Does "time" really exist?

a reply to: greenreflections


I know what 'time' is! Time is what I have never enough)))))

On a serious note...
I guess, mathematically it is possible to tie '0' to 'infinity' as opposites...May be. It is interesting since 'infinity' some equal to chaos, '0' would mean absence of chaos, right? For a moment I can substitute and think of '+' and 'minus' in place of '0' and 'infinity'. Knowing plus and minus 'attract', 0 and infinity would also be mutual points of 'attraction'. It is a loop.

'Chaos' is thermodynamically impossible by definition...Then '0' is impossible too. 'Time' is a state of 'being' ..a midpoint between 'impossibilities'.



cheers)

originally posted by: OOOOOO
a reply to: dfnj2015

It would seem you can see time, as I stated be for, time, the 4th dimension, is the movement of a 3 dimensional object, in a 3 dimensional space.
If you had a 3 dimensional space, in which you had no movement of another 3 dimensional object within these confines, you would then in effect, have a singularity. Then you would have the question, does time really stop within a singularity, as stated by many physicist, in my thought's time would not, could not stop, as that would in essence mean that nothing would ever occur.
In my thought's, theories, I would say something is still occurring within the singularity, such as preparation for the next simulation. Movement, action of some sort.

There is nothing in the movement to suggest it has happening in discrete portions. The movement is one continuous non interrupted sequence, hence, time only exists because you claim what you are seeing is time. Making a subjective judgment about time is like claiming something in reality is evidence for God. It's just a judgment and artificially created convention on your part.

originally posted by: OOOOOO
When these physicist, claim that time slows and stops within a black hole, they are severely mistaken, as if this did occur it would mean the end of the event, if a black hole is still feeding, this fact more than simplifies that movement is transpiring within the black hole it is not stopped, but dissembling elemental matter down to it's most basic components, now sure, your going to have some excess material, look what is going on, your making a thick quark Flambe. It's not going to evaporate such as a mini Black hole would,"Hawking's Radiation".

There is a very small subset of mathematically true assertions that represent a pattern of nature's behavior. Without a very confined and controlled context most mathematics used to represent nature's behaviors are meaningless. This is because although nature behaves in what we believe is predictable patterns, in reality, patterns only exist because we make subjective judgments that the patterns exist.

Does time exist without a measurement of it? I don't think so. Time can only exist in units. I think reality is one continuous wave of energy with no discrete moments of state. If reality did exist in discrete units of time, then science would be able to have predictive models for experimental error. We would clearly understand why the laws of physics are they way they are.

But instead, reality always turns out to be stranger than anything we could ever imagine. It appears everything is connected to everything else without any humanly defined arbitrary separations. What we think we know about nature is just noise on the cosmic level of existence. Across every level of our understanding of nature, there are rogue wave moments of energy that violate our understanding of how nature should behave.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I believe that some time in nature would do you good, understanding the laws, which you are confined to, and what you imagine is not real.

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: dfnj2015

I believe that some time in nature would do you good, understanding the laws, which you are confined to, and what you imagine is not real.

That's funny thing to say. You are a very good comedian. I always thought everything I imagine is not real.

Friends,

Perhaps you will find my new topic regarding the illusion of time interesting?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Time as a dimension absolutely exists. It has to, otherwise existence would not exist. In fact I would say that time is probably the most crucial dimension of them all.

Let me try a rather weak analogy, but hopefully it will get the idea across: Suppose we agreed to meet me on the corner of Main street and Elm street. We would have the spacial coordinates to do so, but not the temporal one. Without a when to meet, so to speak, the meeting can't happen. It won't exist, therefore we won't exist at that physical location, UNLESS, we have set a time to be there in that space.

Same idea with the universe. It could probably exist as just 1 spacial dimension, but without a "when" dimension - e.g 'now' - it can/will/does not exist in space. The mere existence of the universe is proof of time itself.

So this whole idea about time being an illusion so therefore it doesn't exist is a bit misguided I think. Illusions still exist, just as a different perception/experience in our mind.

My 2c

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Then in what plank does your mind chew on or is it a beam of light in which it raditates does it send out good vibrations or god vibrations lol

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: dfnj2015

Time as a dimension absolutely exists. It has to, otherwise existence would not exist. In fact I would say that time is probably the most crucial dimension of them all.

Let me try a rather weak analogy, but hopefully it will get the idea across: Suppose we agreed to meet me on the corner of Main street and Elm street. We would have the spacial coordinates to do so, but not the temporal one. Without a when to meet, so to speak, the meeting can't happen. It won't exist, therefore we won't exist at that physical location, UNLESS, we have set a time to be there in that space.

Same idea with the universe. It could probably exist as just 1 spacial dimension, but without a "when" dimension - e.g 'now' - it can/will/does not exist in space. The mere existence of the universe is proof of time itself.

So this whole idea about time being an illusion so therefore it doesn't exist is a bit misguided I think. Illusions still exist, just as a different perception/experience in our mind.

My 2c

May I ask you...How is it 'time' a dimension? It is not spatial...there might be number of spatial dimensions. but 'time' does not qualify to as 'them'. My house, for example, can be given coordinates in 3D. Time coordinate is not necessary in this case as I can do away without 'time' factor while searching for my house on the space map. Not ever. How 'time' is a dimension?
Yes, science says 3D + time, but that does not make 'time' a dimension. 'Dimension' is an attribute of a volume of space and 'time' is not part of it because I can do away without it on coordinate system. 2D + time would make no sense because true 'dimension' is missing.

Time is really a 'duration' from 'life' perspective.


cheers)

a reply to: greenreflections

"Duration' is 'apparent' to life. Some saying 'time' is a human concept to which I disagree. 'Time' (duration) is available to all life...that's what differentiates it from the rest. Life is a stationary processing phenomenon, in a strict sense it moves too, but it acquired and found use of (and about) surrounding environment. It is a self serving sensor where 'reaction' mechanism to changes in physical conditions always benefit. Meaning there is no ultimate destruction, only an experience added and assimilated type of basic algorithm, which requires arbitrary 'time' (or condition from where motion is 'sensible'')... Again, meaning 'positive' or 'negative' combined would always equal 'positive' Or at least how it looks like to me.

'Time' is not a dimension in a sense, imo. Time's main feature is an arrow. It has a direction.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: dfnj2015
Time as a dimension absolutely exists. It has to, otherwise existence would not exist. In fact I would say that time is probably the most crucial dimension of them all.
Let me try a rather weak analogy, but hopefully it will get the idea across: Suppose we agreed to meet me on the corner of Main street and Elm street. We would have the spacial coordinates to do so, but not the temporal one. Without a when to meet, so to speak, the meeting can't happen. It won't exist, therefore we won't exist at that physical location, UNLESS, we have set a time to be there in that space.
Same idea with the universe. It could probably exist as just 1 spacial dimension, but without a "when" dimension - e.g 'now' - it can/will/does not exist in space. The mere existence of the universe is proof of time itself.
So this whole idea about time being an illusion so therefore it doesn't exist is a bit misguided I think. Illusions still exist, just as a different perception/experience in our mind.
My 2c

Thanks for the post. I don't think what I am saying is in conflict with what you are saying. I think both analog existence and our arbitrary construct of time can coexist. I'm not saying that our experience of moment to moment doesn't exist. What I am saying is although we experience moment to moment as a discrete well defined experience in reality there is no separation between moments in reality. The laws of physics never stop flowing through existence even though the mathematics we use to represent nature's behavior may include an arbitrary time component. Just because our experience of nature is limited by our own human limitations does not mean there is not more going on than we are capable of experiencing. The mathematics we use to represent nature's behavior is a human lens of perception lacking complete precision.

Again, the question of the thread is time real or just a human construct. I have not seen anyone post any evidence to suggest that time is real. Nature behaves in repeatable patterns according to clock but a clock is not a inherent part of nature. Nature just has patterns. We make measurements in arbitrary amounts and sample rates. We make measurements with arbitrary stop and start points but as far as I can tell nature never stops being nature. Nature has no clock as far as I can tell. I have never seen nature stop moving.

originally posted by: greenreflections
May I ask you...How is it 'time' a dimension? It is not spatial...there might be number of spatial dimensions. but 'time' does not qualify to as 'them'. My house, for example, can be given coordinates in 3D. Time coordinate is not necessary in this case as I can do away without 'time' factor while searching for my house on the space map. Not ever. How 'time' is a dimension?
Yes, science says 3D + time, but that does not make 'time' a dimension. 'Dimension' is an attribute of a volume of space and 'time' is not part of it because I can do away without it on coordinate system. 2D + time would make no sense because true 'dimension' is missing.

Dimensions are defined by a measurable point of existence (at least as I understand it) within space. So yes, most of us think of dimensions only spatially (length, width, height, or as some point in a physical space). Time tends to be relegated to an illusion since there is nothing tangible to it. Now in your example, you can pin point 'where' in space your house is located. But what good are its physical coordinates for location if you don't have a time coordinate to exist in space?

Without a temporal location (either now, 100 years ago, 1000 years from now, etc etc) in space there can be no physical location in space. Time therefore must be a dimension of existence. The universe exists right now. If it didn't, there would be no universe. It sounds circular because it is.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The human measurement of time is different from the actual aspect of time that makes up the fabric of the universe. We've created a measurement of time using clocks and watches and sun dials, all human tools, to keep track of the intervals of rotations of our earth on its axis and its own revolution around our star.

But what Einstein referred to as space time are the 3 physical dimensions fused with the one temporal dimensions for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts.

How do you define a physical point in space without specifying when it should be there?

If time is not real, then when do you exist?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Dimensions are defined by a measurable point of existence (at least as I understand it) within space. So yes, most of us think of dimensions only spatially (length, width, height, or as some point in a physical space)

You see, I can nullify time dimension, but I cannot do the same to the other three. Otherwise information set about location of my house is incomplete. 2D+time is useless information.


thanks) cheers)

a reply to: PhotonEffect

We've created a measurement of time using clocks and watches and sun dials, all human tools

I disagree. My cat can catch a toy I kick in the air. For my cat to do it, it must have sense of timing which leads to anticipation of best catch trajectory spot. That carbon based life form, that leaves tons of hair on the carpet, has built in 'watch-timer'!

I liked the part about the tree in the forest.

If time has a quantum connection, the observation of the tree could be collapsing time wave functions to a construct you understand, while with no observation it could be completely different.

So I actually disagree with that example, not only does the tree not fall, but time is relative. If the tree were to fall, it even takes different amounts of time via perspective.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: PhotonEffect

We've created a measurement of time using clocks and watches and sun dials, all human tools

I disagree. My cat can catch a toy I kick in the air. For my cat to do it, it must have sense of timing which leads to anticipation of best catch trajectory spot. That carbon based life form, that leaves tons of hair on the carpet, has built in 'watch-timer'!

I will attempt to give more thought on the concept of 'duration' and 'now'. Only few words before I forget what the heck I was thinking that evening))

To me most significant feature of 'time' is a direction -- a vector. A vector is a driving condition to make 'time' to go 'forward' and never experience previous moment. To satisfy condition of duration I have to assume that cosmos has vector obeying 'time' rule which I can call 'to advance' and I am some how appear to be in suspension state where all events flash sequentially constituting 'moments', giving meaning to 'cause and effect' rule. That rule alone is a prove of 'time' having a direction, me thinks. Or I move with a 'time' arrow and cosmos is in stand still frozen state, where I roll over its scape creating a sequence of events myself.

GR will tell you motion is relative and in my case above, it does not matter what is truly moving -- me or cosmos, but here is the thing. It does. I, as an observer, besides doing counts on my clock, also measuring an events sequence that makes sense. Cause and effect thing.

I will try to extend this line of thought another time.

Happy new year board!!!


cheers)

Good thread.

From here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Elysiumfire

It has become somewhat tiresome having to rebut the incomprehensions others hold on statements of logic I am making. It seems that some of you quite simply are unable to get that 'eureka!' moment of cognizance when the meaning of my statements suddenly become clear. I'll try to clarify the logic of the following two statements: a) space has no interactive properties; and b) time does not exist as an independent reality.

These are two very simple statements with clear premise. Let's take the first statement...space has no interactive properties.

What is space? We can only infer an answer to this question by showing what space is not. Can we agree on the following proposition? The universe has two aspects to it, the first being space itself, and the second aspect is that some or all of space has content in it. Space cannot be contained by itself, space contains content. Content can contain space, and content can and does contain other aspects of content.

So what is content? Content is all the matter, both with and without mass, throughout the universe. It is content that provides the 3-dimensional reality in which all of existence abides. Now here is why space has no interactive properties...space does not exist. The only reason why you can know space is by the content in space. Without content in space, you would have no vector coordinates by which to appreciate space, and of course, if there is no content, you don't exist, anyway.

Space is not a 'something' of 'nothing', it is the absence of content, and that does not make it a 'something' of no content. Something of nothing is nothing. Space, as we understand it, is only as large and as wide as the spread of the content in it. We see 'space' because we infer it from the emptiness between the vector coordinates of content, and in the last...space absolutely does not interact with content. Only content interacts with content: ergo, space cannot be warped by energy either as matter or as force. Space is not a 'fabric', and if space did interact with content, it would constrain the expansion of the universe, because then you are treating space as a form of matter, and no, space is not dark energy or dark matter. Space really is nothing. It is an immaterial non-existence.

Let's take the second premise statement. Time does not exist as an independent reality.

What is time? Our sense of time is like space, it is something we infer from something other, and that other is the motion of an event. An event is a change occurring to the content in space. Every change has a length of duration, it has a beginning and an end, and the length between the beginning and the end is the duration of the event of a change. Events, do not of course, occur with the same lengths of duration. For instance, here in England it is o6:57 am on the 31st December. Tonight at midnight the New Year is going to be delayed by 1 second. This is due to a slow down in the earth's rotation, and is thus being accounted for. An event, such as 1 full rotation of the earth, has changed by an increase of 1 second longer than what it was the year before. So, are we actually changing 'time' itself, by making a duration audit, or are we simply imposing our own sense of time upon reality?

We derive our duration length of a second by observing the length of a single oscillation of the caesium atom. A second does not actually exist. It is just an imposed unit of measurement. If I were to ask you to define time, you would probably relate it to some occurrence of change, but change is not what time is. In fact, you could not define time alternatively to what I state, without using an imposition, and if you have to use a stance of imposition for time, you are simply demonstrating it to be a man-made abstraction...nothing more.

You infer time by your observance of events around you, and in you (proprioception), and the brain cross-references them into a one stream data flow by synchronising all sense data, and from which our conscious awareness arises. In order to sense time, you need a frame of reference, just as you need a vector coordinate frame of reference to sense space. Your one stream data flow of all sense data is that frame of reference...your 'now' moment that throughout your life remains static in a sea of events of varying lengths of duration. None of this makes time real.

What is real is that events take place, changes constantly occur, and they all have their own lengths of duration.

The concept of spacetime functions as a mathematical expression, but it is not real, and is simply a man-made abstraction to infer an environment in which (not on which) events take place. Both space and time are not realities.

So if my watch is slow and I miss the plane that crashes into the mountainside, time was not a factor in saving my life, because it doesn't not exist. Got it!

carewemust:

So if my watch is slow and I miss the plane that crashes into the mountainside, time was not a factor in saving my life, because it doesn't not exist. Got it!

You are quite right, time was not a factor, but the motion of two or three needles (the hands on your watch) moving in a circular action was the factor. Time plays no part in moving those needles. Coincidental synchronicity saved you, because you synchronise your day to your watch, and your watch was slow, so physical events slowing down saved your life.

Or, as I would say...the extension to the changes of an event's length of duration (the moving needles on your watch) made you miss your plane, if you had looked at other watches or clocks, you mat have caught the plane and died.

a reply to: elysiumfire

You do realize (or maybe you don't?) that words like 'synchronize' or 'synchronicity' relate to events occurring at the same location within the temporal dimension?

If time didn't exist you wouldn't be able to use fluffy phrases like "coincidental synchronicity".