Is Time Real? What Is Time?
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
- Status
No he is saying only a living thing can perceive time, and now we are now delving into consciousness relation to time.
Ultimately our direct perception of how time works is limited by our primitive senses and intellect.
Ultimately our direct perception of how time works is limited by our primitive senses and intellect.
I am confused by this sentence:
<quote>
Time therefore is only a limitation on life forms, and in reality simply does not exits.
</quote>
Time does not really exists?
Time is energy.
Time is money.
Money is energy.
We are energy.
If you want to be precise. Also time is not linear, and electrons are non-local, which means everywhere at once, and can also become waves because electrons are not particles and therefore have no mass.
Time is just the movement of kinetic energy, if you walk from point A to B, it costs kinetic energy, and the amount of energy you use decides how much time it takes. Thus a rocket ship can fly to the moon quicker when you apply more energy to the launch, including brain power in the design of the ship itself. We have found, that the energy of the brain, allows us to transmit information across the universe, by entanglement of electrons, and this is simply a result of human brain energy. Imagine now, what some aliens might be able to do if their brains are more efficient than ours? Imagine what we will be able to do once we develop quantum computers and the ability to be in multiple places in the universe at once? If we reach a point where we can be, as an entity, even if just as a thought/consciousness, in two places at once, thats when we can finally say we have broken time. Quantum computers has us almost there, one step closer to a universe quantum internet, which could become a universal web of consciousness, and we might be able to upload or download from all conscious lifeforms in the universe someday just like we upload or download from each others computers.
So the keys to remember
1. Quantum Computers
2. Universe Quantum Internet
3. Universal Quantum Web
4. Quantum Entanglement
Last edited:
Woa I dont know whether to believe that or not.
In a way you are correct. I agree with this statement.
But how did the Universe came to be without Time?
How does Universe work without Time?
If there is no time why anything Exists at all?
It was always here. There is no beginning and end, just a constantly changing state of energy organization.
How so? We know that Universe has a begining. The Universe is 13.7 Billion years old?
And that it is exapanding.
And that it will freez to death due to 2nd law of thermo dynamics.
So how will be constantly changing? since there won't be any energy left to change?
Don't listen to TT if you want understanding. He just makes up scientific-sounding stuff to support his strange religion.
Time is just a measuring tool. What does it measure? The changing states of a system.
You will hear a lot of people say that time is motion, but that isn't completely true. Time is just change. An object could slowly change colors, with no movement, and we could talk about that change in state just as surely as we could with motion.
The question "does time exist?" is like asking "does height exist?". Of course it does. It is just a measurable thing. And it doesn't require a measurer (us) for it to exist, we just get to define the standards that suit our purposes (seconds, years, feet, meters).
And time is not infinite into the past. There were a finite number of discrete states leading up to our present one. There is no way we could have progressed through an infinite number of discrete states to get where we are "today". It is possible, however, for time to go on forever now that it has gotten a start.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Swivel - Post #32: "You will hear a lot of people say that time is motion".
The issued statement is not opinion. Standard (ST) physics has found time and motion to be synonymous for at least the last century. Time is motion and conversely, motion prevails everywhere, whether it is measured as the 'changing states of a system' or not; by whatever standards. This is not opinion, it is a scientific observation accompanied by a corresponding definition.
No known space is without motion, and no known motion is without space.
Amidst some interesting contributions to this thread are a series of declarative statements interchanging opinion for fact, and fact for opinion.
Meanwhile, one of the central conclusions prevails: Measurement of motion (is time) or its standard of measurement is irrelavant. Space-time is inseparable and ubiquitous. The would-be sanctuary - hiding place - of a (hypothetical) 'black hole' does not compromise this (theoretical) observation.
It's been questioned before, and for good reason:
Where was the collective mass of the alleged 'big bang', before it accumulated and exploded? Where was space-time before the alleged 'big bang' beginning'? Until further notice, these tractable questions are destined to continue traversing 'the beginning and/or the end' on an intractable mobius strip...
The challege is not to find and measure where-when space-time is, the challenge is to locate a condition where space-time does not exist. In such a condition, there is the complete absence of motion and there is no space within which an event can occur. Such condition of non motion and non space is said to be the final demise of the observed (allegedly 'big bang', 13.7 billion year originated) spatially expanding universe; the proposed 'stoppage' of motion said to be determined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics; in accordance with the so called 'big bang' theory (which is not a theory, but rather, an hypothesis - because there is no common center from which the alleged 'beginning explosion' expands).
Whereas, recent findings not only find the universe expanding, but also at an increasing - accelerating - rate of speed (these relatively new observations are unexpectedly accumulating).
This is not the signature of a big bang origination destined to disintegrate and 'stop'. It is the signature of a repelling force parallel to Newton's impelling force of gravity, but acting in the opposite direction. When the cause of spatial expansion is interpreted as originating with the expansion of physical matter itself, the abandoned Steady State theory is reinstated. (There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy in the expansion of physical matter, it is the same amount of energy, increasingly expanding, over a greater amount of space, squared).
The seventh and eighth sentence of Swivel's above message #32:
"Time is just change. An object could slowly change colors, with no movement, and we could talk about that change in state as surely as we could with motion."
It is true for example that chameleons and octopi (for example) are able to change their colors.
Question: How does this 'change in state', this 'slow (or quick) change of color with no movement', occur, without qualified motion?
What specific example might Swivel offer? How does a change of color circumvent movement?
Swivel's presented 'slow change in color' occurs in time. Does Swivel imply that if the change in color occurs slowly enough, the slowness of change will exclude time? If a change in color were to occur instantaneously, what enivironmental continuum would this 'instanaeity' occur in? (Gene Rodenberry's proteges may find a scenario for this dilemmae?) The question remains, not where-when is space-time? The question remains, when-where is it not?
The first sentence of Swivel's closing paragraph disallows an infinite past ('And time is not infinite into the past'), while the last sentence of Swivel's last paragraph allows for 'time to go on forever now that it has gotten a start' - In this way, Swivel #32 concludes that there must be a beginnning of time, but there need not be any ending... (Swivel does not qualify his prohibition or his allowance)
Note that lote tree, of message #31, equates time with 'change'; whereas,
Swivel #32 separates the meaning of change from the meaning of time... A change without motion? Hopefully Swivel may clarify his word usages.
I have encountered several people who have proclaimed that they could resolve the issues reviewed here 'in no time', and (until further notice), they're still working (somewhere?) on the timeless resolution.
Thank you for reading this missive.
The issued statement is not opinion. Standard (ST) physics has found time and motion to be synonymous for at least the last century. Time is motion and conversely, motion prevails everywhere, whether it is measured as the 'changing states of a system' or not; by whatever standards. This is not opinion, it is a scientific observation accompanied by a corresponding definition.
No known space is without motion, and no known motion is without space.
Amidst some interesting contributions to this thread are a series of declarative statements interchanging opinion for fact, and fact for opinion.
Meanwhile, one of the central conclusions prevails: Measurement of motion (is time) or its standard of measurement is irrelavant. Space-time is inseparable and ubiquitous. The would-be sanctuary - hiding place - of a (hypothetical) 'black hole' does not compromise this (theoretical) observation.
It's been questioned before, and for good reason:
Where was the collective mass of the alleged 'big bang', before it accumulated and exploded? Where was space-time before the alleged 'big bang' beginning'? Until further notice, these tractable questions are destined to continue traversing 'the beginning and/or the end' on an intractable mobius strip...
The challege is not to find and measure where-when space-time is, the challenge is to locate a condition where space-time does not exist. In such a condition, there is the complete absence of motion and there is no space within which an event can occur. Such condition of non motion and non space is said to be the final demise of the observed (allegedly 'big bang', 13.7 billion year originated) spatially expanding universe; the proposed 'stoppage' of motion said to be determined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics; in accordance with the so called 'big bang' theory (which is not a theory, but rather, an hypothesis - because there is no common center from which the alleged 'beginning explosion' expands).
Whereas, recent findings not only find the universe expanding, but also at an increasing - accelerating - rate of speed (these relatively new observations are unexpectedly accumulating).
This is not the signature of a big bang origination destined to disintegrate and 'stop'. It is the signature of a repelling force parallel to Newton's impelling force of gravity, but acting in the opposite direction. When the cause of spatial expansion is interpreted as originating with the expansion of physical matter itself, the abandoned Steady State theory is reinstated. (There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy in the expansion of physical matter, it is the same amount of energy, increasingly expanding, over a greater amount of space, squared).
The seventh and eighth sentence of Swivel's above message #32:
"Time is just change. An object could slowly change colors, with no movement, and we could talk about that change in state as surely as we could with motion."
It is true for example that chameleons and octopi (for example) are able to change their colors.
Question: How does this 'change in state', this 'slow (or quick) change of color with no movement', occur, without qualified motion?
What specific example might Swivel offer? How does a change of color circumvent movement?
Swivel's presented 'slow change in color' occurs in time. Does Swivel imply that if the change in color occurs slowly enough, the slowness of change will exclude time? If a change in color were to occur instantaneously, what enivironmental continuum would this 'instanaeity' occur in? (Gene Rodenberry's proteges may find a scenario for this dilemmae?) The question remains, not where-when is space-time? The question remains, when-where is it not?
The first sentence of Swivel's closing paragraph disallows an infinite past ('And time is not infinite into the past'), while the last sentence of Swivel's last paragraph allows for 'time to go on forever now that it has gotten a start' - In this way, Swivel #32 concludes that there must be a beginnning of time, but there need not be any ending... (Swivel does not qualify his prohibition or his allowance)
Note that lote tree, of message #31, equates time with 'change'; whereas,
Swivel #32 separates the meaning of change from the meaning of time... A change without motion? Hopefully Swivel may clarify his word usages.
I have encountered several people who have proclaimed that they could resolve the issues reviewed here 'in no time', and (until further notice), they're still working (somewhere?) on the timeless resolution.
Thank you for reading this missive.
Einstien, as well as every physicist known to man says time is change. It's a fact, you can even look it up.
Why do you want to promote ignorance? Why do you want to hide what time really is?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
Time is change, period. You can rant on and on, about how everything I say seems religious, but nothing I say is without scientific foundation. When I speak of time as being change, it's because Einstien proved it. We went to the moon and proved it, calculus proves it, as does geometry. When you want to see how long it will take to get from point A to point B, there is a formula to allow you to know exactly how long it takes, this formula works because you can figure out exactly how much energy it will take, and energy is what creates velocity. In order to move through time, it requires energy. Movement through time is change, because time itself is change, the movement of energy.
An object that can change colors, has energy. Light travels in waves, the light from the sun often changes colors, and each color has a certain energy. We can capture this energy in the form of heat, and then turn heat into chemical, or kinetic, or electric. Energy is never created or destroyed, and energy is really the only thing that exists. The light itself is only seen because your eyes are seeing the energy it produces so when you say the light changes, what you are actually saying is that the energy shining on that object from the sun or some other source is changing. If I shine a flashlight on your face, from different angles, the generation of that light requires electricity. If I beam a chemical laster from here to there, it's transfering energy from here to there. The only reason matter can change at all is because of energy. Nothing changes without energy. You cannot move without energy, there is no movement without energy, there is no motion without energy, there is no time without energy, which means energy = time.
When we measure time we are measuring energy, not motion, but energy. This is how we can figure out how much energy it takes to get out of the earth atmosphere, we know because we know how much speed it will take and we know precisely how much velocity it takes to reach a certain speed. Basically with math and science, not religion, we've put shuttles into space, by calculating exactly how much energy it takes to get there and back, not time, energy. Time is artificual when used by itself, but when you use time to calculate, thats when it has meaning. Time is not constant, it's variable, the time it takes for you to get from here to across the universe, depends on energy efficiency. If you can design the proper space shuttle, or the proper technology that is efficient enough, you can travel at light speed or even beyond light speed. It's a matter of energy, and if you know anything about worm holes you know, that yes it's possible to travel faster than light, it's all a matter of solving the energy problem, which I actually don't think we will be able to easily solve but thats the problem.
How much energy would it take for us to entangle a probe from here to across the universe? It's possible, because we have entangled photons, and atoms. If you doubt me, check Google and see. If you doubt the physics of my claims, check Google, point out every article you can find that shows me and the others that I'm wrong.
You might not like how I word it because I simplify it down so people who are not quantum physicists can understand what time is, but thats what a philosopher does, we take complex ideas and simplify them down so that they can be understood. If you think complexity for the sake of complexity is good, just to show off how smart you are, that in my opinion is pointless.
So instead of your very weak attempt to discredit my words. Offer some evidence to disprove anything I've written. If all you can do is complain and say "Don't listen to TT, he's religious", well thats like me saying "Don't listen to swivel, he's an athiest", and neither of us get anywhere. So let's hear your arguement, whats time?
Last edited:
What you said proves my point. Time is energy, and energy is everywhere, including in the void.
The only thing we have not figured out what it is yet, is gravity.
The newest theory, says the universe is a string-net liquid, this would explain how time would be energy, and be everywhere. The problem is, it does not explain gravity, it's not a perfect theory because of that, but it explains more than the folks who like claim that all of string theory is just religion, and therefore fake.
I mean if you are going to complain about string theory, or any of these theories, or my philosophical interpretations of these theories, PLEASE offer an alternative theory, because if you only call the scientists who invent the theories religious, because it was not athiests who invented it, how does this further debate or benefit scientific process?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325954.200-the-universe-is-a-stringnet-liquid.html
To people who say my ideas on philosophy is wrong, do you also conclude that this theory is complete bullshit? I admit, string theory has yet to be proven, but it makes so much sense, the math all works, the physics all work, the best super computers did simulations which all worked, and there are predictions.
If these theories are wrong, then how do the people who do not believe in string theory, explain quantum entanglement, or the fact that electrons arent even particles? I need answers, and if the only people providing these answers are religious, I'll take religious answers over athiests claiming it's unanswerable, or that we just don't or can't know.
Last edited:
TimeTraveller,
In response that post I have asked you - how do you explain the BigBang, Current Expansion of the Universe leading to freezing death of the Universe in which there would not be any Energy left to change anything?
Also you are now Equating "Energy" with Time.
Energy is something I have always wanted to understand fully (and I have asked this very question in the Physics section and I will pursue this question fully there).
I have been given many answers to the question of Energy. I have been told that you can put "Energy" in a cup as a raw Energy. So what is Energy?
That's what I said. Your reading comprehension needs some work.
What I said was that time is a measure of the changes in state of a system. I have said this over and over in dozens of threads on sciforums.
My only point is that it is CHANGE of any sort, and not merely MOTION which gives us an opportunity to measure Time in a system. I gave the example of something changing color to demonstrate this. The object can be perfectly still, and the color change can be instantaneous, and you can measure elapsed time. Unlike the above poster, who confused everything I said, I do not equate a change in color with motion.
sorry corrections - you CAN'T put energy in a cup...it meant to say...
The universe does not "die" when you freeze it. Did you not read about the experiment where they froze electrons to near absolute zero, colder than any thing the universe typically would generate, and it had no influence on the electrons?
Electrons are NOT particles, so heat and cold seems to have no effect on them at all. Electrons also have been known to go into wave states when in a double slit experiment. The best we can figure out is, that electrons are like liquid matter, or at least thats the best I can describe it to you based on the string-net liquid theory. Liquid becomes solid when cold and then to liquid and then to gas, but it always exists no matter what the temperature is. I don't see how energy itself would cease to exist just because the temperature cooled, although cooling of the universe might slow things down a bit.
What I'm saying is, in order for the universe to die, according to my philosophy and theories, the death of the universe occurs when there are no observers left to obeserve matter into existence. I don't think deep freeze or any of that stuff you mention would result in the death of the universe as long as theres still observers present. It would just be another set of changes, which would cause more changes, essentially forever, without end, because change is energy itself, and no matter what state you put it in, it still exists.
You can make light cold enough to freeze light, you can turn electrons into waves or particles, and get this, the real state of matter is pure energy, and it's in all possible locations at once, this includes all possible futures at once, already are in existence in energy. The fact that someone thought of the possibility of the freeze or death of the universe, has changed the arrangement of energy in the universe. I don't think the freeze will happen for many reasons, but the main reason I don't think it will happen is because I don't think theres just one dimension. What I'm saying is, it's just as possible that we are in a multiverse, a smaller dimension of a bigger universe, it might be that just like we can zoom into the quantum and see all this stuff, we might also be the quantum for something else, and if thats the case, the freezing as you call it would not be the end of the multiverse or the death of this universe, the death of the universe comes when there is no longer any observer, or any awareness in the universe. Try to grasp the concept of infinite numbers, then you can grasp the concept of infinite space, infinite energy, infinite possibilities, infinite universes, in that context, one universe is also in a transition into the next universe as the observers discover greater complexity and observe higher dimensions into existence. Just like atoms organized to form lifeforms, and lifeforms organize into eco-systems on planets, and then discover quantum entanglement which allows these lifeforms to communicate without the restriction of the laws of physics.
This is because, the universe itself is just organized information, the complexity changes, but there is no evidence that a big crunch, or deep freeze will kill the universe because there is no evidence that the observers are restricted into one form of matter. Perfect examlpe, if we discover a completely new form of matter that does not obey any of the laws of physics, and this form of matter is some sort of liquid solid gas all combined, that alone would change our concept of what matter is, and thats just the beginning, if we find out that on some levels all existence is this one unlimited pool of liquid matter/energy, that too would change things. It's really simple, the deep freeze will never happen because lifeforms advanced enough and made of exotic forms of matter, could literally phase in and out of the laws of physics as we know them.
Try to imagine what it would be like if you could collapse yourself down to such a level that you can literally be in two places at once, like an electron. To you, there would no longer be a such thing as distance, you'd be in a state of eternal timelessness, but to everything that is not an electron, like the atoms etc, they'd be worried about the deep freeze, and the death of the universe, while you'd just be able to turn into a wave, or go into a new form of matter. Honestly, I'm trying my best to interpret what this string-net theory might mean, but it's too new to actually give it a good explaination, just study the websites on it, read up on it, and then when we are both well informed we can discuss how to compare it to big bang theories and the death of the universe theories.
The expansion of the universe is "size", and "size" is what helps create matter as we know it, it's more like, atoms arrange in a specific way, with electrons and other particles, and this arrangement creates a magnetic field around the object. Nothing is solid, the entire universe is liquid, but it seems solid and filled with forms because of the magnetic fields around it. So you don't actually touch matter, what you actually do is manipulate the magnetic fields, which manipulates the arrangment of the particles or atoms, the energy is everywhere, to the point where it's existence itself, thats why it's hard to grasp what it is. When you ask a person what is existence, very few people will admit that it's energy, but thats really all this universe is, no matter what form it's in, in fact I'd say form only exists because of the big bang and because of the expansion of the universe and without that, the energy would still be here, but it would be a formless place, a void of gasses, particles, and things you see in the quantum, that was existence before the big bang, it was all the quantum.
Last edited:
If we both agree on what time is, what's wrong with the phrase "Time is energy"? Is it the lack of complexity that bothers you?
It's really simple, it uses less words, and it has the exact same meaning as all the words you just said. So why not apply the most efficient use of kinetic energy when we communicate through syntax?
We often say time is money, simple phrase but everyone knows what it means, we also know for a fact that energy is money, so the conclusion that time is energy is the most logical conclusion for anyone who studies economics and physics.
- Status