Time cannot change if it only exists at now

[Athi]

@MoK

infinite regress.

I do not understand . Someone please explain it to my narrow mind .

[Corvus]

@noAxioms

Both proper and coordinate time are regularly referenced by ‘t’ in physics equations, but phenomenal time (what you and Kant and perhaps Mok is using) does not appear in those equations at all.

Proper and coordinate time referenced by “t” is not time itself. It is like drawing an imaginary triangle on a piece of land in your mind, and saying the earth is in the shape of triangle. t(rigangle)= the earth

Time must be defined under the empirical basis - i.e. what we can observe and see in the real world.

You could claim time is physical existence in physics terms, but you must understand physics is the most idealised subject in history. When even they are saying something is physical, they actually mean is, what they imagine in their head sitting in the classroom or labs, not the objects they actually see, touch, hear and feel in the world of daily life.

[MoK]

@noAxioms

So if I nail together some wood into a dog house and then put that in deep space, the dog house would fall apart due to lack of friction holding the nails in?
Meanwhile, one can walk in that deep space, given an accelerating force (of your rocket say, or a spinning wheel), all without gravity. So wrong twice. You really need to think before making all these assertions that have trivial counterexamples.

I am talking about the friction that is required for walking.

@noAxioms

With that I will agree. I still don’t know these 4 definitions you use, only the names you give them. I gave some standard definitions and their names. ‘Time’ is a word with no one correct definition, so using it without being precise can only lead to confusion.

How do you explain that time is physical?

@noAxioms

You called that point timeless. I don’t know another way to interpret what you said there. If you meant ‘at the same point in time’, sure, that’s pretty much what simultaneous means, but a point in time is hardly timeless. But you didn’t say ‘point in time’, you said ‘timeless point’.

If a set of events occurs at one point in time, then they are simultaneous at that point only. Time, however, is subject to change, so those events no longer exist once time changes. That is why I use a timeless point instead of a point in time. Events at a timeless point simply exist in a simultaneous process, and there is no change in this case at all.

[MoK]

@Astorre

It’s more likely that you didn’t read my answer; there are no objections there.

There’s a question there: if time exists, what are the criteria for “existence”? I asked you to name the method you used to determine what exists and what doesn’t.

I already mentioned that time exists, and we live in each moment of it. Think of the moments of time as a series of identical rooms in which things are not allowed to move within each room. Now think of an object that exists in these rooms. We say the object moves if its position in one room differs from its position in another. To me, each moment accommodates everything within. Things are, however, subject to change; therefore, there is a series of these moments, so-called time.

[Astorre]

So, from this I conclude that your method of establishing what is “existent” is imagination and comparison of imaginary pictures?

[MoK]

@Athi

I do not understand . Someone please explain it to my narrow mind .

Infinite regress in here arises from the fact that you need time to allow for time changes. So, you need time, let’s call it T2, to allow time, let’s call it T1, to change. T2 also changes, so you need T3 for the change in T2. Etc. So, we need a set of {T1, T2, T3, …}. This set is boundless, so there is T1, the first element, but there is no last element in this set. This set cannot exist since we can never reach its end.

[MoK]

@Astorre

So, from this I conclude that your method of establishing what is “existent” is imagination and comparison of imaginary pictures?

I just gave the example of rooms to help your imagination for the existence of time.

[Astorre]

In my humble opinion, the problem with this method is not so much that it is “imaginary”, but also that the imaginator, when comparing imaginary pictures, is himself inside time.

[MoK]

Yes, the person who imagines is also inside time. What is the problem?

[Manuel]

I mean, is “now” a unit of time?

Now is an extremely tricky term. But to deny it would lead to very strange situations…

[MoK]

@Manuel

I mean, is “now” a unit of time?

No, now is an instant of time. Time, however, passes, and this passage has a different duration depending on how much you wait. A second, which is a duration, is the unit of time.

[noAxioms]

@MoK

How do you explain that time is physical?

Time as you use the word early in the topic is not physical. But so much disconnect occurs in this topic because you don’t explicitly say what kind of time you’re talking about, and so most presume you’re talking about what others call time. So for instance:

@Corvus

@MoK

Yes, if time exists only at now.

That is clearly wrong and illogical.

That’s called ‘the present’, not ‘time’. Corvus presumed that you were talking about his own definition of time (apparently an idealistic one?) and not about the present, hence the assertion of it being wrong and illogical, which it is.

Yea, the present (something never empirically demonstrated) is posited (without evidence) to move, and forward at that, although the experience of it moving backwards or in disconnected jumps would be no different. Few realize that since it’s not intuitive and intuition is the only reason it is posited.

Anyway, one does not explain that time is physical. Instead, one explicitly uses a physical definition of time rather than leaving the reader to guess.

@MoK

If a set of events occurs at one point in time, then they are simultaneous at that point only.

No, that’s wrong. They’re simultaneous period. Even at another point in time, those events are still simultaneous, even if your chosen ontology denies the existence of those past or future events.

But them being simultaneous is a coordinate assertion, not a physical one since simultaneity is not invariant. There is no such thing as physical (objective) simultaneity.

simultaneous process

This is still an oxymoron.

[SophistiCat]

@Astorre

Perhaps there are some criteria for what can be called existence? At least intersubjective ones? Otherwise, one says time exists, another says it doesn’t, a third says it’s not in our reality. It’s too much for a simpleton like me.

So, are there criteria by which we can say this exists and that doesn’t, so we can talk about time?

Here is an idea: if you are making bizarre pronouncements like “time does not exist” then you are doing it wrong. The meaning of a word is not discovered in metaphysics – it is found in its use.

[Astorre]

Well, these are great normative judgments about what I do and don’t do. I’ll take that into account. Very philosophical advice, thank you.

[Corvus]

@noAxioms

Corvus presumed that you were talking about his own definition of time (apparently an idealistic one?) and not about the present, hence the assertion of it being wrong and illogical, which it is.

My point was that time cannot change anything. Changes take place only with the physical objects. Time is just stamp of our perception for the changes.

It is a confusion to say time exists at now, and time changes.

Time doesn’t change. The readings and measurements of time change. Time doesn’t exist like apples and cups do.

Time exists as someone measures, reads, records the readings along with the perceived changes and events, and talks about it, as stamps of the when-ness and durations in the scale of time, which also denotes past, present and future.

[MoK]

@noAxioms

Anyway, one does not explain that time is physical. Instead, one explicitly uses a physical definition of time rather than leaving the reader to guess.

In this thread, I was not interested in discussing the nature of time. Anything subject to change exists in different moments of time. So, yes, time exists, and it is physical. We exist within each moment of it, so it is like a space that accommodates us. There is only one moment of it that is available to us, though, so we don’t have the freedom like space to move around it.