Time is manmade

[Edtharan]

That is objective (secondary) time, a philosophical concept though. But the true (primary) subjective time is the one we are trying to understand!

What is so special about us that makes us able to create this concept of time? Besides, if we create time, then why do you have a perception of time that is different from mine? If we are the createors of time because we percieve it, then does my perception of time superseed or is subject to your perception of time, or does this mean that I am the only real person percieveing time and everyone else is just acting like it?

 

Why do we need to create a "philosophical" concept of time that is different from the physical concept of time? Once you understand that our perceptions are not reality then the disparity between our perceptions of time and physical time disappears and eliminates a need for a philosophical notion of time.

 

Viwed in this light, any notion of a philosophical concept of time is meaningless as it is no longer describing and actual concept (well only one created so as to have something to be philosophical about ).

 

The need for a philosphical concpet of time only arrives because we need a way to match our perceptions of the flow of time to the reality of time. But, becuase our perceptions are different form reality, this measn that although we percieve a flow of time, there doesn't actually have to be a flow of time.

 

Perception is not necessarily a reflection of reality. It is but an interperetation designed to allow us, as an organism, to survive and reproduce.

[thedarkshade]

What is so special about us that makes us able to create this concept of time?

Well the fact that we "think" of time, and are conscious about the time "phenomena" makes us special enough. We are aware of time, are certain that it is, and if our perception of time is an illusion or not that is a different thing. We (the organic world) do get born, develop, reproduce and die. WE literally feel time. This does not completely stand for inorganic world too. They too do suffer changes as a results of interaction occurring between them, but they do not have a perception of it, they no nothing about something called 'time', thus by 'their' point of view there is no time.

 

Besides, if we create time, then why do you have a perception of time that is different from mine?

Humans have different perceptions for many things. We can have different perceptions about he same thing depending by the way we judge things, but this does not mean that one of us MUST be right and the other wrong. But if you are referring to the fact you and I experience different time, then there are factors that influence here. The most 'primitive' of all is that you might be older than, thus you have experienced much time. Then the 'traveling or nor factor'. And yes indeed we experience different time, but we both experience time, no matter if you do less or more than I do.

 

Why do we need to create a "philosophical" concept of time that is different from the physical concept of time? Once you understand that our perceptions are not reality then the disparity between our perceptions of time and physical time disappears and eliminates a need for a philosophical notion of time.

Well because human mind likes to explore, to know how things work, why they work the way they do, and what really are they. The ignorance toward the true nature of time would be foolishness, no matter if we will ever truly understand it. We get a very concrete understanding of things with the help of science, which experimentally and practically shows how things work. But this does not apply to time. There is no complete understanding of time in science yet and which would say :"Here you go, this is how time works. This is how it was created and we can create it over and over if we have these specific conditions." And as a result of the absence of a clear scientific understanding of time, we have to lean on the most logical conclusions. And this is what philosophy offers, a lot of ideas and hypotheses!

[doG]

No it didn't. Time exists because men exists! Subjective idealism!

 

Is this your way of saying that the Big Bang did not come before our solar system? That there was no before or after anything before man's existence? That there was no sequence of causal events prior to man's existence, that all events were simultaneous? That none of this occurred prior to man and man's creation of an ideological concept to explain and understand this as an intrinsic property of the universe?

 

Time itself is not man made, only his understanding of it. IMO time itself had no beginning. It has always been and always will be. It is independent of the existence of anything else, including man.

[iNow]

Well the fact that we "think" of time, and are conscious about the time "phenomena" makes us special enough.

Not quite. You have neither a) defined special, b) put parameters on "enough," nor c) proven conclusively that other non-humans do not think of time.

 

While it's a commonly believed meme that non-humans do not think of astract thoughts like time, any evidence of such a position is abundantly lacking, and conclusions such as yours do not hold up since they are grounded in premises with no empirical support.

 

 

This does not completely stand for inorganic world too. They too do suffer changes as a results of interaction occurring between them, but they do not have a perception of it, they no nothing about something called 'time', thus by 'their' point of view there is no time.

Again. You have asserted that statement as true without providing any support of it's validity, then you've gone on to extrapolate other conclusions from this unsupported premise.

 

I caution you to avoid a response such as, "Oh, come on, iNow, are you telling me that fish think about time just like humans!" That would still do nothing to support the assertion you've made and would be a logical fallacy complete with appeals.

 

 

Humans have different perceptions for many things. We can have different perceptions about he same thing depending by the way we judge things, but this does not mean that one of us MUST be right and the other wrong.

Ed's point was more that neither is right. Both are interpretations of the actual truth, a truth which has passed through filters and been biased by the observer... They are not the truth itself.

 

I'm not sure using the word "truth" above was my best choice, but the issue is one of an "objective reality" versus a filtered/interpretted/biased "subjective reality." The consistent kernel across observers is the objective, so that is why we instead focus on that.

 

 

Well because human mind likes to explore, to know how things work, why they work the way they do, and what really are they.

Indeed, and I suggest philosophy can help with this, but does not even (IMO) begin to match science in it's rigor, detail, or replicability.

 

 

There is no complete understanding of time in science yet and which would say :"Here you go, this is how time works. This is how it was created and we can create it over and over if we have these specific conditions."

That's just false. I read a post just the other day where swansont responded to Eric5 exactly like that. It's the frequency of oscillations. You seem to be defining time in a special way, and it is your special definition which is causing you to get caught up and decide that we don't understand it.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that it's a bad thing to philosophize about time. I do it all of ti__... ermm... I do it frequently. However, there is time as defined by science, and time in some metaphysical subjective sense. If studied in the subjective sense, then it is no longer time you are chasing, but instead you are seeking an understanding of the observer themselves.

 

The opening premise is ontological, and cascades infinitely to other things. It's akin to saying that "everything is manmade" because "everything" is a concept used by humans when they communicate, not some property of the universe itself. It is an emergent property of our language, not anything fundamental. This approach fails to recognize the critical difference between "the thing itself" and "our personal representation of the thing."

 

 

And this is what philosophy offers, a lot of ideas and hypotheses!

I'll stick with science myself. Philosophy gave us the flat earth and the geocentric model. Science gave us a closer representation of the actual truth... and continues to give us a better understanding of "the thing itself." ;-)

[Edtharan]

Well the fact that we "think" of time, and are conscious about the time "phenomena" makes us special enough.

You need to provide proof that animals don't have a sense of time for this to be true. Howver many animals show a sense of time. Take Cicadas. They live for 14 years or so under ground. They can determine seasons through the variation of the makup of the sap in the tree, however, they must somehow understand the passage of time so as to syncronise their emergence.

 

A mild winter or a cold summer might confuse a system that soley relied on the sap changing. So they must have some concept of the passage of time. And these are insects with very primative brains. They were around long before humans and this abiliy you think of as only being humans and making us special seems to be present in them. This is a big hole in your argument.

 

We are aware of time, are certain that it is, and if our perception of time is an illusion or not that is a different thing.

So are you saying that our awarenes of time is different from our perception of time?

 

But to percieve something means we are being aware of it. I thought in this case perception and awareness were synonomous.

 

I am saying all our perceptions and awareness of time are an "Illiusion". But by illusion I don't mean false, but an interperetation of the outside reality.

 

Lets look at another sense that many of us think represents the outside world: Sight.

 

People who are colourblind see the world fundamentally different than those that aren't colour blind. Different types of colourblindness give different colour percetions between them too.

 

We think of sight a bit like a camera. But if you have ever done any work with a camera you will know that what a camera sees and what a person sees are very different.

 

The eye is like a cammera, but it is there where the similarity ends. What we "see" is an interperetation of what our eye sees. What you "see" as the real world is only an "Illusion" of the outside reality.

 

We rely mainly on our sight to "see" distance and it is because of this sight that we think of distance as being concrete. But this "distance" that we see is no more necesarily as real as out perception of time.

 

Sure distance actually exists, but it doesn't necessarily have a reality as we percieve it.

 

Time exists, but is not the same as what we percieve it as.

 

The perception is an illuion, an interperetation of the underlying reality, just like every single other sense we have. Why should this one sense (of time) be any different to all our other senses?

 

WE literally feel time.

We literally feel heat, but it really only the motion of molecules and atoms. We literally feel touch, but actual touch is imposible (as the electrons in one atom repell the electrons in the other atoms and so they don't actually touch). We litterally see things, but this is just electron magnetic waves/paricles breaking apart certain moleclues in cells within our eyes creating an electrical charge.

 

Any perception we experience is an interperetation. We don actually "Litterally" sense things we sense them and then we are aware of an interperetation of them.

 

They too do suffer changes as a results of interaction occurring between them, but they do not have a perception of it, they no nothing about something called 'time', thus by 'their' point of view there is no time.

I am not denying that one can have a differnet experience of Time. Actually it is my point. If human perception of Time reflected what Time really is, then there would be a perception of time that everything could experience the same. But as you point out that doesn't occur, there is no single universal perception of time and therfore our perception of time can not be used to state what time is.

 

Humans have different perceptions for many things. We can have different perceptions about he same thing depending by the way we judge things, but this does not mean that one of us MUST be right and the other wrong.

No you misinterperested what I was saying. I was saying that both are wrong.

 

Perception is not reality, it is an interperetation of it.

 

Well because human mind likes to explore, to know how things work, why they work the way they do, and what really are they.

We also like to make things up.

 

So what is your point here?

 

The ignorance toward the true nature of time would be foolishness, no matter if we will ever truly understand it.

May be it is our ignorance of Time and that we made up explainations without knowledge that is keeping us from finding out what time really is. If we are relying on our (flawed) percetions then we can never really say what time is because what we are describing is not tiem bau a flawed percetion of it.

 

It is a bit like the Blind mena and the elephant. Each is only looking at a part of it that they can percieve, but if they stoped arguing that their perceptions are the true picture and started trying to find out what it is without relying on their perceptions, then they might understand that it is an "elephant".

 

This is my point, we are groping blind men using our limited percetions to describe what we percieve. Now as far as describing what we percieve, perceptions are an ok place to start. Howver, if we are trying to describe reality, then perceptions are not a good place to start as all we can ever doo is describe what we percieve.

 

We get a very concrete understanding of things with the help of science, which experimentally and practically shows how things work. But this does not apply to time.

Why?

 

There is no complete understanding of time in science yet

You know whqat, we don't fully understand gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechancis, forces, chemistry, electronics, etc, etc, etc. Does this mena that when we first found out about them we should ahve said: "Oh well we don't unerstand them yet, so lets just give up now."

 

If we had we would not be here having this conversation.

 

Just be cause we don't understand Time now. Does not mean that it is entierly a human construction. Just because we don't understand it does not mean that we can never understand it.

 

And as a result of the absence of a clear scientific understanding of time, we have to lean on the most logical conclusions. And this is what philosophy offers, a lot of ideas and hypotheses!

Logically, shoudl we use emperical evidence that is confirmed beyond our perceptions, or should we rely somthing that has been proven to be unreliable as an accurate representation of reality.

 

It is a no brainer. Relying on something that can not be relied on to give an accurate representation is inferior to something that give us an accurate representation.

[thedarkshade]

You need to provide proof that animals don't have a sense of time for this to be true. Howver many animals show a sense of time. Take Cicadas. They live for 14 years or so under ground. They can determine seasons through the variation of the makup of the sap in the tree, however, they must somehow understand the passage of time so as to syncronise their emergence.

Perhaps they do things of irrational things, and among them the concept of time might be included, but there is quite a little probability that we share the same ideas and point of views about time. Perhaps they already know what time is and don't give a damn about it any more! It's all 'perhaps' in this world we have to chose among the best and most logical among them.

 

So are you saying that our awarenes of time is different from our perception of time?

Yes, basically!

 

But to percieve something means we are being aware of it. I thought in this case perception and awareness were synonomous.

Being aware means knowing that something or someone or whatever exists, is! And a perception is a direct contact of the reality with you senses (empirical), or in this case with your rational side!

 

People who are colourblind see the world fundamentally different than those that aren't colour blind. Different types of colourblindness give different colour percetions between them too.

Great! Now think of the differences on the perception of time between us and animals.

 

Time exists, but is not the same as what we percieve it as.

That is due to what we have managed to understand so far!

 

The perception is an illuion, an interperetation of the underlying reality, just like every single other sense we have. Why should this one sense (of time) be any different to all our other senses?

Because we don't literally percept time in the way we percept color, mass, form, taste, smell. Time is subjective. You can hold it, move it around and play with it. We understand time as something that is in our mind. It's apriori!

 

Perception is not reality, it is an interperetation of it.

I completely agree!

 

 

 

We also like to make things up.

But they still remain as personal opinions until they are confirmed or denied scientifically!

 

 

 

Why?

Because we have not yet managed to achieve something like: "There you go, this is time and this is the procedure it is created and we can do that over and over as much as we want in out labs!"

 

 

But anyway, we are talking about a subject which includes only personal opinions and point of views so this does not mean that I or you have to be right. It's just a free discussion about a subject within which everyone can share their opinions about it!

[Edtharan]

Being aware means knowing that something or someone or whatever exists, is! And a perception is a direct contact of the reality with you senses (empirical), or in this case with your rational side!

As has been shown the information you are aware of from your senses is not emperical. Why do you keep insisting that it it?

 

Because we don't literally percept time in the way we percept color, mass, form, taste, smell. Time is subjective. You can hold it, move it around and play with it. We understand time as something that is in our mind. It's apriori!

But what you see, hear, feel, taste or smell are all contructs of our mind too.

 

What is smell but a chemical reaction within the nose. But we perceive and aware of a rose. We get a very specific experience out of it but what our senses are detecting is not a rose, but a combination of volitile oganic chemicals.

 

In fact, certain chemicls in one cencentration will give us one "smell" but those exact same chemicals in a different concentration will give us another but different smell.

 

Ever smelth the smell of the Ocean? This is one of this kind of sents. In a low concentration (like you get near the ocean) it gives a plesent (to some) smell, but in higher concentrations it give us the smell of cabages and in a higher concentration it becomes quite repulsive (and in really high concentration is it toxic). It is the exact same chamical that is causing the smell of the ocean and cabages, just in differnet amounts.

 

OUr perceptions say they are different, but the reality is that they are the same chemicals. Our awarness says that they are differnet, but reality is that they are the same.

 

Perception and awarness are not a reliable determination of reality.

 

Because we have not yet managed to achieve something like: "There you go, this is time and this is the procedure it is created and we can do that over and over as much as we want in out labs!"

Ok, do you accept causeality? That is that there is one event and it can cause other events to occur?

 

Can we measure that a cause occurs before an event in the lab?

 

Can we repeat experiments to confirm that causeality occurs?

 

If you answered "Yes" to thse, then Time has been demonstrated in the Labs. It has been described (to some degree) by science.

 

What I mean by "some degree here" is that even gravity is only described "to some degree" as well.

 

Lets avoid using double standards. Lets apply your thinking and reasoning to other subjects. Lets start with gravity:

 

WE literally feel time

We litterally feel gravity. Check

 

We get a very concrete understanding of things with the help of science, which experimentally and practically shows how things work. But this does not apply to time.

We can do experiments that demonstrate ther effects of Gravity (things fall). We can also do experiments that demonstrate the effects of time (causeality).

 

Because we have not yet managed to achieve something like: "There you go, this is time and this is the procedure it is created and we can do that over and over as much as we want in out labs!"

We can't create gravity in labs, we don't know what it is that makse graviuty work the way it does, we say: "this is the procedure it is created and we can do that over and over as much as we want". Neither can we for time.

 

It is looking like you have to accept gravity as being in the same philosopy as time. Maybe time is subject to human psychology too?

 

No double standards here. If Time is only a construct of human psychology (that is it has no existance beyond what we percieve) then so too does gravity. But I geuess that you would not be trying to argue that gravity only exists because we are aware of it.

 

You have argued that without human perception or awareness of Time then it doesn't exist. But if you apply all your arguments (that we can't exactly describe Time, that our perceptions alter our perception of time, and so forth) to gravity, space, and other phenomia that most people (and I assume that you do too) considder as being real and not dependant on human perceptions and psychology, they too run into this exact same problem.

 

I am saying that there is no problem, it is the problem itself that is the construct of humans. There is no discrepancy between how we percieve Time and what time really is. Our perceptions are just that: Perceptions. And as you have agreed Perception is not reality.

 

In fact the whole issue is one massive logical fallacy: Association fallacy

 

We can see Time occuring (causality) and we have a perception of Time. They are associated, but it is not in the way you seem to be describing. You have our perception of time as the cause of time, where as I am saying that our percetion of time is an effect of Time existing independently.

 

Take this little story (a common device used by ainceient gree philosphers):

 

Plato and Socrates are standing is a stream.

 

Socrates says to plato, "I am the source of the stream. Water appears beside me and flows away from me, thereofre I must be the source of the stream."

 

Plato then says, "If this is so, why is your back wet?"

 

You are claiming that Humans are the "source" of time, it is our perception of time that creates time. It has no existance beyond us. You are syaing that we are the source of the stream.

 

I am saying that just because we percieve time does not mean that we are its "source". I am saying that our perception of time is a perception of something that exist beyond us. I am saying that your back is wet.

 

Causality. Simply that effects come after a cuase is experimental proof of time beyind our perceptions. No matter how we change our perceptions, can we make an effect preceed a cause (we might percieve it as such, but investigation will reveal that it was an illusion caused by our brain operation.

 

Case in point is the sense of Deja Vu. In a Deja Vu we have a perception that effect preceeds the cause. We get a sensation that we were aware of the event before it occurred.

 

However, studdies of the brain show that there are two paths that infomarion takes to reach our conciousness. There is one that is slow, but gives more useful information, and the other is quick, but reduces the quality and quantity of the information.

 

Deja Vu occures when this dual cuircuit glitches. Noramlly we recieve information from only one pathway or the other. But in a Deja Vu we recieve it from both. We get the fast, low quality information (which is useful in emergency situations like a lion jumping out at us or a car nearly running us over) but then we get the second set of slow but high quality information.

 

This gives us a sense of being in that situation before because we were aware of the same situation just moments before.

 

Our perception of the flow of time is messed around with, But Cause still preceeds Effect. Regardless of our perceptions, Cause will always preceed Effect.

 

But don't mistake Causeality as being Time. It is an Effect of Time. Just as things falling is not Gravity but an effect of Gravity.

[Riogho]

Time is a man made measure to help us cope with the world around us.

 

It is said that heavier gravity causes time dilation. Duh. Gravity literally slows down the components of an atom so it moves slower. The same with cooling an atom down.

 

Are you crazy?

 

Yes... he must be crazy.

[foursixand2]

I am just going to say the same thing i always do in this sort of argument. The whole idea is a confusion of definitions. That time does not exist is only true if by time you mean our subjective perceptions and methods of measuring it. This is among the simplest of speculations that can be made and really isnt worth anyones time. The simple way to realize time is this : An object travels from point A to point B. Another object travels this same distance at twice the speed. What do you call this phenomenon? The other object traveled the same distance in less time than the first. Motion takes place over time. If we wanted to more precisely measure this event, or any event in the real world that involves time, obviously we would have to create a subjective system of measurement. We are man and thus this system would be manmade. The system measures time, which exists independently of man. I dont understand what else there could be to discuss. Its just silly. Time is real. Holy poop on a stick, lets move on to something more interesting.

 

Our perception of time is manmade though I read a while back a New Scientist article about all the tricks that the mind does with respect to our perception of time. For example, we process audio quicker than visual, but the mind delays the audio so that it matches the visual. There are also factors that affect how quickly we perceive time as passing.

 

However time as measured by clocks is quite objective.

 

Now that is an interesting tidbit and mostly unrelated to the original silly premise of the thread. Why do we process audio quicker though light is much faster than sound?

[foodchain]

What is so special about us that makes us able to create this concept of time? Besides, if we create time, then why do you have a perception of time that is different from mine? If we are the createors of time because we percieve it, then does my perception of time superseed or is subject to your perception of time, or does this mean that I am the only real person percieveing time and everyone else is just acting like it?

 

Why do we need to create a "philosophical" concept of time that is different from the physical concept of time? Once you understand that our perceptions are not reality then the disparity between our perceptions of time and physical time disappears and eliminates a need for a philosophical notion of time.

 

Viwed in this light, any notion of a philosophical concept of time is meaningless as it is no longer describing and actual concept (well only one created so as to have something to be philosophical about ).

 

I agree with you to an extent. Regardless of the wording, such as physical in your usage you are still within the bounds of your earlier position by so much more. Biology is the physical reality of life in short, such as the chemistry of it for another example. Yet as you would word it in my opinion you subject this physical reality as to be within the concept that perception is flawed, so would that make your view of what physical understanding can do just part of that flawed understanding of perception?

 

I agree with the reality that objective understanding can exist. I think this is common sense giving frostbite as just one of numerous examples. However as it stands no physical explanation can as of yet truly describe what everything is and how it works, a simple example being psychology, or understanding the history of the universe. So to go along with flawed perception obviously such is occurring, in the form of mistakes, or learning, etc...

 

Basically I think your stance goes like this.

 

perception=flawed

perception=physical

physical=flawed

 

I think that works.

[Edtharan]

Basically I think your stance goes like this.

 

perception=flawed

perception=physical

physical=flawed

 

I think that works.

No, that is wrong.

 

The first line is right:

Perception=Flawed

 

but that is about it.

 

The Physical is perfect (not as in the Platonic concept of perfection, but perfect as: itself is a perfect implimentation of itself), it is our perception of it that is imperfect.

 

So to go along with flawed perception obviously such is occurring, in the form of mistakes, or learning, etc...

It is not so much that is ti mistakes of learning, but due to the processing of the sensory inputs needed to achieve what we might call awareness.

 

Think of it in terms of: Stimulus -> Processing -> Response

 

Processing is just turning the Stimulus into a Response. It is this processing that creates the flaws, it creates the illusion that we become aware of.

 

It is not even biology, it is all about Information. If you had a camera and shone a light through a coloured filter, this would count as processing too.

 

And Information seems to be something fundamental to the Universe (and by Information, I don't mean that the Information has to be menaingful to us). It seems to be as fundamental as Energy and just as tangable. You can't exactly hand me a particle of energy can you, but you can hand me a particle that has energy. Information is the same. You can't hand me a particle of information, but you can hand me a particle that has informaton. In fact all particles have infomrarion and when they interact the exchange it.