Does time have objective existence?

[Robert the Pilegrim]

then you may understand why time does not exist objectively.

time or the flow of time?

 

[kedaman]

time or the flow of time?

what is flow of time?

 

[Kira Faye]

hhhmm time isn't about now, time is about the past because whenever we thik of now its already the past, so time is the accumliation of our pasts.....and thats my 3am rant!

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

what is flow of time?

What we percieve, time passing.

 

[kedaman]

What we percieve, time passing.

how do we percieve time passing?

 

[Dragar]

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

I disagree. I can specify a vector leading from, for instance, my chest. I can specify another vector leading to my right and, and another to my left. It's trivial to do. My 'left' and my 'right' will certainly change relative to other objects. But provided I don't turn around, Dragar's-left and Dragar's-right are well defined directions. Even if I turn, they are still well defined when taken relative to, for instance, the vector my eyes are along, or the vector normal to my chest.

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.

What's a 'pure' intuition as opposed to an empirical one?

And I agree time is not 'objective' any more than space is. Time only makes sense relative to stuff, as does space.

 

[kedaman]

I disagree. I can specify a vector leading from, for instance, my chest. I can specify another vector leading to my right and, and another to my left. It's trivial to do. My 'left' and my 'right' will certainly change relative to other objects. But provided I don't turn around, Dragar's-left and Dragar's-right are well defined directions. Even if I turn, they are still well defined when taken relative to, for instance, the vector my eyes are along, or the vector normal to my chest.

There are infinitely many vectors normal to your chest or eyes. Anyways, if you specify a vector, which is not already given in terms of relations between empirical objects, then you are defining the coordinate system in which things are percieved, and henceforth your left and right, in other words you are not percieving them.

What's a 'pure' intuition as opposed to an empirical one?

Pure intuitions are independent of sensations, empirical intuitions contain appearances, that is empirical objects. The form of space and time are pure intuitions, and not given trough senses.

And I agree time is not 'objective' any more than space is. Time only makes sense relative to stuff, as does space.

Yep, space and time are our own innate forms, otherwise our senses would not function.

 

[Phred]

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 )

Wow, didn't ever think I'd be posting something like this here!

Imagine that you are on a spacecraft. The nearest star is 4.2 light years distant. That means it would take 4.2 years to get there if you could travel at the speed of light (c). But there's an interesting phenomena called Time Dilation... as you go faster time changes. To an observer on the Earth, time is moving slower for you.

If you travel at .9999999% the speed of light the time that passes on Earth during this trip will be just over 4.2 years. For you, 16.2 hours will have passed. You could reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy in about 11.6 years. Of course, all the people you left back on Earth would have aged 26,000 years.

At .9999999999999999999999999% light speed you could travel from one end of the known universe (15 billion light years) to the other in 2.4 days. 2.4 days for you... but 15 billion years to the outside world.

There are particles that do move at light speed, electrons for example. To an electron, the universe is instantaneous. Time has no meaning.

.​

 

[Dragar]

There are particles that do move at light speed, electrons for example. To an electron, the universe is instantaneous. Time has no meaning.

You meant photons.

Nothing with mass can move at c. Things without mass must move at c. Electrons, while of a very tiny mass, do have some.

 

[Dragar]

There are infinitely many vectors normal to your chest or eyes. Anyways, if you specify a vector, which is not already given in terms of relations between empirical objects, then you are defining the coordinate system in which things are percieved, and henceforth your left and right, in other words you are not percieving them.

Vectors can be defined without specifying a co-ordinate system. That's half the beauty of them.

And there are not an infinite number of vectors normal to, for instance, the centre my chest are the point directly normal the centre of of my left or right eye (or the average between them). There are at best two; one going 'out' and one going 'in', though they are simply the reverse of each other.

But this is getting silly, and I suspect we agree, but are using different words.

Left and right merely relative to the observer. Agreed? And, relative to the observer, they are different? Agreed?

Pure intuitions are independent of sensations, empirical intuitions contain appearances, that is empirical objects. The form of space and time are pure intuitions, and not given trough senses.
Yep, space and time are our own innate forms, otherwise our senses would not function.

I still don't know what you're saying here, because you're using words in ways I normally don't see them used.

 

[zbignew]

What's interesting about time is, once a moment has passed, can it be changed? I don't think so. I think time from the past to the present is like a single weaved wire, but from the present to the future, it is frayed and leading to different directions. Once the future becomes the present, the frayed part is weaved together.

Thus the future can be changed, but the past cannot, and the present is always changing.

Thus the past is like heaven (or hell). It is forever. "The Moving Finger writes and having writ, moves on. Not all our piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all our tears wash out a word of it."

So we don't have to keep craving, "I hope this moment will last forever," because it will. If you do a lot of good deeds, than that'll last--same with bad deeds. Also, once past, it is done. Instead of feeling regret or guilt, one just needs to ask, "Am I still doing it now?" If the answer is "no", then everything's fine. If you are still doing something you regret, then simply stop. Once stopped, then you are not doing it anymore. No need for long analytical sessions with psychiatrists. Just ask, "Am I still doing it now?"

 

[kedaman]

Dragar,

Vectors can be defined without specifying a co-ordinate system. That's half the beauty of them.

Vectors posses number, unit of measure and direction in space, so no, they do unlike scalars require a coordinate system.

And there are not an infinite number of vectors normal to, for instance, the centre my chest are the point directly normal the centre of of my left or right eye (or the average between them). There are at best two; one going 'out' and one going 'in', though they are simply the reverse of each other.

You seem to be forgetting that vectors have a length, and vectors of real length in the same direction (say normal outward from your chest), or/and the opposite direction, have a cardinality of 2^aleph0.

Left and right merely relative to the observer. Agreed? And, relative to the observer, they are different? Agreed?

Yes.

I still don't know what you're saying here, because you're using words in ways I normally don't see them used.

What I mean is that empirical perception presupposes innate forms of space and time, in which they are percepted. Since space and time contain no empirical objects, they are "pure" intuitions.

 

[Dragar]

Vectors posses number, unit of measure and direction in space, so no, they do unlike scalars require a coordinate system.

But if I specify the vector r, I need to no specify anything more than its magnitude and direction. There's no need yet for me to tell you whether the vector r uses Cartesian, plane polar or whatever co-ordinate systems.

I suppose I concede that if we're to do anything more than talk about a vector leading from one object to another, we'd need a co-ordinate system.

What I mean is that empirical perception presupposes innate forms of space and time, in which they are percepted.

This is the part you're losing me on. We're evolved to identify with three spacial dimension, and one temporal. They are, of course, only sensible to talk about in relation to things. Saying 'Object A is ten metres' is nonsense. Saying 'Object A is ten metres from B' is not.

What do you mean by 'innate forms'? Four dimensions? How can space and time have a 'form'? Are you referring to the curvature of spacetime? I really don't understand what you're meaning.

Since space and time contain no empirical objects, they are "pure" intuitions.

You've lost me again. Space and time are dimensions. They're measurements of in-betweens. How is this a 'pure' intuition? I really don't know what the words you're using mean.

 

[:æ:]

You've lost me again. Space and time are dimensions. They're measurements of in-betweens. How is this a 'pure' intuition? I really don't know what the words you're using mean.

It appears to me that the both of you are saying essentially the same thing using different terms. I suspect that "pure intuition" is roughly equivalent to "abstraction," which IMHO describes space-time rather aptly.

:æ:

 

[kedaman]

But if I specify the vector r, I need to no specify anything more than its magnitude and direction. There's no need yet for me to tell you whether the vector r uses Cartesian, plane polar or whatever co-ordinate systems.

If you do specify r, then you automatically specify a coordinate system, in order for r to be specified, so that we distinguish it from say s with the same length, we need to show that r is not s, by showing that their dot product is not the product of their lengths. This cannot be done without given coordinate system.

This is the part you're losing me on. We're evolved to identify with three spacial dimension, and one temporal. They are, of course, only sensible to talk about in relation to things. Saying 'Object A is ten metres' is nonsense. Saying 'Object A is ten metres from B' is not.

That is correct, but take any concept derived from object relations in the form: object x is y metres from object z, they cannot distinguish right from left hand alone, but need intuition of a form of space, a spatial manifold. I posted an example of this earlier, so i'll just copy and paste:

To demonstrate the handedness argument, we could express the hands in coordinates and relations. The cross product A x B, is given by the right hand rule:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Right-HandRule.html
So we could express handedness with four objects:
Lets first give coordinates to four points in space to represent your right hand:
a=(1,0,0)
b=(0,1,0)
c=(0,0,1)
d=(0,0,0)
given in the coordinate system A x B x C
and your left hand:
a=(1,0,0)
b=(0,1,0)
c=(0,0,-1)
d=(0,0,0)
Now let's try to express this with relations between empirical objects only:
your right hand will be given by:
D.....d.......c.......b
a.....1x.....Ö2 x.....Ö2 x
b.....1x.....Ö2 x
c.....1x

and left hand given by:
D.....d.......c.......b
a.....1x.....Ö2 x.....Ö2 x
b.....1x.....Ö2 x
c.....1x

As you can see the hands given by relations alone are identical, and the hands given by coordinates are distinct. This is the case because we can perform a matrix transformation (rotation, translation ans scaling) on the totum synteticum, that is the entire empirical object and arrive at the left hand, from the right hand, in this case a mirror operation.

What do you mean by 'innate forms'? Four dimensions? How can space and time have a 'form'? Are you referring to the curvature of spacetime? I really don't understand what you're meaning.

Space time curvature is a property of non euclidian space, which are also a forms of space of time, but as beings bound by spatiotemporal rules, I guess we cannot envision but euclidian space and time. But it is still a form innate to us. It is sort of an abstraction, but it cannot be derived empirically. Chiral concepts, such as handedness, up and north are though only in reference to empirical object, innate to the form of space and time we put them in.

 

[amonk]

ok now ,this is philosophy and morality , not maths & physics....all this technical crazy stuff is making me dizzy ...

Time occupies spatial continuum , such as gravity as it occupies space but we cannot see it though we are affected by it everyday , Like God for some .

If some people refuse Time & Gravity to exist so does God ,this gives reason for God to believe that he doesn't exist because no one can see him therefore he is just made up from our own mind .

 

[kedaman]

You are right, but there is a lot of philosophy come out of the nature of mathmetics.

Though I'm sure time and gravity do not exist objectively, the concept of God illusory, is the only concept that can affect the final outcome. Whether he exists or not is a question of faith, not fact, but the consequences are vital.

 

[amonk]

In a way mathematics independantly on its own is not philosophy since it is without physics ( another branch ) because we don't know what is what when a we see a whole bunch of numbers in front of us without the tools required by physicans to identify patterns , behaviour or other forms of logic .

There is logic ( a form of philosophy ) but there is nothing comprehensive or simple about mathematics for philosophy is the wisdom (simple not complex) of understanding and comprehending perceived entirety of numbers with current tools ( observation ,analysis , hypothesis etc) we use to identify the relevancy of these to our everyday lives .

OR we can leave our tools and use blind faith that everything which exists belongs to the '?' of all existence but of some mathematical importance.

Faith in Maths is therefore , Blind wisdom though in a way since we can allow ourselves to have faith to believe this is wisdom ( as whole bunch of unknown numbers )(or such as God ) then we will continue to be confused what the '?' means .

And the reason why we are not allowed these tools to question God ...
You see Rational Logic is a Threat to Irrational Logic .

There is logic behind understanding time & gravity but there is no present logic which clearly makes God evident such as the above mentioned , I agree it is faith that requires us blindly to know thus to be defined as faith .

To believe all the logic behind random numbers means this is blind faith , to believe in relative logic is believing knowledge exists, anything which is not relative to our sense of experience belongs not logically , mathematics is a ? for philosophy such as the entirety of existence belonging to ?.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If you do specify r, then you automatically specify a coordinate system,

I think the point being made is that a vector exists independently of the coordinate system.

 

[kedaman]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, not even one sentence. How do you identify patterns or forms of logic? Does numbers represent physical objects? Are there mathematical entities? What do you mean by wisdom? What do you mean by understanding? What is logic behind random numbers? What is relative logic? The third clause in your last sentence almost makes sense, but then it ends abruptly.. in the last clause, what do you mean?