How to explain motion if time does not exist

Without linear time (which is driven by entropy), bodies can move, but the result would be comparable to the phenomenon we know as bilocation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That seem like a awful lot of justification for simply agreeing that any scheme without time is static and bars motion. For one, the 2D disc can only traverse within the 3 dimensions only if one of those is time or there is yet a higher-dimensional space, as otherwise you only have a static cylinder. There's no reason to think the 2D object should transform into the 3D one unless you assume the 3D one is primary and the 2D only a limited slice of the cylinder. If those 2D slices were ever to change, along the length of the cylinder, you'd have to evoke time, or unending and ever-higher dimensions to avoid time ad absurdum.

And dx/dt is a change in distance per (divided by) a change in time. It is a division operation and does not mathematically justify an infinite velocity.

These convolutions are likely to only serve to give someone who doesn't understand it a false sense of some possibility of motion without time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Bilocation" is not a scientifically meaningful or even well-defined term.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Map it to a spatial dimension so that "age" becomes a "length" and "movement" becomes a "shape".

Then get a new brain which hasn't evolved for millions of years to work in terms of 3D+1T so you can actually think in those terms.

Maybe not the most practical solution.

 

Time isn't driven by entropy entropy simply is the direction of time and it can be altered hypothetically.

 

Nah, nothing to justify. As for leading to false conclusions, so far you alone have been mislead. As for convolution, it's reversible, just unwrap yourself from around the axle. Glad you brought it up, though, that gives me a third possible representation - spectral form. Restating then:

There are at least 3 ways to represent motion outside of time:

(1) As velocity.
(2) As trajectory.
(3) As spectrum.

If dx/dt bothers you, just use ẋ. In any case, it takes an infinite velocity to be in all places at once, so your argument is moot.

Conclusion:

At least three classes of static worlds are capable of representing the motions of reality: velocity, trajectory and spectrum. Motion therefore exists outside of time purely as static projections that subtend the set of all real states, integrated over all of time.

 

Of course it isn't. Besides, your question is in philosophy section.

Movement is indefinable scientifically without that letter "t".

It is, in fact, the time derivative of position.

 

ẋ is just another way to write the velocity, which is always a division operation of one quantity changing with respect to another. If you make the divisor zero, the result is undefined. And an infinite velocity doesn't necessitate "be[ing] in all places at once", as a velocity can have an infinite magnitude on a single vector, or even vice versa.

Spectrum? Spectrum of what? Autistic spectrum?

A static "representation" of motion is not a motion. The OP asked "how to explain" not "how to represent". That should be obvious, as the latter is completely trivial.

 

Thus why I said:

Philosophy cannot be meaningfully discussed without well-defined terms.

 

I think it does by goal orientation of the subject matter . Now collisions can change the course yet was it possible to predict the collisions as the come like trains on tracks to a predestination . It is all in the timing of the delivery.

That makes time real for Me and with a purpose . The goal orientation or directives of satellite forms being only what they are coded to be moving on a trajectory that is predictable creates the time not to say that the trajectory did not exist by the possibility of trajectory occurring. If you use your left arm for lifting heavy objects and not your right and your offspring do the same for many generations how long would it take for the abnormality of a bigger left arm is encoded into the human replication? How does that tie into time . BY trajectory of the action . A symbiotic relationship of trajectory of change and the trajectory of motion. Not to say that time exists out side of the 2 intercourse weaving's in the same space . It may well even with out events . This is yet to be conclusive in my mind . Can time exist out side of events ? If it can then what is the force ? Can it be defined outside of motion or change ?

 

You haven't understood me. I did not assume that time collapses in the real universe, but in a parallel world that subtends reality.

Autism probably has a thread in the biology area. You introduced convolution, reminding me that spectral transforms also collapse time.

The spectrum in question? It would be the spectrum of the real motion which is projected into the alternate world, and exists there, forever in stasis.

Your concerns about the collapse of the infinitesimal of time can be referred to the OP. In order for everything to be everywhere at once, infinite velocity is required. Infinite momentum, work, and energy will crop up next and you'll have your hands full with the same moot question. Other pure ideas will necessarily collapse in turn. I suppose you could construct an argument that time collapses exclusively from the right, so everything else exclusively approaches infinity. Maybe someone else considers that relevant or would care to argue against it. Not me.

Your assumption that I have not explained motion outside of time by constructing representations of motion outside of time, makes no sense, perhaps because you don't understand.

As for seeming trivial, I guess anything might seem trivial once it's explained. And that evidences the explanation you were concerned about.

 

And just as I've said, this has absolutely nothing to do with an actual motion devoid of time, only a trivial representation of motion in various static ways. Yet again, trying to represent anything as being everywhere at once, you are removing all motion, you are not increasing motion to infinity.

I don't know how I can say it any more simply. A representation of motion is not itself a motion, so dropping time drops the motion as well.

 

It has everything to do with actual motion devoid of time, so much so that the schema breaks down otherwise. Deeming any concept trivial, following from a premise that time has collapsed, can as easily be deemed trivial. Concepts like timelessness, eternity, parallel states of matter and convergence at infinity are frequently deemed profound, which is why inquiries are made daily, at this site alone, into such ideas. The representation of everything everywhere at once isn't my idea, in fact I think it was recently elucidated by Brian Greene on Nova. As for infinite velocity explaining the collapse of time, that would be the rather trivial result of reaching infinite slope in trajectory. By the same token, having all motion converge at zero velocity would imply a race of time converging at infinity, that is, each moment of existence would collapse and converge into a single temporal infinitesimal, particularly because we have bracketed existence finitely against the background of infinitely racing time...although the conclusion would appear to be equally valid for the case of unbracketed existence proceeding at a finite pace. So in the reciprocal of zero time - that is, infinite pace - the slope of trajectory is zero (your zero velocity) which we might conclude is suitably profound, since infinitesimal time, vanishing into nothingness, would seem to imply that nothing exists anywhere ever, the reciprocal of the case in which everything exists everywhere and forever.

What were you saying about triviality?

 

First, you have yet to give any reason to support thinking that a static representation of motion still contains actual, dynamic motion. A lot of non sequitur and justification, but no reason. Second, you should probably read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos before thinking you understand any of the dumbed-down concepts presented on TV.

"Collapse of time" is meaningless unless you care to define it properly. An infinite velocity doesn't do anything to time. Time is not a substance that can be acted upon. If you understood any Relativity, you'd know that all observers always perceive their normal rate of time locally, regardless of velocity. Now remote observers could possibly observe no time to pass, but this would make any absence of time or multiplicity of location merely an apparency due to relative velocity (vaguely analogous to motion blur making an object appear to have a larger extent). These disappear when transformed into the local frame. No one's time has "collapsed".

 

I didn't say the static world of the OP contains actual motion. I said it subtends it. As for non sequitur, au contraire, I threaded my ideas from the OP and so it's rooted in the non sequitur presumption of a world without time. If you want me to show evidence supporting timelessness, we'd have to split off into pseudoscience. I mentioned Brian Greene's TV show because he gives a graphical rendition of spacetime integrated over all time, an idea that fits the OP. I have read Brian Greene dumbed-down as well. I never made any reference to time as a substance - maybe you have me confused with someone else. I didn't bother to define collapse of time, since it was left open in the OP, and I didn't even think much about it until you got wrapped around the axle over division by zero. As for relativity, we could just as well assume it collapses as would all the rest of physics and reality itself. We had no premise of inertial reference frames in the OP. I wasn't thinking of remote observers at a relative velocity, but I suppose the hypothetical observer, moving omnidirectionally at infinite velocity, poses some interesting interpretations of observation. Of course anything's possible when time collapses, or ceases, or never was and never will be, or however else you might decide to make it go away. I think you took the meaning that we drop time, but I don't know exactly what that means either. If you want to impose some constraints, go ahead. I'm out here freewheeling in unconstrained timelessness, pondering otherwise useless ideas like velocity singularities.

This discussion raises some questions. In what context does time vanish? For example: what is the temporal consequence of a photon? What is the ultimate cause of masslessness (or of mass)? Is all existence ultimately relativistic? For all things that vanish in this way, what happens to the quantities associated with their existence which are known to be inversely related to quantities that may vanish? Is there a singularity at the source of all quantum objects? When physics breaks down at some scale, be it a Planck length or otherwise, what is happening to the temporal dimension? What happens to time "at" the event horizon of a black hole, or, as Brian Greene speculates, at the event horizon of a string?

Or, I could just dumb down my entire thought process, retract everything and simply post the following: Time can't cease.

 

In the context of a photon's "rest frame" time vanishes.
The "temporal consequence" of a photon is that it does have a non-vanishing time component for external frames of reference. Nothing "happens" to time because time isn't really an intrinsic property of anything, but rather entirely extrinsic, a property of "observation".

 

Oh really?

You've been there awhile now.

If you are supposing that velocity does something to time, like "collapse" it, then you are regarding time as a substance.

The OP made a single, clear presupposition that "time does not exist". No other existing physics were defined as altered, so all this is just justifications for erroneously assuming that "does not exist" somehow meant "quit existing", with some sort of transform or transition, when the simple and obvious answer is just that motion cannot exist without time.

BTW, you still managed to dodge defining "collapse of time".

Time doesn't "vanish". A photon simply has the rest of the universe length contracted to zero, which takes none of its time to cross. We still measure it to take time to traverse at a finite velocity. Now you're going to have to define your next unscientific term: "vanish".

Physics "breaking down" means we just don't know, as the particular model no longer gives sensible answers.

And this is the crux of all your non sequiturs. The OP has nothing to do with time "ceasing", only whether motion can be explained without it.

 

Time is intrinsic to everything if it wasn't intrinsic to anything then it wouldn't be extrinsic to anything either since what's intrinsic to 'something' is extrinsic to another 'something' that's how an observer perceives time dilating relative to the observer's own time.

 

Can you name anything that has an intrinsic time? Certainly not light; maybe entropy does, but is entropy an intrinsic property or an abstraction?

 

@arfa brane

Time is an intrinsic property of matter at least and vice-versa, while entropy is an abstraction of the "direction" of time.​