The meaning of Time: Philosophy Forums

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

The meaning of Time

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The meaning of Time

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 09/09/08 - 07:55 PM:	#61
Mech wrote: Hence why it doesn't exist. It is merely a numerical value we place on it to associate our activities around and explain other phenomenon we see in existence within reality. This is how I look at time: it is a law we all accept and are designed around to follow - when to sleep, when we reach certain maturity stages, seasons.. These are all reasons for us to place some numerical increments on theses phenomenons around us. If we didn't have time as a law how would we explain aging or how things go through stages in development? We use time to break down infinite duration to simplify observations so we can comprehend them. If time does not exist, does that mean clocks literally measure nothing? Ok, a different dimension: temperature. Does temperature not exist because it is a made-up convention, merely used to describe certain aspects of nature? You may still burn your finger if the thermometer on the stove shows 200Â°C, but not if it shows room temperature. (I dare you to validate/falsify this hypothesis empirically.) :-) How's this then.. Does the color green exist? Yes - I see it every day on the way to work. No - it's merely how certain electromagnetic waves, detected by my eyes, are interpreted by my perceiving gray matter, because we've been taught that this impression is called "green". Time is just another aspect of reality; a convention, sure, but nonetheless as real a whole bunch of other aspects and conventions. The mentioned changes (e.g. seasons, stages in developement), would readily vanish if time was entirely removed from reality.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Mech
neo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 141

Posted 09/10/08 - 06:19 PM:	#62
Cugoano wrote: If it is part of our reality it exists. Can you imagine our reality without it? No. I don't think anyone can. Time is just infinite duration, it doesn't exist as a physical to the universe. Its is a convention we use to breakdown infinite possibility of change around us. jorndoe wrote: If time does not exist, does that mean clocks literally measure nothing? Clocks measure numerical increments programmed into them, or set by motion. They are merely breaking down infinite duration into a comprehendable form so we can associate our actions with some bearing, instead of vaguely having an idea by the sun. Time exists in the form of a convention or concept - we are creating this concept off of infinite duration. You could call infinite duration time, but I think time is actually just the concept. I think time is similar to colours. A colour could exist from the millions of years, it exists, but it is not know or part of the collective colour possibilities until someone recognizes to being a certain name or giving it value. The same applies to time - infinite duration has always existed so on a technicality time has always existed, but, it has been recognized or been called 'time' until we as humans recognized the concept and derived appropriate measures to measure a certain instance of this infinite duration. Time as we know it came into existence. Maybe I was being a bit too vague in my original post about time not existing. It has always existed as infinite duration, but not as time as we comprehend it. Time is also not a physical thing, it just simply exists because other changes, actions, phenomenon etc take place, therefore creating movement in this infinite duration in the universe. But, the instances we use to associate with these changes are a concept.. so time as we comprehend it just a concept and has not always existed. To illustrate: Lets pretend a new planet exists with some form of intelligent life. The time or what they associate as time, would be completely different to that of what we call time. The instances of infinite duration, or increments would be completely different, there association between phenomenon and the foreign increments would mean a different perspective on occurrences around them or how long they existed. Day time and night from a different sun would result in different perception of when to sleep and be awake - the biological clock would be tuned differently. With all these factors in play, a new planet with intelligent life would have a completely different form of time. Time, is something we use to associate with our surroundings, and it could be said has been derived from infinite duration and solely based on one perception. Our concept or convention of time has not always existed. Infinite duration has. Different times can exist therefore making time a concept and not just infinite duration on its own - time conventions are derived from it. In the universe.. sure, you could call infinite duration the time concept because the universe posses the ability to infinite possibilities therefore no time concept as such applies. Ok, a different dimension: temperature. Does temperature not exist because it is a made-up convention, merely used to describe certain aspects of nature? You may still burn your finger if the thermometer on the stove shows 200Â°C, but not if it shows room temperature. (I dare you to validate/falsify this hypothesis empirically.) :-) How's this then.. Does the color green exist? Yes - I see it every day on the way to work. No - it's merely how certain electromagnetic waves, detected by my eyes, are interpreted by my perceiving gray matter, because we've been taught that this impression is called "green". Time is just another aspect of reality; a convention, sure, but nonetheless as real a whole bunch of other aspects and conventions. The mentioned changes (e.g. seasons, stages in developement), would readily vanish if time was entirely removed from reality. Temperature is a measurement and as you correctly stated a convention. That convention or measurement only came into existence as such when humans recognized it and needed a way to interpret or comprehend it. The same applies to the perception of time based on infinite duration - I was vague in my first post, so please read through my other reply to you and then comment back. Time as we know it doesn't exist.. it is just a concept that is then in turn a law for our singular perception on things.
Realism.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 09/10/08 - 07:55 PM:	#63
Ok, I think I understand what you mean. A bit different from how I understand reality. :-) You do mention "duration" as seemingly real; this already hints at time (to me). Let me try a different angle, just to see if we can reach some sort of consensus. The various processes you mention (numerical increments, creating movement, biological clock) - what prerequisites (if any) exists allowing them to be? I propose one of these two, but please feel free to suggest a 3rd: space and time space and change Ok, each of these two have additional ehh components, but they're the same for both items; let's just ignore those extras for the purpose of this debate. The first includes time, so I'm guessing you reject that one. The 2nd, however, seems to fit what you've described, for the most part (feel free to correct me of course). For the 2nd, I can derive time fairly easily, though it is not listed. QED. :-) Of course I don't know if you'll accept giving a derived phenomenon "real" status.. Edited by jorndoe on 09/10/08 - 08:00 PM
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/10/08 - 08:18 PM:	#64
jorndoe wrote: space and change One either rejects the law of identity or accepts that A is A, thus change requires time. Any argument that claims to establish the conclusion that time doesn't exist must be syntactically structured, otherwise it's meaning can be arbitrarily assigned, this means that any such argument must itself involve temporal relations between its components. Thus any argument attempting to claim there is no time is self refuting by virtue of requiring time for it's expression.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 09/10/08 - 09:01 PM:	#65
ughaibu wrote: One either rejects the law of identity or accepts that A is A, thus change requires time. Any argument that claims to establish the conclusion that time doesn't exist must be syntactically structured, otherwise it's meaning can be arbitrarily assigned, this means that any such argument must itself involve temporal relations between its components. Thus any argument attempting to claim there is no time is self refuting by virtue of requiring time for it's expression. Unless.. Actually, let me just refer to post #16 on http://forums.philosophyforums.com...ds/what-is-time-31310.html instead of repeating. Not that I disagree, just that there may be more than one perspective. Say, how many threads are converging on "time" anyway..?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

ughaibu
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 272

Posted 09/10/08 - 09:32 PM:	#66
jorndoe wrote: Not that I disagree, just that there may be more than one perspective I dont see how post 16 significantly varies from the 'time is merely change' position(?) On which, and not addressed to you, there is something we call "time" and something we call "change", these aren't the same, even if each requires the other. But in any case, if time is merely some x, this only means that we have different words with which to express the notion of time. A is merely A, by definition, the "merely" doesn't have any impact on existence. Anyway, accepting that time is change of position: Me: I'll be in the pub tonight TD (time denier): I'd like to drink with you, what's the change of position? Me: well, obviously, I'll have changed my position from here to the pub. . . . TD: yes, but what about me? Me: I dont know, I'm not your nanny TD: no, I mean generally, what's the overall change in position? Me: in terms of radians of rotation of the Earth with respect to Sol, pi over three TD: okay. Will TD be wondering around with a sextant or will they convert this angle into the conventional system we use for this, hours?

Mech
neo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 141

Posted 09/10/08 - 11:17 PM:	#67
jorndoe wrote: Ok, I think I understand what you mean. A bit different from how I understand reality. :-) You do mention "duration" as seemingly real; this already hints at time (to me). Let me try a different angle, just to see if we can reach some sort of consensus. The various processes you mention (numerical increments, creating movement, biological clock) - what prerequisites (if any) exists allowing them to be? I propose one of these two, but please feel free to suggest a 3rd: space and time space and change Ok, each of these two have additional ehh components, but they're the same for both items; let's just ignore those extras for the purpose of this debate. The first includes time, so I'm guessing you reject that one. The 2nd, however, seems to fit what you've described, for the most part (feel free to correct me of course). For the 2nd, I can derive time fairly easily, though it is not listed. QED. :-) Of course I don't know if you'll accept giving a derived phenomenon "real" status.. Okay, I think I get what you're saying and I can not really come to a consensus of sorts just yet.. The prerequisites [for me] are: Space, change and infinite duration - with our perception. Once change occurs in space it indicates a movement in infinite duration, therefore if we observe something within infinite duration we then turn to a perception based value to comprehend the occurrence. Time exists in our explanations, but that is just a derived concept from infinite duration, space, change and our perception. Infinite duration doesn't indicate time as a value, as this state always is, it never ceases to exist. Change is change. If you put change into infinite duration, or the state of forever, it is merely change in forever - it has no value, no applied value. Once you have a need to explain this occurrence -humans, intelligent life- we create a means to explain it, and from human perspective - yes, change and duration would straightaway indicate to us time because we use that convention for explanation, its the only way we can explain change and duration. Time is only perception. Edited by Mech on 09/10/08 - 11:44 PM
Realism.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 09/11/08 - 03:57 PM:	#68
ughaibu wrote: Anyway, accepting that time is change of position: Me: I'll be in the pub tonight TD (time denier): I'd like to drink with you, what's the change of position? Me: well, obviously, I'll have changed my position from here to the pub. . . . TD: yes, but what about me? Me: I dont know, I'm not your nanny TD: no, I mean generally, what's the overall change in position? Me: in terms of radians of rotation of the Earth with respect to Sol, pi over three TD: okay. Will TD be wondering around with a sextant or will they convert this angle into the conventional system we use for this, hours? Haha! That's great, certainly gave me a good hard laugh. (read: I might join you at the pub) Actually, it did make me recall something I'd pondered a while back.. Assuming "change" is the more fundamental phenomenon than "time", how would we go amount measuring "change" in such a way that we derive "time"? I can't think of a general way to accomplish this. Ok, an example might be more clear: I want to measure how fast my wife's driving (police might too, come to think of it). But, using "time" is not an option. Rather, you have to measure the speed, and then subsequently calculate the timespan involved. And this is just for a car speeding..err..driving out the highway, but what about the general case? Is that possible I wonder? Maybe the TDs may have some ideas..
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

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.