Does time exist?

[Michael 345]

Almost finished reading a book called "The invention of Time and Space"

Most of the book is out of my range.

Occasionally there are segments I can understand.

Will try and post soon.

 

[paddoboy]

Almost finished reading a book called "The invention of Time and Space"

Most of the book is out of my range.

Occasionally there are segments I can understand.

Will try and post soon.

Best of luck!
While I am of the opinion that time is real, I will submit that there are many debatable points either way.
Some believe that time is not real because it emerges from something more fundamental. I'm obviously with the positive brigade that see time as objective and obviously real, regardless of whether it is fundamental or emergent.

 

[DaveC426913]

How is my thought experiment invalid ?
If I have a devoid empty space , how does one measure time ?

Right. But since we can't have an empty space anywhere in our universe, your conclusions can only be applied outside our universe, where there is no time anyway.

 

[Michael 345]

Best of luck!
While I am of the opinion that time is real, I will submit that there are many debatable points either way.
Some believe that time is not real because it emerges from something more fundamental. I'm obviously with the positive brigade that see time as objective and obviously real, regardless of whether it is fundamental or emergent.

Please send 10 gram of seconds to me for Christmas

Thanks

 

[DaveC426913]

Please send 10 gram of seconds to me for Christmas

Thanks

I can't send you 10 inches of red for Christmas. Does that make it not "real"?

Your argument for something being real is poorly-formed.

 

[Michael 345]

I can't send you 10 inches of red for Christmas. Does that make it not "real"?

Your argument for something being real is poorly-formed.

Damn. Does that mean my mate is telling porkies when he says my box of blue is on its way?

From

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/

comes

......Respectively: “green” is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm, “art” is portraits of Elvis on black velvet, and “love” is the smell of napalm in the morning.

But these kinds of definitions merely correspond to the experience of those things, as opposed to actually being those things.

and

There is certainly a set of wavelengths of light that most people in the world would agree is “red” (rojo, rubrum, rauður, 紅色, أحمر, ruĝa, …). However, that doesn’t mean that the light itself is red, it just means that a Human brain equipped with Human eyes will label it as red.

and

please go to the link as there is to much to copy and paste.

Also the people who wrote the link put it so much better than Humpty Dumpty can/could.

Humpty Dumpty with sidekick Poe

 

[DaveC426913]

From
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/
comes
......Respectively: “green” is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm, “art” is portraits of Elvis on black velvet, and “love” is the smell of napalm in the morning.

Right. But you have chosen to de-abstract a colour to something concrete, yet you insist time cannot be likewise de-abstracted?

Notice I asked for 10 inches of red - like you asked for 10 grams of time.

You want 10 grams of seconds for Christmas? I'll send you a watch.

 

[Michael 345]

Right. But you have chosen to de-abstract a colour to something concrete, yet you insist time cannot be likewise de-abstracted?

Notice I asked for 10 inches of red - like you asked for 10 grams of time.

You want 10 grams of seconds for Christmas? I'll send you a watch.

Yes I was incorrect in my asking but not in the way you indicated.

My question demonstrates just how embedded notions of what exist, and what does not exist, run very deep.

I should not have asked for seconds (which I contend do not exist) in the form of grams (which also do not exist)

To clear up any confusion please send 10 (numerical) seconds.

I would settle for 1 watch as, while not a collector, I do have small selection of off beat watches and clocks.

Your reply contains same defect. You want to send inches (don't exist) of red (don't exist).

From the link

But these kinds of definitions merely correspond to the experience of those things, as opposed to actually being those things.
*****

Appears if we name anything, such as a concept, the named concept comes into existence and becomes real.

Advertising make good use of this flaw. Soft drink producers show their drinks being consumed in settings denoting fun/wealth - you know the rest.

The brain makes a link along the lines of:-

"If I drink that drink (real objective substance) I will have fun (concept) wealth (concept)"

I the real world there is no link.

Real world links like "For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" are testable and repeatable.

PS Christmas also does not exist.

Humpty Dumpty with Poe

 

[Michael 345]

Right. But you have chosen to de-abstract a colour to something concrete, yet you insist time cannot be likewise de-abstracted?

Notice I asked for 10 inches of red - like you asked for 10 grams of time.

You want 10 grams of seconds for Christmas? I'll send you a watch.

Doing a bit more mental gymnastics about the arrow of time.

Still don't believe it exist as in a arrow moving from the past into the future which puzzles some as to why the movement is not reversible.
But the visualisation is suitable for describing the idea.

Here goes.

Coming from the past were a gazillion possibilities which distilled down to ONE reality.

We live inside that ONE reality called NOW.

From that NOW reality looking to the future a gazillion possibilities can be seen.

What I find wondrous is the smoothness of the transition between past and future.

The gazillion arrows coming from the past turn into ONE ----> NOW. NOW instantly turns into a gazillion possibilities.

No matter how I zoom down to where PAST butts against FUTURE I cannot see a gap/line between them.

NOW does not have any "thickness".

What are we living in?

As I have noted elsewhere when you make a movie of reality no matter how fast you push the film through the camera when you examine the film you have a series of still shots.

No one has made a reply to the questions I posed:-

1. Can you make a movie of reality which does not contain frames?
2. If so how?
3. And what does the film look like?

PS The last off beat gadget watch was a promotional item which also counts my steps and estimates distance walked.

Laughable the readout is telling me about 3 things which do not exist.

Also laughable the promoters product does not appear on the watch.

I guess for something worth may be $5 at a glance could be mistaken for one costing over $200.

I will wear it until yours arrives.

Humpty Dumpty has clocked up nearly 30,000 steps Mr Poe.
Well done Humpty

PPS It also weighs exactly the same as when it read 0 steps.

The Invention of Time and Space: Origins, Definitions, Nature, Properties https://g.co/kgs/L1agfT

 

[Confused2]

No matter how I zoom down to where PAST butts against FUTURE I cannot see a gap/line between them.

NOW does not have any "thickness".

I seem to recall rpenner pointing out that at the molecular level forwards/backwards is blurred.

 

[Michael 345]

I seem to recall rpenner pointing out that at the molecular level forwards/backwards is blurred.

I don't recall that but willing to go along with the general idea.

Still appears to me that NOW does not have a "thickness".

Not sure that forwards/backwards even at a molecular level would work considering those who go with the arrow of time (I don't) are of the view the arrow only goes forward. That's a bit of a generalisation.

But if forwards/backwards is blurred does that allow some molecules to go back?

Brief time travel back at a molecular level!

To quote myself

What I find wondrous is the smoothness of the transition between past and future.

My only explanation is the absence of transition, NOW is the only reality.

Now I'm stuck. Going sleep now. Perhaps do bit more reading to see if I can straighten out my tangled neurones.

Humpty Dumpty Zzzzzz

 

[kx000]

To humans its as real as a transparent imagination. But if a tree fell in the woods it would make a sound.

 

[Michael 345]

To humans its as real as a transparent imagination. But if a tree fell in the woods it would make a sound.

Not sure I follow.

But agree about tree/wood/sound.

When I leave the house for short times I leave the TV on.

Pretty sure it doesn't fall silent as I close the door on the way out.

Admittedly I am not in the lounge to perceive the sound but it is still being made.

The whole tree/wood/sound confusion seems to revolve, like many of the post in Sciforums, on the particular definition of a word. In this case sound.

Poe Humpty still sleeping. Zzzz zzzz

 

[sweetpea]

Right. But since we can't have an empty space anywhere in our universe, your conclusions can only be applied outside our universe, where there is no time anyway.

DaveC, since River has taken a 'holiday', I can't ask him. Using River's own idea of a ''devoid empty space''
Remember River's saying time is movement. I may agree with that.

If I have a devoid empty space , how does one measure time ?

If you were to allow River's ''devoid empty space'' would the following be an odd consequence of that way of thinking...

In this ''devoid empty space '', empty except for two points moving relative to each other, and later these points become stationary relative to each other, would there then be no time?
In other words, can you imagine a single 'point' in a completely empty universe, empty except for the point of course, in your mind, would this point have duration? I'm just thinking of the consequences of River's idea.
Perhaps instead of point we say fundamental particle.

 

[paddoboy]

Please send 10 gram of seconds to me for Christmas

Thanks

You see the problem with your way of thinking is that you see only those things that are real, as being physical or with substance. So perhaps it is a matter of definition. Again, as I have mentioned before, are magnetic fields real? Sure they are capable of being evidenced by their effects and those effects can be measured, but so to does spacetime produce effects, and likewise those effects can also be measured.
Perhaps also, the fact that both space and time being always with us, that maybe some of us are now totally nonchalant about them, and accept them as just being there, and a part of everyday living, which of course they are!
But again, both are also "flexible" and not fixed entities as we once thought.
The convincing part when realising that fact, is of course that your measurement of time and space, while possibly being different to mine, are just as valid as mine.

 

[Michael 345]

You see the problem with your way of thinking is that you see only those things that are real, as being physical or with substance.

True and I suspect most people do likewise.

If we start putting substance to concepts where would that idea lead?

To cross pollinate threads would that produce god?

So perhaps it is a matter of definition

Again true. Many of the discussions in Sciforums seem to go on forever over definitions or grind to a halt with disagreement.

Again, as I have mentioned before, are magnetic fields real? Sure they are capable of being evidenced by their effects and those effects can be measured, but so to does spacetime produce effects, and likewise those effects can also be measured.

Again because magnetic fields generate effects which can be measured they come under the umbrella of being real.

Just read how NASA has announced the discovery of effects of spacetime on a gyroscope.

Should this finding hold I would agree to spacetime existence.

Give a bit of time to digest and compare with my current thoughts.

space and time being always with us,

If NASA is correct yes 'always with us' but from 'The Invention of Space and Time' not always perceived.

your measurement of time and space, while possibly being different to mine, are just as valid as mine

Different and valid correct as in a bridge of equivalence can built between them which we both agree with.

Humble Humpty

 

[paddoboy]

True and I suspect most people do likewise.

If we start putting substance to concepts where would that idea lead?

To cross pollinate threads would that produce god?

Yes, probably, but as per magnetic fields and space and time [spacetime] they in my opinion are wrong.
Of course, magnetic fields, space, time are evidenced by their effects that can be measured , the concept of god though, cannot.

 

[Michael 345]

In this ''devoid empty space '', empty except for two points moving relative to each other, and later these points become stationary relative to each other, would there then be no time?

Naughty naughty.

Questions should be answered in the form asked.

And you really shouldn't ask a question which looks like the form of the question being asked but has changed parameters.

A devoid empty space 'with two points moving relative to each other' is not a devoid empty space.

My view would be that a devoid empty space would have no movement (nothing to move) hence no change hence when the concept of time relies on change no time.

Humpty Dumpty no moving no falling no time.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes, probably, but as per magnetic fields and space and time [spacetime] they in my opinion are wrong.
Of course, magnetic fields, space, time are evidenced by their effects that can be measured , the concept of god though, cannot.

The part 'concept of god' was meant to indicate if we put substance to concepts would we produce a god?

Agree we have not detected a god effect.

Waiting for more details and digesting NASA's announcement of the discovery of spacetime effects.

Poe

 

[DaveC426913]

In this ''devoid empty space '', empty except for two points moving relative to each other, and later these points become stationary relative to each other, would there then be no time?

Those two particles are gravitationally attracted to each other.