## Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Terrapin Station wrote:Time is simply motion or changes.
RJG wrote:Since we need time for motion/change to "occur", time therefore cannot be motion/change.
Greta wrote:However, there can be no time in a changeless universe.
I think it is more accurate to say -- "There can be no motion (or change) in a timeless universe".

P1. Motion is determined by an object's 'before and after' states of existence (spatial positions).
P2. Without Time, there can be no 'before and after'.
P3. Without 'before and after', there can be no Motion (of an object in space).
C1. Therefore, without Time (i.e. in a "timeless" universe), there can be no motion/movement/change.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 8:56 am
Terrapin Station wrote:Time is simply motion or changes.
RJG wrote:Since we need time for motion/change to "occur", time therefore cannot be motion/change.
Greta wrote:However, there can be no time in a changeless universe.
I think it is more accurate to say -- "There can be no motion (or change) in a timeless universe".

P1. Motion is determined by an object's 'before and after' states of existence (spatial positions).
P2. Without Time, there can be no 'before and after'.
P3. Without 'before and after', there can be no Motion (of an object in space).
C1. Therefore, without Time (i.e. in a "timeless" universe), there can be no motion/movement/change.
If A is identical to B, then without A, there can be no B.

So "There can be no motion or change in a timeless universe" is indeed correct.

But the reason it's correct is that time and motion/change are identical.

You want to argue that the reason it's correct is that motion is ontologically dependent on time. But (a) you're not actually arguing that motion is ontologically dependent on time, and (b) it's incorrect that motion is ontologically dependent on time.

We could say that motion is logically dependent on time. And we could say that time is logically dependent on motion. Because time and motion are identical.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:I think it is more accurate to say - "There can be no motion (or change) in a timeless universe."

P1. Motion is determined by an object's 'before and after' states of existence (spatial positions).
P2. Without Time, there can be no 'before and after'.
P3. Without 'before and after', there can be no Motion (of an object throughout space).
C1. Therefore, without Time (i.e. a "timeless" universe), there can be no motion/movement/change.
Terrapin Station wrote:If A is identical to B, then without A, there can be no B.
Agreed. But this is not the case here. Time and Motion are not identical. Your starting premise is false.

Time (a 'before and after' condition) is a pre-condition of Motion. You can't logically define/determine Motion without it!

Not only is Time a pre-condition of Motion, but so are Space, and Matter. Without some-thing happening ("occurring") some-where, there can be no Motion.

Therefore, Motion is just an Event that requires Matter-Time-Space.

Terrapin Station" wrote:You want to argue that the reason it's correct is that motion is ontologically dependent on time.
Yes, correct. For it is logically impossible to define/determine Motion without Time (i.e. without a 'before and after' change of states).

Terrapin Station wrote:We could say that motion is logically dependent on time. And we could say that time is logically dependent on motion. Because time and motion are identical.
Not so. A does not equal B. Time and Motion are different animals. Therefore, Motion is dependent on Time, and Time is independent of Motion.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 9:26 am
Time (a 'before and after' condition) is a pre-condition of Motion. You can't logically define/determine Motion without it!
That's not difficult at all. Motion is a change in relative position.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Or without using the word "change," since both motion and change are identical to time: motion is differing relative position.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Terrapin Station wrote:That's not difficult at all. Motion is a change in relative position.
Does this "change in relative position" of object X logically imply a 'before and after' pre-condition?

In other words, is this Motion possible without a 'before and after' position change?

Again, Motion is just an EVENT. Without something-happening-somewhere (matter+time+space), there can be no Motion.

Steve3007
Posts: 6845
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

I think probably at least a few dozen, depending on the size of the pin.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 9:41 am
Terrapin Station wrote:That's not difficult at all. Motion is a change in relative position.
Does this "change in relative position" of object X logically imply a 'before and after' pre-condition?
"Precondition" no. It does logically imply it in the sense that they're identical.
In other words, is this Motion possible without a 'before and after' position change?
No, because they're identical.
in, Motion is just an EVENT. Without something-happening-somewhere (matter+time+space), there can be no Motion.
Events are something happening somewhere. That's another way of talking about events.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Can Motion happen without "some-thing occurring some-where"? ...I think not. We need ALL 3 ingredients (matter+time+space).

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 10:14 am
Can Motion happen without "some-thing occurring some-where"? ...I think not. We need ALL 3 ingredients (matter+time+space).
Again, no, motion can not happening without something occurring somewhere, because it IS (identical to) something occurring somewhere.

Motion is what "something occurring" is, it's what time is. And somewhere obtains because of whatever it is that's moving. Space supervenes on matter.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

It's like saying that Paul is really Joe (Paul is a pseudonym that Joe uses). In that case then Paul can't do something without Joe doing something, because Paul is Joe.

LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3976
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Greta wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 2:35 am
LuckyR wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 1:52 am

Pretty much yeah. Though the day/night cycle is a time measuring device (to measure a day), for example.
I would think there was time in the life cycles of stars and planets as they go through their various stages.

A timeless universe would effectively either be completely chaotic or completely ordered. Total chaos lacks structure and differentiation while total order lacks change. So the dance of order and chaos is needed for time to be, for almost everything to exist, really.
Of course there would be. Though the life cycle of a star is a time measuring device, just as the light/dark cycle of a day is.
"As usual... it depends."

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Terrapin Station wrote:Time and motion are identical.
Simple Logic tells us that this is FALSE.

P1. Motion (movement; change) is an Action (event). → M=A
P2. Time is not an Action. → T=~A
C1. Therefore, Time and Motion are NOT identical. → A=~A is a logical impossibility.

gater
Posts: 153
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

No one seems to be addressing my original point - that time is the same everywhere on earth - if Time Dilation were true, there would be at least 1 instance in the last 50 years where time in one spot was different from the rest of the world. But that has NEVER happened - never will.

Again Time Dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time - not on time itself.

Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

RJG wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 1:27 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:Time and motion are identical.
Simple Logic tells us that this is FALSE.

P1. Motion (movement; change) is an Action (event). → M=A
P2. Time is not an Action. → T=~A
C1. Therefore, Time and Motion are NOT identical. → A=~A is a logical impossibility.
P2 is a false premise.