Time Does Not Exist

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Q7,liked your post,time is very real,in the relative sense that is!
There
Is
Motion
Everywhere=TIME.=Relativity.

I agree with you that doubts are cast and caused,by inner,and outer reasoning,that I feel
is a good thing,I have doubts,when I have them,I look for more information about the
thing I am doubting,if I cannot find any,then I put a question mark over the subject.

We are all involved in time,and move in time,but we are not of time?


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I somehow have strated to believe that time is a relative field. But I would really like to know if we revome time from the universe.... how will the universe be affected???

Hi Dipayankar, if time were removed, as the abstract concept of our measure of matter in motion, the universe continues unaffected. The universe has no knowledge, especially awareness of time, or anything else. Only the live observers have reference to time, as our ability to measure matter's motion, from point a to point b...

regards,

[mkirkpatrick]

Time is the thing that governs most of our lives,rushing to work,not wanting to be late,
waiting in a queue for the bank to open on time-9am on the dot!Yet we later learn that this thing called time is really an illusion?The question then posed is this;have we then all
been wasting our time?



regards michael.

[dipayankar]

Or rather what will happen to our mathematics if we remove time???

Hi Dipayankar, if time were removed, as the abstract concept of our measure of matter in motion, the universe continues unaffected. The universe has no knowledge, especially awareness of time, or anything else. Only the live observers have reference to time, as our ability to measure matter's motion, from point a to point b...

regards,

[mkirkpatrick]

Dipayankar,if we removed time from maths,then you would reveal a more accurate
account of universal outworkings of law.



regards michael.

[5589]

Or rather what will happen to our mathematics if we remove time???

Or, what if we remove structure from the mathematics that we have created?

Yes, I know that maths is a representation of how the universe appears to work. But what if are most basic assumptions are incorrect?

We once assumed, for example, that the sun is yellow and objects are solid, or countless other things that are not wholly true or whose questions are irrelevant. Though we mostly still rely on these assumptions, science knows better. But why is our math still based on them?

But what did mathematics look like before human assumption? It would not be impossible to completely rework our most basic assumptions and create a new kind of maths that does not start with "1+1=2" but one where "1", as a representation, is not assumed.

[mkirkpatrick]

Or, what if we remove structure from the mathematics that we have created?

Yes, I know that maths is a representation of how the universe appears to work. But what if are most basic assumptions are incorrect?

We once assumed, for example, that the sun is yellow and objects are solid, or countless other things that are not wholly true or whose questions are irrelevant. Though we mostly still rely on these assumptions, science knows better. But why is our math still based on them?

But what did mathematics look like before human assumption? It would not be impossible to completely rework our most basic assumptions and create a new kind of maths that does not start with "1+1=2" but one where "1", as a representation, is not assumed.

5589 Maybe maths do need an overhaul,prehaps too many assumptions have been made,
and never rigorously tested,what do you suggest?

regards michael.

[5589]

5589 Maybe maths do need an overhaul,prehaps too many assumptions have been made,
and never rigorously tested,what do you suggest?

regards michael.

I wouldn't know where to begin with such an undertaking. But I have a couple of ideas.

The first is to find new representations for quantity other than our current number sequence. This could be a mathematics based on strings of 'words' or symbols. The letters of the words can then be grouped by kind and placed in an order which depends on function. Also, different 'vowels' and 'consonants' could be created in the alphabet which would serve to signify type, function,etc. So, for example, instead of saying "1 apple" we could represent the same apple by using "jea apple" if it is half-eaten and "poippi apple" if it has been microwaved and sliced up. It becomes useful, of course, when you need to combine its value with something else. (Imagine how efficient our spoken language would be if this was highly developed. I would imagine that is how some alien civilizations speak.)

The second way to do that is to use our current system but augment each number with a representation of number type (e.g., quantity, structure, space, change). So, for example, instead of saying "1 apple" the "1" would have an attachment. Metadata, if you will. This may allow us to use just one kind of mathematics instead of many kinds (discrete, applied, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, etc.) or at least simplify the current kinds. This is a variation on the first idea.

There are other ways, I'm sure. We have stuck with our current system like VHS, using it and furthering it because it works 'pretty darn well' and because of the network effect. However, there is probably a superior method that is more effective and efficient. We just haven't considered developing it yet because we're too comfortable. We don't have to simplify maths, of course. But imagine what the world would be like if everyone could use complex mathematics the way they now use PCs (once the exclusive domain of geeks and scientists).

Also, some interesting new computational concepts are coming out of new types of computers (e.g., biological computing) that do not rely on binary yes/no on/off states. These could even be studied for ideas.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you 5589,you present some very interesting concepts,whether they will ever be
realized is somewhat doubtful,I am unaware of the biological computing you mention,
as this is not in line with the thread theme,a pm with a brief synopsis would be appreciated if at all possible.

regards michael

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nothing again, if you're willing to do the distance calculations of matter in motion, as that's identical to time. Time is just one of those abstracts making our math lives a bit easier...

regards,

Or rather what will happen to our mathematics if we remove time???