If time’s dimensionality is similar to or the same as the dimensionality of a direction in 3 dimensional space, then what is the underlying nature of time? Minkowski’s space time concept implies that the 4th dimension (which he assigns to time) should be treated as just one more of 4 dimensions for a 4 dimensional metric. The 4/3 law implies the same thing particularly with respect to the equipartition of energy. The 4/3 law appears to account for dark energy. Is time a shadow (of the underlying reality) cast on the cave wall? If it is, what is it a shadow of? Expansion of the universe?
Time is periodic (quantized) in nature it is not linear as assumed by main stream physics. Therefore one can only compare one interval of time with another. The smallest unit of time is the period of a wave and the smallest unit of length is the wavelength of a wave. This is why you cannot measure time without the use of some kind of oscillator. This fact stands out in the latest method used for measuring the velocity of light and establishing the length of the standard meter. Both are done simultaneously in a same experimental set up. More details in following article.
Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory
Julian Barbour has written extensively on the emergence of time from the Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity. See https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3489.
It is by no means an easy subject and remains and open and active area of research.
Time is the separation between different instances of the same observer.
The answer of Unconventional/Philosophy for astrophysics.
Astrophysics is just a particular case of Unconventional/Philosophy as, similar to any philosophy, it is the ”reflection of reality” in the astrophysical language
“What is the underlying nature of time?"
The notion/phenomenon “Time”, as well as the notion/phenomenon “Space” ,are Meta-mainstream-philosophical and so Meta-mainstream-other sciences notions/phenomena; thus they can be properly/rationally defined/understandable only in the “The information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute ,
where it is shown that both they are ultimately fundamental Rules/possibilities, which, together with a number of other ultimately fundamental Rules/possibilities, are necessary for that something can be some information, i.e. be understandable at interactions of at least pair of some objects, which are correspondingly some informational patterns.
At that in the conception it is rigorously proven that all what exists in the system “our Universe”, including the system “Matter”, is/are only some informational patterns/systems of patterns, which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
These Rules/possibilities concretely establish that to be understandable the informational patterns and systems of patterns must:
- “Space” as the Possibility establishes that to exist for a fixed information at all there exists something what is called the “space” and every fixed informational pattern always occupies some non-zero “spatial interval”; as the Rule it establishes that in the systems of patterns between different patterns there must be a non-zero “spatial intervals”, including when the same pattern is “rewritten”, i.e. “is moved” in the space.
Thus every change of the configurations of fixed patterns is obligatorily accompanied by corresponding spatial intervals, what is observable as a motion of patterns in the space;
- “Time” as the Possibility establishes that to exist for a dynamical, i.e., changing, information at all there exists something what is called the “time” and every dynamical informational pattern always occupies some non-zero “temporal interval”; as the Rule it establishes that in the systems of patterns between different states of changing patterns there must be a non-zero “temporal intervals”, including when the same fixed pattern is moving in the space.
Thus every change of internal states of the patterns and/or configurations of fixed patterns in a dynamical systems is obligatorily accompanied by corresponding temporal intervals, what is observable as a motion of patterns in the time.
At that:
- these two Rules/possibilities form absolutely necessary for existence of every system of patterns the system’s “spacetime”, which is composed from these possibilities as be consisted of corresponding spatial and temporal “dimensions”; when
they by no means establish – what both intervals must be, the unique requirement is that the intervals can be even infinitesimal, but must be not equal to zero exactly.
Correspondingly there are no “own” inherent “measure units” “quanta”, etc. for the space and time intervals; the systems spacetimes are simply some “empty containers”, the emptiness hasn’t measure, “be discrete”, etc.; as well as there cannot be spatial or temporal “flows” somewhere. Thus there is no sense to define some spatial “sizes” for some unique fixed patterns and some “time” intervals for unique changes of unique patterns, but these parameters became be definable if a system consists of more then two patterns, then one pattern can be more then or equal to the other, and one pattern can be changed earlier or simultaneously then/with the other. It is evident that such comparisons are principally relative.
The concrete spacetimes for concrete systems are composed from concrete sets of the dimensions that are defined [are necessary for existence and changes of concrete systems] completely by the systems only. In the system “writing text” the space is composed of usually 2D piece of paper and 1D temporal dimension. Matter’s spacetime [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics] is [absolute] [5]4D Euclidian empty container/manifold in scientific theories, etc.
The informational system “Matter” is a system of uninterruptedly changing [because of the energy conservation law] informational patterns, and all/every changes are accompanied by spatial and temporal intervals, what is observed, for example as that Newton claimed, as some “time flow”, but that isn’t so. Again - the time hasn’t some inherent flows, “arrows of time”, etc., the observed “time flow” simply is constantly increasing time interval that totally passively accompanies the constant changing of Matter; which, in turn, simply constantly and always evolves from given state to usually a most probable state; including when the changes are deterministic – simply the next state in this case has the probability be equal to 1.
Besides all/every material objects are some uninterruptedly running close-loop logical algorithms so Matter is a system of constantly running automata, which, and Matter as a whole, operate with seems rather stable fundamental operation rate and logical transitions are fundamentally universal and logically equivalent at changing of spatial positions and at changing steps of internal states of the automata themselves.
Just therefore it is possible to establish temporal and spatial etalons, which are used at relative measurements of temporal and spatial intervals, to characterize the states of material objects and systems by using temporal and spatial coordinates, etc., etc., etc.
And the “flipping” of the “computer’s “Matter” fundamental “logical gates” seems as indeed proceeds with corresponding “discrete” flipping temporal and spatial intervals be equal to the Planck time, τ, and Planck length, lP, values, when the standard speed of light is a derived unit c=lP/ τ. But, again, that isn’t a discreteness of the time, that is a fundamental parameter of Matter;
When, again, Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in physics]/ absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” [in the objective reality], where all the possibilities/dimensions are independent on each other and where the informational system “Matter” exists and interruptedly changes.
And this spacetime/container fundamentally cannot be transformed by any material object or conscious “observer”; i.e. either space or time cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “bend”; there cannot be some “emergence of time from the Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity”, etc.
More – see the links above.
Cheers
Article the Information as Absolute
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
Possibly it would be useful to see also the SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_time_really_an_independent_variable?view=59c6cff0ed99e161ed74e225#59c78bf2615e27390f7104fe
Cheers
Time is amplitude, but psychical empiria of time is different, psychical time slow down and speed up. We got eternalistic conception and presentism. We measured time per clock but is it period. To measured we need some period to what me measured it, in my opinion nature of time is amplitude. Space and object and move give us time.
One has to distinguish between 'time' as a continuum - infinitely divisible "past-now-future" and metrical "equivalence" (e.g., as in H. Weyl - "Space, Time, Matter"). To show that the metrical concepts are not necessary in physics was the main issue in my book entitled "Irony of the Method": : http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf).
In the theory of relativity, we define an observer who has two instruments; one for measuring the length and the other for measuring the time. The demand of the principle of relativity then implies that all possible observers must have the identical instruments. In the Einstein's theory of relativity , the instrument measuring time has one important role; that is to measure the time' t' taken by a light ray to reach the point (x,y,z) from the origin(o,o,o). It is this time 't' which defines the forth coordinates of the four dimensional space-time in the Einstein's theory (special and general ) relativity.
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
Regards
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
Regards
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
Regards
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
Regards
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
In physics, the role of time is to study the change of the situation of a shape or size or both of an object under consideration.
Regards
Why we call a mathematical expression as a law belonging to a subject? It due to the fact that the expression satisfies the principle of relativity. The law may belong to any subject. That is ,in general we may say that a mathematical expression of law satisfies the principle of relativity if the alaw is independent of the observers. By an observer we mean that it is a system which is competent to verify the mathematical expression. In the language of mathmatics, the independence of the law from the observers is called as the law satisfies the principle of covariance.
If a law satisfies the principle of relativity or the principle of covariance, then the shape of the law may not chage from one observer to the other observer while, the variables involved in the law may vary from one observer to the other observer. We may choose one variables of the law to define the rate the rate of change of the other variables with respect to this variables for futher study of the nature of the law. This chosen variable behaves like the time in physics. I would like to request the readers to see my work ''Role of the principle of relativity: an approach towards therelativity beyond domain of physics",GS Journal,6986,July12,2012, where the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been proposed by considering the variance of the portfolio risk as to play the role of time.
In physics, the role of time is to study the change of the situation of a shape or size or both of an object under consideration.
Regards
In the absence of transformation, space and time do not exist, (they are the parameters of any transformation), similar to any parameter of any entity/universe, no matter whether we deal with form/existence/spirit simulatneity, (entity) or transformtion/space/time (universe).In this context, the nature of space and time is determined by the nature of the transformation defined by these parameters. If the space/time dimension defines one or several ideas (spiritual or virtual phenomena or Illusion/Reality), it is a virtual dimension or Illusion/Reality. If the space/time dimension defines a matter/energy transformation or entity/universe matter/energy, its dimension is also matter/energy. If it is limited to matter and energy separately, the space/time dimension can be material or energy related, according to the transformation that particular dimension defines. We cannot mistake the virtual space/time dimension, that does not generate any kind of effects during the contact between the dimensions, for the matter/energy dimension that does not bring about any effects. If two “material” entities/universe overlap, their space/time dimensions change. Researchers already define space and time according to a particular phenomenon or object. They identify a physical, biological, or even quantum time or space, but they do not start from the generality according to which transformation is defined by its space/time dimensional parameter. As a conclusion, apart from the fact that transformation comprehends space and time, we could also add that in the absence of transformation, whatever its nature, there is no space/time dimension. This is the reason why Kant and his metaphysical limited to God, he could not infer the transformation beyond God, such as astrophysics cannot reflect the space/time dimension beyond the Big-Bang uniqueness. We cannot reflect the transformations beyond these limits, even if existence continues beyond them.
Dear mister Piotr Grabowski,
We would like to mention that there is no identity within the unlimited Unconventional/Entity/Universe, the theists often call God, without understanding the unlimited aspect. There is an identical/nonidentical simultaniety, that we reflect as both identity and nonidentity, according to the system or systems of reference. Two protons will never be identical, unless they have the same space/time dimension. In other terms, they can never occupy the same space and time. However, let us not forget that their interior is dynamic and related to the space/time dimension. It would be absurd to sustain that two atoms of the same nature or two protons in our case, one belonging to my chair, the other one to your hand are identical. We must understand that these entities change permanently. Their transformation is a space/time simultaneity and together they define the internal and external universe, (transformation/space/time) of any entity/universe. They are never identical in the unlimited. We must also take into account the space/time dimension of the present belonging to these entities, (atoms, protons, etc.), as well as their unlimited past and future, as any present is a simultaneity between the past and the future, more exactly, such as many of you infer, the past defines our future, and together they shape the future. Identity is a convention of the human mind, similar to the tridimensional or the past, the present and the future, with a view to drawing comparisons, as thinking is not just a psychological processs, it represents the capacity of an entity/universe to draw comparisons. There is no thinking or comparison in the absence of identity. Mathematics turns into utopia, or it becomes absurd, in the absence of identity.
Dear Tudor Paroiu,
I am unable to understand the transformation in your discussion.Could you please explain me?
Regards
And again, rather possibly it would be useful to see also the SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_time_really_an_independent_variable/4
Cheers
Dear mister Ramesh Chandra
Before approaching the subject of your question ”what the universe is” in the terms of our philosophy, I would like to apologize for certain delays in answering your questions, as I am not an English speaker, which makes me depend on the translator. On the other hand, I would like to thank you for your interest in our strives. The fact that you ask yourself this question is the proof of your special interest in the others, who did not understand that this philosophy modifies the meanings of words, (of our conventions) beyond the definitions contained by the dictionary, or the previous philosophical interpretations. It is not only the universe that has a meaning different from the usual meaning. All the words or their interpretations have unconventional definitions, different from the limits of the previous conventions. Nobody and nothing can reach their unlimited. We will try to answer your question by the unconventional definition of the universe contained by the paper that is going to be published, entitled Unconventional/Dictionary - Tudor Păroiu, which represents a necessity for the comprehension of the theories that are already written or that are going to be written. The universe is defined by us as transformation/space/time simultaneity. Unfortunately, the elements of that particular universe, namely transformation, space and time, have other interpretations and meanings in our philosophy and they do not come down to the limits of the classical conventions offered by the dictionary. Time is simultaneous with the space and they define together the space/time dimension of any transformation, often used by the people in various fields. Space and time, more precisely the space/time dimension represents the parameter of any transformation. Space, time and transformation represent the parameters of any universe. The fact that those who read do not ask questions on trhe meanings of these words makes us believe that our texts are misunderstood. They did not understand that the Unconventional/Universe is not only the internal universe, but the simultaneity of the universes internal and external to the things or phenomena. Together, they are a simultaneity that permanently transforms any entity/universe on the space/time dimension.
UNIVERSE
In the conventional, the universe is,
“UNIVERSE, universes, neuter noun. 1. The world in its wholeness, unlimited in time and space, infinitely varied as far as the forms that the matter takes, in the process of its development; cosmos. 2. The globe; populated, inhabited part of the globe; the inhabitants of the globe. ♦ The environment, the surrounding world somebody or something lives in: material, intellectual or moral domain. – From the French univers, the Latin universum. Source: DEX '98 (1998)
In the unconventional, the universe is,
”the simultaneity transformation/space/time, of an entity/universe”
or
”the phenomenon of transformation on the space/time dimension of an entity/universe”
The classical definition of the dictionary brings forward several versions of the universe, on the one hand ” The world in its wholeness, unlimited in time and space, infinitely varied as far as the forms that the matter takes, in the process of its development; cosmos. 2. The globe; populated, inhabited part of the globe; the inhabitants of the globe.” We are not told which their common characteristic with the other universes, the solar system, galaxies, with universes interior or exterior to any limited or unlimited entity/universe. This classical definition does not inform us on the difference between the entity-cosmos and the universe-cosmos or between the entity-earth and the universe-earth or between the entity-man and his universe. We will try to eliminate the limits of the classical definition, by the definition of the universe in the unconventional, laying stress on the common and general element, the transformation of the same entities/universe that on the one hand is constant and well-defined and at the same time, it transforms permanently. In the unconventional, we define the universe according its parameters, transformation, space and time. This is the reason why we have defined the entity as the simultaneity form/existence/spirit. Transformation together with its parameters space and time represent the universe of the same entity as transformation/space/time. If we imagine the universe as entity or as a simultaneity of entities, we limit these universe to another entity without transformation, as the entities mentioned by the dictionary do not deal with the notion of transformation, but with well-defined entities, such as cosmos, earth, solar system, etc. Any matter/energy entity or phenomenon is both entity and universe, but it is only in this unconventional that we are able to separate as meanings the phenomenon of the entity from the phenomenon of the universe belonging to the same entity as representation. The universe is very well represented by the transformation on the space/time dimension, while the entity is represented by the form, existence and its spirit, eliminating the confusions concerned with the continuous transformation of the same entity/universe. The classical definition does not deal with the proper transformation of the universe, specific to any universe, (as it actually defined an entity resembling any other entity) whose effect is the transformation of the entity/universe, the universe is part of. The classical definition is actually part of another entity/universe, as long as the earth is part of the cosmos, similar to the solar system or the other universes. We must try and define the universe in relation to an entity/universe as any entity/universe, by its existence, divides the unique universe of the Unconventional/Entity/Universe into two specific internal and external universes, unlimited as reality, but limited in relation to other limited systems of reference. They are limited only in our conventions or the conventions of other entities/universe or in relation to limited systems of reference. The origin zero divides the unlimited into two different one positive and another negative area, even if the unlimited and the infinite are unlimited and they cannot be defined as either positive or negative in the absence of a system of reference. In this context, let us notice we ourselves represent that origin, by our existence. We reflect the unlimited under the form of two universes, one internal and another external universe, and not reality. We reflect the unique universe in relation to our systems of reference, although the Unconventional/Universe is one single universe. Starting from the question concerned with what an entity/universe is, we know that it stands for any ”form of organization, ” similar to ourselves or other entities/universe.
We are well-defined people, or determined as representation, but we are also a certain transformation, more precisely a group of other entities/universe that continue to transform, although we consider ourselves to be determined and relative entities/universe, which is a paradox. As a conclusion, we are also people in our limited conventions and continuous transformation as reality. The source of human transformation is represented by our internal and external universes, that generate the continuous transformation, which is both limited to our convention, but also unlimited beyond our conventions, (by the atoms and molecules or the matter/energy that shape us). Thus, we are an entity well-defined by our conventions, but relative and limited at the same time to the internal/external universe that transforms us. The internal universe is also unlimited beyond our limits, similar to the the external one. They are actually one single universe that we cannot comprehend unfortunately. The universe is not a well-defined entity, it continues to ttransform, which represents our permanent unconventional, such as it results from the classical definitions, where the earth or the cosmos are well-defined, determined entities and they do not depend on the space/time as transformation. The transformation as well-determined object or phenomenon, as entity is different from the phenomenon of of transformation as transition from one existence to another, or from one form to another. Let us take as an example two versions of an object matter/energy or phenomenon, more precisely the initial version A of an entity/universe and the A*, transformed version. The phenomenon of transformation represents the phenomenon of the transition from the version A to the version A.* This is the reason why the universe is not the version A or A*, these are entities and effects of the transformation or of the internal and external universes that turn the version A into A*. The transformation or the universe do not necessarily resemble the entity/universe they belong to. The universe can turn the entity/universe from one reality into another according to the importance of the phenomenon related to the process of transformation. We can deal with a conventional transformation of an entity/universe into another or with a transformation from one well-defined, conventional, limited entity into an unconventional, unlimited one, from one Illusion/Reality into a Reality in itself, namely from one idea to objects or natural phenomena. As we have to do with the transition from the version A to version A*, the necessity of the space/time dimension as a parameter of transformation is obvious. If we take into consideration the unlimited cosmos as a universe, we will notice that the cosmos in its unlimited does not depend on the space/time dimension, (its existence is unlimited). As this dimension is unlimited, we cannot talk about in this case about transformation, which leads us to the conclusion that the universe defined by the classical conventions is a limitation. The classical universe is actually an entity and not a universe, that transforms the entity it belongs to. This is a particular case of the unconventional definition where the space/time dimension is a relative and limited constant, as it happens in the case of any entity/universe. Taking into account the fact that any entity is a universe and any universe is an entity, there are unlimited entities and universes, but the unconventional simplifies these intuitions by the formula entity/universe as simultaneity, where it clarifies the interpretations by their simultaneity, but also by the separation of the entity/universe as well-defined, (entity) and determined by its continuous and different transformation, (universe). You may wonder where these limited interpretations come from and the answer is simple and obvious. We mistake the conventional, limited universe, (a limited infinite), for the Unconventional/Universe (the Unconventional/Entity/Universe which is often compared to God), which lies beyond our capacity of reflection. However, ”HE” comprehends everything. Reality deceives us, as we do not reach it, but its representation and however faithful this representation were, it cannot stand for reality itself. We deal with the representation of the universe and not with its reality, we will, never reach anyway.
”Any entity is a universe and any universe is an entity as they are an entity/universe simultaneity ”
(Fragment from the paper entitled Unconventional/Dictionary -Tudor Păroiu)
“…If time’s dimensionality is similar to or the same as the dimensionality of a direction in 3 dimensional space, then what is the underlying nature of time?…”
Time is indeed some dimension where it is possible for changing states of changing objects/systems of the objects be placed; and so it is similar to “spatial dimensions”; “time is a space for changes”.
However the notion/phenomenon “Time”, and the notion/phenomenon “Space” as well, though, are “two faced”, besides that they are some possibilities [what is realized as sets of spatial dimensions for everything, + temporal dimensions for something, if this something changes], they are also the rules, which establish that there cannot be some objects having spatial sizes and durations [temporal intervals] of states in changing objects/systems that are equal to zero exactly; and, besides, that between different objects in space and different states in changing objects/systems must be non-zero spatial and temporal intervals.
Just because of this “two-facing”, in science for both, time and space, the same letters “t” and “x” [“y”, “z”] are used in two different applications: as points’ coordinates in spacetime [as the possibilities] and as values of spatial distances/lengths and temporal durations.
The notions/phenomena [the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities] “Space” and “Time” are Meta-mainstream-philosophical and so Meta-mainstream-scientific; and so their ontology can be cleared in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute ] only.
Besides to understand what is the space/time/spacetime in concrete dynamical system “Matter” it is necessary to understand what is the notion/phenomenon “Matter”, which is also Meta-mainstream
[in the philosophy, which consists of two opposite, but, nonetheless, equally legitimate doctrines , “Materialism” and “Idealism”, and in a huge number of sub-doctrines as well, the notions/phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” have fundamentally opposite meanings, or, by another words, are fundamentally uncertain and transcendent]
These [“Matter” and “Consciousness”] Meta-notions/phenomena can be [and are] properly defined/rationally understandable only in the informational conception above also.
More detailed consideration of what are “Space” and “Time” see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320775304_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time
Cheers
Hello Robert,
There are two papers at OSF Preprints that report the discovery of the intrinsic nature of time. One paper is mostly about the discovery itself, and the other paper is a description of time with comments about the role of time in the universe.
Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time.” OSF Preprints. July 26. osf.io/gqxjy.
https://osf.io/gqxjy
Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Basis of Time in the Universe.” OSF Preprints. July 24. osf.io/q4ntk.
https://osf.io/q4ntk
People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. There have always been the questions:
What is time?
Why does time occur?
Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?
No one has ever been able to provide realistic answers to these questions. Because no one knew what time was, all the proposed answers were speculative, just guesses.
These two papers are not speculative. Nor do they provide a definition of time. They are descriptions of the nature of time and its role in the universe, and thus provide the answers to the three questions.
Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay by Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University
Link:
https://theconversation.com/time-might-not-exist-according-to-physicists-and-philosophers-but-thats-okay-181268
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction