Is Time Just an Idea?

[NickGaspar]

Science falsely assumes:
Time is a function of Motion (of objects).

When in reality:
Motion is a function of Time

Science forgets that without Time there could be no motion, period!. This is why they falsely equate "measurements of objects" as Time itself.

(Dimensions that is--dimensions are not just a concept that people have in your view?)

I don't follow. Everything we know is just a "concept"!

you view time as a monolithic things,existing and permeating everything. This is not what we observe in science.
We only observe individual "tickings" of different processes interacting with each other.
Their fluctuations in their ticking pace in the result of their interactions(gravity) and what we understand as relative time.
Science doesn't say that motion is a function of time. We quantify the characteristics of motion and the change through the concept of time.

"Science forgets that without Time there could be no motion, period!."
-this is the oldest error in our philosophical history...confusing the place for the map.
You are making up a substance, an idealistic entity in order to explain a phenomenon, while the phenomenon is the reason why the concept of time exists!
We don't make up substances and entities any more in Science. We need direct evidence before we assume a causal entity being an agent behind a phenomenon.

[RJG]

One question for you -- can objects move without the dimension of Time?

We don't make up substances and entities any more in Science. We need direct evidence before we assume a causal entity being an agent behind a phenomenon.

So is this a YES or a NO to my question?

[Sy Borg]

A thought experiment:

It's the far future and humanity has been replaced by beings like HG Wells's Morlocks. They are intelligent and time-aware, but not as intelligent as current humans. They are physically robust and adaptable, capable of living underground for extended periods.

A rogue black hole hurls the Earth from its orbit into interstellar space. Due to (fanciful) counter-spin forces, the planet's rotation rapidly slows down.

The Morlocks retreat to their underground lairs full-time. Without orbits and rotations, how do they tell the time? What is time to them? Is their time just an idea?

[Tamminen]

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

Proofs of time dilation using geometry: …

...All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

Tam, this is NOT proof of Time dilation. This is item #3 (above), this is just the relative measurements of 'objects' that you calculate a result and call "Time" (#1 above). You are confusing #3 for #1.

The real Time, the dimension itself, is not a 'finite' substance that can be affected, measured, or mathematically manipulated/calculated. You are confusing "time the measurement (of objects)" as "Time the dimension". These are two different animals altogether.

There is only ONE dimension of Time, (and along with the 3 other dimensions which) can't "dilate". Dimensions are unstoppable/unchangeable spatial directions that form this universe.

Again, there is only ONE dimension of Time, not multiple dimensions (unlike the many possible multiple "measurements of objects").

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

My existence is proof that (the real) Time is unstoppable, ...nor can "dilate"!

If a photon travels for 5 years measured in one reference frame, and the same photon travels for 3 years measured in another reference frame, the time dimension must have a different geometry in each case. Nothing happens to the photon, and it is the same photon and the same trip it takes. Only the reference frame from which it is measured is different.

Note that time dilation is only observed when we compare clock readings of the current reference frame and another reference frame. Nothing has changed with time measurements within either of the reference frames. Everything is "normal" there.

[creation]

What do you mean by "It's not objectively preferred (nothing is)"?

If nothing is objectively preferred, then why even mention it.

I hate doing message boards where replies get increasingly longer, where more issues keep being introduced during the course of those long replies, etc. So one thing at a time.

The point is that it's just an individual's preference. A different individual can have a different preference, and that's all that is. It's not the case that one is right and the other wrong.

Okay great, now that that is sorted out I have to wonder why you introduced the now obvious completely unnecessary issue here about nothing is objectively preferred.

Of course it is my preference to look at and see things from Everything's perspective. I was just pointing out that by looking and seeing things from more perspectives (or more reference points) then from just one's own individual perspective, then far more can be learned, seen, understood, and known.

[RJG]

...the time dimension must have a different geometry in each case.

How many dimensions of Time are there? And do we get a new dimension each time someone does some "measuring"?

I think it more reasonable that there is only one dimension of Time, and "measurements" are not "dimensions".

[Steve3007]

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

When I said "Science" in this context, I meant the "Science community in general", I was not referring to any particular person.

Quite vague and unattributable then.

So I guess you mean people working in any field that you regard as science, according to you, generally say that time "stops" at the speed of light, and you think they're wrong to say that because when you shine a flashlight you don't notice time stopping because you still exist. That's your argument, yes?

So, do you think those people have ever used a flashlight? If so, do you think they've noticed the same thing you noticed - that they still exist after turning it on? If so, do you think maybe your assertion about what they said is incorrect? Maybe? Which seems like the simplest explanation?

1. You've misrepresented what they said.
2. They haven't noticed that they still exist.

[RJG]

...and you think they're wrong to say that because when you shine a flashlight you don't notice time stopping because you still exist. That's your argument, yes?

Yes, if there is only one dimension of Time, and Time "stops", then we all instantly perish! (no more breaths to take, no more beats of the heart, etc, etc).

[Steve3007]

It's simple common sense really. If you believe a whole bunch of people to have said something that you think only an idiot without your own appreciation of simple logic would believe, then I guess you could conclude that vast swathes of the population are idiots without your magnificent command of the principles of logic. You could do that. Or, you could conclude that, just possibly, you might have not entirely understood, or somewhat misrepresented, what they've said. Just possibly? Or am I being condescending to even float that as a possibility? Is the only possibility that RJG alone uniquely appreciates logical argument?

[NickGaspar]

One question for you -- can objects move without the dimension of Time?

We don't make up substances and entities any more in Science. We need direct evidence before we assume a causal entity being an agent behind a phenomenon.

So is this a YES or a NO to my question?

Not all sentences with a question mark at the end qualify as serious questions.
The concept of the dimension of time is a way we came up to describe the way objects and processes change....not the other way around.
The dimension of time is not a "catalyst" for movement ....like phlogiston was never a "catalyst" of combustion.
In science we understand time (the ticking of a process) as a dimension because it is affected like all other dimensions by gravity and motion.

[NickGaspar]

A thought experiment:

It's the far future and humanity has been replaced by beings like HG Wells's Morlocks. They are intelligent and time-aware, but not as intelligent as current humans. They are physically robust and adaptable, capable of living underground for extended periods.

A rogue black hole hurls the Earth from its orbit into interstellar space. Due to (fanciful) counter-spin forces, the planet's rotation rapidly slows down.

The Morlocks retreat to their underground lairs full-time. Without orbits and rotations, how do they tell the time? What is time to them? Is their time just an idea?

It is an idea based on a previous observation they had. Now they will have to based it on an new one...their biological clocks.
They will be forced, as a society, to organize and take care their needs (sleep,food)which are regulated by their biological clocks in order to survive and flourish.

[RJG]

Can objects move without the dimension of Time?

The concept of the dimension of time is a way we came up to describe the way objects and processes change....not the other way around.

So your answer is YES, since it seems you do not believe the "dimension of time" is real.

Okay, next question -- Can objects 'move' without a 'means' (a pathway) to move? [Yes/No]

In science we understand time (the ticking of a process) as a dimension because it is affected like all other dimensions by gravity and motion.

If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop? [Yes/No]

[Steve3007]

A thought experiment:

It's the far future and humanity has been replaced by beings like HG Wells's Morlocks. They are intelligent and time-aware, but not as intelligent as current humans. They are physically robust and adaptable, capable of living underground for extended periods.

A rogue black hole hurls the Earth from its orbit into interstellar space. Due to (fanciful) counter-spin forces, the planet's rotation rapidly slows down.

The Morlocks retreat to their underground lairs full-time. Without orbits and rotations, how do they tell the time? What is time to them? Is their time just an idea?

It is an idea based on a previous observation they had. Now they will have to based it on an new one...their biological clocks.
They will be forced, as a society, to organize and take care their needs (sleep,food)which are regulated by their biological clocks in order to survive and flourish

It's an interesting thought experiment isn't it? As Nick says, if they already have that history of using natural, celestial clocks then they could probably abstract from that and retain their notion of time. They could then, no doubt, devise other clocks. But if those other clocks gradually drifted out from synchronisation with celestial (natural) clocks (as our clocks and calendars do) they'd have no way of knowing that and, arguably, it wouldn't matter. Unless they emerge again one day.

It's also interesting to consider the extent to which human development of notions like time has been driven by our constant, very direct exposure to that vast clock in the sky: the heavenly bodies moving overhead with quite precise regularity. Through the vast majority of our history, when we set up camp for the night with nothing but firelight, that natural clock would have been un-ignorable. And archaeology suggests that we certainly didn't ignore it.

If it were possible for intelligent life to develop without ever having been exposed to that, at any point in their evolutionary history, I wonder what conceptions of time would it have.

[RJG]

Science's error is assuming that "Time is a function of Motion" instead of the inverse, "Motion is a function of Time".

1. Without Time there could be no movement whatsoever.

2. For without a 'means' to move, there can be no movement.

3. Time is NOT the "ticking of a clock". Time allows (provides a means for) the clock to "tick".

4. Without Time, NOTHING happens.

[NickGaspar]

Can objects move without the dimension of Time?

The concept of the dimension of time is a way we came up to describe the way objects and processes change....not the other way around.

So your answer is YES, since it seems you do not believe the "dimension of time" is real.

Okay, next question -- Can objects 'move' without a 'means' (a pathway) to move? [Yes/No]

In science we understand time (the ticking of a process) as a dimension because it is affected like all other dimensions by gravity and motion.

If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop? [Yes/No]

NO my answer is not yes....my answer is that you misunderstand the scientific concept of time....time is NOT an ingredient needed for things to roll. In order to do that, you will need to demonstrate your existential claim. Time is only a label for an already observable process of things not happening all at once and at a different pace due to their distinct natural "clocks"
You are setting up a witch hunt without being able to prove a single witch exist!