Question III

Daniel

I'm in kind of a hurry right now, but I really want to ask this question; it is gonna be asked in a simple (mediocre) way, meaning that I am gonna ignore things like the unification of space and time, for example. Anyways, I am just gonna ask it, and I might elaborate on it later. The question is: could time be dependent on the quantity of things? Now, following (mediocrely) the ontic structuralist view, which I am very new to, hence the mediocrely, if the structure of reality is dependent on relations, is time dependent on the number of relations there exist in reality? The last question might be very ill formed, so I would like you to focus on the bold one, which might be better understood. Another way to ask the same question in my opinion would be: if things are because of the relations in which they participate, could the number of relations things are part of determine the rate at which they change and thus determine the way in which they experience time? I apologize if I make no sense, and I would love it if someone could point out any mistakes on the structure of my questions, thank you.

Agent Smith

Well, we know mass (gravity) and high speeds (close to c) slow down time. There's no saying there aren't other as of yet unknown factors that affect time similarly or in ways we haven't yet thought of (what if there's an x that reverses the direction of the arrow of time?). Really good question mon ami. Perhaps a mathematician/physicist will provide us with more insight into the issue. Bonam fortunam.

Moliere

could time be dependent on the quantity of things? ... if things are because of the relations in which they participate, could the number of relations things are part of determine the rate at which they change and thus determine the way in which they experience time? — Daniel

It could! but you'd have to be more specific, I think, to convince anyone.

Seems like an interesting thought, but anyone would have to know more about why you think it to agree.

jgill

In a sense it might be. There seems to be a correlation between time and motion. It could be that motion relative to two or more objects generates time. Special relativity shows how relative motion affects measurements of time - and time might be only measurements.

Thanks for posting a non-religious, non-political, non-racial thread that is intriguing. :cool:

Agent Smith

number of relations things — Daniel

This issue has been bothering me for the last 11 years and I have not an inch of progress to report. How do we count ... things. Take a stick n cm long. We can arbitrarily, on a whim & fancy, decide to chop it up into as many distinct things as we want: $\frac{n}{m}$ where m is any, any number you wish. If so, the OP's query can't be answered for there would be no definiton of a thing at least with respect to quantity.

That out of the way, we could via trial & error and systematic analysis discover a relationship between (the number of) things and temporal behavior. This would not only mean a deeper understanding of time but also tell us what a thing is for the universe.

Nils Loc

There is the popular hypothesis of universal heat death, when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, where there is a stark lack of differentiation of thinginess and therefore time. With respect to entropy, the quality and quantity of things make the causal arrow of time possible.

Though we can imagine that a universe at thermodynamic equilibrium has some-kind of time from an imagined point of view, as particles are still moving randomly in the homogeneous cold cosmic soup, and that such a state might change spontaneously or have new emergent properties (it might shed brand new universes as Boltzmann Brains).

Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity... — Wikipedia: Boltzmann Brain

Question III

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions