What is time?

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH:

"real masses" and "actual light" is just a statement of faith upon certain defined patterns existing "for real" exactly how you have defined them. If one assigns identity to a wave on a water, you would take that as a confusion. But the definition that yields a way to point at a water molecule, you'd take to be ontologically correct, without objective proof.

So again you are sounding like a died in the wool subjective idealist.
The existence of masses and light in the real world are not based on "faith" and they exist independent of our "faith" (or lack therof) or our perceptions and subsequent "defined patterns."
A:

That is common mistake, but also commonly discussed on the field of ontology and epistemology, and if you don't know what I am talking about I guess there's no need to push this topic further. (If you did, you would come to see the parallels to definition of time, and certainly to "reification of time")

Are you familiar with the several annual conferences on
The Ontology of Spacetime?" It is all based on the the interface between ontology and epistemology. No, I don't need a primer of remedial help on the subject.

Indeed, but there is much more to it (to the issue of "what clocks actually do", as oppose to measure "time"), if you cared to look.

Have you actually read my summary of "what is time?", post 584, p.59? Maybe you could focus on what you disagree with in that "little essay."

The reason people fight you on that point is that they don't see an alternative explanation, and indeed no trivial explanation exists. But, there is an explanation that just requires some thinking from the reader. (And it is not an argument about hypothetical ontology)

(That point being my statements: "So, without clocks (as in my often repeated thought experiment) what is time? The cosmos still moves the same without "clocks measuring time."
The alternative explanation, obviously, is that clocks slow down when subjected to the force of accelleration which increases their velocity. (See post above about the momentary co-moving reference frame as pertains to the debate on whether velocity alone or acceleration account for differences in time keeping.)

I do not understand your reluctance to look at it, since it would explicitly prove your argument (albeit via very different route than you expect)

Ontologically, if time is not a malleable entity/medium, then "it" does not change rate. Rather clocks keep time differently, as above.

There is no such thing as "directly observable", as each person interprets the same pattern differently. What you see is what you've defined; that is why people fight you on that issue about "what curves"; they simply interpret it differently (and as far as I can see, their interpretation is more self-coherent, mind you, unless there is something else you've defined differently in your worldview to yield self-coherence, but I have not seen you communicate that difference, AND it would be very painful for me try and figure out whether all your definitions together are valid... that is not as simple ordeal as you might think... :P )

More subjective idealism, of which you seem totally unaware. Yes, "Virginia" there is such a thing as direct observation of the world/cosmos, as it is.
So, the alternative is to invent a malleable "fabric" and say that masses make it curve/bend rather than the observable phenomenon that object trajectories are changed by the gravitational force of masses.

EDIT: Note that the reply from Erasmus just above this post is a result of him being able to trivially see that the definitions you've given, as an explanation to so-called "time dilation", are not enough to "make the ends meet"; i.e. it's not that he's absolutely decided that spacetime exists (I think), it's just that your definitions don't yield the results they'd need to, at least not the way you've stated them (at least not as far as I can interpret your statements).

So, tell me exactly the error in my presentation if you are interested in constructive criticism.

If you are not able to state a self-coherent set of definitions, that yield the necessary relationships, then you cannot convince a thinking person of your beliefs. (And I call them beliefs because I'd still take that as "yet another self-coherent model about the same raw data"; quite many already exists!)

Again... what is not self coherent about what I have said about time?

That is very thoughtless statement from you. I have stated many times, that I do not claim any specific ontology. What I am doing is grant the possibility that our definitions are not aligned with ontological nature of reality, even when they lead to valid predictions. I.e. I am saying I'm not certain that my worldview is ontologically correct, while you are of the opinion that certain entities in your worldview are also ontological things.

(Ref: my statement: "That "objects" are all about perceived patterns, definitions, and internal consistency of related epistemology *is* "your opinion!"")

So do you disagree with my paraphrase or your "opinion"...
"'it's all subjective... we can't know anything for sure' philosophy?

I.e. if I state "You cannot be absolutely certain about your beliefs regarding reality", is that an opinion, or a statement of fact? Think about that.

If you grant that is a valid statement, all the additional assertions that I've said to be consequential to that premise, are entirely tautological to it; whether those assertions are valid are not a matter of opinion either, they are a matter of logical consequences being valid (and that can be investigated)

I agree that there is no absolute certainty in my presentation on time. But sticking with observable phenomena yields more certain results than inventing an entity "time" as an artifact of "what clocks measure."

Well I don't find it in any way important to drive this point home to you, I just thought I'd give a little helping hand if you are interested of actually looking at the issue in exact scientific means. (and none of that is meant to defend spacetime ontology, or any ontology)

How very condescending of you! Your premise: You are right and I am wrong, and you are doing your best to help me see the light.
Again, please read my "definitive statement" on time in post 584 above and tell me exactly how you thing I went astray.

Michael

[Little Bang]

There is nothing wrong with you post of #584. I would add that time, even though it is not of substance, is the very essence of the universe. If there is no duration of time between two events then those events did not occur. The most important part of the concept of time is that it can only be constant in my frame of reference.

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Have you actually read my summary of "what is time?", post 584, p.59? Maybe you could focus on what you disagree with in that "little essay."

I don't think there is any information there one could objectively agree or disagree with (you are talking about an ontological interpretation after all). I would certainly agree with a statement "there's no real reason to conclude that spacetime is an ontological entity".

The alternative explanation, obviously, is that clocks slow down when subjected to the force of accelleration which increases their velocity. (See post above about the momentary co-moving reference frame as pertains to the debate on whether velocity alone or acceleration account for differences in time keeping.)

But that statement is more problematic, as acceleration alone does not yet yield the same relationships as relativity (nor explain the same observations). It is entirely possible that with more changes to definitions of all sorts of things, it was possible to make that work, but I'm afraid that would make things quite complicated (I certainly can't even begin to think where to start unravel that sort of idea).

So, the alternative is to invent a malleable "fabric" and say that masses make it curve/bend rather than the observable phenomenon that object trajectories are changed by the gravitational force of masses.

Nope, there is an "alternative" that doesn't have anything to do with a "fabric" of time of any sort, nor does it have to do with an explanation of "clocks under stress" of any type, and yet it can be proven (via exact mathematical methods) to overlay completely onto relativity (i.e. yield the same exact observables). But it is clear that you are not really interested about looking into that issue, and of course you are entitled to that attitude. So I guess my mistake was to think you might be interested.

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH:

So I guess my mistake was to think you might be interested.

My mistake was in assuming you were interested in addressing the ontology of time as in the title of this thread, "What is Time."

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Not an actual development of the theory! Popular descriptions of the theory, which don't assume a mathematical background of the reader, do not start with any assumptions about time. They start with physical postulates (laws of physics are the same regardless of coordinate choice, the speed of light is constant) and the implications for the nature of time follow from those.

You have never studied the theories you are criticizing and as a result, you are arguing against a straw man.

Do you actually presume to know what I have and have not studied... now an expert on my history of scientific study? This is a classical "foot-in-mouth" statement!

In my intro this forum, right up front, I disavowed mathematical expertise. Yet I mentioned somewhere along the line that I "aced" "Logic and the Scientific Method" in grad school. I am actually quite clear on the concepts colleectively called "philosophy of science" including ontological inquiry into "space", "time" and "spacetime."

Any search of "relativity" will present the concept of masses bending "spacetime" as a given... ever since the concept was introduced.

As I asked AnssiH, are you at all familiar with the debate *in the scientific community* on "The Ontology of Spacetime?"
When I brought this up in the "spacetime" thread, there were no (read zero... nada) replies to the links I shared on that subject or my commentaries on it.
Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,
First, I think you don't realize how ridiculous it is for you to be telling me repeatedly what I know.
I'll tell you what I *think* a piece at a time in reply.

"Space", "Time" and "Spacetime" is in no way analogous to "light" or "sound". Neither light nor sound can exist or propagate in the absence of space and time. Sound waves are pressure waves of particles bumping against each other and making your ear drum vibrate. It is not possible without space to vibrate in, or time in which to propagate.

My conversation with AnnsiH on these specifics were about the contrast, as I see it, between observable phenomena like spectral refraction (as in a rainbow) and sound (air compressed into waves)... and that highly debatable (whatever) space, time, and the combo spacetime.
Obviously the "space" close to Earth *contains* gases and such which we call atmosphere, and it conveys 'sound." The gases are elements and compounds. They exist in the volume we call "space", which does not mean that "space" is "something" all by itself, tho you obviously believe "it" is something more than the 'volume" inwhich actual stuff exists.
Likewise, the "time it takes" for light or sound to travel through space. You seem to have no clue whatsoever as to the ontological difference between space/time as above and the observable phenomena happening *in space* with an *elapsed time* for whatever period of our observation.

But you know this. I'm not talking down to you, I'm just illustrating the point that space and time is fundamental, and cannot be described in any other way but saying "space is space" and "time is time".

Space is the empty volume (on whatever scale) in which *actual stuff* exists and moves around... which "takes time."

Do you not realize that saying "space is space" and "time is time" says absolutely nothing about either??

(Edited out same-ol stuff relativists hammer on here constantly.... Sheesh!)... ending with:

Now, once he gets back on Earth, there's a problem. His clock is out of whack with his buddy's clock. How did this happen?

But you know that, too.

I *think* it happened because the different *forces of acceleration* on the traveler's clock slowed it down, while his buddy's clock did not have those forces acting on it. (Just in case you missed my countless repetitions of the above.)

So - once again, this brings us back to what the essence of time and space might be that is malleable. Easy. It is "time", and "space".

Yes, time is time and space is space. Such a profound insight! So if they are malleable what is their nature as existing entities in and of themselves? Do you even understand what an ontological inquiry (like "What is time") is?
Again editing...

The clocks clearly show that time has passed slower for the guy in the spaceship.

The clocks clearly show that one slowed down relative to the other.
(try to imaging for a moment that time is not an actual entity but merely the concept of event duration, and that our clocks slow down in their rate of "ticking" when they are speeded up. Are you absolutely sure that this is not true? (I *think* you are, and this is what I call closed minded on the subject of "What is time?"

(Clip)... covered above.

It just seems important to re-state the obvious. Because there is no way in which to define space or time other than in terms of itself.
Space is fundamental.
Time is fundamental.

Space is the infinite emptiness in which all observable phenomena exist. Time is the measurement of event duration, an artifact of the "event" selected by the observer doing the measuring.
I have just repeated myself for the umpteenth time in reply to your inane repetition that space and time are absolute (fundamental) and require no ontological inquiry, nor will you tolerate same.

(More of the same)...

because both space and time is fundamental.

...And the name is Michael.

[dkv]

Perhaps you are right Mike that time is fundamental however no scientist has ever understood its properties as you claim to say so. It is quite possible that spacetime is fundamental and not time.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Michael, I said I believed your worldview had Time as the driver of all change, I did not say I knew that. I also said, 'if it is not' - yet you concluded that had already made up my mind. Forgive me for not having read every applicable post you've made on the subject.
Also, my mind kind of just turns off whenever I see a reference to 'space-time' or time compression or whatever it is called.
I have a totally different view on the subject and firmly believe that it is a concept of consciousness for consciousness. Without the concept of Time we couldn't order events (as DoctorDick has said), make comparisons between them and we could never predict anything at all.
I suspect that such is the case with yourself too.
But what causes events to happen? I think there is a single underlying cause and driver and I know what mine is, what is yours? If Time doesn't drive change, then what does? An explosion? That's all I seemed to get out of your last response to me. So, my fingers typing on this keyboard are driven by an explosion or the echoes of an ancient explosion?
If there is a single driver for all events across the universe which affects everything, every particle and every conglomerate of particles exactly the same (as would seem to be the case because we can relate events and changes to other events and changes and the result is consistent), then that also means it is driving our perceptions too.

If it is an explosion, it's incredibly consistent and ongoing and it doesn't seem to be petering out. It would also stand to reason that the 'energy' in the explosion would be causing particles to combine into elements, into molecules and into other structures that persist either more or less depending on their relative stability. In short, it would seem that we live on the bleeding edge of that explosion. I guess what I'm saying is that if change is caused, not by time, then it is caused by the original explosion or by some other agent not yet identified.
Another observation on that theme is that combinations of particles into atoms would seem to be a function of the energy of the driver. In other words, the makeup of a hydrogen atom is what it is because of the energy currently operating on the particles from which it is made. As the explosion peters out, wouldn't that change the structural makeup of the universe of atoms? Just wondering how that all fits into this.
But again, if we are on the bleeding edge of that storm or explosion, whatever was is gone, whatever will be hasn't happened yet and we perceive only what is now. Except time, of course. How is that? It seems to be very closely connected with our ability to see the memory of past events and other past events or what we are seeing now, which, strictly speaking is already a past event by the time we are aware of it. So, our perception of time is really the perception of the 'space' between past events. And that makes it an internal entity to our consciousness.
So how, short of projecting it into existence (the bleeding edge of now) did it find a rebirth in the concept of 'space-time'?
And if 'space-time' is a made up concept and is being used as a pillar of our science, how solid is that structure?
Just wondering, Michael.

[Michael Mooney]

Hi ...steve,
You say:

Without the concept of Time we couldn't order events (as DoctorDick has said), make comparisons between them and we could never predict anything at all.
I suspect that such is the case with yourself too.

Yes, with an emphasis on the concept of time as the "duration" of whatever is the focus, i.e., the selected event being observed.
The whole cosmos is always in motion, on all scales. As per my summary of "time" in post 584, there is no "time" between future and past, neither of which, obviously, are present. So the "ongoing present" (always now) is (everywhere) regardless of what has been or will be (or where in the whole universe.)

But what causes events to happen?

Well... certainly not time as the agent of change.
The basic law of conservation of matter/energy ( and let's include the transitional state, plasma) states the universal law that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed but only change form.

So *all of it* always exists (and always has existed/will exist.) How it changes form is the subject of all investigation of cause and effect, no "matter" what the focus of investigation.

So, we have fusion explosions, plasma launches, eventual cooling into the elements and compounds we call masses... in all forms and on all scales everywhere.

What "drives" it all? Energy in all its forms... and mass can be thought of as energy manifest into form. Plasma, again, is the state of transition. Conversely, energy can be thought of as mass's energy released.
And of course we can all agree that all movement/change "takes time"... as long as we do not reify the latter.
Michael

[dkv]

I have come to the conclusion that the life is an illusion and notwithstanding what my friends will say I will insist that the experience is false.Or is similar to a lie. With the property that great men can change its nature itself. In other words there is no permanent or absolute definition of time but only useful definition time.
However all said and done it nothing less than a miracle that our dear scientists have failed to reach to any conclusive definition of time.Most of the readers are surprised at the absence of even a single useful definition of time at the micro level.(since we already have clock for macro level)
Enchanted time cant be measured at unless observer is itself not influencing the time and how easily modern science ignores this fact.