What is time?

[Thunderbird]

Time has no independent conceptual meaning without a contextual opposite.

 

The Singularity is a point that has no conceptual meaning without its contextual opposite.

 

The Time-singularity create an oscillation that manifest as the wave-partial duality, from this archetypal duality all other dualities manifest. Past-Future, Positive-Negative, Male-Female, Up-Down, Birth-Death, and so on.

[Thunderbird]

Look at the clock face..... all the simple elements are there..... from the center point of the singularity to the cycles of movement created around it.

 

The arrow of time is created in the relationship between a central stability point, the Singularity that allows the hand, representing the elements of movements of time and the stability of the singularity to create further contextual relationships between stable points on the clock face and the movement of the hand. Put one up in the center of a town and everyone synchronizes their lives around it.

[Kayra]

More silly questions from the science no-brainer CraigD.

 

What would give an elementary particle the statistical likelyhood of being at point B as opposed to point C at the next tick of the universal clock?

 

Sorry, I do not even have the language to describe my question properly and can only hope you understand my reference. Still trying to visually fit inertia into your world.

[steve 9]

 

Time is a thing we feel in our consciousness.

 

but in a scientific theory it is also a dimension that affects the workings of the universe.

.

 

 

You say time is something that we can feel. I will agree that we can feel as though an action or moment took a long time, or time went by fast. This is based on our perception and state of mind. We are not observing a thing called time. The experience of time is a self induced feeling, not an outside energy or force that is being percieved. So, from this we can conclude that time is a consideration.

 

As for your statement that scientific theory says time is a dimension that effects the workings of the universe, well this is just a theory, (an idea or concept) and is not an observed phenomenon. If you have an idea of how this time thing affects the workings of the universe, I would like to hear it. I would be interested in your point of view.

 

Thank You.

 

steve 9

[steve 9]

Time doesn't really exist

 

For "anything" to exist...it has to be "physical". A thing is "physical" if it can effect other "stuff" and be affected by other "stuff".

If "stuff" don't move (relatively)....it does not effect anything and therefore does not exist.

 

I agree.

[steve 9]

Hmm... we might first start by defining what it is to exist.

 

Please do. Define exist, you can find the term in your dictionary. I am sure that niin was using exist in a context that can be found in a basic dictionary.

 

 

 

Even if we choose not to, an idea is not "physical," yet it can very significantly effect other "stuff," as well as be effected by other "stuff." Yet ideas exist (whatever that is).

 

What would be a good example of this? Your ideas exist for you. They were made by you and only effect you until you take physical action to make them known to the outside world. So what is your point? Are you trying to say time is a physical thing or an idea. Why not just plainly state what you think time is.

 

There's one example of a flaw with this anyway. Sounds to me more like you're trying to replace the word "cotton swab" with "Q-tip." Same thing really, and doesn't help define it. :lightning

 

Sounds to me like you are trying to put words into niin's mouth. How about you just define time for us.

 

Niin made a very concise statement of why he thought time was not physical. Sounds like you disagree, so tell us what you think time is.

 

Thank You.

 

steve 9

[steve 9]

Well, you just negated your own point then. Time is also physical by this definition as it's "just a specific configuration of neurons in your physical brain."

Cheers. :lightning

 

 

Is this a definition of time that you want to use? Or do you want to use a definition that you came up with?

[InfiniteNow]

Here's a definition.

 

Time: The distance between now and when you get yourself banned for being an annoying troll.

[steve 9]

"Time" don't exist in your brain.

The "idea of time" exist in your brain.

Therefor...the "idea of time" is physical.

Time is not physical.

 

I hope i explained it okay.

 

 

PS: InfiniteNow, I like your posts.

 

 

Good explanation.

[LaurieAG]

Here's a definition.

 

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

I've always considered time to be a duration, i.e. something to be endured, as your definition implies, in the temporal sense at least.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

I've always considered time to be a duration, i.e. something to be endured, as your definition implies, in the temporal sense at least.

 

There is, admittedly, a challenge with this, since the very concept of duration requires an idea of time a priori. In other words, it's somewhat circular, but I appreciate your comment all the same. :lightning

[InfiniteNow]

Here's a clip from Carl Sagan that I always found to resonate. It will likely open in RealPlayer or similar:

 

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/wgbh/nova/time/sagan01.rm

 

 

 

I first encountered it while watching a special on NOVA about Time Travel:

 

NOVA Online | Time Travel

[steve 9]

Well, let me try Doc!, Well agreed for many perceptions, time can be personal, but definetly not for all.

 

What about the time, that enters the phrases like fast and slow. We often talk about speeds, and the time essential for certain processes, say a heartbeat, they are not personal perceptions; they are perceptions of a very large number of people.

 

Lets take a heartbeat. A heartbeat is a motion of an object, this motion can be percieved by sight, sound or felt through touch. We can time the intervals of this motion with a clock. Now we have a time for that event. Time did not cause the heart to beat, it was not essential for the process.

 

When a group of people watch a motion of a object and all of them time this event with a clock, then they will have an idea how long the event took, but they are going to base this idea on what the clock read, they have the idea that time passed because of a motion of an object.

 

Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

[steve 9]

What is Time?

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines time as “the indefinite and continuous duration of experience seen as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.”

 

This definition has , however, one critical flaw, for the use of the term “duration” injects a element of circularity, for a duration is a time. I would propose that we substitute the term “flow” as its expresses the necessary quality, but without the circularity. Time then, is “the indefinite and continuous flow of experience seen as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.”

 

O.K. Lets have some fun with this. First of all, I am not going to get into the whole process of what goes into the decisions that make up the definitions of a dictionary, but I can say that definitions are the agreed upon definitions that make up our understanding of terms. I really do not think that the oxford dictionary is sloppy or inaccurate in it's definitions. You may not agree with the definition of time, but that does not mean that it is the dictionary that is wrong. Anyway, if you are going to change the standard definitions of terms to support an argument or point and call that scientific, well, just imagine the door that would open up when we can all have OUR OWN definitions according to how we think that they should be.

 

This definition may now be broken into two distinct propositions, one defining time itself, and the other defining the appearance of time:

 

(1) Time is the indefinite and continuous flow of experience, and

(2) Time appears to be a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.

 

Let us begin with the second definition. Imagine that you set out on a road trip and at some instant you were able to stop the flow of all existence.

 

The question here is, even though you stopped all existence you say that there is still a road, still existing. Not only that but this road will have duration because it will continue to exist. If there is a road the road is existing from one moment to the next and thus the idea of time. Remember that the road is made of moving electrons. Also, what is this road resting on? I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. This mental exercise that you have put forth is quite a stretch since you have not stated how one would stop the flow of all existence.

 

 

At that point, there would be only the road that you have already traveled and the road which you have not yet traveled, and there would be no other road in between. The past and the present, like the two roads, meet in the instant that is the present. Thus the present is only a gate or portal between that which is no longer and that which is not yet. This portal or instant that we call the “present”, has no temporal extent, and so no event may take place there, for any event, however brief, must have a duration. Now, an event cannot take place in the past, for the past no longer exists, and it cannot take place in the future, for the future does not yet exist, and it cannot take place in the present, for there is not enough time. Consequently, that which we see as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future, is merely an appearance, an illusion.

 

This brings us back to definition number one, “Time is the indefinite and continuous flow of experience.” This brings us to the question of experience. To experience is to be aware of or acquainted with some thing, that is to say, some idea, feeling, object, property, or activity. However, at this point, we can no longer pursue time as an independent “thing”, but must consider it as one of the five fundamental and interdependent elements of physics: space, time, matter, energy, and motion/change. In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

 

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

 

Alright, so what is your answer to the nature of time. You mentioned that space, time(which is a manifestation of motion/change) ,matter and energy as being fundamental elements to physics. We can agree that matter and energy are real physical things as defined in a dictionary. So what would you say time is, a physical thing or a consideration? I would like to include space in this question but I do not want to get too far off topic. I would rather cover the topic of time here and if need be start another thread on space, O.K.

 

So time, do you think it exists as a physical thing or a consideration (idea).

 

For anyone who wants to say that ideas are also physical too, fine I will not disagree. I would then ask you if time is a naturally occurring physical thing or the concept of man.

 

 

Thank You.

 

steve 9

[freeztar]

So time, do you think it exists as a physical thing or a consideration (idea).

 

Both.

[InfiniteNow]

Even moreso, freez... It's a false dichotomy.

 

It's like he's asking, "A banana. Is it a rock or a hot air balloon? Simple question."

 

Rubbish.

[Kayra]

Wow....

I think I had to many coffees yesterday.

 

Never post on a caffeine high.

Even I do not know what I was asking.