Time cannot change if it only exists at now

Philosophy of Science
21

I am not a physicist; I am an old metaphysician. My system is a multi-categorical framework that perfectly explains the self-construction of Reality across the precise set of [Quanta-Matter-Life-Thought-Data] categories.

It works flawlessly, except for the transition from the Quanta to the Matter category. Because quantum theory and relativity are currently disjointed in standard physics, I have to articulate this boundary myself through insane discussions with an advanced AI (Gemini). :smiley:

Here is a baseline of established physics needed to start: there is no intrinsic time or space generated by quantum mechanics. Standard QM simply applies the external Newtonian (or Minkowskian) spacetime as a fixed background. (Some newer theories, like quantum gravity, are supposedly trying to construct time and space directly from quantum principles, but we are not there yet.)

The core conceptual engine of modern physics is the search for symmetry. When you establish a continuous symmetry, you get three things: a free variable (a parameter you can change without breaking the system), a force field (which manages the changing quantities when the free variable is altered), and a conserved quantity.

For example: the phase of the electron is a free variable. You can change it without destroying the electron or tearing the fabric of spacetime. This specific symmetry is called U(1) (the circle symmetry). The corresponding force field is the electromagnetic field (when you change the phase, virtual photons are exchanged between electrons to move them without breaking spacetime), and the conserved quantity is the electric charge.

Now, apply this to Time: Time is symmetric for physical laws. Time is the free variable t: you can change it (run the equations forward or backward), and the laws are not broken; they remain exactly the same. The strictly conserved quantity across any time translation is Energy.

But what is the “force field” of time? In my metaphysical hypothesis, this field is an underlying, virtual quantum causal exploration of both the future and the past. The past acts on the future, and the future retroactively acts backward on the past. This exploration is bound by an exponential decay, meaning this symetric past-future causality virtual exploration takes the shape of a Gaussian curve centered strictly on the Now. This entire temporal “draft” of probabilities continuously collapses into the exact present moment via decoherence.

I admit this is extreme physical speculation, but I thought it sounded remarkably close to your model of near-immediate future creation.

22

I have an argument for the necessity of time when there is a change. Now, you are asking whether there is a change in time if there is no physical change. I have a thread on time entitled “What is time?” in the archive. There, I introduced three types of time: subjective, objective, and psychological. To be honest, I have never understood whether there is a relation between subjective time and physical time, the time that appears in physical equations, which I believe is the fourth type of time. So, why did I say all these? Because we need to see which time we are talking about in the case of your magical box. The objective and psychological time are out of question here, so what is left are the physical and subjective time. The subjective time changes no matter whether there is a physical change or not. How about the physical time? I am unsure that physical time even exists at all if there is no physical change. I am even unsure that anything could exist at all if there is no change. My understanding of our universe is dynamical, in which everything is subject to constant creation and annihilation.

23

No, I am saying that time is needed when there is a change. What is circular in what I am saying?

I don’t understand what this means. Do you mind elaborating?

24

I am afraid to say that it seems you didn’t read my argument carefully. There, I discuss about the necessity of points in something to accommodate two physical states at least. Everything becomes simultaneous if time does not exist. You cannot have any change when things are simultaneous.

25

Do you mean that past causes future and vice versa?

Do you mind elaborating here?

26

I thought I gave you the examples for the two physical states of time measurement - the moment of apple drop, and landing of the apple on the ground.

On the 2nd example - the 1st point of the physical state was the moment of your birth. The 2nd physical state was your own perception on NOW.

There is nothing in the examples, which says they are simultaneous, or time does not exist.

The examples are saying that time is result of your perception.

27

It seems to be rather the case, that you are not reading my posts carefully.

28

Yes this the “draft” at quantum level: on the time symmetry there is a forward and backward causality as temporal quantum interference. This is allowed by quantum indeterminacy that exist also on the time/causality dimension. Because of the global thermal entropy the interference pattern collapse “on shelf” in real material reality. This is not from my head, it’s part of how it goes in quantum mechanic. Yes it’s quite confusing, maybe Gemini can explain this a little better.

29

Do you agree that we need two points of something to accommodate two physical states? Yes or no?

30

They are given out in the examples for you to consider. Have you seen them?

31

How fast “annihilation of now” and “future becoming now” are?

32

Sorry, It should say “reality manifested in science.”

33

Let me ask you again: I am asking whether the past time causes the future time and vice versa? Is time to you a substance?

34

I read your examples. They don’t demonstrate anything new to me. I am, however, asking you a simple question that you avoid answering.

35

The answers are in the examples given to you. You seem to be failing to notice them. Please tell me what part of the examples are unclear to you? I will try to explain, if you point them out.

36

The annihilation of now and the creation of the immediate future are simultaneous. The speed at which this operation is done must be extremely fast; otherwise, time wouldn’t seem continuous.

37

I am with you that both points must be real and that the immediate future must exist. But if both points have to be real for change to work, why would you then destroy one of them? Also, measuring the speed of annihilation already uses time, the same time you’re trying to explain.

38

Science is only about explaining the data using a theoretical framework. Philosophy is about reasoning in general, so science must respect philosophy if we accept that reality is reasonable. I already gave you the example of the cyclic universe that is theoretically fine but philosophically wrong, hence it is not acceptable.

39

Your examples just demonstrate two different scenarios. I am interested in the first example, the falling apple, since aging is a phenomenon rather than a set of events. So, back to the example of a falling apple: Do two states of the apple lie at the same point or different points?

40

Now must be annihilated constantly, so there is a forward motion of time; otherwise, the future points of time are created constantly, and there would be this set of events that all exist in time rather than only one event at now.

Let’s call the distance between now and the immediate future to be dt. The speed at which the operation is done is 1/dt. dt is extremely small, and it is a time interval rather than time.

1 Like