What is time?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jehu

In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

I'm okay sailing with that ship. Welcome to Hypography Jehu. Enjoy.

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I'm okay sailing with that ship. Welcome to Hypography Jehu. Enjoy.

It would appear that there are only the two of us, but two may enquire just easily. Welcome aboard!

Since it is to the Nature of Reality that we must now turn, let us begin by first defining what precisely is meant by the term, “nature”. To enquire into the nature of a thing is to attempt to discover (1) its fundamental elements, and (2) the law or principle whereby those elements are related. When we speak of a thing’s “fundamental elements”, we are referring to its being comprised of some number of qualities or characteristics that are essential to its being perceived or thought about.

It is important that we recognize the subtle distinction between a thing’s (idea, object, activity, etc.) being perceived and its being thought about. To be perceived, requires only that the thing enters into the field of cognitive awareness, that is to say, that one becomes conscious of the thing’s presence. On the other hand, to be thought about requires only that the thing enters into the field of cognitive knowledge, that is to say, that one knows what the thing is. In other words, one can perceive a thing without thinking about it, and one can think about a thing without perceiving it. It follows then that the set of elements (essential qualities or characteristics) that give rise to the perception of a thing must necessarily originate with the thing-itself, else we could not perceive it without thinking about it, while the set of elements that give rise to thinking about a thing must necessarily originate within the mind of the cognizant observer, else we could not think about it without perceiving it. The fundamental elements then may be divide into two distinct types, (1) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive awareness (being perceived), and (2) those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive knowledge (being thought about). Those elements that appear to have their origin in the thing-itself, we shall deem to be real, while those that appear to arise out of mentation, we shall consider to be merely apparent. Consequently, everything may be said to have two natures, the one real and the other imaginary.


To aid us in understanding the fundamental elements that constitute a thing’s “real nature”, let us consider the definition of the term “matter”, which is generally expressed as, “that which has mass and occupies space”. The term, “mass”, here signifies the substantial quality of a material thing, and that feature whereby it is rendered perceptible, but what of its extension in space, is this feature any less essential? Surely not, for the shape or spatial distribution of a thing is the feature whereby the mind is able to differentiate it. This “extension in space” must, therefore, be counted among the essential qualities or characteristics whereby a thing perceived.

A careful examination of any given thing will reveal the presence of two elements that are necessary and sufficient to its being perceived. We shall call these fundamental elements its “structure” and its “content”, and all things possess these elements, regardless of their class (mentation, sensation, objects, properties, or activities). The content of a thing is that set of perceptible qualities which render it observable, while its structure, is a characteristic pattern of distribution residing within that content, which renders the thing distinctive. For example, the content of a pot comprises the sum of the material substances of which it is made, while its structure is its characteristic pot-like shape.

Structure and content must be given to the mind immediately, by the senses, and not by way of study or reasoning, that is to say, these elements must be present in a single instance of perception, and not arise out of mentation. What's more, since these “immediate elements” must be present in a single instance of perception, they must necessarily be static.

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jehu

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

You kind of remind me of someone else... I'm tackling a few projects at once at work currently, but will revisit this soon. Enjoy your night.


Cheers.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Interesting. I'm going to be thinking of this for a while... I'll get back to you.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Jehu

Do you concur? Have you any questions, comments, criticisms?

Welcome to Hypography, Plato.

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Welcome to Hypography, Plato.

Thank you Tormod, you have placed me in very good company indeed. Hope you will join in our enquiry.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by arkain101

According to some science theory time is a dimension that existence resides within.

The existence of a theory is in no way a justification of the basis of that theory! All of your reasoning is based on the same erroneous perspective.

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Personal time scales are O. K. for some experiences, definetly not all!!

Now I disagree with that statement. I can show that all the relationships you bring up are totally consistent with the concept that time scales are personal constructs for all experiences. The appearance that we agree is only approximate. The problem is that people emotionally think the agreement is absolute.

Originally Posted by Jehu

In which case, the question “what is time” expands to become “what is reality”.

Would anyone care to enquire further along these lines?

Yes, I have been trying for forty years to discuss the issue along those lines. You don’t seem to have read my definition of time in this thread as you made no comment on it. Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know" and the present being “a change in what we know”.

Originally Posted by Jehu

Since it is to the Nature of Reality that we must now turn, let us begin by first defining what precisely is meant by the term, “nature”. To enquire into the nature of a thing is to attempt to discover (1) its fundamental elements and (2) the law or principle whereby those elements are related. When we speak of a thing’s “fundamental elements”, we are referring to its being comprised of some number of qualities or characteristics that are essential to its being perceived or thought about. ,

Would you be bothered by the idea of representing those fundamental elements of reality to be the elements of a set? Say, set A?

Originally Posted by Jehu

… those that are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s entering into the field of cognitive knowledge (being thought about). Those elements that appear to have their origin in the thing-itself, we shall deem to be real,

And, would you be bothered by the idea of representing these elements as another set? Say set C? And I would like to drop the adjective "appear" as that brings in lots of confusion. Sorry about skipping B but I have my reasons having to do with the definition of the present and how we come to know C.

Originally Posted by Jehu

while those that appear to arise out of mentation, we shall consider to be merely apparent.

And again, I agree with the necessity of introducing these additional elements. Would you allow me to refer to them as set D?

Originally Posted by Jehu

To aid us in understanding the fundamental elements that constitute a thing’s “real nature”, let us consider the definition of the term “matter”, which is generally expressed as, “that which has mass and occupies space”.

Now here you and I part ways as I firmly believe you have failed to consider some very important issues. The concepts of “matter”, “space”, “mass” need to be postponed until some other critical issues having to do with my set B are taken care of.

Originally Posted by Jehu

“extension in space” must, therefore, be counted among the essential qualities or characteristics whereby a thing perceived.

Here I think you have the cart before the horse as perception itself is a concept contained in the set D. To be truly objective, you must begin by presuming the sets you have brought up are undefined and generate your definitions in terms of the sets. I know that sounds impossible but it isn’t (every year hundreds of millions of fertilized human egg cells manage it) and I will show you how it can be done if you have the attention span to follow me. The first thing you need is a language to identify and discuss the elements of C and D and to think you already know the language is to presume you have already solved the problem.

Originally Posted by Jehu

Structure and content must be given to the mind immediately, by the senses, and not by way of study or reasoning, that is to say, these elements must be present in a single instance of perception, and not arise out of mentation.

Here I essentially agree with you except for one key issue: the senses themselves are part of the solution being searched for. That fertilized egg I spoke of has no senses as it needs to divide and develop specialized cells before it can even begin to define “sensing something”. Until it manages the problem of differentiating between informational elements, they can only be seen as undefined.

The fundamental problem is to develop a mental model of reality based on undefined data being processed by an undefined process. I can show you how to do that if you are interested. You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own. So far I have had great difficulty communicating the need to work with the sets I call A,B,C and D

Looking forward to hearing from you -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

[Little Bang]

How about this for a definition of time. The universe consists of every possible event. Time is our perception as we negotiate our way through this multiverse of events.

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Yes, I have been trying for forty years to discuss the issue along those lines. You don’t seem to have read my definition of time in this thread as you made no comment on it. Time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being "what we know" and the future being "what we do not know" and the present being “a change in what we know”. Would you be bothered by the idea of representing those fundamental elements of reality to be the elements of a set? Say, set A?
And, would you be bothered by the idea of representing these elements as another set? Say set C? And I would like to drop the adjective "appear" as that brings in lots of confusion. Sorry about skipping B but I have my reasons having to do with the definition of the present and how we come to know C.
And again, I agree with the necessity of introducing these additional elements. Would you allow me to refer to them as set D?
Now here you and I part ways as I firmly believe you have failed to consider some very important issues. The concepts of “matter”, “space”, “mass” need to be postponed until some other critical issues having to do with my set B are taken care of.
Here I think you have the cart before the horse as perception itself is a concept contained in the set D. To be truly objective, you must begin by presuming the sets you have brought up are undefined and generate your definitions in terms of the sets. I know that sounds impossible but it isn’t (every year hundreds of millions of fertilized human egg cells manage it) and I will show you how it can be done if you have the attention span to follow me. The first thing you need is a language to identify and discuss the elements of C and D and to think you already know the language is to presume you have already solved the problem.
Here I essentially agree with you except for one key issue: the senses themselves are part of the solution being searched for. That fertilized egg I spoke of has no senses as it needs to divide and develop specialized cells before it can even begin to define “sensing something”. Until it manages the problem of differentiating between informational elements, they can only be seen as undefined.

The fundamental problem is to develop a mental model of reality based on undefined data being processed by an undefined process. I can show you how to do that if you are interested. You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own. So far I have had great difficulty communicating the need to work with the sets I call A,B,C and D

Looking forward to hearing from you -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

If by “elements of a set” you mean “a collection or group of independent things” I would have to object, for we do not yet know the nature of the relationship between these elements.

The term, “appear” is used here to indicate that we do not know that the elements “structure and content” have their origin in the thing, for we have not yet demonstrated that there is a thing-in-itself.

The concept of matte does not figure in the given definition of the term, “nature”, other than to illustrate that the elements of content and structure ( mass and spatial distribution) are implicit in the definition of matter. It is important to establish this fact, for it is conventionally held that matter is the fundamental substance, from which all other “things” arise, including mentation - although this is not necessarily my position.
Please bear with us as we have as yet been unable to establish a common definition for the term, “nature”, however, with your help, and the other participants, I am certain we will sort that all out. In any event, I hope that we will all consent to set aside our own particular views, in favour of an enquiry that is free to go wherever reason may lead it.

[IMAMONKEY!]

You guys are making this all very confusing. Care to clarify?