5 ms·

Time doesn't exist therefore you can't travel in it.

by madmaniak 8y ago

vermilingua 8y ago
[citation needed]
- hellofunk 8y ago
  I agree that a citation is useful, but I know that I've seen articles about how the variable for time cancels itself out in many important physics derivations, suggesting that time is at least not an important factor in the reality of the universe, and thus possibly does not exist.
  - sidusknight 8y ago
    You could say the exact same thing for eg. mass.
- madmaniak 8y ago
  Citation would be needed for a time proof. I don't know about such.
- madmaniak 8y ago
  Also it's really weird to ask for citation for a simple implication. Science is based on proofs, not on quotations.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mindcrime 8y ago
  >> Time doesn't exist therefore you can't travel in it > [citation needed] What do we want? Citations! When do we want them? It doesn't matter!
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago
  I heard there are various models of time. It doesn't look easily searchable though.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    I wonder if there is one in which time does not exist...
madmaniak 8y ago
Somehow I get down voted for sharing this simple thought. As we participate the same reality you need to admit time travelling is a must have of a pop science magazines. But this sentence makes it all nonsense - as there's no proof for time existing. Time is a useful abstraction for calculating physical models, making forecasts. As we have other useful abstractions in math or programming - it doesn't make them existing in real world. So to disagree it's enough to proof time existence or link to such proof.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >But this sentence makes it all nonsense - as there's no proof for time existing. First, if we're realists/utilitarian/pragmatists we don't need some fancy proof for time existing. We can see that the material world changes and we call that time. We even measure that passage with clocks. We even know (and have proven experimentally) that things going faster slow down clocks on them. So, whether time "really exists" or not is a meaningless question when we're concerned with time as we experience and know it. It's like someone shooting a bullet at you, and you are asking "yes, but does this bullet _really_ exist?". Well, it might not (e.g. we might all live in a simulation, or the nature of physical objects might be just some probability distribution of information, and not "exist" in the plain sense we understand it), but in this life as we know it, a bullet hitting you will still have the consequences we know and expect. Second, time exists in Relativity equations, so there's that. >Time is a useful abstraction for calculating physical models, making forecasts. As we have other useful abstractions in math or programming - it doesn't make them existing in real world. Doesn't matter. It's enough that we can measure it, we don't care for the "thing in itself" or if it's merely some illusion. We live in a universe where whether it's an illusion or not, it has the same effects for us (e.g. we grow old, things change state, our clock dials rotate).
  - madmaniak 8y ago
    I'm glad you've bothered to answer. I don't need a fancy proof either - any proof would be enough. What we both can agree is that things or processes are happening. They don't need time for that. Constant change, constant mutation doesn't require past or future, but now only. But as I said, we - intelligent species - need a concept of time to predict how the change will proceed. What we measure in clocks depends on a clock - a sand falling down in a sand glass, a pendulum or a spring cycle and so on. After this we make a relation from this event and start to measure other events with it. Still it's just things happening, not a prove of a time existence. If you say that you experience time. Well. That's how neural network works - they are shaped by events/impulses which happened to the network and accessing this information gives you illusion of a past - but this information encoded in your brain exists now. > Doesn't matter. It's enough that we can measure it, we don't care for the "thing in itself" or if it's merely some illusion. We live in a universe where whether it's an illusion or not, it has the same effects for us (e.g. we grow old, things change state, our clock dials rotate). So we agree in a part that things change state and this is enough to imply growing old and rotating clocks. I don't agree it doesn't matter - as if the time doesn't exist, we don't need to have a pointless discussion about "travelling in time".
Koshkin 8y ago
Not by itself, but it's part of the space-time continuum (through which you can travel).
- madmaniak 8y ago
  You confuse Einstein model of physics which is powerful and help us count and build things with what actually the reality is. We use many different models in math or programming without believing they are reality.
RichardCA 8y ago
You're making the assertion that it's impossible to say anything about time that's empirical, that isn't upon deeper examination a statement about human consciousness. Yes that's a valid point and well-taken. But there is a big difference between "impossible" and "just really really hard". And that's where modern physics is right now. And if we were able to get a better handle on the hard problem of consciousness, the riddle of "what is time" might also yield. So it's back to the metaphysical debate about whether the strict materialists are the ones who are "right" in all of this. Matter goes through "events" that have cause and effect relationships, but can effect ever precede cause? I don't see how you can empirically claim to have sufficient knowledge to answer that question. But that's just me, I'm sure you see it differently.

Time doesn't exist therefore you can't travel in it.

vermilingua 8y ago

[citation needed]

hellofunk 8y ago
I agree that a citation is useful, but I know that I've seen articles about how the variable for time cancels itself out in many important physics derivations, suggesting that time is at least not an important factor in the reality of the universe, and thus possibly does not exist.
- sidusknight 8y ago
  You could say the exact same thing for eg. mass.
madmaniak 8y ago
Citation would be needed for a time proof. I don't know about such.
madmaniak 8y ago
Also it's really weird to ask for citation for a simple implication. Science is based on proofs, not on quotations.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mindcrime 8y ago
>> Time doesn't exist therefore you can't travel in it > [citation needed] What do we want? Citations! When do we want them? It doesn't matter!
GoblinSlayer 8y ago
I heard there are various models of time. It doesn't look easily searchable though.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  I wonder if there is one in which time does not exist...

madmaniak 8y ago

Somehow I get down voted for sharing this simple thought. As we participate the same reality you need to admit time travelling is a must have of a pop science magazines. But this sentence makes it all nonsense - as there's no proof for time existing. Time is a useful abstraction for calculating physical models, making forecasts. As we have other useful abstractions in math or programming - it doesn't make them existing in real world. So to disagree it's enough to proof time existence or link to such proof.

coldtea 8y ago
>But this sentence makes it all nonsense - as there's no proof for time existing. First, if we're realists/utilitarian/pragmatists we don't need some fancy proof for time existing. We can see that the material world changes and we call that time. We even measure that passage with clocks. We even know (and have proven experimentally) that things going faster slow down clocks on them. So, whether time "really exists" or not is a meaningless question when we're concerned with time as we experience and know it. It's like someone shooting a bullet at you, and you are asking "yes, but does this bullet _really_ exist?". Well, it might not (e.g. we might all live in a simulation, or the nature of physical objects might be just some probability distribution of information, and not "exist" in the plain sense we understand it), but in this life as we know it, a bullet hitting you will still have the consequences we know and expect. Second, time exists in Relativity equations, so there's that. >Time is a useful abstraction for calculating physical models, making forecasts. As we have other useful abstractions in math or programming - it doesn't make them existing in real world. Doesn't matter. It's enough that we can measure it, we don't care for the "thing in itself" or if it's merely some illusion. We live in a universe where whether it's an illusion or not, it has the same effects for us (e.g. we grow old, things change state, our clock dials rotate).
- madmaniak 8y ago
  I'm glad you've bothered to answer. I don't need a fancy proof either - any proof would be enough. What we both can agree is that things or processes are happening. They don't need time for that. Constant change, constant mutation doesn't require past or future, but now only. But as I said, we - intelligent species - need a concept of time to predict how the change will proceed. What we measure in clocks depends on a clock - a sand falling down in a sand glass, a pendulum or a spring cycle and so on. After this we make a relation from this event and start to measure other events with it. Still it's just things happening, not a prove of a time existence. If you say that you experience time. Well. That's how neural network works - they are shaped by events/impulses which happened to the network and accessing this information gives you illusion of a past - but this information encoded in your brain exists now. > Doesn't matter. It's enough that we can measure it, we don't care for the "thing in itself" or if it's merely some illusion. We live in a universe where whether it's an illusion or not, it has the same effects for us (e.g. we grow old, things change state, our clock dials rotate). So we agree in a part that things change state and this is enough to imply growing old and rotating clocks. I don't agree it doesn't matter - as if the time doesn't exist, we don't need to have a pointless discussion about "travelling in time".

Koshkin 8y ago

Not by itself, but it's part of the space-time continuum (through which you can travel).

madmaniak 8y ago
You confuse Einstein model of physics which is powerful and help us count and build things with what actually the reality is. We use many different models in math or programming without believing they are reality.

RichardCA 8y ago

You're making the assertion that it's impossible to say anything about time that's empirical, that isn't upon deeper examination a statement about human consciousness. Yes that's a valid point and well-taken. But there is a big difference between "impossible" and "just really really hard". And that's where modern physics is right now. And if we were able to get a better handle on the hard problem of consciousness, the riddle of "what is time" might also yield. So it's back to the metaphysical debate about whether the strict materialists are the ones who are "right" in all of this. Matter goes through "events" that have cause and effect relationships, but can effect ever precede cause? I don't see how you can empirically claim to have sufficient knowledge to answer that question. But that's just me, I'm sure you see it differently.