He’s a scatter brain
But if it can’t be measured then how do we know time has past?
You said one assumes the existence of phenomena, now you say one assumes the hypothesis exists then look for the phenomena. Obviously no scientist assumes that their hypothesis is actually true before they start the scientific method.
Do you need to measure time to know it has past?
At most, what would follow from such an argument is that the way we conceive of time is incoherent. But it wouldn’t disprove its existence. TBH arguments like these are why I’m not overly fond of metaphysics. They’re hard to wrap your head around, and often the conclusion is far less startling than it promises to be.
Well how can you know it has past even if you can’t measure it in marginal units?
Haha well said.
Assume the existence of the hypothesis’ predicted phenomena.
One needs to assume that gravity waves exist before looking for them.
How do you know time has past without a clock? A) It’s a subjective sensation of progressive movement (even though what you experience constantly is the present… so I would say your memories are what enable you to feel this “movement”) and B) environmental changes like the sun setting/rising &c. It’s pretty hard to verbalise because time is not an easily concretisable phenomenon. Why would you need to measure it to know it’s past? All measurement does is give you numbers, whereas far more is implied in the concept of time, namely A & B and possibly things I haven’t mentioned. It’s the least important aspect AFAIK.
Ok but then would you not say ‘now falsify it’ considering your earlier comments?
Not necessarily, it could be an accidental discovery.
Ah an even better argument then mine.
I think basically A) meshes with the one you evoked. B) is just aspects of the world people tend to associate with the passing of time, so it is really contingent on the subjective sentiment I mentioned in A).
One would then proceed to look for evidence proving the assumed hypothesis false.
Accidental discoveries do happen, like the CMBR, but most of science is built upon normal science, which will proceed via falsifying hypotheses.
Yes, time exists; we all travel through it (on it?) every single day, as space and time are interwoven. Traveling means moving through both time and space; the faster you move, the slower your time is relative to others, which means time travel is possible.
Time travel is possible, thus time exists (or traveling through it would be impossible).
The question “what is time?” is connected to a highly abstract mathematical problem called the “Continuum Hypothesis”. The CH drove two of the greatest mathematicians ever to live insane (Georg Cantor who originated it and, later, Kurt Godel). Basically, we think of time like a continuum, where there is no “gap” or separation from moment to moment. Time is smooth. When you wave your hand side to side, there is no digitalness or jerkiness to it, it seems to pass through every point in the intervening space, even though there is an infinity of such points. Of course, there is an infinity of points between any two points in space (or time) only conceptually, not physically. Physically, quantum mechanics tells us that there is actually a lower bound on how finely space and time can be subdivided.
I like to think of the problem of time in terms of movie frames. If each frame is an instant in time, then how do we get from one frame to the next? For if time is truly smooth then there must always been an infinity of intervening frames between any two given frames, which leads to Zeno’s paradox. It’s like we need a way to melt the movie frames together so that they are just one, continuous solid block in order to square conceptual time with mathematics.
Clayton -
@ the OP
Dude, the passage of time is an action produced phenomenon and therefore a priori. The mind of an actor cannot concieve of a set of events independent of a temporal sequence. We cannot concieve of an effect without its cause.
Did I answer this before or after you posted your question?
In the Special Theory, Einstein assumes an objective concept of the passage of time. He then shows that the measurement of this objective phenomenon is relative to one’s frame of reference. I don’t think you’ve read his work.
How could you know what the change in position of the clock’s hand means if you didn’t already know what time was in the first place?
Wouldn’t that be assuming the hypothesis is false?
Falsifying is a method by which one looks for evidence against a hypothesis, so it does not assume that the hypothesis is false, but it does strive to prove the hypothesis false.
I don’t see how. I also don’t understand the continuum hypothesis very well.
This is an epistemological error held by many intellectuals. Actually, the reason why space and time are represented this way in quantum mechanics is because of the fact that there is a limit to how precisely one can measure both the momentum and position of a particle (Heisenberg uncertainty principle). This tells us nothing about the underlying phenomenon which is beyond human observation.
I just don’t see the problem you do. Actions are discrete, and yet, procede through continuous time within continuous space.
At a conceptual level, the Continuum Hypothesis is the question “Does the powerset of the natural numbers (real numbers) have a 1-to-1 correspondence to the abstract number line (continuum)?” The alternative is that the number line is far denser than even the powerset of the natural numbers (real numbers). If CH is false, then every point on the abstract number line corresponds to a real number. If CH is true, then there are not enough real numbers to assign one to every point in the continuum.
To me, understanding what is meant by the “continuum” is key. The continuum is a philosophical idea and the CH is really a problem of mapping the mathematical idea of sets to the philosophical idea of a continuum. The continuum, in turn, is really the embodiment of our intuitive conception of “continuousness” or “smoothness of time, space and geometric abstractions such as lines or circles”. So, the CH is related to the question “what is time?” in the following way: Are there enough real numbers to assign every point in time a unique real number (conceptually, not physically). The question is somewhat pedantic because we can only physically divide time with rational numbers (finite precision), in any case.
In any case, there is a lower bound to the resolution with which it is even theoretically possible to divide time and space via observation. I don’t mean to imply that this suggests time is discrete or non-continuous.
But you’re assuming what “continuous” “time” and “space” are. That may work for praxeology where these concepts are not the object of study but it does not work for physics and the foundations of mathematics where defining “continuous” “time” and “space” are problems of central importance.
Clayton -