You can copy and paste this URL.
This URL will permanently link back to this page.
It is very clear to me that time exists only in the mind of humans. Our imagination has made this concept seem real however, it is not.
Case 1. Suppose the universe is homogeneous, whole and without a bound. Then there exists no time at all. In particular, there is not a time metric within this universe. In this universe, time is not a fundamental property.
Case 2. Suppose that the our universe has been separated (or partitioned) by man. This separation creates time, and additionally, the only artifact (of concern here) in the universe is then time. This act creates the time metric. Then, by the pigeonhole principal, used in reverse, we have a single cubbyhole that time is contained in. That is, the universe began as a whole and we as humans segmented it. By the act of segmenting the universe we created a single cubbyhole that contained time, ie a time metric.
General Note: Consider (as an analogy) my proof of the absence of randomness in the universe, that is a much more complex case of the same proof that I have employed for the concept of time. For the randomness proof we started with an infinite space of numbers, and when we separated the space (numeric space) into cubbyholes that would contain the numbers, one cubbyhole contained at least one object. See, Best-thinking's "To What Extent Does Randomness Exist?" Thus, this is the same argument used in denying that randomness exists, however, the proof in this case (the case of time) is far less complex. It is clear, the number of cubbyholes is much smaller, we are looking at just one separation of the universe and one object, ie time. Finally, time in the partitioned universe is a fundamental property. Humans do consider the universe as partitioned, but infinite.
My philosophical explanation is that Time is nothing more and nothing less than the relative motion of all things in motion.
To say that some event A occurs in a certain amount of 'time' is to say simply that A occurs as some other motion event occurs (e.g., as the earth rotates a certain fraction of a complete revolution, as the earth completes some fraction of an orbit around the sun, as the hands of an analog clock move a certain distance, as a quartz crystal vibrates, etc.).
That is not imaginary, it is observational.
This is why I reject the time-dilation theory proposed by Einstein (and accepted by virtually all scientists as if received from God on tablets).
What the time-dilation theory actually suggests is that, if you accelerate a space traveler to a velocity approaching the speed of light, this event will somehow cause the motion of the stars and planets to speed up---relative to the astronaut---or else it will cause the motion of everything in the spacecraft---including the astronaut's body---to actually slow down relative to the earth and sun back home.
Increasing the linear velocity of the spacecraft would cause this to happen? Where is the cause and effect?
In actual fact, this would mean that the atoms within the astronaut's body would slow down, electrons in their orbits would slow down, relative to the motion of the earth back home.
Currently accepted theory suggests that if a space traveler were accelerated to 99% of the speed of light and was then returned to earth, she would find that everyone had aged greatly or had long since passed away.
Logically, if Time itself had slowed down for the astronaut, relative to the Time experienced on earth, what that actually means is that the astronaut's physical motions and the motions of her atoms [and the spacecraft's atoms] would have been slowed down considerably compared to the motion of the humans/atoms on earth. She would not appear to be moving at all.
But there are all kinds of problems with this, aren't there? If the electrons were to slow down considerably in their orbits, wouldn't they crash into their nuclei?
What would happen if atoms that had been slowed down considerably were to come into contact with atoms that were moving much faster?
Deceleration does not reverse the 'effect' that is supposed to happen for it is still considered to be acceleration against the original motion, or so I was once told.
It is all so purely irrational.
The mistake that I believe Einstein, et al., made it that he held a certain variable in a mathematical equation---the speed of light---as a constant/limit, and when you do that, you force an actual constant, T, to vary as you increase V. He had a reason for doing this, but the lack of desirability of the Ether explanation is not reason enough to embrace the 'magic' of Relativity.
The speed of light is a measurement: this happens as that happens; there is nothing magical about it. Time is not a variable; it is ultimately the [relative] motion of all thing in motion imparted by some prior causal event.
As far as the various 'proofs' of time dilation are concerned, they can all be explained as the effects of other possibilities, e.g., the impreciseness of the instruments used to measure velocity at such high rates, or as caused by other possible phenomena that could have affected the experiments.
I once wrote this all down with Einstein's original time-dilation equations but don't know where I put it...I just wanted to respond to this discussion once I came across it.
Time is an invention, a place holder of events, a calendar if you will.
It organizes us, and keeps us consistent. It also creates chaos, and stress and puts the rise and fall of the sun in an orderly fashion to which our bodies respond. Nature has it's own time, the Universe... I suppose, it does too.
Hard to fathom our world without time yet in the imagination…. I could get there.
It is the next day across the world east of me and west they are just rising.
So time is really, just what you make of it and how you choose to hold to it (DL)
I believe that what we call the 'imagination' ~ can be used as one of the portals into what a human being calls the time/space continuum. I can see your point "that time exists only in the minds of humans." The human mind has, in my humble opinion, done just that, created 'time' in the thinkers perceived reality. The imagination though is not what I see as the creator of the limiting aspect of time. Could the figment of time then be a perception and not an act of the imagination? I really like your idea and agree with a seperation theory. Seperation between human perception and the Universal axiom.
The word 'time' ~ if viewed by using another word 'omnipotent', and is expressed and defined as "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful" (The American Heritage Dictionary), then I believe we are getting closer to an understanding of what we refer to as 'time' ~ the elusive concept of something which has been lost through a seperation induced by human perception, and in which can be found in the universal axiom.
I really enjoyed the opportunity to read your thoughts and share a few of my own on, The Concept of Time. See you on Facebook...my friend :)
I was interest in your ideas as I have been curious about the difference between the physical reality of time as opposed to the artifical constructs for measuring this phenomenon. I would respectully offer the following for your consideration:
The overreaching theme of all human existence and thought is centered in our continuing efforts to place ourselves in time—to mark and control our perception of existence by fixing permanent and unchanging static points within a constantly changing and dynamic universe. These imaginative efforts take place in a time continuum between absolute past and absolute future—the continually changing and moving flashpoint of the present.
1. Supposing that the universe is homogeneous doen't make it so. It is quite obvious that it isn't.
2. What do you mean by "the universe is whole"? See also point 5.
3. Supposing that the universe has no bound doesn't make it so.
4. I have no idea how the assumptions lead to the conclusion that time does not exist, but since the assumptions have some problems, the conclusion is not proven.
5. Time is not the same as time metric, just like a map of the world is not the world. The fact that time metrics are human and arbitrary doesn't tell us anything about time itself. Case 2 of the proof seems to arise from this flaw. And a statement like "the universe is whole" requires a careful defintion to avoid this trap.
6. "The universe began as a whole and we as humans segmented it" has two problems. First, it contains the flaw of my point 5. Second, it implicitly assumes the existence of time. Otherwise, the word "began" would have no meaning.
On this subject matter, the existence of Time, I respectifully disagree with your theory.
As support for my thought is the seperation created by day and night.
Your very theory of the lack of Randomness shows that these acts (day, night) was due to an organized effort. In seperating the day from night the concept of Time was established for this Earth. Since we agree that our Solar System was not an act of Randomness but an effort of Organization we should be able to deduce that the concept of Time already existed and why it was implimented in the day and night scenario.
We can see similar, if not exactly the same, examples of Time frames in the Seasons. The Oceans morning and evening Tides.
It is my feeling and opinion that Time exist in the Universe, Cosmos as it is my belief that this World was an organized creation, not a random happening.
1. universe is one
2. life evolves within the universe, and becomes self aware
3. in its self awareness "life" creates two cubbyholes: the universe and myself.
4. in the "myself" cubbyhole, this "life" is now free to add as many constructs as its clever little mind can invent - "time" being prominent among them, "0" (zero) being another (that is currently my favorite).
Your suggestion that time exists only in our minds is correct in the sense that once we die, our universe collapses. Everything that exists has vanished, including time. However, I am not sure that I completely agree with your second observation regarding imagination making this concept real. Personally, I look at time as a measure (rather than a concept), a unit, a tool, something that came to life borne out of necessity. And just like a tool or measure, it can be changed, adopted, or simply ignored if not needed (as evidenced by some indiginous tribes whose language for example does not include words such as good bye, or tomorrow).
I am not in favor of great generalizations such as “humans do consider the universe as partitioned, but infinite.” Unless you have surveyed every race on every continent…:-)Literature shows that there is a sizable group of reputable scientists who have established working theories about our universe being finite.
This new Article is not yet ready for syndication. Please check back in a few minutes.
This Article is not available for syndication. Contact BestThinking for details.
Enjoy high quality content through BestThinking's syndication program. Learn more and register as a publisher today!
Enhance your publication, blog or journal with high quality content from BestThinking. Whether you are looking for a single feature article, a stream of dynamic content or just a few pieces each month, BestThinking's unique, customizable syndication feeds provide rights-verified material from identity verified Thinkers.
To syndicate a Blog or Article, you’ll need to start by setting up a feed. Creating a feed is a 3-step process:
New Book Exposes Darwin's Greatest Secret
In his new book Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, Thinker Mike Sutton reveals in compelling and convincing detail that the theory of natural selection was not independently discovered by Charles Darwin.
Sutton’s sharp objective eye of the criminal investigator and academic creates a vivid and authentic depiction of the times, the characters, and the cover-up that endured for over 130 years – until now.
About the Author
I am a cognitive inventor. In particular, I have a theory that uses the simple idea that if you have n cubbyholes and n+1 items to stuff i
This article describes how it is that a one celled microscopic animal was able to infect much of the worlds population. The Center for Disease Control came out with a alarming statement of late, they stated that over 60 million Americans have been infected with an parasite called Toxoplasma gondii.
Humans in America now have a life span of an average of 77.2 years (women out live men by 5.41 years, ( see about.com us government Info.). Contrast this statistic with people who lived in Europe in the middle 1500's; they lived 50 years on average. The reason for the modern increase in life...
Long ago Royal Rife looked into the nature of of molds. He found, when looking through powerful microscopes (he invented them), that molds actually take three forms in their life cycle. They are mold, fungi and bacteria. He also deduced that ANY of these three forms are a danger to human...