Does time exist? If a thread exists than tell me.

[tj444]

I would like to take the thread in a different direction. Do temporal parts exists. If I am not mistaken that means that a 4d object must exist. Does the past exist? If the past does not exist does that mean that an individual human doesn't have persistence and doesn't have temporal parts ? What about from a scientific answer to the question does the past exist?

Can you try to keep the answers simple, thanks.

[littletrio]

I would like to take the thread in a different direction. Do temporal parts exists. If I am not mistaken that means that a 4d object must exist. Does the past exist? If the past does not exist does that mean that an individual human doesn't have persistence and doesn't have temporal parts ? What about from a scientific answer to the question does the past exist?

Can you try to keep the answers simple, thanks.

After thinking about this for a hour...I remembered a 4d example that could apply to this dilemma, from Hawking. He wasn't going down this road, so to speak, but I think it applies. He was demonstrating how 4d is plausible.

Drop a stone into a pond. Imagine the splash effect as a cone. One, perceives that splash as three dimensional. You have longitude, latitude, and sea level, three points. Now, picture the cone inversely, the splash under the water. The water is asorbing the energy of the rock, which in turn is creating another dimension, as a inverse cone/wave. Therefore, the wave/splash is a 4d entity that has temporal capacities in several properties, viz...wave, sound, a objective stone in the pond.

Conclusion, the height of the waves could be measured to prove the time the stone was dropped, e.g, the past can be scientifically measured.

[littletrio]

One, would think that human activity alone, would prove the existence of the past. Observe, say Michael Jordan, he didn't become a NBA Great in one day. It took years of practice.

I would think that the only way the past could be non-existent, one would need a Matrix computational theory, or a thought/consciousness driven theory that would correspond with this obscure line of thought.

There is the possiblity that our lives are like our dreams. When we are dreaming, we have the ability to do anything, but when we wake up, we discover this is not true. Who is say, that the samething is not happening when we are awake?

Just my thoughts and different avenues to this topic.

[tj444]

I am not saying that the past did not exist at one time. The past leads up to the future but never can you visit the past. For example Michael Jordan practiced hard to become good. Can Michael Jordan interact with the past? Unless some form of time travel is discovered than he cannot. The past does not exist making Michael Jordan not have persistence. If the past does not exist right now can you have persistence?

One more question can you provide a source to the hawking's response to the stone.

[littletrio]

Ah, cause and effect persistence. Sorry, I am rookie. Will get better over time.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi tj444,

You sure ask some good questions. Now keeping in mind I have no recognized authority, I can at least convey my opinion garnered from much research, looking into all the cracks and under all the rugs.. to find all the pieces.

First we establish some terms for Dimensions:
In 4 Dimensions we have 8 directions of movement:
1: Left-Right (X)
2: Up-Down (Y)
3: Closer-Away (Z)
4: Past-Future (T)

Now to define Time in all 3 major aspects:

Case A:
Time Doesn't Exist.
Imagine a void with no Matter, Energy, Distance or Time.
Nothing exists in this Void. This is the only place that Truly Exists.
This Void has Logic because Logic requires no ingredients listed above.

From Logic extends Math and Equations. For each clearly defined Equation a Solution must Exist.. Regardless of Complexity. Some Equations define a Universe as a Solution and "We Exist" inside one such Solution. Within our Solution there exists Cause, Effect and Sequence involving Logic Symmetries that we would call Quantum Mechanics. Composition is pure information and nothing more.

Case B:
Quantum Time Exists.
In our Quantum Logic Universe information moves in all 4 dimensions and all 8 directions. Time Exists as Sequential Cause and Effects in the Interactions of Logic Symmetries. In this case Time is NOT a Dimension but just simple Sequencing with a Beginning and perhaps even an Ending.

Case C:
Conventional Time:
In our Reality, the interactions of logic symmetries only propagate in one direction of the 4th Dimension by which we have labeled Past to Future. This is where your persistence stems from. This is also why we can not travel faster than light.. because we must defer some percentage of travel forward along the 4th axis (T) to one (or more) of the other 3 axis (X,Y,Z). This does not mean that time slows down for a moving object but rather the clocks of a moving object are slowed down because they are, after all, Matter and Energy symmetries.

All three Cases above are always true. They do not conflict with each other.

From Case (A), or an Outsiders View, the whole Universe exists simultaneously as one static block of non-moving logic. From this point of view, we can see all 4 axis without the concept of Time.

From Case (B), or the Quantum View, time is a logical sequence that started at the point the solution of the equation defines as the beginning or first cause. The solution may iterate forever or end at some point. From this perspective information can not travel back in Time because time is merely progression or ticks of the Quantum Clock.

From Case (C), or Our View, Time appears to progress from Past to Future.. but we must keep in mind that Time (in this case) is a Spatial Function and not a Temporal Function. This is why we can send information back in time (sort of) because it's a Spatial Issue and not a Temporal Issue. Also note that we can't send Matter and Energy back in time because their symmetry only permits travel-propagation in one direction of the 4th dimension axis. But this limitation doesn't apply to information that takes advantage of cause-effect symmetries of the 4th Dimension or what Quantum Mechanics calls wave collapse (Retro-Causality).

Ok, probably more answer than you wanted tj444, but I'd be happy to elaborate on any aspect that is unclear.

Summary:
From Case (A).. Past, Present and Future all exist simultaneously (No Time).
From Case (B).. Time is merely Sequence and not a Dimension.
From Case (C).. Time is a Spatial aspect and not a Temporal aspect.

Hope this helps,
Dave :^)

[tj444]

I am having trouble understanding Dave_Oblad. I get the direction part. After that it sounds like when all Charlie brown hears is blah, blah, blah. It seems like a foreign language. I think I got the reference right and it is from Charlie brown. In no way am I being rude I am talking about my own inadequacy I guess I am trying to be funny, now enough rambling.

I think there might be a communication error. I will begin with my questions. Temporal parts are like a timeline past, present and future. Now persistence or continuity of an individual does it rely on temporal parts? How can temporal parts exist if only the present exist? The past can exist but it exists in the past. How can individual persist if only the present exists?

Here is a link to temporal parts http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/temporal-parts/
Persentism I think is the term that only the present exists not the past or the future , not that the past or future won’t exist at another time. Presentism is a concept I am trying to explain when I talk about the past and future not existing.

[littletrio]

Dave, a beautiful piece of work. I bow before your greatness and walk away in shame. When I grow up, I want to be like you, lol. Thank you for your post.

[tj444]

Can someone please explain Dave_Oblad post? There is a lot of terminology I don't understand.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi tj444,

Sorry if I got carried away, but your question afforded me an opportunity to place everything in perspective for the first time in a single condensed post. I read the article at the link you provided. It was very wordy..lol.

Specifically, you asked about Presentism. Ok.. that view comes from an Observer. Since you remember the past and can't see the future.. an impression is made that the only thing that is left to exist (time wise) is the Present.

So think of a one-way street and you are driving down this street. As you drive along you see buildings and such. As you pass them by, they become a memory.. a thing of the past.. and something you can't go back to because it's a one-way street. You do not know what lays ahead because you haven't gotten there yet. So you look around at your current and present position and declare this is where you are located at this time: Presentism!

You can not say the street behind you has vanished and you can not say the street ahead doesn't exist yet. The whole street exists (all at the same time) and you are merely a traveler (observer) heading down that street. The sum of your knowledge tells you where you are presently located and allows you to guess at what may lay ahead. I would call that Conventional Time, or Case (C) as described above.

Did that help or did I make matters worse..lol?

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[tj444]

Yes this post makes perfect sense.

You can not say the street behind you has vanished and you can not say the street ahead doesn't exist yet. The whole street exists (all at the same time) and you are merely a traveler (observer) heading down that street. The sum of your knowledge tells you where you are presently located and allows you to guess at what may lay ahead. I would call that Conventional Time, or Case (C)

Just one more question when you describe presentism above the quoted part. Were you adding your own thoughts or is that the exact definition of presentism?

So I guess we have presistence in all theories of time that have merit. Correct?

[tj444]

Just one more thing I wanted to add when David_Oblad discusses A and B theory is he just referring to what most people consider the A and B theory of time?

Another question which theory on time is correct?

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi tj4444,

This isn't 3 different theories of Time but rather a look at the 3 different faces of Time as they co-exist in our reality.

Einstein saw time as Case(A) and Case(C) being his view was that Reality was a static (non-moving) block of Math and Time didn't exist. That what we call Time was a spatial (having to do with distance and length) aspect of the 4Th Dimension. He called it "Space-Time" as 3 dimensions of Space and 1 dimension of Time but treated Time as just another direction.. much like the first 3, but for some reason, we can only move Time-wise in one direction.

He wasn't a big fan of Quantum Mechanics originally. This was largely because the math of Quantum Mechanics seems to violate the basis of Relativity due to a thing called Entanglement, which seems to violate the speed of light limits of Space-Time. Or in simpler terms.. he called it spooky that a person can affect something locally and have an instantaneous effect on something else that is real far away. By his reasoning, it should take a certain amount of time for an effect to travel the distance between two objects with the minimum time interval from Cause to Effect as being set by the speed of light.

Einstein:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

You wrote:
Just one more question when you describe Presentism above the quoted part. Were you adding your own thoughts or is that the exact definition of Presentism?

I had never heard of Presentism until you directed me to that link. I have faced that argument (point of view) in past debates and it's nice to know there is a name for it. Simply put, it's a simplistic view that only "NOW" truly exists, regardless of an observer. It's easy to see the common sense aspect of this view but it's totally based on an observer. An observer always believes that at any moment "Now" is "Now". But when you string up an endless series of "Now's" then "Now" covers every moment in an observers life. The best definition for "Now" is based on acquired experiences at any given moment, thus "NOW" is a shifting definition based on progressive observations.

So "Now" is not about "When are we in Time?" but rather.. "Where are we in 4D space?".

Here is an excerpt from one of my posts that may help:

We live in 4 dimensions (minimum). All 4 are just directions. Up-Down, Left-Right, Closer-Further and Before-After. So that's called 3D space with Time, or Space-Time.

So let's just start with 2D space only. Imagine a super thin canvas, so thin it has no real thickness. But it has height and width. So I cast a shadow on it of a ball. The flat view (shadow) would be a simple circle. Now imagine the shadow is of a person. This person's shadow has height and width only. I tell him I can reach inside his body and grab his heart without breaking his skin. He says that's impossible. So I walk up to the canvas and give his heart a squeeze. I can do this because I can come at him from an angle that he can't understand. I tell him I am going to pass a ball in front of his face and push the ball through the canvas. He told me that he saw a circle, but it started out small and got bigger and bigger, then got small again and disappeared. He asked where the ball went and I said it's just a few inches from his face. But he can't reach it because it's not touching the canvas and he can't leave the surface of the canvas.

Ok, so that's two dimensions and he's flat. Not too hard to understand. Now, and I'm sorry for this, I gave him an extra dimension I shouldn't have, just for the sake of this previous example. I gave him Time. So let's take back Time and give him another dimension. I take the thin canvas and make copies of it and push them together. Now that circle looks like a cylinder to me and he looks 3D to me, but I see no motion anymore.

When he bounces the circle up and down like a ball, I only see a cylinder that looks like a roller coaster track. The cylinder bends up and down as I float along and look at it. But it's not moving. I have given him "Time" as a dimension of Depth. When I added Time to his dimension, to take him from 2D to 3D, I still don't get the impression of "Time" as we think of it. Just a long stretched out statue that, like the cylinder, goes back as far as I can see and forward as far as I can see, depth wise.

If that's hard to imagine then think about when a cartoon character runs through a wall and leaves a hole with his shape. Now imagine it's a very thick wall, such that the hole looks more like a long tunnel. A very, very long tunnel. Now fill this tunnel with cement and get rid of the wall. I now have a long cast, or sort of stretched out statue, in the shape of the cartoon character. If the cartoon guy was flapping his arms as he went through the wall, then imagine how this would affect the shape on the cast part of his arms. Now you may have some idea of how this flat guy looks to me, now that I have given him depth. It's not moving but I can see where the cylinder rises to his hands and falls to the floor, over and over, and realize he was bouncing this circle (ball) at that point in his life.

If I follow his shape all the way back to one end, I see him being born. If I go all the way to the other end, then I see him getting buried because he died of old age. So this 3D world has Time, at least as far as the flat guy is concerned, but to me the whole place has no motion. Nothing moves, it's all frozen still. Like it's all one solid piece of Geometry.

Does that example help you to see Time as Spatial Geometry?

You asked:
Just one more thing I wanted to add when David_Oblad discusses A and B theory is he just referring to what most people consider the A and B theory of time?
Another question which theory on time is correct?

No.. I labeled them as A,B,C to show there are 3 faces to what we call Time. And as I said, all three are True at the same Time (pardon the pun) and they do not conflict with each other. Also, (B) is the closest to what we think of as Time, because Time doesn't exist in (A) and is simply Spatial in (C).

Once again I remind you that I have no authority or credentials and the ideas given are my best deductions based on personal research.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[tj444]

Maybe I am mistaken but does quantum mechanics have an affect on which theory of time is correct and peristence of an individual?

I asked here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=610483

And the answer I got was that according to quantum mechanics is in support of presentism theory of time.

[tj444]

Can someone please answer my latest question.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi tj444,

I'll take a shot at answering your question.

To the best of my knowledge, most of Quantum Mechanics doesn't express itself with any consideration regarding time. There are also many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics including several String Theories.

I would like to believe the whole Universe ticks along on a common clock. If that were true then Presentism may make sense. But I rather doubt the Universe works that way. If I think of the Quantum Universe as a network of data flowing through logic circuits then it would be reasonable to believe that the paths of some data may be longer and shorter than some other place. So where does one find a common clock? How can one define "Now" for a whole Universe? If that were true and you waited one hour (some duration) and said "Now" again.. then that second "Now" will very likely not match any other "Now" in the Universe that waited exactly one hour because the definition of one hour will vary at different places.

From that.. all I can say is that "NOW" would be a local aspect based from an observers point of view. "Now" becomes meaningless unless the same number of "NOWS" always add up to the same "DURATION" everywhere in the Universe, which is very unlikely. In a Universe filled with clocks all running at different speeds, what can the term "Now" actually mean?

When you look at the night sky stars and say this is "NOW". This only means something to you personally, because the stars are all different distances from you and the light you see had left them many years, decades or centuries ago.

Drop a rock in a pond and say "Now". Next.. see how long it takes the (Now) wave to reach different shores. When a wave reaches a given shore, then they detect your "Now"... Then!

And a bit later on another shore.. "Now"
And a bit later on another shore.. "Now"
And a bit later on another shore.. "Now"
And a bit later on another shore.. "Now"
Which "NOW" was the correct one?

See what I mean by "Now" as being totally local? So how can "Now" be the same "Time" for the whole Universe?

We are so programmed with the concept of "Time" by our daily lives, that it has taken us since the beginning of human-kind to come to terms with the concept of what Time truly is. That basically.. it doesn't exist in the conventional sense.

Ok.. It's "Time" for me to go to bed right "Now". It that also true for you?..(lol)

Regards,
Dave :^)

[jchook]

If we extract ourselves from the flow to see the past, then the past exists.
If we allow ourselves to be swept along, then the past becomes the future.

The reality of things depends largely on the mode of observation, much like perspective can hide or show or change the significance and priority of things.

"Do you see well in the dark with the argos shining light, or notice the shadows cast upon the wall?"

[yadayada]

If we allow ourselves to be swept along, then the past becomes the future.

The future becomes the past?

[charon]

tj444

The past can exist but it exists in the past.

The past doesn't just exist in the past. Look at your computer. Someone designed it, a machine made it, it went to the shop and ended up on your desk. When you see that computer you're seeing the whole of its past in the present.

How can individual persist if only the present exists?

It's the same. You're the result of all your experience. That exists in the present and continues changing. Tomorrow you'll be the result of your experience today - which will then be the present.

[owleye]

It seems to me what you have in mind is to determine what we mean by the past (present and future) when we use those terms. These terms are, of course, referral terms, meaning that we are indicating their "existence" by referring to them. Something happened in the past intends that we are referring to that something as having occurred there (well, then). It's true that our memory of past events holds them in the present for us, but this isn't the reference that is intended by its use in the OP.

So, what to do with the "existence" of the past. Well, in my view, referring is a feature of language, one that intends to draw attention to some object by way of some common understanding we have of it. When we use the term 'moon' in accord with some sentence which directs us to the object (say "There's the moon.", with some pointing gesture), we assume the audience knows what it is that is being referred to, and, if not, it's a possible learning experience.

But, things can get complicated. I can make references indirectly, by way of a drawing that shows the same thing, or even descriptively using words in a manner I've used in the example, though it's important to recognize that my example isn't being used for that purpose. In any case, it isn't hard to imagine finding an example in every novel that draws on language to depict events in the world. But this indirectness also brings in a complication, one that allows us to refer to objects such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Their existence then involves whatever it is that is conjured up in our mind when we read or hear the word or see a drawing.

It is then only natural to question whether what we are referring to actually exists apart from what our mind conjures it up to be. Such is the question for objects referred to by terms intended to represent time in one way or another. But first, as we know, in English we make references to objects in the past using the past tense, just to make it clear that for facts about it, we would say they happened, or once were, or used to be, or could have been. This kind of language, then, implicates the "existence" of the past as of a different kind of existence than the present. Indeed, the existence of what once was refers to objects as existing in the same manner as the existence of objects in the present. But this makes an indirect reference, indirectly referring to something that would have existed in the present were we present at that time. And it is this indirectness which causes us to question whether the object it refers to (here the past) actually exists.

In relativity theory, time is a spatial dimension and such references to the time axis would imply that the past exists in the same way that we would say objects exist in the present even at some distance away from us. The reason this makes sense is that our construction of tense, which assumes simultaneity of the present among objects in space, is violated in the actual world where the speed of light is finite and the universe is so vast as to make the propagation of light small in comparison. Despite this, however, some use remains in cosmology for the language of the past. That is what is used to depict the universe from our local perspective. And within that context we can discuss the age of the universe and take the stars and galaxies and other objects to represent what we observe them to be in our present, but in fact represent what they used to be when they emitted the light we use to observe them.

So, what once was is no longer, but it might happen that somewhere else in the universe the happening of that event is present to them.

Much more needs to be said about the present (of which Williiam James has made prescient remarks), as well as the future, but the main point is that when referring to the past, present, and future, we use these terms because they have a special sort of 'existence' in our mind for them, one that is external to us in some sense, yet depends on certain factors in the actual world that can be safely ignored by whatever evolutionary forces that shaped us and our language characteristics. Which is to say they sufficiently represent what is actually true of the world in our local habitat. (I.e., only propositions that make use of the present tense refer to existing objects. Propositions that make use of the past tense refer to objects that once existed.)

(Note, I don't expect this post will be of much value to the OP, except possibly the significance of simultaneity and the advances made by relativity theory, but I felt the need to pursue it anyway.)

James

[charon]

owleye

I think I've got it. Are you saying that time exists in space (as opposed to being linear) - in fact it may be exactly the same as space - and events that we consider to be past may actually be taking place, from our view, elsewhere? In other words our past is those events' present?

It's a complex idea. I think it means that if we could travel in time, that is along a certain 'beam', shall we say, we'd arrive at the past as it was happening.

I'm also not sure this doesn't bring up the idea of time moving backwards which I've heard before.

Blimey, how to give yourself a headache :)