Time?

**Your Computer** · 10-06-2012, 10:48 PM

(10-06-2012, 08:31 PM)BAndrew Wrote: Just because we are unable to talk about a rate of flow of time does not mean that time does not flow at all. Or maybe time is standing still while we (our consciousness) are moving along it (we are moving towards the future rather than the future coming towards us). When you look out of the window of a moving train and observe fields rushing by you ‘know’ that they are standing still and that it is the train that is moving. Likewise, we have the strong subjective impression that the present moment (what we call now) and an event in our future (say next Christmas) move closer together. The time interval separating the two moments shrinks. Whether we say that next Christmas is moving closer to us or that we are moving closer to next Christmas amounts to the same thing: we feel that something is changing. So how come most physicists argue that even this idea is not valid?

Strange as this may sound, the laws of physics say nothing about the flow of time. They tell us how things like atoms, pulleys, levers, clocks, rockets and stars behave when subjected to different forces at certain instants in time, and if given the status of a system at a particular moment the laws of physics provide us with the rules for computing its likely state at some future time. Nowhere, however, do they contain a hint of flowing time. The notion that time passes, or moves in some way, is completely missing in physics. We find that, like space, time simply exists; it just is. Clearly, say most physicists, the feeling we have that time flows is just that: a feeling, however real it may seem to us.

What science is unable to provide at the moment is an explanation for where this strong sense we have of passing time and a changing present moment comes from. Some physicists and philosophers are convinced that there is something missing in the laws of physics. I will not go as far as to say that I subscribe to this view, but I do believe we will only make progress when we have a better understanding of how our own consciousness works, and hence why we feel the passage of time.

I should mention that no less an authority than Einstein himself held the view that the flow of time is illusory and even expressed it when trying to console the bereaved widow of a close friend of his, stating that she should take comfort in the knowledge that the present moment is no more special than any other in the
past or the future; all times exist together.

Some of the things you've mentioned i've already dabbled on years ago, specifically when trying to construct God's perception of time for myself. For that reason i am able to recognize where you are coming from. Nevertheless, even if measurement is subjective, that measurement comes from what exists. From this is where the confusion comes from, for a connection is made between something subjective and something objective. Sure, you could continue onward and go as far as to say that the only thing that exists is what is perceived, therefore denying everything except your own existence. But at some point you would have to recognize that either you are self-limiting or something external to you is limiting you (paradoxes form only from the former). However you define this limitation is only my concern insofar as it relates to me.

You cannot claim that time exists outside of our perception yet talk like the only reason it exists is simply due to our perception if you seek to remain logical. While it is possible to move along something that is stationary, how would you show that time is stationary? If time allows for physical events, then it follows that time has to be in motion in order for matter to be in motion. If time can remain stationary while events still occur, then you would have to recognize that time is not a restriction on reality and that time's existence is not necessary. So what would be of time then? Why claim time exists then?

**BAndrew** · 10-06-2012, 10:55 PM

(10-06-2012, 10:48 PM)Your Computer Wrote: You cannot claim that time exists outside of our perception yet talk like the only reason it exists is simply due to our perception if you seek to remain logical. While it is possible to move along something that is stationary, how would you show that time is stationary? If time allows for physical events, then it follows that time has to be in motion in order for matter to be in motion. If time can remain stationary while events still occur, then you would have to recognize that time is not a restriction on reality and that time's existence is not necessary. So what would be of time then? Why claim time exists then?

Space is stationary and it doesn't need to be in motion in order for matter to be in motion. So why time needs to be in motion?

**Your Computer** · 10-06-2012, 11:35 PM

(10-06-2012, 10:55 PM)BAndrew Wrote: Space is stationary and it doesn't need to be in motion in order for matter to be in motion. So why time needs to be in motion?

Would you claim that space bears a limit, a restriction on expanse? If space is infinite, then saying stationary or in motion is irrelevant. Yet, even if it was finite, if you're inside the contained space, you could not tell me it is stationary. I would argue time is in motion because time is a restriction on reality that allows for motion or action. Therefore if time becomes stationary, then so would matter. Applying space to the equation does not confuse the matter for me, as i see time and space as separate. If time is stationary, i would just repeat what i said in my previous statement. In which case, we may as well all agree that time is subjective and non-existent.

**BAndrew** · 10-07-2012, 08:35 AM

(10-06-2012, 11:35 PM)Your Computer Wrote: Would you claim that space bears a limit, a restriction on expanse? If space is infinite, then saying stationary or in motion is irrelevant. Yet, even if it was finite, if you're inside the contained space, you could not tell me it is stationary. I would argue time is in motion because time is a restriction on reality that allows for motion or action. Therefore if time becomes stationary, then so would matter. Applying space to the equation does not confuse the matter for me, as i see time and space as separate. If time is stationary, i would just repeat what i said in my previous statement. In which case, we may as well all agree that time is subjective and non-existent.

You are using your "feeling" in order to answer this and not physics. Physics allows 2 events to happen on different times, but it never mentions that the time flows.

**Your Computer** · 10-07-2012, 05:56 PM

(10-07-2012, 08:35 AM)BAndrew Wrote: You are using your "feeling" in order to answer this and not physics. Physics allows 2 events to happen on different times, but it never mentions that the time flows.

Oh? I didn't know physics can talk. Either way, you should then not claim that time exists. Claim only that light exists, for wherever time is mentioned the speed of light is too. Without light, would physics argue for time? Or would you turn around and admit that anything that slows down has to have first be in motion (e.g. the effects a black hole has on matter)? But, indeed, that is merely due to our observations of light. Don't actively confuse people by saying "time" when you really mean "light." And don't confuse yourself by claiming time exists when there is only light.

**BAndrew** · 10-07-2012, 09:22 PM

(10-07-2012, 05:56 PM)Your Computer Wrote: Oh? I didn't know physics can talk. Either way, you should then not claim that time exists. Claim only that light exists, for wherever time is mentioned the speed of light is too. Without light, would physics argue for time? Or would you turn around and admit that anything that slows down has to have first be in motion (e.g. the effects a black hole has on matter)? But, indeed, that is merely due to our observations of light. Don't actively confuse people by saying "time" when you really mean "light." And don't confuse yourself by claiming time exists when there is only light.

Time exists on Physics.

**Your Computer** · 10-07-2012, 09:44 PM

(10-07-2012, 09:22 PM)BAndrew Wrote: Time exists on Physics.

Is that to say that you recognize that time would slow down due to a black hole?

**BAndrew** · 10-07-2012, 09:51 PM

(10-07-2012, 09:44 PM)Your Computer Wrote:
(10-07-2012, 09:22 PM)BAndrew Wrote: Time exists on Physics.

Is that to say that you recognize that time would slow down due to a black hole?

Time is relevant. To someone who is falling into the black hole time would feel the same. To an observer on Earth time would "slow down" and he would never see the person fall into the hole.

**bloogleford** · 10-07-2012, 10:38 PM

Time is just an arbitrary way of measuring the constant change that is reality.

**Ghieri** · 10-07-2012, 11:34 PM

(10-07-2012, 10:38 PM)bloogleford Wrote: Time is just an arbitrary way of measuring the constant change that is reality.

See: Time Dilation.

There is the measurement of time(IE calenders, clocks, etc) then there is the warping of time due to difference in gravity and speed.