What is Time? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
By SCoopsdk
#1220748
I know I'm going to get blasted here, but this has been bugging me for ages and I would appreciate some input.

Firstly, I didn't realise until quite recently that we in the West view time as linear and that there are arguments to say that this concept of time was introduced way back in old Jewish times to explain away why it was that the Jewish people kept getting their arses kicked out of their lands time and again. Apparently, up until that time, "time" had been viewed as cyclical and restarting anew on a regular basis according to solar or lunar cycles etc.If the crops went bad, people would do some rain dancing or something, and they would have a new time to start again in the next year.

The problem was that it never seemed to go right for the Jewish race, which was very depressing, so the Messiahs of old decided to introduce this linearity concept which said that, yeah, everything was bad in the past, but things are going to get better in the future, you just wait and see.

It made things more bearable in the present, considering the past, that the future would be better.

Second thing I didn't realise was that there are still societies and cultures (mostly Eastern)that hold to a cyclical view of time .

So, since linear time was an ancient invention, intended to make people feel better, and for no other purpose, who is to say that it is true?

And isn't an awful lot of science dependent on a linear view of time? Is not Einsteins famous equation dependent on it?

If time isn't real, how would science cope without it?
By Slayer of Cliffracers
#1220755
Time cannot not be real.

We know that time exists. It is obvious to us.

The argument you are on about, is not about the existance of time, it's about whether it has a beginning or an end.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1220800
That time is real is self-evident. You couldn't even doubt it if there was no time in which your mental processes took place. The linearity of time is obvious from our perception of it.

A lot of older civilisations viewed time as circular, but that doesn't tell us anything. Old civilisations generally believed things without justification.
User avatar
By noemon
#1220819
Time in Greek=Kronos=Saturn in Latin. The one who eats his children hates his father(matter-Uranus) representing the eternal battle of matter with time, representing life and death. The last of the race of Deamons(The Golden Race), and one before the race of the Gods(The Silver Race) and last is us the Bronze Race.

"First of all, Chaos (The Void), next broad-bosomed Gaia (Space), the solid and eternal home of all, and Eros (Desire-Magnetism), the most beautiful of the immortal gods, who in every man and every god softens the sinews and overpowers the prudent purpose of the mind. Out of Chaos came Erevos (Dark Matter) and Black Nyx (Black Night), and out of Night came Aither (Cosmic Radiance) and Hemera (Day-Light), her children conceived after union in love with Erevos (Dark Matter). Gaia-broad(Space) first produced Uranus (Starry Sky/Matter/Cosmos), equal in size with herself, to cover her on all sides. Next she produced the tall mountains, the pleasant haunts of the gods, and also gave birth to the barren waters, sea with its raging surges-all this without the passion of love. Thereafter she lay with Sky and gave birth to Ocean with its deep current. Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus; Thea and Rhea and Themia [Law] and Mnemosyne [Memory]; also golden-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After these came cunning Cronus(Time), the youngest and boldest of her children; and he grew to hate the father who had begotten him."

He grew to hate matter, as soon as matter started to be formed Kronos apperaed to hate him and his children and hence why Zeus/Dias captivated him and locked him in the Tartarus.


Dont tell me that Gaia is not Space but earth cause this one is Gaia broad, not Gaia plain which is a later assigning to the Earth and the fact that the Cosmos covers her from everywhere it is another justification that Gaia broad refers to space. For Space is covered by the Cosmos.

And Cronos(Time) is the child of Space/Gaia and Uranus/Matter/Cosmos.

http://noemon.blogspot.com/2007/01/hesi ... ogony.html

See the blog for detailed analysis, and comparison with the Big Bang theory.

Als the Greeks viewed everything as belonging to the same thread, and that is everything(panta rhei-all move along together) and that can be perceived as linear.

In modern terms Time is just another dimension. Proven beyond any doubt.
User avatar
By rnpg1014
#1220905
Time is not necessarily a reality. Mathematics and sciences and such are also not "reality" per se. Rather, such concepts are based on human perception, and are meant to describe percepts.

That aside, our perception, if objective, is true. Time itself is our perception of duration. The mathematics of time is a method of quantifying said duration.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1220970
We couldn't have changing perceptions if there was no time; our minds more or less presuppose the reality of time. Whether the time we perceive is real, and whether our perceptions in general are real, is another topic.
User avatar
By rnpg1014
#1221263
Theodore wrote:We couldn't have changing perceptions if there was no time; our minds more or less presuppose the reality of time.

True. I am not sure our minds actually presuppose the reality of time, but the former is a good point. If time did not exist, there would be no duration. If an event had no duration, it did not happen. Thus, nothing would happen, nor exist.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#1221377
Time (in the sense you mean) = a period of a specified wave. "Time" that we use is the radioactive halflife or something of, erm, something I'm too tired to look up, in a vacuum.

This, of course, leads to all kinds of fun thinking about your measured length of time going through something and being bent, so some goes fast and some slow... wheeee

In reality, anything periodic could be said to be "time" with a unit of 1. College semesters come into mind. Same concept.

This is pure physics and chemistry.
By SCoopsdk
#1221624
So, is Time a "real thing" that is "all around us", or is it nothing more than a way of speaking about and measuring events, in which case it wouldn't be said to exist in and of itself at all?

That time is real is self-evident. You couldn't even doubt it if there was no time in which your mental processes took place. The linearity of time is obvious from our perception of it.


Time enters into existence when we start measuring motion in space and expressing it as duration. That doesn't mean that duration exists and therefore time exists.If time did not exist, movement in space would still continue, so the assumption that without time, we could not exist is debatably false. If on the other hand, there was no motion in space, then that would be a completely different story because without motion, change and altering of states, Time could not be measured.


A lot of older civilisations viewed time as circular, but that doesn't tell us anything. Old civilisations generally believed things without justification.


That makes it sound like linear time is true and cyclical time isn't, but both appear to be simply different methods of measuring motion in space and producing a concept of duration (time)Both concepts are true insofar as they are human constructs, used by different civilizations/cultures. If it wasn't true for them, why did they use it?

But there seems to be a leap from there to looking upon time as a real thing in and of itself which it isn't. We look at an hour as a piece of time which we can handle and manage, but in truth, we can never see it, we can never hold it, we can't get it back if it's passed, we can never get to it if it is in the future and an hour in the present moment doesn't actually exist at all. We can't even measure it to any definite amount, and according to physics, it does all sorts of silly stuff under certain circumstances.

There is an argument to say that Time does not exist, except insofar as to say that we cause it to exist and nothing more.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1221638
Feeling Kantian, aren't we? Time neither depends on motion in space nor our perception of it. If there was no time, there would be no perception to speak of, or, in the best case scenario, we would have the exact same perception for a virtual eternity. Also, though is a process that takes time; if we had no temporal extension thought would be impossible.

Now, concerning the linearity of time, it is simply the hypothesis that conforms with our experience the most.
By SCoopsdk
#1221713
I can't get across what I'm trying to say more effectively than this:

Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You form a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, and that journeys take a length of time.
Image

It takes an open mind, and logic to break out of this conditioning. First of all we need to look at your senses and the things you experience. Let’s start with sight. Look at the picture below:
Image

The central portions of the two crosses are the same colour. You think the one on the left is blue or grey and the one on the right is yellow. Not true. Tear a small hole in a piece of paper to make a peephole to mask out the context. Hold it up to one image after the other, and you realise that the central portion of the right-hand image really is grey. The yellow was the illusion. What does this tell you? It tells you that something you took for granted is not true. And it should remind you that a photon doesn’t have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a motion.Link

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

Image

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. You can feel it when I shake your hand. But you know you can’t measure the pressure of an atom, because pressure isn’t a fundamental property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us it’s derived from motion.

How about kinetic energy? A cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s has kinetic energy. If it impacted your chest you would feel it. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that pretty stove and sizz, you feel heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.

Image


Taste is chemical in nature, and primitive. Most of your sense of taste is really your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a guy called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, not shape, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, ontological things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with time.

So, what is time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

So, a second is nine billion periods of radiation. Now, what’s a period? We know that radiation is basically light, so let’s have a look at frequency:

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ

So frequency is the reciprocal of the period T, and also velocity v divided by wavelength λ. No problem. Flipping things around, we see that period T is wavelength λ divided by velocity v. We know that a wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

And we all know that velocity is a distance divided by a time. So a period is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. The result is another period of time. This definition of time is circular and tells us nothing. How do we define it? Let’s look at frequency again:

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

So frequency is a number of events per second. And a second is a number of some other events. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

We measured nine billion oscillation events and defined that as a second. We counted events. We counted motions. One, two, three, four, five… nine billion. Mark that down as a second. But you don’t have to count the motion in an atomic clock. You could count beans in a bucket. Ping, ping, ping, chuck them in, regular as clockwork.

Image

You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing. “Fuller Bucket” is not the direction of time. “More Beans" is not the direction of time. The direction of your time is the direction of your counting, and I could have asked you to count them out of the bucket. There is no “Arrow of Beans”. There is no “Arrow of Time”. That’s just an illusion, as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29


So why do we say things like Clocks slow down as if a clock is something that moves like a car? It isn't travelling. There's no slow or fast or up or down to it. We say the day went quickly but we know it didn’t go anywhere, and it didn’t go quickly at any speed at all. It isn’t travelling and there is no direction. The only directions that are there, are the directions of the motions that make the events that we use to measure the intervals between the other events. And they’re being counted, incremented, added up. We count regular atomic motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, atoms, clocks, or brains. All of these things have motion, both internal motion and travelling motion. And all those motions are real, with real directions in space, ending in the sameness we call entropy. But the time direction isn't real. It's as imaginary as a trip to nine billion.

That's why the past is only in your head and your records. It isn’t a place you can travel to. It’s the places where things moved from. All those places are still here, now. And while the past is the integral of all nows, now lasts for no time at all. Because time needs events, and if there were only intervals and no events, there wouldn’t be any time. When you take away the events and the motion, you take away the time. A second isn’t some slice of spacetime, it’s just nine billion motions of a caesium atom. Accelerate to half the speed of light and a second is still nine billion motions of a caesium atom. But there's only half the local motion there used to be, because the other half is already doing the travelling motion through space. Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart, a second of your time. If you’re motionless with respect to me I see you ticking like this |||. If you jet off in a spaceship, you tick like this /\/\/\. If you could reach c and we know you can’t, you wouldn’t tick at all. Your time would flatline like this ______ because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. And you wouldn’t tick for anybody else in the universe. That’s the thing that’s out there, the thing we’re trying to learn about. This is what it’s like:

Image

What can you see? What can you measure? Yes you can measure height. And width. And if it wasn't just a picture you could also measure depth. That's three Dimensions, with a capital D because we have freedom of movement in those dimensions. What else can you see? What else can you measure? You can see things moving, but you can’t see a fourth dimension. You might imagine a time dimension, with direction and length. But the picture comes from the wikipedia temperature page. The thing you should measure is temperature, which used to be considered a dimension, before the word changed from “measure” to “Dimension” under your feet. Temperature is an aspect of heat, that derived effect of motion. When you measure the temperature you are measuring motion, because that’s what’s there. You can call it a dimension, but there can be no motion in this dimension, because it’s a measure of motion. If you were one of those dots, immersed in temperature like we are immersed in time, you would not talk of climbing to a “high temperature”, because there is no height. Likewise we cannot travel a length of time, because there is no length, just as there is no height in temperature. So time is a dimension with a small d. It's a measure of change of place rather than a measure of place, and it has no absolute units, because you can only measure one change of place against another.

The universe does not contain time, it is a world in motion. Our concepts of Time are only in mathematical space, and in your head.Link
By Slayer of Cliffracers
#1221762
Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You form a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, and that journeys take a length of time.


The reason that it is so deeply ingrained is beacause it is true.

There is nothing irrational about any of it. What's irrational is those people who deny these things.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1221763
First, the examples of sense data being based on motion are quite irrelevant; we have no distinct sense of time but deduce it from our changing experience.

Second, you're trying to deduce the nature of time from the definition of the second. This is ridiculous; units are more or less arbitrary. The second could be redefined at will and there would be no change in the objective universe.

The discussion here isn't on the nature but on the reality of time. And you can't dodge the fundamental fact: if time had no objective existence, that is if there was no objective temporal extension, no change would be possible.
By Slayer of Cliffracers
#1221775
Correct Theodore.

All that is needed to measure time, is a constant. The actual measurements used, are arbitery.
By SCoopsdk
#1221839

According to Einstein time was a physical dimension that is warped by gravity as is the traditional three dimensions
Yes, but his ideas on this were formed fairly early on and there are a number of indications that he began to doubt the distinction between space and time later on, when nearing his death. I believe his close relationship with Kurt Gödel was quite influential regarding this.

First, the examples of sense data being based on motion are quite irrelevant; we have no distinct sense of time but deduce it from our changing experience.
Can you explain? Your second sentence seems contradictory to the first

Second, you're trying to deduce the nature of time from the definition of the second. This is ridiculous; units are more or less arbitrary. The second could be redefined at will and there would be no change in the objective universe.
No... The article deals with motion and "a second" is used as a convenient example. As it explains, one could just as well throw beans into a bucket

The discussion here isn't on the nature but on the reality of time. And you can't dodge the fundamental fact: if time had no objective existence, that is if there was no objective temporal extension, no change would be possible.
An inherently false statement since change/motion is not dependent on time, but the other way around. If you disagree, please explain more fully.
User avatar
By noemon
#1221847
Something a bit irrelevant but maybe helpful, how are numbers constructed?

Numbers reach to the apeiron.

from O to +-999999999......


the first 10 numbers construct all the infinity, correct?

What constructs the first 10?

The first 4 for 1+2+3+4=10, Correct? And since we got 10 we can deduce the 9, the 8 the 7 the 6 the 5.


And what constructs the first 4?

1, 2, 3, 4

Observe 2 numbers are even, and 2 are odds

Can one say that 2-2=0. Yes ofc one can.

And what is O? a circle....And how is the first four created? By Harmony, 2 even and 2 odds, construct the first 4 which construct the apeiron, so one can say that the apeiron is linear and constructed in harmony.

Ill leave it here for the time being and continue another time.

Regards,

Kontakos.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1221941
Can you explain? Your second sentence seems contradictory to the first


We have no distinct sense of time as we have, for example, a distinct sense of sight or sound. Time enters into our experience by deduction from our changing perceptions.

No... The article deals with motion and "a second" is used as a convenient example. As it explains, one could just as well throw beans into a bucket


In both cases a unit of measurement is established on the basis of motion. But even this is misleading; one does not need motion to measure time; a change in some sensible or measurable quality would do.

An inherently false statement since change/motion is not dependent on time, but the other way around. If you disagree, please explain more fully.


You're confusing time with the measurement of time. In order to avoid confusion, I will refer to duration instead: could an event take place without duration?
User avatar
By rnpg1014
#1222173
SCoopsdk wrote:So frequency is a number of events per second.

The points you make are greatly detailed and explanatory.

Just to play the devil's advocate though, how does any of this prove that time exists? What I mean is, all those formulas an such use time, but here is my qualm: Mathematics if measurement, science is a method of solving problems; both fields are subdivided to conceivably no ends. Both mathematics and science are concepts, based on perceptions. As such, neither is necessarily how things work - just a description of how we perceive them to work.

Likely you can make a few alterations that will still adapt to what I noted, but it is worthwhile to consider. If we perceive something, and describe it in a certain way - how can we qualify said description as valid?
By SCoopsdk
#1222463
Just to play the devil's advocate though, how does any of this prove that time exists? What I mean is, all those formulas an such use time, but here is my qualm: Mathematics if measurement, science is a method of solving problems; both fields are subdivided to conceivably no ends. Both mathematics and science are concepts, based on perceptions. As such, neither is necessarily how things work - just a description of how we perceive them to work.


I'm not sure if I'm interpreting your quote correctly, but what I am saying is that Time doesn't exist, except as a mental perception which we have become so used to that we have assigned it the high status of a separate dimension. It's basically an illusion (albeit highly believable)that we move through time.

Time is simply a measure of motion when compared to a constant. It is just motion. You cannot define Time without reference to motion. We can move through space, in and out, up and down, back and forth and sideways etc, but you can't do that with Time, because it's motion and change and nothing else. It's a perception created in our mind.

If there were no motion, we would be unable to create this perception. Motion is a changing location in space that can be compared against other motion only in terms of a ratio. All observers of motion are themselves operating through internal motion, along with a form of record-keeping which we call memory. This operational combination means the observers of motion infer a new dimension that has length and can itself be moved through. The observers consider this inferred dimension to be fundamental, and call it time. In reality there is only a now, fleeting and constantly changing.

If I can try to explain it another way.

Take a one particle universe. Ignore, atomic motion. Consider it something fundamental.This reality has no meaning, and no existence. Exluding rotation there is no velocity, no events, no force, no time, no heat, no mass, no momentum, no energy, no space, no distance, no dimension.

Now, as soon as we introduce a second independent object, our minds can generate meanings.With the objects in our minds we can move them together and apart, crash them together. Now our minds can generate meanings. We can measure distance. We can create 'space'. We have ourselves, mass, energy, force, momentum, inertia, dimension, and ill be darned, TIME!

However, this two particle universe has no certainty. It is impossible to decide which object is for sure the one of motion, the one at rest.


Now we introduce a third object/particle. Suddenly we have certainty! The third object introduced allows our minds to create the meaning of certainty to the previously uncertain 2 object universe. With 3 objects, from each one of the three positions our minds can observe ratio relative to us. We can say with certainty, one of the two objects is moving faster than the other, vice versa. However, the observer can not prove whether or not its own self is in motion or not.

We first, generated a sub-meaning: A universe with no meaning, one position, one particle. We then generated a universe with meanings from sub-meaningless universes. A universe of two particles, two positions. Uncertain. However, full of meanings. Then thirdly, we generated a universe with certainty. Three particles. Three positions, the first certain universe relative to each of the three meaningless objects.


When we add 4 particles we can end the #3 objects uncertainty of its own motion. #4 can prove #3 is at rest or in motion. Of course only relative to #4, which is in turn uncertain, but has meaning for us because there is more than two.


As we add more and more things, new events that we apply meaning to are manifested. Until finally we reach our current state universe with all the laws of meaning (physics) that we know.

Thus time is a creation of meaning, manifested by quantity of position, that does not exist, relative to one thing. Relative to one thing theres no meaning without other independent things. Our ideals are created perceptions that were not attached to begin with.

I am not the one who never shows his credentials […]

As a Latino, I am always very careful about crossi[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Interesting: https://jackrasmus.com/2024/04/23/uk[…]

Here are some of the the latest reports of student[…]