if the universe is digital, time is an illusion.
should the universe prove to be analog, time will be concrete.
i'd prefer to believe the former.
Given your false alternatives. But of course it would be difficult to see time as concrete - i.e., physically real.
not for me, i see it rather well.
though i'm stuck at about the same place einstein was, regarding a geometrically analog universe.
hence my preference for a quantum, timeless universe.
If I can't touch it, it's not real. Like, dragons, God and the number on my bank account.
So "can't touch it" = illusory?
There's a difference between saying that causality is preserved and saying that the order in the event is preserved, as you said in the non-causal part. So I suspect there is some equivocation in your argument.
Either way, the order or the causality is governed by physical law, whereas an illusion is not.
Time is the most real thing in the Universe because the only constant factor is change.
What? I don't understand what you're getting at. Explain?
Otherwise, if you have all the answers then why bother asking the question.
I'm just musing. Iis illusory the opposite of real? Can something be illusory and completely relevant simultaneously, if so does that mean it's real? Are you asking if there is some sort of time particle?
[MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION]
i envision the concrete as being something conceptual. much as geometry is conceptual, so is time, in this framework. geometry gives rise to time ('proven' by special relativity). it 'exists' when it does not 'exist'.
... ironically? this is einstein's quandary, imo.
in a quantum framework, time exists as something that can be measured by 'entropy' (pretty hot word when discussing quantum physics). since time can be measured empirically in this framework, it ironically does not exist. hey, it even solves the problem of geometry. blame is placed on discrete packets of matter.... the problem is solved, in this framework.
i'm in no way a physicist of any kind, so be gentle in your critique.
I'm just musing. Iis illusory the opposite of real? Can something be illusory and completely relevant simultaneously, if so does that mean it's real? Are you asking if there is some sort of time particle?
That could be. I don't know. Is illusory the opposite of real (or relevant)?
We speak of time only in the context of motion: sequence, order of events of real objects. The hands moving around a clock (represented digitally these days but the representation comes from our viewing of the physical motion of objects).
So if you take away the objects, what do you have left? A vacuum? Then what happened to time? I'm eliminating gravitational effects originating from outside this framework.
There are some interesting possibilities for reflection in these questions. I just wanted you to clarify your point because it sounds equivocal.
In your premise (1), you talk about the order of events - but in a non-causal context.
In your premise (2), you neglected to mention order of events - but this time the context was causality.
I grant that one can't have either premise outside of a temporal context. But your implicit context is that of SR in which order and sequence are relative to a framework. I don't think a framework should be confused with a viewing subject per se, such as you, me, or Einstein. And that at least you're talking about something objectively determined, which is time. The speed of light shouldn't have anything to do with this.