What is time?

[Rade]

Rade, I disagree with the first paragraph.... The question then becomes what is a moment or duration....

Here are some thoughts about what we can say about what a "moment" is. In summary, a moment measures time, is not part of time but within time, has identity, and is indivisible.

 

1.0 A moment measures time

 

1.1 We apprehend time only when we measure "motion" of something, marking it by the terms "before" and "after[A]"

1.2 We conclude that B & A are different, and that something thus must be intermediate between them.

1.3 What is intermediate = time, and time is made continuous by "moments" and also divided by "moments".

1.4 Each moment A & B is a link of time (for each moment connects past and future time), and, at the same time, each moment is a limit of time (for it is the beginning of the one [future time] and the end of the other [past time].

 

2.0 Moments have Identity

 

2.1 Each moment is related to a thing that has potential of motion.

2.2 When a thing moves from moment A to B, in one sense it remains the same identity (I move from room A to room , but in another sense it is different because at one time it is at A, another at B.

2.3 Thus, since things when they move in one sense remain the same (have identity), and in other do not remain the same (differ locations), the same for moments.

2.4 Thus, each moment when it links (see 1.4) always remains the same, but each moment when it divides is always different.

2.5 All moments are indivisible, for if they could be divided, they would be part of time, which they are not.

 

3.0 Moments are not part of time, but are within time.

 

3.1 There are two ways to think about A & B and relationship to what is intermediate.

3.2 If we consider A & B to differ from what is intermediate we conclude that the two are "moments" (nows, before & after) that are the limits of what is intermediate = time.

3.3 However, when we concentrate on either A or B by itself, not as an identity, but in relation to what is intermediate (time), we see there can be no time within either moment.

3.4 In the same way that two points are not parts of a line (for it is two lines that are parts of a line), two moments are not part of time.

3.5 However, moments (past, present, future) are "within" time, the same way even and odd are within number.

3.6 The moments are thus both a boundary of time, and what numbers time.

 

Fire away.........

[watcher]

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.

 

The question then becomes what is a moment or duration.

 

experiments have no answer to that. simply put there is no "in-between" between these quantum transitions. so we all go back to philosophy as to what is this nothing in between we call moments.

 

i'll say they are nothing because they are invisible to us and does not interact directly with electrons although it exerts some influence on us. yes we use electrons to perceive,

[modest]

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.

 

I think distance and mass are equally circular as time.

 

The distance between two points in space (or two "locations") already supposes this things called "space" or "location" which then gets defined by the measurement of distance. Distance is a measurement. The actual thing "distance" is no more physical than time.

 

Likewise with mass. I don't know what a kilogram measures except to say that the measurement defines it.

 

More interesting, I think, is that to properly define any single one of them (mass, time, or distance) we need the other two. When we talk about the distance between two things, we are implicitly talking about the distance between two material points (i.e. mass). If there are no such material points then the measurement is not real and hence the thing we are claiming to measure is not real. Also with distance, implicit is the idea that both objects exist at the same time. Spatial distance alone is not capable of dealing with the distance between point A yesterday and point B tomorrow.

 

Likewise with time. Time is the 'distance' between two events which are collocated in space. Implicit in the measurement of time is some understanding of space... and of course these events which we are talking about need to be material points.

 

And, you can't measure mass without both space and time. If you push something and measure its acceleration then you need a good definition of both space and time.

 

I don't believe you can have a coherent understanding of mass, distance, or time individually without all three. All three are necessary (and sometimes sufficient) for mechanics.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

CraigD:

I believe he’s(me) 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.

 

For the record, I was quoting Wiki (post 785) that...

"There are two opposing viewpoints on time...

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.

 

I agree with the latter, that time does not refer to "

to any entity that "flows"... as I said...

"time dilation" actually says that the entity "time" is going slower or faster."

 

As I wrote to Modest in Post 778:

None of the "time dilation" references in the texts or in net references speak of "physical processes" slowing down or speeding up. They all treat "time" as what is doing that.

 

Modest, in post 781 wrote:

"The time (or duration if you prefer) of one earth orbit is dilated more and more the greater and greater the velocity from which it is considered, or the stronger the gravitational field from which it is considered. The duration of one earth rotation is shorter in the Dead Sea than on Mt. Everest."

 

Clocks "tick" faster or slower at different altitudes, certainly, but the last assertion is absurd. Likewise the assertion that the "duration of one earth orbit" takes more or less time depending on velocity of point of observation. This simply is not true.

Same as his assertion that the distances between celestial bodies varies with point of observation. Pure subjective idealism, i.e., "It's all relative"... asserting that there is no "objective cosmos" but only relative perspectives.

 

In my note to Modest in 788, I wrote:

"

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."

 

The latter is way different than Earth requiring more or less "time" for a revolution depending on altitude of observational point... or an orbit around the sun taking more or less time depending on same.

 

Michael

BTW, Pyrotex, my confrontation of Modest as being on a "witch hunt" in the 2012 thread was clearly metaphorical, and I demonstrated same with my several references to Shearer's book being my primary source, no longer in my posession, and unable, at this time, to produce demanded references as to Shearer's codex sources.

Certainly not worthy of a few more infractions... for what it's worth.

[lawcat]

Modest,

 

I completely agree with you, on all counts. I think, in essence, I said what you are saying in my previous post, but it all goes back to your "fundamental quantity" post. The definition is the quantity. The definition is the measurement.

 

However, I reserve the right to dissent, because I am not wholly satisfied. It all seems too abstract and circular to me. It just seems to me that the essence is missing. I know this will displease CraigD as too philosophical.

 

RADE,

 

I have to sort through each point in your previous post and will respond later.

[modest]

However, I reserve the right to dissent, because I am not wholly satisfied. It all seems too abstract and circular to me. It just seems to me that the essence is missing. I know this will displease CraigD as too philosophical.

 

Yes, I agree. I think you've come very quickly to the point of the issue. We do not know the true nature of 'time' in and of itself. We know the logical consequences of the thing we have defined—and that is all. As Korzybski would say: we know the map, but not the territory.

 

Whatever our map looks like, it is going to have fundamental entities. In math these would be called axioms, and it is impossible to define or prove the truth of an axiom with other axioms in the system (or with other elements in our worldview as the case would be). So we must expect, no matter what our worldview, that there will be things like time which cannot be defined and understood with more fundamental entities.

 

But, this does not mean that time is really a fundamental entity of the territory. We can just as easily build a different map with different fundamental entities that would map the territory well. You can, for example, build an equivalent mechanics with force, length, and mass being the base dimensions rather than time.

 

~modest

[Rade]

... 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?

Suppose a person in telemarketing, and they are given (1) a clock that measures to minutes&seconds, (2) a list of telephone numbers for 1000 people (3) a random number table from a statistics book (4) a telephone. They are told to call the 1000 people in such a way that the time between the order of the call events (person 1, then person 2, 3.....1000) must be absolutely random. I think it not difficult to reason that in this situation, that the time between the call events would in fact be "absolutely random" if those times were selected from the table of random numbers (the interval between the calls that must be made), and that the only reason that one would need a clock to be constructed for this situation is to ensure that the absolutely random times between the call events made were in absolute accordance with the internally consistent consequences of some mathematician putting numbers into the statistics book based on some probabilistic event of creating random numbers. So, count me as a person that can so conceive.

[AnssiH]

Suppose a person in telemarketing, and they are given (1) a clock that measures to minutes&seconds, (2) a list of telephone numbers for 1000 people (3) a random number table from a statistics book (4) a telephone. They are told to call the 1000 people in such a way that the time between the order of the call events (person 1, then person 2, 3.....1000) must be absolutely random. I think it not difficult to reason that in this situation, that the time between the call events would in fact be "absolutely random" if those times were selected from the table of random numbers (the interval between the calls that must be made), and that the only reason that one would need a clock to be constructed for this situation is to ensure that the absolutely random times between the call events made were in absolute accordance with the internally consistent consequences of some mathematician putting numbers into the statistics book based on some probabilistic event of creating random numbers. So, count me as a person that can so conceive.

 

Hehe, your post gave me a chuckle :confused:

 

You know, I think he was trying to guide your attention to the fact that you can't put any meaning to the "time duration between events" (<- there "time" is referring to "conventional concept of time", i.e. something that just metaphysically flows forwards and has "length" by itself, which we call "duration") in the sense that that duration could be anything and varying in any ways, without any noticeable consequences.

 

In your exposition, a clock is being used to measure the random lengths of those "time durations" :) (I actually don't think you were just that thoughtless but probably did not pick up on what DD was on about)

 

Anyway, it gave me a chuckle because that is actually related to the mistake that a lot of people do when they argue about the meaning of time. It's always something "measured by the clock", nevermind that relativistic definitions explicitly pull out the expectations of what a clock displays, from the definitions of electromagnetism (if you know how the theory become to be conceived), that are tied to the definitions behind time. Actually Modests' post #802 is sort of related to that issue, and it made me want to make a comment, (relativistic time relationships fall out from underlying definitions that are not meaningful by themselves either, just like "distance" and "time" and "mass" are not meaningful by themselves) but more about that later then.

 

ps, just to comment on DD's definition of time, think about how to order accumulated data, in the sense of keeping track of the evolution of defined elements in the worldview where the state of defined persistent things "change". You know, how to keep track of knowable data, nevermind what you suppose to exist "in-between" of events or whatever else unobservable extra baggage you might want to assign to the situation...

 

Well, it's late over here, so nite nite

-Anssi

[Rade]

.....experiments have no answer to that. Simply put there is no "in-between" between these quantum transitions. So we all go back to philosophy as to what is this nothing in between we call moments....

Yes, exactly, and from philosophy developed > 2000 years ago by Aristotle we are taught that TIME IS THAT WHICH IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN MOMENTS(Physica, Book VI, Chapter 6).

Time is the nothingness between quantum transitions.

[Rade]

Hehe, your post gave me a chuckle :hihi: You know, I think he was trying to guide your attention to the fact that you can't put any meaning to the "time duration between events"

Hello again AnssiH, it has been awhile that we attempted dialog. I must say, I agree it was a funny post made by DD, since he very clearly and specifically assigned a "meaning" to the concept of "time" between events"--he assigned "time" in his mind game assignment the "meaning" of being:

absolutely random

 

Thus, if DD was trying to direct attention to a fact that meaning can't be put to time between events by then putting a meaning on it by calling it "absolutely random", yes, I also now chuckle :confused::)

 

Edit: Next, it is incorrect to claim as "fact" that you cannot put meaning on "time between events". There are many different such meanings, depending on what natural unit of time measurement you use. Using the definition time = that which is intermediate between moments, the meaning is derived from the fact that time logically must be a number that is counted as relates to motion of something.

 

And, sorry, I am no mind reader. DD does not define in his post "conventional time" as ....something that just metaphysically flows forwards and has "length" by itself, which we call "duration", in the sense that that duration could be anything and varying in any ways, without any noticeable consequences. Apparently DD assumed this concept of conventional time is widely known--but, excuse me, who believes this ? Time does not "flow" by itself (it is always linked to motion), time does not have length by itself (very much impossible for it is limited by moments), and for sure time is not without consequence, for if time is without consequence, then so is motion in the universe without consequence.

 

And, when you say ....In your exposition, a clock is being used to measure the random lengths of those "time durations"....you are not understanding what I said. I said that the clock was being used to ensure that the absolutely random times between the call events made were in absolute accordance with the internally consistent consequences of some mathematician putting numbers into the statistics book based on some probabilistic event of creating random numbers. The clock is being used in the context of the mind game situation set-up by DD to "ensure accordance" between two random processes (1) time between calls (2) random numbers in a book. I do hope you see what is being claimed.

 

Edit: Concerning clocks, time is what is counted that is intermediate between two moments, not that by which we count. Two events take place as relates to a clock: (1) movement is measured by time and (2) the time is measured by movement. This is something completely different than claiming that "time is what clocks measure". If we have moment A (an event, say we acquire 1 new bit of knowledge), then at the next moment B we acquire 7 bits of knowledge, time is what is counted that is intermediate between these two mental events. Perhaps we can measure what is intermediate between these two mental knowledge events using the fission motion of radioactive of isotopes. As I stated in another post, time is the nothingness between such quantum transitions.

 

I can understand when you say that "distance" and "time" and "mass" are not meaningful by themselves...of course each depends on something else to gain meaning. Take time for example. As I have explained above, time requires "moments" and "motion" to gain meaning, for without movement from one moment to another there would be no time to measure. Einstein tells us time also requires space to gain meaning (GR Theory).

 

Finally, your PS. I did respond to DD about the order in which he accumulates data, his past, present, future. But, perhaps not clear, his worldview of where the state of defined persistent things "change" (his Delta of knowledge) is within the moment, and thus by the definition of time, it is outside of time (see Edit comments below). I do find this to be a very interesting topic, where the past and future meet outside of time within the present. Given that the definition of time I provided places this Delta event outside of time, I would suggest that it is related to action by photons within neurons, which moving at the speed of light are outside of time. And, I find it impossible to "keep track of knowable data" from one moment to another without discussion of what is intermediate between such moments, which simply is nothing more than time itself, no extra baggage required.

 

Edit: Let me provide an example of relationship between knowledge and time. To say we know, is to say we know some thing(s), let us call them A and B that we claim to know. We begin with A. Logically there is a "before we know A" and "after we know A", and a change in knowledge (Delta) that must occur (before--->after). But, as relates to knowledge, this process, when the before knowledge of A changes to the after knowledge of A, OCCURS WITHIN A MOMENT. As stated by "Watcher" in Post # 810, this Delta of knowledge would occur within one instantaneous moment, and it would occur at the natural unit of time measurement called Planck's Natural Time Unit. But, this type of time, is not what is understood to be "conventional time" for the reason that Planck's Natural Time Units are not based on properties of any object, or particle but are solely derived from the properties of free space. Discussion of "conventional time" is based on the fact that objects exist and they have motion and that time is a measure of motion. The definition that I stated, that time = that which is intermediate between moments is a different time because it is related to motion of objects.

 

Now let us consider B from above in relation to A. The moment "after we know A" (the past), logically is "before we know B" (the future) moment. But there is no Delta of knowledge between these two moments, only time. The Delta of knowledge only occurs from the perspective of "before knowledge of x" <--> "after knowledge of x" within a moment, and never "after knowledge of x" <--> "before knowledge of y" between moments. Here then { "after knowledge of x" <--> "before knowledge of y" } is "conventional time" as relates to knowledge, since by definition time is that which is intermediate between moments.

 

Edit: Here it can be said that the 'meaning' of time comes from perception, in this example perception of some new object y, for before we can get to the moment "before knowledge of y" first must BE a y.

 

A very good book on the philosophic aspects of time that I present, which of course derive from thinking of Aristotle, is found in this book:

 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6181

 

PS/ What I ask is that people read Aristotle first before posting reply to what I say here, otherwise the result will be endless miscommunication, and a waste of time.

[watcher]

Time is the nothingness between quantum transitions.

 

 

this nothingness, let's called vacuum. and imagine this to be the absolute reference frame to measure one instantaneous moment when "an energy surge ( a particle)" appeared out of this vacuum. the allowed shortest possible time is the planck's time without totally violating the law of conservation. therefore the planck's time is the universal clock of our universe because it is the shortest duration of transition (regardless of the complexities of this transitional process) from something (particle.energy) to nothing ( the quantum vacuum).

 

as to the nothingness as the "substance" of this moment... this is easy to explain if we can imagine that electrons are the tools of our perception since our brains are made of electrons. the key is to understand that the electron orbitals are discrete and not continuous. every quantum jump of an electron is associated with a photon radiation. photon are information the brain builds image of the world. in between this quantum transitions, naturally no perception happens, thus conceived as nothing by us.

 

so this nothingness can be from unperceivable scalar quantum waves to hyperspace and even aether.

[Michael Mooney]

Regarding my post 803 above...

Seems that the position of moderators and others here is that if you can't answer it, just ignore it and maybe it will go away.

 

If you need a specific focus, just answer this part:

 

Clocks "tick" faster or slower at different altitudes, certainly, but the last assertion is absurd. Likewise the assertion that the "duration of one earth orbit" takes more or less time depending on velocity of point of observation. This simply is not true.

 

Same as his (Modest's) assertion that the distances between celestial bodies varies with point of observation. Pure subjective idealism, i.e., "It's all relative"... asserting that there is no "objective cosmos" but only relative perspectives.

 

Or from my post 788 to Modest:

 

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."

The latter is way different than Earth requiring more or less "time" for a revolution depending on altitude of observational point... or an orbit around the sun taking more or less time depending on same.

At this point I will take continued ignore-ance of the above challenges as an admission that subjective idealism rules in this forum... and it implies the obvious absurdities cited in my challenges above.

Live with it (said absurdity) or answer for it.

Michael

[modest]

Clocks "tick" faster or slower at different altitudes, certainly, but the last assertion is absurd. Likewise the assertion that the "duration of one earth orbit" takes more or less time depending on velocity of point of observation. This simply is not true.

 

Quit incessantly quoting yourself. If Craig didn't answer you then either wait longer or shout about it in a PM. As far as your broken worldview, I addressed that in depth in my last few posts to you. You do not understand what a definition is. You claim these three things:

• The duration of X changes with velocity
  
• The time of X does not change with velocity
  
• Time is duration
  

Those things are not internally consistent. Your worldview is broken. If you can't see why that is despite the large amount of replies speaking to it then there is no point discussing it further.

 

~modest

[watcher]

Discussion of "conventional time" is based on the fact that objects exist and they have motion and that time is a measure of motion. The definition that I stated, that time = that which is intermediate between moments is a different time because it is related to motion of objects.

 

time is actually motion (i.e constancy of motion) that is why i tried to bring several times zeno's paradox of motion to this discussion, because to understand motion is to understand time. and understanding zeno's paradox of motion is a great way to shake down our common sense understanding of classical motions. there are nothing in between quantum transitions because if there were, that wouldn't be quantum at all but classical transitions or motions. motions in the quantum world is entirely different and yet this is a new reality we all have to face.

 

i have also related time and motion to perception in my previous posts tha i think worth repeating. we, as observers see objects in two dimension, for example if you looked closely to a basket ball. you don't see sphere but a circle (the facade of the sphere). there are two ways to know that the ball is a sphere, first requires motion, by spinning the ball, you can now have knowledge that the what you see as a circle is actually a sphere. or the second way is to take some time to go around the ball to know that it its actually a sphere.

 

this is proof that time, motion and perceptions are all related. seemed to be obvious and easily ignored if no one ever bothered to ask how it is so.

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

You do not understand what a definition is. You claim these three things:

 

* The duration of X changes with velocity

* The time of X does not change with velocity

* Time is duration

 

Those things are not internally consistent. Your worldview is broken. If you can't see why that is despite the large amount of replies speaking to it then there is no point discussing it further.

 

Quit putting words in my mouth. If you throw out the "X" and use real events you get my real meaning, as follows:

I say that that the duration of an Earth revolution does not change with the point (elevation, etc.) of observation, measurement, or "clocking" it.

Likewise I say that the duration of an Earth orbit does not change with point (velocity, etc) of observation.

You say the opposite in both cases, which is absurd.

 

I did say that I agree that time is not a thing that slows down and speeds up but rather that the duration of physical events does that.

The "events" above illustrate the point, i.e., that tho clocks change pace, those events do not (vis-a-vis as a result of being measured differently.)

 

This is the same argument, in principle, as we had long ago in which you claimed that the distances between familiar bodies in our solar system (and beyond) change with point of observation, its relative velocity, etc... which is also absurd. Yet you, unlike CraigD, disavow subjective idealism, even though your absurd claims as above rest on same.

 

But you are right about one thing... that "there is no point discussing it further."

Nuff said between us, and I will wait patiently for a reply from CraigD, hopely in answer to my several points of challenge.

 

Michael

[modest]

I say that that the duration of an Earth revolution does not change with the point (elevation, etc.) of observation, measurement, or "clocking" it.

 

I did say that I agree that time is not a thing that slows down and speeds up but rather that the duration of physical events does that.

 

Notice from your post above you said:

• the duration of an Earth revolution does not change [with elevation]
  
• the duration of physical events slows down and speeds up [with elevation]
  

Your worldview is broken. It is not internally consistent. You consistently claim the validity of multiple mutually exclusive things. I'm done discussing it.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Me:

I say that that the duration of an Earth revolution does not change with the point (elevation, etc.) of observation, measurement, or "clocking" it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney View Post

I did say that I agree that time is not a thing that slows down and speeds up but rather that the duration of physical events does that.

 

You:

Notice from your post above you said:

 

* the duration of an Earth revolution does not change [with elevation]

* the duration of physical events slows down and speeds up [with elevation]

 

Your worldview is broken. It is not internally consistent. You consistently claim the validity of multiple mutually exclusive things. I'm done discussing it.

 

Try as you will to fix me, I still ain't broken.

 

I'm glad you are done discussing it, because you refuse to "grok", grasp, understand that I distinguish the difference between clocks ticking (as physical events) differently in different conditions and the actual spinning and orbiting of Earth as physical events which the clocks attempt to measure. Notice: two different kinds of physical events. One (clocks ticking)... quite changeable; the other Earth spinning and orbiting... quite steady and regular (variance not due to measurement.)

 

I have said over and over that the latter (Earth periods) do not vary just because the former(time keepers) do. Clocks at different altitudes (velocities, etc) do indeed "keep time" differently, but one Earth orbit stays the same, as does its period of revolution, regardless of the variance in time keeping devices. There is nothing at all "internally inconsistent" about the above.

 

Sorry you can not see that. I'm done discussing it with you as well.

(And I see you continue to avoid the challenge of your claim that the distances between solar system bodies change with variety and velocity of points of observation. )

Michael

Michael