Time is real because otherwise we could not define motion, speed for example. It matters that how much does it take to reach from a point to another point. We can experience distance and speed directly. Time is the key element that allows to us to define the motion of system. It is elementary variable of reality, you cannot have a theory without it. It changes because it is an variable. We cannot however directly experience it.
I was not really thinking about whether the reality is a set of discrete or continuous event/s. I think that doesn’t really affect what I am saying here. We however know that time and space are discrete, the intervals are related to the Plank constant.
Space as well? I guess it has been discovered that there are big spaces where there is no space, such that though they are very big, those spaces where there is space are so close together that space looks as if it were continuous… right?
You could have static theory where you don’t need time as a variable. Time however is needed for any dynamical theory. The purpose of any dynamical theory is that it takes the initial state of a system and tells you what would the state of the system later. You need time for any dynamical theory then. Time should vary because it is like a label which allows you to distinguish different states of a system orderly.
Time is a weird entity. It is not a thing that we can experience it directly. It doesn’t have any form but we could deduce that it exists. We know that it changes but how a entity which does not have form could change? That is what you are asking and I cannot answer it in direct way. It looks self contradictory at starting, something which doesn’t have a form but it can change, but time to my understanding is the fundamental hidden variable of reality.
We don’t experience it but it is real. We couldn’t simply have any dynamical theory without it. That means that it is a part of reality. It should change otherwise we couldn’t have any motion.
No I am not saying that (bold part). I am arguing that time changes but this change is not the result of a cause or moving from a potentiality into actuality.
I show that the assumption, time has a cause, leads to contradiction. I don’t understand what you are saying here (bold part).
Time is number of motion with respect to before and after, and it is continuous. (See Book IV of Aristotle’s “Physics”), so this is the formal cause. The material cause of time, then, is motion itself. The efficient cause would be the First Mover and the final cause being a kind of completion of the things in motion.
Something which is continuous cannot be numbered. I don’ understand your definition either. The number of motion in what? Time is global hidden variable which dictates that things move accordingly.
I don’t think so. I already argue that the change in time cannot have any cause. Moreover, motion, speed for example, is defined in term of time.
That is not really good reference. Look for example “But neither does time exist without change; for when the state of our own minds does not change at all, or we have not noticed its changing, we do not realize that time has elapse”. Time of course changes independent of our psychological states. Moreover, we cannot experience time. We experience motion and distances.
Sorry pal the jigs up. Time is change.That is not really good reference. Look for example “But neither does time exist without change; for when the state of our own minds does not change at all, or we have not noticed its changing, we do not realize that time has elapse”. Time of course changes independent of our psychological states. Moreover, we cannot experience time. We experience motion and distances.
What is your definition if time? Do you have problem with my definition?
I am really open to discussion.
And what is change? Motion, speed for example. Speed on the another hand depends on traveled distance and the time elapsed. Replace time with change and you get a contradiction.