What is time?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

In the heat of the moment, perhaps this discussion is turning chaotic.

 

And I for one am confused about a lot of what has been said, especially since this thread is asking what time is and it's under the Philosophy of Science umbrella.

 

So to imply that we shouldn't discuss the nature of time or even propose that it doesn't exist because 'science uses it and it works' so therefore it exists seems rather unfair.

 

So maybe I'm wrong here or quite possibly missing the point. What is the difference between 'Philosophy of Science' and just plain 'Philosophy'? And I don't want a reference to a body of work, I want a short and sweet version - something to the point. I don't want to contemplate Aristotle's Philosophy or Greek Philosophy, I want to know what the domain of philosophy is and where does the Philosophy of Science fit into it? I assume one subsumes the other.

 

What kinds of things are fair game and what are not?

 

And where do we, as beings trying to comprehend existence, fit into Philosophy? Is it a subject that is necessary and if so, why? What value does it provide? Because, if there are other creatures that are trying to do the same, it should apply to them too, right? But maybe I should wait until someone defines Philosophy first.

[dkv]

dkv, I liked your statement that proposed using the characteristics of the smallest particle for measuring time and space. I liked it because it was kind of novel.

 

Still, it simply changes the units of measure. Time would be measured by using an event, nothing different from a clock or radioactive decay.

 

What causes the event within the smallest particle? What causes the change that we use as reference to measure other changes?

 

Perhaps I am making the same mistake as many of you are making, if indeed it is a mistake. I am working from a model, my model. And that model says that change is an effect and has a cause. I don't consider change as primary. I consider it as secondary.

 

So any discussion involves a model of existence. Or at the very least, it involves assumptions about the basic nature of existence and that sure feels like a model.

 

I would say that the cause of change is a fundamental thing. Perhaps it is the fundamental thing. Time is just our way of relating our awareness of one change to another.

 

There is one thing that we could actually conclude about change, in a generic physics sense. Since we can relate one change to another and the relationships remain constant, all change might have a common cause.

 

Forgive me if it sounds like I'm repeating myself. Each time I do, it feels like another layer being peeled away or my understanding is becoming more solid. This time I've included Ansii's 'fundamental' reference and hopefully in a proper and hygenic way.

Thanks for liking the concept.

As I said the time is not just about change... it is about a periodic change...

Time cant be attributed to any object if it lacks periodicity in observational space otherwise we end with a absolute time which can not be used in different frame of references and it wont serve the idea of measurement.

Is it a conincidence that we can perceive time and space?

Is it a coincidence that we find periodicity in the motion of planets and atoms?

Is it a coincidence that we find periodicity in life?

No...

We are able to measure what we are intrinsically made of.

Similarly it will not be wrong to state that even particles carry an intrinsic time and properties of space.

Intrinsic time and space in a particle frame of reference is as good as the clock and rods of classical world... just like the heart which beats at regular intervals ,intrinsic time determines the world view from the point of view of particles...

That is why GR and SR can't be applied to cases where the particles are of different types... GR assumes all particles are similar in nature therefore it uses only geometrical relativity in space time.

However when we take into consideration the particle dependent time then some particles which are initially at rest will naturally appear to be moving slowly and some will appear moving fast relative to each other...

In other words there is no fundamental escape from the relativity which gives us the expansion of universe...

 

Your model is good... cause definitely leads to effect there is no doubt about that.. However relatively speaking the causes will appear due to intrinsic nature of time and space... when actually nothing has been happening.

 

I find the idea the very beautiful and complete.

[AnssiH]

So far your only objection to the current standard definition of space and time as dimensions is that other less useful interpretations exist. You apparently don’t want to advocate any of those - you’re just pointing out that they’re there.

 

Obviously I don't want to advocate the ontological reality of any of them, as that would be a completely arbitrary choice. A mere belief. It's like the argument of "fairies vs. elves".

 

If you want to rearrange the laws of physics and fundamental variables that get put in them then go ahead. If it is consistent like our current understanding and makes similar or better predictions then I’m all for it.

 

Yes, I'm glad you see things that way at least. You might be interested to follow DD's analysis because it sheds a lot of light on exactly this issue. Apparently one reason why people have not reviewed his work very much is that many people are unable to see that the definitions in their worldview really can be "rearranged" into a different but predictionwise equally valid model, much like algebraic equations can be rearranged. (And much like it is with algebra, you cannot just change one term in the equation and still keep it valid; you must change the whole thing into a different self-coherent set of definitions)

 

They cannot see this fact because they do not recognize how they investigate reality completely from within their valid worldview. Every day, they see the effects of the entities they believe to exist, and cannot trivially comprehend how could it be said they do not exist. They see those effects because that is how they interpret their sensory data. But those entities simply do not exist in different valid models, because they are not defined in that raw data that is to be explained. The noumena that gives rise to such definitions, can be considered "real". The definitions by themselves are immaterial references to those patterns. Including "gravity", "time" and "space". Simple as that.

 

You wonder why I’m bringing up physics when you say we are trying to figure out what makes physics models valid. Humm...

 

When you bring up physics, you are investigating the possibilities from within your worldview. There is not much wiggleroom there, as that is like investigating what single terms can be changed in an algebraic equation without making it invalid.

 

You need to begin from considerations of how some raw data stream could be defined in valid manner & without making undefendable assumptions about its ontological reality.

 

Either change is completely synonymous with movement

 

And when you investigate this from the point of view of defining undefined raw data, one particular issue that arises is that you need to somehow assume that certain features of that data are referring or "caused" by the "same object" from one moment to the next (and once again many different ways to define "objects" exist. For one that differs very much from Standard Model, see that Milo Wolff's definition of spherical standing waves).

 

"Movement" requires one to identify some pattern as the "same object" (i.e. there must be a definition for "object" that is said to be "moved")

In "change" one object disappears and another appears.

 

Note that we are very much talking about epistemological concepts; concepts that are used to understand reality. There is no way to probe the ontological reality of either assumption.

 

And that is why "change" is synonymous with "movement" only in your personal worldview. Otherwise such an assertion cannot be defended.

 

On the contrary, it implies that string theory may not have any basis in reality. Multiple string theories have made identical predictions with different theoretical structure. Which is correct to reality?

 

It implies none of the models - that make the identical predictions - may not have "any basis on (ontological) reality". Including Standard Model. You insist certain things in your own worldview are "real", while apparently you are able to question the ontological validity of some models. Like Overdog is saying, you are very much operating on beliefs.

 

Your comment also implies you think "the simplest" model must be the one that has got "basis on reality" while others don't. That is exactly the kind of ontological assumption you should not make. First, "simplest" by what criteria? And second, why on earth would reality be "like" the simplest way to describe it?

 

It is like asking people, who don't know how combustion engine works, to explain what is it that makes a car propel itself onwards, without looking what is inside. So the person who comes up with the simplest explanation is also correct to how that car works?

 

It’s in fact not even correct to say that both string theory and the standard model can’t both be right. They may well be. Would you say newton’s laws of gravity and Einstein’s GR can’t both be right? Yes, they can both be right and your description above is wrong.

 

Like I've said many times, they are all "valid", as in they make correct predictions about the raw data. There can always exist multiple valid models that explain ALL of our past; for all we know they are "right". But we also know they are not all "ontologically correct", as they explain the same phenomenon with different concepts.

 

Good understanding of epistemological concepts reveals that with very high likelyhood, none can be "ontologically correct", that sort of question is moot. That realization immediately lifts all valid models on the equal footing. And there's no reason to argue about elves and fairies.

 

What other interpretations [of relativity] are possible?

 

I've already mentioned few in post #448.

 

The assumption that reality is a static spacetime block is just one interpretation.

 

Another would be that reality does not exist in any definite "now-state" before it is being observed.

 

Or one could imagine each inertial frame is part of a multiverse, i.e. we switch to a different "space" (where the "now"-states really exist differently from each others)

 

Am I right to assume that you see spacetime as a static block where future and past exists all the time, and you therefore assume your "consciousness" is the only thing that is actually "moving" through that sapcetime? Don't worry, I am not here to argue about whether reality is like that; I believe that is a self-coherent way to see things. But I am somewhat worried if that really is the only interpretation that you think is possible?

 

How we ‘model’ gravity in the ‘theory’ of general relativity doesn’t make it any less real. If mass curves spacetime and we see attraction between masses then gravity refers to that curved spacetime. Did you miss my point that there are real processes of the universe that we can’t touch?

 

Did you miss my point of how we are the ones who define things and thus decide what constitutes a "process". You claim that your use of the word "real" does not mean you suppose it's more than our definitions of some unknown reality, yet you are ready to point out that "string theory" may not have any basis on reality. Well, it has got exactly the same basis on reality as any model of "gravity"; it explains the patterns we see.

 

It would be good mental hygiene for philosophy to realize why it has done so poor a job of informing science.

 

It has done a lot of good. For one, Einstein did need to investigate his "common sense beliefs" - step outside of his own personal worldview - to realize that it is indeed completely valid to define "simultaneity" - against all common sense - as relative to the direction of movement. Of course initially he had to battle a lot of people who were too immersed in their personal worldview to understand how such a definition could be valid.

 

Einstein did not, as far as I know, make any strong implications about the ontological reality behind the (predictionwise) validity of such a definition. I know he definitely did not like Minkowski's spacetime interpretation at first, albeit he did come to think of relativity in those terms later. (On the other hand he has also referred to things like "space" and "time" and "force" as "concepts", so I suspect he was trying to avoid the ontological questions of his models) And now we are in a situation where spacetime interpretation is quite common, and very many people are too immersed in it to see how different definitions are indeed quite possible.

 

Here's another fun fact about the history of physics. Ludwig Boltzmann was the person who managed to model the behaviour of gases in terms of kinetic behaviour of "atoms" and "molecules". Although that model was predictionwise valid, the scientific community at the time was too immersed in their personal worldviews to believe such things as "atoms" or "molecules" could really exist. Boltzmann become so depressed by the ridicule from the scientific community that he eventually hanged himself. (Before scientific communite became to accept his model... ...of course immediately assuming model = reality)

 

These days of course many people are absolutely convinced "atoms" and "molecules" are ontological things by themselves. All I can say is, if a model makes valid predictions, it can be used! Rest is belief. That should be the contribution of philosophy to science.

 

Other way around, one thing where physical models are helpful for ontological considerations is that when you think about a lot of alternative models and their interpretations, you can see how different self-coherent definitions really are possible. Such is the case with QM also. And different ontological interpretations of relativity imply different ontological interpretations for QM. For one, static spacetime implies transactional interpretation for explaining Bell Experiments. You (and everyone else thinking about "time") might find this interesting;

 

Quantum mechanics and spacetime

 

Also Bell Experiments are interesting in that they by themselves imply absolute simultaneity; they can motivate one to interpret relativistic relationships in a manner that makes absolute simultaneity ontologically real. And yes, against all the intuition that you have inside your personal worldview, such interpretation indeed is completely possible.

 

In the end, I should reiterate that the one view on relativity - that I find quite reasonable and if DD's treatment has no fata flaws can be logically proven - is that the relativistic transformation between inertial frames is an unavoidable consequence of how entities can be defined in any "raw undefined data", if you do it self-coherently and without undefendable assumptions. It took us a long time to end up with relativistic transformations in our physics models because we were so slow to drop off those "undefendable assumptions", one by one, from our models.

 

That, if anything, would be a fair contribution of epistemology & ontology to science. Too bad most people are too immersed in the validity of their personal worldviews to investigate such possibility :naughty:

 

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This reminds me of meetings I've been in where the person who called the meeting forgot to bring documents and pictures to talk about. The phrase, 'on the same page' has its roots in those situations. People are talking and nodding or disagreeing but nobody is communicating. We're talking about different things.

 

Perhaps it's because we don't have an adequate way of referencing that which is below the object level or, it's too easy to get sidetracked or both.

 

Everything has been said. Now, how do we go back and analyze it without creating more noise?

 

Well, I guess I was wrong. Just read Ansii's response and he has more to say and I want to read it all. I did.

 

Ansii, thanks. I'm learning that I wasn't as far off as I thought. This time I think I understood almost everything you said. The only thing I would suggest is to not let us fools drag you down and stop you from helping DD.

[modest]

In the heat of the moment, perhaps this discussion is turning chaotic.

 

And I for one am confused about a lot of what has been said, especially since this thread is asking what time is and it's under the Philosophy of Science umbrella.

 

So to imply that we shouldn't discuss the nature of time or even propose that it doesn't exist because 'science uses it and it works' so therefore it exists seems rather unfair.

 

So maybe I'm wrong here or quite possibly missing the point. What is the difference between 'Philosophy of Science' and just plain 'Philosophy'? And I don't want a reference to a body of work, I want a short and sweet version - something to the point. .

 

Despite my disagreements with AnssiH, I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the purpose of the philosophy of science. If you read Anssi's last few posts, particularly to me, it's mostly what is discussed. Where a physics theory hints at some ontology, it never seems to describe that ontology with much more than a metaphor. It almost purposefully strips itself of such pursuits. So, there's a gap there and philosophy would do well to fill it.

 

~modest

[modest]

Obviously I don't want to advocate the ontological reality of any of them, as that would be a completely arbitrary choice. A mere belief. It's like the argument of "fairies vs. elves".

 

You're not wrong, you're just inhibiting yourself. It wasn't that long ago people were honestly trying to figure out if the solar system was geocentric or not. Understand, we had a model that described the motion of the planets in the sky without the 'correct' (earth orbits around the sun) description. So there were two models and neither really worked any better than the other.

 

So, people I'm sure asked which was real - which was in the middle, the sun or the earth. You would have said "faeries vs. elves" and stayed above the stench. Good for you, meanwhile we did figure out which model was correct.

 

Same will no doubt happen with curved spacetime vs. gravitons or many other differences in interpretation we have today. Yeah, believe it or not, one of these interpretations is the more correct one.

 

"faeries vs. elves" :naughty:

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

We've both dragged this thread off topic. I appreciate that you will want to reply to this, and you should, but we're not getting anywhere and we should respect the topic me thinks.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Modest:

Despite my disagreements with AnssiH, I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the purpose of the philosophy of science. If you read Anssi's last few posts, particularly to me, it's mostly what is discussed. Where a physics theory hints at some ontology, it never seems to describe that ontology with much more than a metaphor. It almost purposefully strips itself of such pursuits.

I think the disconnect between the two of you is right here in the statement, 'Where a physics theory hints at some ontology'. Unless I'm completely mistaken, a physics theory is an interpretation of the ontology. In other words, something exists of which we are aware. We build a theory to explain it. The theory doesn't create or change the ontology of it, it just attempts to describe it. So, in a very real sense, isn't a theory just a metaphor that attempts to describe some ontology?

[modest]

Modest:I think the disconnect between the two of you is right here in the statement, 'Where a physics theory hints at some ontology'. Unless I'm completely mistaken, a physics theory is an interpretation of the ontology.

 

Sure there's a difference between hinting at ontology and interpreting ontology - I'm sure science does both.

 

You give me the opportunity to point out everyone's apparent assumption that I believe laws of physics are somehow real in and of themselves - is completely wrong. I've said again and again that physics describes reality and informs ontology. For whatever reason (I have my theories) people take this to believe I see no difference between the two.

 

OFF TOPIC - in any case

 

In other words, something exists of which we are aware. We build a theory to explain it. The theory doesn't create or change the ontology of it, it just attempts to describe it. So, in a very real sense, isn't a theory just a metaphor that attempts to describe some ontology?

 

Start a thread and let's get this ball rolling.

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

modest:

In other words, something exists of which we are aware. We build a theory to explain it. The theory doesn't create or change the ontology of it, it just attempts to describe it. So, in a very real sense, isn't a theory just a metaphor that attempts to describe some ontology?

Start a thread and let's get this ball rolling.

Not so fast. Time is the term we use for the one ontology that seems obvious: the constancy of change. Assuming I can call the constancy of change an ontology.

The fact that we can relate one change to another and the results are totally consistent means that whatever is causing change is universal.

 

I'm kind of stuck right here and I'm not sure I really understand what I think I'm seeing.

[modest]

modest:

 

Not so fast. Time is the term we use for the one ontology that seems obvious: the constancy of change. Assuming I can call the constancy of change an ontology.

The fact that we can relate one change to another and the results are totally consistent means that whatever is causing change is universal.

 

I'm kind of stuck right here and I'm not sure I really understand what I think I'm seeing.

 

Oh, I see. I thought for sure you were wanting to discuss the role of philosophy in science, humm.

 

Ok though, very good. Time is "consistency of change". Let's go with this. What do you mean by change? Can we define it?

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Oh, I see. I thought for sure you were wanting to discuss the role of philosophy in science, humm.

 

Ok though, very good. Time is "consistency of change". Let's go with this. What do you mean by change? Can we define it?

 

~modest

Actually, I said 'constancy'. That does have a connotation of time in it somewhere.

I'm not sure we can define it and that's the problem. It doesn't break down into component parts. Our only means so far is to pick one change that seems pretty fundamental and use it as a standard. And maybe that's the best we'll ever be able to do.

Another problem is that if time is thought of as having an essence outside of our consciousness, people start seeing it as something that can be traveled through, as in a time machine. At that point any connotation of esoteric disappears.

When we consider 'constancy of change' we assume a cause for that change. And that's the reason I keep coming back to this point. Something is causing change to happen and the universe is the effect of that.

[dkv]

Time is not an easy concept. I am sure that no knows the answer.

I define time based on periodicity of intrinsic events.

Ghost of time remains unexplained.

It appears that for a scientist time moves very slowly... after doing research for 100 years it appears as if they have not even started...

[modest]

Actually, I said 'constancy'. That does have a connotation of time in it somewhere.

 

My bad, I misspelled constancy and let my spell checker fix it - not the first time that's got me in trouble. I once spell-checked minister into menstruate :eek:

 

I'm not sure we can define it and that's the problem. It doesn't break down into component parts. Our only means so far is to pick one change that seems pretty fundamental and use it as a standard. And maybe that's the best we'll ever be able to do.

 

I agree completely. I think you're really, really on to something here. To me time is so fundamental that it is hard to define. We can represent it with things (for example geometry) and we can compare it to things to some degree with metaphors. But, as you say the fundamental units don't break down into component parts. As far as I can tell, time has no parts - physical or otherwise.

 

Another problem is that if time is thought of as having an essence outside of our consciousness, people start seeing it as something that can be traveled through, as in a time machine. At that point any connotation of esoteric disappears.

 

It seems intuitive that moving through time is somehow analogous to moving through space. There are, however, very significant differences. All our experience with time has been unidirectional. If we elaborate on time allowing for the terms past and future, we'd say that our past is inaccessible and our only 'direction of travel' relative to time is toward the future. Furthermore, all our observations of things moving 'through' time depend on their motion through space. If something is traveling at the speed of light then it will not move through time at all.

 

So it seems possible to put constraints on the idea of time and make informed guesses as to its nature. But, as you say, these constraints are often based on assumptions such as treating time as a dimension we move through which I just did. It's a useful assumption because it helps further our understanding and just as important: it helps us predict future events. But, it is fundamentally an assumption. As Overdog points out - there is no way to prove such assumptions directly. All we can do is build on them and see if what we build works well.

 

Absolute Newtonian or Galilean time and space ended up not working too well. We were forced to change some of our assumptions about space and time when relativity was confirmed.

 

When we consider 'constancy of change' we assume a cause for that change. And that's the reason I keep coming back to this point. Something is causing change to happen and the universe is the effect of that.

 

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from. Mass is fundamental just like time and there is now a proposed 'cause' in the form of a Higgs particle and Higgs field - which has not yet been observed. Is this like you're thinking? A physical thing causing change? Or, some description or process or something that happened when the universe formed. I don't want to make assumptions about what you're saying and it's not exactly clear to me.

 

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

modest:

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from. Mass is fundamental just like time and there is now a proposed 'cause' in the form of a Higgs particle and Higgs field - which has not yet been observed. Is this like you're thinking? A physical thing causing change? Or, some description or process or something that happened when the universe formed. I don't want to make assumptions about what you're saying and it's not exactly clear to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that either everything in existence is expending energy and attempting to reach a stable configuration and is riding on the momentum of the big bang or there's something else that is driving change. Something makes electrons spin and chemical reactions take place.

 

It seems like we just take all of that activity for granted without even considering that there might be a universal cause. And the things which we call laws of nature might actually have a cause.

 

And I think that a big clue is how we've handled the concept of time. It indicates that we might have had a blindspot here, and by 'we' I mean the masses including myself. I really can only speak for me though. Maybe others don't get confused.

[Overdog]

modest: I guess what I'm saying is that either everything in existence is expending energy and attempting to reach a stable configuration and is riding on the momentum of the big bang or there's something else that is driving change. Something makes electrons spin and chemical reactions take place.

 

It seems like we just take all of that activity for granted without even considering that there might be a universal cause. And the things which we call laws of nature might actually have a cause.

 

And I think that a big clue is how we've handled the concept of time. It indicates that we might have had a blindspot here, and by 'we' I mean the masses including myself. I really can only speak for me though. Maybe others don't get confused.

 

Oh yes, there is a big blindspot there alright, and in a lot of other places, too, not just in Physics and the natural sciences.

 

"Compared to the pond of knowledge, our ignorance remains atlantic."

The Encyclopedia of Ignorance

[Erasmus00]

Something makes electrons spin and chemical reactions take place.

 

I think this misunderstands the nature of "spin"- nothing is spinning in a traditional sense. Electrons carry angular momentum, but nothing is moving, and even at absolute zero, they still spin.

 

As to earlier notions of using the properties of the smallest particles to "define" measuring sticks for time, how do we know that fundamental particles have any extent at all? How do we know they aren't points?

 

Finally, to define time maybe one important thing to do is to figure out everything we know about that which we are trying to describe. I'll attempt a brief list

 

1. Time exists independently of measuring devices (for this observation we note that mechanical, electromagnetic, etc. Any device we make to measure time can be synchronized locally to any other device that we use to measure time). Because, for instance, electromagnetic devices can tell the same time as mechanical devices we can draw the tentative conclusion that the same "time" flows in both theories.

 

2. Time is wrapped up in space. The evidence for this is that if we set two synchronized clocks in relative motion, they are no longer synched. Similarly, if we put a clock on top of a mountain, it is no longer synched with the clock on bottom of said mountain. This is regardless of the measuring device used.

 

3. More tentatively because not directly observable, on extremely short durations time is uncertain (in the sense that quantum mechanical systems of definite energy cannot be localized in time).

 

Are there any other properties we can give to time?

-Will

[Overdog]

Are there any other properties we can give to time?

 

If you read through the last few days of posts you will see we have been discussing what we can know about time and arrived to the conclusion that anything we try to say about it is an assumption.

 

EDIT:

 

But don't let that discourage you!