Does time exist?

Ah, but it's time that's in question- yes a picture is a fixed moment of time in the past but are we not viewing several fixed moments from the past when we (on earth) look at the stars? Are not the particles of light that we see in a fixed order from what you consider the past? Let's just assume for instance that a distance Star has already gone supernova or whatever else that may have happened to it the light that we see on earth is just a remnant from the past so much as a photo maybe a remnant from the past such as a deceased grandfather. The star either is our is not currently at this very moment. What we are seeing is a remnant of a moment not what is. An old movie that we're being shown for the first time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not disputing that our experience of events is always in our present, but the difference is that the photons we receive now (our present) are old photons and have travelled billions of miles to be received and processed in your present mind. Actually the reception, transmission and processing of sensory experience takes time itself.
Our mind (thought) is always in the present, all information we receive is always from the past. We just experience it as our present, but it is only a relativistic subjective present, meaningful to you only.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you under the impression that ALL light is extra-Terrestrial?
(And what, exactly, is the connection to "what time is" here?

Sure. In a trivial sense.

Oh my. That wouldn't be just waffling, would it?

Um, clocks, for one.
If time truly were "subjective to the viewers mind" then how come it's night time for everyone in a particular location? How come we can all agree on the time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Old photons?

 

Because everything that is also is biased on math and that math continuing mechanically could decide what can continue

 

I have no idea whatsoever what you're trying to say here.
But, so far as I can parse it at all, it's meaningless nonsense.
WTF does "biased on math" mean?

 

I think that I am going to have to stop answering you due to the fact that this is not what the topic was about nor do I wish to be further insulted while trying to explain everything needed to understand the reasoning behind my logic.
Thank you for your valuable input.

 

Then why post it in this topic?

Insulted?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

C'mon, you know very well what I mean. We don't need to describe how the electro-magentic spectrum works to know how light propagates.
All we need to know is that it has a speed limit and covering a distance from the emitter to the receiver takes time.

Thus when we see something , we see it as it was , not as it is now. The information we receive is from the past.

 

examples of looking back into the past:
We know that the age (duration of measurable time) of the Change (creation) can mathematically be calculated to be some 13.7 billion years ago.
We know from spectral analyses that the longest wavelengths are missing from the oldest events. But wavelengths cannot be larger than the medium which produces them. This can be mathematically proven that during the process of violent inflation, the universe was once a small singularity.

 

Both, looking at the stars as looking at a photograph of the grandfather we see a moment in the past. We must also consider the duration between the moment in the past and the present. Then we think time.

The life of a person is only a moment in relation to the stars' life.

 

It just occurred to me that while we call a photograph a snaopshot of a moment in time, it is actually a snapshot of an entire history of time.
Some of the objects in the photograph of say a night sky existed and changed long before the moment of the snapshot. Some objects shown in the photograph did not even exist anymore at the time the picture was taken.

We truly live in a very strange "present", where everything we experience as our present actually is already in the past when we experience it.
At short distances this time difference may be negligible, but the fact remains that what we experience as our present consists of a infinite composite of things in our past.

 

What is the difference between an instant and a moment?

The instant is zero-dimensional, is the time dot. In the instant there is no interval. The moment is a short or very short period in relation to another longer period. For example, the second is a moment in relation to the day, the day is a moment in relation to the year and the year is a moment in relation to an era or history. Moments are relative. Even what we think may be very long, in Astronomy may be just a moment. In the same way, what for a teenager can be a long time for an old man can be a moment.

The instant is only intelligible, moment is intuitive.

 

I stand corrected. Should read: "instant" in time". IMO, the argument itself still holds.

 

The instant is a mathematical entity, exists ideally. In the instant nothing happens.

 

There is a problem with shutter speed of the camera itself. It has a duration.
A slow shutter speed of a stationary camera capturing a moving object will create an blurred image, but keeping the background sharply focused.
OTOH, "panning" the camera along with the moving object, will result in a blurred background.
An exellent example of relativity.

 

I liked" your post 15 and Maxila's comments on it in post 16. Time is not observable as it has no property to observe or measure. It is not like mass as was earlier suggested as mass does have properties - makes a observable gravitational force field and resists acceleration.

Time is just a parameter in many equations. For example how many dollars you have when invested with interest compounding, or many of the equations of physics. In principle all of physic could be described without any reference to the "t parameter" but using it makes descriptions easier as one need not be specific as to which pair of observable changes are being compared.

For clarity consider a standard candle burning down: There is an equation H(t) = Q1 which gives its height, H, without explicit reference to the clock telling how "t" in the equation Q1 is advancing. I.e. there is another equation, Q2 that tells, for example the number of flex cycles, N(t) of the crystal in your Timex watch between the start of candle burning and the end of that. N(t) = Q2 where t does appear in the equation Q2.

Both these equations can in principle be "solved" to give t = Q1' and t = Q2.' There will be of course an "h" in Q1' and an "n" in Q2.' The lower case letter (h or n) indicates the variable which is considered to be the "independent" one. Then as equals are mutually equal we have (with the time parameter totally absent):
Q1' = Q2' a direct expression of the height of the candle, H, as function of the number of crystal flex cycles, N. I.e. with a little algebra, we know both N(h) and H(n), where the lower case letter (h or n) indicates which variable is considered to be the "independent" one.

Not only does time not have any property - ergo does not exist and can not be measured; it is not even necessary in a complete description of the universe, just very convent, because using the "t-parameter" allows one to leave vague which clock is being used to describe how t is advancing /changing.

In ancient times the "clock" was the duration of the day (or integer fractions thereof), or new moon till next new moon. Now technology has removed any natural assumptions as to what "t" is referenced to - Now t is just an abstraction. This has further weakened any claim that time is real. No abstraction is real.

 

I agree with you, but time exists objectively because the subject does not invent the measures. Existence can be real or logical (mathematical entities).

You describe change that is the becoming-duration duality. Change is real, time is logical (intelligible)

 

I only understand the last three words. Yes change is real, but how does time change, if that is why you say time is real? Please amplify to clarify what the rests of your post is trying to state.

For something to objectively exist, it must have at least one property that can be measured by instruments - Time does not have any. Quite a few things do exist subjectively, like pain, joy, fear, etc. for many other qualia, but only the person experiencing them knows they are real. - Just because you exhibit "pain behavior" such as yell and quickly remove your hand from a hot piece of metal it started to pick up, is not proof for me that you are experiencing the qualia called pain. I have no way to know what, if anything, you are actually experiencing. Experiences are subjective, not objective.

All qualia are subjective. - Not measurable by instruments. Most do have a subjective sense of time - it advance slowly when waiting for your turn to use the bath room on a crowed air plane, or all too quickly if doing something enjoyable. Time is at best a subjective experience, like pain. Certainly not "objective" as you claim.

 

Time is not a magnitude nor a property. Duration is the magnitude, time is just its measure. Clocks do not measure time, measure the duration. I did not say that time is real, but exists logically. Duration is the increase of the existence of things.

From post 26:
Existence is the state of things to be real or ideal. The ideas have subjective existence and they are classified in: logical, emotional and imaginary. Logical ideas are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and measurements. Real objects are material and therefore are objective.

Edition:
Existence is the state of things to be real or ideal. The ideas have subjective existence and they are classified in: logical and qualia (sensation and emotion). Logical ideas are mathematical entities: numbers, figures and measurements. Real objects are material and therefore are objective.