Measurement of Time vs. Time itself

[blike]

Is there a difference between the measurement of time and time itself? I was discussing relativity with someone and he noted that only the measurement of time is relative, not time itself. Is there a difference?

[swansont]

Science is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality, and that's what we observe or measure. So, no, there isn't a difference from that vantage point. What we objectively measure is what's real.

 

It's the same as asking if there is a difference in length or the measurement of length. If every thing you can do to an object tells you it's a meter long, then it's a meter long. If someone wants to claim that it's really two meters long, but there's absolutley no way for the two meter length to manifest itself to you, what does it matter?

[ydoaPs]

i think there is a difference. one of the things i have seen used many times in attempt to disprove relativity is people saying time is an invention of man because he invented minutes, hours, seconds, and such. there is a difference between the measurement and the measured.

[timo]

There are two different types of time: Coordinate time which is relative (like the coefficient c_x of a vector v = c_x e_x + c_y e_y + c_z e_z in R³ being dependent on the base {e_x,e_y,e_z}) and eigentime which is absolute (to stay in the R³ picture: The length of the line between two point is indepentent of your coordinate system´s orientation).

 

For the difference of "measurement of time" and "time itself": Sounds pretty philosophical to me. You measure something and if it is an invariant then the result is an invariant. If it isn´t, the result isn´t.

[swansont]

i think there is a difference. one of the things i have seen used many times in attempt to disprove relativity is people saying time is an invention of man because he invented minutes, hours, seconds, and such. there is a difference between the measurement and the measured.

 

I disagree. Is length an invention of man because we invented the meter?

[ydoaPs]

i disagree as well. that was the point of my post.

[franz_liszt]

whether time is absolute and our measuement relativeis a philosophical question. the answer by swansont shows an underlying allegiance to the old positivist/verificationist epistemology that has been completely rejected by philosophers as a bankrupt epistemological starting point. It also shows an underlying negative attitude toward metaphysics that would make Einstein and Mach happy.

[eon_rider]

I think it's just a small issue of how you define absolute and relative,

or objective and subjective in reference to reality.

 

It's nothing more than semantics.

 

Physics works. No worries. Whether one calls it the

study of all things absolute (objective) or all things relative (subjective) to each other {or relative (subjective) to the observer} be it the scientist, or whomever.

 

Is the plane relative to the ground? Yes.

Is speed relative to mass? Yes.

 

Is a star relative to another star? Yes.

Is a cell relative to another cell or its constituent parts? Yes.

 

Can you talk about these things or anything in isolation? No.

I don't think so. Everything in time and space has to reference either the observer or another part of itself, or another object, or be in relation to something other then itself or else it has no meaning.

 

The difference gives it meaning. Differences are relative to each other.

 

Do we call all these things the study of objective reality?

Sure. Why not? who cares?

 

The term objective sounds more sturdy and unshakable,

than the term or idea of the study of all things subjective (relative).

 

The observation of an objective and absolute reality presents a better image.

 

Less crack pot.

In the end the whole debate is tiny.

 

Call science what consensus insists it be called.

I don't see why it's such a big deal?

 

But never mind.

 

"Science is the study (observation and measurement) of objective reality"

 

Everybody happy?

 

best

 

Eon.

 

PS. My 2 cents only. Not a big deal, the more I think about it.

 

PPS. sorry...the lead up was important....back to your original question

 

Is there a difference between the measurement of time and time itself?

 

Is there a difference between "a measurement" and "the thing measured." ?

 

The answer should be clear now.

 

Go measure a wall, or anything and tell me if your measurement and the thing you are measuring are the same thing.

 

Is your measurement the wall?

 

Say you measure the time it takes to walk across a room on your stop watch.

 

Is the measurement of the time (the number on the stop watch),

the same as the "time" that passed during the walk?

 

One's a representational number or measurement of a time event,

and the latter is the actual time event.

 

How can they be the same?

The former can represent the latter, but it can't be the same.

 

best again,

[wormholeman]

I believe that time, if your referring itself to a clock is a tool made by man.

also there is a difference if time is being referred to as in the past or the future. So yes I believe there is a difference.

[timo]

Go measure a wall, or anything and tell me if your measurement and the thing you are measuring are the same thing.

How does one measure a wall?

 

I believe that time, if your referring itself to a clock [...']

And I believe he had written "clock" if he had meant a clock.

 

I do not think Blike was up to the question whether there is a difference between 20m and falling down 20m but more up to the question whether time is relative or an absolute and whether it´s an improper measurement that fools us in thinking that time is relative.

[wormholeman]

His question is.."Is there a difference between the measurement of time and time itself"

The way I understand that question if he's referring to "time" which is

"A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" and ("time itself") <---what dose

he mean by that? How can time be by it's self...seems to me that "time" and

"time it self" collide together.

 

re-edit: Just a thought! Don't we measure time with a clock?..

[franz_liszt]

The question about what time is is a philosophical question.

What your overall philosophy of ultimate reality is will govern your answer to that question. Thus, the hard-core naturalist will say there is no difference, and the one who does not scoff at metaphysics will say that there may well be a difference between time and the measurement of time, and the one who fully embraces metaphysics will have no problem whatsoever with the dichotomy and say that time itself (doesn't mean "by its self"- it means the thing which is called time) is absolute and that which we measure that absolute by is relative. So with the space question as well.

[wormholeman]

My overall philosophy is to have an open mind and accept the things I can't answer or change.

[franz_liszt]

Wormholeman, that doesn't answer what philosophical leanings you have as pertains to scientific and philosophical naturalism/materialism/anti-metaphysicalism or a philosophy that approves of metaphysical assertions, like "time is absolute."

[wormholeman]

I think your right about that franz_liszt...I have been taught and to accept that im able to calculate that 1 + 1 = 2. Even Einstien believed that math conforms to reality.

So I dont believe that philosophy can answer the question. I do believe philosophy can give insight and can lead to an answer.

[franz_liszt]

Yeah, I'd expand to say that philosophy gives us the framework so we can answer the question. If our philosophical framework tell us that fundamentally we cannot trust our sense perception, the world around us is a dream and really we are brains in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, then all of our scientific "insights" will follow from that. So one must be aware of and be intellectually committed to a certain set of hopefully soherent philosophical assumptions before we can really make self-consciously intelligent claims about time and space and what not. The page you directed us to is blatantly B-theorist in its understanding of time. But the b-theory is very suspect and is extremely counterintuitive, which should count for something!

[wormholeman]

Very cool! : ) franz_liszt

[eon_rider]

Atheist: How does one measure a wall?

 

anyway you like, of course.

I'm sure you can find a tape measure or ruler somewhere.

 

 

Atheist wrote: "question whether time is relative or an absolute and whether it´s an improper measurement that fools us in thinking that time is relative."

 

You could be 100 percent correct Atheist, but that is not what he wrote. His question is below.

 

Blike wrote: "Is there a difference between the measurement of time and time itself?"

 

So yes there is a difference between the measurement of time and time itself.

As pointed out.

 

Then he makes a statement.

 

Then he asked a second question.

 

Is there a difference?

 

He's just repeating the question.

 

I assume he really meant what he asked, not something else.

 

Fair enough? We're on the same side really I think....

 

I agree, if he says he meant something else than you may be totally correct.

 

OK? Win/win here...is good.

 

Franz_liszt "The question about what time is is a philosophical question."

 

Look. Honestly, I don't know?

 

My best guess would be the philosophical answer to "what is time" is eternally un-concludable. And forever ponderable.

 

But in science, here's one definition:

"Time measurements are used to quantify how far apart events occur."

 

Atheist pointed out some other non-philosophical types of time used in science and math. I'm told that several types of time are used in math depending on what you are observing or theorising, or measuring.

 

All of them (in the scientific context) are used to measure temporal events in some way.

 

Sorry to go on for so long.

 

Best to all,

 

Eon.