4 ms·

I think I'm a simpleton because I could never imagine time being it's own thing. I see time as simply the amount of change in reality we can perceptually sample

I think I'm a simpleton because I could never imagine time being it's own thing. I see time as simply the amount of change in reality we can perceptually sample. Much like how an object in motion will continue in it's motion until it meets resistance,reality in my opinion is in continuous motion that has yet to meet resistance. Time (imo)is our measure of this change divided by our ability to sample it(where this ability could be second,minute,etc...) Again,that's my opinion as a layman. I've always wondered why time was the focus, when I at least have been more curious about universal change. Why is everything in motion? and how is everything universally connected to where it changes at the same rate? Maybe there's already plenty of work on this and I'm being ignorant(apologies if so).

gowld 8y ago
Sounds good. Next, please define "change", and explain why or how "change" exists and is detectable by humans. That's what Rovelli is investigating/theorizing about.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Yes but they are investigating our relative perception of the change. It's like studying astronomy without considering the fact that the stars we perceive in the sky is just our perception of how they looked like in the past. We distinguish how things are now from what we can perceive by measuring light and EMR. Why can't we at least consider the possibility that our perception of change might be different from the actual nature and attributes of this change?
  - vermilingua 8y ago
    You don’t need to consider that what you see in the sky is “in the past”. The light that’s reaching us has been travelling at c, the universal speed limit. Since we cannot possibly have known about that information sooner, what we see in the sky is for all intents and purposes, “the present”. Additionally, the hidden variables of the change are exactly what they’re talking about when people ask the question “what is time?”.
- blueprint 8y ago
  Easy. Change is when equivalence of state information is broken. It is "detected" by everything around it. If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, it absolutely does happen, because it's in a forest.
pmoriarty 8y ago
"I see time as simply the amount of change in reality we can perceptually sample." So if there was no one to perceive the change, there'd be no time? Also, what is change?
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Change is modification of a physhical attribute for an object. Without someone to perceive there would be change but no time.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    "Change is modification of a physhical attribute for an object." This sounds like a circular definition because "modification" is a synonym for "change".
    - badrabbit 8y ago
      An object's property had a specific value. That value became different. Can we agree on that definition?
      - pmoriarty 8y ago
        "An object's property had a specific value. That value became different." How is something that's different different from something that's changed? It sounds like it's one and the same to me. Also, you used the word "became". That word has temporal connotations. So if you define change in terms of time, you can't then go on to define time in terms of change without it being another circular definition.
        badrabbit 8y ago
        I was defining time as the measurement of change. Change does not depend on measurement therefore there is no circular definition. For example, a star is different from star light. When I look at the sky through a telescope I don't see a star,I see star light. Same can be said for any object as well,we see light emanating from an object therefore vision is perception of an object as measured by our optics. Time is how me perceptually measure change. This distinguishment can potentially prove valuable much like how distinguishing perception of star light and the star itself is important(not so important for close objects but important at a grand scale.) Modification,change and other words used to describe when something becomes different do not imply human measurement. We can for example talk about a tree that fell in a forest with no human to measure that change. Did it happen? Yes. We can only say it didn't happen if we exclude all events beyond our perceptive ability from reality. In the same way,change does not depend on time but time is a measuremet of change.
andrepd 8y ago
Right, however relativity tells us that time is an actual, physical thing that can be affected by and affect matter.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  I am not informed well enough to answer you but can you point me in the right direction on anything that associates time being a physhical matter? How would relativity change if one looks at time as "perceived universal change'?
  - andrepd 8y ago
    I'm not sure what I would recommend as an introduction to relativity. If you're mathematically minded and have a lot of time on your hands, and actually want to learn the physics, a superb book is "Spacetime and Geometry" by Sean Carrol. As for a layman introduction, I'm not sure what to recommend. As succinctly as I can put it, in our current understanding spacetime is a 4-dimensional space whose curvature is related to the local energy-momentum content. In turn, the motion of particles in freefall is dictated by this curvature.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Two books on relativity that I found pretty accessible and enlightening were: Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time—and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything[1] - George Musser and What Is Relativity?: An Intuitive Introduction to Einstein's Ideas, and Why They Matter[2] - Jeffrey O. Bennett [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848266-spooky-action-at-a-distance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848266-spooky-action-a... [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17938849-what-is-relativity https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17938849-what-is-relativ...
- tigershark 8y ago
  What do you mean with “actual, physical thing”? Unless I missed some quite huge news I don’t know about any particle that “creates” time unlike Higgs boson that “creates” mass. Obviously the “creates” is a huge over-semplification.

gowld 8y ago

Sounds good. Next, please define "change", and explain why or how "change" exists and is detectable by humans. That's what Rovelli is investigating/theorizing about.

badrabbit 8y ago
Yes but they are investigating our relative perception of the change. It's like studying astronomy without considering the fact that the stars we perceive in the sky is just our perception of how they looked like in the past. We distinguish how things are now from what we can perceive by measuring light and EMR. Why can't we at least consider the possibility that our perception of change might be different from the actual nature and attributes of this change?
- vermilingua 8y ago
  You don’t need to consider that what you see in the sky is “in the past”. The light that’s reaching us has been travelling at c, the universal speed limit. Since we cannot possibly have known about that information sooner, what we see in the sky is for all intents and purposes, “the present”. Additionally, the hidden variables of the change are exactly what they’re talking about when people ask the question “what is time?”.
blueprint 8y ago
Easy. Change is when equivalence of state information is broken. It is "detected" by everything around it. If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, it absolutely does happen, because it's in a forest.

pmoriarty 8y ago

"I see time as simply the amount of change in reality we can perceptually sample." So if there was no one to perceive the change, there'd be no time? Also, what is change?

badrabbit 8y ago
Change is modification of a physhical attribute for an object. Without someone to perceive there would be change but no time.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "Change is modification of a physhical attribute for an object." This sounds like a circular definition because "modification" is a synonym for "change".
  - badrabbit 8y ago
    An object's property had a specific value. That value became different. Can we agree on that definition?
    - pmoriarty 8y ago
      "An object's property had a specific value. That value became different." How is something that's different different from something that's changed? It sounds like it's one and the same to me. Also, you used the word "became". That word has temporal connotations. So if you define change in terms of time, you can't then go on to define time in terms of change without it being another circular definition.
      - badrabbit 8y ago
        I was defining time as the measurement of change. Change does not depend on measurement therefore there is no circular definition. For example, a star is different from star light. When I look at the sky through a telescope I don't see a star,I see star light. Same can be said for any object as well,we see light emanating from an object therefore vision is perception of an object as measured by our optics. Time is how me perceptually measure change. This distinguishment can potentially prove valuable much like how distinguishing perception of star light and the star itself is important(not so important for close objects but important at a grand scale.) Modification,change and other words used to describe when something becomes different do not imply human measurement. We can for example talk about a tree that fell in a forest with no human to measure that change. Did it happen? Yes. We can only say it didn't happen if we exclude all events beyond our perceptive ability from reality. In the same way,change does not depend on time but time is a measuremet of change.

andrepd 8y ago

Right, however relativity tells us that time is an actual, physical thing that can be affected by and affect matter.

badrabbit 8y ago
I am not informed well enough to answer you but can you point me in the right direction on anything that associates time being a physhical matter? How would relativity change if one looks at time as "perceived universal change'?
- andrepd 8y ago
  I'm not sure what I would recommend as an introduction to relativity. If you're mathematically minded and have a lot of time on your hands, and actually want to learn the physics, a superb book is "Spacetime and Geometry" by Sean Carrol. As for a layman introduction, I'm not sure what to recommend. As succinctly as I can put it, in our current understanding spacetime is a 4-dimensional space whose curvature is related to the local energy-momentum content. In turn, the motion of particles in freefall is dictated by this curvature.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Two books on relativity that I found pretty accessible and enlightening were: Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time—and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything[1] - George Musser and What Is Relativity?: An Intuitive Introduction to Einstein's Ideas, and Why They Matter[2] - Jeffrey O. Bennett [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848266-spooky-action-at-a-distance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848266-spooky-action-a... [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17938849-what-is-relativity https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17938849-what-is-relativ...
tigershark 8y ago
What do you mean with “actual, physical thing”? Unless I missed some quite huge news I don’t know about any particle that “creates” time unlike Higgs boson that “creates” mass. Obviously the “creates” is a huge over-semplification.