Originally posted by humyI'm just saying that in any mathematical analysis in which t (as a variable representing the dimension called time) is omitted, it's under circumstances in which either no events are occurring (a static situation), or all relevant events are occurring simultaneously.
yes, in both those hypothetical situations, time would be totally meaningless.
There must be at the very least the possibility of something happening after something for time to mean something and arguably there must be actually something happening after something for time to mean something.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes time exist in a deterministic universe then?
It's kind of like collecting coins in Super Mario Bros. We can measure how many coins Mario is collecting, but we know those coins aren't actually real.
They may not really be coins, and may not even be physical objects, but they are real.[/b]
Using your Mario example. If it were a computer playing the game against itself
then it would be entirely possible to compute the number of coins before the game
itself was played.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou evidently haven't heard of the "Halting problem".
Does time exist in a deterministic universe then?
Using your Mario example. If it were a computer playing the game against itself
then it would be entirely possible to compute the number of coins before the game
itself was played.
It's entirely possible for the final state of an entirely deterministic system (or even if it has a final state) to be unknowable
without actually 'running' that system.
Originally posted by SoothfastBut technically, isn't everything already happening at once? Everything is in motion, and happening now. And if this is the case, wouldn't that mean, according to your statement, that time really doesn't exist?
There's only two kinds of situations where time does not exist:
1) Everything happens at once.
2) Nothing happens.
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyBut not everything is "already happening at once" nor "happening now". What about those events that happened in the past but are not happening now?
But technically, isn't everything already happening at once? Everything is in motion, and happening now. And if this is the case, wouldn't that mean, according to your statement, that time really doesn't exist?
Originally posted by humyThat would be impossible, since that would require future events happening along with the present; like saying, "What about things that will happen in A.D. 3024, but isn't happening now?" It's kind of a self-contradiction.
But not everything is "already happening at once" nor "happening now". What about those events that happened in the past but are not happening now?
Or like asking about why the internet hasn't happened, during the age of the dinosaurs. Etc., etc.
In short, it's just not a logical possibility. But maybe this sort of illustrates the point: that there really is not "past", or "future", just "now". The other two are just things we conceptualize that don't really exist, like minutes and seconds, or months of the year, or time zones.
Originally posted by vivifyCalendar or Clock?
I've always thought that time was merely a man-made idea, to keep track between events. But there are scientists (most famously, Einstein) that believe that time is a physical property, that can be "bent" by things like black holes.
My question is, what evidence is there that time is a real, physical thing, and not just an idea?
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyInteresting question. I'd have to say that since time can be measured pretty accurately, that it does in fact exist. The idea that it may be bent, as Einstein suggests, lends more weight to the argument that time is not just an abstract concept, or a man made idea.
I've always thought that time was merely a man-made idea, to keep track between events. But there are scientists (most famously, Einstein) that believe that time is a physical property, that can be "bent" by things like black holes.
My question is, what evidence is there that time is a real, physical thing, and not just an idea?
Originally posted by vivifyAll events do not happen all at once. Would be a senseless world if it could happen that way.
I've always thought that time was merely a man-made idea, to keep track between events. But there are scientists (most famously, Einstein) that believe that time is a physical property, that can be "bent" by things like black holes.
My question is, what evidence is there that time is a real, physical thing, and not just an idea?
Originally posted by vivifyMethinks time is non-existent because the flow of time is impossible; if we accept that time is split into past, present and future, the conception of time loses its coherence because if the past is considered to produce the present and the future, the latter two parts would be already included in the past and it could not be properly said to have inherent existence and a separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, we are forced to assume that their self-contained existence leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past -and this is absurd. Also, since the notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, we have another self-contradiction. This means that neither the present nor the future exist, since neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future;
I've always thought that time was merely a man-made idea, to keep track between events. But there are scientists (most famously, Einstein) that believe that time is a physical property, that can be "bent" by things like black holes.
My question is, what evidence is there that time is a real, physical thing, and not just an idea?
However the abstract concept of time, this invention of ours, is meaningful whenever we have to monitor all kinds of changes the observers undergo, of course their movement included.
Mind you, as "observer" I define a physical system capable of memorizing and/ or handling elements of reality (an observer is made of elements of reality, which they are any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information). So, an observer could be everything -a person, a galaxy, an animal, a plant, the universe, a rock, an island etc. Each of these observers memorizes and process information in different ways, and each observer is a phenomenon-in-flux instead of a stable, inherently existent being that somehow envelops flux/ change.
It follows that all observers are causal fields that change constantly. And no observer is eternal, anything sooner or later dissolves through changes into quantum uncertainty. This change takes place in the context of the phenomena-in-flux that we (falsely) evaluate them (for our convenience) as flux-in-phenomena (time). Since the flow of time is impossible and the time itself is non inherently existent, herenow is the sole accurate "depiction” of the existing spacetime.
Finally, time dilation shows that the duration of time may vary for various events and various reference frames. The rate we monitor as regards the time that passes for an observer depends on the observer’s velocity (always according to our cognizant apparatus) and on the strength of the gravitational fields. So time, space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter; therefore, time cannot be conceived as if it were separated from matter
😵
Originally posted by black beetleHow do we know time exists?
Methinks time is non-existent because the flow of time is impossible; if we accept that time is split into past, present and future, the conception of time loses its coherence because if the past is considered to produce the present and the future, the latter two parts would be already included in the past and it could not be properly said to have inher ...[text shortened]... ence from matter; therefore, time cannot be conceived as if it were separated from matter
😵
Because there is always some ***&^<>""@@@
telling you that you're late.