Philosophy Now Forum

Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

prothero wrote:Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

Pretty much agree with this. I was in another debate that drove these concepts to the wall. You seem hesitant to make change primary, and that seemed to be the focus of the debate I had as well. Our eventual conclusion was this:

Points space-time are referred to as 'events' in physics, not to be confused with the conventional definition. There are events, and space and time are relations (scalar separation) between events. There are states and properties of events, and there are differences in said states, but only differences, not necessarily change. Differences are real.

So two events can have spatial separation and/or temporal separation. Time and space are pretty much identical in that respect. Temporally separated events are causally related, and spatially separated events are not. Two events can always be reduced to either pure spatial or pure temporal separation, or right on the edge of the two, in which case the separation is undefined.

Change is only an idealistic concept. The difference between two events becomes a 'change' if an observer designates the two events to be events of the same thing. The thing is then said to change. Without the observer to designate or describe change, there is only differences, which is all that is needed for the universe to exist in all its states. The reason change is not real is that the designation of identity (numeric identity) can often be challenged. Is this tree really the acorn from 50 years ago? Are those two things the same thing? Well, they are if I say they are. That's what idealistic designations are for. Note that two events can have only spatial separation and still be 'change' if so designated. Temporal separation is not a requirement.

I am also idealistic about the orientation of the 4 dimensions of space-time. There is no actual orientation of any of them. Just another example of something that is not real. There is no preferred actual X axis.

bahman wrote:We experience forms and motions. Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

Hum... some months ago, I really believed that time did not exist.

How may we think that time exist? As you wrote, with concurrent mechanisms. OR, with understanding (which most probably derivates from the mentioned mechanisms, but let the understanding stand for itself, only for the purpose of this message). As an "immediate", or instantaneous understanding were - maybe the greatest not living Genius who (n)ever existed - but most probably were symptomatic of an idiot, so were a contradiction in terms.

Depending on mainstream logic, instantaneous understanding were possible: "false yields to true". But there is no way for it, in a strictly qualified logic; (I posted several messages with hyper-link for it in these forums, and I won't spam).

How may we think that the time does not exist?
-On the scale of the universe. Since time is for mechanisms in competition, and that these mechanisms are in the universe, an observer outside it (as God) should most probably not experience time.

But if the thought observer accessed the mentioned mechanisms, then they constitute his clock. Most often, the expression "universe" is used in "sciences" as being understood for isolated system. But, on one hand, we do not know if our universe really is isolated, and on another, if the entropy increase was applicable to it, then this system (our universe) were really experiencing time, intrinsically.

Typically, if the universe experiences increase in volume, even if it has no external comparison, it is sufficient that its component change (get more distance between them) to experience time... if, moreover, this increase is irreversible.

In my opinion, the time exists.

prothero wrote:Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

Prothero, I like your discussion of time. Could you say also that time, space, and ideas are intimately connected?

Belinda wrote:

prothero wrote:Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

Prothero, I like your discussion of time. Could you say also that time, space, and ideas are intimately connected?

Newbie!
He already made a similar comment between time and space - and he won't write the same about ideas, since it would destruct all his argument!

Belinda wrote:

prothero wrote:Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

Prothero, I like your discussion of time. Could you say also that time, space, and ideas are intimately connected?

If I were an idealist I might say that but I am not an idealist. I am not a physicalist or a materialist either, rather I am a neutral monist of the process philosophy type. So reality is composed of events in space-time, and events are physical-experiential-temporal units.

prothero wrote:

Belinda wrote:

prothero wrote:Time in the sense of Newton (independent, universal, fixed, absolute) does not exist.
Time in the sense of sequences of events, process, change, flux, does exist but that makes change (becoming) primary and time an abstracted notion from change.
Time as typically commonly wrongly perceived does not exist.
Space as originally conceived as a box in which objects are placed and where events occur likewise does not exist.
Space and time are intimately connected and inseparable concepts. Space time is a flexible medium wrapped by gravity (mass) and itself a process where virtual particles come and go and a Dirac sea of quantum fluctuations occurs.

Prothero, I like your discussion of time. Could you say also that time, space, and ideas are intimately connected?

If I were an idealist I might say that but I am not an idealist. I am not a physicalist or a materialist either, rather I am a neutral monist of the process philosophy type. So reality is composed of events in space-time, and events are physical-experiential-temporal units.

Nice one, Prothero! Slight difference is I'd rather think that time is change and therefore space is a lesser ontic status than time.

Luke wrote:I don't wish to deny that things happen. Shit happens, obviously.

Perhaps I misspoke in saying that time itself cannot exist. Time neither exists nor doesn't exist. Existence is not something you can apply to time.

Objects exist - at some time or other. But when does time exist? Now?

You might as well ask where it exists!
I think the problem has always been to see existence in terms of time and space. This is a disabling dualism, important to help us understand the world reductively, but once you remove that and accept that the universe is comprised of space/time, things make more sense having done the mental gymnastics.

Now for my next trick is to break down the distinction between matter and energy! SHAZAM.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You might as well ask where it exists!
I think the problem has always been to see existence in terms of time and space. This is a disabling dualism, important to help us understand the world reductively, but once you remove that and accept that the universe is comprised of space/time, things make more sense having done the mental gymnastics.

Now for my next trick is to break down the distinction between matter and energy! SHAZAM.

And what is matter in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) except for confined or localized energy? Then there is that most famous of physics equations, the energy mass equivalence E=mc(squared). Energy fluctuations in the quantum field of space-time. Quantum gravity anyone? anyone?

Belinda wrote: Slight difference is I'd rather think that time is change and therefore space is a lesser ontic status than time.

In process philosophy (Whitehead's Process and Reality) becoming does take precedence over being (so essentially change and flux (from which time is an abstracted concept) do have ontological priority over (being).

Another way of looking at it, the common interpretation of space-time is to spatialize time (to make time another spatial dimension) hence those little diagrams in physics books displaying time as lines on graphs. The mathematically equivalent view is to temporalize space (which better represents the reality of the situation in my view) thus even space is a process (hence that quantum "Dirac" sea of fluctuations and virtual particles even in so called "empty space". In QFT there is energy content at every point of the field. Matter is just localized or confined energy in the field.

Appealing to your kind of worldview, the world is being continuously recreated (a becoming, not a being) and is continuously creative. Scientific models (like diagrams in textbooks) are useful but do not capture reality itself (only certain abstracted aspects of it). Mistaking models for reality itself is the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" . The world itself is a continuous creative experiential becoming, incorporating elements of the past, drawing on possibilities from the future in a continuous creative advance. IMHO

Prothero, thanks yet again. This is a great help to me. I cannot do physics so the bit about Dirac is probably beyond my understanding, but I do hope this doesn't matter too much to my sort of understanding of ontology.

Luke, is it useful to think of time-change as the condition for other things to exist?

prothero wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You might as well ask where it exists!
I think the problem has always been to see existence in terms of time and space. This is a disabling dualism, important to help us understand the world reductively, but once you remove that and accept that the universe is comprised of space/time, things make more sense having done the mental gymnastics.

Now for my next trick is to break down the distinction between matter and energy! SHAZAM.

And what is matter in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) except for confined or localized energy? Then there is that most famous of physics equations, the energy mass equivalence E=mc(squared). Energy fluctuations in the quantum field of space-time. Quantum gravity anyone? anyone?

Well quite... Science is a fumbling way to try to describe reality- but it's the best we can do.

Prothero wrote:

Appealing to your kind of worldview, the world is being continuously recreated (a becoming, not a being) and is continuously creative. Scientific models (like diagrams in textbooks) are useful but do not capture reality itself (only certain abstracted aspects of it). Mistaking models for reality itself is the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" . The world itself is a continuous creative experiential becoming, incorporating elements of the past, drawing on possibilities from the future in a continuous creative advance. IMHO

I don't want to lead the conversation too far afield, but I'd like to say that "continuously recreated(a becoming, not a being)" is a practical and beneficial description of god for people today.

Belinda wrote:I don't want to lead the conversation too far afield, but I'd like to say that "continuously recreated(a becoming, not a being)" is a practical and beneficial description of god for people today.

The topics of time and eternity are essentially the same as the topic of becoming and being, and are thus both found in religion and physics.

When I suggest that becoming has ontologic precedence, I am referring to this world, the world of our direct experience, the one in which we live, move and breath, from which we have arisen (or into which we are thrown, Heidegger) and of which we are a part. For Hindus this world the one of flux, impermanence is Maya "illusion" and behind this world is an eternal changeless world (similar concepts in Plato's forms or religion's eternity).

I do not object to the essentially religious notion of the "existence" of another realm or layer of being (of forms, eternal objects, universals etc.) from which this world draws its patterns and regularities (a neo-Platonic sort of view). I do think such a realm is in our experience "actually deficient" and thus only is revealed to us imperfectly in the patterns and regularities of our experience.

The eternal versus the temporal with reference to religion also highlights the inherent tension in religion of God as an eternal, perfect, changeless "being" verses God as a loving comforting temporal companion "becoming" with which one can have an interactive relationship and whom meaningfully participates in and interacts with this world. This tension in modern theology is addressed by the dipolar vision of the divine (best illustrated in process theology a religious offshoot of process philosophy and addressed originally by Whitehead and then by Hartshorne and others). In the dipolar theism, God has two aspects (a primordial eternal changeless one of valuations, and a consequential temporal one of interaction and response to the world. God is persuasive but not coercive (powerful but not omnipotent). God is omniscient taking in and preserving in all its presentational immediacy (objective immortality) all of the experience of world (its joys, its sorrows) and then offering (very metaphorical language) opportunities for creative advance which are then accepted or rejected by the world. So the subject of time and eternity I think leads directly into religious contemplation.

prothero wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As a matter of fact I was just reading up on GPS, and found this pretty interesting: "Periodic corrections are performed to the on-board clocks to keep them synchronized with ground clocks."

There is also the half life behavior of accelerated particles in high energy particle physics, which corresponds to the time dilation effects predicted by general relativity. So on the whole I think the evidence favors time dilation as a real phenomena in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dila ... _particles

You missed the point, The fact that they have to manually correct them, indicates they don't have the entire picture figured out, otherwise the clocks could simply be programmed do the math, correcting themselves.

Come back to life, hey, OL!!