Does time exist?

[DaveC426913]

A gravimeter is an instrument used to measure gravitational acceleration. Every mass has an associated gravitational potential. The gradient of this potential is a force. A gravimeter measures this gravitational force.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Yes. A gravimeter actually measures changes in momentum of mass due to what we call gravity. It does not measure gravity directly.
Just like a clock measures changes in events due to what we call time, not time directly.

 

[DaveC426913]

But do we actually experience the flow of time? We certainly experience something that looks like it.

You're still hung up on semantics. Whatever it "looks like", that is the thing we call time.

But if we introspect carefully into this experience, is what we find accurately describable as “flow”?

Of course not. "Flow" is a metaphor, because math is hard.

The physics that describes our universe accurately simply calls it t, and it is crucial to how nature works.

 

[Michael 345]

OK so is that how you also see time, then?

You don't know my take on TIME?
Really?

Just answer please, or I will take it you are arsing about

My take

TIME does not exist

NOW exist. A single NOW for the whole Universe

The PAST does not exist

The FUTURE does not exist

 

[Michael 345]

You're still hung up on semantics. Whatever it "looks like", that is the thing we call time.



Of course not. "Flow" is a metaphor, because math is hard.

The physics that describes our universe accurately simply calls it t, and it is crucial to how nature works.

Not sure if you read the link

That in not MY take. The text is from Bernardo Kastrup and at the end of the text of the link give Bernardo Kastrup qualifications

If you think HE is hung up on semantics explain that to him please

 

[DaveC426913]

That in not MY take. The text is from Bernardo Kastrup and at the end of the text of the link give Bernardo Kastrup qualifications

If you think HE is hung up on semantics explain that to him please

It is your take. You said it, and if you were quoting him you didn't indicate that.
Kastrup is not here to make his claim, or to defend it. You are.

 

[Michael 345]

It is your take. You said it, and if you were quoting him you didn't indicate that.
Kastrup is not here to make his claim, or to defend it. You are.

The link at the bottom not a clue it was a extract from someone else?

 

[exchemist]

My take

TIME does not exist

NOW exist. A single NOW for the whole Universe

The PAST does not exist

The FUTURE does not exist

But the past has existed? And the future will exist? Or would you say no to both of those?

 

[Michael 345]

But the past has existed? And the future will exist? Or would you say no to both of those?

Past has existed - YES ✓

Future will exist - YES ✓

 

[exchemist]

Past has existed - YES ✓

Future will exist - YES ✓

OK, but then the concept of tenses implies a sequence of events: the past existed before the present and the future will exist after it. You can thus place events in a series, according to which ones came before or after which other ones. If the events in question are the ticks of a clock, you have a way of measuring, quantitatively the separation between past present and future events, in just the same way as the graduations on a ruler do for length. This quantitative measurement is what we call "time". What I think some physicists call a "metric", rather than a physical entity.

So that is why I was interested in your views on whether length exists - which you answered rather ambiguously, I notice.

I submit that "time" is similar to "length" in that both are abstract concepts, that allow us to measure intervals, or separations, in a useful way. One could thus argue that, being abstract concepts, neither has a physical existence in its own right, but only when applied to a situation in the physical world.

Would that be fair, do you think?

 

[Michael 345]

Would that be fair, do you think?

Not exactly

*****

From Wikipedia

An abstract object is an object that does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

*****

It appears you are BECAUSE you can conceive of something it MUST have a physical equivalent in the World

As already noted there is NOT a inch or any other measurement out there in the Universe waiting to be found

One of the reasons we measure stuff is for COMPARISON

But it is a circular comparison as is TIME

Us Minions decree the period of the units of TIME and then reference back to them. With the reference being frequently used for accurate synchronisation

*****

One could thus argue that, being abstract concepts, neither has a physical existence in its own right, but only when applied to a situation in the physical world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

As inches are not out there to be found neither is ......

fill in the blank with any other abstract concept

 

[exchemist]

Not exactly

*****

From Wikipedia

An abstract object is an object that does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

*****

It appears you are BECAUSE you can conceive of something it MUST have a physical equivalent in the World

As already noted there is NOT a inch or any other measurement out there in the Universe waiting to be found

One of the reasons we measure stuff is for COMPARISON

But it is a circular comparison as is TIME

Us Minions decree the period of the units of TIME and then reference back to them. With the reference being frequently used for accurate synchronisation

*****



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

As inches are not out there to be found neither is ......

fill in the blank with any other abstract concept

Yes. Your first extract is not relevant, as it refers to abstract objects. Length and time are not objects, clearly.

Length is an attribute of objects. Time actually isn't, though duration, which is an interval of time, certainly is. But indeed inches are not out there to be found and nor is time. This is where I think we begin to converge.

Both are concepts of measure, a different sort of abstraction, perhaps more akin to the "real number line" in maths than to anything really "real".

 

[DaveC426913]

Length is an attribute of objects. Time actually isn't, though duration, which is an interval of time, certainly is.

Dunno about that. Time is a dimension, similar to the 3 spatial dimensions.
If a hypothetical life form were doomed to pass inexorably through the X dimension at 1m/s, surely they would see time as a property - and describe inches as an interval of length.

In other words, our experience of time may well be due to our own limitations, and not due to some objective property of the universe.

 

[exchemist]

Dunno about that. Time is a dimension, similar to the 3 spatial dimensions.
If a hypothetical life form were doomed to pass inexorably through the X dimension at 1m/s, surely they would see time as a property - and describe inches as an interval of length.

In other words, our experience of time may well be due to our own limitations, and not due to some objective property of the universe.

Er.................I'll get back to you..............

 

[DaveC426913]

Er.................I'll get back to you..............

Yeah, I mean it's a pretty c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ fanciful scenario, not really mean to be compelling, just intended to suggest that time dimensions and space dimensions may not be as different at a fundamental level as we think.

[ EDIT ] Hang on. I think I got it now.

Time is to space as duration is to length.
Time and space are degrees of freedom, but not properties of objects.
Length and duration are finite properties of objects.

OK, yeah.

So, to Michael's argument: time exists in the same way that space exists. They are both the canvas against which objects acquire finite properties. (And mixed metaphors.)

 

[Asexperia]

Explain to me how gravity and mass, in and of themselves, are detectable.
Like every physical quantity, we can only use these concepts to explain experimental or other observations of the natural world.

Time, as a measure, is the value or quantity of duration, the sequential occurrence of phenomena. The units of time (arbitrary) indicate the sequential length of phenomena.
To deny time is to deny the evolution of phenomena.

 

[Asexperia]

In other words, our experience of time may well be due to our own limitations, and not due to some objective property of the universe.

Time, as a measure, is the value or quantity of duration, the sequential occurrence of phenomena. The units of time indicate the sequential length of phenomena.

The spatial length connects two points in space. Time connects two instants of becoming (the continuous succession of irreversible moments). Although we don't have a sense to perceive time, we can intuit and conceive it.

 

[James R]

A gravimeter is an instrument used to measure gravitational acceleration. Every mass has an associated gravitational potential. The gradient of this potential is a force. A gravimeter measures this gravitational force.

Really what you're talking about there is an accelerometer, which measures acceleration. Acceleration, incidentally, is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time - i.e. with respect to something whose existence you explicitly deny.

But you haven't yet managed to connect this gravimeter thing with the thing you call "gravity". You assert that the acceleration has a cause, which is gravity, but you're not detecting that cause with your gravimeter. At best you're detecting an effect of that cause.

As for all that mathematical nonsense about gravitational potentials and the like, that's all far more abstract than something simple like time. So, why do insist that something like gravitational potential exists and deny that time exists? It's obtuse.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes. A gravimeter actually measures changes in momentum of mass due to what we call gravity

Yes it mentions that in the Wikipedia article which is the total of the particular post

But you haven't yet managed to connect this gravimeter thing with the thing you call "gravity"

Gravity is not a thing. Try gravity is a force. If the makers of the instrument call the machine a Gravimeter I would think that they have made the link

You assert that the acceleration has a cause

Well Wiki does

As for all that mathematical nonsense about gravitational potentials and the like, that's all far more abstract than something simple like time

Not sure I have ever put anything mathematical, let alone mathematical nonsense, in any of my post

And as for the What is TIME thread it still holding at 3

I would have thought at least 10 by now by describing the characteristics and properties of TIME which would give a graphic mental picture. Currently no such luck

Acceleration, incidentally, is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time

Acceleration is the rate of change over a period ✓ because, obviously you cannot measure a rate of CHANGE if something is not changing. The PERIOD over which it changes is AGE, in every day language, incorrectly, called time

Part of every day language being imprecise with some words being given multiple meanings

Perhaps in the What is TIME thread I should have requested multiple meanings be given. Not that I am after multiple meanings.

A single detailed description of what IT is would be nice

 

[Michael 345]

Gravity is not a thing. Try gravity is a force. If the makers of the instrument call the machine a Gravimeter I would think that they have made the link

Another reference to measure gravity

https://bigthink-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/bigthink.com/surprising-science/scientists-find-new-way-to-measure-gravity.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/scientists-find-new-way-to-measure-gravity

Bit off from does TIME exist but that's OK as most threads wander a little

What is TIME thread - holding at 3

 

[DaveC426913]

What is TIME thread - holding at 3

Not sure what the value if this number is.
OK, so three people have said what they think time is. - (at least one of which is wrong inasmuch as they don't even address the question).
Luckily, the world is not built on what people on forums suppose.

Don't get me, wrong, 'what is time' is a good topic for discussion, but it's not like you're building a case for defining time.