Questions about time

[ynot]

1. What if all matter ceased to exist? Would there still be physical dimensions?

If by physical you mean of or pertaining to that which is material then of course not. You can't have physical dimensions unless something physical exists. Perthaps you mean spatial dimensions?. Reality is however matter does exist so whats the point of the fantasy "what if"?

 

[marplots]

Thought experiment for the time = motion idea.

Say you have a box made from unobtainium, a substance which is inordinately stable and unchanging. In that box is a gas composed of two types of molecules. The molecules start off arranged symmetrically in the box and move so that they are always symmetric to the box, although they do change locations and the two types of molecules mix.

Inside the box, there is motion. This motion cannot be detected outside the box, which itself doesn't move at all.

Does the box age? Does the system age? Does the reference frame age?

 

[keyfeatures]

1. What if all matter ceased to exist? Would there still be physical dimensions?

No. The location of an object is not a property of independent space but rather a property of the object itself in relation to other objects. Therefore, no objects = no physical dimensions. (afaik this is the argument Leibniz made).

2. A statement of opinion is not the same as a proof.

Very true Dear Pot, love Mrs Kettle.

So far all I have seen from you and Farsight have been arguments largely based on assertion and semantics.

Examplia gratia... Time is a measure of motion, therefore time does not exist.

This begs the question and is a fallacy. You define time, therefore make your argument from there.

Okay. Words can mean different things. When I say time does not exist, I mean it in the same way as when I say god does not exist. Clearly, both time and god 'exist' because we've named them real. However, both are metaphysical concepts rather than material reality. Existence is not an attribute. Time exists as a metaphysical concept. Time has no material attribute unless it is defined as a tautology to motion / material change.

Here is a question... time dilation, explain how it affects all forms of measurement equally.

Let's try from there.

There is material dilation. A clock ticks faster or slower in relation to gravity and relative movement. The only way to tell if it is ticking faster or slower is to have another frame of material reference. For example, whilst this pendulum has moved 1000 times, that pendulum has move 1001 times. There is no 'time' measure separate to the material measure.

Here's a question for you. Is the concept of time necessary to assert the following?

〈1,2,3〉≠〈3,2,1〉

 

[Michael C]

1st state
2nd state
3rd state
nth state

In order to number the states there needs to be a difference (in movement/material) - otherwise they are the same state. There has to be an identifiable difference. The same state cannot be reproduced (Leibniz is correct in this and it's something Newton glossed over).

I originally asked you how you would define "change observed" without reference to the time dimension along which the change is observed. I don't see how this brings us any closer to such a definition.

All our notion of time does is number the observation of movements that are observed against other movements. For example, there are 50 pendulum swings in the time it takes for the ice to melt at temperature x. That these movements have a synchronicity allows us to assume they have a consistency. However, what if all universal movement stops and starts in unison (forget the paradoxical mechanism that would be required for this to happen), how could you say how much 'time' had passed?

I'm not sure what you mean by "all universal movement stops and starts in unison". Movement is a relative quantity. I suppose then, that you would be talking about a universe in which no relative motion is present. We could say that a time dimension is irrelevant for such a universe. We could also imagine that this universe is homogenous: it's the same everywhere. In that case, the space dimensions would also be irrelevant. So what?

You couldn't. It's an observational fallacy to suggest that time is the unit of value. Movement (or material change) is the unit of value.

Time is not "the unit of value". Time is a dimension, for which we can define precise units of measurement. What, according to you, would be a good unit of measurement for "movement"?

We can see this from the ways in which we have measured so-called time (all of them based on observation of movement).

You might just as well say that solid objects are used to measure spatial separation, so space doesn't exist, just solid objects.

All units of time are tautologies of movement. Time itself does not exist. It's a metaphysical concept.

Of course time doesn't exist in the sense of something I could pick up and put in my pocket. But then, nor does space. Do you also consider space to be a "metaphysical concept"?

 

[keyfeatures]

Thought experiment for the time = motion idea.

Say you have a box made from unobtainium, a substance which is inordinately stable and unchanging. In that box is a gas composed of two types of molecules. The molecules start off arranged symmetrically in the box and move so that they are always symmetric to the box, although they do change locations and the two types of molecules mix.

Inside the box, there is motion. This motion cannot be detected outside the box, which itself doesn't move at all.

Does the box age? Does the system age? Does the reference frame age?

Interesting. This is a little like the block universe concept. Clearly there is a numerical order or material change. As a human we might call this 'ageing'; age being a concept created by humans that perceive of birth and death as inevitable bookends to change. Subjective humanity projects this narrative to the universal level. However, there is absolutely no evidence of nothing (N) before the Big Bang, just as there is no evidence of not nothing (E) coming into existence. Rather N⊆E and E⊆N. Quite a tango.

Creation stories abound without evidence. Tick tock.

 

[ynot]

A ball bounces. Is bounce a thing? Does bounce exist?

 

[ynot]

Of course time doesn't exist in the sense of something I could pick up and put in my pocket. But then, nor does space. Do you also consider space to be a "metaphysical concept"?

Do you mean space as a thing or a distance?

 

[keyfeatures]

I originally asked you how you would define "change observed" without reference to the time dimension along which the change is observed. I don't see how this brings us any closer to such a definition.

If you don't see it, try make soup before the stock.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all universal movement stops and starts in unison". Movement is a relative quantity. I suppose then, that you would be talking about a universe in which no relative motion is present. We could say that a time dimension is irrelevant for such a universe. We could also imagine that this universe is homogenous: it's the same everywhere. In that case, the space dimensions would also be irrelevant.

Not really, it would still have a spatial attribute. An homogenous 'thing' is still a 'thing'.

Time is not "the unit of value". Time is a dimension, for which we can define precise units of measurement. What, according to you, would be a good unit of measurement for "movement"?

We already have them, it's just we call such measures temporal when really they are measures of relative movement. How do you know what a second is?

You might just as well say that solid objects are used to measure spatial separation, so space doesn't exist, just solid objects.

Space is also metaphysical, yes.

Of course time doesn't exist in the sense of something I could pick up and put in my pocket. But then, nor does space. Do you also consider space to be a "metaphysical concept"?

Yes. This is what relational theory says.

 

[Michael C]

If you don't see it, try make soup before the stock.

"Before" makes no sense without a time axis.

Not really, it would still have a spatial attribute. An homogenous 'thing' is still a 'thing'.

It would have a spatial attribute as much as it would have a temporal attribute.

We already have them, it's just we call such measures temporal when really they are measures of relative movement. How do you know what a second is?

A second is a unit of time. If you wish to say that a second is a unit of motion, you're just replacing the word "time" by "motion", which only leads to confusion. If motion is a fundamental quality, you should be able to propose a fundamental unit for it.

A second is a unit of time just as a metre is a unit of space. In both cases we have diverse methods for effecting the measurements, but we shouldn't confuse the method of measurement with what we are measuring. Measuring time with the motion of a pendulum doesn't prove that time is motion, any more than measuring distance with a metal ruler would prove that distance is metal.

Space is also metaphysical, yes.

Good, that's fine. In that case motion is also metaphysical.

 

[ynot]

A second is a unit of time just as a metre is a unit of space. In both cases we have diverse methods for effecting the measurements, but we shouldn't confuse the method of measurement with what we are measuring. Measuring time with the motion of a pendulum doesn't prove that time is motion, any more than measuring distance with a metal ruler would prove that distance is metal.

Give an example of time without reference to motion. A second is a unit of motion or change. Time is merely a generic term for units of motion or change.

Distance is the amount of "stuff" between locations. "Stuff" doesn't have to be material. If there is no stuff (nothing) between locations then there is no distance between them. The length distance of a metal ruler is defined by the amount and size of metal atoms that forms it's length.

 

[Michael C]

Give an example of time without reference to motion. A second is a unit of motion or change. Time is merely a generic term for units of motion or change.

If a second were a unit of change, then twice as much change would always need twice as many seconds. That clearly isn't true. In fact I don't even know of an accepted way to quantify "change".

The amount of time between the moment when the last dinosaurs died on Earth and the moment when we are having this discussion is approximately 65 million years. How much is that in motion?

 

[ynot]

If a second were a unit of change, then twice as much change would always need twice as many seconds. That clearly isn't true. In fact I don't even know of an accepted way to quantify "change".

A unit of motion or change is measured by way of a predictable consistency not by quantity. The motion consistency of sand falling in an hourglass makes it a timekeeper not the quantity. Any timekeeper is only as acurate as it's consistency of motion.

The amount of time between the moment when the last dinosaurs died on Earth and the moment when we are having this discussion is approximately 65 million years. How much is that in motion?

65 million year units of motion. A year unit of motion is the motion of the Earth completing an orbit of the Sun.

 

[keyfeatures]

If a second were a unit of change, then twice as much change would always need twice as many seconds. That clearly isn't true. In fact I don't even know of an accepted way to quantify "change".

The amount of time between the moment when the last dinosaurs died on Earth and the moment when we are having this discussion is approximately 65 million years. How much is that in motion?

It clearly is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Are you suggesting you could observe this change in half a second?

For the answer to your dinosaur question...65 million years is 65 million rotations around the sun (assuming you measure between vernal equinoxes).

 

[Michael C]

It clearly is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Yes, that's the definition of a second of time. It's one very specific change which is used for defining time because we have observed that the time taken for these transitions is a very consistent quantity.

You are still confusing the thing being measured with the means used to measure it. A second can be measured using swings of a pendulum, drips of a tap, vibrations of a tuning fork, transitions between atomic states, etc. etc. In each case we calculate how many repeated actions make up one second. Does this mean that in each case the "amount of change" or "amount of motion" is the same? No. The fundamental quantity that we are measuring is time.

Once again, it's no different from distance. We can measure a metre with a piece of wood, a piece of metal or a laser beam. That doesn't mean that distance "is" any of these things. It doesn't mean that a metre is a unit of wood, or metal, or laser beam.

Are you suggesting you could observe this change in half a second?

Of course not. What I am asking you for is your definition of a unit of "change". This morning I took some eggs out of the fridge, broke the shells and mixed the contents together. Exactly how much had changed between these two states?

For the answer to your dinosaur question...65 million years is 65 million rotations around the sun (assuming you measure between vernal equinoxes).

That is only true if we take the definition of "year" as "the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation around the Sun". That definition is only OK as long as the period of rotation of the Earth around the Sun is constant. It will no longer be OK if a fleet of Vogon space ships destroys the Earth, or pushes it into another orbit. Luckily we have other definitions of what a year is, which are independent of the existence of the Earth. 65 million years is a well-defined period of time, whether the Earth goes round the Sun or not.

 

[RobDegraves]

@keyfeatures

No. The location of an object is not a property of independent space but rather a property of the object itself in relation to other objects. Therefore, no objects = no physical dimensions. (afaik this is the argument Leibniz made).

So.. neither space nor time exist according to you?

The interesting part is that your philosophy has not really managed to answer my question...

There is material dilation. A clock ticks faster or slower in relation to gravity and relative movement. The only way to tell if it is ticking faster or slower is to have another frame of material reference. For example, whilst this pendulum has moved 1000 times, that pendulum has move 1001 times. There is no 'time' measure separate to the material measure.

So... material dilation is responsible for a clock ticking faster or slower... and atoms going faster and slower... and cells to live faster or slower... and water to flow faster or slower.. etc... all in the exact same proportion as predicted by relativity?

Would you care to explain how that works?

Specifically... not vaguely please.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Motion requires both space and time. Attempts to change the order of precedence of motion with time or space may be interesting but leads to ambiguity. As Michael C pointed out, a "unit of motion" is ambiguous. Since the time of Galileo, understanding motion (both inertial and accelerated) as a d/t and d/t² has been the foundation for the work of Newton, Maxwell. Einstein, and all modern physics. Philosophic musings about changing the order of precedence of time or space with motion may be fun, but is not productive from the perspective of science.
So, I would offer that time and space (or spacetime as we now understand it) are fundamental as scientific concepts.

 

[sol invictus]

1st state
2nd state
3rd state
nth state

In order to number the states there needs to be a difference (in movement/material) - otherwise they are the same state. There has to be an identifiable difference. The same state cannot be reproduced (Leibniz is correct in this and it's something Newton glossed over).

All our notion of time does is number the observation of movements that are observed against other movements. For example, there are 50 pendulum swings in the time it takes for the ice to melt at temperature x. That these movements have a synchronicity allows us to assume they have a consistency. However, what if all universal movement stops and starts in unison (forget the paradoxical mechanism that would be required for this to happen), how could you say how much 'time' had passed? You couldn't. It's an observational fallacy to suggest that time is the unit of value. Movement (or material change) is the unit of value. We can see this from the ways in which we have measured so-called time (all of them based on observation of movement).

All units of time are tautologies of movement. Time itself does not exist. It's a metaphysical concept.

According to modern physics, you're wrong. Time is a dimension almost exactly like those of space. And indeed, everything you're saying applies just as well to space as it does to time (unsurprisingly).

Until you address that, it's hard to take your opinions seriously.

 

[keyfeatures]

Yes, that's the definition of a second of time. It's one very specific change which is used for defining time because we have observed that the time taken for these transitions is a very consistent quantity.

.

So what has been used to calibrate this "very consistent quantity" of time?

 

[keyfeatures]

Motion requires both space and time. Attempts to change the order of precedence of motion with time or space may be interesting but leads to ambiguity. As Michael C pointed out, a "unit of motion" is ambiguous. Since the time of Galileo, understanding motion (both inertial and accelerated) as a d/t and d/t² has been the foundation for the work of Newton, Maxwell. Einstein, and all modern physics. Philosophic musings about changing the order of precedence of time or space with motion may be fun, but is not productive from the perspective of science.
So, I would offer that time and space (or spacetime as we now understand it) are fundamental as scientific concepts.

Fine. But what does the t actually represent? How is it measured?

 

[keyfeatures]

Of course not. What I am asking you for is your definition of a unit of "change". This morning I took some eggs out of the fridge, broke the shells and mixed the contents together. Exactly how much had changed between these two states?

You broke the eggs, not me. So you are suggesting that, for example, "12 minutes" is an adequate definition of the change between the two states?

That is only true if we take the definition of "year" as "the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation around the Sun". That definition is only OK as long as the period of rotation of the Earth around the Sun is constant. It will no longer be OK if a fleet of Vogon space ships destroys the Earth, or pushes it into another orbit. Luckily we have other definitions of what a year is, which are independent of the existence of the Earth. 65 million years is a well-defined period of time, whether the Earth goes round the Sun or not.

Okay, what are you using to measure this "well-defined period of time".