Can time exists without change?
Imagine an event of one second length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose now that another second elapses between the closing and reopening of your eyes, a second in which nothing happens in the whole universe (or in all universes). You and your eyelids stand still, and nothing else moves or changes, neither here nor anywhere - not a hair, a planet or a god, an absolute stasis. Does this second really pass?
If so, you could extend this second to a minute, a day, or a million years, because if nothing happens in this time interval, you can't determine how long it will last: an infinite time lurks between each instant. Time, therefore, seems not to exist unrelated to the relationships between things, because in a universe(s) without events it loses any value. Whatever the measure of an instant, in fact, it is such only in relation to some change: the rising of the sun, the motion of a hand, the appearance of a wrinkle, the resonance of an atom.
Does the minimum unit of time coincides with the smallest change? Does time dissolves without differences between things?
metaphysics time thought-experiment
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
add a comment |
Imagine an event of one second length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose now that another second elapses between the closing and reopening of your eyes, a second in which nothing happens in the whole universe (or in all universes). You and your eyelids stand still, and nothing else moves or changes, neither here nor anywhere - not a hair, a planet or a god, an absolute stasis. Does this second really pass?
If so, you could extend this second to a minute, a day, or a million years, because if nothing happens in this time interval, you can't determine how long it will last: an infinite time lurks between each instant. Time, therefore, seems not to exist unrelated to the relationships between things, because in a universe(s) without events it loses any value. Whatever the measure of an instant, in fact, it is such only in relation to some change: the rising of the sun, the motion of a hand, the appearance of a wrinkle, the resonance of an atom.
Does the minimum unit of time coincides with the smallest change? Does time dissolves without differences between things?
metaphysics time thought-experiment
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago
add a comment |
Imagine an event of one second length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose now that another second elapses between the closing and reopening of your eyes, a second in which nothing happens in the whole universe (or in all universes). You and your eyelids stand still, and nothing else moves or changes, neither here nor anywhere - not a hair, a planet or a god, an absolute stasis. Does this second really pass?
If so, you could extend this second to a minute, a day, or a million years, because if nothing happens in this time interval, you can't determine how long it will last: an infinite time lurks between each instant. Time, therefore, seems not to exist unrelated to the relationships between things, because in a universe(s) without events it loses any value. Whatever the measure of an instant, in fact, it is such only in relation to some change: the rising of the sun, the motion of a hand, the appearance of a wrinkle, the resonance of an atom.
Does the minimum unit of time coincides with the smallest change? Does time dissolves without differences between things?
metaphysics time thought-experiment
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
Imagine an event of one second length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose now that another second elapses between the closing and reopening of your eyes, a second in which nothing happens in the whole universe (or in all universes). You and your eyelids stand still, and nothing else moves or changes, neither here nor anywhere - not a hair, a planet or a god, an absolute stasis. Does this second really pass?
If so, you could extend this second to a minute, a day, or a million years, because if nothing happens in this time interval, you can't determine how long it will last: an infinite time lurks between each instant. Time, therefore, seems not to exist unrelated to the relationships between things, because in a universe(s) without events it loses any value. Whatever the measure of an instant, in fact, it is such only in relation to some change: the rising of the sun, the motion of a hand, the appearance of a wrinkle, the resonance of an atom.
Does the minimum unit of time coincides with the smallest change? Does time dissolves without differences between things?
metaphysics time thought-experiment
metaphysics time thought-experiment
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
asked 4 hours ago
Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa
528112
528112
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago
add a comment |
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You already seem to know the scientific perspective on this, but perhaps it's still worth elaborating a bit on it.
You can define a second as the amount of time that passes between two ticks of the second hand of a clock. Our modern definition of the second is essentially a more precise version of the same idea, where the oscillations of the radiation emitted by a suitable atom play the role of the hand of the clock:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
So if nothing happens during your "second" in the whole universe—if no clock moves its hand and no electromagnetic wave oscillates—then no time has passed.
From a theoretical point of view, this hand of the clock or radiation does not necessarily itself need to be "real". It's enough to consider what would happen if such a clock or such radiation was present. An empty universe which contains no matter at all but in which times passes is perfectly conceivable by the laws of physics. Plain Minkowski spacetime is like that.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Since one might say that one of the important properties of time is to allow for change; to then suppose time exists, but that there is no change, rather goes against this.
It's a logical possibility, but then so is a universe with nothing in it; or indeed, no universe at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59617%2fcan-time-exists-without-change%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You already seem to know the scientific perspective on this, but perhaps it's still worth elaborating a bit on it.
You can define a second as the amount of time that passes between two ticks of the second hand of a clock. Our modern definition of the second is essentially a more precise version of the same idea, where the oscillations of the radiation emitted by a suitable atom play the role of the hand of the clock:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
So if nothing happens during your "second" in the whole universe—if no clock moves its hand and no electromagnetic wave oscillates—then no time has passed.
From a theoretical point of view, this hand of the clock or radiation does not necessarily itself need to be "real". It's enough to consider what would happen if such a clock or such radiation was present. An empty universe which contains no matter at all but in which times passes is perfectly conceivable by the laws of physics. Plain Minkowski spacetime is like that.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
You already seem to know the scientific perspective on this, but perhaps it's still worth elaborating a bit on it.
You can define a second as the amount of time that passes between two ticks of the second hand of a clock. Our modern definition of the second is essentially a more precise version of the same idea, where the oscillations of the radiation emitted by a suitable atom play the role of the hand of the clock:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
So if nothing happens during your "second" in the whole universe—if no clock moves its hand and no electromagnetic wave oscillates—then no time has passed.
From a theoretical point of view, this hand of the clock or radiation does not necessarily itself need to be "real". It's enough to consider what would happen if such a clock or such radiation was present. An empty universe which contains no matter at all but in which times passes is perfectly conceivable by the laws of physics. Plain Minkowski spacetime is like that.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
You already seem to know the scientific perspective on this, but perhaps it's still worth elaborating a bit on it.
You can define a second as the amount of time that passes between two ticks of the second hand of a clock. Our modern definition of the second is essentially a more precise version of the same idea, where the oscillations of the radiation emitted by a suitable atom play the role of the hand of the clock:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
So if nothing happens during your "second" in the whole universe—if no clock moves its hand and no electromagnetic wave oscillates—then no time has passed.
From a theoretical point of view, this hand of the clock or radiation does not necessarily itself need to be "real". It's enough to consider what would happen if such a clock or such radiation was present. An empty universe which contains no matter at all but in which times passes is perfectly conceivable by the laws of physics. Plain Minkowski spacetime is like that.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
You already seem to know the scientific perspective on this, but perhaps it's still worth elaborating a bit on it.
You can define a second as the amount of time that passes between two ticks of the second hand of a clock. Our modern definition of the second is essentially a more precise version of the same idea, where the oscillations of the radiation emitted by a suitable atom play the role of the hand of the clock:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
So if nothing happens during your "second" in the whole universe—if no clock moves its hand and no electromagnetic wave oscillates—then no time has passed.
From a theoretical point of view, this hand of the clock or radiation does not necessarily itself need to be "real". It's enough to consider what would happen if such a clock or such radiation was present. An empty universe which contains no matter at all but in which times passes is perfectly conceivable by the laws of physics. Plain Minkowski spacetime is like that.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
answered 3 hours ago
Tobias FritzTobias Fritz
1513
1513
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tobias Fritz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Since one might say that one of the important properties of time is to allow for change; to then suppose time exists, but that there is no change, rather goes against this.
It's a logical possibility, but then so is a universe with nothing in it; or indeed, no universe at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
add a comment |
Since one might say that one of the important properties of time is to allow for change; to then suppose time exists, but that there is no change, rather goes against this.
It's a logical possibility, but then so is a universe with nothing in it; or indeed, no universe at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
add a comment |
Since one might say that one of the important properties of time is to allow for change; to then suppose time exists, but that there is no change, rather goes against this.
It's a logical possibility, but then so is a universe with nothing in it; or indeed, no universe at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
Since one might say that one of the important properties of time is to allow for change; to then suppose time exists, but that there is no change, rather goes against this.
It's a logical possibility, but then so is a universe with nothing in it; or indeed, no universe at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
answered 4 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
31.7k950150
31.7k950150
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59617%2fcan-time-exists-without-change%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Newton's invention of the calculus gives an alternative to your last issue. He introduced the notion of the derivative tendency toward change, at the same time, Leibniz introduced the notion of an 'infinitessimal' change, a change too small for humans to comprehend it, yet still present. Our modern notions of physics incorporate such things as the moment of inertia to reflect not just real differences, but the established tendency to change unless some other influence enters the picture. So that change can still be represented at a single point in time.
– jobermark
3 hours ago
Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?
– rus9384
2 hours ago
@rus9384 everything is in stasis, mind included, till the stasis end for no reason as it started. It's probably physically impossible but not logically
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
@jobermark, Maybe I didn't understand your comment; this would still be 'the smallest change' as I wrote, or not?
– Francesco D'Isa
1 hour ago
It is not an actual change, it is the intention for future change, so as a change it is zero.
– jobermark
22 mins ago