Jump to content
Science Forums

The nature of time


phision
 Share

Recommended Posts

Time is a well defined physical quantity – that is, using it as a mathematical variable, we can make many useful predictions about future events in the physical universe, which when tested experimentally (or practically, in the everyday operation of natural or artificial systems), are correct.

 

Where most of questions along the lines of “does time exist?” become complicated, I think, is when we assume that the question “does time exist?” is semantically identical, except for a change of one term, with “does the pile of 3/4 inch gravel in my driveway exist?” Our intuitive, informal (that is, not represented by a collection of logical and arithmetic expression that can produce unambiguous truth values) understanding of the quality “exists” tends toward a definition like “when placed on a scale, registers a weight”. Piles of gravel exist in this sense. Time does not.

 

This question, then, is really a question of language semantics. We’ve discussed it at exhaustive (and at 890 posts to date, exhausting :agree:) lengths in thread 3650. In the interest of not repeating old lines of inquiry, if you’ve not yet pored through that thread, phision, I recommend you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the proof for the existence of time, or is it merely implied? please let me know?
First of all, we must first carefully define the item of interest -- in this case, TIME.

Second, we must define EXISTENCE. In other words, what is required for something to "exist"? Must it be visible? Must it be tangible? Does "love" exist? If so, note that it is neither visible nor tangible. So what what properties of existence must we look for in TIME?

Third, we must define PROOF. How shall we demonstrate the properties of existence for TIME? Can we set up an experiment to do this? Can we rely upon human experience? Will we need a clock?

 

Is there any similarity between "the experience of time" and the "experience of light"? In both cases, our human senses and our brain "tells" us that time IS and light IS. In the latter case, we have a sense organ (eyes) that directly sense the carriers of light, photons. But we have no sense organ that directly senses the carriers of time.

 

If TIME exists, does it require a "carrier"?--like the photon is the carrier of light? In all of our observations, it has never been necessary to assume a carrier of TIME. The nature of TIME as we understand it, makes it almost certain that no such carrier exists. There are no "elementary particles" of TIME.

 

TIME is not a "thing" or a "stuff" that has thing-like or stuff-like attributes. One of the attributes of "thing" is boundary. But TIME has no boundary. You cannot say, "here is TIME, but there is not TIME." TIME is not a "relationship". Love may be defined as a relationship between two people. You cannot say, "TIME describes the relationship between those two things; the one thing is in TIME with the other."

 

Take CraigD's advice. Go read the other thread. This subject is really DEEP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question, then, is really a question of language semantics. We’ve discussed it at exhaustive (and at 890 posts to date, exhausting :photos:) lengths in thread 3650. In the interest of not repeating old lines of inquiry, if you’ve not yet pored through that thread, phision, I recommend you do.

 

I've read several of the messages in the suggested thread and feel this represents opinion rather than definitive proof.:tree: I propose that, as so much of science is dependant on time, to explain nature, that it should either be proven or other means be used to explain the nature of the universe!

 

What perception of the universe would we have if time were not used?:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... to explain nature, that it should either be proven or other means be used to explain the nature of the universe!... :agree:
Without TIME, we could have no understanding of the universe at all. So, let me take a different approach to your question.

 

All human beings experience time. Time shows up in our language, in our speaking. If you use the past tense or future tense in your speaking, then you are acknowledging that you experience time. So, I don't have to "prove" time exists to you. You already experience it. And indeed, you know how to use the word "time" appropriately! You know what referent the word "time" points to! The concept of time is all-pervasive through the entirety of everything we know, feel, want, desire and believe.

 

If you could not sense / be aware of / measure / use TIME, then it is highly unlikely that you could think at all, certainly no more so than an insect, such as an ant.

 

The problem is NOT proving that it exists. You already KNOW it exists. We all do.

 

The problem is understanding the NATURE of TIME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is NOT proving that it exists.

You already KNOW it exists. We all do.

 

YES! the problem is proving it exists that is the difference between a fact and an opinion.

 

The problem is understanding the NATURE of TIME.

 

 

Without A proof, for time, it's nature remains a convenient convention. We need a proof!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans experience change not time! Time has been invented to explain the changes, that doesn't make it real.

 

This is what CraigD was talking about when said that this "is a question of language semantics." To say that we can experience change and not time is a false notion, because for any change in nature to occur a period of time is required. Without a time reference, change cannot be exerienced. In fact, without a time reference, there are no experiences. Time is integral to change. Change occurs over time.

 

Semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think time is a fundamental property of reality, with out time you have nothing. Most people, when they talk of or think of dimensions, start out with length, then width, then height and only them do they think of time, often as some sort of add on. i think time is the fundamental basis all other ideas of dimensions are built on. For any other dimension from 1 to 3 to 11 to 121 to 1331 have to have time to exist. IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that we can experience change and not time is a false notion, because for any change in nature to occur a period of time is required.

 

Your just saying, change equals time, and time equals change! That`s circular logic and should be avoid to reason clearly.

 

Reason is absolutely right. The very definition of 'change' depends upon some non-zero time interval.

 

The definition of change found at, Change | Define Change at Dictionary.com, doesn`t mention time! So change doesn`t equal time.

 

Epictetus, the Greek Philosopher, would be concerned by the way yous think! He said

"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are."

 

I might be wrong, but it seems that nothing users here at Hypography write in this thread will convince you that time is an irreducible aspect of the physical world, real, fundamental, natural (as opposed to something invented by the human imagination).

 

One note on your post above. Your straw man is that change equals time. Change and time are inseparable, that doesn't mean they are the same thing, or equal to one another (any more than ketchup and hamburgers are equal to one another).

 

 

“The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.”

(Albert Einstein)

 

 

 

CC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...