What is time?

[Overdog]

Ontology is the study of being or existence and its basic categories and relationships. It seeks to determine what entities can be said to "exist", and how these entities can be grouped according to similarities and differences. Ontology is distinguished from epistemology, the study of knowledge and what can be known.

 

Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns refer to entities that have being. Other philosophers contend that nouns do not always name beings but provide a kind of shorthand for reference to a collection of either objects or events. In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared characteristics, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity. Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and god, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy.

Ontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think you may be confusing Ontology with Constructivism...an epistemological point of view.

 

Constructivism

Constructivism is a philosophical position that views knowledge as the outcome of experience mediated by one's own prior knowledge and the experience of others. In contrast to objectivism (e.g. Ayn Rand, 1957) which embraces a static reality that is independent of human cognition, constructivism (e.g. Immanuel Kant, 1781/1787) holds that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought. Each new conception of the world is mediated by prior-constructed realities that we take for granted. Human cognitive development is a continually adaptive process of assimilation, accommodation, and correction (Piaget, 1968). Social constructivists (e.g. Berger and Luckmann, 1966) suggest that it is through the social process that reality takes on meaning and that our lives are formed and reformed through the dialectical process of socialization. A similar dialectical relationship informs our understanding of science (e.g. Bloor, 1976), and it shapes the technical artifacts that we invent and continually adapt to our changing realities (e.g. Bijker, 1995). Humans are shaped by their interactions with machines just as machines evolve and change in response to their use by humans. (Lemke, 1993).

 

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/savage.html#def_constructivism

 

Constructivism

[AnssiH]

Doesn't ontology sort of imply that consciousness has something to do with reality?

 

I am a bit uncertain what you are asking about, but let it be said that certainly we attempt to build an explanation for "consciousness" or "subjective experience" as part of our worldview. And with that topic too, I do see people regularly constraining themselves by some undefendable assumptions that only exist in their particular worldviews.

 

For example, the "hard problem of consciousness" is partially caused by the assumption that reality is ontologically a set of tiny fundamental entities just like we conceive it; that leads one to wonder how can a huge collection of those tiny fundamental entities together have one subjective experience; why don't the smaller pieces have a subjective experience by themselves? Or what is it with a certain "colony of things" that causes it to have one collective subjective experience? Why doesn't an ant colony, or the New York traffic system have a subjective experience, or does it?

 

Here's an old post with some commentary about that particular conundrum;

Subjective experience

 

If I'm allowed to expand on that little bit, though now I'm forced to speak entirely through my personal worldview; If you wonder what could then be the requirements that a "process" must meet for it to be "subjective experience" (since obviously we define "processes" ourselves, like the NY Traffic System, and we can do that in a completely free and overlapping fashion), it is interesting to note that our subjective experience seems to be entirely composed of an interpretation of the sensory data; interpretation according to a self-built model of reality. A rock falling down a hill is hardly conceiving its situation through a model of reality; it has hardly defined a "rock" and "hill" from some data. (Nor has the NY Traffic System :D)

 

Not only that; the model always includes an identified "self"; data is always interpreted in terms of something happening to one's "self"... ...except maybe when we are infants, in which case we could never have any memories of what happened to ourself at that time, since the data was never interpreted as such... Which is just a specific explanation for infant amnesia.

 

Okay, hopefully some of that had something to do with what you were asking... ...because it most definitely had very little to do with the topic of this thread :)

 

-Anssi

[modest]

Overdog, how would you describe time?

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Overdog, how would you describe time?

 

~modest

 

A concept which may or may not have any objective reality.

[modest]

A concept which may or may not have any objective reality.

 

Can you define the concept?

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Can you define the concept?

 

~modest

 

It is a concept of duration, but...

 

...defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars...

 

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

These are the two main sides of the debate, as I see it...

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[4][5] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[6] and Immanuel Kant,[7][8] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable.

 

Edit:

 

I do not go as far as to claim that time does not have objective reality, merely that I don't know and don't know how I could know.

[modest]

It is a concept of duration

 

Would duration be something that happened in the universe if no humans were around *Do you think*

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Would duration be something that happened in the universe if no humans were around *Do you think*

 

~modest

 

I believe the universe would still be there, doing what it does, but without any human minds around, it would have no meaning.

 

My personal philosophy is still evolving. To be perfectly honest, I have not been consistently either realist or constructivist. When I consider positions I've taken in various discussions over the years, it seems I have been evolving towards the constructivist point of view, but I still often find myself adopting realist points of view automatically without even thinking about it. It's something I'm working on...

[Overdog]

My wife tells me that a constructivist would never ask the question you asked, but would instead be focusing on the relationship between the mind and the experience of the phenomenon, not on the phenomenon, because the phenomenon is not knowable independent of your constructions.

 

Edit:

(My own thoughts on this)

 

This is where I think there is a paradigm shift in epistemology between realism and constructivism. Realist see objective reality and mind as independent of each other, constructivist see "ontological meaning" as the intersection of mind and experience.

 

That's probably a very poor way of putting it, though...:)

[Overdog]

Doctordick, I have a few more thoughts regarding your work. I admit I can't follow the logic, but assuming it is irrefutable, here is my opinion, which I also admit with my limited understanding may be completely off-base.

 

In my view, there is an epistemological philosophy of one sort or another behind the way we view theories which purport to address ontology (reality). We get to choose which philosophical position we take, all the way from objectivism to radical constructivism. Constructivist theories of knowledge of course drop the notion of objective reality out of the equation entirely, just as notions of the "ether" were dropped in the paradigm shift to relativity.

 

In that respect, I see your work as showing that any theory purporting to address ontology, when viewed in terms of an objectivist philosophy of knowledge, inevitably leads to the conclusion that whatever it is we think the theory says about about objective reality, it is, in the end, revealed as unknowable, and therefore an assumption.

 

Did I get that right?

 

Because if I got that right, then I do not see why your work should not be recognized as a nail in the coffin of objectivist philosophies of knowledge, and viewed perhaps as a cornerstone of constructivist epistemological theory!

 

Am I missing something here?

[modest]

Ok, my effort to steer the conversation toward the topic of time clearly failed abysmally

 

Could I ask nicely that we respect the topic? Very near by there's a thread on 15492 and another on 11733 And there's always the option of creating a thread on scientific realism. I just ask that we respect the topic of Craig's thread here.

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Well, it seems to me that one of the most important questions to be asked with respect to "What is Time" is "Is it Real". This tends to lead directly to discussions of Ontology and Epistemology.

 

I think this quote from a previous post illustrates that pretty well.

 

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[4][5] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[6] and Immanuel Kant,[7][8] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable.

 

I don't see why it's off topic to try and understand the philosophical basis of the definition of time DD has given, and to contrast that view with opposing philosophical points of view.

 

But if you think it's off topic, I have no objections to splitting it off to another thread...

[AnssiH]

I believe the universe would still be there, doing what it does, but without any human minds around, it would have no meaning.

 

I think that's a fair and succint way to phrase the constructivist perspective.

 

but I still often find myself adopting realist points of view automatically without even thinking about it. It's something I'm working on...

 

Well in everyday life we certainly adopt realist point of view in that all human behaviour very much operates in the world of "meaning", so to speak.

 

Maybe you guys can wrap your head around another point regarding our ideas of "time" and "motion/change".

 

While physical models describe motion as a function of "time" without a problem, once you are forced to explain your subjective experience, you will be absolutely forced to include an idea of "motion" or "change" that is more fundamental than time, somewhere in your view of reality. (Surprisingly many people don't realize that at all)

 

Let me elaborate on that. Regardless of your philosophical alignment, you have to suppose that your subjective experience is "part of" or "caused by" reality one way or another. Things inside your subjective experience are certainly dynamic (things appear to move or change). Hence something, somewhere in your view of reality is dynamic.

 

For example, the adherents of "static time dimension" might explain their subjective experience by stating their consciousness is the only thing that moves (through that time dimension). I.e. first they don't accept that motion could exist without being caused by "time"... yet they have no problem of allowing their "consciousness" to move "fundamentally" (without its motion being described by a static time dimension)

 

Likewise, if you suppose time is a dimension that "flows", you are saying its motion is "fundamental" (not being caused by another time dimension).

 

If you think about this for a moment, you come to realize that it is absolutely necessary to define SOMETHING in your worldview to be "fundamentally dynamic", as long as your worldview includes an explanation to your subjective experience (which any complete description of reality must include, don't we think? Still it appears many people are quite happy with a worldview that does not explain their own subjective experience at all )

 

From my perspective, it seems just overly complicated to first define time as a static dimension and then be forced to add a component that nevertheless moves over and beyond that "time", to explain why do we feel like we exist "now" One could just define reality itself to be dynamic. I.e. to suppose reality really is "in motion" or "changing", and that directly explains why our knowledge about reality & subjective experience is also changing.

 

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Ansii:

From my perspective, it seems just overly complicated to first define time as a static dimension and then be forced to add a component that nevertheless moves over and beyond that "time", to explain why do we feel like we exist "now" One could just define reality itself to be dynamic. I.e. to suppose reality really is "in motion" or "changing", and that directly explains why our knowledge about reality & subjective experience is also changing.

And the highlighted part is exactly how my worldview is built. There are a few things that seem inevitable, if such is the case.

First, the motion or changing of reality is consistent across the board. We know this because we can relate one kind of motion or change with another and the relationships remain constant. This is a very important aspect of change which we seem to overlook. Time acts as a placeholder for the cause and we forget that if time is a conscious invention, then something else is causing the change to take place. No need to go any further until that gets dealt with. What is implied in that, assuming that this worldview is legit? I would ask that rather than try and attack this worldview, just for grins, assume it holds and see where it goes.

 

Ansii, thank you for putting the issue so clearly. It means that we have somewhat limited the possible paths of thought here.

[Overdog]

Time acts as a placeholder for the cause and we forget that if time is a conscious invention, then something else is causing the change to take place. No need to go any further until that gets dealt with. What is implied in that, assuming that this worldview is legit? I would ask that rather than try and attack this worldview, just for grins, assume it holds and see where it goes.

 

Ok, assuming that Time is a placeholder for some cause, here is where it led me...

 

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy (most often as heat) and moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable, energy state.[1][2] The sign convention of changes in free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamic measurements, in which a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in free energy, but a positive change for the surroundings.

 

A process that is capable of proceeding in a given direction, as written or described, without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy. The term is used to refer to macro processes in which entropy increases; such as a smell diffusing in a room, ice melting in lukewarm water, salt dissolving in water, and iron rusting...

 

Spontaneous process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ldsoftwaresteve]

A process that is capable of proceeding in a given direction, as written or described, without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy. The term is used to refer to macro processes in which entropy increases; such as a smell diffusing in a room, ice melting in lukewarm water, salt dissolving in water, and iron rusting...

And these are all processes that indicate changes are taking place, but how about the things we use for measuring time: radioactive decay, a clock ticking, any of the standard sorts of events we use to measure change rate as opposed to the increased entropy changes mentioned above, which I assume have a lot of factors that affect their rates. What causes these standard events to take place? The interesting thing to note is that the 'standards' keep the same relationships. I don't think I'm making myself clear. Do we say that the standards are just our way of using entropy?

[Overdog]

What causes these standard events to take place? The interesting thing to note is that the 'standards' keep the same relationships. I don't think I'm making myself clear. Do we say that the standards are just our way of using entropy?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I'll take a stab at it since no one else has jumped in...

 

My interpretation is that entropy explains the changes, but the regular ticking of clocks, radioactive decay and other events that we use for measuring time intervals are all dependent on one's inertial frame of reference, according to relativity. (If "regular" is what you mean by "standard") The thing that is "Standard" is the speed of light, in all frames of reference.