The Nature of Time

John Cox

Jim, Steve, Georgi,

wow! 193 posts on this thread, so many I don't know if I'm still on it!

In qualifying a basis for Loop Quantum Gravity, Carlo Rovelli argues that time becomes meaningless at the Planck scale; simply put, the duration is too brief to be real. Yet that brings up another point. Let me specify cgs in Gaussian terms for ease of mass:energy conversion and compatibility with electromagnetic theory, entropy and the uni-directional thermodynamic time can labor mks in application to cgs. Whether one prefers an Aristotelian paradigm where time is the observed measurement of change of configuration, Newtonian where time is universally metronomic pervading all space and things, or the more modern Relativistic paradigm where time is a physically real component of Spacetime and its operational rate of passage is anywhere within the bounded interval of light velocity; we are still faced with the challenge of how we assign a rate of passage at Planck Scale. Forget about proving it or falsification by direct means of observables, it is still too tiny a value to be more than theoretically argued on axioms and postulates. Be that as it may, if the rate is nil then the interval would be perhaps meaningless. But if the rate were equivalent of light velocity in a pure energy state, that same value would be 3^10 times the length of interval as that at nil. So the argument that time is too brief a discrete interval to be real, also argues for that brevity being the primary characteristic of time being a continuum; it is the difference between theoretical intervals which becomes meaningless. best this New Year. Oh! and Jim, you can keep some of the polar cold we are getting here in Ohio up there in Manitoba! :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

Hi John, happy to see you again, yes lol this thread is the Jim thread about time, that takes time to read it :)

Georgina Woodward

John, happy new year. If foundational passage of time is change of configuration of the pattern of all that exists; that is not to be appreciated at the plank scale alone-it has to be taken as part of the whole. The pattern of existence is not changing at one uniform speed but there are places where more, and places where less change is happening. Foundational passage of time is different from timing. It doesn't make sense to take an isolated patch of space and ask- what is the linear distance of space? Likewise asking the singular speed of time (not the speed comparison of a singular regular change-timing.)

Georgina Woodward

If foundational passage of time is change of configuration of the pattern of all that exists; all kinds of change contribute to the change of configuration of all existing, Because of that Foundational passage of time is not reversible. Maturation of a system to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium is just one kind of change. Happening in the absence of work that prevents or reverses the development of equilibrium. Other ideas about entropy also involve changes that are potentially reversible. Increasing disorder/ disintegration: Example corrosion such as rusting.. This is usually progressive but can be reversed by application of chemical rust treatment. The usual development of entropy is reversed. The Foundational passage of time is not.

John Cox

Georgina,

I admit I have difficulty following how you keep that all together. As for the Planck Scale, it isn't just the empirically derived energy constant that is deemed to be a closed and finite discrete value. All measurement is discretized, duration and distance reduce to minimum theoretical spans as well. ie: Planck Scale. (I beg to differ.) So in your paradigm does time itself foundationally exist, or is (as you say in your last post) "the foundational passage of time" emergent as an image reality? and is that continuous or discrete existentially, regardless of the "speed comparison of a singular regular change-timing (observer)" ?

Your whole scheme of things resembles the early 'atomist' reasoning of antiquity with the modern accepted constant velocity of light as a signal transducer modulator. By transducer I mean send and receive a range finding EMP. It all seems quite quantum mechanical to me, and I have to wonder if there aren't serious mathematical treatises which argue the opposite of your intuitive contention that because all kinds of change (literally) contribute to the change of configuration of all existing; that the foundational passage of time is not reversable. Onward through the fog! jrc

Georgina Woodward

Hi John, the answer to whether time itself foundationally exists depends on what you mean by 'time'. The configuration of all existing (present tense) exists. It is necessary as the source of EMr and other sensory stimuli. It enables there to be a time. Ideally the unique configuration... In effect a sequence of contemporary configurations, as what is meant by 'a time' varies. Eg. a time of dinosaurs, the English civil war, the 2nd of Feb 2020 Brooklyn school run. I don't see the need to posit jumping from configuration to configuration. Though it would be easier to represent as discreet configurations spread along an imagined historical time line. Importantly, it is not an existing continuum of configurations. One configuration becomes another. 3 arrows of time flying in the same 'direction' that are not identical: Related to sequences of material reality, sensory input (info.) receipt and observation product production.

Georgina Woodward

Considering the plank scale; must the proposed definition of Foundational passage of time be untrue? Ie. Foundational passage of time is change of configuration of the pattern of all that exists (everywhere). I'd say no. The definition does not apply to just what is/isn't at that scale.

Jim Snowdon

The cold has warmed up a bit today. In Manitoba we have cool winters, but the summers are usually very good weather. Americans from down south in the states come here for better weather in the summer.

Yes, re-reading this thread it does seem to be the "Jim" thread, but I am the only proponent of time not being a real thing? Imagine that! Other than Amrit, who seems to not believe in time as real, ...no one else feels that same way? Perhaps Carlos Rovelli too. Is that not absurd? It certainly seems absurd to me!

Time exists as a real thing, or it does not! How can everyone be on the same side of the question, when there is no proof either way. I have written as hard as I can, in arguments on my belief that time does not exist!

Georgina Woodward

Jim ,it depends on how you define time.

If a time is the configuration of all that exists in the uni-temporal universe, then by definition it exists.

If it is the 4th dimension of space time, it belongs to the 'observation space', in which observation products (seen things) are displayed. That is phenomenal, emergent reality. It does not independently exist outside the generated representation. In which case what 'to exist' means must be considered and clarified. As clearly the contents of the mind 'exist' differently from existence independent of the mind.

Jim Snowdon

Hi Georgina!

I define time as the measurement of periods of durations of motion. Time has no substance in, and of, itself.

We use the constant, and regular, rotational motion of our planet, as our measurement baseline.

Time as a fundamental element or particle, or force, does not exist. We only assume it does, because of the overwhelming effects of that rotational motion matched to our clocks.

Jim Snowdon

Think about it Georgina! Most people assume that time exists as a fundamental condition of our reality. After thousands of years of human observation, our state of reality has not resolved what might be the time particle, or force? Do you not find this odd?

Jim Snowdon

The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism that causes our confusion about the nature of time.

Rotational motion is a fact of life. It exists, and we can prove that by our own personal observations. There is no such support for thinking that time exists as a thing, force, or presence.

Georgina Woodward

Time is a presence as a component of space-time representation, i.e. within 'Observation space' ( Image reality) ; where observation products (semblances of objects) are distributed. Think about the image representation of a observation using a telescope. The duration of signal transmission , from emission or reflection to receipt affects the image produced. It could be said that 'time' (transmission duration) is built in. Separation of images seen may represent light years of separation for example.. The common error is in thinking there is similar temporal spread of material, noumenal, reality. The image isn't an image of material reality but product of EMr receipts.

Georgina Woodward

Jim, even ordinary vision has transmission duration (of input EMR stimuli) built in. For example , it takes longer for photons to arrive from the Sun than from objects on the Earth. So seeing the sun in the sky with some scenery -that is a space time image. Many regard what is seen as reality, equating it with what exists. I am careful to call it Image reality; distinct from observer independent reality. What is seen is produced from using EMR inputs and is therefore not necessarily uni-temporal. What exists independently of observation are objects that can be described as uni-temporal omni-templates. Jim, When saying time as duration is not a presence you need to be clear about whether you mean within the unseen material world that has no temporal spread or the observed, which can and usually does have temporal spread of imagery.

Georgina Woodward

material object: Primo (forma, situs, calor) omni-template.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Jim, The thread you used is now really long and awkward to use. So I'll reply here.

Your question: "Time exists as a real thing, force, or presence? Or it does not. Are you saying you think time exists?"

Material reality is not smeared over time. It has no time dimension. It is not necessary for the physics happening and being so avoids Grandfather type temporal paradox.------------What is observed, observation products in Observation space are not usually semblances of the same singular moment. Time enters the picture because the EMr signal inputs used in construction of it have undergone different transmission durations before arriving together. (They didn't set off together.) Being so allows for the physics of non simultaneity of same observed events by different observers.

Jim Snowdon

Hi Georgina,

Time exists as a real thing, force, or presence? Or it does not. Are you saying you think time exists?

Jim Snowdon

Okay Georgina! Here`s a start on this old thread!

So, tell me in as short a number of words as you can. Why do people always seem to be thinking that time exists? As clearly and concisely as is possible. Maybe you could try to understand my observation?

Jim Snowdon

Do you agree that time either exists or it doesn`t?

Jim Snowdon

As concisely put as I have found a way to state my case, I say it in this one sentence, `The Earth`s rotational motion is responsible for the general public`s view that time exists`?

Can you state your current opinion, what ever it is, in one coherent sentence or two?

Georgina Woodward

Jim, No I do not agree. It depends upon the meaning put on the words 'time' and 'exist' and the context, the type of reality, being considered.

Taking time to mean a duration, and a presence to qualify as to exist:

Reality independent of observation, existence, has no time dimension. -No

'Reality' perceived by sense perception has a time dimension. Because the duration of transmission of the sensory inputs affects what is perceived.-Yes

Georgina Woodward

Jim, Most people are not thinking about the Earths rotational motion on a daily basis. Awareness of 'time passing ' even in the absence of external clues is due to circadian rhythms (internal body clock.) Time keeping of which is primarily set by exposure to sunlight. In the absence of light drift can occur. Routines also give a sense of time of day. Such as tea time and bed time. Weather, temperature and state of natural organisms can give a sense of time of year. Related to tilt of the Earth relative to the Sun-Sol

Jim Snowdon

I am asking you to answer yes or no, but it`s not possible for you to do that, according to your current perspective.

Georgina, what if we were aquatic? We gently swam in the flow to keep in the same spot, and then one day the flow stopped. You are saying the water exists?

What, where, when, and how?

Don`t go with the flow, Georgino!

« Previous Page Next Page »