@Write4U, you are another sharp intellect. I respect that; especially, considering that you were a chicken farmer. By the way, Bloomberg has no clue about the farmer’s lot. Living off the land is tough, very tough. I did not know that till I bought this place in West Virginia. Being a real farmer is not a matter of choice. It’s a sentence. And if you are farming cattle, you make $200 per animal after months and months of grazing on 14 acres of property that has to be fenced and tended to. I could make $100,000 in 10 minutes trading currencies.
Wow! what thoughtful and intellectually subtle comments on a subject that’s challenging to understand. I have a modest contribution to this discussion and hope to express it as well as the well reasoned opinions above.
Time and matter are bound up together in what’s been termed the “four dimensional space time continuum.” Time and matter are impossible as separate independent entities. Time by one definition is the rate or measured duration of matter changing from one state to another, our planet and it’s 24 hour cycle being the most familiar and basic unit of time. It was and is from that measure that hours and minutes and all sub-units of time are derived. It may be true that on other planets and worlds this measure is very different but the original idea still hold that time is a measure of the changing conditions of matter in motion. This definition however, describes only the exterior, objective and demonstrably measurable aspects of time. Time also has a subjective, personal and psychologically intuitive character that’s not so easily described. We often use phrases like “my time”, “your time”, “the time of my life” or describe an experience as “timeless.” These phrases hint at something emanating from the under current of forward moving time and its linear flow. Human perception and imagination are not bound by the sequential regularity of passing time. While it’s true that all mental cognition is bound up with and dependent on time because cognition is a process in our brains and every process must have a beginning, middle and end point and therefore must occupy a span of time, imagination and intuition are something different. They exist in a free state of being seemingly independent of time. A daydreaming student in the back row of his tedious English class is anything but in the present moment. He has in a sense stepped out of time, even if only temporarily, so where is he? The answer to this question can only be understood within a much broader context of an even larger question, and in it’s essence it’s wholly and exclusively theological. The undercurrent of time is timelessness and that which is timeless must and can only exist in a reality that is entirely spiritual. This is why those rare individuals who’ve practiced prayer and meditation for most of their lives seem to be serenely untouched by the constant shock a life’s adversity. Our challenge is to step out of time and it’s passing distractions.
The question and subject of “time” and what it is can never be understood in terms devoid of a theological and hence “spiritual” framework of thought.
The question and subject of “time” and what it is can never be understood in terms devoid of a theological and hence “spiritual” framework of thought.I think it unfortunate that interpretations of spiritual thought include terms such as "timeless", "without time", "forever", "eternal", "the fullness of time", "never changing" and others. I suspect there has been some loss of meaning in translation. I see no way to satisfactorily reconcile the various meanings unless we accept that our common concept of time, our usual conclusion about our observations of change and the acceptance by many that time is a phenomenon are all false. Thus I describe time as an artifact.
You are not stupid, and you know it. This is not a good thing because “knowing” is one step away from ever making it.
“Time is an artifact” is akin to a kite that you know you can fly. And I wish you can fly that kite with me.
The idea of time does require an observer because it takes sentient cognition to observe the changing states and conditions of matter, but the idea or perception of time is something different from time itself. Matter was in motion long before the human mind perceived that movement. What exactly is meant by calling time an “artifact” in the preceding post is not clearly explained.
What exactly is meant by calling time an “artifact” in the preceding post is not clearly explained.My claim is that time is an artifact of memory. An artifact is something we find that is not an inherent part of what we investigate. An example would be: a pottery fragment is not inherent to the soil wherein we find it.
When we observe changes in objects we remember the states of those objects in a context. That context is the states of other objects that we remember. What we remember are the states of objects relative to the states of other objects. Our conclusions about what we remember is what we call “time”. The thing we call “time” in neither inherent in our memories nor inherent in the objects we observe.
message lost again
It takes time and thought to formulate a credible response to comments on a subject as intellectually challenging as “Definitions of Time” and it’s frustrating to see them disappear into ether space, but I’ll begin again.
The above description of time as an artifact similar to a pottery shard is an unconvincing analogy in that the pottery shard can be removed from it’s location and context and be separated from its time and place of origin where as time and matter form an indivisible unity that cannot be separated. It is impossible to conceive of time and matter as separate and distinctly unique entities because neither can exist independent of the other. To say that time is an “artifact” of memory is only accurate in so far as saying the notion or idea, or experience of time is only possible in, through and by the cognitive perception of the human mind and is indeed accurate. It’s something very different to say that time “is” like the pottery shard an “artifact” in and of itself. If matter in its many changing states and conditions has existed through the deep reaches of our universe’s history and we know it has because an enormously long sequence of preceding and changing conditions had to have taken place to produce our solar system than it’s logical to assume these changing and evolving conditions unquestionably existed before any human perception of them. If time is the duration of change from one material state to another then it stands that time also existed well prior to human cognition. The concept of time is entirely dependent on our brains ability through comparative memory and empirical reasoning but time in it’s most generic sense is independent of and separate from human cognition.
I apologize for the terse complaint above. The freedom to register opinions on any number of controversial issues in a public forum without fear of censure from the government or any private party is a precious First Amendment right and far outweighs the insignificant inconvenience of losing any posting, and in this case most likely through my own ineptitude. Michael Mckinney
The above description of time as an artifact similar to a pottery shard is an unconvincing analogyI will certainly agree that the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are.
The consideration of “time” that “proves” to me it is not a phenomenon is that nothing is dependent upon time for its current state nor does the current state of anything indicate time or the passage of time and also that time is not acted upon by anything nor does it act upon anything. I accept that time is a conclusion totally based upon memories and thus has no state of existence.
Einstein is quoted as saying “time is what we see when we look at a clock”. One memory (such as a photo) of a clock provides no indication of time. Even a second memory (or photo) of the clock will provide no indication of time unless we can relate the two photos by means of other memories.
Show me where time causes any effect or that it is caused by anything and I will change my opinion.
ibil said; Notice how many, like Write4U, defend the notion that there are these things called time and spacetime. They treat them as if they are real and as if there is something we can do with them – a waste of their efforts.Obviously you do not know anything about my perspective on time at all.
IMO, and that is all anyone can offer in regards to the notion of time, there is no such thing as a separate dimension of time. Time is an abstract measurement of duration and has no durable existence in and of itself.
I propose that time is an emergent property becoming measurable only as a result of measurement of duration of existence or change.
Hence the term spacetime is perfectly logical. Space is a geometric object with an existence and a measurable duration, the measurement is made in arbitrary increments of time. Hence spacetime is the time associated with the duration (unfolding) of space.
Within spacetime there are an incalculable number of individual time lines, i.e. durations of extant objects and changes in geometric coordinates, all individually measurable with time in within the larger context of spacetime.
But without space there is no time. Time has no independent existence and is always associated with duration of something else., OK?
My claim is that time is an artifact of memoryWell, I prefer to call it ; "time is an emergent measurable product of duration." That does include the notions of memory of "beginning", "chronological duration" and if ended, as "finish"
Everything we consciously observe and experience is a product of memory of a past causal event. We live in the “now”, what we observe is always in the past, regardless of how recent.
Bob, when you say “nothing is dependent upon time for its current state” aren’t you forgetting a small detail called the universe? When we see outward galaxies still expanding from an original point source singularity we call it a four dimensional space time continuum. That original singularity may have existed completely independent of time but when it violently expanded turning energy into matter, time came into existence as an indispensable corollary to what would become the universe we presently inhabit. I appreciate your perceptive remarks Bob, and largely concur that the notion and conceptual understanding of “time” is wholly dependent on human reason, intelligence and memory but find myself in fundamental agreement with write4u’s well reasoned comments.
When we see outward galaxies still expandingWhat we observe, if we accept that the transmission of light it not instantaneous, is what was happening, not what is happening, but that's not related to the existence of time.
time came into existenceI do not accept that time exists. In science our current approach to existence is that we may claim that a thing exists only when we experience that thing interacting with its surroundings. Our experience is that time does not interact with anything and nothing interacts with time. There is no evidence that there is any phenomenon we can say is time.
four dimensional space time continuumI accept what Einstein was trying to get across was that, since each observer will have a different point of viewing, each observer's experience of the universe would be different. Remember that in his day, as well as now, the philosophy of science was/is that all we can say we know and call true is what we observe. What we observe we observe in the "now" and so under this philosophy we must accept that what we observe is true now. Thus science states, presumably incorrectly, that the universe is expanding. We cannot claim that the statement is flat out incorrect because we have no evidence that it is not true. I think many people find that approach confusing and not helpful.
I accept that history has had only one course. Einstein’s space-time gives us a way to understand that one’s understanding of that single history depends on one’s point of viewing. I believe I already posted that I prefer to think of the night sky as a collage of videos taken of objects at various times. Those videos of the moon are only two or so seconds old but videos of the distant stars are as much as several billion years old. I think this provides a better understanding of the universe than space-time.
time is an emergent measurable product of duration.Duration is just another way of saying the passage of time. What this definition says then is "time is [a product of] the passage of time". Adding adjectives such as emergent and measurable doesn't change anything.
When you say light not being instantaneous can only carry information describing what “was” happening and not what “is” happening, this point ignores the overwhelming common sense inference that things are happening in the present moment and it’s simply the physics of how light (the carrier of information) being unable to send with absolute immediacy the image, signal or visual evidence of that particular event to any observer that prevents any simultaneity between the observer and what is observed. As our sun at this moment of 10:49 AM may not be radiating heat and light but we won’t know for another 8 minutes because that’s how long it takes the streaming flow of light energy to reach our world, but most reasonable minds would agree with the overwhelming likelihood that our sun presently in this moment which now reads as 10:55 AM is emitting roughly the same energy as it did moments ago. As for your comment that this is not related to the existence of time, I can’t see how it couldn’t be related. If I revisit my grand-daughter again when she’s 18 after my first visit when she was 5, she’s going to look very different. These observed changes are not dependent on any observer and they very convincingly suggest that the processes of growth and change are presently still at work in her life and will continue moving forward.
It’s true that the notion of being in the absolute present is an ambiguous concept because time’s forward moving edge is always ahead of any attempt to mark or observe it. As soon as we think about what we call “now” or the absolute present it’s already slipped into the past because any thought we have about the immediate present requires thought and cognition is a process and like every process it has a beginning, middle part and an end, which requires time. We and the universe we inhabit exist in the immediate though not simultaneous wake of the forward moving edge of time and the 4 dimensional space time continuum that came into being when it began. I agree with you that time is an immeasurable and inconceivable entity when considered separate and apart from its intimate association with an expanding material universe but that’s the type of universe we live in. The question is similar to asking whether mathematics or geometry exist independent of a knowing mind that recognizes their intrinsic logic. It’s a difficult question. If as you say that “all we can say and call true is what we can observe” than what exactly did Einstein mean when he said in effect that imagination is more important than intelligence? Science constrains itself when it limits what it calls truth to what can only be observed.
Time is similar to Metrics. They are not things, they are measurements
Metrics are measuremnts of spatial distances.
Times are measurements of temporal durations
every process it has a beginning, middle part and an end, which requires time.I suggest you cannot show that a process requires time. What it does require is a series of causes and effects. A clock does not require time in order to tick in a consistent way. We adjust the mechanical interactions inside the device to suit our purposes.
whether mathematics or geometry exist independent of a knowing mind that recognizes their intrinsic logic. It’s a difficult question.I don't find it to be a difficult question. The answer is no.
Intrinsic, according to Wiki, means innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential. Since math was/is invented and had/has to be consistent in order to work, any part that was/is not consistent (what we might call logical) was/is rejected. Any intrinsic logic in math is there because, just like Roger Rabbit’s girlfriend is the way she is because she’s drawn that way, math is just invented that way.
Geometry is in the mind of the beholder. I doubt even one stone knows it is part of a pyramid or that it is rectangular. Surely you will agree that every distribution of objects in a space is its own geometry. Every object is where it is due to some sequence of causes and effects and thus any distribution is no more or less “random” than any other.
Our common geometries are good as approximations at some macro level, but put things under a microscope and the geometry fails. All objects are composed of whole numbers of smaller objects. Try constructing a circle with the smallest objects you can imagine; it won’t be a true circle, it will be a polygon. Look at a flat surface under high magnification; it will look like a plowed field.
Science constrains itself when it limits what it calls truth to what can only be observed.Indeed it does, but that's science. Science is discovery. We can claim to have discovered only what we have observed. And since personal experiences are rejected unless they can be demonstrated to others, we limit our science even further.
I have not seen the quote you attribute to Einstein, but it makes sense. I think hypothesis which leads to theory comes from extrapolation more than from learning. Imagination gets us out of the box, the comfort zone of learning.
Times are measurements of temporal durationsRestated: times are measurements of or relating to the passage of time.
In other words, time is time. Yep it is.
Temporal means of or relating to time. Duration means the passage of time.
ibil said: In other words, time is time. Yep it is.The metric systen is the metric system. Yep it is. Neither oneexists as a dimension of space. Time is a measurement just as the metric system is measuring system.
These are human concepts of natural emergent phenomena as a result of duration (time) and distance (metrics).
ibil said; Restated: times are measurements of or relating to the passage of time.In other words, time is time. Yep it is.
Temporal means of or relating to time. Duration means the passage of time.
No, you are purposefully making it circular. That is a false equation. Time is human assigned measurement system which measures duration in arbitrary units of what we have named Time. Just as we have named the arbitrary units of measurement of distance, Metrics.
Scientists have identified the mechanism that controls the internal 24-hour clock of all forms of life -- from us to algae.Researchers from Britain’s Cambridge and Edinburgh universities, whose work was published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, said their findings provide important insight into health-related problems linked to people such as nurses, pilots and other shift workers, whose body clocks are disrupted.
The studies also suggest that the 24-hour circadian clock found in human cells is the same as that found in algae, and dates back millions of years to early life on earth, they said.
In the first study, Cambridge scientists found for the first time that red blood cells have a 24-hour rhythm.