Time, did man create it.

[Fiveredapples]

The way I interpret your answer, Joshua, it seems to me you are a believer in Objective Reality. That is, you believe that the recognizable universe of Space and Time exists independently of the need for any conscious life form to apprehend that universe.

Am I correct? If not, please elaborate how Time exists independently of a conscious apprehension of Time.

Don't you mean "If so, please elaborate....", not "If not, please elaborate...."?

Joshua,

Your position is what physicists call "Naive Realism" and some philosophers of science have borrowed that term and also use it. I'm wondering if you appreciate or at least understand why these philosophers and physicists use the word naive in this way, and what you might have to say about that in your defense.

No, his position is not Naive Realism. He hasn't said anything that should have suggested that to you. He is a realist, but there was no need to think he was a naive realist.

If you're a realist, then you're a realist about time and space, so what's the problem? He believes the world exists independently of anyone's conscious apprehension of it. That's the most widely accepted and commonsensical view there is. Do YOU believe in something else? And if so, what do you have to say in your defense for lacking common sense?

[Sophiaphily]

If time doesn't exist, how can one explain speed?

[HexHammer]

If time doesn't exist, how can one explain speed?

If time is an invented concept! Question is does time in itself exist? Maybe.

Least we have very elaborate ways of messuring time, why we have very accurate GPS systems.

[Joshua McHenry]

Sorry I have been gone away from a computer for some time now and would like to consider continue this discussion if you are up to it.

[Existence]

If time doesn't exist, how can one explain speed?

Perhaps speed don't exist either and is just a product of believing in time.

[Sophiaphily]

If time doesn't exist, how can one explain speed?

Perhaps speed don't exist either and is just a product of believing in time.

Are you trying to say that a substantial part of physics, including E=mc2, is based on what don't exist?

[Wooden shoe]

Hi all.

Time exists apart from human observation, but humans have invented the time system we use. Apart from humans it is very clear that nature also has a system and most of the living components are aware of time and regulate their schedule accordingly. They do not need a clock, instead using the solar system to know when to feed, to migrate or when to breed. Trees know when to prepare for winter,flowers when to open or close.

Regards, John.

[Steve3007]

Has anybody yet mentioned the old philosophical favourites: entropy, the second law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time, in this thread yet?

Why is there a difference between the past and the future? Why do we walk backwards into the future, being able to see the past but not the future? The basic laws of mechanics, of particles bouncing around, are symetrical in time. If you reverse the flow of time, they work just as well. But when you scale up to large systems of particles and start to make statistical laws to deal with the large-scale behaviour of those systems, you get to the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Those laws are not symetrical in time. This kind of suggests, strangely, that time-asymetry is a statistical property of complex systems and not what you might call elementary.

All of this essentially stems from the fact that for any given macroscopically measureable state of a physical system there are potentially many different underlying microscopic states. And some macroscopic states have more underlying microscopic states than others. Systems tend to drift towards the macroscopic states which have the greatest number of microscopic states (purely because there are more of them so there is a greater probability of being in one of them), hence the increase in entropy, the second law and the arrow of time.

So maybe, as Roger Penrose suggested, the time-asymetry is caused by the initial highly defined ultra-low-entropy state of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang and maybe, as it moves towards its ultimate heat-death, the whole concept of time will gradually become meaningless.

Also: We do actually sense the future in the same way that we sense the past. We just use a different word for it. One is called "memory" and the other is called "prediction". Fundamentally, they are the same process: extrapolating from the state of things as they are now. It's just that one tends to be more reliable than the other because of the second law and the fact that there are more possible future microstates than past microstates.

Woa! That was a ludicrously short synopsis. Anyone care to either add some interesting comments or corrections to that (if they're already familiar with the concepts), or ask for more details or say "what the heck are you going on about?" (if they're not)?

[Ser10Rec1pr0]

...NO, mad did not create time but he has measured it for his own use.

Yaaaayy! I was waiting for someone to use that word "measure."

Anyone remember some years back Stephen Hawking talking about the direction of time? @Present, the universe is expanding; one day the universe will reach its zenith of expansion & begin to contract. Time will then run backwards & so will the clocks. (& Likely, politicians'll still be outta sync.)

[Joshua McHenry]

If time doesn't exist, how can one explain speed?

Just to reiterate that if what you say as speed is based off of mans interpretation of time itself.

[Xris]

Steve you are still invoking a concept to witness your reasoning. Like a bad dream the same recurrent BB is dragged out like a bag of gold but each time upon examination it turns to fools gold. Layer upon layer of unproven concepts continue to support each other till it becomes heretical even to question just one. Time has no direction it simply allows us see to how events unfold. Time and its passing are dependant the speed of events. If we had infinite mass, time would virtually, if not permanently, stop. If time can stop can we imagine a scenario where it has no value? Has the discounted ether without mass or the particle that has no mass experience time? Do we truly understand the value of time?

[Bermudj]

...Time will then run backwards & so will the clocks. (& Likely, politicians'll still be outta sync.)

Maybe when this happens we will call backwards forwards and forwards backwards.

[Belinda]

Steve 3007 post #143

Has anybody yet mentioned the old philosophical favourites: entropy, the second law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time, in this thread yet?

And the rest of post #143 which is all relevant but I thought this summed it up.

I thought that entropy and arrow of time, as a necessary component of the entropy model , is yet another device by which we explain existence, and by extension our place in existence. I have a choice whether or not to believe in this model for all practical purposes as if it were The Truth, and I do so believe it because I am immersed in that sort of culture of belief, the scientific enlightenment one, and the sort of schooling that produced respect for it. There are other models that explain existence and they are not as good because the post-scientific enlightenment models generally depend upon reason to the greatest possible extent, more so than the guesses and fantasies of other explanatory models.

While I know not all the choice of devices by which existence may be explained, and I would not fully understand them if I did, and this includes the entropy/arrow of time model, I am also easily led by the little that I can understand and therefore it is prudent for me to keep an open mind. An open mind means that I remember with ease that I am not very knowledgeable about anything in particular, and also that others who are experts in this or that might also be mistaken.

[Narnug]

I have my own view to this. Might be old but then I just discovered it. We cant all learn to walk at the same "time" right. Kind of bound to our place in time. I dont have many around me who are interested in listening to me regarding this, hehe, wonder why? So it is great to spill it all out here, please be open minded regarding this. I will try to describe, and please tell me if this is "old news" and then where I can read about it.

Time is not an individual thing and it is not a single thing. There are many.

I follow the believe that time is a sequence of happenings. Kind of how Einstein described it, I think.

A sequence is the result of a simple universal rule, it might just be the only rule in the universe. Matter can receive energy and release it again. By doing that it, matter, can use the release of energy it has to "move"(meant in widest way possible). This happening creates a sequence. Our largest, and only, source of energy here on earth is our sun. Our solar system has its own time that rules all other times within it. The time of the sun. I will just call it "time zone zero" (TZZ). The constant release of energy (light) from the sun controls the speed of TZZ. That is the speed of the main sequence. No matter can receive energy faster then it is provided kind of thing. Within the TZZ you can have everything from no time up to time that is a little faster then TZZ. Take a frozen lake for example. A frozen lake somewhere here on earth has no time. It has no movement with in it self. But it exists in time. It exists in its surroundings here on earth. When spring comes and the lake thaws its time, or sequence, starts again. We can also look at it through activity of humans. If you sit on a sofa all day long and do nothing you make a very little sequence for your self. You have a sequence through your heart beating and constant brain activity. But you are kind of "laying low" within the TZZ. If you get up early and build a house all day long you create a huge sequence for your self by doing that. You basically make more time for your self. I can see this in the faces of old people, who have made more time for them selves and who have "layd low" within the TZZ all their lives. I can also point out trees for example. Those who grow in a cold climate cant make them selves a fast sequence. Those growing in a warmer climate can make a much faster sequence for them selves then those in the cold one. Energy and using it equals speed of sequence.

I can move this further and use this to describe so many other things (right or wrong).

Why does time slow down when travelling fast for example?

If it is a sequence like I describe here above then it makes me believe that sequences have to match in length if they are to meet. A galaxy that has existed longer then ours is far away from us and "travelling" faster the we are, and is gaining speed faster then we do. If we could reach a speed in a spacecraft that would be fast enough to gain in on the older galaxy what happens? Time slows down in the spacecraft. As I see it it is because the galaxy further away has a longer sequence then the matter that the spacecraft is made of. To reach its destination the "active" matter in the spacecraft has to catch up with the sequence of the older galaxy. And that happens with time slowing down relative to the TZZ the spacecraft comes from. If time slows down relative to that the spacecraft and its possible passengers get the chance to "make" more sequence. If there would not be made more sequence the spacecraft could never reach the galaxy with the longer sequence. Now I am going to be bold and say that I think that the Universal Constant that Einstein took out of his equations is how matter experiences sequences. All matter experiences it at the same speed. That is that those in the spacecraft mentioned above experience a second as a second even though their second goes slower by/is longer then the second in their original TZZ. I know this sounds like a contradiction. This messes me up all the time, lol. But one has to keep in mind that from the TZZ perspective a 4 year journey for example becomes maybe like an 8 year journey for those in the spacecraft giving them more "time" to catch up with a sequence, even though the passengers would count only 4 years, this is all relative.

This is so fascinating to me. I just love thinking about this. And I know I might be so so so wrong. I have allot more regarding this. How this only little rule of energy use creates a sequence can describe everything(except matter this is only the rule matter obeys). But I know this may sound like something from a crazy person so I will stop for now and see your reactions.

Please comment. And if you do so not like/agree anything I think please discuss it. That is the only way to learn, right.

All my best

narnug

[Hiram]

All meanings are the property of a conscious subject, the concept of time is such a meaning, Subtract the conscious subject and there is no meaning, Consciousness bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. There well may be other factors to the concept of time, but a conscious subject is also an essential variable in forming the concept of time. The old axiom, subject and object stand or falls together, rings true. The tick of time, shuts out eternity.