# Does time exist?

Try the scalar product operator.
Time is a scalar with a special property of direction.
Can you say why these distances were chosen, then engineered?
Actually yes. The distances were chosen to pack as many processors on a limited space without running into "shorting", also known as Moore's Law (every generation is twice as fast as the previous generation.
At its heart, Moore's Law (so dubbed by Caltech professor Carver Mead) is the idea that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit would double approximately every two years.Apr 21, 2015

Bottom side of an Intel 80486DX2, showing its pins

https://time.com/3829382/moores-law/#

This is why they are now "stacking" processors vertically instead of horizontally, based on the same principle as the "skyscrapers in buildings", a lot of space on a very small lot.

Does speed exist?
If speed exist, then time must exist too.
Because speed = distance/duration

So, have I proven that time exist?

Does speed exist?
If speed exist, then time must exist too.
Because speed = distance/duration
Distance and duration are a result of speed. Time emerges with duration. It does not exist independent of "duration".
So, have I proven that time exist?
Not from my perspective.....

This is a really informative video. It's long but has much real science presented in an clear but entertaining way.

And for religious people, it may offer an interesting insight in glass stained windows as found in old cathedrals. The old monks using (miraculous) science!

Last edited:
Actually yes. The distances were chosen to pack as many processors on a limited space without running into "shorting", also known as Moore's Law (every generation is twice as fast as the previous generation.
Moore's law has little, or nothing at all, to do with distances between qubits in a quantum processor.

Distance and duration are a result of speed.
No they aren't. The distance between my front door and the end of my driveway has nothing to do with how fast I cover that distance.

If you did sports at school or have ever watched a track race, the winner is the one who covers a certain distance, say 100 metres, the fastest. If the distance of 100 metres depended on the athlete's speed it would be quite a different kind of sporting event, I think.

Moore's law has little, or nothing at all, to do with distances between qubits in a quantum processor.
Did I mention qubits? I am talming about transistors and how close you can pack them . We have reached the limit of size and proximity. We are going vertical as well as horizontal.
Ask an IBM engineer.[/QUOTE] Which is explained in the video. There is a limit as to how small and close you can place transistors without bleed-over.

No they aren't. The distance between my front door and the end of my driveway has nothing to do with how fast I cover that distance.
If you know the distance between you front door and the end of the driveway you have already made the measurement.
If your measurement is made by a human stepping off the distance it may take considerably shorter time (duration) than a slug covering the same distance.
If you did sports at school or have ever watched a track race, the winner is the one who covers a certain distance, say 100 metres, the fastest.
Right.
If the distance of 100 metres depended on the athlete's speed it would be quite a different kind of sporting event, I think.
Where did I claim that?

We are talking about time as a measurement of duration. Don't confuse the issue.

Last edited:
Where did I claim that?
Ok you claimed 'duration' is a result of speed; but you said "distance and duration are a result of speed". It's there in black and white.
You implied that the distance is a result of how fast someone runs, but that isn't supported by observation in the least.

Possibly you weren't thinking that hard about what you were typing. Besides, can you tell the difference between the time an athlete takes to run around a track, and the duration of their run? Or how that means time is a "measurement of duration"?

Ok you claimed 'duration' is a result of speed; but you said "distance and duration are a result of speed". It's there in black and white.
You implied that the distance is a result of how fast someone runs, but that isn't supported by observation in the least.
Of course distance is a result of speed. If you do not know the distance, the guy going faster will cover a greater distance than a guy who is going slower over a given duration of the race.
Possibly you weren't thinking that hard about what you were typing. Besides, can you tell the difference between the time an athlete takes to run around a track, and the duration of their run? Or how that means time is a "measurement of duration"?
Oh definitely. You check out the duration of each lap in a 5K run. Each lap will show a different time dependent on how the runner paces himself.

The point is that Time is an emergent property of Duration of existence, Duration of change, Duration of chronology, from beginning to point of measurement of Duration. Also expressed as Age.

'sigh'

It's not complicated.

To make my position clear; "Time is a human symbolized emergent property of duration, regardless how duration (elapsed time) is measured.

https://www.simetric.co.uk/si_time.htm

And then we have the "seasons" as a generalized measure of change in weather patterns.

The reason why we call time a temporal dimension of the universe is that the mere existence of the 3 physical dimensions creates a duration of existence, which we have symbolized as
13.8 billion years.
Our universe is 13.8 billion years old, a timescale much longer than the more relatable spans of hundreds or thousands of years that impact our lived experiences. Jan 10, 2018
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-old-is-the-universe/#

Last edited:
To make my position clear; "Time is a human symbolized emergent property of duration, regardless how duration (elapsed time) is measured.
There's that word, "measured" right at the end of your sentence.

So I think a relevant question is: was time emerging before humans evolved and started measuring it?
Or an alternative question: what was measuring time before humans started doing it?
The reason why we call time a temporal dimension of the universe is that the mere existence of the 3 physical dimensions creates a duration of existence,
Again with the "time exists because three dimensions exist". Existence implies time, right, I get it. But isn't existence really just another way of describing time? Like the word duration; in fact like many words in the English language which imply a temporal dimension?

This argument has been made by lots of people, who claim that defining time in a linguistic sense has a problem, in that all human languages are temporal. So there is no language independent of time (or duration, or past or future, etc etc) to describe time.

"Time exists" is a statement which is true because it refers to itself; all it really says is "time is time". So it's one of those vacuously or tautologically true things about time. It really doesn't tell you anything.

There's that word, "measured" right at the end of your sentence.
Of course, the universe doesn't care about time, humans do.
So I think a relevant question is: was time emerging before humans evolved and started measuring it?
Or an alternative question: what was measuring time before humans started doing it?
Of course it did , but no one was measuring. Well, actually, many biological systems were measuring "duration" between change.
Even the slime mold has memory of "duration", but has no clue about time!
Again with the "time exists because three dimensions exist". Existence implies time, right, I get it. But isn't existence really just another way of describing time? Like the word duration; in fact like many words in the English language which imply a temporal dimension?
Right, in fact many biological organisms have forms of measurement of duration.
This argument has been made by lots of people, who claim that defining time in a linguistic sense has a problem, in that all human languages are temporal. So there is no language independent of time (or duration, or past or future, etc etc) to describe time.
Right, plants have no words for time, but they can learn "duration'.
A circadian rhythm is a natural, internal process that regulates the sleep-wake cycle and repeats on each rotation of the Earth roughly every 24 hours. It can refer to any biological process that displays an endogenous, entrainable oscillation of about 24 hours.

"Time exists" is a statement which is true because it refers to itself; all it really says is "time is time". So it's one of those vacuously or tautologically true things about time. It really doesn't tell you anything.
No, it is a circular argument.
OTOH, the statement that "Time is a measurement of duration" tells you that EVERYTHING in existence has an associated timeline, including the Universe (spacetime).

Time does does not exist in and of itself. It is always attached to something "durable", or "chronological".

Last edited:
Of course, the universe doesn't care about time, humans do.
Good to know. But time "began ticking" when the universe began. There were no humans or other forms of life to care, or otherwise, about time.
Time does does not exist in and of itself. It is always attached to something "durable", or "chronological".
Also, it is connected to the existence of the universe. Whod'a thunk?
No, it is a circular argument.
Well, yeah, that's another way to say an argument is a tautology, or is vacuously true. Ok?

Why do humans care about what time is? Isn't our innate perception of time flowing from a past into a future enough, what else do we need to know about it?
Why do we need to know why the fourth dimension 'looks like' the other three (at least, it does theoretically)? Isn't that also innately obvious, even to say, bacteria?

Good to know. But time "began ticking" when the universe began. There were no humans or other forms of life to care, or otherwise, about time.
Right, no argument from me.
Also, it is connected to the existence of the universe. Whod'a thunk? Well, yeah, that's another way to say an argument is a tautology, or is vacuously true. Ok?
Right, no argument from me.
Why do humans care about what time is? Isn't our innate perception of time flowing from a past into a future enough, what else do we need to know about it?
No, it's a survival skill, as it is for many species.
Why do we need to know why the fourth dimension 'looks like' the other three (at least, it does theoretically)? Isn't that also innately obvious, even to say, bacteria?
Time doesn't look anything like the other 3 dimensions.
Those are Spatial dimensions. Time is a Temporal dimension. Time cannot exist unless there is duration of something. That's why spacetime began with the BB. As far as we know there was no time before space was created. There was no need for time. There was no duration of anything. There was only a timeless permittive condition (nothing).

Time doesn't look anything like the other 3 dimensions.
Hell no.
So, why bother multiplying an interval of time by the speed of light? Then it does look like a distance, it even has the same units?

Why, in Newtonian physics is there a formula that says the distance covered by some physical object moving at a constant velocity, is that velocity multiplied by the time it takes?
How come that works?

...... is that velocity multiplied by the time it takes?
Yes, ......multiplied by the time of duration.

my logic is, if speed exists, then time must exist too.

my logic is, if speed exists, then time must exist too.
Speed is secondary.

IMO, the proper logic is; "if a chronology of something exists, time emerges as a result of duration of chronology, regardless of speed of chronology, slow, fast, there is always a duration.