What is time?

[steve 9]

I’m not trying to play a word game steve. Your false dichotomy in its proper syntax is as follows:

Time is either real and physical or it's not real and physical.

 

 

 

Don't worry about it. This is the usual way in which the discussion of the validity of time comes down to. A protest about my wording of my questions.

 

You say time is real, I would like to know what you mean by real. How do you think time exist for us? If you disagree that time is just a concept than in what way is it a real thing.

 

 

 

 

You’ve mistakenly equated real and physical and mistakenly left out the possibility that time is not-tangible yet real.

 

Fine, give an example of what you are thinking about when you say this just so we can discuss a specific thing.

 

 

You've actually left out any possibility that the real and physical are different at all. That’s the problem. This is what (to borrow a quote from the matrix) “brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end.”

 

O.K. so you say that time is real, real in what way?

 

Your definition of real (being based on ‘tangible’ as it is) leaves out any description of how the universe works. By your definition gravity isn’t real. You cannot describe it as real. You can’t define motion. Your definition of real precludes motion from reality. That’s just not useful.

 

MY DEFINITION of real? I have not given a definition of real, I have said that all the terms that I use can be found in a standard dictionary. I am using the term real as it is found in a dictionary and according to how it is used in the context of the sentence.

 

I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.

 

I have also invited you to mention any other way in which something can be real for us so as to avoid the false dichotomy protest.

 

Look we have been talking about the nature of time for a while now. You say time is real, I say time is real. The only difference is that I say time is real to us as a concept, we have the idea of time.

 

Are you saying that time is more then just a concept?

 

 

Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

 

It exists as matter.

 

It exists as energy.

 

It exists as a force.

 

It exists as a concept.

 

This is a basic list. If you want to add to this feel free to. Just simply state how you think time exist.

 

I say time exists as a concept.

 

You say time exists as________. It is really that easy, in what way do you think time exists.

 

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

[modest]

Don't worry about it. This is the usual way in which the discussion of the validity of time comes down to. A protest about my wording of my questions.

 

I cannot imagine that would not tell you something.

You say time is real, I would like to know what you mean by real. How do you think time exist for us? If you disagree that time is just a concept than in what way is it a real thing.

real

Fine, give an example of what you are thinking about when you say this just so we can discuss a specific thing.

movement is real yet not tangible

MY DEFINITION of real? I have not given a definition of real, I have said that all the terms that I use can be found in a standard dictionary. I am using the term real as it is found in a dictionary and according to how it is used in the context of the sentence.

Yet at every turn you reject every description of real because it is not based on your idea of physical.

I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.

Once again, a classic case of a false dichotomy. You leave out the possibility that it can be both.

I have also invited you to mention any other way in which something can be real for us so as to avoid the false dichotomy protest.

movement and gravity

Look we have been talking about the nature of time for a while now. You say time is real, I say time is real. The only difference is that I say time is real to us as a concept, we have the idea of time.

Time is a human concept to be sure. That concept reflects a very real attribute of the universe.

Are you saying that time is more then just a concept?

:naughty:

Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

 

It exists as matter.

 

It exists as energy.

 

It exists as a force.

 

It exists as a concept.

Agreed

This is a basic list. If you want to add to this feel free to. Just simply state how you think time exist.

I'd like to add movement and gravity to the list. Notice the amount of non-physical things on the list is growing. Time will fit only if and when your definition of real allows it.

I say time exists as a concept.

I agree.

You say time exists as________. It is really that easy, in what way do you think time exists.

Time is a concept of human understanding and a real process of the universe.

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

I so very honestly welcome this.

~modest

[freeztar]

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

 

I would, but I don't have time. :naughty:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think I agree with what you are saying, Steve9.

 

modest

I'd like to add movement and gravity to the list. Notice the amount of non-physical things on the list is growing. Time will fit only if and when your definition of real allows it.

I agree with that one too. :naughty:

The one really big thing we can agree on is change. Change takes place. And that includes change in position, change in size, change in state, etc. So all concepts that refer specifically to a change are mental existents only. All of them reflect that something has changed and we create (automatically) those internal mental existents to grapple with that fact. That's just how our minds work. This also means that concepts based upon relating one change to another change are also mental existents only.

 

If I say that as an external existent, Time does not exist, all I am saying is that it is a concept which falls under the category of change. Change exists. Time is how we relate one kind of change to another. Which is why it's always relative.

[Doctordick]

The one really big thing we can agree on is change. Change takes place. And that includes change in position, change in size, change in state, etc. So all concepts that refer specifically to a change are mental existents only. All of them reflect that something has changed and we create (automatically) those internal mental existents to grapple with that fact. That's just how our minds work.

I am afraid that I can not agree with the statement that "Change takes place" without some serious qualifiers. Would you assert that the past changes? Or would you hold that the past is some fixed thing?

 

If the past cannot change, then tell me what you know that is not part of your past. I hold that there is only one thing which changes and that is your expectations. Your expectations change only because your knowledge of the universe changes. Time is nothing more than a mechanism for accomodating your explanation of reality (what is) to the fact of your lack of knowledge (i.e., what you think you know of reality changes).

Change exists.

Change in what? Is it any more than change in your mind?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I am afraid that I can not agree with the statement that "Change takes place" without some serious qualifiers. Would you assert that the past changes? Or would you hold that the past is some fixed thing?

 

If the past cannot change, then tell me what you know that is not part of your past. I hold that there is only one thing which changes and that is your expectations. Your expectations change only because your knowledge of the universe changes. Time is nothing more than a mechanism for accomodating your explanation of reality (what is) to the fact of your lack of knowledge (i.e., what you think you know of reality changes).

Change in what? Is it any more than change in your mind?

 

Have fun -- Dick

lol. I am not surprised that you understand this at least as well as I do, probably a lot better. Nice feedback. I think I mostly agree with you.

Except for the bleeding edge, now, which isn't addressed and is sort of the 800 pound gorilla.

The past we reference with expectation as well as the future. The past is gone. It doesn't exist except in my mind through imagination or memory. The future exists in my mind as totally expectation.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

Change in what? Is it any more than change in your mind?

No, it isn't. We cannot perceive anything outside of ourselves as change. Change is just the output of our internal comparator whose inputs are our senses dealing with the 800 pound gorilla.

[Little Bang]

In my opinion this thread has turned to philosophy. enjoy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

In my opinion this thread has turned to philosophy. enjoy

Good point. This is the Philosophy of Science forum. Does that mean we did good?

[Little Bang]

I apologize, I thought it to be physics & Math.

[AnssiH]

Have you been following the discussion he and AnsiiH have been having? Fascinating. I think something wonderful is happening there.

 

They seem to use mathematics in a way that I barely glimpsed when I was young. Like a tool to perceive things clearly. If I had the time ( :hihi: ) I'd attempt to understand the math.

 

I was just skimming through this thread and noticed "oh, we are being watched" :/

 

I thought I should comment that what looks like a LOT of math is mostly just me trying to learn the required mathematical concepts on the fly. My math knowledge is sorely lacking, and I need to figure quite a few things out in order to get a better grasp of Doctordick's epistemological analysis, i.e. to really start to see its implications.

 

I already have a pretty good idea about what implications there are, just I have to take them on faith when I cannot follow the math myself. But I have to say the implications seem very reasonable to me and I would not find it very surprising if the math checks out.

 

Note that I referred to the presentation as "epistemological analysis". It has everything to do with issues regarding "human knowledge", i.e. our methods of conceiving/perceiving reality. The only sense in which it implies something about ontological reality is that it explains how certain conceptions/perceptions - that are usually seen as part of ontological reality - are unavoidable consequences of certain symmetries forced upon our worldviews.

 

For example, if the math checks out, it proves unequivocally that it is valid to model reality relativistically, predictionwise. But at the same time it implies strongly that the source of the relativistic description is not relativity of simultaneity or relativistic spacetime construction in any ontological sense, since completely epistemological standpoint already makes that sort of description valid.

 

(btw, Steve 9 & Modest, I think I understand what you guys are trying to say but it is clear you are speaking completely different language with each others. I thought maybe you would get somewhere if you revealed your ontological takes on "relativity of simultaneity", i.e. in what sense does such thing exist? Let's see if you can analyze your thoughts on that issue objectively)

 

Anyhow, the epistemological analysis itself does not include that much math and a competent mathematician could probably review the analysis throughout fairly quickly, and get to think about the implications. At least as long as that person really concretely and exactly understood what the math is describing.

 

Apparently this has proven to be difficult to communicate for various reasons. People clinging to naive realism (hey, having defined a thing does not make it ontologically real!) or refusing to believe that (initially) completely unknown data stream can be predicted meaningfully (and yet you all have learned enough english to understand this text... ...well kind of understand it :pirate:

 

Also note that people tend to base their query of reality on their perceptions, as if there is something ontologically given in the meanings that have been assigned to some otherwise unintelligible patterns. Let us not forget that any sort of perception of anything, no matter how simple, entails that the perceived thing/pattern/noumena had already been defined. I.e. some sort of identity had been assigned to some spatial/temporal pattern. When you make a definition, allowing you to tack identity on some pattern/noumena, it does not mean that suddenly ontological reality exists accordingly.

 

The epistemological analysis does not suppose ontological existence of any specific defined thing, it only deals with necessary constraints that come to exist in any sort of self-coherent worldview (~set of "defined things").

 

I talk too much sometimes, but I still wanted to say one more thing, not having that much to do with the epistemological analysis but with your debate about what we should mean by "real". Rainbows are said to appear "when sun shines onto droplets of moisture in earth's atmosphere".

 

Is rainbow to be considered "real" when there's no one observing it? (Don't worry, there's no one answer... depending on what one means by "real" :hihi:

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

Thanks Anssi; I hadn't noticed ldsoftwaresteve's post. I might comment that the mathematics I am using is nothing beyond the current High School level; it is just somewhat complex.

Is rainbow to be considered "real" when there's no one observing it? (Don't worry, there's no one answer... depending on what one means by "real" :pirate:

Well, I don't know about there being more than one answer. Certainly, if you understand how the rainbow comes to be, a specific rainbow only exists when the point from which it is observed is defined. Thus, if it is not being observed no "specific" rainbow exists. One could only say that the general concept really existed. :hihi:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Ah, but doesn't that presume "motion" is not a myth?

No, not at all--nothing "presumed" that "motion" exists in absence of proof to the contrary--that is, one does not "presume" that "motion" exists, one "knows" that motion exists. Motion is no more a myth than mathematics nor time. Are you saying you hold mathematics to be a myth :phones: If not, then neither logically can you so hold time or motion.

===

Also, I see this thread has not yet attempted to falsify what I stated previously, which I hold to be a law of nature, that is:

 

Space-Time = that which is intermediate between two moments of exixtents.

[steve 9]

You’ve mistakenly equated real and physical and mistakenly left out the possibility that time is not-tangible yet real.

 

Reply by steve 9

Fine, give an example of what you are thinking about when you say this just so we can discuss a specific thing.

 

 

 

 

movement is real yet not tangible

 

 

Roll a marble across your hand, the movement is tangible. What I am asking you to do is provide evidence that time is more than a concept brought about by the perception of motion.

 

Motion (movement) is real to us because we can perceive objects moving from one point to another. Motion is not a thing that exists as an object. Motion is a term used to describe the action of objects. Objects and energy are real physical things. Motion is used to describe the action of objects and energy. An object, particle, will remain at rest until acted upon by a force. In order to have movement we need a particle or group of particles and a force that will act upon this particle or particles. So what is your point? Are you saying that time is similar to movement?

 

Look all of your explanations about time are not based on scientific evidence or definitions of time.

So is movement YOUR proof that time is more than a concept?

 

Posted by steve 9

“I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.”

 

 

Once again, a classic case of a false dichotomy. You leave out the possibility that it can be both.

 

O.K. you say it is possible that time is both a form of energy and a concept. According to what definition or reference-- NONE. We are right back to my question to you, now follow closely, you say it is possible that time is a form of energy and a concept. I will ask you again, in what form of energy is time existing? If you want to say it is both then explain how time is a form of energy.

 

 

Posted by steve 9

I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.

 

 

Posted by steve 9

“I have also invited you to mention any other way in which something can be real for us so as to avoid the false dichotomy protest.”

 

 

movement and gravity

 

 

Movement is not a physical thing that exists. Movement is not a thing that is identified as a thing with a form. Movement is a perception of the action of objects, the concept of motion. Movement is the man made term given to the action of particles not a particular particle or energy.

 

Gravity is a force in the form of energy. Gravity is not a concept. Gravity is the term given to the force that moves all objects on Earth and other massive objects. Gravity is a form of energy.

 

I have already mentioned these ways in which something is real for us. Look, I will give you the opportunity to explain how movement is proof that time is more than a concept. You mentioned gravity, are you saying that gravity similar to time and visa-versa? What is the point of bring up gravity?

 

 

 

 

 

Time is a human concept to be sure. That concept reflects a very real attribute of the universe.

 

What is this attribute? Still no definitive definition of time. I say time is only a concept. Now you are saying that time is an attribute. Where is the science that says time is more than a concept?

 

 

Posted by steve 9

 

“Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

 

It exists as matter.

 

It exists as energy.

 

It exists as a force.

 

It exists as a concept.”

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed

 

I'd like to add movement and gravity to the list. Notice the amount of non-physical things on the list is growing. Time will fit only if and when your definition of real allows it .

 

 

Here is how your two items that you added fit in the list that you wanted to add them to.

 

“Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

 

It exists as matter.

 

It exists as energy.

 

It exists as a force.

 

It exists as a concept.”

 

You added that something can exist as movement. Look up movement and find out for yourself if this is a thing that exists.

 

You added that something can exist as gravity. So you added gravity because you think that it is different then above ways that I mentioned?

 

 

Time is a concept of human understanding and a real process of the universe.

 

What is this? What kind of process? Chemical process? Be specific?

 

So to sum things up, I say time is just a concept. What have you actually said? You mention movement, gravity, time is a real attribute of the universe, and other ideas.

 

Do you understand what I am asking? If you think time is more than a concept then just simply give proof of is existance as a thing in this universe.

 

What is it? What explanation of time have you given here?

 

Does time exist in the form of matter?

 

Does time exist in some form of energy?

 

Does time exist as a concept?

 

Does time exist for you as something other than the above?

 

I have asked for scientific evidence that gives proof that time is more than a concept, I am still waiting.

 

You are giving a valiant attempt to prop up your belief that time is more than a concept, but what have you said exactly?

[InfiniteNow]

You are giving a valiant attempt to prop up your belief that time is more than a concept, but what have you said exactly?

 

That your dichotomy continues to be a false one.

[steve 9]

No, not at all--nothing "presumed" that "motion" exists in absence of proof to the contrary--that is, one does not "presume" that "motion" exists, one "knows" that motion exists. Motion is no more a myth than mathematics nor time. Are you saying you hold mathematics to be a myth :) If not, then neither logically can you so hold time or motion.

===

Also, I see this thread has not yet attempted to falsify what I stated previously, which I hold to be a law of nature, that is:

 

Space-Time = that which is intermediate between two moments of exixtents.

 

This is your law, you can have it.

[steve 9]

That your dichotomy continues to be a false one.

 

 

Hey InfiniteNow! How are you doing these days? You always bring so much sanity and science to so many topics. Thanks for your input, that really straightens everything out. Your take on the topic of time is breathtaking.