## Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Steve3007
Posts: 8003
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Among the threads in the brief discussion between RJG and Terrapin Station, I am most interested in this thread:
RJG wrote:Motion or change of WHAT? ...of a (non-real) "mathematical representation"??? ...or of a 'real' 3D object? -- "Motion/change" can't be real, unless there is something 'real' that moves/changes.
Terrapin Station wrote:There doesn't have to be some solitary thing that changes (from x into y). If we have an object that disappears and is replaced by a different object, then we have a change, but not a solitary thing that's changing.
RJG wrote:This is a logical self-contradiction. Is this "object" real? ...or not-real? ...you can't have it BOTH ways. It is logically impossible for the "change" of NOTHING (of non-real objects) to "occur". -- If NOTHING is changing, then there is NO CHANGING.
Terrapin Station wrote:You didn't seem to understand what I said.

The usual notion is that for there to be a change, there has to be something, x, that's a "unity" or "identity" that remains the same through the changes.

I explained that this is not the case. It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change. The object in question is real.
RJG wrote:Not so. -- In your example:

The object X "changed" states (from appearance to disappearance).
The object Y "changed" states (from disappearance to appearance).

It is logical nonsense to claim "change can occur" without some-'thing' changing. No-thing changing is no change.
Terrapin Station wrote:There's not an x that now has a state of having disappeared or being no longer existent. If x has disappeared or is no longer existent, there's no x to be in any state. What changed isn't x or y. What changed is that x existed but now y does instead.

This appears to me to be a thread about the idea of continuity across time and its relationship to the concepts we feel justified in reifying and the concepts we don't.

Terrapin Station's point, as I understand it, is that the concept of change doesn't automatically, logically imply the concept of what we might call "conservation of object". i.e. one object could (logically if not by empirical experience) simply be replaced by another. As he said, the thing that implies "conservation of object" would be some parameter of the system remaining constant from one temporal frame (as it were) to the next.

If I've understood this argument correctly, I agree. (I also agree that RJG's central error is to reify mathematical concepts like dimension. I think you can see why he does this by looking up his central thesis on this website - it's a form of Descartes' method of doubt.)

This is the essence of all principles in physics that can be described as "conservation laws". e.g. conservation of mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge, strangeness, charm etc. The thing that all of these conservation laws have in common is that they are expressions of the fact that in the mathematical equations describing the evolution of some physical system with respect to time, there is a term whose value does not change. When we spot a term like this, we are apt to reify the quantity represented by that variable and think of it as a "physical quantity". So, for example, we think of mass and energy like this.

Terrapin Station, I assume (from our previous discussion elsewhere) that you think we are right to reify these things? If so, are we right to reify any quantity that is represented by a term in an equation of physics that remains constant as the system evolves over time?

This is related to a topic I started on the specific example of mass (and its relationship to potential and kinetic energy), here:
viewtopic.php?p=345159#p345159

Terrapin Station
Posts: 4189
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 6:45 am
Among the threads in the brief discussion between RJG and Terrapin Station, I am most interested in this thread:
RJG wrote:Motion or change of WHAT? ...of a (non-real) "mathematical representation"??? ...or of a 'real' 3D object? -- "Motion/change" can't be real, unless there is something 'real' that moves/changes.
Terrapin Station wrote:There doesn't have to be some solitary thing that changes (from x into y). If we have an object that disappears and is replaced by a different object, then we have a change, but not a solitary thing that's changing.
RJG wrote:This is a logical self-contradiction. Is this "object" real? ...or not-real? ...you can't have it BOTH ways. It is logically impossible for the "change" of NOTHING (of non-real objects) to "occur". -- If NOTHING is changing, then there is NO CHANGING.
Terrapin Station wrote:You didn't seem to understand what I said.

The usual notion is that for there to be a change, there has to be something, x, that's a "unity" or "identity" that remains the same through the changes.

I explained that this is not the case. It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change. The object in question is real.
RJG wrote:Not so. -- In your example:

The object X "changed" states (from appearance to disappearance).
The object Y "changed" states (from disappearance to appearance).

It is logical nonsense to claim "change can occur" without some-'thing' changing. No-thing changing is no change.
Terrapin Station wrote:There's not an x that now has a state of having disappeared or being no longer existent. If x has disappeared or is no longer existent, there's no x to be in any state. What changed isn't x or y. What changed is that x existed but now y does instead.

This appears to me to be a thread about the idea of continuity across time and its relationship to the concepts we feel justified in reifying and the concepts we don't.

Terrapin Station's point, as I understand it, is that the concept of change doesn't automatically, logically imply the concept of what we might call "conservation of object". i.e. one object could (logically if not by empirical experience) simply be replaced by another. As he said, the thing that implies "conservation of object" would be some parameter of the system remaining constant from one temporal frame (as it were) to the next.

If I've understood this argument correctly, I agree. (I also agree that RJG's central error is to reify mathematical concepts like dimension. I think you can see why he does this by looking up his central thesis on this website - it's a form of Descartes' method of doubt.)

This is the essence of all principles in physics that can be described as "conservation laws". e.g. conservation of mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge, strangeness, charm etc. The thing that all of these conservation laws have in common is that they are expressions of the fact that in the mathematical equations describing the evolution of some physical system with respect to time, there is a term whose value does not change. When we spot a term like this, we are apt to reify the quantity represented by that variable and think of it as a "physical quantity". So, for example, we think of mass and energy like this.

Terrapin Station, I assume (from our previous discussion elsewhere) that you think we are right to reify these things? If so, are we right to reify any quantity that is represented by a term in an equation of physics that remains constant as the system evolves over time?

This is related to a topic I started on the specific example of mass (and its relationship to potential and kinetic energy), here:
viewtopic.php?p=345159#p345159
You understood what I was saying.

I don't think it's right to reify anything/any concept.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:05 pm
creation wrote:Like I have said before, you have never really wanted to converse about any actual point I am making...
Which is were exactly?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:05 pm
I was waiting to see if you took on board what I said about reflecting on your own posts. Let me know if you ever do and want to discuss it.
I do not want to spend time discussing my reflections on my own posts.

I am still waiting for you to discuss my actual trip thought experiment.

In the meantime I suggest you also read back through our posts and see how often you digress, and try to come across as being superior and knowing more. If you do read and reflect, then you might recognize how you are not really open at all to even just stop to consider anything else other than what you believe is already the truth of things.

I will not wait to see if you take this on board about what I said about reflecting on your posts however. I really do not care if you do or do not.

I much prefer to just discuss my thought experiment, which, if my questions ever get answered openly and honestly, then they will reveal the flaws in special relativity and it supposed "verified" conclusions.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 10:28 am
What happens if I "launch" a photon out into space in the exact same direction of the journey?
Not much different, but it is easier to understand it this way.
What is "this way", which 'it' is easier to understand?

The direction I suggested, or, the horizontal direction you said?

Also, what is 'it' exactly, which is supposedly easier to understand?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Except for the rumbling of the rocket, and when I look out the window.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant in this context.
What do you now mean by; "Perhaps,..."

You were the one that said and wrote: Nothing tells you that you move,

So, are you now agreeing that actually 'something', which is really at least two things, actually does tell me that I move?

If you do, and you still say that: "but that is irrelevant in this context", then is the sending of the photon horizontally, not in the direction of my journey, also irrelevant, or is this still relevant?

If the direction of the photon is irrelevant and the ability to know that I a moving or not is also irrelevant, then WHY state these things?

If the direction of the photon, relative to the angle of the trip, is relevant, then WHY?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
How is the photon traveling in my reference frame, when I am travelling at 80% the speed of the photon, and we are also going in different directions?

And, what has launching the photon on the ground have some bearing on it would travel in the same way? The same way to what exactly?

Where was the photon launched if it is not on the ground the first time?
The photon is launched on the ground level when the rocket is already moving, and it is launched in the reference frame of the moving rocket, ie. inside the moving rocket.
So, if the photon was launched on the ground level anyway, when the rocket is already moving, then it was again irrelevant to say; " 'if' you had launched the photon on the ground ", correct? If yes, then okay. But, if no, then WHY was this relevant?

Also, would the photon be in a different reference frame as soon as it leaves the rocket, or it is outside of the rocket? If no, then why not? But, if yes, then okay.

As I asked before, If I am traveling at only 80% of a photon, and/or I am traveling at a completely different direction as that photon, then HOW exactly is the photon traveling in my reference frame?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Also, when you say " 'from' the photon to travel ..." do you mean " 'for' the photon to travel ..."?
Yes, you can take that as a sort of "finnism", an error due to my native language.
Okay, no worries (or all good).
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
a) What is the time my trip takes?
3 years according to your clock, 5 years according to your twin brother's clock.
BUT, and from my frame of reference (or from my perspective), my clock is showing 5 years. Remember I am the one in the rocket.

My clock shows 5 years, because the trip actually took 5 years to take.

If an object is traveling at 80% of the speed of light, then it obviously takes 5 years to travel a distance of 4 light years. This is from the reference frame of an observer in that object, and, from the reference frame of everything else as well.

Also, why do you say that the photon has only traveled 3 light years in the same time?

If, we are comparing how far I have traveled in the same time that it has taken the photon to travel 3 years? Then my answer is 4 light years, and I am the one taking the trip remember?

Besides all of this, how can a physical object travel faster than a photon of light?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
b) How is that time my trip takes, in accordance to my clocks in the rocket?
3 years.
c) And how much older am I when I arrive on the planet?
3 years.
Are you saying I travel 3 years when I arrive at the planet and I am 3 years older? Or, what?
Exactly.
So, HOW exactly is it even possible that I can, in a physical rocket, travel 4 light years, in the same period that a photon has only traveled 3 light years, especially considering that the photon is traveling at 20% faster than I, and the rocket, am, and we left the exact same position at the exact same moment?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Why 'MUST' my brother take into account that the rocket has arrived at the planet?

If I was my brother on earth and I measure the trip then the rocket would be 80% of 3 light years away with 2 more years to travel. But I am not on the earth because you said I am in the rocket, and from my calculations I am 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to go to my destination. If and when I put myself in my brother's perspective (or reference frame, or reference point) on earth also, I still observe that the rocket is 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to destination.

When I reach destination, and if I and my brother have powerful enough telescopes, then I and my brother could also verify how long the trip actually took.

That is when I land and look back at earth it would look like I only just left a few seconds ago, and to my brother he would have to wait another 5 more years (or 10 years from when I left) to see me land on the planet. But as I say, I do observe and see things differently than most people do.

What I really cannot understand here is HOW could I, in the rocket, have traveled further than light could have in the exact same time? But this will all depend on how long you say my trip took.

When this is explained to me logically and reasonably, then I will start seeing and understanding, hopefully, what it is that you and others observe and see here.
Unfortunately I am not very good at explaining things clearly so that everybody understands.
But I am not wanting you, nor am I even expecting you, to explain anything clearly to anyone else but me only, and especially not to everybody.

I am just asking questions, from my perspective only. I only want open and honest answers. Nothing else. So, all you have to do is just answer my simple clarifying truly open questions, openly and honestly, and not worry at all about anything. nor anyone else. Do not assume what I nor anyone else understands or does not understand. I just want to gain a much better perspective of what you understand and are saying here.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
On the other hand, these things are somewhat counterintuitive and you are not the only one who finds it difficult to get a clear insight into them.
Firstly, I have admitted that these things are counter intuitive. But I have also explained that it is not because that they are counter intuitive that they are in contention with what my views are. (Although this will come into play later on). I find these things in contention with my views because of what I have observed, seen, AND understood.

By the way, just maybe I have a far clearer insight into these, and other, things than anyone here just wants to even consider and wonder, let alone to even look at, and then know, for sure. (But this is a whole other issue, for a later date).

But if one was not to assume nor presume anything at all here, then this whole process could be sped up considerably.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
I am not sure if this forum is the right place to learn the basics of SR or GR.
This is a typical response from anyone I have spoken to in regards to this topic when my questions start revealing inconsistencies and contradictions in sr and/or gr.

Just maybe my questions, when looked at deeply and fully, reveal that I do have 'an' understanding of the basics of these, still, just "theories" after all?

In fact 'my' understanding of these things may be far more than most people can even imagine, YET?

Just maybe not being able to answer my questions, by some people, also reveals that they do not have as much of 'an' understanding as they once presumed they had.

Just re-repeating what one has heard, or has read, does not mean that that one really has a "basic" understanding at all of that thing.

If one has not actually put some deep thought into what they have been told, or read, and just accept it on "face value", and also just believe it to be true, because they think or believe that they have "some" understanding of it, and/or because they have "faith" in the people who have told them, then these people really have a lot to learn regarding just how the Mind and the brain actually work.

These people do not give themselves enough credit for the actual ability that they each personally have for being able to recognize, see, and understand the actual real truth of things.
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
If the only "logically possible conclusion", to you, is if he trip has taken a much 'longer' time measured with a clock in the reference from of the earth, in this case 5 years, then is the '5 years' the longer time, or the measured with a clock in earth's frame of reference time?

If the 5 years is the longer time, then what is the earth's measured time? Or, if the earth's measured time is the 5 years, then what is the longer time?
I am not sure what you mean. The trip takes 5 years measured in the reference frame of the Earth and 3 years measured in the reference frame of the rocket.
Is this an actual irrefutable FACT, to you, or just what you have been told is the truth of what would happen?
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
3 years.
But how many of these so and so many seconds are there in one of those 'years' that you are referring to here?
3,154e+7. I just looked it up.
You wrote: "Note that 'year' here is not defined by the Earth revolving around the Sun, but as so and so many seconds."

But then you write 3,154+7 seconds is the number of seconds, which is exactly the SAME amount that a 'year' has, which you said to note was here not defined by the earth revolving around the sun.

The time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is said to be 3.154+7 seconds, which is a 'year', which are the exact same things.

So, I am not sure why you wrote telling me to note that that 'year' is not defined by the earth revolving around the sun, but as so and so many seconds, when the 'two' things are the exact same thing, just known two different ways. That is a 'year' or 3,154+7 (so and so many) seconds
Tamminen wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
But if I was to provide a examples or a thought experiment not to much different to the above, then would anyone like to question, (and/or challenge), me on what I write, like I have just here?
It remains to be seen.
I KNOW "it remains to be seen". I am just wondering (out aloud) if I was to provide one, if anyone is interested in questioning (and preferably challenging) me on it?

This, obviously, "remains to be seen". But, for now;

IF you could travel at the speed of light in a machine from the exact moment you left earth to when you arrived on a planet 4 light years away, and you and the people on earth both have telescopes which could see a person and a clock on a planet 4 light years away, then, firstly, how long would it say on your clock, to you, that the trip took you?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 2:01 pm
creation wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 11:33 am

But I was being coy from the beginning. Otherwise I would have just given my answer from then.

I am just testing to see what it actually takes, and works, to awaken the curiosity that was within ALL of you as children, and which will evoke someone to start really questioning me from a Truly OPEN perspective.

Nothing so far has worked.
How about just being friendly and not being judgmental where you're positioning others as inferior to your standards?
I really am not intentionally being unfriendly, and I certainly am not being judgmental at all about anything all. My only "standards" are Honesty. From what I have observed being a very intellectual person and coming across as knowing lots of things is an important thing for a lot of people in philosophical and scientific forums, I, however, are the exact opposite of this as I am probably the least intellectual person, and know the least, here.

If I come across as being unfriendly here, then this is because being friendly has not worked in the past and so I am just trying something new.

I have previously something like; I have some views, which, I think if looked at and discussed, might refute somethings in relativity, but I am not sure if they do, or if I have them because I do not understand relativity fully. Would anyone care to look at them and discuss them?

But this has not worked in the past. But, obviously this does not mean that it could not work now, or with other people. But I just thought I would try something else first.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 2:37 pm
RJG wrote:Yes. This includes those that respond (when challenged) by saying "we must respect Science"
If you think this has been said, please quote a specific poster saying it. If you think "Science" has said it, quote "Science" saying it.
or respond with snide condescending remarks,
Please refrain from ad hominem remarks, such as accusing other posters of being "snide" or "condescending". If you think that I or anyone has said something that is factually incorrect or contains logically invalid reasoning, quote it.
while closing their eyes to the logic that contradicts their Science/Religion.
Please back this up with specifics to give other posters a chance to attempt to refute it.
An example: Some here claim that "without motion there can be no time".
Does the thing that you have referred to as "Science" say this? If so, quote please. If not, it is irrelevant as part of your reply.
I presented logical proof that this is "backwards", and further stated that if this is a truth of Science, then Science is WRONG.
If you assert that "Science" says this, quote it.
But instead of admitting this truth, those that "cling to their science" attack/besmirch me, instead of attacking the logic that proves Science's error.
Be specific about the poster to whom you are referring and the post in which you claim that they "attack/besmirch" you.
gain, we can't get to the truth of matters if we can't let go of the "clinging" (i.e. the automatic defending of indoctrinated beliefs).
If you claim that somebody engages in this "clinging", state who and quote from the relevant post(s).
From my perspective, it is obvious these things "rjg" has commented on are occurring, relatively consistently I might add, which can become very frustrating when trying to put forward "new", or not yet accepted, ideas, and discuss them.

People with relatively "new" ideas do not like to be continually told things like; the current knowledge is already accepted and reasonable enough, which, more or less, translates to; We are not prepared to even listen to what you are saying, let alone considering it or even discussing it.

If some people do not want to look at and reflect on this fact, and/or just keep wanting to tell others to reflect on what they specifically do and to keep telling others what they should be doing, instead of looking at and discussing what people are talking about and saying, like you appear to do quite a bit here "steve3007", then so be it.

But where do you suggest we go instead?

Also, I consider "rjg's" "logic" to not follow 'logically' sometimes. So, either I will discuss that specifically thing directly with "rjg", or I will just let it be. But, so far I have seen far more attempts at logic from "rjg", then from anyone who obviously views that the theories of relativity are sufficiently already confirmed and verified as they are now.

We are in a thread about 'time' after all, and to fully understand what one person is saying and meaning in regards to what 'time' means to them, then we have to discuss in a truly 'logically reasoned' way with them. This obviously includes questioning them on what they say and claim, and then challenging them on their responses.

Depending on the level of dismissiveness on what others say, shows just how much belief these people already have and hold on their current belief.

'Time', like 'God', like 'Love', like 'Mind', are all words, which their definitions and meanings are obviously not yet well understood and not yet uniformly agreed with, even within the scientific and religious communities. So, just dismissing what anyone says about any of these things, is obviously not best practice.

After all, what first appear to be the most contradictory and/or absurd statements or propositions of all, when investigated, might actually prove to be the most truthful of all. But, obviously, without investigation, then this will never become known.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 4:32 pm
RJG wrote:Some here claim that "without motion there can be no time".

...I presented logical proof that this is "backwards",
Terrapin Station wrote:I'm someone who says this...

Here it is:
• P1. From a geometric perspective:
• A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".
C1. Therefore, "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)" is logically TRUE.
C2. Therefore, "Without Motion, there can be no Time" is logically FALSE.

Logical Certainties:
Time is independent of Motion.
Motion is dependent on Time.

Also, falsely equating "Time" as "change" is one of the other ERRORS being committed in these discussions. Time is NOT "change". Time is just a 'dimension' that allows (i.e. is the 'means') for change. Without Time, there can be no change/motion. (and not the other way around either).
If Time is independent of Motion, and, motion is dependent on Time, and Time is a dimension that allows for change, and you want this view accepted and agreed with, then you will have to logically and reasonably start explaining what this 'dimension' of 'Time' is exactly, how 'it' exists, where 'it' came from if it is independent of Motion, and because 'it' allows for change, how and where 'it' was existing before change, itself, came to exist.

I do not see the "logic", which you see, about how Time must be an actual separate dimension that exists independently of, and before, Motion existed.

To me, that perspective of 'time' is just consistent with change, itself.

Also, and by the way, why do use the word Time and Motion here with capital 'T' and capital 'M'?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 6:13 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:You're talking about points, lines, etc. Those are not real. They're mental abstractions we've constructed based on how we think about relations.
So then the mental abstractions we call "3D objects" are not real either? ...you need to stay consistent.

RJG wrote:Motion or change of WHAT? ...of a (non-real) "mathematical representation"??? ...or of a 'real' 3D object? -- "Motion/change" can't be "real", unless there is something 'real' that moves/changes. Non-real things can't move!
Terrapin Station wrote:There doesn't have to be some solitary thing that changes (from x into y). If we have an object that disappears and is replaced by a different object, then we have a change, but not a solitary thing that's changing.
This is a logical self-contradiction. Is this "object" real? ...or not-real? ...you can't have it BOTH ways. It is logically impossible for the "change" of NOTHING (of non-real objects) to "occur". -- If NOTHING is changing, then there is NO CHANGING.

Terrapin Station wrote:Time is IDENTICAL to motion/change. That's what time is.
Not logically possible. -- for "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)"

Logical Certainties:
Time is independent of Motion.
Motion is dependent on Time.
From my perspective, for motion, or for 3 dimensions objects to be able to move/change, then the only thing needed is space, for the objects to be able to move/change.

To me, obviously a 'space' is needed for movement, motion, or change of 3 dimensional objects to take place, and nothing else is needed.

Also, to me, from those that say the 'time' is in relation to movement of 3 dimensional objects, or change and motion, then, from my perspective, 'time' is more or less one and the same thing as change, motion, or movement, itself. In that without time there can be no change/movement/motion, and, without change/movement/motion there can be no time. But I do not subscribe to that view and usage of and for the word 'time' anyway.

So, to me, your "logical certainties" are not 'logical certainties' for two reasons;

1. Your definition of 'time', so far, has not been shown to be independent of motion, YET. Of course you may have something else to show us, which you have forgotten about, or have just not found yourself yet.

2. I have and use another definition for the word 'time' anyway, which, to me, logically and reasonably fits in perfectly with other things.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 8:21 pm
RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 6:13 pm

So then the mental abstractions we call "3D objects" are not real either? ...you need to stay consistent.
Objects, which have extensions of length, height and depth, are real. They're not points or lines. So there's nothing inconsistent there.

No, it isn't. (Otherwise you can tell me what the proposition is that you believe is both being asserted and denied without equivocating.)
Is this "object" real? ...or not-real? ...you can't have it BOTH ways. It is logically impossible for the "change" of NOTHING (of non-real objects) to "occur". -- If NOTHING is changing, then there is NO CHANGING.
You didn't seem to understand what I said.

The usual notion is that for there to be a change, there has to be something, x, that's a "unity" or "identity" that remains the same through the changes.

I explained that this is not the case. It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change.
This is not exactly true, because there is one single thing that remains the same during the course of the change, but this detracts from the main point of what you are getting at. (But I can clarify if interested).

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 8:21 pm
The object in question is real.

Not logically possible. -- for "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)"
Without time, there can indeed be no motion (or change), because time and motion/change are identical. If you have one, you have the other, necessarily. So there can't be one without the other.
Time is independent of Motion.
Motion is dependent on Time.
Simply making an assertion isn't a "logical certainty." You have to actually do the work, a la laying out the logical steps, that show that something is logically true/tautologous.

You're doing a lot of talking about logic without seeming to be very familiar with even 101-level topics.

Steve3007
Posts: 8003
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

viewtopic.php?p=346127#p346127
Terrapin Station wrote:I don't think it's right to reify anything/any concept.
Not even a concept like mass? Is that because, in your view, there is the concept of mass as the 'm' in various equations and there is the physical thing, "out there" in the "real world" and (in your view) the two are separate concepts? The Ontology/Epistomology divide?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:57 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:Objects, which have extensions of length, height and depth, are real. They're not points or lines. So there's nothing inconsistent there.
Yes, 3D Objects are real, we both agree. And if 3D Objects did not have 2D Planes and 1D Lines, then 3D Objects would not be 3D Objects.

Terrapin Station wrote:It's possible for there to be x, an object, which disappears and is replaced by y, a different object. That's a change--there was x, now there's y. But there's no single thing that remains the same during the course of the change. The object in question is real.
Not so. -- In your example:

The object X "changed" states (from appearance to disappearance).
The object Y "changed" states (from disappearance to appearance).

It is logical nonsense to claim "change can occur" without some-'thing' changing. No-thing changing is no change.
I do not see "terrapin station" saying nor claiming that "change can occur" without 'something' at all here, nor even anything like that.

This is what I see "terrapin station" saying, and please correct me if I am wrong here"; What disappears, is replaced by something. Just meaning through change, or through evolution, what was one thing when 'changing' disappears, and is replaced with or by something else, through the changing or evolution process.

For example, human sperm and a human egg (both x's) after coming together, disappear, and are replace by a human fetus (a y). Then this fetus is now (the x), which through continual changing, or evolution, disappears, and is replaced by an unborn child (y), which is now (x), which disappears and becomes the new born infant (y), which is now (x), which disappears and becomes toddler (y), which is now (x), which disappears and becomes child (y), which is now (x), which disappears and becomes adult (y), which is now (x), which disappears and becomes dead (y), which is now (x), which the body disappears/decomposes and becomes (y). So, it is during the change, itself, when one thing (x, or name/label) disappears and is replaced by something else (y, or new name/label) that I think "terrapin station" is meaning. I am pretty sure there is nothing in what "terrapin station" was saying that meant nor implied that the thing disappearing is being replaced by some 'thing' that has come from "nothing at all". [/quote]

But as I said please correct me if I am wrong anywhere here.
RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:57 pm
RJG wrote:"Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)"
Terrapin Station wrote:Without time, there can indeed be no motion (or change), because time and motion/change are identical. If you have one, you have the other, necessarily. So there can't be one without the other.
Not according to Logic. Also, I suspect your assertion (belief) is without any logical basis, but only one of indoctrinated belief.

I do not see the 'logic' word as being something that only one, a few, or even up to, but not including, ALL, as being something that anyone could profess to knowing, and thus saying, "Not according to logic", and being absolutely accurate.

'Logic', to me, by definition would be something that ALL agree with and accept. Otherwise anyone could have and use their own so called "logic", and then just profess that they KNOW what is true, right, and correct, because "according to logic".
RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:57 pm
RJG wrote: Logical Certainties:
Time is independent of Motion.
Motion is dependent on Time.
Terrapin Station wrote:Simply making an assertion isn't a "logical certainty." You have to actually do the work, a la laying out the logical steps, that show that something is logically true/tautologous.
Yes, of course, and apparently you can't/don't recognize simple logic. These truths (logical certainties) were logically derived from:
I must of missed or not recognized this simple "logic" and these "truths" as well. As I suggested earlier, for me to be able to see how 'time' is independent of 'motion', and that 'time' allows for 'motion', then you will have to show, logically, how 'time' a 'dimension' exists physically and exited before 'motion'.

Until then I, honestly, do not see, recognize, nor follow 'your' "simple logic". This is not to say that it is not there, but just to say that at the moment I just do not see it YET.
RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:57 pm
C1. Therefore, "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)" is logically TRUE.
C2. Therefore, "Without Motion, there can be no Time" is logically FALSE.
To me, there is a word I think for what I see here as circular reasoning, and concluding. But, this may not be that anyway.

RJG wrote:
January 15th, 2020, 9:57 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:You're doing a lot of talking about logic without seeming to be very familiar with even 101-level topics.
...seriously? ...and here I had you pegged as one of the good guys (decent, respectful of others views), ...I never thought you would stoop to take personal "pot shots" at someone you disagreed with, ...my bad.

Have a good day Terrapin. I think we are done talking.
Are not "good guys" allowed to point out WHY they disagree?

I do not have even 100-level topics (if there is such thing) let alone 101-level topics, but I also just do not follow 'your' "logic" here "rjg". To me, it does not seem to be a logic that would be taught, or I hope that would not be taught.

Anyway, I actually see you as at least attempting to put forward some 'logic' in what you say from the view you have of things, which is rather very refreshing compared to what I have actually encountered so far here in this forum. You appear to follow and say what you 'see' instead of just following and saying what you have been 'told', but appear, just like me, not to be able to explain your views fully YET so that they are completely understood.

In saying that I also see that "terrapin station" could have maybe also said better that the "logic" you are using here is not at a standard of 101-level (if there is such a thing) instead of saying that 'you' are not familiar with even 101-level topics. But, I am probably the last person here to talk about how other people say things, as I am the last person here who is able to talk and communicate efficiently with anyone.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Steve3007 wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 3:47 am
Greta wrote:Once we had many local clocks, and then there was the fun and games of synchronising them for trade, leading to GMT.
Yes indeed. In the UK, for example, I've read that it was the need for nationwide train timetables that drove the need to standardize. In the town where I live (in the east of England) there is an old sign above an old building stating that the local mean time (as opposed to GMT) is 5 minutes 41 seconds ahead of GMT.

As I understand it, the arbitrary choice of Greenwich to define the position of the prime meridian was a consequence of the race to design an accurate marine clock for measuring longitude when at sea. (The book "Longitude" by Dava Sobel is an interesting account of this - the efforts of John Harrison to design that clock.) I suppose, then, it was unlikely that a location in a landlocked country would be chosen. If it hadn't been Greenwich, perhaps it would have been somewhere like Lisbon, or some other country that was a seafaring nation in that period of clock design technology.
To line up the world's clocks we need to consider some deep physical properties of reality such as the speed of light and gravitational time dilation.
Well, I'd say that the world's clocks are already aligned with each other. Each time zone adding or subtracting an offset from GMT/UTC doesn't mean they're not aligned. But, yes, it's interesting to consider whether there could be some other more universal "origin" or zero against which clocks could be set. The Unix operating system arbitrarily chose 1st January 1970!

We are conditioned by music and other rhythms so we would know immediately. It would sound like a heartbeat in 3/4 time.
Yes. In other words, we have an approximate internal "clock" - an internal sense of the passage of time that we have evolved - that we could use for comparison. In that sense, we are the naturally evolved "watch" of the Blind Watchmaker!
So, we would need to disregard prior conditioning for the thought experiment. To test the ticks we would need to measure using a known natural clock.
But in the thought experiment, I proposed that all "clocks", man-made and natural, do this irregular ticking. My question was: is it physically meaningful to propose that literally all clocks could do that? I think not. I think this is one thing demonstrating that there is no such thing as a "Newtonian" universal time which somehow exists independently of the ways in which it could be observed. I think time, like space, derives its meaning from its method of potential observation/measurement.
To me, ALL human made clocks are set to one thing. But this thing is not a clock in itself as it does not tick, and it is also not a process itself.

Also, to me, there is NO universal time, nor actually any other time as well. Other than the 'time' we have conceptually in thought, which more or less just actually describes the measurements we take of and about change, itself.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

creation wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 10:12 am
What is "this way", which 'it' is easier to understand?

The direction I suggested, or, the horizontal direction you said?
The horizontal direction.
Also, what is 'it' exactly, which is supposedly easier to understand?
The geometrical proof.
What do you now mean by; "Perhaps,..."

You were the one that said and wrote: Nothing tells you that you move,

So, are you now agreeing that actually 'something', which is really at least two things, actually does tell me that I move?

If you do, and you still say that: "but that is irrelevant in this context", then is the sending of the photon horizontally, not in the direction of my journey, also irrelevant, or is this still relevant?

If the direction of the photon is irrelevant and the ability to know that I a moving or not is also irrelevant, then WHY state these things?

If the direction of the photon, relative to the angle of the trip, is relevant, then WHY?
When you are moving at a constant speed, you do not know if you are moving or not. The direction of the photon makes the proof easier.
So, if the photon was launched on the ground level anyway, when the rocket is already moving, then it was again irrelevant to say; " 'if' you had launched the photon on the ground ", correct? If yes, then okay. But, if no, then WHY was this relevant?
Relevant is that you launch the photon inside the moving rocket, so that you launch it in the reference frame of the moving rocket. You and your brother are both on the ground, but you are in different reference frames now when the rocket is moving.
Also, would the photon be in a different reference frame as soon as it leaves the rocket, or it is outside of the rocket? If no, then why not? But, if yes, then okay.
The photon is now in the same reference frame as you are, during its whole trip. It does not matter if it is inside or outside of the rocket.
As I asked before, If I am traveling at only 80% of a photon, and/or I am traveling at a completely different direction as that photon, then HOW exactly is the photon traveling in my reference frame?
When you are sitting in your chair in the rocket, the photon is traveling right in the direction of your nose, all the time during your trip.
BUT, and from my frame of reference (or from my perspective), my clock is showing 5 years. Remember I am the one in the rocket.
No, your clock is showing 3 years.
My clock shows 5 years, because the trip actually took 5 years to take.
Your brother's clock on the Earth shows 5 years.
If an object is traveling at 80% of the speed of light, then it obviously takes 5 years to travel a distance of 4 light years. This is from the reference frame of an observer in that object, and, from the reference frame of everything else as well.
No! - and this is the whole point of the relative nature of time.
Also, why do you say that the photon has only traveled 3 light years in the same time?
The photon has traveled 3 light years in 3 years and you have got 3 years older, measured with your clock and heart beats. In fact the traveling time of the photon is the measure of time here.
If, we are comparing how far I have traveled in the same time that it has taken the photon to travel 3 years? Then my answer is 4 light years, and I am the one taking the trip remember?
In your reference frame you have not traveled at all. But the photon has traveled 3 years, and you are now 3 years older than when you went into the rocket.
Besides all of this, how can a physical object travel faster than a photon of light?
It cannot. This is the whole point. The logic of the proof is based on the constancy of light speed. The speed of light is the same in all reference frames. Time dilation is a direct consequence of this.
So, HOW exactly is it even possible that I can, in a physical rocket, travel 4 light years, in the same period that a photon has only traveled 3 light years, especially considering that the photon is traveling at 20% faster than I, and the rocket, am, and we left the exact same position at the exact same moment?
Remember that you are in a different reference frame than the Earth.
You wrote: "Note that 'year' here is not defined by the Earth revolving around the Sun, but as so and so many seconds."

But then you write 3,154+7 seconds is the number of seconds, which is exactly the SAME amount that a 'year' has, which you said to note was here not defined by the earth revolving around the sun.

The time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is said to be 3.154+7 seconds, which is a 'year', which are the exact same things.

So, I am not sure why you wrote telling me to note that that 'year' is not defined by the earth revolving around the sun, but as so and so many seconds, when the 'two' things are the exact same thing, just known two different ways. That is a 'year' or 3,154+7 (so and so many) seconds
The Earth revolving around the Sun is a local clock. You cannot take it with you on the trip. Therefore, when you are moving, the number of seconds in your clock corresponding to the year on the Earth is not 3,154+7, but less.
IF you could travel at the speed of light in a machine from the exact moment you left earth to when you arrived on a planet 4 light years away, and you and the people on earth both have telescopes which could see a person and a clock on a planet 4 light years away, then, firstly, how long would it say on your clock, to you, that the trip took you?
I would say, first, that is impossible to travel at the speed of light, and second, if I traveled very near the speed of light, my clock would show very near 0. But this is what Steve promised to discuss with you. So I leave it there. I think I have nothing more to say at the moment.

Steve3007
Posts: 8003
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

viewtopic.php?p=346157#p346157
creation wrote:But where do you suggest we go instead?
If this is a question that you are asking me, I suggest this:

We both, symbolically, hit the "reset" button. We both agree to start again from this point, and try to follow a set of mutually agreeable guidelines for constructive conversation. Fortunately, the website has been setup with guidelines and rules designed to promote civil, rational discussion. They're discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12
and here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1977

Below is my interpretation of the spirit of some of those rules/guidelines. I aspire to follow them but am happy to admit that I don't always succeed. I sometimes "fall off the wagon".

1. Take other posters' words at face value. Do not assume that they have an agenda. Do not speculate about an ulterior motive for their words, such as a religious devotion to what they say. Simply address what they say. If they say something, they are simply giving their view. They are not implying anything by it, such as that you are stupid not to know what they have said, or that they believe what they say as an article of faith without question. If you disagree with them, you're free to challenge them fairly. That's why we're all here.

2. Do not conflate one poster's words with another. Do not fall into thinking that there is a group of like-minded posters forming a clique and ganging up. Don't assume that any poster either supports or doesn't support another poster's words unless they explicitly say so. We are all individuals with individual views. None of us is responsible for, or has any control over, what anyone else says. None of us has a monopoly on truth or wisdom, and the simple act of expressing our views does not imply that we think we do. We can all learn from each other.

3. Do not make remarks about another poster's character. Don't tell other posters that they are stupid or arrogant, or that they are blinded by their upbringing, nationality, ethnicity, education or religion. These are irrelevant ad hominem speculations about a person that you know almost nothing about, except for what they explicitly say here.

4. Attempt to communicate your arguments as clearly and succinctly as you can. Don't play games and expect other people to constantly guess what you mean. Be as clear and unambiguous as you can, from the outset.

5. Attempt to make rational arguments. Think about what it means to make a logical argument. Try to read your own arguments from another person's perspective to see if they might make sense to others. Try not to get bogged down in trivia, irrelevance and flame wars. As this is a philosophy site, generally try to see the broad overarching principles that are being discussed rather than the technical details.

6. Try to stay broadly on topic, but be reasonable. Don't use accusations of going off topic or going away from a strictly philosophical discussion to simply shut down debate. All conversations drift, over time, to some extent. Be reasonably sympathetic to that. If you really think another poster has drifted way off topic, ask them to briefly explain the philosophical relevance of the direction in which they've gone.

7. If you jump into the middle of a conversation, there's nothing wrong with that, but bear in mind that you may have somewhat misunderstood the nature of the discussion. So try to see things in context.

8. Don't misrepresent other posters' words. If you want to reply to somebody, quote them, but quote the relevant parts while being mindful of the context from which those parts were taken.

9. Don't block-quote very large tracts of text and then make general comments which appear to be about what was quoted but can't be tied down to anything specific.

That's all I can think of for now. Obviously there's probably more, and obviously I could have expressed the above better. I've done the best I can.

Do you agree with the above?

Terrapin Station
Posts: 4189
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

### Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

creation wrote:
January 16th, 2020, 11:52 am

This is not exactly true, because there is one single thing that remains the same during the course of the change, but this detracts from the main point of what you are getting at. (But I can clarify if interested).
What would you say is the thing that remains the same in the case I described?