If everything in the universe stopped moving in an absolute sense. Will time still exist or is it independent of any such circumstances ? — Wittgenstein
Can a philosophical approach really tackle this question as the physicist have more concrete ways of dealing with it. Is it up to them to resolve this debate ? — Wittgenstein
How could there be time without change? Time is a measure of change, or more precisely a measure of relative change (a comparison of some change relative to some other change, or said differently a comparison of some process relative to some other process).
Either change always existed, or change arose from the absence of change, but the transition from non-change to change cannot be described in term of a process, it cannot be explained, so physics will never explain that.
It's easy to see the existence of time without a sense to detect change. Change in of itself is meaningless as it has to be detected by someone. — Wittgenstein
Our definition of 'universe' is itself framed within the limitations of our own understanding. The fact is, we simply have no firm conception whether there might be anything 'outside' of the known universe, in either space or time. The question whether it might be rotating in respect of some unknown (and perhaps, to us, inconceivable) reference point therefore remains open."
Change in of itself is meaningless as it has to be detected by someone. — Wittgenstein
Its a classical question and l want to know why you support one viewpoint or another. Maybe there is a third alternative, such as rejecting the question as being wrong.
If everything in the universe stopped moving in an absolute sense. Will time still exist or is it independent of any such circumstances ?
Now the next step in answering this question seems to be. What do you mean by exist when referring to time ?
In my opinion, this question is identical to the earlier question and doesn't really resolve anything.
Can a philosophical approach really tackle this question as the physicist have more concrete ways of dealing with it. Is it up to them to resolve this debate ? — Wittgenstein
It's easy to see the existence of time without a sense to detect change. Change in of itself is meaningless as it has to be detected by someone. — Wittgenstein
Consider yourself in a system where every object is moving with the same velocity. In that case, you won't be able to see change but motion presupposes time according to you, hence you would still require time. — Wittgenstein
In that case, we run into a paradox. Let's suppose change emerged from non change hence time was invented after change existed,but since the transition itself requires time, we have to assume time existed before change existed in order for non change to turn into change.
If we suppose non change was always there we run into an infinite regress. You see the problem with both solutions. — Wittgenstein
This suggests that without change there would be no direction to time. The big question then is is change just a direction indicator for time or is change time itself?
Let's consider the scenario you presented, a world without motion, as a standin for the real scenario we need to consider - a world without change. In such a world there won't be a direction to time, nor will there be a way to measure time. However, this doesn't mean there is no time for the simple reason that even in the world we're familiar with there are things that don't change e.g. physical constants or mathematical truths etc. but that doesn't imply that there is no time, does it? Ergo, even if time is measurable and has direction only because of change, time isn't change and doesn't draw the essence of its existence from change.
So in a universe with time, all changes would be detectable. Hence time puts a constraint on change, all changes now depends on time. But you mention further ahead.There might be change without a sense to detect change but there cannot be time without a sense to detect change.
. Change precedes the concept of time, not the other way around.
If I am in a system in which every object is at rest, why would I say they are moving at a constant velocity? They have no velocity. Also I never said that “motion presupposes time”, what I say is that time is a measure of change, and motion is a form of change. Change precedes the concept of time, not the other way around.
Also if I am in a system in which all objects besides me are at rest, I would still see change: if I move my eyes the scenery would change, I would sense my heartbeat, my thoughts and imagination could change, ...
Also, velocity doesn’t have to be defined as distance over time, it can be defined as a fundamental concept
If we take this viewpoint into consideration, the interval between change and non-change would not even be zero as you noted that the transition also belongs to change. The state of non-change and change overlap and from non-change emerged change. Would this imply that the state of change is the same as the state of non change as they could be replaced by each other. Won't that be a contradiction.As I said the ‘transition’ wouldn’t be a process, suddenly there would be change, but no one would be there to see it so it’s not even meaningful to speak of it that way. Change already exists as soon as the transition begins, so the ‘transition’ itself belongs to change, there is no change (and thus no time) before change. And again no one would be there to see it, if you assume someone is looking at non-change turning into change then that means there was already a being so there was already change.
If instead we suppose that change was always there, there is no beginning, so fundamentally there is no infinite regress, you would never find a beginning because there simply isn’t one. If you can’t find something that doesn’t exist then just stop looking for it.
Hence time cannot be change in my opinion. However, time can be an essential component of change (or not) and that is the crucial aspect of the relation between these two concepts. This question still remains unaddressed.
We agree with the conclusion that time isn't change but l don't think your argument for the independence of time from change holds weight. — Wittgenstein
Maybe it's just me but if change precedes time, are you implying that change comes first and then we get time. If that's not what you meant, can you clarify this point.We usually talk about change and time simultaneously and how can change which precedes time, be dependent on time which follows from it. — Wittgenstein
A system in which all bodies are at rest is identical to a body in which all bodies are moving at a constant velocity as in both systems, change is not detectable. — Wittgenstein
I haven't come across any such definition and could you define it here. That would either reduce velocity to something else or compromise all other physical units that depend on it. — Wittgenstein
If we take this viewpoint into consideration, the interval between change and non-change would not even be zero as you noted that the transition also belongs to change. The state of non-change and change overlap and from non-change emerged change. Would this imply that the state of change is the same as the state of non change as they could be replaced by each other. Won't that be a contradiction. — Wittgenstein
This would mean that some objects were being changed forever. Let's apply this supposition to an example, suppose that an object is accelerating in this system and if we also assume it was accelerating whenever we look back into the past, it would have an infinite velocity at present, which wouldn't make sense in a physical world. That's just my little thought experiment. — Wittgenstein
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.