Space, Time, and Paradoxes

[Marvin_Edwards]

I noticed an old post about the nature of time, space, and Zeno's paradoxes.

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

Space is a measurement of the distance between two objects.

Space doesn't bend and time doesn't dilate. What actually happens is that gravity affects the trajectory of objects near a large mass. What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

Time travel is impossible because the location of objects changes over time. The interactions that naturally occur between objects due to the forces between them alters the location and or construction of the object. To go back in time would involve repositioning every object in the universe and reversing every transformation. And that would be a heck of a lot of work.

A paradox, especially those by Zeno, is typically a hoax created by a subtle, but false, suggestion. Take for example the problem of getting from one's chair to the door. To get to the door we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and the door. But to get to that halfway point we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and that point. And to get to that point we must first get to ... ad infinitum. Since we have to traverse an infinite number of points to get there, it must be impossible to get to the door.

My solution was that every time that we cut the distance in half, our speed, relative to the distance, would double. Such that we are going infinitely fast through those infinite points, and quickly arrive at the door.

But the paradox is a hoax. We set our sights upon the door and marshal the energy required to get up from the chair and walk to the door. No one thinks to himself that he must infinitely subdivide the distance. If they did, then they would not bother getting out of the chair.

Zeno's paradox does not enlighten us about anything other than how easy it is to be sucked into a hoax.

[Steve3007]

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

I agree that time is defined in terms of measurement. I think this is equivalent to saying that time is the thing that clocks measure, where the word "clock" is used in its most general possible sense, and not just used to mean a particular type of device manufactured by humans.

If there were no events, anywhere, do you think it would still be useful to keep the concept of time? In other words, do you think a thing which is defined as a measurement can meaningfully be said to exist in the absence of anything to measure?

What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

If, as we've agreed, time is defined in terms of measurement, then if all of those measurements change, isn't that the same as saying that time has changed?

As a thought experiment: Suppose we could halve the duration between literally every single event in the Universe. What would that mean? Would it mean anything? Would it have any effect that could ever, in principle or practice, be measured?

[Marvin_Edwards]

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

I agree that time is defined in terms of measurement. I think this is equivalent to saying that time is the thing that clocks measure, where the word "clock" is used in its most general possible sense, and not just used to mean a particular type of device manufactured by humans.

If there were no events, anywhere, do you think it would still be useful to keep the concept of time? In other words, do you think a thing which is defined as a measurement can meaningfully be said to exist in the absence of anything to measure?

What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

If, as we've agreed, time is defined in terms of measurement, then if all of those measurements change, isn't that the same as saying that time has changed?

As a thought experiment: Suppose we could halve the duration between literally every single event in the Universe. What would that mean? Would it mean anything? Would it have any effect that could ever, in principle or practice, be measured?

In your scenario, if there were no relevant events we would not have created the notion of time. Creating the notion would have been an event, and it would not have happened.

In the scenario where the duration between all events were halved, no one would notice. That's my understanding of time dilation, that the guy traveling near the speed of light and his brother back on Earth would notice no difference until the traveler returned and saw how old his "stationary" brother had become while he was away.

[h_k_s]

I noticed an old post about the nature of time, space, and Zeno's paradoxes.

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

Space is a measurement of the distance between two objects.

Space doesn't bend and time doesn't dilate. What actually happens is that gravity affects the trajectory of objects near a large mass. What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

Time travel is impossible because the location of objects changes over time. The interactions that naturally occur between objects due to the forces between them alters the location and or construction of the object. To go back in time would involve repositioning every object in the universe and reversing every transformation. And that would be a heck of a lot of work.

A paradox, especially those by Zeno, is typically a hoax created by a subtle, but false, suggestion. Take for example the problem of getting from one's chair to the door. To get to the door we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and the door. But to get to that halfway point we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and that point. And to get to that point we must first get to ... ad infinitum. Since we have to traverse an infinite number of points to get there, it must be impossible to get to the door.

My solution was that every time that we cut the distance in half, our speed, relative to the distance, would double. Such that we are going infinitely fast through those infinite points, and quickly arrive at the door.

But the paradox is a hoax. We set our sights upon the door and marshal the energy required to get up from the chair and walk to the door. No one thinks to himself that he must infinitely subdivide the distance. If they did, then they would not bother getting out of the chair.

Zeno's paradox does not enlighten us about anything other than how easy it is to be sucked into a hoax.

A very nice post, I completely agree on all points.

For me, time is simply a record of heartbeats. And if there is no heart beating, then time does not exist.

And space is simply the distance between objects. And if there are no objects, then space does not exist.

Ultimately time and space do not exist. They are simply references to objects that do exist.

[Thomyum2]

Space doesn't bend and time doesn't dilate. What actually happens is that gravity affects the trajectory of objects near a large mass. What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.
...
A paradox, especially those by Zeno, is typically a hoax created by a subtle, but false, suggestion. Take for example the problem of getting from one's chair to the door. To get to the door we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and the door. But to get to that halfway point we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and that point. And to get to that point we must first get to ... ad infinitum. Since we have to traverse an infinite number of points to get there, it must be impossible to get to the door.

My solution was that every time that we cut the distance in half, our speed, relative to the distance, would double. Such that we are going infinitely fast through those infinite points, and quickly arrive at the door.

But the paradox is a hoax. We set our sights upon the door and marshal the energy required to get up from the chair and walk to the door. No one thinks to himself that he must infinitely subdivide the distance. If they did, then they would not bother getting out of the chair.

Zeno's paradox does not enlighten us about anything other than how easy it is to be sucked into a hoax.

I disagree that it's a hoax - actually I don't think the point is to try to argue for the absurdity that we could never arrive anywhere. Rather, think it illustrates something important about observations and what we can measure and know in the world.

Take the example of a right equilateral triangle - if we use the leg as a unit of measurement, the hypotenuse can only be represented as an irrational number, in other words, the exact length of the hypotenuse can not be represented mathematically as any fraction of the length of the leg. Which means that if were to try to use the leg to measure the hypotenuse, we would have to do exactly what Zeno's paradox says - to cut the leg by a half, or a third or a quarter, but no matter how many times we did it, we could never arrive at an exact measurement of the length of the hypotenuse. In other words, the unit must become infinitely divisible in order to arrive at the exact measurement. (It's interesting to note that since the reverse is true - that using the hypotenuse as the unit of measurement would result in the leg being irrational. So, in a sense, if we know one measurement of one part of the triangle, we can't ever know the exact measurement of the other part, which reminds me very much of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)

It occurred to me a while back that Zeno's paradox also applies to the idea of the Big Bang. We see arguments back and forth about whether or not the Big Bang could have been the 'beginning' of the universe, or of what happened 'before' the Big Bang. But the theory, per my limited understanding of it, is that the understanding of gravity's relationship to time is incorporated into the understanding of the expansion and it makes no sense to ask these questions. So if we figuratively run the 'clock' in reverse and trace the universe back toward the Big Bang, we note that the further back in time we go, the more dense the universe becomes, and with this increased density is a state of increased gravity in which, as you've mentioned above, things 'simply move slower'. So as we try to approach that 'moment' of the Big Bang, we move slower and slower the further back we go, and we're in a denser and denser environment, and we can never actually 'arrive' at the point of the 'beginning'. Which I think is exactly what Zeno had in mind.

So rather than a hoax, I think Zeno has created an insightful analogy about the paradoxes that we actually do encounter in the real world.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is simply motion or change. We keep track of time, and we measure it, but keeping track of/measuring motions/changes. We prefer phenomenally regular motions or changes for that.

Space is simply the extension(al relations) of and between matter.

Time travel isn't possible because it makes no sense to "travel back in change." The best you could do is change everything back to what it was, but that would actually be an additional iteration of those states, where you're not literally "traveling back in change."

Zeno's paradoxes hinge on the notion that this stuff is really mathematical, and that reality works just like our mathematical abstractions do. But that's not the case. "Dividing change/motion" and/or "dividing extension" are abstractions.

[Terrapin Station]

Actually, I should say above "a new iteration of similar states"--I don't want to give the impression the it's the same states, because it's not. The whole point is that they're different. They're just another change, as any change would be.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I noticed an old post about the nature of time, space, and Zeno's paradoxes.

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

Space is a measurement of the distance between two objects.

Space doesn't bend and time doesn't dilate. What actually happens is that gravity affects the trajectory of objects near a large mass. What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

Time travel is impossible because the location of objects changes over time. The interactions that naturally occur between objects due to the forces between them alters the location and or construction of the object. To go back in time would involve repositioning every object in the universe and reversing every transformation. And that would be a heck of a lot of work.

A paradox, especially those by Zeno, is typically a hoax created by a subtle, but false, suggestion. Take for example the problem of getting from one's chair to the door. To get to the door we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and the door. But to get to that halfway point we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and that point. And to get to that point we must first get to ... ad infinitum. Since we have to traverse an infinite number of points to get there, it must be impossible to get to the door.

My solution was that every time that we cut the distance in half, our speed, relative to the distance, would double. Such that we are going infinitely fast through those infinite points, and quickly arrive at the door.

But the paradox is a hoax. We set our sights upon the door and marshal the energy required to get up from the chair and walk to the door. No one thinks to himself that he must infinitely subdivide the distance. If they did, then they would not bother getting out of the chair.

Zeno's paradox does not enlighten us about anything other than how easy it is to be sucked into a hoax.

A very nice post, I completely agree on all points.

For me, time is simply a record of heartbeats. And if there is no heart beating, then time does not exist.

And space is simply the distance between objects. And if there are no objects, then space does not exist.

Ultimately time and space do not exist. They are simply references to objects that do exist.

Nicely said.

[Ayaan_817]

I agree the definitions you have provided for space but I disagree with those of time. According to me, time doesn't exist, and for your convenience, you can think about existence as multiple frames in a movie reel. Each unique frame is it's own frozen universe and a consciousness is travelling among those frames and it perceives them as a moving 3D picture.

Time is but an illusion and paradoxes are really hoaxes as you said.

[Terrapin Station]

I agree the definitions you have provided for space but I disagree with those of time. According to me, time doesn't exist, and for your convenience, you can think about existence as multiple frames in a movie reel. Each unique frame is it's own frozen universe and a consciousness is travelling among those frames and it perceives them as a moving 3D picture.

Time is but an illusion and paradoxes are really hoaxes as you said.

If consciousness is "traveling among those frames" how is that not time? Time is motion or change. If something is traveling, something is moving or changing.

[Ayaan_817]

I agree the definitions you have provided for space but I disagree with those of time. According to me, time doesn't exist, and for your convenience, you can think about existence as multiple frames in a movie reel. Each unique frame is it's own frozen universe and a consciousness is travelling among those frames and it perceives them as a moving 3D picture.

Time is but an illusion and paradoxes are really hoaxes as you said.

If consciousness is "traveling among those frames" how is that not time? Time is motion or change. If something is travelling, something is moving or changing.

What I meant was that consciousness is a whole another dimension whose effects are not physically visible on our three dimensional universe. It is a whole new dimension in itself.

If time is motion and change, then an object not in motion and one which is not undergoing change in not under the influence of time?

[Terrapin Station]

If consciousness is "traveling among those frames" how is that not time? Time is motion or change. If something is travelling, something is moving or changing.

What I meant was that consciousness is a whole another dimension whose effects are not physically visible on our three dimensional universe. It is a whole new dimension in itself.

What does "dimension" amount to here, exactly?

If time is motion and change, then an object not in motion and one which is not undergoing change in not under the influence of time?

First, time is IDENTICAL to motion/change, it's not that something moving or changing is "under the influence of time" where time is something different than objects/relations moving/changing.

So the object not undergoing change (which contingently would have to be an elementary particle, since everything else only exists as dynamic relations of matter) is not "experiencing" time relative to itself, but relative to other things, it is, since those relations would be changing/in motion.

[evolution]

I noticed an old post about the nature of time, space, and Zeno's paradoxes.

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

Space is a measurement of the distance between two objects.

Space doesn't bend and time doesn't dilate. What actually happens is that gravity affects the trajectory of objects near a large mass.

I agree with this.

What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

How can things move slower when they move faster?

What you are trying to say here is not coming across correctly.

If you explain what you mean by 'things' here, then you will be better understood.

Also remember that absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and, that what is being observed is not necessarily what actually happens. So, 'events' themselves might not actually slow down, but they only 'appear' to slow down?

Obviously what appears to an observer traveling at a slower speed may appear very different to what appears to an observer traveling at a faster speed, but just as obvious is there can only be one actual TRUTH.

Time travel is impossible because the location of objects changes over time.

But if one is travelling faster than the location of objects changes over time, then they could be what is loosely called "time travel", correct?

The interactions that naturally occur between objects due to the forces between them alters the location and or construction of the object. To go back in time would involve repositioning every object in the universe and reversing every transformation. And that would be a heck of a lot of work.

A paradox, especially those by Zeno, is typically a hoax created by a subtle, but false, suggestion. Take for example the problem of getting from one's chair to the door. To get to the door we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and the door. But to get to that halfway point we must first get to a point that is halfway between the chair and that point. And to get to that point we must first get to ... ad infinitum. Since we have to traverse an infinite number of points to get there, it must be impossible to get to the door.

My solution was that every time that we cut the distance in half, our speed, relative to the distance, would double. Such that we are going infinitely fast through those infinite points, and quickly arrive at the door.

But the paradox is a hoax. We set our sights upon the door and marshal the energy required to get up from the chair and walk to the door. No one thinks to himself that he must infinitely subdivide the distance. If they did, then they would not bother getting out of the chair.

Zeno's paradox does not enlighten us about anything other than how easy it is to be sucked into a hoax.

[evolution]

Time is a measurement of the period between two events and the duration of an event.

I agree that time is defined in terms of measurement. I think this is equivalent to saying that time is the thing that clocks measure, where the word "clock" is used in its most general possible sense, and not just used to mean a particular type of device manufactured by humans.

But what do you say is that 'thing', which clocks supposedly "measure"?

If there were no events, anywhere, do you think it would still be useful to keep the concept of time? In other words, do you think a thing which is defined as a measurement can meaningfully be said to exist in the absence of anything to measure?

Obviously if there is no change, then there could not be any thing to measure.

Measurement only exists because of change.

The one and only continual change is only broken down into separated segments by human being's conceptualizing. These apparent segments are known "events", which do not exist in actuality. They only exist in concept only.

What actually happens is that events within objects approaching the speed of light slow down. Time doesn't change. Things simply move slower.

If, as we've agreed, time is defined in terms of measurement, then if all of those measurements change, isn't that the same as saying that time has changed?

No not at all.

As a thought experiment: Suppose we could halve the duration between literally every single event in the Universe.

But there is only one actual single event. And this eternal duration obviously could not be halved.

What would that mean?

That would mean that a human being has selectively chosen a conceptualized segment between two chosen points, called that a "single event", and then found a half way point, using the increments on the human made tool known as a clock.

Would it mean anything?

Only if one makes it mean anything.

Just like absolutely every thing else in the Universe, they only mean some thing if a human being gives "it" meaning.

Would it have any effect that could ever, in principle or practice, be measured?

Any thing is only measured if some one chooses to measure "it". Whatever the 'it' is?

[evolution]

I agree that time is defined in terms of measurement. I think this is equivalent to saying that time is the thing that clocks measure, where the word "clock" is used in its most general possible sense, and not just used to mean a particular type of device manufactured by humans.

If there were no events, anywhere, do you think it would still be useful to keep the concept of time? In other words, do you think a thing which is defined as a measurement can meaningfully be said to exist in the absence of anything to measure?



If, as we've agreed, time is defined in terms of measurement, then if all of those measurements change, isn't that the same as saying that time has changed?

As a thought experiment: Suppose we could halve the duration between literally every single event in the Universe. What would that mean? Would it mean anything? Would it have any effect that could ever, in principle or practice, be measured?

In your scenario, if there were no relevant events we would not have created the notion of time. Creating the notion would have been an event, and it would not have happened.

In the scenario where the duration between all events were halved, no one would notice. That's my understanding of time dilation, that the guy traveling near the speed of light and his brother back on Earth would notice no difference until the traveler returned and saw how old his "stationary" brother had become while he was away.

When one person travels away from another person, and returns, the actual duration that existed for one person is the exact same duration that existed for the other person, which is the exact same duration for ALL people in fact. The duration for one person, in any measured scenario, is the exact same for ALL things no matter how fast or slow a speed any one or thing is travelling at. This, contrary to popular belief, can be very easily proven. In fact, the measurements that have already been taken and are used support this.