Hello SimplyG! If time only occurs in relation to change happening in space then you have answered your own question (whether time exists if there was nothing) unless you also think that space is nothing, in which case time would not be contingent on space, since a contingency requires a relation between something that is more than nothing and that which is contingent on this thing.

Your own answer is that time would not exist if there were nothing.

Space (surely the one we know of) is contingent on time, just like how the first dimension is contingent on the second dimension, as without a plane would the line have to be composed of points, and since this is impossible and lines are known so must they be created from limiting it from that which goes beyond it.

This is also how the third dimension works, without time could there be no volume in our experience, no amount of planes, lines or points could create a volume by being conjoined together.

Time itself however is not contingent on any dimension above it, and is the most emergent property of reality, and it is precisely this emergent property which is the fluid one, fluid in the sense that anything can be an instance of time, while everything beneath time has no instantiation on its own (a point exhausts the whole domain of 0-dimensions, a line exhausts the whole domain of 1-dimensions, a plane exhausts the whole domain of 2-dimensions and a volume exhausts the whole domain of 3-dimensions, the domain and the instance are identical) if something is intricately shaped in the third dimension and not sufficiently described in terms of "volume", say a T-bone then time is required for its reality and so it actually does not exist in the third dimension alone.

My answer to your question is that time would not exist if there were nothing. Further, the idea that time could exist if there were nothing is equivalent to saying that time is an illusion, and if this is what you wish to ask then I would be glad to respond to that as well, but until then I will try to keep my response relatively short.

When it comes to a proper coordinate system of the physics of the universe we have to add an additional spatial dimension in to the three we know of, since three are insufficient to account for the necessity of its simultaneity and time wholly contradictory without simultaneity.

Time doesn't exist now, when there are many things. Material objects exist. Time is a concept, a measurement of change in things. Where there is nothing, there are no concepts and no changes.

Time is a way of explaining change. If nothing changed, and everything was a static state, it would seem as if no time passed, and the idea of time would be useless. I think time requires an observer to experience the change, whether within the system or without. Otherwise, the system would change, but without a record of what happened, it would seem as if the system were always modified like that. And when an observer is placed in a static system, they experience time because observing requires the ability to detect change (its whole purpose), which in turn requires adaptive and changing observations, creating the feeling of time passing. So, if nothing existed, the idea of time just wouldn't make sense.

Thanks for the answers so far they’re good ones, and welcome to the forum Julian.

It appears to me then as Vera Mont stated that time is a concept and not a real “thing” like the other 3 dimensions which are more tangible, so time to that effect only makes sense in terms of past, present future which make time appear more concrete in terms of its existence .

If however, in a purely hypothetical world where only consciousness existed without dimensions to speak of, then time would be a but comparison of different states of consciousness which are events or thoughts in themselves and in terms of linearity of their occurrence. This is of course hard to imagine.

But then this consciousness wouldn’t be nothing as events or more precisely thoughts are happening in it. Yet it’s all happening without any dimensions being present, would time be more tangible in this scenario or would it still present an illusion to this mind for if past thought was a fabrication of the present state of mind then there would be no linearity but merely the illusion of it unless grounded in concrete stuff which would still somewhat present the same limitation from an idealistic (idealism) perspective?

"Would [not nothing] exist if there was nothing?"

But then this consciousness wouldn’t be nothing as events or more precisely thoughts are happening in it. Yet it’s all happening without any dimensions being present, would time be more tangible in this scenario or would it still present an illusion to this mind for if past thought was a fabrication of the present state of mind then there would be no linearity but merely the illusion of it unless grounded in concrete stuff which would still somewhat present the same limitation from an idealistic (idealism) perspective? — simplyG

Great point, you articulated what I couldn't. If something (namely consciousness in a nonphysical form) could exist outside of the 3 dimensions, I do agree that there would be a perception of time. But we still need to clearly define the difference between time itself and time as an illusion (if there is one) to make any hard progress in this thought experiment.

so time to that effect only makes sense in terms of past, present future which make time appear more concrete in terms of its existence — simplyG

Past present and future as experienced by a sentient being. That category of 'thing', however, depends on pre-existing material substance.

If however, in a purely hypothetical world where only consciousness existed without dimensions to speak of, then time would be a but comparison of different states of consciousness which are events or thoughts in themselves and in terms of linearity of their occurrence. This is of course hard to imagine. — simplyG

And not particularly useful. God's pre-creation consciousness - which consists of nothing, self-generates thoughts about nothing without any energy and puts those thoughts into a sequence of before and after, even though all of them are entirely devoid of content. How many thoughts can it have about nothing and how could it tell in which order those nothing thoughts occurred?

How many thoughts can it have about nothing and how could it tell in which order those nothing thoughts occurred? — Vera Mont

There are probably some things he could conjure a priori, mainly math, some philosophy. Either way, the hypothetical helps us better understand the concept of time.

There are probably some things he could conjure a priori, mainly math, some philosophy. Either way, the hypothetical helps us better understand the concept of time. — finarfin

Before we can do that, please explain how any of those hypothetical events could take place in a universe full of nothing.

Before we can do that, please explain how any of those hypothetical events could take place in a universe full of nothing. — Vera Mont

Whether it is possible is beside the point, so long as it's not logically inconsistent. We are imagining something almost identically similar to Avicenna's floating man argument. The question is not whether this can be accomplished (no), but if, under these starting conditions, time exists or is perceived. Does the existence of an observer, even if there is nothing to be observed, affect the perception or existence of time?

Whether it is possible is beside the point, so long as it's not logically inconsistent. — finarfin

Logically inconsistent with what? You have this uncaused, unembodied, dimensionless consciousness counting nothing and philosophizing about nothing. In nothing, there is literally nothing to perceive, chronologize or think about. The idea is wholly self-contradictory.

Time is a special dimension that only occurs in relation to change happening in space. If we take space away (all three dimensions) would time exist or would it be meaningless to talk of time in such a hypothetical situation? — simplyG

Just as Space would not exist without Matter, Time would not exist without Change. They are two sides of the same coin. Which Einstein curiously labelled "space-time", as a four-dimensional continuum, not of Being, but of Potential. :smile:

Time is the currency of Physics :
In april/may 2023 Philosophy Now magazine, the question of the month is "what is time?" And the very first reply gave me food for thought along Enformationism lines : "Time needs to exist for change to happen. This means time must have existed before the Big Bang." Since the same can be said for Primordial Energy, could we say that Cosmic Energy is the cause of Causation?¹ In the Big Bang theory, “The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known”². [my bold] You’ve heard that “time is money”, but did you know that Time is Energy?
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

If we take space away (all three dimensions) would time exist or would it be meaningless to talk of time in such a hypothetical situation? — simplyG

The Minkowski spacetime metric seems to allow a change in the time component when space components are fixed. Or maybe not. I'm not a physicist.

Logically inconsistent with what? You have this uncaused, unembodied, dimensionless consciousness counting nothing and philosophizing about nothing. In nothing, there is literally nothing to perceive, chronologize or think about. The idea is wholly self-contradictory. — Vera Mont

A being surrounded by nothing physical, including its own body (disregarding the science, it's a thought experiment) would still be aware of its own existence, perceiving itself, the definition of sentience. And if you emphasize addressing the hard-problem of consciousness (even though that is not necessary for our purposes, we are purposefully suspending it), perhaps this is a person in a coma, completely unaware of the physical, with no prior memories influencing them, blanker than a blank state, absolutely nothing but the ability to perceive and think. Avicenna, and later Descartes, both believed that there are certain things one can deduce. That one exists. That one is one being. That another being exactly like themself would be a second being. etc.
I would better understand your objection if you told me how it's self contradicting. The uncaused part is irrelevant. Being unembodied is less important than existing, (even though it's not actually possible). The being can perceive themself and chronologize those perceptions. With a process of perception, thought and memory, a sensation of time would necessarily follow

Sure, why not?

And if you emphasize addressing the hard-problem of consciousness — finarfin

I didn't bring that up; you did.

absolutely nothing but the ability to perceive and think. — finarfin

You can't experience nothing. Which is probably why, in a coma, people don't experience or remember anything. That's because they are unconscious. See?

I didn't bring that up; you did — Vera Mont

Sorry then, I misunderstood your previous response (hence the coma digression).

You can't experience nothing. Which is probably why, in a coma, people don't experience or remember anything. That's because they are unconscious. See? — Vera Mont

Then I guess we reached an impasse. I would argue that in the absence of any stimulus, while still being conscious (aware of the nothingness), perception would turn inwards to the self's existence, creating thoughts.

You can't experience nothing. — Vera Mont

At least we agree with this, albeit for different reasons. The conscious self cannot experience nothing, because one can always perceive the self's existence and consciousness (awareness).

I would like to raise another aspect of time. I think that time is meaningless without change. So if nothing changes, or nothing exists, then time is meaningless. Others have already posted about this.

If time exists then the concepts of past, present, and future emerge

- in order to perceive the past (what has already happened) we must have memory, or imagination (to create memories which could be accurate or inaccurate)

- in order to perceive the present we must have senses and the ability to "process" the information produced by the senses. Memory of the past may help to understand the present. How long is the time interval for the present (1 minute, 1 second, 1 nanosecond, etc)?

- in order to perceive the future we must have imagination (to create ideas about what will happen or might happen). Having memory of the past and an understanding of the present helps to imagine the future

My question is, "Is time meaningless without memory and/or imagination?"

Space and time seem joined, and it's not clear that there is a way to separate time out and experience its passage without changes in spatial events. I mentioned the Minkowski metric in this regard, but it might be considered a man-made artifice, although it seems to work.

It does seem obvious that time's passage requires physical changes, but what is obvious to us may be superficial and misleading.

I thought about this topic briefly, and this is what I came up with. It could be wrong. If you see any points that are not right, or don't make sense, please let me know. Thanks.

I was reading Hume on Time, and his idea of time is that it is the internal perception of mind, just like cause and effect, when objects exist in duration and succession. So without the external objects, and without changes in duration and succession, there would be no time. I agree with this view on time.

Indeed, time does not exist in the external world. It is in human perception when the mind perceives changes of the external objects, or movement of the objects in succession, the perception of time happens internally.

The time we are using now on the clocks is the universal cultural agreement by the movement of the Earth around the Sun (365 days per one rotation), and also rotation of the Earth (24 hours per one self rotation), and it is just measurement of the duration for general life conveniences. It has nothing to do with the actual time itself. They could easily declare today is year 0, and 1 day will be 100 hours on some other duration measurements, and the whole time contract will work differently.

The reason that time travel is not possible in the physical world is that actual time doesn't exist in the physical world.

Time is just a product of human perception, which is mental in nature. If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed while he was in captivity in the space, because there was no events, changes or movements at all around him for his perception to realise the time durations happened in that space.

We only feel time because every morning, we see the Sun rise, even if it is raining or cloudy, it still is brighter than the night, and the daylight changes to the evening, and nights again, hence knows a day has passed. Therefore with nothing existing, there is definitely no time. With everything existing, still there is no time, because time is in the human mind inaccessible to the outside world and other humans.

Time is just a product of human perception, which is mental in nature. If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed while he was in captivity in the space, because there was no events, changes or movements at all around him for his perception to realise the time durations happened in that space. — Corvus

But wouldn't he still feel as if time passed? He would be able to estimate how much time passed based on his awareness of his own thoughts, creating an internal clock. His sucessive sequence of thoughts also creates the perception of time.

If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed — Corvus

If he has a body, he experiences time through the changes in his body. Most urgently, increasing thirst, and by the end of five or six days, dying. If he were fed and watered at intervals, he could experience less significant changes: sleep and waking, boredom and terror, beard and fingernails growing, the arrival of food and need to eliminate. That's how you generally mark the passage of time in solitary confinement, hospital or long train rides: mealtimes.

But then walls and a body are something. Even a disembodied consciousness is something. The problem here is not with time - which you're absolutely right has no autonomous existence - but the concept of "nothing".

But wouldn't he still feel as if time passed? He would be able to estimate how much time passed based on his awareness of his own thoughts, creating an internal clock. His sucessive sequence of thoughts also creates the perception of time. — finarfin

Yes, you are correct. The estimation of time passed since being placed in the confined space and the perception of time through observation of changes in external objects would likely be different. It is difficult to determine which time perception would be more accurate as it would depend on various factors and individual experiences.

This concept of different time perceptions could indeed be an interesting scientific and metaphysical experiment, exploring the subjective nature of time and how it is perceived by individuals. It could provide valuable insights into the human experience and our understanding of time itself.

If he has a body, he experiences time through the changes in his body. Most urgently, increasing thirst, and by the end of five or six days, dying. If he were fed and watered at intervals, he could experience less significant changes: sleep and waking, boredom and terror, beard and fingernails growing, the arrival of food and need to eliminate. That's how you generally mark the passage of time in solitary confinement, hospital or long train rides: mealtimes.

But then walls and a body are something. Even a disembodied consciousness is something. The problem here is not with time - which you're absolutely right has no autonomous existence - but the concept of "nothing". — Vera Mont

Let's imagine someone waking up from a coma or a long deep sleep in the room. They would be confused about why they are in a confined space with walls and silence. In this situation, they wouldn't even be able to guess the time.

Indeed all they would have is the concept of nothing. They might try to remember what happened before they went into the deep sleep, but what if their mind is blank and they can't recall anything?

If time existed in the universe, they should still be able to determine what time it is and how much time has passed since they were in the space (because the confined room is part of the universe), which implies non existence of time physically in the world. They would have no clue about the time until someone tells them or they find out by asking around when they were put into the room and how long they have been there. This would be the case even if they are eventually released from the room and return to normality. Time is a mental entity perceived in the mind.

Let's imagine someone waking up from a coma or a long deep sleep. They would be confused about why they are in a confined space with walls and silence. In this situation, they wouldn't even be able to guess the time. — Corvus

They would not be able to guess the position of the planet in relation to the sun, or how much time had elapsed while they experienced nothing. They would not, however infer a concept of 'nothingness' from the walls: they would, instead, experience it as confinement: my body in an enclosed space. Their thought process would be a continuation of whatever their circumstances were before the coma. Therefore, from waking onward, they would estimate the passage of time in the units of measurement they had been accustomed to: minutes, hours and days, most commonly.

They might try to remember what happened before they went into the deep sleep, but what if their mind is blank and they can't recall anything? — Corvus

Then they would be as a newborn babe, in urgent need of nourishment and stimulation. Without memories or current events, language or objects on which to focus attention, their mind would have no material to work on. Time would hardly be of any concern - except that the more of it passed in isolation, the more of the mind would be lost. It would be an interesting horror experiment to see how soon the subject becomes catatonic.

If time exists in the universe, — Corvus

Nobody's ever even faked a blurry picture of it. Of course it doesn't 'exist', any more than colour, size and speed exist: these are attributes of material entities.

time exists based on energetic reactions (tha ability to do work). Energy travels through space/the vacuum (as light) or occupies mass as kinetic energy (heat). Both require space as a medium/dimension.

Talking about time without space, energy or matter is meaningless.

We can only measure time in any meaningful way with dimensions for which it can have influence over.

A state with no actionable energy, and no space for that action to occur, is a timeless state. The only concept that can exist in such a timeless dimension is "potential" : that is to say potential to become time energy, space and subsequent matter.

Potential energy doesn't require time as potential isn't an act merely the means in which to become action. But potential requires becoming actionable to be retrospectively considered potential at all. Potential must be able to do something or it isn't very "potent" is it?

So long story short Time doesn't need to exist to have "something" but the only something that can exist in such a state is the potential to act (a time dependent outcome).

I guess in that sense the potential for time is the same potential as for energy. They must come into play simulataneously, like the complimentary faces of the same coin.

Nobody's ever even faked a blurry picture of it. Of :up: it doesn't 'exist', any more than colour, size and speed exist: these are attributes of material entities. — Vera Mont

Yup agree with your points. A brilliant summary.
:cool::up:

This concept of different time perceptions could indeed be an interesting scientific and metaphysical experiment, exploring the subjective nature of time and how it is perceived by individuals. It could provide valuable insights into the human experience and our understanding of time itself. — Corvus

Lots of research on Time Perception already exists. Even I have written a playful Elementary note on the subject.

Lots of research on Time Perception already exists. Even I have written a playful Elementary note on the subject. — jgill

Wow, that is real cool links thanks. I managed to download your paper on the Complex Time Contours. It is way over my mathematics level, but it looks an interesting paper. I will have a read, and if I have any questions in the contents, will get back to you. Thank you. :) :pray: