When Time Stops Running for Awhile

[Skwim]

In another thread Ted Evans, a new member, asked, "if there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?" My answer is, yes, there would still be time. But thinking about it the following question occurred.

Does time exist if absolutely no change of any kind takes place? Consider this spur of the moment, off the top of my head scenario.

Take a universe made up of only one's self and a growing flower. This is no regular flower, however, it grows in spurts. Every twenty minutes it suddenly stops growing--there's absolutely no movement or change in the plant whatsoever. Then three minutes later it resumes growing. This odd cycle of growth and stasis goes on and on for quite some time until I note the flower is now 8 inches tall. At that point I simply *poof* out of existence leaving the flower as the whole of the universe. Unknown to my now absent---deceased?---self the plant continues grow in its odd cycle of growth-no growth-growth, finally reaching 16 inches in height.

Question: Between those moments the flower stops growing and then resumes growing, which I had judged to be three minutes, is time still flowing?

.

 

[Polymath257]

In another thread Ted Evans, a new member, asked, "if there was a universe without any living creature, would there be time?" My answer is, yes, there would still be time. But thinking about it the following question occurred.

Does time exist if absolutely no change of any kind takes place? Consider this spur of the moment, off the top of my head scenario.

Take a universe made up of only one's self and a growing flower. This is no regular flower, however, it grows in spurts. Every twenty minutes it suddenly stops growing--there's absolutely no movement or change in the plant whatsoever. Then three minutes later it resumes growing. This odd cycle of growth and stasis goes on and on for quite some time until I note the flower is now 8 inches tall. At that point I simply *poof* out of existence leaving the flower as the whole of the universe. Unknown to my now absent---deceased?---self the plant continues grow in its odd cycle of growth-no growth-growth.

Question: Between those moments the flower stops growing and then resumes growing, which I had judged to be three minutes, is time still flowing?

.

It isn't just the growth of the flower that needs to stop for this to be a relevant scenario, ALL activity down to the atomic level needs to stop. Otherwise there is still change.

And no, in that case, it would not be meaningful to say that time was still 'flowing' because you could not say that 3 minutes were passing.

 

[Skwim]

It isn't just the growth of the flower that needs to stop for this to be a relevant scenario, ALL activity down to the atomic level needs to stop. Otherwise there is still change.

Quite correct. So let's say that during those three minutes ALL activity down to the atomic level stopped.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Quite correct. So let's say that during those three minutes ALL activity down to the atomic level stopped.
.

Then how do you measure three minutes?

 

[Mister Emu]

Then how do you measure three minutes?

Does time require measurement to pass? Does time require a reference?

 

[DavidFirth]

Then how do you measure three minutes?

You'd have to ask God to do it.

 

[Skwim]

Then how do you measure three minutes?

You don't. It's inferred from the growing character of the flower in the past.

.

 

[Skwim]

You'd have to ask God to do it.

Can't. He's too busy creating evil, or doom, or woe, or calamity, or . . . . something.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Does time require measurement to pass? Does time require a reference?

Time requires change. You measure the change of one object against the change of another object.

If there is no change that would basically be the definition of timelessness.

Yeah, I don't know what this means, but it had the word timelessness in it.

 

[DavidFirth]

Can't. He too busy creating evil, or doom, or woe, or calamity, or . . . . something.

.

You just couldn't leave that alone, could you?

 

[Nakosis]

Question: Between those moments the flower stops growing and then resumes growing, which I had judged to be three minutes, is time still flowing?
.

For time you really need two objects. One to act a a clock another to measure its change relative to the first. The growth spurts of your plant would make a good clock. The time between growth is irrelevant like the time the hands of a clock are motionless between ticks.

Our time is based on the rotation of the earth. A minute is just a sub-division of that change. Outside that reference a minute is completely meaningless. You could consider each growth spurt a minute if you wanted. If you needed something smaller you could define a minute as 1/20th of a growth spurt. However that would only be important if you had something else to measure that was changing that rapidly.

Time doesn't flow. Time is measured. Change flows. If you stop things from changing then I suppose you've stopped change from flowing. Leaves you without a reference to measure time.

 

[YmirGF]

Then how do you measure three minutes?

Beat me to it, LOL.

 

[Curious George]

Question: Between those moments the flower stops growing and then resumes growing, which I had judged to be three minutes, is time still flowing?

.

From which point of view?

 

[DavidFirth]

From which point of view?

Good question.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So let's say that during those three minutes ALL activity down to the atomic level stopped.
.

That scenario would require no reference by which time flow is judged. Maybe timeless?

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Could space exist without time? Are not the two inextricably linked? In which case the question is irrelevant. As long as there is space there is time, it doesn't matter if everything is frozen on a molecular level, just means there is nobody to witness or experience the phenomenon. Change is not time is it? I'm not making a statement, I don't think I have it straight in my head to be honest. If anyone does please share!

The OP sounds a bit like a rephrasing of the old "if a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around, does it make a noise?" question. The answer to that is easy; yes! Just stick a microphone in a forest and sooner or later you will probably hear a tree falling without being there!

 

[Skwim]

You just couldn't leave that alone, could you?

Why would I? In as much as you chose to ignore me, I chose to remind you.

.

 

[Skwim]

For time you really need two objects. One to act a a clock another to measure its change relative to the first. The growth spurts of your plant would make a good clock. The time between growth is irrelevant like the time the hands of a clock are motionless between ticks.

How do you know it's irrelevant? Fact is, this particular flower, the Timeless Tulip of Tralee needs to go completely motionless for three minutes in order to survive.

Time doesn't flow.

It's only a figure of speech.


.

 

[Skwim]

From which point of view?

What different points of view are there?

.

 

[Skwim]

That scenario would require no reference by which time flow is judged. Maybe timeless?

The reference would be the immediate past wherein the flower is known to have gone motionless for three minutes in its growth cycle.

.