a timely question

[Brian W]

Just too many cloudy nights and too much time on my hands so here goes...

I believe that it is fair to say that -change- gives one the perception of time.

Is it also fair to say that -change- creates time.

One possible end of the universe scenario has everything expanding and slowing down until absolute zero is reached and then everything just stops. (I know way over simplified)

Would that mean time stops as well?

Brian

[CraigS]

Time is our way of measuring changing motion.

I can't see how we can measure this, if we don't exist.

It is also relative, and observers elsewhere may perceive its passage differently from us.

Quantum fluctuations and symmetry changes may have given rise to the Big Bang, (under presently accepted theory), … so if quantum fluctuations and symmetry changes are all there is left at 'the end', then there will still be changes in motion .. but no one will ever be there to observe it !

Neat stuff !!

Cheers

[renormalised]

So Craig, if no one is there to observe it, does it exist??

There's a question for you:)

Remember, the link between observer and the observed in quantum physics.

[CraigS]

It doesn't get much mooter ...(??).. er .. more moot, than that question !!
:)
Moot .. moot !!
:P:)

I reckon I'll leave that one to Brian !!
:)

Cheers

[Brian W]

Thank you Craig finally a question I can answer... comparative 'more moot'... superlative 'most moot'.

But I am not sure it is a moot point.

If time only exists as an observable recordable experience then time cannot exist without an observer.

Now my niche is more philosophical than scientifical so here I will put the clock back in the scientists court (if the following question makes sense from a scientific perspective);

Was there -time- in whatever existed to cause the Big bang?

I realize how loose a question I just asked but hey, it is still monsoon season.
Brian

[astroron]

Surely Time is only now or in the past, there is no future time till you get there:shrug:
I think time started with the Big Bang,so there could have been no time before it:question:

[CraigS]

Brian … (thanks for the pointers on the 'moot' thing .. I hate words coming from a legal system origin, in science discussions. :) )

Ok ..

Theory tells us what must have happened during very small time intervals immediately following the BB. So time after the BB isn't a problem for theoretical Physics.

The BB origin was a singularity as 'predicted' by running the clock backwards in our present day theoretical, mathematically described laws of physics. We have no mathematical framework to describe what happens before a singularity. So there is only conjecture about what may/may not have been, prior to the singularity.

(Aside: interestingly, we also have no framework to describe the conditions of anything smaller than Planck size).

On this basis, scientists make the statement that 'time began at the BB and probably didn't exist prior to it'. Interestingly, I have heard Hawking say that gravity existed, prior to the BB .. which I think, confuses the issue a lot. I'll put his words aside for now .. he probably had some reason for making this statement but I don't know what it was.

Hope this helps.
Others: corrections welcome, if I've misinterpreted something incorrectly.

Cheers

[renormalised]

It's not a moot point, Craig. It strikes right at the heart of quantum physics. If something isn't observed, then it can be said to be in all states simultaneously. It's only when an observation is made that the waveform of the observed object/process collapses to the value the observer assigns to the observation (just by the act of making the observation).

If there is no observer to make the observation in the first place, how can universal simultaneity even be said to exist, since that simultaneity is predicated on the existence of both...only that an observation hasn't been made which gives the observed its form. That which is being observed also observes the observer...so before the observer makes an observation of the observed, the observer is also in all possible states.

[bojan]

... and "observer" doesn't necessarily mean us (humans, alive sentient organisms etc)..
"Observer" may be another particle, affected by the "observed" event.
The observation can be conducted using automated, non-sentient equipment (computers, robots.. artificial intelligence....)

So, my conclusion from the above is - time MUST exist without us... as long as there is more than one single particle in the universe.

[CraigS]

Ok .. so the question was:



To which I (rather arrogantly) commented that it was a moot point. I should have said “moot point for me”).

Then I passed it over to Brian to answer, as I interpreted it as a philosophical question, for which he is very well suited to continue the discussion.

Brian replied:

Which I respect .. as my comment was only an opinion.
His other answer was:

So now Carl says:


Fair enough ... I have no problems with that.

Summarising from my own understanding, it can be said that for the case of a ‘no existence’ state, (in the traditional sense), for the observer and the observed, then it can also be said that both can also ‘exist’ in all possible states, simultaneously. (Quantum Mechanics perspective).

Special Relativity (SP) argues that simultaneity is not universal. Observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions about whether a given pair of events, happened at the same, or different times (depending on their frame of reference). (Aside: there is one particular case where this statement is not apparent, however). There is no physical basis for preferring one observer’s observation over the other’s.

But simultaneity may not exist in the first place, ie: if there are no observers. So, the case where ‘simultaneity is {Edit: oops .. just removed the 'not'} universal’, has not been ruled out (ie: see the first paragraph).

Hence the QM perspective has 'more to say' about Brian’s case/scenario at ‘the end’.

I'm not sure whether it says anything about the original question:
Ie: does it (time) exist ?

Is the above a reasonable interpretation ?

Cheers

[Brian W]

Actually Craig, the original question was not 'does time exist' but rather 'would time exist without change?'

It is my left handed crazy canuck way of trying to get to the essential necessities for there to be time.

This question is of course based upon the entirely possibly erroneous belief that time is a 'result' rather than a 'cause'
Brian

Brian

[CraigS]

Yes Brian that was your original question .. but Carl hammered us (me) with another mind-bender … which is what I was referring to in my previous post.
:)



… a result of the observer's existence, eh ?
.. rather than the cause of the observer's existence ?

Cheers

[Karls48]

Back to original post. To me – if the time was created by Big Bang then the BB could not happen. The singularity that caused BB would be static without passage of the time. Therefore I think that there must be some kind of not relativistic Universal time in the Universe.
Best analogy of BB singularity we can see today is possibly a black hole. If BH swallows a star what happen to the space and the time that was occupied by the star. Does the total volume of the space in our Universe diminish by the volume of the star that is crushed to singularity? Inside of BH dimensions supposed to be 0 therefore the time does not exist. And yet BH is supposed eventually to evaporate or explode. It is because the time still flows outside of BH and allows the interaction with what should be static object. This is one of the reasons why I believe that there must be kind Time that flow and exists outside of our Universe.

[renormalised]

Actually, following this logic, you only need one particle to exist for time to be present because the observer and the observed can be one and the same.

[sjastro]

:)

Here is another mind bender, time is not an observable in Quantum Mechanics.

Now I need to try to explain it without using maths.:shrug:

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Oh man .. there goes everything up in a puff of mathematical logic !!

Damn !!
:)
I'll wait for an explanation of that one !!
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Ok....here's another "mind bender"....what is time???

Does it actually have a physical reality or is it nothing more than an illusion.

Remember, you can't argue this on the basis of SR alone, since SR is a limited case to begin with, or by GR because it's limited to existence on a macroscopic scale (usually very large scales), and quantum physics would ultimately say that time is nothing.

So what is it??

[bojan]

Errr.. is that so?

We define time as "something" that happens/elapses between two events, one happening at the "observed" object (particle) and "observer" (affected particle).

I think we need at least two particles (observer is the reference) to be able to measure time (to determine if the event associated with object happened before or after the event(s) happening on the observer.

[renormalised]

Here Steven, this might save you the time (pun intended):):)

http://timeandquantummechanics.com/overview/

[CraigS]

I notice that whilst questions about it are valid, answers clearly, may not be supportable in Science.

Definition of 'moot': of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic !!

.. The only value or meaning it has, is what we associate with it.

:)

Ok … so attempting to answer the question doesn't work …

… I'm going to become religious .. :sadeyes: … and its all Brian's fault …
... (just kidding, Brian .. its not your fault .. and there's nothing wrong with religion .. :) )

Cheers

[renormalised]

The observer and the observed can be one and the same in Quantum Physics....we need to get away from this separation of the two as it would be expected in SR/GR or Classical Physics. Even in what we would call "reality" they can be one and the same.

An example, you exist. You know that you exist because you observe this to be the case. Therefore, you're both the observer (the one acknowledging your existence) and the observed (that which exists). You are self referential...in actual fact the Universe is self referential.

[renormalised]

The questions are answerable, only that our science at present can't answer them because we still don't understand the fundamental physics behind it all. Not only that, but most scientists don't want to go there because they have no way of measuring anything, sticking it into pigeon holes and classifying it. This is precisely why the scientific method is limited and in some ways flawed. We may never know the answers unless we devise new tools or improve on those we've got.

[bojan]

Yes, but accurate measurement is different issue.
You always need a reference (etalon) to compare with.
For example: 1kg mass used to be defined as a chunk of iridium, stored somewhere in Paris ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

And so on.

[CraigS]

There was an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise where Archer was infected with parasites from another dimension. They stopped him from forming long term memories. When the doctor finally removed them, they disappeared in Archer's medical scans .. so by removing them in the present, they never existed in the past and Archer returned to normal .. despite being annihilated in the (infected) past !

Self-referentiality is all in the memories folks !
.. So the universe must have a memory .. :question:

Cheers

[bojan]

Now you are getting into philosophy (or even worse - into metaphysics..)
What became of you Carl :lol: ?

[CraigS]

Cyclone Yasi !!

[bojan]

Must have been something of that magnitude....

[CraigS]

Carl chants in in the background in dulcet Gregorian tones ...

[renormalised]

Whoever said there was anything accurate about the measurements or that a reference outside of the system was needed. To what do we refer to when we observe the Universe?? Or the fact of our existence (both individually and as a whole w.r.t. the Universe as existing).

In reality, there can be no absolutely accurate measurements of anything, even mass. Mass is nothing more than the energy content of an object (good old E=mc^2) and is subject to the vagaries of the quantum world...on both a micro and macroscopic scale.

[renormalised]

No, I said we either need to invent new tools or improve on what we've got. Science as it stand (or to be more accurate, the scientific method) cannot answer all the questions it's posed, or even those it's tried to answer, because the tools it uses aren't up to scratch.

[renormalised]

Who says it doesn't??. We couldn't prove it either way because we don't have the science to do so, at present. Therefore it gets pigeon holed into the "too hard" basket or into philosophy/metaphysics (as we like to call it).

[renormalised]

No, I'm doing a Buddhist chant:):P

[CraigS]

Why is the method the problem ?

The 'tools' we've developed, (presumably), are GR/SR and QM .. Strings, Ms, etc. So there maybe some tools we are yet to develop .. I can see that ..
… but why would the process need over-hauling ? I'm not sure that its 'the scientific method' which attempts to answer anything .. humans attempt answers .. the process, (ie: method), is there to establish repeatability and provide predictions .. not answers.

( .. but Carl seems to have said that it does attempt answers ..??).

Cheers

[renormalised]

The method is the problem because despite the fact it has developed a lot of very good tools for probing all these various questions, many of these tools (especially quantum physics) have come up against aspects of reality which they can't probe as they are because they're limited in what they can do...or have brought up new questions about processes they've discovered which they can't answer as they stand because of those same limitations. Mostly a limitation of knowledge on our part because we can't see past the limitations of the tools we use, at present. It's like trying to use a wrench to undo a wheel nut that's rusted onto a wheel when you have no rust killer to make the job a whole lot easier...or you don't know about rust killer to begin with. Tool may fit the nut but it can't do the job required of it because it lacks that something (rust killer) to free up the nut.

[Karls48]

I would use different example. Because today’s theories say that faster then light communications and travel is impossible no one will try to develop such.

[CraigS]

So what … we change the method that has highlighted the problems of travelling at these velocities and that overcomes the problems ??

.. I don't think so !!

Quantum leaps forward are still allowed for in science .. breakthroughs have always happened. The process has never inhibited these.

Sorry .. that one doesn't wash with me.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Here is a non maths version of the QM explanation as to why time is not an observable.

As Carl mentioned in a previous post one can define a quantum wavefunction as superimposed state containing all the possible outcomes for the observable.

Examples of observables are position, linear momentum, angular momentum, energy and spin. If the wavefunction is time independent the superimposed state does not change.
When a measurement is performed the wavefunction collapses and a measurement or observable is the outcome.
The same test can be performed over and over. The same superimposed state collapses each time to give an observable. From this you can calculate the average and standard deviation or variance of the measurements.

Now let's bring time into the picture. Suppose the wavefunction is now time dependent. The superimposed state now changes with time along with any of the observables.
To perform a measurement involving a time dependent function one would have to so at the same specific time for each measurement.

It's for this reason time is not an observable. If it was each different time measurement would correspond to a different collapsing wavefuction.

For example if a particle decays, it has an intial and final quantum state.
If time was observable, the first few measurements for say energy may correspond to the initial state, all others may be for the final state.
You can't mix the different states of superimposition.

There is however an important relationship between the energy difference in 2 different quantum states and the time taken to go from one state to another. If the energy difference is large the time interval is small and vice versa.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Well I don't think as a general statement, this represents an accurate view of science 'thinkers' nor of human imagination.

If I can see that science tools have their limitations, anyone can !

I think I agree that we need more tools but the process doesn't necessarily inhibit the development of them. (I would say, it actually enhances it).

Can you provide an example of what you mean ?

Let me also say, that for any axiomatic system, there will always be things outside of that system, which cannot be proven from within that system. This itself has been proven. (Godel's Incompleteness theorems).

Axiomatic systems are difficult to avoid. The universe may be one of them.

This aspect, combined with human ingenuity and inquisitiveness, may actually be the driver for continued tools development (and human breakthroughs).

Cheers

[avandonk]

I see reality as an evolving entity that is just the product of all past interactions. Each collapse of the infinite wave functions that describe interacting waves is another tick in time for those wave functions. Time is part of the fabric of all these waves.

In order of appearance, energy, primordial H and He with a bit of Li, gravitational collapse of these leading to nucleosynthesis in stars and SN, chemical and physical interactions of heavier elements leading to even more complex interactions leading to planets and ultimately life.

Your existence is inextricably linked all the way back to structureless energy.

See not so difficult!

Time will end with the last interaction!

Or when you die whichever comes first.

Would the last observer please turn off the photon source.

Bert

[snas]

I guess you could also say, if a quantum particle falls in a forest, does anybody hear?



So would that make time a function of quantum physics? :)

[renormalised]

Ok Craig, tell me....what came before the BB??.

Quantum superposition of state requires that in order to have all these possible outcomes for any given system, there must be an infinite number of possible collapse states (Universes). They should exist....where are they?? What do we use to measure them and their states??

Relativity states that in the beginning, the universe was in a state of singularity, yet the existence of a singularity defies the rules of quantum physics. A singularity can't exist if the universe obeys quantum laws on the micro scale.

How about quantum entanglement....flies in the face of all Relativity. Einstein thought it was a joke...probably because he couldn't understand it. We still can't explain it.

What is life....explain to me what life is...what is its fundamental basis. You can't even explain it as a function of quantum physics, yet that probably has something to do with it w.r.t. how it interacts with physical existence.

The universe is only axiomatic because we barely understand it, even those parts of it we think that we do understand. We've hardly scratched the surface of it.

The scientific method has little if anything to do with imagination, or even thinking. It's a series of steps...a logical sequence of processes and outcomes...that is used to define and classify whatever is being studied. Anything that lies outside of the ability of the method to study and classify is deemed "unscientific". Therefore, it is limited in what it can study and discover if it is strictly adhered to as it is. You don't really need to think about what you're doing if all the steps are outlined for you. You will come to a conclusion that is within scientific parameters regardless of the "leaps beyond logic" you may do in the process. As you have put it on a number of occasions, if the question is beyond science to explain, then it is not science. However, that is only because we are limited by our knowledge of science and our methods of doing science reflect this.

Science evolves within and creates paradigms. Paradigms by their own definition have limits, beyond which the knowledge and methods within those paradigms cannot operate. Even if the present scientific paradigm encounters things beyond its limits it cannot, by definition, study them or acknowledge their reality because the reality of the paradigm will not allow it. It has to change in order to accommodate the new knowledge and paradigms have a bad habit of being rather inflexible and hidebound to established ideas.

In any case, if doing science is not in order to find the answers we seek to the questions we ask, then what is the point of doing it at all.

[avandonk]

What he said! Bert

[CraigS]

Ok .. paradigm shifts occur by living within the realms of possibility.

Choices are made, and are distinct from decisions.

Decisions come from the past.

Choices occur in freedom, unconstrained by the past.

The phenomenon of paradigm shifts is well known.

Science works incrementally, step-by-step. Each step uses the accumulated knowledge of the past, and builds upon that paradigm.
Some would say decisions based on reasons from the past, result in another cycle around the same loop. Choice breaks the loop, but can only be made by leaving the past where it should reside .. in the past, and launching from the present.

Funny thing is that humans spend 99% of their time living in the past !
Think about it .. just about everything you do is based on knowledge, experiences or ‘reasons’ from the past.

Human beings are capable of generating paradigm shifts. It is not new. It has always happened, and always will.

Paradigm shifts occur in Science. The process encourages this in the pre-hypothesis stages. Its beginning is called brain-storming. Everyone is capable of this mode of thought. The older we get, the less likely we are to invoke this mode. None-the-less, we are all capable of it. It is a skill, and it can be learned.

Check out some examples of Paradigm Shifts in the Natural Sciences. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Examples_of_paradigm _shifts_in_the_natural_sciences)
These all occurred within the traditional scientific process, and the social boundaries of the day. The process serves to minimise unproductive detours, by weeding them out in the earlier stages. Productive thinking always survives. Remember that we live with others who spend 99% of their lives living in thoughts coming from the past. To support your cause, you must connect with them.

I still can’t see how our present day scientific processes directly inhibits paradigm shifts, nor can I see how it inhibit humans’ abilities to achieve them. It has its challenges, and the process itself, is not immune from paradigm shifts. It can change .. by the very process outlined above.

Cheers

[avandonk]

The fundamental idea of prederminination elicited by the major religions always made me even more dubious of their grip on reality.
Science is not about belief it is about testable hypotheses.
If I think out of the box you are all welcome to shoot me down with evidence and logic.
It is only intelligently pushing the boundaries with a lot of knowledge that real paradigm shifts can be made.
Wishing for miracles is close to a cargo cult.
If I have made you think a bit more than usual then that is a miracle!
Bert

[CraigS]

Is that Predetermination or Predestination ?

Cheer

[avandonk]

That is facile.
bert

[CraigS]

And that was a misunderstanding ..

I was enquiring about your statement:



Because I was unclear as to whether you meant the theological term "Predestination" or the general term "predetermination", I asked a simple question. Your misspelling caused the initial problem.

Bert .. you are reading too much into my communications with you.

Cheers

[Brian W]

Don't give up now Craig, renormalise et al are getting down to the essential question found at the centre of the onion....

At least one question has been answered (for me) there must have been time in the singularity because there was change in the singularity.

Brian
PS, having been both a pastor and a husband as well as a father I long ago realized everything was my fault.

[CraigS]

Finding fault with, or placing blame, is a waste of time …
:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

I can give you a direct example of how the science has been stifled by a paradigm that has existed for just over 100 years....Relativity. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light, and Einstein himself is thought of as almost like a god. To hear some scientists talk of the "nothing faster than light" paradigm and it sounds just like a religion. The really stupid thing is...and it's hardly ever mentioned in physics textbooks...is that Einstein never said that nothing can travel faster than light. All that he actually said is that no material objects within the universe (ie: through spacetime) can travel at the speed of light. SR actually has solutions to its equations which require that objects travel faster than light, but never as slow as the speed of light. Even spacetime itself can move at any velocity it likes....it could do a million c and never break the rules. However, it's gotten into the popular lexicon and thought that Einstein said this "grand pronouncement" and so generations of scientists have grown up knowing this to be a "fact", when in fact its not. How many scientists do you know that have worked on the physics and the maths which would give us a glimpse as to how to accomplish faster than light travel??. I can name about 4 or 5, maybe. Most of them hardly rate a mention because the prevailing paradigm says it's impossible to do. About the only one you'll hear about is Miguel Alcubierre. Ever heard of Burkhard Heim???. Steven may have heard of him, but I doubt many others have. Not even many scientists have and yet he was quite an accomplished scientist. Only for a serious accident that happened when he was a young man, he may have become one of the greatest physicist the world ever produced. But, he ended up a recluse and his works only ever were published in German.

Think about how hard a time Charles Darwin had getting his theories on the origin of species and evolution accepted, even by the scientists of the time. Or Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Michael Faraday, even Nicola Tesla...all at one time thought of as being crackpots with way out ideas by the establishment, whom eventually were vindicated. But only when science had progressed far enough that some scientists willing to go out on a limb to see what their ideas would do found that these guys had it right all along.

The whole idea of breaking paradigms is to learn how to leave what is comfortable and certain behind and to think outside the little square box all your learning has taught you where everything should and must belong to. Many, many scientists (and other people in all walks of life) don't like the idea of doing that because of the risks that accompany such a move. I don't need to spell out what those risks are, they're quite obvious.

[avandonk]

Carl, Einstein could not even contemplate action at a distance or as we know it now know it quantum entanglement.

We are forever doomed to be entangled forever to every particle we have ever encountered. It is actually worse than this we are the sum total of every interaction up till now.

Bert

[renormalised]

True, that's why Einstein called it "spooky"...he was equating it with the "supernatural" (which is another unfortunate word).

[CraigS]

Carl;
I understand where you're coming from .. from my professional career, I can relate to it intimately.

I'm not sure the problem lies with the process.

There's too much human nature causing the obstructions you mention.

Any process can be used as you have described (ie: as a weapon).

Such is the organisational life which humans have devised, as a means of survival.

Enough for tonight .. I'm off 'til tomorrow. I'll have more of a think on this.

Not sure if this is getting Brian his 'answers' …

Cheers, Regards to all & thanks for a respectful discussion !

[renormalised]

My brain is hurting from all this talk:):P

Going to go watch some gratuitous violence and mayhem at the movies:):P

(Might watch Ice Age:):P:P)

[CraigS]

Well, its been a couple of days .. we've had plenty of chances to get some rest and quiet thoughts .. and then I see this article ..

Model shows how scientific paradigms rise and fall. (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-scientific-paradigms-fall.html)



.. pretty obvious if you ask me … who needs the model?, I hear being asked …
Well, at least it shows that someone is at least dedicating some effort by enquiring into our (collective) abilities to progress thinking within established scientific paradigms ...



Their authors' study was recently published, (2nd Feb, 2011), in Physical Review Letters. At the very least, it has a reasonable chance of promoting discussion amongst segments within the scientific community, for whom this topic is an issue.

Good to see the issue is not just slipping by, unnoticed.
:)

Cheers

[Paddy]

The problem that my wee mind has with time is that there is no way of discussing it that doesn't imply time. So "would time exist without change?" - to me change necessarily includes time. I've never come across any expression about time that avoids this. Same with consciousness. I think therefore that it cannot be understood, which is utterly wonderful. Of course we must try to understand anyway.

Just my totally confused, uninformed and uneducated two bob's.

[Brian W]

Strangely enough I am getting answers to my questions if by answers one means ' new ways to consider the question'?... and I do.

I am beginning to understand time as a necessity.

It does not matter if there is an intelligence that records it or an atom that observes it if there is change there is a movement from one form to another and change occurs in what English speaking humanity has called -time-.

At this point the question for me has become, does change cause time or does time cause change?

In a previous discussion some of the problems and possibilities of infinity were examined. In a way this tropic is just the opposite... is eternal sameness possible or will -time- as a causative force create change? :rolleyes:

Brian

[CraigS]

Brian;
In science, the value of the outcomes are usually directly related to the way the question is phrased. Your question is now seeking cause and effect:


Not singling this out, but in my travels, I see many, many problems resulting from seemingly trivial points, such as the way the question is phrased. Dependent variables in mathematics are just that … dependent. In isolation, they may have no physical significance, and exist only to describe an influence (dependence) on another variable, which may have physical significance .. (it may not have physical significance, also). The same reasoning also applies for the resultant of the variables' relationship.

It seems in metaphysics these questions are productive for promoting thought, not necessarily founded in reality.

Also, whilst the phrasing of a question may seem to be a pedantic issue, in science it is not.

Even your question implies the presence of time .. ie: what is cause and what is effect if there is no time ?

At this point, I'll call "foul" due to the phrasing of the question. I cannot conceive that you'll ever get an "answer" other than the one your phrasing assumes (ie: the never-ending existence of time).
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

If time doesn't exist, then there is no cause and effect, as we understand them. The same can be said if time is nothing more than an illusion which is generated by the observer/observed and/or consciousness. In either, cause and effect can be seen as nothing more than experiences which will either be separate from one another or occur simultaneously, depending on the point of view of that entity which experiences them.

[Brian W]

Hi Craig, the instant replay has been watched and the head referee rules no foul.

My first question as well as my newest question are both -cause and effect- questions'

-Is it also fair to say that -change- creates time-

-does change cause time or does time cause change?-

However I believe you are correct in that there is no way to run an experiment to find the answer to whether or not time is -causative-.

But if mere speculation will be allowed for a moment? Perhaps time is a fifth force only instead of holding things together it is the force that demands change.

But as you say in this paradigm there is no way to test such a thought! But it has been an interesting thread, at least for me.

Brian

.

[CraigS]

Actually Brian, I think Steven and Carl come up with the 'no experiment' part of it (thank goodness !!).

As an aside, I also notice that the word "creates" implies a change of state also … can't do that if there's no time.

My brain hurts !!

Interesting thread, though Brian.

Cheers

[Karls48]

Exactly, Carl did express what I could not with my limited command of the language.

[snas]

Given that entropy increases with time, does time cause entropy to increase or does entropy cause time to ..... be??? Or not? :)

[avandonk]

As a final little thought if a photon had consciousness as far as it is concerned it traverses the known universe in an instant. So where is time now?

Consciousness or our reality is just our memory of all that happened since we were born. Without memory there is no meaningful existence.
We would just be automatons.



Bert