Is time linear? What even is time?
It isn't what but when.
>>1367206
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OvltlOA8XE
>>1367206
Time is an illusion that man created to better percieve the order of events as they happened around them.
>>1367206
Ultimately, it's a product of acceleration. Time began when "something" first moved at a different pace than the rest of everything.
>>1367222
???
Time is definitely not an illusion. Our measurements of it are arbitrary and made up, but it is as real as any other measurable property, like distance or weight.
Honestly this is a bad question for /his/, you are just gonna get "you cant know nothin" answers about it not being real from people who are aging whether or not they acknowledge it.
>>1367206
Time is the force/dimension/whatever that allows change to occur in the universe. No time=no change.
>>1367243
How is time "Real"? How is it anything other than the units we use to make up time? Our measurements of time is literally the parameters of time's existence.
Unless you have some bottled time sitting next to you, of course.
>>1367222
>Time is an illusion
>the order of events
You called it an illusion while defining what it actually is in the same post. It's like you experience your sentence fragments in two different brains.
>>1367255
>it's an autists can't understand abstract concepts episode
>>1367255
You notice how there was an interval between when you read my post and when you responded to it?
>>1367252
That's just a roundabout way of saying 'time' is just another word for 'change', anon.
If not an illusion, you can say time is a man-made tool to keep track of change.
>>1367271
Yes, but this interval is not a physical force in and of itself. That would imply time is linear and that the last post exists in its own universe, which is absurd.
Rather, we measure that interval and we call that measurement "time".
>>1367272
I fucking love Don't Hug Me I'm Scared. I think it's great how, when posited that time might be an illusion, the clock goes fucking apeshit and makes ears bleed.
You should post this elsewhere. This is a physics question and almost nobody here studies physics.
>>1367288
I don't think physics people have the answer either, frankly.
>>1367285
I'm not saying it's a physical force. I'm just saying it'd definitely real and easily observable and measurable. Is your point just that our word "time" is meaningless and our measurements are made up? That's obviously true, yeah. That would also apply to every other word in my post.
>>1367288
It's not entirely physics. There is a metaphysical understanding of the concept of time, even to astringent mathematicians. If you see it all as physics, even then, that concept in and of itself, is your philosophy, your outlook.
>>1367288
That isn't entirely accurate. Time is possibly just a human concept, which fits under the subject of humanities.
Of course, that could be my /his/ brain telling me that. If you ask both /his/ and /sci/, you're going to get different but not necessarily correct answers.
>>1367302
Well it's not a human concept. Something is happening, we observe it and label it. The labels are man-made and relative to our capacity to observe. That "something which is happening", however, the nature of change, is what is objectively true and arguably "out of sight" or in the realm only of postulation and belief, or a metaphysical value.
Here is an interesting example, so I don't need to make pasta, if you're interested. These also are not currently the "only" concepts.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/time-metaphysics-of
>>1367302
Time is not a human concept. Even birds fly south for the winter. Rocks weather and undergo metamorphosis. Our way of measuring it is a human concept. But it is as real as weight or distance or colors by virtue of how easily it can be measured.
It really feels like some people itt are trying to redefine the word "real" to mean tangible or physically manifest. That is not what it means. That which is measurable is real.
>>1367292
So then, you are well learned in physics and have a good understanding of how physicists define time? Or are you rejecting something without actually knowing what it is or how it fits into our entropic universe?
>>1367255
Do you have bottled momentum by you? How about bottled escape velocity? What about bottled altitude? All those things must be fake I guess.
itt: why philosophers don't design aircraft
>>1367326
So are you going to propose concepts of existence which we can't measure are not real? Are 0mass subatomic particles "unreal"?
>>1367206
Hrm... Change and technological progress ends up being exponential over time.
Maybe time is speeding up as the universe expands exponentially.
>>1367206
>Is time linear?
Not quite. It only goes in one direction but it flows at different speeds in different places relative to each other.
Literally depends where your point of view.
It's a thing that helps us frame movement through space. It's not like there is a physical past you can reach out to touch.
>>1367334
Is the adjective "entropic" in this sentence redundant? Is there a universe which is not inherently entropic?
>>1367357
Fuck if I know.
>>1367349
Are you going to propose that we can't measure 0mass subatomic particles?
>>1367326
>That which is measurable is real.
But I can measure dimensions of virtual objects. If I render a cube in blender, then have you measure it's length, height and width, is it real?
>>1367361
Well, that change is instrumental to our understanding of the passage of time. Do you know the definition of one second in time? It is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom".
If this did not happen, would there be "time"?
>>1367370
Yeah. How is it not real?
>>1367365
I'd be ready to admit we do not and cannot measure them "all".
>>1367345
But the thing is, you can manipulate momentum, you can manipulate velocity, and altitude.
You cannot manipulate time, meaning its not a fundamental force like those others.
>>1367206
No, I am an arch through which time passes.
>>1367357
>Is there a universe which is not inherently entropic?
You could hypothesize a perfectly stable universe, the way people hypothesize about perfectly flat objects and stuff.
>>1367377
Because then Laura Croft's tits are real.
>>1367384
Yes, would this universe, with no change in value "have time"? That is the question, really, not an argument as to the validity of entropy.
>>1367206
Ask /sci/. All you'll get here are reasons why philosophers should stay away from commenting on physical reality.
>>1367382
What is time dilation?
See, I'm fine with big-bang concept. Here is the thing, though. I don't believe "it happened faster than light", but I believe the entire event happened over (what would externally be viewed as) a long period, but from the perspective of the universe itself, as all was moving at one rate, there was no measure of time, thus appears instant or faster than light. At the moment something "cooled", something moved as a disparate rate from the whole, time began.
>>1367393
If nothing changed, I would argue there wouldn't be time. Just like a flat object (a simple square or all of Flatland) would have no height, an unchanging universe would have no time, because neither of those things have anything that can be measured in those dimensions (height and time, respectively).
>>1367407
time dilation concept comes from the notion of two perspectives. If you are always just you, there is no dilation, it's always your perspective. Once you incorporate a second observation from another vantage point, you witness this discrepancy we label dilation. It's the same different, if you're standing on a planet, saying the ground isn't moving, and I'm watching your solar system fly by and I tell you "you are moving very fast".
>>1367414
>the entire event happened over (what would externally be viewed as) a long period
Our universe would have to be contained somewhere else for that statement to make sense. If everything moved at the same speed, then that just means that, until there some some discrepancy, the flow of time wasn't relative but universal.
>>1367426
Why did it ever happen that the big bang slowed down? Was there a limit to the energy propagating it? To what external value should we assign this amount of creation process?
>>1367462
1st of all, I'm not a physicist.
But.
There are several forces that pull and hold matter together (gravity seems to be the strongest one at a cosmic scale but it also seems to be weakest at the quantum scale), so it makes sense that the universe's expansion would decelerate. What is making the universe expand faster AFTER the Big Bang is a much more mysterious problem. We pin that on dark energy, if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't really seem to be known what it is, the name seems to just be a placeholder for the mysterious cause of the acceleration.
Time is not linear at all, it is simply the mind recognizing, in the moment, that it will one day end.
Time started when the first human contemplated death.
>>1367487
Those "forces" aren't just magical miasma, though. They are composed of sub-atomic particle fields which were expanding, in the "first instant" along with everything else, in a likewise manner, until they "were not".
Never ask a philosopher a physics question.
>>1367528
What is a theoretical physicist?
>>1367528
Why not?
Time isn't just the physical movement of objects going all the way back to the Big Bang, it is also a subjective sense of change, and our whole life is controlled by it given that we die one day.
>>1367537
Clue is in the title.
>>1367206
Not to get all /sci/ here but the speed of light is a constant. Time is not.
Relativity and all that. Which is why they have to adjust the gps satellites clocks all the damn time.
>>1367537
Somebody that actually understands PHD level math, and hopes to verify their models instead of just jacking off for their entire life.
>>1367555
>Not to get all /sci/ here but the speed of light is a constant
We label and use "c" as a constant. It may come as a surprise to you, most things with which we have contact in a practical manner, including light, never move at c.
>>1367561
You don't have to understand "PHD level math" to be a theoretical physicist. All it takes is a good eye, decent visuospatial skills, and the ability to read. Philosophers solved physics in great detail thousands of years before "physicists" did, at least in terms of the conceptual framework.
>>1367565
They can be measured in speeds in relation to c though.
Like my cat moves 400 million times slower than the speed of light.
>>1367570
I agree with this. The cool thing, to me, is that the paramount "arm" of science which branches into the unknown, with which we try to attain some "grasp" is first based on philosophical conjecture. So it becomes as a back/forth, ebb/flow motion, realization, between the "real" and "unreal".
Time is the upper dimension relative to the dimension you find yourself in.
Time is only a matter of space.
Because there are infinite dimensions, there are infinite "forms" of time, but since you can only be in one dimension at a time, for each respective dimension there is only a measure of time.
For a line, the square is the projection of the line over time.
For a square, the cube is the projection of the square over time.
For us, since we live in a System comparable to a cube (3D), the extension of our beings would result in a tesseract.
You must understand that all time exists simultaneously. Your very body and soul, your pet dog, whatever you can think of, all of it, equally exist in the future, past and present.
You must understand that time is merely a variation of space of the various objects within our System, which you may perceive as Universe (or Multiverse, if you have a basic understanding of string theory).
This post will probaly be ignored by most, if not all, of those in this thread, but for those of you who are reading it, I suggest screen capping it for future use, for I am a time traveler myself.
Time is the measurement of movement in the galaxy.
>>1367570
>you don't have to understand "PHD level math" to be a theoretical physicist
In the same sense that you can become the CEO of a food truck without getting an MBA.
It's true, but it isn't the common usage for the word.
In order to actually get published in scientific journals and matter at all in the field, you need to understand some very complex mathematics.
>>1367618
I think this is only on the consideration so much has been explored and mapped. If tomorrow some event happens wherein you do not have access to all that data, you would be a theoretical physicist without realizing it.
>>1367611
Just the galaxy?
>>1367611
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tgLnI0fFc
>>1367512
>They are composed of sub-atomic particle fields which were expanding
They are "composed" of stuff? Aren't forces interactions of matter on matter? I get that there is something like a range to it, but I don't think astrophysics uses models about sub-atomic particles. Astrophysics still hinges on relativity rather than quantum, even if there are guys that try to make our understanding of gravity fall in line with that of the other 3 forces...
>>1367757
A popular current theory is that gravity is a field which pushes toward the center of the closest, largest mass. That field, which exists without range, is composed of gravitons.
Time is just bullshit we made up.
if you think is made up or an illusion you are FUCKING RETARDED. Learn some physics and educate yourselves. Without time we wouldnt have mass or charge or anything else
>>1367771
>A popular current theory is that gravity is a field which pushes toward the center of the closest, largest mass.
That has been the general consensus since Newton, right?
>That field, which exists without range, is composed of gravitons.
I can't really get into string theory and strange stuff like that, so I'll take your word that's there might be something to it.
I only studied a bit of physics because I wanted to write about space travel. Eh.
Time is real in the sense that numbers are real, an abstract concept humans developed in their minds. But just like numbers, it doesn't actually exist outside of our perception.
Same thing can be said about reality too if you want to get autistic. How can you prove that you're real? How can you prove that I'm real? You can't. You just believe we are real.
>>1367841
>numbers are real
except the imaginary numbers, lol
>>1367792
Newtonian gravity is an attraction, or a "pull".
It's best not to think of it.
>>1367206
>What is this?
This thread is a waste of it.
Time is a product of our perspective, where "we" refers to things with mass. And for "us," time is indeed linear.
All things in the universe are ultimately comprised of massless particles, with what we refer to as mass arising as a secondary consequence of the interactions of those particles. The thing is, massless particles experience neither time nor distance (what we call space). A photon can be emitted by a planet in one galaxy, and absorbed by the surface of an asteroid in another, and that entire journey is instantaneous from the lightspeed perspective, as the universe contracts to an infinitesimally thin plane, with the photon's entire existence being a point on that plane. Take into account all other interactions in the universe, and you end up with a single point that has no volume and exists for zero time, but contains the entirety of the universe's energy and has an "inner structure" comprising every interaction that occurs in it from beginning to end.
>>1367206
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN4KC_zlW4g
>>1367555
Gps satellite clocks are super precise atomic clocks that keep ticking away with an uncertaincy of 1 second every 30 million years. Thus time in this sense - a very linear measurement.
The reason GPS time is adjusted so much is because we are observing these fast moving satellites from earth thus time dilation/relativity etc etc required us to compensate for any error generated (in nano seconds
