Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
For example?
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
For example?
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
TIME AND MOVEMENT
The movement is the change of position experienced by a body with respect to a reference point (way). Time is the dimension or framework that allows us to: a) establish a past, a present (now) and a future, b) sort the events sequentially. The past exists no longer, but has been registered and measured; two of the pillars of Science.
Elvis Sibilia
The movement is the change of position experienced by a body with respect to a reference point (way). Time is the dimension or framework that allows us to: a) establish a past, a present (now) and a future, b) sort the events sequentially. The past exists no longer, but has been registered and measured; two of the pillars of Science.
Elvis Sibilia
No. Time (a man made concept, like interest rates) is not why I know the egg with unbroken shell was "past" as I break it, it is "now" and soon, when the scramling of it starts, is a "probable future." (as is it slipping from my hand to dirty the floor.)
Time has absolutely nothing to do with this sequencing. I could show photo graphs of these three stage, in any order, and you would know FROM THE CHANGES, what the order, was.
SUMMARY: Yes thing change, but by forces and energy acting on them, not by the non-existant "time."
Last edited:
Since time is expressed in mathematical equations, wouldn't that suggest it is real? I checked online and there seems to be disagreement on its actual existence. My best bet is that it is a another dimension, like left, right, up, down, forward and backward. It defines a state of existence.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This may be of interest
The problem is that none of them are equations of Time as a dimension other than as an abstract accumulation of relativistic measurements of the duration of change of events. But you cannot measure time itself.
Without Change, time becomes a timeless *permittive condition*, an abstraction.
Universal time is a measurement of the duration of space, but it is a simultaneous by-product of dynamical change of all things. It does not need to be a dimension in and of itself.
Time is a human invention and may be one of our earliest exposure and recognition of the mathematical regularities of the environments and the duration of an event.
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
We know the correct order from experience. The order that you set is artificial.
Time has sequential direction and sense from the past to the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Time with not change is a static time, so the real time is the becoming-duration duality (B-D D).
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The parameter, "t" can be eliminated from ALL equations as it is not a real observable. ONLY changes are observable.
I have made several posts explaining how time can be eliminated from ALL equations describing the world. Quickly, again:
Q1 is F(t) = expression A with several variables
Q2 is F(t) = expression B with several variables
Solve Q1 & Q2 for t and get
Q3 which is: t = an expression using the several variables of Q1
Q4which is: t = an expression using the several variables of Q2
Now as t = t we have:
Q5, which is: an expression using the several variables of Q1 = an expression using the several variables of Q2
In Q5 the parameter "t" does not appear; but we have how one real observable changes with a different real, observable variable's changes.
For example we might have the height of burning candle expressed in terms of the angular position of the moon on some specific night seen from a specified location. I. e. a direct relationship between two observables.
F(t) is more convenient, but leaves vague, what the t variable is; as it is a non-observable. Swings of a pendulum? Position of hands on my Timex watch, etc.
SUMMARY: Time is not an observable - only changes are observables. Changing observable A can always be related directly to changing observable B. Time is not essential in equations, only convenient, but a little vague, what its value is.
Last edited:
As old as the movement of the existence of sub-atomic.
And not before .
Time can only exist in the presence of objects .
Not really: The BB is an evolution of space and time in the first instant. There was no matter until a short time later.
Science does not know why or how the BB happened.
Space and time [as we know them] evolved at the BB.......
The "as we know them" is pretty important. So at least as old as space and since the BB.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
Is Time Real?
Posted on October 18, 2013 by Sean Carroll
I mentioned some time back the Closer to Truth series, in which Robert Lawrence Kuhn chats with scientists, philosophers, and theologians about the Big Questions. Apparently some excerpts are now appearing on YouTube — here I am talking about whether time is real.
In one sense, it’s a silly question. The “reality” of something is only an interesting issue if its a well-defined concept whose actual existence is in question, like Bigfoot or supersymmetry. For concepts like “time,” which are unambiguously part of a useful vocabulary we have for describing the world, talking about “reality” is just a bit of harmless gassing. They may be emergent or fundamental, but they’re definitely there. (Feel free to substitute “free will” for “time” if you like.) Temperature and pressure didn’t stop being real once we understood them as emergent properties of an underlying atomic description.
Is Time Real?
Posted on October 18, 2013 by Sean Carroll
I mentioned some time back the Closer to Truth series, in which Robert Lawrence Kuhn chats with scientists, philosophers, and theologians about the Big Questions. Apparently some excerpts are now appearing on YouTube — here I am talking about whether time is real.
In one sense, it’s a silly question. The “reality” of something is only an interesting issue if its a well-defined concept whose actual existence is in question, like Bigfoot or supersymmetry. For concepts like “time,” which are unambiguously part of a useful vocabulary we have for describing the world, talking about “reality” is just a bit of harmless gassing. They may be emergent or fundamental, but they’re definitely there. (Feel free to substitute “free will” for “time” if you like.) Temperature and pressure didn’t stop being real once we understood them as emergent properties of an underlying atomic description.
A description . By us .
But to the objects , time means nothing .
To the objects what matters is only their internal actions and the interactions between themselves . And these depend on the objects very Nature ; both individually and collectively.
But that does not invalidate the fact that time and space evolved from the BB, and for a short time, there was no matter/object.
Time of course is interchangeable with space and both are flexible entities whose measurements depends on ones FoR. And both are real imo.
If you check the link I gave, Sean Carroll explains it in a short video.
I listened to Sean Carroll on coast to coast . Not impressed.
But you want time to jump start all things from the start of bb pad . With the absence of anything at all . It makes no sense.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, matter along with time came into existence after certain conditions were met (cooling)
To me this may implicate an *instant* of pure permittiveness (FTL Chaos) and the absence of universal constants, potentials, which remained latent until conditions made mathematical function possible by the cooling of metaphysical particles to become expressed in the young universe by the mathematical function..
I agree, but would only add "and both become real at the same time in the sense they are *measurable* in construct and duration of formation of this construct. Hazen explained that some simple chemical reactions were *inevitable* and more complex systems required more time and the right conditions. Considering the size of the universe and the amount of matter distributed throughout and 14.5 billion years to perform random experiments, it adds up to the conclusion that everything a product of a mathematical (statistical) probabilistic function.
- Status