How to freeze time using logical reasoning

[RestlessSoul]

So, you have a hypothesis, sorry, philosophy, that doesn't change anything we could ever experience, or falsify, using data or reasoning? Where is the worth in that?

It’s something to think about, and there’s always value in that, even if doing so doesn’t lead to any falsifiable hypotheses.

Thinking outside the box should always be encouraged, in philosophy, science, art, and every field of human enquiry.

 

[Echogem222]

So, you have a hypothesis, sorry, philosophy, that doesn't change anything we could ever experience, or falsify, using data or reasoning? Where is the worth in that?

Asking me what the worth in philosophy is, is a very long conversation I honestly don't feel like having.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Asking me what the worth in philosophy is, is a very long conversation I honestly don't feel like having.

Some of the greatest scientific minds of the last century - Einstein, Wheeler, Bohm, Hawking, Penrose etc - recognised that physics without a metaphysics, tells us little to nothing about what is real.

 

[Heyo]

Asking me what the worth in philosophy is, is a very long conversation I honestly don't feel like having.

I didn't ask you what the worth of philosophy is, just the worth of your exact example. But I think I get what you are saying. It's something like the worth of fundamental science, where the worth isn't obvious.
But I don't feel like having a conversation about such an etherial topic right now. Have a nice day.

 

[Echogem222]

I didn't ask you what the worth of philosophy is, just the worth of your exact example. But I think I get what you are saying. It's something like the worth of fundamental science, where the worth isn't obvious.
But I don't feel like having a conversation about such an etherial topic right now. Have a nice day.

Okay, fine. And yes, objective time is nothing from a certain perspective, your perspective, it would seem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just added another section at the bottom for even more clarity, but I'll copy and paste it here:

Added explanation for those who still don't get it:
Imagine two people start at the same point in time, both with the same awareness or perception of time. Then, these two individuals go their separate ways, experiencing different physical conditions that alter their subjective awareness of time. After some time, they return to the same location, and their awareness of time becomes synchronized again.

Now, let’s introduce a third person who observes the entire process. This observer notices that even though the two people experienced time differently while apart, they are back in sync once reunited. From the third person’s perspective, it becomes clear that only their awareness of time changed, not time itself. In other words, time did not bend or stretch; instead, their individual experiences of time were affected by their different environments.

Now, let’s consider another situation where events themselves slow down along with the individuals' awareness of time—maybe they are in a region of space where everything seems to be happening more slowly. The third observer would still not conclude that time itself had slowed down. Instead, they would reason that these individuals are in an environment (like an energy field or gravitational influence) that is slowing down both the events and their perception of time. The observer, who has a broader perspective, knows that Objective Time—the constant, underlying flow of time—has not changed. It’s just that this particular environment has affected the individuals' subjective experience of time.

This highlights the value of Objective Time: it allows us to understand how everything remains connected and synchronized, even when different observers experience time differently.

When we hear about time slowing down in extreme environments, such as near a black hole, we understand that subjective awareness of time might differ—time might seem to pass more slowly for an individual in that environment. However, from the perspective of Objective Time, we realize that the flow of time itself hasn’t actually slowed. It’s just that the person in that environment is unaware of the full passage of time due to their altered perception.

In summary:
- Time itself remains constant (Objective Time), keeping everything connected.
- Changes in time perception are due to changes in awareness of time, not time itself.
- From a third-person perspective, it’s clear that environmental factors (like gravity or motion) affect awareness, but they don’t alter the fundamental flow of time.

Your explanations have a big problem in that
they're not rigorous. They're difficult to read.
If you can devise an experiment to disprove
general relativity, & verify your claims, then
we'll talk.

 

[PearlSeeker]

In special relativity, the faster an object moves relative to the speed of light, the slower time passes for that object. In general relativity, the closer an object is to a source of gravity, the slower time appears to pass due to the warping of spacetime. These effects have been measured and confirmed through experiments like atomic clocks on airplanes and GPS satellites in orbit.

Both observers experience the same speed of time in their own place. Only the amount of time that passes is different (in their own place). The observer moving faster will perceive fewer moments than the observer moving slower. Only the observed time in the other place is perceived as slower or faster.

Here’s the crucial point: If a being’s awareness of time speeds up to infinity, it would freeze objective time entirely. If someone has a super fast awareness of time for 5 minutes, then you could argue that it would just take a really long subjective time for that person to get to the end of those 5 minutes like a normal person can. But if they had an infinitely fast awareness of time, then they would never reach the end of those 5 minutes since it would stretch on for infinity (i.e. frozen time), so therefore yourself reaching the end of those 5 minutes would logically contradict their awareness of time being frozen.

Maybe perception of time in the invironment would change if neurological processes would speed up - changes in the environment would seem slower.

But there is at least one limitation. As matter approaches the speed of light, the matter's mass would become infinite. This is impossibile. The energy required to move the object would also become infinite. (space.com)

 

[Revoltingest]

Both observers experience the same speed of time in their own place. Only the amount of time that passes is different (in their own place). The observer moving faster will perceive fewer moments than the observer moving slower. Only the observed time in the other place is perceived as slower or faster.



Maybe perception of time in the invironment would change if neurological processes would speed up - changes in the environment would seem slower.

But there is at least one limitation. As matter approaches the speed of light, the matter's mass would become infinite. This is impossibile. The energy required to move the object would also become infinite. (space.com)

Time doesn't depend upon neurological processes.
Everyone in their own reference frame won't notice
any change in time. It's only in observing other
reference frames that the difference is seen.
A good example of this is having 2 clocks, & sending
one in orbit at high speed for a while before it returns.
Comparing the clocks, the orbiting one will show that
less time passed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Time doesn't depend upon neurological processes.

But time perception does.

Time perception - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Revoltingest]

But time perception does.

Time perception - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Perception is affected by many psychological things,
eg, stress level, interest level, external stimuli level.
Such things don't relate to general relativity, which
is what the OP is trying to debunk.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Perception is affected by many psychological things,
eg, stress level, interest level, external stimuli level.
Such things don't relate to general relativity, which
is what the OP is trying to debunk.

Yes, but the OP also said "If a being’s awareness of time speeds up..."

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but the OP also said "If a being’s awareness of time speeds up..."

Awareness isn't the same as actual time in the reference frame.
Have you ever derived the time dilation equation based upon
undisputed scientific observations? It's really simple algebra.
The different flows of time in different reference frames is
inescapable.
One derivation of the time dilation equation....

5.4: Time Dilation

Time dilation is the lengthening of the time interval between two events when seen in a moving inertial frame rather than the rest frame of the events (in which the events occur at the same location).…

phys.libretexts.org

Another....

 

[Echogem222]

Awareness isn't the same as actual time in the reference frame.
Have you ever derived the time dilation equation based upon
undisputed scientific observations? It's really simple algebra.
The different flows of time in different reference frames is
inescapable.
One derivation of the time dilation equation....

5.4: Time Dilation

Time dilation is the lengthening of the time interval between two events when seen in a moving inertial frame rather than the rest frame of the events (in which the events occur at the same location).…

phys.libretexts.org

Another....

Here is another part of my post I would add to it if I could edit it (but now I can't):
How Einstein's theory of time was correct:
Einstein’s theory of time was correct only if he was explaining subjective time, which is why there’s a need to differentiate between two distinct types of time: Objective Time and Subjective Time. Subjective time relates to how we experience time, and this is what Einstein's theories largely address. It applies well to science and mathematics because experiments rely on observable and measurable quantities, which are influenced by the conditions under which they are measured.

For instance, consider an experiment where we want to measure how long it takes for a person to travel from point A to point B, and this journey takes 5 minutes. The measurement we use in such a case is a reflection of subjective time, meaning it is tied to the specific conditions of that environment—in this case, Earth. But those 5 minutes may not be the same in another location where people experience time differently. In a region of space where time seems to pass more slowly relative to Earth, those same 5 minutes could stretch to what seems like 30 minutes. Thus, subjective time is always relative to the observer's environment and experience.

Now, the concept of Objective Time would be an understanding of time that transcends these local differences—something that could be comprehended universally, no matter where in the universe you are. Objective Time would be a constant, unchanging flow that remains the same everywhere, unlike subjective time, which varies according to the speed, gravity, or other environmental factors.

Imagine a future where humanity comes into contact with lifeforms from a million different planets, each experiencing time a little differently. On some planets, the flow of time might feel slower or faster compared to Earth. In order for all these civilizations to synchronize their understanding of time, they would need to reach a consensus about a common standard. This universal agreement on the flow of time could only exist if there were an underlying Objective Time to base it on.

However, even this universal time would still have elements of subjectivity because it would reflect the collective agreement of various civilizations, each of which experiences time differently. It would be a closer approximation to Objective Time, yet still tied to the subjective experiences of those involved. Essentially, it would be a sort of compromise—a shared awareness of time that accounts for the differences in how time is experienced across the universe. The more we factor in these different subjective experiences, the closer we might get to understanding what true Objective Time really is.

In essence, Objective Time represents a baseline reality that underpins all events in the universe, while Subjective Time is how individual observers, depending on their environment, interact with and perceive that baseline reality. The more advanced our understanding and collaboration across the cosmos, the better we might be able to bridge the gap between the subjective experiences of time and its objective nature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is another part of my post I would add to it if I could edit it (but now I can't):
How Einstein's theory of time was correct:
Einstein’s theory of time was correct only if he was explaining subjective time, which is why there’s a need to differentiate between two distinct types of time: Objective Time and Subjective Time. Subjective time relates to how we experience time, and this is what Einstein's theories largely address. It applies well to science and mathematics because experiments rely on observable and measurable quantities, which are influenced by the conditions under which they are measured.

For instance, consider an experiment where we want to measure how long it takes for a person to travel from point A to point B, and this journey takes 5 minutes. The measurement we use in such a case is a reflection of subjective time, meaning it is tied to the specific conditions of that environment—in this case, Earth. But those 5 minutes may not be the same in another location where people experience time differently. In a region of space where time seems to pass more slowly relative to Earth, those same 5 minutes could stretch to what seems like 30 minutes. Thus, subjective time is always relative to the observer's environment and experience.

Now, the concept of Objective Time would be an understanding of time that transcends these local differences—something that could be comprehended universally, no matter where in the universe you are. Objective Time would be a constant, unchanging flow that remains the same everywhere, unlike subjective time, which varies according to the speed, gravity, or other environmental factors.

Imagine a future where humanity comes into contact with lifeforms from a million different planets, each experiencing time a little differently. On some planets, the flow of time might feel slower or faster compared to Earth. In order for all these civilizations to synchronize their understanding of time, they would need to reach a consensus about a common standard. This universal agreement on the flow of time could only exist if there were an underlying Objective Time to base it on.

However, even this universal time would still have elements of subjectivity because it would reflect the collective agreement of various civilizations, each of which experiences time differently. It would be a closer approximation to Objective Time, yet still tied to the subjective experiences of those involved. Essentially, it would be a sort of compromise—a shared awareness of time that accounts for the differences in how time is experienced across the universe. The more we factor in these different subjective experiences, the closer we might get to understanding what true Objective Time really is.

In essence, Objective Time represents a baseline reality that underpins all events in the universe, while Subjective Time is how individual observers, depending on their environment, interact with and perceive that baseline reality. The more advanced our understanding and collaboration across the cosmos, the better we might be able to bridge the gap between the subjective experiences of time and its objective nature.

I've nothing to add, except a reminder
to understand how the time dilation
equation is derived.

 

[Echogem222]

I've nothing to add, except a reminder
to understand how the time dilation
equation is derived.

You clearly don't understand the point I'm making if you think the time dilation equation is somehow able to counter my argument. My post must be understood from a philosophical perspective, not from a method of empirical evidence, it's through logical reasoning, which is something many, many people who I have posted this knowledge to never seem to get. The foundation of that equation is done through empirical evidence, then logical reasoning from a certain perspective, yes, but completely irrelevant to my post.

However, it is true that I've added content to my post more than a few times for added clarity, and that this site doesn't allow me to edit my main post anymore, so here is another place where you can read the parts of my post you didn't read before (that would most likely be near the bottom, assuming you fully read my post before): Why Einstein understood time incorrectly

 

[Revoltingest]

You clearly don't understand the point I'm making if you think the time dilation equation is somehow able to counter my argument.

Without using rigorous language,
your posts are tough to interpret.
The time dilation equation is fully
independent of any being's
perception of time.

 

[Echogem222]

Without using rigorous language,
your posts are tough to interpret.

Okay, I suppose that's fair, but the link I provided in my previous comment should connect you to a post explaining this with enough detail for you to get it, but I did edit my comment to give you that link, so maybe you just missed it.

The time dilation equation is fully
independent of any being's
perception of time.

No, it isn't.

- Δt′ is the time interval measured by the moving observer (proper time)
- Δt is the time interval measured by a stationary observer
- v is the velocity of the moving object
- c is the speed of light in a vacuum

How do we get all of that information? Through subjective observations. Say that events move more slowly in some other location than on Earth due to the subjective experience of time happening differently there. In that case, the time interval measured by the moving observer would be a different amount if it happened in the same location, but observed at a different flow rate of time. Just like how someone can leave Earth and go to outer space, be gone for a full year, but they were only aware of 6 months passing, those 6 months they didn't have awareness of did happen for you on Earth, but didn't happen for them, because the subjective experiences are different.

Just because two or more people agree that time exists as the same as they observed does not suddenly mean that their observation of time is correct. But if the information we observed is correct or believed to be correct, we can then use that as a foundation to do things like mathematical formulas, but that does not suddenly mean that the foundation for those mathematical formulas are logically sound, because it was based on empirical evidence, not logical reasoning.

The most basic of mathematical equations: 1+1=2, by themselves, these are just numbers, but if you add values to those numbers, like apples, so 1 apple +1 apple=2 apples, you could be wrong, because those apples may not exist, or may not exist as complete as you're thinking, that's the issue with the theory of time you're working from, the subjective nature of it.