On Change And Time

TheMadFool

I'll try and keep this post within 4 to 5 paragraphs but humor me if I can't keep my promise.

First off, time. All I can do is refer you to St. Augustine:

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. — St. Augustine

Secondly, change. See for yourself: Becoming and Impermanence/Change.

Throwing in a quote for good measure:

No man ever steps in the same river twice. — Heraclitus

So, what exactly is the relationship between the two, change and time?

Possibilities:

1. Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time.

2. Time implies change: There are issues with this. For instance, imagine a red ball R, made of, for the sake of argument, an infinitely durable material. R at time T1 would be the same as R at time Tn where n > 1. In other words, R didn't change even as time flew by. In short, that there's time doesn't mean that change should occur.

However, look at it from R's point of view. R, at time T1, is exactly identical to R at time at Tn where n > 1. In other words the elapsed time (n - 1) doesn't matter; it's as if R is stuck in the moment/instant T1. We could say then that R is outside of time for the passage of time affects it not.

Consider now, that R is moved i.e. its position is changed. According to 1 above (change implies time), since the position of R has changed; ergo, R has experienced time too. So far so good.

However, nothing else about R has changed - being composed of an infinitely durable material, its shape hasn't changed, its color hasn't changed, it hasn't lost or gained even a single atom. That means, with respect to the properties that depend on durability, R hasn't changed but that would mean R is outside time in respect of the properties dependent on durability.

So, if R changes position, R experiences time because of that but R also doesn't experience time because it has durability-based properties that don't change. R is both inside and outside of time. Contradiction?

Is time an illusion?

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I think that it is possible to be inside and outside of time. It is both subjective and objective. I think that this possibility arises because it is a dimensions rather than a material construct. Material reality changes, but consciousness arises within the material nature of it but is able to go into the non materialist dimensional reality, in which time can be subjective.

I am afraid that I am going back into areas related to the questions of determinism, but it may be that so much about how we see reality hinges on this

180 Proof

Is time an illusion? — TheMadFool

Is 'increasing from minimum disorder to maximum disorder of a closed system (e.g. universe)' an illusion?

Bartricks

↪TheMadFool

Change does not require time given that an event in time changes from being future to being present to being past. So change is required for time to pass.

And Heraclitus is clearly wrong. One can step in the same river twice. I stepped in the Avon yesterday and I stepped in it today.

Possibility

↪TheMadFool

I highly recommend Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’. It will flesh this question out nicely for you.

So, if R changes position, R experiences time because of that but R also doesn't experience time because it has durability-based properties that don't change. R is both inside and outside of time. Contradiction? — TheMadFool

You’re assuming that R experiences. As an observer, you’re aware of the difference between R at T1 and R at Tn, but there is no reason to assume that R experiences any difference from its change of position.

Time is more about awareness of change than change itself.

At the most fundamental level that we currently know of, therefore, there is little that resembles time as we experience it. There is no special variable ‘time’, there is no difference between past and future, there is no spacetime. We still know how to write equations that describe the world. In those equations, the variables evolve with respect to each other. It is not a ‘static’ world, or a ‘block universe’ where all change is illusory. On the contrary, ours is a world of events rather than of things.

This was the outward leg of the journey, towards a universe without time.

The return journey has been the attempt to understand how, from this world without time, it is possible for our perception of time to emerge. The surprise has been that, in the emergence of familiar aspects of time, we ourselves have had a role to play. From our perspective - the perspective of creatures who make up a small part of the world - we see that world flowing in time. Our interaction with the world is partial, which is why we see it in a blurred way. To this blurring is added quantum indeterminacy. The ignorance that follows from this determines the existence of a particular variable - thermal time - and of an entropy that quantifies our uncertainty.

Perhaps we belong to a particular subset of the world that interacts with the rest of it in such a way that this entropy is lower in one direction of our thermal time. The directionality of time is therefore real but perspectival: the entropy of the world in relation to us increases with our thermal time. We see the occurrence of things ordered in this variable, which we simply call ‘time’, and the growth of entropy distinguishes the past from the future for us and leads to the unfolding of the cosmos... — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Harry Hindu

Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time. — TheMadFool

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change.

180 Proof

↪Possibility

:up:

TheMadFool

1. I think that it is possible to be inside and outside of time. It is both subjective and objective. I think that this possibility arises because it is a dimensions rather than a material construct. Material reality changes, but consciousness arises within the material nature of it but is able to go into the non materialist dimensional reality, in which 3. time can be subjective.

I am afraid that I am going back into areas related to the questions of 3. determinism, but it may be that so much about how we see reality hinges on this — Jack Cummins

1. If you come at it from a position that's contradiction-friendly, I have nothing more to say. By the way, is there a contradiction? I intuit there is one but I may have goofed up.

2. The subjective nature of time is the one thing I'm very familiar with. It's said that the hands of a clock move faster when we're enjoying ourselves and slower when it's dull, dreary, boring.

According to some Buddhist traditions the gods who reside in heaven are supposed to have life-spans of thousands of human-years. I'm not sure but a couple of thousand years for a human is but 1 day for a god. No prizes for guessing which beings, gods or humans, are having the "time" of their lives.

3. About determinism, all I can say is that it's a hairy problem.

You’re assuming that R experiences — Possibility

What exactly do you mean by "experiences"? I hope not in the sense like a human experiences, subjectively?

entropy — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Is 'increasing from minimum disorder to maximum disorder of a closed system (e.g. universe)' an illusion? — 180 Proof

Entropy is not time. It's change and while, yes, change implies time, some things don't change or if that doesn't suit your worldview, imagine a changeless object, say C. C would appear to be trapped in a moment/instant - as if time didn't elapse. Many movies depict the stoppage of the time as objects freezing at one spot and in one position and this, to me, is indicative of the intuition that if no change takes place, the effect is the same as time stopping or becoming nonexistent.

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change. — Harry Hindu

I have nothing more to add. :up:

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I am not meaning to be contradictory but just struggling to make sense of the issue of change and time on a freezing cold day amidst the misery of lockdown restrictions. I don't think that there is an actual contradiction necessarily, and perhaps it is about framing our subjective realities within the larger scheme of the eternal. And, we probably have to live with the problem of determinism in philosophy because it is not easy to solve.

Possibility

You’re assuming that R experiences
— Possibility

What exactly do you mean by "experiences"? I hope not in the sense like a human experiences, subjectively? — TheMadFool

I could ask you the same question...

1. Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time. — TheMadFool

Makes sense from the human experience of time. It really makes more sense to say that the experience of change implies the experience of time.

Consider now, that R is moved i.e. its position is changed. According to 1 above (change implies time), since the position of R has changed; ergo, R has experienced time too. — TheMadFool

You’re projecting your experience, here. Since we would experience change in R’s position, we would experience change on behalf of time. But there is nothing here to show that “R has experienced time” except our own predicted experience of change.

Entropy is not time. It's change and while, yes, change implies time, some things don't change or if that doesn't suit your worldview, imagine a changeless object, say C. C would appear to be trapped in a moment/instant - as if time didn't elapse. Many movies depict the stoppage of the time as objects freezing at one spot and in one position and this, to me, is indicative of the intuition that if no change takes place, the effect is the same as time stopping or becoming nonexistent. — TheMadFool

We’re not saying that entropy is time - it’s the ignorance of change that occurs when we assume an ‘object’ to be changeless, simply because we don’t experience change.

180 Proof

Entropy is not time. — TheMadFool

I didn't claim or imply that it is.

synthesis

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. — St. Augustine

According to St. Augustine, time is everything.

Metaphysician Undercover

2. Time implies change: There are issues with this. For instance, imagine a red ball R, made of, for the sake of argument, an infinitely durable material. R at time T1 would be the same as R at time Tn where n > 1. In other words, R didn't change even as time flew by. In short, that there's time doesn't mean that change should occur. — TheMadFool

The problem here is that an "infinitely durable material" is not physical possible. So how is an example which asks us to assume something impossible, of any use for demonstrating something about the reality of time?

Banno

Whenever change occurs, time elapses. — TheMadFool

Not so fast. The floor changes from wood to tile between here and the laundry.

Change requires a dimension, perhaps...

TheMadFool

Not so fast. The floor changes from wood to tile between here and the laundry.

Change requires a dimension, perhaps... — Banno

That's a different kind of change, not the kind I'm talking about. Also, "...wood to tile..." isn't actually change, right. Would you say, for instance, if I were fortunate enough to be in your company, that for another lucky person passing by that I changed into you or, god forbid, you changed into me?

I didn't claim or imply that it is. — 180 Proof

Then your post is, has to be, irrelevant, no?

The problem here is that an "infinitely durable material" is not physical possible. So how is an example which asks us to assume something impossible, of any use for demonstrating something about the reality of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Right! :ok: but imagine an infinitely durable material is, there's no logical contradiction, is there?

We’re not saying that entropy is time - it’s the ignorance of change that occurs when we assume an ‘object’ to be changeless, simply because we don’t experience change. — Possibility

Let's get to the heart of the matter.

Suppose someone claims the red ball, R, moved i.e. changed position but then you inspect it, it's still in the same position. Two possibilities: 1. R hasn't moved or 2. space has no effect on R i.e. R lies outside of space so to speak. If there are other ways of making sense of this, please feel free to make me aware of them.

Likewise, if a person asserts that the red ball, R, has experienced time then there must be some way of determining that, right?, and the first thing that crosses my mind is change for without it, as I've been saying, time can't be perceived and/or experienced. Why? Well, if R doesn't change then there's no difference between R at time T1 and R at time Tn where n > 1 and another way of putting it would be that time is stuck at T1 or that time didn't elapse at all - the bottom line is that for R time no longer matters.

↪Jack Cummins

:up: :ok:

Possibility

Let's get to the heart of the matter.

Suppose someone claims the red ball, R, moved i.e. changed position but then you inspect it, it's still in the same position. Two possibilities: 1. R hasn't moved or 2. space has no effect on R i.e. R lies outside of space so to speak. If there are other ways of making sense of this, please feel free to make me aware of them. — TheMadFool

3. The observer claiming that R moved has changed position themselves in relation to R, without being aware of it. Like claims of a geocentric universe.

Likewise, if a person asserts that the red ball, R, has experienced time then there must be some way of determining that, right? — TheMadFool

Sure: BE the ball...

...and the first thing that crosses my mind is change for without it, as I've been saying, time can't be perceived and/or experienced. Why? Well, if R doesn't change then there's no difference between R at time T1 and R at time Tn where n > 1 and another way of putting it would be that time is stuck at T1 or that time didn't elapse at all - the bottom line is that for R time no longer matters. — TheMadFool

If R is incapable of experiencing change, then it is incapable of experiencing time. There is no way around this. If this is the case, then R is irreducibly conceptual: its existence is only ever potential, and neither you nor the other observer can make any claim about a change of position.

TheMadFool

BE the ball... — Possibility

Deepity

If R is incapable of experiencing change, then it is incapable of experiencing time — Possibility

Incorrect. For there are cases when no change occurs but time still passes by. However, it seems, on such occasions, a case can be made that time is no longer relevant (to the object that doesn't change) i.e. it would be as if time didn't exist at all. There's a difference between time doesn't exist and as if time doesn't exist. What can you infer from that?

Possibility

Incorrect. For there are cases when no change occurs but time still passes by. However, it seems, on such occasions, a case can be made that time is no longer relevant (to the object that doesn't change) i.e. it would be as if time didn't exist at all. — TheMadFool

Have you provided examples of these cases?

TheMadFool

Have you provided examples of these cases? — Possibility

Well, they seem to be thought experiments. Shouldn't that do the trick?

180 Proof

Then your post is, has to be, irrelevant, no? — TheMadFool

I suppose so if you don't understand it (or can't answer the question posed) ... At least, it's more coherent (less vague > more relevant) than your OP which fails to specify whether it refers to psychological time (i.e. subjective perception-intuition), thermodynamic time (i.e. entropy) or cosmological time (i.e. expansion of this universe); my post invokes the second (re: C. Rovelli, et al) which seems more fundamental than the first & third modalities.

Possibility

Well, they seem to be thought experiments. Shouldn't that do the trick? — TheMadFool

So...there are only impossible cases? In that case, I’m going to side wth MU on this.

Thought experiments can’t demonstrate your claim that “there are cases when no change occurs”.

Metaphysician Undercover

Right! :ok: but imagine an infinitely durable material is, there's no logical contradiction, is there? — TheMadFool

As a logical demonstration, it may be acceptable, but then you need to show how what is logically possible has any bearing on physical reality. So you go on to discuss the perspective that this unchangeable thing has of physical reality. But this is a false perspective to begin with, because the unchangeable thing is really impossible, so your discussion cannot really get of the ground. And that it ends in a "contradiction" is really irrelevant, because this is what would be expected when you start with an impossibility.

↪Possibility

For there are cases when no change occurs but time still passes by. — TheMadFool

To avoid that problem, of assuming an impossible situation (the unchangeable thing) as your example case of "when no change occurs but time still passes", I prefer to look toward an extremely short period of time, around a Planck length of time. Since we can keep on dividing time into shorter periods, yet we have a length of duration of time which is necessary for a physical change to occur, we can conclude that in the shorter period of time no change occurs. Therefore we have a very short period of time during which no change occurs.

Possibility

↪Metaphysician Undercover

@TheMadFool

The ‘quantisation’ of time implies that almost all values of time t do not exist. If we could measure the duration of an interval with the most precise clock imaginable, we should find that the time measured takes only certain discrete, special values. It is not possible to think of duration as continuous. We must think of it as discontinuous: not as something which flows uniformly but as something which in a certain sense jumps, kangaroo-like, from one value to another.

In other words, a minimum interval of time exists. Below this, the notion of time does not exist - even in its most basic meaning...

The substratum that determines the duration of time is not an independent entity, different from the others that make up the world; it is an aspect of a dynamic field. It jumps, fluctuates, materialises only by interacting, and is no to be found beneath a minimum scale...So, after all this, what is left of time?

...None of the pieces that time has lost (singularity, direction, independence, the present, continuity) puts into question the fact that the world is a network of events. On the one hand, there was time, with its many determinations; on the other, the simple fact that nothing is: that things happen instead.

The absence of the quantity ‘time’ in the fundamental equations does not imply a world that is frozen and immobile. On the contrary, it implies a world in which change is ubiquitous, without being ordered by Father Time; without innumerable events being necessarily distributed in good order, or along the single Newtonian timeline, or according to Einstein’s elegant geometry. The events of the world do not form an orderly queue, like the English. They crowd around chaotically, like Italians.

They are events, indeed: change, happening. This happening is diffuse, scattered, disorderly. But it is happening; it is not stasis. Clocks that run at different speeds do not mark a single time, but the hands on each clock change in relation to the others. The fundamental equations do not include a time variable, but the do include variables that change in relation to each other. Time, as Aristotle suggested, is the measure of change; different variables can be chosen to measure that change, and none of these has all the characteristics of time as we experience it. But this does not alter the fact that the world is in a ceaseless process of change. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Banno

That's a different kind of change, not the kind I'm talking about. — TheMadFool

Ah, so your argument is that changes that occur over time require time...

That looks cogent. :worry:

Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time?. — TheMadFool

:down:

frank

Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time?. — TheMadFool

No. Change and time are pretty much the same thing.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Possibility

If we could measure the duration of an interval with the most precise clock imaginable, we should find that the time measured takes only certain discrete, special values. It is not possible to think of duration as continuous. We must think of it as discontinuous: not as something which flows uniformly but as something which in a certain sense jumps, kangaroo-like, from one value to another. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

I see this as a baseless assertion. Since we have no indication of exactly what time is, there is no reason to considered it to be discontinuous rather than continuous. And if we conceive it as continuous, despite the fact that Rovelli says this is not possible (it is possible because we have no indication of what time is, therefore there are no such restrictions on how we conceive it), then there is no such "jumps" as described.

But this does not alter the fact that the world is in a ceaseless process of change. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

See, Rovelli even contradicts himself now, talking about "a ceaseless process of change", which would be continuous, rather than what he says above "discontinuous".

TheMadFool

Thanks goes to all who've contributed to the thread. I'm out of my depths at the moment. Will get back if I think of anything interesting.

Possibility

I see this as a baseless assertion. Since we have no indication of exactly what time is, there is no reason to considered it to be discontinuous rather than continuous. And if we conceive it as continuous, despite the fact that Rovelli says this is not possible (it is possible because we have no indication of what time is, therefore there are no such restrictions on how we conceive it), then there is no such "jumps" as described. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well spotted. The quantisation of time is a theory being developed in quantum physics (part of loop quantum gravity) that I’m not entirely on board with - there’s something missing, and I’ve reason to believe it has something to do with affect. The reason Rovelli’s book appeals to me is that it presents a description of time, inclusive of quantum physics, which brings these discrepancies between the facts and the physics to the surface for philosophy to explore. What I’ve quoted here is from a summary of the book’s journey. The ‘if’ and ‘should’ at the beginning of this paragraph set the theoretical conditions for the assertions that follow.

But I will point out one thing with your comment: in declaring this a contradiction, you seem to be equating ‘duration’ with ‘change’.

It is not possible to think of duration as continuous. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

But this does not alter the fact that the world is in a ceaseless process of change. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

I see change as a relational structure, and duration as a measurement capacity.

Metaphysician Undercover

But I will point out one thing with your comment: in declaring this a contradiction, you seem to be equating ‘duration’ with ‘change’. — Possibility

No I don't equate duration with change, that's why I suggested a short duration of time when no physical change occurs.

The issue is to separate spatial existence from temporal existence. I believe it is the features of spatial existence which lead to the assumption of discontinuity, quantum jumps. But if we keep the conception of time separate from the conception of space, we can maintain a continuous time, while spatial existence jumps. This would mean that spatial existence is static for that extremely short period of time, then it jumps to a new frame for an extremely short period of time, jumps again, and so on.

What I said is contradictory is the notion that time is discontinuous, along with the notion of a "ceaseless process of change'. "Discontinuous" implies a stopping and starting, which is contradicted by "ceaseless".

Possibility

No I don't equate duration with change, that's why I suggested a short duration of time when no physical change occurs. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn’t think so, which is why I posted this quote. You’re interpreting QM with a linear concept of time as a given, but it’s possible (and arguably more accurate) to interpret QM without time: from the perspective of the world consisting of events (rather than objects) that change in relation to each other. Because the idea that we can “keep the conception of time separate from the conception of space” is an attempt to cling to the continuity of ‘time’ despite General Relativity.

What I said is contradictory is the notion that time is discontinuous, along with the notion of a "ceaseless process of change'. "Discontinuous" implies a stopping and starting, which is contradicted by "ceaseless". — Metaphysician Undercover

All this does is highlight the inadequacy of language in talking about change and process without time.

Metaphysician Undercover

I didn’t think so, which is why I posted this quote. You’re interpreting QM with a linear concept of time as a given, but it’s possible (and arguably more accurate) to interpret QM without time: from the perspective of the world consisting of events (rather than objects) that change in relation to each other. Because the idea that we can “keep the conception of time separate from the conception of space” is an attempt to cling to the continuity of ‘time’ despite General Relativity. — Possibility

As pointed out by the op, "events" implies time. (1. Change implies time). So interpreting QM from the perspective of "events" does not remove time from the interpretation. This interpretation simply fails in its analytical extent, because it does not separate an activity (which is a description of what things do) from the thing which is engaged in the proposed activity. A proper analysis recognizes that an event cannot be fundamental because of this conflation of the description with the thing being described. The description (activity), is a product of human understanding and cannot be fundamental. That's why I said we need a proper separation between the features of space and time, regardless of what general relativity gives us.

On Change And Time

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions