Ontology of time

[Appolinaria]

It's a good question, but start this in a different thread if you like, let's stick to topic on this one.

 

I absolutely do not see how I'm off topic in any aspect. But okay, I'll leave it alone.

[md65536]

The ontology of time investigates what "it" is, if anything, specifically in this case, 'something' besides the clocks themselves that slows down and speeds up in different circumstances.

If you think that clocks 'detect' time and that their slowing down means that 'time' is slowing down, then you have (relativity has) reifiied time.

If clocks appear to slow down, doesn't that mean that the "Event Duration of Physical Processes" has lengthened?

 

(That is, the processes involved in say one revolution of a clock hand, take longer duration to complete.)

Edited November 22, 2011 by md65536

[mooeypoo]

I absolutely do not see how I'm off topic in any aspect. But okay, I'll leave it alone.

 

No offense intended here, Appolinaria. Owl is discussing the meaning of the definition of time. Your question is about mass and carries the already not-quite-clear debate in a different direction. New threads don't cost money Just open a new one, and we can discuss that.

 

If clocks appear to slow down, doesn't that mean that the "Event Duration of Physical Processes" has lengthened?

 

(That is, the processes involved in say one revolution of a clock hand, take longer duration to complete.)

 

That's what I was trying to say, you just put it much more clearly. Also, is this not how we *define* the meaning of 'time' ? By the duration something happens? There's not really any meaning to time without movement, those are interchangeable -- so the above really is the same as saying "it took longer" or "time slowed".

[Appolinaria]

No offense intended here, Appolinaria. Owl is discussing the meaning of the definition of time. Your question is about mass and carries the already not-quite-clear debate in a different direction. New threads don't cost money Just open a new one, and we can discuss that.

 

 

 

 

Got it, boss lady

 

[owl]

owl, isn't our definition of time "what clocks show" ? we're not talking about clocks we have at home, we are talking about atomic clocks. We define time according to them, so the clocks are not independent.

I think my definition of time clarifies the reification factor, as explained above. That "clocks slow down" is an observable fact, but asserting that "time slows down" treats time like some kind of medium or entity which clocks can detect. Then relativity, having reified time, weaves "it" together with space to make the malleable medium "spacetime" which mass distorts, as an explanation of how gravity works. Ontology attempts to clarify what exactly time IS.

 

I see your point, but I think you're forgetting the above point. The fact an atomic clock slows down means the internal processes of the decay are slowing down. We define time with them, and they show us time slows.

The above distinction between 'time slows down' and 'clocks slow down' applies to our best, most accurate clocks. For clarity, I define time as event duration of physical processes. The internal physical process which makes all clocks "tick" slows down at higher velocities and in higher gravitational fields, the well documented relativity effect on clocks. Your last statement again "makes something of it" (time) and asserts that "it" (not just atomic decay) slows down. This may sound nit picky, but ontology is serious about what time is "supposed" to be.

 

What alternative explanation do you propose, other than "time slows" to describe "decay slows" ?

 

As above... the physical process of decay slows down. Time "elapses" between "ticks" of a clock. There is more elapsed time between "ticks" of a clock at higher velocity. But the clock is not detecting and monitoring some medium, "time" that it is traveling through, which has slowed down.

 

It seems we're moving away from conceptual discussion into an argument bout definition, which is nice, but is entirely different.

My above distinction is central to the ontology of time. Relativity asserts that time is "that which clocks measure." This is a tautology which is not a meaningful definition. It says nothing about the nature or properties of time, as a true definition must.

 

Not sure what you mean by that. Who treats time "as an entity"? Not relativity, really, it just uses the definition to describe what happens. What happens is that the action slows down in different frames of reference depending on speeds. We call that time, and we say 'time dilation' to describe it. I'm completely at a loss at what your point is, unless you're trying to redefine a definition just to make a point?

 

Hopefully my further explanation above has clarified the issue from my ontological perspective.

Edited November 22, 2011 by owl

[mooeypoo]

The above distinction between 'time slows down' and 'clocks slow down' applies to our best, most accurate clocks. For clarity, I define time as event duration of physical processes. The internal physical process which makes all clocks "tick" slows down at higher velocities and in higher gravitational fields, the well documented relativity effect on clocks. Your last statement again "makes something of it" (time) and asserts that "it" (not just atomic decay) slows down. This may sound nit picky, but ontology is serious about what time is "supposed" to be.

No, it applies to our definition of time.

 

And by your own definition of time, "event duration of physical process", time slows in high velocity. The 'event duration' is the same, always, consistently, ever, everywhere. Then, it is takes longer to a stationary observer that looks at a moving frame. INSIDE the moving frame the process takes the same. That's why time dilation depends on different frames -- in comparison.

 

You're just refusing to use the term that's defined, but you use the same definition for it.

 

I don't see how you're proposing anything new here, other than "don't use this particular word, use another with the same exact meaning."

 

We can call the phenomenon "Time Hooplah", but it still shows the SAME effect. So why is it different, and why does it matter.

 

 

~mooey

[md65536]

I don't see how you're proposing anything new here, other than "don't use this particular word, use another with the same exact meaning."

 

We can call the phenomenon "Time Hooplah", but it still shows the SAME effect. So why is it different, and why does it matter.

The difference is that if you say the words "time dilation" you are reifying time, by making "something" of "it". What is "it" that dilates?, one might reasonably ask.

 

When you use the words "event duration of physical processes dilation", you are simply describing that durations become longer in certain circumstances. It's easy to see that durations can "become stretched out" without having to "be something" that can be stretched out. But with the word "time"... uh...

 

Well see, they're just different, because they're different words. I know it doesn't make any sense when I say it, but owl will explain this all much better than I can.

 

 

[owl]

name='mooeypoo' timestamp='1321998625' post='640232']

No, it applies to our definition of time.

 

You're just refusing to use the term that's defined, but you use the same definition for it.

 

I don't see how you're proposing anything new here, other than "don't use this particular word, use another with the same exact meaning."

 

"Time slows down" is a very different statement than "clocks slow down."

Me:

Your last statement again "makes something

of it" (time) and asserts that "it" (not just atomic decay) slows down. This may sound nit picky, but ontology is serious about what time is "supposed" to be.

 

And by your own definition of time, "event duration of physical process", time slows

in high velocity.

No. Look at the context.

Do you see any difference at all between the two statements:

“Physical processes (including atomic decay) slows down at high velocity...”

and,

“Time slows down at high velocity...”?

 

“

The 'event duration' is the same, always, consistently, ever,

everywhere.

 

The specific “event duration” above is how long it takes radioactive atoms to decay in an atomic clock at high speed as compared to an identical clock at lower speed.

The event duration of that physical process is slower at high velocity.

Your statement makes no sense to me.

 

You go on:

Then, it is takes longer to a stationary observer that looks at a moving frame. INSIDE the moving frame the process takes the same. That's why time dilation depends on different frames -- in comparison.

 

First sentence is unintelligible to me.

Next, ontologically, in the world independent of clocks and clocking and different frames of reference, time elapses as everything moves. It doesn’t speed up and slow down just because observers with their clocks do. It takes the same amount of time for an earth revolution or orbit in the natural world whether or not it is “clocked” from a high speed frame of reference. Observation and measurement (“clocking” in this case) does not effect how fast or slow things move (event duration), even though making a clock travel faster makes it slow down.

 

So why is it different, and why does it matter.

 

“Time slows down” (or ‘dilates’) is not the same assertion as “clocks slow down.”

The difference is important because the first attributes entity status to time and the second does not.

 

Ps; a point you seem to have missed from my last post:

But the clock is not detecting and monitoring some medium, "time" that it is traveling through, which has slowed down.

Edited November 22, 2011 by owl

[mooeypoo]

"Time slows down" is a very different statement than "clocks slow down."

Not if we define clocks as representing time.

 

No. Look at the context.

Do you see any difference at all between the two statements:

“Physical processes (including atomic decay) slows down at high velocity...”

and,

“Time slows down at high velocity...”?

No, there is no difference because we define time as what represents the physical processes.......

 

You redefine time to something that isn't acceptable by most accounts, and then you insist to make all definitions fit that.... It's an interesting philosophical endeavor, but I'm not really seeing how it's changing anything we know about anything...?

 

 

“Time slows down” (or ‘dilates’) is not the same assertion as “clocks slow down.”

The difference is important because the first attributes entity status to time and the second does not.

 

Clocks don't just slow down 'cause they're tired. They slow down for a reason. We define a clock as something that represent time, and therefore when the clock slows, we say time slows. Because it's the definition, isn't it?

 

I'm extremely confused. Even if I concede to your point that "clocks slows" doesn't equal "time slows", how is this changing anything in physics? It's language argument, isn't it?

[owl]

Not if we define clocks as representing time.

 

 

No, there is no difference because we define time as what represents the physical processes.......

 

You redefine time to something that isn't acceptable by most accounts, and then you insist to make all definitions fit that.... It's an interesting philosophical endeavor, but I'm not really seeing how it's changing anything we know about anything...?

 

 

 

 

Clocks don't just slow down 'cause they're tired. They slow down for a reason. We define a clock as something that represent time, and therefore when the clock slows, we say time slows. Because it's the definition, isn't it?

 

I'm extremely confused. Even if I concede to your point that "clocks slows" doesn't equal "time slows", how is this changing anything in physics? It's language argument, isn't it?

Not really. Did you follow my piece about elapsed time in the natural world being independent of 'clocking' or measuring the duration of events?

Relativity does the same thing with space as it does with time, and once they are reified they they can coalesce into "the fabric of spacetime" which mass can distort and which then guides objects in curved paths... even though they are 'nothing, really', certainly not "entities!"

Do you see any problem with that?

[mississippichem]

Relativity does the same thing with space as it does with time, and once they are reified they they can coalesce into "the fabric of spacetime"...

 

... even though they are 'nothing, really', certainly not "entities!"

Do you see any problem with that?

 

Quite simply no. That ontology you speak of is outside the goals of physics. Physics doesn't care about ontology just like philosophy (evidently) doesn't care about observation.

[owl]

Quoting from last page for convenience:

Did you follow my piece about elapsed time in the natural world being independent of 'clocking' or measuring the duration of events?

Relativity does the same thing with space as it does with time, and once they are reified they they can coalesce into "the fabric of spacetime" which mass can distort and which then guides objects in curved paths... even though they are 'nothing, really', certainly not "entities!"

Do you see any problem with that?

 

Quite simply no. That ontology you speak of is outside the goals of physics. Physics doesn't care about ontology just like philosophy (evidently) doesn't care about observation.

The goal of science, most generally speaking, is to investigate and understand "the world," cosmos and all its parts and dynamics.

 

When relativity asserts that "space is curved" or "time slows down" or "mass curves spacetime," it is reasonable to ask, "to what do those terms refer in 'the real world.?'

That is the function of ontology as a branch of the philosophy of sceince, whether you and the staff here* think it is important (relevant) or not.

*They repeatedly tell me that it doesn't matter "what it is" in any case but only "how it acts" in all cases. This asserts that it doesn't matter if the 'map fits the terrain' or even if there is any real world 'terrain' (what it is) as referents for the words time, space and spacetime.

So we end up with something like, "Whatever it IS (spacetime), mass distorts IT and guides objects in curved paths," as above.

 

We all know that time elapses as everything moves, but that doesn't make time into 'something' that slows down. Physical processes slow down for various reasons.

We all know that objects move through space, but that doesn't make space into 'something' with the property of curvature or shape in general as the various theoretical non-Euclidean "manifolds" (models) claim.

This is what ontology addresses.