What is time?

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by IMAMONKEY!

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

This is most unfortunate, for it is our intention to make it easier.

Before we are able to determine what is the “true nature of anything”, we must settle upon a precise definition of what the term, “nature”, means. Unless we do so, each of us will enter into the enquiry with our own personal understanding of the term, and consequently, will be unable to understand precisely what another means by the term. Accordingly, we began with the Oxford Dictionary definition, which reflects the widest possible conventional meaning of the term. This led us to the conclusion that the term, “nature”, implies a set of fundamental elements (essential qualities or characteristics), and a relational principle. Our subsequent analysis of the term, “elements” led us to the conclusion that the term must have two distinct sets of elements, one set pertaining to the perception of a thing (awareness), and the other set pertaining to its being thought about (knowledge).

Hope this has helped, if not, please specify precisely what point(s) you would like clarified?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own.

Actually, I suspect that Jehu got some of what he says from Kant's ideas.

Again, (patiently) Transcendental Aesthetics usw...

[IMAMONKEY!]

So knowledge and awareness are the two basic principles to the nature of existence of a thing... Since we are aware of time it thus must exist, and since we have knowledge of its existence it exists indefinetely. But that is a little flawed... What if tachyons didnt exist or some other form of matter as yet undiscovered. We are aware of unseen forces in this universe and we can speculate as to what they are but does that really make them exist? like time?

I dont know... You clarified it very well but i guess the problem is i overthink things...

[Little Bang]

I guess my definition of time was taken as a joke or it went over everyone's head.

[Little Bang]

For the sake of discussion let’s assume that there was a beginning of the universe. At some point the first photon or photons came into existence. Further, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that each photon has some sort of clock that we can observer. If we look at the clock of a photon when it first comes into existence we will see that the clock reads zero. Now we will move forward to now. When we look at the clock of the photon we see that it still reads zero. This implies that every possible event the photon can have an interaction with has happened instantly from the point of view of the photon. This would also imply that all future events have been experienced by the photon. One possible way to explain this would be if all possible events were created instantly at the beginning.
Your next obvious question would be, “Ok, how does this give us a description of time?”
Let’s look at a small volume of space in the shape of a sphere located somewhere in the universe.
We fill this sphere with black marbles. The black marbles represent all possible events in the sphere. At the very center of the sphere we place one white marble. The white marble represents anyone’s life at some point in time. All black marbles touching the white marble represent those events that have the highest probability of occurring. If your consciousness makes a decision that makes one of those black marbles a reality than that black marble turns white representing your now. It’s this shift that we perceive as time.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Jehu

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.

I am afraid I would have to object to your objection. It seems to me that your proposition presumes that there is only one possible solution to the question, “what is the law or principle whereby those elements are related”. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption made by everyone. Could you perhaps prove to me that there exists but one unique valid “law or principle whereby those elements are related”?

Originally Posted by Jehu

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.

I think you misunderstand the reason I wished to drop the term “appear”. I wanted to reserve the set C to represent only that which “is real”. And use the set D to represent that which appears to be real but are actually a consequence of our understanding of A which could perhaps be erroneous.

Originally Posted by Jehu

The concept of matter 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.

It is my position that “matter” is an advanced concept and, as such, makes many deep and profound assumptions which we should not be making.

Originally Posted by Jehu

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.

Please explain to me the need for the term “nature”. It seems to me that it again arises with innumerable inherent assumptions, the very issue we should be striving to avoid. In essence, if the term “nature” is valuable, I feel we should be able to come up with a procedure for defining it in terms of the elements of C and D.

Originally Posted by Jehu

In any event, I hope that we will all consent to set aside our own particular views, in favor of an enquiry that is free to go wherever reason may lead it.

I hope you can understand that all of my comments are directly based on wanting to leave the argument open to go wherever reason may lead: i.e., all of my complaints are with issues I think close down the options in one way or another. Thus they are counter to your own proposed freedom of enquiry.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Actually, I suspect that Jehu got some of what he says from Kant's ideas.

That’s nice! Actually, I don’t see where one gets their ideas as an important factor at all. The important issue is what their ideas are.

Originally Posted by IMAMONKEY!

So knowledge and awareness are the two basic principles to the nature of existence of a thing... Since we are aware of time it thus must exist, and since we have knowledge of its existence it exists indefinetely. But that is a little flawed... What if tachyons didnt exist or some other form of matter as yet undiscovered. We are aware of unseen forces in this universe and we can speculate as to what they are but does that really make them exist? like time?

We need an approach which will allow for all the issues you bring up. And you cannot over think things; what you can do is try to make all your beliefs make sense. The latter is almost guaranteed to fail as it amounts to an attempt to justify a religion and is simply not a scientific approach.

Originally Posted by Little Bang

I guess my definition of time was taken as a joke or it went over everyone's head.

Not quite, in many respects your definition is almost identical to my own view. You could find my definition in this thread if it weren’t so long. I say that everyone defines their own time in terms of the events they have experienced: the past is what we know, the future is what we don’t know and the present is an addition from what we don’t know to what we do. The most important issue inherent in our views is the fact that it does not presume you and I follow the same path at all.

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Your next obvious question would be, “Ok, how does this give us a description of time?”

Very clear and exactly what I suggest when I say that “time” is a mental construct devised to track the order that you come to learn things. One difference I would have with you is the presumption that the events be in spatial contact. This is another assumption which is counter to the freedom of enquiry we are interested in pursuing. To put any issue above investigation is to scuttle objective science.

Have fun -- Dick

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

[Little Bang]

The spatial contact was only used as an illustration. If the universe is set up the way I suggest then it also shows why the arrow of time always points in the same direction, toward the highest probability. Time is a varible in the universe. the slowest it can move is zero, the fastest it can run we don't know, although I suspect that value to be infinite. We keep looking for a way to unite all the forces in the universe. In order to do that we must find a relationship between all four forces and the only thing that is related to all four is the rate at which events occur (time). How to use that information, I don't know. I assure you that I don't have the math skills to accomplish that feat.

[Jehu]

Originally Posted by IMAMONKEY!

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

This is most unfortunate, for it is our intention to make it easier.

Before we are able to determine what is the “true nature of anything”, we must settle upon a precise definition of what the term, “nature”, means. Unless we do so, each of us will enter into the enquiry with our own personal understanding of the term, and consequently, will be unable to understand precisely what another means by the term. Accordingly, we began with the Oxford Dictionary definition, which reflects the widest possible conventional meaning of the term. This led us to the conclusion that the term, “nature”, implies a set of fundamental elements (essential qualities or characteristics), and a relational principle. Our subsequent analysis of the term, “elements” led us to the conclusion that the term must have two distinct sets of elements, one set pertaining to the perception of a thing (awareness), and the other set pertaining to its being thought about (knowledge).

Hope this has helped, if not, please specify precisely what point(s) you would like clarified?

[Little Bang]

Why would you duplicate your post Jehu?

[skuzie]

I will stick to the original question and spill out my thoughts on it ..
Time = Change

Imagine a Universe where nothing ever changed, would time still have a meaning then? Time is a concept created by people in order to describe this constant ever going change that we witness around us. If things change faster we experience time passing by faster, if things change slower we experience time passing by slower. Imagine if our brains could 'compute' everything much faster, then 'time' for us would slow down as everything around us would change much slower in relation to our brain feeding external changes.

Think about this .. heat/speed/time = change
Heat is observed by the speed of the particles within the substance, which is really change.
Speed, or velocity, is really an object changing its displacement in relation to all other objects, so deep down it is really change.

So yes I agree with Little Bang time is really a perception, but at its essence it is really just change.