Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share 5-2.Questions Arising from Time's Physical Definition(6-8)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
5-2.Questions Arising from Time's Physical Definition(6-8)
(6) Is Time Real or False?
Some ask: Is it correct to say time doesn't truly exist?
Time isn't a real object like Earth, Moon, Sun, atoms, or electrons, nor does it exist objectively like space. It's a concept born from human description of light-speed moving space.
Time isn't a fundamental concept - objects and space are fundamental. Time forms from object and space motion.
However, saying time absolutely doesn't exist is wrong.
Human knowledge has two parts:
Things are what humans perceive.
Matter is the foundation of existence; events are matter's forms of motion. These motions need observers' description to form "events." Without matter and observers, events don't exist.
For example, a traffic accident is an event - you can't say it doesn't exist. However, it needs observers to describe it. It differs from physical objects like tables, sofas, or cars.
Events' existence isn't absolute but relative to observers. For instance, someone on a riverbank says the water flows, while someone in a boat moving with the current says it doesn't - both are correct from their perspectives.
In physics, concepts like mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum - like time - are physical concepts formed through observer description of objects moving in space (or surrounding space's own motion).
Without observers, mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum - like time - don't exist. However, they're not absolutely nonexistent - they exist when observers exist.
Many people have a simple notion that something must either truly exist or be false. How can something be both partly false and partly real?
People often ask: "Is it real or fake? I don't want a third answer."
However, from aliens' understanding of the universe's deepest mysteries, we should abandon this seemingly simple view.
Many things have both real and false aspects, while some things are completely nonexistent.
Matter (composed of space and objects) truly exists without any false aspects.
Time, mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum are formed through our descriptions of matter's motion - their existence has both false and real aspects.
But string theory's strings, God particles, gravitons, ether, dark matter, dark energy are purely human inventions - completely false without any real aspects, entirely nonexistent.
Time travel to the past, time reversal - these are purely nonexistent, completely human imagination, unfindable in the real world.
(7) Is Viewing Time as Human Sensation Idealistic?
Viewing time as purely imagined in the human brain, unrelated to all objects and space - that would be true idealism.
From the above definition of time:
Time is human perception of surrounding space's light-speed dispersive motion. It clearly relates to humans as objects, and occurs in space (which objectively exists, as the universe consists of space and objects as fundamental elements). How can describing a real object's motion in objectively existing space be simply considered idealism?
(8) Reconsidering Relativity's View on Single Object Motion
Relativity holds that:
Describing an object's spatial position changes has physical meaning only relative to another object; describing a single object's motion in space has no physical meaning.
However, in the above physical definition of time, it's clearly stated that the concept of time originates from the motion of space around a single observer. From motion's relativity perspective, this is relative motion between one person and space - involving only one object.
These views clearly conflict, so which thinking needs modification?
In the author's view, describing an object's changes in space has physical meaning only when specified relative to a particular observer.
Describing motion has physical meaning only relative to a specific observer.
View all episodes
By shiyi(6) Is Time Real or False?
Some ask: Is it correct to say time doesn't truly exist?
Time isn't a real object like Earth, Moon, Sun, atoms, or electrons, nor does it exist objectively like space. It's a concept born from human description of light-speed moving space.
Time isn't a fundamental concept - objects and space are fundamental. Time forms from object and space motion.
However, saying time absolutely doesn't exist is wrong.
Human knowledge has two parts:
Things are what humans perceive.
Matter is the foundation of existence; events are matter's forms of motion. These motions need observers' description to form "events." Without matter and observers, events don't exist.
For example, a traffic accident is an event - you can't say it doesn't exist. However, it needs observers to describe it. It differs from physical objects like tables, sofas, or cars.
Events' existence isn't absolute but relative to observers. For instance, someone on a riverbank says the water flows, while someone in a boat moving with the current says it doesn't - both are correct from their perspectives.
In physics, concepts like mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum - like time - are physical concepts formed through observer description of objects moving in space (or surrounding space's own motion).
Without observers, mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum - like time - don't exist. However, they're not absolutely nonexistent - they exist when observers exist.
Many people have a simple notion that something must either truly exist or be false. How can something be both partly false and partly real?
People often ask: "Is it real or fake? I don't want a third answer."
However, from aliens' understanding of the universe's deepest mysteries, we should abandon this seemingly simple view.
Many things have both real and false aspects, while some things are completely nonexistent.
Matter (composed of space and objects) truly exists without any false aspects.
Time, mass, charge, fields, force, light speed, energy, momentum are formed through our descriptions of matter's motion - their existence has both false and real aspects.
But string theory's strings, God particles, gravitons, ether, dark matter, dark energy are purely human inventions - completely false without any real aspects, entirely nonexistent.
Time travel to the past, time reversal - these are purely nonexistent, completely human imagination, unfindable in the real world.
(7) Is Viewing Time as Human Sensation Idealistic?
Viewing time as purely imagined in the human brain, unrelated to all objects and space - that would be true idealism.
From the above definition of time:
Time is human perception of surrounding space's light-speed dispersive motion. It clearly relates to humans as objects, and occurs in space (which objectively exists, as the universe consists of space and objects as fundamental elements). How can describing a real object's motion in objectively existing space be simply considered idealism?
(8) Reconsidering Relativity's View on Single Object Motion
Relativity holds that:
Describing an object's spatial position changes has physical meaning only relative to another object; describing a single object's motion in space has no physical meaning.
However, in the above physical definition of time, it's clearly stated that the concept of time originates from the motion of space around a single observer. From motion's relativity perspective, this is relative motion between one person and space - involving only one object.
These views clearly conflict, so which thinking needs modification?
In the author's view, describing an object's changes in space has physical meaning only when specified relative to a particular observer.
Describing motion has physical meaning only relative to a specific observer.