Can you answer the most fundamental question about time?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Apr 18, 2019.

  1. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Time is a fundamental aspect of change, without it change could not be described. So tell me how does our change based reality exist without time?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    If you review my post you'll see that is not my claim at all.
    My argument is based on the concept of a priori cause and secondary effects. My claim is that time is not causal to physical change, but physical change is causal to the emergence of time. i.e. The equation is not reversible.

    The "a priori" cause is physical change, the physical effect of change has an additional secondary emergent property of duration which can be measured as increments of time. Where is the controversy in this?

    If anything, an accompanying emergence of measurable duration (time) is the reason why time is uni-directional.
    If there was a pre-existing dimension of time it would be omni-directional, no? But if time is an emergent result of function, it can only be uni-directional, always. And that fits the definition of time being "irreversible", without undoing the physical causality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I was responding to your assertion that I claimed that time creates change. I never claimed that it did, only that the two conditions are intrinsically linked, essentially being mutually causal in the sense that you can't have one without the other.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    And, don't forget location/space in that intrinsically linked set-up. I know that may sound obvious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    To me that suggest you are assuming a pre-existing time. My response was that emergent time depends on duration of change, which is what we represent symbolically as increments of time.
    I understand the intent of your comment. My view is that time is a measurement of duration and does not exist independent of change.
    There's the rub. Cause and effect are intrinsically linked, but they are not mutually causal . You cannot have a result before the cause. The measurement of duration is not causal to change. Change only requires mathematical permission. Duration is wholly emergent.
    That's my point.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2020
  9. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Both time and change are descriptions, time describing periods of duration, and change describing specific action, and neither exist independent of the other.

    Every cause is born of an effect, and every effect is born of a cause, so the terms are always
    mutually inclusive in any event. Durations don’t have to be measured to exist. The act of measurement is causal to change, it’s an inherent impediment in the practice of physics. Duration like change is a fundamental aspect of action, as long as there is action, there is also duration, one always implies the other.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    OK, all good and well, but Time is not causal to change, physics is causal to change which is causal to duration of change and that's measured in increments of time. Do we disagree on that?

    Time is not a priori causal to anything. It is always an emergent by-product of change, which explains the uni-directional nature of time.
     
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Time is not an emergent property of change, it’s a fundamental component in the physics of change. Change cannot occur without the element of time.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I am not disputing that. But is Time an element?
    i,e, Time is something abstract?

    I am saying that in a permittive environment change is allowed to happen period and this change is causal to the simultaneous emergent phenomena of duration, which we have symbolized as time of duration measurable in various arbitrary increments just as we do with measuring change of physical interactions in a permittive environment.

    But in your scientific equation, you propose that time must exist prior to change or change could not take place. This is what I object to. I say tome of duration emerges as a product of change in a permittive environment.

    Can you give me one example where duration of change (time) precedes change. Did time exist before the BB?

    The concept of time is a human invention, the same as the concept of metrics are a human invention.

    Nature knows nothing about time or metrics , change is a physical process from the beginning of the universe down to Planck scaleincrements of duration in a permittive condition which merely allows for the function of continued change.

    Just as science measures physical interaction and have invented a symbolized language so does science measure duration of physical change and invented a symbolized language for measuring incremental durations of change within the permittive environment which we have symbolized as spacetime.

    Suppose we ignored time in all of our calculations but just measured change without actually measuring duration, would the world stop because we dropped the concept of time?

    If I get a flat tire, do I change the tire regardless of how long it takes, or do I apply 30 minutes to change the tire and if I can't do it in 30 minutes, I have no longer met the scientific requirements of changing a tire and the result is void?

    Time is an arbitrary measurement of emergent duration of change in a permittive environment.

    I am the one who supports the notion of a mathematical universe, a concept heatedly disputed as woo. Yet here we have scientists support the notion of a pre-existing dimension of time as if it were a mathematical property a priori necessary for the progression of change.

    I merely propose that all measurements of dynamical change are inherently mathematical and all measurement of dynamical spatial and temporal functions emerge deterministically, driven by physical change in a permittive environment.

    In my universe there are only "relative values" and "mathematical functions" in a "permittive environment". This process simultaneously creates a "measurable duration from start to finish"

    p.s. Robert Hazen stipulates that chemical reactions can create durations from nanoseconds to millenia. Why? Because it happens in a permittive environment which allows for duration of anything as an emergent measurable aspect of change.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Question; Is multiplication a property of the universe? A dimension? Without multiplication there is no universe, no?

    What is the difference between an algebraic function and time?
    Could time be an algebraic function of a mathematical universe?

    Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, duration?

    I found this;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

    IOW, space is a purely permittive environment or condition?
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    It's a fundamental result of change.
    1 + 1 = 2 + 1 second, describes change, no? The execution of this function was not dependent on time, it was permitted and it produced a sum plus a duration, which at my typing speed can be symbolically represented as "1 second".
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    You stated this correctly. Action precedes and causes the emergence of duration, which starts with the start of action and continues as long as there is action. When action stops duration stops, and time of duration can be measured and symbolized as a sum total in arbitrary increments of time invented by humans.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Yes exactly .


    Again , yes exactly .

    Without the physical , there is no action and therefore no time .
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Space and time [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds. Space and time are also interchangeable. One is as real as the other. There is no universal now.
    The question is whether time is fundamental or not.
    Rubbish. If we have no life, etc, space and time would still exist. Neither need us puny humans to measure their effect, to show that they are real and exist.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    To your first statement , how would time still exist ?
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    According to the evidenced based model we call the BB, Space and time started at t+10-43 seconds. We were not around then, and there was no matter to boot.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    No energy as well as no matter pad ?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I did not go into it further as obviously you would fail to understand. There of course was the "superforce" but as I said, no matter at all.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Its not obvious that I would fail to understand , until you put out what your thinking .

    So put out what your thinking .

    Describe this , " superforce " , if you can .
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Obviously you failed to understand the last time I related it to you. But again according to our best model, the BB, and the evidence we do have, the Superforce is/was a combination or unification of the four forces we know of today, that existed at the first Planck instant of time, when temperatures and pressures were hotter than at the core of the hottest star. As space and time expanded, the temperatures and pressures started to drop and the Superforce started to decouple into the four forces we are familiar with today.
    The first matter by the way, did not form until 3 minutes post BB.
    https://public-archive.web.cern.ch/en/Science/Superforce-en.html

    This may also help you understand the science involved....
    https://home.cern/

    and....
    http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
     

Share This Page