What is "time"

[brucep]

It is crucial that you look at what clocks actually do. Be it a mechanical clock, a quartz wristwatch, or an optical clock, they always feature some kind of regular cyclical motion which is "clocked up" and displayed in some accumulated form as the time. A clock doesn't actually measure time's flow/passing/progress. It isn't some kind of gas meter. It doesn't have time flowing through it. Instead the internal mechanism is a called a movement. It clocks up local motion, that's all. Re what Grumpy said:

"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."

Forget this. The universe has a global time in its expansion and the CMBR redshift. Frames don't actually exist in any real sense, relative time is little more than relative local motion which is reduced by macroscopic motion through the universe. The speed of light through space varies, nothing moves through spacetime, it's static. You could say time is part of spacetime but the latter is an abstract thing, it isn't what space is. As for time existing, I think it's reasonable to say time exists like heat exists, but I think it's wrong to say it's fundamental like space is. Despite what Minkowski said, we live in a world of space and motion. Let me try to put it more succinctly: things move, sh*t happens, that's it.

 

[brucep]

It is crucial that you look at what clocks actually do. Be it a mechanical clock, a quartz wristwatch, or an optical clock, they always feature some kind of regular cyclical motion which is "clocked up" and displayed in some accumulated form as the time. A clock doesn't actually measure time's flow/passing/progress. It isn't some kind of gas meter. It doesn't have time flowing through it. Instead the internal mechanism is a called a movement. It clocks up local motion, that's all. Re what Grumpy said:

"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."

Forget this. The universe has a global time in its expansion and the CMBR redshift. Frames don't actually exist in any real sense, relative time is little more than relative local motion which is reduced by macroscopic motion through the universe. The speed of light through space varies, nothing moves through spacetime, it's static. You could say time is part of spacetime but the latter is an abstract thing, it isn't what space is. As for time existing, I think it's reasonable to say time exists like heat exists, but I think it's wrong to say it's fundamental like space is. Despite what Minkowski said, we live in a world of space and motion. Let me try to put it more succinctly: things move, sh*t happens, that's it.

Actually you need to figure out what clocks do. They measure natural phenomena we call time. Everything you choose to support your argument says the natural phenomena we call time doesn't exist because the measuring device has moving parts. Typical nonsense from you.
I got a better measuring device. My two hands and the wristwatch on my left wrist. It can be used to measure the space between the hands , when the measurement was made, and how long it took.
BTW the most fundamental is the spacetime event. The event in spacetime is invariant is every respect. For example where and when they occur. Like when you choose to darken the doorstep of common sense at this venue.

 

[paddoboy]

You said: I'm starting to think that the problem here is a "definition" problem, on what the definition of "real" is and how some view it.
Me (Billy T) too, so I give a definition of "real" below. (Feel free to offer an alternative definition.)

I'm starting to think that the problem here is a "definition" problem, on what the definition of "time" is and how some view it.
I (Billy T) agree with that statement, so please give a definition of time.
I don't offer one as don't think time either exists or is required for a complete description of how the universe changes* / evolves. (I gave proof of that in post 28.)

Definition of "real"
Real things have at least one observable property, even it just a smell; however some non-real things, like God, may exist and no-one can prove they do not exist, as "absence of proof is NOT proof of absence."

Not necessarily....
I have given an analogy of probably reality with a singularity.....
I see something as "real" that can also consciously and logically be inferred by data.
Time fits that category.
God can also be consciously be inferred, but logically and scientifically, if fails the scientific method.

And once again, I'm not asking anyone to prove to me time does not exist. I'm only asking that someone show me a realm, universe or world where it does not exist.

 

[paddoboy]

(1) Unicorns exists like horses exists,
(2) If it were not for unicorns, we would not be here (Early in our evolution our primate like ancestors were near extinction, but had trained unicorn guards of their caves and with their horns, they killed the predators that ate our babies while we slept. Both they and those predators are now extinct, ON EARTH.)

Your & my parallel statements, (1) & (2), are assertions of a POV with zero supporting evidence given, but I do at least give a plausible "why" for my (2).

You do not give any plausible reason.
You proceed under your bias that time does not exist, then make up a fairy tale to support that bias.
Sorry, I see no logic in that.
Time at the very least has relevance, and psychological meaning to our Universe. The problem now seems to be that you are downplaying that relevance.
Things don't all happen together or at the "säme time".
The BB happened 13.83 billion years ago.
I cannot put it any simpler then that.

 

[paddoboy]

I am waiting for you (or anyone asserting time is real) to give a definition of time. Well defined terms, I agree, are necessary for meaningful discussion.

I have given that definition.

 

[paddoboy]

* Change is NOT time unless you think both a melting ice cube and burning match is time; Or that unobservable (non-real) time, like the "soul," can have causal effects.

Agreed....."Change is not time" "But change occurs in time"

 

[Landau Roof]

Not necessarily....
I have given an analogy of probably reality with a singularity.....
I see something as "real" that can also consciously and logically be inferred by data.
Time fits that category.
God can also be consciously be inferred, but logically and scientifically, if fails the scientific method.

And once again, I'm not asking anyone to prove to me time does not exist. I'm only asking that someone show me a realm, universe or world where it does not exist.

How does time fit the category of being 'consciously and logically be inferred by data', please? Because we can measure it with clocks? Surely, that will not be your response! How does this thing called 'time' which you infer pass the test of scientific method?

Realms where time does not exist? You have been shown and you dismiss them: mathematics, logic, calculus and well, this whole universe we live in really. The only realm time does exist in is the human mind. If you could ask your dog the date, would he say it's November 16, 2014, or would he say, 'The what, now? The time? I'd guess it's dinner time, I'm starving!' He'd have no notion of such artifices as 'Year of Our Lord' or even 'quarter past'. We agree to these things so bills can be paid, they are not objective reality.

 

[Billy T]

You do not give any plausible reason.
You proceed under your bias that time does not exist, then make up a fairy tale to support that bias.
Sorry, I see no logic in that.
Time at the very least has relevance, and psychological meaning to our Universe. The problem now seems to be that you are downplaying that relevance.
Things don't all happen together or at the "säme time".
The BB happened 13.83 billion years ago.
I cannot put it any simpler then that.

You still have NOT defined "time"
You make false assertion about me having a "bias" - I don't. I only apply to "time" my definition (given in post 258) of "real" and find it fails the test of that definition. So at best it is among the concepts that have no supporting evidence, like God, re-incarnation, souls, heaven, luck etc. - I. e. one can CHOOSE to believe that they exist or not.

 

[Billy T]

Agreed....."Change is not time" "But change occurs in time"

No that is the same meaningless non-sense as:
Change occurs in blupe. as neither time nor blupe have been defined.

 

[paddoboy]

How does time fit the category of being 'consciously and logically be inferred by data', please? Because we can measure it with clocks? Surely, that will not be your response! How does this thing called 'time' which you infer pass the test of scientific method?

Yep, that's my response. Along with the fact that if time did not exist, you would not be here, and the Universe/spacetime would also be non existent.
Then we can add the second law of thermodynamics and entropy......

Realms where time does not exist? You have been shown and you dismiss them:

I have been shown no world or realm where time does not exist, other then some never never land where Unicorns and fairies abound.
Not very scientific.

mathematics, logic, calculus and well, this whole universe we live in really. The only realm time does exist in is the human mind.

Philosophical crap. And you made that statement a few moments ago in time.

If you could ask your dog the date, would he say it's November 16, 2014, or would he say, 'The what, now? The time? I'd guess it's dinner time, I'm starving!' he's have no notion of such artifices as 'Year of Our Lord' or even 'quarter past'. We agree to these things so bills can be paid, they are not objective reality.

Not all species have advanced to the status that they are able to ask questions about time etc.
That's a rather silly argument, don't you think?

 

[Landau Roof]

Not all species have advanced to the status that they are able to ask questions about time etc. That's a rather silly argument, don't you think?

Not silly at all. And do you not grasp the hypothetical? IF you're dog could talk. Our species 'advanced status' that makes us capable of questioning reality also enables us to establish agreed upon frameworks such as time so that we may distinguish between that which has already happened, that which may happen and the inescapable 'now' in which we forever exist. You confuse 'time' with change'. It is change which permits our existence, not our sense of time passing.

 

[paddoboy]

You still have NOT defined "time"
You make false assertion about me having a "bias" - I don't. I only apply to "time" my definition (given in post 258) of "real" and find it fails the test of that definition. So at best it is among the concepts that have no supporting evidence, like God, re-incarnation, souls, heaven, luck etc. - I. e. one can CHOOSE to believe that they exist or not.

Applied to your definition of what is "real".....I don't adhere to that definition.
And again, I certainly have given a definition of time.
TIME: That which stops everything from happening together.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMO DYNAMICS AND ENTROPY.


But as MM has already agreed, the whole exercise is debatable and scientifically undecided.
I'm sure you'll agree with that too.
That of course does not change my own opinion on the subject one iota.
In my opinion the existence of time or otherwise is a logical conclusion in the affirmative, even though the true nature of time is unknown...That fact can be applied to many scientific concepts.

 

[paddoboy]

Not silly at all. And do you not grasp the hypothetical? IF you're dog could talk. Our species 'advanced status' that makes us capable of questioning reality also enables us to establish agreed upon frameworks such as time so that we may distinguish between that which has already happened, that which may happen and the inescapable 'now' in which we forever exist. You confuse 'time' with change'. It is change which permits our existence, not our sense of time passing.

No I dont confuse time with change.
Change of any sort is not possible if time did not exist.
Simple as that.

 

[Landau Roof]

But everything IS happening together! Our sense of time is just our way of sorting it out, like our eyes which can see only some of the spectrum, not the whole.

 

[zgmc]

How does time fit the category of being 'consciously and logically be inferred by data', please? Because we can measure it with clocks? Surely, that will not be your response! How does this thing called 'time' which you infer pass the test of scientific method?

Realms where time does not exist? You have been shown and you dismiss them: mathematics, logic, calculus and well, this whole universe we live in really. The only realm time does exist in is the human mind. If you could ask your dog the date, would he say it's November 16, 2014, or would he say, 'The what, now? The time? I'd guess it's dinner time, I'm starving!' He'd have no notion of such artifices as 'Year of Our Lord' or even 'quarter past'. We agree to these things so bills can be paid, they are not objective reality.

It seems to me that we can observe time happening. I dont see how you can claim that it only exists in the human mind. With or without humans it would still take the same amount of time for the light from the sun to reach the earth.

 

[zgmc]

But everything IS happening together! Our sense of time is just our way of sorting it out, like our eyes which can see only some of the spectrum, not the whole.[/QWe sense time because it exists.

I think its the time that came first.

 

[Landau Roof]

I think its the time that came first.

You think. Exactly. So what is this 'time' you are thinking of? Is it like pixie dust? We shake it on the material world so stuff can move and things can happen? Would they not just occur regardless of our perception of them transpiring over 'time'?

 

[zgmc]

You think. Exactly. So what is this 'time' you are thinking of? Is it like pixie dust? We shake it on the material world so stuff can move and things can happen? Would they not just occur regardless of our perception of them transpiring over 'time'?

I know what you are getting at. You might as well be saying that the univerese doesnt really exist.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Check this link : http://www.timephysics.com/
Interesting stuff...the Summary :

SUMMARY

1. We measure time by comparing one standard motion against another. Time may not have any independent existence. Time and clocks are used for convenience. The motion could have been compared directly.

2. Motion alone is not enough to explain time. Forces also appear to be part of time. Arrow of time may be explained if we think of time as presence of forces and motion.

3. Perception of time as past present and future gives us the illusion of the passage of time as well as the block universe view of time. Above it is shown that this perception may just be an illusion and time is more like memory and recording devices. The similarity of time characteristic of past present and future in historical events and made up stories also suggests that our perception of time is an illusion and this aspect of time is also like a record. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feel of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations strongly suggests that the way we perceive time (present-ism or the block universe view) is an illusion.

4. Slowing of time in motion and gravity does not lead to disappearance into the past as should happen if there was block universe. Absence of time travellers from futuristic advanced civilizations is also against the concept of the block universe.

5. The concept of origin of the universe in the Big Bang is at complete odds with the block universe view of time. If the block universe which is supposed to be laid out as a time-scape (from the past to the present to the infinite future) exists and began in big bang then it would mean that all of the time up to the infinite future would come into existence in the instant of the big bang. This idea is truly preposterous.

6. Slowing of time in gravity and in motion as well as the ultimate speed limit c provides us the necessary clues to understanding the cause of the phenomenon of time however we need to first convince ourselves that time is a process that is linked to motion and forces and the block universe view of time is not correct.

the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.timephysics.com/

More at : http://www.timephysics.com/what-is-time.html

 

[brucep]

You still have NOT defined "time"
You make false assertion about me having a "bias" - I don't. I only apply to "time" my definition (given in post 258) of "real" and find it fails the test of that definition. So at best it is among the concepts that have no supporting evidence, like God, re-incarnation, souls, heaven, luck etc. - I. e. one can CHOOSE to believe that they exist or not.

Your bias is ignorance. Why would a PHD need a definition for time? How could a PHD not understand inertial motion is relative? That energy and momentum are frame dependent? Your arguments are juvenile with respect to physics. The fact you're continuing to go there makes me wonder about your intellectual honesty. Since climate science is a scientific regimen it makes me wonder about the analysis you've been doing over in that section of this forum. This discussion about time has nothing to do with science. It's a very uninteresting philosophical discussion. Uninteresting because it's so juvenile.