Explanation of Time

[swansont]

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.

 

A description that requires four variables. The other part is a straw man; I'm not arguing that the description is a physical thing, but your argument seems to be solely that time isn't an object. I've not seen anybody insist that it is. But in striking down the fourth dimension, you must strike down the other three for exactly the same reason, and I don't recall you doing that.

 

 

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.

 

Matter has a location. That location requires 4 dimensions to describe.

Time is not a component of space (though relativity tells us they are related), so that's a red herring/straw man.

[Fred Champion]

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

Your argument seems circular to me. You say that one's toe exists because time exists because one's toe exists. I say that I can say my toe exists because I experience it, and I have evidence of it that you could confirm even if I did not experience it.

 

I ask you: what exactly is it of time that we experience? My answer is: nothing.

[swansont]

Your argument seems circular to me. You say that one's toe exists because time exists because one's toe exists. I say that I can say my toe exists because I experience it, and I have evidence of it that you could confirm even if I did not experience it.

 

I ask you: what exactly is it of time that we experience? My answer is: nothing.

 

And I say if I I strike that area with a hammer I will hit your toe if time doesn't exist. The only way to not have it hit is if time exists. Speaking of striking your toe with a hammer makes no sense without time. This post appears after your post, which makes no sense without time existing.

[Fred Champion]

 

A description that requires four variables. The other part is a straw man; I'm not arguing that the description is a physical thing, but your argument seems to be solely that time isn't an object. I've not seen anybody insist that it is. But in striking down the fourth dimension, you must strike down the other three for exactly the same reason, and I don't recall you doing that.

 

 

 

Matter has a location. That location requires 4 dimensions to describe.

Time is not a component of space (though relativity tells us they are related), so that's a red herring/straw man.

Actually I have stated (although maybe not in this thread) that the three "dimensions" of a cartesian coordinate system are only part of geometry and are imaginary. They are very usefull, but they don't exist. The only real dimension of the volume we call space is place (location).

 

As you say, matter does have a location. Note that location is not dependent upon a description of that location, even though we find it convenient to describe it relative to other locations. In other words, location requires no dimensions for us to experience it.

 

We do not experience anything over, through or with time. We may compile memories of different experiences, but each of our experiences is a separate event, an effect which is the result of a physical cause, not a temporal cause. Time is not a cause, it is not an effect, it is not space, it is not a location, it is an artifact of memory.

[PeterJ]

The idea that a physical phenomenon like a toe could exist while time does not, is so incoherent that it does not seem worth refuting it.

 

The word 'exist' is presumably what is causing the problem here.

[Fred Champion]

 

And I say if I I strike that area with a hammer I will hit your toe if time doesn't exist. The only way to not have it hit is if time exists. Speaking of striking your toe with a hammer makes no sense without time. This post appears after your post, which makes no sense without time existing.

Your comment about "making sense" gives me an idea. Let's approach the issue from a different perspective. Let's remove the notion of making sense. We can do that by removing the influence of intellect from the experience of "time". We can look at the evidence of time as presented by inanimate objects not sentient entities.

 

So, what evidence of time is there that we can glean from objects? I suggest that there is none.

 

Example: two pictures of a clock showing different positions of the hands. What caused the hands to change position? Which picture was taken "first"? And this example gives us the advantage of seeing two different states of the object, while other observations provide only the current state.

 

Maybe this is a good example, maybe it isn't. If you do not like this example, please present one which shows evidence of time.

The idea that a physical phenomenon like a toe could exist while time does not, is so incoherent that it does not seem worth refuting it.

 

The word 'exist' is presumably what is causing the problem here.

Using the term "exist" might be part of the problem. Would it be better to use the term "phenomenon"? In other words, the question I would ask is: is time a phenomenon? I think you know my answer already, what is your answer?

[swansont]

Actually I have stated (although maybe not in this thread) that the three "dimensions" of a cartesian coordinate system are only part of geometry and are imaginary. They are very usefull, but they don't exist. The only real dimension of the volume we call space is place (location).

 

As you say, matter does have a location.

 

Please reconcile this with your stated claim that location (x,y,z) doesn't exist.

 

Note that location is not dependent upon a description of that location, even though we find it convenient to describe it relative to other locations. In other words, location requires no dimensions for us to experience it.

That parses as location doesn't require location. Maybe that works as a zen koan, but not in physics.

 

We do not experience anything over, through or with time. We may compile memories of different experiences, but each of our experiences is a separate event, an effect which is the result of a physical cause, not a temporal cause. Time is not a cause, it is not an effect, it is not space, it is not a location, it is an artifact of memory.

Sorry, separate event? What does that mean, without time?

[PeterJ]

Nice idea but I don't think this solves the problem, If time were not a phenomenon then we wouldn't be talking about it. Of course, it might be an imaginary phenomenon. All these words cause problems.

 

To me the questions is whether time must be reduced for a fundamental theory. I would say yes. Thus time would not be an independently existing phenomenon but a relative one, like space. Afaik this would be an uncontentious view in physics.

[swansont]

Your comment about "making sense" gives me an idea. Let's approach the issue from a different perspective. Let's remove the notion of making sense. We can do that by removing the influence of intellect from the experience of "time". We can look at the evidence of time as presented by inanimate objects not sentient entities.

 

So, what evidence of time is there that we can glean from objects? I suggest that there is none.

 

Example: two pictures of a clock showing different positions of the hands. What caused the hands to change position? Which picture was taken "first"? And this example gives us the advantage of seeing two different states of the object, while other observations provide only the current state.

Two states of the object. One happens after the other. How does that happen without time?

[Fred Champion]

 

 

Please reconcile this with your stated claim that location (x,y,z) doesn't exist.

 

 

That parses as location doesn't require location. Maybe that works as a zen koan, but not in physics.

 

 

Sorry, separate event? What does that mean, without time?

Any x,y,z you may express is imaginary. Volume cannot be reduced. You may describe volume in terms of x,y,z but those are only descriptors.

 

The one and only real location you may experience is the location of your identity, the "where" of where you are. Any translation away from that location is imaginary (unless you are having an out-of-body experience ).

 

Do you seriously need me to define what an event is? Come on.

 

You ask a lot of questions. I have answered. I have presented examples. You answer no questions. You present no examples. I conclude you are not interested in participating in a discussion, only in baiting me into an endless philosophical rat hole.

 

Show me evidence of time or admit there is none.

Two states of the object. One happens after the other. How does that happen without time?

You tell me how either state happened and what part time had in the happening.

 

How do we know there "were" two states?

 

How do we know one happened "after" the other?

Nice idea but I don't think this solves the problem, If time were not a phenomenon then we wouldn't be talking about it. Of course, it might be an imaginary phenomenon. All these words cause problems.

 

To me the questions is whether time must be reduced for a fundamental theory. I would say yes. Thus time would not be an independently existing phenomenon but a relative one, like space. Afaik this would be an uncontentious view in physics.

I accept that a phenomenon is an observable event. We may discuss any number of things that are not "independently existing phenomena" like pain, love, distance, area, hot, cold, mathematics, geometry, science, physics and a host of others.

 

I take your reference to a fundamental theory to be to a GUT. To me, the only utility of "time" in any such theory is a convenient shorthand way of describing the state of objects relative to the states of other objects. I have posted that Einstein is quoted as saying that time is what we see when we look at a clock. I accept that he was correct; we see the state of the hands relative to the state of the face of the clock. Any attempt to specify a "time" or the "passage of time" can be reduced to the state of objects compared to the states of other objects.

[PeterJ]

I mostly agree Fred. But only as long as you do the same reduction for the phenomena that depend on time. It all goes wrong if we say that time is unreal but that motion and change is real. In this respect I agree with Swansont's objections.

[swansont]

Any x,y,z you may express is imaginary. Volume cannot be reduced. You may describe volume in terms of x,y,z but those are only descriptors.

 

The one and only real location you may experience is the location of your identity, the "where" of where you are. Any translation away from that location is imaginary (unless you are having an out-of-body experience ).

 

Do you seriously need me to define what an event is? Come on.

 

No, I need you to define what "separate" means, without time.

 

 

You ask a lot of questions. I have answered. I have presented examples. You answer no questions. You present no examples. I conclude you are not interested in participating in a discussion, only in baiting me into an endless philosophical rat hole.

You're making an extraordinary claim, and I have given examples. Ignoring them is not the same as them not existing.

 

 

Show me evidence of time or admit there is none.

I have done so. I am confident you have not taken up the challenge of standing in the same location as a fast-moving bus, because you are still posting.

 

You tell me how either state happened and what part time had in the happening.

 

How do we know there "were" two states?

 

How do we know one happened "after" the other?

We observe and remember them. If the events were not real, then you are delving into solipsism, which is well outside of physics.

 

[PeterJ]

Exactly right Swansont, it seems to me. Either we take time for granted or we venture into metaphysics.

 

This is precisely the point Weyl makes in regard to the continuum. Time as a series of locations is a perfectly adequate idea for physics and the only idea that would work. If it does not work in metaphysics then this need be of no interest in physics. I'm surprised it is not of more interest to physicists on their days off, but the definition of these things puts time beyond the reach of physics as a discipline. For a fundamental theory of time or anything else we would have to return to first principles. We would have to return all the way to the arguments of Parmenides and Zeno.

Edited May 29, 2014 by PeterJ

[Deepak Kapur]

Exactly right Swansont, it seems to me. Either we take time for granted or we venture into metaphysics.

 

This is precisely the point Weyl makes in regard to the continuum. Time as a series of locations is a perfectly adequate idea for physics and the only idea that would work. If it does not work in metaphysics then this need be of no interest in physics. I'm surprised it is not of more interest to physicists on their days off, but the definition of these things puts time beyond the reach of physics as a discipline. For a fundamental theory of time or anything else we would have to return to first principles. We would have to return all the way to the arguments of Parmenides and Zeno.

 

I think, motion is the natural state of all entities in this universe.

 

Rest is just a special case when two objects have the same velocity.

 

So, motion is inextricably linked to our physics. Change in motion is interpreted as 'time'.

 

In a universe, where everything is static ( even electrons and nucleons), we wouldn't even conceptualize/think of time. In fact, it's doubtful whether a universe without motion can even exist.

[Fred Champion]

The only state of any single object, or the entire universe, that exists is what we call the "now". The only reason we have for labeling the state we observe is because we remember other states. Objects without intellect don't remember. They, and we, experience only the "now". Objects have no need to distinguish the current state. If time "is" it should be universal. It isn't universal; it is limited to memory.

 

Show me one example of time acting upon any object, or of being the cause of any effect, or of being the effect of any cause. If this cannot be done, we have no reason to claim any state of being or existence for it.

[swansont]

The only state of any single object, or the entire universe, that exists is what we call the "now". The only reason we have for labeling the state we observe is because we remember other states. Objects without intellect don't remember. They, and we, experience only the "now". Objects have no need to distinguish the current state. If time "is" it should be universal. It isn't universal; it is limited to memory.

 

So an unstable atom doesn't actually decay (change state), or an object won't cool down, because it's not aware? Do these changes we observe instantly happen when we observe them — i.e. when we see a piece of volcanic rock, did it instantly cool down to ambient when someone observes it, from the molten state it must have once had?

 

Is the far side of Mercury hot right when it transits the sun, or is it the cool temperature we can observe on the dark side, since it's not sentient and can't experience time the way we do? Does it only get dark at night if someone is watching?

 

Show me one example of time acting upon any object, or of being the cause of any effect, or of being the effect of any cause. If this cannot be done, we have no reason to claim any state of being or existence for it.

Acting on, cause of effect or effect of cause are all straw men. You are artificially narrowing the idea of what time is or isn't. It may be true that time as you describe it doesn't exist, but it is a logical failure to extrapolate that to a more general statement that time doesn't exist.

[Fred Champion]

None of the examples you present are dependent upon time. They are depependent upon action and reaction. Time is not a factor.

 

If we place one brick on top of another, that configuration will change only if some internal instability, produced during manufacture of one or both bricks, causes one or both of the bricks to change, or if some external influence causes an internal change in one or both bricks, or if some other object or objects causes a displacement of one or both bricks.

 

None of these changes in configuration can be described as being due to or happening because of time or time passing. Time is not a component of cause and effect.

 

I present no straw men. You have presented change as evidence of time. It isn't. Change is evidence of objects interacting with their surroundings. Each domino falls because another falls upon it, not because it is "time" for it to fall or because there is some uber schedule requiring it to fall at a certian "time" or because enough "time" has elapsed so that it must fall.

 

The state of any object is not a function of time. If it were we could write an equation for that state independent of any other state of the object. In the example I gave of the two pictures of a clock we have the advantage of a record of two states of the clock. Even with this advantage we cannot write an equation for either state as a function of time.

 

You claim that time "is". And, without any evidence whatsoever, you extrapolate that into cause and effect. This is the logical failure here.

 

Now, with all that said, we will use time as our shorthand way of expressing our recognition, through memory and because of intellect, of different states of certain objects compared to different states of other objects accepting that there is a physical, not temporal, cause for the different states. We will do this because it is convenient, not because we accept that time "is".

 

The idea of time as real is so ingrained in our collective thinking that we are inclined to cling to it despite a total lack of evidence. In the final analysis it doesn't matter much except when we try and apply or use time as if it were real.

[swansont]

You can't have cause and effect without time. It makes no sense. As soon as there is an ordering of events, time is involved.

 

You have not presented any way to describe these events without time; you've just asserted that time isn't involved. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's have it.

[Fred Champion]

You can't have cause and effect without time. It makes no sense. As soon as there is an ordering of events, time is involved.

 

You have not presented any way to describe these events without time; you've just asserted that time isn't involved. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's have it.

It is generally accepted that events follow Newton's first law of motion, the modern interpretation of which is that a couch potato will not move until his wife (or mother) yells at him. This event will happen only upon the wife (or mother) reaching a point of frustration sufficient to induce yelling. Time is not a factor, it neither allows nor constrains the event. The effect is the result of a cause, not time.

 

You know as well as I do that proving a negative is not possible. It is up to you to prove the positive, the claim that time "is", and to do that you must present evidence that time is a factor in cause and effect. Just saying that without time cause and effect "makes no sense" or that time is "involved" is not sufficient; you must show how it is involved.

[ajb]

Just saying that without time cause and effect "makes no sense" or that time is "involved" is not sufficient; you must show how it is involved.

How do we even try to define cause and effect if we have no notion of cause happening before effect? Without time how can we have a notion like causality?

[swansont]

It is generally accepted that events follow Newton's first law of motion, the modern interpretation of which is that a couch potato will not move until his wife (or mother) yells at him. This event will happen only upon the wife (or mother) reaching a point of frustration sufficient to induce yelling. Time is not a factor, it neither allows nor constrains the event. The effect is the result of a cause, not time.

 

Since nobody is asserting that time is the cause, this is moot. The OP wasn't asking for what time isn't.

 

But the effect will not precede the cause. Such a statement makes no sense without the concept of time. I can't fathom a way to explain it without time. But I'm not the one claiming that this is possible, or necessary. The burden of proof is on you.

 

You know as well as I do that proving a negative is not possible. It is up to you to prove the positive, the claim that time "is", and to do that you must present evidence that time is a factor in cause and effect. Just saying that without time cause and effect "makes no sense" or that time is "involved" is not sufficient; you must show how it is involved.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Physics is a field that develops models of how nature behaves. If you claim there is no time, come up with a model that describes behavior but lacks time.

 

I already have a model that includes time. x = vt + ½ at^2 is a kinematic model that includes time. I can use that to show if two objects will collide or not, given initial conditions and under the constraint of constant acceleration. Such models have existed for hundreds of years. Thus, the concept of time exists within physics. QED. It's incredible to me that this has to be pointed out.

[Fred Champion]

Yes, there is a concept of time. Yes, we use it to describe changes of all sorts. Yes, we use it to describe previous states and predict future states with equations. But, a concept is not a thing. That concept arises because we have intellect and memory. We don't experience a concept. What we do experience are things which interact with their surroundings. This is also true for inanimate objects. We remember and record; inanimate objects do not. The only evidence of our concept of time, or time in general for that matter, is our memory and our records. There is no evidence of time in the state of any object; if time permeats the universe there would be.

 

Equations of motion are our attempt to predict and describe states of objects. These equations require an initial state, a set of posited conditions, and a quantity of "time" to produce a result. Yes, the results do match, within tolerances, our observations and records; if they didn't we would develop other equations. But, do they show evidence of time? No, they do not. The equations are inventions of intellect constructed to match observation, so it should be no surprise that they work. They work because we have matched the terms and conditions with our memories and records, tested the predictions and adjusted the equation as required, not because of any intrinsic "goodness" or mathematic discovery.

 

I find it no surprise that we have developed the concept of time we now have; I think it is an obvious evolution in thought. The incredible thing to me is that in science, and physics in particular, where we require evidence of anything before accepting it, we give time a pass, and not just a pass, we have elevated the concept to the status of space and matter. That is incredible.

 

I can say no more on this subject; any further posts would be repetition. Thank you for the discussion. I give you the last word.

[swansont]

Yes, there is a concept of time. Yes, we use it to describe changes of all sorts. Yes, we use it to describe previous states and predict future states with equations.

 

 

It was like pulling teeth, but yes. Thank you for finally acknowledging this.

 

But, a concept is not a thing.

 

 

Don't care; not pertinent. The OP was not asking what time isn't, and the question of the status of mental constructs is one of metaphysics.

 

That concept arises because we have intellect and memory. We don't experience a concept. What we do experience are things which interact with their surroundings. This is also true for inanimate objects. We remember and record; inanimate objects do not. The only evidence of our concept of time, or time in general for that matter, is our memory and our records. There is no evidence of time in the state of any object; if time permeats the universe there would be.

Conveniently ignoring example I have given. Forget the question of whether a falling tree makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it. I guess a tree simply doesn't fall in the forest if nobody's around; there can be no change of state. Distant stars could not have gone supernova unless we were eventually going to evolve to see them. The implications are fascinating. (and IMO untenable)

 

Equations of motion are our attempt to predict and describe states of objects. These equations require an initial state, a set of posited conditions, and a quantity of "time" to produce a result. Yes, the results do match, within tolerances, our observations and records; if they didn't we would develop other equations. But, do they show evidence of time? No, they do not. The equations are inventions of intellect constructed to match observation, so it should be no surprise that they work. They work because we have matched the terms and conditions with our memories and records, tested the predictions and adjusted the equation as required, not because of any intrinsic "goodness" or mathematic discovery.

Science develops models and keep the ones that work. The model(s) with time works exceedingly well.

 

 

I find it no surprise that we have developed the concept of time we now have; I think it is an obvious evolution in thought. The incredible thing to me is that in science, and physics in particular, where we require evidence of anything before accepting it, we give time a pass, and not just a pass, we have elevated the concept to the status of space and matter. That is incredible.

 

I can say no more on this subject; any further posts would be repetition. Thank you for the discussion. I give you the last word.

As I said above, I think the incredible thing would be all the implications of time requiring consciousness, were one to actually contemplate even a few of them, rather than repeating the mantra that time doesn't exist.

[PeterJ]

I find myself continually agreeing with Swansont. The argument against the reality of time can only come to life when we start exploring the consequences. To simply state that time is unreal makes our position clear, but it is uninteresting unless we can show that we can incorporate this hypothesis into a sensible metaphysical (therefore general) theory.

 

As it happens we can, but the point remains true even if we cannot. If someone says time is unreal we can always say - so what?

[Deepak Kapur]

I find myself continually agreeing with Swansont. The argument against the reality of time can only come to life when we start exploring the consequences. To simply state that time is unreal makes our position clear, but it is uninteresting unless we can show that we can incorporate this hypothesis into a sensible metaphysical (therefore general) theory.

 

As it happens we can, but the point remains true even if we cannot. If someone says time is unreal we can always say - so what?

From what you have said, it follows,

 

If someone says atom/electron/matter/sun/moon/reality is unreal we can always say - so what?

 

IMHO this is not the kind of attitude that science strives for.