Can there be existence without time?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

If not then can you offer any examples that show this? Is existence independent of time? With the BBT, the universe is said to have come into existence before time even got started, starting as a singularity - therefore it would be irrelevant to ask about what came before BBT as time didn't exist then - but that's not the same as saying that nothing could have set off the BB because in a multiverse setting, another universe where time moves backwards according to its laws through some mechanism could have set off our universe with forward moving time.

Currently mainstream science says the evidence is strong for the BBT. I'm not fully satisfied, in part due to the idea of the singularity, but if you check up on the Banach-Tarski paradox and some scientists saying the singularity isn't necessarily infinitesimal, then it begins to make more sense plus there's nothing that says how much space that solid mass takes up.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

the singularity isn't necessarily infinitesimal,

This statement is a self-contradiction, Phil. A singularity is defined as infinitesimal. What you probably mean is that it is now widely accepted that the big bang did not emerge from a singularity at all. This means that the "beginning of time" notion becomes a moot point because in the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. If time cannot stand still then we don't need to invent a supernatural cause to kick-start it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

the singularity isn't necessarily infinitesimal,

This statement is a self-contradiction, Phil. A singularity is defined as infinitesimal. What you probably mean is that it is now widely accepted that the big bang did not emerge from a singularity at all. This means that the "beginning of time" notion becomes a moot point because in the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. If time cannot stand still then we don't need to invent a supernatural cause to kick-start it.

Regarding the singularity definition, the following comes from Wiktionary:

"a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes" "a...region in spacetime..." I already know you don't recognize spacetime as having reality, but I know that many physicists do so I do accordingly. So the BB can still emerge from a singularity.

What's more interesting is does the beginning of time coincide with the singularity? If not, then how far past it did it begin? The other question that's open is does mass/energy depend on time for its existence?

If you're referring to the concept of the multiverse as being supernatural, many scientists would laugh at the idea. Just like at one time black holes weren't taken seriously even though Einstein implied them, not until evidence mounted up for them. And let me add a number of noted scientists are taking the idea of the multiverse seriously.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

"a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes" "a...region in spacetime..."

Your definition is incomplete. The singularity is also a state of infinite gravitational collapse and as gravity approaches infinity the speed of time contracts to zero. This is a direct and completely uncontroversial conclusion drawn from the spacetime narrative of GR and one which I don't question. However it has now been shown that the field equations of GR become progressively less precise as gravitational field strength increases and that black holes are not in fact dead regions of the universe at all. ( see Hawking radiation). Nobody knows much about exactly what might be going inside black holes but it is nowadays universally accepted that something must be and if something is happening in there then it needs time to be happening in, because time is nothing more than a convenient metric for the rate of change in a physical system. The more massive the black hole the slower this rate of change will be relative to us but what is true for the black hole must also be true for the big bang. Time can slow down to an agonising crawl but it cannot grind to a complete halt.

If you're referring to the concept of the multiverse as being supernatural, many scientists would laugh at the idea.

That's because they don't know their epistemological arses from their ontological elbows. An appeal to an external causal agent for the existence of our universe is an appeal to the unknowable and an appeal to the unknowable is not science.

And let me add a number of noted scientists are taking the idea of the multiverse seriously.

There's just as many that aren't.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Leo said:

"and as gravity approaches infinity the speed of time contracts to zero."

Then Leo said later:

"Time can slow down to an agonising crawl but it cannot grind to a complete halt."

So for clarity's sake, I believe what Leo meant to say in the first statement was that as gravity approaches infinity, the speed of time approaches zero.

More important, what is meant by the speed of time? Speed is defined as distance divided by time more familiarly known as r x t = d. (rate x time equals distance).
Does Leo mean then that the speed of time is distance divided by time squared or, another way of putting it, the rate of change of velocity? Can Leo clarify what he means?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

So for clarity's sake, I believe what Leo meant to say in the first statement was that as gravity approaches infinity, the speed of time approaches zero.

I don't need you to provide gratuitous translation for me when my meaning is perfectly clear. If you want to fuck around with semantic trivia then pick a trivial topic to do it with.

Can Leo clarify what he means?

I have already defined time as it is understood in physics and since this is a philosophy of science topic this is the only definition of time which is germane to your question.

Time is a metric for the rate of change in a physical system. So is gravity, so time and gravity are merely two different expressions of the same thing, as demonstrated by Einstein in General Relativity and confirmed by empirical experiment countless times since.

[Philosophy Explorer]

So for clarity's sake, I believe what Leo meant to say in the first statement was that as gravity approaches infinity, the speed of time approaches zero.

I don't need you to provide gratuitous translation for me when my meaning is perfectly clear. If you want to fuck around with semantic trivia then pick a trivial topic to do it with.

Can Leo clarify what he means?

I have already defined time as it is understood in physics and since this is a philosophy of science topic this is the only definition of time which is germane to your question.

Time is a metric for the rate of change in a physical system. So is gravity, so time and gravity are merely two different expressions of the same thing, as demonstrated by Einstein in General Relativity and confirmed by empirical experiment countless times since.

I do "gratuitous translations" for the sake of my audience too so don't be selfish Leo.

When you say that time and gravity are metrics for the rate of change in a physical system, you don't mean in terms of the meter that they have starting and ending points. With time I either reference a calendar for the days, weeks and sometimes years or a clock for seconds, minutes and hours or the time of the day; and with gravity I reference a scale to weigh myself. So again I ask what is the speed of time? Speed in comparison to what? (in GR, it's Einstein's assumption that gravity and acceleration are the same).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I have given you the official definition of time as the term is used in physics. If you wish to define it differently then knock yourself out, but in that case you'll not be having a conversation about physics but a conversation about some other topic of your own creation.

"Time is what clocks measure"....Albert Einstein.

Clocks measure the rate of change in a physical system.

[Dalek Prime]

I have given you the official definition of time as the term is used in physics. If you wish to define it differently then knock yourself out, but in that case you'll not be having a conversation about physics but a conversation about some other topic of your own creation.

"Time is what clocks measure"....Albert Einstein.

Clocks measure the rate of change in a physical system.

If time wasn't a vector, my programs would never work. Besides, I hate doing everything at once...

[Obvious Leo]

"Time is what stops everything in the universe from happening at once"...Ray Cummins.

This pithy phrase was first coined by a science fiction writer but it was enthusiastically purloined by John Archibald Wheeler, who used it often in his lectures. It is impossible to make any meaningful statements about the behaviour of matter and energy in the universe without specifying a temporal referential frame because relativity tells us that there is no such state as absolute rest in physical reality. Not only is every physical entity in the universe in constant motion relative to every other physical entity in the universe, the specific nature of this motion is also continuously being causally determined by the motion of every other physical entity in the universe because of gravity. This has been known since Isaac Newton and to my knowledge nobody has ever attempted to contradict it's validity on the cosmological scale. This defines the relativistic gravitational movement of planets, stars and galaxies as SELF-CAUSAL. These cosmological objects move in the way they do purely because all the other cosmological objects in the universe are moving in the way they are. That is, there are no so-called "laws of physics" which determine this motion because on this scale reality is self-determining. So far so good.

However within the spacetime paradigm this simple and self-evident story begins to come unstuck when we examine the behaviour of matter and energy on the subatomic scale. In order to salvage the flawed spacetime narrative the physicists have devised for themselves a theory of monumental absurdity called Quantum Mechanics. QM completely ignores relativity because in QM the behaviour of matter and energy is no longer being causally determined by the behaviour of other matter and energy but in fact is not being causally determined at all, a conclusion which leads to all manner of paradoxes and metaphysical inconsistencies.

The flaw in the logic of QM is intrinsic to the spacetime paradigm itself but in many ways it is also due to the misuse of language in the way that subatomic systems are described. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is an unshakable truth of nature but a close examination of what it states shows us that it is simply the same statement about relativistic gravitational motion as the one which has been known since Newton. This principle simply states that it is impossible to specify both the location and the momentum of a subatomic particle at the same time and to a logician this is a statement of the most profoundly bloody obvious being passed off as some sort of message of deep truth. The reason why we can't specify both the location and the momentum of a subatomic particle at the same time is simply because it can't have both at the same time. We can't do this for a jumbo jet either, or a planet, star, or galaxy for that matter. Momentum is defined in physics as a change in location over time so how the fuck could it have both simultaneously? If we instead draw the same conclusion at the subatomic scale that we do at the cosmological scale then we have a perfectly logical explanation for Heisenberg's self-evident statement. The relativistic motion of every subatomic particle within the atom is being continuously causally determined by the relativistic motion of every other subatomic particle within the atom and it is for this reason and this reason alone that the collective behaviour of these particles can only be modelled probabilistically. The reason for this is NOT because this behaviour is uncaused but rather because this behaviour is self-causal, just as the behaviour of stars and galaxies is.

The physicists have made a simple error in logic and are paying a heavy price for it. Just because the future behaviour of a physical system cannot be predicted beyond a finite order of probability this does not mean that this is due to the ludicrous notion of the uncaused event. This is a simple truth about the nature of all of physical reality and it is completely scale invariant. This is the truth of relativity. Because the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is continuously being causally determined by the motion of every other we can know as an absolute certainty that the future is unknowable.

[Dontaskme]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

There is a sense of time existing...as observed by change.

But that which appears to change is actually changeless.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, winter...as observed appear to change from one state to another within a continuous time loop, or a self sustaining feedback loop of unbroken symmetry.

The spring does not have any known concept of time in which it leaves the spring in order for it to become the summer, and so forth. This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing.

Therefore, yes, existence is timeless.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

There is a sense of time existing...as observed by change.

But that which appears to change is actually changeless.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, winter...as observed appear to change from one state to another within a continuous time loop, or a self sustaining feedback loop of unbroken symmetry.

The spring does not have any known concept of time in which it leaves the spring in order for it to become the summer, and so forth. This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing.

Therefore, yes, existence is timeless.

Are you suggesting the seasons are illusions? You're contradicting springtime (which corresponds to Mar. to May on a calendar). You're contradicting yourself when you say:

"This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing." OTOH, you're saying it's changing. OTOH, you're saying it's not changing.

PhilX

[Dontaskme]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

There is a sense of time existing...as observed by change.

But that which appears to change is actually changeless.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, winter...as observed appear to change from one state to another within a continuous time loop, or a self sustaining feedback loop of unbroken symmetry.

The spring does not have any known concept of time in which it leaves the spring in order for it to become the summer, and so forth. This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing.

Therefore, yes, existence is timeless.

Are you suggesting the seasons are illusions? You're contradicting springtime (which corresponds to Mar. to May on a calendar). You're contradicting yourself when you say:

"This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing." OTOH, you're saying it's changing. OTOH, you're saying it's not changing.

PhilX

This is so simple to understand...contradiction has to be in order to know anything observed.... Nothing wrong with contradiction.
What is observing change is changless....can you know what change is without also knowing changeless?

Is the same sense as is hot still hot when it has cooled down? or has it changed...was it ever hot now it is cold? was cold ever hot, or are they the same phenomena changing from one state to the other. They are not the same state when I interpret the change from one state to another. The observation is purely subjective knowledge I have about the change, and the subjective observation is changeless in which all change appears.

The concept in and of itself has no idea what hot or cold is. It is only in the apparent meaning that any change occurs.

[Obvious Leo]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

There is a sense of time existing...as observed by change.

But that which appears to change is actually changeless.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, winter...as observed appear to change from one state to another within a continuous time loop, or a self sustaining feedback loop of unbroken symmetry.

The spring does not have any known concept of time in which it leaves the spring in order for it to become the summer, and so forth. This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing.

Therefore, yes, existence is timeless.

This post is just plain silly. The cyclical nature of the changing seasons is a very well understood physical phenomenon but to say that reality repeats itself on an annual basis as the earth orbits the sun is true only in a very general usage of the word. Every spring is different from the previous one and in fact nothing in physical reality EVER actually precisely repeats itself. Even no two snowflakes ever formed have ever been identical.

[Dontaskme]

Time can be continuous or discrete according to theory. Is time required for existence? If so what is the proof?

There is a sense of time existing...as observed by change.

But that which appears to change is actually changeless.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, winter...as observed appear to change from one state to another within a continuous time loop, or a self sustaining feedback loop of unbroken symmetry.

The spring does not have any known concept of time in which it leaves the spring in order for it to become the summer, and so forth. This process is changing within the same context as nothing is actually changing.

Therefore, yes, existence is timeless.

This post is just plain silly. The cyclical nature of the changing seasons is a very well understood physical phenomenon but to say that reality repeats itself on an annual basis as the earth orbits the sun is true only in a very general usage of the word. Every spring is different from the previous one and in fact nothing in physical reality EVER actually precisely repeats itself. Even no two snowflakes ever formed have ever been identical.

All Phenomena is Noumenon bound.

Nothing can repeat itself for one very good reason...free your mind Leo. There is no spoon Leo.