Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

[Kaon]

Here are my ideas,

• Time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
• Time is not a prerequisite for motion, but is caused by motion.

Here is why my ideas are logically irrefutable as explained with truths,

1. A physical property is a measurable property that describes a physical system.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. According to three, time is a physical property that describes comparative motion.
5. Effect can not precede cause.
6. 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.
7. 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.

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.

I would argue time doesn't exist at all.

But, not here.

 

[SelfSim]

Like many concepts, it's a way of representing some feature of what most of us take to be an external reality; in this case, how everything doesn't happen at once.

Everything doesn't happen at once because that's not how we perceive reality. We have memories.
There is no objective evidence of 'an external reality'.

 

[SelfSim]

I would argue time doesn't exist at all.

That's a bit odd ..
Things exist because we say they do .. or in science, we objectively test such things .. which leaves a trail of evidence supporting the assertion that they exist. Time exists in science by way of repeatable observation (eg: the movement of the second hand of a watch).
When we say, (outside of science), that 'time exists', it is because we can recall our memories.

 

[Kaon]

That's a bit odd ..
Things exist because we say they do .. or in science, we objectively test such things .. which leaves a trail of evidence supporting the assertion that they exist. Time exists in science by way of repeatable observation (eg: the movement of the second hand of a watch).
When we say, (outside of science), that 'time exists', it is because we can recall our memories.

Time works beautifully as a descriptor for the action energy can undergo, but it isn't actually real. It is arbitrary down to the SI unit - a second is 9,000,000,000 hyperfine transitions in the Cs-133 atom.

Time is also a psychological attraction for our benefit, as we are so superficial and ignorant that we cannot properly perceive that everything that will happen has already happened, and everything that happens was always supposed to happen.

It keeps us from going insane, in other words, to think of time. The pseudo-dimension could be called and thought of as any parameter, but we have an infactuation with the idea of time because we are mortals.

Time is physically the ratio of action (S) to energy available (L) - and it is measured as a "change" which requires a reference point. What we want to think of as time is actually the curvature and torsion of tangent spacial dimensions interacting with our plane of existence.

That's as far as I would go on these forums.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Everything doesn't happen at once because that's not how we perceive reality. We have memories.
There is no objective evidence of 'an external reality'.

OK. What is there objective evidence of?

 

[Ophiolite]

That's as far as I would go on these forums.

No, it turns out that "later" you go much further and this has always happened and was always going to happen.

 

[SelfSim]

.. as we are so superficial and ignorant

I think you'd be speaking from a personal opinion basis there(?) I do not see people as being 'superficial and ignorant', by default, in any way, shape or form.

that we cannot properly perceive

Depends on how you're distinguishing 'proper' perceptions from 'improper' perceptions .. You'd be most fortunate to get consensus on that distinction ..

that everything that will happen has already happened, and everything that happens was always supposed to happen.

Determinism is only a philosophical belief. Everything I've stated is backed up by objective tests and evidence.
Can you cite an objective test which would permit us to accept what you say as being anything other than just yet another personally held belief?

It keeps us from going insane, in other words, to think of time. The pseudo-dimension could be called and thought of as any parameter, but we have an infactuation with the idea of time because we are mortals.

Ok .. you've gone off into la-la land here .. and I think you mean 'infatuation' (there is no such word as 'infactuation' for me to grasp your meaning here anyway).

Time is physically the ratio of action (S) to energy available (L) - and it is measured as a "change" which requires a reference point. What we want to think of as time is actually the curvature and torsion of tangent spacial dimensions interacting with our plane of existence.

Uh huh .. so too is word salad as being what you'd like think of as being time. How can we distinguish the difference?

That's as far as I would go on these forums.

Why would you think your above claims are appropriate here in a physical sciences forum?

 

[SelfSim]

OK. What is there objective evidence of?

Bigger fish to fry at the moment .. let's break it off there for the moment, eh?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bigger fish to fry at the moment .. let's break it off there for the moment, eh?

OK. Guess that means I'm a tiddler...

 

[Kaon]

I think you'd be speaking from a personal opinion basis there(?) I do not see people as being 'superficial and ignorant', by default, in any way, shape or form.


Depends on how you're distinguishing 'proper' perceptions from 'improper' perceptions .. You'd be most fortunate to get consensus on that distinction ..

Determinism is only a philosophical belief. Everything I've stated is backed up by objective tests and evidence.
Can you cite an objective test which would permit us to accept what you say as being anything other than just yet another personally held belief?

Ok .. you've gone off into la-la land here .. and I think you mean 'infatuation' (there is no such word as 'infactuation' for me to grasp your meaning here anyway).

Uh huh .. so too is word salad as being what you'd like think of as being time. How can we distinguish the difference?

Why would you think your above claims are appropriate here in a physical sciences forum?

Ok.

 

[46AND2]

No, it turns out that "later" you go much further and this has always happened and was always going to happen.

Clever. Wanted to give you a winner AND funny icon.