Can one exist without another?
Time... an idea so fundamental to our existence, yet so alien to conception.
Behold... as John Muradeli - the alien, Michael Mendrin - Mr. Mathopedia, and Brian Charlesworth - Dr. Philosophy debate it out in a ravaging intellectual flame war.
\(\huge John\) \(\huge Muradeli \) -
Time is money. Money runs the world. You live in the world.
Thus, by proof by contradiction, if Time is not real, Money is not real, the World is not real, and You are not real. But if you want to believe that you're not real, go ahead. :)
\(\huge Michael \) \(\huge Mendrin \)-
All right, my "argument" about time is that quite a number of theoretical physicists today see time as an emergent property, and there are even some experiments which are said to prove this. Have a look at this:
This should give one an idea of actual experimentation being done on this, it's already moved beyond mere speculation. In other words, get on with the program already.
Time is a complex subject, and I think one should be careful about making sweeping statements about it, such as "time precedes existence", or "change cannot happen without time", because when one does that, it wouldn't be any different from making sweeping statements about geometry, such as "parallel lines never meet", and "it is not possible to re-arrange the contents of one solid sphere and produce two solid spheres identical to the original from it". Always be prepared for surprises which seems contrary to intution, because they can often lead to very interesting and rich new fields.
\(\huge Brian\) \(\huge Charlesworth \huge\)
('Twilight Zone' music playing in the background ....)
"Imagine, if you will, a world without time"..... or at least a mathematical model of the universe that does not employ the variable of time. This is not the stuff of science fiction, but rather the result of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. I've only been recently introduced to this revelation by the Time Lord himself, @Michael Mendrin , in the midst of a conversational thread embedded in this post. In this thread, Michael notes that, although the variable of time can be very useful in dealing with "practical" questions in physics, it is not in fact necessary. Many theoretical physicists are of the mind that such primary (yet nebulous) concepts as time, space and mass are in fact "emergent properties" of a more fundamental formulation of nature than we currently are aware of. And herein lies the rub ....
Is time merely a convenient illusion, the result of our psychologically-driven need for a cause and effect paradigm? Or is it indeed an essential and unavoidable element of a reality that we can we only glimpse as a wispy shadow out of the corner of our collective vision? (Yeah.... a bit melodramatic, but I'm trying to set the stage here for a dynamic discussion.) If time is a an illusion, then does this imply that we inhabit a temporally "static" universe, in which all times are equally real, (or unreal)? Would time travel then be possible, at least in theory? What is the relationship between time and memory/information; would one exist without the other? So many questions, so little ......
Let's do this.