The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
The first four spatial dimensions. 1 Two points can be connected to create a line segment. 2 Two parallel line segments can be connected to form a square. 3 Two parallel squares can be connected to form a cube. 4 Two parallel cubes can be connected to form a hypercube.
Well that IS the general idea but it must be looked at in the proper relativity to reality (which is the synchronous quantum expansion of matter/space via time waves.)
First evolution is the proton fractal...this is a precursor to universal quantum expansion of proton unit fractals
This is the quantum expansion of the proton fractal units (that each contain the first series of dimensionality)
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑July 11th, 2014, 9:55 am
We've talked about changes in time and abstract time, but I don't recall any evidence for time moving forward. Telling me that the entropy is decreasing isn't proof either because maybe it is decreasing while time is moving backward.
So what evidence exists that time is moving forward? I would like to know.
PhilX
Entropy increasing, irreversible processes constitute time. The real problem is why time is actually moving forward and not backwards. Why are cause and effect not reversed and why doesn't entropy decreases? Why doesn't everything moving has the exact opposite velocity?
If you are standing in the middle of the north-pole, the concept of "north" would be meaningless. Similarly. If you are alive at the "present time-pole" , the concept of "direction in time" would also be meaningless. You have to move away from being alive at the present in order to even begin to see where the answer lies.
That is, you have to be dead first. Only dead can have the answer for you.
Don't believe me? Just ask any astrologers and they will tell you.
Evidence for time moving forward often comes from our experiences and observations, like the way things age, the direction of cause and effect, and how we remember the past differently from the future. While it's a deep topic, many scientific theories and studies suggest that time indeed moves forward.
styxphilip16 wrote: ↑July 18th, 2023, 5:41 pm
Evidence for time moving forward often comes from our experiences and observations, like the way things age, the direction of cause and effect, and how we remember the past differently from the future. While it's a deep topic, many scientific theories and studies suggest that time indeed moves forward.
It has been my understanding that, in science in particular, time is typically reversible. It's only in practice, in the real world, that we discover this doesn't seem to be the case...?
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑July 11th, 2014, 9:55 am
We've talked about changes in time and abstract time, but I don't recall any evidence for time moving forward. Telling me that the entropy is decreasing isn't proof either because maybe it is decreasing while time is moving backward.
So what evidence exists that time is moving forward? I would like to know.
PhilX
Forward and backward are metaphors in relation to time.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:...So what evidence exists that time is moving forward? I would like to know.
Whenever we say something with words we first need to have an idea as to what we mean by those words, otherwise we literally don't know what we're talking about. The conventional meaning of the expression "moving forward" is that the spatial position of an object, relative to other objects, is changing with respect to time, and that the spatial direction in which it is changing, relative to other objects, is arbitrarily designated "forward", as distinct from other arbitrary designations such as "backward", "left", "right", "north", "south", etc.
Clearly this conventional meaning makes no sense when talking about time. To say that time is moving with respect to time is an oxymoron. So, as mentioned by others earlier, we must either be contradicting ourselves or talking metaphorically or using a different meaning for the expression "moving forward". So we have to define that meaning, or the nature of that metaphor. As mentioned by others before, the most obvious definition is in terms of irreversible processes, which usually leads to a discussion about entropy, which has been discussed in various other topics on this forum.
Then there is often a discussion about the nature of irreversible processes and the strange sense in which the apparent directionality of time seems to be a statistical property of large systems of particles. That is, seen collectively, some single states of large systems of particles can exist as a result of very many different states of their individual constituent particles. Whereas some other single states of the collection correspond to relatively few "micro states". This means that the system is more likely to enter the former state than the latter. And this leads to thermodynamic processes that are, if not strictly reversible, then extremely unlikely to reverse. So unlikely that this irreversibility-in-practice is promoted to a physical principle.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:...So what evidence exists that time is moving forward? I would like to know.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 26th, 2023, 5:43 am
Whenever we say something with words we first need to have an idea as to what we mean by those words, otherwise we literally don't know what we're talking about. The conventional meaning of the expression "moving forward" is that the spatial position of an object, relative to other objects, is changing with respect to time, and that the spatial direction in which it is changing, relative to other objects, is arbitrarily designated "forward", as distinct from other arbitrary designations such as "backward", "left", "right", "north", "south", etc.
Clearly this conventional meaning makes no sense when talking about time. To say that time is moving with respect to time is an oxymoron. So, as mentioned by others earlier, we must either be contradicting ourselves or talking metaphorically or using a different meaning for the expression "moving forward". So we have to define that meaning, or the nature of that metaphor. As mentioned by others before, the most obvious definition is in terms of irreversible processes, which usually leads to a discussion about entropy, which has been discussed in various other topics on this forum.
Then there is often a discussion about the nature of irreversible processes and the strange sense in which the apparent directionality of time seems to be a statistical property of large systems of particles. That is, seen collectively, some single states of large systems of particles can exist as a result of very many different states of their individual constituent particles. Whereas some other single states of the collection correspond to relatively few "micro states". This means that the system is more likely to enter the former state than the latter. And this leads to thermodynamic processes that are, if not strictly irreversible, then extremely unlikely to reverse. So unlikely that this irreversibility-in-practice is promoted to a physical principle.
Nice to see you, Steve! And a nice analysis of the topic too.
Yes, "moving forward" is, in this case, clearly a metaphor. But such metaphors are so very common in our language that we can't just say "oh, it's just a metaphor" and dismiss it. If I describe a river as "running", we all know what is meant, even though a river has no legs to run with. That's one part of the problem.
The other part, of that same problem, is that a quite-specific concept of time is embedded in our languages. And, for all the different languages, that concept of time isn't always the same.
The combination of metaphorical language and embedded time makes this a difficult — but rewarding — thing to discuss, I think?
Pattern-chaser wrote:Nice to see you, Steve! And a nice analysis of the topic too.
Thanks! I thought I'd dip back in again.
Yes, "moving forward" is, in this case, clearly a metaphor. But such metaphors are so very common in our language that we can't just say "oh, it's just a metaphor" and dismiss it. If I describe a river as "running", we all know what is meant, even though a river has no legs to run with. That's one part of the problem.
Absolutely. Our language is, metaphorically, steeped in metaphor. I guess the extent to which that's true is an interesting subject in itself. So if we're hoping to say something clear and as unambiguous as possible about, say, time, we have to recognize that.
The other part, of that same problem, is that a quite-specific concept of time is embedded in our languages. And, for all the different languages, that concept of time isn't always the same.
Yes, in our European languages at least, particular ideas about the nature of time are so (metaphorically) baked-in that a large part of the challenge in analysing the nature of time is consciously recognizing that and thinking very carefully about that we actually observe.
The fact that we intuitively perceive the asymmetry between the past and the future gives rise to the metaphors of moving through time, or of time itself somehow moving. "The march of time", "time waits for nobody", etc.
The combination of metaphorical language and embedded time makes this a difficult — but rewarding — thing to discuss, I think?
Yes, I agree. I think there are quite a few topics that have tried to address it over the years.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑July 11th, 2014, 9:55 am
We've talked about changes in time and abstract time, but I don't recall any evidence for time moving forward. Telling me that the entropy is decreasing isn't proof either because maybe it is decreasing while time is moving backward.
So what evidence exists that time is moving forward? I would like to know.
PhilX
There is no such thing as time in the commonly held belief, there is matter and energy affecting and being affected by matter and energy, two aspects of one thing. Consciousness is the enigma, aware of change and duration in the swirling enigma of the cosmos, like all other meanings, time is biologically dependent. Ultimately there is the cosmos, a boiling cauldron of mass and energy in motion through space affecting and effecting through and of its motions. Is change time? what is the measuring stick, if not that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. The cosmos like the earth itself, is meaningless in the absence of biological consciousness/life.
What is time?
The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A. Einstein in his 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared.
It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating.
It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. Current scientific research requires clocks that generate smaller and more precise periods than those of the past. The second is defined as n wave lengths of a specific frequency of light, a distance, but labeled as "time".
If we use a light based clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the simultaneous motion of an object to the motion of light for a duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c or speed. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. If you use Minkowski spacetime diagrams the vertical scale is not 'time', but ct, light path distance, i.e. they plot speed. This allows a simple comparison of equivalent entities, without consideration of the nature of those entities.
quotes by the author of SR
From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
time and perception
Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of time flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.
Consider one of the greatest misnomers ever used, 'motion pictures' or 'movies', where a person observes a sequence of still photos and the mind melds them to produce moving objects where there is no motion. These cases show time as part of perception. Special Relativity then predicts alteration of measurement and perception via motion
misc.
It was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing spacetime. I refer to the Minkowski version of SR as a 'lines on paper' theory. Time is represented as a line, removing any attributes that would distinguish its identity from other variables, a line is a line.
Math equations that express a behavior as a function of time, are misleading when the time is interpreted as a causative factor. The time of an event must be assigned after the event occurs, i.e. after awareness! If a nova is observed in 2010, and is 100 ly distant, it didn't happen because it was 1910 on earth. It was the physical processes already in place that reacted to an unstable state. A person dies, not because it's his 'time', but because his biological system reaches a state that can't be maintained.
Which brings us to the real issue (for me) perpetuating the millenia of debating 'time'.
No one wants to be informed "atomic clock at NIST has a hole in it and time is running out". Time implies longevity. People gain some sense of security if they think there is an invisible entity behind the scenes arranging and scheduling more events.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑July 11th, 2014, 9:55 am
Telling me that the entropy is decreasing isn't proof either
because maybe it is decreasing while time is moving backward.
Telling me that the entropy is increasing isn't proof either
because maybe it is increasing while time is moving forward.
Dr. Bernardo Kastrup — “Materialism is baloney!!!”
Youtube. com/watch?v=FcPyTgLILqA
Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland
Since this 9 year old topic was bumped, I'll go straight to the chase.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑July 11th, 2014, 9:55 am
We've talked about changes in time and abstract time, but I don't recall any evidence for time moving forward.
There is no test for it at all. People assume it because it's programmed into our intuitions.
If there was a way to demonstrate that time moves forward, or at all for that matter, then eternalism (and other subjects like Boltzmann brains) would be falsified.
I personally do not hold a belief that time is something that moves.