'Time' is a metric of asymmetric change (i.e. physical transformations) ... — 180 Proof
I think thermodynamic time Is constituted the irreversible processes. You can quantify these processes by putting a clock besides them. — EugeneW
This is what I also believe and often mention in discussions. More specifically, that time is our measurement of and reference to change, including movement in space.what Aristotle is basically saying is that time is change — Kuro
Well, this could be a very good point if its description had no some weaknesses:So if the universe changes from "no-time" to "time", that in of itself is a temporal process, making it necessary that "no-time" is actually time. So time never begins. — Kuro
Traffic lights make a nice example of time without motion. Just the regular color changes are enough. And yet time itself is not defined by change, since the air pressure changes with altitude, which is change without time.How can there be any time without the existence of motion? — Kuro
I don't see an exception. The process of creation is temporal by definition, so while I have no problem with time being bounded, it seem a contradiction to apply the concept of creation or destruction to time. There are valid solutions to Einstein's field equations with bounded time, such as white and black holes.But so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are in agreement in saying that it is uncreated
Aristotle used this to forward the conclusion that the universe is eternal. — Kuro
But what brought space and time into being? — EugeneW
Today, this "unmoved mover" can be explained in more scientific terms, without the need to address what brought space and time into existence. — RussellA
Time cannot exist without change
— Harry Hindu
But only in space they can change. — EugeneW
I don't know what "in time" means. Oscillations are changes. How fast (how much time) does one thing oscillate? You have to compare it to another change to find out. Time is the comparison of change. The direction of some change only manifests itself when comparing the change to another change.In other words things change relative to each other. The relationship between one change and another is time.
— Harry Hindu
In other words, things can oscillate in time, like virtual particles in the vacuum, or have a timelike direction, like virtual particles turned real. — EugeneW
Space changes too. — Harry Hindu
don't know what "in time" means. Oscillations are changes. How fast (how much time) does one thing oscillate? You have to compare it to another change to find out. Time is the comparison of change. The direction of some change only manifests itself when comparing the change to another change. — Harry Hindu
there must be a first mover which is not itself moved — Metaphysician Undercover
Today, this "unmoved mover" can be explained in more scientific terms, without the need to address what brought space and time into existence. — RussellA
If we would consider the omnipresent virtual particle fields residing in the vacuum of nature the eternal unmoved prime mover, we would still be left with the question where that came from. — EugeneW
Right. So change constitutes time. Measuring time involves comparing one change with another, like the change of a virtual particle's state vs the change of a real particle's state. Which change you choose to measure by is arbitrary, just as measuring length and mass.Yes. And both the changing of the metric and real particles moving asymmetrically (thermodynamically, irreversibly) constitute time. — EugeneW
Again, we're simply talking about comparing one change with another when measuring time. But you're not measuring time. You're measuring change. Just as length is a comparison of two objects in one dimension, time is the comparison of change in two objects (in another dimension).They don't oscillate in time but constitute time themselves. If you hold a virtual clock beside it though, you would see the hand of that clock go back and forth. — EugeneW
You can conceive of a moment as a boundary between the past relative to that moment, and the future relative to that moment. Geometrically, this would be like picking a point on a line -- let's make it the usual line from school and call that point "0" -- and using that point to define a ray , and a ray . — Srap Tasmaner
What I’m saying—what is our life? Our life is looking forward, or it’s looking back—that’s it. That’s our life. Where’s the moment? — Ricky Roma
didn't quite get it until I thought of "our only point of contact" in a sort of Flatland way -- imagine that all you know of the line is what you know as a point on it, take its point of view, and to be such a point is to see a neverending expanse of line to either side of you — Srap Tasmaner
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.