Theories on Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Theories on Time » Theories on Time

Theories on Time

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 06/08/04 - 11:46 AM:	#1
It seems there a lot of different ways of looking at time. Many of them seem consistent, but none are complete. It would be nice to be able to rule out some possibilities, allowing us to get a more focused understanding of time. What are some common theories? One way of thinking of time is something like a line segment. Everything is a sequence of events, and time moves "forward" from its beginning to its end, or perhaps it never ends. At each point in time, the world is in some certain state, and continually changes, and over some interval of time we have signficant changes we call events. Now some might say that time is relative to the observer, and so these events are subject to follow the flow of time, i.e. people can change the flow. However, I would think that someone travelling near light speed would not, for example, read the end of this post before I type it. In other words, could I be typing in my time, and he be reading the complete post in his time? Or would it simply seem to him that my motions and typing are very very slow? I believe it would be the second one. So an individual's experiene of time would change, but the sequence of events would not. Another way might be to see time as a "container" of events. The way of thinking of time in the first paragraph might be thought of as time pushing the universe along. This one would be different, but hard to draw an analogy. It would be something like time being the domain, and at each point in time, there exists a unique state of affairs in the universe, and our consciousness moves through time experiencing the states of affairs of the universe in sequence.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 06/08/04 - 02:31 PM:	#2
Do I dare to comment anything on this subject? Well, I guess I can't help it, anyway AKG wrote: It seems there a lot of different ways of looking at time. Many of them seem consistent, but none are complete. It would be nice to be able to rule out some possibilities, allowing us to get a more focused understanding of time. What are some common theories? What you have left out of your summary (or proposals for definitions of time) is Kant's view that time (and space) are the necessary conditions for our perception, that they are not "real" (i.e. belonging to the things in themselves). This would make time as something that allows us to distinguish entities from other entities (like space). Questions like "is time infinite, has it a beginning or an end, is it a circle or a line, can there be empty time?" are antinomies of reason (Wittgenstein would probably say that the questions are nonsensical) and I tend to agree (as you may have noticed ). Time is a way of perceiving things (time is a form of sensibility) and thus it is nonsensical to ask "what is time like?", because we cannot "see" anything as being like anything without taking time into account. The same applies to space. According to Kant, we cannot imagine that there was no space or time, only that they are empty. One way of thinking of time is something like a line segment. Everything is a sequence of events, and time moves "forward" from its beginning to its end, or perhaps it never ends. Or perhaps it never begun. It is actually quite a hilarious question "does time have a beginning?", as beginning is a temporal term. "Where is location located?" comes into mind. At each point in time, the world is in some certain state, and continually changes, and over some interval of time we have signficant changes we call events. Now some might say that time is relative to the observer, and so these events are subject to follow the flow of time, i.e. people can change the flow. However, I would think that someone travelling near light speed would not, for example, read the end of this post before I type it. You would need to surpass the speed of light to reverse cause and effect, i.e. to read the end of the post before you have typed it. In other words, could I be typing in my time, and he be reading the complete post in his time? Or would it simply seem to him that my motions and typing are very very slow? I believe it would be the second one. So an individual's experiene of time would change, but the sequence of events would not. I am not sure if I follow you. The faster the perceiver moves, the slower the time goes for him and thus other people seem to move a bit faster. This is the reason why I can leave the Earth in a spaceship being older than by little brother, but come back being younger - my brother has aged faster than I. The sequence of events would change if speed of light was surpassed, not in any other case. Another way might be to see time as a "container" of events. The way of thinking of time in the first paragraph might be thought of as time pushing the universe along. This one would be different, but hard to draw an analogy. It would be something like time being the domain, and at each point in time, there exists a unique state of affairs in the universe, and our consciousness moves through time experiencing the states of affairs of the universe in sequence. To be honest, I think the ways you described are the same thing. There is no difference in time going through events and events going through time, because movement is relative anyway. We are only interested in the "temporal distance" of events from us. As there is nothing but time and events (in this consideration you have brought forth), there is actually only the temporal distance that changes. It is only matter of aspect whether the events are moving in a temporal container or time moving in events. If you look at it from the point of view of events, according to theory of relativity, the time is moving (going through events). If you are looking at it from the point of view of time, then the events are moving. That's because we are all in the origo of our coordinates and in the system of coordinates, there are only distances. Because you cannot detach yourself neither from time nor events, you are hard-pressed to think which moves. Once again, the question does indeed seem nonsensical. "Do I perceive or are the percepted perceived?" is an analogical question. The answer is both - depending on which point of view you would like to emphasize. Time moves in a line of events and events move in a line of time. To ask which is correct is very odd indeed. EDIT: About the infinity of time. One should ask himself what does he or she mean with infinity? As far as I can see there is only two ways of thinking infinity: spatial and temporal. Because time cannot be thought as anything spatial, it must be thought as something temporal. But then infinity is something already "within time", something temporal by definition. Therefore the whole notion of infinity is nonsensical outside time - and thus the question is nonsensical. It doesn't even help if one thinks of time and space as the "same type" as in modern physics, where time is the fourth dimension - it actually makes the matters worse. Because then there is only one way of defining infinity and that is through space/time - and thus the same notion of nonsense arises. If you can think of any other way of defining infinity, that could help, of course.
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 06/08/04 - 02:52 PM:	#3
Morrandir wrote: What you have left out of your summary (or proposals for definitions of time) is Kant's view that time (and space) are the necessary conditions for our perception, that they are not "real" (i.e. belonging to the things in themselves). What exactly does that mean? I don't know if I said time "belonged" to anything. This would make time as something that allows us to distinguish entities from other entities (like space). If time were not "real," that is there were no real difference between events, and if space were not real, meaning there is no real difference between objects. That is, all objects and events would really be the same. What is the point of such a position? It doesn't seem inconsistent (at least not yet, there are still parts that don't make sense, like how can there be no differences) but useless. Time is a way of perceiving things (time is a form of sensibility) and thus it is nonsensical to ask "what is time like?", because we cannot "see" anything as being like anything without taking time into account. The same applies to space. According to Kant, we cannot imagine that there was no space or time, only that they are empty. It is built into how we perceive things to perceive time and space, to differentiate and classify objects, etc, but that doesn't mean that none of these things exist, in fact, I can see no reason why one follows from the other. And I think scientists really are curious about whether time is infinite or finite, what is the nature and geometry of spacetime, etc. You would need to surpass the speed of light to reverse cause and effect, i.e. to read the end of the post before you have typed it. I am not sure if I follow you. The faster the perceiver moves, the slower the time goes for him and thus other people seem to move a bit faster. This is the reason why I can leave the Earth in a spaceship being older than by little brother, but come back being younger - my brother has aged faster than I. The sequence of events would change if speed of light was surpassed, not in any other case. The point is that the sequence of events is "fixed", only the "rate" of perception appears to change. Don't worry about whether what I said was technically correct or not. To be honest, I think the ways you described are the same thing. There is no difference in time going through events and events going through time, because movement is relative anyway. Events don't move through time, they exist at different points in time, and we perceive these as we move across time. The other one is that time pushes the universe along (the upcoming events are not fixed) and only the present exists.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 06/08/04 - 03:11 PM:	#4
AKG wrote: What exactly does that mean? I don't know if I said time "belonged" to anything. No, you didn't. Kant did. This means that we cannot perceive anything without space and time, thus space and time are necessary conditions for our perception. If time were not "real," that is there were no real difference between events, and if space were not real, meaning there is no real difference between objects. That is, all objects and events would really be the same. What is the point of such a position? Without space and time there would be no "same". Kant does not however rule out the possibility that time and space are real, just that if they were, there is simply no way of knowing this. This is analogical to us being within a cubic box and asserting that the box looks like a cube from the outside also. It might well be so, but it might also be that we are living in a hollow cube within a globe. There is no way of knowing without exiting the cube (time and space), and that, sadly, cannot be done. It doesn't seem inconsistent (at least not yet, there are still parts that don't make sense, like how can there be no differences) but useless. It is actually far from useless, as it is would prove that we can objectively know things. It would prove to me that you really existed. That was one of Kant's main concerns, to counter Hume's claim that there is no certain empirical knowledge. You cannot understand no differences, because you view the world through differences. But it is not such a big problem. According to a photon, the world has never even begun to expand (as in theory of relativity, the speed of light decreases all distances to zero). Then there are no differences (in space). Beings can be separate in different ways than in time or space, but not for humans. One must note however that Kant is not making any positive claims about Things in themselves, only negative (claims that assert we cannot know something). It is good to note that Kant calls these things in themselves (that are things independent of our perception and experience) noumenas, literally "nonsensical objects". It is built into how we perceive things to perceive time and space, to differentiate and classify objects, etc, but that doesn't mean that none of these things exist, in fact, I can see no reason why one follows from the other. And I think scientists really are curious about whether time is infinite or finite, what is the nature and geometry of spacetime, etc. I may have been somewhat vague, but I did not mean to assert that it indeed would follow. Only that because time and space are necessary to us (they are built into our perception) we cannot imagine a world without them - and thus we cannot know if outside our perception (in Reality) there exists such things as time or space. It does not matter anyway. When one thinks about there not being space and time as absurd, one should always note noneuclidian geometries. It does seem to us quite absurd to think that you couldn't draw through one point another line that was parallel to some other line - as in euclidian geometry you can clearly draw one. Or that starting to head to different directions and going straight would lead to collision eventually. The way we perceive the world is not the only way it could be perceived. But there is no way we could truly understand these noneuclidian geometries, because we are stuck in an euclidian one. This impossibility of imagination does not entail impossibility: so it does not follow from the impossibilty of imagining no space nor time that they do not exist - but it does not entail that they did either. The point is that the sequence of events is "fixed", only the "rate" of perception appears to change. Don't worry about whether what I said was technically correct or not. When going lightspeed, there is no sequence. Everything is simultaneous. The effect does not follow the cause, but they are simultaneous happenings. Events don't move through time, they exist at different points in time, and we perceive these as we move across time. The other one is that time pushes the universe along (the upcoming events are not fixed) and only the present exists. This is what I said. And I said that this distinction is nonsensical. EDIT: I think that conversation about space and time without understanding the theory of relativity is futile. This is how space and time are perceived nowadays. According to theory of relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Time moves the slowest and space is the largest for the observer when the observes is not moving in relation to other entities. Time moves the fastest and space is the smalles for the observer when he is moving at light speed. When the speed is c, then the time moves infinitely fast and space is zero. The formula for time dilatation is t = t1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) and length l = l1*sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)), where t and l are the time and length for the observer and t1 and l1 are the time and length to the observed. So my length to a photon is zero, whereas my lifespan is of no consequence to a photon.
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 06/08/04 - 03:27 PM:	#5
Morrandir It is actually far from useless, as it is would prove that we can objectively know things. How so? It would prove to me that you really existed. It would do no such thing. If time and space do not exist, there is no way that it follows that I exist. Then there are no differences (in space). Are there no differences or no perceived differences? When going lightspeed, there is no sequence. Everything is simultaneous. The effect does not follow the cause, but they are simultaneous happenings. Are they simultaneous, or do all happenings appear to cease? Do I appear to be in many places at once? Or does nothing appear? You said something about all distances collapsing to zero. This is what I said. And I said that this distinction is nonsensical. What do you mean by nonsensical? There is no sense in noting a difference between all past, present, and future existing and only being consciously observed individually, and only the present existing, being constantly "destroyed" and recreated? And there is no difference between time moving in events, and events moving in time? Is there no difference between a ball rolling around inside a jar, and a jar rolling around inside a ball?
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 06/08/04 - 03:44 PM:	#6
AKG wrote: How so? Read Critique of pure reason. It would do no such thing. If time and space do not exist, there is no way that it follows that I exist. If you read what I wrote, you wouldn't say such a thing. I did not say that time and space do not exist, I said that we cannot know if they do or not OUTSIDE our experience. Now to Kant the objective world we perceive is actually constructed by us (as time and space are put into the world by us), and therefore I can trust my senses and therefore I can trust that you do exist because I perceive you. If this move is not made, it is possible that all is within my mind (the idealistic stance) and therefore you do not really exist. I don't care much to defend Kant here. Read the book, if you are interested. All I can say that it indeed does follow. Are there no differences or no perceived differences? Who can say? Are they simultaneous, or do all happenings appear to cease? Do I appear to be in many places at once? Or does nothing appear? You said something about all distances collapsing to zero. There would be no many places because there would be no space except the one zero-dimensional point. They are not simultaneous because there is no time except the one-dimensional moment. If anything appeared, you couldn't perceive it, because there is no "where" and no "when" for it to appear. Yes I did. What do you mean by nonsensical? There is no sense in noting a difference between all past, present, and future existing and only being consciously observed individually, and only the present existing, being constantly "destroyed" and recreated? And there is no difference between time moving in events, and events moving in time? Is there no difference between a ball rolling around inside a jar, and a jar rolling around inside a ball? This I explained earlier. I am not willing to explain it once again, because you can easily read it above. And yes there is a difference - I cannot fathom where you came up with that jar-and-ball-analogy, because the answer is clearly "yes" and it has nothing to do with time and events, it only serves to make me seem like a fool to assert such a thing. Luckily I am not such a fool. The correct analogy is: If there was only the jar and the ball (as there are only time and the events), then you would be hard-pressed to answer the question whether the ball rolls within the jar or the jar rolls along the surface of the ball. If you live only in the present, then there is no sense in asking whether only that present exists or if past and future exist also, because for you they wouldn't exist anyway. They might exist or might not. See the box-analogy. If you live in a box, you cannot know the external appearance of the box. I am going to sleep now, so I won't answer for a while.
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 06/08/04 - 08:01 PM:	#7
Morrandir wrote: Read Critique of pure reason. Why did you bother posting if you weren't willing to explain? If you read what I wrote, you wouldn't say such a thing. I did not say that time and space do not exist, I said that we cannot know if they do or not OUTSIDE our experience. Now to Kant the objective world we perceive is actually constructed by us (as time and space are put into the world by us), and therefore I can trust my senses and therefore I can trust that you do exist because I perceive you. What? It seems each thought has no relation to the previous. Kant assumes the objective world exists. Then claims that we put time and space into our perception, and therefore our perceptions aren't deceived. Since we put time and space into perception, our perception is not deceived. What? here would be no many places because there would be no space except the one zero-dimensional point. They are not simultaneous because there is no time except the one-dimensional moment. If anything appeared, you couldn't perceive it, because there is no "where" and no "when" for it to appear. So are cause and effect simultaneous events, as you say, or is simultaneity a non-applicable concept, as you say? And yes there is a difference - I cannot fathom where you came up with that jar-and-ball-analogy, because the answer is clearly "yes" and it has nothing to do with time and events, it only serves to make me seem like a fool to assert such a thing. Luckily I am not such a fool. The correct analogy is: If there was only the jar and the ball (as there are only time and the events), then you would be hard-pressed to answer the question whether the ball rolls within the jar or the jar rolls along the surface of the ball. Your analogy is wrong, but we'll get to that. The point of tha ball/jar analogy was not to be an actual analogy to time and events, but to give you the idea that I'm not talking about the movement of events relative to time, or vice versa, but the actual structure of time and events. The two ways of looking at it are different. One says only the present "event" exists, and the other says that the whole continual chain of events exists and we move through them. In the first one, time is something that's constantly changing, in the second, time is a fixed domain containing events in a fixed position, and we simply move through it. Time in events vs. events in time is not analogous to ball in jar vs. jar in ball, but the point was to show you that it is very different from the analogy, say, of a ball rolling on the earth, and we get ball rolling on earth vs. earth rolling on ball.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 06/09/04 - 04:18 AM:	#8
AKG wrote: Why did you bother posting if you weren't willing to explain? I posted it to present you with a view that differs from what you have said. Not to get into an indepth analysis of Kant's philosophy with someone who is not familiar with it. That is impossible - it is hard enough even for those familiar with it because of the complexity of the matter and Kant's language. In simple: we get the matter of our perception from "the outside" - outside being outside our perception. The world be perceive, i.e. the objective word in the normal sense of it, is actually a construct of ours. That is because we create the order of the world ourselves (there are no colours and no depth in our perception for example, our brain constructs them). The world we live in, the objective world is synthesized from the perceptual matter given to us. This is actually basic psychology, although not for Kant (in his time psychology wasn't very advanced). If this was correct, it would prove that the car I see outside my house is actually there (not in my mind). This is called mind-content externalism. This would not, of course, prove anything about the world independent of our perception, but it is not ment to. That's because there is nothing we can say about the world outside our perception, because perception is the only link we have to the objective world. The complexity of this is that almost every technical word you read from this explanation is defined by Kant somewhat differently from other philosophers. That's why I am not willing to explain it in depth, because all we could ever accomplish is that you understand some of the concepts Kant is using. You should get to know Kant, however - as he is the most influental philosopher since Descartes. The backbone of the philosophy of such philosophers as Hegel, Wittgenstein and Heidegger. I would be hard-pressed to name even one philosopher since Kant that was not in some way a kantian philosopher. What? It seems each thought has no relation to the previous. Kant assumes the objective world exists. Then claims that we put time and space into our perception, and therefore our perceptions aren't deceived. Since we put time and space into perception, our perception is not deceived. What? You need not repeat your astonishment. Kant does not "assume" the objective world exists and then prove its existence. You see the computer before you? That's the objective world Kant is talking about. Yes, he does assume it, but so do you by writing an answer to me. He does not claim that we put time and space into our perception, but that we perceive things within time and space. This is evident. The computer before you is in space and in time, right? Now try to imagine world without space and time and you'll notice that it is impossible if you are willing to keep any epistemology. But you can remove colours and imagine there are no colours. Or you can imagine empty space - you just can't imagine no space at all. You are not deceived when you look at the computer before you. It is just there because you yourself put it there. Because I put my perceptions into time and space, I can be certain of the fact that the computer actually exists there, just as I can be sure of the fact that I feel pain in my left leg. So are cause and effect simultaneous events, as you say, or is simultaneity a non-applicable concept, as you say? Well, you can't really speak about simulataneity if there is only one point in time, now can you? If you insist on speaking about simultaneity, then yes, they are simultaneous. But I wouldn't use the word. If there was only one point in space in total, it would be somewhat useless to speak about existing in the same location, as there is only one location and no other choice but to exist in the same location. There is no "different location", so what's the meaning of the same? This is but semantics. You can by all means choose what words you use. But the simultaneity is different from any other simultaneity you can imagine. It is much like speaking about the center-point of an infinite line. Any point in the line can be the center point, because there is the same amount of "stuff" on both sides of any given point. Your analogy is wrong, but we'll get to that. Or perhaps we are simply talking about different matters? "According to my axioms, your axioms are wrong". Please. My analogy is quite correct to what I wished to show with it. The point of tha ball/jar analogy was not to be an actual analogy to time and events, but to give you the idea that I'm not talking about the movement of events relative to time, or vice versa, but the actual structure of time and events. The two ways of looking at it are different. One says only the present "event" exists, and the other says that the whole continual chain of events exists and we move through them. In the first one, time is something that's constantly changing, in the second, time is a fixed domain containing events in a fixed position, and we simply move through it. Time in events vs. events in time is not analogous to ball in jar vs. jar in ball, but the point was to show you that it is very different from the analogy, say, of a ball rolling on the earth, and we get ball rolling on earth vs. earth rolling on ball. I had the impression that you said that we can only perceive the present in the model where we "move" through time that is a fixed set of events. My point was that this makes the whole question irrelevant, because if the events of the past and the future do indeed exist, there is no way for us to know this - as we only know the present. You have quite efficiently ignored my box-analogy, and I point to it once again in hopes that you will actually note it. How can you understand the whole structure of the box by perceiving it only from the inside? How can you understand the structure of time by perceiving it only from inside time?
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 06/09/04 - 08:55 AM:	#9
Morrandir wrote: Because I put my perceptions into time and space, I can be certain of the fact that the computer actually exists there... I still don't understand how this follows. Nor do I understand how, without assuming so, Kant's system would prove the existence of things outside perception. I had the impression that you said that we can only perceive the present in the model where we "move" through time that is a fixed set of events. We only perceive the present either way, the thing I was saying is that in some cases, more than just the present exists.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 06/09/04 - 09:02 AM:	#10
AKG wrote: I still don't understand how this follows. Nor do I understand how, without assuming so, Kant's system would prove the existence of things outside perception. Argh. It does NOT prove the existence of things outside perception. Because that CANNOT BE PROVED. We only perceive the present either way, the thing I was saying is that in some cases, more than just the present exists. How do you know that more than just the present exists, if you only live in the present?
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.