Philosophy Now Forum

...a manifestation of process in which time grows space. Just mho on the matter which is also a manifestation of process.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:01 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 am What is time?

What it is which we measure with a clock.

Movement.

.

yes

....Does any of this proves time exists as such? ....

It may be that the notion of time itself is linked to certain categories of existence. Not all existence is temporal. The Pythagorean theorem is true and that is not an event that happened, happens, will happen, can cease to happen etc. It is outside of time.

The past too is, in a way, outside of time. It cannot be altered just added to.

But for things that are contingent, that could be or could not be, and for our existing, it is inherently temporal.

It seems that for time to exist it would have to exist within time which is sort of a loop. Better to say that for anything contingent to exist it must exist temporally, and that includes both regular and irregular existences, paused existences, cyclic existences, as well as nothing, here meaning a period of time where no contingent thing exists.

Time comes from the fact that to exist is a verb...something like that.

Our subjective notion of time is a contingent fact. If there were no contingent beings at all for a period of time then by hypothesis there would be only such a time.

Measuring time with a clock would be essentially providing a more convenient sequencing of our perception of the microstructure.....the thing supposedly measured by clocks, is a social construct, from which is derived time as a scientific concept...

The scientific definition of time and its instantiation in the various atomic clocks, observatories, and bearuas of standards is well established. It does not measure a social construct but defines a physical parameter that is used to define physical reality. For example, if the universe were to stop for a period of time the thing so measured would also stop and while by hypothesis there would be a duration, that duration would not be measurable in seconds as currently defined.

Clocks don't measure time. They tell time.

Unfortunately, I have to read mine.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:11 pm It seems to me you're merely making the trivial distinction between thinking and perceiving and dressing this trivia with words like real life and map. Merely confusing.

How else do you think you can know reality if not via direct perception?
The key to understanding is not ruminating but living life attentively, conscious of thought and perception - the more conscious you are the more obvious it gets that there really is no such thing as perception, that the perceiver, perceiving and the perceived are one and that the distinctions are made/thought up.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:11 pm And I'm on record for saying we don't know anything about the material world.

Agree - how could we? We never experience a "material world" - you could say that "thought is matter" as matter "exists" only after interpreting experience in an objective way.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:11 pm So, I still don't see what's your point.

Haha... not sure if there is a point. Maybe to see that outside the map there is nothing to talk about, nothing to name, no separation...?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 am What is time?

Time is a substance which allows change to happen. Time also allows that events occur in specific order.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 am What it is which we measure with a clock.

An interval of time.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:54 pm Time is a substance which allows change to happen. Time also allows that events occur in specific order.

Relationism does not make any sense to me either:

1. Imagine and empty piece of space and a clock next to it. It seems natural that time would flow for both rather than the clock.
2. Time appears to pass without change. Change appears to have no impact on the speed time is passing or the wrong impact - relativity - the faster things move, the slower time runs, suggesting change is not determining the rate time flows.
3. If time is change, then more change should result in time running faster. This does not happen, for example, a mechanical clock (lots of change) tells the same time as a digital watch (less change).
4. Time appears to have a start and having a start is a characteristic of a real thing.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:49 pm Time is sequential change.

How does that explain that it takes the same time for two people to grow up? Or for two ice-cubes to thaw?
EB

What you describe is duration not change over time

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 12:25 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:49 pm Time is sequential change.

How does that explain that it takes the same time for two people to grow up? Or for two ice-cubes to thaw?
EB

What you describe is duration not change over time

OK, so, If time is sequential change as you claim, and change is not duration as you claim, then time is not duration. Do you agree with that?!
And, of course, saying time is sequential change and change is change over time begs the question. Which is first? Time or change? Is time change or is change change over time?
EB

Speakpigeon wrote:

Which is first? Time or change? Is time change or is change change over time?

Time is one of the dimensions of change. Other dimensions of change are spatial dimensions. Time of an event relates to time of other event or events.

There is no absolute time, excepting eternity. There is no absolute space, excepting eternity. Space does not exist apart from relations between events. Time does not exist apart from relations between events.


Duration of an event relates to durations of other events. There is no absolute duration, excepting eternity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 12:16 pm Speakpigeon wrote:

Which is first? Time or change? Is time change or is change change over time?

Time is one of the dimensions of change. Other dimensions of change are spatial dimensions. Time of an event relates to time of other event or events.
There is no absolute time, excepting eternity. There is no absolute space, excepting eternity. Space does not exist apart from relations between events. Time does not exist apart from relations between events.
Duration of an event relates to durations of other events. There is no absolute duration, excepting eternity.

That doesn't explain why clocks stay broadly synchronised.
EB

Speakpigeon, clocks are synchronised because we agreed to synchronise them. We agreed on the criterion for synchronising clocks.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 12:16 pm Speakpigeon wrote:

Which is first? Time or change? Is time change or is change change over time?

Time is one of the dimensions of change. Other dimensions of change are spatial dimensions. Time of an event relates to time of other event or events.
There is no absolute time, excepting eternity. There is no absolute space, excepting eternity. Space does not exist apart from relations between events. Time does not exist apart from relations between events.
Duration of an event relates to durations of other events. There is no absolute duration, excepting eternity.

That doesn't explain why clocks stay broadly synchronised.
EB

This is my favorite topic: time.

Without time everything is locked in place. The universe would only be in one place. If the universe moves, where it was, it would still be there. Thus, without time, movement would require that objects would have to be in more than one position at no time. Time allows movement. It frees the universe from its frozen position and enables it to move. In effect time creates states.

Whatever else time is, initially time is a function. The time function creates ever advancing states.

But how can that be? How can there be a function that proceeds without time? The answer is most likely in gravity waves. Gravity is not a function of time so when the universe is frozen, gravity still exists and gravity waves provides the action required to produce time.

This is a theory but if this theory doesn't work then some other force muct be the explanation. Time cannot exist without a function to create it.

There is an absolute time because something is keeping the universe in sync. A chemical action, a speeding car, a clock ticking and any change in NY is in sync with the chemical actions, speeding cars, clocks ticking and any change in Hong Kong. How is that possible unless there is a function underlying NY, Hong Kong and the whole solar system? That function is relative time on Earth. But all relative times relate to one underlying time. If relative times are independent of each other, then they would not be calculable. They are calculable because they are all dependent on one absolute time.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 6:51 pm Time cannot exist without a function to create it.

Why not?!
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 7:25 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 6:51 pm Time cannot exist without a function to create it.

Why not?!
EB

Because it progresses.

JayJacobus wrote:

If relative times are independent of each other, then they would not be calculable. They are calculable because they are all dependent on one absolute time.

No . Timing depends upon an arbitrary mean time. There is no absolute time. The timing of any event is related to the timing of other events.