Time - Fact or Fiction?

[Snypiuer]

O.K., in the hopes that ANY sort of discussion will spark activity, we have begun a topic on Higher Minimum Wages which everyone is invited to join in. Feel free to add other topics. I am adding this one:

 

Time, does it actually exist?

[Snypiuer]

I am going with: Time is nothing more than a concept we use to differentiate between infinite, exact moments in which everything in existence is fixed in a unique position. In other words, while time works to give us information on that which we observe, it, in and of itself, does not actually exist. Like numbers. Show me a 1. Not a representation of a 1. An actual THING that is a 1. There is no such thing. Yet, it's a concept that functions to give us information on AMOUNTS of that which we observe.

[Hjolnai]

Not having looked into either the philosophy or the physics dealing with time, I'm not too sure what to think about it (outside the fact that if it exists, it's more complicated than most people seem to think - with black holes and relativistic speeds distorting it significantly, it's quite difficult to deal with).

 

However, there is a point here which I would like to address:

 

Show me a 1. Not a representation of a 1. An actual THING that is a 1. There is no such thing. Yet, it's a concept that functions to give us information on AMOUNTS of that which we observe.

 

The problem with this is, I can give the same argument for most objects. You cannot show me a brick. You can show several different representations - the sight, texture, weight, taste, smell (minimal), and the sound it makes when colliding with another brick, but all those sensations are actually electrical signals in the brain (which can be fooled in a number of ways, notably in holding the assumption that objects exist). All these meet our ideas of what a brick is, but in fact there is no such thing as a brick. On a small scale, there is a large set of atoms "connected" to each other, which sort of makes sense to count as a single object. On an even smaller scale, however, there is a probability cloud of electrons and a bunch of nuclei. At this scale it makes no sense to say that the subatomic particles classed as "brick" are any different from the adjacent ones classed as "dirt" or "air" - there are just areas where the probability of an electron being present are higher, increasing the tendency of some nuclei to stay close to each other. There are ways of looking even closer, but those go beyond my knowledge.

 

To quote (yes, the source is fiction, fanfiction even, but it was specifically written to use real science - although it should be noted here that the science here is not "settled" completely):

There were no particles, there were just clouds of amplitude in a multiparticle configuration space and what his brain fondly imagined to be an eraser was nothing except a gigantic factor in a wavefunction that happened to factorize, it didn't have a separate existence any more than there was a particular solid factor of 3 hidden inside the number 6...

 

(Eliezer Yudkowsky, http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/28/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality - I highly recommend reading it, the normally poor reputation of fanfic is undeserved here)

 

Thus, the number 1 has just as much existence as a brick does - both are concepts without exact reality.

[Snypiuer]

Read the link and found it interesting. It brought up a few things and I need to dust off some books. The story dealt with physics and long, LONG ago, Snypiuer went to college on a physics scholarship (no, I didn't graduate - long story). The piece itself actually is based on time not existing, so I need to look up a few things to form an opinion on the subject of numbers existing. Will TRY not to procrastinate too much and, as always, anyone else who wants to weigh in, can.

[Snypiuer]

O.K., after reading your link, I did a bit of looking around. The science of the story is, basically, an amalgamation of physics and philosophy. Simplified, it's 'all of reality is composed of energy' and 'everything is what it is because of how an individual perceives it'. The physics used is 'Timeless Physics', which actually affirms my original argument of time not actually existing.

 

 

*On a quick side track, I never knew of this theory (actually 2 similar theories with slight differences) and find that, with a little tweaking on WHY they reach their conclusion, they may hold promise (yes, I said THEY need to adjust their premise. In other words, while I agree with them as a whole, I am correct as to the WHY and they are wrong). On another side track, this is the second time in the last few months that I have discovered that a belief I hold actually has an established system in place. The first being, unknown to me, it seems I am a practicing 'Discordian' - go figure. . .*

All in all, a sound and cogent explanation of reality. Where the mistake is made, is in using this theory in relation to numbers. While I readily agree that all of reality is nothing more than different configurations of energy and how an individual perceives those configurations, numbers do not fall under this - any energy related to numbers lies, solely, within the object it quantifies, separate from the number itself. Thus, while we 'perceive' numbers, there is no energy component to them and, in order for anything to be more than a concept, it must consist of energy that is then defined by an individuals perception of that energy.

 

Numbers, simply, do not fit this criteria.