![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head):- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(add/annotate at will)
|
---|
|
1) Reality is essential to a colloquial definition and probably negates the need to indicate scope ("macroscopic"). 4) Phenomenon works with "reality." - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute over how to begin the article. An editor has persistently added unsourced material of this sort to the very top of the article
The cited source was appropriated from a citation that was previously further down in the lede. THe cited source does not contain words supporting "Time is a... process in which reality is transformed" or any such thing. Editor has repeatedly removed tags applied to the text - with edits marked as minor. Editor is altering pages linked to in his construction in a manner to bolster his argument, but it all appears to be the same original research kind of editing. Editor has attributed WP:OWN to me because I will not allow him to add this unsourced material. There are 4 Qs that could be addressed. 1> Is the sentence properly sourced? 2> Does it belong in the lede? 3>Is it good enough to be the first sentence of the lede? 4> In its present state, does it even belong in the article?
This is a recent previous edit from 2010-JUL-12 along the same lines, also marked minor:
-- JimWae ( talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is a one- dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days). Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.
It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed". Neither are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that. We do not need the first sentence at all. The 2nd sentence is well-sourced & covers aspects of numerous sources-- JimWae ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical phenomenon... in which reality is transformed" NONE are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that.
Fatal flaws.... ???? Though you occasionally extend a compliment my way, they seem usually to be part of an effort to compliment yourself. We are not here to discuss whether you have explored fatal flaws in what I wrote, nor in what is presented in dictionaries... AND encyclopedias. You have not provided a source for your preferred "insight" into what time "really is". We are not even here to discuss what time "really is". We are here to present what the best reliable sources have to offer. We are not here to argue about your "insight" into what time "really is". You have not shown any effort to source your material. There's really nothing more that should need to be said. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. You are never going to get this right for everyone. As the article says, defining the concept of time has eluded the greatest scholars. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Forget that. The lead changed as I was writing this.
I think that editors here need to concentrate on writing something as non-contentions as possible so that the lead will be stable, maybe along the lines of, 'time is the concept that separates the past from the future' or whatever. Maybe even start with the fact that there is no definition, 'Time is a concept which all humans seem to understand but for which there is no adequate definition'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1. A great many of the defs that are referenced in the article do not use the term "continuum". The meaning of the "continuum", whether technically correct or not, is not transparent to the reader, and the function of definitions in general-use encyclopedias is to explain things in simpler terms, not in more complex terms. Does saying time IS a continuum say more about time or more about quantification in general? I'm not sure it has been determined yet that time IS a continuum, though we have determined that there is no reason yet that we cannot consider time as a continuous quantity.
2. Saying time is "something" "in which events occur" suggests that time has some sort of ontological precedence over events - that time is some kind of aether that events depend on for their existence. This tends to "reify" time in a way that is open to question. Another valid way of looking at it is that time depends on events. As it says later in the lede: Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence...
3. How do we decide what defs to use to say what time "is", and what defs to use to say how time "has been defined". Isn't it taking sides to choose some and not others for saying what time "is"?
4. Maybe I missed it - was there a discussion about why we need any part of this new first sentence? I am going to remove it and see if others agree it is not needed. I know Steve does not agree, but Steve has not concerned himself with sources so far, and wants to insert his own unsourced insights as what time IS, so there is not likely any way he will be satisfied with WP standards regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and original research.-- JimWae ( talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
References presently cited
|
---|
"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time." ). "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2010. http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/. "Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last.... Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question "What is physical time?" is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime." "MacMillan Dictionary". 2010. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/time. "the quantity that you measure using a clock" "The American Heritage® Science Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated." "Collins English Dictionary". HarperCollins. 2003. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time. "2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms.... In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event. See space-time continuum." "Eric Weisstein's World of Science". 2007. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html. "A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one even preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension." "Glossary for Extragalactic Astronomy". CalTech. 2005. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_T.html. "A dimension distinguishing past, present, and future. In relativity, time is portrayed as a geometrical dimension, analogous to the dimensions of space." "Merriam Webster Online Dictionary". 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time. "1a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration; 1b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future; 2: the point or period when something occurs : occasion" "Encarta Online Dictionary". 2010. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861720331. "1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events." "Webster's New World College Dictionary". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be... a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval" "Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on Random House Dictionary". 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.... 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.... 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? ... 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right." "The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years." "Collins Language.com". HarperCollins. 2010. http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=time. "1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole,... 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms" "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia". 2010. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596034/time. "Measured or measurable period. More broadly, it is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions." "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time." |
That's leaning towards non-realism again 1Z ( talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The realist version is controversial. Non-realist accounts are minimalist - just what we need to avoid controversy. Realist accounts could maybe come afterwards. Anyway, perhaps this will work better (it certainly is better syntax):
JimWae did propose an alternative, this. But only four of the thirteen sources state that time is a quantity. And of those, two place it under "(physics)", and another is a physics reference. The forth also happens to say its a continuous quantity. Thus defining time simply as a quantity has limited usage, so must it really be at the top? Regarding Jim's initial concern about not saying time is continuous, six sources explicitly give this general understanding. In addition, another source gives a view that it is continuous. Several of the sources only define time with a period or duration which for all practical purposes, given that events are random, is a continuous quantity. In short, the notion that time IS, in a general sense, "something" that is continuous is easy to verify. That something is called a continuum and in physics its an integral part of the spacetime continuum. Thus there is no need to obscure the fact that time is considered a continuum too (last I read, there was some agreement on calling the theory of relativity a fact, but that's getting into wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory). I've suggested changing the "the continuum in which events occur" to "the continuum of events which occur" so as to make it more explicit that the continuum is a relation regarding events. Saying something IS defined a certain way in the top of the lede favors it of course, but not to the exclusion of other definitions. For example, Blue is one of the three primary colors. It is also a perception of the visual senses. Hence, this "has been defined" is unnecessary verbiage as long as we assure that these definitions convey, in a respectable manner, the essential topic here which is time. -- Modocc ( talk) 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Nor does time "exist" the same way trees do. I would prefer saying "time is" too - if it were possible for humans to agree on what time is - but that is a goal, not an achievement. I have more concerns with saying "time is a continuum in which events occur" (like time is an "aether"), than I am with saying "time is a continuous quantity" (vs. discrete). There are, however, some few who maintain time could be discrete. Though I do not agree with them, I do NOT think it has been determined that time is continuous, just that WE regard it as continuous, and no reason has yet been found to stop us from regarding it as continuous. Perhaps it was a mistake to change from a treatment similar to that in 2007 - though now modified somewhat. One distinct view of time is that it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension *in which* events occur.... -- JimWae ( talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Linear time is accelerated by motivation. This manifests itself as change of velocity of the flow of time resulting from change of magnitude of the unit of measurement. The observer of the change is only conscious of that change if the change is the difference between observations of the contents of two units 'now' or of the comparable magnitude of two units 'now'. The observer is then in the boundary between the two moments 'now'. Change of a static unit 'now' cannot be observed because the change is within the static unit. The unit 'now' is an interval of time of magnitude which is specific for the particular oberver and is a cycle contained between two limits of the 'beginning', symbolised by '0', and the 'end' symbolised by '1'. Seen as one, the duality of (0<1), is a static interval of time, containing observer's consciousness of the external world. It also contains consciousness of the 'self' and of the memory. Since 'now' is static it can change for the next 'now' only quantitatively and outside of the observer's consciousness, in which case the boundary is too small to accommodate the unit 'now' containing consciousness. There is no observable transformation from one magnitude of the 'now' to a different magnitude or transformation in the difference between parts within the 'now' itself. When the variable boundary is at its maximum the 'now', contained between the 'beginning' and the dynamic 'end', is contradiction of Nothingness and it is of unlimited magnitude. Change is then perfectly continuous and unlimited, so that the medium of the largest 'now' is the Nothingness of unlimited plurality of the 'units' of Nothingness
To change from one 'now' to the next 'now', whether continuously, using the smallest 'now, or quantitatively, in the case of the largest 'now', or by a combination of the two, there must be motivation for the change. The units of Nothingness change continuously, making the medium of unlimited plurality of identical units of Nothingness, dynamic. The medium of Nothingness is unlimited, static and therefore eternal but it contains all the possible units of limited plurality and of variable organisations. This is possible only if there is a conscious observer motivating and organising the medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.36.126 ( talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Apology, I forgot to sign the above contribution. I want to add that time has no spatial magnitude because it is rotation of the point. But the point can rotate with vartiable velocity thus creating organisations outside of space. Points of variable velocity of rotation can interact but only points with identical velocity of rotation unite and double the velocity. Manifestation of time is 'energy' or 'motivation'. We experience it as the material or immaterial space times. KK ( 213.158.199.139 ( talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is the fourth dimension.Think about it for a minute when someone gives you a date or an appointment there are three things to consider length,breadth,and altitude but even with these coordinates there is one last thing to consider and that is of course time.Where would you be knowing where to go but not knowing when to arrive somewhere?~~lightbeamrider
Just for the record, yoctosecond, is correct and yactosecond is incorrect. However, I don't understand the editing of the word "common" for the table. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Time|p005465z}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
I'm experimenting with a certain tit-for-tat/adversarial way of dealing with Jim, who mistakenly regards himself as an WP:OWNer of this article. Comments welcome.
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think indeed that the main problem should be: split the contribution.
The time, time inversion and relationships of time with modern theories is not that clear yet to even the top guy in physics. I would create a further, Time (disambiguation): Time (history of the term) Time (Measures) Time (in physics) Time (in IT: Time zones to start with)
How to get back them together? no clue.. just time.
But definitely, if classical time apply: I revert you to a baby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would propose such a section. Because most of our perception of time depend on a computer giving us the time. The computer being a phone, the desktop or a complex alarm-clock.
But in particular because I need to sort time events and I want to use the unix sort -n facility. I can do it if time is given as: YYYY.MM.DD.HH.mm.ss.Decimals Or in numbers: 20101011212200.milliseconds this format has the precision of milliseconds (at least) on a 32 bit machine.
Because this number is not a problem for modern machines, I would propose this format for time events. This will cover any Y2K troubles until year 9999. Scientific experiment with sub-time measures can be connect to this time scale (They typically will use their own time scale anyway).
Of course the time shift is still in place: but it is typically on the hours with a precision of a second.
This is the simplest, organic, number ordered unit of time with the precision of milliseconds on a modern computer. It can be used for any life time event.
Beside the proposition of the time variable: I strongly recommend a section about IT time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW: the Y2K problem should be mentioned. Why we had a "time" problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Steve Quinn came by and offered us the above writing:
There is much to like about it, but nevertheless just like anything it must go through a vetting process here on talk. I will make some specific plaudits and critiques shortly. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't like "paradigm" and I don't like "macroscopically". 1Z ( talk) 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is the (non-spacial) distance between two events. (Jijil Ramakrishnan) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
180.215.52.74 (
talk) 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Some days ago I placed the {{ Lead too long}} template on Time/Archive 5. I would have edited the lead myself, but my current internet connection has considerable problems to load the article. In the meantime Steve Quinn did some work there. He also asked for my opinion. Now, here it comes, applying to the current version:
The third paragraph referring to Ray Cummings should be moved to a new art-about-time section. It is a nice illustration of the sequencing concept, but it definitly does not belong in the lead. Also there is a lot of redundancy and undue elaboration within the other two paragraphs.
Generally the lead section should introduce and summarise the article using introduction style of language. That means for example: being short, having short sentences, no explanation, no history (if not being about history), naming the most important concepts, thereby possibly referring major point of views. Also the lead should start with some kind of definition, due to the article being an encyclopaedic one.
I already have some ideas for a rewrite. Here a first structured list of concepts:
Lastly I would like to state that there is no need to rush: The lead has issues, but it is not wrong. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
1. The quote from Ecclesiastes is not about time, but about timing and therefore does not belong here. Biophys ( talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Second coming does not mean end of time because God is eternal according to Christian beliefs. This should be fixed. Biophys ( talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It tells: "Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars". What? As long as time is defined by a measurement, it is indeed unequivocally defined for any practical or theoretical purposes. Yes, this applies everywhere. There are many questions about time, but they are not related to the physical definition. Right? Biophys ( talk) 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We first must provide definition of the term per WP:MOS. Here we must give priority to the only scientific/physical definition of time: Time is what clocks measure. [7]. Why? Because this is "majority view". If there are any other philosophical or religious definitions (rather than interpretations or discussions) of time, for example, by Leibniz or Kant, let's provide them too per sources. This is first problem that needs to be resolved. Let's do one thing at a time. Any comments? Biophys ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
First let me say, about what you are doing in this section, good job!
Second, how do you know that the "scientific" definition of time is the majority view? Are there sources that say this is so? I think philosophical inquires, and the definitions derived from these are probably just as valid. Just look at the list of unresolved issues in the first paragraph here [8]. And looking at the second paragraph "Some of these issues will be resolved by scientific advances alone, but others require philosophical analysis." I could possibly say that both philosophical and scientific have equal weight.
What do you mean WP:SYN about Newton and Lebniz, regarding this article?
Also simply stating "time is what clocks measure" may be problematic. There was a time when clocks, as we know them today, did not exist.
I think you are misunderstanding this statement "Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time." This means rather than define time by some abstract theory or argument, it is defined by some measurable, and repeatable phenonemna, such as counting something, or units of something. It is very scientific (that's my POV talking). Hence, "regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum."
Hopefully other editors will weigh in. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing at a time, please.
1. An article should start from definition of the term per WP:MOS. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk)
2 There is a widely accepted and scientific definition of the term. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
3 Please place here any other alternative definitions of the term per sources. If no one does, we do not include alternative definitions. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a general-purpose, comprehensive, encyclopedia, not a physics encyclopedia. The 2 distinct defs are repeatedly referenced & discussed as distinct in the Stanford & IEP refs. Submit your proposed text here & let's examine it beforehand - so that reversion is not the only way to deal with changes-- JimWae ( talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Rulers show the length of objects (like bathtubs), they do not measure length itself-- JimWae ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion here about how to define time, especially for the last 3 months. If anyone thinks they have arrived at a single definition that will satisfy WP:NPOV, they probably have not been following along. WP:LEDE guides us to present significant controversies in the lede.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We are making progress. I restored an older version of the lede that I wrote:
Modocc (following me here across topics from Talk:Universal reconciliation, and without commenting here on talk) changed the wording to:
The main thing that stands out with Modocc's rewrite is the language "in apparent succession." If time has illusory qualities which make it substantially different from its "apparent" forward direction, these should be stated. The language gets to the topic of the perception of time (redirects to sense of time - should be "perception" as time is not "sensed"), which is probably relevant, and perhaps should be linked. But the language "apparently" is based in an idea that time's perception could be fundamental to time itself, and while this idea is an advanced one, its best formulations get into Orch-OR territory and other quasi-scientific conjectures about how the mind works at perceiving nature. But even these generally don't negate the idea that time is a continuum, and that its continuous - ie. its forward moving (or in physics terms, its non- symmetric). So, theres little doubt that time moves forward in a procession or succession, and thus the caveat hinted at with the word "apparent" seems unnecessary. Regards, - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 19:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
¿↔~
"time is the totally loss of life in any course". its a one dimensional quantity through which events paas or flow in a sequence from past to present and to the future it is not revirsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raza536 ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in the Time Travel section is referenced to an outside source. If it is just someone's personal thoughts on the subject, shouldn't it be removed? It would be much better just to include the link to the Time Travel article. 75.43.89.194 ( talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with JimWae's and edit summary, so I undid it:
We could take the view that many people look at events as having duration, and find that not everything that has a duration should be called a process, and decide to restore that part, but I definitely think we should leave out that phrase ""and other changes.<!-- such as radioactive decay-->"
Any seconds? Thirds? Other thoughts? DVdm ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Remarks:
So I think a good and balanced opening statement would be:
It certainly is correct from the physics/scientitic point of view, and I really don't see what would be wrong, unclear or ambiguous about it from the general or philosophical point of view. Perhaps there's some kind of compromise I didn't think of? DVdm ( talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, you just wrote: "Events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes BECAUSE events can be assigned a temporal location - whereas processes do not.". There you confirm exactly my point. If indeed, like you say, "events can be assigned a temporal location whereas processes do not," and "events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes," then I think we are on the same line. What you say here seems to me to be 100% compatible with my proposed opening sentence. The only point of discussion that remains between us is that you also use the word event for things that have a duration. You call an earthquake an event, I call it a process - ok, I have a math/phys background and I assume you have a philosophy background. No problem. Surely there must be a non-confusing way to combine us in the wording of the lead? DVdm ( talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
How does one "compare the durations of evaporation"? When does evaporation start? When does it end? A towel drying up (after a rainstorm, say) is an event. It is not itself a process (distinct from the same towel drying up the next day). The process of evaporation happens to the towel, but the process we know as evaporation continues throughout the world even after the towel is "dry". Otherwise we would end up identifying the process of evaporation from a towel as a distinct process from the evaporation that happens to a sponge, or the same towel the next day.
Just because we can identify the start of an event does not mean that there is something odd about speaking of the duration of an event. Perhaps someone speaks of events as it they were dimensionless instants, but even the start of what are ordinarily called "events" also have durations. The start of a movie includes the time it takes for the projectionist to flip the switch, for the projector to light up and the time for the light to reach the screen. The sources: [2] (which need to be re-inserted into the article) speak about the duration of events AND refer to processes (n.b. periodic processes) when discussing the development of the units of temporal measurement. Some processes, such as electrolysis, can be stopped and started in a designated spatio-temporal location, but this does not give a duration to the process of electrolysis itself - it gives duration to the event of, say, electroplating a spoon in preparation for sale. This round of edits started because you considered it wrong to speak of events having duration. I see no source for such an assertion - and several sources that do support events having duration. -- JimWae ( talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.). Cite error: The named reference "AHD" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time....
11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time.
Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last.... Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question "What is physical time?" is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime.
2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms.... In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event. See space-time continuum.
A dimension distinguishing past, present, and future. In relativity, time is portrayed as a geometrical dimension, analogous to the dimensions of space.
1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be... a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval
1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.... 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.... 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? ... 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right.
A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years.
1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole,... 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms
1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated.
A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one event preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension.
Separate sections [of this article] also review basic geological processes and their actions in shaping the earth... major areas of geological study [in this encyclopedia]...include Geochronology, Geophysics, Mineralogy, Paleontology, and, under Rocks, —petrology. Articles on large-scale processes and structures of the earth include Continent, Earth, Earthquake, Fault, Glacier, Mountain, and Volcano, and there are numerous separate articles on the earth's rocks and minerals. The history of the earth is discussed in separate entries on geological eras, periods, epochs, and rock series, and in articles such as Continent, Earth, Ice Ages, and Paleography. Consult the Index under Geology and Geography for some of the many other entries on geological processes and structures.
Pliny's Natural History was the greatest collection of information on natural history, minerals, rocks, earthquakes, and other geological processes and manifestations. Pliny, in fact, lost his life while attempting to examine the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. at very close hand...( James Hutton) concerned himself with the earth's present state and with the processes that had formed the rocks, their structures, and surface forms...Hutton believed that sediments were formed by long-continued weathering and erosion of continents and that the sediments were carried by streams, deposited in seas, and later consolidated into sedimentary rocks and lifted above sea level. There they were eroded, and the cycle began again. Thus surface landforms were not original, but were the remains of erosional processes
Textile, a fabric made by weaving, knitting, netting, or braiding. The term is also applied to the component fibers, such as silk, wool, cotton, linen, rayon, and nylon, of such fabrics. Beautiful fabrics have been made in many lands since antiquity. Equipment and methods have altered, but the basic processes of spinning and weaving have not changed since the 14th century. Spinning and Weaving are related topics.
Process Philosophy, the doctrinal tendency of philosophical thought, going back to Heraclitus in the 6th century B.C., holding that reality is best understood in terms of ephemeral processes rather than stable substances. Becoming and change - the origination, flourishing, and passing of the old and the innovative emergence of ever-new instances, and kinds of existence - [these] constitute the central themes of process metaphysics... A process philosopher, then, is someone for whom such processes are metaphysically fundamental and for whom temporality, activity, and change—of alteration, striving, passage, and novelty-emergence—are the ontologically, or at least hermeneutically most pivotal features of the real
Just two remarks:
Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I realize we've been around the houses on this one, but the lead to this article is focused too strongly on time as a concept in the natural sciences, and in particular on the idea of quantification (the words "quantity" and "quantify" appear rather clumsily three times in the first sentence). This is not in itself wrong, but the article needs a more general working definition before it focuses on how time has been quantified/measured. After all, human beings have traditionally had concepts of time that are not quantifiable.
Contrast the French version of this page (which is much more philosophy-based, incidentally), where the first sentence is: "Le temps est un concept développé par l'être humain pour appréhender le changement dans le monde" ("Time is a concept developped by human beings in order to apprehend change in the world"). While I might argue with aspects of that (for example, "duration" and "repetition" seem at least as important as change in basic human conceptions of time) at least the French sentence is much more readily comprehensible to someone who wants a quick check on the concept than the current "Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes" (2010-11-16). The existing sentence could be the second sentence of the article, perhaps prefaced with "As a system of measurement, ". And why introduce the idea of "one-dimensional" so early on? The idea of time as a dimension pertains rather specifically to physics (and to science fiction). IMOHOO, it would make more sense to mention everyday measurement of time (e.g., in terms of natural cycles/rotation of the earth/moon and mechanical equivalent in clocks) *before* introducing the idea of time as a dimension in physics. In other words, the lead should work from the general and the everyday to the specific and specialized. -- GKantaris ( talk) 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Entry removed by user - semi-restored so what follows makes some sense |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
the present text is"to create a relation" as we can not campare all intervals and their duration with each other?( Raza536 ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)) |
Sir don't mind that I'm talking two way but what my concept is that time is neither a part of any system nor it is quantifiable and as you said events are not always apparent they may occur simultaneously will you please explain this with example and as said events may b simultaneously then there might be a universal time all over the entire universe??? will you tell me what is universal time and its relation with events???
and talking about the article I myself m trying to improve the article as ir is very important topic ( Raza536 ( talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)).
well sir if something published should be written here then what's the reason of wasting time here its not my personal thought or any personal observation its a research apart from english is good or not
now talking about the topic you talked about simultaneous events what's the concept here will you elaborate??? and since time is one dimensional quantity and cannot be plotted on graph so how could you compare the time as in your definition you have used the word "compare" ( Raza536 ( talk) 07:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)) well I have a better definition if you allow to write in the article??? Raza536 ( talk) 12:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
see definition on my topic in this talk page What is Time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time#What_Is_.27TIME.27.3F Raza536 ( talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been touched on, but wouldnt supertasks negate the possibility of time existing in a linear fasion that makes any sense in any scenario beyond subjective view? The idea is that there is basically an infinite amount of potential time units between any two other time units, such that to reach any other point in time would be logically impossible.
But then Im terrible at math and actual numbers. Chardansearavitriol ( talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia could touch on these. No original research. 92.7.169.0 ( talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
well guys no original rsrch can be made on the unrecognizeable behaviour of time since time "flows" & is one dimensional quantity nothing accurately can be said or written on time(
Raza536 (
talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC))
I propose deleting the subsection Time as "unreal". I would propose a copy edit, but both the title and contents are worthless.
My paraphrases from the subsection are in both quotes and italics "like this".
The title says "Time is unreal", but the content says "Time is real". The title Real and unreal might work, but the title Reality might better provide a single, balanced section.
Antiphon the Sophist. The direct link to sophistry confuses the issue. The paraphrase with the link to Sophism reads "The book On Truth, whose main theme was that time is unreal was written by a " sophist who used a specious argument to deceive its readers." — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Balance paradox. "Time as illusion/unreality leads to a paradox". Yes. But so does time as reality :-) — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Balance the view of physicists. "Modern physicists generally consider time is as real as space." Yes. But space is not very real to physicists either :-). In a related article Block universe, a citation there reminds us, concerning the presentation of the reality of time, " Even though equations of physics do not imply that time lapses, they also do not imply that time does not lapse." — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Philosophy. The subsection is supposed contain philosophy, but the contents of that subsection are, rather, 1)history of philosophy 2)references, and 3) an ambiguous suggestion about scientists' "scientific" opinions of time.— Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Represent the reference. 1)The reference 35, by Foundalis properly as saying "Time is real, but [...] the flow of time is a cognitive illusion." Yet it is supposed to support "If time is held to be an illusion, then this belief will lead to a paradox." The cite does not say "illusion leads to paradox", but only that claims were made that time is an illusion. Here's the quote from foundalis:
“ | In the 5th century BC, the Sophist philosopher Antiphon wrote in his On Truth that “Time is not a reality, but a concept, or a measure”. Parmenides, founder of the Eleatic school, went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change, are illusions. Parmenides’s ideas were best advertised by his student Zeno of Elea, who posed his famous paradoxes about time, claiming that motion is impossible. The most famous of his paradoxes is the one in which Achilles, the legendary hero and a fast runner, starts 100 m (say) behind a tortoise... | ” |
2)"Time as unreal is a common theme in Buddhism." Yes and No. A " theme" is a unifying subject or idea of a story, but the philosophy of Buddhism's common theme is not unreality of time. Rather say: A minor aspect of Buddhism is the unreality of all existence, and a common aspect of Buddhism is the reality of existence. 3)Antiphon the Sophist's book On Truth, according to my research on its description is mostly about politics and law. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
With the understanding that moving rather than deleting, is preferred, I submit that that subsection should be carefully deleted for the above reasoning. Can someone point out some worth in that subsection? — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
We share at least one thing - esteem for John Searle, whom I have met & engaged in philo talk. I am sure, however, he still gives sources for when he writes about what others have written. more later -- JimWae ( talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but your source fails verification - a source that does not even mention TIME cannot become the source for text of one of 2 MAIN positions on time-- JimWae ( talk) 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You were complaining that there was no philosophy in some section or other, yet the very first thing you changed was the part that was one of the most expansive in terms of philosophy. What's up with that?-- JimWae ( talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A footnote and some minor rewording made, but JimWae removed them saying there was no source, but there were sources. 1) The definitions were interwikied to Wiktionary, a reliable source. The word wikt:event was "temporal" as required, and the word wikt:phenomenon was absent of the concept of time, as required by the context of that paragraph. 2) The changes from "intellectual concept" to "brain workings" were linked to the Edge.org article of a neuroscientist explaining the same thing that was already there in the article, but with an extra component called "symbol manipulation". (Edge.org is an esteemed forum for the highest intellects on the WWW.) There was also a link directly to the author of the cited article on our Wiki. I undid the revision because I think the reason in the edit summary was invalid. I am willing, however, to consider specific facts proving that I am clueless and out of line as to my understanding of the context of the paragraph we're working on here. But certainly there were the proper cites. If there is anyone of this articles several hundred watchers, please weigh in. Thank you. — Cpiral Cpiral 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
TIME:-
"The Time is one dimentional quantity,it is used to determine the period or duration of the events and periods or duration of interval of periods or duration of events or between events"
NOTE: Time is the basic and different physical quantity which is not comparable with other physical quantity but it is used to determine the other physical quantity by which these quantity are defined Such as Velocity"distance covered in unit TIME". It is just a relation between space and numerics to measure the rate of flow of any event and the interval between these events and their duration
Raza536 ( talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
well there is no english language problem in my definition and as you said that the article support to define time in easier and basic way and my definition is much simpler
OBJECTIONS ON YOUR DEFINITION:-
1>you worte in your definition that we compare events then on what scale is used to compare event??? 2>to sequence events(before and after)well time starts with the starting point of universe and ends with the end point of universe that's why we draw straight line with arrow there is nothing to before the universe as time started with bigbang 3)according to you time is a part of measuring system on what basis time is being measured? if time is a part of measuring system what is that system and then it has no link with other systems? 4>your definition provides no information about time machine! and it talks about only one frame of refrence it doesn't supports any external frame whereas my definition can talk on many frame of refrence at a time Raza536 ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
1)why should event start rougly at the same time? there should be a scale to in which these events which are campared should be measured 2)we certainly do need to know that"what was before time"? or "when there was no time what was there" such question also need to be sequenced 3)ok systems might be linked with each other but what about the frame of reference ? your definition talks about only one frame of reference whereas according to theory realtivity there are many frame of reference of time. 4)since time machine is linked with past and future and they act as a film strip there might be a possible way to approach into future and to go back into past??? so its also a part of time Raza536 ( talk) 05:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
CONCENTRATE ON TIME ONLY 1)let suppose two events start or begun at roughly the same time one is raining and other is thunderstorm and as coincidence both stops or end also at the same time now how could we campar both the events??? 2)we certainly do need to know the origin,nature and its reality you may do not need to know which of your children born first because you know which one was born first but you also want to know that which one is male and female same implies with time?what was there before time if time started with bigbang how?and why? 3)if system are are very much linked with each other then why there is change of time in one frame of reference and another time in other frame of reference??? 4)car,aeroplane,rocket etc are all time machine in a sense they are time saving let suppose a person on foot takes 1hr to cover 1km by car it would take 5min only in this way he has saved his time 55min are extra for him as campare to the pedistrain. another esxampl;e could be of twin paradox that if person travels with speed of light he just lives 10min while other lives 100yrs why there is such great change of time??? there might be a possible gate to enter in future or past???(apart from its not reality) Raza536 ( talk) 11:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
1)we certainly do need to for how long both of they lasted 2)nobody is interested in knowing which of his child was born first as everybody already know that who was born first 3)But it do mean that they are linked somehow???they do agree but time is all different for them 4)ok then leave this topic
and than tell me what's problem in my deinition as your definition talks on the intervel between events and their duration as events do not have any duration and stationary things also feel time??? Raza536 ( talk) 09:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The blurb pertaining to the book Being and Time by Martin Heidegger is not really clear. Furthermore, since the source is the actual book itself this paragraph may be an original interpretation. Therefore it may contradict WP:NOR. A source that directly supports the material as presented may be needed. Moreover, Jim Wae has tagged this paragraph for further clarification, and I agree. So, I am moving this paragraph with the clarification request to this section for more discussion.
Regarding: This "vulgar conception of time", descended from Aristotle's conception of counted time, became mathematized in the Modern Age with Newton, Leibniz and others as one-dimensional, continuous, real time.
Time was already considered one-dimensional and continuous before Aristotle. Look at Zeno's arrow paradox and you will see a pre-Socratic already presenting arguments which challenge continuity, but accept one-dimensionality. As for "real", well, does anyone know what it's supposed to mean there? Additionally, if I say my daughter is 25 years old, have I "mathematized" her life more than I would have if I had said she was younger than I, and by so doing have I vulgarly deprived her of something? Maybe MH said something like this, maybe not. If MH attacks people for whom only the present "now-instants" are real, why cannot his admirers of a certain philosophical bent communicate with linguistic labels (e.g. Presentism, [I acknowledge that term would never have been used by MH, but introduced it in an attempt to spark some attempt at clarity, meaningfulness, & cross-communication - and explained its meaning immediately ]) that are used by philosophers of a different philosophical bent. Why cannot we try to compare "a continuous flow of 'now-instants' passing through presence" with McTaggart's A-series? Is it because MH thought philosophy could only be done in German & Greek? [18] [19] -- JimWae ( talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Michael Eldred Artefactme ( talk) 14:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Michael Eldred Artefactme ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.
Michael Eldred 84.63.117.97 ( talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Re calling Nagarjuna's argument logical. Let's take it step by step
I have demonstrated that the premises of the argument are false - or at least not generally accepted as true. I have demonstrated that the argument is not sound. It is generally agreed that the following arguments are "logical" - though not "sound".
The argument is in the form of a syllogism,(All X are Y; all Y are Z; thus all X are Z) but it would be misleading & unfair to say it was a "logical" argument (even though it is). Logic does not decide whether an argument is correct; it only "decides" if an argument is incorrect. The premises must also be true for an argument to be sound. Even illogical arguments can have true conclusions: All monkeys are mammals; All monkeys have vertebrae; All mammals have vertebrae.
That Nagarjuna's argument resembles a syllogism & resembles a reductio ad absurdum does not make his argument any more "logical" than any another unsound argument. The dependency of the present upon past events is not an argument from logic, it is an argument about causality. Arguments about causality are either scientific arguments or metaphysical arguments. There is no indication that N's argument is meant as a scientific argument. Arguments that attempt to deduce a "new insight" into "the nature of reality" from causality or other metaphysical principles, using only a priori methods, are metaphysical arguments.
My prior presentation of Nagarjuna's argument is the clearer and better supported version -- JimWae ( talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
An additional problem with Nagarjuna's argument is his using the vocabulary of reification for past, present, & future - and for time itself. When we say the present depends on the past, we are using a kind of shorthand idiom that means that past events have consequences on present and future events. We do not MEAN that "the past" is itself an entity that has agency.
Furthermore, he *gives* an argument against the existence of the present & the future. He does not *give* any argument against (the existence of the) past, though he waves a few words in that direction. Let's just leave the text as "he gives an argument against the existence of the present and the future, and of time itself".-- JimWae ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You're arguments are right, the three stanzas I quoted from the text aren't a coherent argumentation. Apart from that, in the chapter about time there are three more stanzas which I want to mention for completion:
4.
5.
6.
The argument in stanza 6, that there is no existent entity is explained in the text earlier. That is not a metaphysical supposition, but also a conclusion by a logical refutation of the assertion, that entities have an inherent existence. By taking this chapter out of it's context, it becomes incoherent. But what becomes clear is, that Nagarjuna refutes the assertion that time has an inherent existence no matter if you reificate it or say that it depends on entities and events as you described.
The notion of causality must rather be understood as "dependent arising", since Nagarjuna also refutes the assertion of inherent causality. See here: Dependent_arising#Madhyamaka_and_Pratityasamutpada
Finally, Nagarjuna actually doesn't assert any standpoint, but only refutes assertions about the nature of reality that were present during his time. So instead of giving a wrong impression about Nagarjuna or the Madhyamaka in general, I took the passage out of the article. • Madden ( talk) 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The lede begins presently as:
Lets suppose a measuring system, say the use of my watch and a wall calendar. Now according to the definition given, time is some part of this system, but what or which part of the system it is left undefined. For instance, conventionally, "the clock" is "...a part of the measuring system used to sequence events...". Even my left thumb can be a part of such a system. Furthermore, time existed before we evolved and started measuring it, hence existing independently of any measuring systems. Even more revealing is what we would have if we defined space similarly, such as: "Space is a part of the measuring system used to map the relative positions of objects in three-dimensions." Although not incorrect in anyway, its way off the mark, lacking in definition; the essential information of "what part" and clarity (see the space article for a better description that does not invoke measurement). I know getting consensus wording has been difficult, but I'd surely like to see something else written. Perhaps we can work on something like this:
Note: With only instants existing, current events have no duration, so durations are an illusion (events with duration don't exist). To deny both instants and events, though would either venture into old fallibilistic speculation or unfruitful research that involves some form of substitution (such as substituting space and space-time concepts for those of time, thus "denying" time exists), but since a succession of instants is the same as a succession of events with no duration we could drop "instants" although I think the concept of instants may be important enough to include. Thoughts. -- Modocc ( talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head):- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(add/annotate at will)
|
---|
|
1) Reality is essential to a colloquial definition and probably negates the need to indicate scope ("macroscopic"). 4) Phenomenon works with "reality." - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute over how to begin the article. An editor has persistently added unsourced material of this sort to the very top of the article
The cited source was appropriated from a citation that was previously further down in the lede. THe cited source does not contain words supporting "Time is a... process in which reality is transformed" or any such thing. Editor has repeatedly removed tags applied to the text - with edits marked as minor. Editor is altering pages linked to in his construction in a manner to bolster his argument, but it all appears to be the same original research kind of editing. Editor has attributed WP:OWN to me because I will not allow him to add this unsourced material. There are 4 Qs that could be addressed. 1> Is the sentence properly sourced? 2> Does it belong in the lede? 3>Is it good enough to be the first sentence of the lede? 4> In its present state, does it even belong in the article?
This is a recent previous edit from 2010-JUL-12 along the same lines, also marked minor:
-- JimWae ( talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is a one- dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days). Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.
It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed". Neither are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that. We do not need the first sentence at all. The 2nd sentence is well-sourced & covers aspects of numerous sources-- JimWae ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical phenomenon... in which reality is transformed" NONE are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that.
Fatal flaws.... ???? Though you occasionally extend a compliment my way, they seem usually to be part of an effort to compliment yourself. We are not here to discuss whether you have explored fatal flaws in what I wrote, nor in what is presented in dictionaries... AND encyclopedias. You have not provided a source for your preferred "insight" into what time "really is". We are not even here to discuss what time "really is". We are here to present what the best reliable sources have to offer. We are not here to argue about your "insight" into what time "really is". You have not shown any effort to source your material. There's really nothing more that should need to be said. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. You are never going to get this right for everyone. As the article says, defining the concept of time has eluded the greatest scholars. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Forget that. The lead changed as I was writing this.
I think that editors here need to concentrate on writing something as non-contentions as possible so that the lead will be stable, maybe along the lines of, 'time is the concept that separates the past from the future' or whatever. Maybe even start with the fact that there is no definition, 'Time is a concept which all humans seem to understand but for which there is no adequate definition'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1. A great many of the defs that are referenced in the article do not use the term "continuum". The meaning of the "continuum", whether technically correct or not, is not transparent to the reader, and the function of definitions in general-use encyclopedias is to explain things in simpler terms, not in more complex terms. Does saying time IS a continuum say more about time or more about quantification in general? I'm not sure it has been determined yet that time IS a continuum, though we have determined that there is no reason yet that we cannot consider time as a continuous quantity.
2. Saying time is "something" "in which events occur" suggests that time has some sort of ontological precedence over events - that time is some kind of aether that events depend on for their existence. This tends to "reify" time in a way that is open to question. Another valid way of looking at it is that time depends on events. As it says later in the lede: Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence...
3. How do we decide what defs to use to say what time "is", and what defs to use to say how time "has been defined". Isn't it taking sides to choose some and not others for saying what time "is"?
4. Maybe I missed it - was there a discussion about why we need any part of this new first sentence? I am going to remove it and see if others agree it is not needed. I know Steve does not agree, but Steve has not concerned himself with sources so far, and wants to insert his own unsourced insights as what time IS, so there is not likely any way he will be satisfied with WP standards regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and original research.-- JimWae ( talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
References presently cited
|
---|
"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time." ). "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2010. http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/. "Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last.... Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question "What is physical time?" is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime." "MacMillan Dictionary". 2010. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/time. "the quantity that you measure using a clock" "The American Heritage® Science Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated." "Collins English Dictionary". HarperCollins. 2003. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time. "2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms.... In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event. See space-time continuum." "Eric Weisstein's World of Science". 2007. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html. "A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one even preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension." "Glossary for Extragalactic Astronomy". CalTech. 2005. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_T.html. "A dimension distinguishing past, present, and future. In relativity, time is portrayed as a geometrical dimension, analogous to the dimensions of space." "Merriam Webster Online Dictionary". 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time. "1a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration; 1b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future; 2: the point or period when something occurs : occasion" "Encarta Online Dictionary". 2010. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861720331. "1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events." "Webster's New World College Dictionary". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be... a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval" "Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on Random House Dictionary". 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.... 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.... 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? ... 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right." "The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years." "Collins Language.com". HarperCollins. 2010. http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=time. "1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole,... 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms" "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia". 2010. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596034/time. "Measured or measurable period. More broadly, it is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions." "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time." |
That's leaning towards non-realism again 1Z ( talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The realist version is controversial. Non-realist accounts are minimalist - just what we need to avoid controversy. Realist accounts could maybe come afterwards. Anyway, perhaps this will work better (it certainly is better syntax):
JimWae did propose an alternative, this. But only four of the thirteen sources state that time is a quantity. And of those, two place it under "(physics)", and another is a physics reference. The forth also happens to say its a continuous quantity. Thus defining time simply as a quantity has limited usage, so must it really be at the top? Regarding Jim's initial concern about not saying time is continuous, six sources explicitly give this general understanding. In addition, another source gives a view that it is continuous. Several of the sources only define time with a period or duration which for all practical purposes, given that events are random, is a continuous quantity. In short, the notion that time IS, in a general sense, "something" that is continuous is easy to verify. That something is called a continuum and in physics its an integral part of the spacetime continuum. Thus there is no need to obscure the fact that time is considered a continuum too (last I read, there was some agreement on calling the theory of relativity a fact, but that's getting into wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory). I've suggested changing the "the continuum in which events occur" to "the continuum of events which occur" so as to make it more explicit that the continuum is a relation regarding events. Saying something IS defined a certain way in the top of the lede favors it of course, but not to the exclusion of other definitions. For example, Blue is one of the three primary colors. It is also a perception of the visual senses. Hence, this "has been defined" is unnecessary verbiage as long as we assure that these definitions convey, in a respectable manner, the essential topic here which is time. -- Modocc ( talk) 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Nor does time "exist" the same way trees do. I would prefer saying "time is" too - if it were possible for humans to agree on what time is - but that is a goal, not an achievement. I have more concerns with saying "time is a continuum in which events occur" (like time is an "aether"), than I am with saying "time is a continuous quantity" (vs. discrete). There are, however, some few who maintain time could be discrete. Though I do not agree with them, I do NOT think it has been determined that time is continuous, just that WE regard it as continuous, and no reason has yet been found to stop us from regarding it as continuous. Perhaps it was a mistake to change from a treatment similar to that in 2007 - though now modified somewhat. One distinct view of time is that it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension *in which* events occur.... -- JimWae ( talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Linear time is accelerated by motivation. This manifests itself as change of velocity of the flow of time resulting from change of magnitude of the unit of measurement. The observer of the change is only conscious of that change if the change is the difference between observations of the contents of two units 'now' or of the comparable magnitude of two units 'now'. The observer is then in the boundary between the two moments 'now'. Change of a static unit 'now' cannot be observed because the change is within the static unit. The unit 'now' is an interval of time of magnitude which is specific for the particular oberver and is a cycle contained between two limits of the 'beginning', symbolised by '0', and the 'end' symbolised by '1'. Seen as one, the duality of (0<1), is a static interval of time, containing observer's consciousness of the external world. It also contains consciousness of the 'self' and of the memory. Since 'now' is static it can change for the next 'now' only quantitatively and outside of the observer's consciousness, in which case the boundary is too small to accommodate the unit 'now' containing consciousness. There is no observable transformation from one magnitude of the 'now' to a different magnitude or transformation in the difference between parts within the 'now' itself. When the variable boundary is at its maximum the 'now', contained between the 'beginning' and the dynamic 'end', is contradiction of Nothingness and it is of unlimited magnitude. Change is then perfectly continuous and unlimited, so that the medium of the largest 'now' is the Nothingness of unlimited plurality of the 'units' of Nothingness
To change from one 'now' to the next 'now', whether continuously, using the smallest 'now, or quantitatively, in the case of the largest 'now', or by a combination of the two, there must be motivation for the change. The units of Nothingness change continuously, making the medium of unlimited plurality of identical units of Nothingness, dynamic. The medium of Nothingness is unlimited, static and therefore eternal but it contains all the possible units of limited plurality and of variable organisations. This is possible only if there is a conscious observer motivating and organising the medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.36.126 ( talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Apology, I forgot to sign the above contribution. I want to add that time has no spatial magnitude because it is rotation of the point. But the point can rotate with vartiable velocity thus creating organisations outside of space. Points of variable velocity of rotation can interact but only points with identical velocity of rotation unite and double the velocity. Manifestation of time is 'energy' or 'motivation'. We experience it as the material or immaterial space times. KK ( 213.158.199.139 ( talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is the fourth dimension.Think about it for a minute when someone gives you a date or an appointment there are three things to consider length,breadth,and altitude but even with these coordinates there is one last thing to consider and that is of course time.Where would you be knowing where to go but not knowing when to arrive somewhere?~~lightbeamrider
Just for the record, yoctosecond, is correct and yactosecond is incorrect. However, I don't understand the editing of the word "common" for the table. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Time|p005465z}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
I'm experimenting with a certain tit-for-tat/adversarial way of dealing with Jim, who mistakenly regards himself as an WP:OWNer of this article. Comments welcome.
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think indeed that the main problem should be: split the contribution.
The time, time inversion and relationships of time with modern theories is not that clear yet to even the top guy in physics. I would create a further, Time (disambiguation): Time (history of the term) Time (Measures) Time (in physics) Time (in IT: Time zones to start with)
How to get back them together? no clue.. just time.
But definitely, if classical time apply: I revert you to a baby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would propose such a section. Because most of our perception of time depend on a computer giving us the time. The computer being a phone, the desktop or a complex alarm-clock.
But in particular because I need to sort time events and I want to use the unix sort -n facility. I can do it if time is given as: YYYY.MM.DD.HH.mm.ss.Decimals Or in numbers: 20101011212200.milliseconds this format has the precision of milliseconds (at least) on a 32 bit machine.
Because this number is not a problem for modern machines, I would propose this format for time events. This will cover any Y2K troubles until year 9999. Scientific experiment with sub-time measures can be connect to this time scale (They typically will use their own time scale anyway).
Of course the time shift is still in place: but it is typically on the hours with a precision of a second.
This is the simplest, organic, number ordered unit of time with the precision of milliseconds on a modern computer. It can be used for any life time event.
Beside the proposition of the time variable: I strongly recommend a section about IT time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW: the Y2K problem should be mentioned. Why we had a "time" problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 ( talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Steve Quinn came by and offered us the above writing:
There is much to like about it, but nevertheless just like anything it must go through a vetting process here on talk. I will make some specific plaudits and critiques shortly. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't like "paradigm" and I don't like "macroscopically". 1Z ( talk) 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Time is the (non-spacial) distance between two events. (Jijil Ramakrishnan) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
180.215.52.74 (
talk) 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Some days ago I placed the {{ Lead too long}} template on Time/Archive 5. I would have edited the lead myself, but my current internet connection has considerable problems to load the article. In the meantime Steve Quinn did some work there. He also asked for my opinion. Now, here it comes, applying to the current version:
The third paragraph referring to Ray Cummings should be moved to a new art-about-time section. It is a nice illustration of the sequencing concept, but it definitly does not belong in the lead. Also there is a lot of redundancy and undue elaboration within the other two paragraphs.
Generally the lead section should introduce and summarise the article using introduction style of language. That means for example: being short, having short sentences, no explanation, no history (if not being about history), naming the most important concepts, thereby possibly referring major point of views. Also the lead should start with some kind of definition, due to the article being an encyclopaedic one.
I already have some ideas for a rewrite. Here a first structured list of concepts:
Lastly I would like to state that there is no need to rush: The lead has issues, but it is not wrong. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
1. The quote from Ecclesiastes is not about time, but about timing and therefore does not belong here. Biophys ( talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Second coming does not mean end of time because God is eternal according to Christian beliefs. This should be fixed. Biophys ( talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It tells: "Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars". What? As long as time is defined by a measurement, it is indeed unequivocally defined for any practical or theoretical purposes. Yes, this applies everywhere. There are many questions about time, but they are not related to the physical definition. Right? Biophys ( talk) 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We first must provide definition of the term per WP:MOS. Here we must give priority to the only scientific/physical definition of time: Time is what clocks measure. [7]. Why? Because this is "majority view". If there are any other philosophical or religious definitions (rather than interpretations or discussions) of time, for example, by Leibniz or Kant, let's provide them too per sources. This is first problem that needs to be resolved. Let's do one thing at a time. Any comments? Biophys ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
First let me say, about what you are doing in this section, good job!
Second, how do you know that the "scientific" definition of time is the majority view? Are there sources that say this is so? I think philosophical inquires, and the definitions derived from these are probably just as valid. Just look at the list of unresolved issues in the first paragraph here [8]. And looking at the second paragraph "Some of these issues will be resolved by scientific advances alone, but others require philosophical analysis." I could possibly say that both philosophical and scientific have equal weight.
What do you mean WP:SYN about Newton and Lebniz, regarding this article?
Also simply stating "time is what clocks measure" may be problematic. There was a time when clocks, as we know them today, did not exist.
I think you are misunderstanding this statement "Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time." This means rather than define time by some abstract theory or argument, it is defined by some measurable, and repeatable phenonemna, such as counting something, or units of something. It is very scientific (that's my POV talking). Hence, "regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum."
Hopefully other editors will weigh in. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing at a time, please.
1. An article should start from definition of the term per WP:MOS. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk)
2 There is a widely accepted and scientific definition of the term. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
3 Please place here any other alternative definitions of the term per sources. If no one does, we do not include alternative definitions. Do you agree? Biophys ( talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a general-purpose, comprehensive, encyclopedia, not a physics encyclopedia. The 2 distinct defs are repeatedly referenced & discussed as distinct in the Stanford & IEP refs. Submit your proposed text here & let's examine it beforehand - so that reversion is not the only way to deal with changes-- JimWae ( talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Rulers show the length of objects (like bathtubs), they do not measure length itself-- JimWae ( talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion here about how to define time, especially for the last 3 months. If anyone thinks they have arrived at a single definition that will satisfy WP:NPOV, they probably have not been following along. WP:LEDE guides us to present significant controversies in the lede.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We are making progress. I restored an older version of the lede that I wrote:
Modocc (following me here across topics from Talk:Universal reconciliation, and without commenting here on talk) changed the wording to:
The main thing that stands out with Modocc's rewrite is the language "in apparent succession." If time has illusory qualities which make it substantially different from its "apparent" forward direction, these should be stated. The language gets to the topic of the perception of time (redirects to sense of time - should be "perception" as time is not "sensed"), which is probably relevant, and perhaps should be linked. But the language "apparently" is based in an idea that time's perception could be fundamental to time itself, and while this idea is an advanced one, its best formulations get into Orch-OR territory and other quasi-scientific conjectures about how the mind works at perceiving nature. But even these generally don't negate the idea that time is a continuum, and that its continuous - ie. its forward moving (or in physics terms, its non- symmetric). So, theres little doubt that time moves forward in a procession or succession, and thus the caveat hinted at with the word "apparent" seems unnecessary. Regards, - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 19:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
¿↔~
"time is the totally loss of life in any course". its a one dimensional quantity through which events paas or flow in a sequence from past to present and to the future it is not revirsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raza536 ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in the Time Travel section is referenced to an outside source. If it is just someone's personal thoughts on the subject, shouldn't it be removed? It would be much better just to include the link to the Time Travel article. 75.43.89.194 ( talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with JimWae's and edit summary, so I undid it:
We could take the view that many people look at events as having duration, and find that not everything that has a duration should be called a process, and decide to restore that part, but I definitely think we should leave out that phrase ""and other changes.<!-- such as radioactive decay-->"
Any seconds? Thirds? Other thoughts? DVdm ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Remarks:
So I think a good and balanced opening statement would be:
It certainly is correct from the physics/scientitic point of view, and I really don't see what would be wrong, unclear or ambiguous about it from the general or philosophical point of view. Perhaps there's some kind of compromise I didn't think of? DVdm ( talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, you just wrote: "Events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes BECAUSE events can be assigned a temporal location - whereas processes do not.". There you confirm exactly my point. If indeed, like you say, "events can be assigned a temporal location whereas processes do not," and "events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes," then I think we are on the same line. What you say here seems to me to be 100% compatible with my proposed opening sentence. The only point of discussion that remains between us is that you also use the word event for things that have a duration. You call an earthquake an event, I call it a process - ok, I have a math/phys background and I assume you have a philosophy background. No problem. Surely there must be a non-confusing way to combine us in the wording of the lead? DVdm ( talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
How does one "compare the durations of evaporation"? When does evaporation start? When does it end? A towel drying up (after a rainstorm, say) is an event. It is not itself a process (distinct from the same towel drying up the next day). The process of evaporation happens to the towel, but the process we know as evaporation continues throughout the world even after the towel is "dry". Otherwise we would end up identifying the process of evaporation from a towel as a distinct process from the evaporation that happens to a sponge, or the same towel the next day.
Just because we can identify the start of an event does not mean that there is something odd about speaking of the duration of an event. Perhaps someone speaks of events as it they were dimensionless instants, but even the start of what are ordinarily called "events" also have durations. The start of a movie includes the time it takes for the projectionist to flip the switch, for the projector to light up and the time for the light to reach the screen. The sources: [2] (which need to be re-inserted into the article) speak about the duration of events AND refer to processes (n.b. periodic processes) when discussing the development of the units of temporal measurement. Some processes, such as electrolysis, can be stopped and started in a designated spatio-temporal location, but this does not give a duration to the process of electrolysis itself - it gives duration to the event of, say, electroplating a spoon in preparation for sale. This round of edits started because you considered it wrong to speak of events having duration. I see no source for such an assertion - and several sources that do support events having duration. -- JimWae ( talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.). Cite error: The named reference "AHD" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time....
11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time.
Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last.... Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question "What is physical time?" is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime.
2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms.... In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event. See space-time continuum.
A dimension distinguishing past, present, and future. In relativity, time is portrayed as a geometrical dimension, analogous to the dimensions of space.
1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be... a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval
1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.... 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.... 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? ... 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right.
A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years.
1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole,... 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms
1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated.
A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one event preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension.
Separate sections [of this article] also review basic geological processes and their actions in shaping the earth... major areas of geological study [in this encyclopedia]...include Geochronology, Geophysics, Mineralogy, Paleontology, and, under Rocks, —petrology. Articles on large-scale processes and structures of the earth include Continent, Earth, Earthquake, Fault, Glacier, Mountain, and Volcano, and there are numerous separate articles on the earth's rocks and minerals. The history of the earth is discussed in separate entries on geological eras, periods, epochs, and rock series, and in articles such as Continent, Earth, Ice Ages, and Paleography. Consult the Index under Geology and Geography for some of the many other entries on geological processes and structures.
Pliny's Natural History was the greatest collection of information on natural history, minerals, rocks, earthquakes, and other geological processes and manifestations. Pliny, in fact, lost his life while attempting to examine the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. at very close hand...( James Hutton) concerned himself with the earth's present state and with the processes that had formed the rocks, their structures, and surface forms...Hutton believed that sediments were formed by long-continued weathering and erosion of continents and that the sediments were carried by streams, deposited in seas, and later consolidated into sedimentary rocks and lifted above sea level. There they were eroded, and the cycle began again. Thus surface landforms were not original, but were the remains of erosional processes
Textile, a fabric made by weaving, knitting, netting, or braiding. The term is also applied to the component fibers, such as silk, wool, cotton, linen, rayon, and nylon, of such fabrics. Beautiful fabrics have been made in many lands since antiquity. Equipment and methods have altered, but the basic processes of spinning and weaving have not changed since the 14th century. Spinning and Weaving are related topics.
Process Philosophy, the doctrinal tendency of philosophical thought, going back to Heraclitus in the 6th century B.C., holding that reality is best understood in terms of ephemeral processes rather than stable substances. Becoming and change - the origination, flourishing, and passing of the old and the innovative emergence of ever-new instances, and kinds of existence - [these] constitute the central themes of process metaphysics... A process philosopher, then, is someone for whom such processes are metaphysically fundamental and for whom temporality, activity, and change—of alteration, striving, passage, and novelty-emergence—are the ontologically, or at least hermeneutically most pivotal features of the real
Just two remarks:
Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I realize we've been around the houses on this one, but the lead to this article is focused too strongly on time as a concept in the natural sciences, and in particular on the idea of quantification (the words "quantity" and "quantify" appear rather clumsily three times in the first sentence). This is not in itself wrong, but the article needs a more general working definition before it focuses on how time has been quantified/measured. After all, human beings have traditionally had concepts of time that are not quantifiable.
Contrast the French version of this page (which is much more philosophy-based, incidentally), where the first sentence is: "Le temps est un concept développé par l'être humain pour appréhender le changement dans le monde" ("Time is a concept developped by human beings in order to apprehend change in the world"). While I might argue with aspects of that (for example, "duration" and "repetition" seem at least as important as change in basic human conceptions of time) at least the French sentence is much more readily comprehensible to someone who wants a quick check on the concept than the current "Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes" (2010-11-16). The existing sentence could be the second sentence of the article, perhaps prefaced with "As a system of measurement, ". And why introduce the idea of "one-dimensional" so early on? The idea of time as a dimension pertains rather specifically to physics (and to science fiction). IMOHOO, it would make more sense to mention everyday measurement of time (e.g., in terms of natural cycles/rotation of the earth/moon and mechanical equivalent in clocks) *before* introducing the idea of time as a dimension in physics. In other words, the lead should work from the general and the everyday to the specific and specialized. -- GKantaris ( talk) 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Entry removed by user - semi-restored so what follows makes some sense |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
the present text is"to create a relation" as we can not campare all intervals and their duration with each other?( Raza536 ( talk) 12:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)) |
Sir don't mind that I'm talking two way but what my concept is that time is neither a part of any system nor it is quantifiable and as you said events are not always apparent they may occur simultaneously will you please explain this with example and as said events may b simultaneously then there might be a universal time all over the entire universe??? will you tell me what is universal time and its relation with events???
and talking about the article I myself m trying to improve the article as ir is very important topic ( Raza536 ( talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)).
well sir if something published should be written here then what's the reason of wasting time here its not my personal thought or any personal observation its a research apart from english is good or not
now talking about the topic you talked about simultaneous events what's the concept here will you elaborate??? and since time is one dimensional quantity and cannot be plotted on graph so how could you compare the time as in your definition you have used the word "compare" ( Raza536 ( talk) 07:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)) well I have a better definition if you allow to write in the article??? Raza536 ( talk) 12:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
see definition on my topic in this talk page What is Time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time#What_Is_.27TIME.27.3F Raza536 ( talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been touched on, but wouldnt supertasks negate the possibility of time existing in a linear fasion that makes any sense in any scenario beyond subjective view? The idea is that there is basically an infinite amount of potential time units between any two other time units, such that to reach any other point in time would be logically impossible.
But then Im terrible at math and actual numbers. Chardansearavitriol ( talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia could touch on these. No original research. 92.7.169.0 ( talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
well guys no original rsrch can be made on the unrecognizeable behaviour of time since time "flows" & is one dimensional quantity nothing accurately can be said or written on time(
Raza536 (
talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC))
I propose deleting the subsection Time as "unreal". I would propose a copy edit, but both the title and contents are worthless.
My paraphrases from the subsection are in both quotes and italics "like this".
The title says "Time is unreal", but the content says "Time is real". The title Real and unreal might work, but the title Reality might better provide a single, balanced section.
Antiphon the Sophist. The direct link to sophistry confuses the issue. The paraphrase with the link to Sophism reads "The book On Truth, whose main theme was that time is unreal was written by a " sophist who used a specious argument to deceive its readers." — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Balance paradox. "Time as illusion/unreality leads to a paradox". Yes. But so does time as reality :-) — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Balance the view of physicists. "Modern physicists generally consider time is as real as space." Yes. But space is not very real to physicists either :-). In a related article Block universe, a citation there reminds us, concerning the presentation of the reality of time, " Even though equations of physics do not imply that time lapses, they also do not imply that time does not lapse." — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Philosophy. The subsection is supposed contain philosophy, but the contents of that subsection are, rather, 1)history of philosophy 2)references, and 3) an ambiguous suggestion about scientists' "scientific" opinions of time.— Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Represent the reference. 1)The reference 35, by Foundalis properly as saying "Time is real, but [...] the flow of time is a cognitive illusion." Yet it is supposed to support "If time is held to be an illusion, then this belief will lead to a paradox." The cite does not say "illusion leads to paradox", but only that claims were made that time is an illusion. Here's the quote from foundalis:
“ | In the 5th century BC, the Sophist philosopher Antiphon wrote in his On Truth that “Time is not a reality, but a concept, or a measure”. Parmenides, founder of the Eleatic school, went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change, are illusions. Parmenides’s ideas were best advertised by his student Zeno of Elea, who posed his famous paradoxes about time, claiming that motion is impossible. The most famous of his paradoxes is the one in which Achilles, the legendary hero and a fast runner, starts 100 m (say) behind a tortoise... | ” |
2)"Time as unreal is a common theme in Buddhism." Yes and No. A " theme" is a unifying subject or idea of a story, but the philosophy of Buddhism's common theme is not unreality of time. Rather say: A minor aspect of Buddhism is the unreality of all existence, and a common aspect of Buddhism is the reality of existence. 3)Antiphon the Sophist's book On Truth, according to my research on its description is mostly about politics and law. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
With the understanding that moving rather than deleting, is preferred, I submit that that subsection should be carefully deleted for the above reasoning. Can someone point out some worth in that subsection? — Cpiral Cpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
We share at least one thing - esteem for John Searle, whom I have met & engaged in philo talk. I am sure, however, he still gives sources for when he writes about what others have written. more later -- JimWae ( talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but your source fails verification - a source that does not even mention TIME cannot become the source for text of one of 2 MAIN positions on time-- JimWae ( talk) 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You were complaining that there was no philosophy in some section or other, yet the very first thing you changed was the part that was one of the most expansive in terms of philosophy. What's up with that?-- JimWae ( talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A footnote and some minor rewording made, but JimWae removed them saying there was no source, but there were sources. 1) The definitions were interwikied to Wiktionary, a reliable source. The word wikt:event was "temporal" as required, and the word wikt:phenomenon was absent of the concept of time, as required by the context of that paragraph. 2) The changes from "intellectual concept" to "brain workings" were linked to the Edge.org article of a neuroscientist explaining the same thing that was already there in the article, but with an extra component called "symbol manipulation". (Edge.org is an esteemed forum for the highest intellects on the WWW.) There was also a link directly to the author of the cited article on our Wiki. I undid the revision because I think the reason in the edit summary was invalid. I am willing, however, to consider specific facts proving that I am clueless and out of line as to my understanding of the context of the paragraph we're working on here. But certainly there were the proper cites. If there is anyone of this articles several hundred watchers, please weigh in. Thank you. — Cpiral Cpiral 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
TIME:-
"The Time is one dimentional quantity,it is used to determine the period or duration of the events and periods or duration of interval of periods or duration of events or between events"
NOTE: Time is the basic and different physical quantity which is not comparable with other physical quantity but it is used to determine the other physical quantity by which these quantity are defined Such as Velocity"distance covered in unit TIME". It is just a relation between space and numerics to measure the rate of flow of any event and the interval between these events and their duration
Raza536 ( talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
well there is no english language problem in my definition and as you said that the article support to define time in easier and basic way and my definition is much simpler
OBJECTIONS ON YOUR DEFINITION:-
1>you worte in your definition that we compare events then on what scale is used to compare event??? 2>to sequence events(before and after)well time starts with the starting point of universe and ends with the end point of universe that's why we draw straight line with arrow there is nothing to before the universe as time started with bigbang 3)according to you time is a part of measuring system on what basis time is being measured? if time is a part of measuring system what is that system and then it has no link with other systems? 4>your definition provides no information about time machine! and it talks about only one frame of refrence it doesn't supports any external frame whereas my definition can talk on many frame of refrence at a time Raza536 ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
1)why should event start rougly at the same time? there should be a scale to in which these events which are campared should be measured 2)we certainly do need to know that"what was before time"? or "when there was no time what was there" such question also need to be sequenced 3)ok systems might be linked with each other but what about the frame of reference ? your definition talks about only one frame of reference whereas according to theory realtivity there are many frame of reference of time. 4)since time machine is linked with past and future and they act as a film strip there might be a possible way to approach into future and to go back into past??? so its also a part of time Raza536 ( talk) 05:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
CONCENTRATE ON TIME ONLY 1)let suppose two events start or begun at roughly the same time one is raining and other is thunderstorm and as coincidence both stops or end also at the same time now how could we campar both the events??? 2)we certainly do need to know the origin,nature and its reality you may do not need to know which of your children born first because you know which one was born first but you also want to know that which one is male and female same implies with time?what was there before time if time started with bigbang how?and why? 3)if system are are very much linked with each other then why there is change of time in one frame of reference and another time in other frame of reference??? 4)car,aeroplane,rocket etc are all time machine in a sense they are time saving let suppose a person on foot takes 1hr to cover 1km by car it would take 5min only in this way he has saved his time 55min are extra for him as campare to the pedistrain. another esxampl;e could be of twin paradox that if person travels with speed of light he just lives 10min while other lives 100yrs why there is such great change of time??? there might be a possible gate to enter in future or past???(apart from its not reality) Raza536 ( talk) 11:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
1)we certainly do need to for how long both of they lasted 2)nobody is interested in knowing which of his child was born first as everybody already know that who was born first 3)But it do mean that they are linked somehow???they do agree but time is all different for them 4)ok then leave this topic
and than tell me what's problem in my deinition as your definition talks on the intervel between events and their duration as events do not have any duration and stationary things also feel time??? Raza536 ( talk) 09:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The blurb pertaining to the book Being and Time by Martin Heidegger is not really clear. Furthermore, since the source is the actual book itself this paragraph may be an original interpretation. Therefore it may contradict WP:NOR. A source that directly supports the material as presented may be needed. Moreover, Jim Wae has tagged this paragraph for further clarification, and I agree. So, I am moving this paragraph with the clarification request to this section for more discussion.
Regarding: This "vulgar conception of time", descended from Aristotle's conception of counted time, became mathematized in the Modern Age with Newton, Leibniz and others as one-dimensional, continuous, real time.
Time was already considered one-dimensional and continuous before Aristotle. Look at Zeno's arrow paradox and you will see a pre-Socratic already presenting arguments which challenge continuity, but accept one-dimensionality. As for "real", well, does anyone know what it's supposed to mean there? Additionally, if I say my daughter is 25 years old, have I "mathematized" her life more than I would have if I had said she was younger than I, and by so doing have I vulgarly deprived her of something? Maybe MH said something like this, maybe not. If MH attacks people for whom only the present "now-instants" are real, why cannot his admirers of a certain philosophical bent communicate with linguistic labels (e.g. Presentism, [I acknowledge that term would never have been used by MH, but introduced it in an attempt to spark some attempt at clarity, meaningfulness, & cross-communication - and explained its meaning immediately ]) that are used by philosophers of a different philosophical bent. Why cannot we try to compare "a continuous flow of 'now-instants' passing through presence" with McTaggart's A-series? Is it because MH thought philosophy could only be done in German & Greek? [18] [19] -- JimWae ( talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Michael Eldred Artefactme ( talk) 14:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Michael Eldred Artefactme ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.
Michael Eldred 84.63.117.97 ( talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Re calling Nagarjuna's argument logical. Let's take it step by step
I have demonstrated that the premises of the argument are false - or at least not generally accepted as true. I have demonstrated that the argument is not sound. It is generally agreed that the following arguments are "logical" - though not "sound".
The argument is in the form of a syllogism,(All X are Y; all Y are Z; thus all X are Z) but it would be misleading & unfair to say it was a "logical" argument (even though it is). Logic does not decide whether an argument is correct; it only "decides" if an argument is incorrect. The premises must also be true for an argument to be sound. Even illogical arguments can have true conclusions: All monkeys are mammals; All monkeys have vertebrae; All mammals have vertebrae.
That Nagarjuna's argument resembles a syllogism & resembles a reductio ad absurdum does not make his argument any more "logical" than any another unsound argument. The dependency of the present upon past events is not an argument from logic, it is an argument about causality. Arguments about causality are either scientific arguments or metaphysical arguments. There is no indication that N's argument is meant as a scientific argument. Arguments that attempt to deduce a "new insight" into "the nature of reality" from causality or other metaphysical principles, using only a priori methods, are metaphysical arguments.
My prior presentation of Nagarjuna's argument is the clearer and better supported version -- JimWae ( talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
An additional problem with Nagarjuna's argument is his using the vocabulary of reification for past, present, & future - and for time itself. When we say the present depends on the past, we are using a kind of shorthand idiom that means that past events have consequences on present and future events. We do not MEAN that "the past" is itself an entity that has agency.
Furthermore, he *gives* an argument against the existence of the present & the future. He does not *give* any argument against (the existence of the) past, though he waves a few words in that direction. Let's just leave the text as "he gives an argument against the existence of the present and the future, and of time itself".-- JimWae ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You're arguments are right, the three stanzas I quoted from the text aren't a coherent argumentation. Apart from that, in the chapter about time there are three more stanzas which I want to mention for completion:
4.
5.
6.
The argument in stanza 6, that there is no existent entity is explained in the text earlier. That is not a metaphysical supposition, but also a conclusion by a logical refutation of the assertion, that entities have an inherent existence. By taking this chapter out of it's context, it becomes incoherent. But what becomes clear is, that Nagarjuna refutes the assertion that time has an inherent existence no matter if you reificate it or say that it depends on entities and events as you described.
The notion of causality must rather be understood as "dependent arising", since Nagarjuna also refutes the assertion of inherent causality. See here: Dependent_arising#Madhyamaka_and_Pratityasamutpada
Finally, Nagarjuna actually doesn't assert any standpoint, but only refutes assertions about the nature of reality that were present during his time. So instead of giving a wrong impression about Nagarjuna or the Madhyamaka in general, I took the passage out of the article. • Madden ( talk) 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The lede begins presently as:
Lets suppose a measuring system, say the use of my watch and a wall calendar. Now according to the definition given, time is some part of this system, but what or which part of the system it is left undefined. For instance, conventionally, "the clock" is "...a part of the measuring system used to sequence events...". Even my left thumb can be a part of such a system. Furthermore, time existed before we evolved and started measuring it, hence existing independently of any measuring systems. Even more revealing is what we would have if we defined space similarly, such as: "Space is a part of the measuring system used to map the relative positions of objects in three-dimensions." Although not incorrect in anyway, its way off the mark, lacking in definition; the essential information of "what part" and clarity (see the space article for a better description that does not invoke measurement). I know getting consensus wording has been difficult, but I'd surely like to see something else written. Perhaps we can work on something like this:
Note: With only instants existing, current events have no duration, so durations are an illusion (events with duration don't exist). To deny both instants and events, though would either venture into old fallibilistic speculation or unfruitful research that involves some form of substitution (such as substituting space and space-time concepts for those of time, thus "denying" time exists), but since a succession of instants is the same as a succession of events with no duration we could drop "instants" although I think the concept of instants may be important enough to include. Thoughts. -- Modocc ( talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)