Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True, of course it's possible they don't all mesh because there isn't time or something like that so they are missreading what happens.

I don't think so; that reduces it to a matter of semantics - time is what clocks measure, and we know that clocks work and we know how they change in respect of context (relative motion, gravity, etc). There are different ways of viewing or interpreting what the ticking of clocks means, e.g. perhaps our experience of it is misleading, but it is a phenomenon to be explained.

Like going back to my analogy of the objective ruler, for someone near a gravity well, it takes them longer to traverse the objective ruler then someone away from it, creating the appearance of time slowing down.

The idea of an objective ruler makes no sense in a relativistic universe. The closest you can get is to take the reference frame of an observer at some point in space where gravitational fields are a minimum, define that as your rest frame, then use the appropriate transforms to calculate how it would appear in other frames.

The time dilation is relative to an observer far from the gravity well, and is real. For the observer in the gravity well, his local time runs as always, and it's time outside the gravity well that runs fast. They're two equally valid ways of looking at it.

 

[loveofourlord]

"the previous state of the ever present now..."

What precisely does "previous" mean in this context?

to me there is the ever changing present, our memories allow us remember how the present has changed, giving the illusion of time as we acmululate memories, making it seem liks there was a past and a future were moving towards, I think they are just a byproduct of how brains see the ever changing present.

 

[loveofourlord]

I don't think so; that reduces it to a matter of semantics - time is what clocks measure, and we know that clocks work and we know how they change in respect of context (relative motion, gravity, etc). There are different ways of viewing or interpreting what the ticking of clocks means, e.g. perhaps our experience of it is misleading, but it is a phenomenon to be explained.

The idea of an objective ruler makes no sense in a relativistic universe. The closest you can get is to take the reference frame of an observer at some point in space where gravitational fields are a minimum, define that as your rest frame, then use the appropriate transforms to calculate how it would appear in other frames.

The time dilation is relative to an observer far from the gravity well, and is real. For the observer in the gravity well, his local time runs as always, and it's time outside the gravity well that runs fast. They're two equally valid ways of looking at it.

well the concept of the objective ruler is that a ruler that is say 100 miles long at space with 0 gravity, or 100*'s the gravity it stays the same. It's just a thought experiment a concept I have. So near the sun if you had a relatavistic 100 mile long ruler, it would appear to only be 90 miles long say in relation to the objective one. So if you drive at 100 miles a hour speeds, to the objective ruler if it could observe, someone traveling near the sun would be traveling 90 miles per hour, but to the person driving along the relatavistic ruler, they are driving at 100 miles per hour, and the descrepencies between these things create the reason why there is the time dilation. Or something like that havn't fully figured it out but thats the ideas I've had.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

at the same time, still has the flaw of there being time. thats the flaw, there is the ever present now, where energy and matter move around within the current moment. Back to the, if I throw you a ball and you catch it, the matter of the ball has changed locations in the present, not moved from the past in my hand, to the future in your hand. you only think there is still a time when it was in my hand, because you remember the previous state of the ever prsent now as having been there. There is nothing to go back too because there was no past in the way we think of time.

The 'present' is problematic - energy and matter can't move around in the present moment of 'now' - it's Zeno's Arrow paradox - if the present is simply the interface between future and past, no time elapses in the present, so no change is possible - which also means that you can't store memories, because you don't have time

 

[RDKirk]

I think that a more acceptable definition of time is that it is a measurement of change. That, being said, most timekeeping methods do involve motion --- the pendulum of a clock, the coil spring of a watch, the vibrations of a crystal, etc.

Rather, now, the degradation of atomic particles, which is a measurement of change rather than motion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

well the concept of the objective ruler is that a ruler that is say 100 miles long at space with 0 gravity, or 100*'s the gravity it stays the same. It's just a thought experiment a concept I have. So near the sun if you had a relatavistic 100 mile long ruler, it would appear to only be 90 miles long say in relation to the objective one. So if you drive at 100 miles a hour speeds, to the objective ruler if it could observe, someone traveling near the sun would be traveling 90 miles per hour, but to the person driving along the relatavistic ruler, they are driving at 100 miles per hour, and the descrepencies between these things create the reason why there is the time dilation. Or something like that havn't fully figured it out but thats the ideas I've had.

The discrepancies might illustrate time dilation but don't 'create the reason' for it. The reason for it (under GR) is that spacetime is distorted.

 

[durangodawood]

to me there is the ever changing present, our memories allow us remember how the present has changed, giving the illusion of time as we acmululate memories, making it seem liks there was a past and a future were moving towards, I think they are just a byproduct of how brains see the ever changing present.

I notice how you completely avoided explaining your previous use of the word "previous".

I think thats because, when we look into it, your notion of an everchanging present still cant escape the concept of time.

I would really like to know exactly what "previous" means to you.

 

[Michael]

I think it's worth remembering that these are all models, and they're useful in different scenarios. We don't know the true nature of the universe, and although our models of it work extremely well, they're not congruent with each other, and they have their limits. General Relativity treats time as a fundamental part of a malleable spacetime manifold; in quantum mechanics, it appears not to be fundamental but emergent from entanglement; and in statistical mechanics, the flow of time is a result of the Past Hypothesis, a very low entropy big bang. We know that GR is not correct, it fails in some situations, and it seems likely that it's a geometric interpretation of a limit of some more extensive quantum theory.

But that's just it. If QM is correct, quantum entanglement might simply result in the "appearance" of time moving at different rates without actually changing the flow of time at all. Time would pass even in a static universe so a big bang wouldn't be required for the passage of time. In some ways time is a construct of awareness and consciousness. Change might be "real", whereas our constructs of time may not be "real' at all.

 

[loveofourlord]

The 'present' is problematic - energy and matter can't move around in the present moment of 'now' - it's Zeno's Arrow paradox - if the present is simply the interface between future and past, no time elapses in the present, so no change is possible - which also means that you can't store memories, because you don't have time

matter and energy still move in the present, there just isn't time they are moving through. The memories are the rearangements of matter and energy in your brain in the now. What we call time, is just the acumilations of those memories, movements creating the illusion of what we call time. There is no past in any actual form, nor a future, .

Think of it like your filming reality, the film isn't recording of the past, it's many snapshots of how the current state used to be, you can rewind the snapshots, but the reality your film you can'tbecause the matter and energy is no longer in that place, to reverse "time" would require you to be able to reverse all matter and energy in the uiverse to prior states, but since they are no longer in those states there is nothing there.

 

[loveofourlord]

The discrepancies might illustrate time dilation but don't 'create the reason' for it. The reason for it (under GR) is that spacetime is distorted.

And with my example,

I notice how you completely avoided explaining your previous use of the word "previous".

I think thats because, when we look into it, your notion of an everchanging present still cant escape the concept of time.

I would really like to know exactly what "previous" means to you.

you can have a previous states. If I throw you the ball, the ball went from the state of being in my hand, to the state of being in yours. But once the ball is in your hand, there no longer is a place anywhere where the ball is in my hand. There is no past that you could with the right technology or other methods go back to where the ball was, because you would have to reverse everything tha happened in the entire universe.

I don't disagree that there is change, my disagreement is wether or not that change repersents a different dimension of time, or wether there is only ever the now. all of what we call time are measurements of change and motions. Wether it's the acumilations of memories that create the illusion of there being something before now that still exists. I don't grow older through time, the matter and energy that repersents me changed and moved around. Hard to explain because we have too much baggage of a past and futureas anything but constructs we create, and not some actual thing that exists in reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But that's just it. If QM is correct, quantum entanglement might simply result in the "appearance" of time moving at different rates without actually changing the flow of time at all.

The 'appearance' of time dilation wouldn't lead to the real differences in elapsed time (e.g. Twins paradox) that have been measured, consistent with GR.

It has been suggested that the approach most likely to bear fruit in reconciling QM and gravity, is not to attempt to quantize gravity but to make gravity emergent from QM.

 

[Michael]

matter and energy still move in the present, there just isn't time they are moving through. The memories are the rearangements of matter and energy in your brain in the now. What we call time, is just the acumilations of those memories, movements creating the illusion of what we call time. There is no past in any actual form, nor a future, .

Think of it like your filming reality, the film isn't recording of the past, it's many snapshots of how the current state used to be, you can rewind the snapshots, but the reality your film you can'tbecause the matter and energy is no longer in that place, to reverse "time" would require you to be able to reverse all matter and energy in the uiverse to prior states, but since they are no longer in those states there is nothing there.

It is however useful and quite possible to "predict' those movement patterns (to some degree) based on the concept of time. For instance we can predict when and where a lunar eclipse might occur, whereas our ancestors could not, and were frightened by such events. While time might be an abstract concept, it allows us to predict at least some future events with great precision.

 

[Michael]

The 'appearance' of time dilation wouldn't lead to the real differences in elapsed time (e.g. Twins paradox) that have been measured, consistent with GR.

It has been suggested that the approach most likely to bear fruit in reconciling QM and gravity, is not to attempt to quantize gravity but to make gravity emergent from QM.

I agree that time dilation does seem to be very well documented, but that observation only seems to support the belief that time is simply an abstract concept of consciousness that has no universal value.

 

[durangodawood]

...or wether there is only ever the now....

yes there only IS now.

but there also WAS then.

If there was no change along a time axis, it would all exist now. But it doesnt. Only the present moment is now.

I think "there is no time" is one of those neato 'mind-blown' concepts that falls apart upon examination.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

matter and energy still move in the present, there just isn't time they are moving through.

Now you're redefining movement. In physics, motion involves change in position over time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree that time dilation does seem to be very well documented, but that observation only seems to support the belief that time is simply an abstract concept of consciousness that has no universal value.

It's an abstract concept (concepts are, by nature, abstractions) that refers to an objective phenomenon. The repeated observation of time dilation by different observers supports the objective nature of the phenomenon.

I don't know what you mean by 'universal value'; as I see it, values are contextual attributes we impose on aspects of the world.

 

[RDKirk]

Atomically, everything is moving.

Maybe not moving. Maybe just changing state. Clocks that measure time by the degradation of atomic particles are not measuring movement, they are measuring a consistently changing state.

 

[SelfSim]

Where a 'predictive (worldview) model' is viewed as being hypothetical (until its tested), there doesn't seem to be much room left for reality there(?)

I think the point is that we don't take it as hypothetical, we take it as real - and when it's tested against our senses, it (our perceptual reality) can change. That's when we notice the discrepancy - and sometimes have to apologise, "Sorry, I thought you were someone else".

Well that's certainly a model one can hold in mind. However, it would seem that its based on the belief that a predictive model just is 'true' reality .. (regardlesss of any reasons for that).
The demonstrably abundant objective evidence however supports that the predictive model and perceptual reality are both conceived by a mind, (and that there is no evidence that they exist independently from one). The objective test, consistency and abundant evidence are the distinguishing factors here. Such conversations also tend to become useful when that notion is built upon.

I'm not sure there's much value in imagining it as being 'virtual' also .. especially when one can't really test for a specifically 'virtual' world(?)

Seems to me that a predictive model of reality that we experience as real is a virtual world experience.

Ok .. depends on what you mean (ie: what distinguishes) 'virtual' from 'real'.
The distinguishing factors here are:
- 'truth exists' (regardless of reasons) vs objective testing/evidence and consistency.

 

[SelfSim]

I agree that time dilation does seem to be very well documented, but that observation only seems to support the belief that time is simply an abstract concept of consciousness that has no universal value.

'Universal' is a description (or model) held in mind. The 'value' attribute of it, is thus a representation which appeals to the mind that conceived it. There is no evidence of that model existing independently from the conceiving mind. If you disagree, then cite the objective test which generates its own corroborating evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well that's certainly a model one can hold in mind. However, it would seem that its based on the belief that a predictive model just is 'true' reality .. (regardlesss of any reasons for that).
The demonstrably abundant objective evidence however supports that the predictive model and perceptual reality are both conceived by a mind, (and that there is no evidence that they exist independently from one). The objective test, consistency and abundant evidence are the distinguishing factors here. Such conversations also tend to become useful when that notion is built upon.

I don't follow you, assuming you're not lapsing into solipsism. There is evidence that the predictive model and the external world from which the senses obtain their data are different - and the sensory data itself is used to attempt to minimize the significant differences.

Ok .. depends on what you mean (ie: what distinguishes) 'virtual' from 'real'.
The distinguishing factors here are:
- 'truth exists' (regardless of reasons) vs objective testing/evidence and consistency.

It's virtual in as much as we experience a model or simulation of the world our senses detect (what's commonly called the 'real' world).