4 ms·
Time does not exist. It is an abstraction based on the movement of matter. We use time to compare the relative motions of things. Every instrument we use to "m
by GnarfGnarf 8y ago
Time does not exist. It is an abstraction based on the movement of matter. We use time to compare the relative motions of things.
Every instrument we use to "measure" time involves movement: pendulum, sandglass, rotation of Earth, translation of Earth around the Sun, vibration of atoms, etc.
- fela 8y agoDon't you need time to even define movement? Movement is a change of the position with respect to time. So without time you can't have movement. But obviously you are right that the two concepts are strictly related, that doesn't mean time doesn't "exist" (however you define "exist").
- idunnooo 8y agoForgive me for sounding rhetorical in this question, but I'm genuinely wondering.. Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" akin to saying "human thoughts don't exist"?
- mgamache 8y agoParadoxically, thought (human or not) is the only thing we might be certain exists. https://www.the-philosophy.com/solipsism-definition https://www.the-philosophy.com/solipsism-definition
- hansen 8y agoAll our accepted model of nature assume that in some sense time exists. But in general relativity it doesn’t make much sense to speak of a single event. In the same way it doesn’t make much sense to speak of a single point in the euclidean plane (you can only localize one point relative to another one). So some people (like Rovelli) think one should try to formulate relativity only in terms relations of events. This might be relevant in a more fundamental theory of spacetime but on a classical level it’s irrelevant. You can measure the geometry of spacetime in our solar system w/o disturbing it. The gravitational field of e.g. some satellite is negligible to the gravitational field of planets and the sun.
- fantispug 8y agoBy similar logic you could argue all physical units are abstractions, which I guess they are. They are very useful in creating a simple accurate predictive model of things we observe on many scales. What's the utility of a distinction between existence and abstraction?
- ekianjo 8y agoIf you know the distinction you dont ask yourself why the abstraction exists. Researching the nature of time is a waste of... time, I guess, because you should know time is an abstract concept, a proxy for something else.
- aroberge 8y agoWow ... Since you are so certain that time does not exist, why don't you write a paper showing the implications for quantizing gravity, and why the standard spacetime picture of both Special and General relativity is wrong?
- resource0x 8y agoThe most surprising fact is that the readings of all these instruments are in sync with each other! We take it for granted, and don't appreciate the mystery. It very well might be that the Universe forms a complex landscape with varying "laws", with the pockets where the notions of space and time become quite fuzzy and inconsistent; we might live in a rare oasis where the things more or less "make sense". Elsewhere, there might be no time at all. Popular books on physics never mention this possibility.
- auxbuss 8y agoBut "clocks" can only be in "sync" – i.e. record the same time between each "tick" – when they are in the same inertial frame – from special relativity. In addition, there is gravitational time dilation. Thus, the "reality" is that no two clocks are in sync. As Rovelli points out in "Reality Is Not What It Seems", with the precise clocks we have today, it's possible to measure this effect for a difference in altitude of a few centimetres.