Does time exist?

[origin]

NEW PHILOCHRON TABLE

ELEMENT ........... PROPERTY ......... MAGNITUDE
space ...................... extension ............. length, area and volume

Part of the problems with your posts (just part of the problems) is that you do not use normal definitions of words. You make up your own defintions with out telling anyone what these new definitions are.

Space is not an element
Extension is not a property
Length, area and volume are not magnitudes.

If you make up your own definitons to common words how in the hell is anyone suppose to know what you are talking about?

 

[Asexperia]

Space is not an element
Extension is not a property
Length, area and volume are not magnitudes.

1- The elements are the basic components of the universe.

2- Magnitudes are measurements.

3- Extension is a property of space and objects.

4- Length, area and volume are magnitudes of extension.

 

[Edont Knoff]

When there is nothing to measure, there is no time.

Yes, but it seems logical. Passing time usually is remembered by a sequence of events. We can't even measure a duration without using any events. We also do not know if time is steady or if it takes "breaks" - because in the case of a "break", there are no events, and without events we can't measure or record any duration or progress of time.

That's why I used the word "history". History is a sequence of events. The arrow of time is a result of the cause-effect logic that we use, and the perceived impossibility to undo history; there is only forward, no backward.

Without events, there is no history being written, and time might as well be seen to be "frozen", until something happens again.

But this is a very theoretical though. Our environment is full of events, and thus for our perception, time is flowing quite steadily.

 

[origin]

1- The elements are the basic components of the universe.

What are the basic components of the universe?

2- Magnitudes are measurements.

Then call them measurements!

3- Extension is a property of space and objects.

Then call them properties!

4- Length, area and volume are magnitudes of extension.

No those are also properties.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, but it seems logical. Passing time usually is remembered by a sequence of events. We can't even measure a duration without using any events. We also do not know if time is steady or if it takes "breaks" - because in the case of a "break", there are no events, and without events we can't measure or record any duration or progress of time.

That's why I used the word "history". History is a sequence of events. The arrow of time is a result of the cause-effect logic that we use, and the perceived impossibility to undo history; there is only forward, no backward.

Without events, there is no history being written, and time might as well be seen to be "frozen", until something happens again.

But this is a very theoretical though. Our environment is full of events, and thus for our perception, time is flowing quite steadily.

And of course all individual time-lines are embedded in the DeBroglie-Bohml Pilot-Wave, the history (time-line) of the evolution of the Universe itself.

But Time itself is not a measurable phenomena itself because it has no duration in and of itself, it is a by-product, an additive result of duration of chronological change., IMO.

 

[Write4U]

some excellent comments. glad I read them. my take: the past, a feature of time is stationary, unchanging, so time must be stationary, but we are moving, at different rates through time, living in the present, but seeing only the past. The future is empty time.There must have been empty time before we started moving.

IMO, before there was change there was no time at all, there was only a timeless condition without beginning or end. We do not move through time other that the Time created by the universal Pilot Wave, which is our fundamental time frame.

A timeline is a way of displaying a list of events in

chronological order, sometimes described as a project artifact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline

 

[Write4U]

If you could still the Universe; how would time exist?

If there was an observable duration of stillness between durations of change, that duration of *stillness* would stil be countable as a duration of no change.

The universe would have to disappear altogether for time to come to a halt. As long as something has a physical existence it has an associated timeframe.

 

[Write4U]

Time is not a magnitude nor a property. Duration is the magnitude, time is just its measure. Clocks do not measure time, measure the duration. I did not say that time is real, but exists logically. Duration is the increase of the existence of things.

From post 26:
Existence is the state of things to be real or ideal. The ideas have subjective existence and they are classified in: logical, emotional and imaginary. Logical ideas are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and measurements. Real objects are material and therefore are objective.

Edition:
Existence is the state of things to be real or ideal. The ideas have subjective existence and they are classified in: logical and qualia (sensation and emotion). Logical ideas are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and measurements.

And are timeless in and of themselves because they do not change and are concepts related only to function, not change itself.

Real objects are material and therefore are objective.

And can be observed to have a duration of objective existence.

 

[Dinosaur]

None of the Posts in this thread are close to Einstein's basic thoughts relating to time.

When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they were undefined terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires some undefined primitive terms to avoid various logical problems associated with circular definitions.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
If you could still the Universe; how would time exist?

If there was an observable duration of stillness between durations of change, that duration of *stillness* would stil be countable as a duration of no change.

The universe would have to disappear altogether for time to come to a halt. As long as something has a physical existence it has an associated timeframe.

There is no observable duration nor change since the Universe is stilled.

And who would observe this if even possible; which it is not? Curious.

 

[krash661]

I have a problem with the assumption that Time exists at all, except as a byproduct of the existence of something else. Time is an arbitrary measurement of *duration*.

what element of time are you referring too?

When there is nothing to measure, there is no time.

first--whenever has there been a moment when anything CANNOT be measured?
what about the universes existence? what about biological time? what about consciousness time? what about physical existence time?
what about...etc.--odd.

IMO, before the *beginning* there was only an immeasurable timeless permittive condition.

how could there be a moment of " timeless " if and only if you say this: " I have a problem with the assumption that Time exists at all ?"

 

[Write4U]

what element of time are you referring too?

The standard definition.

1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

first--whenever has there been a moment when anything CANNOT be measured?
what about the universes existence? what about biological time? what about consciousness time? what about physical existence time? what about...etc.--odd.

You just answered your own question. Time exist only in relation to the existence of something else. Time itself cannot be measured.

how could there be a moment of " timeless " if and only if you say this: " I have a problem with the assumption that Time exists at all ?"

Sorry, I could have clarified this better; it should read; " I have a problem with the assumption that Time exists as an independent plenum. IOW, BEFORE the universe came into existence there was no time, only a timeless permittive condition. As far as we know time began with the creation of the universe.
Did time exist before the the BEGINNING? Was there need for time before the beginning?

 

[krash661]

You just answered your own question. Time exist only in relation to the existence of something else. Time itself cannot be measured.

actually no--you simply cannot grasp my comment which is why you just typed this nonsense that simply contradicts yourself.

[Sorry, I could have clarified this better; it should read; " I have a problem with the assumption that Time exists as an independent plenum. IOW, BEFORE the universe came into existence there was no time, only a timeless permittive condition. As far as we know time began with the creation of the universe.
Did time exist before the the BEGINNING? Was there need for time before the beginning?

you still cannot grasp this little line and the meaning--" what element of time are you referring to? " why do i say element and not definition--or why am i even saying " many elements of time " in general?

 

[Write4U]

actually no--you simply cannot grasp my comment which is why you just typed this nonsense that simply contradicts yourself.

Every example you gave showed time to be a result of some action *within* the universe. I already referred to the DeBroglie- Bohm *Pilot Wave*, which creates a universal time time frame in the process. Today universal time is about 13.7 billion years by our standards. Any increment of time is used by humans for convenience. Time to plant crops, time to harvest, world record time of covering a distance..

you still cannot grasp this little line and the meaning--" what element of time are you referring to? " why do i say element and not definition--or why am i even saying " many elements of time " in general?

You have to say "many elements of time" because it is not a constant. A ruler is divided in increments, some in inches, some in centimeters, completely dependent on the human purpose. Does the universe use a ruler or just maths which humans can symbolize with numbers and equations?

Time comes into existence with the chronological occurrence of events. In the abstract, Time has no meaning, other than as an associated duration of events or distance between geometric points. Can time be measured without reference to an action or points in (universal) space?

What time is it now? *Day time* or *night time* and where and why? Time is part of GR and dependent on the point of the observer. That's why we have so many increments of time, it's a relative phenomenon, the same as a geometric measurement.

 

[krash661]

Every example you gave showed time to be a result of some action *within* the universe. I already referred to the DeBroglie- Bohm *Pilot Wave*, which creates a universal time time frame in the process. Today universal time is about 13.7 billion years by our standards. Any increment of time is used by humans for convenience. Time to plant crops, time to harvest, world record time of covering a distance..
You have to say "many elements of time" because it is not a constant. A ruler is divided in increments, some in inches, some in centimeters, completely dependent on the human purpose. Does the universe use a ruler or just maths which humans can symbolize with numbers and equations?

Time comes into existence with the chronological occurrence of events. In the abstract, Time has no meaning, other than as an associated duration of events or between geometric points. Can time be measured without reference to an action or points in (universal) space?

(shakes head)--carry on with your pathetic notion of that you understand this stuff, while endlessly contradicting yourself.

 

[Write4U]

(shakes head)--carry on with your pathetic notion of that you understand this stuff, while endlessly contradicting yourself.

Does that mean you have no counter argument? Point out the *endless* contradictions.
Ad hominem is not an argument.

 

[krash661]

Does that mean you have no counter argument?

no, it simply means that i have no will for your want-to-be intellect nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

no, it simply means that i have no will for your want-to-be intellect nonsense.

No one is forcing you to participate in this part of the forum. But so far you have not shown any more knowledge than I.
btw. I am still waiting for examples of my endless contradictions, allowing me to reply, but you won't let that happen will you? You know what they say about ad hominem arguments. Why do you use them?

4. McTaggart's Argument
In a famous paper published in 1908, J.M.E. McTaggart argued that there is in fact no such thing as time, and that the appearance of a temporal order to the world is a mere appearance. Other philosophers before and since (including, especially, F.H. Bradley) have argued for the same conclusion. We will focus here only on McTaggart's argument against the reality of time, which has been by far the most influential.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg

I guess he is also a wanna-be intellectual.

 

[timojin]

First, you said that time as an indication of change is real, and later you said that time, the mesaurement of change, is subjective.

Is time real or subjective?

As long there is day and night time exist

 

[krash661]

No one is forcing you to participate in this part of the forum. But so far you have not shown any more knowledge than I.
btw. I am still waiting for examples of my endless contradictions, allowing me to reply, but you won't let that happen will you? You know what they say about ad hominem arguments. Why do you use them? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg

I guess he is also a wanna-be intellectual.

(shrugs)--whatever you need to tell yourself.