Does time flow?

[dav57]

JamesR

Are you claiming that time is just an illusion? If so, why do we experience time flowing?

I doubt you have ever experienced time flowing, but rather, you only experience life in a universe where continual physical change is ubiquitous and where we are fooled into thinking time is a reality. We are always being told that time was non-existent before the big bang and that time will cease when the universe either collapses or is ripped apart. So this in itself demonstrates that time is dependent on substance.

Our illusionary concept of time is related to motion of REAL physical entities and our time measuring devices can only measure time via the use of yet more physical equipment, which records and displays arbitrary events in the universe.

Humans arbitrarily choose a unit of time from which to record events. For example, we can say that 1 second = 1 tick of a clock. From that, I can say, it took me 500
seconds to type this post. And I can form a relation with other events based on my recordings. But at no time do I ever measure time, but rather the ticks on the clock. If the ticks on the clocks slightly change for physical reason, lets say a strong magnetic field, and then when I approach the magnetic field with my clock, the clock will change pace. When I remove the clock, it will have appeared to have slowed. In this case it was the magnetic field that affected the rate of the clock.

How can you be so sure that time exists based on the above?

 

[James R]

I doubt you have ever experienced time flowing, but rather, you only experience life in a universe where continual physical change is ubiquitous and where we are fooled into thinking time is a reality.

How can you have change without time?

 

[wesmorris]

How can you have change without time?

That is a cool question.

It seems impossible until I consider my dreams.

In my dreams no time passes. It's perfectly continuous and uninterupted lack of time. Stuff happens, but in no particular order, all overlapping itself and stuff.

That isn't to say that my dreams don't occur within time, but rather it's an attempt draw a loose analogy as to how change might possibly occur without time.

Maybe it's more like that time passes when you sleep. When I'm asleep, no time passes yet change occurs. Hell in the relationship of the integral you always add the constant... what if really that constant is just an approximation to a function that lies beyond the efficiency of the equation? Bah I'm just bullshitting. It seems that it's possible if you can stretch your brain all taoish and multidimensionally.

 

[Persol]

But without time it isn't really change. It is just everything 'overlapping' at once.

 

[wesmorris]

But without time it isn't really change. It is just everything 'overlapping' at once.

Hmm.. if time stops, does the capacity for time cease to exist?

 

[Persol]

The capacity to observe it does.

 

[wesmorris]

The capacity to observe it does.

Agreed. I wouldn't think though that it means that there can be no change, only that the change cannot be observed. That doesn't seem to me to imply that the change could not be observed later, as limits on observation might be lifted from outside that which was previously observable - like finding out you're in a room full of people in a surprise party.

Crap, pardon for dragging off topic. I'll shaddup.

 

[Rappaccini]

This really depends on what you think change is.

Ever see a vase?

Ever turn one onto its side?

Ever consider the fact that "change" is basically the same thing as the fluctuating diameter of the vase as progress is made down its height?

Well, it is.
Every 2-dimensional slice is a 'present' on the 3-dimensional whole.

It's just "change" that involves only the three spacial dimensions, not the fourth imaginary dimension of the Minkowski 'world'.

Note that "imaginary" does not mean "imagined". It means that if you took any given spacial dimension and multiplied it by the square root of -1, or 'imaginary one', you'd get an imaginary dimension, a "time".

Hope this clears things up for you philosophizing, dream-interpreting guys.

For example, we can say that 1 second = 1 tick of a clock. From that, I can say, it took me 500
seconds to type this post. And I can form a relation with other events based on my recordings... In this case it was the magnetic field that affected the rate of the clock.

I do not see how this argument proves anything.

There is an effect called time dilation. It occurs as one approaches the speed of light. It involves the actual slowing of time. I suppose this would be one of those instances which you think demonstrate the foolishness of "telling time".
After all, that effect combined with Gravity basically proves that there's no such thing as a reliable Euclidean reference body.

Seem likely to you?

NAH!!!!!!!

I mean, if time can be slowed, it sure as hell exists.


You know, those same effects that I'm talking about, those of time-dilation, as caused by natural phenomena, are ALWAYS accompanied by the shortening of measuring rods.

So, since neither time nor length are necessarily reliable, are they both fallacious?
After learning this, are you going to insist that all metre-sticks are figments of the human imagination?

As the headless man said, I think NOT!

 

[MacM]

Rappaccini,

Quote:
Originally Posted by dav57
For example, we can say that 1 second = 1 tick of a clock. From that, I can say, it took me 500
seconds to type this post. And I can form a relation with other events based on my recordings... In this case it was the magnetic field that affected the rate of the clock.

Quote;
Originally Posted by Rappaccini
I do not see how this argument proves anything.

There is an effect called time dilation. It occurs as one approaches the speed of light. It involves the actual slowing of time.

I mean, if time can be slowed, it sure as hell exists.


ANS: Just which clocks do you suggest that actually measure time?.

I thought they all functioned on a process involving energy flow and changing processes.

 

[dav57]

Rappaccini:

"I mean, if time can be slowed, it sure as hell exists"

All I am saying is that to measure time requires something of very real substance and very real physical properties.

Now, when you send your atomic clock off around the earth a few times, how can you prove to me that the components of the clock i.e. the atoms are not directly affected by the clocks speed and position relative to a gravitational field?

In this case, time is NOT slowing but rather, the physical attributes of the clock are being affected.

This is fundamental, and I need it proving to me. Has anyone ever proved what I am proposing is NOT the case?

 

[Hevene]

I think time is just a measure of how things move through space. It is not linear as we already know it depends on the speed which we move. I think it is rather stacked on top of each other. All things we experienced, is experiencing and will experinece is happening right now, there is only a single moment, the moment of now. As we move through the events, we have the free will to choose which events we will choose to experience and the feeling of time is created to measure how fast we are moving through those events. The faster we move, the slower or less "time" it takes.

 

[MacM]

Hevene,

As we move through the events, we have the free will to choose which events we will choose to experience.

ANS: My only objection to your post would be this.


I may be wrong but I think what you meant to convey would be that "We choose our response to the events we experience vs choosing which events are experienced".

If not we disagree.

 

[beta]

>>Our illusionary concept of time is related to motion of REAL physical entities and our time measuring devices can only measure time via the use of yet more physical equipment, which records and displays arbitrary events in the universe.

When considering inertia and the reaction we experience when accelerating a mass, the force we feel is instantaneous.
Orbital motions are dictated by instantaneous positions of massive bodies, not their retarded positions ( as governed by the speed of light).
It is postulated ( but still an unknown) that as far as EMR is concerned, it reaches its destination instantaneously.
Time?- We invented it, not the universe.

 

[Hevene]

I may be wrong but I think what you meant to convey would be that "We choose our response to the events we experience vs choosing which events are experienced".
If not we disagree.

I think it's both. We move through events, and choose how we experience them through our response to the events. We have control over that. But it is also possible that we have all the possible outcomes layed out for us and we are simply moving through them and we have a choice to respond to them in our own way. I think rather it's an this-or-that situation, it is a both-and situation.

 

[dav57]

After all is said and done, who on this forum actually believes that time exists, and who doesn't?

Remember, if you think time doesn't exist, then it can't dilate!

 

[Eggsited]

what would you think if time was exponentialy slowing down or "ticked" faster long ago so realy the universe would be around 5000 years old much like the bible says?

 

[Eggsited]

what defines "your" perception of time

what if 1 second to me was like 10 seconds for you

just imagine if you could alter this.....Bullet time....hehee

 

[wesmorris]

I think time is just a measure of how things move through space.

I don't think so. Apparently time is part of space, if not, you can forget the basis for your next point right?

It is not linear as we already know it depends on the speed which we move.

That's not true. It IS linear to you. That's the whole thing right. It is part of space, which always appears the same to a given observer - though two observers might disagree. Seems like relativity is really "subjectivity".

I think it is rather stacked on top of each other.

I'm not sure what that means.

All things we experienced, is experiencing and will experinece is happening right now, there is only a single moment, the moment of now.

I think it's definately always right now, I'm with that. That doesn't mean however, that there is no time. For instance, consider a stationary eye through which a rope is threaded. Hmm.. how riding on the crest of a wave? Yes, surfing. Time is the surf, and the now is the perpetual gnarly tube. Bitchen dude.

As we move through the events, we have the free will to choose which events we will choose to experience and the feeling of time is created to measure how fast we are moving through those events.

I agree with "we have free will to choose wich events we will choose to experience" but I disagree that "the feeling of time is created to measure how fast we are moving through those events". The "feeling of time" is merely awareness of the progression of events. To say "it is created to measure" is presumptuous I think, as you're inferring a divine plan or something I'd think. I think the "feeling of time" is a function of the capacity to "remember" events that used to be now, the emotional capacity of humans, and "awareness".

The faster we move, the slower or less "time" it takes.

How many humans do you think have moved fast enough for relativistic effects to even remotely affect their "feeling of time"?

 

[Dinosaur]

Modern physics deals with events specified by (x, y, z, t) coordinates. Extremely good models of reality are described using (x, y, z) as distance variables and t as a time variable.

The values of t indicate events ordered by the criteria of before and after. The values of (x, y, z) order events according to position in space.

If you consider only one coordinate, some events are associated with smaller numbers and some are associated with larger numbers. This is true of both the space and time variables.

The above model does not imply a flow of time or space.

Our intuitive notions do not include a concept of distance flowing along the X-Axis, but it includes a notion of time flowing along the time axis. Note that we do have a notion of events moving from one point to another along a space curve, but we view it as conceptually different from the notion of events moving from past to future. It is not clear that this difference in our intuitive view of the variables has objective reality from the point of view of theoretical physics.

Our intuitive notions surely have objective reality in the sense that they allow us to cope very well with our environment. We can throw and hit baseballs, find our way to work, and a long time ago we were successful hunters. Millions of years of evolution has hard wired our concepts of time, space, and motion. As tools for survival, our intutive notions are very valuable.

When the laws of physics are viewed as 4D geometry, the equations deal with static curves in 4D space called World Lines. In this model, there is no notion of time flowing, only points with different coordinates. This model is very effective in describing the laws of physics.

The time variable requires different units and treatment as compared to the space variables, but this does not imply a flow of time. Note that in spherical coordinates, the Radius variable requires different units and treatment as compared to the Latitude and Longitude variables.

My intuition agrees with those who talk about the flow of time and the notion that past, present and future is conceptually different from behind me, here, and in front of me. My intellect is not convinced that such notions are more than convenient to my survival

 

[wesmorris]

Is it possible that a fourth dimension would appear to "flow" as viewed from the third? I get a little mixed up.

Rather, I'd think from a lower dimension the higher dimension would appear paradoxical. Wouldn't the fourth dimension appear to flow and simultaneously be perfectly still to the third?

Hmm. Well, just hypothesizin.