Does (abstract) time exist?

[Obvious Leo]

McTaggart wrote about Presentism in 1908, which is the opposite of Eternalism. Einstein is considered to have adopted an eternalist viewpoint, but later in life he switched to presentism. See "A World without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein". It's heavy going at times (!) but interesting reading.

Sorry if all this has been mentioned before.

It hasn't been mentioned before and it's not without relevance. Einstein died a broken man and the story of his life was not a happy one. He made practically no contribution to science after the publication of General Relativity and was tormented for the balance of his life with the absolute certainty that both of his relativity models were wrong. He became the laughing stock of the physics community by persisting with this claim while the rest of them were getting on with the business of making new discoveries with them and devising new technologies.

He never managed to see the elephant in the room, did Albert, and yet the evidence was there right before his eyes in his own masterpiece of GR. It was SR that was the problem all along because SR interwove time with space. It was never going to be compatible with GR in a million years because GR interweaves time with gravity. If he'd only managed to see this he would have remained an eternalist eternally. Rest in peace, Albert, and thank you for your enormous contribution to the advance of human knowledge. You had the humility to know that that you'd got something wrong and the arseholes who mocked you did not.

Regards Leo

[Chasw]

Thanks, PE. Fascinating subject. Outside of Philosophy and Physics, few people think much about the nature of time, let alone entertain thoughts that is might not exist. Physicists are satisfied with their finding that the "finger of time" only points in one direction, by observing entropy. Philosophers, and students of philosophy, by nature dive deeper. My own position is that of the Presentists, i.e., being is exclusive to the temporal now, the present. All extant entities are temporally present.

We have information about the past and the entities that existed then. We have carefully considered forecasts and plans for the future. Both of these information sets, however, exist now and only now. We know from our experience that we had these same records and plans in hand yesterday, but notice people are careful to refer to yesterday's plans in the past tense.

This much stands to reason, but what is the fundamental nature of the here and now? I suggest Time is actually a figment of our imagination. We, as thinking things, exist in the present and notice that we and the other entities around us are constantly moving. In fact every thing in the universe with a positive temperature is moving. Even intergalactic space has its primal microwave vibration. So it is natural that we humans mentally organize moving things as repetitive cycles, starting with our own heartbeat, the progenitor of seconds, minutes, hours, etc. So we count time, as all living things do, to survive, but there is no celestial clock. No absolute time.

Einstein's major breakthrough of 1905 pointed out that all laws of physics, including how fast things move, apply equally to all inertial frames of reference. As a result, we now can begin to understand why astronaut Tom's watch on the International Space Station runs slightly slower than my identical watch on the Earth's surface. The truth is, there is no simultaneity of events between different reference frames. Our illusions about time are thereby neatly exposed.

Because of this scientific revelation, all thinking persons on the planet alive today, who try to understand the nature of time, must inevitably confront the ontological puzzle of time dilation. My personal resolution is presentism, plain and simple. Time is our orderly explanation for moving objects. We shouldn't make more out of abstract time than that. Any talk about time travel, other than leaps into the future via high-speed spacecraft, should be dismissed as fantasy. - CW

[Atreyu]

Chasw:

Time is not merely a "figment of our imagination" because we directly perceive motion. It's a measurement of various motions relative to each other, and measurements are not "imagination". Measurements are cognition, a tool we use to understand our world. And it's quite "natural" that we do this, as you yourself said.

Time is our orderly explanation for moving objects. We shouldn't make more out of abstract time than that.

This shows a lack of understanding of the OP. Our orderly explanation for moving objects is not what the OP meant by "abstract time". The question "Does (abstract) time exist?" comes down to: "Why do we perceive and cognize time/motion?" or "What is the true nature of time/motion?". The OP is asking if there is anything real, concrete, or objective behind our ability to perceive motion and cognize chronological time. Or in fact is there no "abstract time", i.e. is there nothing objective about how we cognize time, is it entirely a subjective construct? This is what the OP wants to know.

And the answer is that in fact there is something real and objective behind our ability to cognize chronological time and to perceive moving objects, and that is --- higher dimensions of space. Because the known three dimensions of space are moving within higher dimensions of space --- just as a point might move within a line, or a line might move within a plane, or a plane might move within a solid --- we perceive and cognize time/motion. The reason why things change and move, and the reason why we are able therefore to cognize a "before, now, and after", is because our three dimensional Universe is moving relative to higher dimensions of space, just as a point (zero dimensions) might move through a sphere (three dimensions). And just as the point changes as it moves throughout the sphere, so too does our known three dimensional Universe change as it moves through higher dimensions of space.

He never managed to see the elephant in the room, did Albert, and yet the evidence was there right before his eyes in his own masterpiece of GR. It was SR that was the problem all along because SR interwove time with space. It was never going to be compatible with GR in a million years because GR interweaves time with gravity.

Yep. Time must be "interwoven" with space and this is higher dimensional theory. "Time", "motion", and "change" is the peculiar way we perceive the higher dimensions of space when the lower dimensions of space (which we can perceive/cognize spatially) are moving relative to those higher dimensions.

[Chasw]

Atreyu wrote: "The OP is asking if there is anything real, concrete, or objective behind our ability to perceive motion and cognize chronological time. Or in fact is there no "abstract time", i.e. is there nothing objective about how we cognize time, is it entirely a subjective construct? This is what the OP wants to know." ___________________________________

Thanks, A. I understood the OP's question. To restate my response: No, there is nothing objective about how we perceive time, it is entirely a subjective construct used to explain moving phenomena, especially light. Abstract time, as you have described it, does not exist, IMO.

As for the notion our familiar Euclidean space is somehow moving within "higher dimensions of space", I'm afraid I cannot subscribe to that. I notice you use the plural form here, dimensions, thus you are not simply describing one's subjective explanation for the regular movement of objects and waves, from one moment to the next. That's how most people define time as a fourth dimension. Instead, you are perhaps referring to speculation by some physicists that there are several additional dimensions to reality, which have not yet been observed. The only other dimension I can conceive of is the spiritual dimension, the realm of angels and demons. - CW

Edit: A quick comment about our use here of the word abstract. The thing I submit does not exist is the referent of the word time. Yes, people have in their minds an abstract concept of the time "dimension" of reality. But that concept is defective, from an ontologist's POV, because the intended referent, a continuous stream of clock time, is no more than our natural interpretation of the stark reality of the here and now. Check out Aldous Huxley's 1962 novel "Island".

[Reactor]

Although we get along quite well (doing science, etc.) using various measurements of "time," the concept of measured time itself is an abstraction that usually takes place in the space-domain, via physical time-pieces.

The reality is not the scales we use to measure time (all of which are arbitrary and matters of convenience) but the "befores" and "afters," the sequences of events that define natural and man-made processes.

-- Updated September 9th, 2014, 5:24 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


Wouldn't this be when 'time' stands still, existing but not moving? Similar to a paralyzed person.

Part of the problem is what's meant by abstract time. A clock can run slower (when its batteries run down) so measuring devices wouldn't, in reality, be a good measure of time (since measuring devices through the sundial are linked to our Sun, then even our Sun isn't 100% reliable in measuring time).

So my concept of abstract time doesn't have anything to do with time measurement which is linked with change. I believe that abstract time exists, but the question then becomes as to what it is, really? Since it's divorced from time measurement, then what can be said about abstract time? It's a deep concept that awaits a great mind to enlighten it.

That's about all I can say on this matter.

PhilX

Time *isn't* where there are no events. Time is the measure (and perception) of change. If you abstract change from perception, you remove the apprehension of time.

This is close to what our computers do when they are tasked to monitor and control physical processes. Say that data is taken periodically from a fabricating machine's sensors and stuffed into memory. The values stored are meaningless without interpretation or matching to a previously-recorded reference or standard. Then, how much is too much? How much is too little? Time is lost, as well, unless some clock time is recorded along with the sensor data. Even recorded clock time does not mean much unless interpreted. Does the clock value ascend or descend? Of two data values from the same sensor, which was taken before the other?

Arithmetic procedures in computers can work out those details, but intrinsic time, as it affects the process, has been abstracted. Much work must then be done to extrinsically add it back in appropriately (usually in software) so the controller can provide the proper process guidance.

PhilX, is that what you mean by "abstract time?" If not, what nameless aspect of reality are you indicating? Or are you asking for our best guesses?

Reactor

[Hamasen1]

Several threads about time have run. Yet we haven't gotten down to the nitty gritty, does time exist? Makes no sense to try to define time with measuring devices like clocks or calendars without first determining if time exists because if it doesn't exist, then with or without those measuring devices (including calendars), we may be wasting our time trying to define time on the basis of measuring devices and time-explicit and time-implicit equations may have no backbone to them if we don't know whether time exists.

A closely related question to the topic title is whether abstract time is objective? Because if so, we may never know the true nature of time. Now I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

Well if absolute time did exist (I.e. independent of reference frames or observers). Then it couldn't have a beginning or an end.

If it had a beginning then, by definition of 'beginning', it must start at some point in the time of another objective reference frame.

Likewise if it had an end, by definition, it would imply having 'ended' at some point in some objective time.

This would go on for each successive 'objective frame' if they also had beginnings and endings.

Thus absolute time itself would be synonymous with 'eternity' (no beginning or end) which itself witnesses periods of both 'change' and 'no change'.

Which would mean time and timelessness are in essence the same (assuming here no relation is made between time and change.. )

For practical purposes however, time is synonymous with the measure of change in objects and thus is depedant on some reference frame for use.

But this means that it is a human construct as in reality nothing is there to 'count time'; change and no change just happen.

[Present awareness]

For practical purposes however, time is synonymous with the measure of change in objects and thus is depedant on some reference frame for use.

I agree with this, for it is observed changes, which gives the illusion of time passing. Abstract time is useful in making sense of all these changes in form and position, by assigning them a number.

If I observe you going by in a car at 50 miles an hour, from my point of view, I see your body moving moving forward at 50 miles an hour, whereas for you, you are sitting still in a car seat. Neither one of us leaves the present moment at any time. We observe things changing and moving within the present moment, but the present moment itself, remains unchanged.

[Chasw]

Well put, PA. Another way of describing it is, the phrase Abstract Time is a conception humans entertain in their minds. But when we try to find the term's referent in the world around us, all we have is the present, and even that is not uniform from one place to another. Therefore, the actual existence of a Time dimension that is somehow continuous, is an illusion, albeit useful for defining memories and plans.

Only students of philosophy, and fellow travelers, have delved this far into the subject. If you posed the OP's question to the average person on the street, she/he would answer in the affirmative and cite our memories and records as proof. They think of it as a dimension, same as up-down-sideways. - CW

[Philosophy Explorer]

Reactor asks:

"PhilX, is that what you mean by "abstract time?" If not, what nameless aspect of reality are you indicating? Or are you asking for our best guesses?"

It would have to be our best guesses, if we have any. In current practice, time is measured by circular movement where the unit (e.g. a second) denotes the secondhand returning to the exact same spot (after 60 movements) that we call minutes. And the best measure of time is an atomic clock where two of them wouldn't vary by even a second after a million years.

My best guess is that time is wrapped up in spacetime so implicitly it would be expressed by space. The key question for me is how to do that so it would be acceptable to all?

PhilX

[Reactor]

It would have to be our best guesses, if we have any. In current practice, time is measured by circular movement where the unit (e.g. a second) denotes the secondhand returning to the exact same spot (after 60 movements) that we call minutes. And the best measure of time is an atomic clock where two of them wouldn't vary by even a second after a million years.

My best guess is that time is wrapped up in spacetime so implicitly it would be expressed by space. The key question for me is how to do that so it would be acceptable to all?

PhilX

Any of the regularly repetitive activities we have chosen as "standards" to mark time are arbitrary and have no intrinsic relationships between them.

Here is a fundamental temporal characteristic and axiom: "Time is the sequence of events."

Minkowski considered time as space for mathematical convenience. Time as a fourth spatial dimension (actually, “3 + 1”) does not tell the whole story, because time is not space. The variables in space are material objects, whereas the variables in time are events: dynamic happenings. Although it is true that material objects undergo dynamic and even catastrophic events, the material object is not a dynamic event and the dynamic event is not a material object.

[Atreyu]

Just consider that when we represent time to ourselves we indeed need to use a higher dimension of space as a reference point. Normally it's 'mapped' as a line (a 'timeline') with various points on the line representing various moments of time. For example, one point might represent the present, another one (normally to the left of it) would represent a moment in the past, say 1000 years ago, while another one (normally to the right of it) would represent a moment in the future, say 1000 years from now.

So we must consider exactly what a point on the timeline actually represents. It normally represents our entire three dimensional Universe. It means a certain moment of time pertaining to the entire cosmos. It does not refer to a specific place in the Universe. So the points literally represent our entire known world (3 dimensions of space) at various moments of time. This means that in essence we have reduced our three dimensional reality into a point. And we had to do this in order to 'map' (visualize) time. This means that we have literally needed to imagine or visualize a 'higher space' than our three dimensional one (which is always what we perceive in the present) in order to imagine or visualize time. The line which we draw to represent time is one dimension greater than the point, so it literally represents the fourth dimension of space.

So the idea that our perception of time is related to higher dimensions of space should not be surprising or novel to anyone. That's exactly how we cognize it to ourselves, and some of believe that there is something correct about this inherent cognition.

[Reactor]

So the idea that our perception of time is related to higher dimensions of space should not be surprising or novel to anyone. That's exactly how we cognize it to ourselves, and some of believe that there is something correct about this inherent cognition.

We represent time in the space domain via clocks or the time domain by means of an ongoing process, such as a piece of music. The immutable features common to both the static and the dynamic ways of marking time are the events. Without events, there would be no determinable time.

[Obvious Leo]

Einstein's major breakthrough of 1905 pointed out that all laws of physics, including how fast things move, apply equally to all inertial frames of reference.

This statement is false because Einstein himself contradicted it in his subsequent GR theory. Time is related to gravity in an inversely logarithmic relationship and the gravitational field is continuous all the way down to the quantum level. This means that simultaneity is a myth and that no two clocks in the universe can be perfectly synchronised. This means that the speed of light is not a constant but is merely measured as a constant on the clock in the inertial frame of the observer. The distinction is a subtle one but it is one of profound significance. It means that rather than being interwoven, space and time are mutually exclusive. You can't have both so take your pick. Einstein nailed his colours to the wrong mast and decided to sack time by turning it into a spatial dimension, which explains why the current models used in physics make no sense. Time is not a Cartesian dimension but a fractal one and since space is not physical it can have no role in a physical model of the universe. It was Newton who got it wrong when he converted physics from an empirical science into a branch of mathematics and the priesthood of geeks have been deluding themselves ever since. Three-dimensional space is a construct of the consciousness of the observer and not a physical property of the cosmos. They should have been listening to Leibniz instead.

"It is the theory which decides what the observer observes".....Albert Einstein.

Regards Leo

[Raymond]

Several threads about time have run. Yet we haven't gotten down to the nitty gritty, does time exist? Makes no sense to try to define time with measuring devices like clocks or calendars without first determining if time exists because if it doesn't exist, then with or without those measuring devices (including calendars), we may be wasting our time trying to define time on the basis of measuring devices and time-explicit and time-implicit equations may have no backbone to them if we don't know whether time exists.

A closely related question to the topic title is whether abstract time is objective? Because if so, we may never know the true nature of time. Now I turn the floor over to you.

PhilX

Abstract time as used in relativity doesn't actually exist as no ideal clocks exist, and these clocks are used in the time dimension of the relativistic spacetime manifolds. A particle moves through space while it looks like it's moving in a time dimension also. But where is this dimension? I can see a particle moving in space but does it move in time too? Well, not literally of course. The motion in the time direction is associated with the ticking of an ideal, non-existent clock. If a particle moves from A to B in t seconds we say the particle has moved t seconds or ct meters (or ict, to express a pseudo Euclidean space). We can consider different clocks. For example, a photon travels c meters in one second according to a clock in a rest frame but according to a clock on the speeding photon no time has passed. Of course you cannot put a clock on the photon but you can think one on it.

Now what measures a clock? The number of periods if placed next to a process. All processes in the universe are irreversible, even super precise clocks. Ideal clock time measures the duration of processes. The ideal clock is omnipresent in the vacuum though but we can't use it as a clock. We can't say if an ideal clock is going backwards or forward. Only irreversible processes have temporal direction. The ideal clock was all there was before every big bang.

[Raymond]

Although we get along quite well (doing science, etc.) using various measurements of "time," the concept of measured time itself is an abstraction that usually takes place in the space-domain, via physical time-pieces.

The reality is not the scales we use to measure time (all of which are arbitrary and matters of convenience) but the "befores" and "afters," the sequences of events that define natural and man-made processes.

-- Updated September 9th, 2014, 5:24 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


Wouldn't this be when 'time' stands still, existing but not moving? Similar to a paralyzed person.

Part of the problem is what's meant by abstract time. A clock can run slower (when its batteries run down) so measuring devices wouldn't, in reality, be a good measure of time (since measuring devices through the sundial are linked to our Sun, then even our Sun isn't 100% reliable in measuring time).

So my concept of abstract time doesn't have anything to do with time measurement which is linked with change. I believe that abstract time exists, but the question then becomes as to what it is, really? Since it's divorced from time measurement, then what can be said about abstract time? It's a deep concept that awaits a great mind to enlighten it.

That's about all I can say on this matter.

PhilX

Time *isn't* where there are no events. Time is the measure (and perception) of change. If you abstract change from perception, you remove the apprehension of time.

This is close to what our computers do when they are tasked to monitor and control physical processes. Say that data is taken periodically from a fabricating machine's sensors and stuffed into memory. The values stored are meaningless without interpretation or matching to a previously-recorded reference or standard. Then, how much is too much? How much is too little? Time is lost, as well, unless some clock time is recorded along with the sensor data. Even recorded clock time does not mean much unless interpreted. Does the clock value ascend or descend? Of two data values from the same sensor, which was taken before the other?

Arithmetic procedures in computers can work out those details, but intrinsic time, as it affects the process, has been abstracted. Much work must then be done to extrinsically add it back in appropriately (usually in software) so the controller can provide the proper process guidance.

PhilX, is that what you mean by "abstract time?" If not, what nameless aspect of reality are you indicating? Or are you asking for our best guesses?

Reactor

"Time *isn't* where there are no events. Time is the measure (and perception) of change. If you abstract change from perception, you remove the apprehension of time.

Time can be there where there are no real events like time oscillating of virtual particles before big bangs. These can be considered events though.