6 ms·

I'm intrigued by McTaggart's theory that time is unreal. However, try as I may, I cannot understand A-series and B-series. I think that time does not exist, it

I'm intrigued by McTaggart's theory that time is unreal. However, try as I may, I cannot understand A-series and B-series. I think that time does not exist, it is merely an abstraction that measures the relative rate of movement of matter. Everything we use to "measure" time is based on the physical movement of matter: pendulum, hourglass, rotation of Earth, watch balance wheel, even electronic crystal vibrations. When we say that something took an hour, we mean that it elapsed while the Earth spun 15 degrees. Or traveled 0.041 degrees around the sun. The passage of time is simply the collective movement of all the matter in the Universe. We cannot travel back in time because entropy has scattered everything. The past is how matter was arranged before. The future is how it will be after.

Talanes 7y ago
Like a film reel. Time is just a collection of static states that from a certain perspective create the illusion of linearity.
djmips 7y ago
I came to this hypothesis on my own. I think it's a very good idea. You can think about existence in a very interesting manner once you embrace and understanding of time being emergent.
atombender 7y ago
Surely that's just redefining what time means. And the definition seems tautological to me; when you say "movement of matter", that implies a time dimension, since you cannot have movement without time. And the phrase "rate of movement" uses a word (rate) that is inherently about time (meters per second, for example).
- GnarfGnarf 7y ago
  Not really. The rate is movement-to-movement, not a ratio to units of time. So, "meters per second" can be restated as "meters per 0.00001157407 earth rotations" or meters per 15", where 15" is fifteen arc-seconds. Hours and minutes are just placeholders. 0.00001157407 = 1 / (24 hrs * 60 min. * 60 secs) 15" = 360° * 60' * 60" / (24 hrs * 60 min. * 60 secs)
  - atombender 7y ago
    Restating rate as relative to motion doesn't eliminate time, it just redefines it. If you have change, you have time. Sounds like you want to say that time is an emergent property of matter.

Talanes 7y ago

Like a film reel. Time is just a collection of static states that from a certain perspective create the illusion of linearity.

djmips 7y ago

I came to this hypothesis on my own. I think it's a very good idea. You can think about existence in a very interesting manner once you embrace and understanding of time being emergent.

atombender 7y ago

Surely that's just redefining what time means. And the definition seems tautological to me; when you say "movement of matter", that implies a time dimension, since you cannot have movement without time. And the phrase "rate of movement" uses a word (rate) that is inherently about time (meters per second, for example).

GnarfGnarf 7y ago
Not really. The rate is movement-to-movement, not a ratio to units of time. So, "meters per second" can be restated as "meters per 0.00001157407 earth rotations" or meters per 15", where 15" is fifteen arc-seconds. Hours and minutes are just placeholders. 0.00001157407 = 1 / (24 hrs * 60 min. * 60 secs) 15" = 360° * 60' * 60" / (24 hrs * 60 min. * 60 secs)
- atombender 7y ago
  Restating rate as relative to motion doesn't eliminate time, it just redefines it. If you have change, you have time. Sounds like you want to say that time is an emergent property of matter.