What your brain constructs (or so depending on where you locate consciousness) when it sees thing A and B but not a 'simultaneous' combination of A and B. You're conscious of A, then of B and you also remember A. That's what you call time
Proof: if all matter and energy of the universe was eternally guaranteed to be absolutely perfectly motionless; there would eternally be no such thing or point of any concept or existence of time.
The matter and energy of the universe moves and changes it's orientation, therefore the word time is a real physical concept that refers to an aspect of reality
>The idea of a beat per minute would still validly be presiding over reality >Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
That's the key point;
Even if all rulers were destroyed, the Distsnce of an inch would still be true.
Even if all matter and energy were eternally motionless, the time of a second would still be true. It's just a trancendental proportion, even if no reality and only Nothing (why is there something instead of nothing, imagine if eternally there was only nothing) was the total case of reality, the proportion of a second would still be what it is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the proportion of a second would still be what it is
why?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>the proportion of a second would still be what it is >why?
Exactly. It cannot be anything other. Eternally self consistent concepts are eternally true.
A=A, was true before humans wrote it down, and will be in quintillion years. Same with all possible increments of time;
But really it's only the smallest possible increment of time, just as 100, is a hundred 1s.
A second is an amount of the smallest possible increment of time. The smallest possible increment of time is eternally true and self consistent regardless of anything
The concept would be meaningless. Without change, time can't be measured, and a second is indistinguishable from a century. Time is a measure of motion.
But the idea of a self consistent clock ticking perfectly equal increments would still be true. Even if it doesn't exist.
You have a clock. It ticks. It ticks. A second, a second, a second, a second.
If you destroy your clock, and all clocks in the world are destroyed, and all humans of earth die, and all energy and matter of the universe thought experimentally dissapears, would the increment of a second no longer be the increment of s second?
Even if all energy and matter were eternally motionless; the increment of a second would still be tick tick tick tick ticking away, even if it wasn't. Time is immaterial, it is measured and known via material and energy, but it is a (ironically) a timeless idea. It is the idea of self consistency as math is.
A trouble however is considering the fastest possible time, or the eternally fastest increment of temporality. Because imagine over time different universes form with slightly different physics what have you, and have slightly different fastest rates of possible time,
There must be an ultimate limit, out of all eternal cases in the history of reality, in none of them could their exist at any span of time, an infinitesimally fastest increment of time;
Though the idea of continumn may make this intersting, in the suggestion of not so much a click, a tick, a metronomic back and forth, a fastest velocity over the tiniest space; but a continual seamlessness of transition.
If we could take a video of light, and replay it in slow motion, 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% slow or that amount more slow..
We could make a mark in space, and a mark as close as possible to that mark, and track the time it takes for light to go from the one mark to the other;
And we can keep making it slower and slower motion, to really see the Steps of action required for light to pass that mark, eventually besides even technically abilities, but just universal fact, we should at some point
2 years ago
Anonymous
The moment you consider the idea of a clock ticking, you're imagining state transitions. What we're saying is that the absence of state transitions (whether in reality or as a counterfactual) implies the absence of time and vice-versa.
But the idea of a self consistent clock ticking perfectly equal increments would still be true. Even if it doesn't exist.
You have a clock. It ticks. It ticks. A second, a second, a second, a second.
If you destroy your clock, and all clocks in the world are destroyed, and all humans of earth die, and all energy and matter of the universe thought experimentally dissapears, would the increment of a second no longer be the increment of s second?
Even if all energy and matter were eternally motionless; the increment of a second would still be tick tick tick tick ticking away, even if it wasn't. Time is immaterial, it is measured and known via material and energy, but it is a (ironically) a timeless idea. It is the idea of self consistency as math is.
A trouble however is considering the fastest possible time, or the eternally fastest increment of temporality. Because imagine over time different universes form with slightly different physics what have you, and have slightly different fastest rates of possible time,
There must be an ultimate limit, out of all eternal cases in the history of reality, in none of them could their exist at any span of time, an infinitesimally fastest increment of time;
Though the idea of continumn may make this intersting, in the suggestion of not so much a click, a tick, a metronomic back and forth, a fastest velocity over the tiniest space; but a continual seamlessness of transition.
If we could take a video of light, and replay it in slow motion, 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% slow or that amount more slow..
We could make a mark in space, and a mark as close as possible to that mark, and track the time it takes for light to go from the one mark to the other;
And we can keep making it slower and slower motion, to really see the Steps of action required for light to pass that mark, eventually besides even technically abilities, but just universal fact, we should at some point
Cntd
We should at some point not be able to slow motion any more without the video just being purely paused, there must be a smallest possible increment of space and smallest possible increment of time, yes?
>the idea of beat per minute
there would be no beat because there would be no change
there would be no measurement because there would be no flow of information
there would be no time
it IS entirely true, time is just a measurement of change.
If there is no change, there is no progression of time, because that is what time is defined by.
If time somehow wasn't related to change, and the world froze still for 1000000000000 seconds. And then unfroze, then it would be the exact same as the world never freezing at all.
Time is an idea, of perfect increment. It's not material, it measures material, and material let's us know and understand of it. There are tons of lengths on earth the length of football fields, football fields are a representation of particular perfect increments of space. Those perfect increments exist whether or not the football field does.
Time is the idea of perfect increments of motion. I.e. it takes 100 seconds for me to jog 100 yard football field. That's not nessecerily 1 second a yard, I could walk 50 yards, than sprint, than walk.
The increments of seconds, exists as a true fact, whether anything else ever existed or not.
Self consistent increments. Is a true concept, a balenced, perfect, concept whether anything ever existed or not.
If there was only ever eternal nothingness. The concept of a second a second a second a second a second a second a second would still validly exist, even if it didn't exist as material, would still be the valid case.
Imagine you eternally are all that exists surrounded by only infinite nothingness; and you are like, tick tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
And then you magically eliminated yourself from existence perfectly and there was perfectly nothing in existence for eternity:
All the sudden the tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
Would be invalid, false?
The concept and idea of self consistent increment is eternally true and valid regardless of states of energy and matter and reality.
2 years ago
Anonymous
how can ticking exist without change?
how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
The very fact that time can progress means that change is happening.
If there was nothing, there would be no change in anything, even time, because there would not even be anything to change.
Nothingness already has a mathematical representation, the empty set, {}.
There is no time in the empty set, for there is nothing in it that can change, there is no ticking inside of it, there is no information flowing through it. It has no element.
For time to tick, information must flow, and the flow of information represents a change.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
Because the ideal of perfect ticks measure change, but are perfectly themselves whether change occurs or not
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Imagine you eternally are all that exists surrounded by only infinite nothingness; and you are like, tick tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second >And then you magically eliminated yourself from existence perfectly and there was perfectly nothing in existence for eternity: >All the sudden the tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second >Would be invalid, false? >The concept and idea of self consistent increment is eternally true and valid regardless of states of energy and matter and reality.
how can ticking exist without change?
how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
The very fact that time can progress means that change is happening.
If there was nothing, there would be no change in anything, even time, because there would not even be anything to change.
Nothingness already has a mathematical representation, the empty set, {}.
There is no time in the empty set, for there is nothing in it that can change, there is no ticking inside of it, there is no information flowing through it. It has no element.
For time to tick, information must flow, and the flow of information represents a change.
I will read your reply after I post this, I really don't see how you can disagree with what I wrote so I need to see you got what I wrote above in green text.
You are all that exists surrounded by only nothingness.
You go: tick tick tick tick tick tick
You snap your fingers and perfectly disapear leaving only absolutely nothing in existence.
All the sudden the perfect increments of your ticks are invalid? Even if you didn't speak them out loud; would that rhythem, beat, still carry on?
If you snapped back into existence, you could tick tick tick tick
But let's say you don't and nothing ever does. That tick tick tick was possible to exist when you were there, and it is a balenced concept presiding over reality, when you are not there, the concept does not lose validity or truth.
Even if there is no tick tick tick tick tick.
Tick tick tick tick tick still is
2 years ago
Anonymous
^^
Here
how can ticking exist without change?
how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
The very fact that time can progress means that change is happening.
If there was nothing, there would be no change in anything, even time, because there would not even be anything to change.
Nothingness already has a mathematical representation, the empty set, {}.
There is no time in the empty set, for there is nothing in it that can change, there is no ticking inside of it, there is no information flowing through it. It has no element.
For time to tick, information must flow, and the flow of information represents a change.
>There would be no ideas tho
Minds and ideas are not required for self consistent equal increments to be true.
If no humans or intelligences existed in the universe, the Earth, would still take X amount of time to orbit the sun and the moon Y amount of time to orbit the Earth.
So we establish it is possible for consistent increments of time to exist without minds/ideas. So now press pause on the universe as in the motionless example.
All the sudden the Earth possibly taking X time to orbit the sun and moon taking Y time to orbit earth, is all the sudden... What... Irrelevant? The consistency of incremental proportion is (ironically) timeless and immaterial, and is true regardless of what energy and matter is doing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Minds and ideas are not required for self consistent equal increments to be true. >If no humans or intelligences existed in the universe, the Earth, would still take X amount of time to orbit the sun and the moon Y amount of time to orbit the Earth.
Time is not: Earth orbits the sun
The moon orbits the earth.
Time is: the Earth orbits the sun IN X amount of equally incremental ticks
The Moon orbits the Earth in Y amount of equally incremental ticks
In a world without events, there is simply no way to perceive time. How is it that you can measure time without any external help? Your brain has a 'clock'. How is it going to have a clock if it does nothing? Ultimately, there needs to be something that is changing.
>Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
But if you destroyed all matter such that no reference point could be established then it wouldn't, same applies to time dummy
>Even if all matter and energy of the totality of reality was eternally frozen motionless; >Time would still exist. The idea of a second and a second and a second and a second and a second would still exist.
it literally wouldn't, the only way for all of reality to be completely frozen is for time to not exist
I don't know why, but when I think of time, I think of 2D moire patterns and how they create an illusion of a 3D space or depth. To me, it is kinda like that with space.
Proof: if all matter and energy of the universe was eternally guaranteed to be absolutely perfectly motionless; there would eternally be no such thing or point of any concept or existence of time.
The matter and energy of the universe moves and changes it's orientation, therefore the word time is a real physical concept that refers to an aspect of reality
Not entirely true.
Even if all matter and energy of the totality of reality was eternally frozen motionless;
Time would still exist. The idea of a second and a second and a second and a second and a second would still exist.
The idea of a beat per minute would still validly be presiding over reality
Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
Time is highly correlated to the speed of biochemical reactions
Interestingly enough, you can experience different "speeds of time" depending on what you're using to sense it
For example, the reaction speed of your peripheral vision is much quicker than your direct vision
Because of this, if you look at a spinning fan with your peripheral vision, it will appear to be moving slower than in your direct vision
That's not speed of perception moron, that's motion blur. Rods have a notably superior picture refresh rate than cones, which means reduced motion blur
What you just said is like saying a CRT lets you perceive time faster because it doesn't have motion blur.
>your refresh rate of reality is increased >somehow this doesn't cause a slow down in time perception
Are you seriously so sheltered that you've never been in a fight or flight situation where time feels like it slows down?
Anon you are a fricking moron who used fricking peripheral vision's reduced motion blur as an example of magic time powers. I have been in many fight or flight situations and time never changed, you only feel like it did because memory retention affects your perception of past events, ie more memories to recall makes the memory feel longer than when you spend 20 minutes zoned out on the toilet taking a shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're a fricking sheltered moron
When you're in a fight, your perception of time slows down
The only reason you don't know that is because you're a fricking pussy
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have been in fights m8, time does not "slow down".
2 years ago
Anonymous
NTA but you sure sound like a low IQ noodle-armed loser. Time can indeed slow down.
It's a dimension, in the same way as there are 3 spacial dimensions. We really can't define it down more than that.
Asking what dimensions are made of exactly doesn't really make sense and isn't really answerable, at least afaik.
That said, it isn't entirely abstract. Certain forces, such as speed and mass, can interact with both spacial and temporal dimensions and warp them.
We can move in any direction of the 3 dimensions we want through space, although you can only move one direction through time.
If you travel at light speed (impossible unless you're a photon), time would dilate from your frame of reference to the point it actually stopped for you. Hence photons don't actually have any time or age.
There's theoretical shit, like tachyons - particles with negative mass - which may move backwards through time. But no proof of them for now. Probably don't exist, but who knows?
Also another interesting theory is that since time increasingly dilates as you approach a Black Hole, time should stop as you finally "touch" the event horizon.
But hypothetically if you pushed through, on the other side of the Black Hole, you should be able to move in any direction in time, but only a single direction of space (towards the singularity) so it's a good job matter inside a Black Hole can't leave.
>Time is a spatial dimension that we can't perceive. Simple as. >It's a dimension, in the same way as there are 3 spacial dimensions. We really can't define it down more than that.
That doesn't tell us anything about time. Physicists found it useful to consider time geometrically, but why is this? Answering that could inadvertently tell us a bit about what time is. Simply saying "it's another dimension" is not a sufficient characterisation, and I don't think it's even a necessary component for characterising time.
At a bare minimum, it seems you need change occurring for there to be time. If you also want to quantify time, you need something that changes regularly (so that you can use it for granularity).
It's a dimension, in the same way as there are 3 spacial dimensions. We really can't define it down more than that.
Asking what dimensions are made of exactly doesn't really make sense and isn't really answerable, at least afaik.
That said, it isn't entirely abstract. Certain forces, such as speed and mass, can interact with both spacial and temporal dimensions and warp them.
We can move in any direction of the 3 dimensions we want through space, although you can only move one direction through time.
If you travel at light speed (impossible unless you're a photon), time would dilate from your frame of reference to the point it actually stopped for you. Hence photons don't actually have any time or age.
There's theoretical shit, like tachyons - particles with negative mass - which may move backwards through time. But no proof of them for now. Probably don't exist, but who knows?
Also another interesting theory is that since time increasingly dilates as you approach a Black Hole, time should stop as you finally "touch" the event horizon.
But hypothetically if you pushed through, on the other side of the Black Hole, you should be able to move in any direction in time, but only a single direction of space (towards the singularity) so it's a good job matter inside a Black Hole can't leave.
There is no real definition for "Time". All our idea of time really describes is the fact that things change. It's just a sort of indescribable constant that is welded into our brains circuitry as a constant, which is why we all "know" what it is.
Time is a tool which begins at collapsing a wavefunction to organize people to be productive. Check time, you just collapsed a wavefunction and derived a value you're going to use to communicate a fixed position relative to a timezone you're in.
A second is defined by the 133 cesium atom frequency.
Let's say in 999999999999999999°9999999999999999999999999999999
Years the 133 cesium atom frequency changes; does that mean the second changes?
No I would argue the current cessium atom frequency correlates to a self consistent incremental interval that is beyond just the cessium atom, the cessium atom happens to allign with this numerical, but all cessium atoms nature can fundamentally change in the distant future, but the concept of that particular interval is still itself regardless of anything
We use clocks to describe time, just as we use more emotive language to describe time - we often throw around the phrase 'I had a good time/bad time.' How can time have qualities? Is that time less actual time than clock time? In comparison, clock time isn't time at all - it only becomes 'time' when a person watches the numbers change in succession. At it's basis, time is an experience. Time can go fast and slow simply by increasing stimulation. After playing a video game, sitting in a dark room can slow a minute to three, whereas enaging in an highly attentive activity can cut the typical experience of an hour in half.
and just because I'm no longer pointing to the rate of change measurer of the former, as I move to a slower reference rate consistency, does not mean the 1212121212121212 is no longer self consistent and valid, just because in that moment it is not physically existing
In fact using the definition of time as a change of state in space and matter, we could prove (mathematically speaking) that time is locally different than in another place, but we could say that in an infinitesimal state of space and matter, time is no different than in another state and so in this measuremnents we could say that time is constant and intuitively gives as a perception of time "ticking"
Time is beyond material, but this beyond material idea, is used by material to organize measurements of material. Time is the ideal of self consistent regularity.
Material can change its rates of change and irregularize it's regularities.
Imagine take a piece of elastic next to a ruler and mark off two lines in middle of elastic at 1 inch between the marks.
Take the ruler away, stretch the elastic. Is 1 inch now bigger than 1 inch?
No, time is like the ruler to measure material, and we need material to make rulers, but the essence of the ruler is beyond material. The perfect regularities of matter can become imperfect; time is perfect regularity that is itself unalterable.
Matter is alterable. The eternally true concept of perfect regularity is eternally perfect regularity.
>The eternally true concept of perfect regularity is eternally perfect regularity
But there is absolutely no way to access this, besides finding the most regularly occuring patterns of matter.
The smallest possible distance, the quickest possible interval of time, how would we calculate that?
Light may be timed as the quickest possible thing we know of, but could absolute nonexisting concept of consistent universe ticking be faster? There must ultimately be a limit, and for space thats obvious (denying zeno), we can abstractly write and think anything, it's very interesting that there is a minimum distance of space, but wait now; that could only ever be determined in relation to matter.
Imgine true real pure nothing space, the idea of their being a minimum distance of it, is that meaningless?
I don't think so.. distance is real, matter exists at different proximities,
So you can take 2 theoretical tiniest possible atomic walls, and bring them closer and closer together
The quantum world had to grasp with all this stuff, the smallest possible scales, the nature of closing in on space, bodies approaching touching,
Ans that crazy claim that nothing really touches, just really cements the existence and importance of fields, if that's true. That em field is so strong, robust, all encompassing, prevelent, that massive mass mass objects, consider asteroid impacts on the moon, those craters they leave; but Nuh uh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh the electron bodies of the asteroid never touch the electrons of the becoming a crator from impact moon
Crazy to imagine that, the substantial em field is always, sneaking it's way inbetween everywhere, so strongly and surely creating a cushion that cannot be passed
But ah ha, maybe the nature of nuclear energies has to do with finally piercing that cushion, or making the difficult to touch, touch
2 years ago
Anonymous
Shut the frick up worthless undergraduate college child.
The measurement of matter varries in it's regularities of time (earth orbit sun, moon orbit earth), but they use the same unaltered unit of time measurement, which ultimately must be fundamentally foundationally composed of the tiniest possible unit of time
and just because I'm no longer pointing to the rate of change measurer of the former, as I move to a slower reference rate consistency, does not mean the 1212121212121212 is no longer self consistent and valid, just because in that moment it is not physically existing
Time is pure a priori intuition which makes math possible. It's not a concept or it would succumb to formal logical analyses (and with that the principle of noncontradiction).
Time and space cannot be taken as existing in themselves, they're just a priori forms of understanding/sensible intuition.
isn't time just the effect of physical forces
for example everything decays over time, right
let's imagine a stream of water for simplicity's sake
put a rock in it, it's gonna erode over decades and decades
but put say an early rock that is much less dense, it's gonna erode over much less time
if you look at them before they're completely vanished, you would think that the former has been eroded over a much longer period of time, that it's "older" (the time between its formation/separation and now is much longer than for the other)
but really it's because it's denser, so it hasn't eroded yet
does that make sense
3:50
6:57
just wait
guys I just had a sleep paralysis
Had once one too, a fricking demonbaby jumped on me
Nice.
What your brain constructs (or so depending on where you locate consciousness) when it sees thing A and B but not a 'simultaneous' combination of A and B. You're conscious of A, then of B and you also remember A. That's what you call time
Honestly nobody knows
this any other answer is a lie nobody knows and anyone who says they do is either lying or got hold of some data that we all need to see
end of thread
time is the distance in the fourth dimension that it takes for an object to go from one location to another in three dimensions.
>time is the distance in the fourth dimension
You could simplify it to this
I....don't think that can be simplified that way at all actually...
time is the first dimension
>start with empty sheet of paper
>draw a dot
>dot didn't exist before
don't need 3 dimenstruations
The possibility of motion/change
Proof: if all matter and energy of the universe was eternally guaranteed to be absolutely perfectly motionless; there would eternally be no such thing or point of any concept or existence of time.
The matter and energy of the universe moves and changes it's orientation, therefore the word time is a real physical concept that refers to an aspect of reality
Not entirely true.
Even if all matter and energy of the totality of reality was eternally frozen motionless;
Time would still exist. The idea of a second and a second and a second and a second and a second would still exist.
The idea of a beat per minute would still validly be presiding over reality
Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
You need thought to think ideas, and thought is a process that needs time to work, so without time there's no thought and no ideas.
>The idea of a beat per minute would still validly be presiding over reality
>Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
That's the key point;
Even if all rulers were destroyed, the Distsnce of an inch would still be true.
Even if all matter and energy were eternally motionless, the time of a second would still be true. It's just a trancendental proportion, even if no reality and only Nothing (why is there something instead of nothing, imagine if eternally there was only nothing) was the total case of reality, the proportion of a second would still be what it is.
>the proportion of a second would still be what it is
why?
>>the proportion of a second would still be what it is
>why?
Exactly. It cannot be anything other. Eternally self consistent concepts are eternally true.
A=A, was true before humans wrote it down, and will be in quintillion years. Same with all possible increments of time;
But really it's only the smallest possible increment of time, just as 100, is a hundred 1s.
A second is an amount of the smallest possible increment of time. The smallest possible increment of time is eternally true and self consistent regardless of anything
absolute zero doesnt exist, atoms literally will not stop wiggling and all photons have a frequency of oscillation
time is eternal, it stops for literally nothing, and it is uni-directional
Thought experiment. It still helps show you what the essence of time is
The concept would be meaningless. Without change, time can't be measured, and a second is indistinguishable from a century. Time is a measure of motion.
But the idea of a self consistent clock ticking perfectly equal increments would still be true. Even if it doesn't exist.
You have a clock. It ticks. It ticks. A second, a second, a second, a second.
If you destroy your clock, and all clocks in the world are destroyed, and all humans of earth die, and all energy and matter of the universe thought experimentally dissapears, would the increment of a second no longer be the increment of s second?
Even if all energy and matter were eternally motionless; the increment of a second would still be tick tick tick tick ticking away, even if it wasn't. Time is immaterial, it is measured and known via material and energy, but it is a (ironically) a timeless idea. It is the idea of self consistency as math is.
A trouble however is considering the fastest possible time, or the eternally fastest increment of temporality. Because imagine over time different universes form with slightly different physics what have you, and have slightly different fastest rates of possible time,
There must be an ultimate limit, out of all eternal cases in the history of reality, in none of them could their exist at any span of time, an infinitesimally fastest increment of time;
Though the idea of continumn may make this intersting, in the suggestion of not so much a click, a tick, a metronomic back and forth, a fastest velocity over the tiniest space; but a continual seamlessness of transition.
If we could take a video of light, and replay it in slow motion, 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% slow or that amount more slow..
We could make a mark in space, and a mark as close as possible to that mark, and track the time it takes for light to go from the one mark to the other;
And we can keep making it slower and slower motion, to really see the Steps of action required for light to pass that mark, eventually besides even technically abilities, but just universal fact, we should at some point
The moment you consider the idea of a clock ticking, you're imagining state transitions. What we're saying is that the absence of state transitions (whether in reality or as a counterfactual) implies the absence of time and vice-versa.
Cntd
We should at some point not be able to slow motion any more without the video just being purely paused, there must be a smallest possible increment of space and smallest possible increment of time, yes?
>Time is a measure of motion.
Time is ideal perfectly regular motion, used to measure the unideal irregular motion of material and energy
>the idea of beat per minute
there would be no beat because there would be no change
there would be no measurement because there would be no flow of information
there would be no time
it IS entirely true, time is just a measurement of change.
If there is no change, there is no progression of time, because that is what time is defined by.
If time somehow wasn't related to change, and the world froze still for 1000000000000 seconds. And then unfroze, then it would be the exact same as the world never freezing at all.
Time is an idea, of perfect increment. It's not material, it measures material, and material let's us know and understand of it. There are tons of lengths on earth the length of football fields, football fields are a representation of particular perfect increments of space. Those perfect increments exist whether or not the football field does.
Time is the idea of perfect increments of motion. I.e. it takes 100 seconds for me to jog 100 yard football field. That's not nessecerily 1 second a yard, I could walk 50 yards, than sprint, than walk.
The increments of seconds, exists as a true fact, whether anything else ever existed or not.
Self consistent increments. Is a true concept, a balenced, perfect, concept whether anything ever existed or not.
If there was only ever eternal nothingness. The concept of a second a second a second a second a second a second a second would still validly exist, even if it didn't exist as material, would still be the valid case.
Imagine you eternally are all that exists surrounded by only infinite nothingness; and you are like, tick tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
And then you magically eliminated yourself from existence perfectly and there was perfectly nothing in existence for eternity:
All the sudden the tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
Would be invalid, false?
The concept and idea of self consistent increment is eternally true and valid regardless of states of energy and matter and reality.
how can ticking exist without change?
how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
The very fact that time can progress means that change is happening.
If there was nothing, there would be no change in anything, even time, because there would not even be anything to change.
Nothingness already has a mathematical representation, the empty set, {}.
There is no time in the empty set, for there is nothing in it that can change, there is no ticking inside of it, there is no information flowing through it. It has no element.
For time to tick, information must flow, and the flow of information represents a change.
>how can time move from one tick to the next without there being a change?
Because the ideal of perfect ticks measure change, but are perfectly themselves whether change occurs or not
>Imagine you eternally are all that exists surrounded by only infinite nothingness; and you are like, tick tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
>And then you magically eliminated yourself from existence perfectly and there was perfectly nothing in existence for eternity:
>All the sudden the tick tick tick tick tick a second a second a second a second
>Would be invalid, false?
>The concept and idea of self consistent increment is eternally true and valid regardless of states of energy and matter and reality.
I will read your reply after I post this, I really don't see how you can disagree with what I wrote so I need to see you got what I wrote above in green text.
You are all that exists surrounded by only nothingness.
You go: tick tick tick tick tick tick
You snap your fingers and perfectly disapear leaving only absolutely nothing in existence.
All the sudden the perfect increments of your ticks are invalid? Even if you didn't speak them out loud; would that rhythem, beat, still carry on?
If you snapped back into existence, you could tick tick tick tick
But let's say you don't and nothing ever does. That tick tick tick was possible to exist when you were there, and it is a balenced concept presiding over reality, when you are not there, the concept does not lose validity or truth.
Even if there is no tick tick tick tick tick.
Tick tick tick tick tick still is
^^
Here
There would be no ideas tho
/Thread
>There would be no ideas tho
Minds and ideas are not required for self consistent equal increments to be true.
If no humans or intelligences existed in the universe, the Earth, would still take X amount of time to orbit the sun and the moon Y amount of time to orbit the Earth.
So we establish it is possible for consistent increments of time to exist without minds/ideas. So now press pause on the universe as in the motionless example.
All the sudden the Earth possibly taking X time to orbit the sun and moon taking Y time to orbit earth, is all the sudden... What... Irrelevant? The consistency of incremental proportion is (ironically) timeless and immaterial, and is true regardless of what energy and matter is doing.
>Minds and ideas are not required for self consistent equal increments to be true.
>If no humans or intelligences existed in the universe, the Earth, would still take X amount of time to orbit the sun and the moon Y amount of time to orbit the Earth.
Time is not: Earth orbits the sun
The moon orbits the earth.
Time is: the Earth orbits the sun IN X amount of equally incremental ticks
The Moon orbits the Earth in Y amount of equally incremental ticks
In a world without events, there is simply no way to perceive time. How is it that you can measure time without any external help? Your brain has a 'clock'. How is it going to have a clock if it does nothing? Ultimately, there needs to be something that is changing.
>Ultimately, there needs to be something that is changing.
There exists a universe which this isn't true.
>Just as if all rulers were destroyed, the distance of an inch would still be true
But if you destroyed all matter such that no reference point could be established then it wouldn't, same applies to time dummy
>Even if all matter and energy of the totality of reality was eternally frozen motionless;
>Time would still exist. The idea of a second and a second and a second and a second and a second would still exist.
it literally wouldn't, the only way for all of reality to be completely frozen is for time to not exist
baby don't hurt me.
I don't know why, but when I think of time, I think of 2D moire patterns and how they create an illusion of a 3D space or depth. To me, it is kinda like that with space.
No it's more like this:
I remember heard something like
Nobody knows but it's the entropy after the big bang, Espace and time intertwined in a continuous expansion.
a way of measuring change in a system and distinguishing deferent states that it can be in
Time is highly correlated to the speed of biochemical reactions
Interestingly enough, you can experience different "speeds of time" depending on what you're using to sense it
For example, the reaction speed of your peripheral vision is much quicker than your direct vision
Because of this, if you look at a spinning fan with your peripheral vision, it will appear to be moving slower than in your direct vision
That's not speed of perception moron, that's motion blur. Rods have a notably superior picture refresh rate than cones, which means reduced motion blur
What you just said is like saying a CRT lets you perceive time faster because it doesn't have motion blur.
>your refresh rate of reality is increased
>somehow this doesn't cause a slow down in time perception
Are you seriously so sheltered that you've never been in a fight or flight situation where time feels like it slows down?
Anon you are a fricking moron who used fricking peripheral vision's reduced motion blur as an example of magic time powers. I have been in many fight or flight situations and time never changed, you only feel like it did because memory retention affects your perception of past events, ie more memories to recall makes the memory feel longer than when you spend 20 minutes zoned out on the toilet taking a shit.
You're a fricking sheltered moron
When you're in a fight, your perception of time slows down
The only reason you don't know that is because you're a fricking pussy
I have been in fights m8, time does not "slow down".
NTA but you sure sound like a low IQ noodle-armed loser. Time can indeed slow down.
test
State of matter and space relatively to another state on a measure.
Unironically just a social construct.
A conversation dimension between space and velocity
Conversion* ffs
A made up concept to explain movement
Time is a spatial dimension that we can't perceive. Simple as. We think it is unidirectional because almost everything is going the same way we are.
>Time is a spatial dimension that we can't perceive. Simple as.
>It's a dimension, in the same way as there are 3 spacial dimensions. We really can't define it down more than that.
That doesn't tell us anything about time. Physicists found it useful to consider time geometrically, but why is this? Answering that could inadvertently tell us a bit about what time is. Simply saying "it's another dimension" is not a sufficient characterisation, and I don't think it's even a necessary component for characterising time.
At a bare minimum, it seems you need change occurring for there to be time. If you also want to quantify time, you need something that changes regularly (so that you can use it for granularity).
time is the result of higher dimensional "boson" fields interacting in a 3D intersect.
The second dimension breaches into the third dimension, which is already saturated, so it pushes into the next dimension, time.
I am pretty sure that stars are the breach, and time the effect they cause.
It's a dimension, in the same way as there are 3 spacial dimensions. We really can't define it down more than that.
Asking what dimensions are made of exactly doesn't really make sense and isn't really answerable, at least afaik.
That said, it isn't entirely abstract. Certain forces, such as speed and mass, can interact with both spacial and temporal dimensions and warp them.
We can move in any direction of the 3 dimensions we want through space, although you can only move one direction through time.
If you travel at light speed (impossible unless you're a photon), time would dilate from your frame of reference to the point it actually stopped for you. Hence photons don't actually have any time or age.
There's theoretical shit, like tachyons - particles with negative mass - which may move backwards through time. But no proof of them for now. Probably don't exist, but who knows?
Also another interesting theory is that since time increasingly dilates as you approach a Black Hole, time should stop as you finally "touch" the event horizon.
But hypothetically if you pushed through, on the other side of the Black Hole, you should be able to move in any direction in time, but only a single direction of space (towards the singularity) so it's a good job matter inside a Black Hole can't leave.
It's a black hole stealing a spatial dimension from us as it slowly rips us apart and kills us all.
Has anyone come up with a mathematical equation for time?
>serious question
[math]E = mc^2[/math]
Time is the measurement of change and it emerges from the the quantum world to the absolute one
time is what happens before you hit the bottom of the yawning abyss
There is no real definition for "Time". All our idea of time really describes is the fact that things change. It's just a sort of indescribable constant that is welded into our brains circuitry as a constant, which is why we all "know" what it is.
Direction of causality.
It's a sense. It's some form of qualia. Without it, the block universe view is as good as any.
Time is a tool which begins at collapsing a wavefunction to organize people to be productive. Check time, you just collapsed a wavefunction and derived a value you're going to use to communicate a fixed position relative to a timezone you're in.
A second is defined by the 133 cesium atom frequency.
Let's say in 999999999999999999°9999999999999999999999999999999
Years the 133 cesium atom frequency changes; does that mean the second changes?
No I would argue the current cessium atom frequency correlates to a self consistent incremental interval that is beyond just the cessium atom, the cessium atom happens to allign with this numerical, but all cessium atoms nature can fundamentally change in the distant future, but the concept of that particular interval is still itself regardless of anything
Ay?
Comment?
We use clocks to describe time, just as we use more emotive language to describe time - we often throw around the phrase 'I had a good time/bad time.' How can time have qualities? Is that time less actual time than clock time? In comparison, clock time isn't time at all - it only becomes 'time' when a person watches the numbers change in succession. At it's basis, time is an experience. Time can go fast and slow simply by increasing stimulation. After playing a video game, sitting in a dark room can slow a minute to three, whereas enaging in an highly attentive activity can cut the typical experience of an hour in half.
A model to describe motion.
Material progression
Baby don't age me,
don't age me
No more.
A unit of measurement that allows two objects to occupy the same physical space.
>Makes a physical abstraction argument via ticking sounds
based
The ticking sounds refer to an immaterial idea. I can go from
121212121212121212
smoothly to
1....2.....1......2.....1......2......1.....2.....1....2
and just because I'm no longer pointing to the rate of change measurer of the former, as I move to a slower reference rate consistency, does not mean the 1212121212121212 is no longer self consistent and valid, just because in that moment it is not physically existing
Shut the frick up worthless moronic troony, it was a joke when I wrote that using "tick tick" sounds in a scientific discussion is based.
Don't ever dare to think any smart person and educated in the ways of physics will take your opinion seriously.
Worthless talentless CHILD
In fact using the definition of time as a change of state in space and matter, we could prove (mathematically speaking) that time is locally different than in another place, but we could say that in an infinitesimal state of space and matter, time is no different than in another state and so in this measuremnents we could say that time is constant and intuitively gives as a perception of time "ticking"
Time is beyond material, but this beyond material idea, is used by material to organize measurements of material. Time is the ideal of self consistent regularity.
Material can change its rates of change and irregularize it's regularities.
Imagine take a piece of elastic next to a ruler and mark off two lines in middle of elastic at 1 inch between the marks.
Take the ruler away, stretch the elastic. Is 1 inch now bigger than 1 inch?
No, time is like the ruler to measure material, and we need material to make rulers, but the essence of the ruler is beyond material. The perfect regularities of matter can become imperfect; time is perfect regularity that is itself unalterable.
Matter is alterable. The eternally true concept of perfect regularity is eternally perfect regularity.
>The eternally true concept of perfect regularity is eternally perfect regularity
But there is absolutely no way to access this, besides finding the most regularly occuring patterns of matter.
The smallest possible distance, the quickest possible interval of time, how would we calculate that?
Light may be timed as the quickest possible thing we know of, but could absolute nonexisting concept of consistent universe ticking be faster? There must ultimately be a limit, and for space thats obvious (denying zeno), we can abstractly write and think anything, it's very interesting that there is a minimum distance of space, but wait now; that could only ever be determined in relation to matter.
Imgine true real pure nothing space, the idea of their being a minimum distance of it, is that meaningless?
I don't think so.. distance is real, matter exists at different proximities,
So you can take 2 theoretical tiniest possible atomic walls, and bring them closer and closer together
The quantum world had to grasp with all this stuff, the smallest possible scales, the nature of closing in on space, bodies approaching touching,
Ans that crazy claim that nothing really touches, just really cements the existence and importance of fields, if that's true. That em field is so strong, robust, all encompassing, prevelent, that massive mass mass objects, consider asteroid impacts on the moon, those craters they leave; but Nuh uh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh the electron bodies of the asteroid never touch the electrons of the becoming a crator from impact moon
Crazy to imagine that, the substantial em field is always, sneaking it's way inbetween everywhere, so strongly and surely creating a cushion that cannot be passed
But ah ha, maybe the nature of nuclear energies has to do with finally piercing that cushion, or making the difficult to touch, touch
Shut the frick up worthless undergraduate college child.
God every child is so worthless this days.
moronic worthless troony finish high school and don't ever respond to me again
In an infinitesimal SPACE AND MATTER, time is regular but in a bigger scope it varies from place to place.
Please have a nice day worthless non genius scum
The measurement of matter varries in it's regularities of time (earth orbit sun, moon orbit earth), but they use the same unaltered unit of time measurement, which ultimately must be fundamentally foundationally composed of the tiniest possible unit of time
Respond
Seems legit, I am speechless, nothing to respond with,
Time is an array of numbers.
Time is important and I am a clock
Time you ponied up
money
Time is pure a priori intuition which makes math possible. It's not a concept or it would succumb to formal logical analyses (and with that the principle of noncontradiction).
Time and space cannot be taken as existing in themselves, they're just a priori forms of understanding/sensible intuition.
Statistical projection of change
The axis upon which space moves.
time is dying
Imagine having more than one temporal dimension... like woah...
Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping..... Into the futureeeee
isn't time just the effect of physical forces
for example everything decays over time, right
let's imagine a stream of water for simplicity's sake
put a rock in it, it's gonna erode over decades and decades
but put say an early rock that is much less dense, it's gonna erode over much less time
if you look at them before they're completely vanished, you would think that the former has been eroded over a much longer period of time, that it's "older" (the time between its formation/separation and now is much longer than for the other)
but really it's because it's denser, so it hasn't eroded yet
does that make sense