Does time exist?

6.4 Phenomenology of Time
Is time an occult phenomenon? Does it have an active principle? For Newton, time
determined phenomena (Ch. 3, 6: p. 33): Newton was trapped in his own equations
by the effects of field models. I. Prigogine was convinced that time must necessarily
play an active role in physical laws [4: Ch. I]: they both thought that time was a
phenomenon. The phenomenology of time is denied by the fact that it cannot be
detected, it is powerless, and it has no source.
6.4.1 Time Cannot Be Detected
Time has never been detected: no physical indication of a manifestation has ever
been identified. Clocks are neither time detectors nor time emitters. Clocks are more
precise than Nile floods, but they are only passive human-made devices, in so far as
their functioning requires energy. Moreover, their accuracy depends on their level
of technology, and it also depends on their environment, including gravity. The
error is common: gravity disrupts the clock mechanism, not time; this is confirmed
by all experiments with gravity (Ch. 8, 4).

6.4.2 Time Is Powerless
No mark caused by any kind of physical time has ever been brought to light. The
rust that gradually corrupts scrap iron is caused by oxygen, not by time: the aging
process is interrupted as soon as oxygen is removed.
Clocks are not activated by time. Neither the Earth/Sun configuration, nor clocks
are chrono-generative. It has been shown that one Earth revolution, which makes us
one year older, is the cause of the increase in our chronological age, as recorded in
our personal records; but the Earth revolution is not the cause of the increase in our
biological age, i.e., our aging.
6.4.3 Time Has No Source
No source of physical time has ever been detected in any place in the Universe,
wherever it may be. No physical phenomenon can be identified as producing
physical time. Locally, movements of the Earth relative to the Sun produce days,
nights, and seasons, but these physical events are not time.
A quartz crystal does not generate any more time than the spring of a watch: their
oscillations just indicate that they are both seeking a state of physical equilibrium;
furthermore, the time displayed on clocks depends inherently on laborious con-
ventions, regardless of the technology they use.
Therefore time is not a physical phenomenon. An additional confirmation is
provided by the aging process

FROM

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hope these book extracts explain, better than I have, my position and views about time

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems odd to have such a descriptive definition for a nonexistent thing...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To some though time is an actual thing .

With a quick read of the post#821 I have no problem with any of it .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Movement is the essence of time , as I've been saying for years .

 

As are so much else

Ghost

UFOs and attendant aliens

I will admit time APPEARS to have at least some semblance of existence and it pains me to find time in the company of those others on the list

But it is what it is or in this case it is what it isn't

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Movement and the measurement of said change is called AGE

Age as I have contended since coming into the post is applied from a mark at a particular arbitrary NOW and another arbitrary NOW

TIME cannot be extracted from the AGE of anything measured between arbitrary NOWs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your example of time is about perception

Post#821 was talking about time as an a actual ,real, physical dimension.

 

Oh for Pete's sake.

This is an entirely semantic discussion. We are all talking about the same phenomenon. I say two events separated by time; you say two events separated by age.
Ultimately, we're referring to the same thing, regardless of the label.

The only consequence of your assertion is that some per cent of the time people will understand what you mean, and some percent of the time they will not - and someone will have to explain to them that you are referring to what the rest of us call "time", just by a different name. And then they will say "Ah! Why didn't he just say that?"

Achievement unlocked.

 

I can only refer back to Post #821 and to suggest reading all of the book to understand perhaps it is more than semantics

Sorry I cannot be any clearer and explain the difference between the two

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I will try again to explain but at the moment at 6am here Darwin Australia it's breakfast time

In about 10 hours I will have worked out how I might be able to present my explanation of the difference

Here's hoping

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I get what you're saying. It's just not how the rest of the world defines it.

 

I'm a bit early and find I have a spare now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to get part of an explanation going

I think understanding the difference between time and age is somewhat like understanding difference between weight and mass

MASS being the amount of stuff something has

WEIGHT being force being acting the mass

In everyday use the two are interchangeable

AGE being the measurement between two NOWs

TIME being considered the same in everyday use

However I hope to illustrate later how they differ

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's no doubt they're distinct. That wasn't what was at issue.

You were saying one of them doesn't exist.
So how are you now comparing something that exists with something you assert does not.

 

Wait please and I hope to have a very clear explanation in about 6 hours

I'm going to nut it out in text then copy and paste it into this thread

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The natural "clock" for the iron atom is the same as that for all "quantum" phenomena -- the Planck second as established by the quantum of action. The iron atom is very persistent over very long duration by this standard., but far from 'timeless'.

By comparison, intrinsic Time for the Democritean Atomos would never experience a tick ("immutable and eternal"}; but extrinsically, each Atomos-Atomos impact would produce a new 'age' or 'era' (as well as a change in direction) in the motion of both Atomos.

 

The mistake is in reading M-W's 'actual being' and 'real' as requiring some sort of physical existence of a quantity may be, e.g., tucked into a jar. This is correct, as is when M-W makes a distinction between the characteristic of physicality from other characteristics which are non-physical but nevertheless exist.

The ancient Greeks believed that 'sea' and 'Earth' all consisted of different forms of the same substance -- sometimes referenced as "plenum"; or, that they consisted of two of the four basic elements WATER and EARTH. Being written in modern times, M-W would follow the standard model lead and say that 'sea' and 'earth' (and almost every other physical entity) is composed of "matter"; and that Matter consists merely of different forms of Energy and Space. The notion of a physical plenum is no longer in the vocabulary of the standard model.

For me the failures of M-W reside in defining terms like "mass" in a situation where TSM cannot define why inertial and gravitational mass measure identically. Such is the folly of describing the physical nature of the universe in GR and QM terms of "Energy and Space(Time)" where neither are inherently physical in their natures. Existent, yes. But not physical.

d.

 

OK here I go with what I hope is a helpful explanation of my opinion as to why I say TIME does not exist

This is a thought experiment so

JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE START OF THIS EXPERIMENT I WILL CONSIDER THE FUTURE AND THE PAST AS EXISTING

Consider a movie film projector

Canister of film on top (FUTURE)
A light source / frame between light and lens / lens / screen (NOW)
Canister of film on bottom (PAST)

Consider the canister of film on top to represent 1 day (00:01 to 23:59)

Run the film and stop at random time (10:00am)

System has 14 hours top canister (FUTURE)
NOW on screen
10 hours bottom canister (PAST)

To make it easier to imagine
take the top canister film out and
remove all but 2 minutes

Same with bottom canister leave
2 minutes attached discarded anything older

System has 2 minutes top (FUTURE)
NOW on screen
2 minutes bottom (PAST)

Mark the frame which was showing NOW the screen

Lay the film out on a bench

Looking at the film you should observe differences between each frame and a gap (line) between frames

One line below the FUTURE frame above the NOW frame

One line above the PAST frame below the NOW frame

The line is the moment when a shutter cuts off the light while the frames advance

HOWEVER life does NOT operate like a movie film

NOW is continuous

NO cut off while next frame is positioned

Yes for everybody memory is retained from previous NOWs and can be imagined for FUTURE NOWs

The measurement between any two NOWs is known as AGE

Back to the strip of film

Cut off all remaining FUTURE frames

Cut off all remaining PAST frames

Replace the NOW frame in the projector

Within reality you would see the NOW projected on the screen change with no reliance on any FUTURE (or PAST) frames

Since by the explanation just given FUTURE and PAST do not EXIST but NOW continues without either I contend

NOW is the ONLY IT

TIME (as existing in the PAST or
FUTURE) is simply not there

AGE as between two bookmarks (let's change bookmarks to nowmarks)

AGE as between two NOWMARKS can be measured and labelled and AGES compared as well as physical processes occurring on any AGED material

Some substances AGE more (become more disorganised) dispite having the same measurement between NOWs as other substances

Will wind up now and hope this explains my position

Further reading

Dictionary - meaning of EXIST

Post #821 extract of The Invention of Time and Space

ALL of the book The Invention of Time and Space

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No it isn't actually.

Age is connoted to refer to a very specific event in an object's lifetime: namely the event of its creation.

My age is 53. The event that this is always calibrated from - is my creation.
I don't ever say "my age is 32 1/2" (well, not in the last 20 1/2 years).
And we don't ever say "that bedrock has an age of 5 days".

Age is measured as the difference between two events separated by time. And one of those measurements is the creation of the event.

Time is the yardstick by which we measure age. Without it, my "age" would be indistinguishable from the "age" of bedrock (though I grant there are many, especially of the younger gen, who would say they're pretty indistinguishable as it is).

 

Well, Asexperia seems to think that, if you have no change in a thing, you have no time.

 

From your post I would leave out time and rephrase as between arbitrary events (NOWMARKS)

And one of those measurements is the creation of the event

No

Both are unmeasurable NOWMARKs

And the first NOWMARK need not be the creation of the event

My AGE currently --

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

))

put in a NOWMARK

will in, 1 year, be

--+1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

))

put in a NOWMARK

I will have AGED 1 year

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!