Time and causality

[IWantGod]

You don’t know what relativity? Gee. Watch some videos. Its a fascinating topic

No i do know what relatively is. I am asking you what “you” mean when you say the speed of light is effecting it. Effecting what exactly? Are you saying the speed of light is effecting the rate of change? What are you talking about when you speak of time? Because right now its just an empty word that you are claiming to have substance.

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean with that? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I mean exactly what I wrote. Time is a measure of motion and change in physical objects.

Of course, static locally in time.

Static locally within a moment of time? That doesn’t fit your definition, which requires a delta-t.

I didn’t say so. I said that static system could exist.

You provided a mathematical definition of a ‘static system’ (namely, that it is a system that admits of no change over a delta-t). You have not demonstrated that such a system might actually exist, however, which is why I’ve asked you to provide an example.

Yes. I didn’t give a perfect example. Think of stone for example.

Sigh.

Not much better. Over time, stones move. They become pebbles, and then sand. Stones are not static.

I think that matter is almost stable, doesn’t need a sustainer, but it decays. Time cannot have any cause at all.

You’re still missing the point, I’m afraid. Does the ‘meter’ or the ‘liter’ have a cause? Then why suggest that ‘time’ must?

What do you mean with God sustain creation (time too)?

His keeps it in existence. (Not in state or location; just in existence.)

Cause and effect cannot be at a timeless point.

So? That doesn’t prove your point.

What do you need the cause for if effect is already there.

In an instant of time, you have either cause or effect. The effect is not “already there” unless is it preceded by its cause.

You remember that? That is another way of looking at problem of timeless God.

It’s really not.

I differentiate between change (becoming different) and motion (speed for example).

Motion is “becoming different” – it’s the state of becoming in a different spatial position.

Speed, on the other hand, is merely a measure of the change in position in a given change of time.

Motion on the other hand does not exit.

You create conflicting definitions, and then attempt to use them as they suit you. Poor form.

If motion is merely “speed”, then how does it not exist? How is ‘speed’ a mental construct, without physical reality? If speed is a measure of change in position, then it cannot be a purely mental construct – unless you’re also claiming that spatial positions are merely mental constructs as well. :nope:

You have senses, sight for example, for experiencing matter. Time is different from matter. We don’t have any sense for time.

You’re just offering contradiction, not argumentation. If you’re right, then please disprove my examples or provide a counter-example.

Yes.

OK, then: if you’re claiming “time changes”, then please explain how it makes sense to say that the “temporal framework in which we live changes”. It doesn’t… our understanding of the “present moment” is what changes.

How about saying entity instead of variable?

Nope. That doesn’t get you out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into, either. If time is an entity in the physical universe, then it can be sensed… and you’ve already made the claim that we cannot sense it. Sorry… you can’t have it both ways!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There could be a cosmos without change. I think change is not an aspect of cosmos.

I still think that we don’t experience time but we experience motion, velocity for example. Our brain construct motion allowing us to move effectively in environment.

I guess you mean that you can imagine or conceive a “cosmos” which does not change. Also, I guess you want to add that in your imagination you put a continuously changing time somehow associated to that cosmos, as an “aspect” of it. But then, your changeless “cosmos” would be continuously changing in one of its “aspects”.

On the other hand, I wonder how can you conceive time if you have never experienced it. What is it that you really conceive?

Concerning the construction of motion by your brain, do you say that your brain itself is motionless and that it is not composed of moving particles? Do you say also that your movement within your environment (and not only the movement of the objects constituting your environment) is just a construction of your brain? Or perhaps you just want to mean that your moving brain makes a representation of the movement of the objects around you to allow your own effective movement within your environment?

 

[STT]

I mean exactly what I wrote. Time is a measure of motion and change in physical objects.

Then I don’t understand you.

Static locally within a moment of time? That doesn’t fit your definition, which requires a delta-t.

Yes, the definition of static is dS/dt=0.

You provided a mathematical definition of a ‘static system’ (namely, that it is a system that admits of no change over a delta-t). You have not demonstrated that such a system might actually exist, however, which is why I’ve asked you to provide an example.

You cannot find perfect static. There is quantum fluctuation even at zero degree Kelvin.

Sigh.

Not much better. Over time, stones move. They become pebbles, and then sand. Stones are not static.

We define static locally in time.

You’re still missing the point, I’m afraid. Does the ‘meter’ or the ‘liter’ have a cause? Then why suggest that ‘time’ must?

We are talking about dS and t which both changes.

His keeps it in existence. (Not in state or location; just in existence.)

Yes, that I understand. What I am claiming is that God cannot sustain time because now is in constant change.

So? That doesn’t prove your point.

It does. Cause, the act of sustaining, and effect, the existence of sustentation, cannot lie at a timeless point. The act of sustaining is dynamic since time changes.

In an instant of time, you have either cause or effect. The effect is not “already there” unless is it preceded by its cause.

Yes, preced, that the problem.

Motion is “becoming different” – it’s the state of becoming in a different spatial position.

I used the dictionary to define change.

Speed, on the other hand, is merely a measure of the change in position in a given change of time.

Yes. I call that dynamic.

You create conflicting definitions, and then attempt to use them as they suit you. Poor form.

Lets, use your vocabulary. Does speed ontologically exist?

If motion is merely “speed”, then how does it not exist? How is ‘speed’ a mental construct, without physical reality? If speed is a measure of change in position, then it cannot be a purely mental construct – unless you’re also claiming that spatial positions are merely mental constructs as well. :nope:

Our brain creates speed. That is matter which creates conscious state (experiencing speed) or is in conscious state. Which one do you pick?

You’re just offering contradiction, not argumentation. If you’re right, then please disprove my examples or provide a counter-example.

Where is your example of experiencing the time. We just experience stuff we perceive. We cannot perceive time.

OK, then: if you’re claiming “time changes”, then please explain how it makes sense to say that the “temporal framework in which we live changes”. It doesn’t… our understanding of the “present moment” is what changes.

You called it temporal framework not static framework.

Nope. That doesn’t get you out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into, either. If time is an entity in the physical universe, then it can be sensed… and you’ve already made the claim that we cannot sense it. Sorry… you can’t have it both ways!

That seems the right choice given the definition of entity (using dictionary): a thing with distinct and independent existence.

 

[STT]

I guess you mean that you can imagine or conceive a “cosmos” which does not change. Also, I guess you want to add that in your imagination you put a continuously changing time somehow associated to that cosmos, as an “aspect” of it.

Yes. They are logical possibilities. You could also have it timeless.

But then, your changeless “cosmos” would be continuously changing in one of its “aspects”.

Yes, other aspects (except time) are constant.

On the other hand, I wonder how can you conceive time if you have never experienced it. What is it that you really conceive?

I can deduce it. There would be no dynamical theory without time. Laws of nature are time dependent. The form of the stuff, matter, is time dependent.

Concerning the construction of motion by your brain, do you say that your brain itself is motionless and that it is not composed of moving particles?

No, I am not saying that brain is motionless, in fact the motion we experience constantly interact with itself. We can also affect the experience when we decide.

Do you say also that your movement within your environment (and not only the movement of the objects constituting your environment) is just a construction of your brain?

Yes, reality, things in smaller scale, does change very faster. The picture of the reality, speed included, we experience is construct of our brain.

Or perhaps you just want to mean that your moving brain makes a representation of the movement of the objects around you to allow your own effective movement within your environment?

I mean that.

 

[thinkandmull]

No i do know what relatively is. I am asking you what “you” mean when you say the speed of light is effecting it. Effecting what exactly? Are you saying the speed of light is effecting the rate of change? What are you talking about when you speak of time? Because right now its just an empty word that you are claiming to have substance.

You said it right in your post. If the speed of light changes the rate of time itself than time is not essence-less like Aristotle thought. Even without modern physics, Aristotle didn’t have a good argument that proved that time wasn’t a thing

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes. They are logical possibilities. You could also have it timeless.

Yes, other aspects (except time) are constant.

I can deduce it. There would be no dynamical theory without time. Laws of nature are time dependent. The form of the stuff, matter, is time dependent.

No, I am not saying that brain is motionless, in fact the motion we experience constantly interact with itself. We can also affect the experience when we decide.

Yes, reality, things in smaller scale, does change very faster. The picture of the reality, speed included, we experience is construct of our brain.

I mean that.

STT, I would like to advice you to take your time to read complete my very short messages before you answer them. Your answers seem very confusing as you seem to contradict yourself from one assertion to the very next. It is because you answer part by part as you read, without trying to understand the whole thing. I have seen people that constantly interrupt others to respond to them without taking care of listening their full arguments. That happens during verbal discussions, but in written discussions… it seems to me quite… abnormal…

When you say “the picture of the reality”, are you distinguishing between the picture (I assume you mean “the representation”) and the reality, or you want to mean that there is nothing else besides “representation”?

A theory is a representation of reality, and when we are studying change in Physics, for instance, we take one of the changes that we observe in nature as a reference to measure any other change. Gorgias and others here have been trying to make you understand this fact. I realize how hard it has been to make you understand it (and it certainly has not been their fault). There is nothing particularly strange with this: if you want to measure a length, you simply take an object of an arbitrary length as a reference and you use it to measure (compare with) any other length. Same thing with any change of any kind: you compare it with another that has been given to you as a reference, and such act of measuring is what we call time.

What we call laws of nature are just ideal representations of reality and, as we go on on our researches, those representations are modified or replaced with others which are considered better.

If you study, for example, momentum transfer in fluids, it is true that you want to model the changes that happen to the moving fluid while other objects remain relatively without change, and for that you usually use the symbol “t” in the fundamental models. Now, when you go to the lab to make an experiment, and you want to test your models, you will use a chronometer or a similar device in relation to that “t”. For anyone with some experience on this things and a small reflection ability it is obvious that all which is necessary for the test belongs to the realm of what can be experienced. There is no mysterious inaccessible (but which someone could “deduce”) “time” that serves as the foundation of the model nor of the experiments in the lab. There is only the physical phenomena, object of your study, the chronometer and you.

Now, my dog needs some food…

 

[STT]

STT, I would like to advice you to take your time to read complete my very short messages before you answer them. Your answers seem very confusing as you seem to contradict yourself from one assertion to the very next. It is because you answer part by part as you read, without trying to understand the whole thing. I have seen people that constantly interrupt others to respond to them without taking care of listening their full arguments. That happens during verbal discussions, but in written discussions… it seems to me quite… abnormal…

Please feel free to bring my mistakes into the discussion. Otherwise I and other couldn’t understand and mislead.

When you say “the picture of the reality”, are you distinguishing between the picture (I assume you mean “the representation”) and the reality, or you want to mean that there is nothing else besides “representation”?

Could you please illustrate? I am lost. I search the thread and couldn’t find any phrase like “the picture of reality”

A theory is a representation of reality, and when we are studying change in Physics, for instance, we take one of the changes that we observe in nature as a reference to measure any other change. Gorgias and others here have been trying to make you understand this fact. I realize how hard it has been to make you understand it (and it certainly has not been their fault). There is nothing particularly strange with this: if you want to measure a length, you simply take an object of an arbitrary length as a reference and you use it to measure (compare with) any other length. Same thing with any change of any kind: you compare it with another that has been given to you as a reference, and such act of measuring is what we call time.

We are built a device to experience space-time continuum, gravitational wave.

What we call laws of nature are just ideal representations of reality and, as we go on on our researches, those representations are modified or replaced with others which are considered better.

So you believe that there is no underlying reality (what we see, so called metaphysics)?

If you study, for example, momentum transfer in fluids, it is true that you want to model the changes that happen to the moving fluid while other objects remain relatively without change, and for that you usually use the symbol “t” in the fundamental models. Now, when you go to the lab to make an experiment, and you want to test your models, you will use a chronometer or a similar device in relation to that “t”. For anyone with some experience on this things and a small reflection ability it is obvious that all which is necessary for the test belongs to the realm of what can be experienced. There is no mysterious inaccessible (but which someone could “deduce”) “time” that serves as the foundation of the model nor of the experiments in the lab. There is only the physical phenomena, object of your study, the chronometer and you.

Yes, time doesn’t exist in the reality that we experience. I agree that we need dS/dt=F(S), laws of nature.

 

[IWantGod]

You said it right in your post. If the speed of light changes the rate of time itself than time is not essence-less like Aristotle thought. Even without modern physics, Aristotle didn’t have a good argument that proved that time wasn’t a thing

The rate of time? What is that? Are you now saying that time refers to change, like the expansion of space.

 

[Gorgias]

Then I don’t understand you.

Hmm. That’s a pretty standard definition of time, according to Aristotelian philosophical thought. What is it about the definition that you’re having problems with?

You cannot find perfect static. There is quantum fluctuation even at zero degree Kelvin.

OK; great. That helps a lot!

In other words, there is no such thing as a static universe. Perfect! We can dispose of your objections, then – the universe is dynamic, experiencing change and motion.

We define static locally in time.

Unfortunately, if you have anything more than a single instant, you have change. Therefore, there is no such thing as ‘static’ in terms of physical entities. At best, you might claim the appearance of a static system, but that’s only another way of saying that, if you ignore certain realities, you can pretend it’s static.

Yes, that I understand. What I am claiming is that God cannot sustain time because now is in constant change.

You’re going to have to define things more thoroughly; I suspect that it’s the hand-waving you’re doing that is confusing you. “Now” is not in change, per se – it’s a moment in time. The definition of which moment in time is “now” changes from moment to moment. However, the moments exist (to God’s view) eternally.

It does. Cause, the act of sustaining, and effect, the existence of sustentation, cannot lie at a timeless point. The act of sustaining is dynamic since time changes.

It really doesn’t. Neither ‘cause’ nor ‘effect’ are “timeless”, as you claim. Or, is your problem that “cause” and “effect” can both be localized to a particular set of instants? Like I said earlier: you might want to read up on Aristotle’s Physics – he deals with these problems.

The act of sustaining happens outside of time. Therefore, any ‘change’ in the physical universe does not affect God or His ability to sustain creation.

Yes, preced, that the problem.

Are you claiming that, within the context of the temporal framework, effects precede their causes? If so, you’re going to need to substantiate that claim.

Or, are you still hung up on God’s ability to see both causes and effects simultaneously? If so, that’s not a problem either. In this context, it’s not that He sees an effect ‘before’ its cause: it’s that He sees both from outside the context of the temporal framework. That does not create paradox or any kind of problem.

I used the dictionary to define change.

Using common dictionary definitions in the context of philosophical discussions is not a good approach.

Lets, use your vocabulary. Does speed ontologically exist?

Speed, as in ds/dt? Things that move exist. Time exists. A measure of things that exist, itself exists (i.e., the notion of “25 MPH” exists as a notion). Are you asking whether ‘speed’ has being?

Our brain creates speed.

‘Speed’ is a measure of change of distance over an amount of time. Our brain doesn’t create it.

That is matter which creates conscious state (experiencing speed) or is in conscious state. Which one do you pick?

The ‘experience of speed’ is different from ‘speed’. Neither of these, per se, is ‘matter’. Nor is speed ‘conscious’. Is this what you’re asking?

Where is your example of experiencing the time. We just experience stuff we perceive. We cannot perceive time.

Two posts before, if memory serves. It was the one in which I demonstrated that our senses perceive change.

STT:

Gorgias:

Nope. That doesn’t get you out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into, either. If time is an entity in the physical universe, then it can be sensed… and you’ve already made the claim that we cannot sense it. Sorry… you can’t have it both ways!

That seems the right choice given the definition of entity (using dictionary): a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Does ‘time’ have independent existence, though? It’s a measure, not a being.

 

[STT]

Hmm. That’s a pretty standard definition of time, according to Aristotelian philosophical thought. What is it about the definition that you’re having problems with?

I don’t understand what “measure of change” means.

OK; great. That helps a lot!

In other words, there is no such thing as a static universe. Perfect! We can dispose of your objections, then – the universe is dynamic, experiencing change and motion.

Yes. That is because the laws of nature allows fluctuation.

Unfortunately, if you have anything more than a single instant, you have change. Therefore, there is no such thing as ‘static’ in terms of physical entities. At best, you might claim the appearance of a static system, but that’s only another way of saying that, if you ignore certain realities, you can pretend it’s static.

Laws of nature could be different, no fluctuation.

You’re going to have to define things more thoroughly; I suspect that it’s the hand-waving you’re doing that is confusing you. “Now” is not in change, per se – it’s a moment in time. The definition of which moment in time is “now” changes from moment to moment. However, the moments exist (to God’s view) eternally.

Past and future does not exist in time. Therefore we are left with now.

It really doesn’t. Neither ‘cause’ nor ‘effect’ are “timeless”, as you claim. Or, is your problem that “cause” and “effect” can both be localized to a particular set of instants? Like I said earlier: you might want to read up on Aristotle’s Physics – he deals with these problems.

And how does he answer to this problem: If effect, the creation, is there then what the use of cause, the act of creation.

The act of sustaining happens outside of time. Therefore, any ‘change’ in the physical universe does not affect God or His ability to sustain creation.

The act of sustaining time is dynamic. God is timeless. Therefore He cannot sustain now (the moment that we experience things).

Are you claiming that, within the context of the temporal framework, effects precede their causes? If so, you’re going to need to substantiate that claim.

Or, are you still hung up on God’s ability to see both causes and effects simultaneously? If so, that’s not a problem either. In this context, it’s not that He sees an effect ‘before’ its cause: it’s that He sees both from outside the context of the temporal framework. That does not create paradox or any kind of problem.

No. I know that the opposite is true. You cannot even verbally explain causality without using precede or follow. That is what I meant. Time is necessary for causality.

Using common dictionary definitions in the context of philosophical discussions is not a good approach.

What is your definition of dynamic and change? I am claiming that change or dynamic are not things. They don’t ontologically exist. They are construct of our mind.

Speed, as in ds/dt? Things that move exist. Time exists. A measure of things that exist, itself exists (i.e., the notion of “25 MPH” exists as a notion). Are you asking whether ‘speed’ has being?

Speed does not exist. It is just a mental construct, so its notion also a mental construct.

‘Speed’ is a measure of change of distance over an amount of time. Our brain doesn’t create it.
/QUOTE]

Our brains create speed. According to general relativity space and time are real, we observed gravitational wave. Distance and time elapsed are things that we measure. We then define speed, what we experience. We don’t have any instrument for speed. Do we?
Gorgias;14829790:

The ‘experience of speed’ is different from ‘speed’. Neither of these, per se, is ‘matter’. Nor is speed ‘conscious’. Is this what you’re asking?

I said that speed does not exist.

Two posts before, if memory serves. It was the one in which I demonstrated that our senses perceive change.

How do you define change?

Does ‘time’ have independent existence, though? It’s a measure

, not a being.

Yes, time and space are both real, the existence of gravitational wave was confirmed by an instrument.

 

[thinkandmull]

The rate of time? What is that? Are you now saying that time refers to change, like the expansion of space.

The rate of time changes because of the speed of an object. So change changes time and time is not merely a measure like Aristotle thought

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The rate of time changes because of the speed of an object. So change changes time and time is not merely a measure like Aristotle thought

I have ten objects in front of me, and each one of them is moving at a different speed. Which one of them determines “the rate of time”?

 

[thinkandmull]

Time is relative to the speed. It is constant when the speed is in a certain range. But time changes so its not just a constant measure

 

[thinkandmull]

Aristotle was also wrong about instants of time. There are such just as there are points in space. The “potential infinity” argument is lame. Is it potentially two minutes of 120 seconds? The process goes on to infinity

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Time is relative to the speed. It is constant when the speed is in a certain range. But time changes so its not just a constant measure

Well, right now there is light moving at its speed in front of me. Matter is constituted by particles some of which are moving at remarkably high speeds. And, at the same time, there are bodies which are moving relatively slowly and many more which are in repose in relation to me. Which of them determines “the rate of time”?

 

[thinkandmull]

The speed of light, according to modern physics

 

[thinkandmull]

Do you agree that Aristotle was wrong if relativity is true?

 

[thinkandmull]

I wonder if STT was thinking of this theory when he was on this thread: youtube.com/watch?v=MO_Q_f1WgQI

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The speed of light, according to modern physics

I guess you mean the speed of light in the vacuum. If the speed of light determines “the rate of time” and any other speed does not, and being the speed of light a constant, then “the rate of time” would be a constant as well. Therefore, any experiment based on the variation of speed would not affect it. As a consequence, the statement “the speed of light determines the rate of time” would have no experimental basis and it would be more reasonable to say simply that “the rate of time” is a constant (but which constant would it be?).

But I think that what you really wanted to mean was that processes become slower at speeds close to the speed of light. For example, the rate of a chemical reaction (or process, or change, whatever you want to call it), would decrease as the speed of the reaction system increases.