If nothing in the universe moves over a period of time except for a single clock that moves forward 10 minutes and a rock, have 10 minutes past? No other thing has moved or changed, including other clocks.
Does “No other thing has moved or changed” included signals in human brains? How are we defining “minutes”? Isn’t a clock actually a bunch of different things? Isnt’ a rock?
No signals in human brains have gone off. The molecules in the brain over the period of time that the clock moved 10 minutes ahead are all in their same positions.
Yes the clock and the rock are made up of many things. Minutes are defined as a measurement of time.
From the point of view of the clock and the rock, ten minutes have passed. From the point of view of the rest of the universe, no time has passed.
No, 10 minutes may have past, but nothing moved in that time.
How did the clock move? How did the rock move? I think those are important (one could, for instance, use the force exerted on the rock and how far it went to figure out how much time has passed).
I also think that it depends heavily on how one defines time. If time is just a social agreement based on common observations, then “ten minutes” are defined by a clock which people have agreed reads “minutes” reliably. If there is such an agreement about the clock in question, and this clock’s word is somehow more reliable than the words of all other clocks in the universe, then yes, ten minutes have passed.
The rock was suspended in air at the time time froze. It fell while all other things were frozen. The clock was mechanical and it moved by it’s own power.
Time is a social agreement based on common observations.
I suppose, then, that ten minutes did not pass. From the perspective of society, the clock skipped ten minutes in a tic, while all other clocks remained in agreement.
Time is a measurement of change. It is mostly a logical - mathematical model our mind uses to order and decode reality. In physics we use it to reference the repetition of results in measurements and experimental configurations. It is strongly based on our memories, how we organize and order events within our memory. Does it exist outside of our usage of it ? We are locked into a system that imposes us to use this model although I am not really sure if other primitve or different civilizations have always used it, or may have an approximation of it or who knows. I am not really sure if events are obliged to be organized as a sequence of cause and effects.
In a sense time is tied up to the concept of numbers and to mathematics in general. These are items of matter - energy that have relationships with each other, and there are many possible relationships between pieces of matter - energy. But they are always models and approximations that are useful only according to how we are related to them and how we use them. They are not absolute, they resemble toys and jokes, matter - energy from its very existence on is totally unknowable, whatever “knowing” even means, what we kind of “know” is only our own mind and the relationships this has with our models and interactions with matter - energy, reality.
The problem with philosophical thought or the attempt to decode or reduce (as in reductionism) reality as precise as possible is the fact that we try to over impose logical models past their usefulness. We can invent all kinds of models and maybe some may even be very good and precise and some very few may even allow us to manipulate matter - energy slightly more, but in most cases we overdo it, we try to constrain this analysis of reality in boxes where it can’t fit, or it can’t be further broken down into. From there on any art form as an explanation is probably closer, the grand unified theory of physics can be a painting.
The fact is the interaction of matter - energy with itself, its self manipulation discovers relationships within itself (brain is matter - energy interacting with itself). So these logical - mathematical relationships emerge from matter - energy and are at the same “time” the very bases for the existence of this very matter - energy. But existence is only a logical - mathematical concept as is all of human language. It is a kind of quantization imposed upon matter - energy by itself on larger pieces of itself and not only on the microscopic (and then “microscopic” according to who, us ?, are we the size reference ?) elementary particles.
The clock and rock simply changed very quickly compared to the rest of the universe. They change their configuration in maybe 10^-100 seconds, so everything else is perfectly still but only those two things moved (faster than the speed of light ?). 10 minutes have not passed only 10^-100 seconds have passed though, but only those two items have moved.
Funny how science quickly runs out of explanations. At most we have descriptions, assignments of facts we observe with no further possible explanation. If 10^-100 seconds is the smallest quantum time interval, then any item A that changes from A to B in that time interval just occurs instantaneously, or just jumps from A to B. There is no further explanation then the fact that it jumps from A to B and B is different from A. Time just measures this change and is created by this change. The sequence of all these changes on longer and longer time intervals creates the impression of the passage of time. But why and how the elementary particle or quantum foam or virtual item goes from A to B cannot be explained. It is the end of the line for temporal reductionism, it is the ultimate cause and effect, with there really being no cause but just a sequence of events. A can be different from B to any degree, A can be a flower and B a skyscraper, it just must be different. And even if there where further explanations, no matter how far you go you would end up with a fact, a simple assignment of A jumping to B.
If the explanation is described in our natural language, it is just a combination of symbols, another combination that gives us a feeling that we have gone deeper or know more when in fact we are always at the same point and just saying the same thing, a bit like thinking that a language has already said all that is possible since a language is just the rules of the combination of the symbols.
So the laws of physics follow a pattern, but it is an irreducible pattern, it is a given, an invariant of which we are locked in. So even if we could see outside of them or even if we could discover some other explanations and eventual manipulations of matter, we could not relate to it in any way, we could not use it, recognize it, or even be aware of it. We can invent other universes with other laws of physics and maybe simulate them on computers in the future but we are always using something we can relate to, so it is somehow always based on the laws of physics we already know.
Another interesting thing is that computers work on a minimum time interval called a clock and build everything up from there, very similar to our laws of physics where the minimum time interval (maybe 10^-100 seconds) is the bases to building up longer events and the physics we observe.
check out:
The observer of the change must be an invariant. But if the observer changes in such a way as to see A and then converts B to A, so that is does not recognize that B is different, then no change occured when in fact it did.
And what if only the observer changed and sees B in place of A when A really didn’t change ? You are putting too many limits on reality, the time intervals may go down forever, and then who is the observer ?
You would need an observer the size of the universe to be sure that A is different from B. And then even in that case the observer may simply be lying to itself.
As far as simulating other universes and laws of physics, don’t put any limits on what is possible. Within the framework of technological singularities with modifed minds - logic - memories - computers - emotions etc, anything is possible even things we presently can’t “relate to”.
Relativity.
Time continues normally for both the clock and the universe, the only difference is perspective. The universe is moving extremely slow in relation to the clock, but in relation to itself, everything occurs normally.
Thanks for the responses.
There is no such thing as “change”, there is only movement which is synonymous with evolution.
There is no such thing as “time” being a tangible element in itself. The illusion of time only seperates the events of past, present and future so that we don’t have to deal with them simultaneously. Everything is occurring at once. The illusion of time only gives us the perception of a past, present and a future.
What “future”? The only moment is now. We walk through a constant moment called the “present”. The “past” exists only in our memory. The “future” exists in our imagination. We can imagine where we will be 50 years from now and call it the “future”, but when we get there, it will be the “present”.
When you walk through life and accumulate memories over a period of 50 years, funny how it took 50 years to live and create those memories, but when we remember those memories, they come to us instantaneously. It does not take 50 years for them to come through our thoughts. When we remember and when we imagine, ALL TIME IS ELIMINATED!!! Like it never existed.
The speed of thought exceeds the speed of light and transcends the illusion of “time”. The universe is a complex system of “thought”.
Check out:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=153992
time is just a snapshot of a configuration, a sequence of configurations.
That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard… Time is not tangeable? Then why is it affected by gravity? Change doesn’t exist but evolution does? Evolution IS Change! Memories are not experiences, they are imprints of experiences. Just because one takes a picture does not mean that the camera moves faster than the speed of light. There is absolutely no logic in any of your claims… wtf is our world coming to. If you are going to deny everything we hold true, at least do it with style and reasoning… not just because you feel like it.
Edit: What the hell are you smoking?
Edit2: The more I read what you wrote, the more I favor the idea of a Stupid Colony.