What is time?

[Michael Mooney]

DD:

But the question, "What is time?", has simply not been actually answered. This is a request for a definition, not for emotional responses. Are there no people on this forum capable of intellegently discussing the question?

I gave it my best shot in post 584, p. 59. What did you find unintelligent about my answer to "What is time?"

Btw, I agree with jedaisoul as follows with one reservation:

"I think that part of the problem with defining time is that it does not exist as a physical entity or medium. We do not live in a space-time universe, space and time are defined by the universe. I.e. Time is an abstraction from the change that happens to the physical world, and space is no more than the distance between objects. Without the physical world, and change, there would be no time nor space."

Without the physical world and change there would be only empty space. (Infinite, unbounded space/emptiness.)

Michael

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Without the physical world and change there would be only empty space. (Infinite, unbounded space/emptiness.)

Well thanks for the general agreement, but why would space continue to exist if there were no universe? No matter, no energy. Just nothing.

Nothing is, by definition, no thing. It does not exist. In the absence of everything that exists, there would be no thing. Nothing. Not even "empty" space. So to exist when everything else had gone, space would have to be something. So "empty" space would not be empty. There would be "space" there.

So do you believe in an aether, a material space? If not, what is this space made of, if it is not material, but not nothing either?

[Rade]

Originally Posted by modest

A couple quick questions: do they have to be adjacent moments (i.e. could it be a moment today and a moment tomorrow)? Is a moment that which is intermediate between times? If not, what is a moment?

I'll do my best. Moments may or may not be adjacent, the only rule is that something must always be intermediate between them, and that is what is called 'time'. Next, there are different types of moments, past, present (now), future. The end of past time and the beginning of future time are within the present (now). So, yes, as time is intermediate between moments, then moments are intermediate between times...see below

....[moment A]---> time 1---> [moment B] ---> time 2 ---> [moment C] ---> time 3 ---> [moment D]....

Take for example time 2--it is intermediate between moments B and C. Yet, it also is between moments A and D.

Likewise, [moment B] is intermediate between times 1 and 2. Moment B is where the end limit of the past of time 1 meets the beginning limit of future time 2. Think of it as [moment B] being a type of singularity where all future possible events (all disconnected) of time 2 are transformed into the past of time 1 (all connected). It is the present (now) moment where the connection between future time and past time occurs.

All of the above depends on the potential for some thing that exists to have motion. Thus, this model of time is relativistic, it is relative to motion, which comes in different forms.

[Michael Mooney]

Post moved to "relativity of motion... " thread, as per CC's prompt below.
M

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Michael

This thread is about "time."

The discussion about space, and motion in it, has been moved to another thread. Why do you continue to discuss the topic here folks.

CC

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

This thread is about "time."

The discussion about space, and motion in it, has been moved to another thread. Why do you continue to discuss the topic here folks.

Please accept my apologies for encouraging Michael to post his theories in this tread. I was focused on pinning down exactly what his beliefs entailed, rather than the relevance to this thread. However, I wonder whether you have any views on my comments about time (ignoring the comments about space):

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I think that part of the problem with defining time is that it does not exist as a physical entity or medium. We do not live in a space-time universe, space and time are defined by the universe. I.e. Time is an abstraction from the change that happens to the physical world... Without the physical world, and change, there would be no time...

[watcher]

Originally Posted by Rade

I'll do my best. Moments may or may not be adjacent, the only rule is that something must always be intermediate between them, and that is what is called 'time'. Next, there are different types of moments, past, present (now), future. The end of past time and the beginning of future time are within the present (now). So, yes, as time is intermediate between moments, then moments are intermediate between times...see below

....[moment A]---> time 1---> [moment B] ---> time 2 ---> [moment C] ---> time 3 ---> [moment D]....

Take for example time 2--it is intermediate between moments B and C. Yet, it also is between moments A and D.

Likewise, [moment B] is intermediate between times 1 and 2. Moment B is where the end limit of the past of time 1 meets the beginning limit of future time 2. Think of it as [moment B] being a type of singularity where all future possible events (all disconnected) of time 2 are transformed into the past of time 1 (all connected). It is the present (now) moment where the connection between future time and past time occurs.

All of the above depends on the potential for some thing that exists to have motion. Thus, this model of time is relativistic, it is relative to motion, which comes in different forms.

too fuzzy for me.
can you delineate a moment from time. what defines the end of the moment and the beginning of time?

[HydrogenBond]

If we covered one eye, we will lose some of our depth perception. The one eye will need to shift back and forth to emulate two eyes, with some success.

If humans had evolved only one eye, space would appear consistent in 2-D, but will have a level of observational uncertainty in 3-D. This does not mean 3-D space would not exist with certainty, just that observationally, it would not appear as certain. What we would need to do is create a mathematical or mental construct that will emulate a second virtual eye, within the imagination, so we could see better in 3-D. Instead of just looking at the 3-d world with one eye, we would also be thinking about the math so we can clarify 3-D, creating a virtual 2nd eye.

With two eyes we can see well in 3-D. But two eyes has the same problem seeing in 4-D as one eye has seeing in 3-D. There will be uncertainty in time. As such, human will need to develop a mental construct of time that acts as a virtual 3rd eye to see in 4-D. Without any concept of time, an animal can still time its prey within space-time because their brain will generate the third virtual eye. This is done empirically, based on trial and error. With humans we have added a rational overlay, to the same area for greater clarity.

If humans had evolved with three eyes, we could theoretically use two eyes to see 3-D space. The third eye (vector motion sensor) would be less concerned with exact position in 3-D, but more concerned with motion in relationship to the 3-D perspective of the other two eyes. We currently do this virtually by processing the movement with mental construct software to emulate the third eye. In the above, this would be done with hardware.

If we had three eyes for hardware based 4-D space-time observation, we might feel the need to extend this and try to add a fourth virtual eye using some mental construct. This might allow us to see in 5-D.

With only two physical or two hardware based eyes, seeing in 5-D would require two virtual eyes. However, we limit the concept of time to a single dimension in 4-D space-time. This singular virtual eye can shift back and forth. It is like playing catch with time using only one virtual time eye. This creates a level of uncertainty. With that one virtual eye limitation in mind, we have placed a conceptual wall at 4-D, and explain those things which don't exactly follow logically in 4-D, i.e., observed virtual uncertainty. Certainty in time can't be emulated with one virtual time eye concept, but would need two virtual eyes for stereo vision in time, to correct the loss of time depth perception.

[Rade]

Originally Posted by watcher

....can you delineate a moment from time. what defines the end of the moment and the beginning of time?....

Good question. Yes, you must be able to delineate a moment from time, otherwise time could not that which is intermediate between moments. Consider what "defines" the end of a "point" and the beginning of a "line" as in this example:
<<< .__.___.______._._____._._.______.______. >>> The points are a termination of what is continuously extended, a line. As relates to moments and time, each moment is a termination of that which is continuously extended (and is divisible), what is called time.

What defines the end of a moment and the coming to be of a new time, is the motion (or lack of) of some some thing that exists. The moment is a type of singularity where the future motion of some existent (or rest) is transformed into past, it is an attribute of time, in the same way odd and even are attributes of the number line. It is the fulfilment (or lack of) of what exists potentially as having motion that defines the end of a moment and the begin of future time--AND--what defines the end of a past time and the begin of a new moment.

Fire away.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by Rade

What defines the end of a moment and the coming to be of a new time, is the motion (or lack of) of some some thing that exists. The moment is a type of singularity where the future motion of some existent (or rest) is transformed into past, it is an attribute of time, in the same way odd and even are attributes of the number line. It is the fulfilment (or lack of) of what exists potentially as having motion that defines the end of a moment and the begin of future time--AND--what defines the end of a past time and the begin of a new moment.

Fire away.

make sense but you have to make a more definitive mechanism for this.