[modest]

Originally Posted by coberst

Modest

I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree.

Not sure we have to.

I think (and you would probably agree) that "without motion there can be no observation of time". However - that in and of itself does not decide which gives meaning to the other. This is true because I could also say "without time there can be no observation of motion". And that would be equally true.

We would probably also agree that time is not equivalent to motion. Neither as a concept for the brain or in reality. Two objects can have different speed over the same time meaning motion and time cannot be equal. So they are different yet you can't perceive one without the other. Which is the more primitive concept? I know physics says time is more primitive - but, to the brain...

Can either of us support that one is more basic a concept than the other? I'll think on it.

~modest

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by coberst

Modest

I measure time principally by remembeing what I have done since the last time I looked at a clock. If I cannot remember what I have done since looking at a clock I am not able to accuratly "tell time".

For some reason I seem to able to measure time unconsciously, no matter where I am or what I doing I always seem to be aware of what time it is to at least +- 15 minutes, usually a lot closer than that. Even when I wake up in the middle of the night I know what time it is. For most of my life I couldn't get a watch to run while I was wearing it. At the most a watch might run for a few weeks usually just a few days. I have a watch my son got me for Christmas, a fossil, it has run longer than any other watch I have ever had but it is now starting to loose time terribly. I've known other people who have a time sense similar to mine. I'm not sure how I measure time but I do.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Since this *is* the philosophy forum, I must ask: "Why?".

I can still hear my mother saying "Son always be agreeable, even on a philosophy forum".

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by coberst

I can still hear my mother saying "Son always be agreeable, even on a philosophy forum".

It was a joke and a serious question at the same time.

I seriously want to know, why? Why do you agree to disagree? It's not clear as of yet. I was hoping you would clarify this.

[arkain101]

Although it has been some 'time' since I have ventured into these kinds of thoughts.. I remember previously concluding that there was relationships sort of intwined with time..

Gravity and time

Space and time

Mass and time

Velocity and time

Change and time


The fact that material has mass allows for one to produce a quantified scale of time. For the act of accelerating (or changing the energy state) mass requires a force, a force relative to the time of the acceleration.

If objects tend to attract eachother aka, gravity.. then it is true to say objects are influenced / prefer to reside where time is relatively slower.

so on and so forth.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by freeztar

It was a joke and a serious question at the same time.

I seriously want to know, why? Why do you agree to disagree? It's not clear as of yet. I was hoping you would clarify this.

It appears to me that Internet forums are filled with X and Y going on and on with X saying yes and Y is saying no. I try not to get into these endless arguments . When it becomes evident to me that neither party can move the other it is time to move on.

This is such a case. I had read somewhere that the mind has a special place for handeling motion so I went to Wiki for what they had to say about 'motion detection' in the brain and Google gave me back a crazy reply that they could not discuss such a thing because of something to do with softeware virus. I decided there was no convincing evidence available to further the conversation.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

I measure time principally by remembeing what I have done since the last time I looked at a clock. If I cannot remember what I have done since looking at a clock I am not able to accuratly "tell time".

I think you are confusing subjective impressions of the passage of time with time itself. Time is not dependent upon our perception of it. Time is not even dependent upon the measurement of it, which involves change. Time is fundamental to reality. Time would still elapse, even if there were no change.

What is questionable about time is:

• Is it a dimension like the spatial ones?
• Would time still exist if the universe did not exist?

I think that the answer to the first is no. The past, present and future do not co-exist in the way that different locations in space co-exist. Scientifically it is necessary to model time as a dimension, as the equation of motion shows. This allows us to take a specific object moving at a given velocity and "run time fowards" to determine where it will go, and "run time backwards" to determine where it came from. But this happens in our minds, not in reality. In reality, all events occur in the present, and time is a sequence of instances of the present.

I think that the answer to the second is also no. Though, obviously, it is imposible to prove this, because if the universe did not exist there would be no way of determining whether time was passing or not. But to me, it is meaningless to talk of time (or space) as existing in the absence of the physical universe. Which makes time (and space) a property of the physical universe. Arguably, both time and space came into existence at the Big Bang, and would cease to exist at the Big Crunch (should that ever occur).

[coberst]

I suspect that motion detection is the most fundamental sense that almost all creatues must have to survive.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by coberst

I suspect that motion detection is the most fundamental sense that almost all creatues must have to survive.

I'd agree with you on that for the more complex forms of life. Just to be a bit pedantic though, motion detection is not a sense. Humans are able to detect motion by using the senses of vision, hearing, and touch.

[modest]

The circadian clock is as basic and biologically instinctual as spatial orientation and movement and I know of no way to say one gives meaning to the other.

~modest