What is time?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Overdog

It is a concept of duration

Would duration be something that happened in the universe if no humans were around *Do you think*

~modest

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by modest

Would duration be something that happened in the universe if no humans were around *Do you think*

~modest

I believe the universe would still be there, doing what it does, but without any human minds around, it would have no meaning.

My personal philosophy is still evolving. To be perfectly honest, I have not been consistently either realist or constructivist. When I consider positions I've taken in various discussions over the years, it seems I have been evolving towards the constructivist point of view, but I still often find myself adopting realist points of view automatically without even thinking about it. It's something I'm working on...

[Overdog]

My wife tells me that a constructivist would never ask the question you asked, but would instead be focusing on the relationship between the mind and the experience of the phenomenon, not on the phenomenon, because the phenomenon is not knowable independent of your constructions.

Edit:
(My own thoughts on this)

This is where I think there is a paradigm shift in epistemology between realism and constructivism. Realist see objective reality and mind as independent of each other, constructivist see "ontological meaning" as the intersection of mind and experience.

That's probably a very poor way of putting it, though...

[Overdog]

Doctordick, I have a few more thoughts regarding your work. I admit I can't follow the logic, but assuming it is irrefutable, here is my opinion, which I also admit with my limited understanding may be completely off-base.

In my view, there is an epistemological philosophy of one sort or another behind the way we view theories which purport to address ontology (reality). We get to choose which philosophical position we take, all the way from objectivism to radical constructivism. Constructivist theories of knowledge of course drop the notion of objective reality out of the equation entirely, just as notions of the "ether" were dropped in the paradigm shift to relativity.

In that respect, I see your work as showing that any theory purporting to address ontology, when viewed in terms of an objectivist philosophy of knowledge, inevitably leads to the conclusion that whatever it is we think the theory says about about objective reality, it is, in the end, revealed as unknowable, and therefore an assumption.

Did I get that right?

Because if I got that right, then I do not see why your work should not be recognized as a nail in the coffin of objectivist philosophies of knowledge, and viewed perhaps as a cornerstone of constructivist epistemological theory!

Am I missing something here?

[modest]

Ok, my effort to steer the conversation toward the topic of time clearly failed abysmally

Could I ask nicely that we respect the topic? Very near by there's a thread on Philosophy of Science & Metaphysics! and another on What can we know of reality? And there's always the option of creating a thread on scientific realism. I just ask that we respect the topic of Craig's thread here.

~modest

[Overdog]

Well, it seems to me that one of the most important questions to be asked with respect to "What is Time" is "Is it Real". This tends to lead directly to discussions of Ontology and Epistemology.

I think this quote from a previous post illustrates that pretty well.

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[4][5] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[6] and Immanuel Kant,[7][8] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable.

I don't see why it's off topic to try and understand the philosophical basis of the definition of time DD has given, and to contrast that view with opposing philosophical points of view.

But if you think it's off topic, I have no objections to splitting it off to another thread...

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I believe the universe would still be there, doing what it does, but without any human minds around, it would have no meaning.

I think that's a fair and succint way to phrase the constructivist perspective.

but I still often find myself adopting realist points of view automatically without even thinking about it. It's something I'm working on...

Well in everyday life we certainly adopt realist point of view in that all human behaviour very much operates in the world of "meaning", so to speak.

Maybe you guys can wrap your head around another point regarding our ideas of "time" and "motion/change".

While physical models describe motion as a function of "time" without a problem, once you are forced to explain your subjective experience, you will be absolutely forced to include an idea of "motion" or "change" that is more fundamental than time, somewhere in your view of reality. (Surprisingly many people don't realize that at all)

Let me elaborate on that. Regardless of your philosophical alignment, you have to suppose that your subjective experience is "part of" or "caused by" reality one way or another. Things inside your subjective experience are certainly dynamic (things appear to move or change). Hence something, somewhere in your view of reality is dynamic.

For example, the adherents of "static time dimension" might explain their subjective experience by stating their consciousness is the only thing that moves (through that time dimension). I.e. first they don't accept that motion could exist without being caused by "time"... yet they have no problem of allowing their "consciousness" to move "fundamentally" (without its motion being described by a static time dimension)

Likewise, if you suppose time is a dimension that "flows", you are saying its motion is "fundamental" (not being caused by another time dimension).

If you think about this for a moment, you come to realize that it is absolutely necessary to define SOMETHING in your worldview to be "fundamentally dynamic", as long as your worldview includes an explanation to your subjective experience (which any complete description of reality must include, don't we think? Still it appears many people are quite happy with a worldview that does not explain their own subjective experience at all :P )

From my perspective, it seems just overly complicated to first define time as a static dimension and then be forced to add a component that nevertheless moves over and beyond that "time", to explain why do we feel like we exist "now" :P One could just define reality itself to be dynamic. I.e. to suppose reality really is "in motion" or "changing", and that directly explains why our knowledge about reality & subjective experience is also changing.

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Ansii:

From my perspective, it seems just overly complicated to first define time as a static dimension and then be forced to add a component that nevertheless moves over and beyond that "time", to explain why do we feel like we exist "now" :P One could just define reality itself to be dynamic. I.e. to suppose reality really is "in motion" or "changing", and that directly explains why our knowledge about reality & subjective experience is also changing.

And the highlighted part is exactly how my worldview is built. There are a few things that seem inevitable, if such is the case.
First, the motion or changing of reality is consistent across the board. We know this because we can relate one kind of motion or change with another and the relationships remain constant. This is a very important aspect of change which we seem to overlook. Time acts as a placeholder for the cause and we forget that if time is a conscious invention, then something else is causing the change to take place. No need to go any further until that gets dealt with. What is implied in that, assuming that this worldview is legit? I would ask that rather than try and attack this worldview, just for grins, assume it holds and see where it goes.

Ansii, thank you for putting the issue so clearly. It means that we have somewhat limited the possible paths of thought here.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Time acts as a placeholder for the cause and we forget that if time is a conscious invention, then something else is causing the change to take place. No need to go any further until that gets dealt with. What is implied in that, assuming that this worldview is legit? I would ask that rather than try and attack this worldview, just for grins, assume it holds and see where it goes.

Ok, assuming that Time is a placeholder for some cause, here is where it led me...

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy (most often as heat) and moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable, energy state.[1][2] The sign convention of changes in free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamic measurements, in which a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in free energy, but a positive change for the surroundings.

A process that is capable of proceeding in a given direction, as written or described, without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy. The term is used to refer to macro processes in which entropy increases; such as a smell diffusing in a room, ice melting in lukewarm water, salt dissolving in water, and iron rusting...

Spontaneous process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ldsoftwaresteve]

A process that is capable of proceeding in a given direction, as written or described, without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy. The term is used to refer to macro processes in which entropy increases; such as a smell diffusing in a room, ice melting in lukewarm water, salt dissolving in water, and iron rusting...

And these are all processes that indicate changes are taking place, but how about the things we use for measuring time: radioactive decay, a clock ticking, any of the standard sorts of events we use to measure change rate as opposed to the increased entropy changes mentioned above, which I assume have a lot of factors that affect their rates. What causes these standard events to take place? The interesting thing to note is that the 'standards' keep the same relationships. I don't think I'm making myself clear. Do we say that the standards are just our way of using entropy?