Does time exist?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Sibilia, Sep 28, 2015.

  1. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    Your idea of TIME it reduced to the idea of AGE.

    If time does not exist, as you think, neither does age.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Negatory

    Age

    c: the length of an existence ..... (truncated)

    I truncated the definetion c because it incorrectly associated age with time

    Language is full of associations which have become strong with constant use but rarely questioned

    By the way how many seconds have you collected?

    Also I don't want any used seconds from the past

    Please only unused seconds from the future

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    The book I really consider worth reading is

    "The Invention of Time and Space"

    byPatrice F Dassonville

    Very technical in parts but to me persuasive as to the non existence of time

    If you have any recommendations as to any text which argues for the existence of time I would be happy to read

    Cheers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    I don't get how this is a useful idea.

    It is trivial to point out that time has indeed passed since you wrote the post I am now quoting (~48 hours, in fact).

    I think the best you can claim is that you and I as humans can only experience time as this instant called "now". But that in no way implies that time doesn't exist.

    (Kind of like saying that - since I only experience the train I am on - there is no such thing as the tracks the train runs on.)
     
  8. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    I extend to you the same challenge I have extended to others

    Please send me as much or as little, your choice, part of this time you claim exist

    Posts here when you have the sample ready

    It is trivial to point out that time has indeed passed since you wrote the post I am now quoting (~48 hours, in fact)

    I trust your mathmatics

    however it is not TIME which has PASSED

    The situation is that EVERYTHING since I began my post and you began quoting my post has AGED ~48 hours

    AGE is NOT TIME

    Since no other poster has sent a sample of time to me I have great expectations you will be the first

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    Certainly. Right after you send me a box of inches.




    By what rationale do you assert this?



    1]
    And how do you know it's aged?
    Here's a hint: subtract the time of my post from the time of yours.

    2]
    How can you measure the velocity of a moving car without time? Surely, it's velocity is not dependent on its aging.
    If that were true, its velocity could be 100mph while it aged in my garage.

    3]
    'Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".'
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Time is a measure of duration , of anything .

    Think of being outside this Universe , literaly . And looking upon this Universe then from without . So that you are looking into this Universe , you are an observer , of the whole of the Universes , movements .

    When you do this , you can see and feel , all kinds of movement between things , from galaxies to the subatomic . You see the Universe as a whole , or holistic .

    Then you understand the equality of the measurement of time based on duration , anywhere in this Universe .

    You see and feel every movement in this Universe at the same moment , and in any moment , past , now and in the future .
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Let me get back to you on that

    I'm back

    First I have never claimed inches have any sort of existence

    I CAN send you a REPRESENTATIVE of a inch but I found even that is problematic

    Enclosed is a link and if you are happy with a REPRESENTATIVE of a inch please find a variety for you to pick from

    Truely your inch has never been seen

    naked in its naked habitat because like my

    time it does not exist

    Please pick your inch from this non physical basket

    http://themetricmaven.com/?p=1460

    It follows from the view time does not exist

    EVERYTHING ages regardless of its movement

    However objects which move relative faster than other objects age slower

    (the twin paradox one going to a far distant place close to the speed of light and the other remaining on Earth)

    So turning your measurement velocity question around your AGE is DEPENDENT on your SPEED

    They are codependent

    Your garage stationary car will age faster than the one you zip back and forth to work in

    To be clear AGE is NOT related to wear and tear

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Sorry I missed this section in my previous post in reply

    I have NEVER stated time does not operate as a tool in mathematic or physics calculations

    Even as the calculations are being use the time component does not exist

    Not as a
    • Gas
    • Fluid
    • Solid
    • Plasma
    • Or any other exotic substance
    No one has seen ANY component of time

    or felt time or

    heard time or

    detected time with ANY of the other senses

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Sounds much the same as a post of mine Let's play god

    "Let's be god"

    for a moment

    Imagine as god you have a viewpoint outside of the Universe such as you can see the complete 3D view encompassing the spherical shape with approximately a 14 billion light years radius in every direction

    Everything your view encompasses is operating under a single NOW

    The section of your post

    You see and feel every movement in this Universe at the same moment , and in any moment , past , now and in the future

    is incorrect and should read as per my post

    Everything your view encompasses is operating under a single NOW

    Cheers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Enjoyed this link and at the moment have a bit of spare time to hopefully address some points in the reference

    Under the hourglass and hourglass paragraph the first paragraph is interesting in its description of time which does not give any indication that time has a physicality of existence

    The last sentence of the second paragraph seems to further the idea of time not having any existence

    In the third paragraph about halfway down after the blue second the text again supports the notion time does not exist

    Forth short paragraph brings into debate if time is subjective

    For what it's worth I don't think it is dispite time appearing to drag when bored and fly when having fun

    In my best Forest Gump voice

    I think your link assist the time does not exist view

    And that's all I have to say about that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    I think this is where you're equivocating.

    Just because something is not experienced in a touchable way does not mean it doesn't "exist".

    The emotion "anger" can't be shrink-wrapped, yet it certainly exists.
    I could some up with a nigh-infinite list of the things that exist, yet can't be delivered by mail.

    I think, when you say "X doesn't exist", what you mean is "X is not a discrete physical object".
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    Correct

    The very definetion of exist

    ex·ist
    \ig-ˈzist\
    • : to have actual being : to be real
    Mirriam-Webster

    And by that definetion

    there is no equivacation and

    ALL of your infinite list of things which can't be shrink wrapped

    don't EXIST

    If you like to consider anger as an emotion and a CONCEPT with no physicality OK

    Just don't label it REAL with a EXISTENCE

    Just because something is not experienced in a touchable way does not mean it doesn't "exist".

    Sorry yes it does

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    So, gravity, hatred, poverty, love, inches, width, dreams, doubt, enthusiasm - all don't "exist".

    OK, you are using exist in the sense of 'does not have a physical presence' meaning, not in the 'there's no such thing' meaning.

    Which is fine. No one is disputing that time can't be physically touched.

    Your assertion is trivially true. Time doesn't have a material presence any more than gravity, length or poverty. Yet, they are all a very real part of our world, and many things affect and are affected by them.

    It's not like that provides any deep insight into our world.
     
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    From your list

    Some exist

    Some do not

    I will let you work out which are which

    I was not aware I was expected to provide deep insights into the world sorry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    This really comes down to an equivocation of the word 'exist'.

    You are using it to mean 'manifest as a physical object'.
    But I'd say the more common use is simply 'can affect things, can be affected, measured, quantified'.

    So without any qualifier, it is fair and accurate to say 'time exists' (since it doesn't specify what definition it is using).

    Your statement 'time does not exist' is then demonstrably false - unless you added your qualifier: 'time does not exist inasmuch as it is not physically directly manifest' which then makes it a plausibly true statement.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    Well, it's just that the enthusiasm and persistence of your assertion seems to suggest you see some insight there, instead of a mere play on words.
     
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    It's a little more than word play

    The book

    The Invention of Time and Space by

    Patrice Dassonville

    ****

    Overview of chapter 6

    The Invention of Time and Space by
    Patrice Dassonville then puts forward a general definition of time, as “a concept
    corresponding to what separates two states of a system”. He then examines the
    etiology of aging, distinguishing between biological and chronological age. The
    physical inexistence of time is linked to the fact that time has no source. The author then ends the chapter with some examples taken from different areas of theoretical physics, such as general relativity and quantum physics, to show how time is difficult to manipulate, and difficult to define rigorously.

    ***
    The book as a whole is technical but does explain in understandably language for plebs like me to form a knowledgeable view which I think rises above word play

    As examples of word play being important I am sure you have signed agreements which have early in the text something like

    "For the purpose of this agreement I shall also represent WE"

    or

    The POST company hereafter called the company

    Also in law at the start of the law there often is a list of words with specific definetions to prevent confusion with the general acceptance of the words meanings - of which there may be several

    I guess I should bring Humpty Dumpty back

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. dr9090 Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Neither Space nor Time are substantial, and the flaws of the standard model are largely due to trying to make them so somehow.
    Referencing the Einstein-Bohr discussion over whether dp/dt is a sufficient basis for physics, I believe Bohr is correct in that must be 'something else' but was very wrong about what that something else was. To fix TSM, it is necessary to define exactly WHAT is changing positions over time. This is because the nature of Time and Motion changes per each emergent level of existence.

    IMO, a full fix ot TSM will come from adopting a "single fundamental particle single fundamental action" TOE where the FP is defined as the fundamental substance of the universe (an not as a complex quantum string!) And that is dp(FP)/dt, where "??" is the most primitive example of substantial change of position over temporal duration.

    The beneficial insight comes from the realization that the laws of motion are different, depending on the nature of WHAT is moving. Newton also missed this insight.. The consequence was the relativistic and quantum failures of CM. Einstein "improved" upon CM, by improving the geometric description. but GR doesn't "fix" the core problem of CM (not defining "(FP)") And so he doesn't understand the 'nature' of gravity or "mass" any more than Newton did: e.g. cannot explain the measured equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, cannot unify GR and EM, and naturally found the QM of his day unacceptable.

    Bohr, on the other hand, can't explain the nature of "mass" at all. And he has no interest in explaining "(FP)": because the effort would challenge his sense of mysticism and risk the reduction of physics to an comprehensible mechanical universe that's a function of "(FP)", dSPACE and dTIME.

    The confusion of you and your quoted author (and others) is understandable, because the nature of time changes with the nature of what is Moving. Time is a consequence of Action, extrinsic inertial action or an intrinsic change of State. Each and every Action or dSTATE divides non-substantial continuum of primitive time into "past" and "future". But the action of two "FP" particles is different that the action e.g., a Quantum of Action. So the very nature of Motion and Time differs for FP and QA.

    CM and Newtonian bodies further compound the time problem since all CM "bodies" are aggregate QA actions. But CM tries to treat "body" as singleton particles -- which they cannot be. (We see this falsehood when considering 'momentum' , to whit: the momentum of any body equals the sum of its parts.) But in considering the nature of "matter" we ignore the parts part for the sake of simplifying the math. Which leads us to a definition of "(??)" as the fundamental particle"(FP)" as Atomos-like and a "true" singleton which by definition does not consist of "parts". The mechanics of Atomos cannot be the same as a Newtonian "body" mechanics, and 'Atomos' cannot be "MATTER" as defined by Newton, Einstein or Bohr. Understanding this leads to an understanding of a granular 'aether' -- a "dark substance" -- which is inherently invisible -- or as we can now say, "dark".

    Qualitatively and quantitative, "time(FP) <> time(QA) <> time(N*(QA)) ... Following the progression on through to the emergence of the human mind/brain, ... <> time(M/B). We can only directly experience "time(M/B)". In that, Michael, you and your author are correct. It is also true that we can only imagine 'time(QA)', e.g.

    But IMHO, to presume Time is not real because it is neither substantial nor consistent in nature across different emergent levels of reality is a mistake. So too is assuming that for Time to exist, it must be some Absolute Time that can "be put in a jar", or is otherwise 'substantial' (as in, e.q. "Spacetime"). Imagination alone does not make the content of an imagined thing unreal. That only happens when the content of the idea cannot be demonstrated to exist correspond to some thing which is not an mere idea. Biological unicorns are unreal. The continuum of existence from Event to Event is real.

    my two cents..

    d.
     
  23. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,518
    The above I understood

    Thanks

    What was the rest about?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page