Does time have objective existence?

[The Seeker]

I don't think it necessarily does. People talk about t=0 and "expansion of space time", but I don't see why time has to exist as an objective entity, what is time? Why is it required for objects to interact? After all, if the universe is merely made up of matter/energy interacting with matter/energy, the "past" is merely a construct based upon evidence of previous configurations of existing matter/energy, right? What function does time perform as an entity?

(I hope this doesn't come across as waffle, I have a tendancy to talk complete rubbish without noticing )

 

[kedaman]

I agree with you, time is nothing that exist independent of us. Happen to have read Kant?

 

[Norea]

time is well a happenstance of irreversible quantum events. But the why of time going only one way hasn't been answered.

-- Bridget

 

[psychedelicist]

I read a definiton of time somewhere that I liked. They defined it as "the liberation of motion through space". Basically, time is simply a measurement of different objects moving and interacting through space. It is not an objective entity any more than height, depth or width.

 

[The-Doctor]

Interesting discussion. Is time real? or is it just a series of "nows" that we percieve to be "the Past"?

 

[Ave Maria]

One thing about time that I was never able to fully understand was the concept of eternity.

 

[Socrastein]

What function does time perform as an entity? It lets other entities perform.

Do you not realize that in simply thinking about and asking this question, you have taken time to do so? It takes time to come up with reasons why time does not exist. You can no more take time to refute time (you can refute time in a timeless fashion, I'm sure) than you can logically refute the existence of logic.

I think most people are just attempting to sound "deep" when they conjecture about the nonexistence of time. Of course time exists. It is one of 4 dimensions of space-time. All matter/energy shares proportional values of participation in all 4 dimensions, the sum of which is the speed of light. If you don't move at all relative to other matter/energy, then you are moving through time at the speed of light. As you speed up, you take some of your participation out of the time dimension and put it into the spatial dimensions, and as such, the faster you move through space the slower you move through time, which is why moving at light speed stops time all together. Everything I just said has been theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally verified - what further reason to believe in time do you need, other than the fact that your very conciousness is only operating with the help of time

 

[kedaman]

What function does time perform as an entity? It lets other entities perform.


Do you not realize that in simply thinking about and asking this question, you have taken time to do so? It takes time to come up with reasons why time does not exist. You can no more take time to refute time (you can refute time in a timeless fashion, I'm sure) than you can logically refute the existence of logic.

I think most people are just attempting to sound "deep" when they conjecture about the nonexistence of time. Of course time exists. It is one of 4 dimensions of space-time. All matter/energy shares proportional values of participation in all 4 dimensions, the sum of which is the speed of light. If you don't move at all relative to other matter/energy, then you are moving through time at the speed of light. As you speed up, you take some of your participation out of the time dimension and put it into the spatial dimensions, and as such, the faster you move through space the slower you move through time, which is why moving at light speed stops time all together. Everything I just said has been theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally verified - what further reason to believe in time do you need, other than the fact that your very conciousness is only operating with the help of time

The last bit you said, is counterevidence against your position. For you to be conscious of any object, you must percept it, but perception isn't possible if the object is not sensible, which is only so with a presupposed ideal space and time, because objects are percieved in space and time. They are innate and subjective forms of our sensibility, not existing objectively

 

[Project2501]

I don't think it necessarily does. People talk about t=0 and "expansion of space time", but I don't see why time has to exist as an objective entity, what is time? Why is it required for objects to interact? After all, if the universe is merely made up of matter/energy interacting with matter/energy, the "past" is merely a construct based upon evidence of previous configurations of existing matter/energy, right? What function does time perform as an entity?

(I hope this doesn't come across as waffle, I have a tendancy to talk complete rubbish without noticing )

yes it does, because it can be empirically tested in relativistic experiments. For example gravity probe B will show a slight change in its age according to the predicted age as a result of frame dragging due to the earth's rotation. In particle collider experiments such as CERN, many of the particles exist for much longer than they should, since they are travelling at relativistic speeds and thence "their time" is slowed down. Experiments using atomic clocks show slowing of time, and there are many cosmological phenomenon that are the result of time slowing. Relativity treats time as an additional dimension, much like space, and what we view as time is actually our passage through spacetime, along the arrow of time at the speed of light. so all the evidence says yes to your question, yes time does have objective existance.

 

[The Seeker]

Happy Birthday Socrastein

What function does time perform as an entity? It lets other entities perform.

Do you not realize that in simply thinking about and asking this question, you have taken time to do so? It takes time to come up with reasons why time does not exist. You can no more take time to refute time (you can refute time in a timeless fashion, I'm sure) than you can logically refute the existence of logic.

I think most people are just attempting to sound "deep" when they conjecture about the nonexistence of time. Of course time exists. It is one of 4 dimensions of space-time. All matter/energy shares proportional values of participation in all 4 dimensions, the sum of which is the speed of light. If you don't move at all relative to other matter/energy, then you are moving through time at the speed of light. As you speed up, you take some of your participation out of the time dimension and put it into the spatial dimensions, and as such, the faster you move through space the slower you move through time, which is why moving at light speed stops time all together. Everything I just said has been theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally verified - what further reason to believe in time do you need, other than the fact that your very conciousness is only operating with the help of time

So basically, you're saying that time exists because time exists?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

What function does time perform as an entity?

The classic answer is that it keeps everything from happening all at once...

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

yes it does, because it can be empirically tested in relativistic experiments.

Just to clarify or perhaps mudify, General Relativity states that to adequitely describe where something is you need to include the dimension of time, so rather than
(x,y,z) describing a position you need
(x,y,z,-i*t)
(ignore the -i, it is just a number that time is multiplied by)

GR makes many very concrete predictions including the bending of light by gravity and, as Project2501 noted, changes in time measured by atomic clocks. Many of them have been tested and all those which have been tested have been found true.

Hopefully that didn't confuse anybody.
Robert

 

[Ojuice5001]

We know that time is a dimension like the three spatial dimensions. But it is hard to answer the question of why our consciousness moves from past to future. It makes sense to suppose that the past and future are part of the universe, and that our perception that they aren't is an illusion. But then why does that illusion exist? Not an easy question to answer.

 

[Dragar]

Time is like space. Einstein's theories of relativity illuminate this quite considerably, and they've stood the test of experiment. They seem to be right.

This means time is relative, just like space.


Imagine a small pocket universe. You put an object in there - a beach ball.

Is it moving?

You can't tell. Because movement through space is only relative to things.

If we add another ball, we may see movement. But which one is moving? We can't tell. We're perfectly correct to say the first ball is moving, and we're perfectly correct to see the second one is moving. We also can't speak of 'up' and 'down' - we don't get three dimensions till we put another object in there.


Now, remember time is like space? Time is just the same. Stuff moves through time relative to other things. That's all.

 

[kedaman]

If space and time were relative, we wouldn't see difference between left and right hands.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

We know that time is a dimension like the three spatial dimensions. But it is hard to answer the question of why our consciousness moves from past to future. It makes sense to suppose that the past and future are part of the universe, and that our perception that they aren't is an illusion. But then why does that illusion exist? Not an easy question to answer.

It was Einstein's contention that what you state is the situation.
(I don't know how serious he was about it but he wrote a short paper arguing for that point)

 

[Dragar]

If space and time were relative, we wouldn't see difference between left and right hands.

A difference is a notion of relativity.

My left hand is different - relative to my right hand.

 

[kedaman]

A difference is a notion of relativity.

My left hand is different - relative to my right hand.

You are assuming that they are different to start with. If the objects of experience where given to you in relative terms, they would be conceptually identical.

 

[Dragar]

You are assuming that they are different to start with.

They're at different spacetime co-ordinates, taking the origin at some arbitrary point in spacetime. We specify co-ordinates relative to that origin.

If the objects of experience where given to you in relative terms, they would be conceptually identical.

Why do you assume that?

Saying something is 'left' makes sense only relation to something else being to the right. It's also relative to where you're standing.

 

[kedaman]

They're at different spacetime co-ordinates, taking the origin at some arbitrary point in spacetime. We specify co-ordinates relative to that origin.

Which is why handedness cannot be explained in terms of spatiotemporal relations between empirical objects.

Why do you assume that?

Try for yourself, it is not possible to distinguish the concepts.

Saying something is 'left' makes sense only relation to something else being to the right. It's also relative to where you're standing.

Yes. Now if you can just realize that where you are standing is a pure and not an empirical intuition, then you may understand why time does not exist objectively.