Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Define time.
Your definition of duration is really the definition of becoming.
Duration is the continuous increase of the permanence of beings in reality.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
THE MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION
Abstraction is the isolated consideration of the essential qualities of an object, or the same object in its pure essence or notion.
There are two basic types of abstraction: linguistic and mathematical. Linguistic abstraction are definitions. Mathematical abstraction are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and magnitudes.
Examples of magnitudes are:
1- When weighing three objects of different shapes, sizes and materials have a mass of 7 kg each.
2- The length of three different objects is 12 cm each.
3- The duration of three events of different rhythms is 1 hour each.
The more we repeat the measurements, better and more accurate are the abstractions we handle.
The measurement of time is a sequential abstraction. The OTA (ocurred total activity) is abstracted.
Elvis Sibilia
Abstraction is the isolated consideration of the essential qualities of an object, or the same object in its pure essence or notion.
There are two basic types of abstraction: linguistic and mathematical. Linguistic abstraction are definitions. Mathematical abstraction are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and magnitudes.
Examples of magnitudes are:
1- When weighing three objects of different shapes, sizes and materials have a mass of 7 kg each.
2- The length of three different objects is 12 cm each.
3- The duration of three events of different rhythms is 1 hour each.
The more we repeat the measurements, better and more accurate are the abstractions we handle.
The measurement of time is a sequential abstraction. The OTA (ocurred total activity) is abstracted.
Elvis Sibilia
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Time is a physical magnitude which affects the entire reality, but we do not have a specific sense to perceive intervals. This allows each person makes a different idea about the nature of time. There is no consensus about what is time.
For the Philochrony Time is the continuous series of sequential moments that allows to establish a past, a present and a future.
For the Philochrony Time is the continuous series of sequential moments that allows to establish a past, a present and a future.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I disagree that time is a physical magnitude. It would imply that time is causal to change. I cannot agree with that. IMO, all that is required in principle is a *permittive condition*.
I can agree with that, as that would imply that time (measurement of duration(s) comes into existence because of duration of change. Time is a result, not a pre-condition.
To me the concept of eternity or infinite time are meaningless terms. However a permittive condition (nothingness) is essential for change to be able to take place, creating a concurrent measurable duration (time) in the process of change. But time itself cannot be measured, as you said, it is an abstraction of a timeless permittive condition, which might well be eternal, but also a single planck scale moment concurrent with the first change.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The philochron causality
In that Title I would change the word "FORM" to *ASPECT* (a non-causal result) of
"BECOMING",
IMO, an event produces two simultaneous results. A physical "EFFECT" and a variable
"DURATION" of *becoming expressed* as Effect, depending on external conditions (medium).
In fact I would rewrite the title to read;
*Potential (implicate)-->Cause (force)-->Duration of Becoming (time)-->Effect (explicate)*
From your own words:
Can you explain how an abstraction can be causal?
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
1- Duration is the history of becoming. History is constructed from becoming.
2- The measurements of time, like any magnitude, are abstract.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, time is constructed (a result) of becoming, therefore it is not *causal to*, but *caused by* (a result).
That does not answer the question. In fact, the way you stated it is incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
IOW, how would you measure time itself? An abstract clock?
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
No. The result of the measurement of time is an abstraction. That is very clear.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That still des not answer the question; How would you be able to measure time itself without creating the duration of measurement?
If we add a single word, your comment would read:
"The result of the measurement of time *created* (duration) is an abstraction. That is very clear"
But then, how can an abstract result be causal to itself?
I really believe that my POV that time is a result of change in a permittive condition, rather than a result of change in a separate dimension of time, is not in conflict with science.
Time is one of the mathematical abstract potentials of a priori *permittive condition*, which allows for change and creates a duration of change.
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
In other words.
The characteristics of becoming-duration duality (time) are: objective, flowing and measurable. Becoming are changes and duration are intervals.
- Without becoming no duration, and without duration no time.
- Thought is abstract.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
On that I agree. It is what I have been trying to say all along.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
I am glad you agree. My goal is to seek the consensus on the theme of time.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
DIVERSE OPINIONS ABOUT TIME
Time is a physical magnitude that affects all reality, but we do not have a specific sense to perceive intervals. This makes each person makes a different idea about the nature of time. There is no consensus about what time is.
1- Heraclitus of Ephesus (philosopher): becoming flows like a river, is the Being.
2- Parmenides (philosopher): no changes, no time.
3- Isaac Newton (physicist) time is real and absolute.
4- Immanuel Kant (philosopher): time is an a priori form.
5- Albert Einstein (physicist): Time is an illusion and relative.
6- Henri Bergson (philosopher): rejected the mathematical time.
7- Martin Heidegger (philosopher): time is the being-there or dasein, time is temporary.
8- Julian Barbour (physicist): time does not exist.
9- Paul Davies (physicist): defends the unidirectionality or arrow of time.
10- José Ignacio Latorre (physicist): time is a parameter that connects two movements.
11- Lee Smolin (physicist): time is real.
12- Bradford Skow (philosopher): past, present and future coexist in the universe.
13- David Eagleman (neurobiologist): time is invented by the brain.
Summary of these opinions:
1. It is objective (real)
2. It is subjective (ilussion)
3. It is subjective (a priori)
4. It is the becoming-duration duality (real)
Elvis Sibilia
Time is a physical magnitude that affects all reality, but we do not have a specific sense to perceive intervals. This makes each person makes a different idea about the nature of time. There is no consensus about what time is.
1- Heraclitus of Ephesus (philosopher): becoming flows like a river, is the Being.
2- Parmenides (philosopher): no changes, no time.
3- Isaac Newton (physicist) time is real and absolute.
4- Immanuel Kant (philosopher): time is an a priori form.
5- Albert Einstein (physicist): Time is an illusion and relative.
6- Henri Bergson (philosopher): rejected the mathematical time.
7- Martin Heidegger (philosopher): time is the being-there or dasein, time is temporary.
8- Julian Barbour (physicist): time does not exist.
9- Paul Davies (physicist): defends the unidirectionality or arrow of time.
10- José Ignacio Latorre (physicist): time is a parameter that connects two movements.
11- Lee Smolin (physicist): time is real.
12- Bradford Skow (philosopher): past, present and future coexist in the universe.
13- David Eagleman (neurobiologist): time is invented by the brain.
Summary of these opinions:
1. It is objective (real)
2. It is subjective (ilussion)
3. It is subjective (a priori)
4. It is the becoming-duration duality (real)
Elvis Sibilia
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
THE PHILOCHRON CONSENSUS
I have abandoned the idea of the intangibility of time. Now I think time is objective because we perceive intervals sequentially. The sense of time is the chromnesia (from Greek khronos = time y mnesis = memory).
Time, in any frame of reference, is inexorable or absolute in the sense that the succession of moments is continuous and irreversible. Time is unstoppable and unrepeatable. Time is also relative if we consider the speed in what a body or a particle moves.
The OAT (objective abstract time) changes to OFT (objective flowing time).
I have abandoned the idea of the intangibility of time. Now I think time is objective because we perceive intervals sequentially. The sense of time is the chromnesia (from Greek khronos = time y mnesis = memory).
Time, in any frame of reference, is inexorable or absolute in the sense that the succession of moments is continuous and irreversible. Time is unstoppable and unrepeatable. Time is also relative if we consider the speed in what a body or a particle moves.
The OAT (objective abstract time) changes to OFT (objective flowing time).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
My problem with all descriptions of time is that it is always going "forward" (in chronology), but is totally independent of direction of the chronology of events, and is *variable* depending on relative speed of chronology, in any direction.
I can physically move forward or backward, up or down, straight or curved, or even remain stationary, but I'll always be moving *forward* in time. If two chronologies occur in opposite direction, each future lies in the direction of the other's past, and the duration of each chronology speeds up or slows down relative to the speed of the chronologies as they approach and eventually pass each other.
Somehow, this seems to present a contradiction, suggesting that time is not itself an existing medium, but is always a result of *relative duration* of events in all 3D directions.
I am nor sure what conclusions this leads to, but IMO, Time as a separately existing dimension cannot exist, except as a concurrent result of change, both outward and inward.
I can physically move forward or backward, up or down, straight or curved, or even remain stationary, but I'll always be moving *forward* in time. If two chronologies occur in opposite direction, each future lies in the direction of the other's past, and the duration of each chronology speeds up or slows down relative to the speed of the chronologies as they approach and eventually pass each other.
Somehow, this seems to present a contradiction, suggesting that time is not itself an existing medium, but is always a result of *relative duration* of events in all 3D directions.
I am nor sure what conclusions this leads to, but IMO, Time as a separately existing dimension cannot exist, except as a concurrent result of change, both outward and inward.
Last edited:
- Status