Time

[Speakpigeon]

Time is still something of a mystery, I think. And, obviously, I'm not the only one in this category.

Reading an article about Roger Penrose discussing the few issues still pending about time, got me thinking. One point is that there's an explanatory gap left by general relativity and it's objective vision of a space-time block, whereby time is just one dimension of space-time. Clearly, that's not how we experience time subjectively.

Instead, our subjective experience of time discriminates, even segregates, the present moment from the rest of time. Our experience is that only the present moment exists. The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

Yet, maybe it's possible to explain our subjective experience of time in a way that would be fully compatible with what science says. I expected Penrose to articulate such an explanation but apparently no. He seems to think in terms of a different scientific theory of time altogether. Me, I'm thinking in terms of the existing science and what it suggests about time.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting current science could explain subjectivity, clearly it can't, certainly not yet, and perhaps it would be irrelevant. But, it could perhaps explain our radical distinction between the present moment and the rest of time. We can ignore for now the issue of our evanescent subjectivity, and think of our perception of time in physical terms. Wouldn't that be enough?

What do you think?
EB

 

[untermensche]

We do not experience time anymore than we experience space.

We see objects in space but not space.

We see objects change in time, over time, but not time.

Dimensions are freedoms.

3 dimensions gives you the "freedom", the ability to have a 3 dimensional entity.

Add another dimension, call it time, and that 3 dimensional entity can move and change.

I don't know what adding another dimension would allow. I question the whole notion of more dimensions.

 

[barbos]

One point is that there's an explanatory gap left by general relativity and it's objective vision of a space-time block, whereby time is just one dimension of space-time. Clearly, that's not how we experience time subjectively.

Our subjective experience are often is simply wrong. If It weren't, then Special Relativity would not have been such a big deal. Having said that, my own subjective experience of time is consistent with Special Relativity

 

[bilby]

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - Douglas Adams.

I don't think that time is a mystery at all; The subjective issues we have with time are caused not by time being mysterious, but by subjectivity being mysterious.

 

[DBT]

Rate of change are relative to velocity, gravity, mass, temperature, as is the perception of rate of change, which we call time.

 

[fast]

Rate of change are relative to velocity, gravity, mass, temperature, as is the perception of rate of change, which we call time.

I'm not sure I totally grasp that. I took some calculus, so I'm a wee bit familiar with rate of change, and I've applied the concept in marketing, finance, and dismal attempts to conquer the stock market. Change of WHAT? You speak of velocity, gravity, mass, and temperature, and there's mention to perception. Maybe if you reworded the sentence. I got the part, "which we call time," but I got thrown about in the mix.

 

[DBT]

Rate of change are relative to velocity, gravity, mass, temperature, as is the perception of rate of change, which we call time.

I'm not sure I totally grasp that. I took some calculus, so I'm a wee bit familiar with rate of change, and I've applied the concept in marketing, finance, and dismal attempts to conquer the stock market. Change of WHAT? You speak of velocity, gravity, mass, and temperature, and there's mention to perception. Maybe if you reworded the sentence. I got the part, "which we call time," but I got thrown about in the mix.

I was simply referring to relativity.


''According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock.

Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster.[1][3][4] Time dilation has also been the subject of science fiction works, as it technically provides the means for forward time travel.[5]''


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

[Speakpigeon]

The clock is ticking...

And I don't have all the time in the world.

If anyone wants to say something relevant they better be quick about it.
EB

 

[barbos]

And I don't have all the time in the world.

If anyone wants to say something relevant they better be quick about it.
EB

ticking is relative

 

[fromderinside]

..... after which things are determined. I think this leaves us with being forced to specify that which is fixed thereafter. My problem is that time t depends on what conditions exist. If one is free to choose it can be any possible state. Whatever state is chosen there exists, according to Julian Barbour in his book  The End of Time (book), that is specification of a time capsule in an otherwise timeless world. Determinism certainly looks like an exercise in defining subjective experience.

 

[Malintent]

Change of WHAT?

Change of position. Even at a subatomic level, things move... this movement (the vibration of a particle at the coldest of temperatures)... is what we consider the shortest length of time... or, the most minimal, or foundational, representation of time.

 

[fast]

Change of WHAT?

Change of position. Even at a subatomic level, things move... this movement (the vibration of a particle at the coldest of temperatures)... is what we consider the shortest length of time... or, the most minimal, or foundational, representation of time.

That assumes that time is a function of movement. I disagree with that notion.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....snip.....
The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

.....snip.....

Actually relativity does explain what time is. That is sorta the whole point of the theory - it is a detailed description of how the universe works if Uncle Albert's understanding of time (which is explained by the theory) is correct.


For a lighter view of the nature of time:

Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

~John Archibald Wheeler

 

[PyramidHead]

Instead, our subjective experience of time discriminates, even segregates, the present moment from the rest of time. Our experience is that only the present moment exists. The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

All of this is consistent with general relativity and block-time conceptions of the universe. You are using language in a way that includes tense, which is one way of interpreting time. If you don't use tense, you can describe the same observations in different terms while still capturing everything. So it's not a matter of observation fitting one version and not another. It's like how people would sometimes say 'It was natural to think the earth was stationary, because that's how it looks from the ground.' To which (I believe) Wittgenstein replied: what would it look like from the ground, if it DID look like the earth was moving? The answer, of course, is that it would look exactly the way it does. Similarly, GR doesn't say we should be able to experience all moments of time simultaneously, it just says that points along a line do not disappear when we stop looking at them.

The real mystery, which neither the A-theory nor the B-theory even attempts to unravel, is how the 'subjectivity-function' of our brains creates the sensation of constant movement along that line. It's one thing to say that there are several consecutive points along the time axis, and at each point I am conscious. What the subjectivity-function seems to do is chain those points together so they are experienced as a stream.

 

[Speakpigeon]

.....snip.....
The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

.....snip.....

Actually relativity does explain what time is. That is sorta the whole point of the theory - it is a detailed description of how the universe works if Uncle Albert's understanding of time (which is explained by the theory) is correct.

I didn't claim that Relativity does not explain time.

My point is that Relativity doesn't explicitly explain our subjective experience of time.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Instead, our subjective experience of time discriminates, even segregates, the present moment from the rest of time. Our experience is that only the present moment exists. The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

All of this is consistent with general relativity and block-time conceptions of the universe. You are using language in a way that includes tense, which is one way of interpreting time. If you don't use tense, you can describe the same observations in different terms while still capturing everything.

I used tense for a reason. I was describing our subjective experience of time. Are you going to say that your experience of time is that the past is still there? That the future is already here? No. I don't think you would. Our subjective experience of time is that the past doesn't exist and that the future doesn't exist. So, now, how does Relativity explain that? Well, me, I think it doesn't. What do you think?

The real mystery, which neither the A-theory nor the B-theory even attempts to unravel, is how the 'subjectivity-function' of our brains creates the sensation of constant movement along that line. It's one thing to say that there are several consecutive points along the time axis, and at each point I am conscious. What the subjectivity-function seems to do is chain those points together so they are experienced as a stream.

Whoa! I'm truly impressed here. First, you miserably fail to understand my point about our subjective experience of time and then you proceed to explain the same thing in your own terms. Maybe my English is not good enough for you? Well, me, I understood what you said. Try it, it works.

Anyway, the positive side of it is you concur that there's no explanation to our subjective experience of time. Good.

So, anyone has any idea?
EB

 

[Malintent]

Change of WHAT?

Change of position. Even at a subatomic level, things move... this movement (the vibration of a particle at the coldest of temperatures)... is what we consider the shortest length of time... or, the most minimal, or foundational, representation of time.

That assumes that time is a function of movement. I disagree with that notion.

OK... How do you determine the length of a second? A second is a measure of time. Describing how you determine that value describes what time is, right? At least, partially, no?

 

[Juma]

Change of position. Even at a subatomic level, things move... this movement (the vibration of a particle at the coldest of temperatures)... is what we consider the shortest length of time... or, the most minimal, or foundational, representation of time.

That assumes that time is a function of movement. I disagree with that notion.

OK... How do you determine the length of a second? A second is a measure of time. Describing how you determine that value describes what time is, right? At least, partially, no?

That depends what you ask for.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....snip.....
The past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. So, it's a radical distinction, and one which is not explained by general relativity, or any science for that matter, or at least not explicitly. According to our subjective view of time, the universe only exists in the present. Only the universe as it is now exists. The universe as it was only yesterday, only a second ago, no longer exists, i.e. does not exist at all.

.....snip.....

Actually relativity does explain what time is. That is sorta the whole point of the theory - it is a detailed description of how the universe works if Uncle Albert's understanding of time (which is explained by the theory) is correct.

I didn't claim that Relativity does not explain time.

My point is that Relativity doesn't explicitly explain our subjective experience of time.
EB

Aha, sorry 'bout that. You are not talking about science then but philosophy. That may be a good question as to why humans have such misguided subjective experiences that are so contrary to physical reality or even their intellectual understanding. For example; people's subjective experience is that the Earth is stationary even though it is spinning on its axis and orbiting the Sun, then that Sun is orbiting the galactic core and the galaxy is hurtling through space.

 

[fast]

Change of position. Even at a subatomic level, things move... this movement (the vibration of a particle at the coldest of temperatures)... is what we consider the shortest length of time... or, the most minimal, or foundational, representation of time.

That assumes that time is a function of movement. I disagree with that notion.

OK... How do you determine the length of a second? A second is a measure of time. Describing how you determine that value describes what time is, right? At least, partially, no?

We use movement to measure time. Take away movement, we lose the ability to measure. Time marches on.