Philosophy Now Forum

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

PhilX

I don't know of any way to measure time that doesn't involve counting physical events. It's a useful mathematical tool, but I see no reason to posit any such thing as 'time' that exists independently of things happening.

Time is a context in which things are arranged, when we say time is sequential we mean the contexts relate to one another by reference and that we can go put them in a sequential display for overview.

Time isn't necessarily sequential, and the contexts of time aren't necessarily related in the sequential manner we think. I believe time is a web of related contexts in which it is convenient to discard some contexts, not in the sense of "skipping" in a sequential manner, but some contexts aren't necessary in order to get at what is important to an individual. They are negligible.

The Voice of Time wrote:Time is a context in which things are arranged, when we say time is sequential we mean the contexts relate to one another by reference and that we can go put them in a sequential display for overview.

I think it's a lot simpler than that. Stuff happens and while it does, other stuff happens. The Earth goes round the sun, the Earth spins on its axis, pendulums swing and caesium atoms vibrate; compare any two, hey presto: time. Funnily enough it was Plato, of all people, who first argued that.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

PhilX

I guess that answer to that question would be change.

uwot wrote:Stuff happens and while it does, other stuff happens.

"While" first needs a definition of time, as while is a span of time not an instance of it.

Time doesn't do anything, since it doesn't exist in a material sense: there is no such "thing".
"Time" is simply the name humans give to the rate at which we 1. experience and 2. measure change.
1. is subjective time, which flies or drags, gallops or hangs heavy, depending on whether we're sixty or six, on vacation or in a walk-in clinic waiting room.
2. is objective time, a formally-established standard of measure, divided into units that can be applied to factory schedules, railway timetables and scientific experiments.

Nature doesn't need either kind; it just keeps happening at its own rate.

The Voice of Time wrote:"While" first needs a definition of time, as while is a span of time not an instance of it, what I call "context".

I think you might be claiming something like Kant, in that time is an a priori construct that is necessary to order our experiences. I have no argument with time being a 'context', in that sense, but like Kant and, from the look of it Skip, Ginkgo and perhaps you, I don't think it follows that there actually exists a substance; as Philosophy Explorer says: "What would we use to measure the movement of time?"
To be clearer, it is convenient to say things like: 'In the time that the Earth orbits the sun, it rotates 365 (and a bit) times.' In Ginkgo's terminology, things change, but as Skip says: "it just keeps happening at its own rate."

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

Troll?

Explorer, not troll. Why would you think "troll" - unless you just habitually think that?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

PhilX

Memory?

time is the consciousness of the change in the expression of energy in flux.got to be.

jackles wrote:time is the consciousness of the change in the expression of energy in flux.got to be.

Well, I think the word 'time' is an expression of the 'energy in flux' (which defines change rather well) that any English speaking 'consciousness' would use. Not sure that's what you mean though.

The Time (towards the history) obviously objectively exists. Indeed, there are significant manifestations of reality (force, induction...) that depends on the rate of the changes, i.e. on the comparison (difference / tense) of two different time states (snapshots) ...

On the other hand, the time (towards the future) is only just being built /raised /created /condensate /crystalized ...

At the end, the consciousness interacts with a thin Planck's layer of rising solidifying time of "now" ...

reckon time is consciousness with an energy event going on inside it.so consciousness would be indpendent of the energy in flux giving the observer effect to the mixing of event and consciousness as a brain in consciousness.ha is this why we then get the stationary observer effect when measuring the speed of light.?