# Definitions of ''TIME''

Definitions of ‘‘TIME’’

# === Can ‘‘Time’’ exist without matter ? No. Therefore, the right definition of ‘‘time’’ is to say: ‘‘Gravity-time’’ We have Earth ‘‘gravity-time’’. Another planets have their own ‘‘gravity-time’’ From ‘‘gravity-time’’ is possible to create another definitions of ‘‘time’’ ( atomic time-clock , biological-time, local-time, psychological-time . . . . )

The ‘‘gravity-time’’ depends on masses and speed of planets,
and because every planer has its own masses and own speed
therefore their ‘‘own gravity-time’’ is different.

# ‘‘Time’’ doesn’t have ‘‘nature’’. ‘‘Time’’ is not a ‘‘nature’’. Time is artificial / mathematical measurement between a beginning and an ending.

Via the generalization of sign we can land with a native time representation as P1, but these one-signed numbers still carry the paradox of time around with them. Namely they are zero dimensional; yet they can perform simple unidirectional arithmetic

• 1.0 - 0.12 = - 1.12

however the generalization of sign leaves us with a rendering that requires

• x = 0

where x is any magnitude. This is the same law which in the two-signed reals reads

• x + x = 0 .

So when we are asked to point in the direction of time this algebraic description (which carries inherent geometry) does have an answer.

Likewise the usage of time as a fourth physical dimension within relativity theory is only an intermediary; until the light cone projection is taken no physical result is possible. Further the isotropic nature of spacetime has to be refuted due to the unidirectional nature of time. We instead witness a structured spacetime, and sure enough our very ability to point to Sagittarius A* likewise shows that spacetime is structured rather than isotropic. Careful interpretations of the first cosmological principle will call for an averaging; something which inherently conflicts with the first principle. Yes, I am claiming that the first principle of cosmology is a fraud. Upon averaging you will have the grey fog of non uniqueness; something the modern cosmologist is living with and seems to care very little about. Thus we can declare these systems to be open and alive to future pursuit; that we are engaged in a progression; and that at times that progression does take some bad steps.

One of these bad steps was taken roughly four hundred years ago when the real number was declared to be fundamental. All of physics builds from it. Much of mathematics builds from it, including the complex number. Time as a real value causes such corrupted physics as Michio Kaku declaring that the laws of physics work backwards under time reversal. The generalization of sign exposes arithmetic support for structured spacetime.

Can ”Time” exist without matter ?

The best definition of “exist” I’ve seen, is that something “exists” when it interacts with its surroundings. I find no interaction of time with anything; there seems to be no action and no reaction that can be traced to time. I have posted in another forum that I believe time is simply an artifact of memory.

1 Like
I believe time is simply an artifact of memory.
What's memory have to do with the spin of electrons, movement of atoms, or ocean waves?

At least whenever I hear someone getting lost within their mindscape and positing how time is just an illusion, I think of the reality of our Earth and the endless relentless pounding of waves against the shoreline. To me time is a real as the waves that reflect its passage.

Time would be the cause, change would be the effect, so there is an obvious cause/effect relationship involving time and, in fact, time would be involved in every case/effect relationship.

I happen to also believe that time may not be “a thing”, but I would like to point out that, for me, it’s not just a random thought that was “cool” as it appears to be for Bob. I started my pondering with the acceptance that time was a real thing based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to show that. In fact, when I first began to ponder it a couple of years ago I was only pondering that it might not be a dimension, not that it didn’t exist at all. The thoughts I had before my current notion were that time was definitely a thing, and that idea was beautiful. It lead to conclusions that I liked a whole lot. But more thinking lead me to my current idea, which is a whole lot more boring. I then tested that idea by making predictions and then looking up what was known about the universe to see if my predictions were correct. If ONE had failed I would have discarded the idea entirely, or at least pondered it some more. And even after all that I didn’t just “poof” time away. I simply changed it from a dimension, like height, to a measurement, like distance. In this case time is a relative measurement of change.

Change is exactly our reference for a notion of time. And we recognize change only by remembering different states of objects. Our notion of time comes from comparing our memories of the states of objects. We even measure the “passage of time” in units of change in objects.

I have found no change in anything that requires time. All change appears to be the result of one object acting upon another. The sequence of causes and effects throughout the universe at any scale demonstrate no dependence upon time in any way. No reaction comes from time. Time does not present any evidence of interacting with anything; if it did we could say it exists, but it doesn’t so we have to say it doesn’t exist.

Show me where time is the cause of any effect and I will change my position.

Bob said,

I have found no change in anything that requires time. All change appears to be the result of one object acting upon another.

Again, I believe you have this backwards. You are absolutely correct that change appears to be the result of one object acting upon another.

What you overlook is that things cannot happen all at once. During the the process of change time emerges as a measurable element of duration.

Time is not an inherent property of space which is merely a permittive medium, but is an emergent temporal permission to allow for chronological change.

Widdershins said,

Time would be the cause, change would be the effect, so there is an obvious cause/effect relationship involving time and, in fact, time would be involved in every case/effect relationship.

Backwards.

Change is causal to the emergence of time as a measurement of duration of that change. It is true that all change is causal to the emergence of an associated time-frame, but time itself is not causal to anything. There is no way to measure time itself.

I have been defending my position on time at the “Can being come from Non-being ?” topic under the “Religion and Secularism” forum. I think I am not supposed to copy my posts, even though this is probably a better venue. If anyone is interested and the moderator would allow it I can copy a few of my posts here. The other topic has gotten a bit off track.

Yes, this is a better venue and I am interested.

Bob: Time does not present any evidence of interacting with anything; if it did we could say it exists, but it doesn’t so we have to say it doesn’t exist.
Let say time doesn't exist based on your reasoning. Can you explain what is "time" as we experience it? How can something (i.e. time) that doesn't exist be so much a part of our lives.

Sree: “Let say time doesn’t exist based on your reasoning. Can you explain what is “time” as we experience it? How can something (i.e. time) that doesn’t exist be so much a part of our lives.”

We remember events per number of other events and call it frequency. We count the number of thumps a speaker produces or the number of waves emitted by a light source while simultaneously counting the ticks of a clock. Thumps per tick is frequency.

We remember different positions of objects per a number of other events and call it speed; add a direction and we call it velocity. We measure the difference between position two and position one of an object in terms of the difference in other positions of other objects and call that distance. We count the number of ticks of a clock it takes for an object to move from position one to position two and call that speed.

I think that’s about it, events remembered (or recorded) in terms of (relative to) other events remembered (or recorded). I have seen no evidence that “time” causes anything, is caused by anything, depends on anything, that any thing or event depends on time or that there is any interaction between time and anything else. As they say, there’s no there there.

Bob: We remember events per number of other events and call it frequency. We count the number of thumps a speaker produces or the number of waves emitted by a light source while simultaneously counting the ticks of a clock. Thumps per tick is frequency.
Right. Counting the ticks of the clock is the key. (I hope you realized this all by yourself and are not regurgitating it from a goddam book like a well-read, know-all haunting the halls of this forum.)

What is the clock doing? It goes tick tock tick tock tick tock…continuously to enable us to count the number of thumps. So, instead of ticks, let’s replace that with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6… and so on until we get to 60 seconds (i.e. 60 ticks), and on to 60 minutes (i.e. 360 ticks or 60 minutes which is 1 hour. Am I correct so far?

Please think this through, in defense of your position on time, together with me progressively step by step.

Sree: “Please think this through, in defense of your position on time, together with me progressively step by step.”

Our memories of events in terms of other remembered events is quite useful for description and explanation of what we remember of what we observe. Time is a concept not a phenomenon.

1 Like
Bob: Our memories of events in terms of other remembered events is quite useful for description and explanation of what we remember of what we observe. Time is a concept not a phenomenon.
Good. I see where you are going with this. Let me help you out. Forget about the memory, for now (even though it is critical in the conceptualization of time).

Instead of the movement of the ticking clock, let’s replace that with you moving along a path on the ground. You count the number of thumps a speaker produces by counting the number of steps you take on the path. Assume each step leaves a footprint of black paint on the path so you can see the record of how many steps you took. This way, there is no need to remember anything because there is a visual record of the number of footprints (i.e. steps you took) on the path. If each step is two ft. away from another, then after 60 thumps you would have moved a distance of 60 steps or 120 ft away from the starting point. Since there is no need to remember (i.e. conceptualize), nor do we need a ticking clock that is replaced by you marking steps on the path, can we conclude that time does not exist in absolute terms?

Sree: “Since there is no need to remember (i.e. conceptualize), nor do we need a ticking clock that is replaced by you marking steps on the path, can we conclude that time does not exist in absolute terms?”

By “does not exist in absolute terms” I am going to assume you mean “isn’t real” or “isn’t an actual thing” or “isn’t a phenomenon”. My answer to your question is no, we can not make any such conclusion. There would not be anywhere near enough information in a series of black footprints to conclude anything other than it would appear that a two-legged creature wearing shoes walked down the path after stepping in black paint.

But, like crop circles, people often do strange things. If we were to discover a couple of kids with a pair of shoes on sticks, we might draw a different conclusion especially if the shoes had black paint on them. Even then, we wouldn’t have a clue as to how fast the kids made the footprints or if they made a few one day and came back and made some more the next day.

I give you a dozen photos (3 x 5 glossy color prints) of the same clock all showing different “times”. If I assure you I took the photos and the clock was working perfectly, what can you conclude about time from them?

Bob: By “does not exist in absolute terms” I am going to assume you mean “isn’t real” or “isn’t an actual thing” or “isn’t a phenomenon”.
Damn right.
My answer to your question is no, we can not make any such conclusion.
Why not?
There would not be anywhere near enough information in a series of black footprints to conclude anything other than it would appear that a two-legged creature wearing shoes walked down the path after stepping in black paint.
Exactly! There is all there is to conclude: black footprints made on a path with each thump of the goddam speaker. Time doesn’t exist! In # 318190 you said:
Time does not present any evidence of interacting with anything; if it did we could say it exists, but it doesn’t so we have to say it doesn’t exist.
Don’t mess around with truth, Bob. You are the one who announced that time is an artifact of the memory (i.e. imaginary). Now, that I prove your claim, you are hemming and hawing. You are like someone who claims that you can fly; and when I throw you off the balcony, you are clutching to the railing terrified.
I give you a dozen photos (3 x 5 glossy color prints) of the same clock all showing different “times”. If I assure you I took the photos and the clock was working perfectly, what can you conclude about time from them?
If you gave me a dozen photos of the same clock showing different “times” as in 1 pm, 2 pm, 3 pm, 4 pm, 5 pm, 6 pm, 7 pm, 8pm, 9 pm, 10 pm, 11 pm, and 12 pm, I would conclude that you gave me a dozen photos showing the same clock with the long (minute) hand at 12 o’clock position and the short (hour) hand at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 o’clock positions. They are all photos of the same clock with its long hand in one position and its short hand in various positions. What has time got to do with those photos?

Sree: “What has time got to do with those photos?”

Einstein is quoted as saying that time is what we see when we look at a clock. I think he was right. Notice that we would see only one arrangement of the clock’s hands relative to its face. We would call that a particular time. In order to establish the concept of the passage of time, which is what we commonly call time, we would need memories, or records, of other individual times.

Each of the photos I gave you would be a record of a single time. Without additional memories, or records, associated to the photos you cannot have any idea of the sequence the photos and thus you cannot conclude anything about the passage of time they might represent. It would be the same for any physical evidence such as the footprints in your example.

Sree: " Since there is no need to remember (i.e. conceptualize), nor do we need a ticking clock that is replaced by you marking steps on the path, can we conclude that time does not exist in absolute terms?"

Bob: “My answer to your question is no, we can not make any such conclusion.”

Sree: “Why not?”

I think that us observing the footprints on the path is not enough to conclude anything about time. I don’t see how a line of footprints by themselves could tell us much about how, when or why they were made. I think we would need more info about them. I don’t make the connection that they replace memories or a clock.

Sree: “Don’t mess around with truth, Bob. You are the one who announced that time is an artifact of the memory (i.e. imaginary). Now, that I prove your claim, you are hemming and hawing. You are like someone who claims that you can fly; and when I throw you off the balcony, you are clutching to the railing terrified.”

I don’t see where your example proves my claim. I don’t get it.

The only “proof” of my claim that I can see is that there is no evidence to the contrary and that is not really a proof. My claim would be shown to be false if there was evidence that time interacts with anything, that it is an actual phenomenon. I think there is no such evidence. I think it better to say that my claim is assured by logical deduction rather than proved.

Bob: Einstein is quoted as saying that time is what we see when we look at a clock. I think he was right.
Einstein was wrong. Like you, Einstein took it for granted that "time" was an existential fact. Time is an illusion but we can't just stop there. There is more to this. We will have to reset our entire understanding of objective reality. Your power of deduction cannot process this unless you have an insight into how cognition works. I am not suggesting that you read up on the topic. There is no science on this. You have to discover and figure it out yourself firsthand. Ours is a timeless reality. And yet, things move, the clock ticks. What are we?

I like this exchange because you are smart and fully engaged in this discussion.

Sree, I do not accept time as “an existential fact”. I don’t accept that time is an “illusion.” In order for it to be an illusion there would have to be an underlying reality that is somehow distorted to produce the illusion. I do accept that time is a concept.

Of course our reality is “timeless”, meaning without time, meaning no time.

Yes, we observe that things move, and clocks tick, and we have acceptable explanations for why these events happen as they do.

My conclusions are that each of us is a binary entity; we have a body and a soul, both instanced at the moment of conception.

Sree, I do not accept time as “an existential fact”. I don’t accept that time is an “illusion.” In order for it to be an illusion there would have to be an underlying reality that is somehow distorted to produce the illusion. I do accept that time is a concept.
Ok, let’s say time is a concept. Would you also say that America is also a concept, an idea of a nation state? Following this line of thinking, one could say that everything, in reality, that cannot be detected by the senses is conceptual, an artifact of the mind.