Why time exists.

Post Reply New Topic

I think time, as the maverick physicist Julian Barbour put it, is simply the experience of all the quantum states of the universe being arranged in their natural order. Where "natural order" in this sense can be defined as "where energy states A2, B2, C2, D2, E2....in universal state Y are adjacent to energy states A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 etc. in universal state X then universal state Y is adjacent to universal state X and therefore the state X followed by the state Y (or the inverse of that) are said to be in their 'natural order'".

The question would then be, why NOT the inverse of that? In other words, why specifically do we experience time as being in the direction of increasing entropy? My answer is that any mental state corresponding to descriptions of the universe (whether of its entropy or anything else) is ITSELF a state of increasing entropy. Since the progression of mental states is completely parallel to the progression of the universe, this makes sense.

The reason why a mental state corresponding to a description of the universe is a state of increasing entropy is that any such state adds to the total knowledge about reality/the universe. The greater the total knowledge about reality, the more one someone is with the absolute object of knowledge and therefore the greater is the homogeneity of the Absolute Object/Subject. (or rather more to the point, the less the distinction there is between Subject and Object, and therefore greater total homogeneity). And that's what entropy is: a measure of the homogeneity of any given space.

Time exists to torment us about arriving somewhere late.

Time exists to keep everything from happening all at once.

Space exists to keep everything from being in the same place at the same time.

ruveyn

Time exists so we can fly... Everyone knows that...

What about the idea that the past still exists, the future already exists, and all "now moments" exist all at once when looked at multidimensionally? As I understand it, some of Einstein's equations of relativity seem to show this even if it is contrary to the common sense of our everyday experience. Einstein's equations of time dilation were confirmed decades ago by experiments involving atomic clocks flown on airplanes in opposite directions around the globe IIRC.

I saw an interesting video on PBS called The Fabric of the Cosmos based on the book by physicist Brian Greene. Episode 2 was "The Illusion of Time." In one segment, an animation showed a stationary human on earth and a stationary alien across the galaxy experiencing the same now moment, but once the alien hopped on a bicycle and pedaled away from the human the alien's "now" was 200 years in the human's past. And when the alien changed direction on the bicycle and pedaled towards the human, the alien's "now" was 200 years in the human's future. And the alien's "now" is just as valid as the human's "now."

What fascinates me about this is how it ties into some ancient philosophies that say "now" is all that is real. Alan Watts said more than once that the present causes the past, not vice versa as many people believe, and believing that the past causes the present traps people in the illusion of Maya (a Hindu term). He compared the past to the wake of a ship trailing behind the ship, but the wake doesn't propel the ship.

In Richard Bach's book Illusions the example is given of watching a movie. We experience it frame by frame on the screen, but when you hold the reel in your hand the whole movie is there at once, beginning middle and end all on that spool of film. That episode of The Fabric of the Cosmos I mentioned also used the imagery of time not flowing like a river but being more like a frozen river, a series of snapshots or freeze frames experienced one after the other. Comments?

Do we know yet if there is a smallest division of time? I have heard of the planck length but is that the smallest division of space/time.

I like to think time is not linear but has dimensions like space.

Time exists to keep everything from happening at once.

Without before, after and sometime soon we would be terribly unhappy.

Tomorrow, Tomorrow I love you, Tomorrow ---- You're only a day away.


ruveyn

the smallest moment in time must have a beginning a middle and an end if it has any duration whatsoever.
that being the case, the smallest moment is comprised of three smaller moments, each of which, if it has any duration at all, has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and therefore is not the smallest. if the smallest unit of time is indivisible, then it has no duration. if it has no duration, then it isn't a unit of time.