Thread: What is " time " really ?

I'm placing this in the Phylosophy section because of the definition of the section :

Investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.



I understand that there are theories, research, experiments ,... on time, space etc.


But thinking about it logically, i am assuming that time is a concept created by our minds,

as an instrument to structure and understand the succession of events taking place in reality.


I don't see it existing out there as a dimension amongst other dimensions.

To me there is only the successions of events (events involving objects, people, organisms, light, particles , anything),

continuously taking place, and us making sense of that.


Sometimes things may slow down or go faster, but that is not time itself.

And a clock ticking the seconds away, even if it were to go slower or faster, is merely a mechanically structured representation of the succession of events.



So i argument that time as such does not exist, it is everything else that exists.



What is your oppinion on this ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

To me there is only the successions of events

That is what time is, surely? The succession of events. So I'm not sure in what sense it doesn't exist.

It is important to note, though, that the spacing ("time") and even ordering between the events is not absolute. It depends on the observer.

And a clock ticking the seconds away, even if it were to go slower or faster, is merely a mechanically structured representation of the succession of events.

Indeed. As someone said, "time is what clocks measure".

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

But thinking about it logically, i am assuming that time is a concept created by our minds

How is this "logic"?
If time exists only in our minds what happened before we (and our minds) were here?

To me there is only the successions of events (events involving objects, people, organisms, light, particles , anything),

Like Strange said - that is time.
(Or, rather, time is dimension in which that succession takes place).

What is your oppinion on this ?

The same as it's always been: that you're incapable of logical thought.

Ok, i'm trying to follow both your comments.

What i mean is that the events actually take place, but time is what we name it.

And before we existed , there was just the events taking place, no sign of 'time' there.

We can call time the dimension in which the events take place, but then still, there are only events taking place.

No ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

What i mean is that the events actually take place, but time is what we name it.

And before we existed , there was just the events taking place, no sign of 'time' there.

We can call time the dimension in which the events take place, but then still, there are only events taking place.

No ?

So what is the difference between a succession of events taking place and "time"?

Obviously "time" is what we name it; the word didn't exist before we thought of it but the succession of events that we label time did.

Similarly, you could argue the universe didn't exist until we came along because we made up the word "universe" - is that what you are saying? I'm confused.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

What i mean is that the events actually take place, but time is what we name it.

No.

And before we existed , there was just the events taking place, no sign of 'time' there.

What drivel.

We can call time the dimension in which the events take place, but then still, there are only events taking place.
No ?

Huh?

1) Time is the dimension in which the succession takes place. The same way length is the dimension in which "positional succession" takes place. Garden gate, path, front door, interior of house, back door.
What we call something, or don't call it, doesn't have any effect on what it is.
You might as well argue that dogs don't exist because "dog" is what we name them.

2) If there were no time then events couldn't succeed each other.

" So what is the difference between a succession of events taking place and "time"?

Obviously "time" is what we name it; the word didn't exist before we thought of it but the succession of events that we label time did. "


That makes perfect sense, it is what i mean.

I'm just trying to grasp the things as they really are out there, not as a concept in my mind or a formula.

I ask myself this type of questions about many things (the smallest particle, gravity, global brain, ...), to get a deeper understanding,
It is a good exercise to go back to these basic logics, as being complementary to hard science.
Balancing those 2 will get you closer to the truth of things i believe.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

" So what is the difference between a succession of events taking place and "time"?

Obviously "time" is what we name it; the word didn't exist before we thought of it but the succession of events that we label time did. "


That makes perfect sense, it is what i mean.

So what you're discussing here is language, or nomenclature, and not time itself.

I'm just trying to grasp the things as they really are out there, not as a concept in my mind or a formula.

Bull.You appear to have no idea what you're doing.

I ask myself this type of questions about many things (the smallest particle, gravity, global brain, ...), to get a deeper understanding,
It is a good exercise to go back to these basic logics, as being complementary to hard science.
Balancing those 2 will get you closer to the truth of things i believe.

Again, how does talking about the name of something ¹ help you get a "deeper understanding"?

1 And in only one language to boot.

" 2) If there were no time then events couldn't succeed each other. "

This is assuming that the frame 'time' is there as a condition for events to take place.
I disagree, first you had events taking place, as they do continuously do and did, putting it in a frame, dimension, concept, is our work.
You are putting the theoretical dirrival (time) before the actual reality (events taking place)


On the other hand we are probably just talking about the same thing, having difficulty to interprete each other in this matter.

What is time?

Well when it is TIME for dinner, that is TIME.

When it is TIME do do laundry that is time.

When you need to cook a soft boiled perfect egg 3 minutes and 45 seconds that is a measure of time.

When something starts at Noon. That is the TIME that it starts.

When you are given a period of "time" to do a task, that is measured in days, minutes, hours, seconds.

Maybe I don't understand this question?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

" 2) If there were no time then events couldn't succeed each other. "

This is assuming that the frame 'time' is there as a condition for events to take place.
I disagree, first you had events taking place, as they do continuously do and did, putting it in a frame, dimension, concept, is our work.
You are putting the theoretical dirrival (time) before the actual reality (events taking place)

And once again you're spouting crap.If time didn't exist then succession could NOT take place.
The same way that two objects cannot be in different locations if distance didn't exist.
There's NOTHING "theoretical" about time.
What makes you think that dimensions are "our work"?

On the other hand we are probably just talking about the same thing, having difficulty to interprete each other in this matter.

No, you're talking unsupported bollocks, I'm talking actuality.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

That makes perfect sense, it is what i mean.

So this is philology not philosophy?

I'm just trying to grasp the things as they really are out there, not as a concept in my mind or a formula.

Based on several thousand years of philosophy, that appears to be a total waste of time.

Another reason why i ask these questions is this :

When science derives formulas, laws, theories, it wants to prove them right with experiments, research.

Quotes like "There is abundant scientific evidence by research , experiments that show that a photon has no restmass" are accepted then as a universally correct.

But what is really being meant here is " Experiments up until today, given the status of technology, have shown that photons appear to have no restmass".

That is a big difference, and taking those formulas as an absolute truth about reality, may in some cases be incorrect and lead to more incorrect assumptions.


Let me give a 'stupid' example :

Say the best weighing scale today would go upto a maximum of 100 kg.

Then we put an elephant on it, and conclude he weighs no more than 100kg.

Let's put all sorts of elefants on the weighing scale now, then we conclude that all types of elephants never weigh more than 100kg.

Utterly stupid conclusion indeed.


> So why do we conclude absolute truths from scientific experiments ?
Shouldn't we admit in some cases that we must keep an open mind to future experimental results ?
And therefore be hesitant to claim that the theory matches the exact reality ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

When science derives formulas, laws, theories, it wants to prove them right with experiments, research.

Actually, what it does is fail to show them wrong. While that is the case, they are accepted, provisionally, as the best model.

Quotes like "There is abundant scientific evidence by research , experiments that show that a photon has no restmass" are accepted then as a universally correct.

But what is really being meant here is " Experiments up until today, given the status of technology, have shown that photons appear to have no restmass".

I agree the latter is more accurate (and usually ignored by science journalists).

That is a big difference, and taking those formulas as an absolute truth about reality, may in some cases be incorrect and lead to more incorrect assumptions.

Scientists never do that. (Or at least, they shouldn't.)

> So why do we conclude absolute truths from scientific experiments ?

We don't.

Shouldn't we admit in some cases that we must keep an open mind to future experimental results ?

Of course. That is the whole point of experimental physics: to try and "break" our current theories.

And therefore be hesitant to claim that the theory matches the exact reality ?

This is why I think your philosophical goal is pointless: we can never know more about "reality" (whatever it is, if it even exists) than revealed by our observations and our interpretations of those observations.

But however flawed that approach is, it is infinitely better than trying to understand reality by "pure reason" - that throws the data away and lets you make up any old nonsense (cf. the last few thousand years of philosophy).

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

When science derives formulas, laws, theories, it wants to prove them right with experiments, research.

Wrong.
Experiments are done to "prove" them wrong.

Quotes like "There is abundant scientific evidence by research , experiments that show that a photon has no restmass" are accepted then as a universally correct.
But what is really being meant here is " Experiments up until today, given the status of technology, have shown that photons appear to have no restmass".

What?
You've gone from general to specific, and that specific is nothing to do with the topic.

That is a big difference, and taking those formulas as an absolute truth about reality, may in some cases be incorrect and lead to more incorrect assumptions.

Then it's a good thing that no scientist takes it as absolute truth, isn't it?

Let me give a 'stupid' example :
Say the best weighing scale today would go upto a maximum of 100 kg.
Then we put an elephant on it, and conclude he weighs no more than 100kg.
Let's put all sorts of elefants on the weighing scale now, then we conclude that all types of elephants never weigh more than 100kg.
Utterly stupid conclusion indeed.

You're right.
That's a thoroughly stupid example.

So why do we conclude absolute truths from scientific experiments ?

We don't.

Shouldn't we admit in some cases that we must keep an open mind to future experimental results ?
And therefore be hesitant to claim that the theory matches the exact reality ?

Why are you so utterly f*cking clueless about science?

Do you think it's clever to invent your own definitions of what science does and then proceed to attack that definition, or are you actually so uneducated as to believe that's the reality?

So according to Dywyddyr it works like this :

"The theory hasn't been proven wrong , so it must be right "

and

"

So why do we conclude absolute truths from scientific experiments ?


We don't. "

>> Many on this forum do, as countless post are countered with that argument.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

So according to you it works like this :

"The theory hasn't been proven wrong , so it must be right "

Apologies, Noa Drake, but I don't know who that was posted to.

Could you please tell us.

Mahalo

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

So according to you it works like this :

"The theory hasn't been proven wrong , so it must be right "

You're still having trouble with grown up thinking aren't you?

If something hasn't been proven wrong then we will accept it as right until/ unless something better comes along. Providing it works.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

So according to you it works like this :

"The theory hasn't been proven wrong , so it must be right "

You're still having trouble with grown up thinking aren't you?

If something hasn't been proven wrong then we will accept it as right until/ unless something better comes along. Providing it works.

Sir Ducky, calm down and don't get your feather in a twist.

Your beak is trembling!

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

So according to Dywyddyr it works like this :

"The theory hasn't been proven wrong , so it must be right "

Close.

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.

No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Re-reloaded) » Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.

@Strange

"


And therefore be hesitant to claim that the theory matches the exact reality ?


This is why I think your philosophical goal is pointless: we can never know more about "reality" (whatever it is, if it even exists) than revealed by our observations and our interpretations of those observations.

But however flawed that approach is, it is infinitely better than trying to understand reality by "pure reason" - that throws the data away and lets you make up any old nonsense (cf. the last few thousand years of philosophy).

"

I understand your point of view.

The difficult part is that making interpretations of observations is in the more complex problems not an exact science in my oppinion.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I understand your point of view.

Not on the evidence so far.

The difficult part is that making interpretations of observations is in the more complex problems not an exact science in my oppinion.

Is there a better alternative?

@Dywyddyr

Let us agree to disagree, that's grown up thinking.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

@Dywyddyr

Let us agree to disagree, that's grown up thinking.

No, that's crank talk for "Regardless of the facts I'm going to persist in my wilful ignorance and pretend there's some sort of equivalence between my view and reality".

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The difficult part is that making interpretations of observations is in the more complex problems not an exact science in my oppinion.

Which is why science requires that those interpretations be formalised and used to make quantifiable predictions that can be tested (and so we go round the loop again until we get some new evidence that allows us to improve/discard our current theory).

For example, many scientists were very disappointed when the the LHC found evidence for the Higgs boson consistent with theory ("proved it" as journalists put it) because this meant that there was no evidence to show how/where the current model is wrong. And it is assumed to be partly wrong or, at least, incomplete.

Time seem not to have a general definition.from our everyday perspective its seem like a human construct so we can catalog our existence,remember and experience it....but from physical view with respect to what is measured,it seems to flow differently for observers traveling at different speed some how its correlated with speed and gravitation(may be more but as I can point out) and It also tend to varies due to scale I.e in atomic level we do not care about the so called 'arrow of time' but in the larger scale of everyday life it tends to correlate with entropy and it appears going forward and never backward#

Time to eat, see you later.

or

The event of eating is at hand, i'll see you after a couple of events have succeeded each other. ,),)

Physicist don’t yet know what Dark Matter is, but they know it exists, because they can observe and measure its effects on the likes of galaxies etc.

So to Physicist, is Time seen in the same way, in that we know it exists because we can measure and observe it’s effects, rather than knowing exactly what it is?

Originally Posted by pineapples

Physicist don’t yet know what Dark Matter is, but they know it exists, because they can observe and measure its effects on the likes of galaxies etc.

So to Physicist, is Time seen in the same way, in that we know it exists because we can measure and observe it’s effects, rather than knowing exactly what it is?

What makes you think time has effects?
Would you look for effects of length?
Time is a dimension, it's not a force or an energy or anything else.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pineapples

Physicist don’t yet know what Dark Matter is, but they know it exists, because they can observe and measure its effects on the likes of galaxies etc.

So to Physicist, is Time seen in the same way, in that we know it exists because we can measure and observe it’s effects, rather than knowing exactly what it is?

What makes you think time has effects?
Would you look for effects of length?
Time is a dimension, it's not a force or an energy or anything else.

The guy seem not to get it#

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

The difficult part is that making interpretations of observations is in the more complex problems not an exact science in my oppinion.

Which is why science requires that those interpretations be formalised and used to make quantifiable predictions that can be tested (and so we go round the loop again until we get some new evidence that allows us to improve/discard our current theory).

For example, many scientists were very disappointed when the the LHC found evidence for the Higgs boson consistent with theory ("proved it" as journalists put it) because this meant that there was no evidence to show how/where the current model is wrong. And it is assumed to be partly wrong or, at least, incomplete.

Ok

To say "time goes faster or slower, no matter" (theoretically) is not logical. If Time speeds up or slows down some other factor is affecting the passage or rate of Time in that instance. -To say that Time is related to an object's or system's speed is not necessarily true. There may (and I submit more likely) be a yet-undefined other factor involved which is related to an inertial body's velocity and to Time simultaneously. -I submit that the rate of Time is due to a change in vibratory rate at an elemental level of matter/energy systems. This rate can speed up or slow down in certain environmental (macrocosmic) situations that can strongly affect the basic elements of the microcosmic body (some inertial body like a clock). If the inertial body is accelerating, it speeds up its elemental resonance with the ambient macrocosm the body is a part of, and the body's Time rate changes, as its elemental components' vibratory rate changes. -Here at Earth's surface, we don't ordinarily experience a change in the rate of the passage of Time because we stay at the same inertial state relative to our surroundings. It only changes when we travel in outer space or the like.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

To say "time goes faster or slower, no matter" (theoretically) is not logical.

It is very logical. It is derived, purely mathematically, from theory.

<ignorant drivel deleted>

Here at Earth's surface, we don't ordinarily experience a change in the rate of the passage of Time because we stay at the same inertial state relative to our surroundings. It only changes when we travel in outer space or the like.

More ignorance. The effects of relativity (both velocity and gravity) can be measured on Earth. It doesn't require going into space.

Here is an idea: why not buy (and read) a children's book on science before your write any more of your crap.

Originally Posted by Strange

For example, many scientists were very disappointed when the the LHC found evidence for the Higgs boson consistent with theory ("proved it" as journalists put it) because this meant that there was no evidence to show how/where the current model is wrong. And it is assumed to be partly wrong or, at least, incomplete.

I don't know who the many scientists are, but that kind of assumption is off base...

The Standard Model is assumed to be "incomplete" but also still accurate.
An example would be something like... I don't know- A swimming pool.
You form a hypothesis that the pool needs a chlorine and bromine level of about 2-4 ppm and a ph of 7.4 ( about.)
Through testing and independent verification- you find that this is accurate and the predictions hold- but you do not know why the chlorine kills germs. This is the part that is incomplete.
The standard model is accurate even if incomplete because what is yet to be known does not necessarily alter the function of the particles even if how the functions work has yet to be described.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

To say "time goes faster or slower, no matter" (theoretically) is not logical. If Time speeds up or slows down some other factor is affecting the passage or rate of Time in that instance. -To say that Time is related to an object's or system's speed is not necessarily true. There may (and I submit more likely) be a yet-undefined other factor involved which is related to an inertial body's velocity and to Time simultaneously. -I submit that the rate of Time is due to a change in vibratory rate at an elemental level of matter/energy systems. This rate can speed up or slow down in certain environmental (macrocosmic) situations that can strongly affect the basic elements of the microcosmic body (some inertial body like a clock). If the inertial body is accelerating, it speeds up its elemental resonance with the ambient macrocosm the body is a part of, and the body's Time rate changes, as its elemental components' vibratory rate changes. -Here at Earth's surface, we don't ordinarily experience a change in the rate of the passage of Time because we stay at the same inertial state relative to our surroundings. It only changes when we travel in outer space or the like.

More utterly ignorant guff from MA . I'll ask again, what are you gaining from posting nonsense time after time? (pun intended)

Ha. But surely all he's done is get it arse about face: it is the perceived rate of time that affects the "vibratory rate' rather than the "vibratory rate" that affects time. Mind you, the "ambient macrocosm" would appear to be some sort of woo-woo sh1te, I grant you.

For some reason, "energy" and "vibrations" seem to be as indispensable to New Age woo-woo as Tesla and magnets are to perpetual motion and free energy cranks.

His just another guy who gets things wrong or not actually wrong but misunderstands this concept#

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I disagree, read some of his other contributions. They are full on crackpot!

You are disagreeing that he misunderstands the concept of he is basically characterized by posting well composed garbage?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by pineapples

Physicist don’t yet know what Dark Matter is, but they know it exists, because they can observe and measure its effects on the likes of galaxies etc.

So to Physicist, is Time seen in the same way, in that we know it exists because we can measure and observe it’s effects, rather than knowing exactly what it is?

What makes you think time has effects?
Would you look for effects of length?
Time is a dimension, it's not a force or an energy or anything else.

Good point regarding Time as a dimension. To be honest, I find Time as the 4th dimension relatively hard to understand compared to those other 3 spatial dimensions!

“What makes you think time has effects?” I’m afraid to answer that question as you remind me of my physics teacher way back when I was in Secondary School. If I say something stupid, he’d likely throw his chalk at me!

I think that when we talk about how "time fly's" that it really doesn't mean that in reality time has passed quicker in reality, but possibly in ourselves.

I certainly remember being a child, and thinking how SLOW time seemed to me, and after the birth of my children, how time seems to flash in it seemed days and not years.

I know physically speaking, time hasn't changed, however, I think my concept of time as a child and as an adult in perspective, has, personally.

Originally Posted by babe

I think that when we talk about how "time fly's" that it really doesn't mean that in reality time has passed quicker in reality, but possibly in ourselves.

I certainly remember being a child, and thinking how SLOW time seemed to me, and after the birth of my children, how time seems to flash in it seemed days and not years.

I know physically speaking, time hasn't changed, however, I think my concept of time as a child and as an adult in perspective, has, personally.

That's because of consciousness and in cases ℓιкє this you would wanna think how? But it happens in our everyday life#

When you a kid you are less busy watching every min as it passes by,grasping every moment every action and the duration of the event becomes knowable to you and you feel time runs more slower# but take when you are older and you seem busy like for instance you have 30threads to answer and once you are through with that new ones pops up and all this moment when you get caught up in actions you realize less of duration of events and hence there is too limited time for your tasks to be completed. And you conclude that time passes by faster than usual#

If you ask me I'd say its some sort of psychological entropy build up#

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

I think that when we talk about how "time fly's" that it really doesn't mean that in reality time has passed quicker in reality, but possibly in ourselves.

I certainly remember being a child, and thinking how SLOW time seemed to me, and after the birth of my children, how time seems to flash in it seemed days and not years.

I know physically speaking, time hasn't changed, however, I think my concept of time as a child and as an adult in perspective, has, personally.

That's because of consciousness and in cases ℓιкє this you would wanna think how? But it happens in our everyday life#

When you a kid you are less busy watching every min as it passes by,grasping every moment every action and the duration of the event becomes knowable to you and you feel time runs more slower# but take when you are older and you seem busy like for instance you have 30threads to answer and once you are through with that new ones pops up and all this moment when you get caught up in actions you realize less of duration of events and hence there is too limited time for your tasks to be completed. And you conclude that time passes by faster than usual#

If you ask me I'd say its some sort of psychological entropy build up#

I'd agree as to the child/adult part....psychological entropy? I don't think so. I think it is more you assess your life, as it grows shorter. IMHO

Anybody experienced this illusion? I know I have. If we know that the brain is subject to illusions of time then how can we trust it as a scientific tool to study it?

The brain has to integrate a huge amount of information, which all arrives at different times, in order to produce a consistent view of "now". For example, it can take 100s of milliseconds for nerves to transmit signals to and from our limbs. And yet, when you reach out an pick up a coffee cup your movement, the returning touch and the (almost instant) visual feedback all appear simultaneous. The brain has to delay some of these to make them all appear to happen at the same time. (Incidentally, this is why the "no free will" interpretation of Libet's experiments is bollocks.)

There was a case reported recently of a man who visual and auditory systems were out of sync: the real world looked like a badly dubbed movie.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...hey-speak.html

Originally Posted by Strange

The brain has to integrate a huge amount of information, which all arrives at different times, in order to produce a consistent view of "now". For example, it can take 100s of milliseconds for nerves to transmit signals to and from our limbs. And yet, when you reach out an pick up a coffee cup your movement, the returning touch and the (almost instant) visual feedback all appear simultaneous. The brain has to delay some of these to make them all appear to happen at the same time. (Incidentally, this is why the "no free will" interpretation of Libet's experiments is bollocks.)

There was a case reported recently of a man who visual and auditory systems were out of sync: the real world looked like a badly dubbed movie.
Mindscapes: First man to hear people before they speak - health - 04 July 2013 - New Scientist

The McGurk Effect is another illusion to add to my list. Never heard of it before but cool nonetheless. So again, how trustworthy is our brain as a tool of science? How then, can we determine what time is when our brains are subject to illusion? Do we need to trust machinery, computers and all, before trusting our brains for time issues?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Anybody experienced this illusion? I know I have. If we know that the brain is subject to illusions of time then how can we trust it as a scientific tool to study it?

Can't say I have. Sorry!

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Speaking personally I can't do an experiment to measure the rate of well anything in the lab without trusting technology, this is pretty standard in a lot of labs. Everything is controlled by PC from the temperature, relative humidity, voltages to different parts of the experiment, laser power, gas flow rates and the times any and all of these are changed. No-one can do it accurately enough consistently enough without technology. Where the brain comes into it's own is spotting patterns in the data and figuring out what the hell is happening...

So, what the hell IS happening!!!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Anybody experienced this illusion? I know I have. If we know that the brain is subject to illusions of time then how can we trust it as a scientific tool to study it?

Can't say I have. Sorry!

The illusion is not real...the brain has series of illusion e.g the plane mirror,that of a light bulb,etc......

IMO it doesn't really change what we experience but how experience it,and once we know how and why we experience it the way we now do we can of course show how it should be#

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I'm placing this in the Phylosophy section because of the definition of the section :

Investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.



I understand that there are theories, research, experiments ,... on time, space etc.


But thinking about it logically, i am assuming that time is a concept created by our minds,

as an instrument to structure and understand the succession of events taking place in reality.


I don't see it existing out there as a dimension amongst other dimensions.

To me there is only the successions of events (events involving objects, people, organisms, light, particles , anything),

continuously taking place, and us making sense of that.


Sometimes things may slow down or go faster, but that is not time itself.

And a clock ticking the seconds away, even if it were to go slower or faster, is merely a mechanically structured representation of the succession of events.



So i argument that time as such does not exist, it is everything else that exists.



What is your oppinion on this ?

My opinion on this matter is that time is an emerging property of the universe and the activity that takes place within it (I could be wrong).

I think it makes it easier to understand the concept of time by taking some hypothetical situations into consideration. Let us say if there were only two solid objects in the universe, one of them located at point A other at point B, then the space between the two objects that we measure is what we call the distance between the two. Now let us say those two objects are suddenly vanished and all there is left is infinite space with no such thing as point A or Point B. Now in this circumstances the concept of "distance" becomes non existent. Similarly, if there is no activity in the space at all, no movement, no development of any kind, no aging of anything and everything is brought to an eternal complete still , then what? I think in that situation it can be said that time has stopped ticking. Hence I think that the time is an emerging property of all the activity that takes place in the universe.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I'm placing this in the Phylosophy section because of the definition of the section :

Investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.



I understand that there are theories, research, experiments ,... on time, space etc.


But thinking about it logically, i am assuming that time is a concept created by our minds,

as an instrument to structure and understand the succession of events taking place in reality.


I don't see it existing out there as a dimension amongst other dimensions.

To me there is only the successions of events (events involving objects, people, organisms, light, particles , anything),

continuously taking place, and us making sense of that.


Sometimes things may slow down or go faster, but that is not time itself.

And a clock ticking the seconds away, even if it were to go slower or faster, is merely a mechanically structured representation of the succession of events.



So i argument that time as such does not exist, it is everything else that exists.



What is your oppinion on this ?

My opinion on this matter is that time is an emerging property of the universe and the activity that takes place within it (I could be wrong).

I think it makes it easier to understand the concept of time by taking some hypothetical situations into consideration. Let us say if there were only two solid objects in the universe, one of them located at point A other at point B, then the space between the two objects that we measure is what we call the distance between the two. Now let us say those two objects are suddenly vanished and all there is left is infinite space with no such thing as point A or Point B. Now in this circumstances the concept of "distance" becomes non existent. Similarly, if there is no activity in the space at all, no movement, no development of any kind, no aging of anything and everything is brought to an eternal complete still , then what? I think in that situation it can be said that time has stopped ticking. Hence I think that the time is an emerging property of all the activity that takes place in the universe.

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

I'm placing this in the Phylosophy section because of the definition of the section :

Investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.



I understand that there are theories, research, experiments ,... on time, space etc.


But thinking about it logically, i am assuming that time is a concept created by our minds,

as an instrument to structure and understand the succession of events taking place in reality.


I don't see it existing out there as a dimension amongst other dimensions.

To me there is only the successions of events (events involving objects, people, organisms, light, particles , anything),

continuously taking place, and us making sense of that.


Sometimes things may slow down or go faster, but that is not time itself.

And a clock ticking the seconds away, even if it were to go slower or faster, is merely a mechanically structured representation of the succession of events.



So i argument that time as such does not exist, it is everything else that exists.



What is your oppinion on this ?

My opinion on this matter is that time is an emerging property of the universe and the activity that takes place within it (I could be wrong).

I think it makes it easier to understand the concept of time by taking some hypothetical situations into consideration. Let us say if there were only two solid objects in the universe, one of them located at point A other at point B, then the space between the two objects that we measure is what we call the distance between the two. Now let us say those two objects are suddenly vanished and all there is left is infinite space with no such thing as point A or Point B. Now in this circumstances the concept of "distance" becomes non existent. Similarly, if there is no activity in the space at all, no movement, no development of any kind, no aging of anything and everything is brought to an eternal complete still , then what? I think in that situation it can be said that time has stopped ticking. Hence I think that the time is an emerging property of all the activity that takes place in the universe.

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Originally Posted by merumario

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Just like I said before, I think time is an emerging property of the universe, so there is no way to segregate time from what it emerged from. Time exists alongside of universe because (I think) it emerged with the emergence of universe.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Just like I said before, I think time is an emerging property of the universe, so there is no way to segregate time from what it emerged from. Time exists alongside of universe because (I think) it emerged with the emergence of universe.

That doesn't really tells what time is it only tells its origin......everything currently that now exist is an emergence of the universe time ain't so different.......so also is mass,distance,etc#

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Just like I said before, I think time is an emerging property of the universe, so there is no way to segregate time from what it emerged from. Time exists alongside of universe because (I think) it emerged with the emergence of universe.

That doesn't really tells what time is it only tells its origin......everything currently that now exist is an emergence of the universe time ain't so different.......so also is mass,distance,etc#

Everything that now exists in the universe is a part of the universe, on the other hand time is different than all else, so I had used a term such as "Emergent property of universe" for it. If the hypothetical event that I mentioned above were to really occur, then everything in the universe would come to a 'still' and so would the time. But the difference would be that everything else such as distance between each of the object would remain, while the time as we know of which always moves forward would seize to exist. With no activity in the universe, I think, the time as we know of would simply disappear, but not so the physical objects and even the distance between the each one of them would remain. I understand by speaking of "hypothetical event" I can not really prove my point of view to be correct, but it is just an attempt to explain it. I am open for correction though, on this particular matter.

Originally Posted by phdemon

Originally Posted by babe

so, what the hell is happening!!!

well at the minute a 5.6 micron radius droplet containing ammonium sulphate, water and polyethylene glycol is trapped in an aerosol optical tweezers system and is slowly drying as the relative humidity is decreased at 2.5% per hour. I'm using this as a test to see if i can observe the phase transitions from single liquid phase to two liquid phases (should occur at ~90% rh when the aqueous sulphate and peg separate) and from two liquid phases to one liquid/one solid phase (should occur at about 35% rh when the sulphate crystallises). If i can see evidence of the phase changes in the raman spectroscopy i can use this system to look at more atmospherically relevant compositions (the phase of atmospheric aerosol is very important if you want to understand the chemistry going on up there).

brat demon!

that is a tricky question...I don't know what is time. But I think it is not what our mind created. It's been existing since some point and it only move forward in regular condition.

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Just like I said before, I think time is an emerging property of the universe, so there is no way to segregate time from what it emerged from. Time exists alongside of universe because (I think) it emerged with the emergence of universe.

That doesn't really tells what time is it only tells its origin......everything currently that now exist is an emergence of the universe time ain't so different.......so also is mass,distance,etc#

Everything that now exists in the universe is a part of the universe, on the other hand time is different than all else, so I had used a term such as "Emergent property of universe" for it. If the hypothetical event that I mentioned above were to really occur, then everything in the universe would come to a 'still' and so would the time. But the difference would be that everything else such as distance between each of the object would remain, while the time as we know of which always moves forward would seize to exist. With no activity in the universe, I think, the time as we know of would simply disappear, but not so the physical objects and even the distance between the each one of them would remain. I understand by speaking of "hypothetical event" I can not really prove my point of view to be correct, but it is just an attempt to explain it. I am open for correction though, on this particular matter.

I cannot agree to this#

When such an event occurs,it doesn't mean time seize to exist but time had not elapsed.....so that when the event comes to an abrupt end,time won't emerge again from the universe but will start elapsing because there will now be ways to measure its flow#

Therefore if such an event occurs it means the universe lost way of keeping track of the flow of time and cannot by any means state that it went out of existence#

Getting back to the original question on the nature of time, and from what i have seen posted here, my oppion is this.

Airplane a, and airplane b that flies faster, can be observed from the viewpoint of say observer c.


For this observer the events happening with a and b are taking place in the same time space,
Because it is simply airplain a following its path aa and airplane b curving away at a higher speed, on its new path bb, due to a partial escape from gravity of the larger object, earth in this case.
Observed from point c, the airplane b is actuallytravelling more distance than a within a set amount of time, obviously because it is flying faster, and proven because its curved pathline bb is longer.


But from the viewpoint of airplane a, airplain b is relative to the path of a, travelling less distance than a within the set amount of time, if path b is projected onto path a.
It took airplane b 'more time' to travel 'the same distance', viewed from point a.




So when we look at what time really is, it is the the succession of events from one particular standing point, in the above case point a or b or c.


So let us also admit that from the point of observer c, the curving taking place is nothing more than the influence of gravity on that flying object,no need to have verbal fights on timespace and what not, just the basic Einstein principle taking place, everybody happy.


Make sense ?

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Getting back to the original question on the nature of time, and from what i have seen posted here, my oppion is this.

Airplane a, and airplane b that flies faster, can be observed from the viewpoint of say observer c.


For this observer the events happening with a and b are taking place in the same time space,
Because it is simply airplain a following its path aa and airplane b curving away at a higher speed, on its new path bb, due to a partial escape from gravity of the larger object, earth in this case.
Observed from point c, the airplane b is actuallytravelling more distance than a within a set amount of time, obviously because it is flying faster, and proven because its curved pathline bb is longer.


But from the viewpoint of airplane a, airplain b is relative to the path of a, travelling less distance than a within the set amount of time, if path b is projected onto path a.
It took airplane b 'more time' to travel 'the same distance', viewed from point a.




So when we look at what time really is, it is the the succession of events from one particular standing point, in the above case point a or b or c.


So let us also admit that from the point of observer c, the curving taking place is nothing more than the influence of gravity on that flying object,no need to have verbal fights on timespace and what not, just the basic Einstein principle taking place, everybody happy.


Make sense ?

Recommended reading:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5001

Time is the only thing between domestic house cats and opposable thumbs.

Cravendale - Cats with Thumbs #CatsWithThumbs - YouTube

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Blah blah blah
Make sense ?

No.

Recommend watching between 2.40 min and 4.00 min. :

Type in google ' youtube spacetime ' : the first video : Space-time and the speed of light

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Recommend watching between 2.40 min and 4.00 min. :

Type in google ' youtube spacetime ' : the first video : Space-time and the speed of light

Posting the YouTube link is a lot easier:
Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube

The copy paste function on my tablet is not what it should be.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever

Originally Posted by merumario

I agree to the above because I have used an idea of sort stating that time emerges from change such as distance as demonstrated above,but I must point out to you that it is equally wrong(at least to some extent if not that general) we must note that if the universe did exist then time also existed alongside owing to SR....the universe is 4D so logically a universe implies 4D and it implies that time cannot by any means be segregated from the spatial dimensions#

Just like I said before, I think time is an emerging property of the universe, so there is no way to segregate time from what it emerged from. Time exists alongside of universe because (I think) it emerged with the emergence of universe.

That doesn't really tells what time is it only tells its origin......everything currently that now exist is an emergence of the universe time ain't so different.......so also is mass,distance,etc#

Everything that now exists in the universe is a part of the universe, on the other hand time is different than all else, so I had used a term such as "Emergent property of universe" for it. If the hypothetical event that I mentioned above were to really occur, then everything in the universe would come to a 'still' and so would the time. But the difference would be that everything else such as distance between each of the object would remain, while the time as we know of which always moves forward would seize to exist. With no activity in the universe, I think, the time as we know of would simply disappear, but not so the physical objects and even the distance between the each one of them would remain. I understand by speaking of "hypothetical event" I can not really prove my point of view to be correct, but it is just an attempt to explain it. I am open for correction though, on this particular matter.

I cannot agree to this#

When such an event occurs,it doesn't mean time seize to exist but time had not elapsed.....so that when the event comes to an abrupt end,time won't emerge again from the universe but will start elapsing because there will now be ways to measure its flow#

Therefore if such an event occurs it means the universe lost way of keeping track of the flow of time and cannot by any means state that it went out of existence#

I understand what youre saying and also agree, but my point was that, as we know time, it always moves forward, but in an event when such an event is actually eternal, with no end, then what? I mean no activity eternally. Where would be the time? I think where there is eternity, time automatically cease to exist. Anyway this is nothing more than a thought of mine at the moment.

I stumbled upon an interesting article while simply googling. I do not know of its reliability but thought its worth to share it here, if nothing else, I may only know how wrong it is.

A Concept of Space and Time

Time exists as a gauge to surmise how angry our employers will be when we arrive at work late. Example:
10 minutes late: Mildly irritated.
20 minutes late: Angry.
30 minutes late: Very angry, may shout.
1 hour late: You should probably just stay home.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
XIX. The Gravitational Field
"

“If we pick up a stone and then let it go, why does it fall to the ground?” The usual answer to this question is: “Because it is attracted by the earth.” Modern physics formulates the answer rather differently for the following reason. As a result of the more careful study of electromagnetic phenomena, we have come to regard action at a distance as a process impossible without the intervention of some intermediary medium. If, for instance, a magnet attracts a piece of iron, we cannot be content to regard this as meaning that the magnet acts directly on the iron through the intermediate empty space, but we are constrained to imagine—after the manner of Faraday—that the magnet always calls into being something physically real in the space around it, that something being what we call a “magnetic field.” In its turn this magnetic field operates on the piece of iron, so that the latter strives to move towards the magnet. We shall not discuss here the justification for this incidental conception, which is indeed a somewhat arbitrary one. We shall only mention that with its aid electromagnetic phenomena can be theoretically represented much more satisfactorily than without it, and this applies particularly to the transmission of electromagnetic waves. The effects of gravitation also are regarded in an analogous manner.

1

The action of the earth on the stone takes place indirectly. The earth produces in its surroundings a gravitational field, which acts on the stone and produces its motion of fall. As we know from experience, the intensity of the action on a body diminishes according to a quite definite law, as we proceed farther and farther away from the earth. " >> Einstein said also that the gravity-effect of that gravitational field is caused by curved space-time, perfectly acceptable, but he does not explain the exact reasons or mechanisms as to how this spacetime-curvage functions, originates. The mechanisms, the causes are not explained, he only says "The earth produces in its surroundings a gravitational field." That is further unelaborated, and therefore leaves a gap for others to fill this aerea in with theories. Hence a theory like Le Sage's is picked up in the nineties and later elaborated on. Such a theory may not be correct , but similar theories could further elaborate Einsteins gravity, they don't always have to contradict it, they can be complemantary. Also i refer to the idea of gravitons being the force-particles carrying the gravity effect, thus being responsible for Einstein's curved spacetime gravity, being responsable for the gravity field. > Ref. : Scientific American , october 1999 : " Is gravity a particle or a wave? Einstein described gravity as warped space-time, but there is also the theory that gravity is carried by hypothetical particles called gravitons. Is this a situation like the wave- particle duality of light, in which it is more convenient to think one way sometimes and another at other times? Bradley Carroll, a professor of physics at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah, responds: "According to modern physics field theories, each of the four basic interactions (a better term than 'force') is mediated by a type of particle: "The strong (nuclear) interaction is carried by gluons. (This is the interaction that holds together the particles in the nuclei of atoms.) "The electromagnetic interaction is carried by photons. (This is the interaction responsible for all electrical and magnetic phenomena.) "The weak (nuclear) interaction is carried by weak bosons. (This is the interaction that governs certain radioactive decays, such as beta decay.) "The gravitational interaction is carried by gravitons. (This, of course, is the interaction that gives rise to the familiar pull of gravity.) "Although the graviton has yet to be observed, some of its hypothesized properties are known. It is a massless particle having no electrical charge. Its spin (a property of subatomic particles that is not directly analogous to the rotation of a macroscopic object like a top) is twice that of the other field particles listed above; in technical terms, its spin is 2 hbar instead of 1 hbar, where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi. "Two masses attract each other gravitationally because they are constantly exchanging virtual gravitons, just as two electrically charged particles are drawn together--or repelled apart--by the exchange of virtual photons. (A 'virtual particle' is one that cannot be directly detected.) This exchange happens at all times. Gravitational waves, in contrast, can arise when an object undergoes an acceleration. Asymmetric supernova explosions or collisions between neutron stars are the kinds of events that could produce powerful blasts of gravitational waves. Gravitational waves have been indirectly detected in certain binary neutron star systems, in which the energy carried off by those waves causes observable changes in the stars' orbits. "Virtual gravitons pass between two objects even when there are no gravitational waves present (for instance, when the masses are at rest), so it really isn't correct to say that gravity is a wave. "An analogy with an electrically charged particle might help clarify the situation. When a charged particle is at rest, it is surrounded by a static electric field (no waves). If another charged particle encounters this field, it experiences a force. The quantum view would describe this in terms of an exchange of virtual photons by the two particles. On the other hand, if a charged particle is accelerated, its electric field is ' shaken' to produce an electromagnetic (light) wave that spreads out from the particle. In this case, the energy and momentum of the light wave are carried by real, detectable photons. "In a similar manner, when a massive particle is at rest, it is surrounded by a static gravitational field (a static curvature of spacetime, no waves) . If another massive particle encounters this field, it experiences a force that can be described in quantum terms as an exchange of virtual gravitons by the two masses. On the other hand, if a massive particle is accelerated, its gravitational field is 'shaken' to produce a gravitational wave that spreads out through spacetime from the particle. The energy and momentum of that gravitational wave are carried by real gravitons." "

I heard one philosophical explanation of time that said that time is "changing appearances". This would be the same as a "succession of events".

The reason I find this intriguing is that many of us are "not present" during the day, and are thinking about something else other than what is going on around us.

Thus, we miss much of the "change in appearances" (or succession of events) because we are not observing.

This could account for the "time flies" perception of people who have a feeling that a decade or two went by so quickly.

So to slow down time or the aging process, one of the keys may be to learn to "be present", so you don't miss the "succession of events" going on around you.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

And what is the relevance of these texts in this thread?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

And what is the relevance of these texts in this thread?

Time seen as an independant factor (> gravity as a particle force - theories),
or time as a 4th dimension along with the 3 other ones (> time-space theory).

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Make sense ?

No. Awesomely incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by phdemon

Originally Posted by babe

so, what the hell is happening!!!

well at the minute a 5.6 micron radius droplet containing ammonium sulphate, water and polyethylene glycol is trapped in an aerosol optical tweezers system and is slowly drying as the relative humidity is decreased at 2.5% per hour. I'm using this as a test to see if i can observe the phase transitions from single liquid phase to two liquid phases (should occur at ~90% rh when the aqueous sulphate and peg separate) and from two liquid phases to one liquid/one solid phase (should occur at about 35% rh when the sulphate crystallises). If i can see evidence of the phase changes in the raman spectroscopy i can use this system to look at more atmospherically relevant compositions (the phase of atmospheric aerosol is very important if you want to understand the chemistry going on up there).

brat demon!

You DID ask...

Guilty.

Originally Posted by dedo

I heard one philosophical explanation of time that said that time is "changing appearances". This would be the same as a "succession of events".

The reason I find this intriguing is that many of us are "not present" during the day, and are thinking about something else other than what is going on around us.

Thus, we miss much of the "change in appearances" (or succession of events) because we are not observing.

This could account for the "time flies" perception of people who have a feeling that a decade or two went by so quickly.

So to slow down time or the aging process, one of the keys may be to learn to "be present", so you don't miss the "succession of events" going on around you.

What makes you feel that human experience of time isn't an illusion so that we can catalog our existence,experience it,remember it? Of course I think its an illusion# And that means whatever we are experiencing is different from what time is#

Take for an example the light bulb. The light bulb appears to us as a self luminous(which it is) object that's constantly glowing and radiating heat. But of course this is an illusion caused by the eye,because practically the light bulb blinks for about 20times per second...but because of persistence of vision we see it as glowing constantly#

Now does it mean that what we are seeing is what actually exist? Of course NO#

The question of time has been bobbing around on these forums. Those of a philosophical inclination will argue about it, perhaps inconclusively. Those of scientific outlook are more likely to dismiss the matter as philosophical babble. But there is a problem. It was outlined by J.M.E McTaggert (a philosopher) about a hundred years ago.
The question, "does time exist?" depends on what you mean by exist. McTaggert had no problems with the existence of change or succession. He was concerned with what we mean when we refer to time. Obviously ( I hope), people who wonder about the meaning of time do not deny that change occurs.

McTaggert noted that the meaning of the word "time" is not straightforward. In day-to-day usage of the word, people will refer to "the present", "the past" and "the future". McTaggert called this usage the "A -series". None of these tenses, especially "the present", can be defined scientifically. Another category which McTaggert considered was what he called "the B series". This is the usage of the word "time", not in reference to a present, but as earlier than or later than. This is closer to the scientific use of the word.
The point I am trying to make is that the scientific notion of "time" conflicts with the everyday usage of the term. If anyone disagrees with this, please give a scientific justfication for the notion of a present. (To say that it is the time that we describe as "now" is not an objective, scientific explanation.)

To arrogantly dismiss everyday usage as "silly" or or naive isn't good enough.

What is the scientific definition of "the present"?.
It is, afterall, the only moment we are aware of, so some explanation should be sought.

(PS. My entire career has been in science - I'm not a philosophical "word manipulator".)

Originally Posted by JonG

The question of time has been bobbing around on these forums. Those of a philosophical inclination will argue about it, perhaps, inconclusively. Those of scientific outlook are more likely to dismiss the matter as philosophical babble. But there is a problem. It was outlined by J.M.E McTaggert (a philosopher) about a hundred years ago.
The question, "does time exist?" depends on what you mean by exist. McTaggert had no problems with the existence of change or succession. He was concerned with what we mean when we refer to time. Obviously ( I hope), people who wonder about the meaning of time do not deny that change occurs.
McTaggert noted that the meaning of time falls into more than one category. In day-to-day usage of the word, people will refer to "the present", "the past" and "the future". McTaggert called this the "A -series". None of these tenses, especially "the present", can be defined scientifically. Another category which McTaggert considered was what he called "the B series". This is the usage of the word "time", not in reference to a present, but as earlier than or later than. This is closer to the scientific use of the word.
The point I am trying to make is that the scientific notion of "time" conflicts with the everyday usage of the term. If anyone disagrees with this, please give a scientific justfication for the notion of a present. (To say that it is the time that we describe as "now" is not an objective, scientific explanation.)

To arrogantly dismiss everyday usage as "silly" or or naive isn't good enough.

What is the scientific definition of "the present"?. It is, afterall, the only moment we are aware of, so some explanation should be sought.

(PS. My entire career has been in science - I'm not a philosophical "word manipulator".)

If you have seen my post(26) you do know that I stated that time has no general meaning and since that is so,the science definition will of course differ from that which we assume#

Scientifically,'time is what clock measures' but this stuff that clock measures is a dimension and it flows differently for different observers. Ie an observer stationary on earth with respect to earth sees and will record a different interval for an event from an observer in an airplane traveling at constant velocity with respect to earth(this you already know)# but is it not true that this thing that flows is an intrinsic property of the universe? Which somehow manages to flow slower and faster depending on ones speed and strength of gravitational influence on one,of course it is true#

And no matter how it flows it is still a persistent illusion..physicist believe in timelessness# meaning your question of the scientific definition of present is not useful because scientifically(physics) there is no past no present,no future# there is just a dimension which is time# so its irrelevant for one to define present scientifically#

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

If you haven't met them they aren't there with you...they are future, not present.

Einstein said also that the gravity-effect of that gravitational field is caused by curved space-time

I feel I need to add something here - curved space-time is the gravitational field. It is not like one causes the other; in GR there is no separate notion of any gravitational fields, there is only space-time and its intrinsic geometry. Gravitation is simply a manifestation of how geodesics "behave" in regions of curved space-time ( namely, they cease to be parallel to reference geodesics ). There is no cause-and-effect chain of events involved, in the sense that the earth does not cause space-time to be curved, and that curvature does not cause gravity; these notions are simply indistinguishable.

Hence a theory like Le Sage's is picked up in the nineties and later elaborated on.

We know already that Push Gravity theories ( such as LeSage ) do not work. They are also not needed. General Relativity tells us everything there is to know about classical gravity ( quantum effects aside ).

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Einstein said also that the gravity-effect of that gravitational field is caused by curved space-time

I feel I need to add something here - curved space-time is the gravitational field. It is not like one causes the other; in GR there is no separate notion of any gravitational fields, there is only space-time and its intrinsic geometry. Gravitation is simply a manifestation of how geodesics "behave" in regions of curved space-time ( namely, they cease to be parallel to reference geodesics ). There is no cause-and-effect chain of events involved, in the sense that the earth does not cause space-time to be curved, and that curvature does not cause gravity; these notions are simply indistinguishable.

Hence a theory like Le Sage's is picked up in the nineties and later elaborated on.

We know already that Push Gravity theories ( such as LeSage ) do not work. They are also not needed. General Relativity tells us everything there is to know about classical gravity ( quantum effects aside ).

I do not know what you are talking about!

Sorry!

Originally Posted by babe

I do not know what you are talking about!

Sorry!

Hmm...this is hard to condense down into simple words. Perhaps a "General Relativity for Absolute Dummies" thread would be in order ? No offence intended; it's just that there are plenty of members here who really don't know what GR is all about, and my "GR Primer" thread might be too advanced for them to grasp the basic ideas.
I shall think about it.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by babe

I do not know what you are talking about!

Sorry!

Hmm...this is hard to condense down into simple words. Perhaps a "General Relativity for Absolute Dummies" thread would be in order ? No offence intended; it's just that there are plenty of members here who really don't know what GR is all about, and my "GR Primer" thread might be too advanced for them to grasp the basic ideas.
I shall think about it.

Thanks! *L* I'm going to make you sing sing something from "My Fair Lady" for that first part!! *Laughing*

Originally Posted by babe

Thanks! *L* I'm going to make you sing sing something from "My Fair Lady" for that first part!! *Laughing*

Errr...you might want to think about this again, unless you want half of town to start running into the opposite direction, and all the dogs to start howling.
Yes, it's that bad...

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

If you haven't met them they aren't there with you...they are future, not present.

Yes but that's in our everyday life# what is meant by timelessness is that past present and future are all equal and since u haven't met them doesn't mean they ain't there already it means you can't access the part of reality at which you meet them now...hence you take it step by step,keeping memory of the previous,experiencing a given moment(present) and hope to experience another(future)#

All that is due to our inability to access what we think the future is.instead we live and see it from an order of past,present,future#

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by babe

Thanks! *L* I'm going to make you sing sing something from "My Fair Lady" for that first part!! *Laughing*

Errr...you might want to think about this again, unless you want half of town to start running into the opposite direction, and all the dogs to start howling.
Yes, it's that bad...

OK well it's only fair.

Perhaps a "General Relativity for Absolute Dummies" thread would be in order ? QUoted from your posts *snicker*

We shall have video!!

Originally Posted by merumario

..physicist believe in timelessness# meaning your question of the scientific definition of present is not useful because scientifically(physics) there is no past no present,no future# there is just a dimension which is time# so its irrelevant for one to define present scientifically#

I don't dispute that the ideas of a past, present or future have no place in Physics. However, that doesn't mean that questions relating to the "present" should just be ignored.

There are some interesting comments attributed to Einstein regarding the present ( he referred to it as "the now"). They were comments made during a conversation with philosopher Rudolf Carnap. This is from the book "About Time" by Paul Davies.

Even Einstein confessed, near the end of his days, that the problem of the now "worried him seriously." In conversation with the philosopher Rudolf Carnap he conceded that there is "something essential about the now," but expressed the belief that, whatever it was, it lay "just outside the realm of science."

The last statement about it being outside the realm of science is contentious.

To be aware of the present implies that we are conscious. And for someone to be conscious, certain conditions must be satisfied, such as that oxygen is fed to the brain. Whatever all of these conditions are, they will have been satisfied at all times in our past when we were conscious just as they are "now". So why are we not aware of all past experiences (and perhaps all future experiences) in a single act of perception? Why is one particular instant selected which we call the present, or "the now", as Einstein would have put it.

This is just one of the questions that have been raised about the "present", and I don't expect that Physics would make any contribution to answering it.

We don't have an understanding of consciousness, but to claim that it outside the realm of science is far from certain.

Originally Posted by JonG

Originally Posted by merumario

..physicist believe in timelessness# meaning your question of the scientific definition of present is not useful because scientifically(physics) there is no past no present,no future# there is just a dimension which is time# so its irrelevant for one to define present scientifically#

I don't dispute that the ideas of a past, present or future have no place in Physics. However, that doesn't mean that questions relating to the "present" should just be ignored.

There are some interesting comments attributed to Einstein regarding the present ( he referred to it as "the now"). They were comments made during a conversation with philosopher Rudolf Carnap. This is from the book "About Time" by Paul Davies.

Even Einstein confessed, near the end of his days, that the problem of the now "worried him seriously." In conversation with the philosopher Rudolf Carnap he conceded that there is "something essential about the now," but expressed the belief that, whatever it was, it lay "just outside the realm of science."

The last statement about it being outside the realm of science is contentious.

To be aware of the present implies that we are conscious. And for someone to be conscious, certain conditions must be satisfied, such as that oxygen is fed to the brain. Whatever all of these conditions are, they will have been satisfied at all times in our past when we were conscious just as they are "now". So why are we not aware of all past experiences (and perhaps all future experiences) in a single act of perception? Why is one particular instant selected which we call the present, or "the now", as Einstein would have put it.

This is just one of the questions that have been raised about the "present", and I don't expect that Physics would make any contribution to answering it.

We don't have an understanding of consciousness, but to claim that it outside the realm of science is far from certain.

Physics does not currently describe the now that we cling on to(experience). But a paradox arises from that 'now' because the moment we grasp that now,the now is gone. What we are clinging on to is just like snapshots,making life appear as moving pictures with each nanosec different from the last# and although physics does not define that now,it could someday describe it with a better understanding of time#

I believe in this;'consciousness is the ability to manipulate time' but while we are still conscious we cannot experience the 'NOW' we can only react to it# and later remember it and hence its called past# and we can from there distinguish it btw now and past,hence hope for another now which we call future#

I feel so compelled about the mystery of time but I hope I can work a general theory for it during my life time#

Originally Posted by merumario

What we are clinging on to is just like snapshots,making life appear as moving pictures with each nanosec different from the last# and although physics does not define that now,it could someday describe it with a better understanding of time#
...................

I feel so compelled about the mystery of time but I hope I can work a general theory for it during my life time#

I have wondered about the film analogy (a movie as made using the old style film camera which produced frames). A feature of this analogy is that after the camera has "lived through" its experience of making the movie, one is left with a roll of film which contains everything that has been shot. But this is where the analogy breaks down - the frames on the film are all equivalent, but our memory of a past event is not the same as our experience of a present event.

I agree about a solution to the mystery being frustratingly elusive.

But presumably the idea of "now" that we experience is just a fiction made up by the brain. It has to integrate signals from different sources that arrive at greatly different times - e.g. nerve signals to and from our extremities can take hundreds of milliseconds to arrive, while hearing and sight take different amount sof time to process. And yet the brain is able to move your finger, feel, and see the result as if they all happened at the same time. So even "now" is partly based on memory.

I suspect most of what we think of as a sense of continuous consciousness is a similar illusion.

Originally Posted by Strange

But presumably the idea of "now" that we experience is just a fiction made up by the brain. It has to integrate signals from different sources that arrive at greatly different times - e.g. nerve signals to and from our extremities can take hundreds of milliseconds to arrive, while hearing and sight take different amount sof time to process. And yet the brain is able to move your finger, feel, and see the result as if they all happened at the same time. So even "now" is partly based on memory.

There are some who believe in what is referred to as a "specious present", which is a finite period of time (of the order of a second) during which all that is experienced is considered to be present. However, I don't think that this addresses the problem of the apparent special nature of the present. If all that you wrote above is true as you read this, it would also have been true twenty minutes ago when you were doing something else. So why aren't you equally aware of what you are doing now and what you were doing twenty minutes ago - or more generally, why don't you experience the whole of your past in a single act of perception?

There is a temptation to answer, "because what I was doing twenty minutes ago is now in the past" - but, of course, that is assuming that there is an objective distinction between the nature of past and the nature of present, which has been ruled out by Physics.

Originally Posted by JonG

So why aren't you equally aware of what you are doing now and what you were doing twenty minutes ago - or more generally, why don't you experience the whole of your past in a single act of perception?

Because the brain organises it that way to avoid confusion, perhaps? If the past were equally "real" to us continuously, as the present appears to be, then we would suffer from cognitive overload and not be able to pick out the sounds of the conversation we are having now from all past conversations. Apart from which, the brain throws away the vast majority of input as soon as it is processed(*) so our recall the past must be much vaguer than out experience of the present - after all, the brain only has finite storage.

(*) Processing may also mean ignoring it immediately, of course.

Originally Posted by Strange

Because the brain organises it that way to avoid confusion, perhaps? If the past were equally "real" to us continuously, as the present appears to be, then we would suffer from cognitive overload and not be able to pick out the sounds of the conversation we are having now from all past conversations. Apart from which, the brain throws away the vast majority of input as soon as it is processed(*) so our recall the past must be much vaguer than out experience of the present - after all, the brain only has finite storage.

(*) Processing may also mean ignoring it immediately, of course.

Cognitive overload would be a problem if you experienced the whole of your past all at once, that is, all at the same time. But the single perception referred to would bridge the whole of your past life, so the total amount of data processed would not increase beyond what we imagine it to be with a sequential mode of experience.

Originally Posted by JonG

Cognitive overload would be a problem if you experienced the whole of your past all at once, that is, all at the same time

Which is what you suggested (as far as I can tell) with your "why don't you experience the whole of your past in a single act of perception".

And obviously we perceive the past differently because the brain only stores a limited amount of information in a very "impressionistic" way. And it is very fluid in that our memories are constantly changing under the influence of ohter memories, later experience, attempts to recall them, and so on. That is probably where the "movie" analogy breaks down. It is more like an incomplete series of watercolor sketches where the paint continues to flow, change color and mix between "frames".

Being able to experience the past with with the same sense of clarity and realism as the present would require a massive and accurate storage mechanism. Which we don't have.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by JonG

Cognitive overload would be a problem if you experienced the whole of your past all at once, that is, all at the same time

Which is what you suggested (as far as I can tell) with your "why don't you experience the whole of your past in a single act of perception".

No, I took care to use the expression "in a single act of perception" rather than "at the same time". To experience (rather than remember) all that has happened between two times clearly cannot be done at a single time.

It's impossible to imagine what such a perception would be like and obviously, we don't experience it. But why don't we?

Being able to experience the past with with the same sense of clarity and realism as the present would require a massive and accurate storage mechanism. Which we don't have.

Again, I don't agree with this. The "integral" of the amount of data over the time period wouldn't change and it would be expected to lead to overload only if it was all perceived at the same time, which as noted above, is not what is meant by a "single act of perception".

Originally Posted by JonG

No, I took care to use the expression "in a single act of perception" rather than "at the same time".

If those don't mean the same thing, then I'm afraid I have no idea what "a single act of perception" means.

Again, I don't agree with this. The "integral" of the amount of data over the time period wouldn't change

Except that the brain throws nearly all of it away. So our memories are incomplete and constantly mutating. Our sense of "now" appears to be based on integrating inputs over a relatively short period (1 or 2 seconds) while our sense of the past must be based on fuzzy, impressionistic, jumbled up, incomplete and constantly changing records of some of our sense and emotions.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by JonG

No, I took care to use the expression "in a single act of perception" rather than "at the same time".

If those don't mean the same thing, then I'm afraid I have no idea what "a single act of perception" means.

It means one act of perception which is made up of the cumulative effect of all that has been observed over a period of time. I don't claim it to be the best expression to use, but it is all I can come up with at the moment. Clearly, we can't imagine what this would be like as we live "in time", second by second. We are unable to take an overview and observe events which have occurred at different times because we are restricted to one time - the present.

To go back to the twenty minute example, what you were doing twenty minutes ago is a matter of fact. The same is true regarding what you are doing now. But there is no objective distinction between the nature of past events and present events. So your experience of things that you observed twenty minutes ago should not differ from your experience of what you see before you now. But it does differ.

To think of it in terms of a world line in four dimensional space-time - imagine your own world line. No point on it has any special significance with regard to its time coordinate. Yet we all know that one time is seen as special - the present.

Originally Posted by JonG

To go back to the twenty minute example, what you were doing twenty minutes ago is a matter of fact. The same is true regarding what you are doing now. But there is no objective distinction between the nature of past events and present events.

Well, the distinction is the ordering in time of the events and the related effects. The brain receives a continuous series of input stimuli of various sorts; these cause various activities in the brain that we think of as "consciousness" and "now" and also lay down some memories. And then they are gone to be replaced by later stimuli. The only way to access the past stimuli is by means of the memories they created.

I guess I am being very dim and missing something here but I fail to see where the problem is. (Which is why I usually stay out of the "philosophy" forum. Maybe I should just back away slowly.)

I agree with strange that the past is a lot different from the present which we experience. Have implicitly shown this by stating that we can only react to the present(NOW)# ie as strange analysis how the brain works(which is true) if we go to smaller scale up to nanosec,we would realize that the brain has no memory of the current action under the nanosec duration# what the brain those is respond process and later stores. It is this stored events that later becomes the past# but the brain is never aware of the present but only reacts to the present#

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

If you haven't met them they aren't there with you...they are future, not present.

Yes but that's in our everyday life# what is meant by timelessness is that past present and future are all equal and since u haven't met them doesn't mean they ain't there already it means you can't access the part of reality at which you meet them now...hence you take it step by step,keeping memory of the previous,experiencing a given moment(present) and hope to experience another(future)#

All that is due to our inability to access what we think the future is.instead we live and see it from an order of past,present,future#

Ain't buying that.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

If you haven't met them they aren't there with you...they are future, not present.

Yes but that's in our everyday life# what is meant by timelessness is that past present and future are all equal and since u haven't met them doesn't mean they ain't there already it means you can't access the part of reality at which you meet them now...hence you take it step by step,keeping memory of the previous,experiencing a given moment(present) and hope to experience another(future)#

All that is due to our inability to access what we think the future is.instead we live and see it from an order of past,present,future#

Ain't buying that.

Not about what you buying but why#

Did you ever hear the saying that anytime we look into space we are looking at the past? Those it actually seem ℓιкє past to you when your tiny on some desert night could catch a billion year old light? You feel it happening Now in your 'present' but No it ain't happening now.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Present...sitting in a hotel on a computer

future....going to bed and hopefully waking up

True to some extent in everyday life# but none do exist....everything we are and everyone we could ever know is here with us this moment# •̸№ past •̸№ present# and of course •̸№ future#

If you haven't met them they aren't there with you...they are future, not present.

Yes but that's in our everyday life# what is meant by timelessness is that past present and future are all equal and since u haven't met them doesn't mean they ain't there already it means you can't access the part of reality at which you meet them now...hence you take it step by step,keeping memory of the previous,experiencing a given moment(present) and hope to experience another(future)#

All that is due to our inability to access what we think the future is.instead we live and see it from an order of past,present,future#

Ain't buying that.

Not about what you buying but why#

Did you ever hear the saying that anytime we look into space we are looking at the past? Those it actually seem ℓιкє past to you when your tiny on some desert night could catch a billion year old light? You feel it happening Now in your 'present' but No it ain't happening now.

My past is past. What I see in the sky tonight is my present, as it will change by tomorrow and that is the future. I can't look back at that past. It is gone. I can look at the present, as I live it, and the future is yeat to come.