Does time really exist?

north wrote:

a consequence of physical movement by physical things which change position , which is measureable by using time

Quote:

And if it is only measurable using time, then it appears that it can only be defined in terms of time. So there doesn't appear to be any independence of motion from time, and to say

my point is , is that time has no physical pressence , no physical substance and no physical influence upon any thing at all

therefore time ONLY exists in mathematics as defining a movement

but NOT the essence of the movemnet in the first place

that my point

Luzy wrote:

we are living in motion not in time.

seems to be nonsense.

I don't mean to appear snide, but the definition would be length.

thack45 wrote:

I don't mean to appear snide, but the definition would be length.

Something like 'movement is length'? What does that mean?

do you understand my last post ?

north wrote:

do you understand my last post ?

Yes, you wrote that time exists as defining movement, therefore there is no movement independent of time, therefore it is nonsense to say that we live in motion but not in time, because time is included in motion.

TIME IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF THE MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND CAN NEVER BE

north wrote:

TIME IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF THE MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND CAN NEVER BE

Quote:

Whatever your definition of "essence of movement" might be, it will depend on a definition of movement, which will in turn depend on a definition of time.

my point with the snooker example is this first that time is not physical , two that the movement of the player who hits the white ball , which makes contact with any other ball on the table , is not a definition of movement , but the reality of interactions of things that are going on right now in this Universe , in any part of the Universe close , to the farthest depth of the Universe is going on without any definition of these interactive movements by us

the Universe does not care what we think , at all

Quote:

Therefore, if there is no time, then there is no movement, and if there is no movement, then there is no essence of movement. Whether time is the essence of movement is irrelevant to the claim that we live in motion but not in time. That claim is nonsense.

time only exists in the sense that we want to understand things , the hows , whys , whats etc.

to me there will come a time , in our history , our understanding of things , where time is an obsolete mathematical tool

Yes, it seems to me that arguments about whether "motion" or "time" is a priori are as meaningless as whether Northerners think Australians are "upside down" or vice versa. Questions of definition have been resolved for physics by the concept of "space-time". But physics also makes use of the concept of a standard "meta-observer" who has no particular fixed reference frame. This is quite different to the idea of "we" as in "we observe motion and interpret that motion as the passage of time," because that "we" already implies a fixed reference frame.

So...two pages of a discussion about time go by without the word "relativity" making an appearance?

North, you are avoiding the question. Obviously time represents the interactions of matter, but the philosophical bus does not stop there. Gravity represents the mutual attraction between masses, but philosophically is that how you want to define gravity?

A coherent interpretation of relativity is that time is a 4th spatial dimension, and what we subsist in is an interwoven space-time. We don't know exactly what "space" is either so I guess that adds to the problem.

Experts on relativity will tell you that their best description about what exactly the light speed limit represents, is a "straight line" between spatiotemporal points. What that means is that if an object is a minimum of 300,000 kilometers away from me, it is also a minimum of one second away from me (C=300,000 km/sec).

My personal view is that at least a 5th dimensional spatial interaction is necessary to complete the picture. We can say that we actually exist in a possibility space which we move through in spatiotemporal frames which are the "size" of Planck length and Planck time. So objects are some exact number of spatiotemporal frames from one another. (This is expanded from the view that we are moving through 3d spatial frames through temporality). I'll explain more if anyone wants but its mainly speculative with some inferences from relativity/quantum theory.