Time and time perception (split from Can I say that Time is Linear?)

[swansont]

You’ve mentioned QT twice now, without connecting it to time perception.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

quote from beecee : 

 

" Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know. "  

So what are philosophers of science  doing  ??  !!

[studiot]

This thread is somehow about the difference between time itself and the human perception of it.

I would question the thesis that human time perception is incapable of investigation by Science.

In support I offer the following.

Human time perception is governed by the rate of (chemical) processes within the body.

We know that if all is tranquil about us so that we are bored and soporific, time seems to 'drag'. ie run slowly.
If suddenly something happens to alert us, stimulating chemicals are dumped into our system and time seems to speed up.

Whatever else the human may be, it includes a body which is a bag of multiple chemical reactions proceeding at once and interlinking.
Such a system is not unknown is Chemistry - though of course we cannot at present compass anything as complex as a human - and each reaction has its own natural rate constant, some combination of these will be dominant according to ordinary chemical kinetics.

[Area54]

20 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Space is zillions of times more intuitive/intuitionistic as compared with what is called "time"  ....

Scientists may make use of intuition, but science is not intuitive. Intuition may identify a door. Science opens it. And some doors turn out to be trompe l'oeil. Your concept of time is flawed.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

29 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Scientists may make use of intuition, but science is not intuitive. Intuition may identify a door. Science opens it. And some doors turn out to be trompe l'oeil. Your concept of time is flawed.

Intuition/intuitive/intuitional  here are applied in the sense of  " being able to be perceived not mediately .. being able to be perceived immanently " ..  ..  ..  ..

Edited March 17, 2021 by Prof Reza Sanaye

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

quote from beecee : 

 

" Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know. "  

So what are philosophers of science  doing  ??  !!

Ask Bertrand. Personally my view of philosophy aligns mostly with Professor Lawrence Krauss. Both he and Bertrand were simply emphasising the limitations of philosophy and the beginnings of science. The philoosphy of science is a worthwhile, necessary  concern of philosophers on the foundations of science, which scientists generally adhere to.  https://theconversation.com/philosophy-under-attack-lawrence-krauss-and-the-new-denialism-12181#:~:text=Our ability to be effective,own borders in problematic ways.

But hey, while I made a remark with regards to your own faulty philosophy, this is about time, and the perception of time, and you have received some good answers from other participants in this thread, pointing out your errors in thinking.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ask Bertrand. Personally my view of philosophy aligns mostly with Professor Lawrence Krauss. Both he and Bertrand were simply emphasising the limitations of philosophy and the beginnings of science. The philoosphy of science is a worthwhile, necessary  concern of philosophers on the foundations of science, which scientists generally adhere to.  https://theconversation.com/philosophy-under-attack-lawrence-krauss-and-the-new-denialism-12181#:~:text=Our ability to be effective,own borders in problematic ways.

But hey, while I made a remark with regards to your own faulty philosophy, this is about time, and the perception of time, and you have received some good answers from other participants in this thread, pointing out your errors in thinking.

And others receiving potent replies to their shaky rationalization to defend the bizarre idea of absolute time . . . . 

[beecee]

Just now, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

And others receiving potent replies to their shaky rationalization to defend the bizarre idea of absolute time . . . . 

? Who supports absolute time? The fact that time and space are real, is based on the fact of their variability and interchangeablity. 

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

? Who supports absolute time? The fact that time and space are real, is based on the fact of their variability and interchangeablity. 

So you have not followed ( at all ) my line of argument  . .. ...

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Intuition/intuitive/intuitional  here are applied in the sense of  " being able to be perceived not mediately .. being able to be perceived immanently " ..  ..  ..  ..

Which is irrelevant, since science if not based upon or validated by immanent perception.

I await your next response that is even more off-topic and quite probably presented in a variety of coloured fonts.

Your posting style makes it very difficult to take you seriously. I cannot imagine that is your intent. Something for you to reflect on.

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So you have not followed ( at all ) my line of argument  . .. ...

I have tried to, but sometimes it is difficult. Please refer back to my first post in this thread......

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

As others have said, time perception, or the perception of time depends on the human condition and circumstances....You could say that "mind time" and "clock time" are two different things. A child sees the passing of time from one Christmas to the next, as an eternity: To an adult though, it can seem like yesterday. Sit with a hot blonde for an hour chatting and it seems like a minute; Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it sems like an hour. A quote, or words to that effect from the great man, Albert Einstein. This perception of time is explained here....https://qz.com/1516804/physics-explains-why-time-passes-faster-as-you-age/#:~:text=Clock time and mind time,related to saccadic eye movement.&text=So%2C when you are young,that time passes more rapidly.

Physics explains why time passes faster as you age:

 

The nature of time itself is different. That is real...time is real, just as real as space,  and is interchangeable with space.  That time cannot exist without space, just as space cannot exist without time, both evolving at t+10-43 seconds in what we call the BB. I like the explanation given by Sean Carroll here....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk

In summing, the perconal perception of the passing of time is a personal thing, based on probably what studiot said just above.

Time itself cannot exist without space, just as space cannot exist without time, both evolving (as we know them) at t+10-43 seconds in what we call the BB model 

Edited March 17, 2021 by beecee

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

31 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Which is irrelevant, since science if not based upon or validated by immanent perception.

I await your next response that is even more off-topic and quite probably presented in a variety of coloured fonts.

Your posting style makes it very difficult to take you seriously. I cannot imagine that is your intent. Something for you to reflect on.

The whole beautiful edifice of science is built upon (perceived) data . ... Without tangible data , GR or any other theory would have most probably totally collapsed . Seems you are jesting with me . .. .colored or non-colored , nay ??

Edited March 17, 2021 by Prof Reza Sanaye

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

The whole beautiful edifice of science is built upon (perceived) data . ... Without tangible data , GR or any other theory would have most probably totally collapsed .

We all perceive the same data...we all observe the CMBR at 2.73K...we all observe the universal expansion over large scales...we all observe the same Sun...we all observe a day  being 24hrs long.  if we are all honest that is. Can you give me some observational scientific data that is perceived differently by different individuals? 

Edited March 17, 2021 by beecee

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

The whole beautiful edifice of science is built upon (perceived) data

Well yes, this is where the Ancient Greeks went wrong.

Science studies whatever you can interact with.

If you can't interact with it is there any point studying it since it can never affect you, by definition.

 

Abstractions are useful if applied to sunsequent interactions, otherwise they are just guesswork and dreaming.

And yes there are some very beautiful dreams about, but I prefer to carefully distinguish between the pure fiction of what I can imagine might be and whatever my interactions suggest reality might be.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

We all perceive the same data...we all observe the CMBR at 2.73K...we all observe the universal expansion over large scales...we all observe the same Sun...we all observe a day  being 24hrs long.  if we are all honest that is. Can you give me some observational scientific data that is perceived differently by different individuals? 

Yes ! I can ! 

The rotating planets and the gravitation working therein  were mathematically described by Newton in his own old-fashioned way ; they found a totally differing description under the genius of Albert Einstein .   . . . 

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Well yes, this is where the Ancient Greeks went wrong.

Science studies whatever you can interact with.

If you can't interact with it is there any point studying it since it can never affect you, by definition.

 

Abstractions are useful if applied to sunsequent interactions, otherwise they are just guesswork and dreaming.

And yes there are some very beautiful dreams about, but I prefer to carefully distinguish between the pure fiction of what I can imagine might be and whatever my interactions suggest reality might be.

So you  100%  agree with me . .  ...  .

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Yes ! I can ! 

The rotating planets and the gravitation working therein  were mathematically described by Newton in his own old-fashioned way ; they found a totally differing description under the genius of Albert Einstein .   . . . 

So you  100%  agree with me . .  ...  .

Do you, 100% agree with me?

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Well yes, this is where the Ancient Greeks went wrong.

Science studies whatever you can interact with.

If you can't interact with it is there any point studying it since it can never affect you, by definition.

 

Abstractions are useful if applied to sunsequent interactions, otherwise they are just guesswork and dreaming.

And yes there are some very beautiful dreams about, but I prefer to carefully distinguish between the pure fiction of what I can imagine might be and whatever my interactions suggest reality might be.

Expand  Expand  

So you  100%  agree with me . .  ...  .

 

I can't tell what you mean by 100%, but yes I agree that Science is built on perceived data.

But I did not claim that is the whole story, whoever.

Science is much more than that.

Science is also about the systematic recording, collating and organising that data and comparing it with previously perceived recorded, collated and organised data, and also using it to suggest new interactions.
This may well be the reason Science proceeds in bursts of activity, followed by periods of 'filling in' and structural optimisation.
It is also the reason formal treatise textbooks like Euclid etc are more difficult than tests written for instruction.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

 

 

Quote from Studiot : 

 

" But I did not claim that is the whole story, whoever.

Science is much more than that.

Science is also about the systematic recording, collating and organising that data and comparing it with previously perceived recorded, collated and organised data, and also using it to suggest new interactions.
This may well be the reason Science proceeds in bursts of activity, followed by periods of 'filling in' and structural optimisation.
It is also the reason formal treatise textbooks like Euclid etc are more difficult than tests written for instruction. " { Quote ended } 

 

Ah ! So raw material alone does NOT work , , ,, You see ? 

We have to "regurgitate" and "ruminate" so many different things in order to arrive at what is known as Science. And sometimes ( only sometimes ) the Authors of Science , ie : Scientists , happen to interpret things differently from one another and give various versions of what data give them to work on. Newton did believe in the Entity of Time in itself. His contemporary Genius Leibnitz didn't. His non-contemporary Einstein didn't , either. He regarded it as a symptom , so to say , of a more comprehensive amalgamated thing under the title of spacetime. Sort of a 4-D manifold.

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime&oq=spacetime+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433j69i60j69i61j69i60j69i59j35i39j0i433.3239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 

Bohr & Heisenberg were firm in not believing this Einsteinian  definition of time. To them , time was only some continuation of human experience. It wasn't woven into the fabric of Reality , the Nature. Then came on the scene Bohm with Bohmian mechanics. A bit closer to Einsteinian methodology. He was , however , ridiculed by some. These events had to be phenomenologised. And who better to write on the crisis in science than Prof  Edmund Husserl , himself a very well-educated rigorous mathematician  ?  

Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften had actually predicted many of such disturbing differences of opinion amongst Scientists. Disturbing then . . . And : Wonder of Wonders : Disturbing now ! 

Now that you and I are typing these words under the generous  beneficent auspices   of scienceforums founders. 

Let us not play the game of oversimplifying things. There are almost always "alternatives" .

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Yes ! I can ! 

The rotating planets and the gravitation working therein  were mathematically described by Newton in his own old-fashioned way ; they found a totally differing description under the genius of Albert Einstein .   . . . 

 

Naaa, that's just the why and how. We all perceive the local stellar system as is. but describe the reasons with different methods, both correct, one just more accurate then the other.

The facts remain, time perception [as the great man illustrated] is a different kettle of fish to time and the nature of time.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

The rotating planets and the gravitation working therein  were mathematically described by Newton in his own old-fashioned way ; they found a totally differing description under the genius of Albert Einstein .   . . . 

That's not individual perception. It's a different description and different data but not a difference of perception. You are being slippery again.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

That's not individual perception. It's a different description and different data but not a difference of perception. You are being slippery again.

You are being non-attentive again  ................

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Naaa, that's just the why and how. We all perceive the local stellar system as is. but describe the reasons with different methods, both correct, one just more accurate then the other.

The facts remain, time perception [as the great man illustrated] is a different kettle of fish to time and the nature of time.

Aha , ,, .   Thank you for , in fact , confirming me.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

You are being non-attentive again  ................

Pot, kettle , black?

6 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Aha , ,, .   Thank you for , in fact , confirming me.

As long as we all understand that time perception is a different kettle of fish to the reality and nature of time.

[studiot]

Apropos of nothing in particular we have an old saying

"A stitch in time is worth nine."

How scientific is this numerical evaluation of time ?

🙂

Edited March 19, 2021 by studiot

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Apropos of nothing in particular we have an old saying

"A stitch in time is worth nine."

How scientific is this numerical evaluation of time ?

🙂

Cloud  architechtoincs  appears to be doing that  ... . ..