What is time?

[Little Bang]

Exactly Modest, as time approaches zero so does wave length.

[modest]

Yup. It's often helpful to think in terms of frequency. If there's no time - frequency is zero. Frequency obviously depends on time (being cycles per unit time).

I think this does fall under your category of: without time nothing can exist. I also do not object to Dr.D's qualification to that - saying nothing would exist as it does now. I think that's valid.

~modest

[steve 9]

I have to thank you for your concise post. I think that slowly we will un-ravel the exact nature of time.

Lets start with your last post in response to me.

Originally Posted by steve 9
If time is a real physical thing than provide some evidence of this in the form of a definition, reference, or observation.

Response by Modest

The problem steve (which you are about to fail to recognize) is that this is a false dichotomy. By asking if time is a “real, physical” thing you present the adjectives as if they are the same. It’s like saying a banana is either a yellow rock or it’s not. People tell you it is yellow and describe how yellow it is but this doesn't satisfy.

There is no dichotomy in my direct question. I ask for some evidence that time is a real physical thing. It is a request, not an either or question.


As far as your example using a banana in place of time, yes people have given THEIR idea of what a banana (time) is, but it is a personal idea, and not a scientific reference. People are all too happy to give me their ideas about how time is a real thing, and if you notice people all have their own personal idea, they vary from person to person. There is no standard definition that is consistent from person to person. This action of people giving different definitions of time means time is a concept and is different things to different people. This only goes to point out what I have said about time earlier in this thread.



"Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. "

This is why you have been repeatedly asked if you believe time is real. As far as I know, you've never answered that question. I request you do so in order to advance the conversation.

Just to be clear, time is not a physical thing that exist as some form of energy in this universe. Time is a consideration, a concept.

As far as your repeated question:

If your definition of physical is very much like my definition of tangible (and all signs point to that being the case) then time is not physical. It is, however real. As is space. Time describes how our universe works, not a tangible thing. Much like gravity. You can’t pick up gravity and pass it around, but it’s real - It has effects, it can be measured - much like time.

Good. We are making some progress. You say time is real, but not physical. I have to ask you, in what way do you think time is real? Which definition of real are you using when you say time is real.

If you say time is real, but not physical then in what way does it exist?

We can narrow this down right now.

Is time a physical thing? I say no. You say no.

Is time a consideration, a concept? I say yes. You say______?

If you know of any other way in which something can be real to someone other then the two options I have given, please let me know.

Saying that time is neither, but is real is not possible. If time is real it exists as something in some form. In this universe all things that we call real are either those things that are in some form of energy, or those things that we imagine or can conceive of in our mind.

By all means, if you can describe a different way in which something exists as a real thing please explain.


Thank you steve 9

[modest]

Originally Posted by steve 9

I have to thank you for your concise post. I think that slowly we will un-ravel the exact nature of time.

Lets start with your last post in response to me.

There is no dichotomy in my direct question. I ask for some evidence that time is a real physical thing. It is a request, not an either or question.

I’m not trying to play a word game steve. Your false dichotomy in its proper syntax is as follows:

Time is either real and physical or it's not real and physical.

• False Dichotomy
• False Dilemma

You’ve mistakenly equated real and physical and mistakenly left out the possibility that time is not-tangible yet real. You've actually left out any possibility that the real and physical are different at all. That’s the problem. This is what (to borrow a quote from the matrix) “brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end.”

Your definition of real (being based on ‘tangible’ as it is) leaves out any description of how the universe works. By your definition gravity isn’t real. You cannot describe it as real. You can’t define motion. Your definition of real precludes motion from reality. That’s just not useful.

[steve 9]

Originally Posted by modest

I’m not trying to play a word game steve. Your false dichotomy in its proper syntax is as follows:

Time is either real and physical or it's not real and physical.

[LIST]

Don't worry about it. This is the usual way in which the discussion of the validity of time comes down to. A protest about my wording of my questions.

You say time is real, I would like to know what you mean by real. How do you think time exist for us? If you disagree that time is just a concept than in what way is it a real thing.

You’ve mistakenly equated real and physical and mistakenly left out the possibility that time is not-tangible yet real.

Fine, give an example of what you are thinking about when you say this just so we can discuss a specific thing.

You've actually left out any possibility that the real and physical are different at all. That’s the problem. This is what (to borrow a quote from the matrix) “brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end.”

O.K. so you say that time is real, real in what way?

Your definition of real (being based on ‘tangible’ as it is) leaves out any description of how the universe works. By your definition gravity isn’t real. You cannot describe it as real. You can’t define motion. Your definition of real precludes motion from reality. That’s just not useful.

MY DEFINITION of real? I have not given a definition of real, I have said that all the terms that I use can be found in a standard dictionary. I am using the term real as it is found in a dictionary and according to how it is used in the context of the sentence.

I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.

I have also invited you to mention any other way in which something can be real for us so as to avoid the false dichotomy protest.

Look we have been talking about the nature of time for a while now. You say time is real, I say time is real. The only difference is that I say time is real to us as a concept, we have the idea of time.

Are you saying that time is more then just a concept?


Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

It exists as matter.

It exists as energy.

It exists as a force.

It exists as a concept.

This is a basic list. If you want to add to this feel free to. Just simply state how you think time exist.

I say time exists as a concept.

You say time exists as________. It is really that easy, in what way do you think time exists.

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

[modest]

Originally Posted by steve 9

Don't worry about it. This is the usual way in which the discussion of the validity of time comes down to. A protest about my wording of my questions.

I cannot imagine that would not tell you something.

You say time is real, I would like to know what you mean by real. How do you think time exist for us? If you disagree that time is just a concept than in what way is it a real thing.

real

Fine, give an example of what you are thinking about when you say this just so we can discuss a specific thing.

movement is real yet not tangible

MY DEFINITION of real? I have not given a definition of real, I have said that all the terms that I use can be found in a standard dictionary. I am using the term real as it is found in a dictionary and according to how it is used in the context of the sentence.

Yet at every turn you reject every description of real because it is not based on your idea of physical.

I have said before that there are two ways in which things are real for us. Either things are some form of energy, or they are concepts in our head.

Once again, a classic case of a false dichotomy. You leave out the possibility that it can be both.

I have also invited you to mention any other way in which something can be real for us so as to avoid the false dichotomy protest.

movement and gravity

Look we have been talking about the nature of time for a while now. You say time is real, I say time is real. The only difference is that I say time is real to us as a concept, we have the idea of time.

Time is a human concept to be sure. That concept reflects a very real attribute of the universe.

Are you saying that time is more then just a concept?

Here are some ways that something can exist for us:

It exists as matter.

It exists as energy.

It exists as a force.

It exists as a concept.

Agreed

This is a basic list. If you want to add to this feel free to. Just simply state how you think time exist.

I'd like to add movement and gravity to the list. Notice the amount of non-physical things on the list is growing. Time will fit only if and when your definition of real allows it.

I say time exists as a concept.

I agree.

You say time exists as________. It is really that easy, in what way do you think time exists.

Time is a concept of human understanding and a real process of the universe.

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

I so very honestly welcome this.
~modest

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by steve 9

Everybody is encouraged to participate in this. The more the merrier. Don't be shy.

I would, but I don't have time.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think I agree with what you are saying, Steve9.

modest

I'd like to add movement and gravity to the list. Notice the amount of non-physical things on the list is growing. Time will fit only if and when your definition of real allows it.

I agree with that one too.
The one really big thing we can agree on is change. Change takes place. And that includes change in position, change in size, change in state, etc. So all concepts that refer specifically to a change are mental existents only. All of them reflect that something has changed and we create (automatically) those internal mental existents to grapple with that fact. That's just how our minds work. This also means that concepts based upon relating one change to another change are also mental existents only.

If I say that as an external existent, Time does not exist, all I am saying is that it is a concept which falls under the category of change. Change exists. Time is how we relate one kind of change to another. Which is why it's always relative.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The one really big thing we can agree on is change. Change takes place. And that includes change in position, change in size, change in state, etc. So all concepts that refer specifically to a change are mental existents only. All of them reflect that something has changed and we create (automatically) those internal mental existents to grapple with that fact. That's just how our minds work.

I am afraid that I can not agree with the statement that "Change takes place" without some serious qualifiers. Would you assert that the past changes? Or would you hold that the past is some fixed thing?

If the past cannot change, then tell me what you know that is not part of your past. I hold that there is only one thing which changes and that is your expectations. Your expectations change only because your knowledge of the universe changes. Time is nothing more than a mechanism for accomodating your explanation of reality (what is) to the fact of your lack of knowledge (i.e., what you think you know of reality changes).

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Change exists.

Change in what? Is it any more than change in your mind?

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I am afraid that I can not agree with the statement that "Change takes place" without some serious qualifiers. Would you assert that the past changes? Or would you hold that the past is some fixed thing?

If the past cannot change, then tell me what you know that is not part of your past. I hold that there is only one thing which changes and that is your expectations. Your expectations change only because your knowledge of the universe changes. Time is nothing more than a mechanism for accomodating your explanation of reality (what is) to the fact of your lack of knowledge (i.e., what you think you know of reality changes).
Change in what? Is it any more than change in your mind?

Have fun -- Dick

lol. I am not surprised that you understand this at least as well as I do, probably a lot better. Nice feedback. I think I mostly agree with you.
Except for the bleeding edge, now, which isn't addressed and is sort of the 800 pound gorilla.
The past we reference with expectation as well as the future. The past is gone. It doesn't exist except in my mind through imagination or memory. The future exists in my mind as totally expectation.