How to explain motion if time does not exist

It's called cause and effect. It has nothing to do with consciousness or observation. A particle gains or loses energy in any interaction and decays over time, so yes, it is intrinsic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

arfa brane

Time exists whether a conciousness observes it or not. The PERCEPTION of time is what you are talking about here, not it's existence. Kind of like the question of whether, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, is there still a sound. Yes, there is still sound energy being generated, even if there is no one to sense that energy.

And deaf people can not hear sound(say of a tree falling). That has no effect on it's existence. Precision in the language and concepts we use is vital for communicating in an accurate manner.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that's inaccurate. Time only "exists" because information can be stored.

As to perception, is that only a property of conscious beings, and what are they made out of? If conscious beings only observed and had no memory, how could time exist for them? Does a rock warming in the sun "remember" being at a lower temperature?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time is an intrinsic property of matter.

Perception is also in a world that's independent of the mind which is proven from the differences of perception of individuals one person perceives time differently than another and differently while having an adrenaline rush.

A rock doesn't do or perceive anything.

 

arfa brane

Time passes whether or not it's passing is stored in an object. You are talking about the perception of time, not it's existence.

 

arfa brane

Does a rock warming in the sun "remember" being at a lower temperature?

It does if it is ice(though it is not aware of it), it remembers that state in it's physical composition. Then, later, it is water. Time has passed.

 

RE : Above

Also the heat that goes into the rock causes the motion of atoms in it to increase so time has passed.

 

No it isn't.

This is just your opinion isn't it? You can't explain how or why it's true because it isn't true.

 

@arfa brane

It is not as I've explained in my previous comments in this thread.​

 

What have you explained?

You've only stated several times that time is an intrinsic property of matter, I haven't seen your explanation of this. So I'll state again: time is not an intrinsic property of anything, it's something we invent to explain observation. Time explains why we are able to observe, but what does "able to observe" really mean?

We can say that time exists independently of observation, but if time doesn't really exist in the first place then we must be inventing this "independent time" as well.

 

Here you go the self-defeating part of your own comment:

Time explains why we are able to observe...


If time explains why we are able to observe that means time isn't part of our consciousness and is something independent of our mind.

On a side note we can't invent something to explain our own observation because whatever we invent would have to rely on our own perception and it can't explain itself independently of itself.

 

You must have missed this:

Time is intrinsic because there is always a difference between two otherwise identical events. If it weren't then you'd have to say that the exact same event happened again later, which means that entropy didn't increase and the two, although sharing the same space and objects, could not be causally related.

There is no possible way for one object to be causally unrelated to its earlier self.

As I said in the above quote, the only argument for extrinsic time is your subjective experience and recognition of it.

Now I've provided you with an explanation. It is now up to you to explain some reasons that support your assertion of extrinsic time.

 

Big Chiller

Time is a part of spacetime. Matter exists in spacetime but it is not the same thing as spacetime. Time AFFECTS matter, but is not intrinsic to it.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Grumpy

By saying time is an intrinsic property of matter I mean space-time is an intrinsic property of matter that's not to say that I'm separating space from time it's just linguistics. Also being intrinsic to something in property doesn't mean to be the thing itself.​

 

You continue to argue with yourself over your personal blurs on my actual statements, which have nothing to do with me or my posts.

The prevailing notion of time is that every point on the real world timeline is accessible, at any other real time, to an observer that is able to achieve sufficient velocity to do so.

The photon enjoys this privilege, we may reason, by achieving lightspeed. Note, the condition for the singularity that gave you heartburn as division by zero presents itself in the reciprocal of 1-v²/c² for v=c.

The bizarre consequence of relativistic time has a dual, in which I leave you in the dust expounding sacred truth, while I am not moving at all with respect to anything, standing instead outside the continuum (Brian Greenes' loaf, which I called an extrusion) of spacetime. You may ask yourself about his apparent manifestation to observers situated inside the continuum. Is he a photon to them?

I think somewhere you are advocating that time never collapses. Besides the relative collapse, which collapses the differential, we have the presumption that time was created. From this reasoning alone The Big Bang singularity is suspended in an eternal timeless and spatially infinitesimal world, from which The Big Bang diverges, leaving spacetime in its wake. Thus it follows that a timeless realm can coexist with our temporal world, albeit as a photonic Brian Greene kind of outside observer, which also happens to be the mother of all singularities, fully integrated and stuffed within the confines of non-space.

In conclusion, any description of a world without time is one that lies outside the continuum. From that imaginary vantage point, motion inside can be explained in at least three ways: velocity, trajectory or spectra. That was my comment, nothing more. Varnish it as thickly as you like, but I suggest a respirator, as the fumes are taking a toll. :m:

 

I would argue that what is intrinsic is the free space intrinsic impedance, or, more specifically, the permittivity and permeability of free space, and the reciprocal of their geometric mean, which defines, in the derivative, the relationship between space with respect to time, by way of the boundary condition c.

 

Why does it mean that?

Why doesn't it mean that time IS a part of our mind?

Something which is intrinsic to something is a part of it. For instance distance is an intrinsic property of space. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter or 'material particles'.

Measuring distance in space means having to assign extrinsic 'coordinates' to at least two parts of space. Measuring energy means having to use an extrinsic object with a different amount of energy; you need at least two things there as well.

Measurement implies that what is being measured can be extrinsically mapped to 'information' which is then stored. Measurement requires that time exists because time is universally extrinsic. It is NOT a part of material objects but completely non-material. Time isn't energy or entropy but is closely connected to measurement of both.

 

A sunflower tracks the sun, yet we do not normally associate sunflowers with sentience (except in blue states :m

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

As to the commentary on consciousness, I would offer that is has something to do with addressing reality in the mode of a differentiator, that is, capable of processing the continuum as a discriminator function. Memory, and some perception, such a vision, seem to operate something like an integrator, assembling selected bits of differentiated continuum into this fuzzy thing we call sentience.

 

I'm enjoying your commenting.
Yes an intrinsic property of something is a part of it but not the thing itself. Distance is an abstraction referencing space. Yes, energy is an intrinsic property of matter but rest mass of matter is not exactly matter itself.

Measuring itself is not the coordinates even if coordinates are required. Yes measuring requires differences or changes be it verbal or non-verbal change but I don't know what it has to do with being extrinsic it's a comparison.

Time (spacetime) does not have substance but that doesn't mean it's not physical so it is intrinsic to matter it may even be energy different from the forms of energy we know of. It would still be helpful to know what you mean by extrinsic as your usage of the word isn't clear.

 

Site your source for this "prevailing notion".

For a given event, any event occurring outside of its past or future light cones cannot be affected by or affect that event.

No, the photon doesn't. The photon travels on the light cone, hence the name. And no, 1-v²/c² for v=c means that v²/c² = 1/1 = 1, so 1-v²/c² = 1-1 = 0. There is no division by zero here, just some arm waving to justify your earlier faux pas.

Complete gibberish. "sacred truth"? "loaf extrusion"?

What on Earth is a "relative collapse"?! Define your non-standard terms. There is no consensus of the status of time prior to the BB.

Never mind. It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.

Still only static representations, themselves devoid of motion.

Gibberish. Permittivity and permeability are both in relation to things in a space, and as such can easily be intrinsic to those things.