Please... consider me a channel through which this question passes unto you. I realize we've had our differences, that some dislike my polls, but most of all I ask you to review the past. Have not my polls increased all knowledge (on SciForums) for the greater good. Do not the answers we've gained have value beyond their mere originator? If this be the case, and I believe it is, then let us share our understanding of science together. This forum is designed for an expression of ideas, and those have great power....

I'd like to hear different arguments for why time does or does not exist. I realize that it may have been done before but this will be a definitive poll, each member deciding for all time what he/she thinks. Is time a mere creation of the mind or is it something more substantial? Is time nothing but a placeholder for something more sophisticated we have yet to find?

I place this here in Free Thoughts not for your anger, but for your wisdom. The chance for us truly to share our freest of beliefs with one another, that question of whether or not time truly exists. Make your statements, answer your questions but above all think.. really think... if time isn't real then why is it required for any kind of hard science?

Search your intellect, your imagination, then find out what you really believe.

PS I urge all members to vote in this thread, it will be the only one of its kind for some time where votes are cast and final choices are made. I for one don't fully understand it but I do believe time is real and it moves ahead or behind..

Time is just a measure of the changes in a system. If things are not staying the same, there is change, and we use a word we like to call "time" to measure that change.

That's it.

Time is the dimension in which events or occurrences happen in consecutively, as opposed to simultaneously.

Time is the dimension in which events or occurrences happen in consecutively, as opposed to simultaneously.

Two things can't happen at the same time? I understand that the frame of reference can fool us according to general relativity, but are you really suggesting that no two things happen at the same time?

I personally disagree, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your claim.

As swivel said, time is only a measure of change. Nothing more. The universe is motion. Organizing the motion requires time.

Two (or more) things can happen at the same time, but without time everything would happen together.

No.

Two (or more) things can happen at the same time, but without time everything would happen together.

I was hoping that was what you meant.

Hmmm. We all seem to agree. :(

This thread sucks.

i want prince james to post, then i will post after that,

peace.

Yet another thread bombs... almost de rigeur for SF at times.

Please... consider me a channel through which this question passes unto you. I realize we've had our differences, that some dislike my polls, but most of all I ask you to review the past. Have not my polls increased all knowledge (on SciForums) for the greater good. Do not the answers we've gained have value beyond their mere originator? If this be the case, and I believe it is, then let us share our understanding of science together. This forum is designed for an expression of ideas, and those have great power....
I feel that there is no value in 'polls' of this nature other than to determine the number of people involving themselves in mundane ignorant consensus. 'Truth' has never been derived from consensus. Polls are good for egoic reasons (for those falling for the fallacy of 'numbers', and also for pragmatic reasons such as marketing and demographics and 'control', etc..

I'd like to hear different arguments for why time does or does not exist.
Everything 'exists'.
Existence is 'contextual'.
Within it's context, everything 'exists'.
Existence IS contextual.
(Ex; A pink unicorn might exist as a painting on a canvas, or a character in a story..)

I realize that it may have been done before but this will be a definitive poll, each member deciding for all time what he/she thinks.
Ridiculous.. You are not allowing for the morphosis of living thought, altering with new data and knowledge. You are attempting to kill, petrify, ossify, the 'thought' of one moment, forever!
Get thee behind me Satan!
*__-

Is time a mere creation of the mind
Yes. It is an illusion derived from the very specific perspective of 'linearity, sequence, 'motion', which all have no 'Reality' other than as a conceptual illusion, necessary for the running and enjoyment of this 'dream' of 'life'. Just don't 'believe' that your illusions actually reflect the true nature of existence. Ego is 'perspective'; false ego (pride/belief) is delusion.

or is it something more substantial?
Nothing is more 'substantial'..

Is time nothing but a placeholder for something more sophisticated we have yet to find?
Time is your specific limitation of 'access' to 'Consciousness' of the simultaneous existence of all 'moments' ever, Here/Now. Personally, I live in a bit more 'wholistic' paradigm, not as 'limited' by beliefs in the 'appearance' of (the illusion) of 'time'.
Quantum and other validates that 'time' is 'less' that we might have thought just from the 'input' of our perceptions and concepts. We have better tools with which to understand existence.
'Time', 'cause and effect', 'motion', 'personal responsibility', 'karma', all the old demons of naive realism are now obsolete.

I place this here in Free Thoughts not for your anger, but for your wisdom.
What would make you think that your questions and statements would cause anger?
There's some 'wisdom' for you. Whatcha gonna do with it?
*__-

The chance for us truly to share our freest of beliefs with one another, that question of whether or not time truly exists.
'Beliefs' can only be emotionally argued under pride/ego, and no good ever comes. 'Beliefs' cannot be argued out of someone, or argued into 'altering'. The 'belief virus' does not 'live' in the rational intellect, but in the ego, the emotions and pride sustain and feed it, and the virus has its own rather severe defence mechanisms. Not for rational discussion. How about sharing 'thoughts', 'understandings at the moment' (which might alter in another 'moment')?

Make your statements, answer your questions but above all think.. really think...
So much for 'belief', then..
*__-

if time isn't real then why is it required for any kind of hard science?
Because 'hard science' is designed to study the illusion of nature, the concept of 'time' is inherrent to that 'illusion'.
And even science, is telling you what I am telling you. Do some research.. its all over the place.

Search your intellect, your imagination, then find out what you really believe.
Ewwwww.. still trying to infect people with the virus! Belief virus eats holes, blind spots, in your apparatus that perceives/conceives. It prevents the inflow and assimilation cleanly of any 'new information' that might conflict with (threaten the 'know it all') the area of infestation of the active 'belief virus', and collateral areas besides.

i want prince james to post, then i will post after that,

peace.

Please don't get PJ started on the subject of time. :bawl:

He thinks that the geometric point must have size, so he probably thinks that each moment in time must have duration. If he comes in here, let's all ignore him.

Seriously.

I feel that there is no value in 'polls' of this nature other than to determine the number of people involving themselves in mundane ignorant consensus. 'Truth' has never been derived from consensus. Polls are good for egoic reasons (for those falling for the fallacy of 'numbers', and also for pragmatic reasons such as marketing and demographics and 'control', etc..

It helps determine the general consensus of those members here on SciForums. It also sheds some light on whether or not time is fully understood or is still being argued over.

Everything 'exists'.
Existence is 'contextual'.
Within it's context, everything 'exists'.
Existence IS contextual.
(Ex; A pink unicorn might exist as a painting on a canvas, or a character in a story..)

Yes, but this is example is driven by perspective. I mean does time really exist physically as something that effects the universe aside from our perceptions.

Ridiculous.. You are not allowing for the morphosis of living thought, altering with new data and knowledge. You are attempting to kill, petrify, ossify, the 'thought' of one moment, forever!
Get thee behind me Satan!

I want them to choose now, if they were forced to make a decision what would they say?!

Yes. It is an illusion derived from the very specific perspective of 'linearity, sequence, 'motion', which all have no 'Reality' other than as a conceptual illusion, necessary for the running and enjoyment of this 'dream' of 'life'. Just don't 'believe' that your illusions actually reflect the true nature of existence. Ego is 'perspective'; false ego (pride/belief) is delusion.

I do not believe time is merely motion. I think that time is actually a physical phenomena that is measurable, and that has a structure to it.

Time is your specific limitation of 'access' to 'Consciousness' of the simultaneous existence of all 'moments' ever, Here/Now. Personally, I live in a bit more 'wholistic' paradigm, not as 'limited' by beliefs in the 'appearance' of (the illusion) of 'time'.
Quantum and other validates that 'time' is 'less' that we might have thought just from the 'input' of our perceptions and concepts. We have better tools with which to understand existence.
'Time', 'cause and effect', 'motion', 'personal responsibility', 'karma', all the old demons of naive realism are now obsolete.

Huh?

What would make you think that your questions and statements would cause anger?

Just cuz I've posted alot recently, maybe to much :C~

'Beliefs' can only be emotionally argued under pride/ego, and no good ever comes. 'Beliefs' cannot be argued out of someone, or argued into 'altering'. The 'belief virus' does not 'live' in the rational intellect, but in the ego, the emotions and pride sustain and feed it, and the virus has its own rather severe defence mechanisms. Not for rational discussion. How about sharing 'thoughts', 'understandings at the moment' (which might alter in another 'moment')?

Right, and you have a belief that time is only a measure of motion in space. I say it's more than that and has an entire framework aside from motion.

Because 'hard science' is designed to study the illusion of nature, the concept of 'time' is inherrent to that 'illusion'.
And even science, is telling you what I am telling you. Do some research.. its all over the place.

That's interesting, so nature is an illusion? If it's all illusion then why does science function in it?

Ewwwww.. still trying to infect people with the virus! Belief virus eats holes, blind spots, in your apparatus that perceives/conceives. It prevents the inflow and assimilation cleanly of any 'new information' that might conflict with (threaten the 'know it all') the area of infestation of the active 'belief virus', and collateral areas besides.

You have mentioned more beliefs than I did ;-)

Dark,
"I think that time is actually a physical phenomena that is measurable, and that has a structure to it."

Describe to me a scenario where you measure time but do not measure motion.

Perhaps I should clarify that I think time is indeed a fundamental part of the universe. It is a dimension. However it is different than other dimensions, and I think this is where it gets confusing. Spacial dimensions deal with the physical nature of energy, while time is the change in that physicality. It can have a structure of sorts in regards to GR. But, when you say it is measurable, I do not understand as I see time as the measurement of motion itself. Hence, my question....

It helps determine the general consensus of those members here on SciForums.
What is the point?

It also sheds some light on whether or not time is fully understood or is still being argued over.
The answer to this is obvious. Different perspectives... Old egoically believed paradigms must die off and new cutting edge knowledge/understanding needs be taught to our young.

Yes, but this is example is driven by perspective.
Yes! No 'but'..
This is the 'complete set' of 'existence'.
All else are 'subsets' thereof...

I mean does time really exist physically as something that effects the universe aside from our perceptions.
Nothing exists physically as you perceive that effects anything aside from your perceptions. 'Effects' implies 'motion' which has no 'Reality' other than appearances.

I want them to choose now, if they were forced to make a decision what would they say?!
Ridiculous, but play your games as you must. I think there is no point to such counterproductive nonsense.

I do not believe time is merely motion. I think that time is actually a physical phenomena that is measurable, and that has a structure to it.
Funny how the 'belief virus' works. Believing is certainly simpler and easier than actual 'critical thought'!

Huh?
Sorry, can't respond to "Huh?". If you have a specific point that you would like me to elucidate, let me know.

Right, and you have a belief
Wrong, sorry, I hold no 'beliefs'. Period.

that time is only a measure of motion in space
I don't think that I have ever said this.. Perhaps another poster?

I say it's more than that and has an entire framework aside from motion.
There are many perspectives. You have yours..

That's interesting, so nature is an illusion? If it's all illusion then why does science function in it?
'Science' is integral to/within the 'dream/illusion'. Why do you think that so many paradox arise within 'science' so far? Paradox indicates 'erroneous thought', error. 'Truth' contains no 'paradox'.

You have mentioned more beliefs than I did ;-)
Don't think so. Just responded to your mentions as I thought that it is an important distinction to express and, besides, I had to write what I have to writh..
*__-

Heres a bit of material from some of my notes and research. Perhaps some of it might be informative/interesting...


The Nature of Time
AS ALREADY STATED, OUR CONCEPT OF TIME DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO HIGHER REALITY. TIME IS AN ASPECT OF 4-D SPACE-TIME). FOLLOWING OUR HOLISTIC LOGIC: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ARE PARTS OF SPACE-TIME. THEY EXIST IN IT SIMULTANEOUSLY. PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ARE PRESENT IN SPACE-TIME, NOW AND AT ANY OTHER MOMENT OF OUR TIME. WE EXPERIENCE SEQUENTIALLY IN OUR TIME WHAT EXISTS ACTUALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY IN TRANSCENDENT REALITY.
THIS CONCEPT OF SPACE-TIME IS EMERGING FROM MODERN SCIENCE. JOHN GRIBBIN DESCRIBES IN HIS BOOK THE HYPOTHESIS THAT MANY WORLDS EXIST IN PARALLEL TO, AND INTERSECT WITH OURS, WITH OPTIONS TO BRANCH OUT. GRIBBIN ALSO DESCRIBES THE WORK OF FEYNMANN, WHO SHOWED MATHEMATICALLY THAT SUBATOMIC PARTICLES CAN TRAVEL BACKWARD IN TIME.
HOLISTIC LOGIC TELLS US ALSO THAT TIME HAS NO BEGINNING AND END. THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE PERCEIVE IN OUR ORDER DO NOT EXIST IN HIGHER DIMENSIONAL ORDERS. A BEGINNING OF TIME IMPLIES A SEPARATION FROM NON TIME.
On the Past Present and Future and the One Way Direction of Time
Eric Lerner perfectly explains THIS IS ONE OF THE DEEPEST PARADOXES OF CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS TODAY. ACCORDING TO ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE, NO DIRECTION TO TIME.
IN RELATIVITY THEORY, FOR EXAMPLE, TIME IS SIMPLY THE FOURTH DIMENSION - THERE IS NO MORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE THAN BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT. THERE IS NO FLOW OF TIME: ALL THE EQUATIONS WOULD LOOK THE SAME IF TIME WERE REVERSED.

Why does time move forward? Is there a difference between past and future, or is it, as Einstein believed, merely a persistent illusion?
The importance of the answers extends far beyond their role at the center of a consistent cosmology. They strike at the heart of some of the greatest mysteries faced by science, philosophy and religion - the questions of the nature of human consciousness, the relation of mind and body, and free will. The distinction between past, present, and future is basic to our experience of consciousness - we are conscious in the now, we remember the past, but we cannot know the future. It also is central to our idea of free will, for it implies that our actions in the present affect the future, that the past is fixed but the future can be changed. How can these ideas be reconciled with a concept of physical laws in which past, present and future all exist equally and cannot be distinguished?


IN A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, EVEN TIME AND SPACE COULD NO LONGER BE VIEWED AS FUNDAMENTALS. BECAUSE CONCEPTS SUCH AS LOCATION BREAK DOWN IN A UNIVERSE IN WHICH NOTHING IS TRULY SEPARATE FROM ANYTHING ELSE, TIME AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE, LIKE THE IMAGES OF THE FISH ON THE TV MONITORS, WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE VIEWED AS PROJECTIONS OF THIS DEEPER ORDER.
AT ITS DEEPER LEVEL REALITY IS A SORT OF SUPERHOLOGRAM IN WHICH THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ALL EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY. THIS SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE PROPER TOOLS IT MIGHT EVEN BE POSSIBLE TO SOMEDAY REACH INTO THE SUPERHOLOGRAPHIC LEVEL OF REALITY AND PLUCK OUT SCENES FROM THE LONG-FORGOTTEN PAST.

No doubt the idea of motion backward in time makes a grievous assault on common sense. The world just does not seem to operate that way, as our ever-aging bodies testify. However, to a particle physicist raised on a diet of Feynman diagrams, motion backward in time is not all that disturbing. All fundamental particle interactions work backward as well as forward and, with rare exceptions, do not distinguish between directions of time. Feynman used the idea of motion backward in time when he invented his famous diagrams in the late 1940s. Dirac had developed his fully-relativistic quantum theory of the electron in 1928, and discovered that it contained negative energy solutions. These solutions were identified as anti-electrons or positrons. Positrons were observed as predicted in 1932. Following Stückelberg and Wheeler, Feynman re-interpreted positrons as electrons moving backward in time [Feynman 1948, 1949a, 1949b, 1965b].
Feynman's idea grew out of his earlier work at Princeton as a graduate student of John Wheeler. Together they had developed a theory of electromagnetic waves involving solutions of Maxwell's equations that travel both ways in time, the so called retarded and advanced waves. The advanced waves travelled backward in time, that is, they arrived at the detector before they left their source. Despite their presence as valid solutions to Maxwell's equations, advanced waves had been previously ignored by less bold thinkers [For an amusing anecdote concerning Feynman's first talk on the subject, given before Einstein, Pauli, and other physics greats, see Feynman 1986, pp. 77-80]. Feynman later extended the idea to quantum field theory, in which waves are particles and vice versa, associating antiparticles with the advanced waves [Feynman 1948. See also Stückelberg 1942].
Feynman noted that whether you say you have a particle moving forward in time with negative energy, or its antiparticle moving backward in time with positive energy, is really quite arbitrary at the fundamental level. Energy conservation and the other laws of physics remain intact. By reversing the charges and momenta of the backward particles, charge and momentum conservation are unaffected.


Nastavak:
1844-1906)
But the problem did not become acute until the statistical approach to the
thermodynamic laws was begun by Boltzmann, because previously no one was faced with the comparison between the reversible character of the elementary law and the irreversibility which had to be explained on its basis. Boltzmann, of course, actually introduced a new law in order to produce the irreversibility, namely a statistical element governed by a parabolic equation. It is only when the statistical element is combined with the mechanical laws that we get the irreversibilty of the second law. (L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
Boltzmann believed that the two directions of time are indistinguishable. (2:6)
It is quite obvious that the Boltzmann equation, far from being a consequence of the laws of classical mechanics, is inconsistent with them. (Bergmann) (3:191)
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)
What is new in Einstein's relativity is the complete separation between past and future. ... Einstein assumed time-symmetry in his theories, but this assumption was superimposed and not needed. It simply does not play any role, because of the complete distinction between past and future. (L. Brillouin) (4:108)
The Ritz and Einstein Agreement to Disagree ( 1909)
The electromagnetic arrow was the subject of a lively discussion by Einstein and Ritz in 1909.

Einstein (1909) argued that the retarded and advanced descriptions of radiation processes occurring in any finite region are equivalent, since the equations of wave propagation are symmetric with regard to time, but that the auxiliary conditions giving the precise circumstances of emission and absorption are very different. In the retarded description it is sufficient if all the macroscopic sources are known whereas in the advanced description all the absorption processes must be known, but unlike the former they must be fully specified in microscopic detail. In
practice, we do not have this information concerning the absorption processes and so we are obliged to use the retarded description. On the other hand,

Ritz (1909)
asserted that only the retarded waves have any physical significance, since advanced waves are not experimentally observed. The initial conditions characterizing the source (or sources) of the radiation are the causes of its transmission and consequently are responsible for the special role played by retarded waves. [According to Brillouin (1964), Ritz was the first to make this
point.] (L. Brillouin)
(2:339-340)
Lewis (1930) Winford Lewis ( 1787 - 1953? )
(Claimed that nearly everywhere in physics and chemistry the ideas of
unidirectional time and unidirectional causality have been purged. These ideas have been used to support some false doctrine, for example, that the universe is actually running down. Predecessor of absorber theory.(2:7-8) No satisfactory quantum electrodynamics could be developed until the retarded and advanced potentials were used simultaneously and symmetrically. (2:8-9)
Wheeler & Feynman
J. A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman attempted to derive the ordinary irreversibility of radiation from the time-reversibility of Maxwell's equations. They argued that the observed properties of an electric charge, that it radiates energy and suffers damping of its motion can be explained in terms of an "absorber theory of radiation ". They used the Schwarzschild- Tetrode-Fokker equation for a flat space and found
that they had to postulate both "advanced" (future) and "retarded" (past) fields; the divisions of time seemed to be "inextricably mixed".

...Wheeler and Feynman assumed that (a) time-asymmetry is initially present; and (b) persists on a purely statistical basis. J.E. Hogarth(5) showed that assumption (b) is inconsistent with any realistic absorber theory of radiation. Heand D.W. Sciama argued that the Wheeler-Feynman theory of rad iation holds in the Steady-State cosmologies of Hoyle and Narlikar, but not in general, in the Einstein-de Sitter models. (C.T.K. Chari)
(4:216)
The dependence of the electromagnetic arrow of time on the thermodynamic arrow was a feature of the absorber theory formulated by Wheeler and Feynman (1945).
In an attempt to produce a theory of charged elementary particles which avoided the difficulties that had beset previous theories of their interaction with electromagnetic fields, they introduced the hypothesis that every photon has an absorber as well as an emitter. In their theory an accelerated charged particle emits radiation equally into the past and future. In other words, retarded and advanced waves are generated symmetrically. If the radiation is confined to an opaque enclosure, so that all of it is absorbed, the waves striking the walls will cause the charged particles therein to radiate likewise into both the past and the future.
Wheeler and Feynman showed that if the enclosure is fully opaque, the advanced waves emitted by the walls will just cancel those from the source particle and only the retarded waves will be left. ... Moreover, since all attempts to produce a quantum-mechanical version of the absorber theory lead to the same difficulties as previous theories of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field, there is no strong argument in its favour and in fact its original proponents have abandoned it. (2:341-342)
Rabbi Heschel wrote that the Sabbath is like a temple in time.
Levinson elaborates the idea.
"The Temple is to space as the Sabbath is to time."
Harry Belafonte
Time is illusion!

The Holographic Universe
by Michael Talbot
Universe is formed of electromagnetic waves which are interconnected (intercepting each other). With respect to this definition, we may understand that in the space, every point is full. There is no emptiness. The famous physician David Bohm, as a result of his research on subatomic particles, reached the conclusion that the Universe is a giant hologram. One of Bohm’s most important findings is that in reality, our daily life is an holographic image. According to him, the Universe is an endless, limitless one "WHOLE" holographic structure. It is meaningless to speak of parts.
The most important quality of the hologram principle is:- Each point in the hologram is able to give the image of the whole unit. Every point of the hologram receives and records the light waves coming from all over the object. Therefore, if the hologram plate is torn off or broken into pieces EVERY SINGLE PARTICLE IS LOADED WITH THE INFORMATION OF THE WHOLE AND WHEN NECESSARY CAN GIVE THE IMAGE OF THE WHOLE BY ITSELF.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Time is basic to world structure. Every change requires a cause. Everything that is in motion must be moved by something. (2:1)
Archimedes (287?-212 BCE )
Time flow is not an intrinsic feature of the ultimate basis of things. Author of first important treatise on statics laws of equilibrium (2:1)
Saint Augustine (354--430)
Remarks that time is at once familiar and deeply mysterious. "What is time?" he asks. "If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I know not."
Confessions, Book XI.14. Augustine, p. 239 (1912
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
First to introduce time in dynamical considerations. Used his heart pulse as a time standard. (L. Rosenfeld, 3:188)
Isaac Newton
(1642-1727)
His mechanics dealt with ideal planets with no frictional, electrodynamic, or tidal, braking effects.
...the time variable does not appear explicitly in the mathematical formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. Indirectly, it is also associated with the fact that the laws of classical mechanics are reversible and do not distinguish between past and future. (2:20,21)
Newton assumed all forces acted at finite distances in an infinitely small time. This was indenspensible for the proof of his third law of equal action and reaction.
(L. Brillouin, 4:107) Old classical mechanics assumed an absolute time, that corresponded to the idea that actions could be propagated at any distance instantaneously (meaning infinite velocity). (L. Brillouin, 4:108)
Of course the LAW OF INERTIA, which was also formulated by Galileo and Newton, was thought by them to be an idealization, a limiting law which was introduced only in order to get a simple situation. Surely they thought that actual motions are irreversible, as are all observable motions. Newton was very much concerned about whether the orbits which he had calculated on the basis of the LAW OF INERTIA were adequate approximations to the actual planetary motions, which he thought
were retarded by friction.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:188)
"We must...believe that there exists an even flow of time." (Newton, as quoted by
Gold) (3:188)
But at the same time he unwittingly introduced a paradox, by the fact that the laws of dynamics which he formulated turned out to be reversible in time. That was an unintended accident in his analysis. But this did not worry people much because they still had the notion of causality, implying a succession in time, namely that the effect follows the cause. Yet even that possible basis for keeping an irreversibility of the direction in the physical laws was undermined by Newton himself, who introduced the force of gravity as an instantaneous action at a distance. Surely he
was aware of the paradoxical character of this assumption, but he still insisted that it was the correct description of the actual law
of gravitation.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:188-189)
Joseph Lagrange
(1736-1813)
By regarding physical time as a fourth dimension of space, Lagrange all but
eliminated time from dynamical theory. (2:3)
Nicolas Carnot
(1796-1832)
Then in subsequent developments, when people began to analyze and
formulate the laws of thermodynamics, the idealization of quasistatic phenomena was introduced by Carnot and his followers. This removed from causality the reference to time. Causality...became completely timeless. (L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
Rudolf Clausius
(1822-1888)
Introduced observable irreversibility as a part of the second law of thermodynamics.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
[In this time frame people apparently began believing that Newton's approximations" of nature were "Laws" of nature and that nature was thus reversible. [rsf]
Physics was inconsistent: Newton's laws of motion were symmetrical, and the entropy law was asymmetrical to the direction of time. This difficulty was solved thanks to the illuminating work of many talented scientists,... (I. Szumilewicz) (4:182)
Ludwig Boltzmann

*********************

Some quotes on 'time';

For eternity is not an awareness of everlasting time, but an awareness which is itself totally without time. . . . Because eternity is the nature of this present and timeless moment, the mystic tells us that the great liberation, the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, the very portal leading "beyond the pairs of past and future," exists nowhere and nowhen else but now. In the words of the Christian sage de Caussade, "O all ye who thirst! Know that you have not far to seek for the fountain of living waters; it springs close to you in the present moment . . . the present moment is the manifestation of the Name of God and the coming of his kingdom."

In this sense, time is an illusion pushing against an illusion. there is a story about a man who met an old and rather feeble-looking fellow on a bus trip. The old man had a brown paper sack in one hand, and he was placing bits of food into it. Finally the passenger could stand it no longer, and asked what was in the paper sack he was feeding? "Its a mongoose. You know, the animal that can kill snakes." "But why do you carry it with you?" "Well," the old man replied, "I'm an alcoholic, and I need the mongoose to frighten off the snakes when I get the delirium tremens." "But don't you know that the snakes are just imaginary?" "Oh sure," the old man replied, " but so is the mongoose." Likewise, we use the illusion of time to frighten off the illusion of death. . . . To accept death is thus to be totally comfortable living without a future, that is, living in the present above time, as Emerson put it. -Ken Wilber - No Boundary



You will never find interior solitude unless you make some conscious effort to deliver yourself from the desires and the cares and the attachments of an existence in time and in the world.

Thomas Merton - New Seeds of Contemplation



Eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. -Wittgenstein



The mystery of time is in ourselves. We can struggle to awaken to a new sense of time and to a new sense of ourselves and so get beyond what we think we are already and what we think we know already. But in every struggle of this nature we will inevitably realize more and more that it is oneself that is the mystery - - that the whole thing is in oneself - - in what one takes as oneself. The mystic ocean of existence is not to be crossed as something outside ourselves. It is in oneself.

We live in the world of becoming, where nothing ever is. All decisions that belong to the life in time, to success, to business, comfort, are about "tomorrow." All decisions about the right thing to do, about how to act, are about tomorrow. It is only what is done in now that counts, and this is a decision always about oneself and with oneself, even though its effect may touch other people's lives "tomorrow".

Now is spiritual. Spiritual values have nothing to do with time. They are not in time, and their growth is not a matter of time. the feeling of now is the feeling of certainty. In now passing time halts. And in this halting of time one knows, sees, feels in oneself, apart from all outer thing; and above all, one is.

Maurice Nicoll


Time, Change and Memory


Time? What is it? It is only a concept used by the mind (along with space and causality) to try to make sense of the world of forms, when perceived as separate from the Self. Here are Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon’s thoughts on the subject:

718. THE FALLACY OF ‘TIME’ (414)

1. Time is believed to be composed of the past, present and future. Of these three, the past is past only in reference to the present and the present is present only in relation to the past, future is future only in reference to the present. So all three being interdependent, even for their very existence, it has to be admitted by sheer force of logic that none of them is real. Therefore, time is not.

2. Experience is the only criterion by which the reality of anything can be decided. Of the three categories of time, past and future are not experienced by any, except when they appear in the present. Then it can be considered only as present. Even this present – when minutely examined – reduces itself into a moment which slips into the past before you begin to perceive it, just like a geometrical point. It is nobody’s experience. It is only a compromise between past and future as a meeting point. Thus present itself being only imaginary, past and future are equally so. Therefore, time is not.

In reality there is only the Self, God, Consciousness, whatever you want to call ‘it’ and ‘that is it’. It is complete and perfect. How could there be change? If there were, and ‘it’ ended up as complete and perfect, then it must have been incomplete and imperfect to begin with. Change implies time so if there is not the latter, there cannot be the former either. As T. S. Eliot says:

"Not that only, but the co-existence,
Or say that the end precedes the beginning,
And the end and the beginning were always there
Before the beginning and after the end.
And all is always now."

Of course, at the relative level, it appears that there is change and (perhaps consequently) we conceive that there must be time to account for this. And this brings in the train of other misconceptions such as causality and free will. We do like to complicate things, don’t we?!

There is an absolutely brilliant note from Atmananda on this (apologies for keep quoting from this but he is so good):

514. NOTHING CHANGES. (211)

Change and changelessness both pertain to objects, and are perceived by me from beyond both. The one can never be perceived from the position of the other. The most common mistake committed by an ordinary man is that, on the disappearance of something, he immediately substitutes an imaginary appearance of something else called its opposite or its absence.Now let us examine what we mean by ‘change’. An object is a mixture of the background and some qualities. The qualities come and go. When some qualities disappear, others appear, the background remaining the same. Then we say the object changes, and on the surface the statement appears to be true.Let us look deeper. The qualities merely change their place and are not destroyed. Because some passengers have alighted from and some others have boarded a train at a particular station, can you say the train has changed? No. And because some passengers have alighted from the train and boarded a ship, can you say that they have changed? No. Neither the train nor the passenger has changed.

Similarly, in the object composed of the background and the qualities, the qualities change their place. That is the only activity that takes place. Neither the background nor the qualities undergo any change. Therefore, in fact, nothing changes.

In the moment – of seeing, hearing, thinking or whatever – there is no time. (There is only seeing, hearing, thinking etc.) The illusion of time only arises when the ego latches on to the thought called memory, which purports to relate to the ‘earlier’ event of seeing, hearing, thinking etc.). In fact, the memory is itself only a thought, in the present, too. I.e. there is again thinking in the moment and still no time. ‘All is always now’.

The usual Advaita manner of explaining the paradox is to talk about absolute and relative (or noumenal and phenomenal; or paramArtha and vyavahAra; or reality and illusory world). Time goes along with the (false) notion of creation. If you believe in a creation, a world of me and you and objects, then space, time and causality are necessary to maintain this illusion and explain what seems to happen. Once you know that all this is false and that there are ‘not two’, then the concepts are no longer necessary. What is the meaning of space when the Self is everywhere? What is the meaning of time for eternal Consciousness? What is the meaning of causality when ‘nothing ever happens’?

Clearly, sages (along with everyone else) continue to appear to act as if there is time. If they say that they will ‘be in X in two months time’, then their words reflect a tacit assumption that there is a future. It depends upon the perspective. From the point of view of a body-mind functioning in the world, what is said is meaningful to the other person’s mind. But all of these – bodies, minds and world – are only names and forms superimposed upon the non-dual reality. In truth, there is only Consciousness now (and there is only now)!

The illusion of time is the effective obstacle to our ‘enlightenment’ and memory is perhaps the principal reason for this. In the moment, there is identity with whatever ‘we’ are seeing, feeling etc. In the moment, this is the reality. ‘Enlightenment’ is knowing this in ‘every’ moment. Thus it is effectively true to say that we are already enlightened because, in the moment, this is our own experience. But when we think that a memory refers to some past event and become involved with this illusion, we lose the connection with the moment. Paradoxically, of course, the memory itself is a present thought and, provided it is know as such in the moment, there is no problem. But we insist that this present thought somehow refers to something that is now in a ‘past’.

Just to end with another quote from Krishna Menon:

"Memory is the one thing that creates the whole world, and memory is the last link that connects one with the phenomenal world. If memory is understood to be nothing but a thought, which in turn is nothing but pure Consciousness – the Self – then memory, and the world with it, is merged into the Self."

Quotations are from the 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda' and from 'Four Quartets' by T. S. Eliot


“While I was conducting experiments to make ’spineless’ cacti,” he continued, “I often talked to the plants to create a vibration of love. ‘You have nothing to fear,’ I would tell them. ‘You don’t need your defensive thorns. I will protect you.’ Gradually the useful plant of the desert emerged in a thornless variety.” Luther Burbank – A Saint Amidst the Roses

no.

no.

Please teach Nameless how you do this.

Beg pardon? Got a problem?

Beg pardon? Got a problem?

Yes. I suffer from a poor sense of humor.

I do not suffer from lack of humour, I am humour itself.

Time is a constant force, it does not move or change. Although all things change time, time remains the same. The difference between one second and another is always the same, time is always the same. Things change because of the force of time which is always constant.....

Yes! See... so time must be seperate from physical reactions occuring in the universe, it's not dependant on matter or stuff like that, therefore it's a force like gravity.

Yes. I suffer from a poor sense of humor.
Sorry to hear that..
Hope it 'clears up' sometime.
Peace..

Time is a constant force
If time is a constant force then heavy objects must age slower than light ones... :D

I once heard 'time' described as the 'distance between two 'events'.

(of course, if all 'apparent events' are absolutely simultaneous, as it is, again, there is then no 'distance between' the perceived 'events')

If time is a constant force then heavy objects must age slower than light ones... :D

Haha, very true.

I sleep in the basement to age slower.

Haha, very true.

I sleep in the basement to age slower.
Awww... see? You DO have a sense of humor after all!

Isn't time just changes in space? If we could freeze time, wouldn't space remain motionless?

That's a good question. Time would be stopped, motion to. Are they interdependant or the same? I'd suggest they're different.

I'd like to hear different arguments for why time does or does not exist. *devil's advocate*

Time doesn't exist. All we ever actually experience is the present. What we call time is really only a construct of our mind. What we call memory. If we had no memory we would not experience either change or time, only an ever present now.

~Raithere

What we call memory. If we had no memory we would not experience either change or time, only an ever present now.
So if we had no memory things wouldn't age? Growth and decay depend upon us remembering? Hardly.
With no memory we may not personally experience time, but that's not the same as saying there would be no time.

So if we had no memory things wouldn't age? Growth and decay depend upon us remembering? Hardly.
With no memory we may not personally experience time, but that's not the same as saying there would be no time. You're basing this on an assumption. Without memory to tell you differently how could you know that the present wasn't simply constant? You'd have no concept of change because everything would only ever be as it is. You wouldn't know that once there wasn't a response to your post and now there is, you'd only know this moment with nothing to compare it against. There would be no growth or decay, just what is.

~Raithere

Of course time exist...

Time is a product of an expanding universe. If the universe ceased to expand we'd cease to experience time.

It's illistrated by the rate of speed equation relating that to travel a certain distance at a rate speed ,a certain amount of time must pass.

The reciprocal is true as well...In order for time to pass at a certain rate, a distance must be traveled.

Therefore even when we are motionless a distance is being traveled that motion is observed in the expansion of the universe.

You're basing this on an assumption.
Nope, I'm basing it on what you said. If we had no memory we would still get old and die, but we wouldn't realise that we were once younger than we are now, or that we once had parents/ grandparents etc. That big tree in the park would "always" have been that big - as far as we KNEW, but time would still pass.
That's what I was asking - just because we didn't "see" things grow doesn't mean that they don't. Hence time would not be a construct of the mind...

boa, Communist Hamster, darksidZz, francois, madanthonywayne, Oli, RubiksMaster, Saquist, swivel

Gentlemen.... All Your Time Are Belong To SciForums

Yeah, but I've been away for sooo long. Lotsa catching up to do, woo-woos to put down, y'know how it is.

If we had no memory we would still get old and die, but we wouldn't realise that we were once younger than we are now, or that we once had parents/ grandparents etc. That big tree in the park would "always" have been that big - as far as we KNEW, but time would still pass.You're just reiterating your initial point. Can you prove this without relying on memory?

~Raithere

I don't like either of the choices.

It sounds like your thoughts have been poisoned by Farsight.

Time is a direction on a Lorentzian manifold.

Can you prove this without relying on memory?
Prove? Of course not. But can you prove or even demonstrate that the "real world" would not continue to move along if we had no memory?
If memory is the only thing that makes time move along then how did we get here? By your reasoning ther must have "always" been something with a memory in order for humans (or anything with the requisite awareness of time) for things to get to this stage.
If, at the very beginning, there was no consciousness to make time pass then time would not pass and consciousness could not arrive.

I'm just wondering, when you guys say time is real and tangible what do you mean? I was thinking that if you chose that it meant time wasn't merely a construct formed by our perceptions, but was infact a phenomena in the universe (similar to gravity).

they cannot explain that. trust me i win this debate all the time, i am the champion of the time debate :)

quantum quack and prince james are worthy contenders though i must admit,

peace.

You can say time does not exist, it is created by mankind. In every second, the second before no longer exists. The only way it does exist is by its consequences, the results of what happened in that second, and by our memories. But then you could say that because we can remember it, it continues to exist.

'Time' is a mirage in the desert, 'believed' to be an oasis by those unaware of the true basic nature of the desert, and one's 'perspective'. The 'aware' can 'enjoy the image' presented, without the insanity and delusion concurrent with the infection of 'belief'.

The 'concept/memory' of 'Time' is an 'integral' for the manifestation of existence to 'continue' to manifest to/as our 'perceptions' as it 'continually appears' to do.

'Time' is a mirage in the desert, 'believed' to be an oasis by those unaware of the true basic nature of the desert, and one's 'perspective'. The 'aware' can 'enjoy the image' presented, without the insanity and delusion concurrent with the infection of 'belief'.

The 'concept/memory' of 'Time' is an 'integral' for the manifestation of existence to 'continue' to manifest to/as our 'perceptions' as it 'continually appears' to do.

Nameless---go talk to Farsight in the pseudoscience forum.

Must I?
Master?
Right now?
Presumptuous twit?

If that is the extent of your understanding and/or response to the words posted, why would you feel compelled to respond at all?
Emotional knee-jerk? Did I touch on a 'belief virus'?
Thank you for your 'time' though...
Peace..

None of these---I was just pointing out the obvious, that your views of time have nothing to do with science. Apologies if you take offense to my pointing out the metaphysical nature of your beliefs. I thought you and Farsight might find something interesting to talk about, is all.

Dick.

Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

None of these---I was just pointing out the obvious, that your views of time have nothing to do with science. Apologies if you take offense to my pointing out the metaphysical nature of your beliefs. I thought you and Farsight might find something interesting to talk about, is all.

Dick.
All that you display, Dick, is your own ignorance of the supportive science behind my words. The lack is yours, not mine, and your lack of understanding has nothing to do with the 'truth and wisdom' of what I say. Go learn some quantum theory and try again.. Thanks for your 'input'..
Unless you have some particular question that i can 'expand upon', that you might be aware of, that might help you understand what you so obviously, yet(?) do not.
An 'emotional' response, such as you have offered, is evidence of 'belief', not rationality, which is transmitted by question and answer until understanding is achieved. Understanding does not automatically mean 'acceptance', but it is at least 'understanding and not mindless gainsaying. So, if you have nothing of value to 'contribute', and your 'emo' comments are through..
Good day.

CrackpotCount += 1.

CrackpotCount += 1.
*ignored*
Violation of rule #3; Babbling ignorance.

Bye the bye, Dick, I don't recall reading any of your other posts, or if I have, I saw nothing noteworthy. Have you ever contributed anything intelligent or thoughtful here, or is it all this sort of vain and arrogant 'belief' spew?
If so, please ignore my words as I will yours.
Thank you for your consideration..

You're basing this on an assumption. Without memory to tell you differently how could you know that the present wasn't simply constant? You'd have no concept of change because everything would only ever be as it is. You wouldn't know that once there wasn't a response to your post and now there is, you'd only know this moment with nothing to compare it against. There would be no growth or decay, just what is.

Good post Raithere.