Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.
You need to establish what time is before you argue its cause. I don't think you have demonstrated causality, merely correlation.Here are my ideas,
Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,
- Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.
Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.
- A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
- Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.
- Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.
- All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.
- According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.
- According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Effect can not precede cause.
- According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.
- According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.
You need to establish what time is before you argue its cause. I don't think you have demonstrated causality, merely correlation.
Your thesis logically refuted: My wife says I sat in front of the TV last night for three hours and didn't move.Here are my ideas,
Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,
- Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.
Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.
- A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
- Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.
- Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.
- All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.
- According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.
- According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Effect can not precede cause.
- According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.
- According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.
The relationship is actually the reverse of what's described in the OP.
Time is required for motion ...
I appreciate your deep thinking on this point.You appear to be stating an opinion. See truth six in my original post. Then explain why truth six is not correct.
Retrocausality is a theory and has not been observed.
I see. So we can test your claims if we can do something no one believes it is possible to do? So your claim is, as I stated, not testable?I choose the word irrefutable not non falsifiable. It is irrefutable because it is logically sound. It is falsifiable because all anyone has to do is show a way time can be measured other than what truth two of my original post claims.
But time is constant, consistent, and rather inflexible.
My thinking is that more fundamentally, time is what passes between cause and effect in the eyes of the Observer.Here are my ideas,
Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,
- Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.
Note: You may argue that just the measurement of time requires motion, but the way in which time exists within reality (observable, empirical, quantifiable) is by the way in which it is measured.
- A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
- Time can only be measured by comparing something's motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion.
- Examples of standards of motion include, but are not limited to, time keeping devices like stopwatches, the Earth traveling around the Sun, or a person keeping time.
- All standards of motion are a form of motion or are derived from a form of motion, albeit sometimes very complex forms of motion.
- According to one and two, time can be considered a physical property that describes a physical system's motion compared to another physical system's motion.
- According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
- Effect can not precede cause.
- According to two, time requires motion to be measured and according to five, effect can not precede cause. This means time depends on motion and because of that motion can not depend on time.
- According to two, time empirically exists only as comparative motion and according to six, time depends on motion. This means time is caused by motion.
What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?Nevertheless time is truly digital and determined by the Cause and Observer of the Universe.
There is a minimal of measurement known as Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible. Objects and space itself either exist within the material universe at a size larger than this size or they loose locality i.e. cease to exist.What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?
Further to the above it occurs to me that i have missed a final point, being that it has been observed that at a quantum level the outcome of cause and effect relationship is probabilistic and that the outcome is determined by the observer.What makes you think so, do you have evidence or rational argument to support it?
OK, I get the idea. I think there's some debate about whether the Planck length is the shortest possible length or the shortest meaningful length, but that apart, the microscopic laws of physics don't distinguish between past and future - interactions are fundamentally reversible - and so cause and effect, which requires a temporal direction (the arrow of time) is not a feature of physics at this level. There is a strong sense in which the arrow of time, and so cause & effect, is an emergent property of large numbers of interactions (i.e. macro-scale) described by statistical mechanics and driven by increasing entropy.There is a minimal of measurement known as Planck length, 10-33 centimeters, that is indivisible. Objects and space itself either exist within the material universe at a size larger than this size or they loose locality i.e. cease to exist.
We also know that time cannot be subdivided into a smaller unit than 10-43seconds, known as Planck time. Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. Everything that happens in the material universe takes at least this length of time to take place.
It occurs to me that the most fundamental way of describing anything that happens is as a cause and an effect. The most fundamental cause and effect relationship is the relationship that takes place at the point where something causes another thing to exist. When this happens at the level of singularity the minimal material effect is one that is bigger than the Planck length and the cause acts in relationship to the effect at least in a period of Planck time.
So my thinking is that at a fundamental level unless we have a cause, initiating an effect, time itself is not observed.
Of course we as observers within a system of trillions upon trillions of cause and effect relationships are unable to isolate this digital time effect and so time passes even as we try to observe it. However to an observer without time, observing a single isolated cause and effect, time would pass only in proportion to the nature of the relationship between the cause and the effect, and would cease once that relationship had ended.
As I understand it, that's a misinterpretation of QM observation, where the outcome of a measurement is probabilistic and depends on the particular measurement rather than the observer. This is a murky area, the QM 'Measurement Problem', but the general idea is that a measurement occurs when two quantum systems interact irreversibly, i.e. with decoherence, where the information disperses into the environment. What actually happens during that interaction is described variously by the different QM interpretations. 'Conscious collapse' versions of the Copenhagen interpretation, have been largely abandoned as too problematic. A QM 'observer' is now taken to be any interacting quantum system.Further to the above it occurs to me that i have missed a final point, being that it has been observed that at a quantum level the outcome of cause and effect relationship is probabilistic and that the outcome is determined by the observer.
It seem to me then that the fundamentals of reality are an observer/cause in relationship to an effect and that that the relationship is observed as the passing of time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?