AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Time as a Measurement

24 4264
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

I would like to discuss the properties of time and I think these forums are the perfect place, mostly because of the amount of intellectuals hiding out in a flash games forum (yes, I too chuckle to myself that the place I find the most joy in debate is a flash games website)

So... time.

I would regard time as being non existent. Someone recently put it quite nicely by saying

time can't go foward and backwards infinitely because time isn't a reality it's a construct of motion. We percieve the changes in states of energy and matter to be time, but it's not us moving through time, but our molecules and such moving through space. And if time doesn't exist, then there can't be a time at which nothing existed, because we're still at the same point in time of the big bang. Just the energy and molecules and such have changed their positions and patterns.
(I corrected spelling mistakes, couldnt help it)

In other words time is perceived and doesnt exist outside the boundaries of being observed.

I would like to know thoughts and opinions on this. Go deep, go heavy, dont hold back but be prepared to put up with me asking you to explain if you do take the plunge.
  • 24 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Time as a measurement to us is relative, it's how we relate to each other. Without time there would be no co-ordination between one another, it would all be sporadic. Essentially yes, it is non-existent, but through our perception of it we have created devices that measure it in a pattern, thus turning it into something for our own use. Other than this, i'm not sure what you want to discuss.

Necaremus
offline
Necaremus
16 posts
Nomad

Time is existent. How we record time is nonexistent. Time is the motion of events occurring. Minutes and seconds are made up and not factual.

driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

I believe that if we can prove that the duration of events can be divided up smaller than the planck unit or is infinitely divisible, then time is as real as any object as there would be no constraints on the duration and intervals of time. If there were no constraints on the intervals of time, then two people cannot witness the same event with the same duration all the time without time itself being an existant force that flows with the events.

If time cannot be divided up smaller than a planck unit, then time could possibly be a construct of our perception. I find this idea interesting because all events could be in a well defined sequence that has all ready happened at once, yet our perception quantifies these events with relative durations, being a planck unit the smallest interval between events and all events having a duration that can be perfectly divided up into planck units.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

In other words time is perceived and doesnt exist outside the boundaries of being observed.


Incorrect. Our colloquial concept of time may rely on observation, however time in and of itself is best understood when used synonymously with 'sequence'. Sure, units of time are a construct of our own understanding, however time itself simply measures the sequencing and order of events. In that aspect time has been around, and will be around, so long as there is matter.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Let me explain why the paragraph OP quoted makes no sense.

time can't go foward and backwards infinitely because time isn't a reality it's a construct of motion.


Let's assume that we know for a fact that:
A. Time has no beginning or end.
and
B. Time is a construct of motion.

This does not mean

C. Time is not reality.

If A and B are true, it does not prove or disprove C. It is absolutely possible for time to be reality, while also being a construct of motion and while having no beginning or end.

Time is based off of the rate at which matter moves. That rate is very much so real, as real as matter itself.

And if time doesn't exist, then there can't be a time at which nothing existed, because we're still at the same point in time of the big bang.


This can only be true if the past is nonexistent. If I flip a coin in the air, it will land. When it lands, it is no longer in the air. Everything does not happen at the same moment.

Just the energy and molecules and such have changed their positions and patterns.


The molecules change their position and patterns at a specific rate. We call that rate time.

The quoted paragraph confuses time with space.

Time is not a place in which one may go, it is a rate of sequences. That rate can arguably be changed, but let's not get into that right now. Time is not a place in which one goes to or through, but rather the rate in which sequences happen.

but it's not us moving through time


In the sense in which I am talking about, we are moving through time. We are moving at a rate in which there is a past. The past can not be revisited and it may not be a physical place, but it described a rate that has, at one instance, occurred.

The person who wrote the quoted paragraph is assuming that time is something like a timeline in which someone could theoretically jump from A to point B. This assumption of what time is, is incorrect.
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

If time cannot be divided up smaller than a planck unit, then time could possibly be a construct of our perception.


It may well be. Can we measure the electron as it whizzes round the atom? It is both at one point and all points at the same time as far as I have read.

Time is not a place in which one may go, it is a rate of sequences.


This I would agree with. In this way I would say there must be something before all this happened as a sequence must have some kind of start. Even in a place with no spacial time, when viewed from outside, must have some quantifiable length e.g. the theory of pre big bang (not the never ending expansion/contraction theory, but even in this there is a timeline) there there is nothing, no dimensions or matter etc...

I think as human beings not having a scale is something that (right now) we truly cannot conceive. If you can have two particles that are linked on other sides of the universe and know precisely what the other is doing then there must be other dimensions that have no time that particles are involved in. So is time merely a construct of our perception on how this dimension flows?

Im also greatly interested in the fact that observation changes something e.g. the particle that becomes a wave when not observed.

So observation changes the way the experiment turns out, I could see this happening with time as well.

The past can not be revisited and it may not be a physical place


I also agree with this. There is no past and there is no future other that being able to work out where all matter was 5 minutes ago or will be in 5 minutes from now.

Im not talking about what we know has happened and what we know will happen. Thats our observation and the use of a measurement that does this.

Time is not a place in which one may go, it is a rate of sequences. That rate can arguably be changed, but let's not get into that right now.


Please do

In truth I will say what I think on the matter but Im here to learn. So like I said, I may pester for explanations. I dont want people to just refute and debate, I want to gain further understanding of time on a molecular level. Even if it only suceeds in giving me pseudo-knowledge which I spout wrongly made from assumptions of what Im being told I still have to try and who knows, we might all get it very right and god will actually come down (or up) from the gates and say...

"HEY... stop messin with my bits!"

Tho I find THAT unlikely. Maybe god is time and only exists as a construct of our measurements i.e. god is only a measurement of everything that can be observed.


Ahem... Im not high but I have had coffee this morning... and porridge. Im Scottish after all
MasterC2010
offline
MasterC2010
187 posts
Shepherd

i did not read the lengthy posts above/before so i might say something that may have been said.

i believe that time is a construct that we (humans) have created to explain the idea of past, present and future. the construct of time will end when the last human dies (because, as far as i am aware of, only humans use our idea of time).

however, i also think that time does exist because how else can you explain birth, aging, and death? time will continue to exist after the last human, but our concept/construct/idea of time will no longer exist (unless it is recorded and some alien life form finds the recorded evidence)

13thDisciple
offline
13thDisciple
7 posts
Nomad

I have to be honest reading the first statement gave me the chills. However I always thought the truth is out of reach. Therefore i think it's pointless debating who is right and who is wrong.I am thankful for sharing this information with us.

I happen to find time similar to a scale, a metric system. I picture the end of times as a lifetime fitted in one single moment, all this which is divided in future and past shall all be fitted in one existing present. Here I happen to find some similarity with the initial statement.

I don't recall where have i read the comparison of the present with the neck of an hourglass, threw which only one grain drops at a time regardless of our actions, it only makes sense that after the last grain fell you are left with your pile of sand. However I think our actions give each grain it's value it's unique print or name before joining the rest.

If you could see your life as a whole under the light with each moment marked by your presence and baring a part of yourself. It would only be essential to live in such a way that the overall impression would last and be satisfying.

I think time must exist, for i have came to the conclusion based on personal experience that you will never appreciate things for their true value until they are gone. Let it be a relative or a leaf of grass. And I think our attempts of appreciating the smallest of details shall not be enough. For no matter how well you have been treating it the truth and value shall only be revealed threw loss.

I can't seek but notice how the past devours everything before it, each moment falling under the shadowed past, like a pair of dark clouds covering the land before a storm, or darkness covering the land after a sunset and regardless of physical condition one can only run so fast, and never outrun the speed in which the world is turning.

In the absence of time all would stop having value. Without ever having to lose it all, one would never understand the value of it's surroundings. Than again without a beginning and an end one could not be measured as a whole and it would no longer fall into this category, let it be just a loaf or a whole bread.

We seek filling each of our moment with value for each new experience and moment spent carves itself deep into the core of your existence.

( That's mainly why I regret time spent in a public educational system, time which could have been filled with more value and is forever lost to schools which mostly teach to judge, to alienate which I believe is one of the main sources of conflict, and force ideologies upon others, we created pieces of paper which we came to worship let it be money, educational proof or personal data and we stopped valuing time and trading it for these objects that contribute to degenerating human nature.)

//Please comment.
//Thank you for the subject and sharing all these thoughts.
//With all due respect should I consider publishing?
//I'm 18 and you witnessed my second post.
//Thank you.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

I have to be honest reading the first statement gave me the chills...We seek filling each of our moment with value for each new experience and moment spent carves itself deep into the core of your existence.


This is more close to poetry rather than an actual argument. I don't clearly see what your argument is...

I think time must exist, for i have came to the conclusion based on personal experience that you will never appreciate things for their true value until they are gone.


The second has no bearing on the existence of the first.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I would regard time as being non existent.


So I'm going to be a good little Quinean and ask: What do we mean by saying that time "exists" (or doesn't exist)?

So we have (what looks like) a proposition: Time exists. If this is a proposition, then it's something that can either be true or false. Furthermore, we should have some idea of how our picture of the world would be if it's true and a different picture if it's false.
Let's use a fairly uncontentious claim: I'm typing on my keyboard right now. That is a picture of the world, and we can imagine what it would look like if it were true. I'd be here, like I am right now, typing on my keyboard. If it were false, then when you looked at me, I would be doing something other than typing at my keyboard. The point is that we can imagine possibilities of what the world would look like if that proposition were true or if it were false.

But the (supposed) proposition "Time exists" doesn't seem to be like this. What is it for time to exist or not exist? How does our picture of the world change? What conditions should be in place for time to exist?

I'm certainly no verificationist. But sometimes, those principles can help us delineate senseless propositions from significant ones.

So, someone convince me that this isn't a senseless proposition. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I seriously don't understand what the question is asking.

Some things to consider when answering:
Time doesn't look like something that causally interacts with the physical world.
- It's not a force that acts on material objects
- Sure, things get older. But that's a result of other processes occurring over time. That's not time itself aging things.
Certainly it's a measurement. No one doubts that. But that doesn't mean it exists.
- Would you say that meters or inches exist? There are rulers with those measurements on them, and those things exist. And clocks certainly exist. But perhaps time is just like a meter or an inch?
- Maybe a better way to phrase that last point would be to ask if "distance" exists. Although now I'm not sure what the difference is between that question and "Does space exist?"
Many (like Kant) argue that time is a necessary condition for the way we perceive the world. We couldn't make sense of it unless events were spread out over some kind of construct.
- But doesn't it seem like memory is a necessary condition for our perception of time? If we had no memory, and simply lived in the "specious present" would we have a need at all for time? Think carefully about this one.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Time doesn't look like something that causally interacts with the physical world.


Would you say that meters or inches exist? There are rulers with those measurements on them, and those things exist. And clocks certainly exist. But perhaps time is just like a meter or an inch?


The difference is between rulers and clocks is that clocks do not actually "measure" time; instead, they have machinery inside that accurately predicts when x hours and x minutes have past... (not sure if I am clear, there).

Anyway, one could say that just as things do not directly experience their effects from time, clocks do not actually "measure" time as rulers do. With a true clocklike "ruler" you would spread it from event 1 to event 2 and measure the distance in time units. Obviously, one cannot do this with a clock, but can with a ruler, because rulers measure something tangible.

Time is necessary for an understanding of speed, however.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Take out "An understanding of" - I was going to write something, then I wrote something else.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

Moe, I always love your posts. So, after reading it, I'd like to jump in.

But doesn't it seem like memory is a necessary condition for our perception of time? If we had no memory, and simply lived in the "specious present" would we have a need at all for time? Think carefully about this one.


Here I am, a living Kantian premise. If I am nothing but a being living in the "specious present" (I believe is the duration it takes to be 'sensibly' in the now), would I need time to make sense of it all?

I don't suppose that time would be necessary at that level. It would be only an instance of time. I would be worse off than 7 second Clive. And I believe time IS just the measurement for distinguishing between durations and events. I would only have single events, never stringing them together. So, I guess I stick with time is not necessary in the specious present.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,061 posts
Jester

Those molecules changing shape and pattern happens at a certain, we define that rate as time.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

The difference is between rulers and clocks is that clocks do not actually "measure" time


Ohhhh, you're right! And down goes Moegreche in the third! A swift uppercut from Einfach!

I'm trying to come up with a better analogy, but I can't. But don't we, in some sense, have a means by which to measure time?
There's two things here that are bugging me:
1) There's time that we do seem to use as a measurement, to get around in our daily lives. But this time is simply based on the Earth's location in its rotation and revolution around the sun. Remember that earthquake off the coast of Chile? It was powerful enough to slightly adjust the Earth's motion. As a result, atomic clocks had to be (very minutely) adjusted to compensate.
So in this sense, you're still right: even these atomic clocks were predictors - not of time, but of Earth's position relative to the sun.
On this interpretation, "time" is simply what you get when you cash out Earth's location along its cute little orbit. Nothing more.

2) There seems to be something more to "time," whatever it is. There are obviously events that happen outside Earth and outside our solar system. And these events happen over the course of "time." Now what we're talking about isn't a predictor of the Earth's location. It's simply a construct (to use Kant's language) of how we understand something like an "event" or "causation." In (1), it was easy enough to see how time gets cashed out. On this interpretation, I'm not sure where to go.
Can time even be cashed out in terms of something else? I have my doubts. And I don't even know what to think about what this interpretation of "time" says about its existence.

So, I guess I stick with time is not necessary in the specious present.


I'm with you here that we need memory in order to experience the passage of time. But can time be cashed out in terms of memory? Again, I have my doubts.
Sure, we need memory to perceive time. And I'd need X-ray glasses to see your underwear. But that doesn't mean that your underwear isn't really there.
So, while there are certain things that need to be in place for us to perceive time, it doesn't follow that time would cease to exist without those things in place. If the only thing in the universe that changed was our ability to remember things, it seems like time would still be "going on" (for lack of a better word). Again, I don't know what to make of this. I'm still not sure what we mean when we say that "time exists."
Showing 1-15 of 24