What is time?

[Doctordick]

I think this thread is a waste of “time” if I have ever seen such a thing; sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing of value.

 

I have a very simple question to ask. Who out there “knows something” which does not refer to a “past” event of which they are aware? If that is indeed the case, exactly what is wrong with defining the “past” to be what one “knows” yielding the “future” as what they do not “know” and the “present” (the “clock” indexed information) as a change in what they know?

 

That is a simple definition which seems to me to fit every circumstance you all argue about day in and day out. I would like to know exactly what lies behind your utter refusal to consider such a definition.

 

Anybody want to set up a poll?

 

Have a ball -- Dick

[freeztar]

I think this thread is a waste of “time” if I have ever seen such a thing; sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing of value.

 

Then why are you participating? :shrug:

I have a very simple question to ask. Who out there “knows something” which does not refer to a “past” event of which they are aware? If that is indeed the case, exactly what is wrong with defining the “past” to be what one “knows” yielding the “future” as what they do not “know” and the “present” (the “clock” indexed information) as a change in what they know?

 

That is a simple definition which seems to me to fit every circumstance you all argue about day in and day out. I would like to know exactly what lies behind your utter refusal to consider such a definition.

 

Anybody want to set up a poll?

 

Have a ball -- Dick

 

I agree with this. Actually, I think most people would, even under the auspices of gnosis. Though I could be wrong...

[Michael Mooney]

Here is an attempt to "disambiguate" time with the help of our old friend Wikipedia... My bold highlights and in- context comments ( ).

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the *duration of events* and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. (Miles per *hour*, etc... obvious.) Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

 

What a relief!;) We are in good company.

 

In physics as well as in other sciences, time is considered one of the few *fundamental quantities*.( Commence confusion of concept. Counting seconds or hours of a *selected* event's duration makes it a "fundamental quantity?")[1] Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity – so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition. (Like "time is what clocks measure.")[2] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. (]No doubt. )The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured.) Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime brings the nature of time into association with related questions into the nature of space, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.

 

The last sentence may be deleted as off topic at moderator discretion.

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. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. (This is the sci-fi version of time which I like to debunk.) Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3][4] 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. (...Nor to any "thing" which "dilates." Is it more convincing when a Wiki writer says it? ;)) This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

 

Amen to the latter... with one reservation*! Thanks, Gottfried and Immanuel. It is so much more authoritative coming from you! *Well...the *convention* of measuring event duration is quite reasonable as long as "time itself" is not reified in the process.

 

Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined in terms of radiation emitted by caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.

 

All quite reasonable. Who would argue against any of that?

 

So... there it is, folks. Much ado about nothing. We have reified the convention time and made something out of nothing. Earth will keep on spinning and orbiting, galaxies will form, spin and get eaten up by their central SMBH's... and be reborn... and the cosmos will keep expanding... until, perhaps, it reverses and implodes...

All this whether or not we *measure* any part of it, assign *duration* in whatever units, and call it "time."

 

I am presently feeling done with the subject... contemplating a new thread on "presentism." Oh man... I can already see the fecal matter hitting the fan!

Maybe I'll take a break first.

 

Regards,

Michael

[Turtle]

I am presently feeling done with the subject... contemplating a new thread on "presentism." Oh man... I can already see the fecal matter hitting the fan!

Maybe I'll take a break first. ;)

 

Regards,

Michael

 

It's generally a bad idea to introduce yourself in this way:

 

Hi! I am Superboy234 and I'm here to debunk (evolution/big bang/relativity/moon landings/sunflowers).

 

Just a warning - it will get you noticed and it may lead to a ban since coming here with an agenda to pick fights is not welcome. It's usually wise to start out friendly, and we'll be friendly back.

 

better have that break take a longer time than you had in mind.

 

Urban Dictionary: trolling

...

3. trolling

Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent. Trolling includes...

 

-baiting people to flame at you

-putting the forum down and encouraging people to leave.

-flaming

-spamming

-using several identities on a board to support your own arguments / stage pretend arguments

-generally being a dick on a power trip.

Some trolls claim they actions benefit others. These trolls are also twats.

...

 

Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.

[Rade]

...That is a simple definition [of time] which seems to me to fit every circumstance you all argue about day in and day out.

Time = that which is intermediate between moments, with the moments = your past, future, present. There is no time within any moment, the past, future, present are outside of time. Time is what is intermediate between your "past" (what we know), "future" (what we do not know), "present" (delta of knowledge). So, a diagram:

 

.........(what we know) <---time----> (delta of knowledge) <---time---> (what we do not know)<---time---> (delta of knowledge)<---time---> (what we know)<---time--->(delta of knowledge)<---time--->(what we do not know).....

[Michael Mooney]

better have that break take a longer time than you had in mind.

 

Urban Dictionary: trolling

 

 

Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in. :phones:

 

Was that a threat? Was there anything in my last post that was "troll"-like? I was actually in good humor and enjoying putting a reasonable and civil cap on the discussion, for my part.

 

My closing was tongue in cheek, which apparently went over your vindictive head.

(Wiki on "presentism"):

In the philosophy of time, presentism is the theory that only present things exist, and future and past things are unreal. Past and future "entities" are to be construed as logical constructions or fictions.

 

Hardly worth a thread, especially since I have said many times that the future is not yet real and the past is not still real... which leaves the present as real.

 

I would note that the above quote could lose the "things" reference and be more philosophically astute. ("Things" like our bodies and every-"thing" in the cosmos persist "through time" even though they change form constantly.)

 

And a note to Modest on semantics. If you define "time" as in the context of elapsed time for physical processes to happen, I totally agree. But then how do you see a different time environment at below sea level as contrasted with at the top of Mt. Everest? We agree that clocks "tick" faster here and slower there, or on specific journeys involving different velocities.

But, tho you still don't see it, the label of "time dilation" actually says that the entity "time" is going slower or faster. (See above Wiki quote on the two different views of time.)

You can not have it both ways... just different rates of actual physical processes (of course!) and time as some-"thing"... "dilating." See the difference? The former is obvious and the latter is the problem of reification in all the literature since Einstein and his confused ontology of time (and space, and the "fabric" of bothinseparably woven together.

(Maybe that "fabric" is why it is so hard to keep "time" in its proper thread and "space" in another, and "spacetime"... well, now off limits as a censored topic.

 

Ok, with any luck, I'm out for awhile... but I am a sucker for an intelligent question... few and far between as they are. ;);).. Joke... humorous closure... footnote for those without a sense of humor.

 

Michael

[Doctordick]

Then why are you participating? :eek:

Because I am deluded into the belief that there are people reading this who are rational and not irreversibly conditioned to the common interpretation of such things.

 

Just for the fun of it, suppose that the “time” (and that would be the conventional concept of time) between events was absolutely random and that the only reason we can construct clocks is that the (internally consistent consequences of) other probabilistic events are required to be in accordance with those absolutely random events? How many people out there can even conceive of such a circumstance?

 

Have fun – Dick

 

PS, I promise I won't mess with your minds on this issue again. (Unless I am drunk; I am somewhat drunk tonight!)

[Jway]

Wiki entry, quoted earlier (minus Michael commentary):

 

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. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3][4] 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[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

 

I lean toward the latter in my understandings. But I perceive myself and all you (bodies) as experiencing the former. Thus, I think both are plausible.

 

I've read every post in this thread. Just kidding. I'm not that geeky about this topic. But, I was reading this page (79), then went back to 77, and was grooving on what AnssiH was saying in #764.

 

There are times (irony intended) where the prediction value of a time-model is simply of no value to me. I would say, much of my time / experience in human land, it is of value to me. I might even say significant value. Again, that is the majority of my "time." An example of when I could care less is during night-time dreaming. For me, this is obvious example. I think there are others, but admittedly they would be arguable, and I could see me caring sometimes, while other times not caring.

 

For me, this is important realization. It does strike me as elitism to assume that the prediction model of time is (more) valid because it leads to significant results in our knowledge base, and thus our experience. I believe I can make the case for this assumption, but it also strikes me as being sold on a version of idealism. I continue to find that the non analytical approach to understanding / experience 'present' is as valid. For me this is akin to flowing and accepting. It also is version of idealism, and interestingly, I find it 'feels' very allowing of the analytical approach. While the analytical approach (within me) seems .... hmmm, I guess arrogant is word that comes to mind.... about which approach is more valid. Either way, time consistently seems like made up construct, which can serve as very useful / fundamental tool when doing the thing called measuring perceived reality. Seems implausible to perform meaningful experiments without it as an accepted 'reality.'

 

DD inquired:

I have a very simple question to ask. Who out there “knows something” which does not refer to a “past” event of which they are aware? If that is indeed the case, exactly what is wrong with defining the “past” to be what one “knows” yielding the “future” as what they do not “know” and the “present” (the “clock” indexed information) as a change in what they know?

 

I've read this a good 5 times, and do not find it to be simple question. But am glad it was asked. I feel like I've already explained my response above, but to present it in slightly different terms:

- I understand things / experience via past, present, future.

- I don't (fully) believe, nor observe, that I experience things / life in a past, present, future.

- Past and future continue to show up to me as made up, and at same time, as useful, when I need / desire them to be.

- I (strongly) believe that the Now / Present is that which I know about without reference to the past. I am very tempted to say this as something I know rather than strongly believe, but I feel that comes off as elitist.

- With experience of Now, comes (consistently) a state of acceptance, that I find (continually) trumps my analytical capacity to perceive time as duration. With adherence to a linear (form of) logic, I find it darn near impossible to explain what I'm getting at with "acceptance," and yet, with a knowledge that I feel accustomed to, I have little to no doubt, that *you* don't really require the explanation, even while you may be (like me) curious as heck to see if it can be explained.... this time. I believe you may be accepting of what I wrote, even while there could be vast disagreement with it and perception that it is lacking in sufficient meaning to explain 'the world around us.' I want to say, I believe you are completely accepting of it, but again, the elitism thing prevents me from saying it only that way.

- Again time for me is plausibly the approach of both views, but I lean toward the one that says it isn't "something" that we are traveling through or a container, but is a fundamental intellectual structure within which humans sequence and compare events.

[modest]

In physics as well as in other sciences, time is considered one of the few fundamental quantities^[1]

 

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

( Commence confusion of concept. Counting seconds or hours of a *selected* event's duration makes it a "fundamental quantity?")

 

It is usually said that there are three fundamental quantities in physics: time, length, and mass. They are said to be fundamental because other dimensionful quantities can be reduced to expressions of those three dimensions. For example, here are some physical quantities which can be measured:

• Velocity
  
• Acceleration
  
• Kinetic Energy
  
• Force
  
• Momentum
  
• Volume
  
• Density
  
• Pressure
  
• Power
  

All of these quantities can be expressed in terms of length, time, and mass (L, M, and T). The first, velocity, is a measure of length divided by time (L/T). Using SI units that's meters per second. Here are the rest:

• Velocity = L / T
  
• Acceleration = L / T / T
  
• Kinetic Energy = M x L x L / T / T
  
• Force = M x L / T / T
  
• Momentum = M x L / T
  
• Volume = L x L x L
  
• Density = M / L / L / L
  
• Pressure = M / T / T / L / L
  
• Power = M x L x L / T / T / T
  

I did those in my head, so I apologize if any are wrong. Looking at power as an example: Power is measured in watts. A watt is joules per second. A joule is force times distance. Force is mass times acceleration. Acceleration is length divided by time squared. Put it all together and you have power being mass times length squared divided by time cubed. In other words, watts can have units kg * m² / s³ See: Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I don't think the idea of a fundamental quantity is is as philosophically significant as it might superficially appear.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

what is wrong with defining the “past” to be what one “knows” yielding the “future” as what they do not “know” and the “present” (the “clock” indexed information) as a change in what they know?

 

That is a simple definition which seems to me to fit every circumstance

 

My objections are that such definition is subjective, constrained, and begs the question.

 

First, the "knowledge" based definition is subjective because it is premised on knowledge of humans. It defines the time not objectively, but from the perspective of one human's mind. On the other hand, the definition would stand if we define time objectively in terms of two states--the period between states.

 

Second, even if we define time objectively as a period between any two states, we are constraining time to only those two states under consideration. Such definition of time would only hold true for that specific circumstance--for those two states. This is not necessarily bad if the premise is that "time" is just a measure. Thus, time as a measure would hold for any two states universally, even though the measurement may differ. Which leads me to the final point.

 

Second, the definition begs the question. It presumes that time is just a measurement. This is widely accepted, and thus most could agree that time can be defined as a period. But we must consider whether time is a measure or a physicial property as a prior inquiry.

[Rade]

.... if we define time objectively as a period between any two states, we are constraining time to only those two states under consideration. ..

This is not how I see it, I see the objective relationship between any "now" (a state) and "time" as this:

 

-------->past time [NOW State A]-------->future time

 

That is, [NOW State A] is both the link and the limit of two times (at the same time ).

 

Thus, us you say, if we define time objectively as a period between any two states (say NOW State A & --it is then not required that we constrain time to only those two states, for the objective reality of the relationship between NOW and TIME must be as follows:

 

(infinity) ......--> past time [NOW State A]--->future time--->past time---> [NOW State B]--->future time.....(infinity)

 

...we must consider whether time is a measure or a physical property as a prior inquiry....

I find that time is not itself a physical property, but an attribute of the motion and rest of all physical properties. Motion is the fulfillment of what exists potentially. Time is the measure of motion of existence coming to be and being taken away. Time is number of movement of what exists in respect to a before and after (see above diagram). That which does not exist is outside time. Likewise, that which is constant and never changes is not in time (e.g, a photon moving at c).

[Little Bang]

Any definition of time must include the universal fact an observers use of time to make a measurement is based on his observation of a changing frame of reference as measured against his own frame of reference. If there are no changing frames of reference there is no time.

[lawcat]

Rade,

 

I understand. But if we say: time is a measurement between two states; then we arrive at the question: a measurement of what, or what kind of measurement? The definition fails to capture the essence of time. That is why I think that the prior inquiry must be answered: Is there something intrinsically physical about time? For example, in SI system time is defined as a rate of decay.

[CraigD]

Here is an attempt to "disambiguate" time with the help of our old friend Wikipedia... My bold highlights and in- context comments ( ).

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In physics as well as in other sciences, time is considered one of the few *fundamental quantities*.( Commence confusion of concept. Counting seconds or hours of a *selected* event's duration makes it a "fundamental quantity?")

Michael, I’ve a hunch the confusion you’re experiencing from this wikipedia article phrase is arising from an unfamiliarity with how the term “fundamental” is applied in formal mathematics, including those that correspond to the models of reality made by mathematical physics. This, I believe, is the context meant by the “in physics” qualifier in the quoted phrase.

 

A fundamental physical quantity (also known as a fundamental unit, or more precisely kind of unit) – or any entity/symbol in a formal mathematical system – is simply a member of a set of units without which all the other units in that system cannot be written.

 

In a mechanics (ignoring models or reality that can’t much model much of practical use) we need at least m***, distance and time units to be able to write any other kind of unit, such as speed (d/t), acceleration (d/t/t), force (m•d/t/t), and work/energy (m•d•d/t/t). Units of charge allow us to extend mechanics to describe many more useful units, such as electric current and resistance. Though units of temperature are commonly described as a fundamental kind, because temperature can be defined as the average kinetic energy per unit mass (d•d/t/t), so aren’t truly necessary fundamental units – but I fear I digress (and mostly repeat what Modest expressed in post #791).

 

Why people with enough education in mathematical physics to “get” it (and in many cases use it regularly to solve practical problems – a population I’ll call “the dos”) find these concepts obvious and intuitive, while others (who I’ll call “the don’ts”) don’t, or even find them confusing or objectionable, is, I think, because the don’ts fail to comprehend what the dos mean by units, quantities, and other terms they frequently use. Often, in my experience, don’ts with enough education in philosophy to know the term reification accuse the dos of engaging in this fallacy (assigning concrete reality to abstractions) not realizing that, to dos, no formal term is concrete, but merely correspond to informal terms that are concrete. In other words, mathematical physics is all abstraction, connected to intuitive reality only by a sort of “leap of faith” of correspondence.

 

Thus, when Michael makes a statement concerning the theory of relativity like

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" ... Nor to any "thing" which "dilates."

I believe he’s failing to understand that when a do refers to time dilating, he’s referring to a well-defined mathematical manipulation of terms involving proper time, not a direct analogy to the dilation of a physical thing such as a pupil or orifice. That these mathematical manipulation spring from simple postulates, and, defying common intuition, appear superbly true when experimentally compared to experiential reality, is merely delightful icing on the formalist’s cake – in principle, and in some cases practice, a formal system may be constructed of many reasonless postulates and correspond in hardly any recognizable way to experiential reality, yet still be useful and interesting.

 

In short, to quote for the umpteenth a famous line, IMHO “what we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

[Doctordick]

In short, to quote for the umpteenth a famous line, IMHO “what we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

Craig, you have defined the very essence of this thread and a very large portion of the forum itself.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Rade,....I understand.....but....the prior inquiry must be answered: Is there something intrinsically physical about time? The definition fails to capture the essence of time.

No, I do not think that there is something, within itself, physical about time. However, one can equate physical with space, of which time can be linked as "space-time" according to Einstein GR theory. Recall from my previous definition in another thread that space = that which is intermediate between two existents. Logically, what contains may exist, but it must have different form than the things contained. Space then can be thought of as the motionless physical boundary of that which contains existents, thus it is a kind of surface that can be bent. In the same way that time is NOT composed of moments, space is NOT composed of existents. However, moments (past, present, future) can be said to be in time, in the same way existents (earth, apple, electron) can be said to be in space. Thus time is only indirectly related to the physical in that it measures the motion of what is physical (the existents).

 

The "essence of time" is that it is essentially a number--it is the measure (as number) of motion (or rest) of something in process of coming to be or being taken away. Thus it makes sense that SI system of measurement defines time as a measure of "decay", since the change of one isotope to another via fission is one type of motion measured by time. But it is only because SI system of measurement for time is based on radioactive decay of isotopes (fission) that they take this approach. If the SI system was based on measurement of fusion of isotopes, then they would define time as the contrary of decay, a union of isotopes. In either case the end result would be the same, time defined as a measure of motion and given a number (such as 1 msec, 1 sec, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year ...)--there is nothing else than number that time logically can be.

[lawcat]

Rade,

 

I disargee with the first paragraph and agree with the second.

 

In the first paragraph you are talking about previous conversation in this post, which I remember. I did not follow up because I could not develop it further. I am thinking about it though. But nonetheless, you are still defining time in terms of moments, or periods, or the duration, which is circular in my view. All are one and the same. The question then becomes what is a moment or duration.

 

I agree that time is currently a measure. There is no scientific definition except for the measure. The measurement is the definition. As Modest explained above it is a fundamental quantity like mass or length. Mass is scientifically defined in terms of measure of a kilogram, and sits somewhere in France or Switzerland as a physical measure, wherever the SI is located. Similarly length is defined as measure. In English system a mile is a distance between Queen's palace and her summer house, or something like that. Time is defined as a measure in terms of rate of decay. There is no definition of those quantities except for verbally describing the physical measurements, which represent the unit of each.

 

This somewhat goes also to CraigD's post about failure to communicate properly about mathematical concepts, although CraigD speaks specifically about the concept of "time dilation."

 

But for length for example, we can say: length is measure of physical separation between two points. Next, we can break that physical spearation into segments and name the segment. Mass, on the other hand, we can not clearly define, because we end up with molar mass, or sum of all molecular mass, or sum of all atomic mass. or sum of all masses of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which is in the end all experimental and predicated on some measurement of mass. There was a thread on the topic of definition of mass around here. But nonetheless, mass is physical, tengible, just like segments of length.

 

But time is a measure of duration, and what is duration but time. It's circular. We don;t have anything physical expcet changes to go by, so we construct an intuitive idea of what time is. We constructed mass to segmentize length around a circle, to give us indication of the duration. We represent time as a radial length on the clock per movement of the hand, and for convenience we call it an hour, or a second. Now that we have a digital ticker, we represent it simply as a counter.

 

So time is defined as a separation between two counts of an infinite counter, and a basic unit of that separation corresponds to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom--each count aligning with each hyperfine level.