What Does it Take For Time to Manifest Itself?

[Revoltingest]

If you watched the video, the argument is based on the idea if nothing is moving does that mean time does not exist.

If you want to sound a little more intelligent than just shooting from the hip then watch the video. It's not my argument. I'm not Julian Barbour.

I've no interest in sounding intelligent.
Is that not obvious by now!

Videos aren't yet practical for me today.
This indicates the utility of being able to post concepts in your own words.
Btw, if there's no way to measure time, then whether it exists or not is
irrelevant because it would be undefined.

 

[dfnj]

Yes, time is a measure of change of state.

That's kind of the point. Is time anything more than the person who is making the measurement. Time is like the word God. It only exists because we say it does. But we can't hold time in our hand the same way we hold an apple.

 

[dfnj]

I've no interest in sounding intelligent.
Is that not obvious by now!

Videos aren't yet practical for me today.

The argument has nuances to it. I'm not sure I fully understand it. But the guy spent his whole life thinking about this one topic. He may actually have some kind of insight into the subject.

 

[dfnj]

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

Lot's of videos on "Time does NOT exist:"

The "rebels" who fight the Big Bang theory are mostly attempting to grapple with the concept of time. They are philosophers as much as cosmologists, unsatisfied with the Big Bang, unimpressed with string theory and unconvinced of the multiverse. Julian Barbour, British physicist, author, and major proponent of the idea of timeless physics, is one of those rebels--so thoroughly a rebel that he has spurned the world of academics.

Julian Barbour's solution to the problem of time in physics and cosmology is as simply stated as it is radical: there is no such thing as time.

"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all." Barbour speaks with a disarming English charm that belies an iron resolve and confidence in his science. His extreme perspective comes from years of looking into the heart of both classical and quantum physics. Isaac Newton thought of time as a river flowing at the same rate everywhere. Einstein changed this picture by unifying space and time into a single 4-D entity. But even Einstein failed to challenge the concept of time as a measure of change. In Barbour's view, the question must be turned on its head. It is change that provides the illusion of time. Channeling the ghost of Parmenides, Barbour sees each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. He calls these moments "Nows."

Parmenides - Wikipedia

Parmenides made the ontological argument against nothingness, essentially denying the possible existence of a void. According to Aristotle, this led Democritus and Leucippus, and many other physicists,[27] to propose the atomic theory, which supposes that everything in the universe is either atoms or voids, specifically to contradict Parmenides' argument. Aristotle himself reasoned, in opposition to atomism, that in a complete vacuum, motion would encounter no resistance, and "no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way."[27] See also horror vacui.

Erwin Schrödinger identified Parmenides' monad of the "Way of Truth" as being the conscious self in "Nature and the Greeks".[28] The scientific implications of this view have been discussed by scientist Anthony Hyman.[29]

A shadow of Parmenides' ideas can be seen in the physical concept of Block time, which considers existence to consist of past, present, and future, and the flow of time to be illusory. In his critique of this idea, Karl Popper called Einstein "Parmenides".[30]However, Popper did write:

So what was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology.[31]

 

[sayak83]

That's kind of the point. Is time anything more than the person who is making the measurement. Time is like the word God. It only exists because we say it does. But we can't hold time in our hand the same way we hold an apple.

We know that time is a measure of change, as scaled against a periodic change phenomenon (like the pendulum or oscillations in quartz crystals). We also know (courtesy Einstein) that this measure for a given set of unfolding events can be different for different observers, based on the local condition of the observer. Hence, I do not see the justification for saying that time is something other than a measure of change.

 

[dfnj]

We know that time is a measure of change, as scaled against a periodic change phenomenon (like the pendulum or oscillations in quartz crystals). We also know (courtesy Einstein) that this measure for a given set of unfolding events can be different for different observers, based on the local condition of the observer. Hence, I do not see the justification for saying that time is something other than a measure of change.

Read my previous post to yours. It's not a simple as you are making it.

 

[sayak83]

Read my previous post to yours. It's not a simple as you are making it.

Is there any observational reason why one should consider time to be something other than a measure of change? Philosophical speculations are interesting, but they remain... speculations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Consider:

a) Everything in the universe is at a complete standstill. There isn't a single movement occurring anywhere; not even at the atomic/subatomic level.* Can time be said to exist?

b) A single, lone atom arises in which its sole electron orbits its nucleus. At one moment it is here and at another moment it is there.* Does this mean time is now necessarily "running"?

c) If the answer to a is NO and if the answer to b is YES, does this mean that time is a function of movement/change of state? Perhaps even solely so?​

* I know this would mean stuff would not exist, but this is a thought problem, so bear with me.

* Yeah, yeah, I know.
.
.

I somehow suspect the scientific definition of time is different from the Layman's version.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Consider:

a) Everything in the universe is at a complete standstill. There isn't a single movement occurring anywhere; not even at the atomic/subatomic level.* Can time be said to exist?​

.
.

How long does the universe stay stationary for?
Sorry but my watch has stopped.

 

[dfnj]

Is there any observational reason why one should consider time to be something other than a measure of change? Philosophical speculations are interesting, but they remain... speculations.

The argument is if you don't see any change occurring does that mean time does not exist. It's a little more subtle and nuance argument that what I just said. I'm not Julian Barbour but that's the gist of it.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

If time doesn’t exist,
And there’s absolutely no way to travel back through time,
All my theories regarding existence have gone up in smoke.
Am I about to get memed?
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope......
Once upon a time there was an ocean,
And nobody had any idea of how to get to the bottom of it,
But then an Irishman invented the submarine.
Maybe it’s possible to invent a time machine even if all that happens is change and now.
We’ve got a lot of time to get to the bottom of that ocean.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

If there is only change and no time....
Does this mean there’s no beginning?

 

[dfnj]

If time doesn’t exist,
And there’s absolutely no way to travel back through time,

From an informational stand point, there are more than one possible path leading to the same point in history. If going backward in time is ambiguous, then how can anyone actually go back in time when there are so many choices? Maybe an infinite number of possibilities leading to the same starting point.

Going forward in time seems more possible if you can some how hide in some kind of stasis room.

 

[dfnj]

If there is only change and no time....
Does this mean there’s no beginning?

Yes. No beginning implies no first cause. God then just becomes a representation of all that is and all that will be.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Yes. No beginning implies no first cause. God then just becomes a representation of all that is and all that will be.

So,
“In the beginning was the word.....”
Makes no sense?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

..............
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope......
Once upon a time there was an ocean,
And nobody had any idea of how to get to the bottom of it,
But then an Irishman invented the submarine.
Maybe it’s possible to invent a time machine even if all that happens is change and now.
We’ve got a lot of time to get to the bottom of that ocean.

Even if there was no beginning,
The ‘System’ We find ourselves in has created minds,
Which are able to be creative and to design.
So I now propose we create ourselves a submarine,
One more powerful than the ‘System’ we find ourselves in.
It’s at least worth trying.
Eternity awaits.
Are you wit me?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The argument is if you don't see any change occurring does that mean time does not exist. It's a little more subtle and nuance argument that what I just said. I'm not Julian Barbour but that's the gist of it.

I suppose you can measure inactivity as well as active change.

Philosophically I suppose if you went into a dark room with no clocks or whatsoever time will become pretty convoluted and chaotic if one attempts to keep track of it without any kind of aid.

You need a physical medium like clocks and devices that are similar that have a predictable action and/or sound.

 

[osgart]

The flow of time could be in branches, bubbles. I believe the debate is about the flow of time moreso than the existence of it.

Can one thing move without an instantiation of time?

I can suppose that if you step out of time, you would exist in a frozen moment. There would still be the measure of seconds flowing even if time was an illusion and you were stuck outside of time in that frozen moment.

So any given now moment if frozen without time, would never ever move.

If you could synchronize a slower rate of time with a faster rate of time there would be an overarching linear with a relative subset. Ultimate time vs. Relative time. Just because one time scale loses pace with the faster one, they still exist on the linear arrow. So traveling from the faster state to the slower state to the faster state you lose twenty years on the round trip.

Time itself is affected by physics but the construct of time cant help but flow in one direction. That doesnt mean you couldnt have a force of opposite directional time somewhere and at some point converging with forward time, wheras are whole past could be altered. Time could branch into parallel universes with an opposite directional time force. But the overall linearity of original time is never broken, even with branches altering subsets of time.

Could you possibly imagine a future existing and yet to be encountered by us to change it all up. The untouched future finally touched by our now. A now that cant possibly move faster than its instant.

So at the end of the day i dont think time can be annhilated or impeded anyway.

I believe in an Ultimate time that consumes all subsets and branches.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

God could invent time,
So “In the beginning was the word“ could be true!

 

[Skwim]

How long does the universe stay stationary for?
Sorry but my watch has stopped.

Clever question.

.