What is time?

[arkain101]

I cannot understand why you all think that your that your personal comprehension of time (that diary of experiences you have constructed) must map faithfully over all of the supposed experiences of others. That very concept implies the existence of a universal time which is a direct contradiction of experiment. As I see it, the concept "time" only makes sense as a personal organizational parameter of our experiences. Please, persuade me that I am wrong

 

There are a few reasons.

 

According to some science theory time is a dimension that existence resides within.

 

Anything that experiences time, changes. Anything that experiences time has mass. Anything that experiences time is mattter and has gravity.

 

ANything that does not experience time does not change. It does not have mass. It is only energy, and it travels at an apparent constant to all other things that experience time.

 

This in my own opinion causes me to conclude time has a singularity point of zero time flow and a rest velocity time flow (which is faster and what we seem to experience in respect to considering the theory of relativity), relative and related to the constant of C and other constants found in nature.

 

If this is true the zero-point-field , or zero-point is the posistion of light and the dimension visual of where frozen time is in a 3d manner.

 

This is where time becomes a topic of confusing explanation.

There are different ways to refering to time.

 

Time is a thing we feel in our consciousness.

 

but in a scientific theory it is also a dimension that affects the workings of the universe.

 

The grand answer lies in answering,

 

Is the velocity of light REALLY a constant?

 

Is time dialtion truly a correct explanation of calculations made in special relativity and test data, or a phenomina explained with different reasons and logic?

 

And a few more obviously.

 

I believe there could be an interesting equation written from the observations I made before that. Light does not experience a flow in time (in its internal workings) and matter does. Which results in mass and no mass, change and no change. Something very useful if not already considered, lies in there.

[GreekTTC]

Time is the human's countdown to death.

[CraigD]

There are a few reasons. …

An interesting, thoughtful, and philosophical perspective. I’m especially intrigued by the observation that rest mass-less bosons (photons and gluons) can be considered not to experience the passage of time.

 

I think I’m mostly in agreement, but for a couple of detailed points…

Time is a thing we feel in our consciousness.

Despite being the focus of intense interest for centuries, especially in decade around 1980, consciousness is a term that eludes useful scientific definition. Although I have high expectations that the physical phenomena associated with consciousness – complex behaviour, symbol use, etc – will eventually be explained by Physics, I have strong doubts that the metaphysical concept to which the term refers will prove of any scientific worth. I suspect it is a semantic null, a term referring to nothing real.

Is time dialtion truly a correct explanation of calculations made in special relativity and test data, or a phenomina explained with different reasons and logic?

I’m unclear what this question is asking. The idea that rest mass-less bosons don’t experience the passage of time is a consequence of the formalism of SR of which time dilation is a part, making any answer to the question other than “yes” contradictory to that premise.

Light does not experience a flow in time (in its internal workings)

This qualification of “experiencing a flow of time” relating to “internal workings” is troubled. Photons don’t obey the Pauli exclusion principle, a consequence of which is that, although they can modify one another’s interaction with fermions (eg: patterns of constructive and destructive interference on photographic film), they can’t effect one another. As “internal workings” implies some sort of causation, we can say that photons don’t have internal workings.

 

I suspect I’m saying the same thing arkain is here, just finding flaws with his language, but think it important to avoid any intuitive feeling that a bosons is some sort of complex collection of particles, rather than a single fundamental, indivisible particle.

 

Following the path of contemplating the lack of interaction between the rest mass-less bosons of the standard model leads to one of the great stumbling blocks opposing efforts to include gravity in the model to produce a theory of quantum gravity – according to General Relativity, gravity does interact with a photon, changing its quantum state in a fashion reminiscent of a photon changing the state of an electron or quark. Fitting the graviton into the standard model feels troubled and intuitively awkward.

[hallenrm]

.......Someone, anyone, please explain to me why "time" is something other than a personal parameter describing the order of our growth in information. I cannot understand why you all think that your that your personal comprehension of time (that diary of experiences you have constructed) must map faithfully over all of the supposed experiences of others. That very concept implies the existence of a universal time which is a direct contradiction of experiment. As I see it, the concept "time" only makes sense as a personal organizational parameter of our experiences. Please, persuade me that I am wrong. :dog:

I think a lot of people who think they think don't think at all. ;)

Well, let me try Doc!, Well agreed for many perceptions, time can be personal, but definetly not for all.

 

What about the time, that enters the phrases like fast and slow. We often talk about speeds, and the time essential for certain processes, say a heartbeat, they are not personal perceptions; they are perceptions of a very large number of people. They are often part of the mass consiousness.

 

Personal time scales are O. K. for some experiences, definetly not all!!

 

Think about it!:)

[jpittelo]

What if we say : if a physical quantity that only increases, then it's time ?

[Jehu]

What is Time?

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines time as “the indefinite and continuous duration of experience seen as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.”

 

This definition has , however, one critical flaw, for the use of the term “duration” injects a element of circularity, for a duration is a time. I would propose that we substitute the term “flow” as its expresses the necessary quality, but without the circularity. Time then, is “the indefinite and continuous flow of experience seen as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.”

 

This definition may now be broken into two distinct propositions, one defining time itself, and the other defining the appearance of time:

 

(1) Time is the indefinite and continuous flow of experience, and

(2) Time appears to be a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future.

 

Let us begin with the second definition. Imagine that you set out on a road trip and at some instant you were able to stop the flow of all existence. At that point, there would be only the road that you have already traveled and the road which you have not yet traveled, and there would be no other road in between. The past and the present, like the two roads, meet in the instant that is the present. Thus the present is only a gate or portal between that which is no longer and that which is not yet. This portal or instant that we call the “present”, has no temporal extent, and so no event may take place there, for any event, however brief, must have a duration. Now, an event cannot take place in the past, for the past no longer exists, and it cannot take place in the future, for the future does not yet exist, and it cannot take place in the present, for there is not enough time. Consequently, that which we see as a series of events progressing from the past through the present into the future, is merely an appearance, an illusion.

 

This brings us back to definition number one, “Time is the indefinite and continuous flow of experience.” This brings us to the question of experience. To experience is to be aware of or acquainted with some thing, that is to say, some idea, feeling, object, property, or activity. However, at this point, we can no longer pursue time as an independent “thing”, but must consider it as one of the five fundamental and interdependent elements of physics: space, time, matter, energy, and motion/change. In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

 

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

[InfiniteNow]

In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

 

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

I'm okay sailing with that ship. Welcome to Hypography Jehu. Enjoy. :eek2:

 

 

 

:singer:

[Jehu]

I'm okay sailing with that ship. Welcome to Hypography Jehu. Enjoy. :evil:

 

 

 

:cup:

 

It would appear that there are only the two of us, but two may enquire just easily. Welcome aboard!

 

Since it is to the Nature of Reality that we must now turn, let us begin by first defining what precisely is meant by the term, “nature”. To enquire into the nature of a thing is to attempt to discover (1) its fundamental elements, and (2) the law or principle whereby those elements are related. When we speak of a thing’s “fundamental elements”, we are referring to its being comprised of some number of qualities or characteristics that are essential to its being perceived or thought about.

 

It is important that we recognize the subtle distinction between a thing’s (idea, object, activity, etc.) being perceived and its being thought about. To be perceived, requires only that the thing enters into the field of cognitive awareness, that is to say, that one becomes conscious of the thing’s presence. On the other hand, to be thought about requires only that the thing enters into the field of cognitive knowledge, that is to say, that one knows what the thing is. In other words, one can perceive a thing without thinking about it, and one can think about a thing without perceiving it. It follows then that the set of elements (essential qualities or characteristics) that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily originate with the thing-itself, else we could not perceive it without thinking about it, while the set of elements that give rise to thinking about a thing must necessarily originate within the mind of the cognizant observer, else we could not think about it without perceiving it. The fundamental elements then may be divide into two distinct types, (1) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive awareness (being perceived), and (2) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive knowledge (being thought about). Those elements that appear to have their origin in the thing-itself, we shall deem to be real, while those that appear to arise out of mentation, we shall consider to be merely apparent. Consequently, everything may be said to have two natures, the one real and the other imaginary.

 

 

To aid us in understanding the fundamental elements that constitute a thing’s “real nature”, let us consider the definition of the term “matter”, which is generally expressed as, “that which has mass and occupies space”. The term, “mass”, here signifies the substantial quality of a material thing, and that feature whereby it is rendered perceptible, but what of its extension in space, is this feature any less essential? Surely not, for the shape or spatial distribution of a thing is the feature whereby the mind is able to differentiate it. This “extension in space” must, therefore, be counted among the essential qualities or characteristics whereby a thing perceived.

 

A careful examination of any given thing will reveal the presence of two elements that are necessary and sufficient to its being perceived. We shall call these fundamental elements its “structure” and its “content”, and all things possess these elements, regardless of their class (mentation, sensation, objects, properties, or activities). The content of a thing is that set of perceptible qualities which render it observable, while its structure, is a characteristic pattern of distribution residing within that content, which renders the thing distinctive. For example, the content of a pot comprises the sum of the material substances of which it is made, while its structure is its characteristic pot-like shape.

 

Structure and content must be given to the mind immediately, by the senses, and not by way of study or reasoning, that is to say, these elements must be present in a single instance of perception, and not arise out of mentation. What's more, since these “immediate elements” must be present in a single instance of perception, they must necessarily be static.

 

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

[InfiniteNow]

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

You kind of remind me of someone else... I'm tackling a few projects at once at work currently, but will revisit this soon. Enjoy your night.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[IMAMONKEY!]

Interesting. I'm going to be thinking of this for a while... I'll get back to you.

[Tormod]

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

 

Welcome to Hypography, Plato. :D

[Jehu]

Welcome to Hypography, Plato. :thumbs_do

 

Thank you Tormod, you have placed me in very good company indeed. Hope you will join in our enquiry.

[Doctordick]

According to some science theory time is a dimension that existence resides within.

The existence of a theory is in no way a justification of the basis of that theory! All of your reasoning is based on the same erroneous perspective. :(

Personal time scales are O. K. for some experiences, definetly not all!!

Now I disagree with that statement. I can show that all the relationships you bring up are totally consistent with the concept that time scales are personal constructs for all experiences. The appearance that we agree is only approximate. The problem is that people emotionally think the agreement is absolute. ;)

In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

 

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

Yes, I have been trying for forty years to discuss the issue along those lines. You don’t seem to have read my definition of time in this thread as you made no comment on it. Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know" and the present being “a change in what we know”.

Since it is to the Nature of Reality that we must now turn, let us begin by first defining what precisely is meant by the term, “nature”. To enquire into the nature of a thing is to attempt to discover (1) its fundamental elements and (2) the law or principle whereby those elements are related. When we speak of a thing’s “fundamental elements”, we are referring to its being comprised of some number of qualities or characteristics that are essential to its being perceived or thought about. ,

Would you be bothered by the idea of representing those fundamental elements of reality to be the elements of a set? Say, set A? :lol:

… those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive knowledge (being thought about). Those elements that appear to have their origin in the thing-itself, we shall deem to be real,

And, would you be bothered by the idea of representing these elements as another set? Say set C? And I would like to drop the adjective "appear" as that brings in lots of confusion. Sorry about skipping B but I have my reasons having to do with the definition of the present and how we come to know C. :)

while those that appear to arise out of mentation, we shall consider to be merely apparent.

And again, I agree with the necessity of introducing these additional elements. Would you allow me to refer to them as set D? :)

To aid us in understanding the fundamental elements that constitute a thing’s “real nature”, let us consider the definition of the term “matter”, which is generally expressed as, “that which has mass and occupies space”.

Now here you and I part ways as I firmly believe you have failed to consider some very important issues. The concepts of “matter”, “space”, “mass” need to be postponed until some other critical issues having to do with my set B are taken care of. :note:

“extension in space” must, therefore, be counted among the essential qualities or characteristics whereby a thing perceived.

Here I think you have the cart before the horse as perception itself is a concept contained in the set D. To be truly objective, you must begin by presuming the sets you have brought up are undefined and generate your definitions in terms of the sets. I know that sounds impossible but it isn’t (every year hundreds of millions of fertilized human egg cells manage it) and I will show you how it can be done if you have the attention span to follow me. The first thing you need is a language to identify and discuss the elements of C and D and to think you already know the language is to presume you have already solved the problem. :(

Structure and content must be given to the mind immediately, by the senses, and not by way of study or reasoning, that is to say, these elements must be present in a single instance of perception, and not arise out of mentation.

Here I essentially agree with you except for one key issue: the senses themselves are part of the solution being searched for. That fertilized egg I spoke of has no senses as it needs to divide and develop specialized cells before it can even begin to define “sensing something”. Until it manages the problem of differentiating between informational elements, they can only be seen as undefined. ;)

 

The fundamental problem is to develop a mental model of reality based on undefined data being processed by an undefined process. I can show you how to do that if you are interested. You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own. So far I have had great difficulty communicating the need to work with the sets I call A,B,C and D :)

 

Looking forward to hearing from you -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Little Bang]

How about this for a definition of time. The universe consists of every possible event. Time is our perception as we negotiate our way through this multiverse of events.

[Jehu]

Yes, I have been trying for forty years to discuss the issue along those lines. You don’t seem to have read my definition of time in this thread as you made no comment on it. Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know" and the present being “a change in what we know”. Would you be bothered by the idea of representing those fundamental elements of reality to be the elements of a set? Say, set A? :Waldo:

And, would you be bothered by the idea of representing these elements as another set? Say set C? And I would like to drop the adjective "appear" as that brings in lots of confusion. Sorry about skipping B but I have my reasons having to do with the definition of the present and how we come to know C. ;)

And again, I agree with the necessity of introducing these additional elements. Would you allow me to refer to them as set D? ;)

Now here you and I part ways as I firmly believe you have failed to consider some very important issues. The concepts of “matter”, “space”, “mass” need to be postponed until some other critical issues having to do with my set B are taken care of. :eek2:

Here I think you have the cart before the horse as perception itself is a concept contained in the set D. To be truly objective, you must begin by presuming the sets you have brought up are undefined and generate your definitions in terms of the sets. I know that sounds impossible but it isn’t (every year hundreds of millions of fertilized human egg cells manage it) and I will show you how it can be done if you have the attention span to follow me. The first thing you need is a language to identify and discuss the elements of C and D and to think you already know the language is to presume you have already solved the problem. :eek:

Here I essentially agree with you except for one key issue: the senses themselves are part of the solution being searched for. That fertilized egg I spoke of has no senses as it needs to divide and develop specialized cells before it can even begin to define “sensing something”. Until it manages the problem of differentiating between informational elements, they can only be seen as undefined. ;)

 

The fundamental problem is to develop a mental model of reality based on undefined data being processed by an undefined process. I can show you how to do that if you are interested. You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own. So far I have had great difficulty communicating the need to work with the sets I call A,B,C and D :)

 

Looking forward to hearing from you -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

 

 

If by “elements of a set” you mean “a collection or group of independent things” I would have to object, for we do not yet know the nature of the relationship between these elements.

 

The term, “appear” is used here to indicate that we do not know that the elements “structure and content” have their origin in the thing, for we have not yet demonstrated that there is a thing-in-itself.

 

The concept of matte does not figure in the given definition of the term, “nature”, other than to illustrate that the elements of content and structure ( mass and spatial distribution) are implicit in the definition of matter. It is important to establish this fact, for it is conventionally held that matter is the fundamental substance, from which all other “things” arise, including mentation - although this is not necessarily my position.

Please bear with us as we have as yet been unable to establish a common definition for the term, “nature”, however, with your help, and the other participants, I am certain we will sort that all out. In any event, I hope that we will all consent to set aside our own particular views, in favour of an enquiry that is free to go wherever reason may lead it.

[IMAMONKEY!]

You guys are making this all very confusing. Care to clarify?

[Jehu]

You guys are making this all very confusing. Care to clarify?

 

This is most unfortunate, for it is our intention to make it easier.

 

Before we are able to determine what is the “true nature of anything”, we must settle upon a precise definition of what the term, “nature”, means. Unless we do so, each of us will enter into the enquiry with our own personal understanding of the term, and consequently, will be unable to understand precisely what another means by the term. Accordingly, we began with the Oxford Dictionary definition, which reflects the widest possible conventional meaning of the term. This led us to the conclusion that the term, “nature”, implies a set of fundamental elements (essential qualities or characteristics), and a relational principle. Our subsequent analysis of the term, “elements” led us to the conclusion that the term must have two distinct sets of elements, one set pertaining to the perception of a thing (awareness), and the other set pertaining to its being thought about (knowledge).

 

Hope this has helped, if not, please specify precisely what point(s) you would like clarified?