Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2161
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 13th, 2020, 11:27 am

NickGaspar wrote:...the dimension of time is a descriptive concept originating from the ability of matter to move/change.
And WHAT pray tell gives the "ability to move/change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?

NickGaspar wrote:Because our universe is in constant motion and change
And WHAT pray tell enables this "constant motion and change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?

RJG wrote:If Time does not enable physical motion, then what does?
NickGaspar wrote:Time is our act of labeling and quantifying physical change.
Huh? I didn't ask what Time is, I asked what enables this physical motion/change.

RJG wrote:Without a 'means' to move/change, then logically there can be no movement/change.
NickGaspar wrote:Yes…
Great, we agree. So now WHAT pray tell is the "means to move/change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?

RJG wrote:If movement exists, then so must there be a 'means' to move.
NickGaspar wrote:...which points to the fact that, because "things move" in a space that allows movement
Yes. And WHAT pray tell "allows this movement"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?

Logical Certainties:
1. Without the dimension of Time, there could be NO movement/change.
2. If movement/change exists, then so must the dimension of Time.
3. Movement/change require Time, ...not the other way around! (...this is where Science makes its fatal error!)

RJG wrote:If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop?
...In other words, whatever you define Time as, if it stops, then then logically Time would stop, ...correct?
NickGaspar wrote:No...no...no we need to use more clear language.
The "Time" for the process known as our local universe started 12.7 billion years ago...
Nick, you are missing the point altogether.

1. If Time is not real, then move/change can't happen.
2. But since motion/change does happen, Time is real.
3. If Time is real, and it stops, then we all die. (no more heartbeats, breaths of air, etc etc). Since we are still alive, this is proof that Time has never stopped. For if it ever did stop, it would permanently/eternally/infinitely stop (for without Time, NOTHING can happen/occur to start it back up again!).

Tamminen wrote:I guess that by 'time' you mean local time, ie. time of the current reference frame. But that is not global, absolute time.
No, I mean global absolute time. I'm talking about a singular dimension called Time. There is only ONE spatial direction (4th axis) called Time. It enables 3D objects to move throughout space. Again, you are confusing the measurements of objects as Time itself. Measurements are NOT dimensions!

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8739
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 13th, 2020, 11:34 am

In an ideal world, I think it's best to first sort out, very carefully, what would be observed in any given set of circumstances, from the point of view of various observers with respect to various reference frames, without anybody venturing any views as to what is really happening (whatever that might mean). When all participants understand and agree on that, then the argument can progress to various metaphysical interpretations of what is observed. Only then should some people say "time is what is measured by clocks" and others can say "nonsense, time is a dimension" and others can say various other things.

Unfortunately, I don't think this ideal is ever fully reached by any of us. I think arguments about what is observed, what is claimed to be observed and what interpretations one can put on those observations all get muddled up together in a mishmash of imprecise, context dependant English language.

I guess I'm making a similar point to the one that Nick made a long time ago about pre-defining the terms of reference.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8739
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 13th, 2020, 11:39 am

...and perhaps before even doing that, we should try to agree as to what constitutes a meaningful proposition in the English language and what constitutes vague (metaphorical) hand-waving.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 11:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 8:51 am
creation wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:03 am


Okay great, now that that is sorted out I have to wonder why you introduced the now obvious completely unnecessary issue here about nothing is objectively preferred.

Of course it is my preference to look at and see things from Everything's perspective. I was just pointing out that by looking and seeing things from more perspectives (or more reference points) then from just one's own individual perspective, then far more can be learned, seen, understood, and known.
To keep things short and so we can move on, I'll just say that I agree that more is more. ;-)

So moving on to the next part:
Now, I asked you; are you able to look and see from more than one reference point at a time?

You said; Yes,but that's just another perspective, of course. It's not preferred to seeing just one. It's simply different.

So, what do you mean? If you did not mean that I cannot prefer it, and you mean it is not objectively preferred because nothing is objectively preferred, then what are you on about? What is the 'it' in "it is not preferred", and what is the "seeing just one" in reference to as well?
I already explained that I meant it's not objectively preferred, not that you can't prefer one option to another.

"Seeing just one" reference point. It's better to use "reference point" here, by the way, because people tend to have a difficult time thinking of the word "perspective" as not necessarily suggesting the perspective of a sentient being (which isn't what I'm saying--those are reference points but not the majority of them; the majority are simply arbitrary spatio-temporal locations), and with "reference frame" people have a difficult time not strictly thinking about that term as it occurs in physics.
Also, are you suggesting that the more people that see, and agree on, something being true, then that thing is certainly not "truer", than if just a few or only one see, and agree on, something being true?
Yes, without a doubt.
Perfect.

So, just one person's view on what 'time' actually is could be more true than absolutely everyone else's view, even if absolutely everyone else had, and agreed on, the exact same view, correct?

And, if that one person's view, was backed up with evidence, proof, and/or facts, then that would make that one view more true, more right, and/or more correct than all of the others' shared view. Is this also correct?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 8:51 am
The former is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Just for information purposes, this "argumentum ad populum fallacy", is a somewhat barrier to explaining what actually makes something more 'truer' than something else. But this is completely off topic and for another discussion. It is not something that is too difficult to overcome and get over.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Tamminen » January 13th, 2020, 11:50 am

RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 11:27 am
Again, you are confusing the measurements of objects as Time itself. Measurements are NOT dimensions!
It seems that you did not read my post. Measurements are done along available dimensions.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 11:55 am

RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 5:28 am
Science falsely assumes:
Time is a function of Motion (of objects).

When in reality:
Motion is a function of Time

Science forgets that without Time there could be no motion, period!. This is why they falsely equate "measurements of objects" as Time itself.
So, what is 'Time' exactly that without 'It' there could be no motion, period?

Do you see 'Time' as something that causes motion?

If yes, then how exactly does Time cause motion?

What exactly do you mean by motion is a function of Time?

Do you see motion being the natural activity of Time? Or, maybe the purpose of Time?

Either way, what is this Time thing exactly, which function is motion?
Terrapin Station wrote:(Dimensions that is--dimensions are not just a concept that people have in your view?)
I don't follow. Everything we know is just a "concept"!
[/quote]

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 426
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 13th, 2020, 11:59 am

RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 11:27 am
NickGaspar wrote:...the dimension of time is a descriptive concept originating from the ability of matter to move/change.
And WHAT pray tell gives the "ability to move/change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?
Its like asking a "why" question. " Why things move". Well the question is, "be cause they do".
And because they do move,we can use the concept of time to quantify the temporal unrolling of a process .(to measure different moments in the evolution of a process). Why questions are not that useful.


NickGaspar wrote:Because our universe is in constant motion and change
And WHAT pray tell enables this "constant motion and change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?
-Motion and change are the characteristic of a process. The dimension of time can be used to quantify this phenomenon.

RJG wrote:If Time does not enable physical motion, then what does?
NickGaspar wrote:Time is our act of labeling and quantifying physical change.
Huh? I didn't ask what Time is, I asked what enables this physical motion/change.
I guess the big bang started the process and the characteristics of the process are what we recognize as motion/change.
its like asking why a jumping electron produces photons.....because it does. There isn't a answer to such question.
We don't have to promote this property to an overarching "catalyst". This is what matter does! You need to check the science.

RJG wrote:Without a 'means' to move/change, then logically there can be no movement/change.
NickGaspar wrote:Yes…
Great, we agree. So now WHAT pray tell is the "means to move/change"? ...could it be the dimension of "Time"?
No we can not point to such a thing in nature. That is an abstract concept ..how many times do I have to tell you.....you need to prove your existential claims before you can use it as an explanations.

Logical Certainties:
1. Without the dimension of Time, there could be NO movement/change.
2. If movement/change exists, then so must the dimension of Time.
3. Movement/change require Time, ...not the other way around! (...this is where Science makes its fatal error)
Those are logical fallacies based on teleological reasoning and bad language mode.
RJG wrote:If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop?
...In other words, whatever you define Time as, if it stops, then then logically Time would stop, ...correct?
NickGaspar wrote:No...no...no we need to use more clear language.
The "Time" for the process known as our local universe started 12.7 billion years ago...
Nick, you are missing the point altogether.

1. If Time is not real, then move/change can't happen.
2. But since motion/change does happen, Time is real.
3. If Time is real, and it stops, then we all die. (no more heartbeats, breaths of air, etc etc). Since we are still alive, this is proof that Time has never stopped. For if it ever did stop, it would permanently/eternally/infinitely stop (for without Time, NOTHING can happen/occur to start it back up again!).
you don't understand that those concepts are used to describe observable properties of physical processes. I can not help you man if you don't read the science.

BTW you skip everything that could help you grasp your fallacious reasoning.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 12:11 pm

NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:35 am
RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:00 am


So is this a YES or a NO to my question?
Not all sentences with a question mark at the end qualify as serious questions.
The concept of the dimension of time is a way we came up to describe the way objects and processes change....not the other way around.
The dimension of time is not a "catalyst" for movement ....like phlogiston was never a "catalyst" of combustion.
In science we understand time (the ticking of a process)
If 'time' is the ticking of a 'process', then what 'process' is that exactly?
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:35 am
as a dimension because it is affected like all other dimensions by gravity and motion.

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 426
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm

creation wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:11 pm
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:35 am


Not all sentences with a question mark at the end qualify as serious questions.
The concept of the dimension of time is a way we came up to describe the way objects and processes change....not the other way around.
The dimension of time is not a "catalyst" for movement ....like phlogiston was never a "catalyst" of combustion.
In science we understand time (the ticking of a process)
If 'time' is the ticking of a 'process', then what 'process' is that exactly?
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 6:35 am
as a dimension because it is affected like all other dimensions by gravity and motion.
it depends on the process. In the case of an atomic clock one of them is the electron's transition frequency which we happen to measure in a specific electromagnetic region.If it is our ticking, we are talking about the ticking of our atoms ,our molecules,our biological clocks etc.
When one of those processes experiences a change in the gravitational pull, that clicking changes too. This is how we found out natural clocks are not fixed but relative to the effects of gravity and motion.

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 12:35 pm

RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 9:15 am
RJG wrote:"Can objects move without the dimension of Time?"
NickGaspar wrote:The dimension of time is not what enables physical motion.
I interpret this to be "YES" to my question.

NickGaspar wrote:IT is the other way around. Because our universe is on constant motion and change, we can quantify this change by making up the concept of time. We DON'T need to make up invisible substances, that is irrational.
If Time does not enable physical motion, then what does?
'Space', which is just the distance between objects or matter, is what allows or enables physical motion.

If there was no space, or no distance between objects of matter, then physical things or matter could not move/change.
If physical things could not move, then there is no movement/change.
If there is no movement, then there is no motion.

Space is what allows matter to move.

Time is nothing more than just a word, which describes the action of measuring the duration between matter being at different agreed places, or just the measuring of change, itself.
RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 9:15 am
Without a 'means' to move/change, then logically there can be no movement/change.

RJG wrote:"Can objects 'move' without a 'means' (a pathway) to move?"
NickGaspar wrote:-Why don't you ask directly what you imply....because it is an other teleological assumption on spatial dimensions.
My question was a 'logic' question. The answer is "NO". Without a 'means' to move there can be no movement.

In other words -- If movement exists, then so must there be a 'means' to move.

RJG wrote:"If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop? [Yes/No]"
NickGaspar wrote:-ticking of what? Time is how we compare the different tickings of different processes to each other in relation to our man made ticking devices, our atomic clocks.
If Time is "how we compare"…, then if we stop this comparing, does Time stop. In other words, whatever you define Time as, if it stops, then logically Time would stop, ...correct?

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 426
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 13th, 2020, 12:55 pm

creation wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:35 pm
RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 9:15 am


I interpret this to be "YES" to my question.



If Time does not enable physical motion, then what does?
'Space', which is just the distance between objects or matter, is what allows or enables physical motion.

If there was no space, or no distance between objects of matter, then physical things or matter could not move/change.
If physical things could not move, then there is no movement/change.
If there is no movement, then there is no motion.

Space is what allows matter to move.

Time is nothing more than just a word, which describes the action of measuring the duration between matter being at different agreed places, or just the measuring of change, itself.
RJG wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 9:15 am
Without a 'means' to move/change, then logically there can be no movement/change.




My question was a 'logic' question. The answer is "NO". Without a 'means' to move there can be no movement.

In other words -- If movement exists, then so must there be a 'means' to move.




If Time is "how we compare"…, then if we stop this comparing, does Time stop. In other words, whatever you define Time as, if it stops, then logically Time would stop, ...correct?
what changed your position?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8739
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 13th, 2020, 1:05 pm

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vi ... 7-0044.xml


At the risk of being told to "butt out" again, here are my answers to these questions (I think they were asked of Nick):
RJG wrote:1. Can objects move without the dimension of Time? [Yes/No]
This question is analytic; it's about the usage of words that represent mathematical concepts.
Answer: No. Movement is, by definition, rate of change of position with respect to time. The idea of a dimension of time is one of the mathematical constructs that we use to define the mathematical construct of velocity.
2. Can objects 'move' without a 'means' (a pathway) to move? [Yes/No]
This appears to me to be simply asking: "Can objects move without a dimension of Space?"
This question is analytic; it's about the usage of words that represent mathematical concepts.
(I'm not sure why the scare-quotes are placed around 'move' in this question but not the previous question.)
Answer: No. Movement is, by definition, rate of change of position with respect to time. The idea of dimensions of space is one of the mathematical constructs that we use to define the mathematical construct of velocity.
3. If this "ticking" stops, does Time stop? [Yes/No]
This question is meaningless because, by its nature, it refers to the un-observable but isn't a question about logical structure or the use of terminology (isn't analytic). It has the superficial structure of an empirical (synthetic) question but it refers to something which it defines as fundamentally un-observable. So it is neither synthetic nor analytic.

In that sense, it's similar to a question like:
If unicorns don't exist, do unicorns have udders or testicles? [Udders/Testicles]

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 1:05 pm

NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm
creation wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:11 pm


If 'time' is the ticking of a 'process', then what 'process' is that exactly?

it depends on the process. In the case of an atomic clock one of them is the electron's transition frequency which we happen to measure in a specific electromagnetic region.
So, human beings put their relative perspective onto this, and take measurements of some frequency?

But what is the actual 'process', itself, which you say is "time"?

A 'frequency' is a 'frequency' or are you saying that 'frequency' is 'time', itself?
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm
If it is our ticking, we are talking about the ticking of our atoms ,our molecules,our biological clocks etc.
'We' are not talking about anything. I asked you a question. 'You' are trying your hardest to answer it.

But where and what is the actual ticking 'process', itself, of atoms and molecules, which is what you call "time"?

Obviously the phrase "biological clock" is just some made up term to describe some thing, unless of course you can pinpoint where is and what this "biological clock" is exactly?

The heart pumps blood and this is a process, so is the "ticking" process of the human heart "time" also?

NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm
When one of those processes experiences a change in the gravitational pull, that clicking changes too.
Is this absolutely true and correct? Or, just what is said to happen?

Just expressing what is said to happen and which is just the current knowledge, to you, is very different from proposing what does actually happen.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:19 pm
This is how we found out natural clocks are not fixed but relative to the effects of gravity and motion.
What are "natural clocks"?

And, how does motion supposedly affect these"natural clocks"?

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 1:07 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 10:53 am
Tamminen wrote:A proof of the relative nature of time is that you can make a 5 years' trip in 3 years.
He'll jump on this wording, I suspect.
How exactly can you make a 5 year trip in 3 years?

creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 13th, 2020, 1:09 pm

NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:55 pm
creation wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 12:35 pm


'Space', which is just the distance between objects or matter, is what allows or enables physical motion.

If there was no space, or no distance between objects of matter, then physical things or matter could not move/change.
If physical things could not move, then there is no movement/change.
If there is no movement, then there is no motion.

Space is what allows matter to move.

Time is nothing more than just a word, which describes the action of measuring the duration between matter being at different agreed places, or just the measuring of change, itself.

what changed your position?
LOL
LOL
LOL

In regards to what exactly?

Post Reply

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021