Time can be interpreted as a fundamental principal of both the probabilistic and deterministic nature of the universe. The connection between space in time is in relation to the nature of velocity and gravity. F=ma should give you enough of an explanation to link the absolute dependance of motion on a time variable. However, I would argue that it's our interpretation of Time itself that becomes misleading.

What is time, how does it work, what guides the formation and fundamental dependence of time? Our fundamental understanding of the nature of time must shift to provide an accurate definition of time before we can understand its incorporation into the principles that are dependent on a function of Time.

Consider that Time is a rate of change. Seems simple enough; but a rate of change from what to what? I propose that time can be quantified as a measure of completeness. A sort of cascade parameter that measures the transitory position of a system from the probable, to the determined. Viewing time within the context of a definition allows us to more easily understand the systems that depend on Time's variable nature.

Philippos Afxentiou if you are asking the question, then the trend of RG seems to imply that you have something to say about this. :)

I am about to head over to your research to see what is there, but I have this to offer:

No, time cannot be fundamental, for the simple reason that (the passage of) time is not a constant. This can be observed both in motion (SR principle of time dilation) and in a gravity well (GR principle of time dilation). Both of these effects are very real.

In both instances in space there is the analogy of movement involved; in the case of SR a certain velocity will define T', whereas in GR it is the graviational field, or acceleration (g) that determines there is a time dilation.

However, a curious thing though, is that T' is actually in both cases calculated by velocity, except the velocity in question in the gravity well is the 'escape velocity' from that location. So by having a V in space the same as Ve the escape velocity at some point in a gravity well would be, you can have the same time dilation by different methods ....

T' = γ*T

where γ = √(1 - v²/c²)

replace v with ve in a gravity well.

and of course ve = √(2GM/r)

To make a long story short. No, if you are able to affect your own clock by changing your position (relative to a mass) or velocity in space, then time cannot be fundamental.

It must be emergent from space. Local space.

Space dimensions allow movement both to and back. As currently, generally conceived, time is only in one direction. Therefore, it is not a dimension. Viewing change as a dimension is where relativity starts down a long path of problematic observations such as Aspect's experiment.

Secondly, there is a tendency to view "time" in equations as something that varies. But remember the experiments: we measure "time" as the duration between events of some device. THEN WE ASSUME that device has a constant duration between events. So, measurement is merely the comparison between 2 causation (also assumed) mechanisms. For example, the pendulum clock on earth. Move the clock upward and the rate of ticking changes when compared to the similar clock on Earth. Is time dilation simply the mechanical rate change of processes. Before considering decay rate clock, remember, we don't understand the causation process of decay.

My model is time exists only NOW. No past, so future. What exists is the object, the forces as causes, and the relative position of the objects.

Dear Philippos Afxentiou ,

Time is not fundamental property of the universe!

The time Is a reference tool to describe physical phenomena, and useful for our social environment functionality .

Regards,

Laszlo

If we consider that it is not possible for any of us to receive a letter before someone else sends it to us, and that a certain delay is involved between the 2 events, it seems difficult to deny that this "delay" would not have physically existed.

Maybe one or more of those who assert that time is not involved here and does not really exist, could explain to us what this "delay" really is and inform us as to what caused it.

André Michaud

In the STOE, only the ``now'' exists. What is are the bodies, the plenum, the forces caused by the gradient of the plenum. As each now exists, the forces cause what our memories (and recording instruments) interpret as motion. One other concept: Newtonian inertia.

The reason for the ``now'' concept is to model time as not a dimension and thus form a more consistent model.

André Michaud not fundamental and not exist are not the same concepts.

Let's say nothing else existed but you somehow regularly received a letter 'from somewhere'. From that you would be able to build a concept of time, e.g. maybe you can read the letter and one old one before the next one arrives. This means time arose as a concept from your surroundings and time itself is not the surroundings.

In a different light, the ticking of the universe (yes, call it aether, please!) provides you with a local mechanism to have the concept of time. Can you affect this? Yes, you can, by having a fast velocity in space, or sitting in a gravity well, you can reduce the speed of your own clock. (You would have to ask someone else to observe this though because you cannot measure your own clock against itself)

Time marches on and you certainly cannot make it go backward, but you are able to manipulate it therefore it cannot be fundamental.

Francois Zinserling

Dear François,

You wrote: "Time marches on and you certainly cannot make it go backward, but you are able to manipulate it therefore it cannot be fundamental."

OK. Let's do a little exercise, and see if you can manipulate it otherwise.

Let's observe that the words that you are reading at this very moment impregnate your brain one by one as you read them and that the complete sentence is already stored in your memory as a past memory when you reach the last word. When you meditate and ponder about its meaning, after having read it, or even as you are re-reading it again, aren't you always thinking about the stored memory of a past event?

Are you able to make it so that it becomes anything other than a past event?

If you cannot cause it to be anything else but a memory, a past event, isn't then the NOW moment fundamental?

Doesn't the NOW moment inexorably progress without you being able to do anything to alter its rate of flow?

Very few in the community even know that Einstein was aware of the NOW moment, but that he openly rejected the idea because it made the solution of SR time dilation physically impossible. Many have now become aware again of the concept, like John and many others, and have now re-explored the concept.

Doesn't it seem that all particles in the universe have to simultaneously exist, including every particles and atoms of your own body and brain for you to have been able to read the above sentence, and to NOW be able to remember it as a past event, and that you can mentally read again as a past memory only, that you re-consider in sequence again one word after the other and not simultaneously even from memory, if you wish?

Put in perspective in this article with historical references provided:

Article Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI)

Best Regards, André

So much foolish talk...

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the universe, because without time nothing would exist ! The atom is what we could call a "time crystal"... and a force is caused by either physical contact between two masses or by a time gradient !

I think time is not necessarily the fundamental property of the universe, with a reference system, the properties such as location, color, amounts can be converted to time. This is rather a question if time is the fundamental unit in modern physics. We can make s series of fundamental units and try to establish a system or model equations to describe other properties use the units. E.g, if we believe music is fundamental, we will use music pitch to measure everything.

The real question is the models and equations have significant differences some are easy to understand some are easy to calculate some looks symmetrical etc. And our history picks those easy to use in solving problems.

Back to time, if we make it fundamental, we mean that it is a unit that carries certain properties specifically universally constant everywhere we are interested to measure under the framework of modern physics. Einstein argues that if we postulate speed of light to be uniform, time must be nonlinear i.e., a unit changing over condition, which many disagree. Speed of light can be change. Now the real question becomes, if we don’t like the system, can we create a simpler system restate uniformity of time as a fundamental unit?

Philippos Afxentiou,

I discover that light has an absolute time to travel an absolute terrestrial mile. I ask what is that? Does light have its own clock? Or God wants it to be that way?

Dear Jamil Kooli

You ask: "I discover that light has an absolute time to travel an absolute terrestrial mile. I ask what is that? Does light have its own clock? Or God wants it to be that way?"

It means that it travels at a constant velocity. What else to you think it may mean?

If you were to run at a constant velocity of 10 miles per hour, it would take you 1 hour to run 10 miles, 1 tenth of an hour to run 1 mile, and so on. Would you need a clock to run at 10 miles per hour?

André Michaud,

I mean: 1 terrestrial mile = c t and ( 1 absolute terrestrial mile / absolute c ) = t (absolute value). The known terrestrial value is about 1.609344 km but it is not an absolute value. The absolute frequency is an absolute t to the power of minus 1. Means this 'clock' should increment t to the power of minus 1 events in one second. According to this say absolute t, in one second light has to travel 299792. 3874 km/sec second and this is the most experimental value of Bjear HAMMAR of 1972 which is more accurate than CODATA 299792. 458 km/sec. Now what is this absolute t to the power of minus 1 in fundamental physics?

Dear Jamil Kooli

OK, I see what you mean.

Note that the length of a "mile" that can be calculated to be about 1.609344 km as you say is not a "known length". It was a "convenient length" that was arbitrarily chosen in the past in the English measurement system that was used as a convenient standard in the British empire. In Canada, for example where the metric system has been adopted decades ago, plywood panels for construction are still made in format 4 x 8 feet (according to the English system) because it would cause too much inconveniences to make these panel according to exact metric measurement for use in America, where the US still uses the English system in construction.

The meter itself is not a constant of nature either. It is just a more convenient overall length unit to use worldwide, and in physics in particular.

It is the same for the duration of the "second". Just a convenient duration length unit that all countries agree to use so time is measured in the same manner worldwide, for example for air controllers in a Tokio airport tower to know exactly what a pilot means when he reports that he will be ready to land at 10:18 hre while on his own control tower computer the time marked, according to the common understanding, he reads 8:32 hre.

Units are only convenient conventions made up by us humans for mutual intelligibility.

Now to the velocity of light measured as 299792.3874 km/sec second as the most precise experimental value of Bjear HAMMAR of 1972. It is the velocity of light that the precision of the equipment allows measuring. If some day more precise equipment is developed, then the figure will be more precise yet.

On the other hand, it is not more precise than the CODATA 299792458 m/sec. This velocity was initially calculated in the 1860's by Maxwell from second partial derivatives of E-field and B-field equations established from experimental data, that were established by other experimentalists before him. If this value was not exact for the velocity of EM energy, we would know because all equipment using free energy transmission, radar, laser, ... would not work exactly according to E-and B-fields calculations, and they do.

You ask: "Now what is this absolute t to the power of minus 1 in fundamental physics?"

Just a convention. Since we know that the velocity of light is constant in air and in vacuum at exactly 299792458 m/s, the length of the "meter" was established by convention to be the distance that light covers in 1 second.

The second on its part, was established as the time it takes for the reference bremsstrahlung photon emitted when an electron de-excites from a reference excited orbital in a cesium 133 atom to return to its rest orbital to oscillate 9 192 631 770 times, which is the frequency of this reference photon: 9 192 631 770 Hz when measured at ground level.

But given that this frequency varies with the intensity of the local gravitational gradient in which these cesium 133 atoms happen to be measured, my view is that CODATA would have been better off choosing a universally invariant frequency, such as the frequency of the rest mass of the electron: 1.235589976E20 Hz, Which they will probably eventually do when they eventually understand that the current reference is not invariant. Probably with the advent of the upcoming generation of physicists.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud,

Many thanks for this complete explanation.

Regards.

André Michaud it's always a pleasure to engage with you. Still making my way through your earlier document which so far resonates very well with me.

I was preparing a heated response in my mind to your:

"The second on its part, ...the frequency of this reference photon: 9 192 631 770 Hz."

and then I reached your final paragraph and things settled down again.

To be fair, the second started out as 1/60th of a minute, which is 1/60th of an hour, (we thank the Babylonians for this) which is 1/24th of a day (thanks to Egyptians) to which of course the rest of the universe shakes its head in amazement. Yet it is a measure of time to which we can all agree, which allows us to predict arrival times as you mentioned earlier, and gives us a sense of simultaneity on a macroscopic level.

Cesium of course is a much more accurate way to measure this second, but, as you also pointed out, this measurement is not entirely reliable.

Another comment, it was Einstein's struggles at the patent office with simultaneity of railroad clocks that inspired SR, hence his affinities for clocks and railroads. Now in my opinion simultaneity exists, whether we can accurately predict(future) or measure(past) it is another business altogether which makes our universe such an interesting one.

So even though I, with my Cesium clock on top of Mount Everest, and you, with your Cesium clock in the bottom of the Mariana Trench will NOT agree on the rate of passing of time, we can still agree to simultaneity of events, once we know how our clocks were affected.

Berndt Barkholz said in an earlier post that time is fundamental and is measured by the crystals of the atoms.

Yet it is not, is my point to be made, because the ticking is not the same everywhere, hence the atoms are not in command of 'time'.

We see 'time' as a universal right, but the reality is it can be given or taken away by the surrounds. For someone, time can theoretically be made to stop in a strong enough gravity well, while the rest of the universe continues at what rate of time, if it is different everywhere!? If time cannot be measured as a constant for everyone, then it cannot be seen as fundamental. It must be an emergent property of the mechanics of the universe.

Jamil Kooli a novel way to overcome the 'constant speed of light' could be to see that e.g. c = 3e8 m/s in a vacuum, and that 1s inside water is not the same as 1s in vacuum, that's why light is slower in water. But this is highly speculative and I am not motivating for this, other than throwing a different perspective and perhaps adding to the above argument.

Opinion: In my own work I see the ticking of clocks as resultant interactions with a dynamic aether, which itself is not a constant 4-momentum, as can be witnessed in a gravity well.

François Zinserling,

Many thanks for this explanation.

Francois Zinserling

Dear François,

Thank you for the info about Einstein's struggles with the simultaneity of railroad clocks when working at the patent office. I was not aware of this specific detail. It does explain his fascination with trains and relative motion.

You wrote: "So even though I, with my Cesium clock on top of Mount Everest, and you, with your Cesium clock in the bottom of the Mariana Trench will NOT agree on the rate of passing of time, we can still agree to simultaneity of events, once we know how our clocks were affected."

Shade of meaning, if we both understand the intimate working of cesium clocks, we will agree that the reference bremsstrahlung photon first and foremost has a higher frequency if measured on top of Mount Everest than when measured at ground level, not first and foremost that time passes at a different rate at both depths in the gravitational gradient.

Given that most in the community are not used to, and even never considered, calculating the distances between the elementary charges within nucleons in nuclei and electrons in the accompanying electronic resonance orbitals, practically nobody is aware that when small masses are taken away from the large mass of the Earth, all distances within atoms between the charges of such small masses will diminish to some extent by the charges being drawn less strongly outwards by the now further away immense number of other charges making up the atoms of the large mass of the planet.

The outcome is that the accompanying electrons of each atom of the small mass – the atomic clock mass involved – are drawn a little closer to nuclei in these small masses, including in the cesium 133 atoms, which causes the bremsstrahlung photons of de-exciting electrons to be more energetic – higher frequency = more energy.

But this has nothing to do with the rate of time flow at all – rate of progression of the NOW moment – and is perfectly coherent with the simultaneous existence of all particles in the universe during this single existing progressing NOW moment.

This is something which is immediately obvious in electromagnetic mechanics, which is specifically grounded on charges interactions.

I wouldn't want to impose any further reading on you, given that the one about time is already something to get through, but to get a general overview of this charges interaction mechanics at all levels of atomic structures, this specific aspect is analyzed in this article published in 2013:

Article Inside Planets and Stars Masses

You ask rhetorically: "For someone, time can theoretically be made to stop in a strong enough gravity well, while the rest of the universe continues at what rate of time, if it is different everywhere!?"

From the electromagnetic mechanics perspective, grounded on elementary charges interactions, "time" cannot be made to vary even theoretically in a strong enough gravity well, only the frequencies of the emitted bremsstrahlung photons of de-exciting electrons and nucleons' inner charges would increase (would become more energetic), due to the distances separating the electronic layers from the nuclei becoming shorter.

Nothing seems able to cause the progression rate of the NOW moment to vary.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

You said "Shade of meaning, if we both understand the intimate working of cesium clocks, we will agree that the reference bremsstrahlung photon first and foremost has a higher frequency if measured on top of Mount Everest than when measured at ground level, not first and foremost that time passes at a different rate at both depths in the gravitational gradient."

Yes, frequencies emitted on top of Everest would be higher, but by comparison all incoming frequencies would also appear lower, or the opposite for the clock in the valley, will have slower bremsstrahlung but as we also know in a deep gravity well incoming frequencies will appear blue-shifted. I have yet to deduce how space is able to change the frequency of a photon (expansion ignored for now) but if the atom in the gravity well simply has a slower clock, both incoming and outgoing frequencies are explained.

I do not understand who holds the clock to measure your NOW, if there can be no unaffected clock in the universe. Then hypothetically it is possible to have a clock outside the universe to determine the NOW of the entire universe, but then it is also hypothetically possible to submerge the universe in a very deep gravity well and stop all clocks. Time ceases to exist inside the universe, while the holder of the clock says, erm .. no, time marches on. Hypothetically.

Yes, if my wall-clock at home stops working, it does not mean I age any slower, but if my internal clock (all atoms) tick slower, I must age slower relative to another. By slowing my own clock I speed up time for everyone else - from my point of view.

To relate to a mention of the two photons in your earlier paper (section 3), the argument would be where is the clock? There is no solar system so no years to be measured; there is no Cesium yet to measure a 'second', nor any other matter that produces a frequency of events. In my opinion time does not exist yet at that point. The first matter will thus be created after zero time has elapsed, because that is only when the first clocks start ticking. Only once there are photons and matter, can timescales emerge from series of interactions.

I'm guessing ahead that your paper does not stop at two photons. Then we have to find out what is making e.g. the Cesium tick, and we will have our ticker of atom clocks and the origin of time.

Francois Zinserling

Dear François,

You wrote: "will have slower bremsstrahlung but as we also know in a deep gravity well incoming frequencies will appear blue-shifted"

Not "slower" in reality, only "less energetic", which relates to a "lower frequency" of local oscillation the electromagnetic quantum involved. It must be understood that an electromagnetic photon is an amount of physically existing "energy substance" in motion at velocity c.

No need of any deep gravity well to cause photon energy to blue shift when "climbing up" into the gravity gradient of a star that it passes by and to red shift an equivalent amount when "climbing down" after having passed the closest point to the star of its trajectory. However, the net change in direction that its trajectory suffers must be explained by an equivalent mount of energy expended as "work", according to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics, that can be provided only by some of the energy of the photon itself being expended – an additional amount of red shift.

This mandatorily causes the photon to progressively lose more and more energy as it interacts with more and more masses along its trajectory to us. The farther away they were emitted, then the more red shifted they will become, which is exactly what is observed.

You wrote: "I do not understand who holds the clock to measure your NOW, if there can be no unaffected clock in the universe."

This idea that people think that there would be "clocks" in the universe always was intriguing to me. As far as can be established, a clock is a device that we build to measure time, and no such thing exists anywhere in nature, and certainly not at the subatomic level at which level of magnitude all elementary charged particles of which all atoms are made exist during the progressing NOW moment.

I have no idea what causes the progression of the NOW moment. Certainly not a man made clock. But everybody who pays attention can become aware of it, and of the inexorable and constant rate of its progression. The only moment of real physical existence during which our nerve endings receive the continuous flow of signals that build in each of our neocortexes the sequence of images and memories of what exists in our environment.

You wrote: "Then hypothetically it is possible to have a clock outside the universe to determine the NOW of the entire universe, but then it is also hypothetically possible to submerge the universe in a very deep gravity well and stop all clocks."

Of course, "hypothetically", anything can be imagined. But what is required to understand physical reality is not hypotheses, but real understanding of what really is happening in the universe. My view is that this can be done by studying what has already been experimentally confirmed and drawing conclusions from this set of information - the reverse engineering method.

You wrote: "To relate to a mention of the two photons in your earlier paper (section 3), the argument would be where is the clock?"

There is no need for any man made clock. The photons locally electromagnetically oscillate at the frequency determined by the amount of energy that they contain, and they progress in the universe at velocity c according to the inexorable rate of progression of the NOW moment.

You wrote: "There is no solar system so no years to be measured; there is no Cesium yet to measure a 'second', nor any other matter that produces a frequency of events. In my opinion time does not exist yet at that point. The first matter will thus be created after zero time has elapsed, because that is only when the first clocks start ticking. Only once there are photons and matter, can timescales emerge from series of interactions."

So, taken literally, this means that the universe could not have begun to exist and time to run before we humans became able to manufacture the first working mechanical clock.

I personally think that the NOW moment did not need our agreement to start running for whatever still to be understood reason, even before the first 2 photons that I hypothesize would have come into being.

You wrote: "I'm guessing ahead that your paper does not stop at two photons."

Exact.

Note also that this article is just 1 of a set of about 20 that analyzes the various aspects of the problem, and that have all been peer-reviewed and published to the benefit of the upcoming generation.

You wrote: "Then we have to find out what is making e.g. the Cesium tick, and we will have our ticker of atom clocks and the origin of time."

Certainly not all the answers, but the mechanics of elementary charged particles at the subatomic level is now completely analyzed from the electromagnetic perspective, and is available for the upcoming generation to consider.

Best Regards, André

“…Since Einstein proposed the fundamental shiftbin thinking, that time and space are interwoven, people began to doubt time's fundamental it. ….”

- yeah, the quote above is essentially correct, besides that really that time and space are interwoven was firstly proposed – and postulated in the standard now SR by Minkowski in 1908 – that happens if some inertial reference frame moves in some “stationary” frame; in the GR the other “time and space interweaving” , i.e. at gravitational interactions, was proposed.

The “interweaving” look as rather strange things, since human intuitively think that space and time are really some fundamental somethings, and really no direct impacts of any material object either on space or on time really was observed – all what observed was/is some effects that happen only at interactions of concrete material objects – that accelerated up to some speed V by some real material forces bodies have lesser length than have when are at rest in Lorentz factor; and again accelerated by some real material forces clocks tick slower, unstable particles live longer, etc. in Lorentz factor,

- but from this, of course, really by no means it follows that something happens with space and/or time, which compose Matter’s spacetime; while the spacetime is nothing else than some “empty container” where everything in Matter exists and happens. So “…Yet, doubt remains. ….”, and this doubt is quite natural – see above; and, moreover, really is completely rational.

However it is only really an irrational “doubt”, since in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, and for practically all humans, now, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something,

- as that happened at development of the SR/GR by the authors who have only some transcendent, etc., imagination about what are “Space” and “Time”” – and so “space”, and “time” in observed environment, in physics in the studied “Matter”.

Really the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically rigorously defined/understandable only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely at its application in physics - in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, more see in this case at least

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ,

- where it is really rigorously scientifically clarified what exists and happens in Matter in that now described by the SR, including it is explained what are Lorentz transformations, why and how the moving bodies are really contracted, and intrinsic processes in the bodies really are slowed down; etc., and the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- where it is rigorously explained what is Gravity, which is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which – as all other Forces – acts in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- which [the spacetime] is really only [fundamentally infinite] empty container, and nothing in the container can be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc., by anything in Matter.

Cheers

Francois Zinserling

Dear François,

With reference to your remark: "Then we have to find out what is making e.g. the Cesium tick,"

I did not specifically investigate the cesium atom, but what makes the hydrogen atom tick from the electromagnetic mechanics perspective was analyzed in this article as a basis to eventually establish the electromagnetic structure of all other elements – still to be studied from this perspective:

Article An Overview of the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance State...

Best Regards, André

Francois Zinserling

"Berndt Barkholz said in an earlier post that time is fundamental and is measured by the crystals of the atoms."

Please don't reinterpret my comment as it suits you... I wrote this:

"Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the universe, because without time nothing would exist ! The atom is what we could call a "time crystal"... and a force is caused by either physical contact between two masses or by a time gradient !"

I didn't say anything about how time is measured... with a clock you can "measure" the time it takes for you to go from A to B, but the clock itself doesn't measure anything... time itself can't be measured... but you can measure mass (count atoms): 1,2,3,4...

Without time nothing would exist !

Berndt Barkholz apologies if I offended.

My argument is that until you have two and more ticks of a clock (or atom)(or photon??) there is no reference or concept of time.

Where you say:

Without time nothing would exist !

What I mean by my ramblings is the series of causation.

If nothing exists, time does not exist.

Without time, nothing would happen.

Quote: "My argument is that until you have two and more ticks of a clock (or atom)(or photon??) there is no reference or concept of time."

De Broglie formulated his reference to the concept of time as follows:

"The search for causality is an instinctive tendency of the human mind. It consists in admitting that the events that successively manifest themselves to us do not follow one another by chance, but derive from one another, being connected by such links that each of them is the necessary consequence of those that preceded it." 1977.

"It is obviously certain that the emission of a particle by the source is the cause of its arrival on the detector. Now, the causal link between the two phenomena can be established only through the existence of a trajectory and to deny this existence, is tantamount to sacrificing causality, it is condemning ourselves not to comprehend." 1973.

If one holds to virtual particles coming into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum, this change must occur in time. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/explanation-time-from-frequency-virtual-particles-warren-frisina/?trackingId=k6wPghcoTt6tPrLq0ZRQ6w%3D%3D

Warren Frisina

Dear Warren,

Virtual particles pairs stochastically coming into and out of existence out of the quantum vacuum is a logical conclusion out of Quantum Field Theory that came about from the Lorenz gauge perspective.

From Maxwell's initial perspective, electron-positron pairs do not come in and out of existence in this manner, but come out in a stable manner from the physically existing energy of previously existing photons converting to these stable states. The principle of conservation of energy is thus respected.

The difference between the Lorenz gauge approach and the Maxwell approach is analyzed in Section 2 of this article, and the actual decoupling mechanics of photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more into electron-positron pairs is analyzed in Section 3:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

Best Regards, André

Warren Frisina there are others who think like you, and do you agree that it takes a frequency to make clocks tick to create the concept of time? For time to be fundamental, it must exist before a clock starts ticking. My thinking has been that a clock must tick first, then the concept of time arises. This is the thread, but there is much dispute going on :)

From your link; You have used your (virtual photon) energy calculation from the cosmological constant, which gives a very very low value of the energy of space. This is because Einstein's GR cannot have a high value, as space would implode on itself by his calculations. Yet this same space my bend and curve and push matter around, but ... I digress!

My opinion. From Quantum Field Theory the results of calculating the energy of space produces infities - values so high that special mathematical tricks have to be used to get rid of the infinities. As much as some of us may dislike QFT, it gets a lot of things right.

This is the space I like to think is 'real'. And this space (call it virtual or not) will generate a frequency so high, by your model, that is is more than sufficient to make the universe 'tick' as we can observe. Don't just think 'X-Ray' high, think ~1080 Hz high.

Francois Zinserling When particles are considered gravitational sinks instead of sources the infinities problem is bypassed. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/particles-sinks-instead-sources-booklet-warren-frisina/?trackingId=tpLRr9uIRmqpJct%2BoeOTuA%3D%3D

André Michaud Thank you for your reply and reference. Here is some related material -- considering particles as gravitational sinks instead of sources to avoid the infinities in the quantum vacuum. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/particles-sinks-instead-sources-booklet-warren-frisina/?trackingId=tpLRr9uIRmqpJct%2BoeOTuA%3D%3D

One can built a theory without time: see thermodynamics, optical geoemtry, computer science,...

After the SS post on page 3, 3 days ago now, where the thread question is rigorously scientifically – though rather specifically - commented, a few posts appeared in the thread, authors of which write really some essentially questionable claims.

Though that happens, first of all, because for the posters – despite that in the SS post above it is pointed that to say/think/write about something, where the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Time” is somehow related, it is quite naturally necessary before to understand scientifically – what is “Time”? and in the SS post it is pointed that that is possible only in framework of the really philosophical SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception, while in mainstream philosophy and sciences – and for the posters - this phenomenon/notion is really completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - as all other ones that are listed in the post,

At that really all these phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only together – that is specific point in the fundamentally non-material informational system “human’s consciousness”, more see the linked in the pointed SS post paper, here some comments to “Time”:

In the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, while the utmost general definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”.

Examples of “Logos” set elements [absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions]: “Change”, “Energy”/ “Inertia”, “Logical Rules”, “Cause”, “Effect”, “Space”, “Time”; etc.

Any/every concrete informational pattern/system can exist absolutely only in concrete actualization of the Logos element “Space” – in the concrete “space”, occupying some space interval, and between patterns/systems must be non-zero space intervals [that is common – since is absolutely obligatory – grammar rule in all languages].

The element “Change” is logically self-inconsistent: if a pattern/system changes continuously, than at changing every state of the pattern/system is simultaneously former, recent, and future states, while these states are different by definition of “Change”. So continuous changes are logically prohibited, and to overcome this prohibition it is necessary to pay by two points: to make a change it is necessary to spend some portion of Logos element “Energy”, but at that on some level the changing state is uncertain – “illogical”. Just so, say, QM scale exists in Matter; that above really was formulated in really brilliant Zeno’s aporias yet more 2500 years ago, when really Zeno predicted QM.

At that really changes are characterized by something – changes can be “simultaneous” in the “something”, if are simultaneous one change can end in lesser “something” then other, in logical cause-effect sequence of changes cause is “before” effect, etc. – i.e. this “something” exists absolutely objectively [i.e. really quite independently on – there are some humans or not], absolutely universally independently on what change and of what happen, and can be characterized by some “intervals” that can be mutually relatively compared if more than one change happen, etc.

This “something” above that is actualizations of the “Logos” element “Time” is called by humans “time”, what humans observe,

- more concretely “Time” is actualized as unique and universal for all the Set’s elements, including, say the Set’s elements “Matter” and fundamentally non-material “human’s consciousness”, absolutely necessary and so absolutely objectively existent “time dimension”, where all the Set’s elements exist, and, if change, move. .

The “Logos” elements “Space” and “Time” so are rather similar – both are actualized as some dimensions, both, as logical possibilities to place/to change some Set’s element have no any intrinsic “measures”, but concrete intervals in both can be compared; and, if it is possible to establish some etalon interval, measured. Matter is very rigorously and universally organized system, so in Matter it is possible to establish etalons, say, “meter” and “second”; consciousness exists and operates in her concrete space that only partially intersects with Matter’s space [more about Matter’s space see SS post on page 3], which is unknown for humans now, and so, say, now it is impossible to answer, say to question “how meters is some thought”, etc.

More see the SS post on page 3, and papers that linked in the post.

Cheers

Time is not a physical phenomenon, but a property of human consciousness, directly related to memory. There is no “time” in nature, but there is movement, change in matter and its qualities. They are recorded by the observer (man) with the help of the product of his mind, consciousness: this is “time”. It makes no sense to say more here: there is no “time” for this, either for explanation or for perception.

The question that Philippos Afxentiou asks is fundamental.

This, I hope we can all agree on. It's an interesting question.

But it is also interesting that people have such fundamentally different opinions on the issue. Completely opposite opinions!

Berndt Barkholz

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the universe

László Attila Horváth

Time is not fundamental property of the universe!

How can it be so? It doesn't really matter what I think about the matter.

But in order for us to have a better frame of reference for what we are talking about, it would be good if one provided the definition for "fundamental property of the universe".

1) What is meant by "fundamental property of the universe"?

2) All of you who have written something about this, please give an example of the "fundamental property of the universe".

Then we can see if the time fits into the definition.

Please write simply, clearly, concisely. Thanks.

Question: "1) What is meant by "fundamental property of the universe"?"

Answer: A characteristic that applies to all elements existing in a set cannot be part of the set. It can only be part of the reference frame that allows separating this set from the superset to which this set belongs, and is thus a fundamental property of the set.

The list of characteristics that define the reference frame of a set is the list of all fundamental properties that are common to all elements of the set.

André Michaud

Is your answer your own or is it also in some Lexicon?

Now if you have answered 1) with such an exhaustive description, couldn't you give me an example as well?

If we assume that the space around us is discrete and consists of action quanta h (and there are reasons for this), then the movement of particles in this space - massless photons and particles with mass - will represent a sequential excitation of these quanta. And the movement itself will necessarily obey the principle of least action.

In accordance with the ideas of Einstein and de Broglie, each particle is nothing more than a quantum of action h=ετ=pλ, therefore, the passage of each quantum of action by a particle in space will manifest itself as a pair: an element of length λ and an element of time τ. For a photon, this pair is strictly related to the fundamental constant - the speed of light c=λ/τ, which is the same for both a stationary and a moving observer. A particle with mass occupies a place in the surrounding space that a photon would occupy in its absence, and therefore the movement of such a particle is somewhat forced. This is indicated to us by the Schrödinger equation, in which the wave function is periodic in the quantum of action h. It was the presence of mass in the electron that forced Dirac to come up with his equation with a four-component wave function to describe its relativistic motion, and Lorentz and Einstein to come up with the corresponding coordinate transformations and special relativity for a classical particle.

Thus, we can say that in reality there is neither time as such, nor space, characterized by distance or length. All this appears as a result of the excitation of action quanta, of which the excited (and unexcited) electromagnetic space consists. Massive particles are for us, basically, a tool with the help of which we observe and feel extended space and time corresponding to the events occurring in it.

Best regards, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Jan Slowak

My answer is my own and also comes out of a synthesis of the definitions of established lexicons. It comes out of deep analysis of the reasoning methods developed by Jean-Dominique Warnier and Edsger Dijkstra. References available in the below given article.

For an example of how reference frames of subsets can be defined, see Section 3.13.2 of this article:

Article Relating the Comprehension Ability to the Neocortex Verbal A...

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

We were talking about "fundamental property of the universe" so I wanted ONLY one example of "fundamental property of the universe". Thanks.

Dear Jan Slowak

You wrote: "We were talking about "fundamental property of the universe" so I wanted ONLY one example of "fundamental property of the universe". Thanks."

OK. Given that the progression of the present moment is universally impossible to separate from the motion of all existing particles, it is not at all impossible that the time dimension could belong to a plane of existence more fundamental than that of space as we conceive it, since a characteristic which is common to all elements of a set necessarily belongs to the reference frame of this set and can in no way be itself an element of that same set. It can only by definition be an element of some superset.

This means that it is not at all excluded that the flow of time, that is, this inexorable and constant motion of the present moment from what we perceive as being the past towards what we perceive as being the future, could have already existed even before the birth of the universe, which is made up, as we have no choice but to observe, of only the complete set of constantly interacting electromag­netic particles that we can observe, which in turn are only made up of quantities of kinetic energy quantized on various orthogonal planes.

Ref: Section 9.7 of this article:

Article Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI)

André Michaud

I am not satisfied with your answer at all.

To conclude this discussion, I asked the AI:

Question: Is time a fundamental property of the universe?

Answer: Yes, time is considered a fundamental property of the universe. It is an dimension through which events occurs and is an integral part of the fabric of spacetime in the framework of general relativity.

Time is a fundamental property of our minds...

Dear Jan Slowak

You wrote: "I am not satisfied with your answer at all"

As you wish.

You wrote: " To conclude this discussion, I asked the AI:"

Asking anything to the AI is inquiring what the consensus of popular opinions recorded in its data bank is.

As scientifically worthless as any other opinion not backed by referred formally peer-reviewed sources. Not satisfying. This is my opinion.

If you count matter as the fundamental property of the observable universe, time is also the same. Matter creates time in its deepest dynamics, and it creates space by separating from one another.

However, in the other observer's frame of reference, time and space are partly interchanged. This is why spacetime is an intact real concept and a fundamental property of the universe.

Time does not exist as a physical phenomenon. There is matter and its movement (changes in its quality).

It's time to part with misconceptions!

If time does not exist as a physical phenomenon, how do you explain that you are getting older?

If the flow of time depends on the observer, how do you explain that whoever is observing you getting older does not change your rate of aging?

My yesterday's post:

Time is not a physical phenomenon, but a property of human consciousness, directly related to memory. There is no “time” in nature, but there is movement, change in matter and its qualities. They are recorded by the observer (man) using the product of his mind, consciousness: this is “time”. There is no point in saying more here: there is no “time” for this, either for explanation or for perception.

how do you explain that you are getting older? - change in matter and its qualities.

how do you explain that whoever is observing you getting older does not change your rate of aging? - The time of my change exists only for the one watching me. My being is not affected by the number of people watching me or their absence. For their perception of time is a game of their mind, and not a physical phenomenon. My perception of time is also not material.

Apparently, you need to get acquainted with Aristotle and Augustine Aurelius. Everything that is written about time later only repeats their thoughts. And your thoughts are valuable only because they are yours.

There is no point in saying more here: there is no “time” for this, either for explanation or for perception.

...

De Broglie wrote: "It is obviously certain that the emission of a particle by the source is the cause of its arrival on the detector. Now, the causal link between the two phenomena can be established only through the existence of a trajectory and to deny this existence, is tantamount to sacrificing causality, it is condemning ourselves not to comprehend." 1973.

Since a particle cannot arrive at a location before having been emitted at some other location, don’t you think that there will be an amount of physical delay (time elapsing) between the two phenomena?

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Agree time is not a dimension / doesn't exists. But then what does exist? Does cause exist?

STOE hold time is a succession of NOWs.

John Hodge

There is matter and its movement, changes in quality. Human consciousness records objective events with the help of memory and sensory organs to form a sense of time, color, smell, sounds, appearance, etc. (they do not exist outside of human perception) to perceive reality in its capabilities. For other living beings, time and world are different.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Is there cause of matter movement?

Don't think so,but it does help us measure the trend change of various possibilities.Or we say it reflects the trend of energy transmission and energy form transformation.

John Hodge

There are many reasons depending on the type of movement. Theology came up with the initial cause: the “Big Bang” (the creation of the world). One thing can definitely be said: every movement-effect has a cause - another movement. A similar question: we have the chicken and the egg, which is the cause and which is the effect?

From the posts that appeared after the SS posts on pages 3, 4, where the thread question is rigorously scientifically answered, it looks as is worthwhile to comment rather old post, which is similar, nonetheless, to other pots, including that appeared after SS posts above.

“…Time is not fundamental property of the universe!

The time Is a reference tool to describe physical phenomena, and useful for our social environment functionality.…..”

- though yeah, “time Is a reference tool to describe physical phenomena, and useful for our social environment functionality”,

- however claiming that it is necessary before to understand– from where and how this “tool” appeared?, and why and how this tool is as it is when is used?,

- including, first of all – why it is used – and often adequately to the reality- absolutely universally, absolutely independently on - what physical phenomena are described, and in what social environment functionality?

These , quite natural, questions aren’t answered in the quote above, but it has 5 recommendations; and is pointed as, regrettably, the utmost popular answer in the thread.

More about what is, again, absolutely necessary and so absolutely objectively existent absolutely fundamental [unlike some “simply fundamental” only for humansphenomena “Matter”/ “Universe”, Matter’s space, fundamental Nature forces, etc.] phenomenon “Time”, and its actualization, i.e. the absolutely objectively existent and absolutely universal for existence and motion in it of absolutely all changes of anything, including creation of anything, “time dimension”,

- see the SS posts on pages 3, 4, and links in the posts, here one additional note to

“…If time does not exist as a physical phenomenon, how do you explain that you are getting older? If the flow of time depends on the observer, how do you explain that whoever is observing you getting older does not change your rate of aging?……”

- the “flow of time” existed in humans’ history in thousands of years, and was introduced in physics by Newton in 1686:

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”,

- and that is postulated in mainstream physics till now; though with “relativistic correction” – the time flow is “dilated” regarding to moving reference frames or even particles.

That is fundamentally wrong, the phenomenon “Time” is actualized as the absolutely universal time dimension above; and this dimension – as, say, a space dimension, fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t, flow to anywhere. That are changing patterns/systems that move in time dimension, and everything in matter [practically everything in Matter] moves constantly and always in the time dimensions with the same speed. Since, again, time and space dimensions fundamentally haven’t some own intrinsic measure, in physics it is convenient to assume that everything in matter moves in tome dimension with the speed of light.

Cheers

The "delay" between the moment of emission of a bremsstrahlung photon emitted by my screen and the moment of its capture by a cell in one of my retinas, I identify with "the invariant rate of progression of the NOW moment".

Vladimir A. Lebedev

There are many creation myths (an effect without a cause). But for humanity today they are all relatively irrelevant (or perhaps better to say outside our scope).

I am intrigued by your concepts as they are close to mine. But I'd like to go the next step - which is what?

from Article Causality, time, and force

``The universe exists now and only now (the NOW). Our brain configuration suggests there was a different NOW in what we perceive as antecedent to NOW. Our memory has taken something akin to a picture of a differ-ent placement of objects (bodies) than currently seen. Thus, our method of dealing with this is to consider that positions and things change. So, our intuition suggests change and a link from antecedent to the consequence of NOW as suggested by D. Hume [5]. Time is created in our minds and is measured by passage of events such as the ticking of a clock or motion of heavenly bodies. With time comes the modeling of causation as a link.''

Page 6

(PDF) Causality, time, and force. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364453236_Causality_time_and_force [accessed Nov 12 2023].

So, we have a different notion of motion. Do you have a paper where you expand on your thoughts?

John Hodge

Do you have a paper where you expand on your thoughts?

Yes, there is a lot of material (in Russian) here in Research Gate .

Will you find it yourself or give you the exact link (address)?

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Exact address, please.

Using the ``@"' symbol in these posts will notify me of a post. Without it, does not notify.

Time is not any property of universe. Time is illusion in our life. Without light time is not exist. So first understand photon. Time is connected with light.

Parth Mevada

How can time be an illusion?

You are at point A and you are going to point B on the line connecting points A and B. The distance between A and B is d meters. Your speed is v meters per second. When you start your watch shows the time t0. Then you can calculate the time you arrive at point B, t = t0 + d/v.

This is no illusion. It's as concrete as possible, it's as precise as possible!

Yes, you are correct, but I wanted to say that equations of time is just a measurement of how many seconds you take to travel it. Actually, we take t = 0sec to calculate it perfectly. Suppose three persons stand on your terrace. One car is coming from point A. Person 1 see that car and 1 is nearest to A. It is present for 1. But future for 2 and 3. And when car comes at person 2. It becomes past for 1 and present for 2 and future for 3. When it comes at 3, it will become past for 1 and 2, but present for 3. When it will arrive at point B. That event would be past for those 3 persons. Means if you see things, you can measure the time. So light is connected with the time. I hope you understand sir...

Parth Mevada

If you say I'm right, that means what you said is wrong. Then there is no point in you trying to describe another experiment.

Oh, dou you think you are right, i said your logic on equation was right.but once again read my answer then you will understand, time is really illusion or not

Please answer me back

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered a few times already in SS posts, last time in the post on page 6, while in the thread a next too vivid poster appeared, who possibly frankly thinks that “Time is illusion in our life.”; despite that rather probably he has and uses a clock, which isn’t a living being, and so without any illusions show how it moves in the, again,

- absolutely necessary and so absolutely objectively existent absolutely fundamental [unlike some “simply fundamental” only for humans phenomena “Matter”/ “Universe”, Matter’s space, fundamental Nature forces, etc.] phenomenon “Time” actualization, i.e. in the absolutely objectively existent and absolutely universal for existence and motion in it of absolutely all changes of anything, including creation of anything, “time dimension”,

- where, since Matter is rather simple logical system, which is organized and develops in complete accordance with Matter’s set of basic fundamental and universal laws/links/constants,

- and since everything in Matter was/is created/creating by some energy portions, and so because of energy conservation law everything in Matter constantly and always changes,

- so , while Newton defined time as

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”,

- that was Newton’s illusion [which remains in mainstream physics till now, only with “correction” – this time flow is “dilated” if something moves in space, so, say, “muons that are born in Earth atmosphere reach the surface because that they ‘dilate time”, here we have two illusions].

Really everything in Matter constantly and always moves equably in the time dimension; so it is possible to make specific material constructions “clocks” that tick equably and so are used for measurement of the Matter’s [and, say, human’s consciousness, which also constantly and always changes, say, at thinking] motion “in time”.

That is another thing, that really clocks don’t measure interval in the real time dimension, but in a specific space dimension, which is used in mainstream physics and everyday practice as “time dimension”, but this point is in certain sense behind this thread question. For those readers that want to clarify for themselves this point see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

More see the SS posts above in the thread and links in the posts.

Cheers

Philippos Afxentiou

Existential events invoke time, so time is an emergent concept of the universe that encompasses past, present, and future events as a whole. The property of existential events are relevant to time.

Regards

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Parth Mevada

1) "Oh, dou you think you are right, i said your logic on equation was right.but once again read my answer then you will understand, time is really illusion or not"

I am a mathematician and treat time as I read in school: time is a physical entity! I am not interested in any other discussions about time. We can use time in mathematical calculations, that is the most important thing. x = vt. The rest is unnecessary nonsense!

The tread question is rigorously scientifically answered/commented already in a number of SS posts in the thread, however some really fundamentally wrong, but some quite typical in mainstream philosophy, where the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notions “Time” is fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, “definition ” of time appeared in the thread again:

“…Existential events invoke time, so time is an emergent concept of the universe that encompasses past, present, and future events as a whole. The property of existential events are relevant to time…”

Again in the thread - all/any really fundamental phenomena/notions, including, first of all, besides “Time”, also “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Energy”, “Information”, which are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy,

can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, while the utmost general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

Correspondingly some “Logos” element “Time” is absolutely necessary for creation, existence and changings of any/every informational pattern/system, including, say, “Matter”, a particle, a human, etc.,

- and is concretely actualized as the absolutely objectively existent and absolutely universal for existence and motion [at creations and changes] in it, not only of some mystic “Existential events” , but of absolutely all changes of anything, including creation of anything’s events, “time dimension”,where everything moves at every change on some “time interval”

- which fundamentally isn’t “invoked” and/or “emergent” by/of anything, including any “properties of existential events”, any “universes”, etc.

Cheers

Mr. Sergey Shevchenko ,

In response to your disagreement regarding the fundamentally emergent nature of time, I must emphasize that your argument seems to overlook the foundational principles outlined in my initial response. Your reliance on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky's philosophical conception from 2007, while intriguing, appears to impose a specific framework that may not fully encapsulate the complexities of time as understood across disciplines.

Furthermore, your critique does not directly address the core assertion that existential events play a crucial role in invoking time as an emergent concept within the universe. This viewpoint is supported by a comprehensive analysis conducted in the paper titled "Formulating Time's Hyperdimensionality across Disciplines." This study delves into the conceptualization of time in classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology, proposing a reconceptualization that extends beyond traditional frameworks.

The paper argues for a perspective that views time as a hyperdimensional and universal constant, underpinning our understanding of phenomena across different scales. It challenges traditional interpretations of time dilation and relativistic effects, suggesting that observed phenomena may be better explained through non-relativistic mechanisms. available here Preprint Formulating Time's Hyperdimensionality across Disciplines

Therefore, I respectfully contend that your disagreement does not sufficiently address the foundational premise that existential events are intrinsically linked to the emergence of time within the universe. Instead, it appears to rely on a specific philosophical framework that may not fully capture the interdisciplinary nature of this inquiry.

Regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Mr. Soumendra Nath Thakur,

- what are rigorous scientific definitions of an absolutely fundamental, “Logos” set element, for humans - phenomenon/notion, “Time”, and its “observed” actualizationat creation and changes of all/every informational patterns/systems the unique for all absolutely infinite “number” of all elements, including the observed “Matter” and fundamentally non-material living beings, including humans, of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, “time dimension”,

- see the SS posts above in the thread, first of all https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, here only a comment to

“…Mr. Sergey Shevchenko ….Therefore, I respectfully contend that your disagreement does not sufficiently address the foundational premise that existential events are intrinsically linked to the emergence of time within the universe. Instead, it appears to rely on a specific philosophical framework that may not fully capture the interdisciplinary nature of this inquiry.…”

- more see above, and, again – nothing happened with Time and the time dimension at “emergence of the universe”. Both – the Logos element “Time” and the time dimension [and correspondingly the Set], existed always, they fundamentally absolutely for sure cannot have any Beginning and any End, that is absolutely rigorously logically prohibited ,

- while “Universe”

- in mainstream philosophy and sciences mostly “Matter”, though really it contains besides Matter at least fundamentally non-material consciousnesses, an example – observed by humans, who understand what is the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Consciousness” is [what is possible only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception], the consciousnesses of living beings on Earth; and practically for sure also some other consciousnesses, including the consciousness(es) “Matter’s Creator(s)”, who existed/exists long before the Creation,

- all that are some the Set’s elements,

even existences of which can be in a “simply infinite” time interval on the time dimension, however, this interval would be absolutely infinitely lesser than the time dimension absolutely infinite “length”.

To the above any mainstream philosophical, and any humans’ at all, though, “existentiality” and “interdisciplinarity” have no any relation.

Cheers

Cosmin Visan

I am a mathematician so your "philosophical" discussions do not suit me.

Cosmin Visan

That was perhaps a few hundred years ago.