Theory of time as emergent/ conceptual in nature

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

No, I don’t think it’s terrible at all.

Time is a constant measure of potential change (a gram is always a gram), and the speed of time is the rate of that change.

The radioactive decay of Uranium will always take X seconds, but those seconds may occur at different rates than the same event when a given energetic context is applied to it, such as gravity or motion. One gravity A second may take longer to conclude than a gravity B second. This is because energy modifies the rate of change, without modifying it in any other way, so that all parts of the event occur in the same succession and thus take the same amount of time regardless of the speed of time.

I suppose quantic analysis would take a different approach. The question then would be what exact measurement you are referring to when you say “time,” how can you replicate the measurement, and how is the measurement affected when subjected to a given set of circumstances within a given, hermetic set of theoretical postulates, which themselves would require repeatable methods of measurement.

I would say yours is a pretty spot on definition of time within a context of relativistic physics.

22

It’s also spot on within metaphysics.

23

Relativists are incurable.

1 Like
24

I need to make a correction, as I realized my wording contradicts my own definition when I said that time exists as a potential. It should read: time is a potential as long as something exists with the potential to change. My original wording makes time a substance or thing that can lie dormant. That is not what I mean. So long as existence exists with the potential for measurable change, time is an applicable measurement.

25

The problem is that metaphysics, if defined as a rational ability to fit scientific observation with intuitive (subconscious comprehension developped from a lifetime of interacting with the world) understanding, doesn’t scale.

If you zoom in far enough, not only is the infinitesimal (defined as the imaginary continuity between measurement and intuition, reified by scientific theory) not there, but the line is not there and nothing relates to anything you know (because, evidently, you only know things on roughly the human body scale).

Now, you can do what Einstein did, and bend over backwards to make it fit.

Or you can do the other thing: question the very philosophical underpinnings of assigning metaphysical truth to intuition.

It’s not to say that intuition is false, but that perhaps one assumes too much in tying theory to it. As if one had a neat and well explored map of what produces intuition.

You can cast doubt, that is to say, on the very concept of metaphysics. Even deny it entirely.

Functionally, if not always spiritually, this is what quantic physicists do. There are no metaphysics. All theories are simple expedients in order to conceptually link together phenomena that are seen to link observationaly (by measurement). It is no longer a claim on reality, but an accounting mechanism. To be discarded without hesitation or passion at the first zig of the zag.

Quantic analysis is not a metaphysical answer. It is a denial of metaphysics. The form of this denial is not an ontology, which would be metaphysical, but an analytical method.

In other words, in a quantic analysis, the question is not what time is. The question is which relationship of measurements you are using the word for. The reason for the question is not understanding. It is the furtherance in accuracy and scope of actionable theory.

The intuitive revelation in quantic analysis is massively simplified. It is not an intuitive revelation about substance, but about effective method.

Further, to question a quantic mentality about the eventual quest for substance is pointless. It is the abandonment of the quest, the massive weight it adds, that gives it its power. It is endless because it is a method, rather than itself a theory. Therefore, to add a substantial burden would, at any time and forever, hinder it.

26

The beauty is that my metaphysics meshes with physics shockingly well without any forcing. It fits like a glove with quantum mechanics, relativity, cognition, math, music, watercolor painting, consciousness, information theory, thermodynamics, entropy, black holes, the Big Bang. It is not rationalism. I got the idea from looking at reality.

Three modes of existence, or the expression of identity: unexpressed, partially expressed, and fully expressed. Call them U mode, T mode (transition mode), crossing the boundary between U and D, and D mode, which is full, stable differentiation or expression of identity.

Time only exists in T and D mode because time is the measurement of the expression of identity, which is how a thing exists or what it exists as. Time begins at the U-T boundary because crossing it imparts measurements. Identity expresses itself in two ways: Temporally, which means sequentially, and spatially, which means in extension.

Consider e = mc². Energy (T mode expression) = Mass(D mode expression) x c (the speed of propagation of the expression of identity) x spatial expression at c and temporal expression at c.

Time is the measure of the temporal dimension.

27

I agree more or less exactly with your definition here, but I am not sure how this has implications regarding the big bang and the eternal Universe.

Since ‘we’ define ‘time’ as the conceptual measurement of the duration between perceived events, or relational motion or change, it could be said and argued that ‘time’ therefore did not begin until an organism or species starting measuring change/duration.

Now, if the big bang happened at or with ‘singularity’, which I define as the infinite compression of matter’, which just means that all space is removed, and so there is just matter only, then there is obviously nothing else that could have a relational motion with, and thus nothing to measure, expressed in units or intervals, now associated with clock or watch movements, also known as seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, et cetera.

Singularity might be moving, but because there is nothing else to measure it against, there is, in a sense, no duration, nor even any place as well.

‘Time’ when considered as measurement only, like ‘gravity’ considered as an energy, and both not considered as some independently existing entities themselves, then this fits in perfectly with the G.U.T. and the T.O.E.

28

‘Time’, the measuring or measurement of the duration between perceived events’, or relational motion or change, (I say perceived events, with an ‘s’ because essentially as there is only One event only, but because of the way the brain works ‘we’ perceive more than one event), is also in relation to light only. Or, the light from the sun more specifically. ‘We’ change our clocks and watches to match in with the sun’s light, ‘we’ obviously do not change the relational rotation of the earth with the sun to match up with our watches and other measuring devices.

Light is what ‘we’ use to measure the duration between nominated moments or events, and ‘we’ use measuring devices with human created units and intervals.

29

People ask, “What came before the Big Bang?” as if time is a container that the universe is inside of. But if time is a measurement of change, it changes the picture. There is no before, no infinite past time. It’s a m mistake. The universe began in U-mode, completely without dimensions. The universe didn’t explode; it differentiated from a zero-dimension state. It isn’t the creation of the universe. It’s the differentiation of the universe from an undifferentiated state, and time measures that expression. The speed of that expression is the speed of light, by the way.

30

That’s very good, I admit it. But you seem to fail to incorporate that some things happen faster than light. Change in identity, thus, can happen faster than light. The problem Einstein had with this is that a causal chain cannot be shown for how this happens. When you zoom in enough to get the bare pieces for it, nothing scaled and the chain is lost by virtue of losing coherence. What I expressed elsewhere about boundaries dissipating, first into ranges, then altogether.

Modern quantic physicists would consider identity not to be fine grained enough. Things can change without identity. They thus have instead proposed information. Anything that changes will constitute information.

They do consider this to be a metaphysical claim, but I diverge here. I think, instead, that what they have functionally done with that atomization is to recognize the primacy of the analysis in any physical study. The smallest element is not something found in substance, but applied by mind.

31

The speed of light limit applies to T mode propagation, not D mode identity change or re-expression. The speed of light is the speed of the expression of identity, not the change in identity.

32

Alright that’s extremely good.

33

The change from U mode Identity to T mode is instantaneous, or, if you want to express it in spacetime terms, the Planck time.

34

Or consider a wave function collapse to a particle. A wave is T mode and propagates at c. But when it interacts with a D mode object it instantly collapses to a D mode particle, or as fast as is possible, the Plank Time.

35

Gravity, in my model is a D mode object, mass energy, causing a T mode distortion in D mode space that propagates at the speed of light.

36

Faster than speed of light? Black hole gravity is faster than light.

37

This is all very good.

38

Though I don’t see why this necessarily would break your model. It’s still a T D transition. Energy is not mass movement like light describes, there is no movement per se that gravity describes.

I’m realizing that I misread your earlier distinction. Where I thought you meant light speed limit didn’t operate was U - U.

39

This is why quantic analysis is so convenient. It doesn’t really have to bother with any of these rules.

Ok so black hole gravity is faster than light. But this violates electron-scale possible speed. Ok so the problem is sub-electronic.

Ok but sub-electronic doesn’t obey mass dynamics. It doesn’t even respect locality.

Well ok fine who cares. What does it obey? How can it be traced without violating previous known relationships of measurement of information? No holds barred.

40

Black hole gravity does not propagate faster than the speed of light. It propagates at c, and the LIGO experiment confirmed this. The escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, which is why not even light can escape.