Can time exist without change?












8















Imagine an event of one second in length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose 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 coincide with the smallest change? Does time dissolve without differences between things?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    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
    14 hours ago













  • Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

    – rus9384
    13 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
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

    – jobermark
    9 hours ago








  • 2





    Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

    – Richard
    8 hours ago
















8















Imagine an event of one second in length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose 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 coincide with the smallest change? Does time dissolve without differences between things?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    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
    14 hours ago













  • Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

    – rus9384
    13 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
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

    – jobermark
    9 hours ago








  • 2





    Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

    – Richard
    8 hours ago














8












8








8








Imagine an event of one second in length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose 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 coincide with the smallest change? Does time dissolve without differences between things?










share|improve this question
















Imagine an event of one second in length, like the blink of an eye. Suppose 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 coincide with the smallest change? Does time dissolve without differences between things?







metaphysics time thought-experiment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 13 mins ago









Community

1




1










asked 15 hours ago









Francesco D'IsaFrancesco D'Isa

563112




563112








  • 1





    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
    14 hours ago













  • Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

    – rus9384
    13 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
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

    – jobermark
    9 hours ago








  • 2





    Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

    – Richard
    8 hours ago














  • 1





    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
    14 hours ago













  • Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

    – rus9384
    13 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
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

    – jobermark
    9 hours ago








  • 2





    Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

    – Richard
    8 hours ago








1




1





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
14 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
14 hours ago















Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

– rus9384
13 hours ago





Durin my eyes closed you suppose my mind also in a stasis? What is the force that opens my eyes then?

– rus9384
13 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
12 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
12 hours ago






1




1





It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

– jobermark
9 hours ago







It is the thing that turns a collection of points into a continuous line. We do not have a good explicit description of it, but it is central to a lot of modern mathematics. The point is that time is woven into our intuition of continuity, and if we factor it out, we still have this notion of 'fat points' that are connected by this 'halo of inclination'. It is also part of our notion of continuous space, and it is captured only by limit processes, which depend implicitly on our notion of iteration and time or by 'nonstandard' objects that capture a notion of 'transcendence' which does too.

– jobermark
9 hours ago






2




2





Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

– Richard
8 hours ago





Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting theory. Mass requires time. While ever there is mass in the universe there'll be entropy and therefore change. But in the 'very boring' (heat death) phase there'll come a point where there is no mass, only photons. And a photon doesn't experience time, therefore the size of the universe becomes irrelevant and the conditions resemble that of the big bang. In that phase of the universe time may still exist but without any change in entropy. He claims at some point the universe will 'forget' it's age and size.

– Richard
8 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















9














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.






share|improve this answer








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.




























    3














    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.






    share|improve this answer































      2














      You seem to be asking "what is time?".



      If you are asking in the sense of our science of physics, then time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. Quite literally that. And since Einstein, that is a rather flexible definition. Anyways, it does not tell you anything about what time actually is. But by that definition, in your example, since the clock itself would freeze for a minute or million years as well, your "pause" it would indeed not be relevant, and time (sic) would not progress until the clock continued moving.



      If you are asking in the sense of "reality", then the answer is "nobody knows". We don't know enough about the universe to decide what things actually, really, really are, and physics does not change that in the least. This is not only true for time, but for anything at all. We only have mathematic/physical theories, which happen to not having been proven wrong yet, but all they do is make predictions about how certain measurements could turn out in certain experiments (our eyes are only measuring instruments as well). We arguably can never leave Plato's Cave, or at least we are quite far away from it.



      If you asking in a philosophical sense, then the answer is up to you, really, to go by taste and opinion. People have come up with plenty of different interpretations.






      share|improve this answer































        2














        Intuitively speaking, I find it hard for there to be time on the lapse you get at with the description, because the being that is that lapse lacks of numerous properties of time. For example, it lacks temporal asymmetry between events (any event occur at all), etc.



        I am deducing this from Aristotle's interpretation of time in his Physics IV 10-14, where basically his strong claim is that time is composed of points that we mark in changes (as if we could represent changes in a line of real numbers, with a present (or now as he calls it) being a point in the line):



        "when... the soul says the nows are two, the one before and the other after, then it is and this it is that we say is time" Physics (219a27-9).



        For Aristotle, we know that time passes when we perceive two parts of a change, where an asymmetrical relation holds between them (one before the other), which we (our soul) mark as two nows with the correspondent temporal asymmetry (one before the other).



        Therefore, if no change is contained in the lapse, no possible change part is in the lapse. This means there is no asymmetrical relation between parts that could possibly mark a correspondent relation between nows, that would mark the passing of time.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















        • If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

          – Frank Hubeny
          7 hours ago



















        0














        Another way to pose the same question might be to imagine that this universe we experience is in fact a computer simulation. Some rich kid outside this universe has been playing SimUniverse on the home computer. When the rich kid's mum calls him/her/it for dinner s/h/it presses the pause button. Nothing happens in our universe until s/h/it un-pauses. Has any time actually passed? Would any of us notice?



        I think the answer depends on whether you are inside the simulation or outside it. From our perspective inside the simulation there is no change and no time passes.






        share|improve this answer

























          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59617%2fcan-time-exist-without-change%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9














          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.






          share|improve this answer








          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.

























            9














            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.






            share|improve this answer








            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.























              9












              9








              9







              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.






              share|improve this answer








              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.







              share|improve this answer








              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.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              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 14 hours ago









              Tobias FritzTobias Fritz

              2113




              2113




              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.























                  3














                  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.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    3














                    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.






                    share|improve this answer


























                      3












                      3








                      3







                      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.






                      share|improve this answer













                      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.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 15 hours ago









                      Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah

                      31.7k951150




                      31.7k951150























                          2














                          You seem to be asking "what is time?".



                          If you are asking in the sense of our science of physics, then time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. Quite literally that. And since Einstein, that is a rather flexible definition. Anyways, it does not tell you anything about what time actually is. But by that definition, in your example, since the clock itself would freeze for a minute or million years as well, your "pause" it would indeed not be relevant, and time (sic) would not progress until the clock continued moving.



                          If you are asking in the sense of "reality", then the answer is "nobody knows". We don't know enough about the universe to decide what things actually, really, really are, and physics does not change that in the least. This is not only true for time, but for anything at all. We only have mathematic/physical theories, which happen to not having been proven wrong yet, but all they do is make predictions about how certain measurements could turn out in certain experiments (our eyes are only measuring instruments as well). We arguably can never leave Plato's Cave, or at least we are quite far away from it.



                          If you asking in a philosophical sense, then the answer is up to you, really, to go by taste and opinion. People have come up with plenty of different interpretations.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            2














                            You seem to be asking "what is time?".



                            If you are asking in the sense of our science of physics, then time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. Quite literally that. And since Einstein, that is a rather flexible definition. Anyways, it does not tell you anything about what time actually is. But by that definition, in your example, since the clock itself would freeze for a minute or million years as well, your "pause" it would indeed not be relevant, and time (sic) would not progress until the clock continued moving.



                            If you are asking in the sense of "reality", then the answer is "nobody knows". We don't know enough about the universe to decide what things actually, really, really are, and physics does not change that in the least. This is not only true for time, but for anything at all. We only have mathematic/physical theories, which happen to not having been proven wrong yet, but all they do is make predictions about how certain measurements could turn out in certain experiments (our eyes are only measuring instruments as well). We arguably can never leave Plato's Cave, or at least we are quite far away from it.



                            If you asking in a philosophical sense, then the answer is up to you, really, to go by taste and opinion. People have come up with plenty of different interpretations.






                            share|improve this answer


























                              2












                              2








                              2







                              You seem to be asking "what is time?".



                              If you are asking in the sense of our science of physics, then time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. Quite literally that. And since Einstein, that is a rather flexible definition. Anyways, it does not tell you anything about what time actually is. But by that definition, in your example, since the clock itself would freeze for a minute or million years as well, your "pause" it would indeed not be relevant, and time (sic) would not progress until the clock continued moving.



                              If you are asking in the sense of "reality", then the answer is "nobody knows". We don't know enough about the universe to decide what things actually, really, really are, and physics does not change that in the least. This is not only true for time, but for anything at all. We only have mathematic/physical theories, which happen to not having been proven wrong yet, but all they do is make predictions about how certain measurements could turn out in certain experiments (our eyes are only measuring instruments as well). We arguably can never leave Plato's Cave, or at least we are quite far away from it.



                              If you asking in a philosophical sense, then the answer is up to you, really, to go by taste and opinion. People have come up with plenty of different interpretations.






                              share|improve this answer













                              You seem to be asking "what is time?".



                              If you are asking in the sense of our science of physics, then time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. Quite literally that. And since Einstein, that is a rather flexible definition. Anyways, it does not tell you anything about what time actually is. But by that definition, in your example, since the clock itself would freeze for a minute or million years as well, your "pause" it would indeed not be relevant, and time (sic) would not progress until the clock continued moving.



                              If you are asking in the sense of "reality", then the answer is "nobody knows". We don't know enough about the universe to decide what things actually, really, really are, and physics does not change that in the least. This is not only true for time, but for anything at all. We only have mathematic/physical theories, which happen to not having been proven wrong yet, but all they do is make predictions about how certain measurements could turn out in certain experiments (our eyes are only measuring instruments as well). We arguably can never leave Plato's Cave, or at least we are quite far away from it.



                              If you asking in a philosophical sense, then the answer is up to you, really, to go by taste and opinion. People have come up with plenty of different interpretations.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 8 hours ago









                              AnoEAnoE

                              54627




                              54627























                                  2














                                  Intuitively speaking, I find it hard for there to be time on the lapse you get at with the description, because the being that is that lapse lacks of numerous properties of time. For example, it lacks temporal asymmetry between events (any event occur at all), etc.



                                  I am deducing this from Aristotle's interpretation of time in his Physics IV 10-14, where basically his strong claim is that time is composed of points that we mark in changes (as if we could represent changes in a line of real numbers, with a present (or now as he calls it) being a point in the line):



                                  "when... the soul says the nows are two, the one before and the other after, then it is and this it is that we say is time" Physics (219a27-9).



                                  For Aristotle, we know that time passes when we perceive two parts of a change, where an asymmetrical relation holds between them (one before the other), which we (our soul) mark as two nows with the correspondent temporal asymmetry (one before the other).



                                  Therefore, if no change is contained in the lapse, no possible change part is in the lapse. This means there is no asymmetrical relation between parts that could possibly mark a correspondent relation between nows, that would mark the passing of time.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                  • If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                    – Frank Hubeny
                                    7 hours ago
















                                  2














                                  Intuitively speaking, I find it hard for there to be time on the lapse you get at with the description, because the being that is that lapse lacks of numerous properties of time. For example, it lacks temporal asymmetry between events (any event occur at all), etc.



                                  I am deducing this from Aristotle's interpretation of time in his Physics IV 10-14, where basically his strong claim is that time is composed of points that we mark in changes (as if we could represent changes in a line of real numbers, with a present (or now as he calls it) being a point in the line):



                                  "when... the soul says the nows are two, the one before and the other after, then it is and this it is that we say is time" Physics (219a27-9).



                                  For Aristotle, we know that time passes when we perceive two parts of a change, where an asymmetrical relation holds between them (one before the other), which we (our soul) mark as two nows with the correspondent temporal asymmetry (one before the other).



                                  Therefore, if no change is contained in the lapse, no possible change part is in the lapse. This means there is no asymmetrical relation between parts that could possibly mark a correspondent relation between nows, that would mark the passing of time.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                  • If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                    – Frank Hubeny
                                    7 hours ago














                                  2












                                  2








                                  2







                                  Intuitively speaking, I find it hard for there to be time on the lapse you get at with the description, because the being that is that lapse lacks of numerous properties of time. For example, it lacks temporal asymmetry between events (any event occur at all), etc.



                                  I am deducing this from Aristotle's interpretation of time in his Physics IV 10-14, where basically his strong claim is that time is composed of points that we mark in changes (as if we could represent changes in a line of real numbers, with a present (or now as he calls it) being a point in the line):



                                  "when... the soul says the nows are two, the one before and the other after, then it is and this it is that we say is time" Physics (219a27-9).



                                  For Aristotle, we know that time passes when we perceive two parts of a change, where an asymmetrical relation holds between them (one before the other), which we (our soul) mark as two nows with the correspondent temporal asymmetry (one before the other).



                                  Therefore, if no change is contained in the lapse, no possible change part is in the lapse. This means there is no asymmetrical relation between parts that could possibly mark a correspondent relation between nows, that would mark the passing of time.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                  Intuitively speaking, I find it hard for there to be time on the lapse you get at with the description, because the being that is that lapse lacks of numerous properties of time. For example, it lacks temporal asymmetry between events (any event occur at all), etc.



                                  I am deducing this from Aristotle's interpretation of time in his Physics IV 10-14, where basically his strong claim is that time is composed of points that we mark in changes (as if we could represent changes in a line of real numbers, with a present (or now as he calls it) being a point in the line):



                                  "when... the soul says the nows are two, the one before and the other after, then it is and this it is that we say is time" Physics (219a27-9).



                                  For Aristotle, we know that time passes when we perceive two parts of a change, where an asymmetrical relation holds between them (one before the other), which we (our soul) mark as two nows with the correspondent temporal asymmetry (one before the other).



                                  Therefore, if no change is contained in the lapse, no possible change part is in the lapse. This means there is no asymmetrical relation between parts that could possibly mark a correspondent relation between nows, that would mark the passing of time.







                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer








                                  edited 7 hours ago





















                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                  answered 7 hours ago









                                  diego araujodiego araujo

                                  1193




                                  1193




                                  New contributor




                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                  New contributor





                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                  diego araujo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                  • If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                    – Frank Hubeny
                                    7 hours ago



















                                  • If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                    – Frank Hubeny
                                    7 hours ago

















                                  If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                  – Frank Hubeny
                                  7 hours ago





                                  If you have a reference that takes a similar view to your answer this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome to Philosophy!

                                  – Frank Hubeny
                                  7 hours ago











                                  0














                                  Another way to pose the same question might be to imagine that this universe we experience is in fact a computer simulation. Some rich kid outside this universe has been playing SimUniverse on the home computer. When the rich kid's mum calls him/her/it for dinner s/h/it presses the pause button. Nothing happens in our universe until s/h/it un-pauses. Has any time actually passed? Would any of us notice?



                                  I think the answer depends on whether you are inside the simulation or outside it. From our perspective inside the simulation there is no change and no time passes.






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    0














                                    Another way to pose the same question might be to imagine that this universe we experience is in fact a computer simulation. Some rich kid outside this universe has been playing SimUniverse on the home computer. When the rich kid's mum calls him/her/it for dinner s/h/it presses the pause button. Nothing happens in our universe until s/h/it un-pauses. Has any time actually passed? Would any of us notice?



                                    I think the answer depends on whether you are inside the simulation or outside it. From our perspective inside the simulation there is no change and no time passes.






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      Another way to pose the same question might be to imagine that this universe we experience is in fact a computer simulation. Some rich kid outside this universe has been playing SimUniverse on the home computer. When the rich kid's mum calls him/her/it for dinner s/h/it presses the pause button. Nothing happens in our universe until s/h/it un-pauses. Has any time actually passed? Would any of us notice?



                                      I think the answer depends on whether you are inside the simulation or outside it. From our perspective inside the simulation there is no change and no time passes.






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      Another way to pose the same question might be to imagine that this universe we experience is in fact a computer simulation. Some rich kid outside this universe has been playing SimUniverse on the home computer. When the rich kid's mum calls him/her/it for dinner s/h/it presses the pause button. Nothing happens in our universe until s/h/it un-pauses. Has any time actually passed? Would any of us notice?



                                      I think the answer depends on whether you are inside the simulation or outside it. From our perspective inside the simulation there is no change and no time passes.







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited 1 hour ago

























                                      answered 2 hours ago









                                      MattClarkeMattClarke

                                      21314




                                      21314






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          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.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59617%2fcan-time-exist-without-change%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          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







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                                          Single-Malt-Whisky

                                          Czorneboh