Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: Ok, lets say that you are looking at a clock and experience a motion. That motion has a specific rate because you compare it with your psychological motion. This means that your experience of clock's motion could be faster or slower depending on how your psychological motion is.

That's all fine (aside from the fact that we usually prefer something more apparently regular than psychological changes as a time gauge; usually we prefer things that are empirically observable as externals, where there are apparently regular motions to something). But what does it have to do with why we'd limit time to being a concept, and why we'd need to specify the word "relative" before "motion"--given that motion is necessarily something that obtains relatively?

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: What do you mean by 'exist' or "not exist"?

What does the word "time" refer to?

Exist: Have objective reality or being.

Time: A measure of relative motion between two object one of them is standard clock and another is subject of study.

Time is not identical to the measurement of something. It is the something we're measuring.

Time is a measurement - a measurement of change. In order to measure change, we need to use a objective measuring stick, so we look for cyclical, or consistent repetitive change, like the change in the position of the Earth around the sun, or the change of position of the minute hand on a clock.

Instead of saying time is what we are measuring, it would be more accurate to say change is what we are measuring, by using other consistently repetitive change. Time doesn't exist outside of our minds. Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Ok, lets say that you are looking at a clock and experience a motion. That motion has a specific rate because you compare it with your psychological motion. This means that your experience of clock's motion could be faster or slower depending on how your psychological motion is.

That's all fine (aside from the fact that we usually prefer something more apparently regular than psychological changes as a time gauge; usually we prefer things that are empirically observable as externals, where there are apparently regular motions to something). But what does it have to do with why we'd limit time to being a concept, and why we'd need to specify the word "relative" before "motion"--given that motion is necessarily something that obtains relatively?

Because we experience motion from a reference framework, either from our perspective (psychological perspective) or another (external as you stated). So what we measure is relative motion. Hence time is a concept if we can agree that what is real is relative motion.

Trajk Logik wrote:Instead of saying time is what we are measuring, it would be more accurate to say change is what we are measuring,

Once again (I've said it many times in this thread), I say that time is motion or (processual) change. So it is what we're measuring. It's not the measurement itself.

Time doesn't exist outside of our minds.

Why the hell would you say that? Of course it exists outside of our minds.

Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.

Time IS change.

Trajk Logik wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote:
Exist: Have objective reality or being.

Time: A measure of relative motion between two object one of them is standard clock and another is subject of study.

Time is not identical to the measurement of something. It is the something we're measuring.

Time is a measurement - a measurement of change. In order to measure change, we need to use a objective measuring stick, so we look for cyclical, or consistent repetitive change, like the change in the position of the Earth around the sun, or the change of position of the minute hand on a clock.

Instead of saying time is what we are measuring, it would be more accurate to say change is what we are measuring, by using other consistently repetitive change. Time doesn't exist outside of our minds. Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.

“Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.”

However, perception of change can subjectively vary. Many have internal clocks that correlate with an external timepiece for an accumulation of varied changes, and this would be confirmation that reality cognition is true.

However, anyone can experience the momentary literal change in perception of a timepiece in the following empirical manner. Look at the second hand of an analog clock. It will take a long time to move, and then the rate of repetition will seem to increase. Try it and see, spring-wound or quartz.

Though now that I think of it, to be honest I don’t recall witnessing the phenomenon with a free-flowing second hand. Only the jerky quartz measurers have been subjected to the empirical inquiry.

Terrapin Station wrote:Time IS change.

Saying that is like saying "Length is a pencil." You're confusing what you are measuring with the measurement.

Change is what is being measured, and we use time to measure it, just as some object has dimensions and we use length to measure it. The fact is that the measurement of change is arbitrary. We could use any planet's rotation, or revolution around the sun to measure some other change. We can measure a pencil in inches or centimeters. It seems to me that all measurements are arbitrary, which then informs me that measurements exist only in the mind that possesses goals.

Walker wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Time is not identical to the measurement of something. It is the something we're measuring.

Time is a measurement - a measurement of change. In order to measure change, we need to use a objective measuring stick, so we look for cyclical, or consistent repetitive change, like the change in the position of the Earth around the sun, or the change of position of the minute hand on a clock.

Instead of saying time is what we are measuring, it would be more accurate to say change is what we are measuring, by using other consistently repetitive change. Time doesn't exist outside of our minds. Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.

“Change does and change is what we are measuring, not time.”

However, perception of change can subjectively vary. Many have internal clocks that correlate with an external timepiece for an accumulation of varied changes, and this would be confirmation that reality cognition is true.

However, anyone can experience the momentary literal change in perception of a timepiece in the following empirical manner. Look at the second hand of an analog clock. It will take a long time to move, and then the rate of repetition will seem to increase. Try it and see, spring-wound or quartz.

Though now that I think of it, to be honest I don’t recall witnessing the phenomenon with a free-flowing second hand. Only the jerky quartz measurers have been subjected to the empirical inquiry.

Yes, our minds function at a certain temporal frequency that can fluctuate. The speed at which our brains process information can give rise to relative stability and instability of other processes. What I mean is that everything is a process including our own minds, and the speed at which we process information about the world can make other processes seem slow and stable, while others appear fast and fleeting. It is what makes creates the dichotomy of other things appearing larger and smaller than us, or faster and slower than us, etc. with us seemingly in the middle of it all.

Trajk Logik wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Time IS change.

Saying that is like saying "Length is a pencil." You're confusing what you are measuring with the measurement.

And indeed length is identical to the extension of matter (in this case in a particular orthogonal direction relative to width and depth).

Length isn't identical to the extension of just a pencil or to pencils-only, and it's not identical to other properties of a pencil. Likewise time isn't identical to changes just of a clock, and it's not identical to other properties of a clock, such as the fact that it's made of metal and/or plastic or whatever. But length is identical to the extension of matter, orthogonally defined as above (and space in general is identical to the extension and extensional relations of matter) , and time is identical to changes or motions of matter.

The only person who would be confused is you if you do not agree that time is motion/(processual) change.

Change is what is being measured

Which is saying the same thing as "time is what is being measured"

and we use time to measure it,

We measure one (set of) change(s) against another.

The fact is that the measurement of change is arbitrary. We could use any planet's rotation, or revolution around the sun to measure some other change. We can measure a pencil in inches or centimeters. It seems to me that all measurements are arbitrary, which then informs me that measurements exist only in the mind that possesses goals.

They're not arbitrary in the sense of random, but in the sense of personal whim, sure that's ultimately the case. And yes, indeed measurements as such, as comparisons, with the meaning entailed by comparisons attached, are subjective--a fortiori because meaning is always subjective. But that doesn't imply that what we're measuring isn't objective.

Does a meter exist ?

Or for those from the UK: does an inch exist or a foot (30 centimeters) ?

It is an abstraction, it has been abstracted, ab-stracted from something real and is being used to compare different real objects.

Instead of saying at a market:

May I have a cukember that is as long as our king´s foot without the toes ?

we use an abstracted piece of measurement, more precise.


It seems to me that time is also an ab-straction:
We observe that the sun goes up two times in succession and we use the time span between the two for comparing it to other time spans between other events that happen one after another.

Running around a mountain for example.

A runner can run ten times around a mountain before the sun gets up again.

Inches, meters, etc. definitely objectively exist. Extension in general does, and those are just terms for specific extensions. What doesn't exist is that inches, meters, are objectively preferred units of extension, or an objective decree that those particular sounds or text strings will be attached to particular extensions (and so denote particular concepts). But the extensions definitely objectively exist.

As always, it's important to not confuse concepts and what the concepts refer to; it's important to not confuse the intension with the extension, the sense with the reference, in other words. (Hopefully not to confuse anyone with the two different definitions of "extension" that I'm employing in this post. One is the same thing as "spatial range" more or less. The other is the idea of "what we're referring to" in the sense of "the stuff that we're pointing at.")

bahman wrote:We experience forms and motions. Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

Relativists should note that the concept of existence also requires the concept of objective reality.

In other words, only the material world exists.

Naturally existent material frequencies discovered by man are the absolute standard detected by an atomic clock and used measure the passage of time.

"Relative" doesn't imply anything about subjective vs. objective, by the way.

The subjective/objective distinction is about whether something only occurs in minds or not.

The relative/absolute distinction is about whether something is the same regardless of perspective, context or reference frame/reference point.

Walker wrote: Relativists should note that the concept of existence also requires the concept of objective reality.

In other words, only the material world exists.

That doesn't follow from anything you'd just said, by the way.

I agree that the world is physical (or "material"), but nevertheless, it doesn't follow from anything about relativism, objectivism/subjectivism, (the concept of) existence, etc.

Naturally existent material frequencies discovered by man are the absolute standard detected by an atomic clock and used measure the passage of time.

They're the standard, but there's nothing absolute about them.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote: Relativists should note that the concept of existence also requires the concept of objective reality.

In other words, only the material world exists.

That doesn't follow from anything you'd just said, by the way.

I agree that the world is physical (or "material"), but nevertheless, it doesn't follow from anything about relativism, objectivism/subjectivism, (the concept of) existence, etc.

Naturally existent material frequencies discovered by man are the absolute standard detected by an atomic clock and used measure the passage of time.

They're the standard, but there's nothing absolute about them.

Without supported reasoning and facts you’re only asserting notions, by the way.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Time IS change.

Saying that is like saying "Length is a pencil." You're confusing what you are measuring with the measurement.

And indeed length is identical to the extension of matter (in this case in a particular orthogonal direction relative to width and depth).

Length isn't identical to the extension of just a pencil or to pencils-only, and it's not identical to other properties of a pencil. Likewise time isn't identical to changes just of a clock, and it's not identical to other properties of a clock, such as the fact that it's made of metal and/or plastic or whatever. But length is identical to the extension of matter, orthogonally defined as above (and space in general is identical to the extension and extensional relations of matter) , and time is identical to changes or motions of matter.

The only person who would be confused is you if you do not agree that time is motion/(processual) change.

Change is what is being measured

Which is saying the same thing as "time is what is being measured"

and we use time to measure it,

We measure one (set of) change(s) against another.

The fact is that the measurement of change is arbitrary. We could use any planet's rotation, or revolution around the sun to measure some other change. We can measure a pencil in inches or centimeters. It seems to me that all measurements are arbitrary, which then informs me that measurements exist only in the mind that possesses goals.

They're not arbitrary in the sense of random, but in the sense of personal whim, sure that's ultimately the case. And yes, indeed measurements as such, as comparisons, with the meaning entailed by comparisons attached, are subjective--a fortiori because meaning is always subjective. But that doesn't imply that what we're measuring isn't objective.

All you are doing is conflating length (the extension of matter) with length (the measurement), and change (a process) with time (a measurement). Measurements only exist in minds because minds possess goals. Change and the extension of space existed prior to human beings and their goals. Measurements, like time and length only came about after humans, and only exist within their minds for achieving some goal.