Is Time Real?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 3rd, 2017, 10:47 pm 

PS According to Einstein, there is no such thing as now. The order of the events do not matter. The future exists just as surely as the present and the past.

Seems to me in his block universe everything is pretty much pre-ordained. You are dead and you are born and you are pretty much everything in between. Every event never vanishes, but pretty stays there for all time. Hitler is still alive and people are still screaming in the gas chambers. Every horror you can imagine still exists.

Fortunately, methinks he is wrong. Not because I don't want to believe that, but because I am convinced the physics say otherwise. I will develop on this and how it could be proved. (or falsified)

Just read your post (Scott). I am not assuming that it cannot be pointed to.

"Each point in space [do you mean time?] moves within our apparent space and so you can still point to where it is now, where it WAS, and where you anticipate where it WILL be.

I disagree. You can only point to where it was. Every individual event has its own past (if not unique) and then it's future. It cannot point to its own future.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 3rd, 2017, 11:13 pm 

Hi Guys,

It feels like we are all correct but are seeing things from different angles. Much like the 7 Blind Men having a dispute over the nature of an Elephant. Or was it 7 Blind Elephants having a dispute over the nature of a Man?

You know the story..? Each Elephant took its turn feeling the Man. Then they later compared notes and found they all agreed.. that Man was like a puddle of grainy mush.

I think the Model I presented covers more issues than any other Model I've seen to date. When we view the Universe as a solid 4D Hyper-Sphere, then many issues in Quantum Mechanics become understandable.

The Planck Length and Planck Interval (also a length) combine to determine the Speed of Light. But is the Planck Length the same size everywhere? If Matter bleeding through to each new layer of Space-Time has a restrictive effect on the Cell Size then the Space-Time Cells around Matter become restricted/clamped in Growth Size to maintain the Geometry of said Matter. Thus the Space in and around Galaxies would not expand as fast as the Deep Voids. Planck Size differentials in a given volume could be described as a Density Curvature and play an important role in Gravity.

Bottom line.. I've only just scratched the surface of this Model so far in this thread. But first.. let's decide if Space-Time is Empty or composed of Discrete Cells. Literally Tesseracts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

Is Matter a part of Space-Time or separate from Space-Time?

Going to bed now.. catch everyone later..
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 3rd, 2017, 11:23 pm 

PS Scott I had a look at Brian Greene's video that you had suggested and commented in my previous post in Physics. Produced here again:

I have looked at Brian Greene's video, where he argues that a person in another galaxy could "see" our future, depending on the direction he was traveling, relative to us. And presumably, we could also "see" the future of people there, depending on our direction. I am unconvinced by his argument. For one thing, universally, the further we look into space, the further back we look into time. There is no way we could travel there at the instant we see it, given the limitation of the speed of all matter. To me, it makes much more sense to view those past images as illusions, which were once real, but have slipped into the past, rather than realities that persist for all time.

According to relativity time does not flow uniformly, leading to disagreements in clocks, depending on gravity and motion. But there are no disagreements about events that happen at specific locations in spacetime. Thus I was born at such and such time, in such and such location in space. Or a specific location in spacetime.

What happened after that? Well heaps of things, They were real at the time they happened, but, in my opinion, all those events have slipped into the past, as I, along with everyone else, have traveled along the continuous creation of time, caused by the Big Bang. The analogy would be not a static wave, but a tsunami.

The Twin paradox, is not really a paradox. The traveling twin experiences time differently from his stay at home twin. It slows down for him. But he does not travel into the future. Not HIS future. His twin has had far more events in his life than him and is older, but the moment they are together, they are in the same place in space-time and events happen at the same pace as each other. The traveling twin has not traveled into his own future.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Scott Mayers on January 3rd, 2017, 11:37 pm 

rajnz00,

You said,
"PS According to Einstein, there is no such thing as now. The order of the events do not matter. The future exists just as surely as the present and the past."

THIS is precisely what I'm referring to. If you assume a 'now' isn't real, he's treating time as a distance where all of time acts as one large puzzle picture in multiple dimensions that we only interpret as 'time' and change in general. The contradiction of being able to interpret distinct 3-dimensional frames simultaneously are 'resolved' by a separation of distinct dimensions that allows us IN that frame to make sense of it.

"You can only point to where it was. Every individual event has its own past (if not unique) and then it's future. It cannot point to its own future."

Technically, in line with how Einstein might argue on the point above, NO, not even a past is actually any more real than the future from the present. Our 'memory' of the past is all that represents the moments prior to the present. The confidence we interpret about it existing is actually what we HOLD at any present moment.

But also note that our conscious experience at a particular moment is also in a type of 'logical superposition' in space in that we 'feel' multiple points in space of our brain's neural activity as occurring at once. This too should make you see that reality 'resolves' the apparent contradiction of being at multiple points as its own 'dimension' that we cannot point to as ONE single point in space. The rational justification for this is to require that our sensation of experiencing even SPACE itself is unreal in Einstein's sense, but an illusive appearance of the 3-dimensional spaces. It still needs a fourth of time for us to 'experience' at all the way we do. All can be understood as sets of mathematical relations of points in a static-like multi-dimensional way.

What is your alternative idea? I bet it can still be equally interpreted as 'distances' still.

Dave Oblad just posted and so I have to say that I agree with his point as I just happened to mention in the last sentence. We could likely have alternative ideas that may be only different about perspective descriptions only.

To Dave,

It could be even more than a 'tesseract' too. But what the 'shadow' shape this describes leaves out is that these dimensions derive at EACH point distinctly everywhere in our 3-D spaces and why it is hard to represent without 'experiencing' things through the sensation of time. And note what I just mentioned about consciousness here too. That our 3-dimensional spaces are equally just a kind of illusion that justifies how we can 'feel' aware. If we were actually ONE 'point'-of-being, our multiple sensations (like being able to simultaneously sense many things at once) can only be 'manifest' by having spaces interpreted as distinct points that complexly create the illusion of space.

But 'illusion' doesn't mean "unreal" here, just our incomplete perception by perspective of it. I look forward to getting into more depth with you on this.

Scott.

P.S. rajnz00, you also now posted as I tried to post this and so will respond separately to your last one to keep this less confusing.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Scott Mayers on January 4th, 2017, 12:00 am 

rajnz00 » January 3rd, 2017, 10:23 pm wrote:PS Scott I had a look at Brian Greene's video that you had suggested and commented in my previous post in Physics. Produced here again:

I have looked at Brian Greene's video, where he argues that a person in another galaxy could "see" our future, depending on the direction he was traveling, relative to us. And presumably, we could also "see" the future of people there, depending on our direction. I am unconvinced by his argument. For one thing, universally, the further we look into space, the further back we look into time. There is no way we could travel there at the instant we see it, given the limitation of the speed of all matter. To me, it makes much more sense to view those past images as illusions, which were once real, but have slipped into the past, rather than realities that persist for all time.

According to relativity time does not flow uniformly, leading to disagreements in clocks, depending on gravity and motion. But there are no disagreements about events that happen at specific locations in spacetime. Thus I was born at such and such time, in such and such location in space. Or a specific location in spacetime.

What happened after that? Well heaps of things, They were real at the time they happened, but, in my opinion, all those events have slipped into the past, as I, along with everyone else, have traveled along the continuous creation of time, caused by the Big Bang. The analogy would be not a static wave, but a tsunami.

The Twin paradox, is not really a paradox. The traveling twin experiences time differently from his stay at home twin. It slows down for him. But he does not travel into the future. Not HIS future. His twin has had far more events in his life than him and is older, but the moment they are together, they are in the same place in space-time and events happen at the same pace as each other. The traveling twin has not traveled into his own future.

I also understand and may agree with some of the points you make here. I think that Brian still did a good explanation even if potentially wrong at points. But he actually asserts THAT he doesn't necessarily agree to all he is explaining. He is just trying to justly give those viewpoints by his own understanding of them.

I too remember being in disagreement with his explanation regarding simultaneous events. What he appears to be arguing is from an anthropomorphic position that much of 'science' does: by assuming ONLY through our senses should we describe reality. So to him, if what is perceived is NOT literally 'simultaneous', all that matters to the science paradigm he supports is to judge the perception as the point of certainty we can speak on. I find it somewhat confusing and even Einstein at times seemed to be arguing 'simultaneous' reality to be non-existent. I think it is again about perspective explanations only.

It is like arguing whether a dream we had was 'real' or not. If we question the EXPERIENCE of it, the experience as a perspective is 'real' but the literal interpretation of it may be in question. However, if we treat it only as an illusion, does this mean the interpretation of it too is 'unreal'? We just mean it is not a 'shareable' kind of reality only. To those supporting "science" as a descriptive factor (often of the strict quantum mechanical scientists), then the 'illusion' is real when or where it is experienced but the interpretation of it is default to exist WHERE and WHEN it occurred or has to be pretended as such. Brian is a quantum mechanics scientist and so treats the description AS the reality biasing things LOCALLY. This is no surprise given quantum mechanics investigates things on the most 'local' level -- the ultimate smallest points rather than the largest.

I'm with you on the Twin Paradox thing too. In reality, if one were to approach the speed of light at all, the more information translated into the vector direction by its circular movements (matter), the less it can be expected to reformulate when it must reach home (even if it traveled in a giant circle as an acceleration only). So the twin accelerating to the speed of light could no more survive it longer than the one staying at home in multiple describable ways.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BurtJordaan on January 4th, 2017, 12:32 am 

This title-question can be discussed, but never answered until "real" is precisely defined. Which I have not seen a scientific definition of so far.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2657
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BurtJordaan on January 4th, 2017, 1:09 am 

rajnz00 » 04 Jan 2017, 05:23 wrote:I have looked at Brian Greene's video, where he argues that a person in another galaxy could "see" our future, depending on the direction he was traveling, relative to us. And presumably, we could also "see" the future of people there, depending on our direction. I am unconvinced by his argument. For one thing, universally, the further we look into space, the further back we look into time.

Brian's expose is correct, but terribly vague. He tends to leave things unqualified, or has qualified it too far back for anyone to remember the caveats.

His "see" means that a whole grid of "Brian-static observers", with clocks synchronized to his clock, observe an event in my galaxy at one of his team's common (but 'private') "now moments" and they then later communicate the information to him. I have my own grid of synchronized observers and based on our private "nows", we observe the same event as either later or earlier in time than Brian. Standard SR stuff and rather trivial.

My problem with Brian is that he tends to sensationalize such trivial stuff to a point where his audience's mouths drop, but then they leave confused.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2657
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 1:47 am 

BurtJordaan » January 4th, 2017, 12:32 am wrote:This title-question can be discussed, but never answered until "real" is precisely defined. Which I have not seen a scientific definition of so far.


I'll try my best.

Is Time Real?

Definition of Time being Real -
1. The flow of Time exists, it is not an illusion like Newtonian Gravity. or centrifugal force.
2. The flow of Time is unidirectional, from the present into the past
3. Time is a sequential order of events - as 1 is before 2, so your birth is before your first birthday, before your teen years and death. On a cosmological scale, the Big-Bang is before now.
4. Time is relative, and individual, to all objects in the Universe
5. The past of any object is inaccessible to it. Thus ceases to exist.
6. The future of any object does not exist.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 1:51 am 

"My problem with Brian is that he tends to sensationalize such trivial stuff to a point where his audience's mouths drop, but then they leave confused."

Lol - maybe that's his aim - (what did he say? Sounds awesome though)
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Scott Mayers on January 4th, 2017, 2:16 am 

rajnz00 » January 4th, 2017, 12:51 am wrote:"My problem with Brian is that he tends to sensationalize such trivial stuff to a point where his audience's mouths drop, but then they leave confused."

Lol - maybe that's his aim - (what did he say? Sounds awesome though)

I like his take on this over some others because it IS sensational 'graphically' and descriptively BUT seems to explain it in a way that to me seems should be very EASY to follow by my own standards. This could be just about personality types though. Most don't seem to follow how I communicate even though I trust my own clarity.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 4th, 2017, 2:29 am 

rajnz00 » January 4th, 2017, 1:47 pm wrote:
BurtJordaan » January 4th, 2017, 12:32 am wrote:This title-question can be discussed, but never answered until "real" is precisely defined. Which I have not seen a scientific definition of so far.


I'll try my best.

Is Time Real?

Definition of Time being Real -
1. The flow of Time exists, it is not an illusion like Newtonian Gravity. or centrifugal force.
2. The flow of Time is unidirectional, from the present into the past
3. Time is a sequential order of events - as 1 is before 2, so your birth is before your first birthday, before your teen years and death. On a cosmological scale, the Big-Bang is before now.
4. Time is relative, and individual, to all objects in the Universe
5. The past of any object is inaccessible to it. Thus ceases to exist.
6. The future of any object does not exist.


You make me smile.

This is precisely the problem I repeatedly try to express about the inability of the scientific community to bridge the gap between science and human explanation.

Raj -

You are pointing out some interesting questions. Sadly science has literally nothing to say about them. For this reason you'll be dismissed from scientific discussion being unable to place a yard-stick alongside your personal experience of time.

You may find interest in looking into cognitive neuroscience regarding our "appreciation" of time. You will of course hit a wall of understanding there too but it should at least open up an alternative perspective in regards to physics.

The above will also fall in line with linguistics and how we as a community of humans knwo the world individually as individuals in a community not in isolation (this would be more of an anthropological approach of views our "appreciation" of time, and "science").

The less mathematically defined and discernable will be progressively shoved away from the edifice of "science". Time is defined by the second which is the decay of X sodium blah, blah, blah ... if there is no consistancy in the art of measuring then science becomes guess work structured around previous measurements and appreciations of their patterns in order to establish better and more accurate ways to measure.

Have you read "Cycles of Time" by Roger Penrose?

Burt -

If science has no claim over any meaning of "reality" then it has no claim to anything. Raj is asking a question and wants to know what sciemtists have to say about physical reality. So does "time" have a physical reality? That is what is being asked.

Given that we want to answer this scientifically we must then understand what science calls "real". If you do not know this then you do not know science!

So is "gravity" real? I would answer that it is real. How is grvaity real to the scientist? It is real because it is a force that has correlations to measurements that can be seen to have enough consistancy to be varified by numerous independent instances.

More simply put ... what is time to physical objectivism? It is a "measure" defined by the phenomenon of light which is itself assumed as a universal constant. This in-itself doesn't do a whole lot to our personal appreciation of time.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 3:05 am 

So is "gravity" real? I would answer that it is real. How is grvaity real to the scientist? It is real because it is a force that has correlations to measurements that can be seen to have enough consistancy to be varified by numerous independent instances.


So you would answer that the sun going around the Earth is real. After all the Ptolemaic charts were highly accurate having been confirmed by many independent observations.

And methinks you are talking about Newtonian gravity, since you refer to it as a force. Which has also been "verified" to a great deal of accuracy, yet found to be illusory and unreal.

Sadly science has literally nothing to say about them. For this reason you'll be dismissed from scientific discussion being unable to place a yard-stick alongside your personal experience of time.


On the contrary, science has plenty to say about it. I haven't laid my case as yet. And I find your declaration to be a bit condescending and patronising.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 4th, 2017, 3:53 am 

I am just some person online. It is not my intent to offend you only to ask questions amd say what I think is of some minute use.

My point was that you ask questions that unsettle people because they are hard to approach. Grvaity does exist because I don't float around and when I jump up I come back down.

Our understanding of the phenomenon of "gravity" is almosy certainly incomplete. There is a difference.

By saying "gravity" is "unreal" you mean what?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 4th, 2017, 3:58 am 

Just to add ... The Sun does go around the Earth. The Earth also goes around the Sun. It mathematically more simplistic to view the Earth as going around the Sun in relation the all the other planets so convention generally has us look at the solar system in such a way today. In day to day life the obvious natural view does not share this opinion.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 4:28 am 

It is not my intent to offend you only to ask questions amd say what I think is of some minute use.


"...you'll be dismissed from scientific discussion being unable to place a yard-stick alongside your personal experience of time." is not a question. It's a statement. Quite authoritative. Like one made from an administrator.

]By saying "gravity" is "unreal" you mean what?


Exactly that. There is no force of gravity as stated by you.

It mathematically more simplistic to view the Earth as going around the Sun in relation the all the other planets so convention generally has us look at the solar system in such a way today. In day to day life the obvious natural view does not share this opinion.


That's pretty Lucid
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 4th, 2017, 5:03 am 

I said there is a correlation between "gravity" (as a measureable force) and other measureable phenomena. I expeeience falling objects (including myself) and everyone else seems pretty convinced of this too. Many people also understand that this experienced phenomena is measureable and correlates to other natural phenomena that are also measureable (such as bodies quantified as "mass", and physical fields). So grvaity does exist and is real in a phsyical and natural everyday sense. We infer what it is by measuring stuff, yet we do not getc to the "essence" of it (if there is such a thing !).

By subjective yard-stick I was referring to your personal subjective appreciation of time has no unit of measure. Science relies n mesasuring phenomenon. Given we all share a common experience of this thing we call "time" and have a subjective amdnintuitive understanding of it, we use our ability to measure in order to frame a unit time. How this measurement of time correlates to other measurements is the theme of science.

To say "real" you need to frame the meaning of "real" in scientific terms. Physicalistic obecjtive sense time is an essential form of measuring. As a natural experience we can come to understand this peculiar "thing" called time in many unique and analogous ways and even use this understanding to direct the question at the meaning of "time" subjectively rather than in a universal sense when used as a unit of measure to appreciate nature in an objective sense.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 6:31 am 

I expeeience falling objects (including myself) and everyone else seems pretty convinced of this too.


That's a good scientific definition of gravity? Have you also experienced the passage of time? Have you got older since you were born?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 6:50 am 

"The origin of the universe and the arrow of time are major unsolved problems in our understanding of the natural world. But there is every reason to expect that they will someday be understood using the laws of physics. The quest to answer these questions helps make it all meaningful."

Who said that? Sean Carroll in From Eternity to Here.

But what the heck would he know when BadgerJelly has pronounced otherwise
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 4th, 2017, 10:14 am 

rajnz00 » January 4th, 2017, 6:31 pm wrote:
I expeeience falling objects (including myself) and everyone else seems pretty convinced of this too.


That's a good scientific definition of gravity? Have you also experienced the passage of time? Have you got older since you were born?


Did I call it a "scientific definition". No.

I'll leave you to discuss this with others. I guess I've accidentally riled you.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby BurtJordaan on January 4th, 2017, 1:17 pm 

BadgerJelly » 04 Jan 2017, 08:29 wrote:Burt -

If science has no claim over any meaning of "reality" then it has no claim to anything. Raj is asking a question and wants to know what sciemtists have to say about physical reality. So does "time" have a physical reality? That is what is being asked.

Given that we want to answer this scientifically we must then understand what science calls "real". If you do not know this then you do not know science!


Science don't care too much about "real", "reality", etc. because in "reality", the word "real" causes lots of confusion... ;)

In physics, we would speak of "proper time" and have an unambiguous definition for that. We don't have that for "real time", because we don't need it; and I think Einstein, jokingly, said it best: "time is what clocks measure". I think it was John Wheeler who added: "time exists so that everything don't happen at once".

Nice barbecue topic, but don't expect any real answers... ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2657
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 1:22 pm 

Raj and everyone,

Real; c. Having objective independent existence(Merriam Webster) Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; Not imagined or supposed.

Time does not actually exist as a distinct independent thing or distinct independent object existing anywhere in the universe. Which in and of itself also means time does not actually exist independent of man's timekeeping system in any object or thing form. Time does not flow...only an object or thing can do this. Time does not directly physically age you or anyone else...again, only an object or thing can do this;

Time does not physically exist as a distinct independent object or thing anywhere in the universe: What was always observed as...or the illusion of "time" existing physically somewhere in object or thing form, was instead always something else actually physically existing somewhere on closer examination in object or thing form ...never "time".

Spacetime exists mathematically(geometry) in the universe but not physically in object or thing form(Marshall):

There is no scientific evidence that time exists physically anywhere in the universe in distinct independent object or thing form, and I again challenge anyone to point to something/anything that proves time is actually existing somewhere/anywhere independently in distinct physical object or thing form anywhere in the universe(Please very be careful that the physical independent object or thing that you are pointing to to prove that this is actually "time" physically existing here in independent object or thing form somewhere and not again something else actually or instead physically existing here in object or thing form).
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby TheVat on January 4th, 2017, 2:23 pm 

This Strawman argument keeps cropping up. I don't believe anyone has ever argued that time is a "distinct physical object." Saying that it is a dimension along which physical objects move is not the same. That's just a way of describing change, as it follows certain observed regularities. Saying that physical objects (like clocks, per Albert) can measure it is not the same as saying it's an object. Time, like many other phenomena in physics, is an abstract dimension that is used to describe some pattern in nature, in this case, to describe regular change. So, when we speak of "proper time," it is only in a very loose and unassuming way that we say it's "real."
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7273
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Forest_Dump liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 3:21 pm 

Braininvat » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:23 pm wrote:This Strawman argument keeps cropping up. I don't believe anyone has ever argued that time is a "distinct physical object." Saying that it is a dimension along which physical objects move is not the same. That's just a way of describing change, as it follows certain observed regularities. Saying that physical objects (like clocks, per Albert) can measure it is not the same as saying it's an object. Time, like many other phenomena in physics, is an abstract dimension that is used to describe some pattern in nature, in this case, to describe regular change. So, when we speak of "proper time," it is only in a very loose and unassuming way that we say it's "real."


"Strawman"? The question asked was "is time real?" According to the two definitions I posted here, time is not real because it has no objective existence(not a distinct physical object or thing existing anywhere in the universe), a fact which you appear to be in total agreement with. ???
Last edited by ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 4th, 2017, 3:27 pm 

Hi all,

I believe that any test for the Reality of something, as measured by multiple observers that agree, can be used to define something as Real. It doesn't have to be an Object or Physical.

If we all drop an object and see it fall.. then Gravity is "Real".
If we try to occupy 1 space with two people at the same time and find it impossible, but two people can occupy the same 1 space at different Times, then Time is "Real".

If we accept something that is consistently measurable by multiple observers.. then it's "Real".

But just like Gravity is Not a pulling force (as was taught awhile back), Time may also not be what we think it is.

To know what Time truly is.. requires identification of the underlying mechanism of Time. Evolution of Events is just an observation (real) but doesn't explain the "Why" of said Evolution's.

I've said that if The Universe suddenly stopped Expanding, that we would freeze-lock in place.. no more Macro Time. So I have connected Time to Physical Expansion.

As to being right about that or not.. is subject to debate or even better.. test-ability. Then we can debate if such a test is fair.. or biased to prove a desired consequence.

Ok.. just another 2 cents worth.. I have to get back to work.

Later...

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 3:34 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:27 pm wrote:Hi all,

I believe that any test for the Reality of something, as measured by multiple observers that agree, can be used to define something as Real. It doesn't have to be an Object or Physical.

If we all drop an object and see it fall.. then Gravity is "Real".
If we try to occupy 1 space with two people at the same time and find it impossible, but two people can occupy the same 1 space at different Times, then Time is "Real".

If we accept something that is consistently measurable by multiple observers.. then it's "Real".

But just like Gravity is Not a pulling force (as was taught awhile back), Time may also not be what we think it is.

To know what Time truly is.. requires identification of the underlying mechanism of Time. Evolution of Events is just an observation (real) but doesn't explain the "Why" of said Evolution's.

I've said that if The Universe suddenly stopped Expanding, that we would freeze-lock in place.. no more Macro Time. So I have connected Time to Physical Expansion.

As to being right about that or not.. is subject to debate or even better.. test-ability. Then we can debate if such a test is fair.. or biased to prove a desired consequence.

Ok.. just another 2 cents worth.. I have to get back to work.

Later...

Regards,
Dave :^)


Sorry Dave, but I prefer going with two established sources for a proper definition of the word "real" than something you just came up with off the top of your head: Thanks anyway though.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 4:42 pm 

BadgerJelly the only reason you have riled me is your gleefully jumping in and suggesting/ declaring that I should be/ will be, shut down. Many threads in physics I can see have been shut down, but none on this forum.

I've have, very very very briefly, (I timed myself with a clock, which may have been illusory), had a look at a couple of your topics. Do a bit of self-examination to see how scientific they are.

ronjanec, "Real; c. Having objective independent existence(Merriam Webster)". ronjanec, just think of it - name me one thing that has an "objective independent existence". Space? Gravity? Matter? You? and I'll show you how absurd that notion is.

"There is no scientific evidence that time exists physically anywhere in the universe in distinct independent object or thing form, and I again challenge anyone to point to something/anything that proves time is actually existing somewhere/anywhere independently"

That is not an amazing discovery. Substitute space, Gravity. matter for time - do they have an independent existence?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 5:04 pm 

Raj,

"Name me one thing"? I personally(and many other real things and objects in the universe) have a distinct object or thing(objective existence) independent physical existence that exists seperately from everything else in the universe(my personal existing being or body)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 5:33 pm 

ronjanec wrote:Raj,

"Name me one thing"? I personally(and many other real things and objects in the universe) have a distinct object or thing independent physical existence that exists seperately from everything else in the universe(my personal existing being or body)


No you don't. You have no intrinsic, independent existence. On a microscale, you consist of elementary particles which have no independent existence. And even on a macroscale, suppose you were the only object in the Universe, what would you be? A homo-sapien? How would you know without comparing yourself to another living being? Alive or dead? Would you be short? Tall? White? Black? Have any qualities without comparing it with anything else? Would there be gravity? Who would you move towards? Who would move towards you? I could go on and on. It is incredibly hubristic to think you have an independent existence.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 4th, 2017, 5:56 pm 

Raj, I am not you, and you are not me...we exist completely independent of each other in the universe.

Individual elementary particles do have a distinct independent physical existence despite being part of the composition of a much larger whole(my personal body for example), and exist in 3 spatial dimensions in their own particular physical space.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 4th, 2017, 6:12 pm 

ronjanec wrote:Raj, I am not you, and you are not me... we exist completely independent of each other in the universe


No we don't. The fact that you can recognise you are not me is totally relationally dependent. Your qualities only arise by the interaction of other things. Fundamental particles that pop into existence have no qualities at all until they are "observed", that is interact, with something else.

Don't want to go on and on. Leave you to think about it.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Dec 2016
TheVat liked this post


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests