Would you believe? Time doesn’t really exist?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 24, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Good news for those racing a deadline. This from mathematician and philosopher Sam Baron:

So we know we need a new physical theory to explain the universe, and that this theory might not feature time.
Suppose such a theory turns out to be correct. Would it follow that time does not exist?
It’s complicated, and it depends what we mean by exist.
Theories of physics don’t include any tables, chairs, or people, and yet we still accept that tables, chairs and people exist.
Why? Because we assume that such things exist at a higher level than the level described by physics.
We say that tables, for example, “emerge” from an underlying physics of particles whizzing around the universe.
But while we have a pretty good sense of how a table might be made out of fundamental particles, we have no idea how time might be “made out of” something more fundamental.
So unless we can come up with a good account of how time emerges, it is not clear we can simply assume time exists.
Time might not exist at any level.
Sam Baron, “Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay” at The Conversation (April 14, 2022)

Most readers are likely way too young to remember Maxwell Smart and Would You Believe? But couldn’t resist so here anyway:

Comments

PPS, notice the use of in effect infinitesimals, similar to how economic changes are described. dQ must be so small, it does not significantly affect T but of course as we accumulate, i.e. integrate, we see finite scale effects. That accumulation is across time and is throttled at rates tied to system dynamics.kairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Jerry said:
This implies that no beginning is not absurd.
No, it doesn't. I've stated repeatedly what the time dilemma is that KF's ontology faces: either a beginning of time, or infinite regress. Both are absurd. Neither are acceptable, which means our concept of what time is must be wrong.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

What is absurd is the idea that there was a beginning to time
This implies that no beginning is not absurd. But no beginning implies an infinite number of absurdities. So which is it? No beginning which is infinitely absurd or a beginning which makes sense. I know, I know, making sense is not part of what many ID contributors do. jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

WJM, that is the core point, time is inextricably tied to and a key part of causal-thermodynamic, dynamic-stochastic process, locally and cosmologically. Indeed, that leads to how we measure by counting cycles and part cycles of oscillation and/or observing locus on a trend such as RA decay. Time is not isolable from such a domain. The need for necessary being at reality root points to another order of existence which is not thermodynamic, pivoting on stochastic behaviour of collections of micro particles etc. Time has a natural span in our world, ~ 10^25 s, when white dwarfs will cool off, by thermal processes even though they are not particularly good heat emitters. KF PS, to give an idea let's start with classic isolated system, || A --> B || where as A is hotter dQ flows to B, and we have dQ = TdS, T absolute temperature and S entropy. Convert to a rate, dQ/dt = T * (dS/dt), i.e. rate of rise of entropy is directly connected to heat flow rate. Time is inextricably bound up in the causal processes connected to heat flow at a rate and linked entropy. Using for simplicity -- this is not utterly rigorous and general, but this toy helps us see -- S = k log W, W omega number of accessible distributions of mass and energy etc across available possibilities. A actually loses entropy as flow dQ is away from it but as B is at lower temperature, the inflow so multiplies accessible possibilities that net S for the system rises. Causal, energy flow/work driven events are such that heat is inextricably involved. Work is forced, ordered motion, heat transfer of energy by radiation, conduction, convection. Temperature is an index of avg random kinetic energy per degree of freedom of micro particles.kairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

KF said:
A beginning to such domains is anything but absurd.
Then it's a good thing nobody argued that it is absurd. What is absurd is the idea that there was a beginning to time, not some thermodynamic construct that can be used to measure time back to the point where people speculate/theorize that particular construct was initiated.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Ram, a beginning of our temporal-causal thermodynamic domain is a simple projection backwards of cosmological expansion, backed by incidence of white dwarfs, breakaway patterns of stars from the HR main sequence in clusters and the like. Attempted extension of time beyond that is speculative and runs into heat death. Steady state cosmologies of course violate energy conservation if one holds an isolated universe, aka first law of thermodynamics. The logic of finite stage temporal causal succession inherently entails that such cannot traverse a sequence of stages of order type w, i.e. beginninglessnes is not on the cards; for a thermodynamic world including a quantum foam etc. A beginning to such domains is anything but absurd.kairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

WJM:I’m not making an argument that your beliefs aren’t well-justified. I’m pointing out that your beliefs about time wrt your ontology results in one of two logical absurdities: a “beginning” of time, or infinite regress. Tnx. For some reason most religionists and materialist reductionists ever seem to get this. --RAMram_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

KF @22: All you've done is repeat the same things you've said before that lead to the same time dilemma issue.William J Murray_{April 28, 2022
April
04
Apr
28
28
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

WJM, that our cosmological timeline began with the singularity usually currently estimated at 13.8 BYA, is not incoherent, nor is it incoherent to think onward, that there was a quantum foam; though, to project a quasi cosmological time onward without beginning runs into traversal of the transfinite. The point is, a CTThD is inherently limited and finite in the past, which is consistent with the associated heat death issue. An infinite past of this order is dubious. Switching tack, we also know, were there utter nonbeing, i.e. no reality, that would remain so, so that a world is implies a root of reality of a different order of existence, necessary being. Knowing this, we can recognise that the concept of a necessary being source and sustainer of worlds is not incoherent, though we may not understand as much about such as we desire, certainly through science and generic logic of being analysis. We know necessary being is eternal and framework to any possible world, with the humble abstract entity, 2, as a case in point. A NB cannot be thermodynamically constrained as e.g. temperature pertains to an assemblage of many microparticles with energy distribution across degrees of freedom, so T is an index of average random kinetic energy per degree of freedom. Temperature pivots on composite materiality at microscopic level. No composite entity with detachable, independent parts will be a necessary being. Nor is a concept space a physical entity, and designs at root are concepts. I add, time has a local sense prior to us, it has a cosmological one even more prior to us, and both tie to thermodynamics of energy flow and dispersal of concentrations; our perception of time is a different matter from what say the natural clock of a radioisotope deposit exhibits, or the cycles of astronomical entities etc. And more. KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

KF said:
For much of the actual past competent record provides adequate warrant, especially when joined to circumstantial evidence but fair on the face record from good chain of custody is evidence too.
I'm not making an argument that your beliefs aren't well-justified. I'm pointing out that your beliefs about time wrt your ontology results in one of two logical absurdities: a "beginning" of time, or infinite regress. Repeating your evidence and warrant for your view on time doesn't change that. Appealing to some unknown state of "root of reality" or "outside of" or "preceding" space-time domain doesn't change that. Until you can, under your epistemology/ontology, solve this time dilemma other than by waving your hands and invoking the "unknown," all the evidence and warrant in the world can't save your perspective from ending up with one of two logically absurd conditions: "time began," or infinite regress of time. Let's say arguendo I have far, far less evidence and warrant for my perspective. What I do have that trumps your warrant and evidence are self-evident existential truths and logic. People can build all the theoretical and speculative (and useful) models they want, and have very useful systems of warrant for their models, but if that ship ultimately crashes and breaks on the rocky shore of logic and self-evident existential truths, then they are wrong. Appealing to warrant, evidence, usefulness, universal common sense, dire consequences for any other perspective, etc. cannot save that ship. All of these things, whether evidence or logic, physical or thought, are experiences. The only thing we can be talking about or considering or using are experiences. Fundamentally, I am a set of experience occurring in the now. There's no way to get behind that, around it, or outside of it There is no evidence, theory, speculation epistemology or ontology that can change that. It doesn't matter if it means "grand delusion" or not; it's an inescapable existential truth. "Passage of time" is an aspect of experience and cannot be placed ontologically outside of the "now" experience as an objectified commodity without it crashing on the rocks of the logical time dilemma.William J Murray_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

WJM, q-foam world etc are not my speculations, just, I have to address them. And. oh there are no observations this is phil in a lab coat is not enough. For much of the actual past competent record provides adequate warrant, especially when joined to circumstantial evidence but fair on the face record from good chain of custody is evidence too. Beyond the span of history, we have weaker but still adequate warrant for weak form, revisable knowledge, providing dynamics are shown capable in accord with Newton's rules. But evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers have substituted ideological impositions and have dominated institutions. That is what we have to expose and correct in key part. BTW the earliest record we have is written in the cell, warranting an historical inference of intelligent design, not just a scientific argument. KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2022
April
04
Apr
27
27
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

KF @18,
That process is antecedent to human observation, individually and collectively. If you want to talk about our perception of time etc, that is long after what is being addressed. KF
Unfortunately, you have absolutely no way to demonstrate this. It's just speculation built on theory built on a particular interpretation of some of the evidence, while totally ignoring the contrary, quantum evidence. You can assert it all as if true all you want, but in the end nothing about the "past" can be demonstrated.William J Murray_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

WJM, it's there in the equations that describe the physics; and it is there first as the macro level cosmological pattern tracing to the singularity. That process is antecedent to human observation, individually and collectively. If you want to talk about our perception of time etc, that is long after what is being addressed. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

KF said:
WJM, I am describing our world from the perspective of the dynamics of time, a Causal-thermodynamic order is temporal; though we experience as causal temporal then on study see the thermodynamic processes.
That may be what you are attempting to do, but I don't think that's what you're accomplishing. I think the best you can do is associate time with the observation and experience of an entropic CTThD, but that's as far as you can get. There is no necessary causal or intrinsic link between "time" and CTThD experiences; that's just what we happen to be experiencing most of the time, at least in one category of experience.
PS, dream worlds are riding on such processes and by habit and conceptualisation will reflect the same.
This is not necessarily true, this is just a convenient rationalization. My conceptualizations do not degrade over time; there is no entropy; they are not dependent on physical causation or limitation or any form of linear time other than as my personal experience. The binding aspect of time that must exist in any possible experienced world is not that the world is an entropic CTThD, but rather the sequential nature of an observer's experience in that world. Associating time with entropic CTThD sequences doesn't mean time is derived from or caused by those sequences.William J Murray_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

PS, dream worlds are riding on such processes and by habit and conceptualisation will reflect the same.kairosfocus_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

WJM, I am describing our world from the perspective of the dynamics of time, a Causal-thermodynamic order is temporal; though we experience as causal temporal then on study see the thermodynamic processes. Time is then conceived, likely originally on experience of before after and same time, including day night and seasonal cycles. When we go to time keeping, we thence see time as quantity that is mathematically speaking a continuum, whether that is true at fine grained physical level is another matter. Time flow is then influenced by gravitation and speed of frames of reference considerations. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

KF said:
Entropy, indeed, is time’s arrow.
I can't figure out if you're saying entropic CTThD is time, or is a kind of universal clock through which one experiences time. If one existed in a non-entropic, non-CTThD world, would "time" not be experienced? How about heaven? Isn't that supposed to be a non-etropic, non-CTThD world? Does no one experience a passing of time in that world? How about dreams and imaginary worlds? Is the sense of a passage of time there caused by an entropic CTThD? Is that what "time" is there? I think that by considering these hypotheticals, we can see that the sense of time passing is not caused by, nor necessarily ordered by, any entropic CTThD. Certainly entropic CTThD is not time itself. Rather, the entropic CTThD world is just something we experience along with our sense of time passing. If you take us out of that world and put us in a non-entropic, non-CTThD world, we would still have the sense of time passing. Is "time passing" rooted in cause and effect? I don't see how this case can be made. Even if things occurred without cause, there would still be sequentialized experience we refer to as "time passing," even if we couldn't explain that which we experience in terms of causation. I think whatever "entropic CTThD" is, it is what generally organizes a large set of our experiences, but I don't think it's an intrinsic aspect of time, nor is it the cause of time.William J Murray_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: Useful reading https://iep.utm.edu/time/ >> . . . When we say the time is 7:00, what is the “7:00”? It is a mathematical object. Times are not mathematical objects, although time coordinates are. The time coordinates are names of times. If times are not mathematical objects, then what are they? More generally let’s ask the question, “What is time?” Sometimes, when we ask what time really is, we are asking for the meaning of the noun “time.” A first step in that direction might be to clarify the difference between its meaning and its reference. The temporal word now changes its reference every instant but not its meaning. The term time has several meanings. It can mean the duration between events, as when we say the trip from home to work took too much time because of all the traffic. It can mean, instead, the temporal location of an event, as when we say he arrived at the time they specified. It also can mean the temporal structure of the universe, as when we speak of investigating time rather than space. This article uses the word in all these senses. Ordinary Language philosophers have carefully studied time talk. This is what Ludwig Wittgenstein called the language game of discourse about time. Wittgenstein said in 1953, “For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word ‘meaning’ it can be defined this way: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” Perhaps an examination of all the uses of the word time would lead us to the meaning of the word. Someone, following the lead of Wittgenstein, might also say we would then be able to dissolve rather than answer most of our philosophical questions about time. That methodology of dissolving a problem was promoted by Wittgenstein in response to many other philosophical questions. However, most philosophers of time in the twenty-first century are not interested in dissolving the problems about time nor in precisely defining the word time but rather are interested in what time’s important characteristics are and in resolving philosophical disputes about time that do not seem to turn on what the word means. When Newton discovered that both the fall of an apple and the circular orbit of the Moon were caused by gravity, this was not a discovery about the meaning of the word gravity, but rather about what gravity is. Do we not want some advances like this for time? To emphasize this idea, notice that a metaphysician who asks, “What is a ghost?” already knows the meaning in ordinary language of the word ghost, and does not usually want a precise definition of ghost but rather wants to know what ghosts are, something that is provided by having a more-detailed theory of ghosts. This theory ideally would provide the following things: a consistent characterization of the most important features of ghosts, a claim regarding whether they do or do not exist and how they might be reliably detected if they do exist, what principles or laws describe their behavior, how they typically act, and what they are composed of. This article takes a similar approach to the question, “What is time?” The goal is not just to discover the meaning of the word “time” but rather both to discover the best concept of time to use in understanding the world and to develop a philosophical theory of time that addresses what science has discovered about time plus what should be said about the many philosophical issues that practicing scientists usually do not concern themselves with. The exploration ahead adopts a realist perspective on accepted scientific theories. That is, it interprets them to mean what they say, even in their highly theoretical aspects, and it does not take a fictionalist perspective on them, nor treat them as merely useful instruments, nor treat them operationally. It assumes that, in building a scientific theory, the goal is to achieve truth even though most theories achieve this goal only approximately, but what makes them approximately true is not their corresponding to some mysterious entity called approximate truth. Many of these assumptions have been challenged in some philosophical literature, and if one of the challenges is correct, then some of what is said below will require reinterpretation or rephrasing. This article’s supplement of “Frequently Asked Questions” defines what a clock is and what it is for a clock to be accurate. Saying physical time is what clocks measure is analogous to saying temperature is what thermometers measure. It is not really a serious, precise answer to the question of what is time, but it is not as trivial as it might seem since it is a deep truth about our physical universe that it is capable of having clocks. Clocks have regular, periodic behavior. We are lucky to live in a universe with so many different regular, periodic processes that humans can use for clocks. However, the claim that time is what clocks measure is not without its opponents. Some philosophers of physics claim that there is nothing more to time than whatever numbers are displayed on our clocks. The vast majority of philosophers of physics disagree. They say time is more than those numbers; it is what we intend to measure with those numbers. What then is time? Consider how this question has been answered in different ways throughout the centuries . . . >> Likewise, note Wikipedia:>>Cosmic time, or cosmological time, is the time coordinate commonly used in the Big Bang models of physical cosmology.[1][2][3] Such time coordinate may be defined for a homogeneous, expanding universe so that the universe has the same density everywhere at each moment in time (the fact that this is possible means that the universe is, by definition, homogeneous). The clocks measuring cosmic time should move along the Hubble flow. Cosmic time t {\displaystyle t} t[4][5] is a measure of time by a physical clock with zero peculiar velocity in the absence of matter over-/under-densities (to prevent time dilation due to relativistic effects or confusions caused by expansion of the universe). Unlike other measures of time such as temperature, redshift, particle horizon, or Hubble horizon, the cosmic time (similar and complementary to the comoving coordinates) is blind to the expansion of the universe. There are two main ways for establishing a reference point for the cosmic time. The most trivial way is to take the present time as the cosmic reference point (sometimes referred to as the lookback time). Alternatively, the Big Bang may be taken as reference to define t {\displaystyle t} t as the age of the universe, also known as time since the big bang. The current physical cosmology estimates the present age as 13.8 billion years.[6] The t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} t=0 doesn't necessarily have to correspond to a physical event (such as the cosmological singularity) but rather it refers to the point at which the scale factor would vanish for a standard cosmological model such as ?CDM. For instance, in the case of inflation, i.e. a non-standard cosmology, the hypothetical moment of big bang is still determined using the benchmark cosmological models which may coincide with the end of the inflationary epoch. For technical purposes, concepts such as the average temperature of the universe (in units of eV) or the particle horizon are used when the early universe is the objective of a study since understanding the interaction among particles is more relevant than their time coordinate or age. Cosmic time is the standard time coordinate for specifying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions of Einstein's equations. >> I would suggest, we should ponder our causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained domain, CTThD. Time is connected to cause, change, cumulative change, thus cause-effect bonds [thence issues of freedom], so to energy flow and therefore thermodynamic constraints and gradual degradation of energy concentrations. Entropy, indeed, is time's arrow. At cosmological scale, we can construct a metric of macro time, which on conventional views currently places us at 13.8 BY beyond the singularity, that number has bounced around a fair deal over the past decade or so, take it with a grain of salt. We then can contemplate micro times, affected by relativistic considerations. In that context, we measure time by evidently regular cycles we count, e.g. first days, moon orbits, the cycle of the sun and that of the apparently fixed stars, which are different. Then, we can construct oscillators such as pendulums or regular flows and use accumulation to judge time. Nowadays, masers and the like. So, time is physical, thus real, but is pregnant with philosophical considerations. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Polistra @1, time must exist in order to be measured. The different oscillations are just different ways of measuring time. Just like water exists and there are different ways of measuring it; litres, gallons, cubic meters, kg, lbs.aarceng_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

"Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so" - Ford PrefectBob O'H_{April 26, 2022
April
04
Apr
26
26
2022
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @8,
Worse energy is extremely intangible
An interesting question is whether energy has any gravitational attraction. When converting a bit of matter into energy (E=mc^2) by means of a nuclear chain reaction, does the gravitational space-time deformation disappear or does it dissipate? -QQuerius_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

We say that tables, for example, “emerge” from an underlying physics of particles whizzing around the universe.
No, Sam, a "particle" is what emerges from the underlying "physics," not tables and chairs, and I'm not sure that the "underlying cause" can be said to be any form of physics.William J Murray_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Worse energy is extremely intangiblekairosfocus_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

There's no way to account for energy existing, since it can't be created. Does that mean energy doesn't exist?BobRyan_{April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

News, cosmologically, time is thermodynamic and cumulative, associated with entropy increase and so with energy flows, heat engines and causal cumulative chains. Nowness is our reflection of where such processes are relative to local clocks and calendars, which brings in relativity. Our shared world is a causal temporal thermodynamic domain, CTThD with a mapped, modelled history to date from a singularity, and within it we use in effect counted reliably regular oscillatory processes as a means to track time and we in effect count or track cycles to map and measure time. Time becomes a quasi dimension when we look at inertial, non accelerated frames of reference, and we profitably speak of spacetime.kairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

If time doesn't exist, Dr Who is out of a job.Seversky_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Old enough to remember Don Adams - and got a very big laugh out of that for his voice and facial expression. Haven't seen him in years.Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Thank you for the video!!!jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Polistra,
Our measurements of time all depend on maintained oscillations. Seasons, days, pendulums, quartz crystals, resonances of specific atoms.
Yep. And time is a component of space-time according to Einstein. So, if time really doesn't exist, then neither does space. -QQuerius_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Our measurements of time all depend on maintained oscillations. Seasons, days, pendulums, quartz crystals, resonances of specific atoms. We know that we can make all of these oscillations agree as closely as we need. But our internal perception of time is not linear and not even unidirectional. So "time" probably isn't a definable concept, but oscillation (as a product of inertia and elasticity) is definable. The Riefler clock, used by astronomers who marked sidereal time, recognized this distinction clearly. http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-riefler-clock.htmlpolistra_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply