Time has to exist, if it can be curved

[Notvacka]

The problem is the way we divide time into past and future. In space, here is where I am, and there is everywhere else. In time, now is where I am and then is everywhere else. If you go from London to Paris, you don't claim that London has changed into Paris when you get there. Likewise, yesterday has not changed into today. Nothing ever changes but our personal point of view.

It seems to me as though there is a fundamental difference. You can go back to London quite easily, not so yesterday and if you want to go to tomorrow, you'll just have to wait.
It is true that 'time' appears to do odd things locally in gravity and in motion, but the universe keeps expanding obliviously; yesterday it was smaller, tomorrow it will be even bigger. Matter is flying about and where it all is corresponds to a moment in 'time'. For all that we can move the lump of matter which is us relative to others, we cannot so easily move to a time when the universe was much bigger or smaller than it is 'now'.

Yes. Time is indeed the odd dimension out. We experience it differently from space. It's like our consciousness is somehow inexorably dragged along in one direction. Why has yet to be explained. Some would suggest that it's just our way to make sense of it all, because we are linear thinkers. But I suspect that there is more to it.

Any moment in time is both past and future, depending on our point of view.

Not sure about this. Doesn't a point of view imply someone to have that point of view? To whom is "now" the past?

The "now" when you wrote this is obviously the past to you, now. My point is, that every moment is as real as any other. Everything happens "now" when it happens. The past is there, and it's real. The future is there, and it's real. "Now", however, is fleeting.

[Dimebag]

I am starting to see time as more of an effect than a thing in itself. Time can be manipulated, however I don't believe there is any particular "thing" in this universe which is time. To me, time is change, and therefore the tendency for change to occur differently under different conditions to me seems to flow naturally.

The time I am describing is the metaphysical sense, rather than the measurement itself of time, which obviously is a human construction. I think it's important that we don't mix the two up. And then we have the human PERCEPTION of time, which is a whole other thing entirely. Our perception of time can be totally non constant, even though the time in the metaphysical sense IS. That tells me they are not one in the same; they don't co-vary.

So it seems we have at least three different actualities of time, two of which actually don't exist, and one which is more of an effect which flows naturally from the order of the universe.

What I will say finally is, I dislike the concept of something 'existing'. Do quarks exist? Maybe they are actually made up of smaller sub particles (which has been suggested). Existence seems to be undermined by a reductionist viewpoint, therefore maybe we need to do away with the idea of existence. I not sure what would be inserted in its place. Maybe it is more accurate to say, 'we know of this phenomenon which occurs under these circumstances, and we think it might happen because of this'.

[tillingborn]

Yes. Time is indeed the odd dimension out. We experience it differently from space.

Come to think of it, is that actually true? For all that we can travel to and from Paris, can we ever return to the place that Paris was relative to Andromeda, say? Given that the universe is expanding, it is arguable that that place no longer exists and that we are always moving away from where we were in 'absolute' terms.

It's like our consciousness is somehow inexorably dragged along in one direction. Why has yet to be explained. Some would suggest that it's just our way to make sense of it all, because we are linear thinkers. But I suspect that there is more to it.

Well, if there was a Big Bang, and frankly, there was, I think it behaves in much the same way as a firework does. The sparks, you, me, planets and galaxies are moving apart and cooling down;there is no way the firework is going to come back together and put itself back in the box. The history of the firework is heading one way, the same is true of the Big Bang.

The "now" when you wrote this is obviously the past to you, now.

Well yes, but that doesn't resolve the issue because it isn't now now.

My point is, that every moment is as real as any other. Everything happens "now" when it happens.

Yes, but, for instance,'the sun is shining now' is the result of something that happened 8 or so minutes ago.

The past is there, and it's real. The future is there, and it's real. "Now", however, is fleeting.

"Now", if you like, is where the future and past meet, but where are they, and what do you mean they are real?

What I will say finally is, I dislike the concept of something 'existing'. Do quarks exist? Maybe they are actually made up of smaller sub particles (which has been suggested). Existence seems to be undermined by a reductionist viewpoint, therefore maybe we need to do away with the idea of existence.

I don't think the fact that quarks may be made of other things commits existence to reductionism, I just think we need to accept that we maybe wrong about their being fundamental. I think you are right though to say: "it is more accurate to say, 'we know of this phenomenon which occurs under these circumstances, and we think it might happen because of this'."

[Notvacka]

Come to think of it, is that actually true? For all that we can travel to and from Paris, can we ever return to the place that Paris was relative to Andromeda, say? Given that the universe is expanding, it is arguable that that place no longer exists and that we are always moving away from where we were in 'absolute' terms.

Indeed, it's impossible to truly return. Every place is here and now and never the same. Speaking about "absolute" terms is meaningless. What absolute would you measure against?

The "now" when you wrote this is obviously the past to you, now.

Well yes, but that doesn't resolve the issue because it isn't now now.

I'm not sure if you misunderstand my answer or if I misunderstand your question. (To whom is "now" the past?) It is "now" now. It's always "now" and "now" is never the same.

My point is, that every moment is as real as any other. Everything happens "now" when it happens.

Yes, but, for instance,'the sun is shining now' is the result of something that happened 8 or so minutes ago.

Of course your "now" and the "now" of the sun is not the same. Perhpas I should have been more clerar: Everything happens here and now, where and when it happens. Every now is here, every then is there.

The past is there, and it's real. The future is there, and it's real. "Now", however, is fleeting.

"Now", if you like, is where the future and past meet, but where are they, and what do you mean they are real?

Do we misunderstand each other? My point about past and future both being "real" is simply that there is nothing special about "now". Where do past and future meet? Past and future meet everywhere, always; every single point in time (back to the big bang, at least) has a past and a future. Every place and moment is as real as any other, "here" and "now" distinguished only by us being here, now.

[SecularCauses]

I am starting to see time as more of an effect than a thing in itself. Time can be manipulated, however I don't believe there is any particular "thing" in this universe which is time. To me, time is change, and therefore the tendency for change to occur differently under different conditions to me seems to flow naturally.

The time I am describing is the metaphysical sense, rather than the measurement itself of time, which obviously is a human construction. I think it's important that we don't mix the two up. And then we have the human PERCEPTION of time, which is a whole other thing entirely. Our perception of time can be totally non constant, even though the time in the metaphysical sense IS. That tells me they are not one in the same; they don't co-vary.

So it seems we have at least three different actualities of time, two of which actually don't exist, and one which is more of an effect which flows naturally from the order of the universe.

What I will say finally is, I dislike the concept of something 'existing'. Do quarks exist? Maybe they are actually made up of smaller sub particles (which has been suggested). Existence seems to be undermined by a reductionist viewpoint, therefore maybe we need to do away with the idea of existence. I not sure what would be inserted in its place. Maybe it is more accurate to say, 'we know of this phenomenon which occurs under these circumstances, and we think it might happen because of this'.

I see no difference between a fundamentalist Christian bragging about rejecting science based on her religion and someone disregarding science based on "philosophy". In either case, the person is delusional.

[tillingborn]

Do we misunderstand each other? My point about past and future both being "real" is simply that there is nothing special about "now". Where do past and future meet? Past and future meet everywhere, always; every single point in time (back to the big bang, at least) has a past and a future. Every place and moment is as real as any other, "here" and "now" distinguished only by us being here, now.

I don't think we entirely understand each other. If by the past and future being "real" you mean stuff has happened and will continue to do so I agree. What threw me was you saying: "It's like our consciousness is somehow inexorably dragged along in one direction." I really don't see what consciousness has got to do with it beyond being a prerequisite of 'understanding' anything. I am quite certain that our consciousness is dragged along, because that is the way things are going. The reason being, to return to SecularCauses' original question, that 'time', in my opinion does not exist as something we are 'in'. Things happen, one after another, we notice, we count, we call it time. I think that's what Dimebag means and I think that's right.
I don't think questioning whether time exists constitutes rejecting science, unless you have a fundamentalist view of what science is.

[Dimebag]

I am starting to see time as more of an effect than a thing in itself. Time can be manipulated, however I don't believe there is any particular "thing" in this universe which is time. To me, time is change, and therefore the tendency for change to occur differently under different conditions to me seems to flow naturally.

The time I am describing is the metaphysical sense, rather than the measurement itself of time, which obviously is a human construction. I think it's important that we don't mix the two up. And then we have the human PERCEPTION of time, which is a whole other thing entirely. Our perception of time can be totally non constant, even though the time in the metaphysical sense IS. That tells me they are not one in the same; they don't co-vary.

So it seems we have at least three different actualities of time, two of which actually don't exist, and one which is more of an effect which flows naturally from the order of the universe.

What I will say finally is, I dislike the concept of something 'existing'. Do quarks exist? Maybe they are actually made up of smaller sub particles (which has been suggested). Existence seems to be undermined by a reductionist viewpoint, therefore maybe we need to do away with the idea of existence. I not sure what would be inserted in its place. Maybe it is more accurate to say, 'we know of this phenomenon which occurs under these circumstances, and we think it might happen because of this'.

I see no difference between a fundamentalist Christian bragging about rejecting science based on her religion and someone disregarding science based on "philosophy". In either case, the person is delusional.

Ok, but I fail to see what that has to do with my comment about existence. Care to expand?

[Notvacka]

Do we misunderstand each other? My point about past and future both being "real" is simply that there is nothing special about "now". Where do past and future meet? Past and future meet everywhere, always; every single point in time (back to the big bang, at least) has a past and a future. Every place and moment is as real as any other, "here" and "now" distinguished only by us being here, now.

I don't think we entirely understand each other. If by the past and future being "real" you mean stuff has happened and will continue to do so I agree. What threw me was you saying: "It's like our consciousness is somehow inexorably dragged along in one direction." I really don't see what consciousness has got to do with it beyond being a prerequisite of 'understanding' anything. I am quite certain that our consciousness is dragged along, because that is the way things are going. The reason being, to return to SecularCauses' original question, that 'time', in my opinion does not exist as something we are 'in'. Things happen, one after another, we notice, we count, we call it time. I think that's what Dimebag means and I think that's right.
I don't think questioning whether time exists constitutes rejecting science, unless you have a fundamentalist view of what science is.

Time and space are tied together. Every place in space, is also a place in time. The notion of "here and now" pertains to consciousness. And I still don't think we entirely understand each other.

[tillingborn]

Time and space are tied together. Every place in space, is also a place in time. The notion of "here and now" pertains to consciousness. And I still don't think we entirely understand each other.

I’m not sure whether we don’t understand each other or we simply disagree. I’m fairly certain that I get what you mean by “Every place in space, is also a place in time.” There is a sense in which I think that is true, insofar as any event can be located using three coordinates of space and one of time. To put it another way, I don’t think you can meaningfully say that anything has happened or will, or even that it 'is' without being able to say where and when. But as you pointed out, there is no absolute to measure against; the starting point will be arbitrary and in most instances will, for convenience, be “here and now”. It pertains to consciousness only inasmuch that all we usually mean is left a bit, down a bit, back a bit, on Thursday, or something of that nature.
All of which is very different from what SecularCauses appears to believe when asking:

For those trumpeting the view that time is nothing more than a made-up fiction, and that one may contemplate its demise from our existence, then please explain how it is that time is curved.

Apparently it is mathematically consistent to treat time as though it were some material that can be stretched and warped, but I don’t imagine that the meaning of any equation would change radically if t or s, for time were replaced by n, for the number of vibrations of caesium atoms, orbits of the Earth or whatever. Perhaps SecularCauses will be able to explain if that is the case and why, therefore time is curved.

[Mike Strand]

Is “distance” any more real than “time”? Consider “procedural” or “operational” definitions corresponding to the practical quantification or measurement of distance or of time. Working even with one spatial dimension, we may count the number of inches or feet or centimeters, etc., between location A and location B, and we call that number the “intervening distance between A and B”. Working with “time”, we count the number of clock ticks or vibrations that occur between event A and event B, and we call that number the “elapsed time between A and B”.

Mathematical equations in any physical theory involve these measurements as variables and describe what happens to those measurements in the presence of mass. "Time", "distance", and "mass" are abstract terms corresponding to physical measurement processes.

[tillingborn]

"Time", "distance", and "mass" are abstract terms corresponding to physical measurement processes.

I'm not sure the three are equivalent. Despite this being a philosophy forum, I think we can overlook some ontological issues and assume that mass or at least matter exists. That it exerts an attractive force is contingent and I was not aware that this varies in the presence of another mass, it's weight does, but that is a product of the two (or more) masses. I know that special relativity states that mass increases with velocity, but I don't believe this means there is any more matter, rather that the resistance to acceleration grows. Obviously not everything is in the same place and not everything happens at once and as you say, or ability to measure these differences gives us our scales for time and distance, but do you think maths can tell us anything about what space and time are?

[SecularCauses]

"Time", "distance", and "mass" are abstract terms corresponding to physical measurement processes.

I'm not sure the three are equivalent. Despite this being a philosophy forum, I think we can overlook some ontological issues and assume that mass or at least matter exists. That it exerts an attractive force is contingent and I was not aware that this varies in the presence of another mass, it's weight does, but that is a product of the two (or more) masses. I know that special relativity states that mass increases with velocity, but I don't believe this means there is any more matter, rather that the resistance to acceleration grows. Obviously not everything is in the same place and not everything happens at once and as you say, or ability to measure these differences gives us our scales for time and distance, but do you think maths can tell us anything about what space and time are?

There is a difference between relativistic and non-relativistic mass. Also, the gravitational attraction in relativity theory is not just dependent on mass, it is also dependent on the pressure that the given mass is under. Increase the pressure of a given mass, and you increase its ability to curve space, which simulates a "gravitational attraction." It also increases its ability to curve time.

Why wouldn't the mass increase as it speeds up? Why wouldn't space shrink as an object speeds up? Why wouldn't time slow down as an object speeds up? Why would anyone think that there is some absolute measure of space or time?

[SecularCauses]

Is “distance” any more real than “time”? Consider “procedural” or “operational” definitions corresponding to the practical quantification or measurement of distance or of time. Working even with one spatial dimension, we may count the number of inches or feet or centimeters, etc., between location A and location B, and we call that number the “intervening distance between A and B”. Working with “time”, we count the number of clock ticks or vibrations that occur between event A and event B, and we call that number the “elapsed time between A and B”.

Mathematical equations in any physical theory involve these measurements as variables and describe what happens to those measurements in the presence of mass. "Time", "distance", and "mass" are abstract terms corresponding to physical measurement processes.

In relativity theory, one has to use an invariant quantity that does not change for the observer, so instead of using space or time, the measure used is spacetime, which coes to the same value for everyone, except in situations that do not affecr causality. So, you are right, if a physicist had to plug in something for distance, length, volume, etc., which are all measures of space, the measures would vary depending on the reference frame used. Same for time. But, by using the quantity spacetime, the problem is solved. This is another reason wy time is real, it is embedded in the cosmos, by combining it with space, we get an objective, invariant measure that holds through any reference frame that matters in solving a physical problem.

[thedoc]

In the OP it is suggested that time can be curved in a strong gravity field, and the example is given of clocks that keep time more slowly in a strong gravity field. It should also be noted that clocks keep time more slowly as they approach the speed of light. But 'time' is just the record of events, of the position and motion of 'things'. Would it be more correct to say that the motion of things (physical objects) is curved and slowed down in a strong gravity fiels and at high relativistic speeds. Time is still just a record of a series of events and a clock is just a physical object in motion at a regular rate. That a clock slows down merely means that it's motion slows down and each motion takes slightly longer. time itself is unchanged and unaffected. Time is simply the record of one event after another, of the motion and position of physical objects and the rate of events, motion, and position of physical objects, are affected by gravity and velosity and are still recorded as a series, faster or slower according to conditions.

[SecularCauses]

In the OP it is suggested that time can be curved in a strong gravity field, and the example is given of clocks that keep time more slowly in a strong gravity field. It should also be noted that clocks keep time more slowly as they approach the speed of light. But 'time' is just the record of events, of the position and motion of 'things'. Would it be more correct to say that the motion of things (physical objects) is curved and slowed down in a strong gravity fiels and at high relativistic speeds. Time is still just a record of a series of events and a clock is just a physical object in motion at a regular rate. That a clock slows down merely means that it's motion slows down and each motion takes slightly longer. time itself is unchanged and unaffected. Time is simply the record of one event after another, of the motion and position of physical objects and the rate of events, motion, and position of physical objects, are affected by gravity and velosity and are still recorded as a series, faster or slower according to conditions.

That's where you are wrong. The clock is irrelevant. Time itself exists, and governs the movements of a clock, which is why a watch that is accelerated close to light speed will slow down, it has nothing to do with its mechanical properties. If time were just a figment of the imagination, then it should remain just as subjective to us, no matter what reference frame we use, but this is not the case. Time changes, saying that time is not affected, while a clock is, is simply wrong.