ibil said; I suggest you cannot show that a process requires time
No one says it does.
Processes have emergent durations, which we measure as units of time. Process does not require time, it creates it.
Movements have emergent distances, which we measure as metrical units. Movement does not require distance, it creates it.
Processes and Movements (change) do not require time or distance. They only require mathematical permission, which becomes mathematically measurable when permission is granted.
I think we've been down this path before. I accept that math has no existence. I accept that relationships we see in quantifying what we experience are totally dependent upon the mind's ability to differentiate our surroundings into individual objects. I think it is not possible to demonstrate that objects have this ability. Thus I see no way that any such conceived relationships are inherent in our surroundings.
I do not accept that a non-existent non-thing such as math has any ability to do anything at all and certainly not to give, or withhold, permission or allow, or disallow, anything.
Process does not require time, it creates it.
If time were created it would exist; time doesn't exist, time is not created.
Movement does not require distance, it creates it.
If distance were created it would exist; distance doesn't exist, distance is not created.
If time was and is a co-emergent phenomenon with matter because the two are dependent on each other and matter was created when the universe itself was created, then how can time not be thought of as having an existence wholly dependent on and resulting from the creation of the universe?
Some have difficulty with the word “created” because it suggests the existence of a “creator” so perhaps a better phrase might be “came into existence.” If a universe could be imagined to have come into existence without the potential of sentient life of any type and all that existed was matter in it’s many forms, stars, galaxies and planets but lifeless and devoid of any mind or awareness, could it be said that the universe actually exists? The question is meaningless in one sense because it takes a sentient mind pose the question. One question that can be meaningfully asked is whether or not the universe of time and matter existed prior to the emergence of sentient awareness and the best answer seems to be; yes it did. If I listen to a symphony of Mozart, I’m really hearing a sequence of individual sounds completely based on pitch and meter that last only briefly. The many separate and brief musical notes in and of themselves don’t make the totality of the experience yet without them experiencing the symphony would be impossible, so where and when do I experience the symphony? Is it afterward, during its performance or some other way? The active agent of mind categorizes and renders into a coherent whole all that it experiences. Without the existence of time no coherent picture of reality is possible because that observed reality itself is not possible.
This question of time must at some point entertain a theological consideration. I believe the universe was created by something beyond itself and time was a crucial and indispensable prerequisite to that creation. If indeed this is the case then that “something beyond itself” had to exist prior to the emergence of time and matter, and that smacks of something called “spirit” but this conclusion is my reasoning and like all reasoning is subject to error. Intuitive reasoning, a readiness to accept facts and an acceptance of what they infer suggests to me a “created” universe of order, direction and purpose.
how can time not be thought of as having an existence
In science, a posited thing can be said to exist only when that thing interacts with its surroundings. A phenomenon, in science, is an observable event. Time cannot be observed interacting with anything; it does not qualify, in science, as existing nor as a phenomenon.
In philosophy, pretty much anything that can be named or referred to may be said to exist in some form. Thus Charlie, one of the dragons under my bed, exists.
If ... matter was created when the universe itself was created
Creation, matter-from-nothing, violates cause and effect. The big bang theory - emphasis on theory - claims no creation, but a change from a pre-existing condition without a cause for that effect. Take your pick, under either time still does not qualify as existing nor as a phenomenon.
I believe the universe was created by something beyond itself and time was a crucial and indispensable prerequisite to that creation.
I'm sure you have noticed that God, heaven and all associated with that are commonly referred to as "timeless" and "unchanging", in other words, without time. You might consider that the idea of existence without time leads to a notion that such existence could be a state of "being" separated from and not subject to the constraints of our matter universe. Any such consideration must remain philosophical and outside science.
If time was and is a co-emergent phenomenon with matter because the two are dependent on each other and matter was created when the universe itself was created, then how can time not be thought of as having an existence wholly dependent on and resulting from the creation of the universe?
All things - including time and matter – are co-emergent phenomena and therefore inter-dependent because of our conceptualization of their relationship in the universe of things.
Some have difficulty with the word “created” because it suggests the existence of a “creator” so perhaps a better phrase might be “came into existence.” If a universe could be imagined to have come into existence without the potential of sentient life of any type and all that existed was matter in it’s many forms, stars, galaxies and planets but lifeless and devoid of any mind or awareness, could it be said that the universe actually exists?
Yes, it exists in our imagination just as everything else, including the imaginer, that came into existence.
The question is meaningless in one sense because it takes a sentient mind pose the question.
It does; but the question is not meaningless. It conjures a fantasy of the sentient mind which, in and of itself, is also a fantasy.
One question that can be meaningfully asked is whether or not the universe of time and matter existed prior to the emergence of sentient awareness and the best answer seems to be; yes it did.
To be clear, this proposition is admissible based on the tacit acceptance of the theory of evolution.
If I listen to a symphony of Mozart, I’m really hearing a sequence of individual sounds completely based on pitch and meter that last only briefly.
Not true. Only one thing exists, and it is EITHER the symphony of Mozart OR a sequence of individual sounds. Cognition governs perception. You can’t hear the individual sounds of Mozart anymore than you can hear the individual sounds of the English language. The learned mind has lost its innocence.
The many separate and brief musical notes in and of themselves don’t make the totality of the experience yet without them experiencing the symphony would be impossible, so where and when do I experience the symphony?
Are you saying that it is impossible to experience a passionate dalliance with a woman, savoring every separate and brief touch, from moment to moment? Your experience of the musical symphony is no different; and when it’s over, hopefully, you give yourself a standing ovation.
Is it afterward, during its performance or some other way? The active agent of mind categorizes and renders into a coherent whole all that it experiences. Without the existence of time no coherent picture of reality is possible because that observed reality itself is not possible.
It’s possible because every perceived sensation is captured by the mind and displayed, in context and real time, as an artifact of the memory, for review.
This question of time must at some point entertain a theological consideration. I believe the universe was created by something beyond itself and time was a crucial and indispensable prerequisite to that creation. If indeed this is the case then that “something beyond itself” had to exist prior to the emergence of time and matter, and that smacks of something called “spirit” but this conclusion is my reasoning and like all reasoning is subject to error. Intuitive reasoning, a readiness to accept facts and an acceptance of what they infer suggests to me a “created” universe of order, direction and purpose.
Yes Sree, a passionate dalliance is possible, very, very possible and yes every brief and fleeting touch would be savored and as far as giving myself a standing ovation afterward I’d probably smoke a cigarette, but I dropped that habit years ago.
ibil said; Time cannot be observed interacting with anything; it does not qualify, in science, as existing nor as a phenomenon.
I beg to differ. Time is an emergent measurable phenomenon. It does not exist independent of duration of change. But there is no thing which is independent of "duration", a measurable quantity in increments of time.
I think we don’t observe how long it takes for a thing to go from one [quantum] state to another. Something about uncertainty. If what you are saying is correct, it must be a function of time and therefore both measurable and predictable.
ibil said; I think we don’t observe how long it takes for a thing to go from one [quantum] state to another. Something about uncertainty. If what you are saying is correct, it must be a function of time and therefore both measurable and predictable.
No, it is measurable but not necessarily predictable. The measurement of duration of change is a function of memory and time is an emergent product of change.
What you are trying to say that all duration of change must be predictable. But that is not how “observation of duration” works. It is a function of memory, where the measurable duration always follows the measurement of change, starting with the memory of “beginning of change” to the “end of change” and the measuremet of duration in arbitrary increment of time, regardless of the length of duration. Some durations last a 1000 years, so the observer never gets to see the full duration. But he can mark the beginning of change and a 1000 years later another observer can mark the end of change. And thus we can derive at the full measurement of duration from start to finish. But there is no law that says precisely how long every duration of change must be. As you correctly observed there is an element of uncertainty in the action and duration of change, dependent on several external circumstances.
How long is Global Warming goingto last? Any predictions?
Reference a movie film or a video. Individual frames presented at a rate which fools the eye into believing we see continuous motion. Compare that to observation of states in science. Each state is like a frame, similar to a tick of a clock. We do not seem to observe intermediate states nor do we observe intermediate ticks of the clock - iow, the “time” between each cycle of vibration of the atom. If , as you claim, time is a phenomenon it must be discontinuous.
I like the picture of space/time he draws here. Jim Al-Kahlili is a great speaker. I first found him in a series on how Islam contributed to science and more recently on a Netflix thing on about quantum physics.
W4U said; Process does not require time, it creates it.
ibil said; If time were created it would exist; time doesn’t exist, time is not created.
W4u said; Movement does not require distance, it creates it.
ibil said; If distance were created it would exist; distance doesn’t exist, distance is not created.
Does time exist without space? No it does not. Time was/is an emergent property of space, hence spacetime.
And so it is with movement. Time is an emergent property of movement. Hence movementime
And so it is with distance . Time is an emergent property of distance. Hence distancetime.
And so it is with living. Time is an emergent property of living. Hence lifetime.
Interesting video. That is the first time I’ve heard the notion that our universe’s big bang might be evidence of a “white hole”. I don’t see what that notion would have to do with whether time is a phenomenon or not, but it seems to be one plausible explanation of a beginning of physical sequences of events.
The idea - I would call it a fact if I thought it could be proved - that we do not seem to be able to observe intermediate states presents the question of whether it is our ability or the nature of matter that causes the limitation. The case for it being the nature of matter might include a proposition that some interval of time is required for the transition from one state to another; in other words, that change is dependent upon time. I think it much more likely that the limitation is just the nature of our senses cooperating with our memory and the nature of our devices which we attune to our senses and our memories. In other words, that there are intermediate states, probably discrete steps, but we are not equipped to observe them.
I do not accept that information is physical. Information does not have a physical existence. Information is the conclusions reached through data processing. Conclusions are not physical.
Because our system of real numbers was/is invented, not discovered, and includes the concept of infinite spaces between entities means that it is not physical and was/is not a part of the natural world.
Basing the existence of time on any numerical and/or mathematical system, all of which were/are invented, is absurd.
I do not accept that information is physical. Information does not have a physical existence. Information is the conclusions reached through data processing. Conclusions are not physical.
What do you mean by "physical"? How would you define it?
What if you stumped your toe on a rock and don’t feel a thing?
That would be something unexpected. Or a miracle. Depending on who you ask.
Of course if it were a thought experiment, it would be a virtual “experience” anyway. Gravity and acceleration are different phenomena and the accepted consensus that we can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean that they are the same.
