Does time exist?

[NotEinstein]

It can be physical potential.

And it is, in the context of potential theory. As I said: "This is literally stated in the second sentence of the lead of that Wikipedia article."

I clearly explained that I was using the term in it's generic form, which is at the top of the any encyclopedia ; "That which may become reality"

Let's read what you actually said: "a mathematical potential". How can something mathematical become reality? I vaguely remember us discussing this, and pointing out to you multiple times that this usage of the words is at the very least not compatible with mainstream science.

 

[Write4U]

what is implied in this function 2 + 2 = ? (the potential of the latent mathematical value contained in the function of 2 + 2)

2 + 2 = 4 , now the implicated (potential) value of the mathematical function has become explicated (expressed in reality).

 

[NotEinstein]

what is implied in this function 2 + 2 = ?

"2 + 2 = ?" is not a function. Please learn what a function is.

(the explicated potential

What is an "explicated potential" in this context? Please define the term.

of the latent value

What is a "latent value" in this context? Please define the term.

contained in the function of 2 + 2)

What do you mean by "contained" exactly in this context?

And what is the relevance of all of this in the first place? There is nothing in 2 + 2 "which may become reality".

 

[Write4U]

"2 + 2 = ?" is not a function. Please learn what a function is.

Plussing (addition) is not a mathematical function?

look up the definitions of each word I used I think you'll find that it makes perfect sense.

And what is the relevance of all of this in the first place? There is nothing in 2 + 2 "which may become reality".

Then where did the 4 come from? It's the sum of 2 + 2 , right?
The same potential of the value 4 is inherent in mathematical function of 3 + 1 = ?, no?

In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

la·tent,

ADJECTIVE
dormant · untapped · unused · undiscovered · hidden · concealed · underlying · invisible · unseen · undeveloped · unrealized · unfulfilled · potential

and

Latent,

dormant, quiescent, inactive, untapped, unused
undiscovered, hidden, unrevealed, unexpressed, concealed, unapparent, indiscernible, imperceptible, invisible, inert, covert, unseen, veiled, masked, lurking, undeveloped, unrealized, unfulfilled, potential, not activated, inoperative, in abeyance, suppressed, repressed
possible, likely, underlying, inherent, innermost, immanent, inchoate, unacknowledged, subconscious, unconscious, sleeping

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/latent

 

[Write4U]

IMO, along with the mathematics of the "exponential function", the term "potential" is one of the most profound philosophical concepts ever conceived..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_theory

And to return to the OP title; Sibilius' concept of "Becoming" is always preceded by "Potential"

 

[Michael 345]

Does future time already exist?
Or is it always Now or in the Past?
If future time does not yet exist, Time is a latent potential, which becomes expressed only as Now.
When Now has passed it is the Past.

In answer to the simple question Does future time already exist? my clear answer would be NO

Elaborating - it is impossible for future time to exist. Nothing exist in the future. You, me, the Universe. Nothing ever can, nothing ever will exist in (or to be exquisitely precise) WITHIN the future

I would also contend NOW is NOT a candidate for potential future time for the simple logical reasoning if, as I contend, future time does not exist, there is nothing for NOW to become

What happens, in my world logic, is whatever exist within NOW ages (undergoes change) such that no same NOWS ever exist

The changes can be expressed as arbitrary units (age) but again age is NOT time and since it does not exist there are no units of measurement

 

[DaveC426913]

Elaborating - it is impossible for future time to exist. Nothing exist in the future. You, me, the Universe. Nothing ever can, nothing ever will exist in (or to be exquisitely precise) WITHIN the future

You might find some interesting reading in looking up block universe.
It is the proposal that, the universe is a 4D static block, and that our travel through time is merely an illusion. It's kind of analogous to traveling in an elevator in a building. Length and width of the elevator are spatial dimensions, while the elevator is what we ride up, through the fixed, extant temporal dimension. The elevator is 'now', lower floors are the past, upper floors are the future.

It is only our limited perspective - that we can't see along the dimension of time - that causes us to experience time passage. Things in the block don't change - our limited perception manifests as change to us.

 

[Michael 345]

You might find some interesting reading in looking up block universe.
It is the proposal that, the universe is a 4D static block, and that our travel through time is merely an illusion. It's kind of analogous to traveling in an elevator in a building. Length and width of the elevator are spatial dimensions, while the elevator is what we ride up, through the fixed, extant temporal dimension. The elevator is 'now', lower floors are the past, upper floors are the future.

It is only our limited perspective - that we can't see along the dimension of time - that causes us to experience time passage. Things in the block don't change - our limited perception manifests as change to us.

Long time since I went through the 4D block universe and the in train looking out the window version

Never found them appealing. Far to simplistic in some ways and has connotations of the past remaining in existence and the upper floors of a building already there or the railway line already laid down in the future. Neither of which are compatible with
NOW as THE ONLY existence ( one reality to rule them all - except there is no all )

Time to give Huey Dewey and Louie a rest and get back in holiday mode

 

[Write4U]

In answer to the simple question Does future time already exist? my clear answer would be NO.

I agree...

Elaborating - it is impossible for future time to exist. Nothing exist in the future. You, me, the Universe. Nothing ever can, nothing ever will exist in (or to be exquisitely precise) WITHIN the future

I agree again, however it exist within the now as an implication. We can look at a task and say "this is going to take a long time", IOW we recognize the future limits of what can be accomplished, given the task that presents Now.
Taking a boxed pizza and baking it in a pre-heated oven takes less time than making the pizza from scratch and then baking it in the oven. It really is not very complicated. The existing conditions of now determine, are causal (imply) the duration of achieving the result (change/effect) in the future.

We can have a boxed pepperoni pizza or we can have a bunch of flour that needs to made into dough and sprinkled with cheese, tomato paste and pepperoni. The result is the same, but the emerging future time associated with the necessary actions will vary greatly.

also contend NOW is NOT a candidate for potential future time for the simple logical reasoning if, as I contend, future time does not exist, there is nothing for NOW to become

I agree to the future time part. But what exists now determines what will be in the future. The emerging time associated with this change is variable, because it does not exist yet and is completely dependent on the duration of the change itself.

This is Bohm's Implicate order, the explicated now by implication determines what will be explicated in the future and its emerging associated, but variable time frame.

What happens, in my world logic, is whatever exist within NOW ages (undergoes change) such that no same NOWS ever exist

I agree completely, but this changing (growing, maturing, ageing) is limited (determined) by the conditions which exist now. IMO, this limiting factor is a mathematical function.

One can argue it is a physical function, but in the abstract this physical action can be translated into logical mathematical language.
E = Mc^2 is an mathematical equation of a universal Potential.

The changes can be expressed as arbitrary units (age) but again age is NOT time and since it does not exist there are no units of measurement

I agree , that is my argument. Time itself cannot be measured, it can only be determined by the measurable duration (chronology) of all the nows which have passed. And of course, this is an arbitrary measurement, dependent on the time frames involved.

 

[DaveC426913]

Never found them appealing.

... compatible with
NOW as THE ONLY existence

Yes I was afraid you'd say that. It suggests that you've lost interest in exploring new ideas about the subject in favour of your own pet idea. Like Asexperia, and hansda.
Flash forward a year or two, and you find them becoming your kindred spirits.

Listen to Poe. Back away from pet theories. Come back to the light.

 

[NotEinstein]

Plussing (addition) is not a mathematical function?

look up the definitions of each word I used I think you'll find that it makes perfect sense.

Please re-read my statement, this time taking note of the quotes. "2 + 2 = ?" is not a function. And addition is a mathematical operator (although it can be expressed in a functional form).

Then where did the 4 come from?

It follows necessarily from the axiom and definitions used. 2 + 2 doesn't become 4, 2 + 2 equals 4. And at no point does anything "become reality" either.

It's the sum of 2 + 2 , right?

Yes.

The same potential of the value 4 is inherent in mathematical function of 3 + 1 = ?, no?[/QUOTE]
No, obviously not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

"a relation": please point me to the relation in the string of characters: "2 + 2 = ?"
"set of inputs", "a set of permissible outputs": please point me to the set of inputs in the string of characters: "2 + 2 = ?"

and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/latent

So when you said: "the potential of the latent mathematical value", you meant: "the potential of the potential mathematical value". Sounds incoherent to me? Or are you claiming that things that become reality then can become reality again?

 

[NotEinstein]

IMO, along with the mathematics of the "exponential function",

Here you're talking about mathematics.

the term "potential" is one of the most profound philosophical concepts ever conceived..

And you suddenly switch to the "philosophical concept".

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

And you switch to physics.

You've mixed three different fields, each with their own definitions, in one sentence! That is very confusing; please don't do that.

 

[Write4U]

And you suddenly switch to the "philosophical concept".

In a fundamentally all encompassing way. Potential = "That which may become reality"

I'll be happy to change it to "theoretical concept" if you feel more comfortable with that term. The definition remains the same.

Please re-read my statement, this time taking note of the quotes. "2 + 2 = ?" is not a function. And addition is a mathematical operator (although it can be expressed in a functional form).

Use the latter.

It follows necessarily from the axiom and definitions used. 2 + 2 doesn't become 4, 2 + 2 equals 4. And at no point does anything "become reality" either.

Take pencil and paper, then you can change the symbol "?" to the symbol "4" in reality.

W4U said, 2 + 2 = 4, right?

Yes.

[W4U said,
The same potential of the value 4 is inherent in mathematical function of 3 + 1 = ?, no?

No, obviously not

Can you explain the "No, obviously not"?

In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

"a relation": please point me to the relation in the string of characters: "2 + 2 = ?"
"set of inputs", "a set of permissible outputs": please point me to the set of inputs in the string of characters: "2 + 2 = ?"

2 + 2 is the input string, 4 is the permissible output. 3 + 1 is the input string, 4 is the permissible output.

So when you said: "the potential of the latent mathematical value", you meant: "the potential of the potential mathematical value". Sounds incoherent to me? Or are you claiming that things that become reality then can become reality again?

No, that is not what I meant. As long as the output is not expressed it is a potential (an implicate). Only when the symbol "?" is replaced with the permissible symbol "4", the inherent potential value has been realized. We have arrived at a true equation in reality.

 

[NotEinstein]

In a fundamentally all encompassing way. Potential = "That which may become reality"

I'll be happy to change it to "theoretical concept" if you feel more comfortable with that term. The definition remains the same.

I don't mind you using potential in that way, as long as you don't mix it up with the mathematical definition of the word; that's my point of criticism.

Use the latter.

OK, so you agree with me that "f(a, b) = a + b" is a function. Good. Now please tell me: how is "2 + 2 = ?" a function?

Take pencil and paper, then you can change the symbol "?" to the symbol "4" in reality.

Done. I am now looking at a bunch of atoms. Where is my 4? Mathematical objects don't have any physical presence, remember?

Can you explain the "No, obviously not"?

Because "3 + 1 =?" is not a function, in the same way that "2 + 2 = ?" is not a function.

2 + 2 is the input string,

And a string is not a number, so we're not doing plain old mathematics anymore.

4 is the permissible output.

Is that 4 a string of characters, the value 4, or the concept of 4?

3 + 1 is the input string, 4 is the permissible output.

Same problem; we're clearly not doing standard mathematics anymore. Maths works with numbers, not text.

Additionally, a function that can take only one input is a bit... underwhelming? And I happen to know addition can work with many different numbers! So whatever function you think you have there, it's not remotely similar to addition.

No, that is not what I meant.

I asked you what "latent" meant. You said it means the same as "potential". So I replaced you usage of "latent" with "potential", and that resulted in an incoherent mess. Conclusion: the original sentence is also an incoherent mess. It may not have been what you meant, it is what you said.

As long as the output is not expressed it is a potential (an implicate).

Except that in mathematics, "2 + 2" is an expression equal to "4", so it is already expressed.

Only when the symbol "?" is replaced with the permissible symbol "4", the inherent potential value has been realized.

This has nothing to do with mathematics anymore, nor with physics. You are arguing philosophy here.

Which is fine, but then don't mix it up with physics (e.g. potential theory) or mathematics (e.g. mathematical functions).

We have arrived at a true equation in reality.

Right, but this has nothing to do with mathematics anymore. And I suspect it's actually incoherent, as "true equation" is evaluated within a mathematical context, but "reality" isn't, so you are once again mixing the two up to the point of nonsense.

The equation was either always true (2 + 2 = 4, even before you write it down), or we're talking about the equation-on-paper (a bunch of atoms) (in)correctly representing that equation-in-maths, in which case the representation goes from incorrect to correct as you write the "4" down. In the latter case it's not clear what "a true equation" means without specifying it more carefully.
​

 

[Michael 345]

The emerging time associated with this change is variable, because it does not exist yet and is completely dependent on the duration of the change itself.

Thinking almost on same same agreement
I frame it as the NOW not dictate what the future is but what other NOWs might exist (there is always unknown and unknowable factors in play - the flour gets stolen - the pizza shop destroyed in gas explosion)

As for - it is going to take a long time - is more the arbitrary pathway of language and the flexibility of word meanings which has the sentence being correct. The scientists now would like it to be - it is going to take a long age - but I don't think that will happen

Not sure if you remember some age ago scientists were trying to have weight referred to as mass. That didn't get very far. It certainly is scientifically correct but weight to deeply embedded

 

[Michael 345]

Like Asexperia, and hansda.
Flash forward a year or two, and you find them becoming your kindred spirits.

Listen to Poe. Back away from pet theories. Come back to the light.

Please. Really? In what conceivable universe kindred spirits indeed

Poe is listening to Huey Dewey and Louie. And if I don't listen to girlfriend who is telling me she not come on holiday from Jakarta to Bali just to watch me chat I will be sleeping outside hotel room tonight

GTG

 

[Write4U]

I don't mind you using potential in that way, as long as you don't mix it up with the mathematical definition of the word; that's my point of criticism.

Noted.

OK, so you agree with me that "f(a, b) = a + b" is a function. Good. Now please tell me: how is "2 + 2 = ?" a function?

"f(2+2) = 4

Done. I am now looking at a bunch of atoms. Where is my 4? Mathematical objects don't have any physical presence, remember?

You're looking at reality , no?

Because "3 + 1 =?" is not a function, in the same way that "2 + 2 = ?" is not a function.

"f(3+1) = 4

And a string is not a number, so we're not doing plain old mathematics anymore.

OK, a string is a set of numbers.

Is that 4 a string of characters, the value 4, or the concept of 4?

(2+2) is a string with a value of 4 in mathematics, but not necessarily in philosophy or reality.

Same problem; we're clearly not doing standard mathematics anymore. Maths works with numbers, not text.

Additionally, a function that can take only one input is a bit... underwhelming? And I happen to know addition can work with many different numbers! So whatever function you think you have there, it's not remotely similar to addition.

Addition is a mathematical function. Where did I say that a mathematical function can only take one (oops, 1) input? Or have only one (1) function. Try fractals.

I asked you what "latent" meant. You said it means the same as "potential". So I replaced you usage of "latent" with "potential", and that resulted in an incoherent mess. Conclusion: the original sentence is also an incoherent mess. It may not have been what you meant, it is what you said.

lol, I recognize that the term potential has many applications and wanted to clarify that I was speaking about the type of potential which is inherent but latent , not for instance {V}

Except that in mathematics, "2 + 2" is an expression equal to "4", so it is already expressed.

Not unless you do the calculation and use = symbol
And it depends on the context ; 2 doves + 2 canaries = 4 birds, but not 4 doves or 4 canaries.

This has nothing to do with mathematics anymore, nor with physics. You are arguing philosophy here.

The OP asks ; Does time exist? Does that fall under mathematics or philosophy?

Which is fine, but then don't mix it up with physics (e.g. potential theory) or mathematics (e.g. mathematical functions).

That is the crux of the matter. The word potential applies in all disciplines of study as well in practical application. That is why I believe it is a profoundly important symbolic term.

Right, but this has nothing to do with mathematics anymore. And I suspect it's actually incoherent, as "true equation" is evaluated within a mathematical context, but "reality" isn't, so you are once again mixing the two up to the point of nonsense.

So are the terms Probabilistic and Deterministic mathematical terms or philosophical terms?. The point I am trying to make is that it applies universally to every theoretical or practical discipline

The equation was either always true (2 + 2 = 4, even before you write it down), or we're talking about the equation-on-paper (a bunch of atoms) (in)correctly representing that equation-in-maths, in which case the representation goes from incorrect to correct as you write the "4" down. In the latter case it's not clear what "a true equation" means without specifying it more carefully.

That would be a case where a potential does not become reality. Potential = That which may become reality. And can be applied to both Probabilism and Determinism.
​

 

[NotEinstein]

"f(2+2) = 4[/QUOTE
f(4) = 4 describe many mathematical functions. In fact any function that returns a singular complex value for a just a single singular input value will suffice. To make this more explicit: you have inadvertently claimed that this is addition: $$f\(x\)=\frac{x^2}{4}$$

You're looking at reality , no?

Yes, but I'm not finding a mathematical object "4" anywhere.

"f(3+1) = 4

This is the same function: f(4) = 4. And it has the same problems.

OK, a string is a set of numbers.

No, a string has ordering, so it can't be a set. A string is a sequence, but not of numbers, of characters. (I'm using it specifically in the programming sense, but you can read "a linear, finite sequence of language glyphs" or something along those lines in place of it.)

(2+2) is a string with a value of 4 in mathematics, but not necessarily in philosophy or reality.

Right, "2 + 2" equals "4" in mathematics. It doesn't become "4", it is "4".

Addition is a mathematical function.

It's an operation, that can be expressed as a function.

Where did I say that a mathematical function can only take one (oops, 1) input? Or have only one (1) function.

I've never claimed functions can only take one input; I've pointed out that your "addition function" does. It takes one string as its input: f("2 + 2").

Try fractals.

Fractals have nothing to do with this.

lol, I recognize that the term potential has many applications and wanted to clarify that I was speaking about the type of potential which is inherent but latent , not for instance {V}

Then explain what "the potential of the latent mathematical value" is/means.

Not unless you do the calculation and use = symbol

No, the (physical) action of performing the addition is not part of mathematics. 2 + 2 always equals 4. Nobody needs to "apply" an = symbol. It follows necessarily from the axioms of mathematics and number theory.

And it depends on the context ; 2 doves + 2 canaries = 4 birds, but not 4 doves or 4 canaries.

Please give a definition of a mathematical dove. Because that's what we are talking about, remember?

The OP asks ; Does time exist? Does that fall under mathematics or philosophy?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand: we are discussing mathematics here.

That is the crux of the matter. The word potential applies in all disciplines of study as well in practical application.

You are committing a fallacy of equivocation here. The term "potential" means many things, and these usages cannot be used interchangeably.

That is why I believe it is a profoundly important symbolic term.

Please demonstrate that this is true in all languages, not just English.

So are the terms Probabilistic and Deterministic mathematical terms or philosophical terms?.

Probabilistic has meaning in statistics, which is a branch of mathematics. I'm not familiar with a philosophical definition of the term. Deterministic is (usually) to do with (meta)physics and philosophy.

I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, though?

The point I am trying to make is that it applies universally to every theoretical discipline

The definition of the word changes between these different disciplines, so they are not the same thing. For example, a "tree" is a biological structure that you see outside. But in mathematics it's also a hierarchical structure of objects. They are related etymology-wise, yes, but there are completely different things. Properties of one type of tree do not (necessarily) apply to the other type of tree. Their tree-properties cannot be applied universally. The same with "potential". What's true for one definition of the word "potential" isn't (necessarily) true for the other. What's why there are multiple definitions in the first place!

That would be a case where a potential does not become reality. Potential = That which may become reality. And can be applied to both Probabilism and Determinism.

​

So you agree with me that "potential" in the sense of "becoming reality" has no meaning in mathematics. Good. I can't wait for your explanation of "the potential of the latent mathematical value" then.

 

[Write4U]

Interesting post of my own introspection. Is that my bi-cameral mind arguing with myself?

But, if anything it show that the "the potential of the latent mathematical value" is a variable depending on the conditional permission to become expressed .
That's where the "may become" reality comes into play.....

 

[river]

Duration is not time based . Nor mathematically based .

Duration is simplely based on movement of energy then matter , matter being the less energenic of energy .

Duration is the dynamic between things .

Energy as in Cosmic Plasma energy . Ionic of protons and electrons , The cooling hence the increase density of both into the creation of sub-atomic and atomic , and therefore macroscopic forms of , such as the galactic cores and suns and planets etc .