hijack from time

[scherado]

8 hours ago, muskan said:

what's exactly is time? did it started with the big bang or it existed even earlier? we measure time, but don't know what exactly it is. 

What a strange question at this particular "time" <*gasp*> on this forum! </sarcasm> It would be prudent to give an answer, at this time.

The definitive answer, one that does not require theoretical speculation: Our (humans) relationship to time is most commonly based upon a physical process. Time is known to us as some physical process: Earth's rotation (named "day"); Earth's revolution around Sun (named "year"); Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second; _________ (named ____)<==fill-in the blanks with reliable, predictable, record-able physical process.

Any other conceptions of 'Time' is, in my opinion, speculative, theoretical and, often, fantastic--that of fantasy. Hence my characterization of 'Time'--in the locked thread--as the "handmaiden of Matter"--a phrase I conceived to discuss the subject: If there's no Matter, then there's no 'Time'. Some entertain the "scenario" of no matter, which I deem preposterous on it's face as there would be no things, no existence, as it is observed and known to us. I usually add, at this point, that the matter that must exist, generally described, must also be "in motion", as it could not be otherwise, I suspect--enter what is, generally, termed "energy". In this regard, with respect to a scenario of a "time" without matter, there are those who assert a "deity". I am Agnostic on that subject--for well-examined reasons.
 
The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours. This relationship to 'Time' is what I term the edifice of civilization, as it exists. We all can agree that civilization, generally described, is an invention and ruled by convention and based upon that which we call "time."

Given our relationship with and to 'Time', if I were to ask, what is the nature of time?, I would not be asking a philosophical question and my answer would be, it is the handmaiden of Matter.

Edited September 27, 2017 by scherado

[scherado]

The definitive answer, one that does not require theoretical speculation: Our (humans) relationship to time is most commonly based upon a physical process. Time is known to us as some physical process: Earth's rotation (named "day"); Earth's revolution around Sun (named "year"); Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second; _________ (named ____)<==fill-in the blanks with reliable, predictable, record-able physical process.

Any other conceptions of 'Time' is, in my opinion, speculative, theoretical and, often, fantastic--that of fantasy. Hence my characterization of 'Time'--in the locked thread--as the "handmaiden of Matter"--a phrase I conceived to discuss the subject: If there's no Matter, then there's no 'Time'. Some entertain the "scenario" of no matter, which I deem preposterous on it's face as there would be no things, no existence, as it is observed and known to us. I usually add, at this point, that the matter that must exist, generally described, must also be "in motion", as it could not be otherwise, I suspect--enter what is, generally, termed "energy". In this regard, with respect to a scenario of a "time" without matter, there are those who assert a "deity". I am Agnostic on that subject--for well-examined reasons.
 
The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours. This relationship to 'Time' is what I term the edifice of civilization, as it exists. We all can agree that civilization, generally described, is an invention and ruled by convention and based upon that which we call "time."

Given our relationship with and to 'Time', if I were to ask, what is the nature of time?, I would not be asking a philosophical question and my answer would be, it is the handmaiden of Matter.

Edited September 28, 2017 by scherado

[swansont]

Handmaiden to matter is not particularly revealing.

3 hours ago, scherado said:

 The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours.  

Yes, they are arbitrary. So are the rest of our units — the meter, the coulomb, etc. What of it?

[scherado]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Handmaiden to matter is not particularly revealing.

Yes, they are arbitrary. So are the rest of our units — the meter, the coulomb, etc. What of it?

I thank you for moving the post.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

...

Yes, they are arbitrary. So are the rest of our units — the meter, the coulomb, etc. What of it?

What do you mean "what of it?" I don't understand the question. And I don't understand the relevance of the other units of measurement not related to duration.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Handmaiden to matter is not particularly revealing.

Yes, they are arbitrary. So are the rest of our units — the meter, the coulomb, etc. What of it?

Are you aware that "day" and "year" are two of "the rest of" them all and are not arbitrary?

Edited September 28, 2017 by scherado

[Silvestru]

27 minutes ago, scherado said:

Are you aware that "day" and "year" are two of "the rest of" them all and are not arbitrary?

Can you please tell me the specific value of a year? 

Why are "year" and "day" not arbitrary in your opinion?

[Strange]

Depends on the definition of "arbitrary" I suppose. 

Day and year are arbitrary in the sense of not having any universal meaning (unlike, say, Planck units). But are not arbitrary in that they are based on obvious things going on in the world around us. But they could also be considered arbitrary because they don't have constant values.

Of course, subdivisions of the day, such as hours and seconds (and the number of hyperfine transitions of a caesium atom) are arbitrary in both senses.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

 Are you aware that "day" and "year" are two of "the rest of" them all and are not arbitrary?

The SI unit of time is the second. Days and years are not SI units.

A year has its value because of a decision we made, that a complete revolution about the sun has some value to us. But is a year 365 days long, or 366? What was the length of a day a million years ago? What of the length of a year on another planet? It's not the same as on earth. We could assign importance to fractions of a year, such as from one solstice to the next, if circumstances dictated that that interval be important. We chose a year out of convenience, not because it has some universal meaning.

 

1 hour ago, scherado said:

 What do you mean "what of it?" I don't understand the question. And I don't understand the relevance of the other units of measurement not related to duration.

You pointed out that the length of the second is arbitrary. So what if it's arbitrary? If arbitrariness is what's bothering you, then you should be equally bothered by the arbitrariness of other units. That's what I mean by "what of it?" You've made a statement, as if it's important, but not explained what the importance is.

[scherado]

5 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Can you please tell me the specific value of a year?

...

There is the specific value of a year used in the contrivance (invention) called calendar. You may recall that I "dispensed with" these elements of 'Time' in this post of my locked thread about 'Time'.

We can dispense with that conception of 'Time' which we have built an entire civilization upon, our relationship to that construction. This thread is not about that subject.

Let's be clear: our scientific attempts--long suffering--to describe 'Time', as it exists irrespective of humans' existence (the efforts of Physics), are quite distinct from our civilizational relationship and understanding of 'Time', the construction, invention the Edifice which is the basis of organized, daily, present-day life. That is the reason I "dispense with" that topic at the beginning of a discussion of the nature of 'Time', as this topic does not advance the subject toward an understanding of the nature of 'Time'; but only toward an understanding of our behavior (relationship), which is a psychological, sociological explanation.

With respect to a value associated with "year"--not the one used in the calendar-scheme--I might, given that you specify the units required give you only an average value for year based upon a set of measurements; but I know that the reason for this imprecise answer is not the same reason infinity is not affixed to a value. This raises the question: what is the difference between the fact that infinity is not a value and we are not able to affix a value (set one  to) the length of "year", Earth's orbit?

Do you have any duct-tape for your head? Please apply to your head before you continue.

The actual duration of Earth's revolution around Sun may be decreasing. I may have read that somewhere. It may vary given X measurements of some reliable method over 20 years of measurements: I may have read that somewhere. Some day, we may discover that the period is increasing. I look forward to reading that somewhere. But, what if we measured reliably, with a precise method, and found that the orbit was exactly some extremely precise value, say 15 decimal place-accuracy of unit seconds, what would that be evidence of, what would we possibly conclude, inevitably?

We would adduce that towards evidence of God, The Big Cheese "Himself."

Luckily (or unluckily) we don't find ourselves in that "predicament." LOL

Now, suppose I had a "15 decimal-place value precise" device to measure the duration in seconds of Earth's orbit this calendar year 2017?--and I presented you with that "value", the number? Your response to me should be that I gave you only an approximation for the "simple" reason that I can't identify a smallest duration of 'Time' in a numerical sense, this being a distinctly different consideration from the smallest duration measureable by our device invented and those invented in future, with 20 or 30 decimal-place precision. (The astute reader will be reminded of the essence of "Zeno's paradox" when faced with the smallest duration of 'Time' in a numerical sense.)

I have more with respect to the meaning of "arbitrary" in my sentence: "The invention of the mechanical clock, generally, works by mocking duration reliably and informs us the amount that has elapsed in arbitrary totals known as--seconds, minutes hours?--but must return.

[scherado]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

You pointed out that the length of the second is arbitrary. So what if it's arbitrary? If arbitrariness is what's bothering you, then you should be equally bothered by the arbitrariness of other units. That's what I mean by "what of it?" You've made a statement, as if it's important, but not explained what the importance is.

Are you serious? I'm not bothered by anything that's arbitrary in the duration-units--it is trivial and should be ignored when talking about the nature of 'Time'.  That's the reason I ATTEMPTED to dispense with that aspect of the subject. You are the one who is stuck, APPARENTLY, on the arbitrary duration-units. That's what I meant by I don't believe you. I don't believe that you don't understand such things while having a position of authority on a science forum--I never ONCE considered the possibility that you lied. You decide which of these is worse.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, scherado said:

Are you serious? I'm not bothered by anything that's arbitrary in the duration-units--it is trivial and should be ignored when talking about the nature of 'Time'. 

So why bring it up?

2 hours ago, scherado said:

That's the reason I ATTEMPTED to dispense with that aspect of the subject. You are the one who is stuck, APPARENTLY, on the arbitrary duration-units. That's what I meant by I don't believe you. I don't believe that you don't understand such things while having a position of authority on a science forum--I never ONCE considered the possibility that you lied. You decide which of these is worse.

I only responded to your description. If you had not mentioned it, I would not have, either.

My position of authority on this forum is not based on my ability to read minds. I can only respond to what you write. 

[scherado]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

So why bring it up?

For the last time: TO DISPENSE WITH IT. Please look-up the word.

[swansont]

How about you tell us what the nature of time is, then, instead of telling us what it isn't.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, scherado said:

For the last time: TO DISPENSE WITH IT. Please look-up the word.

A nice example of apophasis. 

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

A nice example of apophasis. 

Never heard of that. They (Wiki)  say it is related to irony .Not a bit like an inverse strawman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis

 

The word itself reminds me of Apoptosis (cell suicide)

[scherado]

On 9/29/2017 at 7:56 AM, swansont said:

How about you tell us what the nature of time is, then, instead of telling us what it isn't.

The OP is my conception of the nature of time. Your question seems to request that I tell you the actual nature of 'Time'. I would not have posed the question in my locked thread had I known the answer. If necessary, then I will explain the difference to you mine and the actual.

The "handmaiden of Matter" is a phrase that I chose to convey that all our conceptions of time based upon our multi-milleniua relationship to it--excluding the theoretical "spacetime" conception--insinuate that whatever time may or may not actually be, that all our observations indicate that it is inextricably linked to Matter, as it is observed throughout the universe in all it's non-inert forms, which is meant to mean all the physical processes in existence.

[dimreepr]

35 minutes ago, scherado said:

excluding the theoretical "spacetime" conception

1

That's like excluding a clock as a theoretical method of measuring it.

[scherado]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:14 AM, swansont said:

...Handmaiden to matter is not particularly revealing.

 

On 9/28/2017 at 10:17 AM, Silvestru said:

...Why are "year" and "day" not arbitrary in your opinion?

The origin of: "Time is a physical process"

This is paraphrased: I don't remember the precise words. I was passing a television (it was on, sometime between 1985-1993, best guess) and there was a show on about this subject. I don't know the title of the show; I don't know, today, who spoke; and I watched for a few minutes at most. I came away with the thought, "time is a physical process."

After hearing that short bit, I thought of it occasionally over many years and upon each occasion--I'm avoiding using the word "time"--I became more convinced of the truth-value of the sentence. When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process.

The guy was right.

It was then that I began to question what I had not questioned: Time being the one to follow 3, making it 4th in the dimension-scheme promoted and accepted. It had the odor of contrivance.

I'll pause here.

Edited September 30, 2017 by scherado

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

The origin of: "Time is a physical process"

This is paraphrased: I don't remember the precise words. I was passing a television (it was on, sometime between 1985-1993, best guess) and there was a show on about this subject. I don't know the title of the show; I don't know, today, who spoke; and I watched for a few minutes at most. I came away with the thought, "time is a physical process."

After hearing that short bit, I thought of it occasionally over many years and upon each occasion--I'm avoiding using the word "time"--I became more convinced of the truth-value of the sentence. When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process.

The guy was right.

It was then that I began to question what I had not questioned: Time being the one to follow 3, making it 4th in the dimension-scheme promoted and accepted. It had the odor of contrivance.

I'll pause here.

Why do you accept time as a physical process? Is length a physical "process"?

[scherado]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why do you accept time as a physical process? Is length a physical "process"?

Are you serious?

I need help with that question, the second question.

Let's do a cursory referent analysis on that: "Is length a physical 'process'"?

Can anyone identify the referents in that sentence?

Consider this a test: Identify the referents in the subject sentence.

I await any reply.

Edited September 30, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, scherado said:

When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process.

So measuring time is a physical process. But that doesn't mean that time itself is. 

Similarly, measuring length is a physical process but length itself isn't.

5 minutes ago, scherado said:

I await any reply.

If I were a moderator, I would close the thread and let him wait...

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, scherado said:

Are you serious?

I need help with that question, the second question.

Yes, I am serious. You said you accept time as a physical process. Why is that?

3 minutes ago, scherado said:

Let's do a cursory referent analysis on that: "Is length a physical 'process'"?

Can anyone identify the referents in that sentence?

Consider this a test: Identify the referents in the subject sentence.

I await any reply.

What is the referent in "time is a physical process"? 

[scherado]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:33 PM, swansont said:

Is length a physical "process"?

On 9/30/2017 at 4:52 PM, swansont said:

...

What is the referent in "time is a physical process"? 

I do believe that you understand that the only two candidates are "time" and "process". I use "candidate" as one might be flimsy. I ask you directly: Which of the two might be susceptible to the descriptor "flimsy?"

I await your reply.

Do you want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

[swansont]

2 hours ago, scherado said:

I do believe that you understand that the only two candidates are "time" and "process". I use "candidate" as one might be flimsy. I ask you directly: Which of the two might be susceptible to the descriptor "flimsy?"

I await your reply.

Do you want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

I want you to answer the questions about your claims instead of deflecting them.  

[scherado]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

I want you to answer the questions about your claims instead of deflecting them.  

What do you mean? I have been very clear. What more should I add?; do you wish me to rephrase something?

Edited October 2, 2017 by scherado

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, scherado said:

What do you mean? I have been very clear. What more should I add?; do you wish me to rephrase something?

You said you accept time as a physical process. Where did you give your justification for that?