Talk:Time

Talk:time/Archive1

Contents

1 Lead Section (was titled: Jim) 2 Vote to delete page of nonsense that was also entered in full on Time page 3 Time and motion 4 Definition of time 5 The intro. 6 Funniest Philosophy Joke? 7 Time for beginners 7.1 yet another new intro

Lead Section (was titled: Jim)

Jim's been playing with the intro again, and it needs some work. Perhaps, rather than edit it outright, some comments might attract him to the talk pages...

1. "Time is often considered..." - a weasel: How often? Tuesdays and Thursdays, or twice a day except on Sundays?
2. " ...dimension in which each event has a definite position in a sequence." - this is simply wrong, since one of the main claims of relativistic physics is that the sequence of events is not definite but relative; something that is indeed mentioned in this very paragraph!
3. "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't.
4. "time itself appears to be uniform" - if Jim is still talking about perception, then this is also not the case; one has days that pass slowly, others flash past. This is commented on in the article itself.
5. "This is the view held by many philosophical realists" - another weasel: Can you name a philosophical realist who does not hold this view? Then say "this is a view held by philosophical realists"!
6. "Modern physics considers time and space to be inseparable features of spacetime" - a poor, redundant construct; what else would time and space be but part of spacetime? the previous, "Modern physics treats time as a feature of spacetime" was the better.

But apart form these few issues, the paragraph is excellent. Comments? Banno 21:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please check the edit history before making accusations of "playing" ;) - you'll find User:Geologician responsible for several of these changes. I think they make it worse too. Some people are stuck with a kinematics view of the world. But, since I never claimed the realist view made any sense, it is up to you guys to fix it -- if you can --JimWae 01:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Jim. My apologies; some of those points do indeed owe their presence to Geo. Also, the Wiki is the place to report arguments, not to have them. If by "you guys" you mean any lurking realists, then they would answer the call just by sharing their perspective, not by proving it. And finally, the intro should surly be an outline of things inthe article proper, rather than a place to present detailed arguments. Banno 07:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you find I have advocated having an argument within the article, or proving realism? What I am requesting is that someone who takes that realism viewpoint present a relatively clear outline of what it is. I cannot make sense of it & disqualify myself as the final presenter of it (lacking evidence of any aether and all that). Is time in any way an entity (physical or otherwise), or is it more like scientific laws (which are easier to see as human constructs)? --JimWae 21:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

What did you mean by "-- if you can --", if not an intent to take issue with realist accounts? I assumed you where being candid! But if you disqualify yourself, then I guess you do not intend to edit that paragraph? Banno 06:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? Can we somewhere have mention in the realist position whether time is some kind of medium (like water or the aether)? Does "time" refer to some entity or substance - some "fabric of the universe"? Does realist view not imply a preferred frame of reference for time? Can time really be divided indefinitely, or is the smallest unit we can usefully speak of subject to the limits of possible measurement - such as Planck time? What does it mean to say "something" is "part of the fundamental structure of the universe" other than what it means when we speak of entities (like atoms, protons,...). Is time not more like scientific laws - which are more easily seen as conceptual constructs - than like entities?--JimWae 00:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

I can answer the physics part of this, though not the philosophical part. The term "time" as used by physicists refers to a measurement metric which does seem to be an intrinsic property of the way the universe is structured. While the invention of the metric and the models used to express it are arguably arbitrary constructs, the same can be said of an "electron". Just as with electrons, we use the model because it's a very clean, elegant way of expressing the way the universe seems to work, that appears to be congruent with its underlying structure (though these appearances can turn out to be approximations). So I'd argue that "time" as it's presently understood is as much a fundamental part of the universe as an "electron" is. Regarding measurements, the laws of the universe seem clear - "time" as used by physicists has a granularity, and any events that occur will always be measured either to occur at the same time, or to be separated by a time interval exceeding the Planck time. In mathematical models of the universe it is often useful to think about durations shorter than the Planck time (for instance, when dealing with virtual particles), but the statement about observed/measured events still stands. As far as I can tell, the other uses of the term "time" described in the article aren't tied to the physical world, so it would seem to me that you could ascribe whatever properties you please to them (as long as they're consistent with the rest of the framework you're building). Philosophy is not my field.--Christopher Thomas 06:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? The paragraph in question is not just an account of time from a philosophical realist position, but an outline of the common physical view - as Christopher has explained. So the reference to philosophical realism seems misleading. Banno 07:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's still philosophical realism - just as presented by SOME physicists too. I guess I should avoid multiple questions if I expect to get a response to any but the simplest. So, is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws? --JimWae 07:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Why ask those questions? how are they pertinent to the article? That is, are you asking my opinion - which is irrelevant - or are you asking for someone to write a defence of realism for the timearticle - which seems inappropriate. I think Christopher's answerer was rather neat. But in addition, "is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws?" is rather like "is democracy more like cheese, money or terrorism?" Banno 09:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am "stuck with a kinematics view of the world" but ad hominem comments have no place in civilised discussion. To set the record straight, I have made only two changes to the Article. I suggested a clear-cut definition of time on 25th May and suggested minor tidying up of the second para. on 7th June. I cannot understand why "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion," is unacceptable in an introduction. Perhaps this is because we realists have not had access to the transcendental understanding of the vagaries of Time claimed by some wikipedians.

Geologician 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I was not attacking you other than the position you took. Your suggestion has merit, but it does not get us very far in terms of definition
  • "passage of time", while fine for figurative language, is problematic & in dispute
  • "perception" gets us into all the subjective/psychological pudding
  • while I agree that motion is very important to our conception of time, duration & especially sequence are also fundamental to our conception of time & to our developing (& learning about) that concept
• What you considered "tidying up" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time&diff=14924538&oldid=14841953) was construed as more than that by others - and Banno had attributed those changes to me
  • --JimWae 20:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Geo, as I said above: ' "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't '. Also, the manifold arguments above showed that it is conceivable to have a space with time but without motion. Banno 20:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Jim, I accept your point about the possible figurative sense of "passage of time". How would "elapse (v.i.) of time" or "lapse (n) of time" do instead? Perception, on the other hand, seems to me to be unambiguous; but to reply to Banno's point, if perception seems to infer sight (although it could refer to any of the senses) then could we use "apprehend" instead? Even with eyes closed in a silent room one can still apprehend ringing in the ears and apprehend one's heartbeat, both unambiguous effects of motion. The passage would then read "Everyday human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion." Geologician

Time passes while I sleep. I think your line of argument pointless. Banno 21:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Banno unconsciously confirms my line of argument. My point about everyday experience is clear. But to clarify absolutely lets try "Conscious human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion."

Geologician 22:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to Geo:

• Your addition is about awareness, not about definition

Who said that introductions should ignore and avoid clarifying ordinary human experience?

• Your addition is also not accurate

What is inaccurate about it?

• • "waking" - being an event - implies time - not movement

"waking" is a series of physiological events, involving motion to a greater or lesser extent, which occupy a period of time not an instant.

• • lack of motion in the room will not tell you you did not sleep (See previous)
  • digital clocks change, they do not "move" - just in case you plan to go there (Light is a vibration)
• Your addition also has no support in the literature - is original "research"

My statement has the support of Leibniz, as I said above in 'Definition revisited'. To reiterate:

Regarding the point about citation (and precedent) much of what I have been saying follows from the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. For example, Leibniz' 5th letter, para 62: "I don't say that matter and space are the same thing. I only say, there is no space, where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality. Space and matter differ, as time and motion. However, these things, though different, are inseparable." Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thus the connection between time and motion is not my original idea.

• I have already included motion in 2nd view - to include your view

I saw that and appreciate the attempt to compromise, but the connection with motion deserves better treatment in the introduction.

• We can vote anytime, you want - You know you are already outvoted
  • but it would be better to first deal with ALL objections to your inclusion, not just one.
• you have accept neither compromise nor argument

I do not believe that it is in the spirit of Wiki to blank out a constructive suggestion before the wider world has had time to consider it. It seems to me that my suggestion is in conflict with some deeply held quasi-religious belief of yours that bears no contradiction.

• you have reverted 3 times now, any more reverts by you in next 24 hours puts you in violation of 3RR

What about your reverts?

• your own insertion says "commonplace" - not universal - your own words show you are offering it only as an rough example, not as a definition

Commonplace means ordinary human experience.

WE seem to be rum=nning out of space.

Geologician

• --JimWae 22:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) (updated)--User:JimWae 22:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

-JimWae 22:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) (updated)

See previous point. It follows.

Geologician 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I said: waking does not necessarily imply motion & that it DOES imply time
• Geo replied: Waking involves time
• Are you sure you are awake now? --JimWae 23:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• You seem to have abandoned claim that your insertion is a definition - how about removing it from the section on definitions then?JimWae 23:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)--JimWae 23:17, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Regarding Jim's point that I have abandoned my claim that it is a definition. Far from it. If Jim has access to the Oxford English Dictionary (Full version) he will discover that the word "Commonplace" when used in a rhetorical sense (Which is what Wiki is all about), means "A passage of general application, which may serve as a basis for argument: a leading text cited in argument". Thus the word, in use since the 16th century, has precedence over the word "definition" in its logic application, first used by Milton in the 17th century. Geologician 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• a passage of general application - in this case, a hasty GENERALIZATION --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Leibniz argues that motion implies time, NOT that time implies motion - actually, in what you quote, he does not even say "implies" and is arguing about space & matter, He says:
  • there is no space where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality"
• This is a poor quote for a source about Leibniz on time, since he only says time & motion are LIKE space & matter, but you are jumping to
  • there is no time where there is no motion; and that time in itself is not an absolute reality.
• but you have NOT presented anything in definitional form - only in terms of human awareness. Leibniz is not talking about awareness. Perhaps if you could find a passage where he might very well say:
  • without motion, there would be no time
• Leibniz is not making a logical nor a definitional point, but some kind of cosmological/metaphysical one which is far different from your insertion, but is a counterfactual assertion that I could agree with - and is not just about motion & time, because without motion there would be also no events
• remove your insertion from section on definition & find another spot
• STOP removing sections from the Talk page - that is VERY BAD etiquette
• --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Leibniz just says that time and motion are inseparable. (Like yin and yang.) Jim is distorting the sense of my quotation. If one ignores human awareness, Wiki will quickly become a high-falutin' retreat for elitists, rather than a useful source of information. Perhaps that is Jim's objective? If I had not removed those sections I would have been unable to respond to Jim's points late yesterday, as Wiki flagged that this discussion page had exceeded its kb allowance. Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I removed your proposed compromise. A nice try, but I think it too controversial to go inthe intro. Perhaps you would like to make the same comment further on inthe article? Banno 21:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I've probably reverted his inclusion 3 times now, so perhaps we could work together on this - you have 2 reversions left. If you choose to use one more, the text would be immeasurable improved.--JimWae 22:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Nice teamwork. But have either of you wondered, can there be two Lords of Time"? Please allow the wider community to see my suggestion for long enough to form a view. Then we can have a realistic vote. Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to theoretical physics, Time is simply nothing more than one of the four metric variables not subject to macroscopic compactification, which are identical in all respects except for their values. The mysterious, and not properly understood Wick Rotation, is responsible for the difference observed between time and space, i.e. the fact that the Minkowski metric describes space, rather than it being Euclidean geometry. All differences between time and space can ultimately be put down to the Wick Rotation. Entropy appears to point in one direction through time (toward the future), because it is a measure intimately connected to Energy, which is the time component of momentum (see special relativity if how this can be is not understood). Our observation of time is ultimately connected to the fact that microscopically, we are observing physical interactions, which obey such essential physics rules. It is a bit technical, but I still hope this helps sort out the intro (N.b. I wouldn't ask me to explain much further, as this comes from my brother, who is a physicist, wheras I research linguistics). ~~~~ 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd suggest leaving the philosophers to argue, as long as the "time in physics" section stays acceptable, and the introduction doesn't downplay it appreciably. --Christopher Thomas 07:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think the contrast works better as originally set - conceptualist position is explained in contrast to the realist position. Perhaps you'd like to contrast the realist position from the conceptualist, however? (I also think point form -as in space works better to keep reader's attention AND eliminates the single sentence paragraph problem) --JimWae 22:45, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Vote to delete page of nonsense that was also entered in full on Time page

go to: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dieter Manisprechensie

Time and motion

Cut from article:

<block> In everyday experience, our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved. Consequently, the definitions of time and motion are apparently inseparable. </block>

The first sentence is dubious, at best, and for the several reasons given above:

1. Someone in sleep or in a sensory deprivation tank, would still be aware of the passing of time;
2. One can quite easily imagine being conscious without experiencing any motion; in such a state, one would still be (painfully!) aware of the passage of time
3. There is no requirement on a Minkowski space that it actually contain particles, yet it will contain a dimension of time.

Geo has, despite requests, failed to ascribe this belief to anyone apart from himself. It is therefore either POV or original research. Banno 03:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

By persistently cutting my contributions to the Intro, it seems that Banno and Jim consider themselves to be joint custodians of acceptable definitions of Time, and brook no disagreement with their points of view. Perhaps they have been elected to these positions; if so, please refer me to the web-page describing that process, and I shall apologise forthwith. Otherwise they are merely self-appointed referees, without the usual strict checks and balances on those given such responsibilities. Perhaps B&J are pen names of Nobel prize-winners, and indeed even Einstein was effective in suppressing alternative points of view. However those attitudes do not contribute to the progress of knowledge. They are reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Vatican Curia, suppressing ideas that might threaten a comfy lifestyle. Returning to Banno's points immediately above:

1. I have already answered the first point, made previously in a different form by Banno (20:49, Jun 14, 2005, UTC), but to reiterate: the entire precess of being conscious, or even in a dream state depends ultimately on motion, for example, blood circulation and moving electrons in nerve ganglions in the brain. So, waking or sleeping, ordinary conscious or semiconscious people's experience of time is totally, completely and absolutely dependent on accompanying motion, whether they are conscious of the actual form of motion or not.
2. Minkowski space is the figment of a physicist's imagination, like many other ideas that have been tried and discarded though the ages. I can easily conjure up a mathematical formula that describes a volume of empty space and introduces time. How about d^^3/t= (infinity) ? It doesn't necessarily have any relevance to the real world, but I haven't broken any rules of arithmetic.

People who read Wiki deserve better than a whole lot of guff about extremely abstract ideas in an introduction. They want information that is relevant to their everyday experience. And the use of phrases like "In contrast" just begs the question without immediately providing reasons why it is a contrast. Thus it just implies that the writer is much, much, cleverer than the reader, without providing justification. I intend to persist with this line of argument, simply because I respect the common man. There is a place for all your high falutin' stuff. It might be in Physics Letters, or possibly Fortean Times. Geologician 12:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geo, your contributions are most welcome. But it is part of the nature of the Wiki that anything that is controversial will be deleted or edited. Your statements are controversial. If Jim and I were not here, some one else would remove your material. The only way around this is to re-work your ideas so that they do not simply express your point of view, but are acceptable to all editors. You might, for instance, find some notable source that agrees with you, and quote from it.

There is still a problem with your argument. Putting it together, you appear to be saying that our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved, and that this also applies to moving electrons in nerve ganglion in the brain. Are you really claiming to be aware of the motion of electrons in your brain? Certainly this would be unusual.

You miss the point of the Minkowski space example. The fact remains that it is possible to imagine a space with time and yet without the motion of particles. It follows that the existence of time is not dependent on the motion of particles. That it does not correspond to the real world is irrelevant to the argument.

I think you are correct that the introduction is too technical. I suggest we move the discussion to further on in the article. Banno 17:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I canot understand why you consider my contributions to be controversial. I am merely following a particularly illustrious path:

1. Aristotle (A founding father of philosophy.) Time, according to Aristotle, is just the measure of motion, where, by ‘motion’ he means change of any sort, including qualitative change. (The Greek word change was translated into Latin as motion.) This 'motion' eventually became restricted to what Aristotle called ‘locomotion’—change of place with respect to time—recognized by him as somehow logically prior to other kinds of change, or always involved in or implied by it.
2. Leibniz (as quoted several times previously).
3. Recent work in this field has been done by the philosophy faculty of the University of Pittsburgh, where Richard M. Gale wrote The Philosophy of Time. Aristotle's terse definition of Time as "number of motion in respect of `before' and `after.' is analyzed by Gale to mean: Motion is an attribute of a substance, and time in turn is an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion. Motion is potentially time and becomes such in actuality only when its temporal succession is noted and measured by some sentient creature. Thus time is not a substantial entity which is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independently of the changes that substances undergo It has being only as an attribute of an attribute of substance.

Unfortunately, this illustrious path became muddied by Barrow, Charleton and Newton, who conceived of time as a separate entity in its own right, and subsumed motion and mass within the concepts of momentum and force. Newton's views held sway for many generations, to be replaced by a lot of guff about field theory. However Einstein recanted before his death: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)."

Let's try to think clearly about this matter and restrict our discussion to the real world.

Geologician 21:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your arguments support mostly the conceptualist position, they do not support your view that APPREHENSION of motion is necessary to AWARENESS of time. Notably: "time in turn is an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion." -- NOT the same as your contention that: motion is (some kind of) an attribute of time --JimWae 22:05, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• "time being an attribute of motion" does not preclude it being an "attribute" of other things too--JimWae 22:08, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• it seems (I cannot tell for sure) that you've shifted aristotle's greek words at will to a restricted sense to support your position. Aristotle often seems to suggest that time is nothing other than a measure of change. Local motion is one of three types of change that Aristotle recognizes, the other two between changes in quality and changes in quantity. --JimWae 22:31, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Sometimes i know i was sleeping because of change, yes -- the room is dark (or light) - i do not perceive the sun or earth moving though & I do not reason first that the earth has rotated (or that electrons moved in my brain longer than usual) therefore i must have fallen aleep. This does not make "change an attirbute of time", though perhaps time an "attribute" of change - though I'd not use the word in scare quotes myself--JimWae 22:26, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Yes, let's try to think very clearly about this--JimWae 22:35, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

To accommodate contributions like that immediately above its rather a pity that Wiki doesn't provide GREEN INK.

Geologician

• So you now limit your responses to personal attacks? Saves my time, that's for sure!--JimWae 23:43, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Calm down, Jim, and get your act together. I thought you were going to write that: "The foundation of time can only be grasped within the restricted realm of its uncovered hermeneutic ecstatic." or some such guff. Geologician 23:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you cannot follow the discussion & think it is similar to that kind of "guff", you are clearly in the wrong kitchen--JimWae 00:08, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Geo, Jim is correct that the argument you present above does not support your case. But why not edit this material into the main article - only not in the intro, which is not the place for extended argument? Furthermore, if another editor on the Wiki says it is controversial, then by definition, it iscontroversial. that's the way the Wiki works - if you don;t like it, go publish someplace else. Banno 00:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Gale's interpretation of Aristotle's hypothesis of time is controversial? If that went in the introduction, it would cover my opinion perfectly. If it is controversial can someone please explain why? Returning to Jim's point that I've shifted Aristotle's Greek words at will to a restricted sense to support Gale's position: As I stated above "(The Greek word change was translated into Latin as motion.) This 'motion' eventually became restricted to what Aristotle called ‘locomotion’—change of place with respect to time—recognized by him as somehow logically prior to other kinds of change, or always involved in or implied by it."

I did not interpret Aristotle's text, that is how the Greek has been translated by scholars down through the ages. If Jim has a problem with it then perhaps he can explain why? Geologician 11:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this even relevant? Are you saying Gale's interpretation is the only acceptable one? You could make your view NPOV by saying that "Gale says that Aristotle says that our conscious awareness of elapsing time depends simply upon the realisation that something is moving or has moved". Do you think we should place that in the introduction? Is it even true? I think not. Banno 11:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a clumsy way of expressing an interesting concept. On reflection, I think a slightly modified version of Gale's interpretation is capable of standing on its own as a third alternative in the intro, with explanatory links to the words I have put in brackets: " Another view is that whilst motion is a fundamental attribute of a matter, time in turn is merely an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion. An observation of motion (in the form of a vibration) is potentially capable of measuring time when it is conducted by some intelligent being. Thus time is not a concrete entity that is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of the changes that matter can undergo. Time has being only as an attribute of an attribute of matter." Geologician 16:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Let's look at a simpler formulation

  "Another view is that time is merely an attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but the number or measure of motion (conducted by some intelligent being). In this view, time is not a concrete entity that is capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of motion."

• If you follow the attribute link, it takes you to abstraction. How is this formulation not a subset of the conceptualist position, but restricted to motion & excluding sequence & comparisons of duration? If it is a separate abstraction, how is time of motion a different abstraction from time of sequence & time of duration? It seems you are becoming a conceptualist, no? --JimWae 17:20, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• you will, of course, object to where I put "conducted by some intelligent being" but I must ask what do measurement & number mean apart from our conceptions of them? I also ask what it means to "have reality". If you choose to take the tack that the "time is the number & measure of motion" is clear enough to stand on its own (I'd disagree), then how do you distinguish "your" view from the realist - and how is the abstraction "time of motion" different from the description it gives? --JimWae 18:06, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• and you still need to give some authoritative source for this view - and restricting Aristotle to "motion" rather than "change" will not suffice--JimWae 18:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• I am happy to see that we are approaching a constructive compromise on this matter, Jim. I am still rather concerned that by omitting the reference to matter, the concept becomes a bit too abstract. Motion needs matter to move. Can we work this into your proposed formulation? (perhaps by ending it with "and motion has no reality without matter." Then in your following paragraph you could add: "and matter" after space.

• I still prefer to regard my position on this as realist rather than conceptualist, following Leibniz, who wrote:

"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles). This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. ... I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is a fact in nature. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)" I regard this definition as confirmed by a posteriori observations, thus consistent with my experience of nature. Geologician 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think you have misunderstood - I proposed the simpler formulation to show it was not truly different from the existing ones - & because of its ambivalence on the role of intelligent beings could be taken as either existing formulation. I made it simpler mostly by discarding the parts about matter as that would need much more support than you have given them.--JimWae 18:39, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• how will you deal with Wikipedia:No original research policy - Leibnitz is pretty firmly a conceptualist - and you have not presented anything on his views of time - just on space--JimWae 18:41, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• I shall accept your suggestion that "time is the number & measure of motion" is not clear enough to stand on its own. I suggest the paraphrase instead:

" Another view is that whilst motion is a fundamental attribute of a matter, time is merely a subsidiary attribute of motion. Time is not motion, but as an attribute of the oscillating motion of matter, time can be measured by an intelligent being. In this view, time is not a concrete entity, capable of existing separately from other things; it has no reality independent of motion, and motion has no concrete reality independent of matter."

• Time as a subsidiary attribute of motion is a different concept from time of sequence & time of duration because it is linked firmly to the concrete idea of matter. This is because duration, interval and events such as sunrise and the bang of a starter gun have different meanings as time benchmarks for different observers. However careful observers can generally agree on which tick of the clock coincides with the hour bell.
• I regard these observations as self-evident common sense, not original research, and am seeking no accolades. I have quoted Leibniz several times previously but at the risk of overkill, here we go again. "For example, Leibniz' 5th letter, para 62: "I don't say that matter and space are the same thing. I only say, there is no space, where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality. Space and matter differ, as time and motion. However, these things, though different, are inseparable." Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)" Any reasonable reader would interpret this to mean that he refers to each pair individually then applies his conclusion to both sets of pairs, both individually and collectively. Thus time and motion are inseparable.
• You keep referring to the Conceptualist position, although Wiki doesn't seem to cover this matter. Apparently it just means that meanings are elements of the cognitive structure in the heads of the language users, although I expect you will be filling that vacant definition more adequately in the course of time.

For me a concept dealing with the real world has no concrete significance unless it can be substantiated with material evidence. Thus I remain a realist rather than a conceptualist. Geologician 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• the central point of your proposed text is "time is an attribute of motion" - that is not much of a definition - red is an attribute of human blood - red is also an attribute of many other things. Nothing precludes time from being an attribute of other "things" besides motion--JimWae 03:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• that is too thin a quote from Leibniz on time to count as an authoritative source. He is discussing space & mentions time in quick passing. Perhaps he discusses time elsewhere also? If you could find a place where Leibniz says he is defining time, not discussing it in general & it were discussed by other scholars, it could possibly be included somewhere. But my first point would still apply - giving one thing that time (or anything) is an attribute of falls short of definition. Even if he clearly says "time is not an attribute of anything else but motion", time would not be the only attribute of motion & so is incomplete as a definition. --JimWae 03:32, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• there are no perfect squares - yet we think & talk about them quite well - there's a concept without a referent "in the material world"--JimWae 03:43, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• The latter is what practical people would call "an Airy-Fairy Argument". Geologician 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of time

Time is the product of the motion of matter through space.

If a ship (matter) is moving across a smooth ocean (space) its wake represents time. (Completely 'out of the box' thinking). Geologician 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are good reasons why both of these statements are 'out of the box.' Neither have any meaning, and neither correspond to reality. Time is certainly not the "product of the motion of matter though space". The concept of motion would be meaningless without time. I don't think there is a quick one-liner that says what time is, especially since each person has their own individual view of what time actually is. IMHO, time is a fundamental property of the space in which we live. We perceive time moving in one direction, even though all individual objects (elementary particles, etc.) move simultaneously forward and backward through time. From a perspective outside of time, if one exists, everything has already happened, but we only experience the tiny interval that we're alive. Of course, from a perspective outside of time, the concept of "has already" and "happened" are meaningless. Maybe I shouldn't digress...

The ship moving through the ocean of space with time as its wake is utter nonsense. I hope it was meant as a joke. There have been no experiments performed which give any reason whatsoever to believe such a thing. Thinking 'out of the box' like that may be an interesting mental exercise, but there is virtually no chance that it will provide a meaningful description of reality. --D. Estenson II 15:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay; whilst I am trying a Conceptualist hat on; lets try a slightly different analogy:

"Moving matter consumes distance and excretes time."

"Moving matter transforms distance into time."

Funny enough yet? Geologician 19:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intro.

The first definition explains time is a fundamental property of the universe, and uses mathematical entities to describe it, therefore it is not improper to say it is part of a "mathematical structure."

The second definition explains time as a concept resulting from our observations, which can also be described mathematically, but seems to avoid mentioning the subject.

A third definition should be written to include the philisophical meanings of time which are independent of the universe but dependent only on our perceptions. Also a third definition should be given since the first sentence says "Time has a range of definitions." Two is hardly a range. --D. Estenson II 22:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• to say the first is mathematical is to exclude those who might say math is itself a construct, but time is somehow "built in" to the universe. Atoms may be construed as part of the structure of the universe - but to call them a mathematical structure is to take a limited view of them

To use the words structure, dimension, and sequence in a definition that doesn't include mathematics leaves the author's credibility highly suspect.

• the second view does NOT say it results from our observations - it also includes those who would say math is "hard-wired" into our brains

While the second view doesn't explicitly state the word observation, everything it refers to results from our observation. To think and talk objectively about the universe first requires observation. The sequencing of events begins with observation. The comparison of motions of objects requires observations of the objects' motions. But, you are right, definition two is more math oriented than the first. However, your argument that math is "hard-wired" into our brains has no relevance to the discussion.

• perhaps the first line should say 2 general opposing defintions - but that would say there were no more than 2, which could be construed as POV from editors
• how is your 3rd one not just a subset of the 2nd?--JimWae 22:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

If you had not deleted it so quickly, I would have spent a little more time explaining the third view as a philosophical construct of human experience rather than a fundamental feature of the universe or an abstract mathematical entity.

The three views of time, as I see them, then are: as a fundamental physical feature of the universe like space, as a mathematical construction used to analyze motion, and as a philosophical product of human perception.

Actually, there are many other views, many other concepts which time is used to describe. Certainly time is the most overused, least understood concept in the history of mankind. --D. Estenson II 09:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beware the 'actually' curse of Sunday's Doonesbury. Otherwise I fully agree with you, and it should not be the prerogative of an editor to delete a maiden contribution for at least 12 hours. (Unless at least three established editors flag it as dubious.) Geologician 11:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Contrasting - the exposition of the definition points out differences from 1st realist view
• part of - the other parts being number, space, and maybe more
• not a figment - it does not "go away" & concept is shared (are squares figments?)
• quit trying to denigrate view just because you do not like it - in fact I'd request you discuss proposed changes to that view here before editing it
• referring - I will consider whether it really needs to have time in quotes before that - the whole idea that every noun must have a referent is the view that leads to confusion & that conceptalists oppose
• --JimWae 09:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Funniest Philosophy Joke?

The Canadian Philosophical Association has held a joke contest. http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c96508d2-a227-49b8-b14b-24fd2fc5064d --JimWae 07:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

At a meeting where faculty heads are deluging a university head with big-ticket requests, such as a $100-million particle detector for the physicists, $50-million spectrometer for the chemistry profs: "And so it went, until he got to the chairwoman of mathematics. To the president's relief, she said that all they needed was a pile of notepads, lots of pencils and a big waste bin. Next up was philosophy: 'We'll have the same as them. Except we won't need a waste bin.'"

Brevity is the soul of wit. There was an appropriate cartoon in a recent New Yorker (May 9) captioned "I'll start thinking outside the box when the box is empty." Geologician 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In the spirit of at least giving the department a filing cabinet, would you be willing to file some of the older and more lengthy threads in another archive page? You're a better judge of where to carve this debate up than I am. --Christopher Thomas 08:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every topic has a very recent entry - 32 kB is just a guideline - perhaps I can break a topic up, however (for future archiving purposes). At least the TOC is showing up now --JimWae 19:17, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Time for beginners

I guess the intensity of debate on this Talk Page demonstrates the deep importance of the subject. Thanks to all for the contributions but it is hard to find a way through the discussions and the top page (article?) gives little clue as to what is bubbling just below the surface. Is it possible, rather than simply deleting a page, to synthesise key issues and make them available? Something is going on here which is of considerable importance - but it is subtle and could easily get lost.Jeffrey Newman 05:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main questions described in the article, if I understand correctly, are:

• Is time a part of the the universe, or just a convenient way of looking at the universe, or just something that stems from the way our minds work?
• If time is a part of the universe, or a well-defined/measurable way of describing the universe, what are different approaches to defining and measuring it?
• If time is part of our perceptions or of our philosophy of the world, rather than part of the world, what are different ways of defining it and what are the philosophical consequences of each definition?
• How is the concept of time used in society, and how has it historically been treated?

The introduction covers the first point, the "time in physics" section covers the second point, the "philosophy of time" and "psychology" sections cover the third, and the remaining sections cover the fourth, if I'm skimming their contents correctly. I agree that making the article more concise would be a good idea, but that's probably best done after the introduction and philosophical sections have been hammered out (they seem to be undergoing revamping at the moment).--Christopher Thomas 05:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - succinct and helpful. I think I am asking to modify your first point from either/or to both/and. I think (but am not a scientist) that this is the implication of much 20th Century scientific work and that the effect and interaction between observer on observed - issues of consciousness for example - will only increase.

Another way of putting this is the need to highlight the links between the sections in the main article. They are not seperate or alternative approaches in such a dynamic field as the study of time.

[I am new to Wikipedia. Why are we both using our fullnames? What is the dis-advantage of doing so, I wonder?} --Jeffrey Newman 06:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one currently editing the article. Don't worry; the people who are will see this thread. Regarding names, Wikipedia seems to have more of a tradition of full names being screen names, as opposed to aliases, but there are still plenty of aliases around. I sign with it because it's what four "~" marks gives me :).--Christopher Thomas 06:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just found this in today's Guardian in UK. It might interest you? It's a serious article on an attempt by a top (maverick) Professor of Engineering at Imperial College to build a machine which will mirror conciousness. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1511931,00.html

I don't know what a 'screen name is' but presumably has nothing to do with being a Film Star?

--Jeffrey Newman 06:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yet another new intro

Well said, I think. even though I am as responsible as anyone for the structure of the intro, I've been concerned for a few days about how the article launches into a fairly deep discussion of realism and idealism - something that is not even dealt with well inthe relevant main articles. So the new intro is an attempt to undo some of the damage the discussion between myself and Jim has done, by relegating the philosophical debate in the main to the philosophy section. Once dealt with there, its relevance to science might be easier to elucidate.

So my new intro aims to do not more than list the main headings in the article, and sound a bit interesting. No doubt you will want to change it... Banno 09:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)