argo Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Is time real? Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension along with the three spatial dimensions, the dimensions this refers to are obviously just measurable quantities of independent variables but I assume you would say the space they measure and the space you experience does actually exist, so what about the time dimension, are the moments it measures and the moment you experience just as real as the space? Length, temperature and weight are all examples of measurements but we don’t experience these quantities either; we experience space, heat and force just like we experience the moment now; or at least I think we do. Is time the measurable quantity and now the reality we experience, because now is just an illusion argued any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 If you can measure it, it's real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Time is a construct, a narrative we force fit on to a set of incoming neural signals that fired well before we even became consciously aware of them... that and increasing entropy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argo Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 26 minutes ago, StringJunky said: If you can measure it, it's real. Real things exist somewhere, illusionary things don’t, where does a relative thing like now exist? 18 minutes ago, iNow said: Time is a construct, a narrative we force fit on to a set of incoming neural signals that fired well before we even became consciously aware of them... that and increasing entropy. Nobody is saying measurements are real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Neither of those is quite correct, INow. It is neither a construct, nor does entropy always increase with time. And while we can measure time, or differences in time, Stringy, it is the only dimension where we are 'fixed' in the present, or 'now'. Everyone's 'now' ( there is no universal now , only a local approximation ) proceeds at the same rate in their own frame. 'Now' is the only co-ordinate of this dimension we can interact with. Other differences include the ability to 'remember' the past, or previous co-ordinates, but not future ones. IOW, while different from spatial dimensions, it is nonetheless, real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 (edited) Measurements are a representation of what we can measure, so those representations are a means to describe what dynamics we interact with. Time is a representative term for a property we define as a rate... in so far as to rate of change. Those changes do not necessarily require movement, they more than often do however one must have two states to compare to get an interval. So as a property of everyday objects changing and time representing the rate of that change then time is definitely real. It is however not something that can exist on its own. It is a property of the rate of change in any physical process. Edited February 11, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argo Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 1 hour ago, MigL said: Neither of those is quite correct, INow. It is neither a construct, nor does entropy always increase with time. And while we can measure time, or differences in time, Stringy, it is the only dimension where we are 'fixed' in the present, or 'now'.Everyone's 'now' ( there is no universal now , only a local approximation ) proceeds at the same rate in their own frame. 'Now' is the only co-ordinate of this dimension we can interact with. Other differences include the ability to 'remember' the past, or previous co-ordinates, but not future ones. IOW, while different from spatial dimensions, it is nonetheless, real. I am fixed in (a) moment now, not (the) moment now, there is no universal now, everyone’s “Now” moves in their own frame independently, so how are you combining the of movement of a single independent frame with the non-independence of having every frame having to move at the same rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argo Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Mordred said: Measurements are a representation of what we can measure, so those representations are a means to describe what dynamics we interact with. Time is a representative term for a property we define as a rate... in so far as to rate of change. Those changes do not necessarily require movement, they more than often do however one must have two states to compare to get an interval. So as a property of everyday objects changing and time representing the rate of that change then time is definitely real. It is however not something that can exist on its own. It is a property of the rate of change in any physical process. Measurements measure movement of things in the real world, this is their only purpose. Rate of change refers exclusively to the rate of movement in a real thing, if you can measure it, it’s real, period. Change requires movement; there are no real world changes without it. If there was no movement there would be no change. Real things exist somewhere, illusionary things don’t, where does a relative thing like now exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 16 minutes ago, argo said: Measurements measure movement of things in the real world, this is their only purpose. Rate of change refers exclusively to the rate of movement in a real thing, if you can measure it, it’s real, period. Doesn't particle decay happen even if there's no movement involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, argo said: Measurements measure movement of things in the real world, this is their only purpose. Rate of change refers exclusively to the rate of movement in a real thing, if you can measure it, it’s real, period. Clocks measure the effect we call time. Quote Change requires movement; there are no real world changes without it. If there was no movement there would be no change. Change and movement while connected, occur in time. Time would not stop if the universe stopped expanding...time would not stop if the universe started to contract... Quote Real things exist somewhere, illusionary things don’t, where does a relative thing like now exist? Real things certainly do exist....real things will result in some sort of effect....A magnetic field is real...time is real...space is real...motion and change are a result of time. Just as movement and change are connected, and occur in time, they also occur in space...Space and time are related also, and form a background we call Spacetime, which allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. The Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers in various FoR's. Again, motion and change occur in time as opposed to causing time. One could also say that the observed reality and variable nature of space and time, are a result of the constant speed of light. Edited February 11, 2019 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 ! Moderator Note As this seems to be a discussion of what it means to"exist" or be "real", I have moved this to Philosophy. However, as argo is now just repeating the same claims as before with no further explanation of justification, it is closed. Do NOT open another thread on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts