most of this, but a few thoughts...

 

I would recommend Hermann Weyl's book on the continuum. He is clear. Time is not an empirical phenomenon but a creation of reason and intellect. He draws a careful distinction between the arithmetical view of time and the view by which it is a true continuum. For Weyl all co-ordinate systems would be emergent.

 

His view has explosive implications for all sorts of things but it seems to be largely ignored. Still. at least Fred should be able to call on Weyl for support.

 

Swansont makes the point that being real and being fundamental are not the same thing. I think this is wrong, but then I use the words differently. Time may be real in some sense but it cannot be fundamental and so cannot be independently real. All in all I'm with Fred on this.

 

Time is a philosophical problem and I see no use in referring to scientific experiments (Pauli etc) for support for any particular view of time. Rather, I'd say the foundations of analysis are a sensible place to start, following Weyl's lead.

I have not found Weyl's book on the continuum, but I did read his book on space - time - matter. I find no support there for my position on time. Yes, he does admit that time is a product of the intellect, but he embraces the notion that so is everything else we experience and thus time can (must?) be considered as real. To me, he comes off as another apologist for the standard idea of a space-time continuum.

 

I don't see time as a philosophical problem any more than the notion of a flat earth or the emperor's clothes are philosophical problems. OK, so perhaps they are, but that's another topic. To me the problem, if we can posit the notion of time as a problem, is one of analysis. Suppose we replace the "t" in all our equations with another term. For this term I suggest "poc". Poc is short for "phases or cycles". Poc may be expressed in whatever units are convenient for the calculation, swings of a particular pendulum, phases of the moon, the Earth's transit of the sun, etc. Note how the notion of time as a phenomenon has been eliminated from the equations and how we have returned to the source, our experience, the phenomena, our recognition (memory) of changes in state. The "physics" we experience is not of time but of the state of objects.

[PeterJ]

It's called 'Das Kontinuum'. You might find a useful article on it by John Bell if you google.

 

Weyl was a supporter of Brouwer's philosophy, whose position is quite clear, so you could also check him out.

 

I did not decide that time must be dealt with by metaphysics and not physics. It's just the definition of these things.

 

As far as I can see your strategy does not eliminate time from the equations but simply renames it.

 

But don't argue with me. Argue with Weyl.

[studiot]

 

As far as I can see your strategy does not eliminate time from the equations but simply renames it.

 

+1

 

"A rose is still a rose by any other name."

 

This does not mean I endorse everything Peter says.

[Fred Champion]

...

As far as I can see your strategy does not eliminate time from the equations but simply renames it.

 

...

You make my point exactly. What we experience is not time, it is changes in states of objects. It is these phenomena that have been renamed "time".

[studiot]

 

it is changes in states of objects.

 

No this would imply that time is or measures change change.

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, time can also measure lack of change.

[PeterJ]

Oops. I mentioned Brouwer above but meant Bergson. Sorry about that.

[Fred Champion]

 

No this would imply that time is or measures change change.

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, time can also measure lack of change.

Of course we use the term "time" as our measure of recognized change, our memory of previous states.

 

Unless there is change, there is no interaction, no communication, no experience, no phenomena, no means of measuring. Any object with an absolute unchanging state cannot be said to exist because it will not be presented for recognition. We may not be able to deny that any posited object has a state of "being" but we cannot recognize it as existing without evidence of it interacting with its surroundings.

[studiot]

 

Of course we use the term "time" as our measure of recognized change, our memory of previous states.

 

That's the whole point.

 

You have used 'time' by stating that the states have to be 'previous'.

 

Furthermore you assert that time does not exist, yet you tell me that it can be measured.

 

How can it be measured if it does not exist?

 

What do you mean by exist?

Edited May 24, 2014 by studiot

[Mitch Bass]

Is not time simply matter in motion. If all matter stopped moving, would not time cease to exist?

[Fred Champion]

 

That's the whole point.

 

You have used 'time' by stating that the states have to be 'previous'.

 

Furthermore you assert that time does not exist, yet you tell me that it can be measured.

 

How can it be measured if it does not exist?

 

What do you mean by exist?

I believe we do not remember or record states which have not happened, thus everything remembered or recorded is previous. "Previous" is not an attribute of time. It is just a term we use to acknowledge memory.

 

I hope I have not stated that time can be measured. What we do when we envision the "passage of time" is compare our memory or records of states of some objects with our memory or records of states of others. All measurement is simply an act of comparing one thing to another.

 

You ask "What do you mean by exist?" This is a philosophical question. I accept that we can say that "something" exists when that "something" presents evidence of identity. The only way I know of for evidence of identity to be communicated is by interaction with the "something's" surroundings. All phenomena we experience are the effect of that interaction. As I have stated, we cannot deny that any posited "something" has a state of being simply because we cannot experience it, but without evidence of it we cannot affirm existence. (I can accept that there may be a state of being - different from a state of existence - wherein interaction with surroundings does not happen.) I am not aware of any evidence at all of the "something" called "time" interacting with anything or lurking about in a state of being; it is a product of intellect, an artifact of memory, imaginary, virtual, not real. Enough philosophy.

 

To paraphrase a recent burger commercial, if you want us to accept "time" as real, where's the beef?.

Is not time simply matter in motion. If all matter stopped moving, would not time cease to exist?

I hope my response to studiot answers your question.

 

I think it is very interesting just how difficult it is for us to give up the idea that time is a real thing. The implications of something permanent in a transient existence are hard to resist. People, including many in the science community, love the idea of time travel, even though it is totally inconsistent. We are wonderful beings.

[swansont]

 

To paraphrase a recent burger commercial, if you want us to accept "time" as real, where's the beef?.

 

And we're back to the issue of "real" meaning "physical object" or "illusion"

 

I defy you to stand in the middle of the road, with the same x,y,z coordinates as a bus going 50 mph. If you survive, you can lecture me that there is no fourth coordinate necessary to distinguish the presence of you and the bus at that point.

[Fred Champion]

The fact that two objects cannot occupy the same space (you add "at the same time") has nothing to do with time. It has to do with what makes what we call matter matter, and we've been through that. You might as well complain that one object cannot occupy two places (you would add "at the same time"). The matter in space cannot be isolated from space; everything is somewhere. In order for anything to be moved to somewhere else any something else which occupies that somewhere else must be displaced. The state of every object includes the object's place.

[swansont]

The fact that two objects cannot occupy the same space (you add "at the same time") has nothing to do with time. It has to do with what makes what we call matter matter, and we've been through that. You might as well complain that one object cannot occupy two places (you would add "at the same time"). The matter in space cannot be isolated from space; everything is somewhere. In order for anything to be moved to somewhere else any something else which occupies that somewhere else must be displaced. The state of every object includes the object's place.

 

 

I can stand in the middle of the road. The bus can be in the middle of the road. And they can't do so at the same time, because time actually exists. This isn't about occupying the same space, it's about whether or not a collision will occur. Without a fourth variable you can't predict whether or not a collision will occur. The description with only three spatial variables will be deficient. There must be a fourth variable.

 

The way to prove that wrong is to come up with a description that actually works, not simply repeating the mantra that time doesn't exist. Repeating it won't make it true.

[PeterJ]

Some of the problem here may be caused by trying to maintain the reality of space while trying to do the opposite for time.

 

Philosophies that argue for the unreality of time do so also for space, change, motion, life, death, intentional consciousness and everything else. It's all or nothing.

 

The idea would be that time and space can be reduced, but only at an ultimate level. As long an we have not reduced the objects and subjects that occupy time and space then clearly time and space cannot be reduced.

 

They would all reduce to Tao. But only as a final step for a theory. At any level of emergence time and space would be a necessary phenomenon.

 

For this reason the idea that time is not real can never make sense in physics. The claim is prior to physics. It can be ignored. As long as there is a physical object time may as well be real.

 

We can stand in the middle of the road, but we cannot prove that the road is not a figment of our imagination.

[Fred Champion]

PeterJ, you correctly point of that we cannot "prove" anything beyond some a priori notions. One of these that I accept is that there must "be" something in order for us to experience it. I prefer to believe that I do not stub my toe on a figment of my imagination. An hallucination may be a "real" hallucination, but the images within it are not real events.

 

When we consider "time", there is no evidence of anything to experience.

 

 

Swansont, I totally understand your insistence on requiring a reference to a particular "time" to describe a particular state. I urge you to consider that a description of a state is not the state, the description is just a memory (or a prediction) of the state.

 

There is no evidence that any attribute or characteristic of what we call matter or space has any component which we could call time nor that the attributes and characteristics of matter and space are in any way dependent upon what we could call time.

 

Matter and space are just what and where they are; it is only by our intellect (memory) that we envision a different state, what we call past or future.

[PeterJ]

That seems incoherent to me Fred. Your toe cannot really exist unless time really exists. You can't have your cake and eat it.