Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhysBang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does, that not assume a static universe?
That makes sense if you ignore that the physical constants only apply to descriptions of physical systems over time.
Click to expand...
Of course, physical systems must have an accompanying time frame. But as the quote implies, mathematics is a timeless but fundamental metaphysical condition, as you yourself indicated. And the *fine-structure constant* is dimensionless, so from what frame of reference can we measure a dimensionless condition.

Does that not make them timeless constants?
 
Write4U said:
Does, that not assume a static universe?
Click to expand...
Like when Farisght uses the word "static", I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "unchanging", then, no. GR is the science of the objective translations from one system of coordinates to another when doing physics.


Of course, physical systems must have an accompanying time frame. But as the quote implies, mathematics is a timeless but fundamental metaphysical condition, as you yourself indicated. And the *fine-structure constant* is dimensionless, so from what frame of reference can we measure a dimensionless condition.

Does that not make them timeless constants?
Click to expand...
They are timeless in the sense that, regardless of when we apply them, we apply them at the same value. They are not timeless in the sense that we only apply them to systems we are describing with some sort of evolution over time.
 
PhysBang said:
Like when Farisght uses the word "static", I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "unchanging", then, no. GR is the science of the objective translations from one system of coordinates to another when doing physics.
Click to expand...
But is the concept of GR not timelessly true?
They are timeless in the sense that, regardless of when we apply them, we apply them at the same value. They are not timeless in the sense that we only apply them to systems we are describing with some sort of evolution over time.
Click to expand...
But is that not the same as saying, they are timelessly true, regardless of any observer or application or change?

river said:
Hmmm...
What is the essence of time ?
Is it mathematical or physical ?
Click to expand...
IMO, that is an important question, which I tried to answer before with my example of ; 2 + 2 = 4, which is a timeless mathematical equation in and of itself, but when applied as a physical function it simultaneously generates a masurable duration of time, a timeline.

The equations are timeless mathematical universal potentials or constants.

This is my interpretation of a universal mathematical constant. It is timeless in essence, until used in a dynamical physical environment during which time becomes part of the mathematics of the physical function.

This is why I see a fundamental timeless permittive condition which allows for physical change, during which time is mathematically created.
 
Last edited:
Write4U

IMO, that is an important question, which I tried to answer before with my example of ; 2 + 2 = 4, which is a timeless mathematical equation in and of itself, but when applied as a physical function it simultaneously generates a masurable duration of time, a timeline.
Click to expand...

Define duration
 
river said:
No

Chronology has nothing to do with duration .
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

" Time",
Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.

An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events.

This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but ... are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

I prefer the second view.
And,

"Chronology", from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia),
is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time.
Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the
determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".

Chronology is part of periodization. It is also part of the discipline of history, including earth history, the earth sciences, and study of the geologic time scale."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology

And from Oxford Dictionary,

"Duration", the time during which something continues":
"the subway stop has been closed for the duration of the convention" ·
synonyms: full length · time · time span · time scale · period · term · span · fullness · length · extent · continuation
 
Last edited:
Time is not a fundamental part of the Universe ; time is a consequence of movement of objects .

Lets start this discussion from there.
 
river said:
Well ; Write4U ; lets have at it . just you and me . start the thread .
Click to expand...
With all respect, no. I have made my position clear and provided information in support of my arguments from some prominent and presumably authoritative scientists and Philosophers from reliable websites. I have nothing special to offer in addition. to what I already have posted here.

I am in the Leibnitz/Kant camp on this one, which already seems to agree with your stance.

If you have a different viewpont, such as a version of Newtionian Time, lay it out right here and can be discussed in context of the OP question.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
... Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. ...
Click to expand...
I don't think he considered it more than just a parameter in equations. He has long discussion in Principles of Mathematics telling how all the various measures of it were not exactly the same as the time parameter he was using. He does call it "absolute time" but that does not IMO, imply he considered it some real, more than just a parameter. He is only distinuguishing "absolute time" from the various measures of time, that have been used.

Can you site any passage of his text that indicates Newton, thought time was real, had properties, like mass does?
 
Billy T said:
I don't think he considered it more than just a parameter in equations. He has long discussion in Principles of Mathematics telling how all the various measures of it were not exactly the same as the time parameter he was using. He does call it "absolute time" but that does not IMO, imply he considered it some real, more than just a parameter. He is only distinuguishing "absolute time" from the various measures of time, that have been used.

Can you site any passage of his text that indicates Newton, thought time was real, had properties, like mass does?
Click to expand...
He called it a "dimension in which events occur in sequence". see post # 149

But, IMO. that is the definition of "space?, not of time. However I believe there is a greater, more fundamental imperative and that is "a timeless permittive condition".
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
He called it a "dimension in which events occur in sequence". see post # 149...
Click to expand...
I did. That link gives this quasi-quote from Newton:

"According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically."

Real things have at least one property that is perceptible. I have read the entire Principles of mathematics but it was quite a few years ago.* As I recall, much like this quote, Newton went out of his way to state that his "absolute time" was not an observable and should not to confused with observable measures of time (clocks, spin of the Earth, movement of the stars, etc.) I. e. his "absolute time" was just sequencing parameter in his mathematics, in no way "real," "observable," etc. only a math parameter in equations.

I have more than one post telling how the parameter T, can be totally eliminated from all the equations of physics. Motions that repeat may need a sequence parameter, like “year number” for the orbiting earth but they too are not real things, just parameters.

Quickly idea is take a pair of equation that use the parameter T and solve both for it. I. e. T = function 1 and T = function 2. Then set Function 1 = Function 2, and get how one observable changes in terms of another observable's changes. For example the length of a burning candle is given, not as a function of parameter T, but in terms of the location of a moving car with no mention of time.

Newton believed only things that have some observable property are "real" some others can appear in equations.


* I skimmed some of the many proofs even some of the associated drawings. Every one should at least skim it to see how powerful logic is in the hands of a genus.
 
Last edited:
Phill said:
There is something in Kant that time is just a construction of the mind, with no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

In Mathematics, the idea of space (distance and size) and quantity (numbers) are basic concepts a priori. To these concepts we can add eternity. The idea of an eternal God is derived from the concept of eternity. Time is a basic concept, but it is not a priori. It would be a contradiction that the concepts of eternity and time are both a priori. Time is finite and We be born with the idea of eternity, an infinite time.
 
river said:
What is the essence of time ?

Is it mathematical or physical ?
Click to expand...

Both of them. Becoming is physical and duration is mathematical. Time is just the becoming-duration duality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Time appears to be a potential. This can be inferred from a basic experimental observation dating as far back as 1827. This date is the date for the first photographs. The affect that appears to imply time is a potential, is called motion blur.

In motion blur the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed. Speed is d/t, which is different for the movement of the shutter and the movement of the action. Since the photo stops time, but conserves position or distance, the difference in speed=d/t, with time stopped shows up as uncertainty in distance; motion blur; d*/t=0. In the photo below, time is stopped, yet the motion blur creates the impression of motion.


motion-blur-photos-34.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top