šŸ›”ļø Debate What is the very nature of Time?

From a more philosophical perspective, it goes back to Parminedes and Heraclitus (with Aristotle being the middle ground opinion). If the universe is static and inherently unchanging, then time is illusory. There is just one big thing and time is your experiencing slices of it. I think this may correspond to what some physicists refer to as block time, though I am unsure about that. On the other hand, if all is flux (Heraclitus), then there exists only the present moment (no past and no future). Time in that sense is just the flux that drives the endless change.

I tend to believe the past probably does not exist, nor does the future, but I take a middle ground in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, which I think comports well with what real science (not string theory) has advanced thus far.
 
Time is the consequence of universal forces interacting. It is the rate and direction of all changes, and it can be layered within itself relative to the rest of the universe. Time cannot be "reversed" but it can be undone, redone, circumvented, stopped, or accelerated. In a laboratory sense, in a system with zero entropy and zero potential energy of any kind that system would be equivalent being in a still time state. Time itself is a construct as much as the millimetre is, though much more universal.
 
Harte said:
No. But time is observed by time-dependant processes, such as the consumption of hydrogen by the Sun.

The theory explains it. It doesn't explain the theory.
The Theory of Relativity arises from two postulates, that c is the speed limit, and that physics works everywhere.

Harte
Click to expand...


Ahhhhh you think like me!
 
Harte said:
No. But time is observed by time-dependant processes, such as the consumption of hydrogen by the Sun.

The theory explains it. It doesn't explain the theory.
The Theory of Relativity arises from two postulates, that c is the speed limit, and that physics works everywhere.

Harte
Click to expand...
I see; and general constants? What about the Planck's Constant in relations to time? Possibly being as small as 1.6 x 10-35 power is certainly questionable, wouldn't an observer such as a virus, ant, dog, man, and a blue whale observe time differently per se?
 
JackStagger said:
Time is the consequence of universal forces interacting. It is the rate and direction of all changes, and it can be layered within itself relative to the rest of the universe. Time cannot be "reversed" but it can be undone, redone, circumvented, stopped, or accelerated. In a laboratory sense, in a system with zero entropy and zero potential energy of any kind that system would be equivalent being in a still time state. Time itself is a construct as much as the millimetre is, though much more universal.
Click to expand...
I see, do you know any ideas or proposals of time and cosmology by scientists and amateurs? Any information given will be good for study.
 
Kairos said:
From a more philosophical perspective, it goes back to Parminedes and Heraclitus (with Aristotle being the middle ground opinion). If the universe is static and inherently unchanging, then time is illusory. There is just one big thing and time is your experiencing slices of it. I think this may correspond to what some physicists refer to as block time, though I am unsure about that. On the other hand, if all is flux (Heraclitus), then there exists only the present moment (no past and no future). Time in that sense is just the flux that drives the endless change.

I tend to believe the past probably does not exist, nor does the future, but I take a middle ground in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense, which I think comports well with what real science (not string theory) has advanced thus far.
Click to expand...
From what I've heard, there is a philosophy that states that the past, present and future are happening at the same time right here, right now. Can you further elaborate to me about that?
 
Mr. Door-Chan_16 said:
From what I've heard, there is a philosophy that states that the past, present and future are happening at the same time right here, right now. Can you further elaborate to me about that?
Click to expand...

The idea there is that the universe is one static (unchanging) thing. A moment in time is merely a slice in that unchanging thing, and your experience of time derives from your experiencing that thing one slice at a time in a sequential order from a specific point of reference. If this is true, then the past, present, and future are not "happening" at all. They simply are.

The other side of that position is that the past and future do not exist at all. There is but one present moment that is constantly in flux.

The third middle way is that of Aristotle, which requires you to understand act, potency, substance and cause, and I haven't the inclination to try to explain those concepts in a forum post. That is more inline with what I think, and I think science supports it much more than it does the other two positions.
 
Mr. Door-Chan_16 said:
Wouldn't an observer such as a virus, ant, dog, man, and a blue whale observe time differently per se?
Click to expand...

Yes, they would observe different things at different rates. Like how when you're a child time seems to pass slowly and as an adult it seems to pass more quickly. It's because your observational ability and desires have changed, time has not changed.

The constraints of time are sequence and causality, it is information that travels faster than the speed of light because it doesn't actually travel anywhere even though it is not omnipresent or uniform. It is not a complicated field or aether, it is simply cause and effect. That's my opinion based on relatively recent advancements others have made while studying the nature of black holes and light as it relates to information. I do not think this is antagonistic to any notion within quantum physics, otherwise it would be a terrible concept. I put it very simply so to not seem counter to what others might hold true.
 
Last edited:
JackStagger said:
Yes, they would observe different things at different rates. Like how when you're a child time seems to pass slowly and as an adult it seems to pass more quickly. It's because your observational ability and desires have changed, time has not changed.

The constraints of time are sequence and causality, it is information that travels faster than the speed of light because it doesn't actually travel anywhere even though it is not omnipresent or uniform. It is not a complicated field or aether, it is simply cause and effect. That's my opinion based on relatively recent advancements others have made while studying the nature of black holes and light as it relates to information. I do not preclude to think this is antagonistic to any notion within quantum physics, otherwise it would be a terrible concept. I put it very simply so to not seem counter to what others might hold true.
Click to expand...
Kairos said:
The idea there is that the universe is one static (unchanging) thing. A moment in time is merely a slice in that unchanging thing, and your experience of time derives from your experiencing that thing one slice at a time in a sequential order from a specific point of reference. If this is true, then the past, present, and future are not "happening" at all. They simply are.

The other side of that position is that the past and future do not exist at all. There is but one present moment that is constantly in flux.

The third middle way is that of Aristotle, which requires you to understand act, potency, substance and cause, and I haven't the inclination to try to explain those concepts in a forum post. That is more inline with what I think, and I think science supports it much more than it does the other two positions.
Click to expand...
I see. Philosophical Time, Scientific Time, Real Time and Universal Time are abruptly different from not just the observer, but to everyone else observing or not, to the observer.
 

Top