![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
That picture of a chip-scale atomic clock has to be the most archaic kludge of technology I've seen since Jack Kilby's first integrated circuit. Handcrafted wirebonds and solder joints? I think technology has done better than that by now. -- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The Time article shows a diagram representing 4-dimensional spacetime with the "present" in 3-dimensions. (For simplicity, this is shown as 3-dimensionsal spacetime with the "present" in 2-dimensions.)
Should their be some discussion of this distinction in the article? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't feel we should start with the philosophy first, you can't measure time unless you have worked out what it is, a header is not the same as a definition. Maybe time measurement should be a seperate article? 2.97.173.98 ( talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please remove some external links from external links section. The amount of links we have in that section currently, we can easily create another article on it. I thought of editing myself, but, since I am not a regular editor of the article (don't know about previous consensus -if there was any on this) I am requesting it here. I have noticed there are some books too in external links section. Can we include those in further reading section? Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the intro is erroneous. The intro starts with:
This is kind of a reification. The measuring systems are mental constructs in order to quantify some fundamental aspect of the reality. Confusions between reality and mental constructs abstracting them are classical reifications. Time is, according to my opinion,
but in order to be somewhat comprehensible to anyone, one could instead say:
or some such. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I wish to reiterate my first improvement proposal:
Time is something of the material universe, while our measurement systems are built upon an evolved cultural consensus, where we have invented a Language-game (per Wittgenstein) to convey absolute quantitative dimensions. The relation between time and measurement systems should be measures, not defines. It is acceptable to say that "time is measured by a measurement systems". A definition should however describe the topical entity and it's relation to previously known objects and processes whose qualities are known. Let's "define":
Do we define or clarify anything? Do we wish to frustrate our readers by giving something that is a reification of our presumed measurement systems bordering to a circular definition?
About consensus: a consensus doesn't build on warnings or threats, that's a false repressive consensus. A consensus builds on a reasoning that everybody will subscribe to. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Rursus proposed: "time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging" (or increased disorder)" - Entropy is an observable property of physical change, but I don't think time itself can be defined as entropy. Just as time cannot be defined by its measurement, time also cannot be defined by its particular observables alone. However change itself is a broad enough concept to include. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey somebody is tinkering with a more general and accurate lede intro, and it looks good:
I would suggest something more along the line of "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon.." "..that creates continuous change" etc. Anyway, any attempt is an improvement. Look forward to seeing things develop. Regards to all, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I would suggest staying away from "conscious experience" because that opens up a big issue with regard to existentialism and psychology. If we regard the perceptual to have bearing on the issue of time itself, this kind of treatment is insufficient - there needs to be some deeper introduction to the perceptual. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Something that could be added to the Religion section:
-- Kray0n ( talk) 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the first sentence from the article and placing it here for discussion. This is because I don't think it is based on a reliable source, and because there is really nothing about the relationship of existence to time within the contents of the cited source. Furthermore, the relationship between existence and time seems to be a deep and knotty subject. It may require more space than an opening sentence in a Wikipedia article. IN any case this sentence may not belong as the first sentence of the introduction. Hence, the sentence with the reference is as follows: ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see how the edit summary
has anything to do with the changes proposed. The examples given are indeed from physics, but they are simply a "such as". There is nothing in the article body about quantifying any "rate of change of conscious experience" (nor is it discussed anywhere at all, that I am aware of). There are measurements involving temporality in biology (such as heart rate) and in economics too, but we do not need to mention all of them in the first paragraph.
We can sequence events without thinking of time as a quantity and without measurements , hence Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events is 1> meandering and 2>not comprehensive.
In accord with WP:BRD, I am restoring the earlier, long-standing (about 4 years) start of the article at least until there is some discussion here about why any other start is preferable. There are many definitions in the refs, but few of the cited ones focus on any "progress of existence and events", and no case has yet been made to lead with that one-- JimWae ( talk) 05:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, please discuss here rather than edit warring.-- JimWae ( talk) 13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Whether time "exists" separate from measurement is at issue & it would be POV to say it does. The present lede does not say time does "exist" apart from measurement and does not say it does NOT exist apart from measurement. Instead, per WP:NPOV, it points to the issue. This IS and has been consensus lede for 4 yrs +-- JimWae ( talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The "consensus" lead reinserted by Steve Quinn seems to have some severe flaws - among them an overreliance on defining time as part of physical measurement, rather than as a phenomena in its own right (most of the sources about the concept Time clearly do not adopt this exclusively physical definition of time). If this is consensus then consensus has to change to reflect a wider array of sources about the topic. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
To suggest that there is a "consensus" in an article that has more than a dozen edits a month for many months seems to show a preference for one particular edit over against all the others. Please provide some reason for reverting my referenced material other than just that it isn't "consensus". Is it wrong? Is it better than the version we had? This is what we should be discussing, not just whether or not it agrees with a nonexistant "consensus". Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Rick Norwood's proposal:
Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. [2] It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." [3]
Maunus' opinion:
Rick Norwood's proposal: I appreciate the discussion of my proposed first paragraph, but let's include all of it. I did not replace the scientific view with the philosophic view, but rather included both:
Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. [4] It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." [5] In science, the standard unit of measurement of time is the second, one of the fundamental units in the metric system, a unit whose origin can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, where the day was divided into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, and the minute into 60 seconds, but the modern unit has a more precise scientific definition.
Response to Maunus: 1) I put the subjective idea of time ahead of the objective idea because it came first. People experienced time before they measured it. 2) To mention that time is both subjective and objective is certainly to suggest that it is both. 3) St. Augustine is quoted not for his own sake, but because he is the starting point for the discussion of time by many later philosophers. My view of writing for Wikipedia is: begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation?-- JimWae ( talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to comment that the version in progress at the article right now [2] sounds absolutely horrible. It's like there is no lede, we just begin with a sentence about something to do with time, as though mid-thought. A lede needs to begin with something like "Time is...", even if what follows that is some variant on "difficult to define uncontroversially" (though preferably something at least a little more substantial than that). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As off-the-cuff as it was when I first suggested it, I'm starting to think that something like "Time is that which durations and intervals span, across which change and motion occur, and along which events are sequenced from past, through present, to future." would work well. It is a bit circular, I admit, but very indirectly so; it related the concept of time to a lot of other closely related concepts, even if those other related concepts can't quite be defined without eventual reference back to time. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The retroactive first sentence says: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events.." - According to this definition, time is a "part" of a "measuring system." Does this "measuring system" have a name? Does it have an article? Certainly a concept of which time is a fundamental part must have a name, and likely an article. What is its name?
Is there a problem with describing time as a physical phenomenon? After all that is what it is. For example, it is considered a fundamental component in the concept of spacetime, itself a fundamental concept in most of physics. Physics has priority. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is a real phenomenon, meaning it is a part of reality. All real things conform to physical laws, known or unknown, hence time is a topic firmly within the domain of physics. Granted, time is not yet fully explained in physics, but our most profound insights about time do come from physics. Philosophy and religion have perhaps inspired some of these insights, and we of course should report such insights here, but reality and all that it contains are physical in nature, hence physics (ie. sources in physics) takes priority.
That's not to say the opening sentences should be technical, in fact I agree that the intro should be general, and talk generally about the concept as we currently understand it. Thats why the dictionaries are important - they talk about what words mean as we currently use them, even if our understanding of such things may be yet undeveloped. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't intend to participate in this discussion; however, I'll dredge up a bit of context in the hopes that it can move forward rather than treading old ground:
I respectfully suggest that before the current debate goes too much farther, it'd be a good idea to write a brief summary in this thread of what the main points of discussion were the last few times around. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that "Time in Religion" is a subject we want to discuss in this article. I only included the St. Augustine quote because other authors do, and they included the quote to show the difficulty of defining time, not to discuss theology. It seems to me that we have more-or-less a consensus that the first paragraph should mention philosophy and science, and that we're essentially discussing exactly how that should be worded. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a general agreement that the current lead is not good, and several people have expressed approval of my rewrite, either in whole or in part, so I'm going to restore it. Please, if you don't like it, instead of reverting it, try to improve it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to make more than one change at a time (except for getting rid of that stray slash ref) but should the lead really say "Time is what clocks measure." three times. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
TO REPEAT: I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation? I am travelling and have little opportunity to talk here, but also putting long quotes from other sources in the body of the lede, while not including their content in the ledes own words, is not the way to write an encyclopedia. People do NOT agree the lede (which has been there 4-years AND is quoted in at least one scholarly work) is BAD, they are talking about improving what is there. I do like the direction in the "map is not the territory" comment. Meanwhile, I am reverting per WP:BOLD.-- JimWae ( talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There have also been objections to the old lead, in particular to the idea that time is "part" of something. The main objection to my lead is that some people don't like the St. Augustine quote. Others do. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like it taking it out. I have no problem with you putting your sentence, which is quite good, in. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My intent was not to discard stuff. Since you seem reluctant to add your own version, I'll see if I can combine our two versions effectively. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." To need a reference for your own statement that "time is an experience" seems like asking for a reference that eyes are for seeing, but I'll find one, and add it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have provided the refernce you requested. Kant's distinction, between what we "experience" and what we "comprehend", is too technical for the lead. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It may well be appropriate to discuss these deep philosophical questions in the body of the article. I don't think the lead is the place to go into questions of the difference between "sense" and "sensation", between "perception" and "awareness". Neither do I think the lead should adopt the unitary view that there is nothing to time but measurement. We have many sources that say, clearly, that time is a difficult concept. Most also agree that time has both subjective and objective components, though a minority view holds that the word "time" means nothing but "what clocks measure", and that time is an illusion (tea time doubly so). The controversy here is similar to the controversy in consciousness and is unlikely ever to be totally settled. It's a hard subject, and all the lead should do is introduce the main views, but not single out one of those views. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've cited a book that makes what seems to me to be a clear and straightforward statement that time has a subjective component. He also includes the St. Augustine quote. He also cites the old version of the lead from Wikipedia, but does so not as a reference but as a jumping off point, with the emphasis being on the assertion that time is impossible to define. The author has a lot to say on that subject, but one of the things he has to say is that time has both a measurement component and a subjective component. Please note that I am not in any way trying to say that the subjective component of time is not an illusion -- that's too deep a question for the lead.
Because I am reluctant to delete a reference, I've moved the challenged reference to what I hope is a more suitable place, but if anyone still thinks it is inapropo, I have no objection if they remove it. The second flagged reference is clearly in the wrong place, but again I hesitate to delete any reference, so I'm going to leave it alone for now.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The current lede contains an egregious first sentence:
This is not a real lede sentence for an article. We do not start articles with such vague language. We start articles with definitive statements, of the form "[topic] is [this]"
I understand that its not an easy topic to deal with. On the other hand, we use the term everyday in a rather unambiguous way. We don't know exactly what time is, but we know what it means when we use the word.
Since it appears most of us are at a loss for how to proceed, let's start by asking a couple basic but essential questions. First:
Second:
Let's talk about these two points. They will help us clarify our course. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in question is referenced, and most sources agree that the question is both central and controversial. Some sources say that time has a subjective component, others that time is only measurement and nothing else. The lead should express both of these major views. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"time is part of the framework of experience, like space, number, (and here I add to Kant) qualia, substance, and causation"is to promote a view that nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction. It would seem then that you would have to substantiate why an old philosophical conjecture should take precedence over the most advanced theories in the science of physics.
"Likewise, as physical things are inherently phenomenal (i.e. experiential, empirical), time is intricately bound up in what it is to be physical at all, but it isn't a physical thing or process itself.- I think you misunderstand what physics is, and what it means. Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description. If its not real in terms of component particles, then it must be illusion, but even illusions must have some basis in physics. The most interesting idea about time in physics comes about through the holographic principle, which indeed regards all of reality as a kind of projection. But that's far from claiming that human perception is the foundation of the universe. Human perception is the foundation of nothing, except the psychology of the individual. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"I will just say that you are being biased to just one of several possible philosophical interpretations of the same physics.- I am not biased towards one particular view in physics. We should all be biased towards scientific explanations over ancient philosophy which roots itself in matters of observation, perception, and subjectivity. And this remains true even if science does not yet have a full picture of time. Relativity, one of our most profound insights into time, did not come out of philosophy, it came out of physics. What would Kant have thought of relativity?
..all of the data is objective and independent of any observer, but our only access to it is subjective empirical observation. - The foundation of most of physics is not "subjective empirical observation," but mathematics, typically of the rigorous, peer reviewed variety. Hence physics is not subjective, its objective, its not empirical, its intuitive, its not observation, its conjecture and then experiment. You wrote:
..and things like space and time are necessary parts of any model we could come up with to structure that objective data we subjectively observe..- Well thats the point, time is a real phenomenon and therefore "part[] of any model" regardless of any issues of subjectivity or perception. In fact, according to the holographic model, its space, not time that's the illusion. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, JimWae, for fixing the Newton paragraph. It's very clear, now. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be finally moving forward. I've simplified the new lead without (I trust) changing its meaning.
There is a major problem in paragraph three that I hope someone with more knowledge of Newton's vs. Liebnitz's views will fix:
"One view holds that time is neither an event nor a thing ... The opposing view is that time ... is neither an event nor a thing."
You see the problem.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, since the version I think moves us forward is not by me, presumably at least one other person agrees. The C class rating (in one case B) suggests the article needs improvement. The endless discussion that goes nowhere encourages me to Be Bold. Your claim that I am indulging in OR is belied by the fact that everything I write is referenced. I have no opinion on this subject. I just want the article to reflect the references. Since the references disagree, I don't see any harm in saying so. I like my first sentence better than the current one, but I'm trying to play nice, instead of rejecting everything anyone tries to do out of hand. I tried putting your first sentence up, but you didn't like that, either. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we making progress yet? I think we are. I hope editors don't forget about the problem in the third paragraph, mentioned above. Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.
Time is that across which events are sequenced, durations of events and intervals between them are compared, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified.
Time is what events are sequenced across, durations of events and intervals between them are compared across, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified across.
I'm afraid the construction "time is that across which" implies that time is real, which is a point of contention. But "time is used" has the same implication. The deeper you dig, the deeper hole you find yourself in. The two main points of view in the literature, put very informally, seem to be a) time is like a line. Clocks measure where on the time line we are. b) Clocks give us numbers. Time is what we call those numbers, and has no meaning apart from the numbers given by clocks (and other devices). I'm also bothered by the construction "time is used". Wouldn't it be better to say, "People use time"? Ah, well, back to the sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as an item of interest, here is how an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Time begins, "TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another." Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Rick Norwood relayed to us EB's definition of time:
which I used in crafting a new introductory sentence:
I think this is the general direction we want to go in. Note that by using "apparent" and "appear" we deal to some extent with the perceptual, as that appears to have been a concern among some editors. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future.? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that the more convoluted the first sentence becomes, the less clear it is. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
---
Pfhorrest wrote: "Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future."
- Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted. Articles typically start off with the form [topic] is [this].. or [topic] is a name/term for [this]. "Intervals between them are compared.."
is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence. "Rates of change.. are quantified"
gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence. You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."? Regards, -
Stevertigo (
t |
c)
22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted
Articles typically start off with the form [topic] is [this].. or [topic] is a name/term for [this].
"Intervals between them are compared.." is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence.
"Rates of change.. are quantified" gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence.
You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."?
I placed tag on this ariticle because the neutrality of this article is being disputed. This is because, as I wrote in the edit history --- this lede represents a single point of view, as did the pared down lede. This sentence is also contradictory which I already said in a previous edit history today. I request that someone please tell me how this sentence does not represent a single point of view and how this sentence is not contradictory (per BRD). Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
First, with the emphasis on the word "existence" the current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.
Next the second half of this sentence -- "irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" appears to be redundant because it is covered in the very next paragraph, and perhaps said even more succinctly.
Third - saying "indefinite continued progress or sequence of existence" is a contradictory statement. But I see that you already noticed that word is not supported by the sources. Kudos. What I was saying earlier -- existence on any time scale is the opposite of indefinite. There is a definite beginning and end to existence for everyone. No one, no animal, no plant, and no tree gets to live forever. Rocks erode. Also, in about 2 or 3 billion years this planet will no longer be habitable because of the life-cycle of the sun. So, on any time scale there is a time limit on existence that is definite or finite.
Fourth -- Sorry but even though this sentence may sound good, it appears to be a convulted construction of words. So for these reasons I shortened the lede (see edit history)
Fifth -- saying that "time is" this sentence seems to say that we have nailed the definition of time. The standard 4 year lede does not do that. It makes empirical statements and describes what can be observed. It is an operational definition.
::Sixth -- we already have philosophical articles related to "time" on Wikipedia so we don't need to worry about covering philosophy in the lede. Please also note that the philosophy is already summed up in part of the four paragraphs of the introduction. Also, these first paragraphs are very different from the Time in physics article.
It seems to me that the lead is getting worse, not better, with no consensus in sight, and that some of the people on this talk page are getting just a wee bit testy. Please avoid personal remarks and personal opinions, and compare and contrast reliable sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me we already have plenty of references, with quotations, and that all that is needed is for someone to paraphrase what the major references say. I'd be willing to try it. I'd be willing to support anyone else who tried it. But I hesitate to try, there have been so many reverts. Maybe it will be better just to wait until things settle down. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan on reverting Steve Quinn's recent edit, but I wanted to discuss that here first.
First, he has qualified the first sentence so it now reads, "Time...appears related to the continued progression..." This is unnecessarily vague and essentially meaningless. Anything may "appear related to" anything else. The word "time" is used to describe the "progression of events", not just in some vague and unspecified way "related to" the progression of events.
Second, he has restored to the sentence "The operational definition leaves aside the question of whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned." the phrase "that flows and can be measured." But the operational definition defines time as that which can be measured, so the tail of the sentence contradicts its beginning. Does measuring something leave aside the question of whether something is being measured?
Edits should reflect what the references say.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Whatever several people here agree that "progression" means, its dictionary meanings carry a dependency on either the future or the past - either towards a future goal, or from a past state. A succession of events does not depend on the events having a linked history. (Though time is a factor in causality, causality is not necessarily a part of a sequence of events -- nor of time.) The link is to sequence, not progression. If sequence is the better link, it is the better word choice.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, "progression of events" requires explanation, or is just poetry - something "sequence" is not. "Progression of events" also has the least number of sources - AND that one source also says "progress".-- JimWae ( talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are the three primary definitions of time in 3 prominent English language dictionaries:
This is being used, by me, as an authoritative source so that this is simply no one's particular POV. Being that these are general dictionaries, the only POV that you can accuse these definitions as having is the "English language" POV. AH and OED live on opposite sides of the pond and MW is an old standard.
Now there are two grosser POVs to represent, and of one of these POVs, there are two sub-POVs to consider:
Time as phenomenon is a perspective that is both differentiated from the Time as measurement perspective and solidly supported by the English language dictionaries. Leaving it out of the lede is not NPOV. In addition, it is more fundamental. During the first million years of the existence of the Universe there were certainly no sentient beings around to be experiencing or measuring time, but time existed. There were physical processes going on that had quantitative relationships with each other and with time. There was an x(t) and there was a t, and no one was around measuring it. Let's not get into any stupid Tree-falling-in-the-forest-with-no-one-around-to-hear-it,-does-it-make-a-sound? baloney. Of course it did. Time has been around a lot earlier than there had been anyone in the Universe measuring anything, including time.
The lede right now seems to place the article in too philosophical domain.
That's your opinion, Steve Quinn, but you are mistaken.
This is not a philosophy article.
Steve is also mistaken here. While it is not about philosophy as a scholarly exercise, there is a reason why the
Dewey decimal system begins with philosophy as the "100s" section and why
engineering profs and
physics and
mathematics and
sociology and
humanities or
literature terminal degrees are all Ph.D. Everything is about philosophy.
The other lede is an operational definition acceptable in the sciences and ordinary life.
This is a perfect example of crappy thinking. Of POV thinking. Steve is saying that something that is works in the sciences is also does in ordinary life. "Operational definition" is clearly from the POV of science, and if you take that far enough, from the POV of experimental science. It's a POV and certainly not the only POV and not a neutral POV. It is a POV of a subset of the human experience. That is why it comes in secondary.
The purpose of the lede definition is to present a concept in simpler terms, not to use convoluted & vague language such as "indefinite.. progress of existence and events.."
JimWae, this is laughable. You are saying words like "indefinite" are convoluted and vague, yet in the lede paragraph you have wording like "In addition, the temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing;". I mean WTF does that mean? "Temporal" or "transitory" are the common words that Bubba and JimBob and SallyMae are using, but "indefinite" is convoluted? You're being silly. Yes, let's put the lede definition in the simpler terms to present the concept of time. But it's apparent that you don't know how to do it because you don't seem to know what "simpler terms" really are.
Someone else said (but I can't find it) that this should not be about what "time" means to academics but what it commonly means to ordinary people. I fully agree with that. No lede definition of time that does not have something about time occurring in an apparently irreversible direction from the past through the present to the future is not about how the average Joe thinks about time. The average Joe thinks about what has happened in his past, what is happening now, and what he might expect to happen in the future. The dictionaries see this and to leave it out is not NPOV.
Time is about the existence of things, about us and other things in the Universe. The OED supports that. Time is apparently unidirectional as we (and anything that is not an antiparticle) commonly experiences it. In addition, it's single-dimensional (unlike space) so, the common understanding of time is that time progresses in one direction. One event happens after another in an ordered sequence that can be placed on the real number line. Just like "greater than" > and "less than" < have meaning with real numbers, "earlier" or "previous" and "later" or "subsequent" have comparable meaning with respect to time.
Some complained about indefinite. Time as this fundamental phenomenon is considered to be indefinite, in our common ordinary experience, in both directions; for every moment of time you identify, there is a moment that precedes it and another moment that succeeds this given moment. But we know now that some 13.7 billion years ago that might not be true regarding the Big bang. Present thinking is that time and space both had origin with the big bang, so if you define that event as t=0, then there may very well be no moments with negative t. So there's a definite limit of time in the past direction. But there is no known limit in the future direction. For every moment, from the BB onward, there is a moment that follows. That is, by definition, indefinite. It has to be bounded on both sides for "indefinite" not to apply.
So, in two sentences, all three major POVs are comprehensively (not exhaustively) introduced. We have Time as phenomenon, the fundamental definition, first with "past", "present" and "future". This can be footnoted for a cutey and simple definition from John Wheeler: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." (along with "Space is what prevents everything from happening to me.") Then we have Time as measurement or the "operational definition", both regarding the physical systems and regarding the human (or sentient) experience (we can measure the duration of something or we can guess how long it was from our experiencing it). And we can footnote that with the statement from Einstein that "Time is what clocks measure." Although not as comprehensive, both cited statements express, in a nutshell, what time is thought of fundamentally and what time is as a measurement. They're good.
Also, rate of change of a quantity is directly related to and a consequence of time. It is simply the reciprocal of time, 1/t, or frequency. It belongs in the measurement sentence. It is often how time is measured or experienced.
The more fundamental POV of time is that of Wheeler and the more operational POV is that of Einstein. We can get the key concepts down with two concise sentences:
Now, I don't have infinite time to work on this, so I am asking that you justify how any other two-sentence lede is as or more comprehensive or concise as this. Or more accurate. If you fire out a phalanx of nit-picks, I will answer each one clearly and sequentially. Steve and Jim object to answering each question immediately after the question. It's a silly objection and inefficient alternative, which means I have to copy their question and put it in green and italics, and then answer it, but that's what we'll do. In return, I ask that assertions of opinion are not couched as statement of fact which is mostly what a particular editor believes. Steve, you can avoid that pitfall by preceding opinions with "I think..." or "I believe..." or "I prefer...". Please let's do this important article some justice and not fart around. Oh, BTW, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, not as long as User:Stevertigo. I know my way around here. Please don't patronize me. And thanks for your observations, Pfhorrest, both here and at the AN/I.
70.109.182.232 ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"in material reality or in the conscious experience", sounds a little unprofessionally worded to my ear, but a better way of putting it doesn't come to mind.Again, the intent, to be "professionally" worded is to be as comprehensive and as concise as possible. The second sentence in my proposed lede should replace the current second sentence. Again, we have an apparent dichotomy with Time as phenomenon (the "philosophical" perspective) and Time as measurement (the "operational" perspective). Both of these POVs are very important and both need to be way up there in the lede. But they're different and should be in different sentences, both for clarity of concept and to avoid run-on sentences. Time as phenomenon is more fundamental. Two dictionaries list it first (the OED doesn't even put the "measurement" definition in its primary def). Then right away, there should be the measurement definition. I am still convinced that the second sentence I proposed is far clearer than the existing second sentence. Now, in that measurement POV there is the measurement of time by counting "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (and one end of the measurement spectrum) and there is the measurement of time by someone saying "She came by here about a half hour ago". Both are measurements and both are measuring the same thing. Not only is there (as far as we know) a difference in precision or accuracy of the two measurement, they occur in different domains, one is in the physical domain (something we do with clocks) and the other exists in the consciousness of a sentient being. Now, the materialists would say that this consciousness and sentience is merely a consequence or example of biological and physical processes in the brain: the clock in our heads is not much different from the 133Cs clock qualitatively, but simply is less precise, less accurate, less reliable, less robust. Fine, but that is the materialist POV, not NPOV. That's why time (as a measurement) exists both "in material reality [and] in the conscious experience".
I just want to comment at this point that I like your use of "apparently" here to qualify "irreversible", good preservation of NPOV there.Pf, I knew that you were paying me a compliment regarding that, but I didn't want to accept such payment when all I was doing was copying out of the dictionary. I do want to point out to SQ, JW and such that one can stand on NPOV with much more confidence when they rely on the dictionary definitions instead of their own opinions. Unless you think you're a lexicographer, relying on the dictionary immunizes yourself from charges of POV.
There is so much that needs to be said about issues involving " progress of existence and events" & the manner in which edits have been made to the top of the article, that it is hard to know where to begin. And such a wall of text today that many good ideas will be hard to find again. I will try to be succint. First, many specific objections to " progress of existence and events" had ALREADY been raised in this 2012-JUL-02 edit, the format of which the IP terribly mangled (later restored by Steve Quinn), but has never sufficiently addressed. To repeat the ones still relevant
Additionally:
There seems to be general agreement that the present 1st sentence will not survive. Some of the above applies also to Pfhorrest's latest proposed merge above. I propose that, per WP:BRD, the lede be returned to what it was before the IP put his ideas at the very top - substantially what it had been for 4 yrs - until a BETTER wording has been agreed on. Nothing that has been presented has been agreed to be better AND objections to it have already been met. It remains the standard against which amendments are compared. Enough for now. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is not identical with the sequence of events. Rather, sequencing is one aspect of the concept of time. Other aspects are durations and intervals - both of which ARE quantified (numerically or otherwise) and CAN BE measured (numerically or otherwise). Measurement even applies to sequencing when events are assigned positions on a timeline. (re Pfforests's merge proposal above: nor IS time the measurement of durations and intervals)On that last point, perhaps the word "measure" would be better than "measurement". I didn't mean to write it as "time is the act of measuring", but "time is what is measured". Consider an analogous phrasing, "courage is the measure of a man", meaning "to measure how much of a man someone is, measure their courage". So time is whatever it is you are measuring to measure a duration or interval or rate. Similarly with "sequence", for the reasons I hinted at just above: "the sequence of events" can sound like it is referring to the set of events which are in that sequence, but seems intended to refer to (for lack of a better word) their sequentiality itself, what they are in sequence of, which is time. Both of these mesh with my earlier suggestion of writing "according to which" (or "across which" or "against which", but I think you were the one who said those bias toward realism): time is whatever events are sequenced against or across or according to, whatever durations and intervals and rates are measured against or across or according to. I think coming up with a neutral way of phrasing this is the core of our problem here.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"Time is the sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measurement of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
I agree with Steve Quinn that Pfhorrest's version is in the right direction, and disagree with the idea that time is entirely a perceptual concept, such as in Steve Quinn's wording: "Time is known by.." Pfhorrest's version "time is the unidirectional succession of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them." is almost as good as mine in its own way.
Pfhorrest before mentioned the idea of anisotropy. I think it works, but not in the first sentence, as its a little too technical. Plus its also not entirely clear that what we call time is just one dimensional, in any way other than the "temporal" dimension. It could be that what we call time is so multidimensional that calling it anisotropic could be just plain incorrect. For example we know the arrow of time concept cannot be correct in any spatial sense because all points in space are equally real, and because each point has its own clock. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a note for everyone (regarding my lets-wait-24-hrs proposal off Rick's one-word changes), I'm going to be gone for the rest of the weekend and probably won't be around again until late Monday night (Pacific). I think my thoughts are spelled out clear enough here, but don't wait on a response from me for anything. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to predict that "we are probably going to drop that lede". The lead has many, many references. Over against them, you are offering an opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Im happy with the current first sentence, as proposed by Pfhorrest, and tweaked by Steve Quinn, JimWae et al. Its about as good as it gets for such a broad and daresay controversial subject. The current first sentence does what a good introduction should - it talks about what the concept means in the most general terms. Compare this with the previously proposed versions: "time is part of a measuring system.." which is just inaccurate, "time is the experience of.." which is biased toward a perceptual idea of time, and "time is what a clock reads," which is both accurate and precise, in a kindergarten sort of way. The current version is light years more improved over the previous proposals. My general proposal was to define time in a general way, as any article should, and that goal has been satisfied.
My secondary proposal was to define time as a physical phenomenon, but I agree that this could be construed as biased, according to a philobabble or metaphysicle view. Its certainly interesting that Einstein himself a couple times stated that he thought time as some kind of illusion, but he left the planet long before we had a formal idea of holography, many worlds, and other proposed explanations. But the idea of time as being an illusion, in the literal sense, is inherently flawed, because even if all of reality were just a simulation, things would still have to transform in a logical way, and this phenomenon of things moving forward in a progressive way, even though simulated, would still be called "time."
In keeping with a logical top down approach, which tends to work well, we can move on to the rest of the article. The second sentence currently reads:
Talking about "business, industry" and "sports" right after a general introduction to the most fundamental quantity of reality... is obtuse. What we should deal with instead is the matter of time as a physical phenomenon - and as an idea which is debated. The third and forth sentences get into the secondary part:
The third sentence is not bad, but the "consistently eluded scholars" part makes it sound like people just don't have a clue and have never pinned anything down at all. I don't think this is the case. The fifth sentence is perfect...
.. because it includes the simplistic definition, which many people seem to like, but also includes Wheeler's (some sites attribute to Einstein) plain and interesting statement.
On the matter of the fourth sentence..
..on times subjective "component"[sic], I think its possible to be more explanatory and less unspecific. Again, its clear that time is a part of reality (by whatever definition) and is therefore experienced in whatever way our cognition allows. Hence there is (naturally) a "subjective" perception of time (not a subjective "component" of time). All that does not mean that time is exclusively an experiential thing in and of itself, and not based in physics. We don't talk about physical experiences like sunlight or car crashes as purely experiential, just because theres a subjective "component"[sic]. Rememeber that even if we propose that all of reality is just a simulaton, such a simulation would still have to have some kind of physical basis. So as a fourth sentence, we can say something like:
Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"And I'm tired of being bulldozed during this quest to place personal bias in the first part of the lede of this article in order to fit with personal beliefs"is baseless. No one has been trying to insert "personal bias" into this article. All I and Pfhorrest are doing is working in good faith toward improving an important article from its former state, which was largely flawed. And you and I have not yet interacted on this page at all, not since 2010, hence I don't see how you can claim that I am "bulldozing" you. And Pfhorrest isn't "bulldozing" you either.
Steve Quinn: You seem to be getting awfully emotional about this, calling other editor's ideas "a joke" and accusing them of "bulldozing" you. This does not add anything to the discussion.
I agree with you that "sequence" is more neutral than "progression", even though several sources use "progression" or the equivalent. In an effort to work toward a compromise, I'll put "sequence" back in the first sentence. I hope this helps. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What Steve Quinn sees as "fudging" I see as paraphrasing, to avoid direct quotation of copyrighted material. Also, the separation of the citations into majority views and minority views seems arbitrary. It would be more clear to say what the view is, and then list which citations support it. And there are red herrings on the list. The subject of this article has nothing to do with the use of "time" to mean "a period of years in history" or "time of year".
To respond to Steve Quinn's question: How was the original lead flawed? Well, the article was rated C-class by a number of raters. That doesn't necessarly reflect on the lead, but is an indication that something is wrong. The problem I had with the original lead was that it (as best I remember) didn't mention the meaning of time as a subjective experience, apart from measurement. Some authorities claim that when we say we experience time we are mistaken. But other authorities allow that time has a subjective component. The previous lead seemd to me to favor the former view and ignore the latter.
Finally, Steve Quinn, when you say you are "not being heard", I think you are mistaken. Your views are heard, and there is no need to repeat them. We hear; we respectfully disagree. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comment on editing
We are not here to discuss other editors. I consider the above a violation of
WP:NPA. I removed the above & also hatted it, but nameless has reinserted it about 5 times. I warn nameless about
WP:3RR and I encourage other editors to remove it. --
JimWae (
talk)
07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
* Threats, including, but not limited to...
|
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
That picture of a chip-scale atomic clock has to be the most archaic kludge of technology I've seen since Jack Kilby's first integrated circuit. Handcrafted wirebonds and solder joints? I think technology has done better than that by now. -- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The Time article shows a diagram representing 4-dimensional spacetime with the "present" in 3-dimensions. (For simplicity, this is shown as 3-dimensionsal spacetime with the "present" in 2-dimensions.)
Should their be some discussion of this distinction in the article? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't feel we should start with the philosophy first, you can't measure time unless you have worked out what it is, a header is not the same as a definition. Maybe time measurement should be a seperate article? 2.97.173.98 ( talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please remove some external links from external links section. The amount of links we have in that section currently, we can easily create another article on it. I thought of editing myself, but, since I am not a regular editor of the article (don't know about previous consensus -if there was any on this) I am requesting it here. I have noticed there are some books too in external links section. Can we include those in further reading section? Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the intro is erroneous. The intro starts with:
This is kind of a reification. The measuring systems are mental constructs in order to quantify some fundamental aspect of the reality. Confusions between reality and mental constructs abstracting them are classical reifications. Time is, according to my opinion,
but in order to be somewhat comprehensible to anyone, one could instead say:
or some such. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I wish to reiterate my first improvement proposal:
Time is something of the material universe, while our measurement systems are built upon an evolved cultural consensus, where we have invented a Language-game (per Wittgenstein) to convey absolute quantitative dimensions. The relation between time and measurement systems should be measures, not defines. It is acceptable to say that "time is measured by a measurement systems". A definition should however describe the topical entity and it's relation to previously known objects and processes whose qualities are known. Let's "define":
Do we define or clarify anything? Do we wish to frustrate our readers by giving something that is a reification of our presumed measurement systems bordering to a circular definition?
About consensus: a consensus doesn't build on warnings or threats, that's a false repressive consensus. A consensus builds on a reasoning that everybody will subscribe to. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Rursus proposed: "time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging" (or increased disorder)" - Entropy is an observable property of physical change, but I don't think time itself can be defined as entropy. Just as time cannot be defined by its measurement, time also cannot be defined by its particular observables alone. However change itself is a broad enough concept to include. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey somebody is tinkering with a more general and accurate lede intro, and it looks good:
I would suggest something more along the line of "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon.." "..that creates continuous change" etc. Anyway, any attempt is an improvement. Look forward to seeing things develop. Regards to all, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I would suggest staying away from "conscious experience" because that opens up a big issue with regard to existentialism and psychology. If we regard the perceptual to have bearing on the issue of time itself, this kind of treatment is insufficient - there needs to be some deeper introduction to the perceptual. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Something that could be added to the Religion section:
-- Kray0n ( talk) 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the first sentence from the article and placing it here for discussion. This is because I don't think it is based on a reliable source, and because there is really nothing about the relationship of existence to time within the contents of the cited source. Furthermore, the relationship between existence and time seems to be a deep and knotty subject. It may require more space than an opening sentence in a Wikipedia article. IN any case this sentence may not belong as the first sentence of the introduction. Hence, the sentence with the reference is as follows: ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see how the edit summary
has anything to do with the changes proposed. The examples given are indeed from physics, but they are simply a "such as". There is nothing in the article body about quantifying any "rate of change of conscious experience" (nor is it discussed anywhere at all, that I am aware of). There are measurements involving temporality in biology (such as heart rate) and in economics too, but we do not need to mention all of them in the first paragraph.
We can sequence events without thinking of time as a quantity and without measurements , hence Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events is 1> meandering and 2>not comprehensive.
In accord with WP:BRD, I am restoring the earlier, long-standing (about 4 years) start of the article at least until there is some discussion here about why any other start is preferable. There are many definitions in the refs, but few of the cited ones focus on any "progress of existence and events", and no case has yet been made to lead with that one-- JimWae ( talk) 05:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, please discuss here rather than edit warring.-- JimWae ( talk) 13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Whether time "exists" separate from measurement is at issue & it would be POV to say it does. The present lede does not say time does "exist" apart from measurement and does not say it does NOT exist apart from measurement. Instead, per WP:NPOV, it points to the issue. This IS and has been consensus lede for 4 yrs +-- JimWae ( talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The "consensus" lead reinserted by Steve Quinn seems to have some severe flaws - among them an overreliance on defining time as part of physical measurement, rather than as a phenomena in its own right (most of the sources about the concept Time clearly do not adopt this exclusively physical definition of time). If this is consensus then consensus has to change to reflect a wider array of sources about the topic. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
To suggest that there is a "consensus" in an article that has more than a dozen edits a month for many months seems to show a preference for one particular edit over against all the others. Please provide some reason for reverting my referenced material other than just that it isn't "consensus". Is it wrong? Is it better than the version we had? This is what we should be discussing, not just whether or not it agrees with a nonexistant "consensus". Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Rick Norwood's proposal:
Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. [2] It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." [3]
Maunus' opinion:
Rick Norwood's proposal: I appreciate the discussion of my proposed first paragraph, but let's include all of it. I did not replace the scientific view with the philosophic view, but rather included both:
Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. [4] It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." [5] In science, the standard unit of measurement of time is the second, one of the fundamental units in the metric system, a unit whose origin can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, where the day was divided into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, and the minute into 60 seconds, but the modern unit has a more precise scientific definition.
Response to Maunus: 1) I put the subjective idea of time ahead of the objective idea because it came first. People experienced time before they measured it. 2) To mention that time is both subjective and objective is certainly to suggest that it is both. 3) St. Augustine is quoted not for his own sake, but because he is the starting point for the discussion of time by many later philosophers. My view of writing for Wikipedia is: begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation?-- JimWae ( talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to comment that the version in progress at the article right now [2] sounds absolutely horrible. It's like there is no lede, we just begin with a sentence about something to do with time, as though mid-thought. A lede needs to begin with something like "Time is...", even if what follows that is some variant on "difficult to define uncontroversially" (though preferably something at least a little more substantial than that). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
As off-the-cuff as it was when I first suggested it, I'm starting to think that something like "Time is that which durations and intervals span, across which change and motion occur, and along which events are sequenced from past, through present, to future." would work well. It is a bit circular, I admit, but very indirectly so; it related the concept of time to a lot of other closely related concepts, even if those other related concepts can't quite be defined without eventual reference back to time. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The retroactive first sentence says: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events.." - According to this definition, time is a "part" of a "measuring system." Does this "measuring system" have a name? Does it have an article? Certainly a concept of which time is a fundamental part must have a name, and likely an article. What is its name?
Is there a problem with describing time as a physical phenomenon? After all that is what it is. For example, it is considered a fundamental component in the concept of spacetime, itself a fundamental concept in most of physics. Physics has priority. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is a real phenomenon, meaning it is a part of reality. All real things conform to physical laws, known or unknown, hence time is a topic firmly within the domain of physics. Granted, time is not yet fully explained in physics, but our most profound insights about time do come from physics. Philosophy and religion have perhaps inspired some of these insights, and we of course should report such insights here, but reality and all that it contains are physical in nature, hence physics (ie. sources in physics) takes priority.
That's not to say the opening sentences should be technical, in fact I agree that the intro should be general, and talk generally about the concept as we currently understand it. Thats why the dictionaries are important - they talk about what words mean as we currently use them, even if our understanding of such things may be yet undeveloped. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't intend to participate in this discussion; however, I'll dredge up a bit of context in the hopes that it can move forward rather than treading old ground:
I respectfully suggest that before the current debate goes too much farther, it'd be a good idea to write a brief summary in this thread of what the main points of discussion were the last few times around. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that "Time in Religion" is a subject we want to discuss in this article. I only included the St. Augustine quote because other authors do, and they included the quote to show the difficulty of defining time, not to discuss theology. It seems to me that we have more-or-less a consensus that the first paragraph should mention philosophy and science, and that we're essentially discussing exactly how that should be worded. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a general agreement that the current lead is not good, and several people have expressed approval of my rewrite, either in whole or in part, so I'm going to restore it. Please, if you don't like it, instead of reverting it, try to improve it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to make more than one change at a time (except for getting rid of that stray slash ref) but should the lead really say "Time is what clocks measure." three times. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
TO REPEAT: I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation? I am travelling and have little opportunity to talk here, but also putting long quotes from other sources in the body of the lede, while not including their content in the ledes own words, is not the way to write an encyclopedia. People do NOT agree the lede (which has been there 4-years AND is quoted in at least one scholarly work) is BAD, they are talking about improving what is there. I do like the direction in the "map is not the territory" comment. Meanwhile, I am reverting per WP:BOLD.-- JimWae ( talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There have also been objections to the old lead, in particular to the idea that time is "part" of something. The main objection to my lead is that some people don't like the St. Augustine quote. Others do. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like it taking it out. I have no problem with you putting your sentence, which is quite good, in. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My intent was not to discard stuff. Since you seem reluctant to add your own version, I'll see if I can combine our two versions effectively. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." To need a reference for your own statement that "time is an experience" seems like asking for a reference that eyes are for seeing, but I'll find one, and add it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have provided the refernce you requested. Kant's distinction, between what we "experience" and what we "comprehend", is too technical for the lead. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It may well be appropriate to discuss these deep philosophical questions in the body of the article. I don't think the lead is the place to go into questions of the difference between "sense" and "sensation", between "perception" and "awareness". Neither do I think the lead should adopt the unitary view that there is nothing to time but measurement. We have many sources that say, clearly, that time is a difficult concept. Most also agree that time has both subjective and objective components, though a minority view holds that the word "time" means nothing but "what clocks measure", and that time is an illusion (tea time doubly so). The controversy here is similar to the controversy in consciousness and is unlikely ever to be totally settled. It's a hard subject, and all the lead should do is introduce the main views, but not single out one of those views. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've cited a book that makes what seems to me to be a clear and straightforward statement that time has a subjective component. He also includes the St. Augustine quote. He also cites the old version of the lead from Wikipedia, but does so not as a reference but as a jumping off point, with the emphasis being on the assertion that time is impossible to define. The author has a lot to say on that subject, but one of the things he has to say is that time has both a measurement component and a subjective component. Please note that I am not in any way trying to say that the subjective component of time is not an illusion -- that's too deep a question for the lead.
Because I am reluctant to delete a reference, I've moved the challenged reference to what I hope is a more suitable place, but if anyone still thinks it is inapropo, I have no objection if they remove it. The second flagged reference is clearly in the wrong place, but again I hesitate to delete any reference, so I'm going to leave it alone for now.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The current lede contains an egregious first sentence:
This is not a real lede sentence for an article. We do not start articles with such vague language. We start articles with definitive statements, of the form "[topic] is [this]"
I understand that its not an easy topic to deal with. On the other hand, we use the term everyday in a rather unambiguous way. We don't know exactly what time is, but we know what it means when we use the word.
Since it appears most of us are at a loss for how to proceed, let's start by asking a couple basic but essential questions. First:
Second:
Let's talk about these two points. They will help us clarify our course. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in question is referenced, and most sources agree that the question is both central and controversial. Some sources say that time has a subjective component, others that time is only measurement and nothing else. The lead should express both of these major views. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"time is part of the framework of experience, like space, number, (and here I add to Kant) qualia, substance, and causation"is to promote a view that nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction. It would seem then that you would have to substantiate why an old philosophical conjecture should take precedence over the most advanced theories in the science of physics.
"Likewise, as physical things are inherently phenomenal (i.e. experiential, empirical), time is intricately bound up in what it is to be physical at all, but it isn't a physical thing or process itself.- I think you misunderstand what physics is, and what it means. Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description. If its not real in terms of component particles, then it must be illusion, but even illusions must have some basis in physics. The most interesting idea about time in physics comes about through the holographic principle, which indeed regards all of reality as a kind of projection. But that's far from claiming that human perception is the foundation of the universe. Human perception is the foundation of nothing, except the psychology of the individual. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"I will just say that you are being biased to just one of several possible philosophical interpretations of the same physics.- I am not biased towards one particular view in physics. We should all be biased towards scientific explanations over ancient philosophy which roots itself in matters of observation, perception, and subjectivity. And this remains true even if science does not yet have a full picture of time. Relativity, one of our most profound insights into time, did not come out of philosophy, it came out of physics. What would Kant have thought of relativity?
..all of the data is objective and independent of any observer, but our only access to it is subjective empirical observation. - The foundation of most of physics is not "subjective empirical observation," but mathematics, typically of the rigorous, peer reviewed variety. Hence physics is not subjective, its objective, its not empirical, its intuitive, its not observation, its conjecture and then experiment. You wrote:
..and things like space and time are necessary parts of any model we could come up with to structure that objective data we subjectively observe..- Well thats the point, time is a real phenomenon and therefore "part[] of any model" regardless of any issues of subjectivity or perception. In fact, according to the holographic model, its space, not time that's the illusion. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, JimWae, for fixing the Newton paragraph. It's very clear, now. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be finally moving forward. I've simplified the new lead without (I trust) changing its meaning.
There is a major problem in paragraph three that I hope someone with more knowledge of Newton's vs. Liebnitz's views will fix:
"One view holds that time is neither an event nor a thing ... The opposing view is that time ... is neither an event nor a thing."
You see the problem.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, since the version I think moves us forward is not by me, presumably at least one other person agrees. The C class rating (in one case B) suggests the article needs improvement. The endless discussion that goes nowhere encourages me to Be Bold. Your claim that I am indulging in OR is belied by the fact that everything I write is referenced. I have no opinion on this subject. I just want the article to reflect the references. Since the references disagree, I don't see any harm in saying so. I like my first sentence better than the current one, but I'm trying to play nice, instead of rejecting everything anyone tries to do out of hand. I tried putting your first sentence up, but you didn't like that, either. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we making progress yet? I think we are. I hope editors don't forget about the problem in the third paragraph, mentioned above. Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.
Time is that across which events are sequenced, durations of events and intervals between them are compared, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified.
Time is what events are sequenced across, durations of events and intervals between them are compared across, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified across.
I'm afraid the construction "time is that across which" implies that time is real, which is a point of contention. But "time is used" has the same implication. The deeper you dig, the deeper hole you find yourself in. The two main points of view in the literature, put very informally, seem to be a) time is like a line. Clocks measure where on the time line we are. b) Clocks give us numbers. Time is what we call those numbers, and has no meaning apart from the numbers given by clocks (and other devices). I'm also bothered by the construction "time is used". Wouldn't it be better to say, "People use time"? Ah, well, back to the sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as an item of interest, here is how an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Time begins, "TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another." Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Rick Norwood relayed to us EB's definition of time:
which I used in crafting a new introductory sentence:
I think this is the general direction we want to go in. Note that by using "apparent" and "appear" we deal to some extent with the perceptual, as that appears to have been a concern among some editors. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future.? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that the more convoluted the first sentence becomes, the less clear it is. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
---
Pfhorrest wrote: "Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future."
- Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted. Articles typically start off with the form [topic] is [this].. or [topic] is a name/term for [this]. "Intervals between them are compared.."
is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence. "Rates of change.. are quantified"
gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence. You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."? Regards, -
Stevertigo (
t |
c)
22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted
Articles typically start off with the form [topic] is [this].. or [topic] is a name/term for [this].
"Intervals between them are compared.." is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence.
"Rates of change.. are quantified" gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence.
You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."?
I placed tag on this ariticle because the neutrality of this article is being disputed. This is because, as I wrote in the edit history --- this lede represents a single point of view, as did the pared down lede. This sentence is also contradictory which I already said in a previous edit history today. I request that someone please tell me how this sentence does not represent a single point of view and how this sentence is not contradictory (per BRD). Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
First, with the emphasis on the word "existence" the current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.
Next the second half of this sentence -- "irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" appears to be redundant because it is covered in the very next paragraph, and perhaps said even more succinctly.
Third - saying "indefinite continued progress or sequence of existence" is a contradictory statement. But I see that you already noticed that word is not supported by the sources. Kudos. What I was saying earlier -- existence on any time scale is the opposite of indefinite. There is a definite beginning and end to existence for everyone. No one, no animal, no plant, and no tree gets to live forever. Rocks erode. Also, in about 2 or 3 billion years this planet will no longer be habitable because of the life-cycle of the sun. So, on any time scale there is a time limit on existence that is definite or finite.
Fourth -- Sorry but even though this sentence may sound good, it appears to be a convulted construction of words. So for these reasons I shortened the lede (see edit history)
Fifth -- saying that "time is" this sentence seems to say that we have nailed the definition of time. The standard 4 year lede does not do that. It makes empirical statements and describes what can be observed. It is an operational definition.
::Sixth -- we already have philosophical articles related to "time" on Wikipedia so we don't need to worry about covering philosophy in the lede. Please also note that the philosophy is already summed up in part of the four paragraphs of the introduction. Also, these first paragraphs are very different from the Time in physics article.
It seems to me that the lead is getting worse, not better, with no consensus in sight, and that some of the people on this talk page are getting just a wee bit testy. Please avoid personal remarks and personal opinions, and compare and contrast reliable sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me we already have plenty of references, with quotations, and that all that is needed is for someone to paraphrase what the major references say. I'd be willing to try it. I'd be willing to support anyone else who tried it. But I hesitate to try, there have been so many reverts. Maybe it will be better just to wait until things settle down. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan on reverting Steve Quinn's recent edit, but I wanted to discuss that here first.
First, he has qualified the first sentence so it now reads, "Time...appears related to the continued progression..." This is unnecessarily vague and essentially meaningless. Anything may "appear related to" anything else. The word "time" is used to describe the "progression of events", not just in some vague and unspecified way "related to" the progression of events.
Second, he has restored to the sentence "The operational definition leaves aside the question of whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned." the phrase "that flows and can be measured." But the operational definition defines time as that which can be measured, so the tail of the sentence contradicts its beginning. Does measuring something leave aside the question of whether something is being measured?
Edits should reflect what the references say.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Whatever several people here agree that "progression" means, its dictionary meanings carry a dependency on either the future or the past - either towards a future goal, or from a past state. A succession of events does not depend on the events having a linked history. (Though time is a factor in causality, causality is not necessarily a part of a sequence of events -- nor of time.) The link is to sequence, not progression. If sequence is the better link, it is the better word choice.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, "progression of events" requires explanation, or is just poetry - something "sequence" is not. "Progression of events" also has the least number of sources - AND that one source also says "progress".-- JimWae ( talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are the three primary definitions of time in 3 prominent English language dictionaries:
This is being used, by me, as an authoritative source so that this is simply no one's particular POV. Being that these are general dictionaries, the only POV that you can accuse these definitions as having is the "English language" POV. AH and OED live on opposite sides of the pond and MW is an old standard.
Now there are two grosser POVs to represent, and of one of these POVs, there are two sub-POVs to consider:
Time as phenomenon is a perspective that is both differentiated from the Time as measurement perspective and solidly supported by the English language dictionaries. Leaving it out of the lede is not NPOV. In addition, it is more fundamental. During the first million years of the existence of the Universe there were certainly no sentient beings around to be experiencing or measuring time, but time existed. There were physical processes going on that had quantitative relationships with each other and with time. There was an x(t) and there was a t, and no one was around measuring it. Let's not get into any stupid Tree-falling-in-the-forest-with-no-one-around-to-hear-it,-does-it-make-a-sound? baloney. Of course it did. Time has been around a lot earlier than there had been anyone in the Universe measuring anything, including time.
The lede right now seems to place the article in too philosophical domain.
That's your opinion, Steve Quinn, but you are mistaken.
This is not a philosophy article.
Steve is also mistaken here. While it is not about philosophy as a scholarly exercise, there is a reason why the
Dewey decimal system begins with philosophy as the "100s" section and why
engineering profs and
physics and
mathematics and
sociology and
humanities or
literature terminal degrees are all Ph.D. Everything is about philosophy.
The other lede is an operational definition acceptable in the sciences and ordinary life.
This is a perfect example of crappy thinking. Of POV thinking. Steve is saying that something that is works in the sciences is also does in ordinary life. "Operational definition" is clearly from the POV of science, and if you take that far enough, from the POV of experimental science. It's a POV and certainly not the only POV and not a neutral POV. It is a POV of a subset of the human experience. That is why it comes in secondary.
The purpose of the lede definition is to present a concept in simpler terms, not to use convoluted & vague language such as "indefinite.. progress of existence and events.."
JimWae, this is laughable. You are saying words like "indefinite" are convoluted and vague, yet in the lede paragraph you have wording like "In addition, the temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing;". I mean WTF does that mean? "Temporal" or "transitory" are the common words that Bubba and JimBob and SallyMae are using, but "indefinite" is convoluted? You're being silly. Yes, let's put the lede definition in the simpler terms to present the concept of time. But it's apparent that you don't know how to do it because you don't seem to know what "simpler terms" really are.
Someone else said (but I can't find it) that this should not be about what "time" means to academics but what it commonly means to ordinary people. I fully agree with that. No lede definition of time that does not have something about time occurring in an apparently irreversible direction from the past through the present to the future is not about how the average Joe thinks about time. The average Joe thinks about what has happened in his past, what is happening now, and what he might expect to happen in the future. The dictionaries see this and to leave it out is not NPOV.
Time is about the existence of things, about us and other things in the Universe. The OED supports that. Time is apparently unidirectional as we (and anything that is not an antiparticle) commonly experiences it. In addition, it's single-dimensional (unlike space) so, the common understanding of time is that time progresses in one direction. One event happens after another in an ordered sequence that can be placed on the real number line. Just like "greater than" > and "less than" < have meaning with real numbers, "earlier" or "previous" and "later" or "subsequent" have comparable meaning with respect to time.
Some complained about indefinite. Time as this fundamental phenomenon is considered to be indefinite, in our common ordinary experience, in both directions; for every moment of time you identify, there is a moment that precedes it and another moment that succeeds this given moment. But we know now that some 13.7 billion years ago that might not be true regarding the Big bang. Present thinking is that time and space both had origin with the big bang, so if you define that event as t=0, then there may very well be no moments with negative t. So there's a definite limit of time in the past direction. But there is no known limit in the future direction. For every moment, from the BB onward, there is a moment that follows. That is, by definition, indefinite. It has to be bounded on both sides for "indefinite" not to apply.
So, in two sentences, all three major POVs are comprehensively (not exhaustively) introduced. We have Time as phenomenon, the fundamental definition, first with "past", "present" and "future". This can be footnoted for a cutey and simple definition from John Wheeler: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." (along with "Space is what prevents everything from happening to me.") Then we have Time as measurement or the "operational definition", both regarding the physical systems and regarding the human (or sentient) experience (we can measure the duration of something or we can guess how long it was from our experiencing it). And we can footnote that with the statement from Einstein that "Time is what clocks measure." Although not as comprehensive, both cited statements express, in a nutshell, what time is thought of fundamentally and what time is as a measurement. They're good.
Also, rate of change of a quantity is directly related to and a consequence of time. It is simply the reciprocal of time, 1/t, or frequency. It belongs in the measurement sentence. It is often how time is measured or experienced.
The more fundamental POV of time is that of Wheeler and the more operational POV is that of Einstein. We can get the key concepts down with two concise sentences:
Now, I don't have infinite time to work on this, so I am asking that you justify how any other two-sentence lede is as or more comprehensive or concise as this. Or more accurate. If you fire out a phalanx of nit-picks, I will answer each one clearly and sequentially. Steve and Jim object to answering each question immediately after the question. It's a silly objection and inefficient alternative, which means I have to copy their question and put it in green and italics, and then answer it, but that's what we'll do. In return, I ask that assertions of opinion are not couched as statement of fact which is mostly what a particular editor believes. Steve, you can avoid that pitfall by preceding opinions with "I think..." or "I believe..." or "I prefer...". Please let's do this important article some justice and not fart around. Oh, BTW, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, not as long as User:Stevertigo. I know my way around here. Please don't patronize me. And thanks for your observations, Pfhorrest, both here and at the AN/I.
70.109.182.232 ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"in material reality or in the conscious experience", sounds a little unprofessionally worded to my ear, but a better way of putting it doesn't come to mind.Again, the intent, to be "professionally" worded is to be as comprehensive and as concise as possible. The second sentence in my proposed lede should replace the current second sentence. Again, we have an apparent dichotomy with Time as phenomenon (the "philosophical" perspective) and Time as measurement (the "operational" perspective). Both of these POVs are very important and both need to be way up there in the lede. But they're different and should be in different sentences, both for clarity of concept and to avoid run-on sentences. Time as phenomenon is more fundamental. Two dictionaries list it first (the OED doesn't even put the "measurement" definition in its primary def). Then right away, there should be the measurement definition. I am still convinced that the second sentence I proposed is far clearer than the existing second sentence. Now, in that measurement POV there is the measurement of time by counting "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (and one end of the measurement spectrum) and there is the measurement of time by someone saying "She came by here about a half hour ago". Both are measurements and both are measuring the same thing. Not only is there (as far as we know) a difference in precision or accuracy of the two measurement, they occur in different domains, one is in the physical domain (something we do with clocks) and the other exists in the consciousness of a sentient being. Now, the materialists would say that this consciousness and sentience is merely a consequence or example of biological and physical processes in the brain: the clock in our heads is not much different from the 133Cs clock qualitatively, but simply is less precise, less accurate, less reliable, less robust. Fine, but that is the materialist POV, not NPOV. That's why time (as a measurement) exists both "in material reality [and] in the conscious experience".
I just want to comment at this point that I like your use of "apparently" here to qualify "irreversible", good preservation of NPOV there.Pf, I knew that you were paying me a compliment regarding that, but I didn't want to accept such payment when all I was doing was copying out of the dictionary. I do want to point out to SQ, JW and such that one can stand on NPOV with much more confidence when they rely on the dictionary definitions instead of their own opinions. Unless you think you're a lexicographer, relying on the dictionary immunizes yourself from charges of POV.
There is so much that needs to be said about issues involving " progress of existence and events" & the manner in which edits have been made to the top of the article, that it is hard to know where to begin. And such a wall of text today that many good ideas will be hard to find again. I will try to be succint. First, many specific objections to " progress of existence and events" had ALREADY been raised in this 2012-JUL-02 edit, the format of which the IP terribly mangled (later restored by Steve Quinn), but has never sufficiently addressed. To repeat the ones still relevant
Additionally:
There seems to be general agreement that the present 1st sentence will not survive. Some of the above applies also to Pfhorrest's latest proposed merge above. I propose that, per WP:BRD, the lede be returned to what it was before the IP put his ideas at the very top - substantially what it had been for 4 yrs - until a BETTER wording has been agreed on. Nothing that has been presented has been agreed to be better AND objections to it have already been met. It remains the standard against which amendments are compared. Enough for now. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Time is not identical with the sequence of events. Rather, sequencing is one aspect of the concept of time. Other aspects are durations and intervals - both of which ARE quantified (numerically or otherwise) and CAN BE measured (numerically or otherwise). Measurement even applies to sequencing when events are assigned positions on a timeline. (re Pfforests's merge proposal above: nor IS time the measurement of durations and intervals)On that last point, perhaps the word "measure" would be better than "measurement". I didn't mean to write it as "time is the act of measuring", but "time is what is measured". Consider an analogous phrasing, "courage is the measure of a man", meaning "to measure how much of a man someone is, measure their courage". So time is whatever it is you are measuring to measure a duration or interval or rate. Similarly with "sequence", for the reasons I hinted at just above: "the sequence of events" can sound like it is referring to the set of events which are in that sequence, but seems intended to refer to (for lack of a better word) their sequentiality itself, what they are in sequence of, which is time. Both of these mesh with my earlier suggestion of writing "according to which" (or "across which" or "against which", but I think you were the one who said those bias toward realism): time is whatever events are sequenced against or across or according to, whatever durations and intervals and rates are measured against or across or according to. I think coming up with a neutral way of phrasing this is the core of our problem here.
-- Pfhorrest ( talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"Time is the sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measurement of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
I agree with Steve Quinn that Pfhorrest's version is in the right direction, and disagree with the idea that time is entirely a perceptual concept, such as in Steve Quinn's wording: "Time is known by.." Pfhorrest's version "time is the unidirectional succession of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them." is almost as good as mine in its own way.
Pfhorrest before mentioned the idea of anisotropy. I think it works, but not in the first sentence, as its a little too technical. Plus its also not entirely clear that what we call time is just one dimensional, in any way other than the "temporal" dimension. It could be that what we call time is so multidimensional that calling it anisotropic could be just plain incorrect. For example we know the arrow of time concept cannot be correct in any spatial sense because all points in space are equally real, and because each point has its own clock. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a note for everyone (regarding my lets-wait-24-hrs proposal off Rick's one-word changes), I'm going to be gone for the rest of the weekend and probably won't be around again until late Monday night (Pacific). I think my thoughts are spelled out clear enough here, but don't wait on a response from me for anything. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to predict that "we are probably going to drop that lede". The lead has many, many references. Over against them, you are offering an opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Im happy with the current first sentence, as proposed by Pfhorrest, and tweaked by Steve Quinn, JimWae et al. Its about as good as it gets for such a broad and daresay controversial subject. The current first sentence does what a good introduction should - it talks about what the concept means in the most general terms. Compare this with the previously proposed versions: "time is part of a measuring system.." which is just inaccurate, "time is the experience of.." which is biased toward a perceptual idea of time, and "time is what a clock reads," which is both accurate and precise, in a kindergarten sort of way. The current version is light years more improved over the previous proposals. My general proposal was to define time in a general way, as any article should, and that goal has been satisfied.
My secondary proposal was to define time as a physical phenomenon, but I agree that this could be construed as biased, according to a philobabble or metaphysicle view. Its certainly interesting that Einstein himself a couple times stated that he thought time as some kind of illusion, but he left the planet long before we had a formal idea of holography, many worlds, and other proposed explanations. But the idea of time as being an illusion, in the literal sense, is inherently flawed, because even if all of reality were just a simulation, things would still have to transform in a logical way, and this phenomenon of things moving forward in a progressive way, even though simulated, would still be called "time."
In keeping with a logical top down approach, which tends to work well, we can move on to the rest of the article. The second sentence currently reads:
Talking about "business, industry" and "sports" right after a general introduction to the most fundamental quantity of reality... is obtuse. What we should deal with instead is the matter of time as a physical phenomenon - and as an idea which is debated. The third and forth sentences get into the secondary part:
The third sentence is not bad, but the "consistently eluded scholars" part makes it sound like people just don't have a clue and have never pinned anything down at all. I don't think this is the case. The fifth sentence is perfect...
.. because it includes the simplistic definition, which many people seem to like, but also includes Wheeler's (some sites attribute to Einstein) plain and interesting statement.
On the matter of the fourth sentence..
..on times subjective "component"[sic], I think its possible to be more explanatory and less unspecific. Again, its clear that time is a part of reality (by whatever definition) and is therefore experienced in whatever way our cognition allows. Hence there is (naturally) a "subjective" perception of time (not a subjective "component" of time). All that does not mean that time is exclusively an experiential thing in and of itself, and not based in physics. We don't talk about physical experiences like sunlight or car crashes as purely experiential, just because theres a subjective "component"[sic]. Rememeber that even if we propose that all of reality is just a simulaton, such a simulation would still have to have some kind of physical basis. So as a fourth sentence, we can say something like:
Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"And I'm tired of being bulldozed during this quest to place personal bias in the first part of the lede of this article in order to fit with personal beliefs"is baseless. No one has been trying to insert "personal bias" into this article. All I and Pfhorrest are doing is working in good faith toward improving an important article from its former state, which was largely flawed. And you and I have not yet interacted on this page at all, not since 2010, hence I don't see how you can claim that I am "bulldozing" you. And Pfhorrest isn't "bulldozing" you either.
Steve Quinn: You seem to be getting awfully emotional about this, calling other editor's ideas "a joke" and accusing them of "bulldozing" you. This does not add anything to the discussion.
I agree with you that "sequence" is more neutral than "progression", even though several sources use "progression" or the equivalent. In an effort to work toward a compromise, I'll put "sequence" back in the first sentence. I hope this helps. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What Steve Quinn sees as "fudging" I see as paraphrasing, to avoid direct quotation of copyrighted material. Also, the separation of the citations into majority views and minority views seems arbitrary. It would be more clear to say what the view is, and then list which citations support it. And there are red herrings on the list. The subject of this article has nothing to do with the use of "time" to mean "a period of years in history" or "time of year".
To respond to Steve Quinn's question: How was the original lead flawed? Well, the article was rated C-class by a number of raters. That doesn't necessarly reflect on the lead, but is an indication that something is wrong. The problem I had with the original lead was that it (as best I remember) didn't mention the meaning of time as a subjective experience, apart from measurement. Some authorities claim that when we say we experience time we are mistaken. But other authorities allow that time has a subjective component. The previous lead seemd to me to favor the former view and ignore the latter.
Finally, Steve Quinn, when you say you are "not being heard", I think you are mistaken. Your views are heard, and there is no need to repeat them. We hear; we respectfully disagree. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comment on editing
We are not here to discuss other editors. I consider the above a violation of
WP:NPA. I removed the above & also hatted it, but nameless has reinserted it about 5 times. I warn nameless about
WP:3RR and I encourage other editors to remove it. --
JimWae (
talk)
07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
* Threats, including, but not limited to...
|