What is time?

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Events occur in natural sequence whether we are there to perceive them or not. What could possibly alter the order? a god?

Again let me bring up the global skepticism argument and work from there.

A) If something other than physical objects outside of us we think we percieve was manipulating all that you percieve, you could never have any indication of it because all of your reasoning about whether or not this is the case is based on all that you percieve. Therefore you have no indication as to the probability that objects external to you actually exist. You also have no idea what the natural sequence of events occur in is, (if there even are events occuring)

B) More importantly, you have no way of knowing what order events are actually occuring in. Meaning for example they could be occuring in a different order than we have always thought, because some aspect of how this order is communicated to us or how we percieve it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Events occur in natural sequence whether we are there to perceive them or not. What could possibly alter the order?

While it’s true that the order of events detected by a particular, unaccelerating observer, is well defined, there are many ways to alter that order, such as

• Change your location relative to the objects (A & B) for which the events are to be detected. If you are now closer to A than before, events that once appears simultaneous at A and B now appear to happen first at A, then at B.
• Change your velocity relative to the objects. For a classic example, see ”the barn & pole paradox”

For observers objects with non-zero relative positions and velocities, simultaneity is alterable.

Because we can account for these order-altering effects, it’s still meaningful to speak of an “absolute” order of event, but we must acknowledge that the choice of a particular order of events to be “absolute” is in a sense arbitrary, and depends on our choice of the inertial frame of observation.

[dasraiser]

hi peeps

i quite agree with your posts that events can be observed at a differing rates, this holds true for all physical events that transmit/recieve information at varying velocities.

back on to the main topic,

If i take an observation of a clock, look away for some period of time then look back at it, it'll always show its advanced in time, whether this has been manipulated by my mind (by means of expecting the result) or by physical mechanical advancement will always remain impossible to answer.

If I take the point of view of a phenomenalist i have to believe the clock was set by my mind, moreover i would also have to presume I hold the sum knowledge of the universe, and at some point in the past decided to spread this knowledge among created 'sense data' called people (purely to stop myself going insane) and then play games with myself to try and reconstruct my understanding of this universe, basically numbing time away. This i don't like, but can neither disprove, and just look at the pickle i get myself in with these forums :P . (my bad ).

It is allot easier for me to believe that all things beat with there own rhythm whether i'm there to observe them or not; understand them or not, purely because any other explanations will eventually lead me to self destruction (well in the case of phenomenalism). I also believe that the universe holds such infinite resolution that we could never hope to fully understand it, and this i like.

anyway chew this over, rip it apart and give us your opinion.

regards

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by dasraiser

If I take the point of view of a phenomenalist i have to believe the clock was set by my mind, moreover i would also have to presume I hold the sum knowledge of the universe, and at some point in the past decided to spread this knowledge among created 'sense data' called people (purely to stop myself going insane) and then play games with myself to try and reconstruct my understanding of this universe, basically numbing time away.

Haha! Good call.

[Boerseun]

What is time? Time is 10:32 AM.

[goku]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

What is time? Time is 10:32 AM.

only from your point of view

[Southtown]

yawn

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by dasraiser

hi peeps
If I take the point of view of a phenomenalist i have to believe the clock was set by my mind, moreover i would also have to presume I hold the sum knowledge of the universe, and at some point in the past decided to spread this knowledge among created 'sense data' called people (purely to stop myself going insane) and then play games with myself to try and reconstruct my understanding of this universe, basically numbing time away. This i don't like, but can neither disprove, and just look at the pickle i get myself in with these forums :P . (my bad ).
regards

Well for one thing you can look at memory as percieving something that you have percieved before, but to a lesser degree. Also there is probably not a set rate at which anything percievable occurs when you are thinking about something like that... Unless you want to look at the rate at which you percieve or remember percieving things as the set rate and the rate at which clocks pass the time as variable. Anotherwords time flies when your having fun, goes slow some other times etc.

[UV-gap]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In various forms, this question seems to come up a lot on scienceforums, stirring considerable debate.
Answers include:[list][*]time is something defined by any clock
.... What’s do you believe time is, or is not, and why?

From all its directions physics tells us that there is no time.
If there is such and thing as time then we are confronted with limitless numbers of absurdities. Just to start with:
Light travels and yet it has no time to travel. (light can travel for billions of years and never lose time, not even a millisecond) It not only travels, without time, but it does this travelling in such a way that it makes everything, with time, stationary so it cannot have time. (Relativity 101) So if light has no time to travel how can we have time.
The only solution is we don't because it, time, is just a thought, word.

The 5000 year old study of thoughts "the Supreme Science" tells us exactly the same story as does physics: there is no time because it is just a word, thought, Reality's fiction, like the universe.

[Khan N. Singh]

Originally Posted by UV-gap

From all its directions physics tells us that there is no time.
If there is such and thing as time then we are confronted with limitless numbers of absurdities. Just to start with:
Light travels and yet it has no time to travel. (light can travel for billions of years and never lose time, not even a millisecond) It not only travels, without time, but it does this travelling in such a way that it makes everything, with time, stationary so it cannot have time. (Relativity 101) So if light has no time to travel how can we have time.
The only solution is we don't because it, time, is just a thought, word.

The 5000 year old study of thoughts "the Supreme Science" tells us exactly the same story as does physics: there is no time because it is just a word, thought, Reality's fiction, like the universe.

i don't think i'm understanding what you mean about light and time. could you elaborate a little? light (made up of photons) does take time to travel. but i guess that's not what you mean. i thought relativity said time would appear to 'slow down', not stop altogether at light speeds relative to everything else.