Does time exist?

IOW. A measurement.

Keywords: measurement.

Without a form of measurement (of change or geometry), time does not exist.

I find this a curious concept, because it is circular reasoning. "Flowing" is a verb and by definition does work which is a mathematical function and should be measurable as a quantity of work done. It's completely arbitrary and it's better to say "time is an emergent by-product of "change".

The definition of "flowing time" requires the assumption of a separate plenum, a 4th dimension (time) apart from the 3 Spatial dimensions , and containing a non-mathematical self-sustaining Temporal quality (Time) from which time can be borrowed for individual time-lines of change. But, of course, change is a purely mathematical function of a certain duration. All it needs is mathematical permission (Implicate) for it to become expressed in reality. This "requires and takes" time for completion of the change.

But why MUST there be an available pre-existing (future) period of time for indeterminate change? Is there an answer to the question? It is impossible to measure time itself, because it it has do duration in and of itself, it is only a (timeless) permissive condition.

Time as an emergent by-product of duration of change seems so much more elegant to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If time was unreal speed (s) was equal to the distance (d) and the formula s = d / t were not used. Time is a real independent variable.

Becoming is sensory, duration is intuitive and measurement of duration (time) is intelligible.

What do you mean ¨things¨.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time flows like a river; it is a simile. Time happens (becoming, changes) in a certain interval (duration). The temporary change is the increasing of the existence of things (duration).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would interpret that as Time is a 'dependent" variable. It is a result of change (action) and therefore wholly dependent on that action.

ALL things with dynamic functions (change of state) of certain duration. If space were to disappear, time would cease to exist along with space. However, the fundamental permittivity of the timeless wholeness would remain with time as a latent potential.

If time was an independent plenum, it would continue to exist in spite of the disappearance of the universe, but without measurable change the concept time would lose all its meaning.
What purpose would time serve except measure itself. Can you measure time itself?

IMO, time is a potential of a timeless permittive condition and remains a latency unless there is an action of a certain duration or a measurable geometric relationship between separated objects. IOW, it is dependent on the chronology of events, such as movement from here to there.
IMO, time (duration) is an emergent by-product of change (as explained above).

 

But it never does so by itself. The emergence of measurable time is alway associated with (dependent on) spatial (physical) change and the duration of that change, if measured as a countable interval of duration change of state or geometry.

 

TIME EXIST OBJECTIVELY

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.

Becoming-duration duality is real and its measurement, time, is a logical idea. Measurements do not depend on the view of the subject, therefore, in a sense they are objective.

Now, the perception of time, what each individual perceives, is completely subjective, a false time.

Anyway, whether in reality or in the mind of the subject time exists objectively.

PS:
- Objective 1: It exists in the reality (table, light, motion, etc.)
- Objective 2: It exists in the subject, but it is an universal truth (numbers, figures and measurements).

 

I like your reasoning, but disagree with the concept of ideas (imaginings) consisting of numbers, figures and measurements experiencing time. I can imagine a dragon flying, spewing fire from its mouth. But a dragon is a non-existent animal and as such does does not objectively exist or requires time. The imaginings (duration of thoughts) of the dragon are objectively real and do require time. However the imaginary object itself has no physical properties and does not require its own time for existence in reality.

In some philosophies imaginary objects may become real as Tulpas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa#Alexandra_David-N.C3.A9el

IMO, that is only partly correct, an imaginary dragon (Tulpa) cannot be measured by any measurement. It does not exist in reality. God, Devil, Angels, spirits are all Tulpas. This is why no time frame can be assigned to them, they have no measurable qualities in and of themselves.

I agree somehwat, but instead of "false time" I would prefer to use "relative time" depending on the individual's viewpoint.

With a stipulation that whereas the individual's mind exists in the present, the time (of a thing) it perceives is always from the (fixed) past, IOW, reality (as we preceive it) has already happened (fixed in time) and is part of observable reality, before it can measured accurately.

True, but measurable only from the past (elapsed time) and only by it's observable physical properties .

IMO, if something has measurable properties it may be said time can be associated with those properties.

But Mathematics has no time frame of itself. Only measurement (using numbers and equations) yields a functional time frame. The number 2 has no associated time frame, E = Mc^2 has no associated time frame. These constants are timelessly true.

The one constant which may by associated with a specific time frame is "c", but that is because this constant has a measurable property, because it is associated with a physical particle.

However when we dig deeper, we reach first "uncertainty" where space and time are not measurable simulataneously, even as a "coordinate" for the particle may be established.

Deeper than that we reach Potential and enter the world of metaphysics (constants) and time
loses any meaning alrogether. Does time exist as a property nothing?

If the universe ceased to exist there would be no spacetime, IOW, no space (geometry or change), no time.

Time does not exist for unreality. Such a condition should be considered "timeless", IMO.

 

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TIME

According to Albert Einstein, time is what clocks measure. But, time is an indirect measurement because the duration of something does not affect directly the clock. The clock only indicates the position of the Sun relative to a point on the Earth. It looks like more a space measurement that temporary.

Reference proposition: We see the becoming, we intuit the duration and time is intelligible.

Operationally time is defined as: "t is (d), s" that is read: time is the measurement of the duration since a start moment set.

Process:
1- The clock shows 10:37 AM.
2- We look the time on the clock.
3- We intuit the 10 hours since midnight.
4- We intuit the 37 minutes since 10:00 AM.
5- We think the time 10:37 AM.

Without step 3 and 4 we see only that the hands go over the graduated dial of the clock.

Sibilia

 

All the steps are relativistic.
In fact, if the clock was 1 light minute away from the observer, we would see the clock @ 10:37, but our present time would be 10:38.

In fact the entire list falls apart with daylight savings time and we need to reset our clocks to the adjusted time frame, which would give false results of any experiments where time is an issue, unless we also accounted for daylight savings in another part of the country.

There is only one true universal time and that started at the BB, give or take a few million years.

 

Is it an illusion?

 

Not IMO, I believe time is a result ( has a value) but only when associated with chronological change (time-lines) of events.

When an event occurs, a timeline is established (of any duration). If an event does not happen. no timr can be associated with a non-existent event.
Time is a necessary by-product of change, because change implies a duration (of change), from quantum to light-years.
But without any chronology time simply does not exist.

This is a difficult concept as every experience in reality is always associated with time. One can say that the universe is filled with individual time-lines, as well as its emergent own spacetime-line.

But time is a passive result of duration of change. When there is no change, then there is no duration and time does not really exist when there is no duration to measure for lack of change of anything. There is no time flowing past or through or from a non-existent event or chronology, IMO.

Of course we ar all part of our dynamic universal timeline of the Pilot Wave, which carries everything within it. But as far as I know only "c' is a non-relativistic constant between distance, speed, and time. (186,292 M/S in a vacuum)

 

Change consists of the becoming-duration duality. Time is the measurement of change.

In every change (activity) there is becoming and duration.

 

Unless that change is instantaneous and time (duration) emerges with the subsequent evolutionary chronology of that change.

 

Time is subjective to the viewers mind. All that is and ever was and will be is right now, every moment you've ever had has been in the present.
Then where did all those things go? Those things that arnt happening right now but you remember them happening. Hence the idea of time. For all we know we could be pushed along by an infinite number of universes splitting off from one another.

 

The physical evidence would indicate otherwise.
Unless you're simply talking about the perception of time (i.e. not time "itself").

 

The idea of time, what we know it as could be terribly inaccurate or spot on. It's just one of those things.

 

In context, consider this modification, "The present is subjective to the viewer's mind". When we see a star we are in fact looking back far into the past even as we experience the information in our mind's present. By the time we see a star, the star itself may already have ceased to exist millions of years before we receive the information of the star's existence in the first place.

I think I might agree to "Time is relativistic from the point of the observer".

 

What physical evidence were you referring to?

 

But are we not just looking at light that has only reached our planet recently? Saying that we are looking back in time when we look at stars could be equivalent to saying as much when we view old photos.

 

The difference is that an old photo of your grandfather shows your (now dead) grandfather at a fixed moment of/in time in the past.

But suppose you look at an old photo of your grandfather and he is no longer in the picture or instead of standing by a tree, he now sits on a parkbench where the tree used to be?

One definition of "memory": "the time within which past events can be or are remembered"