No, change can exist without measurement. Time is simply another change. Measurements are comparisons of the same type of thing. We measure length by comparing it to the length of a ruler. We measure change by comparing it to the change of another system. Yes, time is arbitrary. Change isn't. That is the difference.I think where I disagree is with your definition of time. Time can exist without any measurement, that is, we can imagine a universe in which there is no intelligent life; and as such, we know that there would be no measuring of time, and yet time would still exist, and as the primary property of time, change would also exist. Moreover, for us to be able to measure change, change would have to exist prior to the measuring. Change doesn't co-exist with the measurement, that is, you wouldn't say that you have no change until you measure it - of course not, we observe the change, and then we produce an arbitrary form of measurement to account for change within our everyday lives. — Sam26
Yes, time is arbitrary. Change isn't. That is the difference. — Harry Hindu
We've had scientists come along and provide a better explanation of time since then (does Einstein ring a bell?) — Harry Hindu
We measure change by comparing one change to another. We don't measure time. We measure change. Time is the measurement of change. — Harry Hindu
Sure they mean something to me, just as inches, meters and light-years mean something to me. They are units of measurement. Hours, days, and years are all units of measurement, too, not units of time.Of course we measure time. Do the words "hour", "day", "year", have no meaning to you? These refer to units of time.
You can validate that unit of time by referring to a physical change, but this does not mean that the words refer to the physical change rather than the unit of time. And, in referring to those physical changes, you will see that each of those units of time is measured by those physical changes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, we can measure a meter by using inches and measure light-years by using kilometers. Again, all we are doing is comparing things of the same type (length, distance, or change). Measuring time is comparing different changes. You never measure time. You measure change.We measure change with time, yes, but as a said, any measuring tool must be itself measurable or else it is meaningless. So if we take time, and use it to measure change, as you suggest, we must also be able to measure time or else "time" is just a meaningless word. Then all of our measurements of change, since they are measured with time, are also meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure they mean something to me, just as inches, meters and light-years mean something to me. They are units of measurement. Hours, days, and years are all units of measurement, too, not units of time.
An hour is the change of position of the small hand of clock. Days and years are changes in the position of the Earth. — Harry Hindu
Sure, we can measure a meter by using inches and measure light-years by using kilometers. — Harry Hindu
Measuring time is comparing different changes. You never measure time. You measure change. — Harry Hindu
The idea that Einstein provides a "better" explanation of time is what is laughable. You define "better" in relation to what, more useful, or more truthful? — Metaphysician Undercover
How so? How is relativity a description? What does it describe, and why do you claim that it is the most accurate description of that thing? — Metaphysician Undercover
So, if you or Metaphysician Undercover think there is something captured by the A-series but not by the B-series, set it out; but if all you have to say is "you lose the tense", then you have nothing to say. — Banno
So, if you or Metaphysician Undercover think there is something captured by the A-series but not by the B-series, set it out; but if all you have to say is "you lose the tense", then you have nothing to say. — Banno
How can you ask such questions? Again, it seems you do not understand physics. — Banno
I understand that most physicists do not believe that time is something real, — Metaphysician Undercover
Give me an example, so we can be clear about the argument. — Banno
Do you? How odd. — Banno
(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg
The macro-domain, Metaphysician Undercover, as opposed to the micro-domain of quantum mechanics, as mentioned by ↪tom. Much effort has gone into and is going into unification. — jorndoe
Quote from the opening post:
(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#McTArg — jorndoe
OK, so back to my questions then. What is it within the macro-domain, which relativity is supposed to provide the most accurate description of? — Metaphysician Undercover
I know the special theory of relativity quite well. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you find these models wrong, then feel free to write your objections down, and post (perhaps in a new opening post, depending). — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.