Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
There is no observable duration nor change since the Universe is stilled.
Click to expand...
If it is a period of total stillness followed by continuation of the last instant of activity, then the duration of the stillness is NOT measurable. When activity resumed the time chronology would just continue from whence it stopped. However we use the periods of stillness of the cesum atom as part of *counting* time.
And who would observe this if even possible; which it is not? Curious.
Click to expand...
Precisely, the absence of any state of continuous existence would make the concept of time moot.
 
Last edited:
WriteU

If it is a period of total stillness followed by continuation of the last instant of activity, then the duration of the stillness is NOT measurable. When activity resumed the time chronology would just continue from whence it stopped. However we use the periods of stillness of the cesum atom as part of *counting* time.
Click to expand...

What periods of " stillness " are you referring with the cesium atom ?
 
river said:
WriteU
What periods of " stillness " are you referring with the cesium atom ?
Click to expand...

This term was brought up by someone else, so I used the term in a metaphorical context.
But I agree that the term *stillness* is not appropriate. In fact my entire example is wrong.:rolleyes:

The thrust was that an interval of activity is countable only if there is a period of stillness (no activity) between those periods of activity. A binary system of counting consists of two states, ON and OFF.
 
Anyway time only exists through the movement of this or that thing. And this movement is then measured. Called time.
 
Last edited:
river said: ↑
Anyway time only exists through the movement of this or that thing. And this movement is then measured. Called time.
Click to expand...

Write4U said:
I know what you are saying, but I would add *the duration" of movement is called time.
Click to expand...

Agreed

But that does not mean time in GR or everyday duration ; should be considered real ; in the sense that duration has a property outside the cause of the movement ; it doesn't .
 
river said:
Agreed

But that does not mean time in GR or everyday duration ; should be considered real ; in the sense that duration has a property outside the cause of the movement ; it doesn't .
Click to expand...
I disagree.
We *experience* time by observation of durations of events and it appears that all events have an associated duration. In that respect Time is real for us. But that is not proof of the existence of time, but does imply a fundamental permittive condition, which allows for the process of events. If such a model is used, Time is merely a product of the natural permission, chronology, and duration of certain mathematical processes permitted by this timeless condition.

If such a fundamental timeless but permittive condition existed, our methods of counting time incrementally of duration of events could be just another formalized abstract *functional* tool in the mathematical essence of the Wholeness..
I propose that our fundamental functional operations; +, -, x, / , be augmented by the operational function of time as *t*, i.e. 2 + 2 + t = 4
 
Write4U said:
I disagree.
We *experience* time by observation of durations of events and it appears that all events have an associated duration. In that respect Time is real for us. But that is not proof of the existence of time, but does imply a fundamental permittive condition, which allows for the process of events. If such a model is used, Time is merely a product of the natural permission, chronology, and duration of certain mathematical processes permitted by this timeless condition.

If such a fundamental timeless but permittive condition existed, our methods of counting time incrementally of duration of events could be just another formalized abstract *functional* tool in the mathematical essence of the Wholeness..
I propose that our fundamental functional operations; +, -, x, / , be augmented by the operational function of time as *t*, i.e. 2 + 2 + t = 4
Click to expand...

So you need movement in essence so that 2+2=4 ? Mathematics of non-sense.
 
Thanks to everybody for participating in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The duration is the definite permanence of things in reality (time). The indefinite duration is eternity. In the duration we intuit the occurred total activity (OTA). Without this intuition, time would be a spatial measurement. The OTA is directly proportional to the time period.
 
Sibilia said:
Thanks to everybody for participating in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The duration is the definite permanence of things in reality (time). The indefinite duration is eternity. In the duration we intuit the occurred total activity (OTA). Without this intuition, time would be a spatial measurement. The OTA is directly proportional to the time period.
Click to expand...
Yes, because the duration of the OTA produces the meausrable time.
IMO, eternity is a timeless concept, there is nothing to measure, either spatially or temporally.

Unlike mathematics, time is not an abstract quality in and of itself. Time is a real measurement of duration of change. Eternity is unchanging and therefore cannot be measurable as a duration or a chronology of changes (OTA), there is no reference frame such as *a biginning and an end*..
 
Last edited:
river said: ↑
Agreed

But that does not mean time in GR or everyday duration ; should be considered real ; in the sense that duration has a property outside the cause of the movement ; it doesn't .
Click to expand...

Write4U said:
2 + 2 = 4 is a function (process)
Click to expand...

After rereading your post I will qualify my answer to : Any change observed from any reference frame (GR) will have a measurable duration, but I agree to "in the sense that time has no meaning as a property outside the movement itself".
 
Phill said:
There is something in Kant that time is just a construction of the mind, with no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
No. There is something in Kant that time is something that without which, we cannot make certain mental constructions
 
PhysBang said:
A function need not be a process. It is the case, whether time exists or not, that 2+2=4. This is one of the equalities upon which we would rely in order to answer the question.
Click to expand...
I agree and addressed that in post 133.

The equation of 2 + 2 = 4 is a timeless abstract equivalence. However when we actually perform the work of physicaally adding 2 and 2 of something in order to get a result of 4 somethings does create an associated duration of the work performed, which can be express as time. The variables introduced by GR may alter this duration dependent on the frame of reference.

Actually this flexibility seems to prove that time is meaningless, unless associated with physical change under specific circumstances.

I am skeptical of such terms as time dilation and time contraction. If time is an abstract constant, the introduction of GR makes it a variable and not a constant. IMO, time is a convenient tool to measure durations of change. One minute in one frame of reference, may be a year from another frame of reference. IMO, there is no such thing as absolute time, apart from spacetime, i.e. from the BB (the beginning) to the present, which currently stands at approximately 14.7 billion years. Was time before the beginning of space?
 
Last edited:
The introduction of GR produces specific objective standards to use when discussing time and properly translating from one system of coordinates to another.
 
PhysBang said:
The introduction of GR produces specific objective standards to use when discussing time and properly translating from one system of coordinates to another.
Click to expand...
I can understand that this is how we apply universal functions from our frame of reference, but does that make time a constant or relative? Below (highlighted) are some statements which seem to show that not everything is time-dependent.
Physical constant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.
There are many physical constants in science, some of the most widely recognized being the speed of light in vacuum c, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. Physical constants can take many dimensional forms: the speed of light signifies a maximum speed limit of the Universe and is expressed dimensionally as length divided by time; while the fine-structure constant α, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, is dimensionless.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

The wiki definition shows that there are constants which are independent of time, either as an abstraction or as a dimensionless measurement, which to me sounds they are independent of both time and relativity.

Please take everything I say as probabative rather than declarative. I am trying to get an understanding why time should be an essential pre-requisite cosmological property and not a concurrent by-product (result) of physical or geometric interactions in a purely permittive cosmological condition
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I can understand that this is how we apply universal functions from our frame of reference, but does that make time a constant or relative?
Click to expand...
The joke of GR is that it makes relative systems of coordinates have a clear, objective meaning that everyone must agree on and that are translatable to every other system.
The wiki definition shows that there are constants which are independent of time, either as an abstraction or as a dimensionless measurement, which to me sounds they are independent of both time and relativity.
Click to expand...
That makes sense if you ignore that the physical constants only apply to descriptions of physical systems over time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top