Does time exist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it is a period of total stillness followed by continuation of the last instant of activity, then the duration of the stillness is NOT measurable. When activity resumed the time chronology would just continue from whence it stopped. However we use the periods of stillness of the cesum atom as part of *counting* time.

Precisely, the absence of any state of continuous existence would make the concept of time moot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WriteU

What periods of " stillness " are you referring with the cesium atom ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This term was brought up by someone else, so I used the term in a metaphorical context.
But I agree that the term *stillness* is not appropriate. In fact my entire example is wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The thrust was that an interval of activity is countable only if there is a period of stillness (no activity) between those periods of activity. A binary system of counting consists of two states, ON and OFF.

 

Anyway time only exists through the movement of this or that thing. And this movement is then measured. Called time.

 

I know what you are saying, but I would add *the duration" of movement is called time.

 

Agreed

But that does not mean time in GR or everyday duration ; should be considered real ; in the sense that duration has a property outside the cause of the movement ; it doesn't .

 

I disagree.
We *experience* time by observation of durations of events and it appears that all events have an associated duration. In that respect Time is real for us. But that is not proof of the existence of time, but does imply a fundamental permittive condition, which allows for the process of events. If such a model is used, Time is merely a product of the natural permission, chronology, and duration of certain mathematical processes permitted by this timeless condition.

If such a fundamental timeless but permittive condition existed, our methods of counting time incrementally of duration of events could be just another formalized abstract *functional* tool in the mathematical essence of the Wholeness..
I propose that our fundamental functional operations; +, -, x, / , be augmented by the operational function of time as *t*, i.e. 2 + 2 + t = 4

 

So you need movement in essence so that 2+2=4 ? Mathematics of non-sense.

 

2 + 2 = 4 is a function (process)

 

There is something in Kant that time is just a construction of the mind, with no basis in reality.

 

Thanks to everybody for participating in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The duration is the definite permanence of things in reality (time). The indefinite duration is eternity. In the duration we intuit the occurred total activity (OTA). Without this intuition, time would be a spatial measurement. The OTA is directly proportional to the time period.

 

Yes, because the duration of the OTA produces the meausrable time.
IMO, eternity is a timeless concept, there is nothing to measure, either spatially or temporally.

Unlike mathematics, time is not an abstract quality in and of itself. Time is a real measurement of duration of change. Eternity is unchanging and therefore cannot be measurable as a duration or a chronology of changes (OTA), there is no reference frame such as *a biginning and an end*..

 

After rereading your post I will qualify my answer to : Any change observed from any reference frame (GR) will have a measurable duration, but I agree to "in the sense that time has no meaning as a property outside the movement itself".

 

A function need not be a process. It is the case, whether time exists or not, that 2+2=4. This is one of the equalities upon which we would rely in order to answer the question.

 

No. There is something in Kant that time is something that without which, we cannot make certain mental constructions

 

I agree and addressed that in post 133.

The equation of 2 + 2 = 4 is a timeless abstract equivalence. However when we actually perform the work of physicaally adding 2 and 2 of something in order to get a result of 4 somethings does create an associated duration of the work performed, which can be express as time. The variables introduced by GR may alter this duration dependent on the frame of reference.

Actually this flexibility seems to prove that time is meaningless, unless associated with physical change under specific circumstances.

I am skeptical of such terms as time dilation and time contraction. If time is an abstract constant, the introduction of GR makes it a variable and not a constant. IMO, time is a convenient tool to measure durations of change. One minute in one frame of reference, may be a year from another frame of reference. IMO, there is no such thing as absolute time, apart from spacetime, i.e. from the BB (the beginning) to the present, which currently stands at approximately 14.7 billion years. Was time before the beginning of space?

 

The introduction of GR produces specific objective standards to use when discussing time and properly translating from one system of coordinates to another.

 

I can understand that this is how we apply universal functions from our frame of reference, but does that make time a constant or relative? Below (highlighted) are some statements which seem to show that not everything is time-dependent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

The wiki definition shows that there are constants which are independent of time, either as an abstraction or as a dimensionless measurement, which to me sounds they are independent of both time and relativity.

Please take everything I say as probabative rather than declarative. I am trying to get an understanding why time should be an essential pre-requisite cosmological property and not a concurrent by-product (result) of physical or geometric interactions in a purely permittive cosmological condition

 

The joke of GR is that it makes relative systems of coordinates have a clear, objective meaning that everyone must agree on and that are translatable to every other system.

That makes sense if you ignore that the physical constants only apply to descriptions of physical systems over time.