Can you answer the most fundamental question about time?

[bilby]

Words have meaning, but (some) also have referents. Most all words have meaning while merely some (substantively less than most) have referents. The referent of a word, however, exists independent of the word. Take the moon for example. The object (the thing we call a moon) has been orbiting this planet we call Earth a very long time before there were even people, and certainly before our labeling of it. Language is not a necessity for the existence for many of the things that would be referenced should there be words to reference them.

The moon, however, is a concrete object, but an abstract object (a highly misunderstood phenomenon resulting in widespread objection) is neverless a reality for the discovering that may include man, conventions, and language to describe them, but that they exist independent of abstraction (which also is easily confused with the completely distinct notion of an abstract object) is important, as non-concrete phenomenon exist independent of our ability to engage in abstract thinking. To illustrate, before man, there exists the moon, but so too does the time it takes to orbit the sun.

There can be no woo before humanity, and I’m giving an example that predates humanity, so I’m not injecting any woo.

The Moon isn't concrete. It's basalt covered in regolith.

It does look a fair bit like grey portland cement concrete though.

 

[fast]

Words have meaning, but (some) also have referents. Most all words have meaning while merely some (substantively less than most) have referents. The referent of a word, however, exists independent of the word. Take the moon for example. The object (the thing we call a moon) has been orbiting this planet we call Earth a very long time before there were even people, and certainly before our labeling of it. Language is not a necessity for the existence for many of the things that would be referenced should there be words to reference them.

The moon, however, is a concrete object, but an abstract object (a highly misunderstood phenomenon resulting in widespread objection) is neverless a reality for the discovering that may include man, conventions, and language to describe them, but that they exist independent of abstraction (which also is easily confused with the completely distinct notion of an abstract object) is important, as non-concrete phenomenon exist independent of our ability to engage in abstract thinking. To illustrate, before man, there exists the moon, but so too does the time it takes to orbit the sun.

There can be no woo before humanity, and I’m giving an example that predates humanity, so I’m not injecting any woo.

The Moon isn't concrete. It's basalt covered in regolith.

It does look a fair bit like grey portland cement concrete though.

Oh please, this is coming from someone (you) who still thinks the moon landing wasn’t faked—all because of some supposed extremely low likelihood of a mass coverup including the secrecy a great number of people.

Your mistake is in not considering all the evidence. Look not only at what you do see: also (I advise you) take note of what you do not see and factor that into your final analysis: for instance, where are all the reports about cheese? Do you (honestly) think people who have landed would have done so AND NOT brought back samples?

Let me guess, you think it all melted? No, maybe you thought their space rations were so delightful and filling and they just forgot because they weren’t hungry. It really doesn’t matter the reason. What’s important is that there were no newspaper reports circling the globe about any cheese samples being brought back. Nothing on TV either. Something on the radio about how awesome the cheese is? If it was stale? Had holes in the cheese or how many?

No, nothing, nada

Atheists. You people. Evidence you always scream. Yeah, well, where’s the damn cheese?

(No smileys included*)

* pursuant to the no smiley clause addendum added to the user/members guide

 

[Speakpigeon]

Strictly speaking, you don't observe motion. At any moment in time, you can only look at what is happening in that moment. Obviously, our senses suggest the reality of motion and indeed the reality of time. But, strictly speaking, perception doesn't "imply" anything.

I am not sure that I quite follow your meaning entirely, especially considering the way it is (probably necessarily) worded. I would contest that I, or anyone else, does observe motion but, I think your argument is that you can only observe a "moment" (I assume an infinitessimally short period of time) without reference to the preceding or subsequent moment and that our senses construct the sequence of events. The term "happening in that moment" seems inappropriate since nothing can be happening in no time, only things being.

I don't assume "infinitesimal". If we only observed infinitesimal moments, we wouldn't observe anything at all because, as you say, things cannot happen.

However, it is still wrong to claim we observe things like some dude walking in the street. Or if we really want to keep the term, then "observe" is a vacuous term only referring to a sort of after the fact reconstruction of an historical event.

So, if we don't observe infinitesimal moments and if we don't observe Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon, what it is that we actually observe?

I think that, contrary to your statement, the apparent sensation of time not only suggests, but implies that the passage of time is a real thing.

Ah, implies? If by that you mean that the subjective impression we have of time implies the reality of an objective time, then, sorry, I disagree. Suggests, yes, why not, but imply, no. We could be hallucinating time, you see.

However, I agree that we have a subjective impression of time. I don't see that this implies anything. We just have this impression. Yet, I would say that this impression is effectively crucial because, what is time exactly? Do you know?

If there is more than one moment to observe and construct as the sense of time passing, then how else could those two moments exist unless they were in fact separated by a period of time.

But again we don't observe two moments. We only observe one moment, the present one. And then, sure, we remember observing a previous moment. But remembering you observed isn't observing, or the next best thing, knowing that you observed. All we can do is believe we observed a previous moment. So, yes, this suggests the passage of time, what we could call "objective time" since we will agree with each other that time does fly, This suggests the passage of objective time but that doesn't make it something we observe. Rather, something we believe exists. And we certainly do. But belief doesn't imply reality of what we believe of course.

Maybe, as you suggested and I mused earlier, time is like a fourth spatial dimension where two events that we would ordinarily describe as separated by time could be viewed by something with four dimensional perception as existing at the same time with separation along the fourth axis. However, I question whether it would be sensible to consider the same object separated on a time axis as having different identities at different positions in time.

Yet this is the logic of it. Unless you want to save time by throwing away the law of identity? We are what we are at the moment that we are. Sure, we have a sense of our own identity, but this is transparently a psychological trick that has no import on the reality of what we are. We are two different things and one of them remember being the other "at some moment in the past". All that you have to prove your identity is your memory of it.

In any case, I don't think this negates our sensation of time as being reflective of reality.

I would say we have a sensation of time, what we could call subjective time. And? How would you know that to be a reflection of reality. Maybe it is, but how would you know that?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Now I know what you are saying fast. I am a bit slow on the uptake when it comes to metaphysics.

The way I look at it is the moon exists regardless of what we call it. If all humans die off and there is no one to name the moon what is it?

The moon persists even if humans never lived. The meter is a human concept that dies when humans do.

 

[steve_bank]

We do not perceive moment by moment, that is a subjective emotional view.

Our brans continuously respond to stimulus. Like a computer our brains have a processing latency, response always lags behind stimulus.

 

[steve_bank]

Hi Steve, it's been a while since I've participated in any substantive thread on these fora, so it's refreshing and I appreciate your call for precision. While Speakpigeon's OP may have lacked specificity, I'm not sure that it is reduced to babbling by that lack. Maybe I was too generous in my assumptions that the OP referred to time in the common, colloquial sense of being the measure of when events take place or how long they take

Hello connick. The OP is one in a very long series of EB OPs on what time is. Those like me resond time is defined as the second, time is a measure of observed change.

EB and some others argue time is something else but are unable to articulate it. Time is another dimension as portrayed in scifi, it has a kind of independent reality.

The topic helps pass the time and stay mentally active.

 

[fast]

The way I look at it is the moon exists regardless of what we call it.

Exactly! And that’s the very view I hold and espouse as holding too. It, whatever it is, exists, and it does so whether we name it and regardless if we name it.

If all humans die off and there is no one to name the moon what is it?

It is what it has always been since it’s been what it is. We, the people speaking the English language, call it our moon, but confuse not what WE label something with WHAT is being labeled.

The moon persists even if humans never lived.

I agree 100%. That thing up above is what it is, and when we observe it and give it a name, we didn’t create the thing up above. It doesn’t become human-interdependent because we humans have now named it.

The meter is a human concept that dies when humans do.

I disagree. Why I disagree hinges on a distinction I make between something and the concept of something. The moon’s very existence doesn’t depend on our human conception of it. Like you said, the moon will persist when we all die off; indeed, it was around before we were even us.

Our concept of the moon, however, does depend on our having a concept. The ideas we hold and the concepts we have, and all the other internal phenomena will cease to be when we perish. It’ll be gone as surely as there weren’t human ideas and human concepts back before there were humans to have them.

The concept of time ... that requires conceptualization.
Time ... that is independent of our concept of it

 

[Speakpigeon]

Our concept of the moon, however, does depend on our having a concept. The ideas we hold and the concepts we have, and all the other internal phenomena will cease to be when we perish. It’ll be gone as surely as there weren’t human ideas and human concepts back before there were humans to have them.

The concept of time ... that requires conceptualization.
Time ... that is independent of our concept of it

And you only know of concepts, not the things themselves.

And you also don't have any means of verifying that the concept is true of the thing.
EB

 

[fast]

Our concept of the moon, however, does depend on our having a concept. The ideas we hold and the concepts we have, and all the other internal phenomena will cease to be when we perish. It’ll be gone as surely as there weren’t human ideas and human concepts back before there were humans to have them.

The concept of time ... that requires conceptualization.
Time ... that is independent of our concept of it

And you only know of concepts, not the things themselves.

And you also don't have any means of verifying that the concept is true of the thing.
EB

You don’t know that the formation of our planet predates the growth of the trees upon it? Study!

I do know it (and believe it), but you claim to only believe it because you mistakenly believe that we can only believe what our brain has access to (mental percepts/models of the outside world). What I (that would be me) can do is press my lips upon the lips of a woman while listening to a mix of upbeat and romantic music while on the dock out by the water on a moonlit night.

My brain, well, it doesn’t have any lips. How it is that a brain functions that allows for what I can do is irrelevant. I believe it, and I have overwhelming justification for my belief, and if (if I say) the truth condition just so happens to not have been met, then know THAT or not, I don’t know P, but if the truth condition is met, know it or not, then I do know P.

 

[steve_bank]

fast

The concept of time ... that requires conceptualization.
Time ... that is independent of our concept of it

Again you are using the wird time without any definition.

You are inferring time has a reality of its own yes or no?

Change exists we observe it. Without humans time does not exist. The universe exists without clocks. The moon exists regardless of how we conceptualize and name it.

Unless you have an explicit alternative view time is a label we create to describe change.

Perhaps you are conflating subjective perception and sensation of the experience of change in the day with something else? You take your perceptions as reality?

 

[fast]

Again you are using the wird time without any definition.

Eh, at this juncture, even a scientific definition of the word “time” is consistent with how I’m currently using the word.

You are inferring time has a reality of its own yes or no?

Yes and no. In philosophy, the word, “reality” is ambiguous.

There are some people who will say that we each have our own reality. To me, that is a convoluted way of saying that we each have our own vantage points and perceptions of reality. Time is not some conscious entity that has perceptions of other things, so no, time does not have a reality of its own in that personifying way.

But, time is real, and by that, I mean it’s not imaginary. It exists. It also exists independent of human minds. Time elapsed between the formation of earth and it’s first tree. Time, though not a physical thing itself, it’s a real phenomena in nature. So, if by “reality of it’s own” you mean it’s real, then yes, but I’m also saying it’s real even in the absence of someone to observe and measure it.

Change exists we observe it.

I agree.

Objects are in motion, and because that is so, change is amongst us, or as you put it, change exists; however, although it’s true that we observe it, that wouldn’t mean objects wouldn’t be in motion unless we observed it. In fact, if it wasn’t already true that objects were in motion, we couldn’t have observed it.

Without humans time does not exist.

I disagree.

Without humans, there would be no observation of the movement of objects, but surely (like I just covered) there is the movement of objects whether we are here to observe and measure or not. Also, time and our concept of time are two totally different things. Without humans, the human abstract mental concept of time doesn’t exist, but without humans, time is a real dimension inherent to our universe that is there for the observing; where I disagree with science is on whether we can directly measure what time really is; I had no idea science propagated the idea that where there is no human conception of time there was no time. That sounds like a misrepresentation of scientific espousal—not intentionally of course.

The universe exists without clocks.

Lots of laughs. I hope what you mean to say is that no clocks were in existence before man came along and invented them. Either way, close or not, the universe exists, and within it, there are clocks. Time does not depend on the existence of clocks.

The moon exists regardless of how we conceptualize and name it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Before I move on, I’d like to expound upon the subject of referring terms. It’s rather simple overall, but there is something that does raise some eyebrows. It’s a convention we use, yes, but it’s for communication purposes.

There are referring terms, and there are non-referring terms. That’s it; just two things.

Referring terms either succeed or they fail. So, we have three things to consider:

1) referring terms that succeed
2) referring terms that fail
3) non-referring terms

A lot of people confuse the hell out of 2 and 3

A non-referring term is a term where there’s no chance of instantiation. Words like “of” and “although” have meaning, but they have no referent.

The word, “unicorn” isn’t a non-referring term, as an instance of a unicorn would make the term succeed.

Think of it like archery. You can shoot and hit, shoot and miss, or not shoot at all.

The term “God” is a referring term. Whether it succeeds or fails has been debated for centuries, but it’s certainly not a non-referring term.

Movement isn’t itself an object but its a real phenomenon, so although you cannot hit it with an arrow, it’s either a phenomena that exists or doesn’t. I say time does exist. The issue we shouldn’t be having is whether it exists independent of man but whether or not it exists independent of movement. That’s where my qualm lies.

Unless you have an explicit alternative view time is a label we create to describe change.

What I believe you mean to say is that the word “time” is a label we create to describe change.

And yes, I do have an alternative view. We directly measure change and change is not time but rather what we measure to tell time. If you take away change, however, it’s what we measure that has been taken away, not time itself; it just means there’s no readily measurement for it.

Perhaps you are conflating subjective perception and sensation of the experience of change in the day with something else? You take your perceptions as reality?

Nope, not doing any of that stuff.

 

[steve_bank]

And that is the problem with philosophy and why modern model based science left philosophy and Natural Philosophy behind.

In the intro to History Of Philosophy Diran said something like that which can be quantified is science, the rest is philosophy and religion. When it becomes quantifiable philosophy(metaphysics) becomes science. That is my general view.

The problem with metaphysics is there can be no precise definitions. Time can mean most anything. You can have elaborate discussion around the word without ever defining it or resolving anything.

If you say maybe time is an independent reality then I would challenge you to flesh it out. Anyone can speculate.

What separates physics and metaphysics is the System International units of which time is a part, the second. All things scientific reduce to SI units. It is unambiguous and not open to interpretation. You can call physics based on SI units as metaphysics tied to physical reference points. SI is a metaphysical system, abstractions tied to reality.

 

[fast]

When it becomes quantifiable philosophy(metaphysics) becomes science. That is my general view.

But when IT isn’t physical and you choose to measure IT by what is physical, then although you’re measuring IT, you’re doing so INDIRECTLY and thus not DIRECTLY. So, if you focus on what is being observed and measured DIRECTLY, it’s not IT but something else. Time is IT, and yes, you’re measuring IT, but directly, you’re not measuring IT; instead, you’re measuring something ELSE other than it-in terms of what you’re DIRECTLY measuring.

The problem with metaphysics is there can be no precise definitions. Time can mean most anything. You can have elaborate discussion around the word without ever defining it or resolving anything.

Science sets out to directly measure time, but time is not something that can be directly measured. It has to be done indirectly, for science cannot directly measure what cannot be directly measured. So, they find a proxy that can be directly measured (objects in motion). That, they can directly measure. By doing so, they are indirectly measuring time, but still, they are not directly measuring time, for they cannot directly measure it. This works fine for the most part, but we ought not conflate one for the other because the hypothetical disappearance of the proxy doesn’t infer the disappearance of what the proxy is a proxy for. To alter definitions of “time” to fit what is being indirectly measured is a straw man. What is IT is always what it is, so it’s a mislabeling transference in progress by science. Continually propagating the idea that the proxy for time is time itself is the underlying root cause for the evolutionary change in the meaning of “time,” but the referent of what was originally referred to as time does not alter in lockstep with its meaning.

If you say maybe time is an independent reality then I would challenge you to flesh it out. Anyone can speculate.

Objects move. That doesn’t require us for that that to be so. That need not be observed. It need not be measured. No mental awareness is required. No mental concept has to have evolved. We need not whisper a word and speak of labels. Objects move. Science says objects move and therefore time exists—basically. You should be on board with that.

What I’m doing is going even further. I’m saying time exists whether objects move or not. Objects moving is just what we directly measure to indirectly measure time.

 

[steve_bank]

fast

You are still talking around the question with a bit of hand waving and misdirection.

Define what you mean by time.
'Time is...'

If you can't just say so. I expect it is not a trivial task. You have to create a metaphysical system of concepts and have it logically consistent.

I am goal oriented. It is hard for me to have extended debate without an end goal.

 

[fast]

fast

You are still talking around the question with a bit of hand waving and misdirection.

Define what you mean by time.
'Time is...'

If you can't just say so. I expect it is not a trivial task. You have to create a metaphysical system of concepts and have it logically consistent.

I am goal oriented. It is hard for me to have extended debate without an end goal.

I’ve been reflecting on this, and you’re right; it’s no trivial task.

One of the things I typically avoid is the defining of terms, and the reason is because I prefer to use established meanings already in collective use, but as I ponder how I would go about creating a definition, I find myself trying to describe the referent of the notion I think the word “time” actually refers to historically.

Although I’m trying to piece a concise definition together that doesn’t resemble an essay, here’s one by philosopher Adolf Grünbaum that avoids a lot of baggage: a linear continuum of instants

 

[steve_bank]

fast

You are still talking around the question with a bit of hand waving and misdirection.

Define what you mean by time.
'Time is...'

If you can't just say so. I expect it is not a trivial task. You have to create a metaphysical system of concepts and have it logically consistent.

I am goal oriented. It is hard for me to have extended debate without an end goal.

I’ve been reflecting on this, and you’re right; it’s no trivial task.

One of the things I typically avoid is the defining of terms, and the reason is because I prefer to use established meanings already in collective use, but as I ponder how I would go about creating a definition, I find myself trying to describe the referent of the notion I think the word “time” actually refers to historically.

Although I’m trying to piece a concise definition together that doesn’t resemble an essay, here’s one by philosopher Adolf Grünbaum that avoids a lot of baggage: a linear continuum of instants

'Time as a continuum of instants' is a good metaphor, but we end up in semantics again. What is an instant? Time flies wen you are having fun is also a good metaphor and is also philosophical. I do not think philosophy can define time, but it can speculate on useful concepts. Philosophy can be useful.

In quantum physics there is a theoretical smallest time interval. Based on that you could say time is a sequence of discrete instants.

 

[fast]

It’s my stance that time is a continuous temporal dimension that persists independent of objects in motion.

Science can measure time but only by proxy. Science has co-opted the term “time” and reapplied it to what they can measure. So, when science lays claim to being able to measure ‘time’, I agree. They can not only measure actual time, but they can also measure what they call time. But, what they cannot directly measure is the dimension itself, for it’s not the kind of thing that can be measured directly.

We can measure time. We just need something that keeps a perfect beat. That can be our measure for a unit of time, but taking away our ability to measure doesn’t rid us of what we’re looking to measure.

 

[steve_bank]

I think I see the disconnect I am having. It is semantics and the terms define and describe.

For me deifying time is developing an identity. The second.

Philosophy can not and does not define time, it can devote ways off looking at and perceiving time. IOW metaphysics.

There is no conflict, the scope is different.

 

[fast]

The second is a unit of time, but the referent of the word “second” however isn’t some thing we directly measure that allows us to know a second of time has passed. Yes, the thing we measure allows us to know a second has passed, but the second isn’t the thing. The second is the actual unit of time that corresponds with what’s measured.

We may have invented the term, “second,” but we did not invent the second. That is an actual temporal length. We can divide time up in whatever lengths we choose, but it’s already there for the dividing. We can take the temporal change between any two points and give it a name because all the points are there.

 

[fromderinside]

So what are units on frisbee scale of time? Remember it has to compensate for all change of direction over interval.