Talk:Time/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead Section (was titled: Jim)

Wasn't the grouping of time-segments (as well as degrees of angles) into 60's originally a convention of the Sumerians, rather than the Phoenicians?

yes i thought so too (anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.102.178 (talk • contribs) on 17:42, 10 December 2005

Jim's been playing with the intro again, and it needs some work. Perhaps, rather than edit it outright, some comments might attract him to the talk pages...

1. "Time is often considered..." - a weasel: How often? Tuesdays and Thursdays, or twice a day except on Sundays?
2. " ...dimension in which each event has a definite position in a sequence." - this is simply wrong, since one of the main claims of relativistic physics is that the sequence of events is not definite but relative; something that is indeed mentioned in this very paragraph!

I think what has happened here is a slight missinterpretaion. Time is a dimension and each object has a difinite position, but the point in time percieved by the observer is defined by the distance between the observer and the point and then factoring in the speed of light to determine its relative time difference. The velocity and gravity of the object causes a slowing/speedint of time (depending on point of reference) for that specific object which leaves the light uneffected apart from redshift (change in energy due to time distortion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.189.155 (talk • contribs) on 12:36, 31 January 2006

1. "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't.

This argument would be valid if our only way of percieving motion was through sight, but noise can give us a sense of motion (after all, sound is motion), touch and feeling can through wind and vibration, plus the inner ear can give us a sense of balance (if our balance changes then something has obviously moved). Not only are there external factors but internal as well, such as the beating of your heart, breating, muscle twitches/movement (muscles can only contract and expand so quickly). So even though we can't see the motion, we can definitely sense it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.189.155 (talk • contribs) on 12:36, 31 January 2006

1. "time itself appears to be uniform" - if Jim is still talking about perception, then this is also not the case; one has days that pass slowly, others flash past. This is commented on in the article itself.

I doubt very much that he was commenting on a human view of passage of time, because if you can blank out external information (i.e. all of your senses) you can completely lose track of time. Instead, he is saying that if you video tape an event, there will always be the same number of frames recorded for each second the observer (i.e. the camera) experiences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.189.155 (talk • contribs) on 12:36, 31 January 2006

1. "This is the view held by many philosophical realists" - another weasel: Can you name a philosophical realist who does not hold this view? Then say "this is a view held by philosophical realists"!

(May as well continue my rant) this may have simply been said so that no one was (however unlikely) offended or something because, can you honestly say that you know every single philosophical realist and thier views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.189.155 (talk • contribs) on 12:36, 31 January 2006

1. "Modern physics considers time and space to be inseparable features of spacetime" - a poor, redundant construct; what else would time and space be but part of spacetime? the previous, "Modern physics treats time as a feature of spacetime" was the better.

But apart form these few issues, the paragraph is excellent. Comments? Banno 21:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please check the edit history before making accusations of "playing" ;) - you'll find User:Geologician responsible for several of these changes. I think they make it worse too. Some people are stuck with a kinematics view of the world. But, since I never claimed the realist view made any sense, it is up to you guys to fix it -- if you can --JimWae 01:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Jim. My apologies; some of those points do indeed owe their presence to Geo. Also, the Wiki is the place to report arguments, not to have them. If by "you guys" you mean any lurking realists, then they would answer the call just by sharing their perspective, not by proving it. And finally, the intro should surly be an outline of things inthe article proper, rather than a place to present detailed arguments. Banno 07:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you find I have advocated having an argument within the article, or proving realism? What I am requesting is that someone who takes that realism viewpoint present a relatively clear outline of what it is. I cannot make sense of it & disqualify myself as the final presenter of it (lacking evidence of any aether and all that). Is time in any way an entity (physical or otherwise), or is it more like scientific laws (which are easier to see as human constructs)? --JimWae 21:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

What did you mean by "-- if you can --", if not an intent to take issue with realist accounts? I assumed you where being candid! But if you disqualify yourself, then I guess you do not intend to edit that paragraph? Banno 06:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? Can we somewhere have mention in the realist position whether time is some kind of medium (like water or the aether)? Does "time" refer to some entity or substance - some "fabric of the universe"? Does realist view not imply a preferred frame of reference for time? Can time really be divided indefinitely, or is the smallest unit we can usefully speak of subject to the limits of possible measurement - such as Planck time? What does it mean to say "something" is "part of the fundamental structure of the universe" other than what it means when we speak of entities (like atoms, protons,...). Is time not more like scientific laws - which are more easily seen as conceptual constructs - than like entities?--JimWae 00:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

I can answer the physics part of this, though not the philosophical part. The term "time" as used by physicists refers to a measurement metric which does seem to be an intrinsic property of the way the universe is structured. While the invention of the metric and the models used to express it are arguably arbitrary constructs, the same can be said of an "electron". Just as with electrons, we use the model because it's a very clean, elegant way of expressing the way the universe seems to work, that appears to be congruent with its underlying structure (though these appearances can turn out to be approximations). So I'd argue that "time" as it's presently understood is as much a fundamental part of the universe as an "electron" is. Regarding measurements, the laws of the universe seem clear - "time" as used by physicists has a granularity, and any events that occur will always be measured either to occur at the same time, or to be separated by a time interval exceeding the Planck time. In mathematical models of the universe it is often useful to think about durations shorter than the Planck time (for instance, when dealing with virtual particles), but the statement about observed/measured events still stands. As far as I can tell, the other uses of the term "time" described in the article aren't tied to the physical world, so it would seem to me that you could ascribe whatever properties you please to them (as long as they're consistent with the rest of the framework you're building). Philosophy is not my field.--Christopher Thomas 06:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? The paragraph in question is not just an account of time from a philosophical realist position, but an outline of the common physical view - as Christopher has explained. So the reference to philosophical realism seems misleading. Banno 07:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's still philosophical realism - just as presented by SOME physicists too. I guess I should avoid multiple questions if I expect to get a response to any but the simplest. So, is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws? --JimWae 07:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Why ask those questions? how are they pertinent to the article? That is, are you asking my opinion - which is irrelevant - or are you asking for someone to write a defence of realism for the timearticle - which seems inappropriate. I think Christopher's answerer was rather neat. But in addition, "is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws?" is rather like "is democracy more like cheese, money or terrorism?" Banno 09:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am "stuck with a kinematics view of the world" but ad hominem comments have no place in civilised discussion. To set the record straight, I have made only two changes to the Article. I suggested a clear-cut definition of time on 25th May and suggested minor tidying up of the second para. on 7th June. I cannot understand why "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion," is unacceptable in an introduction. Perhaps this is because we realists have not had access to the transcendental understanding of the vagaries of Time claimed by some wikipedians.

Geologician 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I was not attacking you other than the position you took. Your suggestion has merit, but it does not get us very far in terms of definition
  • "passage of time", while fine for figurative language, is problematic & in dispute
  • "perception" gets us into all the subjective/psychological pudding
  • while I agree that motion is very important to our conception of time, duration & especially sequence are also fundamental to our conception of time & to our developing (& learning about) that concept
• What you considered "tidying up" was construed as more than that by others - and Banno had attributed those changes to me
  • --JimWae 20:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Geo, as I said above: ' "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't '. Also, the manifold arguments above showed that it is conceivable to have a space with time but without motion. Banno 20:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Jim, I accept your point about the possible figurative sense of "passage of time". How would "elapse (v.i.) of time" or "lapse (n) of time" do instead? Perception, on the other hand, seems to me to be unambiguous; but to reply to Banno's point, if perception seems to infer sight (although it could refer to any of the senses) then could we use "apprehend" instead? Even with eyes closed in a silent room one can still apprehend ringing in the ears and apprehend one's heartbeat, both unambiguous effects of motion. The passage would then read "Everyday human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion." Geologician

Time passes while I sleep. I think your line of argument pointless. Banno 21:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Banno unconsciously confirms my line of argument. My point about everyday experience is clear. But to clarify absolutely lets try "Conscious human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion."

Geologician 22:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to Geo:

• Your addition is about awareness, not about definition

Who said that introductions should ignore and avoid clarifying ordinary human experience?

• Your addition is also not accurate

What is inaccurate about it?

• • "waking" - being an event - implies time - not movement

"waking" is a series of physiological events, involving motion to a greater or lesser extent, which occupy a period of time not an instant.

• • lack of motion in the room will not tell you you did not sleep (See previous)
  • digital clocks change, they do not "move" - just in case you plan to go there (Light is a vibration)
• Your addition also has no support in the literature - is original "research"

My statement has the support of Leibniz, as I said above in 'Definition revisited'. To reiterate:

Regarding the point about citation (and precedent) much of what I have been saying follows from the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. For example, Leibniz' 5th letter, para 62: "I don't say that matter and space are the same thing. I only say, there is no space, where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality. Space and matter differ, as time and motion. However, these things, though different, are inseparable." Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thus the connection between time and motion is not my original idea.

• I have already included motion in 2nd view - to include your view

I saw that and appreciate the attempt to compromise, but the connection with motion deserves better treatment in the introduction.

• We can vote anytime, you want - You know you are already outvoted
  • but it would be better to first deal with ALL objections to your inclusion, not just one.
• you have accept neither compromise nor argument

I do not believe that it is in the spirit of Wiki to blank out a constructive suggestion before the wider world has had time to consider it. It seems to me that my suggestion is in conflict with some deeply held quasi-religious belief of yours that bears no contradiction.

• you have reverted 3 times now, any more reverts by you in next 24 hours puts you in violation of 3RR

What about your reverts?

• your own insertion says "commonplace" - not universal - your own words show you are offering it only as an rough example, not as a definition

Commonplace means ordinary human experience.

WE seem to be rum=nning out of space.

Geologician

• --JimWae 22:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) (updated)--User:JimWae 22:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

-JimWae 22:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) (updated)

See previous point. It follows.

Geologician 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I said: waking does not necessarily imply motion & that it DOES imply time
• Geo replied: Waking involves time
• Are you sure you are awake now? --JimWae 23:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• You seem to have abandoned claim that your insertion is a definition - how about removing it from the section on definitions then?JimWae 23:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)--JimWae 23:17, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Regarding Jim's point that I have abandoned my claim that it is a definition. Far from it. If Jim has access to the Oxford English Dictionary (Full version) he will discover that the word "Commonplace" when used in a rhetorical sense (Which is what Wiki is all about), means "A passage of general application, which may serve as a basis for argument: a leading text cited in argument". Thus the word, in use since the 16th century, has precedence over the word "definition" in its logic application, first used by Milton in the 17th century. Geologician 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• a passage of general application - in this case, a hasty GENERALIZATION --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Leibniz argues that motion implies time, NOT that time implies motion - actually, in what you quote, he does not even say "implies" and is arguing about space & matter, He says:
  • there is no space where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality"
• This is a poor quote for a source about Leibniz on time, since he only says time & motion are LIKE space & matter, but you are jumping to
  • there is no time where there is no motion; and that time in itself is not an absolute reality.
• but you have NOT presented anything in definitional form - only in terms of human awareness. Leibniz is not talking about awareness. Perhaps if you could find a passage where he might very well say:
  • without motion, there would be no time
• Leibniz is not making a logical nor a definitional point, but some kind of cosmological/metaphysical one which is far different from your insertion, but is a counterfactual assertion that I could agree with - and is not just about motion & time, because without motion there would be also no events
• remove your insertion from section on definition & find another spot
• STOP removing sections from the Talk page - that is VERY BAD etiquette
• --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Leibniz just says that time and motion are inseparable. (Like yin and yang.) Jim is distorting the sense of my quotation. If one ignores human awareness, Wiki will quickly become a high-falutin' retreat for elitists, rather than a useful source of information. Perhaps that is Jim's objective? If I had not removed those sections I would have been unable to respond to Jim's points late yesterday, as Wiki flagged that this discussion page had exceeded its kb allowance. Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I removed your proposed compromise. A nice try, but I think it too controversial to go inthe intro. Perhaps you would like to make the same comment further on inthe article? Banno 21:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I've probably reverted his inclusion 3 times now, so perhaps we could work together on this - you have 2 reversions left. If you choose to use one more, the text would be immeasurable improved.--JimWae 22:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Nice teamwork. But have either of you wondered, can there be two Lords of Time"? Please allow the wider community to see my suggestion for long enough to form a view. Then we can have a realistic vote. Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to theoretical physics, Time is simply nothing more than one of the four metric variables not subject to macroscopic compactification, which are identical in all respects except for their values. The mysterious, and not properly understood Wick Rotation, is responsible for the difference observed between time and space, i.e. the fact that the Minkowski metric describes space, rather than it being Euclidean geometry. All differences between time and space can ultimately be put down to the Wick Rotation. Entropy appears to point in one direction through time (toward the future), because it is a measure intimately connected to Energy, which is the time component of momentum (see special relativity if how this can be is not understood). Our observation of time is ultimately connected to the fact that microscopically, we are observing physical interactions, which obey such essential physics rules. It is a bit technical, but I still hope this helps sort out the intro (N.b. I wouldn't ask me to explain much further, as this comes from my brother, who is a physicist, wheras I research linguistics). ~~~~ 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd suggest leaving the philosophers to argue, as long as the "time in physics" section stays acceptable, and the introduction doesn't downplay it appreciably. --Christopher Thomas 07:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think the contrast works better as originally set - conceptualist position is explained in contrast to the realist position. Perhaps you'd like to contrast the realist position from the conceptualist, however? (I also think point form -as in space works better to keep reader's attention AND eliminates the single sentence paragraph problem) --JimWae 22:45, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Vote to delete page of nonsense that was also entered in full on Time page

go to: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dieter Manisprechensie

Time and motion

Cut from article:

In everyday experience, our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved. Consequently, the definitions of time and motion are apparently inseparable.

The first sentence is dubious, at best, and for the several reasons given above:

1. Someone in sleep or in a sensory deprivation tank, would still be aware of the passing of time;
2. One can quite easily imagine being conscious without experiencing any motion; in such a state, one would still be (painfully!) aware of the passage of time
3. There is no requirement on a Minkowski space that it actually contain particles, yet it will contain a dimension of time.

Geo has, despite requests, failed to ascribe this belief to anyone apart from himself. It is therefore either POV or original research. Banno 03:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

By persistently cutting my contributions to the Intro, it seems that Banno and Jim consider themselves to be joint custodians of acceptable definitions of Time, and brook no disagreement with their points of view. Perhaps they have been elected to these positions; if so, please refer me to the web-page describing that process, and I shall apologise forthwith. Otherwise they are merely self-appointed referees, without the usual strict checks and balances on those given such responsibilities. Perhaps B&J are pen names of Nobel prize-winners, and indeed even Einstein was effective in suppressing alternative points of view. However those attitudes do not contribute to the progress of knowledge. They are reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Vatican Curia, suppressing ideas that might threaten a comfy lifestyle. Returning to Banno's points immediately above:

1. I have already answered the first point, made previously in a different form by Banno (20:49, Jun 14, 2005, UTC), but to reiterate: the entire precess of being conscious, or even in a dream state depends ultimately on motion, for example, blood circulation and moving electrons in nerve ganglions in the brain. So, waking or sleeping, ordinary conscious or semiconscious people's experience of time is totally, completely and absolutely dependent on accompanying motion, whether they are conscious of the actual form of motion or not.
2. Minkowski space is the figment of a physicist's imagination, like many other ideas that have been tried and discarded though the ages. I can easily conjure up a mathematical formula that describes a volume of empty space and introduces time. How about d^^3/t= (infinity) ? It doesn't necessarily have any relevance to the real world, but I haven't broken any rules of arithmetic.

People who read Wiki deserve better than a whole lot of guff about extremely abstract ideas in an introduction. They want information that is relevant to their everyday experience. And the use of phrases like "In contrast" just begs the question without immediately providing reasons why it is a contrast. Thus it just implies that the writer is much, much, cleverer than the reader, without providing justification. I intend to persist with this line of argument, simply because I respect the common man. There is a place for all your high falutin' stuff. It might be in Physics Letters, or possibly Fortean Times. Geologician 12:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geo, your contributions are most welcome. But it is part of the nature of the Wiki that anything that is controversial will be deleted or edited. Your statements are controversial. If Jim and I were not here, some one else would remove your material. The only way around this is to re-work your ideas so that they do not simply express your point of view, but are acceptable to all editors. You might, for instance, find some notable source that agrees with you, and quote from it.

There is still a problem with your argument. Putting it together, you appear to be saying that our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved, and that this also applies to moving electrons in nerve ganglion in the brain. Are you really claiming to be aware of the motion of electrons in your brain? Certainly this would be unusual.

You miss the point of the Minkowski space example. The fact remains that it is possible to imagine a space with time and yet without the motion of particles. It follows that the existence of time is not dependent on the motion of particles. That it does not correspond to the real world is irrelevant to the argument.

I think you are correct that the introduction is too technical. I suggest we move the discussion to further on in the article. Banno 17:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I canot understand why you consider my contributions to be controversial. I am merely following a particularly illustrious path:

1. Aristotle (A founding father of philosophy.) Time, according to Aristotle, is just the measure of motion, where, by ‘motion’ he means change of any sort, including qualitative change. (The Greek word change was translated into Latin as motion.) This 'motion' eventually became restricted to what Aristotle called ‘locomotion’—change of place with respect to time—recognized by him as somehow logically prior to other kinds of change, or always involved in or implied by it.
2. Leibniz (as quoted several times previously).
3. Recent work in this field has been done by the philosophy faculty of the University of Pittsburgh, where Richard M. Gale wrote The Philosophy of Time. Aristotle's terse definition of Time as "number of motion in respect of `before' and `after.' is analyzed by Gale to mean: Motion is an attribute of a substance, and time in turn is an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion. Motion is potentially time and becomes such in actuality only when its temporal succession is noted and measured by some sentient creature. Thus time is not a substantial entity which is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independently of the changes that substances undergo It has being only as an attribute of an attribute of substance.

Unfortunately, this illustrious path became muddied by Barrow, Charleton and Newton, who conceived of time as a separate entity in its own right, and subsumed motion and mass within the concepts of momentum and force. Newton's views held sway for many generations, to be replaced by a lot of guff about field theory. However Einstein recanted before his death: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)."

Let's try to think clearly about this matter and restrict our discussion to the real world.

Geologician 21:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your arguments support mostly the conceptualist position, they do not support your view that APPREHENSION of motion is necessary to AWARENESS of time. Notably: "time in turn is an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion." -- NOT the same as your contention that: motion is (some kind of) an attribute of time --JimWae 22:05, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• "time being an attribute of motion" does not preclude it being an "attribute" of other things too--JimWae 22:08, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• it seems (I cannot tell for sure) that you've shifted aristotle's greek words at will to a restricted sense to support your position. Aristotle often seems to suggest that time is nothing other than a measure of change. Local motion is one of three types of change that Aristotle recognizes, the other two between changes in quality and changes in quantity. --JimWae 22:31, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Sometimes i know i was sleeping because of change, yes -- the room is dark (or light) - i do not perceive the sun or earth moving though & I do not reason first that the earth has rotated (or that electrons moved in my brain longer than usual) therefore i must have fallen aleep. This does not make "change an attirbute of time", though perhaps time an "attribute" of change - though I'd not use the word in scare quotes myself--JimWae 22:26, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Yes, let's try to think very clearly about this--JimWae 22:35, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

To accommodate contributions like that immediately above its rather a pity that Wiki doesn't provide GREEN INK.

Geologician

• So you now limit your responses to personal attacks? Saves my time, that's for sure!--JimWae 23:43, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Calm down, Jim, and get your act together. I thought you were going to write that: "The foundation of time can only be grasped within the restricted realm of its uncovered hermeneutic ecstatic." or some such guff. Geologician 23:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you cannot follow the discussion & think it is similar to that kind of "guff", you are clearly in the wrong kitchen--JimWae 00:08, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Geo, Jim is correct that the argument you present above does not support your case. But why not edit this material into the main article - only not in the intro, which is not the place for extended argument? Furthermore, if another editor on the Wiki says it is controversial, then by definition, it iscontroversial. that's the way the Wiki works - if you don;t like it, go publish someplace else. Banno 00:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Gale's interpretation of Aristotle's hypothesis of time is controversial? If that went in the introduction, it would cover my opinion perfectly. If it is controversial can someone please explain why? Returning to Jim's point that I've shifted Aristotle's Greek words at will to a restricted sense to support Gale's position: As I stated above "(The Greek word change was translated into Latin as motion.) This 'motion' eventually became restricted to what Aristotle called ‘locomotion’—change of place with respect to time—recognized by him as somehow logically prior to other kinds of change, or always involved in or implied by it."

I did not interpret Aristotle's text, that is how the Greek has been translated by scholars down through the ages. If Jim has a problem with it then perhaps he can explain why? Geologician 11:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this even relevant? Are you saying Gale's interpretation is the only acceptable one? You could make your view NPOV by saying that "Gale says that Aristotle says that our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved". Do you think we should place that in the introduction? Is it even true? I think not. Banno 11:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a clumsy way of expressing an interesting concept. On reflection, I think a slightly modified version of Gale's interpretation is capable of standing on its own as a third alternative in the intro, with explanatory links to the words I have put in brackets: " Another view is that whilst motion is a fundamental attribute of a matter, time in turn is merely an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion. An observation of motion (in the form of a vibration) is potentially capable of measuring time when it is conducted by some intelligent being. Thus time is not a concrete entity that is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of the changes that matter can undergo. Time has being only as an attribute of an attribute of matter." Geologician 16:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Let's look at a simpler formulation

  "Another view is that time is merely an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion (conducted by some intelligent being). In this view, time is not a concrete entity that is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of motion."

• If you follow the attribute link, it takes you to abstraction. How is this formulation not a subset of the conceptualist position, but restricted to motion & excluding sequence & comparisons of duration? If it is a separate abstraction, how is time of motion a different abstraction from time of sequence & time of duration? It seems you are becoming a conceptualist, no? --JimWae 17:20, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• you will, of course, object to where I put "conducted by some intelligent being" but I must ask what do measurement & number mean apart from our conceptions of them? I also ask what it means to "have reality". If you choose to take the tack that the "time is the number & measure of motion" is clear enough to stand on its own (I'd disagree), then how do you distinguish "your" view from the realist - and how is the abstraction "time of motion" different from the description it gives? --JimWae 18:06, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• and you still need to give some authoritative source for this view - and restricting Aristotle to "motion" rather than "change" will not suffice--JimWae 18:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• I am happy to see that we are approaching a constructive compromise on this matter, Jim. I am still rather concerned that by omitting the reference to matter, the concept becomes a bit too abstract. Motion needs matter to move. Can we work this into your proposed formulation? (perhaps by ending it with "and motion has no reality without matter." Then in your following paragraph you could add: "and matter" after space.

• I still prefer to regard my position on this as realist rather than conceptualist, following Leibniz, who wrote:

"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles). This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. ... I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is a fact in nature. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)" I regard this definition as confirmed by a posteriori observations, thus consistent with my experience of nature. Geologician 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think you have misunderstood - I proposed the simpler formulation to show it was not truly different from the existing ones - & because of its ambivalence on the role of intelligent beings could be taken as either existing formulation. I made it simpler mostly by discarding the parts about matter as that would need much more support than you have given them.--JimWae 18:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• how will you deal with Wikipedia:No original research policy - Leibnitz is pretty firmly a conceptualist - and you have not presented anything on his views of time - just on space--JimWae 18:41, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• I shall accept your suggestion that "time is the number & measure of motion" is not clear enough to stand on its own. I suggest the paraphrase instead:

" Another view is that whilst motion is a fundamental attribute of a matter, time is merely a subsidiary attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but as an attribute of the oscillating motion of matter, time can be measured by an intelligent being. In this view, time is not a concrete entity, capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of motion, and motion has no concrete reality independent of matter."

• Time as a subsidiary attribute of motion is a different concept from time of sequence & time of duration because it is linked firmly to the concrete idea of matter. This is because duration, interval and events such as sunrise and the bang of a starter gun have different meanings as time benchmarks for different observers. However careful observers can generally agree on which tick of the clock coincides with the hour bell.
• I regard these observations as self-evident common sense, not original research, and am seeking no accolades. I have quoted Leibniz several times previously but at the risk of overkill, here we go again. "For example, Leibniz' 5th letter, para 62: "I don't say that matter and space are the same thing. I only say, there is no space, where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality. Space and matter differ, as time and motion. However, these things, though different, are inseparable." Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)" Any reasonable reader would interpret this to mean that he refers to each pair individually then applies his conclusion to both sets of pairs, both individually and collectively. Thus time and motion are inseparable.
• You keep referring to the Conceptualist position, although Wiki doesn't seem to cover this matter. Apparently it just means that meanings are elements of the cognitive structure in the heads of the language users, although I expect you will be filling that vacant definition more adequately in the course of time.

For me a concept dealing with the real world has no concrete significance unless it can be substantiated with material evidence. Thus I remain a realist rather than a conceptualist. Geologician 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• the central point of your proposed text is "time is an attribute of motion" - that is not much of a definition - red is an attribute of human blood - red is also an attribute of many other things. Nothing precludes time from being an attribute of other "things" besides motion--JimWae 03:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• that is too thin a quote from Leibniz on time to count as an authoritative source. He is discussing space & mentions time in quick passing. Perhaps he discusses time elsewhere also? If you could find a place where Leibniz says he is defining time, not discussing it in general & it were discussed by other scholars, it could possibly be included somewhere. But my first point would still apply - giving one thing that time (or anything) is an attribute of falls short of definition. Even if he clearly says "time is not an attribute of anything else but motion", time would not be the only attribute of motion & so is incomplete as a definition. --JimWae 03:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• there are no perfect squares - yet we think & talk about them quite well - there's a concept without a referent "in the material world"--JimWae 03:43, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• The latter is what practical people would call "an Airy-Fairy Argument". Geologician 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of time

Time is the product of the motion of matter through space.

If a ship (matter) is moving across a smooth ocean (space) its wake represents time. (Completely 'out of the box' thinking). Geologician 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are good reasons why both of these statements are 'out of the box.' Neither have any meaning, and neither correspond to reality. Time is certainly not the "product of the motion of matter though space". The concept of motion would be meaningless without time. I don't think there is a quick one-liner that says what time is, especially since each person has their own individual view of what time actually is. IMHO, time is a fundamental property of the space in which we live. We perceive time moving in one direction, even though all individual objects (elementary particles, etc.) move simultaneously forward and backward through time. From a perspective outside of time, if one exists, everything has already happened, but we only experience the tiny interval that we're alive. Of course, from a perspective outside of time, the concept of "has already" and "happened" are meaningless. Maybe I shouldn't digress...

The ship moving through the ocean of space with time as its wake is utter nonsense. I hope it was meant as a joke. There have been no experiments performed which give any reason whatsoever to believe such a thing. Thinking 'out of the box' like that may be an interesting mental exercise, but there is virtually no chance that it will provide a meaningful description of reality. --D. Estenson II 15:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay; whilst I am trying a Conceptualist hat on; lets try a slightly different analogy:

"Moving matter consumes distance and excretes time."

"Moving matter transforms distance into time."

Funny enough yet? Geologician 19:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Chronos Devours His Children

Comment: The discussions on this page are really enlightening (and humorous) because we are such "temporal" creatures. The process of arriving at a definition of "time" for us is quite challenging, like fish defining water, or an initiate trying to decode a zen koan (the sound of one hand clapping). The description of time is like those collection of boxes where each box fits into another. Some observations....

• 1) There is a tribe in Africa whose language has only the present tense. I don't remember the tribe's name, but that is not the point. It raises the issue of time as a social construct that may not have an existence (time, that is) independent of measuring it.
• 2) A most basic definition is that "Time is a duration" (or lack thereof, "no time") and "timekeeping" is the various methods of measuring durations.
• 3) Time is incremental fragments of eternity.
• 4) It was A. Einstein who wove "elastic time" into the fabric (spandex?) of "elastic space". To Isaac Newton time was simply any fixed "duration". Einstein had to embed time into space (space/time) to get his light speed as a constant to work.
• 5) Our time keeping methods are based upon two circles (cycles): a) Earth's rotation on her axis and b) Earth's solar orbit. (minutes and seconds {base 60} are the basis for both geometry (degrees) and our time measuring methods. Time is "geometry in motion". However, motion is not required because we could measure the duration of "no motion". The MEASUREMENT of time is dependent upon motion/movement/and-or events, even if the "event" is the duration of no motion between two events (or one event and no subsequent event other than observing that there is no subsequent event).
• 6) So, if nothing happens does time stop? S. Hawking has stated that time stops in a black hole, because nothing happens inside of one.
• 7) A. Einstein also said that time is a one way street.... it goes forward only (like velocity).
• 8) Is time intimately linked to consciousness (awareness of events)? I do not think so, babies are aware of events but not "time".
• 9) The real issue is (opinion) "Does time exist independent of the measurement of durations"? Have we allowed the measurement to become the thing itself?
• 10) Do our measurements of time have any validity in the deeper regions of outer space considering that our "time" is based upon Earth's movement? (again, seconds and minutes - degrees of arc and temporal increments).
• 11) Is it possible for us to "think" outside of temporal constructs? I believe so, but not easily, at first.
• 12) We can have 8,765,813 hours, or (equivalent) 1000 years or (equivalent) 1 millennium. These three units of time are measuring the same duration.
• 13) I do, however agree with the notion that (in the very least), two events of some sort must "bracket" any measured increment of time. Even if the only "event" is observation(s) without movement.
• 14) (contra to #13) What happens to time when events are simultaneous? Did time stop? i.e. "they happened at the same time". Is the phrase "same time" a unit of measurement or a context for understanding?

So... at its essence, "Time" does not even require a duration because there is: simultaneous and instantaneous. My conclusion is that time is a hypothetical construct used to measure durations. Time has no existence independent of the observer's mindset (birth of relative time - where time goes slower when you are with your relatives), as such, time as we know it is exclusively a unit of measurement and not a thing unto itself. (With all due apologies to Albert Einstein). John Charles Webb July 22nd 2005 @ 20 crumbs past the crust.

intro

The first definition explains time is a fundamental property of the universe, and uses mathematical entities to describe it, therefore it is not improper to say it is part of a "mathematical structure."

The second definition explains time as a concept resulting from our observations, which can also be described mathematically, but seems to avoid mentioning the subject.

A third definition should be written to include the philisophical meanings of time which are independent of the universe but dependent only on our perceptions. Also a third definition should be given since the first sentence says "Time has a range of definitions." Two is hardly a range. --D. Estenson II 22:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• to say the first is mathematical is to exclude those who might say math is itself a construct, but time is somehow "built in" to the universe. Atoms may be construed as part of the structure of the universe - but to call them a mathematical structure is to take a limited view of them

To use the words structure, dimension, and sequence in a definition that doesn't include mathematics leaves the author's credibility highly suspect.

• the second view does NOT say it results from our observations - it also includes those who would say math is "hard-wired" into our brains

While the second view doesn't explicitly state the word observation, everything it refers to results from our observation. To think and talk objectively about the universe first requires observation. The sequencing of events begins with observation. The comparison of motions of objects requires observations of the objects' motions. But, you are right, definition two is more math oriented than the first. However, your argument that math is "hard-wired" into our brains has no relevance to the discussion.

• perhaps the first line should say 2 general opposing defintions - but that would say there were no more than 2, which could be construed as POV from editors
• how is your 3rd one not just a subset of the 2nd?--JimWae 22:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

If you had not deleted it so quickly, I would have spent a little more time explaining the third view as a philosophical construct of human experience rather than a fundamental feature of the universe or an abstract mathematical entity.

The three views of time, as I see them, then are: as a fundamental physical feature of the universe like space, as a mathematical construction used to analyze motion, and as a philosophical product of human perception.

Actually, there are many other views, many other concepts which time is used to describe. Certainly time is the most overused, least understood concept in the history of mankind. --D. Estenson II 09:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beware the 'actually' curse of Sunday's Doonesbury. Otherwise I fully agree with you, and it should not be the prerogative of an editor to delete a maiden contribution for at least 12 hours. (Unless at least three established editors flag it as dubious.) Geologician 11:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Contrasting - the exposition of the definition points out differences from 1st realist view
• part of - the other parts being number, space, and maybe more
• not a figment - it does not "go away" & concept is shared (are squares figments?)
• quit trying to denigrate view just because you do not like it - in fact I'd request you discuss proposed changes to that view here before editing it
• referring - I will consider whether it really needs to have time in quotes before that - the whole idea that every noun must have a referent is the view that leads to confusion & that conceptalists oppose
• --JimWae 09:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Funniest Philosophy Joke?

The Canadian Philosophical Association has held a joke contest. http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c96508d2-a227-49b8-b14b-24fd2fc5064d --JimWae 07:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

At a meeting where faculty heads are deluging a university head with big-ticket requests, such as a $100-million particle detector for the physicists, $50-million spectrometer for the chemistry profs:

"And so it went, until he got to the chairwoman of mathematics. To the president's relief, she said that all they needed was a pile of notepads, lots of pencils and a big waste bin. Next up was philosophy: 'We'll have the same as them. Except we won't need a waste bin.'"

Brevity is the soul of wit. There was an appropriate cartoon in a recent New Yorker (May 9) captioned "I'll start thinking outside the box when the box is empty." Geologician 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In the spirit of at least giving the department a filing cabinet, would you be willing to file some of the older and more lengthy threads in another archive page? You're a better judge of where to carve this debate up than I am. --Christopher Thomas 08:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every topic has a very recent entry - 32 kB is just a guideline - perhaps I can break a topic up, however (for future archiving purposes). At least the TOC is showing up now --JimWae 19:17, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Time for beginners

I guess the intensity of debate on this Talk Page demonstrates the deep importance of the subject. Thanks to all for the contributions but it is hard to find a way through the discussions and the top page (article?) gives little clue as to what is bubbling just below the surface. Is it possible, rather than simply deleting a page, to synthesise key issues and make them available? Something is going on here which is of considerable importance - but it is subtle and could easily get lost.Jeffrey Newman 05:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main questions described in the article, if I understand correctly, are:

• Is time a part of the the universe, or just a convenient way of looking at the universe, or just something that stems from the way our minds work?
• If time is a part of the universe, or a well-defined/measurable way of describing the universe, what are different approaches to defining and measuring it?
• If time is part of our perceptions or of our philosophy of the world, rather than part of the world, what are different ways of defining it and what are the philosophical consequences of each definition?
• How is the concept of time used in society, and how has it historically been treated?

The introduction covers the first point, the "time in physics" section covers the second point, the "philosophy of time" and "psychology" sections cover the third, and the remaining sections cover the fourth, if I'm skimming their contents correctly. I agree that making the article more concise would be a good idea, but that's probably best done after the introduction and philosophical sections have been hammered out (they seem to be undergoing revamping at the moment).--Christopher Thomas 05:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - succinct and helpful. I think I am asking to modify your first point from either/or to both/and. I think (but am not a scientist) that this is the implication of much 20th Century scientific work and that the effect and interaction between observer on observed - issues of consciousness for example - will only increase.

Another way of putting this is the need to highlight the links between the sections in the main article. They are not seperate or alternative approaches in such a dynamic field as the study of time.

[I am new to Wikipedia. Why are we both using our fullnames? What is the dis-advantage of doing so, I wonder?} --Jeffrey Newman 06:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one currently editing the article. Don't worry; the people who are will see this thread. Regarding names, Wikipedia seems to have more of a tradition of full names being screen names, as opposed to aliases, but there are still plenty of aliases around. I sign with it because it's what four "~" marks gives me :).--Christopher Thomas 06:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just found this in today's Guardian in UK. It might interest you? It's a serious article on an attempt by a top (maverick) Professor of Engineering at Imperial College to build a machine which will mirror conciousness. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1511931,00.html

I don't know what a 'screen name is' but presumably has nothing to do with being a Film Star?

--Jeffrey Newman 06:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He means "screen name" as in "the name that you read on your CRT screen or monitor when you are using your personal computer."Lestrade 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

yet another new intro

Well said, I think. even though I am as responsible as anyone for the structure of the intro, I've been concerned for a few days about how the article launches into a fairly deep discussion of realism and idealism - something that is not even dealt with well inthe relevant main articles. So the new intro is an attempt to undo some of the damage the discussion between myself and Jim has done, by relegating the philosophical debate in the main to the philosophy section. Once dealt with there, its relevance to science might be easier to elucidate.

So my new intro aims to do not more than list the main headings in the article, and sound a bit interesting. No doubt you will want to change it... Banno 09:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

spacetime

From my edit:

Newton believed time and space formed a container for events. Modern physics links time and space as features of spacetime. In relativity spacetime is as much a part of an object as are its mass and volume.

I'm OK with moving Newton back to Leibniz, but have changed the wording slightly.

I think the wording

Modern physics does not treat time and space as independent dimensions, but treats both as features of spacetime.

is ambiguous. Let's look at some typical equations, from Special relativity#The geometry of space-time:

$ds^{2}=dx_{1}^{2}+dx_{2}^{2}+dx_{3}^{2}$

becomes, in relativistics,

$ds^{2}=dx_{1}^{2}+dx_{2}^{2}+dx_{3}^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2}$

now mathematically speaking, each of :$x_{1}^{2},x_{2}^{2},x_{3}^{2},t^{2}$ are independent variables - so in this equation, the variables for space and time are independent - see Independence (mathematics).

So, in strict mathematical terms, the statement "Modern physics does not treat time and space as independent dimensions" is wrong, since they are represented independently in the equation. Bit, that position in time is as much a part of the position of an object as is its position in space - the fact bought out by the difference between the second and first equation - is of course vital. Hence my alternative wording, "Modern physics links time and space as features of spacetime".

• • in relativistic physics, neither space (distance) nor time are independent of velocity. I am thinking of a way to express this more clearly than "space & time are linked"

Be my guest Banno

• • the "except the physical definition" recently added is not only cumbersome, but time is not defined below (as it states) but rather said to be a quantity not definable in other terms--JimWae 17:15, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Yes,the phrase is wrong. The other material recently added to the physics section is also a bit dodgy. Banno 20:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

My concluding statement, "In relativity curved spacetime is as much a part of an object as are its mass and volume", was removed without comment - I think it true, and I think my view is supported by the articles in the encyclopedia. See General relativity; Stress-energy tensor. Banno 22:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• It's not just that space and time are linked, but that they are inseparable. We may consider (even calculate) them independently, but they are not independent. "Link" is a rather weak & vague a term, not doing justice to this inseparability.

I agree. But we need to be clear about what "independent" means, to avoid possible confusion. Within the equation, the variables are indeed independent. Banno 23:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Volume, of course, is "part of" space & hence of space-time. But is space-time a property of objects? Einsteinian relativity points out that mass can be looked at as a feature of an object and also as a "distortion" in the field around the object. I am not sure if he ever says space time is a "feature" or "property" of an object -- maybe he does point out that that is one way of looking at things tho. Still, "space-time as a property of objects" and "distortion in space-time as a property of objects" differ. (the "curved" was not in text I removed - and though better, makes ambiguous what is the "property" of the object - the curvature or "space-time" "itself". If there are 5 objects - is the same space between them a property of each object or is it a shared property. I think more needs to be done to claim that each object has space & time as one of its properties. Such would be a different class of property than mass or volume

--JimWae 23:02, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

That mass curves spacetime is fundamental to General relativity. see Einstein's field equation. To have mass is to curve spacetime. the word "property is indeed problematic. Perhaps you might be able to provide a better wording? Banno 23:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would use the term measurement rather then property. A measurement is more plural to me describing a perspective like spacetime. And properties singular.

I am confused as to how distance can change a persons aging rate, for example. If the person left the planet and then came back wouldn't he regain earths timetable. I never grasped that.

Part - attribute

Jim says "part" implies substance. What could that mean?

"Attribute", on the other hand, seems to imply separability. one cannot separate an object from its mass, its volume, or from the way it curves spacetime. Try "feature"? Banno 07:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Physics without time

Has anyone read the article about this? If someone has, could s/he please post a link here or to my talk page? I seem to have lost it. It was written by or about a scientist who had converted some equations in physics so that they didn't require time as a component. He also believes that time doesn't exist as an objective dimension - that it is merely a subjective perception of ours. While it seems to be useful it misguides us from the true physics and because of this erroneus concept the current equations don't fit the experimental results one to one. I don't know what is the experimental truth behind him or if his calculation/equations are plausible but the article was interesting. Khokkanen 20:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I found at least one of the articles; it is of sstyle but not the one I read earlier (months ago). Timeless is a general description of physics without time. Here's Julian Barbour's homepage. Khokkanen 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are some works of theirs from Spires: Brendan Foster, Julian Barbour and Niall O'Murchadha. Could someone who actually understands these matters look into it? The interesting ones (at least to my untrained eye) are RELATIVITY WITHOUT RELATIVITY and DYNAMICS OF PURE SHAPE, RELATIVITY AND THE PROBLEM OF TIME. I'd of course appreciate any insight and explanation about the other documents too. Khokkanen 20:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the the fortunecity.com article to get an idea of what this person is proposing. As far as I can tell, he takes an interesting, though not unknown, approach to representing the universe, and then discards some of the information in order to get a representation that doesn't require a concept of time.

The model being used represents every possible configuration of the universe as a point in "configuration space". This is a common technique (see hilbert space). However, the author takes pains to a) express configuration solely in terms of relative measurements between components of configuration space, and b) remove information about transitions _between_ states (which represent how the universe changes over time). The more conventional approach is to describe physics as a set of rules determining what the probability of each state is in the immediate future given a specific starting state.

Both conventional approaches and this model appear to define _subjective_ time as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy. The difference is that this model considers time as it relates to physics to be a similar illusion, as far as I can tell.

The problem (in the fortunecity.com article's description) seems to be that he doesn't explain why the universe seems to behave as if there _was_ time - i.e., why it is possible to set up relatively simple equations that describe state transitions corresponding to a path through configuration space that matches our perceptions of the universe changing over time. Another problem is that the idea of taking a snapshot of the universe's configuration at a specific instant isn't compatible with special or general relativity, as observers that are moving relative to each other will disagree on when different parts of the universe should be measured. Taking a snapshot means imposing a preferred/special frame of reference on the universe.

It's possible that these apparent problems are just the result of the simplified explanation given in the article I read. To really explore the issue you'd have to express some subset of physical laws in terms of the author's formulation and then prove that they were equivalent to the conventional version given some rigorous formulation of how (the illusion of) physics-time is derived from the probability distribution in configuration space. I don't see how this could be done, given the "preferred frame of reference" problem, but it's possible there's a way that I'm overlooking.

I hope this commentary is useful to you. --Christopher Thomas 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

December additions: R- theory

The new additions state there are 5 theories, yet describe TWO at the MOST. Wikipedia is not a portal to other sites - and this seems to have Wikipedia: No Original Research problems.--JimWae 01:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I found only one page (besides the recent additions to wikipedia) that discussed R-theory - Grupp's website. --JimWae 02:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The "R-theory" paragraph also needs to be edited for neutral tone, but that would be better done by someone who can do a proper literature search on how notable it is (philosophy is not my field). --Christopher Thomas 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've cut the R-theory of time stuff. It's something invented by a grad student named Jeffrey Grupp (his vanity bio was speed deleted a few days ago). The other guys, Ned Markosian, Ted Sider, Quentin Smith, and L. Nathan Oaklander, are probably established academics. Grupp has been busy promoting himself in various articles, at first anonymously and now under the name User:Atomist. I've put R-theory of time and abstract atomism on afd. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I think the "R-theory" bit was safe to cut. The debate today is between the A-theory (more colloquially called the "dynamic" theory of time) and the B-theory (the "static" theory of time). There are numerous versions within those two general categories, but really nobody in contemporary philosophy talks about McTaggart's C-series or a "C-theory" and we sure as shootin' don't talk about an "R-theory." In the interest of full disclosure, I got my Ph.D. in philosophy with a dissertation on contemporary philosophy of time and once was a student of Quentin Smith. I teach on the subject in some of my university classes. All the other authors mentioned are indeed established academics, though a **VERY** big name, D. H. Mellor, was left out for reasons that I do not fathom. I have no affiliations with this site, though, so you guys decide amongst yourselves what to do about it. -David Schenk

---

1/17/06 There are good reasons given here on this talk page for cutting the R-theory bit. In what I say here below, i am not advocating putting that information back on the site. But there are two things that seem worthy to mention:

1. Those who cut that section have apparenlty done so because they (mistakenly) maintain that I invented that philosphy of time. This is of course false, as the original R-theory piece on this article page said. Rather, I only invented the name of it ("R-theory"), which was merely to rename the Buddhist analytic philosophy of time (the use of the word 'analytic' here probably surprises many analytic philosopher in the West, who, I imagine, may often assume that there is no analytic philosophy of time in India), and it is a theory of time invented by Buddhist analytic thinkers that goes back perhaps further than most other thoeries of time. So to cut the theory because "Grupp invented it" and because "it is not original", as Wikipedia editors maintained, seems mistaken, as it is merely a summary of a theory of time that is thousands of years old. So, it seems that the phil. of time page, in its current state, is biased in that is puts emphasis on new and 'untried' theories of time (A-, B- theory, etc.) but not on at least one old one, which is the Buddhist theory (R-theory)--and an old one that, interestingly, stands up to quantum theory far better than the A-, B-, and AB-theories.

2. Regarding Schenk's comments, they are good points, and Schenk makes a good point that Western contemporary philosophers typically do not discuss the Buddhist theory of time (the R-theory). But this is, of course, merely what was originally stated in the very piece of the entry on the R-theory in the first place. The original piece on 'analytic philosophy of time' in this Wiki entry was not merely on Western philosophy's take on the issue, or on post-Einsteinian Western analytic philosophy of time, which is what the page now is. It is now in that form, and that is just fine; no complaints except for one: the analytic section of the article should clearly state that it is only about Western analytic and relativistic (non-quantum) theories of analytic philosophy of time, not on ALL analytic philosophy of time, period. Also, by cutting the R-theory the Wiki entry is now essentially maintaining that the only theories of time are Western theories which are, as stated, it is fair to say, somewhat new theories (been around about 100 years, so very new in 'philosophical time'). If Wikipedia is truly an 'account of all human knowledge', as it purports it is going to be, then to make a phil. of time page that cuts all non-Western analytic philosophy of time is, it seems, not an account of all human knowledge. Schenk may want to maintain that nobody really accepts the C-theory, rather than nobody talks about it, since virtually everyone in analytic phil. of time talks about McTag (even those in India, for example). (Schenk of course knows this, I just mention it as it seems a better way of putting this issue.) Also, not sure why it is relevant that Schenk talks about his qualifications as being a former student of Quentin. I am too, and before my two R-theory articles were published Quentin Smith read and approved of the entirety of each of them. This can of course be verified by consutling Smith himself. This of course contradicts Schenk's comment about the R-theory also. I hope Schenk knows that I mention these comments in a friendly manner, as constructive criticism (hopefully), as Schenk is a productive philosopher. -Jeffrey Grupp

---

Oohhhhh... Hi Jeff--this is David Schenk again. I had not known what the R-theory was, frankly, as the section was removed before I had a chance to see it. So is it your view that the classical Indian Buddhist philosophers developed a metaphysic of time that does not fit into any of the known categories used in contemporary analytic philosophy of time? Is that what inspired the name "R-theory"? If so, then perhaps the material could be included again but with some kind of disclaimer to the effect that this is not a theory in the contemporary debate but an older, distinct one from an older, distinct tradition. Certainly I agree with you about the Indian philosophers being genuine analytic philosophers before there even *was* analytic philosophy. I mean, the Nyaya-Vaisheshikas had the Gettier problem in epistemology and definite descriptions as a way of avoiding unreal objects in the philosophy of language almost one thousand years before they reached the West. If the Buddhists had some account of time that doesn't fit the contemporary categories, I guess I don't see where or how it could hurt to have a short paragraph that essentially informs readers of the fact. Well, anyway, those with the authority to do it will make their decisions, but I guess I no longer see a problem with it.

-David Schenk

Oh, P.S.: I mentioned my status as one of Quentin's former students specifically because the editors clearly were nervous about the reliability of the information they were getting. Certainly I agree, though, that the distinction between a graduate student and a PhD is, quite simply, merely a paper distinction. I was just trying to reassure the reviewers that I did in fact know what I was talking about and was giving an accurate report of where things tend to sit in contemporary philosophy of time; that's all.

-David13:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For reference, if you don't want to create an account, you can still datestamp your comments by putting five ~ marks (~~~~~) after them. Four ~ marks adds your username (or IP address) and the datestamp. I encourage you to create an account, as you seem to be interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and this will also help other users get ahold of you (by giving you your own "user talk" page). --Christopher Thomas 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2/19/2006 -- Hi David. Thanks for the note. Good thoughts, as I usually hear from you. I look forward to seeing you again soon. --Jeff

Tesseract

"adhering to defined finite bounds, all possibilities for this configuration are conceptually representable."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Presumably the tesseract is supposed to illustrate four-dimensional spacetime, but the example doesn't make sense in this context. I think a diagram of a world line with two spatial dimensions would be a better illustration here. Thoughts? Fredrik | tc 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some nice diagrams at the tesseract article, that address only the space geometry interpretation. We might be able to use something, copyright permitting, from the visions of M.C. Escher.

A tesseract can be a collection of space time portals making connections in same time, as in the Robert A. Heinlein short story "—And He Built a Crooked House—" but the connections could also theoretically connect different times, at least in Time travel in fiction, I not know about Time travel in science. User:AlMac|^(talk) 09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, treatments of "tesseracts" in fiction are almost wholly divorced from the actual hypercube object's properties. A reasonable analogy would be the way "lasers" were used in science fiction before the general population became familiar with how they worked (and how "radioactivity" was treated in science fiction and space opera in the early 20th century). In fiction, the term refers to some form of space distortion used for "extradimensional storage" or for travel across vast distances via a wormhole-like shortcut. While it's often related to the geometric object (tesseract or hypercube) in the prose, this relation isn't performed in any scientifically meaningful way (it's mainly used to get the reader thinking about higher dimensions and to invoke a sense of mystery by referencing an object the reader finds mysterious). The actual object is the 4-dimensional equivalent of a 3D cube or 2D square. Imagining it to exist with 4 spatial dimensions, it's a shape like any other. Imagining it to be embedded in spacetime with three of its dimensions corresponding to space and one to time, you get what appears to be an object that changes with time (a 3D movie of the hypercube's cross-sections, akin to the cross-sections you'd get dipping a cube through the surface of a body of water). Imagining it to be a graph of edges and vertices gives you a network that has some interesting properties, but that is no more or less interesting or noteworthy than many other such networks. The relation of hypercubes to time travel or travel through space seems to purely stem from fiction literature. --Christopher Thomas 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of time

(moved from the article)

What do you think of this definition?

Time is the interval between one occurance and the following occurance.

(forgive me for my bad english, you might put it better than me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.150.129 (talk • contribs) on 23:14, 11 January 2006

This definition itself presupposes knowledge of time. An interval is a time between two instants of succession. So, your sentence would read: "Time is an interval of time between one occurrence and the following occurrence." This presupposes what it is trying to prove. Kant and Schopenhauer asserted that time is subjective, not objective. That is, it is an activity that occurs in a brain. It is not an object that exists outside of the brain. To prove this, try to understand time without supposing a brain which is measuring or experiencing succession. This cannot be done. In other words, a brain necessarily experiences inner or outer succession, one thing after another. This is time.Lestrade 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

While I believe that time is not something which one can actually define as a real object or entity/dimension but simply is existence itself and need no further examination, what you said "try to understand time without supposing a brain which is measuring or experiencing succession. This cannot be done. In other words, a brain necessarily experiences inner or outer succession, one thing after another. This is time" But using this logic would assume that nothing is really an object, you could not be witness to anything in existence without the assistance of the brain. 71.112.224.112 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

True, nothing appears to an observer, in the way that it appears, without an observer. The way that the observer's mind is organized determines the way that the world appears. See Berkeley, Kant, and Schopenhauer. What an object is in itself, that is, other than as being an appearance, is different than the object as it is witnessed.Lestrade 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

"The meaning of time"

Recently, a section called "The meaning of time" was added. I have concerns about this for several reasons:

• It breaks into its own section content that would probably be better off folded into "time in physics" and "measurement of time".
• It reads like it was copied from somewhere.

If anyone wants to sanity check and re-edit this, it's probably not a bad idea. --Christopher Thomas 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As the author I would like to mention that the page on time was removed completely. I have re instated it. As I think I understand the problem which Christopher Thomas has with my article so I must reply.

• 1 This article is all my own work not copied, but stems from a reappraisal of Einstein's book 'The meaning of relativity'.
• 2 As this understanding is new it is bound to be seem odd to those who have accepted the existing situation.

If you care to bear with me for a moment I will mention how odd the accepted understanding is. While I agree with what is known as the Lorentz Transform I do not agree with its accepted sign so for me $s^{2}=(ct)^{2}-x^{2}-y^{2}-z^{2}$ is true. The accepted sign convention violates the Pythagoras theorem. I will write an article making this point if I can be sure that this article on Time is not going to be deleted for no reason. The term (ct)^2 is written as 't' alone if the speed of light is taken to be unity so the equation is thought of as relating to space and time and the equation is said to refer to an impossible quantity called 'space-time' But 'space-time' as such can not exist because space and time have different units. No matter how it is written the term 'ct' must always refer to a distance through space.

• 3 I also have an article called The fourth dimension of the Universe which recognises all four dimensions as being the same, but differentiates the fourth dimension as the direction through four dimensional space that a surface is travelling at the speed of light. While the previous sentence might sound odd it inevitably follows from the fact that s=ct if $x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}=0$ which is true if the events occur at the same place with respect to the observer.
• 4 These two articles are part of a series in which I will develop what I hope will become the accepted view of the Universe and how it works.

FVP 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like original research asserting there is absolute motion and absolute distance. --JimWae 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A definition of time

Time is a by-product of matter. It is not an entity of itself. It only exists, and can only be measured because matter changes.

What do you think?

Ron

There are 2 opposing views - one that "time" refers to something - some sort of container or framework or something that "flows" or that things "happen in". The other view is that time is a way to measure events (motion, duration, etc) -- and does not have a "nature". Another way to frame this is to ask, "Can time itself be measured, or is time part of the measurement system?" I am thinking we need to put the basis of the controversy back in the intro - if only to explain WHY there is no definition given -- & prevent people inserting "definitions" that do not respect the controversy. --JimWae 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Time Distortion

More information should be provided on the distortion of time through gravity and acceleration, such as the influence of gravitational fields on clocks and electromagnetic waves in relation to time, as well as the slower decay of particles both when accelerating closer to the speed of light, most of which can be found in the theory of relativity.

It is obvious that Kant wasted his time when he wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. If, in 2006, people still think that time is an object that can be distorted, instead of being the mind's way of perceiving succession, then humanity deserves its puzzles, paradoxes, and occult imaginings.Lestrade 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, I suggest you go and study special relativity or at least read a wikipedia article on time dilation if someone has actually written such an article. The person who wrote the above comment is correct in suggesting that objective measurements of time can be different if one clock is accelerating relative to the other clock or is in a different gravitational field. Many experiments have confirmed this. Time may well be the minds way of percieving succession, but most people also consider that it can be measured by clocks. Mostly Zen 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Difference in Time

What is the difference in time during the existance of the universe as we know it today and since the Big Bang and anytime prior to the Big Bang? -- PCE 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have thought of this too. There are two ways to think about this: if times are points or are not points. (1) Points. I think there is no difference if times are points, since the cardinality (amount) of each would be the same: infinite (specifically: aleph-1). (This is an idea I get from Quentin Smith talk and write eabout.) I don't know about other differences other than that. (2) Democritean time atoms (if you will). But if times are nmot points, but are Chronons or Planck lengths or something, then there are finite times since the start of the universe, and of course the amounts are very different for any different lengths of duration. Atomist 01:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Atomist

But do points exist in a singularity? I think not so on the basis of points (be they aleph-0 or aleph-1) I say time would be different prior to the Big Bang than after. As for Democritean time atoms, i.e. time which is indivisible I would expect that a single time atom could exist before the Big Bang but many more than one afterwards (although not divisible perhaps multiple) but I will not speculate as to their size or number. Rephrasing my question then let me ask if the single Democritean time atom that would exist prior to the Big Bang be timeless, i.e. unchanging? The answer I come up with is "yes" because there is only one and it is not divisible. What about after the Big Bang? Perhaps if "new" Demo time atoms are being constantly created then individually they would remain unchanged so to that degree they would be the same (not considering the possibility of a difference in size from a pre-BB Demo time atom) So to answer my own question based on these ideas I would say that there is a difference and this difference is the absence of the passage of time prior to the BB but the passage of time after the BB due to replication(?) of the Demo time atoms. Please don't quote me on this though. I still feel that I have not achieved the best or even a satisfactory (much less suitable) answer. -- PCE 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is time?

It is an invention by humans to better organize our lives. Before the atomic clock, people would say "we shall meet at the river at the new moon," etc. Then there were astronomers, who realized that the sun rises/sets on 365 occassions in one rotation around the sun (in most places) - the basis for a year. After many of these years, scientists eventually came to the conclusion that one second is equivalent to 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133caesium (Cs) atom. Outside of the rotation of the earth, movement of the stars, etc, and of course, biological aging (of cells, thus we age, etc, etc), time does not exist. The day is moderated by the rotation of the earth, year is based on rotation of the sun, and the second is based on 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133caesium (Cs) atom (obviously, human observations.) We age because cells grow and die(and so forth). Without factors like death and changing of the seasons/night&day, what is time? Unfortunately, the factors mentioned above do exist, and we have time ;). --Jay(Reply) 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Time & Big Bang

Was there time before the Big Bang? This is equivalent to asking: Is there a human observer whose mind can experience successive changes in objects that existed before the Big Bang? It's too bad that Kant and Schopenhauer wasted their efforts. People today are too lazy and/or too illiterate to read them and try to understand their claim that time is merely the possibility of an observing subject's experience of succession.Lestrade 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Beating a Dead Cow

From everything I've read it seems as though measuring time is just like everything else we measure.... For instance we measure time with a clock, distance with a ruler, neutrinos with a chlorine detector, etc.--so just because we are unable to see time and visually measure it, doesn't mean it is all in our head. We measure time just like we measure everything else in the universe (the best way we know how)until something better comes along. To deny the existence of time is to deny that space doesn't exist simply because we are analyzing our perception of space rather than by some direct means. If time were just in our head why are there time distortions?

Rewrite

I've just done a considerable rearrange of the article, along with a fair bit of rewriting. The article as it was did not cover much of the interpretations of time, and hardly any of the 'every-day' time (what happened to time zones, or even definitions of the calendar, outside the see also section?). The goal I'm aiming for is a page which gives a summary of the different views and measurements of time, with links to more in-depth articles on each subject. I'll continue the rewrite over the next couple of days. Mike Peel 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The list of measurement units & of [past, present, future] is a pretty boring way to begin such a rich topic. There is no depth of content in either. While it is difficult to avoid presenting a definition, the way that one is given is as if there were no disagreements or problems with it. --JimWae 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the change I've just made (removing the definition section, and merging its content into the Measurement and Interpretations section) satisfies this concern. Mike Peel 07:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Contribution by 68.36.42.110

The following text was added to the article by 68.36.42.110 (talk · contribs). I've moved it to the talk page, as it needs heavy editing for tone before being merged. --Christopher Thomas 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Concept Theory

A more conceptual theory is: Time equals change. Without change the flowing duration which we know as time has ceased to exist, however this doesn't mean inanimate objects stop existing just that nothing is growing, nothing is moving at all. Imagine an complete and dark abyss(like before "time" and the formation of the world), now time does not exist in the abyss simply because there is absolutely no movement, however, the abyss does exist because if it didn't then it wouldn't be an abyss, it would be nothing. This is basically what every other theory says just a more down to earth way of writing it.

Is this actually a proper theory of time, or just something the anon has made up? I've done a quick google search, and came up with nothing. Mike Peel 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. -- Karada 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kept archived as OR, then. --Christopher Thomas 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

'Imaginary time'

I'm unsure about the change of the 'Imaginary time' section to 'Philosophical views of time'. Although I admit that 'imaginary' is probably not the best word to use, I'm sure that not all philosophers have postulated that time is something that is imagined, and is not something fundamental, which is what that section is geared towards discussing. Other views of time by philosophers would go into other sections, depending on what their views were (e.g. if you have a philosopher who believes that time is quantized, like a movie, then it would go into the 'quantized time' section). Mike Peel 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What is time

When a user comes to this page, is it because he/she wants a deep philosphical debate about the nature of time, or because they just want to check their watch? How about adding the following line to the beginning of the article:

The time now is 11:37 UC

possibly with a link to somewhere showing different time zones.

--Tivedshambo (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is an encyclopedia, not a clock, I'm pretty sure they _are_ looking for a "deep philosophical debate about the nature of time". --Christopher Thomas 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that no-one wants the encyclpedic version. But I was looking for a page to tell me the actual time in other countries, and I didn't find one. Not in WP anyway. I just thought it would be a "nice to have" addition to the page.--Tivedshambo (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Time zone should give you conversion information, but a utility of the kind you describe seems out-of-scope for Wikipedia. I'm sure there are a few online versions, though (probably a few linked from time zone). --Christopher Thomas 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are definitions of time controversial?

Some time ago, I noticed that the article alluded to "definitions", without providing one, so I provided the one from The American Heritage Dictionary, which is "a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession." Someone then moved down into the body of the article, and put a citation tag on it (I neglected to mention the source). But why can't it be in the Intro? Why does it say that definitions are "controversial? What I found in the Intro in its place was this poorly-written, unencyclopedic passage:

Time can be the time on a clock, as in "the meeting starts at 12:45", or the length of an interval, as in "the meeting lasted 3 hours", or a sum of lengths of intervals, as in "I spent 20 hours on this project". In the latter case time is often seen as a commodity ("I have little time.")

I'm sorry, no offense to the contributor who added that, but that's a poor choice to lead off an article about time. Shouldn't the lead-off state what time is, rather than a vague, decontexualized pondering about what it "can be"? It reads like the definition a grade schooler would give. Any thoughts? Why is it controversial? Why should the Intro not have the dictionary definition? I'd like your input.  :-) Nightscream 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly it's because there are many ways of looking at time from a philosophical point of view, and the article mainly discusses these. A definition of "time" as used in physics would be shorter, but it'd still need a surprisingly long definition to avoid loopholes. --Christopher Thomas 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But why does the article mainly discuss philosophical viewpoints? Shouldn't it present time as the scientific phenomena? And what loopholes would there be if we merely provided the defintions given by dictionaries? Nightscream 19:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries are targetted at non-scientists. Thus, they make approximations that result in a non-rigorous definition if you're looking for the scientific one. Similarly, an exhaustive list of the ways philosophers have looked at time is beyond the scope of a dictionary entry - but not of an encyclopedia entry. The reason the philosophical views are emphasized in this article is twofold. First, there are more such views (there are only about three mainstream scientific views that I know of, though at least one fringe view got mentioned). Second, the main people editing have been philosophers. I'm not saying the article couldn't stand cleanup. On the contrary, I think that it should be condensed and sanity-checked (especially after User:Geologician's recent editing spree). I just don't see a problem with presenting a more extensive list of definitions than you'd find in a dictionary. Check some of the older threads to see the debates that went into producing this list. --Christopher Thomas 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

This article seems like it's contradicting itself in the beginning when it states the fundamental aspect of time defining it as ...These are quantities which can not be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental than what is presently known.... Subsequently the SI definition of Time is explained relating it to pure physical characteristics of the atom caesium. This links Time to a series of physical quantites/laws including caesium itself and consequently to an endless number of physical laws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.178.220 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 July, 2006 (UTC).

Circular definition removed

I removed the new lead sentence:

Time is known as measure of movement or measure of changes.

since movement is the change of position with time and we have clarified nothing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's Simple Definition

Schopenhauer gave a very precise and uncomplicated definition of time. Of course, it is probably incomprehensible to most people. He said that time is the organization of the brain that allows it to experience succession.Lestrade 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

So "no brains" ==> "no time"? I don't think so. The article has it right -- no easy definition is adequate, although Schopenhauer's "Simple" Definition should appear somewhere. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can conceive of time in any fashion, you will also have to conceive of a brain that experiences it. Even if you can imagine time occurring before the appearance of any animals on this planet, the very picture in your mind of such a time depends on the organization of your mind.Lestrade 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The laws of physics do not require us to be aware of them in order to function. Our _concept_ of time requires a brain in order to exist, but the phenomenon we're trying to use that concept to describe certainly doesn't. --Christopher Thomas 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Thomas, you are saying that a phenomenon can exist without a brain in which it appears as a phenomenon? That would be a non-phenomenal phenomenon. Time, though, is not a phenomenon. Time is the possibility of an animal brain's experience of the succession of phenomena.Lestrade 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes. That's pretty much the core assumption behind all of physics (that an objective universe exists, independently of our subjective perceptions of it). --Christopher Thomas

As Einstein said, the way that objects are known to exist is relative to an observing subject. We don't know what things are in themselves, that is, other than as objects for a subject. Time is the way that an observer experiences the succession of perceived objects. When physicists start thinking that objects exist, in the manner that they present themselves to our minds, without reference to an observing subject, then they are left with paradoxes.Lestrade 14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

We are still arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin before we even define what an angel or a pin is. Please consider the introductory definition that I supply below, or something like it, for the introduction of the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Current intro not very useful

While I agree that time is a controversial concept to define thoroughly and properly, the introduction to this article should provide at least a basic statement of what it appears to be from an "ordinary" person's point of view. We must start with a basic statement before we discuss just why such a statement is insufficient. I see no reason that we can't say something like:

The basic concept of time is the flow of actions and events, normally observed to be in a single "forward" direction from past to future, or the measurement of this flow. This "common sense" understanding, however, is based on many assumptions from human experience that have been subjected to intense scrutiny by scholars and artists, making a precise definition quite controversial.

Starting by calling it a "major subject", asking whether it is measurable or the measurement itself, and going on about its cultural impact, fails to serve the basic purpose of an introduction to a topic, however limited it must be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "flow," shouldn't you say "perceived succession"? "Flow" is a metaphor. By introducing metaphors into this topic, you will make it more difficult to define.Lestrade 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I think we've already established on this discussion page that precision cannot be achieved without considerable explanation, much of which is controversial. I am talking about a 1-2 sentence introduction that everyone will recognize as a common concept of "time" to start with, with the details of why it must be clarified left to the portion of the article that can accomodate that level of detail. "Time" is something that any understands intuitively, despite the fact that such intuition turns out to be massively incomplete. The introduction should provide the initial description in those terms, and also point out that this common concept is woefully inadequate, without going into scientific, philosophical, and/or metaphysical detail in a Wikipedia:Lead section. There should not be any more than a summary of the questions raised by the basic, flawed "common sense" definition in this section. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is: which of the several "definitions" is neutral enough to start with. Though I have my preference, from past experience on this article, I do not think any will pass without objection --JimWae 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that those of us with sophisticated definitions just have to get over ourselves, for the sake of a terse, clear introduction. I'll repeat what I've said, and which was at least part of the reason this article failed Featured status — there is no rational reason not to start the article with a common conception of time that a child can understand, with a caveat that such a description has many simplifications and hidden assumptions that the article will address in following sections. To quote, appropriately, the lead section of Wikipedia:Lead section:

The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview, or executive summary, of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. [emphasis mine - Jeff Q]

With all due respect to the editors who wish to cram the universe of possibilities and controversy into the introduction, the current lead section serves not one of these purposes. (Its only saving grace is that it is, indeed, no more than 4 paragraphs.) Wikipedia probably holds the embarrassing distinction of being the only general-purpose encyclopedia with an entry on "time" that doesn't even provide any description in the first paragraph. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Time is part of a conceptual framework within which we sequence events, and quantify their duration and the intervals between them --JimWae 07:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

JimWae's Conceptual Framework

Time is not conceptual. It is a relationship of perceptions. The "framework" metaphor does not communicate any clear, sensible thought. Otherwise, the definition is very good in that it defines time as an activity within the mind of the subjective observer.Lestrade 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

If you can get that definition into even one general encyclopedia with a professional editorial board as an introduction, I'll take this statement seriously. Otherwise, it's pointless pontification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Others will object that it is part of the fabric of the universe rather than "subjective". We can sidestep saying what kind of framework it is part of with

  Time is part of framework within which we can sequence events, and quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them.

• and then discuss different ideas about the framework later. --JimWae 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Even worse than the "framework" metaphor is the "fabric" metaphor, which is a great favorite among physicists. To speak of the fabric of the universe is to use unintelligible words. But the thought that human observers sequence events and quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them is very good. It reflects the actions and operations of subjects . This is in opposition to the current popular notion that time is an external object that, in unison with space, can be warped and curved.Lestrade 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

These unsourced opinions are still too abstract to start with. It appears we will have to compile introductory statements from several existing general-purpose encyclopedias into a well-sourced, properly cited introduction in order to quash the effort to stuff the intro full of impenetrable philosophical discourse that, in trying to satisfy everyone, fails in its primary purpose. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• So framework seems to be a problem (though all it really says is that time is not the only "variable" within which we sequence & quantify events, that there are others [space, number]). We need a noun that does not say much - and dimension says too much
• This seems to be what Jeff Q has in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time&oldid=31031640 Though it presents 2 definitions in the lead, both are woefully inadequate - suggesting sequence only (but both avoid such a simple word, adding the flow POV) & neither mentions measurement
• This is NOT the only wikipedia article that avoids giving an early definition, but I will see if there is any source that presents it similarly to what I have - Kant is the closest I can recall.--JimWae 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• here's another http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time&oldid=15677206 - it can be made less specific, but still needs sources too --JimWae 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving Backward in Time

In the article section "Galaxies Observed Moving Backward in Time," it is stated that a galaxy is seen to be moving backward in time. You will notice that it is not asserted that the galaxy is moving backward in time. That is because the statement only describes the way that external objects (galaxies) are perceived from the point of view, or reference frame, of an observing subject. We can only talk about what has been given to our brains and eyes. That is, we can only say what is observed or is seen, not what simply is. The moving galaxies exist relative to an observer. How the galaxy is moving, apart from its appearance in the mind of an observing subject, is not known and has no existence for us. The time in which the galaxies appear to be moving backward is a relationship in the mind of the observing subject.Lestrade 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Proposal on Time

The current Wikipedia entry on the nature of time is extremely useful and thorough. That having been said, however, I believe there is still room for improvement. Toward that end I would like to offer some additional thoughts on the topic for the consideration of the authors and/or editors of that entry. A gist of my thinking on the topic can be found at http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time.

Although I have long been a "user" of Wikipedia, I have only registered with the site today and have never previously tried to contribute to the community effort. Hence, I have no idea about the best, most appropriate way to do so (please see below for update). If I have already wandered far off course, I hope that perhaps some helpful Wikipedia veteran will gently steer me onto the right path.

Added later:

Having now gone through the Wiki introductory/tutorial pages, which I had not done when the above lines were written, I have a somewhat better idea of the Wiki landscape, including its "no original research" rule. Nevertheless, I would welcome suggestions from Wiki veterans regarding my interest in contributing to the Wiki entry on Time.

Thank you.

JCNSmith

JCNSmith 12:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Measurement devices revision

I have just made a small, hopefully non-controversial substantive revision to the section on Measurement devices. Being very much a "newbie" to the Wiki environment, I hope I have not commited any irretrievable faux pas by doing so. If I have, I apologize in advance and trust that a veteran will gently instruct me on more appropriate etiquette. Thank you.

JCNSmith 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Your contribution looks just fine. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Sandstein 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)