/sci/ - Science & Math

sometimes

at the moment

Short answer-- yes, with an "if." Long answer-- no, with a "but."

No. Time I'd a human construct. There is no way to actually measure it. Think about it. Why and how does time exist? How do we measure it?

>>15790082
Said it best. It’s inaccurate to answer the question without using math anyways.

>>15789689
Perhamps

>>15789689
There is experimental evidence it is emergent at best.

>>15789689
time is a measure of change so yes. essentially what you are asking when you ask someone the date of something is "what happened when the planets were in this configuration," so as long as there is motion there is time. The catch the planets will be in that exact same position at a future "time" because time is cyclical which should be obvious since the rotation of the planets are cyclical (and so is everything else in this reality). I guess the question is, aside from the planets configuration is there anything else that occurred at that exact moment that made it unique which is people's actions when it occurred I suppose but we can never know for certain.

>>15789689
the universe has a tick rate

Time is the difference between right and wrong.

that's like asking whether space is a thing you can feel?

>>15789689
maybe, but more importantly:
does existence time?

>>15790089
>there's no way to measure it
WHAT IS THIS MYSTERIOUS DEVICE
Your next reply will be something like "we can't measure time with clocks", which is like saying you can't measure heat with a thermometer just because it was 10 degrees when you looked at it the first time then - through unknown means - it became 12 degrees later.

>>15790985
Temperature is a statistical property, there's nothing fundamental to it. Also, temperature has a direct influence on a system's behaviour (it dictates energy flow), time doesn't. In fact, it's quite the opposite: it's a system's behaviour which dictates how time passes.

The very simple notion that there is no absolute time should inform you on the fact that time is both 1. Not fundamental 2. Not "real". This also applies to distances in space.

>>15789689
Parmenides answer: No
Heraclitus answer: yes

Who won? You decide

>>15789689
oh wow maaaaaaan, ur like totally blowing my mind!!! omg thats sooo like deep and stuff, duuuuuude, its totally trippy!! ur sooo smart!!1 ur totally like a philosopher and stuff, maaaaaannnn

>>15791108
Regardless of how you feel, it still remains an interesting question.
>>15790985
What's a clock? Obviously everyone knows the device, but what is the physical definition of an abstract clock?
>>15789689
Food for thought: you can calculate time derivatives without invoking time at all. I can tell you precisely that the plane in picrel is traveling at 343 m/s

>>15789689
Question only makes sense if you define "existence" and "time". Provide those and I will happily answer your question.

>>15790985
A clock measures the abstract rate at which its components move, it does no measure the smallest interval at which things happen (which is 0 because the universe is continuous and can't be divided into parts)

>Question only makes sense if you define "existence" and "time". Provide those and I will happily answer your question.

Retarded fucking question. Any human construct can be said to "exist" when it is necessary to explain human observation. This is a science board, not a philosophy board as certain midwits here would have led you to believe.

The existence of clocks implies the existence of time.

>>15791491
clocks don't measure time

>>15789689
its fucking relative...

>>15789689
Only thing I know that #metoo acusations are timeless.

>>15789689
Principle of Least Action is a weird way to frame the behavior of light. Instead of the intuitive chain of causation, it makes me think of light beams as strings threaded through a structure then pulled taught.

>>15789689
I would try to answer this but I'm in a rush and need to be somewhere else urgently

>>15789689
time exists for the observer.

>>15791494
>>15791370
>>15791365
>>15791046
>thermometer measures the expansion of mercury
>"THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS HEAT!"
>clock uses a constant rate of change to measure time
>"THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS TIME!"

>>15792509
So you're saying the universe ticks at the same rate as the earth rotates? because that's what your clock is essentially measuring, not time, but an arbitrary rate dependent on the motion of something else, if you want to prove that time exists you have to provide evidence that there is a smallest quanta of time which is further indivisible, but such a thing does not exist, since the universe is continuous, everything exists in a singular moment, you are just observing motion and applying an arbitrary metric to it, but everything in the universe moves at the same time in a single frame of instance

>>15789689
Read pic related

>>15789689
No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD2jKSW7yss

>>15789689
Yes. That was easy. Anymore questions?

>>15792538
Back when MM was alive, he and others used to spam r/physics with questions about god and immortality and the actual physicists would be like "no... no, that's the most insane thing I've ever heard, are you okay?"

It was pretty funny.

>>15792527
Science already has time particles, they are called tachyon. Sorry schizo, they already named a particle, it is official now.

>>15792584
>Science already has time particles, they are called tachyon
They're called hypotheticals, like the aether

>>15790227
this is accurate.

>>15792527
So a clock IS measuring time, just locally then?

>>15789728
>>15790072
time without limitation is not actually phenomenal

>>15792527
>arbitrary metric
What are some examples of non-arbitrary metrics?

>>15789689
We can't perceive things without time so yeah I guess so

>>15789689
Not ultimately. NDErs say that everything that has ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist in the future is all happening this moment. Time was just created for us to get a sense of urgency while roleplaying being a human.

And NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique.

>muh brain chemistry

Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

>muh DMT causes it

Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

>>15789689
Does causality exist? Do things progress?

What a stupid, but thought provoking question.

>>15789689
No, things just move. But that's just more parsimonious, not an absolute assertion of its non-existence. In actuality, existence is not a well-founded predicate. Nothing really can be said to "exist" in the way most people think of existence, (as image).

>>15789689
If you free yourself from the quotidian tyranny of clocks and calendars you'll realise the reification of the temporal dimension is an illusion. Motion and change, however, are the proper substrate of time, and those "obviously" exist, at least in any ordinary use of the term "exist".
Given this much more intuitive, parsimonious and indeed liberating view of time as merely a useful illusion, it is interesting to try to reinterpret the theory of relativity, which often is used as evidence that time "exists" and we are at every moment trapped in one point of a trajectory through "space time". May Allah (swt) grant me the wisdom to understand these things before my life ends.

>>15795222
Does Sisyphus remember the boulder he pushes?

>>15789689
I wonder what comes in between a Planck-time. If anything. Is something inbetween a Planck-time nonexistant? Do we just snap into the next Planck-time as the moments go by? Also when was the first Planck-time? Can we ever know? And does what comes before the first planck-time the same whatever or nothingness that is in-between the planck-times? It seems irrelevant to ask when time began, as before then there was no time. And we know the universe has a beginning because entropy in the universe has not reached a maximum yet. But I wonder.

>>15789689
It can.