Does (abstract) time exist?

[Rilx]

The question is how would one define abstract time independently of time measurement, yet be able to somehow use it to derive time measurement.

You seem to be searching an abstraction of time measurement; kind of Aristotelian meta-time or Platonian idea of time. Everyone understands how useful it would be to find a universal time, a central clock of the universe! I doesn't exist, that kind of projects will always be stuck in the circular search you described. I don't see any other basis than change. Consequently, time is relative, observer/experiencer-dependent.

[Felix]

Obvious Leo, What I meant by "the quantum state is not operative throughout the Universe" is that your theory is based on the premise that the known laws of physics apply uniformly throughout the Universe but there is no reason to suppose that they do, and that all events are explicable. For example, does time exist where there is no light and apparent phenomenal change? (in dark matter or dark energy). If changes are immeasurable, are they bound by time?

[Misty]

The question is how would one define abstract time independently of time measurement, yet be able to somehow use it to derive time measurement.

You seem to be searching an straction of time measurement; kind of Aristotelian meta-time or Platonian idea of time. Everyone understands how useful it would be to find a universal time, a central clock of the universe! I doesn't exist, that kind of projects will always be stuck in the circular search you described. I don't see any other basis than change. Consequently, time is relative, observer/experiencer-dependent.

How can time be observer/experiencer-dependent, when it has only been recent that mankind has invented tools to observe/experience the universe? What constitutes time was already happening, thus able to be discovered.

There was a baby born about 21 years ago who did not grow in size or seem to age beyond looking like/acting like a baby. She recently died, still in that condition. So change cannot be the only basis to measure time.

[Rilx]

There was a baby born about 21 years ago who did not grow in size or seem to age beyond looking like/acting like a baby. She recently died, still in that condition.

She lived her own time, different than ours, didn't she?

So change cannot be the only basis to measure time.

What else than change, Misty? Now it's your turn.

[Misty]

There was a baby born about 21 years ago who did not grow in size or seem to age beyond looking like/acting like a baby. She recently died, still in that condition.

She lived her own time, different than ours, didn't she?

So change cannot be the only basis to measure time.

What else than change, Misty? Now it's your turn.

I would say she lived her own event, changing as humans normally do was not in her event, so change did not measure her time frame of life. What did measure her time event of life? Birth to death.

[Felix]

"changing as humans normally do was not in her event, so change did not measure her time frame of life."

I presume that not every moment of her existence was exactly the same! Not all change is obvious, and it occurs on many levels - physically, psychologically, microscopically, etc. - whether or not we perceive it. But as I said in my last post, changes can occur that we are completely incapable of perceiving and measuring. Do they still occur and exist "in time"?

[Obvious Leo]

If we equate the speed of emerging time with the rate of change, as I do in this metaphysic, it then becomes necessary to make the distinction between change at the fundamental level and change at the emergent level, such as this unfortunate baby. At the fundamental level, which lies deep within the heart of the atom, changes occur at the speed of light, because that's how fast the fastest particles move. This applies to the baby as it does to me as it does to every physical entity, animate or inanimate. The chair I'm sitting on is changing into a physically different chair at almost the same rate as I am changing into a physically different Leo. However if I were to send my chair out into "space" it would change into a physically different chair rather more quickly than it does on the planetary surface, and thus it would change into a physically different chair more quickly than I am changing into a physically different Leo. This is a significantly important unification because it equates the rate of change with the speed of light as well as equating it with the speed of time and then it unifies all three of these concepts with gravity.

This is the conceptual route to quantum gravity because it unifies the background-dependent Standard Model of Particle Physics with the background-independent model of General Relativity. Currently the Standard Model is completely predicated on Special Relativity only and since this is also a background-dependent paradigm we have a model which is only capable of confirming itself on a fixed and defined spatial background. In conventional physics this is the flat space vs curved space conundrum which turns out to be no conundrum at all if the foundational assumptions of SR are disallowed. If only Kant could be re-incarnated to sort all this out because he would immediately see that our cognition of the object is merely confirming our cognition of the object, which is insufficient for truth but perfectly adequate for predicting the behaviour of matter and energy to an astonishing level of precision in relatively weak gravitational environments. However in those parts of our universe where the gravitational going gets tough both the Standard Model and General Relativity will reveal the deeper flaws imposed on them by spacetime. In the case of GR this is already well known but the particle theorists manage to circumvent this inconvenience by simply pretending that gravity doesn't exist.

Is it any wonder that these models, which are the canonical pillars of modern physics, are metaphysically irreconcilable and thus make no sense?

Regards Leo

[Misty]

"changing as humans normally do was not in her event, so change did not measure her time frame of life."

I presume that not every moment of her existence was exactly the same! Not all change is obvious, and it occurs on many levels - physically, psychologically, microscopically, etc. - whether or not we perceive it. But as I said in my last post, changes can occur that we are completely incapable of perceiving and measuring. Do they still occur and exist "in time"?

What does it mean to change as humans normally do, mean? Perhaps aging? Humans were meant to live, age then die. This baby did not age and miraculously lived to age 21. You could be right that there are changes not seen but can you prove it? What are these changes you are talking about? "changes can occur that we are completely incapable of perceiving and measuring." How could you know if you cannot perceive it? Obviously the baby died for some reason. Life itself framed her time span/ event span on earth, without aging. Another example is children with progeria who age about 10 times faster than normal for humans and die young as an old person. (their mind is normal, it is their body that ages) I do believe that time is the event. But events seem to be a mix of motion and stagnation.

[Felix]

"What does it mean to change as humans normally do, mean?"

Hey, that was your statement, don't ask us!

"You could be right that there are changes not seen but can you prove it? What are these changes you are talking about? "changes can occur that we are completely incapable of perceiving and measuring." How could you know if you cannot perceive it?"

You answered your own question later when you said, "Obviously the baby died for some reason." We can't observe and measure all the metabolic changes that produced her condition and led to her premature death. Similarly, many of the changes that occur in the world and universe are undetectable, e.g., the quantum processes to which Obvious Leo referred. But "change" is a fuzzy term (like "future"). If we take it to mean observed differences only, then by definition it wouldn't include imperceptible processes.

[Misty]

"What does it mean to change as humans normally do, mean?"

Hey, that was your statement, don't ask us!

"You could be right that there are changes not seen but can you prove it? What are these changes you are talking about? "changes can occur that we are completely incapable of perceiving and measuring." How could you know if you cannot perceive it?"

You answered your own question later when you said, "Obviously the baby died for some reason." We can't observe and measure all the metabolic changes that produced her condition and led to her premature death. Similarly, many of the changes that occur in the world and universe are undetectable, e.g., the quantum processes to which Obvious Leo referred. But "change" is a fuzzy term (like "future"). If we take it to mean observed differences only, then by definition it wouldn't include imperceptible processes.

I meant it to include "change" that other poster brought up.

I guess we are all still in the dark on this subject. But it is fun to think and talk about.

[Felix]

The statements quoted below are from Obvious Leo (post #39).

"events occur bloody quickly at the sub-atomic level."

Energy in motion is not an "event." An event is by definition something that we have observed happen.

"When we think the world from this revised perspective all the counter-intuitive absurdities of SR, GR and QM simply vanish, to be replaced by an orderly sequence of quantised events obeying the simple laws of cause and effect."

What evidence can you give that "quantised events obey the simple laws of cause and effect." Please give me an example of such an event.

[Michael A]

One of the questions being asked in these posts has been whether time really exists, because Science has not defined Time in scientific terms (other than perhaps Einstein's inclusion of Time in his Relativity Theory as "the fourth dimension.")

It is known that the rate time passes can vary, with changes in a body's surroundings or changes in its velocity (presumably a body's velocity would be defined as the body's rate of inertial motion relative to its surroundings.) -If the rate time passes can vary, there has to be a basis in reality for Time.

I believe there are deficiencies in theoretical physics and that this is why we don't understand the nature of time.

I posted a Thread here titled "Cosmic Origins as an Alternative Route to Truth" that presents a different kind of model for cosmic forces, based on the concept of a universal etheric medium which works through the transmission of forces within an ether that was derived from Space, this ether having vibratory elemental energy units as its basis. -With such a model, Time would be viewed as depending on the rate of vibration of the elemental etheric units. These ether units are the basic building blocks upon which larger units, such as a body's subatomic and atomic units, consist.

The rate of Time, then, would be determined by the vibratory rate of the etheric units constituting the foundation of inertial bodies, such as clocks. That rate, and therefore the time-rate of the clock itself, can fluctuate if "controlling" energic factors outside the body ("macrocosmic" factors) change, such as for a clock that is located in an orbiting satellite, compared to clocks on the ground, for example.

This model for Time is based on a model of a universal ether which works non-inertially, via transmissional propagation of energy impulses among etheric units, these forces being "felt" transmissionally by larger and larger energy units, on up to the atomic and molecular level, and then transmitted to inertial bodies, such as clocks.

[Obvious Leo]

What evidence can you give that "quantised events obey the simple laws of cause and effect." Please give me an example of such an event.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, Felix, because all effects are preceded by causes. This is the simple Aristotelian doctrine of causation which underpins all of metaphysics and without which a comprehensible universe would be impossible. Our universe has been observed to behave in accordance with physical laws, many of which are known to us, and the notion of a causeless event would mean that such laws could not exist. Since such a proposition contradicts the evidence, the burden of proof for a causal universe lies not with me, but rather the burden of disproof lies with those who would say otherwise.

I'm well aware that there are many folk within these pages willing to make precisely this claim solely on the basis of faith, but I am not amongst this number and regard such fantasies as insufficient for truth and detrimental to the advance of knowledge.

Regards Leo

[Felix]

Leo, You said that quantum events or processes follow the simple laws of cause and effect, how would you know, since they can't be observed?

"all effects are preceded by causes"

Not necessarily, they could arise mutually.

"Our universe has been observed to behave in accordance with physical laws, many of which are known to us, and the notion of a causeless event would mean that such laws could not exist."

Is the Universe an effect, a cause, or a causeless event? If it's an effect, what caused it? If it's a cause, what preceded it? If it is a causeless event, according to your thesis, it shouldn't exist.

[Obvious Leo]

My thesis is a simple one. The universe is self-causal and thus had no beginning, which is simply the cyclical bang/crunch cosmology which is rapidly gaining favour in the world of physics. In fact this is very much the prevailing view these days, and it seems to provide a far better fit for the available evidence, even despite the unworkable spacetime paradigm they've constrained themselves with.

Not necessarily, they could arise mutually.

Could you give me an example of a cause and its effect arising mutually and an explanation as to how you would determine which was which? Bear in mind that in complex systems causation can be both top-down and bottom-up without violating the second law of thermodynamics and thereby the uni-directional arrow of time.

Regards Leo