What is time?

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

In the heat of the moment, perhaps this discussion is turning chaotic.

And I for one am confused about a lot of what has been said, especially since this thread is asking what time is and it's under the Philosophy of Science umbrella.

So to imply that we shouldn't discuss the nature of time or even propose that it doesn't exist because 'science uses it and it works' so therefore it exists seems rather unfair.

So maybe I'm wrong here or quite possibly missing the point. What is the difference between 'Philosophy of Science' and just plain 'Philosophy'? And I don't want a reference to a body of work, I want a short and sweet version - something to the point. .

Despite my disagreements with AnssiH, I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the purpose of the philosophy of science. If you read Anssi's last few posts, particularly to me, it's mostly what is discussed. Where a physics theory hints at some ontology, it never seems to describe that ontology with much more than a metaphor. It almost purposefully strips itself of such pursuits. So, there's a gap there and philosophy would do well to fill it.

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Obviously I don't want to advocate the ontological reality of any of them, as that would be a completely arbitrary choice. A mere belief. It's like the argument of "fairies vs. elves".

You're not wrong, you're just inhibiting yourself. It wasn't that long ago people were honestly trying to figure out if the solar system was geocentric or not. Understand, we had a model that described the motion of the planets in the sky without the 'correct' (earth orbits around the sun) description. So there were two models and neither really worked any better than the other.

So, people I'm sure asked which was real - which was in the middle, the sun or the earth. You would have said "faeries vs. elves" and stayed above the stench. Good for you, meanwhile we did figure out which model was correct.

Same will no doubt happen with curved spacetime vs. gravitons or many other differences in interpretation we have today. Yeah, believe it or not, one of these interpretations is the more correct one.

"faeries vs. elves"

~modest

EDIT:

We've both dragged this thread off topic. I appreciate that you will want to reply to this, and you should, but we're not getting anywhere and we should respect the topic me thinks.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Modest:

Despite my disagreements with AnssiH, I think he has done an admirable job of explaining the purpose of the philosophy of science. If you read Anssi's last few posts, particularly to me, it's mostly what is discussed. Where a physics theory hints at some ontology, it never seems to describe that ontology with much more than a metaphor. It almost purposefully strips itself of such pursuits.

I think the disconnect between the two of you is right here in the statement, 'Where a physics theory hints at some ontology'. Unless I'm completely mistaken, a physics theory is an interpretation of the ontology. In other words, something exists of which we are aware. We build a theory to explain it. The theory doesn't create or change the ontology of it, it just attempts to describe it. So, in a very real sense, isn't a theory just a metaphor that attempts to describe some ontology?

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Modest:I think the disconnect between the two of you is right here in the statement, 'Where a physics theory hints at some ontology'. Unless I'm completely mistaken, a physics theory is an interpretation of the ontology.

Sure there's a difference between hinting at ontology and interpreting ontology - I'm sure science does both.

You give me the opportunity to point out everyone's apparent assumption that I believe laws of physics are somehow real in and of themselves - is completely wrong. I've said again and again that physics describes reality and informs ontology. For whatever reason (I have my theories) people take this to believe I see no difference between the two.

OFF TOPIC - in any case

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

In other words, something exists of which we are aware. We build a theory to explain it. The theory doesn't create or change the ontology of it, it just attempts to describe it. So, in a very real sense, isn't a theory just a metaphor that attempts to describe some ontology?

Start a thread and let's get this ball rolling.

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

modest:

Start a thread and let's get this ball rolling.

Not so fast. Time is the term we use for the one ontology that seems obvious: the constancy of change. Assuming I can call the constancy of change an ontology.
The fact that we can relate one change to another and the results are totally consistent means that whatever is causing change is universal.

I'm kind of stuck right here and I'm not sure I really understand what I think I'm seeing.

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

modest:

Not so fast. Time is the term we use for the one ontology that seems obvious: the constancy of change. Assuming I can call the constancy of change an ontology.
The fact that we can relate one change to another and the results are totally consistent means that whatever is causing change is universal.

I'm kind of stuck right here and I'm not sure I really understand what I think I'm seeing.

Oh, I see. I thought for sure you were wanting to discuss the role of philosophy in science, humm.

Ok though, very good. Time is "consistency of change". Let's go with this. What do you mean by change? Can we define it?

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by modest

Oh, I see. I thought for sure you were wanting to discuss the role of philosophy in science, humm.

Ok though, very good. Time is "consistency of change". Let's go with this. What do you mean by change? Can we define it?

~modest

Actually, I said 'constancy'. That does have a connotation of time in it somewhere.
I'm not sure we can define it and that's the problem. It doesn't break down into component parts. Our only means so far is to pick one change that seems pretty fundamental and use it as a standard. And maybe that's the best we'll ever be able to do.
Another problem is that if time is thought of as having an essence outside of our consciousness, people start seeing it as something that can be traveled through, as in a time machine. At that point any connotation of esoteric disappears.
When we consider 'constancy of change' we assume a cause for that change. And that's the reason I keep coming back to this point. Something is causing change to happen and the universe is the effect of that.

[dkv]

Time is not an easy concept. I am sure that no knows the answer.
I define time based on periodicity of intrinsic events.
Ghost of time remains unexplained.
It appears that for a scientist time moves very slowly... after doing research for 100 years it appears as if they have not even started...

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Actually, I said 'constancy'. That does have a connotation of time in it somewhere.

My bad, I misspelled constancy and let my spell checker fix it - not the first time that's got me in trouble. I once spell-checked minister into menstruate

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I'm not sure we can define it and that's the problem. It doesn't break down into component parts. Our only means so far is to pick one change that seems pretty fundamental and use it as a standard. And maybe that's the best we'll ever be able to do.

I agree completely. I think you're really, really on to something here. To me time is so fundamental that it is hard to define. We can represent it with things (for example geometry) and we can compare it to things to some degree with metaphors. But, as you say the fundamental units don't break down into component parts. As far as I can tell, time has no parts - physical or otherwise.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Another problem is that if time is thought of as having an essence outside of our consciousness, people start seeing it as something that can be traveled through, as in a time machine. At that point any connotation of esoteric disappears.

It seems intuitive that moving through time is somehow analogous to moving through space. There are, however, very significant differences. All our experience with time has been unidirectional. If we elaborate on time allowing for the terms past and future, we'd say that our past is inaccessible and our only 'direction of travel' relative to time is toward the future. Furthermore, all our observations of things moving 'through' time depend on their motion through space. If something is traveling at the speed of light then it will not move through time at all.

So it seems possible to put constraints on the idea of time and make informed guesses as to its nature. But, as you say, these constraints are often based on assumptions such as treating time as a dimension we move through which I just did. It's a useful assumption because it helps further our understanding and just as important: it helps us predict future events. But, it is fundamentally an assumption. As Overdog points out - there is no way to prove such assumptions directly. All we can do is build on them and see if what we build works well.

Absolute Newtonian or Galilean time and space ended up not working too well. We were forced to change some of our assumptions about space and time when relativity was confirmed.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

When we consider 'constancy of change' we assume a cause for that change. And that's the reason I keep coming back to this point. Something is causing change to happen and the universe is the effect of that.

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from. Mass is fundamental just like time and there is now a proposed 'cause' in the form of a Higgs particle and Higgs field - which has not yet been observed. Is this like you're thinking? A physical thing causing change? Or, some description or process or something that happened when the universe formed. I don't want to make assumptions about what you're saying and it's not exactly clear to me.

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

modest:

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from. Mass is fundamental just like time and there is now a proposed 'cause' in the form of a Higgs particle and Higgs field - which has not yet been observed. Is this like you're thinking? A physical thing causing change? Or, some description or process or something that happened when the universe formed. I don't want to make assumptions about what you're saying and it's not exactly clear to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that either everything in existence is expending energy and attempting to reach a stable configuration and is riding on the momentum of the big bang or there's something else that is driving change. Something makes electrons spin and chemical reactions take place.

It seems like we just take all of that activity for granted without even considering that there might be a universal cause. And the things which we call laws of nature might actually have a cause.

And I think that a big clue is how we've handled the concept of time. It indicates that we might have had a blindspot here, and by 'we' I mean the masses including myself. I really can only speak for me though. Maybe others don't get confused.