1. Hii y'all. I watched through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman the other day and the topic was.. Time. I don't know much about physics, just the standard things they teach in highschool. They were discussing if time was real or just an illusion. As i didn't get much of it, just the whole, i was wondering what your personal opinion is ? Without to much of the physics brabble please :P.

2.

3. If time is just an illusion and doesn't really exist, then how does time slow down, bend, and warp with the laws of relativity?
I believe that if our universe was formalized in a manner similar to Euclidean geometry, "time" would be an undefined term, along with space. Since you said "Without to much of the physics brabble please" I might think you need to see these things first on how a formal system works:
Formal system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe the only real answer to what time is, is to just accept it as an undefined term.
The universe doesn't follow the same logic that most of mathematics does (google "quantum logic") so the system wouldn't follow the same way as normal maths does.

4. Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.

5. “I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

“Time is an illusion.”
― Albert Einstein

“Time is what we want most,but what we use worst.”
― William Penn

“Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”
― Ray Cummings, The Girl in the Golden Atom

6. If one tries to imagine what it would be like if all matter and radiation in the universe were to disappear, would the universe then be empty? Some would answer; "No, it would be filled with space-time". Others would consider that space and time are merely mental constructs which enable people to quantify relationships between material bodies, and such a universe without material objects would indeed be empty.

Which do you choose? I prefer the second, but I have no doubt there are many supporters of the first. The second alternative does, of course, imply that time does not exist independently of material objects and radiation.

7. If you erase all the writing on a piece of paper do you say that the paper is still filled with paper or that erasing all the writing means that what's left isn't paper anymore? Spacetime isn't something filling the universe, it is the universe and everything else resides in it, but it doesn't need anything else to exist.

8. Are you thinking about time dilation or the curvature of spacetime?

I'm not familiar with the Morgan Freeman episodes, but time is pretty essential. Some good sci-fi though!

9. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
If you erase all the writing on a piece of paper do you say that the paper is still filled with paper or that erasing all the writing means that what's left isn't paper anymore?
Paper would be left. But it isn't a good analogy. Paper has mass and an independent existence.

This sort of discussion inevitably boils down to deciding what is meant by "exist". I now prefer to take the view that if something has mass or energy, it exists. If it has neither of these, its doesn't exist. Then one just hangs about and waits for contradictions to arise - if there are any.

10. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
Yes, but those functions are fundamental only for human use. Sometimes we depend on time to achieve a result. OTOH, the universe does not care about time, the functions of the universe do not depend on time, they "create" time during the function.

11. Originally Posted by JonG
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
If you erase all the writing on a piece of paper do you say that the paper is still filled with paper or that erasing all the writing means that what's left isn't paper anymore?
Paper would be left. But it isn't a good analogy. Paper has mass and an independent existence.

This sort of discussion inevitably boils down to deciding what is meant by "exist". I now prefer to take the view that if something has mass or energy, it exists. If it has neither of these, its doesn't exist. Then one just hangs about and waits for contradictions to arise - if there are any.
Rather than try and stretch the analogy further, check this out: Geon (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A geon (at least in some forms) is an object composed entirely of spacetime. Also, gravitational waves carry energy, and the curvature of spacetime can be measured directly.

12. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Rather than try and stretch the analogy further, check this out: Geon (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I will leave it to others to decide whether a geon actually exists and, particularly, whether such a speculative entity could exist in the absence of matter. This quote from the Wikipedia article appears to summarise the situation quite well: This idea continues to attract some attention among physicists, but in the absence of a viable theory of quantum gravity, the accuracy of this speculative idea cannot be tested.

13. Either way, that doesn't invalidate either of my other two points.

14. Originally Posted by spokydepo
They were discussing if time was real or just an illusion.
What does it actually mean to say that time is an illusion? Maybe it's the notion that time is an illusion that is the illusion.

15. Originally Posted by KJW
What does it actually mean to say that time is an illusion? Maybe it's the notion that time is an illusion that is the illusion.
If someone refers to time as an illusion, I suppose they mean that it exists only within people's minds and has no objective existence. The word "illusion" does, however, carry with it the implication that this concept of time is mistaken and, for that reason, it isn't the best choice. It's perfectly possible for people to have notions about time which are useful in quantitatively describing what they see about them without time itself actually existing - just as one can think of "happiness", but, other than in people's heads, happiness doesn't exist out there in the real world. Whichever way one chooses to look at it, it's unlikely to have much relevance to Physics.

16. If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.

17. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

“Time is an illusion.”
― Albert Einstein

“Time is what we want most,but what we use worst.”
― William Penn

“Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”
― Ray Cummings, The Girl in the Golden Atom
I used to go for this stuff once but now I see it a little different, time is not what keeps everything from happening at once, everything is happening at once. yesterday brought today heading for tomorrow. The moment is all we know.

18. Originally Posted by Stargate
yesterday brought today heading for tomorrow
If everything is happening at once, as you claim, then yesterday cannot have brought today, and today cannot head for tomorrow.

19. Originally Posted by JonG
If one tries to imagine what it would be like if all matter and radiation in the universe were to disappear, would the universe then be empty? Some would answer; "No, it would be filled with space-time". Others would consider that space and time are merely mental constructs which enable people to quantify relationships between material bodies, and such a universe without material objects would indeed be empty.

Which do you choose? I prefer the second, but I have no doubt there are many supporters of the first. The second alternative does, of course, imply that time does not exist independently of material objects and radiation.
There wouldn't be anyone around, therefore it would be irrelevant.

20. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.
It makes a sound since there is air. Perception of the event depends on the event, but the opposite is not true.

A stick with uniformly spaced marks measures the location of the end of an object, to assign a length to the object.
A clock with uniformly spaced ticks measures the location of an event, to assign a 'time' to the event.
It's a correlation method in both cases.

21. Nobody knows the full meaning of time.
But in difference context time may have different meaning.
I think in the context of 4D spacetime relativity (of Einstein), time has to do with relating two dual geometries and bringing the dual into a single geometry of what we call 4D Minkowski sapcetime.
In QM, time seems less involved in the meshing of spacetime, but in the propagation and instrumentation of what we call motion for wave and particle (I could be wrong on this).
In thermodynamics, time can also rise due counting things like states or elements in ensemble. Time risen in this context has a direction or what people call arrow.
There can be more context where time can rise but so far these are I know of at this moment.

22. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.
If there is no one to hear it, sound cannot happen. Sound only works together with hearing.

23. Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.
If there is no one to hear it, sound cannot happen. Sound only works together with hearing.

The physiological answer to that classic question is indeed 'no'.
A falling tree emits sound waves, but there is no noise unless someone or something is present to process and perceive the wave energy as sound.

24. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.
Time does not exist except wehn there is change. Time "emerges" with change and the duration (measurement) of that change.

The time for what I just wrote did not exist before I wrote it. Now that it is written, time can be assigned to the duration of the writing.

Time is non-causal, it is a result of other actions. Without action or change to measure time cannot be measured and in fact does not yet exist for that change take place, until it takes place. Time can never be ahead of the Now. There is no time in the future. That is the illusion.

25. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Time exists even if people deny it.
If there is no one to hear it, sound cannot happen. Sound only works together with hearing.
The physiological answer to that classic question is indeed 'no'.
A falling tree emits sound waves, but there is no noise unless someone or something is present to process and perceive the wave energy as sound.
That is such a strange contradictory question. If we have a forest we have something present to perceive and process sound waves.

If there is no forest then no tree will fall.

btw. trees do communicate with each other, though it is mostly chemical.

But answer this question: what does time do?

26. This thread has yet to be, and currently is not, physics in any form.
Especially with W4U channeling Farsight up above. Sorry W4U, but unless you can explain, using General Relativity, how it is that time would not exist or pass in an empty region of space. I just can't be arse'd to consider such.

While time and space are essential objects in the current universe of discourse, they are also not invarient quantities in transformations between different frames of reference.
But just because they are kind'a squishy, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

27. Originally Posted by Write4U
That is such a strange contradictory question. If we have a forest we have something present to perceive and process sound waves.

Are forests capable of perceiving and processing sound waves?

Originally Posted by Write4U
But answer this question: what does time do?

Is that question directed towards me or is it a general question?

28. Originally Posted by Write4U
But answer this question: what does time do?
That's like asking: "What does distance and mass do?"

:EDIT:

Might as well call distance an illusion.

29. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Write4U
But answer this question: what does time do?
That's like asking: "What does distance and mass do?"

:EDIT:

Might as well call distance an illusion.
No, not really. Distance can be measured by assigned increments, which are causal to the duration of time. Mass can be measured by weight and moment, which are causal to change and the duration of time.

Time itself cannot be measured. It is a result of change and measurement.

30. ^Uh Dude... Clock!

31. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
This thread has yet to be, and currently is not, physics in any form.
Especially with W4U channeling Farsight up above. Sorry W4U, but unless you can explain, using General Relativity, how it is that time would not exist or pass in an empty region of space. I just can't be arse'd to consider such.

While time and space are essential objects in the current universe of discourse, they are also not invarient quantities in transformations between different frames of reference.
But just because they are kind'a squishy, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
You answered your own question. "How is it that time would not exist or pass in an empty region of space?" So we need an empty REGION of space to be able to make a measurement of time.

Change the question to "can time exist without a region of space, empty or not?".

@We just accept the fact that space and time are inextricably connected and they are, but not independently. This is in context of the OP question if a falling tree makes a sound if there is no one to hear it.

But it is a false equvalence (illusionary) Space does indeed create time, but time does not create space.
Physical space is Causal, but Time can only ever be the Result of physical causality.

32. This doesn't belong in physics. But it's not smelly trash either.

Personal theories is as good a place as any.

33. This has just gotten silly. I'm reporting this thread as philosophy in the Physics sub-fora.

34. WFU, do you think the speed of light is invariant or not?

35. As far as I understand, c is an invarient in any transformation between reference frames.

36. Thanks Adelady for the warning. My admitted lack of knowledge doesn't restrict me from making cerain logical assumptions, which might be incorrect, I admit.

Giant Evi, instead of slinging ad hominems and threatening to tell lies about Adelady, please explain my question in simple narrative and "enlighten me". I have a feeling you may have trouble finding flaws in the logic.
I stipulate my limited knowledge of facts of events at the Planck level, but then doesn't everyone?

"But it is a false equvalence (illusionary) Space does indeed create time, but time does not create space. Yes? No?

Physical space is Causal, but Time can only ever be the Result of physical causality. Yes? No?

37. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
As far as I understand, c is an invarient in any transformation between reference frames.
I was curios cause, Farsight, says otherwise, and wanted to see how close WFU was to his imagination.

38. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
WFU, do you think the speed of light is invariant or not?
I don't know. So the following is not an attempt to evade.

Please explain how time is related to the (in)variance of light and how time is causal to the creation of light.

wiki,
Time in physics

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields. Timekeeping is a complex of technological and scientific issues, and part of the foundation of recordkeeping.
But it is not causal, it is always a result, a chronology of spacetime coordinates of "events". But there HAS to be a physical event, a causality.

39. If you wiki spacetime, it would explain more.

40. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If you wiki space time, it would explain more
Oh, I have, several times. I understand the concepts of the phrase "spacetime",

But it does not negate the wiki definition I provided. And there's the rub. Time cannot exist independent of space, it is a result of events in space. The event occurs and time becomes available for measurement.

41. Well, your idea seems philosophical, and doesn't explain anything.

I could say length and time are both illusions, and they only exist as the cause of gravity being to weak.

42. Sorry W4U, but you are the one who has asserted that time is less real than space, so it is up to you to support that assertion. And I hope you have a better argument than taking your word for it that P implies Q.
The assertion that time is illusory is often made by promotors of woo and Relativity deniers. If there is any merit in that view, it has yet to appear.

Add on Edit: Events happen on spacetime.

43. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Well, your idea seems philosophical, and doesn't explain anything.

I could say length and time are both illusions, and they only exist as the cause of gravity being to weak.
But then you'd be wrong, no?

And I am still trying to stay on topic, which I believe deals with causality and results of soundwaves without an observer.

44. Originally Posted by Write4U
And I am still trying to stay on topic, which I believe deals with causality and results of soundwaves without an observer.
Dang, that was just a philosophical thought experiment. A famous one at that.

I mean, science doesn't prove anything. It runs experiments, researches and investigates. Telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators and what not are used. I really wasn't thinking of philosophy. You got me confused now.

45. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Sorry W4U, but you are the one who has asserted that time is less real than space, so it is up to you to support that assertion. And I hope you have a better argument than taking your word for it that P implies Q.
The assertion that time is illusory is often made by promotors of woo and Relativity deniers. If there is any merit in that view, it has yet to appear.

But I would appreciate it if you quoted me verbatim and not make up stories about Ps and Qs, ok?

Add on Edit: Events happen on spacetime.
Yes "spacetime consists of two seperate plenums, space which is physical, and time which is meta-physical.
But could we assert : Events happen on timespace (time travel). Doesn't sound right to me somehow.

The actions of any event is threefold; where, when, and duration. If I claimed time is illusionary, I meant that duration cannot be established in any future setting.

a) where: wherever sufficient potential exists

b) when: In the now or the past. (note: there is no time yet in future spacetime, the event has not yet occurred and no time can be associated with it yet.

c) duration: seems the BB happened some 13 billion+ yrs ago, so the universe has a "timeline" of about 13+ billion years. OTOH, the duration of the BB (inflation) itself was of incredibly short duration (superluminal even and in apparent conflict with the invariance of light.)

I MAKE NO OTHER CLAIMS.

46. Yes "spacetime consists of two seperate plenums, space which is physical, and time which is meta-physical. ...
...

I MAKE NO OTHER CLAIMS.
Leeway is one thing.

Taking advantage is quite another. Since when is time "meta-physical". This sounds like the kind of deepity talk coming from the likes of Deepak Chopra.

(I'll openly admit here that I have a couple of friends who could talk - although I'd give up listening PDQ - about time as a metaphysical phenomenon, but these guys happen to be professors of philosophy (one of them an ex-professor) who are also extremely well-versed in physics and mathematics. We never in my recollection get into discussions of this sort on these forums because we don't have any membership with this kind of expertise. If you want to call it expertise, I'd call it one of those topics where people know more and more about less and less.)

Unless you're going to tell us that your concept comes from a profound understanding of both physics as practised by physicists and metaphysics as practised by philosophers this is just pointless waffle.

STOP it now.

47. As it is modeled, spacetime is an ordered n-tuple and a singular manifold.

I suspect that the human experience of time tends to be subjective.

Yes "spacetime consists of two seperate plenums, space which is physical, and time which is meta-physical. ...
...

I MAKE NO OTHER CLAIMS.
Leeway is one thing.

Taking advantage is quite another. Since when is time "meta-physical". This sounds like the kind of deepity talk coming from the likes of Deepak Chopra.

(I'll openly admit here that I have a couple of friends who could talk - although I'd give up listening PDQ - about time as a metaphysical phenomenon, but these guys happen to be professors of philosophy (one of them an ex-professor) who are also extremely well-versed in physics and mathematics. We never in my recollection get into discussions of this sort on these forums because we don't have any membership with this kind of expertise. If you want to call it expertise, I'd call it one of those topics where people know more and more about less and less.)

Unless you're going to tell us that your concept comes from a profound understanding of both physics as practised by physicists and metaphysics as practised by philosophers this is just pointless waffle.

STOP it now.
Stop what?? How did I get to be the bad guy here? I need no extraordinary qualificatins to participate in a question as mundane as the tree in forest. I did not stray from the OP, others did. You are being prejudicial and that is totally unexpected.

You make it sound as if the word metaphysical is an evil concept.

wiki,
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
1.What is ultimately there?
2.What is it like?

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist [4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics but this can be questioned.

49. Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy
This is a science forum, not a philosophy forum.

50. No. There's nothing wrong with metaphysics.

There's a lot wrong with ... Yes "spacetime consists of two seperate plenums, space which is physical, and time which is meta-physical.

Unless you're taking people's remarks that some things like time might be illusions is exactly the same as saying that they're metaphysical. There is a link there, but it's pushing the language and the concepts in this discussion to use them interchangeably.

My view at the moment is that what you're saying (as far as I can make sense of it) is unphysical rather than metaphysical.

You need to be much clearer about saying what you mean. If it's too difficult to put into words, either ask the group if anyone can express your vague notion more clearly or leave it for a while, maybe a long while, until you're clearer in your own mind.

No. There's nothing wrong with metaphysics.

There's a lot wrong with ... Yes "spacetime consists of two seperate plenums, space which is physical, and time which is meta-physical. 0
Question; what is the difference between "spatial" and "temporal"?

Unless you're taking people's remarks that some things like time might be illusions is exactly the same as saying that they're metaphysical. There is a link there, but it's pushing the language and the concepts in this discussion to use them interchangeably.
I try to keep the concepts of spirituality, illusion, and expression in reality, strictly seperate, but the problem is that the lines in the sand are vague and sometimes misleading. Particle/wave duality for instance.

My view at the moment is that what you're saying (as far as I can make sense of it) is unphysical rather than metaphysical.
No, I used the term correctly, but you are interpreting it your way. According to Aristotle and later David Bohm;
In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are principles of a dichotomy which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics and De Anima (which is about the human psyche
You need to be much clearer about saying what you mean. If it's too difficult to put into words, either ask the group if anyone can express your vague notion more clearly or leave it for a while, maybe a long while, until you're clearer in your own mind.
I don't have the formal knowledge and qualifications to present a hypothesis, but I am very interested and what may seemstrident posits, please consider them probative. If I get off track set me straight. I'll get it, trust me.

but be prepared for questions.

52. Questions:
a) what are the properties of time?

b) is time causal to events?

Perhaps the word plenum was misleading. Allow me to clarify the context.
"However, the static de Sitter universe also predicted a very large negative pressure in the universe which could only be understood physically in terms of the existence of an invisible plenum.."

S.V.M. Clube
Department of Astrophysics
University of Oxford
Oxford England..... redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N05PDF/V0N05CLU.pdf

53. Time is what makes physical equations meaningful.

Local events wouldn't happen without time.

Are you infering that dark energy is causal to events in contrast to gravity?

54. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Time is what makes physical equations meaningful.
a) Time is only meaningful to us. It has no meaning to the universe, it uses as much time as is required.
Local events wouldn't happen without time.
b) You are right and that is why time is created at the moment of the event to allow the event to unfold.
are you infering that dark energy is causal to events in contrast to gravity?
c) No, I have very little knowledge of DM. It was merely a demonstration of the use of the words Plenum and Metaphysical by a reputable scientists. Physicist use it all the time now. The boundary between physical and meta physical is our current boundary. Things tend to get fuzzy there.

55. Originally Posted by Write4U
a) Time is only meaningful to us. It has no meaning to the universe, it uses as much time as is required.
This thread should be in the philosophy section.

56. I agree, if anyone wants to pursue the topic further.

57. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Write4U
But answer this question: what does time do?
That's like asking: "What does distance and mass do?"

:EDIT:

Might as well call distance an illusion.
No, not really. Distance can be measured by assigned increments, which are causal to the duration of time. Mass can be measured by weight and moment, which are causal to change and the duration of time.

Time itself cannot be measured. It is a result of change and measurement.
I think it depends on what you want to know about time in order to measure it, however it would have to be based on the speed of movement. I say this because there are different speeds for different things.

58. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Time is what makes physical equations meaningful.

Local events wouldn't happen without time.

Are you infering that dark energy is causal to events in contrast to gravity?
Time is what makes physical equations meaningful.
The way I see it is, time is not what makes things meaningful, it is me.

59. Originally Posted by Write4U
Questions:
a) what are the properties of time?

b) is time causal to events?

Perhaps the word plenum was misleading. Allow me to clarify the context.
"However, the static de Sitter universe also predicted a very large negative pressure in the universe which could only be understood physically in terms of the existence of an invisible plenum.."

S.V.M. Clube
Department of Astrophysics
University of Oxford
Oxford England..... redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N05PDF/V0N05CLU.pdf
I take plenum to be an archaic term for manifolds. As far as GR goes, there is only a singular plenum of spacetime.
The mathematical properties of a timelike geodesic may or may not be different from the properties of a spacelike geodesic.
I'm going to say that spacetime and events have a binary relationship that is like the chicken and the egg. No particular one can be said to be first or more primary.
And I might be talking bollocks here as I've drifted into the deep waters where only uber-geeks like Markus can safely swim. Where is Markus?

Philosophically, the potency of time is unassignable oustside the context of a designated ontology. Or that is to say, that if all the philosophers in the history of the world were laid end to end? They still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

60. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by Write4U
Questions:
a) what are the properties of time?

b) is time causal to events?

Perhaps the word plenum was misleading. Allow me to clarify the context.
"However, the static de Sitter universe also predicted a very large negative pressure in the universe which could only be understood physically in terms of the existence of an invisible plenum.."

S.V.M. Clube
Department of Astrophysics
University of Oxford
Oxford England..... redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N05PDF/V0N05CLU.pdf
I take plenum to be an archaic term for manifolds. As far as GR goes, there is only a singular plenum of spacetime.
The mathematical properties of a timelike geodesic may or may not be different from the properties of a spacelike geodesic.
I'm going to say that spacetime and events have a binary relationship that is like the chicken and the egg. No particular one can be said to be first or more primary.
And I might be talking bollocks here as I've drifted into the deep waters where only uber-geeks like Markus can safely swim. Where is Markus?

Philosophically, the potency of time is unassignable oustside the context of a designated ontology. Or that is to say, that if all the philosophers in the history of the world were laid end to end? They still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
Thanks for responding. I understand the inevitable connection between space and time and I agree one is no more essential than the other. Reality requires both matter and time in order to become chronologically Expressed .

And I agree with your observation that time has unassignable (physical) properties. Which is why I placed it in a meta-physical category.

IMO, time has no properties whatever, it is non-perturbative and therefore never directly causal to any event, but it is a necessary ingredient (potential) of reality.

IMHO, reality requires time to "become manifest" (observable), even at quantum. Change of anything "requires" time and that is causal to the creation of time for the event large or small. I don't think this is in conflict with either/or GR and QM

But time itself is not a causal force, it is a passive permission, "fixing" (recording) an event coordinate in spacetime (reality) and comes into existence at the same time as reality itself becomes manifest.

61. Originally Posted by JonG
Originally Posted by KJW
What does it actually mean to say that time is an illusion? Maybe it's the notion that time is an illusion that is the illusion.
If someone refers to time as an illusion, I suppose they mean that it exists only within people's minds and has no objective existence. The word "illusion" does, however, carry with it the implication that this concept of time is mistaken and, for that reason, it isn't the best choice. It's perfectly possible for people to have notions about time which are useful in quantitatively describing what they see about them without time itself actually existing - just as one can think of "happiness", but, other than in people's heads, happiness doesn't exist out there in the real world. Whichever way one chooses to look at it, it's unlikely to have much relevance to Physics.
I was asking what it really means rather than what people think it means. For example, in what way does time have no objective existence given that real objective clocks measure time, and modern society synchronises its activity to real objective clocks?

Happiness is an emotional state of mind. This makes it abstract, but not an illusion.

62. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by JonG
Originally Posted by KJW
What does it actually mean to say that time is an illusion? Maybe it's the notion that time is an illusion that is the illusion.
If someone refers to time as an illusion, I suppose they mean that it exists only within people's minds and has no objective existence. The word "illusion" does, however, carry with it the implication that this concept of time is mistaken and, for that reason, it isn't the best choice. It's perfectly possible for people to have notions about time which are useful in quantitatively describing what they see about them without time itself actually existing - just as one can think of "happiness", but, other than in people's heads, happiness doesn't exist out there in the real world. Whichever way one chooses to look at it, it's unlikely to have much relevance to Physics.
I was asking what it really means rather than what people think it means. For example, in what way does time have no objective existence given that real objective clocks measure time, and modern society synchronises its activity to real objective clocks?
Because it works.
But not all clocks run at the same time and cannot be used to prove the existence of time. That would be circular logic.

IMO, Time is not a condition except when/where connected to a physical event.
Happiness is an emotional state of mind. This makes it abstract, but not an illusion.
And the abstraction last for a length of time until the person recovers. Time only exists when there is change. If no change, no time!

63. Time only exists when there is change.
Seeing as the world we live in has things like day and night, stars and planets and moons and galaxies in their various orbits, solar eclipses and lunar eclipses, then the world as a whole is in constant change. Add in biological changes here on earth like growth and decay along with geological changes like tectonic movement and erosion of mountains ensures that the very specific world we inhabit is in constant change.

By your own logic, time must exist - all the time.

Time only exists when there is change.
Seeing as the world we live in has things like day and night, stars and planets and moons and galaxies in their various orbits, solar eclipses and lunar eclipses, then the world as a whole is in constant change. Add in biological changes here on earth like growth and decay along with geological changes like tectonic movement and erosion of mountains ensures that the very specific world we inhabit is in constant change.

By your own logic, time must exist - all the time.
Or change only exists when there is time

65. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by KJW
I was asking what it really means rather than what people think it means. For example, in what way does time have no objective existence given that real objective clocks measure time, and modern society synchronises its activity to real objective clocks?
Because it works.
But not all clocks run at the same time and cannot be used to prove the existence of time. That would be circular logic.
Your argument is weak. A disagreement among clocks merely means that there can be a lack of uniformity as to what particular time it is. That's all. No logical circularity is implied by the mere existence of a disagreement. Now, had KJW said that there exists an absolute time, your argument would be relevant. But he didn't say that. He simply said that time has an objective existence, not an absolute value.

66. Originally Posted by I
Philosophically, the potency of time is unassignable oustside the context of a designated ontology. Or that is to say, that if all the philosophers in the history of the world were laid end to end? They still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
Originally Posted by Write4U
And I agree with your observation that time has unassignable (physical) properties.
Oh dear, I didn't mean that at all. I guess I need to work more on my communication skills.
The entire gist of the statement was meant to be that philosophical considerations are dependent on subjective definitions and not necessarily as legitimate as an empirically derived model.

Time only exists when there is change.
Seeing as the world we live in has things like day and night, stars and planets and moons and galaxies in their various orbits, solar eclipses and lunar eclipses, then the world as a whole is in constant change. Add in biological changes here on earth like growth and decay along with geological changes like tectonic movement and erosion of mountains ensures that the very specific world we inhabit is in constant change.

By your own logic, time must exist - all the time.
Of course it does, in our universe. That is why we call it spacetime. But was Time before the BB (Inflation), before our "spacetime"?

I see the concept of Time as similar to the concept of Mathematics. It has no existence of its own but is essential in the fundamental operations and functions of the universe. The "formalization" of these constants are man made, but their function was never absent.

They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.

68. Originally Posted by Write4U
They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.
What does that even mean?

69. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Originally Posted by I
Philosophically, the potency of time is unassignable oustside the context of a designated ontology. Or that is to say, that if all the philosophers in the history of the world were laid end to end? They still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
Originally Posted by Write4U
And I agree with your observation that time has unassignable (physical) properties.
Oh dear, I didn't mean that at all. I guess I need to work more on my communication skills.
The entire gist of the statement was meant to be that philosophical considerations are dependent on subjective definitions and not necessarily as legitimate as an empirically derived model.
So Time (and Mathematics) do have; a) unassignable properties, b) assignable physical properties, or c) assignable unphysical properties?
The question still stands.

70. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Write4U
They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.
What does that even mean?
Read a few times, slowly, and perhaps it will start to make sense. I have used each word exactly as I intended it to be understood (to the best of my knowledge).

71. I'm going to bed.

72. lol, ok, i'll break it down.
Write4U,
They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.
a) not causal = selfexplanatory
b) apparent = from observation
c) passive = latent (not active)
d) cosmological = the wholeness
e) potentials = (latent) abilities
f) constants = natural laws (natural prohibitions)
g) fabric of the universe = the fundamental nature of the wholeness

As english is my second language, I don't know how to improve on that succinct sentence.

73. Defining terms is a good start (especially if you're going to use nonstandard definitions). On top of that though, don't try and be succinct, especially if English isn't your best subject. (Don't be verbose either though.)

74. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Defining terms is a good start (especially if you're going to use nonstandard definitions). On top of that though, don't try and be succinct, especially if English isn't your best subject. (Don't be verbose either though.)
Where did I use nonstandard definitions? Now that I have defined my terms (just standard definitions from wiki) is the post easier to understand and does it merit a response?

And what makes you believe English is not my best subject? Perhaps we may be dealing with cursory reading and lazy interpretation rather than incompetence on my part.

75. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Defining terms is a good start (especially if you're going to use nonstandard definitions). On top of that though, don't try and be succinct, especially if English isn't your best subject. (Don't be verbose either though.)
Where did I use nonstandard definitions? Now that I have defined my terms (just standard definitions from wiki) is the post easier to understand and does it merit a response?

And what makes you believe English is not my best subject? Perhaps we may be dealing with cursory reading and lazy interpretation rather than incompetence on my part.
There's too much wrong with post #71 for me to answer this succinctly.

Edit: Let me be clearer since English clearly isn't your best subject (at least, for your sake, I hope not). Post #72 was a piece of friendly advice. This is just snark.

76. Time exists only in our minds. Out there in reality there is only the succession of events. A clock does not measure time, it simply ticks away at a certain pace. Humans try to create order in these successions of events by means of applying intervals to events taking place and sometimes we use clocks for that, also assessing 'before' and 'after' etc, we create a timeline for events IN OUR MINDS. I would not call it an illusion, because we use the concept (that we invented and named 'time'), but i would call it unfundamental as opposed to for instance length, density. So saying that time slows down in certain cases, is a nonsentical statement because time does not exist. A fysical process can slow down, a concept cannot slow down, obviously. Unfortunately not obvious to many many people.That is my understanding of 'time'.

77. This isn't physics, but a religious discussion?

78. So many people keep using words like 'obvious' and 'self explanatory' as if they actually knew what those words mean.

79. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
So many people keep using words like 'obvious' and 'self explanatory' as if they actually knew what those words mean.
It's obvious they don't.

80. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
Time exists only in our minds. Out there in reality there is only the succession of events. A clock does not measure time, it simply ticks away at a certain pace. Humans try to create order in these successions of events by means of applying intervals to events taking place and sometimes we use clocks for that, also assessing 'before' and 'after' etc, we create a timeline for events IN OUR MINDS. I would not call it an illusion, because we use the concept (that we invented and named 'time'), but i would call it unfundamental as opposed to for instance length, density. So saying that time slows down in certain cases, is a nonsentical statement because time does not exist. A fysical process can slow down, a concept cannot slow down, obviously. Unfortunately not obvious to many many people.That is my understanding of 'time'.
Just a string of unsupported assertions, dressed up with the standard appeals to "obviousness" and declarations that the statements of others are "nonsensical." You've got much to learn about what constitutes an effective argument. Merely declaring one's personal opinion as truth doesn't go far here.

81. [QUOTE=MagiMaster;554951]
Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Defining terms is a good start (especially if you're going to use nonstandard definitions). On top of that though, don't try and be succinct, especially if English isn't your best subject. (Don't be verbose either though.)
Where did I use nonstandard definitions? Now that I have defined my terms (just standard definitions from wiki) is the post easier to understand and does it merit a response?

And what makes you believe English is not my best subject? Perhaps we may be dealing with cursory reading and lazy interpretation rather than incompetence on my part.
The post (in reference to the concepts of Time and Mathematics)
Write4U,
They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.
lol, ok, i'll break it down.

a) not causal = selfexplanatory
b) apparent = from observation
c) passive = latent (not active)
d) cosmological = the wholeness
e) potentials = (latent) abilities
f) constants = natural laws (natural prohibitions)
g) fabric of the universe = the fundamental nature of the wholeness

As english is my second language, I don't know how to improve on that succinct sentence.
There's too much wrong with post #71 for me to answer this succinctly.
Please, don't be succinct (but not too verbose either). I'd really like to know which definition and logical place in the sentence are incorrect. It'll help me with my English.
Edit: Let me be clearer since English clearly isn't your best subject (at least, for your sake, I hope not). Post #72 was a piece of friendly advice. This is just snark.
I know it was friendly advise on the structure of complex (compound) sentences. I also found it not pertinent to my post.
Read the conversation from #65 and you will find that my posts have been entirely reasonable.
Now I here I sit being chided for my command of the English language, without any attention to the context of the actual post, which, on request, I have explained fully and if all the words and their meanings are placed in the order I used them they will make perfect sense.

I feel confident I am snark free, as all my advise was offered in a friendly manner and within the rules of the forum.

I did not change the subject and am willing to continue discussing the thread topic. But not listen to lectures on how to present an informal word painting (a practice used by many scientists).

82. OK.

I take an apple, throw it up in the air and catch it when it comes down. I did that, not time.

Is that what you mean?

83. Originally Posted by Noa Drake
in reality there is only the succession of events
Right, in reality, there's only a succession of events.
Succession - is the act or process of following in order or sequence.
So how does that fit with your claim that:
we create a timeline for events IN OUR MINDS.
You're not only wrong, but inconsistent and incoherent.

84. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
OK.

I take an apple, throw it up in the air and catch it when it comes down. I did that, not time.

Is that what you mean?
How long did it take for the apple to come down.? There are a lot of variables. Size, speed, trajectory, gravity. Each variable creates its own time frame. It is impossible to predict the time that you will catch the apple. It'll be close to all the other times you caught the apple, but not "exactly". This is why we use the concept of a "vacuum" to find a stable environment. But in the real world, it just depends on the exact conditions present at the "time" which influence the duration of the event. Determinism.

And the duration of the event places you in a different spacetime coordinates every time you repeat it, even though the time involved was "created" by the act of throwing the apple up in the air and "waiting" for it to come down. That time frame did not exist until you actually started and finished the process.

I believe these are called "world lines for "particles"
there are aslo "world sheets" for "strings"
and "world volumes" for "branes"

They are all valid time frames.

We can physically travel back to our starting point, but Time aways goes forward, even while "looking" backward in spacetime.
This leads me to conclude that time is always being created and once created cannot be undone or changed, while space remains dynamic, creating time with every quantum event.

I don't think I am proposing anything controversial or new here, just from a little different viewpoint perhaps.

85. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
OK.

I take an apple, throw it up in the air and catch it when it comes down. I did that, not time.

Is that what you mean?
How long did it take for the apple to come down.? There are a lot of variables. Size, speed, trajectory, gravity. Each variable creates its own time frame. It is impossible to predict the time that you will catch the apple. It'll be close to all the other times you caught the apple, but not "exactly". This is why we use the concept of a "vacuum" to find a stable environment. But in the real world, it just depends on the exact conditions present at the "time" which influence the duration of the event. Determinism.

And the duration of the event places you in a different spacetime coordinates every time you repeat it, even though the time involved was "created" by the act of throwing the apple up in the air and "waiting" for it to come down. That time frame did not exist until you actually started and finished the process.

I believe these are called "world lines for "particles"
there are aslo "world sheets" for "strings"
and "world volumes" for "branes"

But Time aways goes forward even while "looking" backward in spacetime, which leads me to conclude that time is always being created and once created cannot be undone or changed, while space remains dynamic.

I don't think I am proposing anything controversial or new here, just from a little different viewpoint perhaps.
I have to know, was it me, or did you want to spam that to someone else?

86. Beer w/Straw,

When are you going to ask a question related to the subject? Have I offended you so grievously that you need to resort to ad hominem or are you "spamming" something?

87. [QUOTE=Write4U;555016]
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Defining terms is a good start (especially if you're going to use nonstandard definitions). On top of that though, don't try and be succinct, especially if English isn't your best subject. (Don't be verbose either though.)
Where did I use nonstandard definitions? Now that I have defined my terms (just standard definitions from wiki) is the post easier to understand and does it merit a response?

And what makes you believe English is not my best subject? Perhaps we may be dealing with cursory reading and lazy interpretation rather than incompetence on my part.
The post (in reference to the concepts of Time and Mathematics)
Write4U,
They are not causal by themselves, they are the apparent passive cosmological potentials and constants (perhaps controls) in the fabric of our universe.
lol, ok, i'll break it down.

a) not causal = selfexplanatory
b) apparent = from observation
c) passive = latent (not active)
d) cosmological = the wholeness
e) potentials = (latent) abilities
f) constants = natural laws (natural prohibitions)
g) fabric of the universe = the fundamental nature of the wholeness

As english is my second language, I don't know how to improve on that succinct sentence.
There's too much wrong with post #71 for me to answer this succinctly.
Please, don't be succinct (but not too verbose either). I'd really like to know which definition and logical place in the sentence are incorrect. It'll help me with my English.
Edit: Let me be clearer since English clearly isn't your best subject (at least, for your sake, I hope not). Post #72 was a piece of friendly advice. This is just snark.
I know it was friendly advise on the structure of complex (compound) sentences. I also found it not pertinent to my post.
Read the conversation from #65 and you will find that my posts have been entirely reasonable.
Now I here I sit being chided for my command of the English language, without any attention to the context of the actual post, which, on request, I have explained fully and if all the words and their meanings are placed in the order I used them they will make perfect sense.

I feel confident I am snark free, as all my advise was offered in a friendly manner and within the rules of the forum.

I did not change the subject and am willing to continue discussing the thread topic. But not listen to lectures on how to present an informal word painting (a practice used by many scientists).
"This is just snark" was in reference to my own post, and that was in reply to your post #73, specifically this part:
Originally Posted by Write4U
And what makes you believe English is not my best subject? Perhaps we may be dealing with cursory reading and lazy interpretation rather than incompetence on my part.
It is blatantly obvious English isn't your best subject, or at least I really hope it isn't. And it has nothing to do with a cursory or lazy reading. The random list of words you've strung together are meaningless and your 'definitions' are similarly meaningless. Out of your list of definitions, only (c) makes the least bit of sense and that did nothing to clarify the rest of it. I'd rant more, but I've got other things to do. In the mean time, consider that while I mentioned your lack of command of English, the actual problem with what you said and what you've been saying has nothing to do with that.

88. Bye.

89. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Bye.
Be well.

90. Hmm... The word salad begins to run deep here. There is one last thing to be done, a kitteh.

91. I was reading a Math Text on Probability and Randomness, and across these words:

This is just as well, because we do not know what mass really is. We
still do not know even what light `really' is. Questions of reality are best left for
philosophers to argue over, for ever.

92. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
couldn't time just be another interpretation of length or distance?

94. :EDIT:

For the sake of edit.

95. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
couldn't time just be another interpretation of length or distance?
That would definitely screw up equations.

How could one calculate velocity?

96. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
couldn't time just be another interpretation of length or distance?
No.

97. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
couldn't time just be another interpretation of length or distance?
No.
any particular reason that I may understand?

98. Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Given that, in physics (and engineering) time is just as fundamental as length or mass, it's hard to see how it's an illusion.
couldn't time just be another interpretation of length or distance?
No.
any particular reason that I may understand?
Well the most obvious reason would be speed.
How do formulate speed purely in terms of length?
If two identical cars run down the same track - say 1 km long - how do explain that the one doing 100 km/ hr gets there faster than the one doing 10 km/ hr if your only measure is length?

99. I watched the same episode of 'Through the Wormhole' and found it interesting but inconclusive. In my opinion, time is simply a measurement of change. If there were no change there would be no time. Everything in the universe would be static and timeless. However, to measure the interval between any two events, we need a construct such as time. As Dr. Einstein demonstrated in his theory of relativity observations of events in any inertial system are dependent upon the relative distance and motion of the observer in another system. In our system, time measurement is based on the rotation and revolution of the earth, i.e. year, day, hour, minute, second.

Undoubtedly there are other systems in the universe with a different basis for measurement of time. Their year, or period of rotation, may be equivalent to hundreds or thousands of ours. If beings from those other time systems were to come here they would find our existence extremely fast and brief, while we would consider them immortal.

100. I don't think the universe cares if you're looking or not.

101. What causes seemingly unrelated sequences of events to always have the same duration?

What is the mechanism by which a Caesium 133 atom will always make 9,192,631,770 transits between the two hyperfine levels of its ground state, whilst a photon travels 299,792,458 metres?

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement