Time and change.

[rss]

I sometimes sit with a cow-like stare and wonder- often in awe- at the world, its workings, my workings, and every so often, the workings of others.

A few weeks ago, my wondering topic turned to whether without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), can time continue to exist, or 'flow'?

My theory's a tad complicated. It involves considering time in two separate ways (I've done some reading into this as I've been studying something similar). I can't really explain it in any brief way, but am actually more interested in hearing your intuitive response to this question rather than trying to prove my own, which is probably wrong anyhow.

I understand it's a bit late to be considering such metaphysical questions, but if there's anyone out there who has any thoughts or strange desire to talk about things like this, I'm always more than willing!

 

[JustOneUK]

In my opinion time will continue to exist as long as there's someone there to measure it.

 

[JustOneUK]

In my opinion time will continue to exist as long as there's someone there to measure it.

I guess my reply didn't appear deep enough to warrant a reply, so i'll rephrase my comment..

In my humble opinion there is no such thing as time, it's manmade for his own devices. If you remove mankind from the universe then everything just IS. Planets just go round stars, galaxies just drift apart into ever growing space, trees just grow and then die - there's no time involved if it's not measured.

Not sure if that's any better an explaination although I'd be interested in hearing your "tad complicated" theory.

As an aside - I also have had some universe thoughts lately of which one is a bit more measurable....

When you look up at the constellations and look at the 'Big Dipper' or whatever you prefer to call it,.. How far apart are the top two stars of the saucepan part? If I got in my speed of light spaceship, just how long would it take me to get across the saucepan from one star to the other? And how far away from the Earth are each of the stars? (I'm going to guess that one is somewhat 'further back' than the other)

 

[An Oasis]

The clocks go forward on the 29th March, if that helps!

 

[KM-Tiger]

Doesn't really go anywhere this.

If absolutely nothing happens, then does time still pass?

It might do or it might not. We have no measurable events to use to decide that.

 

[rss]

In my humble opinion there is no such thing as time, it's manmade for his own devices. If you remove mankind from the universe then everything just IS. Planets just go round stars, galaxies just drift apart into ever growing space, trees just grow and then die - there's no time involved if it's not measured.

By 'time', I mean some universal dimension that doesn't have a 'figure', but still continues to 'flow' or things flow through it. So, not as in the time a watch shows.

It's been scientificaly shown that time is the fouth dimension (you'll have to consult the theoretical physicists to discuss this though). By this, I mean that it's on a par with space. Yet, in your opinion without minkind, time fails to exist, but if time is on a par with space, then space must cease existing also, which seems a pretty extreme conclusion, for then we imply that without mankind, everything disappears.

On a similar note, it seems very hard to concieve of an obect that exists in space, but not in time. If it doesn't exist in time, how can it exist at all?

It might do or it might not. We have no measurable events to use to decide that.

True, it might not be calculable in a scientific sense, but neither can a lot of things in science. For example, in science, it is oft assumed that 'backover causation' is impossible. At the moment there is no way whatsoever for this to be proven or disproven scientifically. But logically, it has been shown that backover causation is possible. And when we trace things back far enough, we see that the whole of maths is based on logic, therefore, in this case the science may in fact be wrong. So things can be determined by reason alone. We don't need science to show everything.

'd be interested in hearing your "tad complicated" theory.

I'll try to explain it as well as I can either later today or tomorrow. I'll try to get it coherent in my hear first!

When you look up at the constellations and look at the 'Big Dipper' or whatever you prefer to call it,.. How far apart are the top two stars of the saucepan part? If I got in my speed of light spaceship, just how long would it take me to get across the saucepan from one star to the other? And how far away from the Earth are each of the stars? (I'm going to guess that one is somewhat 'further back' than the other)

I've thought about similar things too. Surely, there must be a website out there that can help. I'm off to have a look!

 

[rss]

The clocks go forward on the 29th March, if that helps!

So, do the clocks go forward in the very early hours of the 29th? Or on the night of the 29th? I always get confused with when to turn them forward/back. But thank you for letting me know! I have to catch a flight that morning.

No matter how many years I'm alive it'll always be a mystery to me. :|

 

[An Oasis]

So, do the clocks go forward in the very early hours of the 29th? Or on the night of the 29th? I always get confused with when to turn them forward/back.

Depends on the life of the batteries in the clock, our will probably just stop, maybe that answers your question?

 

[rss]

Depends on the life of the batteries in the clock, our will probably just stop, maybe that answers your question?

hahaha. I feel victimised

 

[JustOneUK]

Yet, in your opinion without minkind, time fails to exist, but if time is on a par with space, then space must cease existing also, which seems a pretty extreme conclusion, for then we imply that without mankind, everything disappears.

Heh, I'm still trying to get my head around what I'm trying to say
We only have time because we have an essence of forward and backwardness - does a rock have that sense? We have imparted our essense of time onto something that doesn't actually have any. Rocks can exist without having time, they generally don't think about it

Time is a 4th dimension by the creation of man, but it's just called that as we already have 3 (which are directional) and we needed a name for it It's totally unrelated to the 3 we have already and although it doesn't relate to the other 3 we generally assume it does as it sounds the same

A few weeks ago, my wondering topic turned to whether without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), can time continue to exist, or 'flow'?

In terms of your original question: How about considering that if the universe disappeared tomorrow... would time still continue ie: How long had the universe been gone?

 

[JustOneUK]

hahaha. I feel victimised

You deserve it. I just sat here for 30 minutes looking at a blank page, and still managed to write a load of boll*cks

 

[JustOneUK]

Doesn't really go anywhere this.

If absolutely nothing happens, then does time still pass?

It might do or it might not. We have no measurable events to use to decide that.

I agree with that sentiment.

Going back to the original question..

A few weeks ago, my wondering topic turned to whether without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), can time continue to exist, or 'flow'?

With that question you are presuming that it already "exists".
As it isn't a physical thing.. does it really exist in the first place?, can it 'flow'?


So I ask myself 'What is time?' a measurement of physical-ness perhaps?

When there's something physical to measure then time can exist, remove everything physical from the universe and time has no place as there are no measurable events. Time is simply a by-product of physicalness.

So the answer to your question is YES time can continue to exist if there are no changes to the universe as everything physical will still be there and can be measured

But does time acually exist? No, it's merely a measurement. Which (thankfully) takes me back to my original comment "In my humble opinion there is no such thing as time"

How much is Prozac now-a-days?

 

[rss]

Okay. Here goes. Time, it seems, is a relation between changes. It is the thing that allows us to measure these changes and their rate. So, the way we tell the difference between one moment and another moment, is that something has changed. Otherwise we would not know that time had passed. Think of being asleep. In this sense, all brain activity (changes) stops also. We are not aware of time passing, but it still does pass. Just because nobody is aware of time passing, this does not mean that it doesn't.

I believe we see time in two senses;

1. in the sense of 'past, present, and future'. Therefore, my typing was once future, is now present, and will be past, so everything is constantly changing along this axis. It's moving from one end to the other. Everything is always moving further and further past.

2. in the sense of 'before and after'. By this I mean that if the history of the world were laid out as a series of moments which can never change, then the Battle of Hastings would still happen in 1066, which will always be a year after 1065. Nothing will ever change this. This series is always unchanging.

If all change stopped, then this would necessarily imply that time in the first sense would have to stop as well (as in this sense it is constantly fluctuating, which is, in itself, a change). This, however, does not imply that time in the second sense has to cease, as this time can 'exist' (however you want to understand this word) without change.

The problem with this idea though, is that time in the second sense does not allow for any change. It is, by definition, unchanging; otherwise we could change the past and future. So, if time in the first sense stopped, there does not seem to be any way in which we could enable it to begin again, for there could be no cause to initiate the changes, so even if time did stop, it could continue to exist in the second sense, but change could no longer begin. The future would just be laid out as an infinite number on identical moments.

I grant, this is pretty hard to understand, and I hope to have explained it in a way that you can understand if you think about it a little.

The main point is that even without anybody or anything to perceive time (or change) that does not mean time is not there. For if a rock was blown off a cliff, then the fact that the position of the rock changes means that there exist (or existed) two different times. At one time the rock was on the cliff. At another time the rock is on the beach. This falling of the rock did not just happen in space, it happened in time also. This is because if it happened in space alone, its being on the cliff, AND being on the beach would be happening at the same time. The only way we can say they do not happen at the same time, is to say that the flow of time (an infinite number of moments) enabled them to happen at different times. It enabled this progressive series of events to unfold even without any eyes to perceive it.

 

[JustOneUK]

OK,
So then the only thing I don't understand is, Why the question?

"without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), can time continue to exist, or 'flow'?"

For it to remain a question you must have a theory for why it would/might stop? otherwise it's merely a statement..

"without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), time can continue to exist, or 'flow'."

:|

 

[JustOneUK]

I believe we see time in two senses;

1. in the sense of 'past, present, and future'. Therefore, my typing was once future, is now present, and will be past, so everything is constantly changing along this axis. It's moving from one end to the other. Everything is always moving further and further past.

2. in the sense of 'before and after'. By this I mean that if the history of the world were laid out as a series of moments which can never change, then the Battle of Hastings would still happen in 1066, which will always be a year after 1065. Nothing will ever change this. This series is always unchanging.

If all change stopped, then this would necessarily imply that time in the first sense would have to stop as well (as in this sense it is constantly fluctuating, which is, in itself, a change).
.

Why? There's still a past, present and future... just not much is happening during the present part, and nothing continuing to happen is also the future, isn't it? even though it's somewhat boring

If the universe froze right now for 3,000 years and nothing changed or aged, what year would we be in when it unfroze?

 

[rss]

Why? There's still a past, present and future... just not much is happening during the present part, and nothing continuing to happen is also the future, isn't it? even though it's somewhat boring

If the universe froze right now for 3,000 years and nothing changed or aged, what year would we be in when it unfroze?

Think back to when Blair was elected in '97. This is X minutes in the past. In 2 minutes it'll be X+2 minutes in the past. It's position in time seems to be constantly changing. So if all change stopped, this changing (things becoming more past) would have to also stop, otherwise there is still change in the universe (in the sense of the relation between the present and the past being always in flux). Even if everything stopped moving, would time still not be moving at a speed of one-minute-per-minute? If so then there is change in the universe for things will be becoming more past and less future relative to the present, even though nothing is moving.

It is only when we stop things becoming more past and less future that we can say change has fully stopped.

When this happens, does time continue? The only way it seems it can continue is if there is this second series that I mentioned, where time is laid out in an unchanging 'line'. If this unchanging 'line' does not 'exist' then it seems hard to see how time is existing, because all relations in change have stopped (or have they?).

Also, when you say 'If the universe froze right now for 3,000 years and nothing changed or aged, what year would we be in when it unfroze?', there's two types of time here; personal time, and absolute time. In personal time, it would still be 2009, because our bodily cycles would necessitate this. In absolute time, 3000 thousand years would have passed, because you just said that the universe froze for 3000 years, so 3000 years must have passed.

But as I said earlier, there would be no way for change to begin again after this period with no change, for nothing can move without something causing it to move. With no change there can be no cause, so everything would be stuck motionless for eternity.

So then the only thing I don't understand is, Why the question? Quote:
"without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), can time continue to exist, or 'flow'?"
For it to remain a question you must have a theory for why it would/might stop? otherwise it's merely a statement.. Quote:
"without any change in the universe, (that is, on any subatomic level whatsoever), time can continue to exist, or 'flow'."
:|

I'm not saying whether time does or does not continue. I have an idea for why time might continue, and why time might not continue. The former rests on the assumption that there is time in this second sense, where no change is occurring. The latter rests on the assumption that time in this second sense does not exist.

The question is completely open to rational debate. If it were a statement, I would be asserting something, which is not what I am intending to do.

 

[JustOneUK]

But as I said earlier, there would be no way for change to begin again after this period with no change, for nothing can move without something causing it to move. With no change there can be no cause, so everything would be stuck motionless for eternity.

Yes........... or no.
To answer that you'd have to explain where all matter came from...um, out of nowhere. Something started it, therefore reasoning says that time started ticking out of nothing. I guess we should/could assume that if it's done it once it can do it again?

I believe we see time in two senses;

1. in the sense of 'past, present, and future'. Therefore, my typing was once future, is now present, and will be past, so everything is constantly changing along this axis. It's moving from one end to the other. Everything is always moving further and further past.
.

The present can't exist. It must be an infinitesimal moment, a non-moment - a paradox (just like touching your fingers together defies the infinite rule of splitting distances). Something is either a millisecond in the past or a millisecond in the future - there literally is no present that you could quantify. Just because we feel like there is a present is only because that's what we've been led to understand.

Oddly it could literally be true that "There's no time like the present"

...Who'd have thought that?!

 

[rss]

Yes........... or no.
To answer that you'd have to explain where all matter came from...um, out of nowhere. Something started it, therefore reasoning says that time started ticking out of nothing. I guess we should/could assume that if it's done it once it can do it again?

Not necessarily. 'Matter' came from the Big Bang (theoretically). Some physicists even hold that with the big bang came time and space, so before this, nothing existed. Nothing. This is really hard to comprehend, but then again, so is absolute time.

So, if the Big Bang caused all matter, time, space and change, and everything came to a standstill, it would require something that equates to the Bag Bang to start it all off again, in which case, your example of the world continuing coherently after 3000 years is so unlikely, we may as well say it's impossible because it would mean there would have to be such a HUGE event that does not actually have any sway on things already existing, apart from the fact that it has them continuing on their merry way with no seeming creases in time to any observer. Then again, if, as has been suggested, time does in fact stop, could it not be the case that everything flashes out of existence, for if something is not existing in time, can it be said to exist at all?

The present can't exist. It must be an infinitesimal moment, a non-moment - a paradox (just like touching your fingers together defies the infinite rule of splitting distances). Something is either a millisecond in the past or a millisecond in the future - there literally is no present that you could quantify. Just because we feel like there is a present is only because that's what we've been led to understand.

Oddly it could literally be true that "There's no time like the present"

...Who'd have thought that?!

Damn you, you've got me thinking! The definition of a moment is an infinitesimally small period of time, so to have an infinitesimally small moment seems tautologous; maybe even meaningless. I see a moment as a slice. It has no thickness or duration whatsoever. This thought experiment might work; consider you had the last 365 days in front of you as a 'bar' or 'slab' of some kind. If you take a knife and slice it anywhere, then that is a moment. One side is the future of that moment, the other side is the past of that moment. The present is indeed unquantifiable. It cannot be measured. But could we not pick any moment, as say that this moment is future, will be present and will be past?

If as we understand it as I think you do, then seems there is no present, only past and future, it seems odd to say that nothing is ever present, for isn't being present that transitory state being between past and future? If nothing can ever be that transitory state, how does it turn from being future into past? Where is this crossover?

You could say that one moment is both past and future at the same time, depending on your frame of reference to that moment. In this sense, future events do not need to become past; yet this is contradictory. For something to be both past and present simultaneously is incompatible, and therefore logically impossible.

 

[JustOneUK]

Not necessarily. 'Matter' came from the Big Bang (theoretically). Some physicists even hold that with the big bang came time and space, so before this, nothing existed. Nothing. This is really hard to comprehend, but then again, so is absolute time.

So, if the Big Bang caused all matter, time, space and change, and everything came to a standstill, it would require something that equates to the Bag Bang to start it all off again, in which case, your example of the world continuing coherently after 3000 years is so unlikely, we may as well say it's impossible because it would mean there would have to be such a HUGE event that does not actually have any sway on things already existing, apart from the fact that it has them continuing on their merry way with no seeming creases in time to any observer. Then again, if, as has been suggested, time does in fact stop, could it not be the case that everything flashes out of existence, for if something is not existing in time, can it be said to exist at all?

If there were another universe parked right next to ours (n.b having children makes me write like this) and it had a little rip...matter would come flooding in creating our universe and theoretically time would start (big bang) rather like when a child is born and clock of age starts ticking despite the fact that it's parents have been around years already. We cannot say how long the other feeder universe has been around, or the one that formed it, or the one that formed that but we have to start the clock somewhere. If it all miraculously occured from a single atom then I would assume similarly that that would have to be known as the beginning of time.
If nothing existed prior to that then I guess we could wonder just how long (in time) that nothing had existed! It would have to either be zero or else it would be measurable. It couldn't be infinity or else we wouldn't be here now.

Then again, if, as has been suggested, time does in fact stop, could it not be the case that everything flashes out of existence, for if something is not existing in time, can it be said to exist at all?

I don't think that time as such can stop itself, it's just a measurement like a mile or a kilometer. However if we get rid of all physical matter then time, kilometers, left, right, up or down wouldn't exist. If one atom then miraculously appeared (as with the big bang) then I'd assume that time and the other dimensions would restart from scratch.

FWIW I don't believe that it would be possible to freeze the universe at a standstill for 3000 years
1. because matter still exists so time (and the other dimensions) would continue as above
2. because there would be no way of measuring it, or [like you said] re-activating it.... unless we can assign that to..... God.

Damn you, you've got me thinking! .

That's GREAT NEWS!

The present is indeed unquantifiable. It cannot be measured. But could we not pick any moment, as say that this moment is future, will be present and will be past?
.

We can AND specifically pick any time precisely 1 minute past 12 but that's only the moment that it turns from future to past. Present would be merely a nanosecond - or less. So it would read "this moment is future, will be present for less than a nanosecond and will be past"

If as we understand it as I think you do, then seems there is no present, only past and future, it seems odd to say that nothing is ever present, for isn't being present that transitory state being between past and future? If nothing can ever be that transitory state, how does it turn from being future into past? Where is this crossover?

I remember asking a Physics teacher once...
"If a FLY travelling at 10mph hits a 1,000 ton train coming towards it at 100mph at some moment in time that fly has to change direction from 10mph forward to 100mph in the other direction so it would need to STOP (or reach zero velocity) in order to go the other way. If it's stopped the the train MUST also be stopped - so the fly stops the 1,000 ton train?"

He said it didn't (obviously) stop the train and he did explain it to me but at the time it went over my head. Something to do with mass/momentum yada yada.. I didn't understand it at the time, and still don't really know the answer.

Isn't that the same place that your 'crossover' would be? The nanosecond change in direction from forward to backward or future to past without ever stopping the train (present)?

 

[ken_uk]

How much is Prozac now-a-days?

Its free on the NHS.

Its over-rated though.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

Wow,Man that's like,really heavy.

 

[JustOneUK]

Wow,Man that's like,really heavy.

I didn't understand a word of what I was typing
I'm glad that I have at least teased Rob with the concept of past/future instead of past/present/future - that'll keep him busy (for about 30 seconds)