The meaning of Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The meaning of Time » The meaning of Time

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The meaning of Time

Petrochik
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 31

Posted 02/04/07 - 09:25 PM:	#21
Supremum wrote: Is this the only way we 'measure time?' Years and days are measured in completely different ways. We also have gravitational clocks, atomic clocks, and 'biological clocks?' If we didn't care about being very precise in our measurements, we could define the 'second' as the amount of time it takes a sleeping kangaroo to inhale and exhale at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and one Atmosphere of pressure couldn't we? Or we could call a 'week' the amount of time it takes for a tree to decompose in the Amazon, The 'Supremum' the amount of time it takes for the planets in our solar system to align from the last instance in which they were aligned, the 'year' the amount of time it takes for the distance between our local group and the nearest local group to double etc... The challenge I put to you is: Can you name a single event that cannot be used to define an increment of time? I thought that you were going to bring different time measurements up. I just gave an example. Of course day,weeks, years are measured in different ways. But that's not the point. The point is that it was created by humans for any kind of reference and distinction. Wikipedia The measurement of time is so critical to the functioning of modern societies that it is coordinated at an international level. The basis for scientific time is a continuous count of seconds based on atomic clocks around the world, known as the International Atomic Time (TAI). This is the yardstick for other time scales, including Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is the basis for civil time. Earth is split up into a number of time zones. Most time zones are exactly one hour apart, and by convention compute their local time as an offset from Greenwich Mean Time. For me its simple. There is no time as we know it. If you would like to talk about time and forget the time that it was created by humans I will be glad to engage you in a conversation of this level.

Supremum
proof-by-contradictionist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2007
Location: USA

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 16

Posted 02/05/07 - 01:03 AM:	#22
Petrochik wrote: The point is that it was created by humans for any kind of reference and distinction. Maybe I was a bit to cryptic. Your post #18 did not answer any of my questions; it doesn't seem obvious to me that measuring devices can be said to measure things that in some way don't exist simply because the units by which they are written down are arbitrary. For example, the amount called a 'calorie' is completely arbitrary, but this does not mean that heat does not exist. Note: We are not having a 'color' is different than 'wavelength' problem in this case. It simply turns out that what we call 'heat' in natural language is a special case of light. Breaking 'heat' into measureable units was a necessary condition for showing this relationship. Petrochik wrote: talk about time and forget the time that was created by humans It is exactly with this statement that I intended to show a shortcoming. Whether or not humans looked at, or named, it, the sun would exist for, say, 18.5 'Supremums' (as I defined it in post #20) before it went supernova. Does the sun not, then, behave as a clock? And is the entire universe not one giant clock(or a collection thereof)? Even if I were to define 'time' simply as: 'what clocks measure'(and I do,) the universe would count out seconds, years, Supremums, and months whether or not humans defined them. Then, by entension, 'time' is what the universe measures. But it's much more fun to lead to a conclusion rather than just blurt it out.
There were two hydrogen atoms sitting at a bar. One of them looked very sad, and was crying into his whiskey, and so the other asked, "What's wrong?" The first atom looked up for a moment, paused, and said, "I've lost an electron." The second looked surprised, such a thing was unimaginable, and replied, "Are you sure?" To which the first responded, "Yes, I'm positive."

Petrochik
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 31

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/05/07 - 09:03 PM:	#23
Supremum wrote: Maybe I was a bit to cryptic. Your post #18 did not answer any of my questions; it doesn't seem obvious to me that measuring devices can be said to measure things that in some way don't exist simply because the units by which they are written down are arbitrary. For example, the amount called a 'calorie' is completely arbitrary, but this does not mean that heat does not exist. Note: We are not having a 'color' is different than 'wavelength' problem in this case. It simply turns out that what we call 'heat' in natural language is a special case of light. Breaking 'heat' into measurable units was a necessary condition for showing this relationship. It is exactly with this statement that I intended to show a shortcoming. Whether or not humans looked at, or named, it, the sun would exist for, say, 18.5 'Supremums' (as I defined it in post #20) before it went supernova. Does the sun not, then, behave as a clock? And is the entire universe not one giant clock(or a collection thereof)? Even if I were to define 'time' simply as: 'what clocks measure'(and I do,) the universe would count out seconds, years, Supremums, and months whether or not humans defined them. Then, by entension, 'time' is what the universe measures. But it's much more fun to lead to a conclusion rather than just blurt it out. Sorry for not getting back to you but I was working all day. About "10 hours" and it was crazy because the thermometer hit "14 degrees Fahrenheit or if you want -10 degrees Celsius". I have not experienced such a cold since "years". So this is where I am getting at. Measuring devices follow specific ups and downs created by humans using the elements of nature to make reference on how the point A of heat is related/different/significantly more or less from point B. Like Celsius and Fahrenheit they are two measuring devices and for example celsius named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius is a temperature scale used to refer to a specific temperature on the Celsius scale using mercury if I am not mistaken. But read the sentence again. Good. "refer to a temperature on the celcius scale. If you tell somebody that does not know celsius scale that is 20 degrees celsius they won't understand. So If I have never heard of celsius before how could I possibly know that: 1)Celcius is a temperature measurer 2)that by going up it means that is hot 3)by going down it means that the temperature lowers and so on and so forth. Celsius was also created on a backwards version which double confirms what I have stated above. So this creations are made and then we put the referring points and then we start to understand their reference points and then we take things for granted and then as a fact. All those measures simply try to make comparisons between up and down, past and future. "Those creations are influenced by nature and it is these interactions by nature that we measure" As i said on my previous posts, Universe flows on a line without a proven theory of a starting point and without a proven theory of an ending point. And just to break it with a simple statement how can you be able to measure time if you have no clue when is was the starting point if there was one? I will be honest with you, it is getting even more complicated for me because we brought up so many subjects and I don't know from where to start and I think I have not the knowledge to cover half of your questions. There is no Time in my opinion but you can create your own time by creating reference points. Once you get all the pieces together your creation can be used to refer to any specific event that happened or will happen by simply using your reference points. But then again is another illusion of life.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 02/06/07 - 05:21 AM:	#24
Just like you have really no chance of changing the effect of -14 degree weather by changing your scale, so too do you have no chance of effecting the very real process of time by changing your system of measurement. Everything that we do depends upon time. To say that it isn't real is to be skeptical to the point of idiocy. I mean honestly, I have yet to see someone put together a claim that time doesn't really exist that made any sense.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

jaeDee
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 02/06/07 - 01:41 PM:	#25
IdoTsuk wrote: This is my opinion, you may reply with yours. Oh ok. I think time = space. How's that?

IdoTsuk
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 28, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/13/08 - 08:58 AM:	#26
i'm sorry i'm bumping this from so far back but i have to make something clear. time IS the measure of changes in matter and energy (like said before) and a clock is powered by changes in time and energy hypothetically, let's say the universe sped up 60x the speed it's at right now. for people who believe in time, this would mean that one minutes is now one second. that is obviously wrong, because our brains would move as fast. we will be able to think a 60 seconds worth of thoughts in 1 second. then what has changed? nothing. we do not notice any change.

NewDealTN
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/13/08 - 10:25 AM:	#27
I agree with you, Ido, that "time IS the measure of changes in matter and energy." Time is not a dimension, like the three dimensions of space. I think Einstein said that time should not be considered such a dimension, but I couldn't quote him. I do know that I can look into the three dimensions of space, although what I see is affected by the speed of light moving through space. But I cannot look through time; I cannot see the future or the past. Sure, I can see an old galaxy 10 billion light years away, but that again is simply the delay of light moving through space taking some amount of time to get to me. I'm not really looking into the past. I'm only looking at old light, if you will. In fact, it must be impossible for two points in time to exist or for me to exist in two points of time. In either of these cases, I would necessarily experience two temporal realities at once. For example, I would experience what I am doing now and what I was doing ten seconds ago all at once--which obviously would be quite confusing. Therefore it seems to me that we must exist in only a single moment of time, only in the "now" of the present moment, and not in any other moment of time regardless of how near or far from the present. Therefore, time is not a dimension, but a point. If time is only a point and not a dimension, then some other things must follow. Matter and energy must have some innate faculty for memory. We humans have sentient memory that allows us to remember the past in some detail over days and months and years, however imperfectly. Also, time as a dimension must be seen as our own imaginary continuum created, as it was, to allow us to measure and order the changes, the actions and events, that truly generate the phenomena we call time. In other words, real time is only changes that occur in the eternal moment of the present. To comprehend the massive influx of changes in which we are submerged, we create clocks and calendars to provide constant values (seconds, days, weeks, years, centuries) against which we can compare these changes and give them order and duration, by which we may comprehend them. Is this not rather how you see time too? as a rate of change? Bran th' Blessed

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 06/13/08 - 08:55 PM:	#28
lucretius wrote: Grammar and spelling are unimportant in the United States, so you need not worry there. If you are only 15 you will soon be ranked as a genius at your local school! Why do you say that he will be ranked as a genius? I agree, he doesn't make any sense. Besides, no 15 year old is that stupid. When it comes to philosophy, the older you get, the sillier you become as the mind loses its innocence and get more and more loaded with rubbish.

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 255

Posted 06/13/08 - 09:27 PM:	#29
Well said: so philosophy is the study of getting sillier and sillier the longer you do it.

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 06/17/08 - 05:29 PM:	#30
Lord Drivel wrote: Well said: so philosophy is the study of getting sillier and sillier the longer you do it. Generally, this is so. Philosophy should be the search for truth much like sifting through garbage and determine it as such. The goal is freedom from garbage instead of becoming garbage men.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.