1. If time is a dimension, then past, present and future are not the intrinsic temporal properties
2. Past, present and future are the intrinsic temporal properties
3. Therefore time is not a dimension — Bartricks

This argument is philosophically more interesting.

Consider this argument, which purports to show that width is not a dimension...

1. If width is a dimension, then left and right are not intrinsic spacial properties.
2. Left and right are intrinsic spacial properties
3. therefore width is not a dimension.

For instance, a theory - no matter how complex - about how someone behaves, is not a theory about what a person is. — Bartricks
Thats actually not true. You can claim a very weak connection between any two entities or concepts and in some case a strong connection. — christian2017

Er no, that actually 'is' true. There's what a person 'is' and then there's what they get up to. Distinct theories.

You might be right that there is almost no connection between special relativity and what time is but it is doubtful. — christian2017

Arguments?

On a different note, i don't believe time travel would be possible unless there was someone who over sees what happened in the past. — christian2017

Question begging - you're just assuming that time is a stuff or dimension, that it is something we travel about in. I provided 3 arguments that appear to refute that idea. You've just blithely ignored them.

I believe time is understood and measured by the movement of particles. — christian2017

Well that's nice for you. Once more: try actually engaging with the arguments. That is, try thinking rather than spouting.

You sound very young. — christian2017

And you sound very patronising.

You have to understand people of many philosophies on this sight see science as the only way to answer any question on this site. Believe it or not various mathematical fields can be applied to any field of study including philosophy. Your favorite ice cream could probably be quantified through a systems analysis and design approach. — christian2017

Yes, and that's a mistake. They're not doing the same thing - that's why 'science' exists as a distinct discipline.

These questions: what is morality? what is free will? what is truth? what is time? and so on, are 'not' questions science investigates. Why? Because you can't answer them by looking down a microscope. You have to apply your intelligence to them - that is, you have to reason. The questions have answers, but you're not going to find them by inspecting sensible matter ever more closely.

Without applying some field of mathematics or even a science, how do you expect to get a real answer other than "time is a banana split sundae."? — christian2017

And there it is: the arrogant dismissal of philosophy. You're one of those people you just mentioned above, aren't you?

Rubbish. — Banno

Brilliant. I stand corrected.

SO what is a dimension?

Take a point and slide it. You get a line. One dimension. Only one number is needed to set out the relative position of two points - hence, length x

Take a line and slide it. You get a plane. Two dimensions. Two numbers are needed to set out the relative positions of two points - hence, the cartesian coordinates (x,y)

Take a plane and slide it. You get a volume. Three dimensions, measured with the coordinates (x, y, z)

Slide any of these temporally to add a fourth dimension.

Hence, time is a dimension.

Further, treating it as such is what enables the mathematics of mechanics. Mechanics posits that velocity is the change in position over time, hence quantifying time and so treating it as a scalar. This mathematical treatment is what Bart is rejecting. And along with it, the whole of physics.

Hm.

Folks, notice the slide Bartricks makes from "it doesn't exist", as used in the OP, to "it's not a thing", as used here. — Banno

Bozos, notice that Banno can't read or quote accurately.

SO what is a dimension?

Take a point and slide it. You get a line. One dimension. Only one number is needed to set out the relative position of two points - hence, length x

Take a line and slide it. You get a plane. Two dimensions. Two numbers are needed to set out the relative positions of two points - hence, the cartesian coordinates (x,y)

Take a plane and slide it. You get a volume. Three dimensions, measured with the coordinates (x, y, z) — Banno

Oh, so dimensions are made of lines? I just drew some lines - I just created a dimension did I? Utter, utter tripe.

You don't grasp the basic point - nothing that is actually infinitely divisible can exist in reality. The 'idea' of it can exist - because ideas are not infinitely divisible - but it itself cannot.

So you sit in your cave writing bonkers definitions of 'dimension' on the wall to your heart's content - call a spoon a dimension if you want - the fact remains that any analysis of time that identifies it with something that can be infinitely divided is demonstrably confused.

Note too, I gave 3 arguments and one of them makes no mention of infinities.

You claim that Hilbert created his hotel to show that actual infinfities were impossible. I say that is rubbish.

Prove me wrong. Produce a reference, from Hilbert, that supports your point.

That would make me very happy. I would have learned something.

1. If time is a dimension, then past, present and future are not the intrinsic temporal properties
2. Past, present and future are the intrinsic temporal properties
3. Therefore time is not a dimension — Bartricks
This argument is philosophically more interesting.

Consider this argument, which purports to show that width is not a dimension...

1. If width is not a dimension, then left and right are not intrinsic spacial properties.
2. Left and right are intrinsic spacial properties
3. therefore width is not a dimension. — Banno

That argument is invalid. And you've missed the point.

You don't grasp the basic point - nothing that is actually infinitely divisible can exist in reality. The 'idea' of it can exist - because ideas are not infinitely divisible - but it itself cannot. — Bartricks

I don't know if this is true, or not. But it is irrelevant. It's on a par with saying that there are never six things - always slightly more or slightly less; and then following it through by arguing that one can never buy a half-dozen eggs.

Sure. You do that. I'm making an omelet.

Prove me wrong. Produce a reference, form Hilbert, that supports your point. — Banno

Do your own research. Prove me wrong.

And while you're trying to do that, try actually getting the point once in a while.

Ah - one negation too many. Fixed - now it parallels your argument.

Ah - one negation too many. Fixed - now it parallels your argument. — Banno

Actually fix it - present it again.

Hm. Ok, here is Hilbert's writing:

Nowhere in there does it make the claim to attribute to him.

Hence what you said was rubbish.

I'm making an omelet. — Banno

For a living, I assume? Tip: remove the shell, don't just mince it in with the egg.

Ok, here is Hilbert's writing: — Banno

Where? Nothing isn't evidence.

A dimension need not be actually infinite, only potentially so — Banno

A dimension could be finite also - the dimensions on a fixed solid like a rectangle or torus are finite - and the universe may have a definite shape (in 4d spacetime). Dimensions are finite for example when you consider the surface of the earth as a 'universe'.

Our universe started expanding 14 billion years ago, suggesting that time and space dimensions are finite - there could be simply nothing beyond these boundaries - no time and space - so no measurement beyond these boundaries is possible/valid.

You don't grasp the basic point - nothing that is actually infinitely divisible can exist in reality. — Bartricks

The reality you are aware of, perhaps. Is there nothing else?

The reality you are aware of, perhaps. Is there nothing else? — John Gill

If space was continuous, that would lead to a light year of space having the same informational content as a millimetre of space. That's absurd, hence space is discrete.

The reality you are aware of, perhaps. Is there nothing else? — John Gill

You don't seem to be getting the point. I am not saying that there is no more to reality than what I am aware of. I am saying that no actual infinities exist - that a hotel with an infinity of rooms is an impossibility. And thus, as time most certainly exists, it cannot be a dimension or stuff.

It's a simple and devastating argument. And there's the additional one - also devastating - about the intrinsic temporal properties of past, present and future.

f space was continuous, that would lead to a light year of space having the same informational content as a millimetre of space. That's absurd, hence space is discrete. — Devans99

Well, I can't argue with that. Above my pay grade. :brow:

It's a simple and devastating argument. — Bartricks

If you say so. :roll:

It certainly is absurd. But the absurdity is no more or less than the absurdities that arise from taking actual infinities to be a reality.

So, once more we arrive at the conclusion that time is not a stuff.

Although presumably you'll say that it is a discrete stuff.

But then I want to know how that can be. To use space as the analogy: you have said that space is discrete. But how? Can you conceive of a discrete unit of space? Why can't it be halved?

If you say so — John Gill

No, I didn't just 'say so' - I've made arguments. You're not engaging with them - you're just expressing vague sceptical concerns about the whole project of using reason to investigate reality.

If we consider the particles within space, then it has a position - which can be regarded as information. A particle in a continuum has infinite decimal places in its position - infinite information. The same kind of infinity for a light year as a millimetre of space - hence the absurdity - the larger volume should contain more information rather than equal information - this is only possible if space is discrete. So I suppose this is an argument similar to Galileo's paradox.

The same argument for space applies to time (not unexpected given spacetime) - a year should contain more information than a second.

I would also point out:

- Matter/energy turned out to be discrete; why should we expect space to be any different?
- The only satisfactory answer to Zeno's paradoxes is discrete spacetime

But first, you're assuming time is a stuff or dimension, despite the arguments that appear to demonstrate that it isn't. So you're clinging to a picture that's just wrong.

Take this:

If we consider the particles within space, then they have a position - which can be regarded as information. — Devans99

Information is 'about' things, it does not 'constitute' the thing it is about. So, let's imagine a particle - a thing - in space. Now the particle is divisible. The space it occupies is divisible.

So, a particle - conceived of as an object extended in space - is infinitely divisible. Space, conceived of as a dimension, is infinitely divisible. And that's sufficient to demonstrate that our ideas of them are wrong, for no such things can exist.

Likewise with time.

The traditional way of thinking about time is just wrong, then. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to address the refutations I gave, not simply assume the refutations fail and continue to persist with the traditional way of thinking.

A particle in a continuum has infinite decimal places in its position - infinite information. — Devans99

What is a particle in a continuum? So .25 =.2500000... Only the first two decimal places have information worth having. I assume you are thinking of a particle on a real number line. If the particle lies on a line having only rational measures one can still get infinitesimally close since the rationals are dense in the reals. If the line has only integer measures, however, you do lose a lot of information. I guess this is what you are talking about. Have you studied math?

Question begging - you're just assuming that time is a stuff or dimension, that it is something we travel about in. I provided 3 arguments that appear to refute that idea. You've just blithely ignored them. — Bartricks

Actually i agree with you on that point. The other stuff you said really isn't even worth arguing over. If you don't see how mathematic principles can be applied to everything or almost everything, maybe i'll teach you some other time or maybe someone else will.

Yes, and that's a mistake. They're not doing the same thing - that's why 'science' exists as a distinct discipline.

These questions: what is morality? what is free will? what is truth? what is time? and so on, are 'not' questions science investigates. Why? Because you can't answer them by looking down a microscope. You have to apply your intelligence to them - that is, you have to reason. The questions have answers, but you're not going to find them by inspecting sensible matter ever more closely.

Without applying some field of mathematics or even a science, how do you expect to get a real answer other than "time is a banana split sundae."?
— christian2017

And there it is: the arrogant dismissal of philosophy. You're one of those people you just mentioned above, aren't you? — Bartricks

You won't have to look hard to find a pompous person on a philosophy forum. I believe to divorce systems analysis and design from any field of study is intellectual suicide.

I believe logic is a form of math and that phrases can in fact be systematically quantified. I'm not alone on this.

Once again you seem fairly young. Perhaps in 10 years we can have an intelligent conversation. Welcome to the online forum.

I find it hard to accept that, whilst I sit here typing, my fingers are passing through an actual infinity of positions.

If one rejects infinity in the large (∞ - infinite time and space), one must reject infinity in the small (1/∞ - the continuum) also.

Time is 'stuff' because:

- The physical laws of the universe are time-aware, so time must be something (IE 'stuff')
- Time has a start, so when time started something physical about the universe changed, so time must be 'stuff'

Given that spacetime is stuff, then it needs to behave like stuff and there is no stuff we are aware of that is infinitely divisible.

Spacetime also looks like a creation (see the BB) and it is not possible to create anything infinitely large or infinitely small.

But that's a tiny minority of possible numbers. The vast majority of numbers have infinite decimal places - that infinity of decimal places (=information) would be the same for the particle in a millimetre of space as for a particle in a light year of space which seems absurd to me.