Is Time Real or Just a Concept?

I think the phenomenon of time is real in any case, it's only the observation situation that would vary...Entropy is hard to ignore as a basic force of nature... taking chaos into account we see a pattern emerge, this hints at a finite set of possibilities....If there were no time, I don't think this would be the case...

Define time without referring to a change in position of two or more"things".

An oscillating crystal,the movement of a clack hand?The decay of radioactivity?

They are all comparing a "present" state to a "past" state.

And these all require a memory of the past state.

What things exist that are not moving?

Define "moving" without referencing something else's position.Not accelerating or decelerating,just moving?

Furthermore,motion cannot be defined without memory of a sequence of events that lead to the concept of motion,and thus time.

I think the universe can be explained without referring to time,merely relative positions.

I think the universe can be explained without referring to time,merely relative positions.

No, you need velocities (or momenta) as well, and velocity = Δ position / Δ time.

Pick up a rock and drop it. If it hits the ground, time exists.

Does "not moving" have any meaning? If an object does exist that is not moving, how would we know? Everything would have to be moving relative to that hypothetical stationary object. Then we could state that it is "not moving". But wait! That is already true of every object.

How are you going to stop atoms...matter exists because of movement, energetic movement...If there was no matter or energy or anything in the universe, then would time exist? No, time is a relative term, without relevance there is nothing...but neither could you observe it...

The point of my comment is that we have no way of determining if a hypothetical object is stationary (disregarding atomic movement). Had the Michelson/Morley experiment produced different results - that the speed of light was different when measured in different directions from the earth - then we would be able to determine if something is at absolute rest in relation to the "aether". It's weird, but apparently "absolute rest" has no meaning.

It's interesting that Isaac Newton insisted that time would continue to flow even if nothing moved. Apart from his great Principia Mathematica he left reams of unreadable musings on philosophy and mysticism. Maybe his ideas on time were within those writings. For amusement, I tried in my post #16, to imagine how time could be considered to flow if there were no movement anywhere, and thereby agree with Newton. You are good at searching for information. Possibly you could find Newton's writings on the subject of time and post a link. He must have had reasons for insisting that time is detached from movement.

My point exactly.

It is all about reference of two or more objects.

According to modern theory,the singularity expanded faster than C,which means to me that time did not exist during this period,but space did.

Space occurred first,which allowed objects to move relative to each other,thus the concept of time was developed by man to measure and count these changes.

Space can exist without time,but time cannot exist without space.

Without a memory or record of past events,there is no Concept Of Time.

Space does not care if we remember it or not.

"time did not exist during this period"

What does "during this period" mean if time does not exist?

"this period " was defined only after space expanded,and looking backward (relatively speaking,from the present).

It could have been an infinitely small or large period,since the concept of time was not invented by man kind yet.

As I hypothesized,space existed before"time".

"space existed before"time""

before?

"Before"and "After" are relative terms devised by mankind to express"time",another man made concept.

We cannot escape using these terms due to the constraints of our experience locking us into this terminology.

It would require a new word that is independent of our current concepts and then it would be undefinable.

I can imagine it,but I cannot express it.

And as I said,it requires memory to reference two or more events to each other.

Without memory,time does not exist.

I could prove this once,but I forgot how...

Time is the smallest and largest thing possible. Time is considered in three stages by us humans. The past, present, and future. The past goes to an infinitely large number, So does the future. The present is only here for an infinitely short time. So how could you measure the present time?

I think it was Buzz Lightyear that said "To infinity and beyond".
Or was it infinity squared?

Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way

Good Day Mr Randall . IT is a beautifull quote that one and yes it's incroyable . I whant share somethink that I never , never told . Not that a secret, but it is not somethink that personaly, specialy when I was a kid a news who at that time make me happy. Because at that time probably I was not understanding the (concept) of dicovering, also make freind un an otter univers. I get to the point, that is me bla bla bla, ok this is what I have to say about this quote : I redoned it few time always I have the same awnser this is my stuff. I dont pretend to get the true, but to me it is. We are alone un are univers, this make me so sad. Specialty if I am right. Now that I juste say it to you make me feel better for a reason. This reason it's because like are great captait like who travel for the first (time) Gaï, are beautifull planet. Some of Them travel when the Earth was flat, otter when it was not. They all particip making the map, all those region, all those coast it is amaizing. This is why, this is are quest. And go in those otters (Univers) to me it is very close to be possible. Of coars when I say close I mean close. Possibel 10 years but alone never. This was great to me about Sharing it. IT is juste my opinion, also rarely I do error. Practicly never. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin.

Time is very much real. If you and I are separately travelling on a highway, we can occupy the same position in space without consequence if not at the same time. There would be a lot more car wrecks if it weren't for that fourth dimension of separation.

And anyhow, without time we couldn't travel on the highway nor change in any way, nor could anything else. Things move and change and time is the independent variable.

On the quantum level,two objects can occupy the same space at the same "time" and can be in two different places at the same "time",and since all matter is quantum in nature it is possible.

Not necessarily likely,but possible.

How does anyone prove a part of reality to those who cannot recognize reality?

If the universe consisted of only one object you wouldn't be asking this question of anyone.

Chemical reactions take varying amounts of time to complete yet no relative movement occurs.

Many philosophers have expounded upon the meaning(s) of time. Those reductionist who propose that time may not exist at all typically start with a never observed scenario and then try to use their reasoning to explain something that has never been observed.

This is an imaginary game,played in the mind,which is not bound by the current physical laws(The imagination,that is). (I know we could not exist without the current physical realities,so don't be silly and use that argument as an escape.)

IMHO:

The big bang created SPACE.

And with space,motion;For motion was then possible,and with motion,the relative positions of all things changed,and is still constantly changing.Time is simply a measurement of these relative positions.The concept of time requires memory,to place events in a relative order.A preceding event must be remembered for comparison.Space does not require time to exist,rather time is a by product of space.Space could exist with no one observing it,time requires an observer to compare relative positions.

I consider the warping of space similar to the refraction of light in water.Space moves slower through matter,and the more massive, and concentrated the mass,the more delay.

This is what causes the rubber sheet analogy to deflect due to mass.

I had hoped somebody would read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on reductionism (chapter 2) that I provided. It seems nobody has looked.

Your perspective of "relative time" has been expounded by none other than Leibniz and Aristotle. You are in good company. None other than Newton and Plato proclaim what many others here at CR4 have countered that "absolute time", where time is independent of events, are how time works. My observation that both of these reductionist perspectives requires an initial event that not only hasn't ever been observed, it is an event that cannot be observed. This is an observation of this concept, not a refutation of the concept. There is nothing silly in that.

Getting back to the Stanford Encyclopedia, there are a total of twelve different chapters on time, each presenting a different perspective. Time is real. Time is also mysterious for no less than at least twelve different perspectives attempt to describe time itself. If any of these views captured everything about time then the other views of time would have likely withered away.

So time is real and time is many different concepts.

<...Time...> is actually a personal experience.

Try this. A long vertical axle with two locked wheels. Atomic clock at lower wheel elevation. Another atomic clock at top wheel elevation. Spin axle. Measure RPM at both wheels with clocks.

What did you see? What should have you seen?

Any oscillation(clock) will change with g or a. But a rotational clock, will not vary.

Let's put star trek to rest, and get back to some real science. Like the RELATIVE velocity of light.

Here is a link for a different look at the time concept,similar to my post:

https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

The text accompanying the video makes reference to Isaac Newton's insistence that even if absolutely nothing ever happened, time would still be passing. From the oven of half-baked ideas, here is how I could agree with Newton:

If a solid hoop were to be rotated perpendicularly through flatland (a world of only two dimensions), with the hoop axis on the flatland plane, the hoop would appear in flatland as two unchanging disks. If those two unchanging, stationary disks were all that existed in flatland, then from the flatland frame of reference, time would not exist. But from our frame of reference, we could see the rotating hoop, and therefore know that time was passing, and inform our flatlander cosmologist of his perceptual error. Similarly, if our universe apparently consisted of two unchanging, stationary spheres,and nothing else, maybe those stationary spheres could be manifestations in our space of a moving body in hyperspace, and to inhabitants of that hyperspace it would be obvious, by the evidence of that moving body, that time was passing, regardless of our perception that it wasn't.

Does it matter?

I don't mean this in a flippant way; I mean that as far as we (humans) are concerned time is very real, and, if it turns out to be just a convenient way to understand some other much more complicated concepts then, let it be.

Energy is simply motion. Any motion. The duration of motion, is what time is.

No. Energy is not simply motion. You need to review Newtonian Physics.

Try to explain hertz without time being real. In general, it seems hard for something to be measurable without being real.

We are trapped in the concept of time,but what time means is simply a comparison of 2 or more events.

Time requires information of the past as well as the present.

Velocity cannot be calculated without the concept of time.

We are all trapped in the inevitable "passage" of time.

Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.. Douglas Adams.

Time is more about scale and reference than anything tangible.

Just as distance is about how far from, Time is equally about how long till.

Passage of time is variable, note; I can spend hours tinkering in my shed after saying I'll be 5 minutes, where as my wife will observe that I was all blessed day when I'd only been 3 hours. So it becomes a matter of perspective with reference to whether you are doing or waiting.

Time fly's when your having fun goes the homily which proves the point about perspective influencing the observation (or lack of) of time.

'Zackly.

When I was young my days lasted for a week, now my days only last a few hours...It would seem that if I lived for a 200 years, days would only last a few minutes...You can slow time down by doing things, or speed it up by not doing anything...talking to people slows time down, the more emotionally intense the slower it goes, this is why I like to complain as I work, swearing at everything is a real time slower....though not socially advisable or while driving, which slows the day down enough on its own....best relegated to just the workshop or cleaning house, while alone....

If one stopped all motion, there would be a duration of that stoppage. Thus time flows on.

How would the duration of the hypothetical stoppage of all motion be measured?

Perhaps one could retitle the question.

I almost forgot one of my favorite circular definitions on time.

Time is the universe's mechanism that prevents everything from happening all at once.

Time is an illusion created by our brains. I often use a DVD as an analogy. Imagine that the universe is like a movie encoded on a DVD. But when we look at it, we play it one frame at a time, creating the illusion of "Now", and the illusion that the movie is moving through time. But the DVD remains unchanged. It is the changing point of view that is moving, not the DVD. If you had software that laid out the entire movie at once as a series of pictures, there is no illusion of time. Likewise if we could see the entire timeline of the universe then we could penetrate the illusion of time in the universe.

Our perception of the velocity of time depends on the chemical reactions in our brain. Sometimes when we are in an emergency time may seem to be slowed down, and other times it may seem to be sped up, all depending on how fast our neurons are firing.

In this analogy it is perfectly possible to have time with nothing moving. Imagine a DVD with a movie consisting of the same image repeated over and over. Presto, the "Now" point moves through the DVD but nothing changes.

The main problem that remains is, at the universe scale, who is doing the looking, and how is it moving its perception "Now" point forward (or backward) through the timeline? Or in other words, who is watching the DVD of the universe, and how?

Here is where I probably lose some people. (The rest of the people?) To me, this unifies the physical universe with the spiritual universe. I am convinced that time has at least 2 dimensions, because I have had prophetic dreams. Not profound dreams, but the same dream, of a humdrum event that, occurred about 7 times, and each time it was accompanied by a stronger and stronger feeling of deja vu. Of course the deja vu was not mysterious because I was remembering the familiarity of that same dream. And then that event actually happened in real life, and the deja vu was much more powerful.

If you accept that prophetic dreams happen, then there must be at least 2 dimensions of time, because if there were only one dimension of time, and you could travel through time, then you could only move forward and backward along the exact same events, and none of them would change. A later even could not change an earlier event. You could not ever have a dream of a later event.

Call the dimensions Time 1 and Time 2 in the Time Plane. The fact that an event happens at a later point in the Time 1, and "then" causes a change in an earlier point in Time 1, means that there are multiple timelines (or actually all embedded in the Time Plane).

Some timelines are earlier in Time 2, with the event unchanged, and some are later in Time 2, with it changed. Any given timeline is also moving perpendicularly through the "Time Plane", and any event in it, whether early or late (in Time 1) can be changed at a "Later" point (In Time 2) without changing the "Earlier" (In Time 2) version of the timeline.

It is like having earlier and later versions of the movie DVD. The movie DVD is moving through time as the production crew edits it. The director may look at an event late in the movie and decide to put some foreshadowing early in the movie. Presto! Time travel or prophetic dreams. Then at the universe level we have the question, is someone editing the timeline of the universe?

If true this may resolve some apparent paradoxes in physics. Including spooky action at distance.

That movie was "Groundhog Day".

Bingo!

Is what we perceive,via our senses, our personal reality,or does reality exist,in and of itself?

Was Helen Keller's reality different from ours?

Everyone is blind and mute due to the limitations of our senses.

What if we could see in the full spectrum,hear in the full spectrum,feel in the full spectrum?

There are some exceptions to the generally accepted rules of perception.

Here is an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fG0CDpy_0c

Einstein himself said that reality was an illusion.

I will not argue with him on that matter.

I need time to think......

In my opinion. The gravitationnelle wave, it’s not juste a powerfull wisper coming from the deepes abys of time. The Universe it’s not a ensemble of all that existe. Univers is not Eternal or infinit. Some they suppose it’s not possible as Human by is feeling or mind to Reach it. But physicien they are stuck. They not the only one actually, and I will help them the better I can, of coars [ LOL �� ]^����. Ok Let’s keep going , they still imagine Infinity , they still explore the one ( Univers ) the one who they live on, and percive on. Yes every day, it got some stuff happening, that we never see , but I will tel you that they existe. I guess we have to talk about Time, Ho my GOD. Time and Time. Yes with some elementary data, for who whant to broke the mistery of Time, pass, present , Futur, and Let’s put history , phylosophy , social ,initiatic , and scientific , �� Good Luck . For sûre , good Luck. Time is juste for us , it’s the second Time I give you the awnser. Wait I am not finish yet. If your belived are Better go my freind, go where the comfort of your big Working mind will Please you , and also relax you…Because now it’s about distance, of coars Time is. As well for Astronomy, Astrophysic, Cosmology, ., Your notion about infinit regress. Explications about Time , space and the way we mesure distance TODAY STILL. Tell me if I am not right, today for me it’s not possible giving you all of you Ladies and Gentleman a presise DÉFINITION OF TIME is not acurate, especialy not possible. I so sorry for real. If you ready ladies and Gentleman , if you ready to acceptes my humble difinition of Time . If you accepte it’s OK, if not Let’s stop. Ok I go, Time, IT is a sort of mesure of life with extrem fluctuations percive by the inconscient , and the conscient by phylosophe, and scientific. In a sence Time is or be a manifestation of non stop, insecente révolution of the life; of the matter. If it’s OK Let’s go I will continue. Thank for your patient and Time. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin…����

Here are some interesting ideas... a math approach.

"If numbers cannot have infinite strings of digits, then the future can never be perfectly preordained."

Does Time Really Flow? New Clues Come From a Century-Old Approach to Math.

The laws of physics imply that the passage of time is an illusion. To avoid this conclusion, we might have to rethink the reality of infinitely precise numbers.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/

Hello and good Day Rixter. I did not watch your link my freind but this is what I think. If time is a concept? First a concept it could be by the fact that I will aswer my concept of Time right . Second I guess is better Watching your link I juste figure right now LOL. Ok, I get back to you in bit. Philippe Martin ��

IMHO:

In the beginning,described by scientists as the Big Bang,the universe was created.

The big bang simply created space,which allowed events to occur.

Before,there was nothing.

Events could not occur without space,and time is a by product of events which occur in space.

Time cannot be expressed without a reference of two or more events,which is why they call the point of no return of a black hole as the event horizon.

All events cease.

Time ceases.

Even with time"standing still",space exists.

Space exists without time,but not the opposite.

The universe happened way before man tried to understand it,and our understanding is limited by our intelligence and technology.

If eventually all matter is concentrated into a universe of black holes and they eventually merge into a single black hole and form a singularity,all space will also disappear.Perhaps it requires all matter and energy to reach a critical mass,which will then expand and create another universe.

God creates,and is not concerned with man's ability to comprehend it.

Try to rewrite that post without using any words which rely on a concept of time for their definitions.

^{This comment could apply to most of the posts in this thread.}

Bingo!You've got it:

The CONCEPT of time.

Every thought is a human concept,but some things can exist independently of our knowledge.

Good evening, Mr HiTekRedNek . I have to say Time and l am sure you know is a subject right now that many, many scientific try to avoid right now and specialy since I ask to re Do the definition . You no it make no point also redo définition of time and not redo also définition of Entropy, Newton second law thermodynamique. I know you know what I am talking about I read few stuff you wrote, by the way you got some concept there Nice. Never forget some personne suffer alot, some suicide because they can not trying to make their concept to work and try also presure and the scientific world no mercy. You have be cool and flexible if not could cost your life my freind. Yes me I did not do this but if it got no option what kind of option I should take at that (time) if no option. yes we have always the choise , to quit. Anyway will have the chance to talk more. Who knose developing some concept. We never know in this world, to me dont mean nothing I know what I need. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin

IMHO:

Time is a man made concept.

It requires memory to measure time.

It requires memory to measure anything.

There is no past,present or future,there is only now,and our memory of "past" events,referenced to our "now".

Everything is relative to the observer.

A few people can escape the prison of illusion,and "Premember",considered by scientific minds as snake oil,and empirical evidence is discarded if a claim is not able to be repeated on command.

If you buck the trend of accepted science,you are labeled a quack or worse.

You will never be taken seriously again.

Reality exists in our minds.

Albert Einstein said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

He also said:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

I do not consider myself superior to others,nor do I consider others to be mediocre,I simply examine intensely and decide for myself.

I remain open to corrections and suggestions,but make my own decisions.

I do not have any "Ego equity" in my ideas.

Lack of acceptance by others does not bother me at all.

I do not take myself too seriously.

In a hundred years,mankind will look back at our era and think how primitive we were.

"Don't worry...be happy"

Good morning, Mr HiTekRedNek . That is good my freind. I hope you belived that I do not take my self seriously , realy (the father of). Man is got a long (Time) story beyond that. I realy, you know what I mean . I bull...shit alot man, I do alot show of you know. I work alone all time , you know. If I was not be a fool , I will be a fool all (Time), right. Anyway That is good it is you, the unique you, is got juste une like you. Never before, is got you, the real you. The future you, the way you say it will never have even one copy of the unique you. That sad I never tough it was possible, you see I always belived like this. When I go take few good big breath out side, I always know that when the sun go into my eyes, that the minimum of copy of the unique me, was roughly 150 to 350 copy of the real me. I am of coars be abel to get 350 copy of unique merci with big breath and slowly expire. Dont get me rong. I am no liar , please. Ok, you see, my freind it is sad but most of stuff you LEARN and especialy at school or big school is worts. Like University, they font teach self thinking. This is a real concept. My freind I juste whant you open your eyes, (Time) it is more that what you think, it huge open your Hart,open your feeling ans when you out side get the Sun you nerf, take (Time) to let (nature= your environnement=univers=cosmos= are sun and so on.) . I gain nothing on this, it is my quest to say this stuff. Take it or not . This is you, but I"m no fool, juste a Little. Always good talking to you Mr HiTekRedNek. Philippe Martin.

"If numbers cannot have infinite strings of digits, then the future can never be perfectly preordained."

This argument seems to have been presented "backwards".

We all know that in mathematics "most" numbers do have infinite strings of digits.

What the theory proposes is that, because of quantum effects physics itself can be described better by maths. which only includes rational numbers.

What is "real", in the first place? One shouldn't discuss if something is real unless an agreed upon definition for real is considered. Certainly one can look up the word in a dictionary or take the lazy approach of using Google. (As I did with the link.) But that link not only provides several common definitions for "real" but no less than seven broad fields where "real" has other, more nuanced meanings.

From my understanding, none of these fields claim "real" and "concept" to be exclusionary, binary, antonyms of each other. In fact, there are many real concepts out there.

Time is real, not a concept. Events happen in sequence. We label that sequence, time. Because all motions have durations. Time comes with motion. If motion were instantaneous, everything would happen all at once at the same time and all would be over with. There would be no need for any existence. Instant decay and instant darkness. No need for any memory.

Time is a constant omnipresent dimension of all motion(and therefore lack of motion too). Time is the only natural singularity. Life is a supernatural singularity.

Time can easily be manipulated in your dreams. You can even travel in your dreams faster than any physical object. Forwards or backwards. Without us to measure it, time is irrelevant.

Good Day Mr Haymaker. You are right, regarding Time, Dimension . The Time also could be a concept. Mr Haymaker, when we think about quantum we need to talk eazy and simple because confusion is to , and big Time to easy to get lost. I hope you see my comic sence of humour, when I use (big Time) . Ha I am a funy Guy to, you see (to). IT seem stupide , but the way I figure to talk about it is like that and alot of methaphor. Ok Mr Haymaker, my point right now it is when I see all the comment today, I figure wow all of you realy love this stuff. It is all it take to go deep on a quantum world . First quantum just mean at the scale of macroscopic photon, muon, quarks, neutron Electron, protons, ecetera. Général relativity it is at the scale of or cosmos or univers or nature or environnement. Second when I modified and put (T=0) it was not about are (Time). IT was firts into a quantum level, another Dimension. You see some Time it better to used 2 dimensions, and some Time it is better used 3 dimensions or more. Now you can broke it to. (IT ) as dimensions right. Like this 2+1, 3+1. Second my freind it is about your ( z) we used z in a quadratic quadran in math as the direction (s). Look I put braquage to mean also henece the (z) as the possibility to need a better one mean not in math because it is not satisfing you like that juste change it it is ok why not as long you respect , ya this more confusing I guess, but juste for Little time. Ya, go Pick one (z) that fit you more un Physics. You see. Now I go look otter comment I probably keep go on today but please be patients with me, because I worked on many thing at the same time and belived me I g vuodont have mutch of it right now. Also I have quantum cosmology to keep going strong on it. You know mutch say I wayste my Time on it. Please you think so say it to me.ok Mr Haymaker I hope it is ok if not say to me no worry. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin...