What is "time"

[Billy T]

No, you showed a proof that, in classical mechanics, we don't need to include time to describe a certain finite set of properties relative to one another. That's far, far from a complete description and it is far from the best approximate description.

No. Post 28 spoke told how to eliminate any reference to time from the equations f physics (not from "classical physics") Post 128 discusses how that applies to quantum physics and its equations. Particularly interesting is the fact that the original formulation of QM did not even had any partial derivative WRT time in its equations. I. e. as I noted in post 128 there is no need to eliminate time as it does not even appear in the first, matrix version of QM.

I also noted that in both forms of QM the potential energy usually does have time, AS A PARAMETER, NOT AS AN OBSERVABLE VARIABLE their expressions for the PE. For example, in the QM or Classical equation concerning a "simple harmonic oscillator" the PE may go as sin(wt). Think of a pendulum of a grand father clock, described in the Hamiltonian (total energy) approach. This "t" is just an index to the cyclic change in PE, not something real that is observable. It is the PE that is real and observable, not the index distinguishing one "now" from another.

It is much like the index that tells the day number (from 1 January, usually) is not anything real, or observable - it is just an index.

Sure. And if you want to do science with only observables, go to it. You're not going to get very far.

That is precisely what science, all science has done. ONLY work with and speak of observable. Science does not deal with wishes, love feelings, etc. or anything subjective non-observable. Around 1900, the "behaviorist movement" started and tried to subject these subjective items to the "scientific method".- that is what did not "get very far." In contrast, science dealing only with non-subjective observable has gone very far from tiny quarks to distant galaxies.

 

[MattMars]

This fella puts it far better then your's truly.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion
Diverse thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosophers through contemporary quantum cosmology and eternal inflation theory, have called time an illusion. For them, the perception of time passing from present moment to present moment is an artefact of our psychology, so that anything real or true is real or true eternally and timelessly. The belief that reality lies in a timeless realm of truth, rather than in the flow of events our perceptions show us, might be supported by scientific argument but equally it reflects a metaphysical prejudice. Contemporary attempts to extend quantum theory to the cosmological, to encompass the whole Universe and not just a sub-system of it, are often couched in equations which suggest time is emergent from a timeless reality. But these attempts suffer from problems, both technical and conceptual, that are even more challenging than the usual conundrums of quantum theory. Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. I would hold that, contrary to the ancient metaphysical tradition, time is not only real, it is likely that it is the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else.

Hi Pad

Thank you for the quote above, ill read it carefully and get back.

We have conversed a lot, and im glad, becasue it is interesting. But, if i can be direct and honest, i think you would be the first to admit that all you have done here so far is state your opinion, and say why you think it is right. That is literally all you have done, and if that's all you want to do then fine. But then there is little much different for us to say to each other, and I don't mean that rudely.

there is however something you may be missing which is that you could choose to do what I suggested here
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-11#post-3244379

...and then reread your quote, or another post, and see how it looks then.

I don't mind either way, but it would be at least interesting for you and me, if you started to see even one of my points.

You win nothing by not doing so, and I loose nothing by you not even being able to see the possibility im suggesting ( be it right or wrong ), I already know both sides of the coin, be either or none right.

and that's based on very carefully understanding each of these books, etc, and the usual stuff, and more (cont)...

Title Author

Time specific

A Brief History Of Time Stephen Hawking
A Briefer History Of Time Stephen Hawking
A Shortcut Through Time George Johnson
About Time Paul Davies
Arrow Of Time, the Peter Coveney + Roger Highfield
Birth Of Time, the John Gribben
History Of Time, A Very short introduction, Holford-Strevens
How To Build A Time Machine Paul Davies
In Search Of The Edge Of Time John Gribben
Introducing Time Craig Callender + Ralph Edney
Masters Of Time John Boslough
On Time Michael Shallis
Relativity, An Intro To Space-Time Physics Steve Adams
Story Of Time, the Merrell Holberton
Time A Travellers Guide Clifford A Pickover
Time and the space traveller L Marder
Time Space and Things B K Ridley
Time Travel In Einstein’s Universe J Richard Gott
White Hole In Time, the Peter Russell


Relativity, Einstein specific
A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion Hawking On Einstein
Einstein Michael White, John Gribben
Einstein For Dummies Carlos I Calle
Einstein In 90 Minutes John And Mary Gribben
Einstein’s Universe Nigel Calder
Essential Einstein Shana Priwer, Cynthia Philips
Introducing Einstein Joseph Schwartz+Michael Mcguinness
Relativity Albert Einstein
Relativity, The meaning of Albert Einstein
World As I See It, the Albert Einstein
E=MC2 David Bodanis
Why Does E=Mc2 Brian Cox And Jeff Forshaw
Introducing Relativity Bruce Bassett + Ralph Edney


Black holes etc.
Black holes And Baby Universes Stephen Hawking
Black holes The End Of The Universe? John Taylor
Black holes, Quasars And Other Mysteries Stan Gibilisco
White holes John Gribben


Mathematics
Calculus Demystified Krantz
Calculus For Dummies Mark Ryan
Demathtifying, Demystifying Mathematics Ilan Samson
Drunkards Walk, The Leonard Mlodinow

General science/cosmology.
Annotated Flatland, The Abbot Stewart
Beauty Of Light, the Ben Bova
Being Nobody Going Nowhere Ayya Khema
Big Bang Simon Singh
Cartoon Guide To Physics, the Gonick + Huffman
Character Of Physical Law, The Richard P Feynman
DNA For Beginners Rosnfield And Ziff
Does God Play Dice Ian Stewart
Electric Universe David Bodanis
Elegant Universe, The Brian Greene
Essential Elements Matt Tweed
Essential Science, Quantum Physics John Gribben
Euclid’s Window Leonard Mlodinow
Explaining Chaos Smith
Fabric Of The Cosmos, the Brian Greene
Faster Than The Speed Of Light Joao Magueijo
Feynman’s Lost Lecture David L. Goodstein
Final Theory, The Mark McCutcheon
Flatland: A Romance Of Many Dimensions Edwin Abbot Abbot
Flatterland Ian Stuart
Four Laws That Drive The Universe Peter Atkins
From Atoms To Amperes F A Wilson
Galileo In 90 Minutes John And Mary Gribben
Human Body Dorling Kindersly
Human Mind Explained, the Susan Greenfield
In Search Of Schrödinger’s Cat John Gribben
Introducing Chaos Ziaudiddin Sardar, Iwona Abarams
Introducing Ethics Dave Robbinson, Chris Garratt
Introducing Fractal Geometry Nigel Lesmoir, Will Rood, Aloh Edny
Introducing Mathematics Ziauddin Sardar, Jey Ravetz, Borin Van Loon
Introducing Mind And Brain Angus Gelatley, Oscar Zarate
Introducing Newton William Rankin
Introducing Quantum Theory J P Mcevoy And Ocar Zrat
Just Six Numbers Martin Rees
Kinetic Theory J M Pendlebury
Last Three Minutes, The Paul Davies
Light Years Brian Clegg
Longitude Dava Sobel
Matter And Motion James Clerk Maxwell
Matter Myth, the Paul Davies, John Gribben
Maxwell’s Equations And Their Applications E G Thomas,A J Meadows
Meaning Of It All, the Richard P Feynman
Microscopes And Microscopic Life Peter Healey
Mindfulness In Plain English Bhante Henepola Gunaratana
Modern Physics Editor David Webber
Mr Tompkins explores the atom Gammow
Mr Tompkins in wonderland Gammow
Newton’s Clock, Chaos In The Solar System Ivars Peterson
Newton’s Gift David Berlinski
Newton's Clock Ivars Peterson
Of Men And Galaxies Fred Hoyle
Optics Hecht
Origin Of The Universe, the John D Barrow
Parallel Worlds Michio Kaku
Particle Physics, A Very Short Intro Frank Close
Power Of Now Eckhart Tolle
Q.E.D. Richard P Feynman
Quantum Theory, A Very Short Intro Polkinghorne
Quantum, A Guide For The Perplexed Jim Al-Khalili
Road To Reality, the Roger Penrose
Six Easy Pieces Richard P Feynman
Six Not So Easy Pieces Richard P Feynman
Some time With Feynman Leonard Mlodinow
Stephen Hawking’s Universe John Boslough
Strange Theory Of Light And Matter, the Richard P Feynman
Tao Of Physics Fritjof Capra
Thirteen Books Of The Elements Euclid

Audio books, lectures + podcasts.


The Feynman Lectures on Physics Richard P Feynman.



Vol 1. Ch 1-50 (in particular those on…) -Energy, Time, distance, gravitation, momentum, special relativity, space-Time, electromagnetic radiation, mechanisms of seeing, quantum behaviour, thermodynamics, symmetry in physical laws, mechanics, radiation, and heat.

Vol2. Ch 1-42. -Electromagnetism, calculus, electric fields, magnetic fields, induction, Maxwell’s equations, principle of least action, Lorentz transformations, field energy and momentum, electromagnetic mass, elasticity, curved space.

Vol3. Ch 1-21 -Quantum behaviour, wave and particle viewpoints, probability, semiconductors, angular momentum, Schrodinger equation.

Modern Theoretical Physics: Quantum Entanglement –October 2006

Leonard Susskind Stanford

Berkley 2007 Quantum Lectures Physics137a Raphael Bousso
Richard Muller Physics lectures Berkley 2006-2007
Richard Pogge Astronomy 161-162 Ohio State University
(Quantum) Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics Amir D. Aczel
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives Leonard Mlodinow
Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information Vlatko Vedral

Do They Think You're Stupid?: 100 Ways of Spotting Nonsense Julian Baggini

... either fully, or, everywhere they reference the theory of time, and, I sincerely think it is at least the case that the very simple question "what if things just move and change?" offers a significant reinterpretation of them all... but still leaving us with exactly what we observe.

mm

 

[Billy T]

... Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. ...

Reference please. I don't think that true either. (Still waiting for your reference that Newton said "Time is real." in Principle of Mathematics.)

To MattMars:Please edit your post 222 - remove all the useless space - yes it makes your list longer but does not impress as you probably hoped - seems quite childish to me (and I'm on your side).

 

[krash661]

(repost , image fixed)

yes, the image is an arrangement of photons in formation flying in a direction,
Im suggesting, as a starting point, we check what we can be fairly sure of and build from that.

eg here,

https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...asic-timelessness/the-past-and-future-exposed

The rocket is doing whatever it is doing at A
images are propagating from the scene.
b sees the images at b

the greater the distance X then the more the image happening at B will be different to what is happening at A,

but we should not confuse a bunch of photons in a formation as being evidence that there is also a "temporal past" created and stored by the universe in "some way" , "some where"
if we hypothesize the above, that's fine, as a starting point...but then we need to create an experiment to show that extra to just patterns of light, there really is a temporal past.


mm

the only difference is before(b) and after(A). you see the before(b), after the after(A) happened because of distance and both simultaneously happening at those specific locations.
the only difference is distance.

to see what Einstein does and does not mean by "time", throughout Relativity...

there are multiple elements of time

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi Quantum,

I thought I’d addressed some of this in my other reply, (but this forum is moving at quite a pace : ), but here's some detail.

Yes, sorry.

remember, my approach is to consider the following question/ possibility...

“what IF things may just exist, move and interact. Not heading into a future, or leaving a past behind, etc”?

“would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”

That is entirely possible; sort of requires being un-indoctrinated from birth into the time honored order of living in a society immersed in keeping track of time. Certainly what you are considering and proposing as a possibility can be adopted and lived by.

I'd apply this to your points as follows...

I’m suggesting a human is a collection of matter, that is interacting with its environment, such that specific areas of our brains can be rearranged to form mental impressions.

how we interpret these internal, physical mental impressions is important. We tend to automatically 'call' them "memories" of ( a thing or place called) "the" " past".

but from that we should really check whether just the internal mental impression exist - or whether a thing or place called the past really, also , exists.

in my opinion, many people don’t seem to see, let alone consider , this distinction, and it is unscientific just to have a hunch, give it a name and then use the term "the past" as if it is legitimate and can be used in other proofs etc.

1∆ The Past.

re human functionality consider...

we indeed have an internal mental impression, we call it the past, but it, and indeed the cup etc, is all just matter, information, some where. but,

I can see the distinction between the mental image and something real. The image is an arrangement of nerve pulses, or something like that, and not a real physical thing.

the problem here imo, is we start from the assumption "there is time", and "there are moments" and "a thing called time passes" - And all of this leads to circular logic.

the way out would be for you to cite an experiment that gives scientific evidence that

-there are moments (now’s), and

- a thing called time indeed exists and passes

- very specifically any such experiment should not be explainable by the simpler assumption "things just exist move and interact"

(just as one can't call a moving curtain "evidence of ghosts", because while this is not disprovable, it is explainable by the simpler, testable, assumption "wind moves curtains")

i.e. - I don’t actually seem to see "moments" pass, is things existing and moving, but nothing coming out of a "future" or going into a past"



this implies there is a thing called time, and "now's"... but consider also -

what if there is no such thing as time, no passing of it, and only one "now" so to speak ( the term kind of pollutes things)

It is conceivable; it would be as if there was only an environment of "things happening" everywhere, and if we were left free of the indoctrination of a time conscious existence, that might be accepted as just the way things are.

I suggest, wherever we say we are remembering "past now’s", we are testably in fact only looking at stuff in our heads, and that itself only needs matter to exist and interact to be reorganised, and is only evidence that matter exists and interacts.

That would certainly follow from the "things are simply happening" scenario, as I might call it.

yes, but in fact you may just have a linked arrangement of mental impressions, I fully understand the conclusion, and its usefulness that these are a "timeline", but like the pages in a book. no matter how you scan them, they all just exist.

Well yes, true.

this leads me to another key question which is...

- is there actually a "past" ?

if there is, then there is, but if there is not actually a past, ( no matter how many people like, and use the expression - science is not a popularity vote), then there is not actually a past, and there is not actually a "temporal order" - just the very useful idea of one.

I could wrap my mind around that and acknowledge it could be true, given your explanations, and given that one was on board without having ever been sullied by the devilish concept of time.

I suggest, with the growing, accumulation of knowledge about how the world is operating in your mind, you have more ways of interpreting what happens around you.

(this accumulation requires only that you and the world (light, sound etc) are existing, moving and interacting, in all directions)

it's important to realise, I won’t be able to disprove anything that you (or anyone) suggests if it is based on unobservables that "are true" if they "are true". And I fully agree that we describe the world in these terms then that is how we will see it.

that’s why I call for clear experimental proof.

e.g. if I suggest I strongly feel, and fully believe, there are invisible ghosts walking among us, then you cannot disprove this. but that's not science, I need to provide an experiment to show reliable evidence of my claim - and my experiments cant involve just calling one observation by another name ( e.g. a billowing curtain - ghost interaction).

Mm

Proof of time, a past, a now, a future, is likely not possible if the person we are attempting to convince of those things has no concept of time. But, if as we all are, one is invested in using the concept of time at every turn, then it seems axiomatic that time passes. That is not to say it is a real thing; I agree it isn't, but it is a common affliction among us.

Ps: I may be right or wrong in what I am suggesting, but my experience shows me people think I am wrong, if, I cannot convince them otherwise.

But this is not quite the case, we can’t convince anyone of anything, we can only suggest people try out different ways of looking at the world for themselves, and see which pov makes the best ( scientific) sense.

The best I can do is suggest you actually look at the world in two different ways and compare them.

e.g. literally sit in a park, and make observations, and consider how the world would look,

You should find that view A (time exists) concurs completely with what you see...

And that, imo, is where most people fail... because they think there is thus no reason to consider possibility B ( just movement).

If you adhere to A, then all you need to is provide experimental evidence that “the past” and “the future” really exist.

also did you check out the 2,4,8 16 video ? i can type a lot, but this may be a more effective inroad

I watched the video, and the point is well taken. It is understandable that matter and energy are just "happening", and that they are just there interacting. One probably could adopt such logic and live by it. However, my take away is that in our "times", that person would certainly be frustrated with, and misunderstood by the rest of us .

 

[paddoboy]

Reference please. I don't think that true either. (Still waiting for your reference that Newton said "Time is real." in Principle of Mathematics.)
.

Reference? I did give a link.....
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion

With the other one, as I replied, yes I did read that somewhere, just cannot put my hand on it at this time.....
But will certainly research the 20 or so reputable books that I do have and try and resurrect it for you.

 

[MattMars]

This fella puts it far better then your's truly.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion
Diverse thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosophers through contemporary quantum cosmology and eternal inflation theory, have called time an illusion. For them, the perception of time passing from present moment to present moment is an artefact of our psychology, so that anything real or true is real or true eternally and timelessly. The belief that reality lies in a timeless realm of truth, rather than in the flow of events our perceptions show us, might be supported by scientific argument but equally it reflects a metaphysical prejudice. Contemporary attempts to extend quantum theory to the cosmological, to encompass the whole Universe and not just a sub-system of it, are often couched in equations which suggest time is emergent from a timeless reality. But these attempts suffer from problems, both technical and conceptual, that are even more challenging than the usual conundrums of quantum theory. Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. I would hold that, contrary to the ancient metaphysical tradition, time is not only real, it is likely that it is the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else.

ps re previous post
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-11#post-3244379

by not to admit you pov is (probably) wrong, and mine is (probably) right... we haven't got anywhere near that stage.

i mean- not to admit you pov may be wrong, or mine is right... just to get to the stage of considering another pov, as opposed to only seeing it from the outside.

mm

 

[Billy T]

so if past does not exist, then what would we define what you just explained as ? which appears to resemble a past.

Memories or if looking at some real thing like an old photograph records.

IMO it appears what you are saying is, we can not access the past so it does not exist.

Not quite but I agree we can not access the past because it does not exist. To re-use and earlier example: In a "now" long past, Babe Ruth pointed to left field and then hit a home run there. - That "now" is over - long gone. I can now see films of it, read books about Babe Ruth, etc. but that now does not exist ANYWHERE - NOT N THE BACK SIDE OF MOON - NO WHERE. IS IT NOW.

Babe Ruth pointing at left field was a brief "now" long ago - I can not visit it even it time travel were possible.Every atom in the universe, has a history too for every past "now." Do you really think they actually still exist in that now? Where is this volume of matter - a universe full for every prior "now" of 13+ billion years?

Omar Khayyám (in the FitzGerald translation) puts it well about 1600 years ago:
" The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: not all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

read all this perhaps the world's greatest poem at: https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/okhym.htm
The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám is the title that Edward FitzGerald gave to his translation of a selection of poems, originally written in Persian and numbering about a thousand, attributed to Omar Khayyám, a Persian poet, mathematician and astronomer.

 

[MattMars]

This fella puts it far better then your's truly.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion
Diverse thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosophers through contemporary quantum cosmology and eternal inflation theory, have called time an illusion. For them, the perception of time passing from present moment to present moment is an artefact of our psychology, so that anything real or true is real or true eternally and timelessly. The belief that reality lies in a timeless realm of truth, rather than in the flow of events our perceptions show us, might be supported by scientific argument but equally it reflects a metaphysical prejudice. Contemporary attempts to extend quantum theory to the cosmological, to encompass the whole Universe and not just a sub-system of it, are often couched in equations which suggest time is emergent from a timeless reality. But these attempts suffer from problems, both technical and conceptual, that are even more challenging than the usual conundrums of quantum theory. Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. I would hold that, contrary to the ancient metaphysical tradition, time is not only real, it is likely that it is the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else.

ps re previous post
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-11#post-3244379

Hi Pad,

if you dont mind im going to be a bit blunt, to try and jump you into actually approaching this issue by actually taking in some new information ( be it right or wrong) , to try and shift this sticking point.

yes, I use perhaps and maybe, becasue i am trying to get you to consider possibilities, as opposed to using words like "is" etc becasue they close the gates to new and original thinking.
if we start an sentence like "phlogiston is..." , or perhaps "time is..." , then we are forcing the issue, so im trying to demonstrate open mindedness, ( in the hope others may follow )

you say



and in every single post, i'm trying to politely and non forcibly get people to stop, backtrack, and consider where these people got the idea 'time' is very viable, and to check it for yourself.

i.e, i know everyone's opinion, we've all stated it repeatedly... so now lets slow down... stop.. and check the origin of why people think time is scientifically viable...

trust me, Ive only scratched the surface of what i think i may be able to explain, but there is no point going into any detail unless i see someone is open to actually considering a different point of view.
if you look at every post i have written to you you will see im trying to diplomatically get you to that point.

not to admit you pov is (probably) wrong, and mine is (probably) right... we haven't got anywhere near that stage.

p1 - read electrodynamic.​

im trying to get you to not just repeat your pov, but to actually track the scientific source of it, and read that carefully for yourself... very specifically, as i have repeatedly, subtly mentioned, the most valuable thing to read may be the heart of SR itself. "
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...ivity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

I. KINEMATICAL PART
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity

literally, only the first three paragraphs, literally just 198 words, are all we need to discuss to see what Einstein does and does not mean by "time", throughout Relativity...
but so far Ive seen no indication that you are actually checking the most fundamental part of the key paper, at the heart of all these experts second hand interpretations for yourself , even though it is literally just a click away.

you have also re-posted your question to me 2 or 3 times...

p2 - check the responses you have received - ( only if you are open minded, otherwise theres no point)


and each time i have politely responded and pointed you to a 104 power point slide live talk i gave on precisely that possibility... and had absolutely no indication you had even watched, let alone opened your mind to considering any part of it.
(even though you literally need only click a start button and sit back... i can't spoon feed any more than that)

p3 - demonstrate that you are considering different pov's and not just defending against them
we can all ask questions, but if we ask, and then stick our fingers in our ears and repeat what we think, we will have no idea if the answer presented is useful or not...

Everyone's posted their current opinion, (its going round in circles now), and with respect none of your replies have shown that you are "considering" what has been suggested to you, by which i mean , not one of your replies has started anything like...



and Ive very diplomatically explained how 7 different ways, how and why that may be a useful thing to do - i can only suggest something so much.

p4 - brush up on confirmation bias
instead of just pointing out all parties must be aware of it

ive referenced the 2,4,8, 16 youtube vid a few times, and had no indication at all whether you had even clicked it once - understood it, or disagreed with it etc..

SUMMARY ( in a different order)​

if you are interested in exploring the possibility of timelessness,
ie if you are actually interested in seeing "any scientifically viable realm, world, or Universe, that does not have time "
and not just asking the question so you can look open minded, while you (may) actually not be. then...
try the following - if you are not, then dont , either way is fine.

1 first check out ​

2 - then read the first 3 paragraphs of
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies​

I. KINEMATICAL PART
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...ivity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies


- which most experts think are evidence Einsteins analysis leads to space "time".

3- watch my 3 camera 104 full colour live vid, complete with LEGO intro...​

or the shorter

and 4 - "actually" ask, IE explore for "yourself"....​

'how would the world look IF things just exist and interact 'timelessly', just moving and interacting in all directions - not heading into a "future", and not leaving a "past" behind them.

would what you actually see, in the first instance, right now.. - on a park bench nearby - with out jumping straight into what we think we know about conclusions based on the idea of time..
∆-3 The essence of Timelessness.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
that's pretty much it, if you genuinely want to see how there may be "any scientifically viable realm, world, or Universe, that does not have time " then you probably wont get it outlined to you for free any better than that,

and dare i say it ( i think ive earnt it after this) the 304,391 word book " A brief history of timelessness" is only a couple of bucks.


mm

by not to admit you pov is (probably) wrong, and mine is (probably) right... we haven't got anywhere near that stage.

i mean- not to admit you pov may be wrong, or mine is right... just to get to the stage of considering another pov, as opposed to only seeing it from the outside.

mm

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Pad

Thank you for the quote above, ill read it carefully and get back.

We have conversed a lot, and im glad, becasue it is interesting. But, if i can be direct and honest, i think you would be the first to admit that all you have done here so far is state your opinion, and say why you think it is right. That is literally all you have done, and if that's all you want to do then fine. But then there is little much different for us to say to each other, and I don't mean that rudely.

Sure I have stated my opinion, based on my perception of logic, sensibility and science......
And I have also read other books and other people's opinions, both for and against.
And my logic, is not alone in seeing time as real.
But I'm big enough and ugly enough to admit that the consensus of opinion is not 100% and in reality, both my affirmative opinion and your negative opinion are both wrong.
As I have explained, the answer can only be "we don't really 100% know"
Again, that does not mean I'm relenting on my view. I cannot, for reasons of logic and science in my opinion.
Can we agree on that?

and that's based on very carefully understanding each of these books, etc, and more

I have no doubt that you have given all proper consideration and understood to the best of your ability what you have read on time.
But once again, and with all due respect again, we could pick any two of the well known greats of the present or past, and find that they disagree and/or both come away with different interpretations.
Einstein and Bohr to name two........and although both held firmly to their own beliefs and Interpretations on quantum wierdness, over the course of time, Einstein was shown to be probably wrong.
We also have many "misinterpretations" already on this forum.
But I wont go into all that again.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for your view on time, and obviously having written a book on it, I don't really expect you to back down.
By the same token, my logic reinforced by similar logic from professionals in the field, have me firmly fixed in the affirmative corner...but not so firmly fixed, that any real observational, experimental or even just theoretical based evidence could not reverse my position.

Your links I have not listed or read as yet, but I will get around to it.
But with respect, you still could if you like, give me an example of a world where time does not exist.

My request to all and sundry....Let's keep the conversation/debate above the navel, and accept that at this time [I love that word ] in our history, we really do not know the true reality of time, and the arguments on both sides remain "hypothetical" by mainstream science in general.

 

[MattMars]

Reference? I did give a link.....
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion

With the other one, as I replied, yes I did read that somewhere, just cannot put my hand on it at this time.....
But will certainly research the 20 or so reputable books that I do have and try and resurrect it for you.

Hi Billy, (sorry Pad, meant to send to Billy)
i dug out and dusted off this youtube , the bit at 6:30 i think im basically agreeing with what you are saying about 'clocks', ie just collections of moving parts.

mm

 

[MattMars]

Memories or if looking at some real thing like an old photograph records.Not quite but I agree we can not access the past because it does not exist. To re-use and earlier example: In a "now" long past, Babe Ruth pointed to left field and then hit a home run there. - That "now" is over - long gone. I can now see films of it, read books about Babe Ruth, etc. but that now does not exist ANYWHERE - NOT N THE BACK SIDE OF MOON - NO WHERE. IS IT NOW.

Babe Ruth pointing at left field was a brief "now" long ago - I can not visit it even it time travel were possible.Every atom in the universe, has a history too for every past "now." Do you really think they actually still exist in that now?

Omar Khhan (in the FitzGerald translation put it well) about 1600 years ago:
" The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: not all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

read all this perhaps the world's greatest poem at: https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/okhym.htm
The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám is the title that Edward FitzGerald gave to his translation of a selection of poems, originally written in Persian and numbering about a thousand, attributed to Omar Khayyám, a Persian poet, mathematician and astronomer.

Hi Billy,
i dug out and dusted off this youtube , the bit at 6:30 i think im basically agreeing with what you are saying about 'clocks', ie just collections of moving parts.

mm

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Billy, (sorry Pad, meant to send to Billy)
i dug out and dusted off this youtube , the bit at 6:30 i think im basically agreeing with what you are saying about 'clocks', ie just collections of moving parts.

No probs, but anyway, I don't believe I have ever mentioned clocks with regards to time.
They measure its flow/passing/progress, just as a rule measures space or any of its three dimensions.
I see clocks as a red herring.

 

[Dr_Toad]

the bit at 6:30 i think im basically agreeing with what you are saying about 'clocks'

You refer to a video timestamp in your post, but argue against time's existence? Is that circular logic, or just a troll?

 

[paddoboy]

Time is in my opinion, without question, an indispensable part of the Universe/spacetime we live in.
GR is the ultimate theory we have at present to model that Universe/spacetime.
And echoing another post from one of our most reputable, although our most "Grumpy" [] member from another thread on time, when questioned about GR and global time......

. It is true that the Universe has no global time. It is also true that time exists for every frame and it's all Relative time as described by GR. Farsight tried the same dodge, saying that because coordinate speed changes that lightspeed through spacetime(c) changes, and it doesn't. Time is part of spacetime(as described by GR), it exists, but each frame travels through it at it's own Relative pace. There is no global(we call it absolute)time. But time exists nonetheless.
Grumpy

 

[river]

The essence of time is the existence of objects and these objects move and theses objects move because of their internal and external influences

Without movement there is no time measured by any standard

 

[BdS]

You refer to a video timestamp in your post, but argue against time's existence? Is that circular logic, or just a troll?

I just time stamped a picture of myself taken today with "1714/11/15 09:34". Does this prove I lived in the 1700's?

Time is in my opinion, without question, an indispensable part of the Universe/spacetime we live in.

Where is the timer in spacetime?

 

[MattMars]

But I'm big enough and ugly enough to admit that the consensus of opinion is not 100% and in reality, both my affirmative opinion and your negative opinion are both wrong.
As I have explained, the answer can only be "we don't really 100% know"
Again, that does not mean I'm relenting on my view. I cannot, for reasons of logic and science in my opinion.
Can we agree on that?

Hi Pad,
yes, well put, agreed
mm

 

[MattMars]

You refer to a video timestamp in your post, but argue against time's existence? Is that circular logic, or just a troll?

Hi Dr T,

the other way to look at it is consider a simpler example, e.g. a song on audio tape. I might want to play you a part of the song that is literally 150 cm from the start of the piece of magnetic tape.

So however we address it, maybe that is all we are actually doing, e.g. putting the needle down in a specific physical place on a record on a turntable.

So in my video, actually bytes in the cloud on a disk somewhere, point 12:03 etc, is technically just so many megabytes off from byte zero.
And thus we are accessing a specific physical part of a file, all of which ( like a strip of tape), simply physically exists, in the form of sectors on a magnetic disk etc.

mm

 

[Landau Roof]

Three questions, Matt:

What's a record?
What's a turntable?
How old are you?

Is it a wonder that a geezer like you denies the existence of time? (Oops. That's four questions)