4 ms·

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M I myself lean to the Aristotelian definition: count o

by zvrba 8y ago

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M I myself lean to the Aristotelian definition: count of change. After all, all our clocks are built on this definition. If there were a lone particle traveling in an infinite universe, it'd be nonsensical to talk about its speed because there'd be nothing to relate the distance traveled to (and no observer). Indeed, whenever we talk about "time" and related quantities like "speed", we always compare the observed object to some other, existing reference. So I think of the interaction of particles/matter as being something fundamental, whereas "time" is a synthetic human notion.

hliyan 8y ago
I too subscribe to the idea of time as change, i.e. if all motion stops -- including the motion of subatomic particles -- it is the same as time stopping.
checkyoursudo 8y ago
You have your one immutable[0] particle that is left at the tail end of the heat death of the universe. It's not going anywhere, because there is nowhere to go. It's not doing anything because there's nothing to do. It is a lone observer, with nothing to observe. Except! There would still be virtual particles creating and annihilating. Let's assume that there is an interval between these events (e.g., they aren't constantly present). Would Aristotle say that no time passes between events? I would tend to say that time yet passes even during the periods when nothing else exists and nothing is happening. Let's say the second to last things in the universe were another observer with a clock who could time and observe these virtual particle events, and this observer was able to time these events at a 1 second interval between events (duration of event is irrelevant). And then that second-to-last observer and the clock suddenly annihilate somehow so that only your immutable particle remains. And the virtual particle events still happen at the same interval period. Would the time interval between virtual particle events somehow be different without the clock/observer as with the sole immutable particle? That doesn't make sense to me, though I will certainly admit that it could very well be! Aristotle's idea of time is not fully satisfactory to me, though I can't of course rule it out. [0] Important! Because if the particle is not immutable, then it is waiting for change, which requires time.

by zvrba 8y ago

hliyan 8y ago

I too subscribe to the idea of time as change, i.e. if all motion stops -- including the motion of subatomic particles -- it is the same as time stopping.

checkyoursudo 8y ago

You have your one immutable[0] particle that is left at the tail end of the heat death of the universe. It's not going anywhere, because there is nowhere to go. It's not doing anything because there's nothing to do. It is a lone observer, with nothing to observe. Except! There would still be virtual particles creating and annihilating. Let's assume that there is an interval between these events (e.g., they aren't constantly present). Would Aristotle say that no time passes between events? I would tend to say that time yet passes even during the periods when nothing else exists and nothing is happening. Let's say the second to last things in the universe were another observer with a clock who could time and observe these virtual particle events, and this observer was able to time these events at a 1 second interval between events (duration of event is irrelevant). And then that second-to-last observer and the clock suddenly annihilate somehow so that only your immutable particle remains. And the virtual particle events still happen at the same interval period. Would the time interval between virtual particle events somehow be different without the clock/observer as with the sole immutable particle? That doesn't make sense to me, though I will certainly admit that it could very well be! Aristotle's idea of time is not fully satisfactory to me, though I can't of course rule it out. [0] Important! Because if the particle is not immutable, then it is waiting for change, which requires time.