This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
4.63.59.107, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for miscellaneous philosophical rambling. If you think there's something wrong with the simple operational definition given here, say so on this talk page and make a case. And you should also consider logging in with a real name. -- LDC
Time is also suspected to be perceived differently by people, due to neurological differences. This is believed to be the result of the differences between the various ways people tend to perceive their own world. The term 'absent-minded' carries with it the connotation of being chronically late or unaware of the "correct" passage of time on a more general scale, or, in other words, the passage of time as it is more generally perceived. The term itself, however, has nothing to do with a perception of time, and it simply is a descriptor applied to a person who is introverted. Since human thoughts often flow faster than the observable events of the world outside (human neurons spike in electrical activity 200 times every second), introverted individuals who are more focused on what happens within their own minds may find themselves unaware of and often completely disinterested in time as perceived by extroverted individuals, because mental events occur at a much more rapid pace than external events.
Thusly, introverted people often measure large periods of time happening in very short periods of time, in relation to the measurements which might be derived if one were to focus on the outside world as a means of time measurement. Because of this, introverted people are prone to 'losing track of time', as they may perceive that, on a general basis, large amounts of time pass between events in 'reality' which most people would consider to be temporally significant but which they themselves would not find any significance, relative to their own perception of the passage of time. Therefore, introverted people are more likely to spend ages thinking about 'something else' and to not realize when a large amount of time has actually passed in terms of a system of temporal measurement they have no interest in maintaining. If a large amount of time spent thinking is equal to a short amount of time in 'outside reality', then it becomes difficult to distinguish at which point a large amount of time has transpired in 'reality' without counting, equating and making differences with the apparent time-frame of outside reality. However, no experiments confirm or discount this hypothesis so far.
what the ...? where does that hypothesis come from then? it's basically a lot of blah, closing with "it's possibly not true anyway". Can we all now append our random stream of thoughts to articles? Please remove this, unless the source of that theory can be named. -- Paniq 03:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've done some reorganising and rewritten the intro a bit. I hope it looks better now, although I realise it is far from finished. Basically I see the importance of this article as providing an overview of all aspects of time, or ways of viewing time, and then leading people to appropriate other articles for more detail. There's no point duplicating here loads of stuff that is in measurement of time or intellectual history of time. On the other hand, we don't want simply a list of links. -- FrankP 16:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've incorporated the following two suggestions of yours Jim:
The article says
I believe it is impossible to define month, year, decade, century, or millenium in terms of seconds, no? Week is also not one of the "official" derived non-SI units. I think even day is questionable, though it does remain an official non-SI derived unit.-- JimWae 21:56, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
It seems to me that everything in the Engineering section - except the links - belongs in the theoretical section-- JimWae 21:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
When I got to the physics section, I moved some to philosophy and other places, and discovered that there's not much physics left. Furthermore, I don't consider this very accurate either, so I've taken it out completely and left the link to physics of time:
Looks good Frank. I've made a few more changes today too. -- JimWae 01:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
Simple sequencing (before, after) is a simple kind of quantification. I wonder if we've covered that clearly. I have edited quantity slightly too -- JimWae 05:29, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
I think that all the info in Intellectual history of time is extremely relevant to a discussion of Time in general and should be merged into this article. Whatdo you say? 212.25.69.29 18:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The common way of defining the idea of 'before' and 'after' is based on the assumption of causality. One can typically say that a particular event "occurs" after another event, and one can apply the extra-contextual relative metric of "time" to gauge the interval between the two. The term "time", however, describes both the measurable interval between two (perceived or conceived) events, and implies the truth of a continuous measurable system as the purposeful metric for conceptualizing relationships between the forementioned two events and all other events within the same universe."
I take exception to the following from the article:
It is not obvious that this is common, nor does it seem to add anything to the discussion. It gives some kind of ontological/ psychological/ epistemological primacy to causality over time, whereas it seems to me the opposite is more apparent. We can experience before & after WITHOUT ascribing causality, and furthermore understanding how to use the term causality presupposes an understanding of before & after. -- JimWae 09:58, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
The stuff with J. W. Dunne is one of the larger pieces of nonsense I have ever seen. Seeing the future with dreams is not a widely held idea and should either be deleted or a very large warning be placed in that paragraph.
"The engineer J. W. Dunne developed a theory of time whereby he considered our perception of time like notes being played on piano. Having had a number of prescient dreams, he monitored his dreams and found that they generally included as many past as future events. From this he concluded that in dreams we escape linear time. He published his ideas in An Experiment with Time in 1927 and followed this with other books."
-- ShaunMacPherson 17:09, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I ( Hadal) have moved the following paragraph and commentary (by User:Wikisux) from the article:
Paragraph:
Wikisux's commentary:
I must agree that the whole thing looks dodgy (but don't appreciate the commentary's unnecessary abrasiveness). While the paragraph was added to this article by User:Jarjar, comparing his contributions with those of the related article "Reverse Time Ideology"'s author, shows they're probably working together (e.g., Jarjar edited Soilguy5's userpage). I can't find any corroborating evidence to support these supposed philosophical theories. -- Hadal 03:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Try this one on for size. A fixed point in time is merely a point within the frame of wholeness, oneness or completeness within which everything that can happen has happened and is going to happen all at the same time. Once youve got your head around this one then you are getting somewhere. Time can not have a starting point because something prior to that point must have occured to cause a start, therefore the argument that time must have had a beginning is in itself ludicrous and self destructive.If time did not have a beginning then it naturally follows that all possibilities have already unfolded or occured and we as life forces are simply re-living them.We do appear have infinite choices about were we can go in the frame provided they are "possible". If time had no beginning then it follows quite logically that it can not have an end either and so if any kind of symbolic representation of time were to exist then in its simplest form it must surely be a multidimensional circle. We are somewhere in the circle but bear in mind its one helluva big circle!Eastern phillosophy would seem to suggest that we can evolve to the extent that we can step outside the circle and "see" the whole thing at once.They call this state of being enlightenment. Not a bad place to be I might add!
This page doesn't seem to me like it needs attention I just skimmed it quickly, but it seems fine to me please point out anything I might have missed
Time as defined in this article is a value that span all elements: second, minute, hour, day, month, year etc. As I know "Date" it spans the elements day, month and year. If we want to unmistakable express the second, minute, hour -part of the time, what word should be used?
"Time" is often used for this but I feel that it breaks the generic definition of time. "Clock" could be another but will this be correct as many see the clock as the instrument measuring time, or for others just displays a value of the time on the wall where the time measuring device itself is located somewhere else?
The device called clock is often referred to as the instrument displaying the time, but is also defined as a device measuring time. In modern system design, we often seperate the measurement from the presentation of its value. In such systems, where will be clock be, and what do we call the other?
The picture of the Japanese watch is a poignant reminder of one significant moment (time) in history. However the caption to the watch is, IMO, too cryptic. I think it should have a brief explanation of WHY the picture is there - I just can't think how to desdcribe that succinctly. -- SGBailey 12:56, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
1. the universe contains one set and one set only of all that exists... matter, energy, other. the conservation rule: nothing can be created nor destroyed only transformed. 2. the contents at the quantum physical level appear to be random and cause/effect emerges from this randomness in a statistical fashion of large numbers of elements... 3. each individual element can be considered completely time reversable... meaning whatever it can change to can change back. 4. what causes the perception of irreversible time is not the individual elements but their group behavior.
The likelihood of any particular element reversing its present course exactly is just one out of all possible courses... hardly zero. The likelihood of any two elements reversing is still no where near zero... but the odds are getting higher... The likelihood of the entire universe reversing is not zero, but so improbable as to be considered zero for practically any event... and considering that each of these events happens at the quantum scale in plank time....the odds of enough of these events occurring in a large enough scale for any human to even notice is astronomically remote...
Thus novel patterns of all the elements has a [close enough to] 100% probability to guarentee that all events will appear as different from any prior event... thus by comparison to memories of all prior patterns, time will be seen as only progressing. by Jiohdi@gmail.com
Time is one of the topics i never understood much. Many people consider time to be another dimension. The question is whether time is only description of events according to the deception of our senses ( sight is the most effective one) or is it really implemented in our physical universe?
Now this brings me to the question of FTL and time travel. No matter (or subatomic particle) was yet observed in quantum mechanics (or particle physics), which can trasmit information faster than the speed of light. A wavefront for example can move faster than light in the eyes of a moving observer but there is no transmission of information. Therefore it's an optical illusion. (See also special relativity, causality and tachyon).
However even if it is possible to trasmit information faster than light why do people think it will cause a regression of time? According to Lorentz factor the result will be undefined. -- Orionix 23:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In general relativity, space and time are combined to form a 4-dimensional structure. Spacetime is the alternate name that physicists have given the gravitational field of the universe. There is no mathematical difference between the thing that we call 'spacetime' and the other thing that we call the gravitational field. Spacetime is the manifold and the curvature is the metric tensor. Because gravitational fields that act like the ones we know about cannot exist in more than four dimensions, this also means that spacetimes that lead to our kind of world cannot exist in other than four dimensions. -- Orionix 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seeing how time ISN'T a physical entity, then what's all the nonsense in event horizon and black hole that say spacetime expands? If it's not a physical entity, gravity has no effect on it!
it says "I love David Friedman." after the third paragraph.
I removed the current time section as it was not functioning and irrelevant
Operational definition of time #1: Time is what a clock measures.
Operational definition of time #2: Time is measurement of monotonic foliation of energy-matter in space.**
Note 1: Time perception is like color perception, which is neurons reacting to light. Clocks substitute for direct perception of time like color photographs substitute for direct perception of object colors.
Operational definition of time perception: Time perception is measurement of complex reactions in neurons to various changes of energy-matter in space.**
Note 2: Past, present and future are constructs of cultures and societies provided to enhance individual perceptions of time for the purpose of survival.
**Note 3: Strictly speaking, these are not operational definitions. However, if you were clever enough, you could find ways to take measurements of monotonic foliation or complex neuron reactions.
-- john 19:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At 20:06 on 25th of may I submitted the following definition of time:
"Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."
31 minutes later Rasmus Faber-Aspensen deleted this definition without giving reasons for its inadequacy or suggesting a better alternative definition based on his knowledge of physics. Is this in the spirit of Wiki?
Time is one sort of interval between things or events, distance being the other.
Comments?? Banno 21:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
it's worse than what was there before - it ignores duration. how is time an interval between "things". I think it would be better to just revert to yesterday's version -- JimWae 23:14, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
In reference to the version:
The concept of time functions to sequence events, and to quantify or measure the interval (or separation) between events or their duration.
This version doesn't work.
What is needed is a paragraph that encompasses both psychological and the ontological ideas about time.
Coming from a philosophical background, I perhaps understand your perspective. But we are, unfortunately, here not to have a philosophical debate, but to report one. Am I correct in thinking that there are three approaches: Time is a concept, without mind-independent existence, as perhaps in Kant; time is a dimension, with its own ontological status alongside space and mass, as in Einstein; and the functionalist definition. The introductory paragraph might best simply state these three. What do you think? Banno 07:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
So do I. But: I cannot make sense of the idea that "Time is a system of measurement". Metric and Imperial are systems of measurement; time is a thing to be measured. (This is my realist POV; it needs to be expressed in the paragraph, but it perhaps should be accompanied by alternatives) So, two questions: If time is a system of measurement, what is it that it measures? and, can you provide a reference to some reasonable source that supports your contention that time is a system of measurement?
Nor does "time is used to talk about a dimension" actually help. It is not a way to talk about a dimension - it is a dimension. Stating that it is one way in which the elements of our world are separated is I think much clearer; and on a par with definitions from els were. It also does not take sides on realism/idealism. which I begin to suspect underpins our differences.
I will insert: "As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". Banno 19:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I would be thankful, Jim, if you avoided reverting and left me with a bit more info on what you see as the problem. You said:
Isn't it?
So? do you propose to offer a complete, neutral definition in one sentence? Perhaps you should go and re-read J. L. Austin.
Yes it does - duration is certainly a temporal term. The phrase "Interval between events" is also temporal. Besides which, it is for the most part your sentence, I think.
Perhaps not. So come to the talk page and tell me what it is that needs clearing up.
In what way did I do this? What is the "ordinary meaning"?
Also, you might answer my previous questions. Together I'm sure we can find an agreeable introduction for something so simple. Banno 02:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Again, Jim, you have not come to the talk page. So, I'll move your comment to here:
No more so than your claim that space "has three aspects or dimensions" (my emphasis). But your present version has some merit. Unfortunately, it is about the word "time" rather than about time. Hence my insertion of quotes.
And again, "time" is not a quantity, nor is it a quantification. Also reference to duration and intervals is circular, since these are themselves temporal. The sentence "As space has three aspects or dimensions, time is frequently spoken of as being the fourth dimension" is curios as well, since there is no obvious reason for the "as", unless you mean to imply that time is a dimension because space has three dimensions - But I'm sure you do not mean to imply something so strange.
I repeat, the view that time is the way we sequence events and nothing more is POV. It implies that time is an aspect of our understanding, without distinct existence apart from the mind - an idealist perspective. Realism and Physics tell us that time is much more than that - it is a fundamental component of the universe, along with space and mass/energy. Both views should be present inthe introduction. The views of Kant and Leibniz present only part of the story, but your intro does not present the other side. Banno 07:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
You do not want to help define time, you want to push your POV. I have wasted too much time with you already-- JimWae 07:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Just two points:
1. The concept 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. This is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. It seems desirable to describe the fundamental physical characteristics of any parameter before launching into its existential aspects, such as separation, duration and interval.
2. If Wiki is to have any value as a reference work it must respect the basic rules of English grammar in its definitions. Thus Banno's definition: ("As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". ) fails that test, as separate is a transitive verb and 'time and distance' are subjects of his first sentence. Obviously time and distance cannot separate anything, they just ARE. It is the observer who separates time and distance parameters by making his observation. Geologician 08:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To draw attention again to two statements from my interlocutors. Jim: "Time cannot be measured". Geo: "Time and distance cannot separate anything". Gotta keep smiling.... Banno 21:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do indeed troll on occasions. But not in this case. I'm drawing attention to the way in which you are using "time". It is rather different to the way it is usually used. Time and distance do separate things, and time is measured. Banno 21:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
So you mean it is ungrammatical in the same way that "Time separates a man from his youth" is? Is that all? I doubt that any of the readers here will care about such a pedantic point. Compare it to the way Jim is attempting to use "time" as both a verb and an adjective in the same sentence in his present version.
Nor can I see how the sentence is ambiguous.
Much of what you have written reads as a philosophical argument rather than a grammatical one. Banno 08:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
You are right that no particular sequence of events is to be preferred to another. But this seems to me to be a reason for rejecting Jim's first line: '"Time" is the word we use to talk about the sequence of events'. This is an unsatisfactory definition precisely for that reason - the sequence of events is not a defining characteristic of time.
The questing is, what is the true nature of time? I must have missed your definition - I;d like to see it, just plonk it into the article. Banno 09:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
In Index 13 above I commented anonymously on the deletion by Rasmus of my definition in the Time article as follows: "At 20:06 on 25th of May I submitted the following definition of time: "Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."
Later I explained Degree of Freedom as follows: 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. It is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. A 'Particle' for present purposes is understood to be the smallest entity that has the characteristic of mass.
The following allegory explains Time in more detail: 'Suppose you have discovered a parallel, completely empty, universe and have the power to make a few changes in it. You decide to begin by inserting a single particle. No matter which way you look at it, it always appears the same, a single, apparently stationary, particle in an empty universe. You decide to provide it with an identical, companion particle. Immediate dilemma—where does it go? You place it arbitrarily anywhere else in the universe and watch what happens. The two particles move towards one another through some unexplained mutual attraction. You have just observed motion in a straight line, so you deduce that one-dimensional time exists in your parallel universe. The straight line can be extended infinitely to form a one dimensional spatial axis through your universe. You add a third particle at a point not immediately between the first two particles. The first two are attracted by the third and move away from their straight line converging path. You deduce that Time has two dimensions, and notice that the three particles define a two dimensional plane in space that could be extended infinitely to divide your universe into two parts. You add a fourth particle somewhere away from that dividing plane. The first three particles converge with the fourth particle, moving away from the dividing plane. You deduce that Time now has three dimensions, and notice that four planes in space could be formed by extending infinitely each of the four triangles whose corners are defined by the four particles. As these triangles enclose a volume you deduce that your parallel universe, like ours, is capable of sustaining three dimensions of space. You reflect that you have not yet established whether all of the three dimensions of Space or all of the three dimensions of Time have identical characteristics. You decide that to simplify matters you will assume that measurements made in space with the same ruler will not vary with direction, even though the ruler itself might be affected by those possible directional differences. To simplify matters still further, you assume that time has just one dimension, and any measurement of it can neglect directionality.' You have already become biased by what we do in our own universe. Is this valid? Geologician 11:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of agreement on a simple definition, perhaps we could try listing the possibilities. My version contrasts the idealist and realist approaches - the source of my POV complaint. Someone with more wit might be able to contrast relative and absolute approaches. In any case, I hope that we can have some discussion here and avoid a revert war. Banno 13:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Kant's Transcendental Idealism is not the only one to advocate of the idea that that time is a framework, and not a part of the world. Perhaps it would be better not to name him here, so that the more general principles can be suggested, rather than let the article digress into yet another example of Kantian cant. After all, there is space to put the detail int the article. Banno 06:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
4.63.59.107, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for miscellaneous philosophical rambling. If you think there's something wrong with the simple operational definition given here, say so on this talk page and make a case. And you should also consider logging in with a real name. -- LDC
Time is also suspected to be perceived differently by people, due to neurological differences. This is believed to be the result of the differences between the various ways people tend to perceive their own world. The term 'absent-minded' carries with it the connotation of being chronically late or unaware of the "correct" passage of time on a more general scale, or, in other words, the passage of time as it is more generally perceived. The term itself, however, has nothing to do with a perception of time, and it simply is a descriptor applied to a person who is introverted. Since human thoughts often flow faster than the observable events of the world outside (human neurons spike in electrical activity 200 times every second), introverted individuals who are more focused on what happens within their own minds may find themselves unaware of and often completely disinterested in time as perceived by extroverted individuals, because mental events occur at a much more rapid pace than external events.
Thusly, introverted people often measure large periods of time happening in very short periods of time, in relation to the measurements which might be derived if one were to focus on the outside world as a means of time measurement. Because of this, introverted people are prone to 'losing track of time', as they may perceive that, on a general basis, large amounts of time pass between events in 'reality' which most people would consider to be temporally significant but which they themselves would not find any significance, relative to their own perception of the passage of time. Therefore, introverted people are more likely to spend ages thinking about 'something else' and to not realize when a large amount of time has actually passed in terms of a system of temporal measurement they have no interest in maintaining. If a large amount of time spent thinking is equal to a short amount of time in 'outside reality', then it becomes difficult to distinguish at which point a large amount of time has transpired in 'reality' without counting, equating and making differences with the apparent time-frame of outside reality. However, no experiments confirm or discount this hypothesis so far.
what the ...? where does that hypothesis come from then? it's basically a lot of blah, closing with "it's possibly not true anyway". Can we all now append our random stream of thoughts to articles? Please remove this, unless the source of that theory can be named. -- Paniq 03:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've done some reorganising and rewritten the intro a bit. I hope it looks better now, although I realise it is far from finished. Basically I see the importance of this article as providing an overview of all aspects of time, or ways of viewing time, and then leading people to appropriate other articles for more detail. There's no point duplicating here loads of stuff that is in measurement of time or intellectual history of time. On the other hand, we don't want simply a list of links. -- FrankP 16:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've incorporated the following two suggestions of yours Jim:
The article says
I believe it is impossible to define month, year, decade, century, or millenium in terms of seconds, no? Week is also not one of the "official" derived non-SI units. I think even day is questionable, though it does remain an official non-SI derived unit.-- JimWae 21:56, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
It seems to me that everything in the Engineering section - except the links - belongs in the theoretical section-- JimWae 21:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
When I got to the physics section, I moved some to philosophy and other places, and discovered that there's not much physics left. Furthermore, I don't consider this very accurate either, so I've taken it out completely and left the link to physics of time:
Looks good Frank. I've made a few more changes today too. -- JimWae 01:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
Simple sequencing (before, after) is a simple kind of quantification. I wonder if we've covered that clearly. I have edited quantity slightly too -- JimWae 05:29, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
I think that all the info in Intellectual history of time is extremely relevant to a discussion of Time in general and should be merged into this article. Whatdo you say? 212.25.69.29 18:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The common way of defining the idea of 'before' and 'after' is based on the assumption of causality. One can typically say that a particular event "occurs" after another event, and one can apply the extra-contextual relative metric of "time" to gauge the interval between the two. The term "time", however, describes both the measurable interval between two (perceived or conceived) events, and implies the truth of a continuous measurable system as the purposeful metric for conceptualizing relationships between the forementioned two events and all other events within the same universe."
I take exception to the following from the article:
It is not obvious that this is common, nor does it seem to add anything to the discussion. It gives some kind of ontological/ psychological/ epistemological primacy to causality over time, whereas it seems to me the opposite is more apparent. We can experience before & after WITHOUT ascribing causality, and furthermore understanding how to use the term causality presupposes an understanding of before & after. -- JimWae 09:58, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
The stuff with J. W. Dunne is one of the larger pieces of nonsense I have ever seen. Seeing the future with dreams is not a widely held idea and should either be deleted or a very large warning be placed in that paragraph.
"The engineer J. W. Dunne developed a theory of time whereby he considered our perception of time like notes being played on piano. Having had a number of prescient dreams, he monitored his dreams and found that they generally included as many past as future events. From this he concluded that in dreams we escape linear time. He published his ideas in An Experiment with Time in 1927 and followed this with other books."
-- ShaunMacPherson 17:09, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I ( Hadal) have moved the following paragraph and commentary (by User:Wikisux) from the article:
Paragraph:
Wikisux's commentary:
I must agree that the whole thing looks dodgy (but don't appreciate the commentary's unnecessary abrasiveness). While the paragraph was added to this article by User:Jarjar, comparing his contributions with those of the related article "Reverse Time Ideology"'s author, shows they're probably working together (e.g., Jarjar edited Soilguy5's userpage). I can't find any corroborating evidence to support these supposed philosophical theories. -- Hadal 03:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Try this one on for size. A fixed point in time is merely a point within the frame of wholeness, oneness or completeness within which everything that can happen has happened and is going to happen all at the same time. Once youve got your head around this one then you are getting somewhere. Time can not have a starting point because something prior to that point must have occured to cause a start, therefore the argument that time must have had a beginning is in itself ludicrous and self destructive.If time did not have a beginning then it naturally follows that all possibilities have already unfolded or occured and we as life forces are simply re-living them.We do appear have infinite choices about were we can go in the frame provided they are "possible". If time had no beginning then it follows quite logically that it can not have an end either and so if any kind of symbolic representation of time were to exist then in its simplest form it must surely be a multidimensional circle. We are somewhere in the circle but bear in mind its one helluva big circle!Eastern phillosophy would seem to suggest that we can evolve to the extent that we can step outside the circle and "see" the whole thing at once.They call this state of being enlightenment. Not a bad place to be I might add!
This page doesn't seem to me like it needs attention I just skimmed it quickly, but it seems fine to me please point out anything I might have missed
Time as defined in this article is a value that span all elements: second, minute, hour, day, month, year etc. As I know "Date" it spans the elements day, month and year. If we want to unmistakable express the second, minute, hour -part of the time, what word should be used?
"Time" is often used for this but I feel that it breaks the generic definition of time. "Clock" could be another but will this be correct as many see the clock as the instrument measuring time, or for others just displays a value of the time on the wall where the time measuring device itself is located somewhere else?
The device called clock is often referred to as the instrument displaying the time, but is also defined as a device measuring time. In modern system design, we often seperate the measurement from the presentation of its value. In such systems, where will be clock be, and what do we call the other?
The picture of the Japanese watch is a poignant reminder of one significant moment (time) in history. However the caption to the watch is, IMO, too cryptic. I think it should have a brief explanation of WHY the picture is there - I just can't think how to desdcribe that succinctly. -- SGBailey 12:56, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
1. the universe contains one set and one set only of all that exists... matter, energy, other. the conservation rule: nothing can be created nor destroyed only transformed. 2. the contents at the quantum physical level appear to be random and cause/effect emerges from this randomness in a statistical fashion of large numbers of elements... 3. each individual element can be considered completely time reversable... meaning whatever it can change to can change back. 4. what causes the perception of irreversible time is not the individual elements but their group behavior.
The likelihood of any particular element reversing its present course exactly is just one out of all possible courses... hardly zero. The likelihood of any two elements reversing is still no where near zero... but the odds are getting higher... The likelihood of the entire universe reversing is not zero, but so improbable as to be considered zero for practically any event... and considering that each of these events happens at the quantum scale in plank time....the odds of enough of these events occurring in a large enough scale for any human to even notice is astronomically remote...
Thus novel patterns of all the elements has a [close enough to] 100% probability to guarentee that all events will appear as different from any prior event... thus by comparison to memories of all prior patterns, time will be seen as only progressing. by Jiohdi@gmail.com
Time is one of the topics i never understood much. Many people consider time to be another dimension. The question is whether time is only description of events according to the deception of our senses ( sight is the most effective one) or is it really implemented in our physical universe?
Now this brings me to the question of FTL and time travel. No matter (or subatomic particle) was yet observed in quantum mechanics (or particle physics), which can trasmit information faster than the speed of light. A wavefront for example can move faster than light in the eyes of a moving observer but there is no transmission of information. Therefore it's an optical illusion. (See also special relativity, causality and tachyon).
However even if it is possible to trasmit information faster than light why do people think it will cause a regression of time? According to Lorentz factor the result will be undefined. -- Orionix 23:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In general relativity, space and time are combined to form a 4-dimensional structure. Spacetime is the alternate name that physicists have given the gravitational field of the universe. There is no mathematical difference between the thing that we call 'spacetime' and the other thing that we call the gravitational field. Spacetime is the manifold and the curvature is the metric tensor. Because gravitational fields that act like the ones we know about cannot exist in more than four dimensions, this also means that spacetimes that lead to our kind of world cannot exist in other than four dimensions. -- Orionix 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seeing how time ISN'T a physical entity, then what's all the nonsense in event horizon and black hole that say spacetime expands? If it's not a physical entity, gravity has no effect on it!
it says "I love David Friedman." after the third paragraph.
I removed the current time section as it was not functioning and irrelevant
Operational definition of time #1: Time is what a clock measures.
Operational definition of time #2: Time is measurement of monotonic foliation of energy-matter in space.**
Note 1: Time perception is like color perception, which is neurons reacting to light. Clocks substitute for direct perception of time like color photographs substitute for direct perception of object colors.
Operational definition of time perception: Time perception is measurement of complex reactions in neurons to various changes of energy-matter in space.**
Note 2: Past, present and future are constructs of cultures and societies provided to enhance individual perceptions of time for the purpose of survival.
**Note 3: Strictly speaking, these are not operational definitions. However, if you were clever enough, you could find ways to take measurements of monotonic foliation or complex neuron reactions.
-- john 19:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At 20:06 on 25th of may I submitted the following definition of time:
"Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."
31 minutes later Rasmus Faber-Aspensen deleted this definition without giving reasons for its inadequacy or suggesting a better alternative definition based on his knowledge of physics. Is this in the spirit of Wiki?
Time is one sort of interval between things or events, distance being the other.
Comments?? Banno 21:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
it's worse than what was there before - it ignores duration. how is time an interval between "things". I think it would be better to just revert to yesterday's version -- JimWae 23:14, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
In reference to the version:
The concept of time functions to sequence events, and to quantify or measure the interval (or separation) between events or their duration.
This version doesn't work.
What is needed is a paragraph that encompasses both psychological and the ontological ideas about time.
Coming from a philosophical background, I perhaps understand your perspective. But we are, unfortunately, here not to have a philosophical debate, but to report one. Am I correct in thinking that there are three approaches: Time is a concept, without mind-independent existence, as perhaps in Kant; time is a dimension, with its own ontological status alongside space and mass, as in Einstein; and the functionalist definition. The introductory paragraph might best simply state these three. What do you think? Banno 07:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
So do I. But: I cannot make sense of the idea that "Time is a system of measurement". Metric and Imperial are systems of measurement; time is a thing to be measured. (This is my realist POV; it needs to be expressed in the paragraph, but it perhaps should be accompanied by alternatives) So, two questions: If time is a system of measurement, what is it that it measures? and, can you provide a reference to some reasonable source that supports your contention that time is a system of measurement?
Nor does "time is used to talk about a dimension" actually help. It is not a way to talk about a dimension - it is a dimension. Stating that it is one way in which the elements of our world are separated is I think much clearer; and on a par with definitions from els were. It also does not take sides on realism/idealism. which I begin to suspect underpins our differences.
I will insert: "As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". Banno 19:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I would be thankful, Jim, if you avoided reverting and left me with a bit more info on what you see as the problem. You said:
Isn't it?
So? do you propose to offer a complete, neutral definition in one sentence? Perhaps you should go and re-read J. L. Austin.
Yes it does - duration is certainly a temporal term. The phrase "Interval between events" is also temporal. Besides which, it is for the most part your sentence, I think.
Perhaps not. So come to the talk page and tell me what it is that needs clearing up.
In what way did I do this? What is the "ordinary meaning"?
Also, you might answer my previous questions. Together I'm sure we can find an agreeable introduction for something so simple. Banno 02:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Again, Jim, you have not come to the talk page. So, I'll move your comment to here:
No more so than your claim that space "has three aspects or dimensions" (my emphasis). But your present version has some merit. Unfortunately, it is about the word "time" rather than about time. Hence my insertion of quotes.
And again, "time" is not a quantity, nor is it a quantification. Also reference to duration and intervals is circular, since these are themselves temporal. The sentence "As space has three aspects or dimensions, time is frequently spoken of as being the fourth dimension" is curios as well, since there is no obvious reason for the "as", unless you mean to imply that time is a dimension because space has three dimensions - But I'm sure you do not mean to imply something so strange.
I repeat, the view that time is the way we sequence events and nothing more is POV. It implies that time is an aspect of our understanding, without distinct existence apart from the mind - an idealist perspective. Realism and Physics tell us that time is much more than that - it is a fundamental component of the universe, along with space and mass/energy. Both views should be present inthe introduction. The views of Kant and Leibniz present only part of the story, but your intro does not present the other side. Banno 07:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
You do not want to help define time, you want to push your POV. I have wasted too much time with you already-- JimWae 07:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Just two points:
1. The concept 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. This is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. It seems desirable to describe the fundamental physical characteristics of any parameter before launching into its existential aspects, such as separation, duration and interval.
2. If Wiki is to have any value as a reference work it must respect the basic rules of English grammar in its definitions. Thus Banno's definition: ("As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". ) fails that test, as separate is a transitive verb and 'time and distance' are subjects of his first sentence. Obviously time and distance cannot separate anything, they just ARE. It is the observer who separates time and distance parameters by making his observation. Geologician 08:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To draw attention again to two statements from my interlocutors. Jim: "Time cannot be measured". Geo: "Time and distance cannot separate anything". Gotta keep smiling.... Banno 21:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do indeed troll on occasions. But not in this case. I'm drawing attention to the way in which you are using "time". It is rather different to the way it is usually used. Time and distance do separate things, and time is measured. Banno 21:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
So you mean it is ungrammatical in the same way that "Time separates a man from his youth" is? Is that all? I doubt that any of the readers here will care about such a pedantic point. Compare it to the way Jim is attempting to use "time" as both a verb and an adjective in the same sentence in his present version.
Nor can I see how the sentence is ambiguous.
Much of what you have written reads as a philosophical argument rather than a grammatical one. Banno 08:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
You are right that no particular sequence of events is to be preferred to another. But this seems to me to be a reason for rejecting Jim's first line: '"Time" is the word we use to talk about the sequence of events'. This is an unsatisfactory definition precisely for that reason - the sequence of events is not a defining characteristic of time.
The questing is, what is the true nature of time? I must have missed your definition - I;d like to see it, just plonk it into the article. Banno 09:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
In Index 13 above I commented anonymously on the deletion by Rasmus of my definition in the Time article as follows: "At 20:06 on 25th of May I submitted the following definition of time: "Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."
Later I explained Degree of Freedom as follows: 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. It is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. A 'Particle' for present purposes is understood to be the smallest entity that has the characteristic of mass.
The following allegory explains Time in more detail: 'Suppose you have discovered a parallel, completely empty, universe and have the power to make a few changes in it. You decide to begin by inserting a single particle. No matter which way you look at it, it always appears the same, a single, apparently stationary, particle in an empty universe. You decide to provide it with an identical, companion particle. Immediate dilemma—where does it go? You place it arbitrarily anywhere else in the universe and watch what happens. The two particles move towards one another through some unexplained mutual attraction. You have just observed motion in a straight line, so you deduce that one-dimensional time exists in your parallel universe. The straight line can be extended infinitely to form a one dimensional spatial axis through your universe. You add a third particle at a point not immediately between the first two particles. The first two are attracted by the third and move away from their straight line converging path. You deduce that Time has two dimensions, and notice that the three particles define a two dimensional plane in space that could be extended infinitely to divide your universe into two parts. You add a fourth particle somewhere away from that dividing plane. The first three particles converge with the fourth particle, moving away from the dividing plane. You deduce that Time now has three dimensions, and notice that four planes in space could be formed by extending infinitely each of the four triangles whose corners are defined by the four particles. As these triangles enclose a volume you deduce that your parallel universe, like ours, is capable of sustaining three dimensions of space. You reflect that you have not yet established whether all of the three dimensions of Space or all of the three dimensions of Time have identical characteristics. You decide that to simplify matters you will assume that measurements made in space with the same ruler will not vary with direction, even though the ruler itself might be affected by those possible directional differences. To simplify matters still further, you assume that time has just one dimension, and any measurement of it can neglect directionality.' You have already become biased by what we do in our own universe. Is this valid? Geologician 11:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the absence of agreement on a simple definition, perhaps we could try listing the possibilities. My version contrasts the idealist and realist approaches - the source of my POV complaint. Someone with more wit might be able to contrast relative and absolute approaches. In any case, I hope that we can have some discussion here and avoid a revert war. Banno 13:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Kant's Transcendental Idealism is not the only one to advocate of the idea that that time is a framework, and not a part of the world. Perhaps it would be better not to name him here, so that the more general principles can be suggested, rather than let the article digress into yet another example of Kantian cant. After all, there is space to put the detail int the article. Banno 06:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)