Once again on the existance of time...

to put it another way

without physical objects , from suns , planets , galaxies , moons , molecules , atoms , quantum , etc , what would time be based on ?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

Just a little note here, since we don't have PMs, you keep me grounded in the importance of disciplined and structured thinking, I appreciate that a lot, even if no one else does.
You have my support still, in case that means anything.

Thank you, although I did not realize that I needed support, nor that anyone believed that disciplined thinking grounded in reality was something people were attacking. And, if they were, who would care about that?

Oh I know you're tough, like shoe leather, but no man is an island.
I don't think people are attacking disciplined thinking, I think they most often simply allow ego to make correction difficult.
I care about that to the extent that I hope to get better at not making that mistake.

0 Replies

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

But I cannot find a single means of describing time as a physical entity.

No? But if you just had the possibility to have multiple/continuous moment(s) of existence so as to be able to type multiple keys on your keyboard, does that not provide a well enough description for describing time's implications on reality? Otherwise, if time (the possibility of change of state) were too difficult to describe as a physical entity, how could you possibly have any means to account for or describe the fact that you typed several keys on your keyboard? had you not had the possibility for change of state, would you have had any means of typing several keys of your keyboard?

Time as a physical entity is described by relativity as some sort of thing woven into the "aether" or "fabric of space", but could time's underlying implications on reality not be easily described as simply the possibility of change of state? If we take the great metaphor that is a stop motion frame player as opposed to a single frame, we have the possibility for anything to happen as of course multiple frames implies the possibility of change. In contrast, a single frame is well, just that, a single frame of which nothing else could ever arise from.

fresco wrote:

The PERSISTENT WORD "time" exists, but what that word refers to is different concepts depending on context. Thus the "existence"/"persistence" of "time" is implied by the word rather than implying some particular underlying "reality". Now this point can be argued for all "things", but is particularly significant for the thing we call "time" because one aspect of it appears to be quantifiable.

Even if time is implied only by the word, you say that this point can be argued for all "things" but it is particularly significant to the thing we call time because it is quantifiable, but what about all the rest of the things that are quantifiable like objects with spatial properties? Also at what point do we consider abstract concepts as representative descriptions of actuality? how do we draw the line as to which abstracts are/aren't an objective description?

kennethamy wrote:

But reading about nominalism or realism is not doing philosophy at all. It is reading about others doing philosophy, and how are you, yourself, philosophizing by reading about others philosophizing? If I read Heidegger on existence, I am reading about Heidegger philosophizing about existence. I am not philosophizing about existence.

I also though this was the case. I thought that philosophizing was philosophizing and not reading about philosophy, and reading about philosophy was reading about philosophy and not philosophizing but not the other way around. I thought that when I read about astronauts floating in zero gravity at the international space station I am only reading, but I guess I have indeed floated in zero gravity at the international space station, nevertheless. Now if you'll excuse me I have some books on eating chocolate cake that I would like to go and read.

1 Reply

@Soul Brother,

Quote:

Also at what point do we consider abstract concepts as representative descriptions of actuality? how do we draw the line as to which abstracts are/aren't an objective description?

We draw the line when we take our philosopher's hats off, but as we do so we are still aware that some physicists are unable to draw the line at all.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Also at what point do we consider abstract concepts as representative descriptions of actuality? how do we draw the line as to which abstracts are/aren't an objective description?

We draw the line when we take our philosopher's hats off, but as we do so we are still aware that some physicists are unable to draw the line at all.

I am not sure what an "abstract concept" is, but if a physician states that a virus caused the child's illness, what line is he unable to draw (if any)? I suppose illness is an abstract concept (or is it?) and so is "germ" (or is it?) and so is "cause" (or is it?). So what hat is the physician wearing?

0 Replies

Time goes by so slowly and time can do so much are you still sane. Its insane to think of time other than it passes with ease and we can not capture its essence. We only ever have now and at sometime, we wont even have that...are you still mine ?

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

to put it another way

without physical objects , from suns , planets , galaxies , moons , molecules , atoms , quantum , etc , what would time be based on ?

Good clarification - My short answer: Nothing

What time is, is a concept, an idea; that being the intervals between events (the interval between each tick of the second-hand, or between a full rotation of the earth, etc.), or duration of many 'events'. Its a language tool, nothing more.

I actually started a thread on this quite a while ago but I can't find it. While I'm admittedly quite the amateur on physics, no one I've encountered could reasonably describe why "time" is anything other than just a descriptive/semantic concept we use. The reason I brought it up was after seeing some material on the warping of space-time, FTL speed travel and time travel itself - it was if people speak as if this was a "Real" phenomena that had substance, discernible energies or anything else requisite to 'travel' in it.

Its a useful term and concept, to be sure! But as you suggested, without that upon which its based, it has no objective existence whatsoever (at least none that I've found).

Thanks

1 Reply

Time the final frontier . Warp factor six Scottie..Our relationship is relative , we only ever have a memory of its passing or expectations of its effects. Time therefor is an illusion, an illusion that we imagine we are living in . We dont live in time, we only bare the consequences of its passing.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

What time is, is a concept, an idea; that being the intervals between events (the interval between each tick of the second-hand, or between a full rotation of the earth, etc.), or duration of many 'events'. Its a language tool, nothing more.

Good to see you again, Khethil!

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

The word "time" has different meanings. For some meanings it is just a concept or a frame of reference or a product of the mind or a language tool as you put it. However, time is also part of the physical universe. Space are woven together as one continuum. You cannot have space without having time (I think)

Paul Davies' has a good book on the subject of space/time time and Husserl and Heidegger have a good books about phenomenal time. When they use the word "time" they are using it to mean different things.

In the physicist sense of the word (after Einstein, that is), I don't think time can be spoken of as just a concept.

1 Reply

Quote:

kennethamy wrote:

But reading about nominalism or realism is not doing philosophy at all. It is reading about others doing philosophy, and how are you, yourself, philosophizing by reading about others philosophizing? If I read Heidegger on existence, I am reading about Heidegger philosophizing about existence. I am not philosophizing about existence.

This is off topic, but a person should not read philosophy like they are reading a novel. Philosophy is "interactive" in the sense that whenever a person is reading a philosophical work, they should also be critically thinking about the ideas that are being presented. For example, if I am reading a piece by Heideggar on existence, I am at the same time thinking about existence, what he says about existence, possible arguments in support of and against his views on existence and sometimes even creating original thoughts thoughts about existence with Heidegger as a jumping point. It seems to me that I am philosophizing about existence when I am reading Heidegger on existence. Sure, Heidegger is helping me, but I am still philosophizing.

Unless I have the meaning of philosophizing wrong. Would you care to tell me the meaning?

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

Quote:
kennethamy wrote:

But reading about nominalism or realism is not doing philosophy at all. It is reading about others doing philosophy, and how are you, yourself, philosophizing by reading about others philosophizing? If I read Heidegger on existence, I am reading about Heidegger philosophizing about existence. I am not philosophizing about existence.

This is off topic, but a person should not read philosophy like they are reading a novel. Philosophy is "interactive" in the sense that whenever a person is reading a philosophical work, they should also be critically thinking about the ideas that are being presented. For example, if I am reading a piece by Heideggar on existence, I am at the same time thinking about existence, what he says about existence, possible arguments in support of and against his views on existence and sometimes even creating original thoughts thoughts about existence with Heidegger as a jumping point. It seems to me that I am philosophizing about existence when I am reading Heidegger on existence. Sure, Heidegger is helping me, but I am still philosophizing.

Unless I have the meaning of philosophizing wrong. Would you care to tell me the meaning?

You are saying that when reading a philosopher you should read the philosopher critically. In a way, argue with him. And I agree with that, although, unfortunately, many do not do that and read the philosopher as if the philosopher were some kind of oracle. Postmodern philosopher talk about philosophy as "interpretation of text", and they think that their role is, as that phrase indicates, only to try to understand what the philosopher means, without criticizing him, I suppose because postmodern philosopher don't believe that there is such a thing as correct or incorrect, and critical reading assumes the possibility that the philosopher you read might be wrong (as well as right). So postmodern philosophers do not read critically, but only to "interpret" or understand. (They often call this approach, "hermeneutical"). You seem to think that this approach is wrong, and I agree with you. Philosophers should be read critically. And I agree with you too that critical reading (by which I mean "arguing with the philosopher" as you read him) is doing philosophy and not merely reading philosophy. (Although, to be frank, I don't believe you will learn much from reading Heidegger about anything at all). And, I think your post is right on topic. And you are making a perfectly correct point.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

And yea, nice to bump into you too!

Thanks

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

And yea, nice to bump into you too!

Thanks

Bu that doesn't matter. If there is no time, but only the concept of time, then how could it have a relationship to space. Perhaps you mean that the concept of time has a relationship to the concept of space?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Khethil wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

And yea, nice to bump into you too!

Thanks

Bu that doesn't matter. If there is no time, but only the concept of time, then how could it have a relationship to space. Perhaps you mean that the concept of time has a relationship to the concept of space?

I'm not saying there is (see above).

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Khethil wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?

I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

And yea, nice to bump into you too!

Thanks

Bu that doesn't matter. If there is no time, but only the concept of time, then how could it have a relationship to space. Perhaps you mean that the concept of time has a relationship to the concept of space?

I'm not saying there is (see above).

There is what?

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

de Silentio wrote:
If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?
I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?

But, you wrote:

Khethil wrote:

What time is, is a concept, an idea; that being the intervals between events (the interval between each tick of the second-hand, or between a full rotation of the earth, etc.), or duration of many 'events'. Its a language tool, nothing more.

If time is the interval between events or the duration of some events, and there are intervals between events and some events have durations, then time exists, and that makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "it's a language tool, nothing more".
As an aside, why is there a fashion for denying the existence of time? I have pretty well formed ideas explaining most fashionable exemplifications of denial, but I cant see, at all, what's in it for the time denier.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Khethil wrote:
de Silentio wrote:
If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?
I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?
But, you wrote:
Khethil wrote:
What time is, is a concept, an idea; that being the intervals between events (the interval between each tick of the second-hand, or between a full rotation of the earth, etc.), or duration of many 'events'. Its a language tool, nothing more.
If time is the interval between events or the duration of some events, and there are intervals between events and some events have durations, then time exists, and that makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "it's a language tool, nothing more".
As an aside, why is there a fashion for denying the existence of time? I have pretty well formed ideas explaining most fashionable exemplifications of denial, but I cant see, at all, what's in it for the time denier.

If "time" is only the name of a concept, then to say that time exists is to say that the concept of time exists. Therefore even if only the concept of time exists, if "time exists" means,"the concept of time exists", and the concept of time exists, then time exists. So the issue seems to be whether "time" is only the name of a concept, namely, the concept of time. (By contrast, since "unicorn" is clearly not the name of a concept, that the concept, unicorn exists, is no reason to think that unicorns exist). The fact, for example, that there is no time on the Sun (what time is it on the Sun is not a meaningful question) would lead us to believe that "time" is but the name of a concept, because if it were not, there would be an answer to the question, what time is it now on the Sun, even if we did not know the answer.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Khethil wrote:
de Silentio wrote:
If time is just a concept, how do you explain the relationship between time and space?
I don't know there is one. Besides, we're still at the "does it exist"-phase. Kinda tough to jump over that to the "It exists cuz it has a relationship somewhere", too. Don't ya think?
But, you wrote:
Khethil wrote:
What time is, is a concept, an idea; that being the intervals between events (the interval between each tick of the second-hand, or between a full rotation of the earth, etc.), or duration of many 'events'. Its a language tool, nothing more.
If time is the interval between events or the duration of some events, and there are intervals between events and some events have durations, then time exists, and that makes it very difficult to understand what you mean by "it's a language tool, nothing more".

Good point! In this case, we can recognize "time" as being what I crudely defined earlier - a series of intervals between events, etc. But then we're simply taking one thing (intervals, in this crude example), lableling it something else and saying "Therefore it exists". I'm just trying to understand here. Perhaps a better way to ask my question is this: What in this concept exists (meaning has some energetic or material substance)? We can take pretty much anything, label it with a term and say it exists in some way. Existing, in this context, is such that gross mass (on perhaps a stellar level) could warp time (as is one of the current physics theories, as I understand it). In order for something to "warp", must not not have some sort of substance, wavelength or energy? How about in the example of theoretical time travel: If I can "traverse" something, mustn't it also exist in some form TO traverse? If Time is something more than just measurable repetition or event intervals and can be "traveled" - if only theoretically - what substance is there to traverse? If I travel across my state, I'm traversing substantive material; in that example, what might I be traversing?

I hope that makes sense - I am truly hoping to gain some understanding here.

ughaibu wrote:

As an aside, why is there a fashion for denying the existence of time? I have pretty well formed ideas explaining most fashionable exemplifications of denial, but I cant see, at all, what's in it for the time denier.

I'm not aware of there being any "fashion" involved in this; I think this is the first time I've actually seen it questioned to the point where I can jump in and perhaps learn something too.

I do much appreciate y'all engaging me on this. While "ideas" and concepts exist in the mind of the thinker, "time" seems to be formally elevated to a higher level in the physics realm - this is the heart of where my desire for understanding is. While I believe it to be ONLY an idea, I'd very much like to understand more.

Thanks again

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If "time" is only the name of a concept, then to say that time exists is to say that the concept of time exists. Therefore even if only the concept of time exists, if "time exists" means,"the concept of time exists", and the concept of time exists, then time exists.

That too.
Any ideas as to why time denial is so conspicuous? I cant image people have suddenly been swayed by McTaggart.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
If "time" is only the name of a concept, then to say that time exists is to say that the concept of time exists. Therefore even if only the concept of time exists, if "time exists" means,"the concept of time exists", and the concept of time exists, then time exists.
That too.
Any ideas as to why time denial is so conspicuous? I cant image people have suddenly been swayed by McTaggart.

Yes, I just proposed one. Post: # 4,291,244

1 Reply

Once again on the existance of time...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know