if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this.

Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality. — aletheist

Not true. Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.

If the universe was just a black hole there would still be time.

But if there was ever a time when matter was 0 degrees kelvin or if matter didn't exist then yes there would be no time.

To some extent light is matter because it is altered by gravity, i would imagine if there is light then there is heat and thus there is movement and thus if light exists then there is time.

Special relativity dictates for various reasons that time is very hard to measure accurately but it does not say it doesn't exist at all. Time is the iteration of events.

something had to change before time was created. — 3017amen

How could there be change without time? What does it even mean to talk about anything happening "before" there was time?

That idea alone I think begs at least two questions — 3017amen

It does not beg those questions, it prompts them.

Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. — 3017amen

This still makes no sense to me. Cognition cannot receive past or future input, only present input, although it is sometimes about the past (memory) or future (anticipation).

All three are dependent upon each other for their existence. — 3017amen

As a proponent of the "growing block" theory of time, I deny the existence of the future; only the past and present exist. Specifically, the present is when future possibilities and conditional necessities become additional past actualities.

Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time. — christian2017

Time is the iteration of events. — christian2017

Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...

Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence. — Peirce, c. 1896

Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time. — Peirce, c. 1905

Nice handle, but you spelled it wrong--merkwuerdigliebe, German for "strange love." Anyway, please see this thread on "The Reality of Time." — aletheist

Thanks. I thought it was merkwuerdigichliebe. Too many characters I think, can't remember.

Thanks for the link

universe is just another phrase for the known matter and energy, so if you have an extremely condensed universe one end and then trillions of miles away you have the clock that "mad_guy" was talking about, yes these terms do have meaning. — christian2017

I don't agree with this, because spatial measurements are only valid within our universe. You can't assume to step outside the universe and measure trillions of miles outside the universe, that's a nonsensical idea. Our concepts of space and time are not valid outside the universe.

I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog. — christian2017

No, I really can't see how anyone can make sense of the concept of a clock outside the universe. It seems inherently contradictory.

if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this. — christian2017

Again, I don't see how the concept "far apart" can be applicable outside the universe. The hypothetical clock in the example must be outside the universe. But "universe" is defined as the collection of all existing things, so how could a clock get outside of this? It's pure contradiction.

Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.
— christian2017
Time is the iteration of events.
— christian2017
Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...
Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence.
— Peirce, c. 1896
Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time.
— Peirce, c. 1905 — aletheist

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took. — christian2017

Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum."

What gives? — TheMadFool

What gives, as with so many of your posts, is your inability to understand maths.

I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.
— christian2017

No, I really can't see how anyone can make sense of the concept of a clock outside the universe. It seems inherently contradictory.

if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.
— christian2017

Again, I don't see how the concept "far apart" can be applicable outside the universe. The hypothetical clock in the example must be outside the universe. But "universe" is defined as the collection of all existing things, so how could a clock get outside of this? It's pure contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

my statement was based on the matter that exists or the hypothetical matter that exists in the universe. Even modern Physicists can't account for exactly 100% of all matter in the universe. If there is some object a trillion miles away as the "mad_guy" hypothetically proposed, that hypothetical situation he proposed is still not ridicoulous. You are trying to hard to make this hypothetical situation of his seem stupid.




On the comment you made about the 2 black hole hypothetical situation:

If two objects are far apart as i stated earlier (black hole or an apple or a clock) they are still apart of the same universe.

Once again, i stated those two black holes and the clock were all the matter in the universe. Reread the hypothetical situation i proposed to make "Mad_guy"'s hypothetical situation not seem obsurd.

There was nothing wrong with "mad_guy"s hypothetical situation and there is certainly nothing wrong with mine. I'll repost below my 2 black hole with a clock hypothetical universe situation, and if you reread it you'll see you are not complying with the way i listed that hypothetical situation. Once again you are trying to hard to say a hypothetical clock is not possible.

"if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me

I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.
— christian2017
Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum." — aletheist

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists, i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ... — christian2017

Where have I ever implied otherwise?

... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess). — christian2017

Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses?

Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ...
— christian2017
Where have I ever implied otherwise?

... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).
— christian2017
Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses? — aletheist

well i could go on and on about the first question, but we would both be making accusations not worth defending. Perhaps i'm just the typical jerk on this forum. There is a strong possibility i fall into that subset.

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. Its just in my experience, i'll post an article as semi proof of a concept, and then someone will say thats just a pop sci article. But then they will post a pop sci article to defend what they believe.

This is typical banter on this forum.

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. — christian2017

That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy.

As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics.
— christian2017
That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy. — aletheist

true.

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me — christian2017

No, I just don't know what is meant by "a hypothetical clock". Either the clock is supposed to be a real clock, keeping time as a real part of the universe, or it's a fictional clock, in which case it's irrelevant to the universe, as fiction.

I always thought the idea of time being a dimension was flawed.

Anyone else has more to say about this, or any physicist?

You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me
— christian2017

No, I just don't know what is meant by "a hypothetical clock". Either the clock is supposed to be a real clock, keeping time as a real part of the universe, or it's a fictional clock, in which case it's irrelevant to the universe, as fiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

A hypothetical situation doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction and here is why. I hope you can make the connection. The word hypothetical is used in scenario planning and also in science. After reading the definition for hypothetical, you are more than welcome to go back to the beginning of our conversation and see what was meant by "hypothetical clock". Or if you would like you can wait several days for me to list out the whole conversation. We can also do this in private if you would like.

Here is the defintion of hypothetical and why it doesn't directly (directly) relate to fiction:

1 -of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
"that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"

synonyms:
exploratory · investigational · probing · fact-finding · trial and error · trial · test · pilot · speculative · conjectural · tentative · preliminary · probationary · prototype · under review · under the microscope · on the drawing board · empirical · observational · untested · untried
antonyms:
finished · theoretical

2 -supposed but not necessarily real or true.
"the hypothetical tenth planet"
synonyms:
theoretical · speculative · conjectured · imagined · notional · suppositional · supposed · assumed · presumed · putative · made up · unreal · academic
antonyms:
real · actual
logic

3 -denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.
NOUN
(hypotheticals)
hypothetical (noun) · hypotheticals (plural noun)

4 -a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"

All of these definitions are commonly understood by people who commonly use the word hypothetical in a phrase. Its not really a big word. A high school student who goes to a public library would have no problem mastering the use of the word "hypothetical".

I always thought the idea of time being a dimension was flawed.

Anyone else has more to say about this, or any physicist? — Shawn

I could give you a boring explanation. A really interesting video is "10 dimensions explained" or "the 10 dimensions explained" on youtube. Its not a long video at all, and it is really entertaining.

This doesn't address the problem, which is the logical impossibility, of a clock which is outside the universe. A hypothetical, or hypothesis, which involves something that is logically impossible because of self-contradiction, ought to be rejected as worthless.

This doesn't address the problem, which is the logical impossibility, of a clock which is outside the universe. A hypothetical, or hypothesis, which involves something that is logically impossible because of self-contradiction, ought to be rejected as worthless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read the previous posts, i clearly said it was apart of the universe. The hypothetical clock was apart of this augmented hypothetical universe. The reason why i say augmented is because this hypothetical clock augments the rest of the hypothetical universe.

Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.

TMF!

In your scenario, I think about the concept of change.

1. Change and Time: what is the nature of these things...whether it is the idea's of time zones, planck time, being and becoming, cosmology, etc., something had to change before time was created. Like the laws of thermodynamics, something was causing emergent properties to come into existence. That idea alone I think begs at least two questions; is change synonymous with time, and is time a human construct that arbitrarily measures same (AKA: the paradox of time zones).

When we talk about the beginning of time, I think it is just an arbitrary construct that creates an illusion. The concept of change is what should be considered.

2. Consciousness and Time: Can we remove time and change from our process of actual thinking itself(?). The answer of course is probably not. However, what if we thought that we could remove one of the three properties of time (past, present and future), what would that look like... . Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. For instance, you can't stop the present, otherwise you stop the future. And you can't stop the past because the present and future relies on the past. All three are dependent upon each other for their existence. — 3017amen

I'm of the opinion that change is relevant to time only in the sense of time's value and time's perceptibility, having no effect on time itself.

1. Time's value: if I were an immortal being i.e. I am changeless, time would lose its value

2. If the universe was changeless we wouldn't perceive the passage of time

Changelessness doesn't imply that time doesn't exist nor that it doesn't pass.

Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation. — christian2017

But then it's not consistent with TheMadFool's hypothetical clock, which is running when there is no universe. That's the hypothetical clock which I had the problem with.

1. Time's value: if I were an immortal being i.e. I am changeless, time would lose its value

Good point TMF! Also, said another way, if Time is more arbitrary than not (Relativity/time, paradoxical time zones, and other human constructs/perceptions of same) and Time is subordinate to change, then change seems to precede Time. Change seems to have special status or privilege over Time (change preceded the Big Bang).

Perhaps much like the idea of existence over essence, the existence of the physical/metaphysical/phenomenal world, in general, is either unknown or at best mysteriously paradoxical. Change and time seem synonymous with existence over essence. We don't understand the essence of things/the true nature of existing things. We only have existence to observe (we don't know the nature of those things).

For example, as an analogy, in understanding gravity, we observe a falling object first, then we figure out thru math how it works. And same with music; we can play/hear music first, then we figure out the structure of it (Time signatures, key signatures, syncopation, rhythm and so on). But we don't know how/why math and music exist.

And so another question becomes, like mathematical formulas/laws used in engineering and physics which abstractly describe & create things (along with music theory of course), how are time and change relative to each other? In other words, like math, does Time underlie the phenomenon of change, or does the phenomenon of change underlie Time? Which is more abstract? Which is more arbitrary?

Or like Music. Does the music itself come before music notation/written music and music theory, or does music theory come before the sound of music itself?

And with all of that said, this is yet another reason why your question about the beginning of Time itself, seems paradoxical and illusionary.

2. If the universe was changeless we wouldn't perceive the passage of time — TheMadFool

I agree!

Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.
— christian2017

But then it's not consistent with TheMadFool's hypothetical clock, which is running when there is no universe. That's the hypothetical clock which I had the problem with. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true, reread what he wrote.

The following will help with the intrigue (regarding my argument of Time subordinate to change) of the subject matter:

"Time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time. " ---Robin Le Poidevin, Professor of Philosophy/Metaphysics at the University of Leeds

We therefore perceive time as the space or relation between occurrences of events (change).

You can see him here, I hope you enjoy!

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/whats-real-about-time#video-4604

Well, there's little doubt that time and change are closely linked. What the exact relationship is baffles me completely but if were to hazard a guess, I would say that change serves as the first point of contact between us and time: had there been no change, the notion of time would've never crossed our minds. Change acts as the good friend, introducing its close pal, time, to us. Once we get to know time, even if only very crudely, the realization that time has an independent existence separate from change isn't that far: there's this intuition that time flies by even in a world without change.

Change, on the other hand, is, quite literally, chained to time for without time, there can be no change. This is the precise reason why a universe without change maybe taken to be timeless. Nothing changes and so time need not pass. While a changeless universe has time we wouldn't be able to perceive it and also, it wouldn't matter for each passing moment is identical to another.

there's this intuition that time flies by even in a world without change. — TheMadFool

TMF! I would rather rephrase that by saying something like:

There's this causation (energy or force) that moves change through time.

Change, on the other hand, is, quite literally, chained to time for without time, there can be no change. — TheMadFool

And I've been suggesting the opposite (much like LePoidevin), that without change, there can be no sense or perception of Time.

Maybe the way to parse it would be the simple definitions first:

1. Change (Noun) : 1.the act or instance of making or becoming different.
2. Time (Noun) 1.the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
3. Causation (Noun): the act of causing something (the relationship between cause and effect).

Metaphysical questions: Can you observe change, or can you observe time? During such observations, which is more abstract and which is more concrete? And finally, did time cause change, or did change cause time?

Not true, reread what he wrote. — christian2017

Sorry, I already read it two or three times, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's quite plausible that my interpretation is "not true", but that's because I can't make any sense of it.

Metaphysical questions: Can you observe change, or can you observe time? During such observations, which is more abstract and which is more concrete? And finally, did time cause change, or did change cause time? — 3017amen

Time is not observable in the way change is: the latter (change) instantiates continuously in the world we inhabit and is perceivable through our senses - changes in shapes, colors, smells, sounds, sensations, etc. can all be sensed but the former (time) is not something that our sensory apparatus can detect in a similar fashion. In this regard then, time is more abstract than change. The fact that time can be measured with a clock doesn't affect the status of time as a more abstract entity because a clock is simply regular oscillatory change; in other words we make sense of abstract time by means of concrete change (regularly repetitive change).

That said, there is such a thing as subjective experience of time as indicated in the expression, "a watched pot never boils"; this too, as you can see, is an instance of abstract time being experienced in terms of concrete change. In this particular case, the change (the pot boiling) serves the function of a clock (which has slowed down subjectively)


As for time being a cause of change, I feel that change is a material phenomenon and time is immaterial and hence it's more plausible that time lacks causal power over the material domain. I liken spacetime to a theatrical stage on which all material phenomena occur and like the stage is causally inert.

Not true, reread what he wrote.
— christian2017

Sorry, I already read it two or three times, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's quite plausible that my interpretation is "not true", but that's because I can't make any sense of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

youre right, i'm from the deep deep deep south, and i never made it past the 6th grade. My deepest apologies.