What is Time Really?
30th July 2015
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
What is Time Really?
How can you understand Time when there is no Real consensus of what Time is?
To understand Time you have to simplify it such that no one is going to dispute your definition.
The simplest definition of Time is that it is just a measure of change.
It does not matter what the change is, as long as there is a change.
We perceive change as one of our experiences, therefore we perceive Time. As everyone perceives Time slightly differently, and we ourselves perceive Time differently in different circumstances, you might suspect that Time is just our perception of change and not 'Real'. But under our simplistic definition Time does exist, because we perceive it as such. It is just relative to our perception.
Therefore if there is any change in anything, then there exists Time.
Anyone that disputes that Time does not exist is just deluded.
What you have to ask is there something that creates this Time, that we later perceive?
Before we answer this, we need to look at our simplistic definition first.
What is change?
Change is simply that something does not stay the same. But under our simplistic definition if there is no change does that mean that there is no Time?
Simplistically yes, (but I will show later that this need not be the case with a broader definition of Time).
If there is more change does that mean that there is more Time?
It all depends on how we are going to measure this Time. We could say that the overall Time is constant and that one change is faster than the other in the same amount of Time, or we could say that one Time is slower or faster than the other. E.g. We could say if the change is slow the Time is running fast, and if the change is fast the Time is running slow!
Does this second example sound familiar?
For those that don't know, it is said that the faster you travel the slower your clock goes, but to notice this difference you have to be moving close to the speed of light.
Now going back to our measurement of Time, it seems we use both these methods to measure Time. (The amount of change and the speed of change).
On our scale and normal speeds we assume Time is independent and unchanging, but at higher speeds we see Time as Relative.
We need to simplify things and only use one definition that is not contradictory.
Using Simplified Complex Logic (another Tea Break Book) there can be no such thing as independent Time.
I.e. Time is directly linked to something (in this example it is speed).
This new added definition does not contradict our Time measurement at our scale and normal speeds. It can still be measured by our clocks because we will not notice this minute change of relative Time, but we will now know that Time is not independent. (I.e. It is dependent on something).
You now need to ask if Time is dependent on something, then what is it 'Really' dependent on?
Initially we said it was dependent on our speed, the faster we travel the slower our clocks go, relative to someone else.
Now 2 questions must be asked.
Firstly does Time not slow down when we are standing still but something around us is travelling really fast?
Using Simplified Complex Logic, it would appear that each object must have its own Time.
The second question is what is speed?
This poses an apparent paradox as speed is normally a change of distance over a specified amount of Time!
How can Time be a measure of change, which is then dependent on speed, which itself is dependent on
Time?
To make sense of this, then these Times we are using must be clarified, and are more than likely two different things.
So let us make an assumption and say that they are 2 different things, and if in the end they end up being the same thing then it does not matter, but if they are 2 different things then we can define them as such.
The second Time is easier to define because we normally use speed and constant Time as we normally perceive it, so the passage of Time for everyone appears to be the same, I.e. Your clock ticks off seconds, like everyone else's clocks tick off seconds (even though relative to each other they are ticking at different speeds). Let us for the time being refer to this type of Time as 'Secondary Time'.
The first Time refers to the measurement of change, which we said was dependent on something.
Let me make another reasonable assumption and say that this Time being different is not linked to speed directly as we perceive speed, but is linked to the mechanism that causes the change.
In this way speed as we perceive it is a secondary phenomenon of the mechanism that causes the change. Let us for the time being refer to this type of Time as 'Primary Time'.
So now you have to ask what mechanism can cause a change, so that we can measure some form of Time? ('Primary Time').
Before I answer this, I must state that if there is a mechanism, then there must exist something so that the mechanism can work on (to make the change). Therefore we must also define the meaning of existence. Unfortunately the normal definition of existence relies on Time, so yet again we may get confused with the meaning of Time.
To shorten the discussion we must eliminate any contradictory meanings of existence. A way to do this is to just state that all existence is Time based ('Secondary Time') I.e. Different things have different Times of existence. In other words all existence is transitory or can change with Time.
Something that exists forever causes another problem, because we would need an infinite amount of Time ('Secondary Time') to measure it, it is not transitory.
So I propose we create a new word for this everlasting never ending existence, which I have defined as 'Existance'.
31st July 2015
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
This 'Existance' then does not need to be defined with the same meaning as the Time for existence, we can say that nothing changes with 'Existance', and according to our initial definition no change no Time (remember this is our perception of Time, and because we are constantly changing we perceive Time, but the object has its own Time).
Now that we have two definitions for something to exist we need to ask how can we perceive something that has no Time? (I.e. Doesn't change).
Well the fact we can perceive it means that there must be some kind of Time, so what is it?
It doesn't matter at this stage what it actually is, but it is something, so how can we measure it?
It could be anything that appears not to change (I will show later that it can change). At present we are talking about the concept that something has no change in the abstract sense.
So let us assume for now that this abstract thing is an object, how can we measure it, not using our normal Time?
We can theoretically use its volume or shape, no time needed, it just exists, no change.
So now we can measure 'Existance' by one of these methods, but supposing it still exists but just changes its shape, will it convert to existence?
According to our definition it has changed therefore must have 'Secondary Time'. This now means that either 'Existance' did not exist for this object or that shape can't be used to measure it.
Could we use just volume?
If the volume did not change ever, could it still have 'Existance'?
Ideally now I should introduce the quantum of space itself (I defined as the 'APE'), but things will start to get more complicated, so I will simplify things and say let us assume for now that there is something called a quantum of space, which is the smallest bit of space that can exist as 'Existance' I.e. This smallest bit of space stays the same forever which is 'Real' and all of the universe is just these bits added together to create bigger 'Real' spaces (explained in another Tea Break Book).
Now by reordering these quanta of space you can create any object that can change with our ³Time ('Tertiary time which is the net overall effect of all the 'Secondary Time's).
'Primary Time' can now be defined as bits of space quanta, and 'Secondary Time' can be defined as the change of these quanta. Putting all the secondary times together gives you ³Time (Tertiary or global time).
In other words no 'Secondary Time' means that there is no change, but the object still exists because it has 'Primary Time'.
Now going back to the mechanism of change where we said there has to be something that exists for there to be a mechanism for the change to occur, I propose that it is 'Existance' itself that is this something. So you should now also see that Time ('Secondary Time') is truly dependent on 'Existance' and is not some independent thing.
All we need now do is find a mechanism of 'Existance' that can create Time ('Secondary Time') and eventually our perceived time (³Time).
[That is another Tea Break Book].
To summarise what is Time Really?
It is at least 2 dimensions, one dimension is 'Primary Time' the 'Existance' and the other is 'Secondary Time' the mechanism that changes this 'Existance'.
[I will show in another Tea Break Book that Time is at least 4 dimensions, when I explain a mechanism of Time].
30th June 2019
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Instead of writing another Tea Break Book I would like to explain ³Time (Tertiary Time or global time) a bit more.
Firstly it is the overall time of all the pieces of space that comprise it, but that this can be considered 2 different times.
One is the clock time that has instances of time, tick-tock, seconds or fractions of a second.
The second time is our perceived time which is not a specific time that you can simply measure.
The second time is a duration, (more than one instance in time, I.e. many instances of time).
It has to do with understanding consciousness or self awareness. You can not be self aware or conscious at an instantaneous moment in time, because the mechanism of consciousness has to have a duration of time to exist.
The concept is the same as something moving, at any instance in time, the object is stationary I.e. Not moving. To have the concept of movement one has to have a sequence of events of time.
I do explain what I think consciousness is in one of my other Tea Break Books, but unless you can understand this difference you won't be able to understand the dilemma that is created with the logic of the Hare and the Tortoise race.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
What is Time Really?
How can you understand Time when there is no Real consensus of what Time is?
To understand Time you have to simplify it such that no one is going to dispute your definition.
The simplest definition of Time is that it is just a measure of change.
It does not matter what the change is, as long as there is a change.
We perceive change as one of our experiences, therefore we perceive Time. As everyone perceives Time slightly differently, and we ourselves perceive Time differently in different circumstances, you might suspect that Time is just our perception of change and not 'Real'. But under our simplistic definition Time does exist, because we perceive it as such. It is just relative to our perception.
Therefore if there is any change in anything, then there exists Time.
Anyone that disputes that Time does not exist is just deluded.
What you have to ask is there something that creates this Time, that we later perceive?
Before we answer this, we need to look at our simplistic definition first.
What is change?
Change is simply that something does not stay the same. But under our simplistic definition if there is no change does that mean that there is no Time?
Simplistically yes, (but I will show later that this need not be the case with a broader definition of Time).
If there is more change does that mean that there is more Time?
It all depends on how we are going to measure this Time. We could say that the overall Time is constant and that one change is faster than the other in the same amount of Time, or we could say that one Time is slower or faster than the other. E.g. We could say if the change is slow the Time is running fast, and if the change is fast the Time is running slow!
Does this second example sound familiar?
For those that don't know, it is said that the faster you travel the slower your clock goes, but to notice this difference you have to be moving close to the speed of light.
Now going back to our measurement of Time, it seems we use both these methods to measure Time. (The amount of change and the speed of change).
On our scale and normal speeds we assume Time is independent and unchanging, but at higher speeds we see Time as Relative.
We need to simplify things and only use one definition that is not contradictory.
Using Simplified Complex Logic (another Tea Break Book) there can be no such thing as independent Time.
I.e. Time is directly linked to something (in this example it is speed).
This new added definition does not contradict our Time measurement at our scale and normal speeds. It can still be measured by our clocks because we will not notice this minute change of relative Time, but we will now know that Time is not independent. (I.e. It is dependent on something).
You now need to ask if Time is dependent on something, then what is it 'Really' dependent on?
Initially we said it was dependent on our speed, the faster we travel the slower our clocks go, relative to someone else.
Now 2 questions must be asked.
Firstly does Time not slow down when we are standing still but something around us is travelling really fast?
Using Simplified Complex Logic, it would appear that each object must have its own Time.
The second question is what is speed?
This poses an apparent paradox as speed is normally a change of distance over a specified amount of Time!
How can Time be a measure of change, which is then dependent on speed, which itself is dependent on
Time?
To make sense of this, then these Times we are using must be clarified, and are more than likely two different things.
So let us make an assumption and say that they are 2 different things, and if in the end they end up being the same thing then it does not matter, but if they are 2 different things then we can define them as such.
The second Time is easier to define because we normally use speed and constant Time as we normally perceive it, so the passage of Time for everyone appears to be the same, I.e. Your clock ticks off seconds, like everyone else's clocks tick off seconds (even though relative to each other they are ticking at different speeds). Let us for the time being refer to this type of Time as 'Secondary Time'.
The first Time refers to the measurement of change, which we said was dependent on something.
Let me make another reasonable assumption and say that this Time being different is not linked to speed directly as we perceive speed, but is linked to the mechanism that causes the change.
In this way speed as we perceive it is a secondary phenomenon of the mechanism that causes the change. Let us for the time being refer to this type of Time as 'Primary Time'.
So now you have to ask what mechanism can cause a change, so that we can measure some form of Time? ('Primary Time').
Before I answer this, I must state that if there is a mechanism, then there must exist something so that the mechanism can work on (to make the change). Therefore we must also define the meaning of existence. Unfortunately the normal definition of existence relies on Time, so yet again we may get confused with the meaning of Time.
To shorten the discussion we must eliminate any contradictory meanings of existence. A way to do this is to just state that all existence is Time based ('Secondary Time') I.e. Different things have different Times of existence. In other words all existence is transitory or can change with Time.
Something that exists forever causes another problem, because we would need an infinite amount of Time ('Secondary Time') to measure it, it is not transitory.
So I propose we create a new word for this everlasting never ending existence, which I have defined as 'Existance'.
31st July 2015
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
This 'Existance' then does not need to be defined with the same meaning as the Time for existence, we can say that nothing changes with 'Existance', and according to our initial definition no change no Time (remember this is our perception of Time, and because we are constantly changing we perceive Time, but the object has its own Time).
Now that we have two definitions for something to exist we need to ask how can we perceive something that has no Time? (I.e. Doesn't change).
Well the fact we can perceive it means that there must be some kind of Time, so what is it?
It doesn't matter at this stage what it actually is, but it is something, so how can we measure it?
It could be anything that appears not to change (I will show later that it can change). At present we are talking about the concept that something has no change in the abstract sense.
So let us assume for now that this abstract thing is an object, how can we measure it, not using our normal Time?
We can theoretically use its volume or shape, no time needed, it just exists, no change.
So now we can measure 'Existance' by one of these methods, but supposing it still exists but just changes its shape, will it convert to existence?
According to our definition it has changed therefore must have 'Secondary Time'. This now means that either 'Existance' did not exist for this object or that shape can't be used to measure it.
Could we use just volume?
If the volume did not change ever, could it still have 'Existance'?
Ideally now I should introduce the quantum of space itself (I defined as the 'APE'), but things will start to get more complicated, so I will simplify things and say let us assume for now that there is something called a quantum of space, which is the smallest bit of space that can exist as 'Existance' I.e. This smallest bit of space stays the same forever which is 'Real' and all of the universe is just these bits added together to create bigger 'Real' spaces (explained in another Tea Break Book).
Now by reordering these quanta of space you can create any object that can change with our ³Time ('Tertiary time which is the net overall effect of all the 'Secondary Time's).
'Primary Time' can now be defined as bits of space quanta, and 'Secondary Time' can be defined as the change of these quanta. Putting all the secondary times together gives you ³Time (Tertiary or global time).
In other words no 'Secondary Time' means that there is no change, but the object still exists because it has 'Primary Time'.
Now going back to the mechanism of change where we said there has to be something that exists for there to be a mechanism for the change to occur, I propose that it is 'Existance' itself that is this something. So you should now also see that Time ('Secondary Time') is truly dependent on 'Existance' and is not some independent thing.
All we need now do is find a mechanism of 'Existance' that can create Time ('Secondary Time') and eventually our perceived time (³Time).
[That is another Tea Break Book].
To summarise what is Time Really?
It is at least 2 dimensions, one dimension is 'Primary Time' the 'Existance' and the other is 'Secondary Time' the mechanism that changes this 'Existance'.
[I will show in another Tea Break Book that Time is at least 4 dimensions, when I explain a mechanism of Time].
30th June 2019
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Instead of writing another Tea Break Book I would like to explain ³Time (Tertiary Time or global time) a bit more.
Firstly it is the overall time of all the pieces of space that comprise it, but that this can be considered 2 different times.
One is the clock time that has instances of time, tick-tock, seconds or fractions of a second.
The second time is our perceived time which is not a specific time that you can simply measure.
The second time is a duration, (more than one instance in time, I.e. many instances of time).
It has to do with understanding consciousness or self awareness. You can not be self aware or conscious at an instantaneous moment in time, because the mechanism of consciousness has to have a duration of time to exist.
The concept is the same as something moving, at any instance in time, the object is stationary I.e. Not moving. To have the concept of movement one has to have a sequence of events of time.
I do explain what I think consciousness is in one of my other Tea Break Books, but unless you can understand this difference you won't be able to understand the dilemma that is created with the logic of the Hare and the Tortoise race.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
