Quote:
No one is saying those events didn't occur, what we're saying is that without someone there to assign a value to them, then they are no different any other day or any other mile.
And yet the bear's location changed. The bear got older.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What is time?
What is time?Follow
And yet the bear's location changed. The bear got older.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Tzemesce the Meaningless wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're confusing time as a measure and time as a concept. As humans, we think of time as intervals between one event and another, a measure. Bears, however, only know that then is not now, and now is what matters. They react to changes in season, however a bear in summer will not know that he has only a few months until he needs to prepare for winter.
A better analogy would be to use distance. A bear may walk a mile, but it doesn't know that it did. It's an old quantum parable, something doesn't have a value until it is measured.
A better analogy would be to use distance. A bear may walk a mile, but it doesn't know that it did. It's an old quantum parable, something doesn't have a value until it is measured.
I disagree, again.
First, the question is "what is time." I don't think that time is something withtout value until it is mesasured, espeically by, again, what we see in nature. Animals only take care of their young for a certain amount of time. Then they are off on their own. They know when they are to mate. They know when they shouldn't have offspring. They know when they are to hibernate, when they are to hunt. They are ruled by the passage of the sun. Just like we are. They may not have sectioned the day up into little bits, but it's the same thing. When the sun is here, we do this. When it's here, we do this.
If you don't think that a bear knows how far it walks, you're crazy. He may not have the concept of a mile in that word, but he knows how far he's gone and how far he has to go to get back to his den.
So, no. I don't think I have anything confused. I think I just see things differently than you do.
Animals aren't responding to time, they're responding to events. They quit raising their young because their young have reached a certain size that tells the parents to let them go. They don't say "well, it's been a few years and we should let Scrappy go do his own thing now". Certainly you don't mean to say that the seasons occur every few months because of time; they happen that way because physical events cause them to be that way. We simply apply a division to it to quantify this. After all, our entire system of time is based on the concept of a day - a physical event. Nobody counted to one and said "we will declare this to be a unit known as the 'second'."
As for myself, I'm not entirely sure what I believe about time. I used to think it was an entirely manmade construct, but I don't know enough about relativity and the phenomena it describes to really adequately defend any point of view.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
When I talk about the right to talk about something, I'm recognizing our limitations as human beings. We don't have the "right" to talk about plants as subjects in the same way that we don't have the "right" to phase through solid objects like Kitty Pryde. We probably have a little bit of right to talk about other conscious animals, but it's not very much; the experience of consciousness is just way too different. I'm not trying to be anthropocentricly arrogant or anything though: we're different from cats in the same way we're different from god, or telepathic aliens.
Hmmm. Ok. I'm not sure I understand that, but that's cool. I'm by no means a philosophy major here, you are.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
It's really hard for me to find the words to express what I'm trying to here... The seasons and sunlight and bears hibernating in the winter aren't really um, temporal. They're just things, that do stuff in the world. They'll keep doing stuff until the sun explodes, and then other things will do different stuff. None of that is really indicative of time though, and, as in the previous paragraph, we aren't really in the position of talking about that stuff as happening by itself, in a vacuum, with no human perception. Time's really just an order that we impose on the universe to force it into making sense, and in that regard, it's an essential part of the human consciousness, which constitutes our understanding of all of that stuff that's happening out there.
I see what you're saying, but I just don't agree. It seems to me that, if we followed that logic, then if we threw away all of our watches and the words we use to bisect minutes we'd cease to age. But we wouldn't. Even without the words for time, we would still age. Things would still fall into the past.
This is why I keep bringing up plants and animals. They don't have the words for these things, yet they still age, they still follow a specific timeline. It is influenced by the environment, but it is also influenced by time.
Quote:
Animals aren't responding to time, they're responding to events. They quit raising their young because their young have reached a certain size that tells the parents to let them go. They don't say "well, it's been a few years and we should let Scrappy go do his own thing now".
That conclusion is as unsubstantiated as the conclusion that they do.
***
Quote:
I see what you're saying, but I just don't agree. It seems to me that, if we followed that logic, then if we threw away all of our watches and the words we use to bisect minutes we'd cease to age. But we wouldn't. Even without the words for time, we would still age. Things would still fall into the past.
This is why I keep bringing up plants and animals. They don't have the words for these things, yet they still age, they still follow a specific timeline. It is influenced by the environment, but it is also influenced by time.
This is why I keep bringing up plants and animals. They don't have the words for these things, yet they still age, they still follow a specific timeline. It is influenced by the environment, but it is also influenced by time.
That's an extremely common conclusion, but it's one that I do not want to accept, because it's ludicrous. There's a nuance there that I'll have to describe later because I'm walking out the door.
Edited, Jul 21st 2009 12:06pm by Pensive
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I see what you're saying, but I just don't agree. It seems to me that, if we followed that logic, then if we threw away all of our watches and the words we use to bisect minutes we'd cease to age. But we wouldn't. Even without the words for time, we would still age. Things would still fall into the past.
This is why I keep bringing up plants and animals. They don't have the words for these things, yet they still age, they still follow a specific timeline. It is influenced by the environment, but it is also influenced by time.
This is why I keep bringing up plants and animals. They don't have the words for these things, yet they still age, they still follow a specific timeline. It is influenced by the environment, but it is also influenced by time.
Time doesn't age us. Biological processes do. Time is simply our way of ordering these processes, but if we quit quantifying them, Event A will still cause Event B, and so forth, until we age and die.
Majivo wrote:
Animals aren't responding to time, they're responding to events. They quit raising their young because their young have reached a certain size that tells the parents to let them go.
Which, without the passage of time, wouldn't happen.
Quote:
They don't say "well, it's been a few years and we should let Scrappy go do his own thing now".
No, they don't say that. But it's what happens. They wait a certain number of years, and because of that, the offspring grows and ages. Because of time.
Quote:
Certainly you don't mean to say that the seasons occur every few months because of time; they happen that way because physical events cause them to be that way. We simply apply a division to it to quantify this. After all, our entire system of time is based on the concept of a day - a physical event. Nobody counted to one and said "we will declare this to be a unit known as the 'second'."
Yes, they occur because of time. Because time passes. Even without the word "month," a month passes.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
No one is saying those events didn't occur, what we're saying is that without someone there to assign a value to them, then they are no different any other day or any other mile.
And yet the bear's location changed. The bear got older.
...which is why I said
Tzemesce wrote:
When I say value I'm mean it as an empirical standard by which other events can be measured against. When you say value I think you're meaning the presence of those events, and so when I say that they have no value, you're assuming that I mean they didn't happen. Which I'm not.
Majivo wrote:
Time doesn't age us. Biological processes do. Time is simply our way of ordering these processes, but if we quit quantifying them, Event A will still cause Event B, and so forth, until we age and die.
All you seem to be saying is what I'm saying. Without the words for time, time still passes.
Edited, Jul 21st 2009 11:08am by Belkira
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Time doesn't age us. Biological processes do. Time is simply our way of ordering these processes, but if we quit quantifying them, Event A will still cause Event B, and so forth, until we age and die.
All you seem to be saying is what I'm saying. Without the words for time, time still passes.
Edited, Jul 21st 2009 11:08am by Belkira
...I already said that
I wrote:
You're arguing the same point I am.
Time itself, as a concept and not a system of measure, is an inherent condition of the Universe. To say that there is no difference between then and now only because there's no one around to make the distinction is fallacy. It would be like saying there's no difference between this and that.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Time doesn't age us. Biological processes do. Time is simply our way of ordering these processes, but if we quit quantifying them, Event A will still cause Event B, and so forth, until we age and die.
All you seem to be saying is what I'm saying. Without the words for time, time still passes.
No, I'm just explaining myself poorly. This is unfamiliar territory for me to actually be writing out my thoughts.
The difference between whether there actually exists such a thing as time lies, for me, in two concepts: moving in different directions in time, and going through time at different rates. Which is what relativity tries to address, and which is why my own ideas are incomplete, because I don't have much schooling in relativity. The problem with this is that I can never personally notice myself moving in a different direction or at a different speed; I can only notice when it is occurring to things outside my own frame of reference. Therefore time could either exist or not, and I would never know it until I saw some evidence that it does, under relativity. If that makes any more sense.
Majivo wrote:
The difference between whether there actually exists such a thing as time lies, for me, in two concepts: moving in different directions in time, and going through time at different rates. Which is what relativity tries to address, and which is why my own ideas are incomplete, because I don't have much schooling in relativity. The problem with this is that I can never personally notice myself moving in a different direction or at a different speed; I can only notice when it is occurring to things outside my own frame of reference. Therefore time could either exist or not, and I would never know it until I saw some evidence that it does, under relativity. If that makes any more sense.
Schrodinger's Clock?
Tzemesce the Meaningless wrote:
Majivo wrote:
The difference between whether there actually exists such a thing as time lies, for me, in two concepts: moving in different directions in time, and going through time at different rates. Which is what relativity tries to address, and which is why my own ideas are incomplete, because I don't have much schooling in relativity. The problem with this is that I can never personally notice myself moving in a different direction or at a different speed; I can only notice when it is occurring to things outside my own frame of reference. Therefore time could either exist or not, and I would never know it until I saw some evidence that it does, under relativity. If that makes any more sense.
Schrodinger's Clock?
My posts are warping it like a Dali painting.
I think this means that time is curved.Majivo wrote:
The difference between whether there actually exists such a thing as time lies, for me, in two concepts: moving in different directions in time,
As far as we know, this does not happen. In quantum mechanics there is a time/energy uncertainty relation - so there are limits on knowledge of time - but this isn't genuine moving back and forth in time, just lack of knowledge.
Going back in time would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is pretty solid. It would also violate the 1st law - which is also very solid. (Unless equal entropy or energy moved the other way - but it is hard to imagine this in any reasonable way).
[/quote] and going through time at different rates. Which is what relativity tries to address, and which is why my own ideas are incomplete, because I don't have much schooling in relativity.[/quote]
This is solid. It is well understood. Your GPS wouldn't work without it. Yes, the satellites move fast enough and their clocks need that precision. (Actually, general relativity is *more* important to GPS.)
Quote:
The problem with this is that I can never personally notice myself moving in a different direction or at a different speed; I can only notice when it is occurring to things outside my own frame of reference.
In order for relativity to have a profound effect, you either need to measure tiny amounts of time or move near the speed of light. Humans are ill equipped to do either. It is easily measured.
Quote:
Therefore time could either exist or not, and I would never know it until I saw some evidence that it does, under relativity. If that makes any more sense.
I think what you mean to say is that time could be "the same everywhere" or not without evidence from relativity - of which there is plenty.
yossarian wrote:
Quote:
Therefore time could either exist or not, and I would never know it until I saw some evidence that it does, under relativity. If that makes any more sense.
I think what you mean to say is that time could be "the same everywhere" or not without evidence from relativity - of which there is plenty.
Which is precisely why I should never have started in on this thread in the first place, as I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Don't worry, that usually doesn't stop most people from posting here. At least you can admit it.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
If the universe started contracting would time reverse itself?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
The definition of time is self-evident, and I'll not stoop to posting it on a public forum...
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
13 posts
To those that try to define time as a measurement, and wouldn't exist without that value placed on it, I am pretty sure you are confusing time as a measurement and time as a dimention. Here... let me expalin...
If I asked "What is currency?", then some might argue currency is something made of paper that would cease to exist if all dollars were burned. Well, that sort of makes sense, until you take into account that people would still use other things as currency, such as food, animals, gold, etc. Currency would still exist as long as people traded things, but money is currently used as measurement of currency. Do not confuse 'currency' with 'money', and do not confuse 'time' with 'measures of entropy'.
The real problem with defineing "time" is that we have no way of observing it, but instead only have ways of observing the effects of matter over our percieved dimentions, which we apply labels to at different points of reference. I propose that time doesn't exist. Maybe this is too much of a reductionalist approach.
If I asked "What is currency?", then some might argue currency is something made of paper that would cease to exist if all dollars were burned. Well, that sort of makes sense, until you take into account that people would still use other things as currency, such as food, animals, gold, etc. Currency would still exist as long as people traded things, but money is currently used as measurement of currency. Do not confuse 'currency' with 'money', and do not confuse 'time' with 'measures of entropy'.
The real problem with defineing "time" is that we have no way of observing it, but instead only have ways of observing the effects of matter over our percieved dimentions, which we apply labels to at different points of reference. I propose that time doesn't exist. Maybe this is too much of a reductionalist approach.
reavenance wrote:
The definition of time is self-evident, and I'll not stoop to posting it on a public forum...
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
You have to get Varus on it. If you answer my question you'll have answered your own.
But the questions have to be in different threads about entirely opposing subjects.
Currency is an object that carries with it some denotation of value.
For me, time has always been a representative arbitrary unit of measurement for something spatial and beyond our grasp. I don't believe that time as a dimension, or whatever you'd believe it is, could ever be adequately defined.
For me, time has always been a representative arbitrary unit of measurement for something spatial and beyond our grasp. I don't believe that time as a dimension, or whatever you'd believe it is, could ever be adequately defined.
MyTie wrote:
stuff
You lost me at dimention.
Elinda wrote:
If the universe started contracting would time reverse itself?
Dunno. I think it is allowed, mathematically, consistent with what we now know but I don't think that is the simplest answer. As far as I know, all laws can continue with a contracting universe as well as an expanding one (and time would go forward). That said, I think we're still not seeing enough matter to get the universe to contract. It is much more likely that we'll find more matter then realize we were wrong and some matter we thought we saw isn't there. But right now, best guess, we're heading toward heat death rather then big crunch.
If the Universe began contracting at faster than the speed of light we might be able to view time going backwards in the darker reaches of said universe, and if it was contracting at exactly the speed of light we'd receive a static image of the point of contraction(right?). Time, as we know it, should continue though.
reavenance wrote:
The definition of time is self-evident, and I'll not stoop to posting it on a public forum...
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
Did I mask my ignorance effectively?
As we're able to see further and further into space, the gravitational effects of other space stuff allow us to see time behave in ways that we don't see here on earth (unless we're Einstein level genius) and is hard to wrap your mind around.
You could ask the same type of question about distance, or direction, or any number of measures. We're pretty dam comfortable with our N, S, E, W system but in space it doesn't exist - so is direction singularly difinable. Is distance a measure of space or a measure of time? Nothing is ever really motionless - would time stop acting on an object if it became completely static?
What's important in our day to day lives is how we are affected by time.
Sure you can sit and speculate about the 'actual' definition of time, or the meaning of life, or what is 'love' but we're not physicists or philosophers, though there are some poets
. So, what I wanna know is why would you, OP, come here and suggest that this is old hat stuff for you - you've had these discussions before, and yet you want our take on it. I don't suspect you are expecting enlightenment. what is your REAL motivation?
Edited, Jul 21st 2009 8:26pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
reavenance wrote:
For me, time has always been a representative arbitrary unit of measurement for something spatial and beyond our grasp. I don't believe that time as a dimension, or whatever you'd believe it is, could ever be adequately defined.
Time is typically referred to as a dimension in physics, but to note the difference between "time" and "space" dimensions, it's often referred to as the +1 dimension. You'll hear people say "we live in 3+1" dimensions or "to get string theory to work you need 10+1 dimensions". Why don't they just say 4 and 11? Well, in the latter case, people will ask if that is 10 space plus one time or 11 space, and time is extra.
Anyhow, if you don't believe time is a dimension, I'm curious if you feel space (or, say, one direction in space) is well defined enough to be a dimension? Because really they are pretty much on equal footing. There are strange things about both space and time that we know about and there are some issues we'd like to know more about.
Recent Visitors: 265
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What is time?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC