Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

-1- wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:58 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:53 pm Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.
Time is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.
That is speed which is displacement divided by time. Speed is a mirage. The real thing is displacement and of course time otherwise the speed cannot be defined.
Last edited by bahman on Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:24 am
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:46 pm Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.
How that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.
If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.

One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.

There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:28 am
-1- wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:58 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:53 pm Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.
Time is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.
That is speed which is displacement divided by time. Speed a mirage. The real thing is displacement and of course time otherwise the speed cannot be defined.
Time is an index, a measurement and a phenomenon. Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:24 am
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:46 pm Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.
How that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.
If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.

One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.

There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Time is an index, a measurement and a phenomenon.
Time is only an index when we formulate motion. Time is real but we don't have any sense to experience it.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.
What do you mean?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:24 am

How that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.
If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.

One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.

There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.
When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pm

If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.

One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.

There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.
When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.
Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:15 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Time is an index, a measurement and a phenomenon.
Time is only an index when we formulate motion. Time is real but we don't have any sense to experience it.
We experience change and we associate time with change. The question is time only relational? I say no, there is a phenomenon that has not been explained.
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:15 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.
What do you mean?
Measurement is not a cause or a property. It is information about a cause or a property.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:56 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pm

I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.
When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.
Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?
Your putting words in my mouth. I never said timeless. If I've confused you, I haven't been clear or you don't understand.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:06 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:56 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pm

When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.
Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?
Your putting words in my mouth. I never said timeless. If I've confused you, I haven't been clear or you don't understand.
I didn't said that you said. I just asked a question.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:13 pm

Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless.
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:13 pm

Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless.
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
So, does gravity create states and time? Who knows, but I think it's a good guess, No?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:13 pm Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless.
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:20 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:13 pm Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless.
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.
You seem to be saying that the force of gravity is a function of change in mass. But gravity is a function of mass not change in mass.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

My thinking is that there must be something that exists when there are no states and there is no time. Perhaps there is some mysterious wave. Gravity waves is my guess. But there must be something that opens and closes each state and that something must have a physical impact (that is so subtle that it has never been measured or it has been measured but hasn't been associated with time.]
Post Reply