How time does change?
How time does change?
Time is subjected to change. We need time for any change. Therefore we need time to have change in time which is a regress.
-
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: How time does change?
the magic 8 ball says "ask again tomorrow"
-Imp
-Imp
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"We need time for any change."
I've always thought the opposite: that is, We need change for time (to be).
Consider: an utterly vacant universe, just an empty volume, not a single particle. Does time exist in such a place?
Now: introduce a radioactive particle to this volume. Leaving aside that we can't measure the decay of this particle without introducing ourselves into the volume (it's a half-assed thought experiment so: just go with it), we can measure the decay of this particle and suddenly we have 'past' (the particle's previous state), 'present' (the particle's current state), and 'future' (the particle's projected or anticipated or possible state), and we have an 'arrow', a direction with decay (entropy) moving relentlessly 'forward'.
Time, it seems to me, is (measured or measurable) change in 'something': no 'something' and/or no change = no time.
Consider: an utterly vacant universe, just an empty volume, not a single particle. Does time exist in such a place?
Now: introduce a radioactive particle to this volume. Leaving aside that we can't measure the decay of this particle without introducing ourselves into the volume (it's a half-assed thought experiment so: just go with it), we can measure the decay of this particle and suddenly we have 'past' (the particle's previous state), 'present' (the particle's current state), and 'future' (the particle's projected or anticipated or possible state), and we have an 'arrow', a direction with decay (entropy) moving relentlessly 'forward'.
Time, it seems to me, is (measured or measurable) change in 'something': no 'something' and/or no change = no time.
Re: "We need time for any change."
I have an argument for "any change requires time". Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot lay on the same point since otherwise you cannot have a change, therefore, we need a variable to accommodate two states in two different points. There should be a duration between two points otherwise change does not occur at all. We call this variable as time.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:56 am I've always thought the opposite: that is, We need change for time (to be).
Consider: an utterly vacant universe, just an empty volume, not a single particle. Does time exist in such a place?
Now: introduce a radioactive particle to this volume. Leaving aside that we can't measure the decay of this particle without introducing ourselves into the volume (it's a half-assed thought experiment so: just go with it), we can measure the decay of this particle and suddenly we have 'past' (the particle's previous state), 'present' (the particle's current state), and 'future' (the particle's projected or anticipated or possible state), and we have an 'arrow', a direction with decay (entropy) moving relentlessly 'forward'.
Time, it seems to me, is (measured or measurable) change in 'something': no 'something' and/or no change = no time.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Mebbe I'm not seein' the difference cuz...
...it seems like you and me are saying the same thing.
Your variable is just measured change, yeah?
Your variable is just measured change, yeah?
Re: Mebbe I'm not seein' the difference cuz...
No, my variable allows change.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:42 pm ...it seems like you and me are saying the same thing.
Your variable is just measured change, yeah?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I'm gonna have to think on it cuz I'm not gettin' what you're sayin.
Look, we need two points to accommodate a change in a system, A to B. That is a two steps process. One point is not enough since A and B, in this case, co-exist simultaneously. Our reality is not timeless so we need to discard it. There should be a duration between A to B too otherwise the change does not take place.
Let me know if something is unclear.
Re: How time does change?
There is no argument.
You fall at the first hurdle.
"Time is subjected to change".
Whilst out perception of time is a subject of our experience, time objectively is not.
Time required for change is objective time.
And your "therefore" is not a therefore in any sense. I've no idea why you think so.
Re: How time does change?
Could you please follow my discussion with henry quirk. Time, as I explained, is necessary for change. I also argue that time is subject to changes. We are not living in a timeless universe when everything is simultaneous. The only other option than timeless universe is the temporal universe, our universe for example.
Without psychological time we cannot even have a sense of motion/changes.
Yes, objective time is important for things that happen outside your mind.
I will try to help you to understand my thoughts.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: How time does change?
No, not necessarily. You might as well say that change is necessary for time, as time is necessary for change. You can argue that time is subject to change all you like, but that does not make it so. And it matters not a jot how many times you say it: the nature of time is not changing.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:10 amCould you please follow my discussion with henry quirk. Time, as I explained, is necessary for change. I also argue that time is subject to changes. We are not living in a timeless universe when everything is simultaneous. The only other option than timeless universe is the temporal universe, our universe for example.
If there seems a paradox, it is with your perception, not with time or the universe.
Actually everything is simultaneous. That much is obvious, but time moves on and empowers movement of matter. But for any given moment everything is in fact simultaneous. Things cannot exist in different times, when at rest.
Time frames do in fact exist, but they are strictly governed by velocity, and their differences are so minor unless the velocities are some significant proportion of the Speed of Light, which is constant.
Your other option is not an option.
Without psychological time we cannot even have a sense of motion/changes.
So what? This is not relevant.
Since humans exist in the same universe, we are all in objective time, including our "mind" whatever that might be.
Not unless you address the numerous problems with them.
You need to look at the solutions to Zeno's arrow and his apparent time paradoxes. This has all been done before. - and solved
Re: How time does change?
I can experience time when there is no change.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:18 pmNo, not necessarily. You might as well say that change is necessary for time, as time is necessary for change.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:10 amCould you please follow my discussion with henry quirk. Time, as I explained, is necessary for change. I also argue that time is subject to changes. We are not living in a timeless universe when everything is simultaneous. The only other option than timeless universe is the temporal universe, our universe for example.
I have an argument for "time changes". Events are synced but they are not simultaneous since we experience changes. I think that is evident. This means that we are living in a temporal universe where events happens in a specific direction, the direction of change of time, past now and future. I argue that for any change you need time. We experience changes. Therefore, time exists and changes.
I didn't say that the nature of time doesn't change.
I am providing my reason which is based on facts, consistent observations.
That is not true. We know that change exists. That means that events occur on different stances of time. Therefore, our universe is temporal.
We are living in a temporal universe.
True.
What is other option?
It is very relevant. Time is need for any change whether the subject of change is internal/subjective/psycological or external/objective/physical.
True.
Ok, I hope things are more clear now.