Does Time Exist?

[Vagina Lover]

I really like your post, vagina lover I think you really poignantly described the impression I too have. I find that outlook useful when the tedium, suffering and often drudgery of human life becomes overwhelming.

I too find it a comforting thought that we are from stars, and, once we part ways with our life, that we will once again be returned to where we came from.

Existentialism is much more fulfilling than absurdism or nihilsm.

The more we put into life, over time, the more we will get out of it.

 

[belligerent drunk]

For a real philosophical question, consider the following: How can we know that there isn't really just one moment of existence, a moment that is "equipped" with a delusional perception that there has been a past and that there will be a future?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The way we experience time is based on changing configurations of the system we exist in. For all we know, it could exist in a single moment (everything's possible, right?), but I fail to think of a way to observe that from our point of view.

What I was thinking about, was whether there's a way to give the particles some initial coordinates and momenta in such a way, that there would be practically no such fluctuations, even when considering arbitrarily large time intervals.

I guess it depends on how the momenta change when particles collide. If all particles had the same initial momenta (and mass) and were spaced with equal intervals, then the system would not experience "fluctuations", although it could still be expressed as a function of time, the graph would be a repetition though. Am I wrong?

I am clearly a novice in this area, but if the universe is expanding, in what sense? Does it mean that the total area and volume of the universe is increasing?

Polymath explained it pretty well. Now, correct me if the following is not a correct way to put it. I would say that spacetime (read: space) is being "created" (for a lack of better word) at a constant speed throughout the universe, which explains why distant objects can move away from each other faster than the speed of light - because spacetime doesn't give a fuck about the speed of light limitation. So if the distance between object A and object B is x, then in a unit of time y distance will be "created" between them - if the distance is 2x, then 2y will be "created" - this explains why the farther the object is, the more quickly it is moving away from us. And it works exactly the same for any point in the universe.

 

[swilow]

If space is being created, does it mean that time is too?

The universe is so fucken weird.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I'm not sure that the word "created" is very correct, maybe polymath can say it better. But what is being "created" is spacetime (in this case it is pretty much the same as space), don't think time as such can be "created" like that. I mean, time is being always "created", isn't it?

In any case, it's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Again, maybe polymath can elaborate/correct me.

 

[Nixiam]

Maybe replace created with elastically unveiled, but not in a sense that newly shown space or time was ever hidden.

 

[polymath]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The way we experience time is based on changing configurations of the system we exist in. For all we know, it could exist in a single moment (everything's possible, right?), but I fail to think of a way to observe that from our point of view.

I was just pointing out that we have direct knowledge only about the "specious present".

Polymath explained it pretty well. Now, correct me if the following is not a correct way to put it. I would say that spacetime (read: space) is being "created" (for a lack of better word) at a constant speed throughout the universe, which explains why distant objects can move away from each other faster than the speed of light - because spacetime doesn't give a fuck about the speed of light limitation. So if the distance between object A and object B is x, then in a unit of time y distance will be "created" between them - if the distance is 2x, then 2y will be "created" - this explains why the farther the object is, the more quickly it is moving away from us. And it works exactly the same for any point in the universe.

In relativistic calculations related to expanding space, it's described by making the definition of distance between two points dependent on time. In normal 2D or 3D space, you can calculate the distance between two points with the Pythagorean theorem, given you know the coordinates of the points. In relativistic spacetime, the can be situations where a kind of "modified" Pythagorean theorem applies, and the distance between two points can increase with time even if the x,y,z coordinates of the points remain unchanged. It's true that spacetime can expand faster than light, it doesn't have the same limitations as matter moving through space. Some scientists have even tried to design hypothetical "warp drives", that would enable FTL travel by distorting spacetime around a spaceship. Those are not very realistic, though, as they would consume huge amounts of energy and require some kind of exotic matter.

 

[belligerent drunk]

^ yeah, I lean towards qualitative explanations for phenomena in astrophysics or theoretical physics. It's been too long since I did any kind of advanced maths or the like.

I think I know what you're saying with the "specious present" thingy now. I can't really comment on it right now, I need to think a little (or more).

 

[polymath]

I think I know what you're saying with the "specious present" thingy now. I can't really comment on it right now, I need to think a little (or more).

One of the first real philosophical insights that I had when I was a teenager, was that when I was having an episode of semi-severe depression (I had mood disorders back then), I was not only feeling depressed at the moment. I wasn't even able to remember what it felt like to not be depressed. After a few such bouts of low mood I understood that things like depression or psychosis can "trap" you into what seems true at the "specious present". It's like a black hole, but an inside-out one: You can't see outside when you're in there.

 

[Nixiam]

*Nix looks up to see how out of his leage he is in P&S... goes back to studying physics*

 

[modern buddha]

Is time an idea, a construct with origins in humanity, or do entropy/change prove time's existence?

No idea.

 

[Nixiam]

One of the first real philosophical insights that I had when I was a teenager, was that when I was having an episode of semi-severe depression (I had mood disorders back then), I was not only feeling depressed at the moment. I wasn't even able to remember what it felt like to not be depressed. After a few such bouts of low mood I understood that things like depression or psychosis can "trap" you into what seems true at the "specious present". It's like a black hole, but an inside-out one: You can't see outside when you're in there.

My god you're my inspiration to keep refraining from suicide, polymath.

 

[treezy z]

Time is real, and there's a beginning and an end.

 

[Nixiam]

My clock seems to work fine, granted it is only a measure.

 

[MocCozmiK]

I see time and energy as the only two real things. And if when I think to myself and wonder if time is not real, there's a problem. How do we keep everything from happening at once??
Because the sequence of events seems pretty objective. One thing happens, you take a couple of breaths, then another thing happens. Time never seems to turn backwards, in fact to me it seems we are falling through the dimension of time without anything to stop us, the greatest amount of energy we could ever imagine will only stop us from falling, but it probably will not reverse the movement.


When hear someone say things like, "Time is just a human construct" they usually do not give me any further explanation. So are they talking about our measurement of time? Or our perception of time? Or are they just speaking of time itself?


Plato argued that time was created when the creator fashioned the world from existing material, giving form to primitive matter. Plato argues in the Timaeus, that the creator: sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fullness upon a creature was impossible. Therefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heavens, he made this image eternal but moving, while eternity itself rests upon unity; and this upon this image that we call time

 

[Xorkoth]

Nice post. I see it similarly. I originally got this idea as a teenager when I read Flatland (by Edwin A. Abbott, 1884), which is an exploration of dimensionality by telling the story of a 2-dimensional square being shown the 3-dimensional world by a sphere (extreme mysogony common to that time period aside, it's a really interesting book). I started to visualize time as the next dimension "above" the one we move freely in (3 dimensions). Just like a flat, 2-dimensional plane is one "slice" of the 3-dimensional space (you could think of it as one instance of that space), so is our entire 3-dimensional universe one slice, or instance, of the space/time dimensional space. Time can be expressed on a graph by adding a new dimension in an orthogonal direction (which we can't really conceptualize fully, or certainly not visually anyway), and we exist in such a way that we can only occupy one slice of the 4th dimension (time) at once. But we move through that dimension still, seemingly in a locked trajectory of which we have no control. So the space/time dimensional space, in its entirety, is the entire universe in all positions in time, a sort of infinite eternal moment.

 

[belligerent drunk]

When hear someone say things like, "Time is just a human construct" they usually do not give me any further explanation. So are they talking about our measurement of time? Or our perception of time? Or are they just speaking of time itself?

I would say that time is a tool we use to describe separate events by one more dimension - the temporal dimension that humans experience. It's like "imbedded" with the space dimensions, producing the spacetime field we live in.

Whether time really exists, I do not know. I think I and polymath exchanged a few posts on that subject somewhere in this thread.

 

[Nixiam]

Would time exist without something to measure or percieve it? If not would that make it abstract? I think before we ask if it exists we have to ask where it would reside if it did.

The reason why I say that is because we experience it, so for us it is a real thing. Percievably. If we cannot find a place for time without people or something to measure it then maybe it doesn't exist.

For something to exist it has to be percieved, right? Objects can't percieve each other I don't think. Well, magnets. Or maybe it has to be measured.

 

[swilow]

Would time exist without something to measure or percieve it? If not would that make it abstract? I think before we ask if it exists we have to ask where it would reside if it did.

The force of gravity does not 'reside' anywhere though. Objects exhibit its effects. The same is true of the other fundamental forces. They do not reside in a physical locale, they govern the physical processes of objects. They are real and measurable and all objects in the universe are bound to them. Perhaps time is something similar, a force that permeates all reality, from the quantum to the macroscopic world.

For something to exist it has to be percieved, right? Objects can't percieve each other I don't think. Well, magnets. Or maybe it has to be measured.

For something to exist, it has to be demonstrated to exist. There are things that we cannot perceive that exist, such as infra-red, microwaves, dark matter (maybe), magnetism as you said, etc.

Time can be said to exist because our physical universe requires sequential events to manifest reality. For something to ocurr, there must be a cause and a squential effect. Giving the integral nature of before/after processes, I think that time (or something time-like) exists as a fundmanetal aspect of our reality.

 

[MocCozmiK]

According to Classical Physics (and Isaac Newton), the laws of motion require time to have some specific features. Simultaneity is a concept and time brings order to the events occurring in space. No matter when or where an event occurs, classical physics assumes that you can objectively say whether it happens before, after or simultaneously with any other event in the universe. In addition, Classical Time must also be continuous to define velocities and accelerations. The whole description of Newtons laws depended on time.


Newton himself began by defining time as: Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration. Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such a measure for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year, is commonly used instead of true time.

In Newtonian time, another concept has to be encompassed by it, like the concept of duration, of a metric, so that we can distinguish events apart.


Newtons definitions and laws were quickly accepted because they led to correct predictions about the world. Which have allowed us to calculate when such eclipses occurred in the past.
Now another scientist who maybe lesser known, is Pierre-Simon Laplace. He supposedly proved the stability of the solar system. In analysis Laplace introduced the potential function and Laplace coefficients. He also put the theory of mathematical probability on a sound footing. He correctly argued that given the laws of mechanics, the complete picture of the past and future world is encapsulated in the present world.


I am obviously a fan of Isaac Newton (if you couldn't tell) lol
Although Newton was a deeply religious man. (I am not religious at all) He was able to not confuse or intertwine science with religion. Which is cool

 

[No one]

It exists to us, therefore it exists. But, does it really matter? Probably not, since everything eventually ends.