Defining time

[Eric 5]

Very nice post. You have helped me see where the point of frustration on this topic is. I will try and clear up any confusion.

 

 

 

No, you have asked a question and placed a restriction on the answers that makes it impossible to answer. It's a trick question, regardless of whether you acknowledge or realize it.

 

I did not intend to ask a trick question. The question might have been too blunt and straight forward without an explanation on why I decided to ask the question the way I did. I will give you my reasoning behind asking if time is a physical thing or a consideration.

 

The way I see it. Everything that we humans perceive and experience are considered real to us. These things exist as a real things to us. There are two ways things can be real or exist for us. One way is all of those things that are real in the sense that they exist in our environment and can be perceived with our senses, and are made of energy or condensed energy such as matter. These are the things that we consider to be real or exist because we can perceive these things with our bodies senses. Also these physical things can be agreed to be real or exist due to the fact that other people can perceive the same thing we perceive. A very simple example would be a rock. As an individual we can see the rock, feel it, move it around, hear it make contact with other real things, and we can show it to someone else and they to will agree that this object is real and exists. So this is one way we consider something to be real and exist. The physical world, those things that are made of energy in any form that exist outside of our mind and are not something we just thought up.

 

The other way we consider something to be real to us is those things that we perceive in our mind. Dreams, thoughts, ideas, emotions, imagine, and such. These things are real to us on an individual level and do not exist in the world outside of our mind. No one else can perceive these things unless we communicate these things to another person. So those things that we create or think about in our minds are very real to us and do exist, but they are real and exist differently than those things that are around us in this universe for all to see.

 

So, my original question of, is time a physical thing or a consideration? Could be changed to a question like, Does time exist as a thing (some form of energy) in the world around us that can be perceived by our senses, or does time exist as an idea or concept based on the motion of objects in the world around us.

 

We can all agree that time exists, but we only have two choices in how it can exist for us. Is time a physical thing that exists as something in the world around us, or is time a concept and only exists because we consider time to exist. Do you see where I am coming from? We all agree that time is real to us, but the question is, in what form or way does time exist for us?

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

 

 

I can discuss how to measure time at length.

 

That is alright, I know how to measure time.

 

 

And I've given the physics definition many times, which you continually ignore or reject. But you seem to want to know what the nature of time is, which is metaphysics.

 

I don’t recall exactly what your definitions of time were, but I think you might have gotten the impression that I was ignoring your definitions because they did not say if time was a thing that existed physically or not. But I hope that my above explanation will get this discussion off to a better start.

 

If you you are saying that time is part of metaphysics, belongs in the field of phylosophy, than I would say that you have in a way answered the question of what is time. Metaphysics and physics deal with two different aspects of the world aound us. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and is interested in the study of the nature of knowledge. Physics is a branch of science that deals with the properties, changes, interactions and such of matter and energy.

 

So you see, by saying that the nature of time belongs in the metaphysical you are saying that it does not belong in physics, and so for you time is more of question of how you think it is real. If you said the nature of time belonged in the field of physics than that would mean that you thought time was more part of matter and energy and not some idea of time.

 

Is this what you have been trying to say? Time is real and exists for us as more of a way of how we think it exist and is not a thing that is made of matter or energy that most definatley exists in the world around us as a physical thing? Please correct me if this is not what you intended to say.

 

 

 

The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

 

Look, in light of my above explaination you can restate this, you see we all agree that time exists for us, so it cannot be neither. Time either exists as a physical thing or as an idea or concept. If it was neither we would not even know about it and would not talk about it, put it in our dictionaries, give it a definition, have threads dedicated to discussing it, it would not be used in literature or language. Do you see how absurd it would be to say that time is neither a consideration or physical? Time is real to us in some way and exists for us in some way.

 

From your post I thought of another way in which I could ask about the nature of time. Does time belong in the field of metaphysics or physics. You see that it is still asking if time is a physical thing or a concept.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

[dichotomy]

For sure, any PhD physicist would agree that although we don't fully understand time, working with it it usually ok.

 

That maybe because, all that time is, is a tape measure of motion.

[Klaynos]

imo having read the above explination Swansont's comment of:

 

The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

 

Still holds. Your set of options in incomplete.

[jedaisoul]

So, my original question of, is time a physical thing or a consideration? Could be changed to a question like, Does time exist as a thing (some form of energy) in the world around us that can be perceived by our senses, or does time exist as an idea or concept based on the motion of objects in the world around us. We can all agree that time exists, but we only have two choices in how it can exist for us. Is time a physical thing that exists as something in the world around us, or is time a concept and only exists because we consider time to exist. Do you see where I am coming from? We all agree that time is real to us, but the question is, in what form or way does time exist for us?

I have the following observations:

• You are creating a false dichotomy. Firstly, time undoubtedly exists as a concept, otherwise we could not discuss it. What you mean is, does time exist only as a concept?
  
• Your alternatives are not the only possible answers:
  • Time does not have to exist as a form of energy to physically exist. Time (or, more accurately, the present) could exist as part of the framework in which physical objects exist. It seems to me to be impossible for physical objects (which are real) to exist in a framework that is not itself equally real. That does not necessarily mean that space and time (or spacetime) exist in the form that we conceive them. However, it suggests that there is something real that we are describing with these concepts. Or...
    
  • We can conceptualise things other than physical entities that exist outside our concepts of them. These are abstract entities. These, potentially, come in two types:
    • The relationship 1 + 1 = 2, and Pythagoras's theorem for example. These relationships are real because they are implicit in the objects and their relationships that are real. Note: I'm not suggesting that Pythagoras's theorem existed before he proposed it, but the relationship it describes has been implicit in real objects from the dawn of the universe. It is an important distinction to make.
      
    • It can be claimed that there are abstract entities that are real in themselves, without necessarily being implicit in material objects. One example (which may not be a good one) is the numbers 1, 2, 3 etc. I suggest that the relationship 1 + 1 = 2 is real because it is implicit in real objects, but how can that relationship be real if the numbers 1 and 2 are not themselves real? I'm not sure this argument holds, but the possibility is there, and should be taken account of.

So I would suggest that there are more options than the simple alternatives you gave...

[swansont]

Look, in light of my above explaination you can restate this, you see we all agree that time exists for us, so it cannot be neither. Time either exists as a physical thing or as an idea or concept.

 

That's why I asked you about energy, because it is a similar application of the false dichotomy. It is not a physical thing that you can hold, like a rock, yet is exists independent of our thought, so it is not a consideration. Length is not a physical thing that you can hold in your hand — it is a property of an object, but not the object itself. And yet an object has length whether we think about or not. It is not a consideration.

[swansont]

"Time potentials" already has its own thread. It's off-topic for here. Post will moved.

[Eric 5]

imo having read the above explination Swansont's comment of:

 

"The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

 

Still holds. Your set of options in incomplete.

 

O.K. Klaynos, We can both agree that time is something that is real to us. So time would have to exist in some way for us. Forget about my either or choice, I am sure that you have some idea of how time exist or is real to you, so I would be interested in hearing from you what you think time is.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

That's why I asked you about energy, because it is a similar application of the false dichotomy. It is not a physical thing that you can hold, like a rock, yet is exists independent of our thought, so it is not a consideration. Length is not a physical thing that you can hold in your hand — it is a property of an object, but not the object itself. And yet an object has length whether we think about or not. It is not a consideration.

 

 

As far as your comparison between time and energy, these two topics are different. Describing energy will not get us any closer to what time is, they are two different things. I have raised the question about the nature of time because you have said that clocks measure time. Since I never really asked you what you meant by that, I will ask you now. In what way do you think a clock measures time?

 

 

Length is a measurement. A measurement is part of a man made system developed so that man could quantify the dimensions of an object, or the distance between objects. Before man there was no units of length. Before man there was no concept of measurement or length. Man gives specific lengths to objects. Objects exist as they are, man gave them length. Length is not a naturally occurring ingredient that is part of an object. When you say that length is a property of an object, that property was assigned to that object by man, length is not intrinsic to that object. An object will exist whether it was measured or not. Remember, the only way an object can receive a length is after it was measured by man. Length is part of agreed upon system of measurements and did not exist before man.

 

One inch, one foot, seven miles, those are not things that exist in a physical form, they are concepts. The idea of how long something is. Man thought of measurement and then measurements existed. Length started out as a concept and has been thoroughly communicated so as to become an agreed upon idea.

 

Time is just another measurement based on an idea. Man decided what a second of time is. All measurements of time did not exist before man.

 

Now we can measure physical objects and the distance between objects, so the measurement of length is applied to physical things. Physical objects exist, and man can measure these things. The objects are physical, the measurement is a concept. The measuring device is physical, the object that it measures is physical.

 

 

 

So, when you say a clock (a physical device) measures time, what do you mean? What is being measured?

[tonyboy]

even i m in.......... i got no ideas of wat time xactly is.......... but think it is somethin worth thinkin for coz some wonder heads like einstien had somethin to say about.........

[swansont]

As far as your comparison between time and energy, these two topics are different. Describing energy will not get us any closer to what time is, they are two different things. I have raised the question about the nature of time because you have said that clocks measure time. Since I never really asked you what you meant by that, I will ask you now. In what way do you think a clock measures time?

 

I'm not asking you to define, describe or explain energy, only to recognize that "physical thing" and "consideration" do not span all possible descriptions.

 

 

Length is a measurement. A measurement is part of a man made system developed so that man could quantify the dimensions of an object, or the distance between objects. Before man there was no units of length. Before man there was no concept of measurement or length. Man gives specific lengths to objects. Objects exist as they are, man gave them length. Length is not a naturally occurring ingredient that is part of an object. When you say that length is a property of an object, that property was assigned to that object by man, length is not intrinsic to that object. An object will exist whether it was measured or not. Remember, the only way an object can receive a length is after it was measured by man. Length is part of agreed upon system of measurements and did not exist before man.

 

One inch, one foot, seven miles, those are not things that exist in a physical form, they are concepts. The idea of how long something is. Man thought of measurement and then measurements existed. Length started out as a concept and has been thoroughly communicated so as to become an agreed upon idea.

 

A triceratops did not have a length, because it existed before humans? I disagree.

 

The system of measurement are the units we assign and are not the same thing as the dimension itself.

 

 

Time is just another measurement based on an idea. Man decided what a second of time is. All measurements of time did not exist before man.

 

Now we can measure physical objects and the distance between objects, so the measurement of length is applied to physical things. Physical objects exist, and man can measure these things. The objects are physical, the measurement is a concept. The measuring device is physical, the object that it measures is physical.

 

 

 

So, when you say a clock (a physical device) measures time, what do you mean? What is being measured?

 

Man decided on the measurement systems of time. Time already existed.

 

Measurement of length can be between objects and not of physical things. The distance from here to the moon — is that a physical thing, an object, we are measuring?

[pioneer]

The thing with distance or time is that it is not clear if these are things based on our reference. When you start to get into relativity, defining these as things makes it easier. For example, if we define time potential, and relate this to a thing called energy, the more energy the more time potential we have. The laws of physics can only process energy or time potential at a given rate. If we increase time potential, using laws of physics designed to process at x, then it will take longer. What we see is the backlog that we call time dilation.

 

Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references. If they are the same, then their processing rates for energy are the same or they would be different in different references. In other words, if the EM force could double in another reference the laws of physics would have a 2X factor such that EM force could do anything we want. We could make stuff up. If the number don't add up and need an extra 1.23 EM I just assume there is a virtual affect to give me what I need. But with the laws being fixed in all references, there is a cross the board limit to how fast these can process time or distance potential. The result are the backlog affects in relativity. It come down to convention with time potential simplifying things.

 

One way to look at how time potential is connected to energy is to look at frequency. The frequency is loosely analogous to a spring with potential stored in it. This time aspect is not what one would expect from a speed of light reference. We should not see finite expression in time from an object moving at C. The time potential is connected to energy at C, but expresses itself in our reference with a finite expression that exists apart from what SR would predict one should be able to see at C. The C aspect is sort of cold storage allowing the time potential to last as long as necessary until we are able to process it with matter. Then a change of state occurs, which we equate with time. The laws of physics can only process this finite aspect of energy or time potential at a given rate, so relativity gives us backlog type affects.

[swansont]

We've already got a thread discussing time potentials. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32384

 

It's off-topic here.

 

Previous post has been copied to the appropriate thread

[Eric 5]

I'm not asking you to define, describe or explain energy, only to recognize that "physical thing" and "consideration" do not span all possible descriptions.

 

O.K. What other kind of discription is there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

A triceratops did not have a length, because it existed before humans? I disagree.

 

Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length.

 

 

 

The system of measurement are the units we assign and are not the same thing as the dimension itself.

 

What dimension? Are you implying that a dimension is a thing?

 

 

 

 

Man decided on the measurement systems of time. Time already existed.

 

Here we go again. I will have to ask you, if time existed without man,than man had no involvement in its existance. So that would mean that time is not a man made concept. So you know what I am going to say next right?

 

You say that there is other ways in which something can exist other than being a physical thing or a concept, this would be a good time to say what other way that you think there is.

 

Measurement of length can be between objects and not of physical things.

 

WHAT? Is there a difference between a physical thing and an object?

 

 

The distance from here to the moon — is that a physical thing, an object, we are measuring?

 

Here (the Earth) is a physical thing. The Moon is a physical thing. So now you are saying that the measurment is a physical thing. Physical in what way? Physical? Are you sure? Do you really mean to say that a measurement is an object?

 

 

Object

 

1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.

3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.

4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.

 

 

Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.

 

A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action: an object of contempt.

The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort: the object of the game.

 

 

Philosophy: Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.

 

Computer Science: A discrete item that can be selected and maneuvered, such as an onscreen graphic. In object-oriented programming, objects include data and the procedures necessary to operate on that data

 

 

 

Physical

 

1. involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit; "physical exercise"; "physical suffering"; "was sloppy about everything but her physical appearance" [ant: mental]

2. relating to the sciences dealing with matter and energy; especially physics; "physical sciences"; "physical laws"

3. having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects"

4. according with material things or natural laws (other than those peculiar to living matter); "a reflex response to physical stimuli"

5. characterized by energetic bodily activity; "a very physical dance performance"

6. impelled by physical force especially against resistance; "forcible entry"; "a real cop would get physical"; "strong-arm tactics" [syn: forcible]

7. concerned with material things; "physical properties"; "the physical characteristics of the earth"; "the physical size of a computer"

 

 

 

Measurement

 

the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule; "the measurements were carefully done"; "his mental measurings proved remarkably accurate"

 

A method of determining quantity, capacity, or dimension. Several systems of measurement exist, each one comprising units whose amounts have been arbitrarily set and agreed upon by specific groups. While the United States Customary System remains the most commonly used system of measurement in the United States, the International System is accepted all over the world as the standard system for use in science.

 

 

Do not see a definition of measurement that states it is a physical thing.

 

The thing with distance or time is that it is not clear if these are things based on our reference. When you start to get into relativity, defining these as things makes it easier. For example, if we define time potential, and relate this to a thing called energy, the more energy the more time potential we have. The laws of physics can only process energy or time potential at a given rate. If we increase time potential, using laws of physics designed to process at x, then it will take longer. What we see is the backlog that we call time dilation.

 

Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references. If they are the same, then their processing rates for energy are the same or they would be different in different references. In other words, if the EM force could double in another reference the laws of physics would have a 2X factor such that EM force could do anything we want. We could make stuff up. If the number don't add up and need an extra 1.23 EM I just assume there is a virtual affect to give me what I need. But with the laws being fixed in all references, there is a cross the board limit to how fast these can process time or distance potential. The result are the backlog affects in relativity. It come down to convention with time potential simplifying things.

 

One way to look at how time potential is connected to energy is to look at frequency. The frequency is loosely analogous to a spring with potential stored in it. This time aspect is not what one would expect from a speed of light reference. We should not see finite expression in time from an object moving at C. The time potential is connected to energy at C, but expresses itself in our reference with a finite expression that exists apart from what SR would predict one should be able to see at C. The C aspect is sort of cold storage allowing the time potential to last as long as necessary until we are able to process it with matter. Then a change of state occurs, which we equate with time. The laws of physics can only process this finite aspect of energy or time potential at a given rate, so relativity gives us backlog type affects.

 

There is already a thread discussing time potentials here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=32384

 

But I would like to hear from you on what your ideas are on what time is. I have posed the question of "Is time a physical thing or a consideration" I say that time is a consideration. You do not have to choose between physical or consideration, some have said that this is a false dichotomy. So just say what you want, I would like to see what you can add to this discussion.

 

 

Thank You Eric 5

[swansont]

Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length.

 

That's not what I said. The unit systems are manmade. I don't understand the meaning of "without the need to be a certain length"

 

 

 

Here (the Earth) is a physical thing. The Moon is a physical thing. So now you are saying that the measurment is a physical thing. Physical in what way? Physical? Are you sure? Do you really mean to say that a measurement is an object?

 

Is the distance between them a physical object? Can I measure the distance a satellite travels? Is that distance a physical thing? (my answers to these are no, yes, no)

[thedarkshade]

I know this is round and round, but what the heck!

 

Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length.

I don't know if you seem to understand this is the right way, but dimensions existed even when man was far far away to come into existence. Length, width, height did exist before man, be because they are the three spatial dimensions we know, and in which every single physical thing lies in. But miles, feet, kilometers are only concepts, units that man has create to measure those dimensions.

 

Here we go again. I will have to ask you, if time existed without man,than man had no involvement in its existance. So that would mean that time is not a man made concept. So you know what I am going to say next right?

Man created the concept of time, not time. There was time even when man wasn't there, and all that man did is give it a name, concept, TIME.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Alright, So numbers, measurement, length, width, height, dimensions, miles, feet, kilometers, are things that existed with out man, like some kind of naturally occurring thing. You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things? A triceratops was a physical thing that existed without the need to be a certain length.

 

 

That's not what I said. The unit systems are manmade. I don't understand the meaning of "without the need to be a certain length"

 

All I was saying was that the triceratops was a physical thing that was a certain size. The numbers or significance assigned to the size of the object could only exist after man come up with the concept. The triceratops was not required to be a certain length in order to be a triceratops, it was the size that it was and man then assigned it a specific length. But the point I wanted to understand was if you thought that length was a physical thing. You have stated that no, you do not consider length to be a physical thing. I agree.

 

 

 

 

Is the distance between them a physical object? Can I measure the distance a satellite travels? Is that distance a physical thing? (my answers to these are no, yes, no)

 

Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree.

 

Can you measure the distance a satellite travels? You say yes. I agree.

 

Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree.

 

I do not know how we got to this point, sometimes when communicating on a thread at sporadic times it is hard to keep a train of thought, I agree with what you said so I will leave it at that.

 

I think that this length thing got stated when you said in post #59:

 

"Measurement of length can be between objects and not of physical things. The distance from here to the moon — is that a physical thing, an object, we are measuring?"

 

I might have misread that to mean you were saying the distance was a physical thing, when you were saying the moon was a physical thing. Right?

 

Anyway, there were some other things that you stated earlier that go back to our discussion of the existence of time, I would also like to see if I am understanding you right.

 

You said in post #59:

“Man decided on the measurement systems of time. Time already existed."

 

When you say existed I think that you mean that time was a thing that physically existed. I gather this is what you mean because before man thought about the concept of time and gave the concept an existance in his mind. Time would have to be something that existed as something that was outside and independent of man, it existed as something without the need for man to recognize it or give it existance. I know that we have been down this road before about does time exist as a physical object or a concept, and you said that these two choices are not the only way for something to exist.

 

Quote post #59.

 

I’m not asking you to define, describe or explain energy, only to recognize that "physical thing" and "consideration" do not span all possible descriptions

 

So this post right now I think can get to the heart of the matter regarding the nature of time for both of us.

 

You say time already existed and I assume that by this you mean that it exists in the world outside of mans mind. I assume this because I have come to the conclusion that in order for anything to exist it has to physically exist or exist as a thought or concept. You say that there are other possible descriptions. I would be interested in what you have to say about this, what other possibilities are there, maybe I have overlooked a possibility.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

I know this is round and round, but what the heck!

 

I don't know if you seem to understand this is the right way, but dimensions existed even when man was far far away to come into existence. Length, width, height did exist before man, be because they are the three spatial dimensions we know, and in which every single physical thing lies in. But miles, feet, kilometers are only concepts, units that man has create to measure those dimensions.

 

I will fill you in on what my understanding of what it means for something to exist. I have come to the conclusion that anything that is said to exist either exists as a physical thing or as a concept or idea. I have been told that applying this idea to certain things is a false dichotomy, because there are other possibilities. I do not know of any other possibilities at this time so when I ask you the following questions you will know where I am coming from.

 

You say that dimensions, length, width, height existed before man. So, from this I would conclude that these things are not concepts but things that physically existed before man. These things already existed as a physical thing and then man gave it a name.

 

You have to understand that if you were to take a rectangular brick and lay it on its side and I was to ask you what the height of that brick is you would measure from the top of the brick to the bottom, that would be the height of the brick in that position. Now if I was to stand the brick up so that it is now taller than before and again ask you to measure that height of the brick, you again would measure from top to bottom and get its height for that position. So you see, the way I look at this is all measurements are concepts. When you measure something you are not measuring a thing called length, width, height, you are measuring an object and then deciding what that measurement will signify. The measurement of the height for something is based on how the object is perceived and oriented to the observer. Up and down are not real physical things, they are concepts, just like the up/down measurement of an object to get its height. The object is physical, that is what a length, width, height is applied to by man. Those measurements are pure significance, they have a meaning and no mass, no physical substance. So when you say that these things existed before man I would like to get a better understanding of what you mean existed.

 

Man created the concept of time, not time. There was time even when man wasn't there, and all that man did is give it a name, concept, TIME.

 

I will make a very simple example of what I understand you to mean about the existance of time.

 

A rock is something that we can agree is a physical object and existed before man. Right?

 

Remember, man made concepts could not exist before man, so for something to exist before man it is not going to be a concept. Agreed?

 

So from my understanding you are saying that time existed before man, and I would have to conclude that you mean it existed as more than a mere concept, since I have come to the understanding that there are only two ways for something to exist, either as a physical thing or as a concept I would conclude that you mean that time is a physical thing. Now of course if you have another possibility please let me know, I am just going off what I have concluded about the existance of things in the world around me.

 

So if I was to replace time with rock in in your example it would read like this:

 

Man created the concept of a rock, not (the) rock. There was a rock even when man wasn't there, and all that man did is give it a name, concept, ROCK.

 

Put like this I would agree. The physical rock existed before man, man encountered this thing and gave it a label so as to identify it from other things.

 

My problem comes about when you try to describe time this way, because in order for it to follow the same logic for time as it does for other physical things time would have to be a physical thing with some kind of atomic structure. For time to exist, (as far as I am concerned) it either exists as a physical thing or as a concept. But this is just my observation, you might have another way in which something can exist for man. You made a good point and I can see where you are trying to go with this, I would just like a little more clarification from you on what you think the nature of time is.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

[thedarkshade]

You can get the idea of measuring a triceratops now that we have the concept of measurement, but back before man, who was assigning length to things?

But this doesn't meant that length didn't exist before man!

 

But the point I wanted to understand was if you thought that length was a physical thing. You have stated that no, you do not consider length to be a physical thing. I agree.

And it isn't a physical thing! It's just a dimension where physical things lie in to.

 

Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree.

 

Can you measure the distance a satellite travels? You say yes. I agree.

 

Is the distance a physical thing? You say no. I agree.

I have a version:

 

Does time exist now? You say yes. I agree.

 

Do animals age? You say yes. I agree

 

Can you know how old is an animal if you have grown it up? You say yes. I agree.

 

Did animals exist before man? You say yes. I agree.

 

Did animals age before man existed? You say yes. I agree.

 

We neither had a concept about force till Newton did that for us' date=' and force is neither a physical thing, but this doesn't mean force didn't exist before Newton.

 

 

 

 

I might have misread that to mean you were saying the distance was a physical thing, when you were saying the moon was a physical thing. Right?

Well I believe such distinction is quite easy to be made.

 

I assume this because I have come to the conclusion that in order for anything to exist it has to physically exist or exist as a thought or concept.

Time is subjective. Thought is subjective too!

 

You say that dimensions, length, width, height existed before man. So, from this I would conclude that these things are not concepts but things that physically existed before man. These things already existed as a physical thing and then man gave it a name.

Please Eric, try to understand this, it's not hard. Length, width, height and time along with them are dimensions in which all physical things lie in. Nothing can't exist nowhere and never, out of time and out of place.

 

So you see, the way I look at this is all measurements are concepts.

It is the technique of measurements that was invented by man. You measure the height, length and width, which are dimensions, free of men's will for their existence of non-existence.

 

So when you say that these things existed before man I would like to get a better understanding of what you mean existed.

Existed as dimensions, which are a very very fundamental characteristic of every physical object.

 

 

A rock is something that we can agree is a physical object and existed before man. Right?

Right! But it couldn't exist nowhere and never. So it existed in time and space!

 

Man created the concept of a rock, not (the) rock. There was a rock even when man wasn't there, and all that man did is give it a name, concept, ROCK.

It's actually this simple;)

[Wormwood]

I am no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that Swansont had it right when he said :

Man decided on the measurement systems of time. Time already existed.

 

If you think about time outside of our measurement of it, it has always existed. How else would we know how old the universe is? Because of measured decay. The fact that we describe this decay in "years" that are relative to us is irrelevant. Even if time is cyclical, there is still a process of decay, entropy, etc that can be measured when starting from an arbitrary point. This is indication of time outside of our measurement of it; the physical decay of a system will use time as a factor. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

[Cmac22]

hehe, did thought exist before man!

[dichotomy]

This might have been mulled over here already, but I haven't come accross it.

 

Is time a form of motion?

 

Like, motion speed, motion decay, motion acceleration, motion growth, motion time etc?

 

Time might be to scientists, what Deities are to religious folk?

[Eric 5]

 

Time is subjective. Thought is subjective too!

 

 

Subjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

 

 

 

 

O.K. from what you said, time is a concept of the mind, rather than a physical thing. That is what I have been saying.

 

 

So you see from your statement about time, that means since time is a concept of man, a concept that was created by man, then time did not exist before man. This too is what I have been saying.

 

Here is where the fun begins, from your above quote about time being subjective, I would have to assume that you meant time is a concept and not a physical thing, but from the context of your post from which this quote was taken from you have the idea that time is a thing that existed before man. So which is it? If time was a thing that existed before man than time is not a man made concept.

 

Lets see if I can help you out. We all have the idea of time, time exists for us in some way. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

Time is not a thing that exists as a thing in the world outside of our minds. You see when we think of the universe before we existed we will automatically think of the universe as having time because we have the concept of things being created, things moving and persisting, and things decaying. All of this gives the concept that there is time. It has been said that time was created at the Big Bang, or time can be warped, in fact the Stephen Hawking book "A Brief History of Time" Mr. Hawking’s states this:

"We must accept that time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time."

 

So does this mean time is a physical thing that can be used to make an object?

 

There are so many variations and concepts of time from the leading experts that it makes one wonder if they even have an idea of what time is. Look, physical things can exist before man arrived on the scene, concepts came after the arrival of man. Man give names to physical things and concepts.

 

What I am about to ask you has been asked before to much protest by others, but those others never actually answered the question or gave another possibility, so with that said:

 

Do you think time is a physical thing or a concept? If you have some other possibility or way in which time can exist for man then please say what it is.

 

As far as things that man considers to exist, those things are either physical or conceptual, I have not seen any other possibility to this, but maybe you can shed some light on this.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

[swansont]

O.K. from what you said, time is a concept of the mind, rather than a physical thing. That is what I have been saying.

 

 

So you see from your statement about time, that means since time is a concept of man, a concept that was created by man, then time did not exist before man. This too is what I have been saying.

 

Which is wrong. I would say clearly wrong, but that's subjective.

 

We can date things to times prior to human existence, and if the laws of physics are invariant in time, which appears to be the case, time must have existed prior to man in order to allow for the physical processes that occurred.

[thedarkshade]

So you see from your statement about time, that means since time is a concept of man, a concept that was created by man, then time did not exist before man. This too is what I have been saying.

This is getting boring.

Time is not 'just a concept', and you like to think of it that way. Time is a concept indeed, but not just a concept. Men created the concept of time, not time. How can you possible imagine a world without time, even before men existed? How can you imagine anything that doesn't experience time? There is no such thing as timeless.

 

Do you think time is a physical thing or a concept?

It's not a physical thing, and it is a concept, but not just a concept.

 

As far as things that man considers to exist' date=' those things are either physical or conceptual, I have not seen any other possibility to this, but maybe you can shed some light on this.

[/quote']The existence or non-existence of anything does not depend on the men's consideration for it. If something exists that is not because men think that something exists.

[antimatter]

Simple Definition:

 

The Quantity That Is Measured By Clocks.

[pioneer]

One of the problems with defining time or distance is that once a convention is set, everything else builds on that. To change these base assumptions can get rather sticky. For example, one could replace (x,y,z) with a spherical coordinate system (R, angle, angle). This system could also tell us location from an origin. If this had been the original choice of the founding fathers of science, we would be talking about the angles of space-time as though this was the final reality. We would forget it was just convention. We would discussing how time relates to the angles alpha and beta differently than R since angles are different. Or we would define n-angle space. The mind would abstract this out to create a lot of useful connections.

 

What I always thought was an interesting affect would have been if Newton or somebody decided to use a tetrahedral coordinate system to express 3-D space. This is used for some crystallography systems where atoms form tetrahedrons. They use (a,b,c,d) for the 3-D crystal space. What this system does, is not require the use of the negative numbers. With four axis in 3-D, negative can be expressed by using the positives of the other three axis. There is no more square root of negative numbers. Just say, this had been chosen, it is possible negative and positive charges would not be around, but we may now be discussing the two types of positive charges. We would be seeing the same phenomena, but would be talking about it another way. We would have a new conceptual reality, with the actual phenomena not caring either way. The entire conceptual affect could be an ancient genetic biblical bias where humans were to be put in charge of creation, so we have decide to make nature in our own conceptual image.

 

Time is one of those convention variables that is tough to change because any change could really mess up the works. Hypothetically, say someone proved time was a thing, "what would we do with all those equations that have time in it?" This new "time thing" may not work exactly like that, since it is now a thing and not just a reference variable. It could shrink some equations, eliminate others and add some new ones. This is essentially a taboo this late in the game. The machine is already up and running without it. I am getting more sensitive to the complexities of conventions. But I like to point out how different systems allow one to see reality differently.

 

But I still think time is a thing and is photographed via motion blur. The difference in time between the shutter speed and the motion of the object leave some time in the photo to create the impression of motion. The blur shows the affect that excess time potential has on distance. It create an uncertainty in distance since the object appears to partially exist within a range of distance coordinates. Time potential gets rid of some random because now this blur in distance become predictable. One can tailor the blur by simply adjusting the shutter speed or by controlling the amount of time potential. Once the shutter speed is correct there is no more uncertainty in position. One has a sure thing that is rational.

[Eric 5]

O.K. So lets see if we can get this whole discussion on time boiled down to the basic essence of what time is. I have proposed that there are only two ways in which something can be real, or exist for us as humans. Either those things exist in some physical form or as a concept. I see no other way. I explain my view on this in post #51.

 

Some of you on this thread have stated that asking if time was a physical thing or a concept was a trick question, a false dichotomy, and that my question does not cover all possibilities.

 

Here are some of the posts that state such things:

 

 

Orginally posted by swansont #37

It's not an "easy question" because you have created a false dichotomy.

 

Is energy a physical thing or a consideration?

 

Just to be clear, energy is a thing that can exist in many different physical forms, i.e. fuels, those things that have a potential energy. Energy would mean a potential of motion or power. It would be a force or flow, or the potential force or flow from something to something; or the ability to accomplish work; or the ability to make motion or movement. Energy is a mass of particles which is a mass of motion. An agitation within agitation is the basic formation of particles of energy, such as electrons, protons, and others.

 

So, you could say that clocks measure energy or motion and convert that reading to a number that represents time. Clocks are not measuring a thing called time. Man can make devices that are influenced by energy and this influence is from motion. Energy is derived from a source, there is a specific location and duration of this source.

 

 

There you go. Now as far as this idea that I asked a bad question regarding the nature of time, is it a physical thing or a concept. Tell me what other possibilities are there?

 

 

 

Originally posted by iNow #40

You have already been put in your place, but you just haven't yet comprehended that fact.

 

Swansont is quite right when he tells you that this is a false dichotomy.

 

 

Originally posted by swansont #47

 

But it has everything to do with false dichotomies and why nobody can answer your question.

 

No, you have asked a question and placed a restriction on the answers that makes it impossible to answer. It's a trick question, regardless of whether you acknowledge or realize it.

 

 

I can discuss how to measure time at length. And I've given the physics definition many times, which you continually ignore or reject. But you seem to want to know what the nature of time is, which is metaphysics.

 

But the question of whether energy is physical or a consideration goes to the obtuseness of the question as applied to time. Energy is certainly real, but is not something you can hold in your hand, so it is not physical.

 

Same thing with time. The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

 

 

I am asking a physics question, what is time, the same time that is used in all of physics.

 

But the question of whether energy is physical or a consideration goes to the obtuseness of the question as applied to time. Energy is certainly real, but is not something you can hold in your hand, so it is not physical.

 

Energy can be detected by man, and man made devices. Clocks measure motion, which is energy. The more quantity of motion or the more intense that motion the more energy. Unlike time.

 

You can hold energy in your hand, potential energy-batteries, as one example. Yet not all physical things are defined by if you can hold it in your hand or not. Come on. Did you really mean to say that energy is not physical?

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by swansont #59

I'm not asking you to define, describe or explain energy, only to recognize that "physical thing" and "consideration" do not span all possible descriptions.

 

Man decided on the measurement systems of time. Time already existed.

 

So what are the other possibilities?

 

 

 

 

 

Reading through the thread I also noticed that some people want to describe time as something that exists but not in a physical form, or describe time by saying that it is like something else that has not been defined as being physical or not.

 

Examples:

 

 

 

Originally posted by thedarkshade #19

 

NONE! It's not man-made, it has existed long before men evolved and it definitely is not in a physical form.

 

So in what way does it exist?

 

 

Originally posted by Cap’Refsmmat #20

It has no tangible/physical form, but it does exist.

 

Exist how? In what way or form?

 

 

Originally posted by Klaynos #25

It exists in the same way space does.

 

Again dictionary definition are of no use here. Do you take nothing on board?

 

Really? That is a poor example since you did not say how space exists.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by DH #26

Just to hammer this home, it exists in exactly the same way space does. Bend your elbow and raise your hand to a foot or so in front of your face. There is air between your face and hand. Is there space itself between your face and hand? Is that real? It is not a material; I just took that away. (Hint: It's real.)

 

 

Real in what way? Physical? How do you define space?

 

Anyway, as you can all see, I have stated in a concise and exact manner how I define time. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

The response to this has been protest and comparisons of time to unrelated things. So can anybody who believes that time is a thing that clocks measure, or is a thing that exists in the physical universe, be a bit more specific in their definitions or examples?

 

I say time is not a physical thing, it is a consideration. How do you define time?

 

Thank you.

 

Eric 5.