Time

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

No doubt, it's not exactly revolutionary, but I would like to explore some of my questions of time.

Now, where does it come from?
Is it relative?

That's probably enough questions, but I would also like to apply this to everyday situations. I think different animals experience time completely differently i.e Animals that reach maturity quicker, have a shorter life-span. It almost seems as if time is speeding up for them. I doubt they would experience one day or one hour as we do.
Now, if that's true, is there anything to measure time by? Something external? Is there any proof that time is not flux? Any proof that its actually stable. Who is to say that when we feel time flies, it does not actually go faster?

[Sleeper]

Questions: Now, where does it come from?
Is it relative?

My answer: In my opinion, time does not come from anywhere, per se, except for from humans. This also happens to be my answer to the relativity of time because time is a function of language. For instance, if humans were to collectively agree that the definition of a minute is no longer to be sixty seconds, but rather that a minute be 120 seconds, then it would be so. To the same extent, we could then have a day not be comprised of 24 hours divided into sixty minutes per hour, but we could have a day be comprised of 12 hours of sixty minutes per hour (a minute now being 120 seconds) and it wouldn't make much difference.

Basically. all we did when we took the concept of time as it is now is that we took a known (the period of time for the Earth to revolve around the sun) and we broke it up into parts that we (as humans) collectively consider manageable.

Statement: . I think different animals experience time completely differently i.e Animals that reach maturity quicker, have a shorter life-span. It almost seems as if time is speeding up for them. I doubt they would experience one day or one hour as we do.

My response: I don't think that they necessarily would experience one day, or especially one hour, as we do, but I think that is not really the result of maturity rates or life spans. First of all, it has been scientifically proven that female humans mature faster than male humans, and they do not experience time any differently, at least not fundamentally. I disagree with the point about lifespans because I do not think that an animal would know what their life span is compared to, at least, animals that live longer than they do because they are incapable of the necessary observation and also do not have the language necessary to create the concept of, "Life-span."

With the overall point that they experience time differently, I do agree to this because they do not have language, and therefore, cannot arbitrarily create concepts of time units in order to manage time. They probably would have a rudimentary night/day separation and they might understand the difference between morning and late afternoon, but that's about it.

Keep in mind, that strictly speaking, morning, afternoon, evening and night are not functions of time, but rather of environment.

Question: Who is to say that when we feel time flies, it does not actually go faster?

My answer: If we accept that time is relative, then time (for an individual) might indeed seem to go faster at one point than at some other point. However, that does not change the amount of time (in terms of our units of measure) that has actually elapsed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Number 16:

Well, if you are talking about time as we refer to it in ordinary language, then a far better idea would be to examine the many different uses we have for words associated with it.

Here are a few:

What time is it?
I saw you earlier today.
Let's meet tomorrow.
I'm just killing time.
He's late for the demo.
Time I wasn't here.
Next time, don't forget the leaflets.
Sorry, your time is up!
He's a good drummer; he keeps excellent time.
Time is on our side.
Close the door before you leave.

None of these in any way suggest the 'problems' that seem to exercise you, and traditional philosophers.

Now, if you are not referring to the above use of words associated with time, then you must be referring to 'time', which would leave the ordinary use of such words unaffected.

The same comment, with a few adjustments, applies to scientists who use a typographically identical word "time", which bears no relation to time as it features in everyday discourse.

In short, there is no problem about time (since we all use the above words without any such problems), while there might be one or more about "time" or even 'time'. The first is best left to scientists, the second is best thrown on the scrap heap of history, since it is based on a systematic misuse of the language of time -- which explains all those 'paradoxes' of 'time' travel.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

I agree with most of what you said, Sleeper.

Clocks don't measure time. Clocks only measure themselves.
That sums up what I'm thinking pretty well. I don't think our measurement of time contains any relevance.

However what proof do we have that time is linear, or even exists at all?
the revolution of the earth doesn't show the progress of time. It goes in circles. We can only speculate that it has a beginning and an end.

If time exists it must be tied to the universe. It's not a separate standing feature. How can we be sure that it is constant? What if the universe goes through periods of rapid ageing and periods where time nearly stands still. We do not live long enough to experience more than one rate of time, and even if we did, would we realise that time is passing differently?


I only thing that 'proves' 'time' exists is progress.
Progress = Time.

We can see time in the ageing of our bodies for example.
But is that really proof of time?

Anyway, I have yet to believe in a linear time structure.
Does anybody have any arguments in support of one?

Could it possible that in fact time was not a product of the universe at all, but rather of our own minds in an attempt to fill in a void in our understanding? A collective mass delusion you could say.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Well, Kant would argue that time is objective and immaterial, like space, and only exists insofar as we are aware of it. Time (for me) ceases t exist when I expire, and this was really at root for his metaphysical magnus opus The Critique of Pure Reason, in which any objective material sphere through which or in which consciousness exists or travels is negated. Kant's big problem was that of the a priori thing-in-itself, and at times, he's walking a thin line between logical deduction and absolutism, which was rampant in his time.

Einstein also contends in his theory of general relativity, that there only exists an absolute frame of reference for the measurement of time (which can itself only act as that, an approximation) insofar as we propose to deduce or observe from that frame of reference, ie, if I were to interpret the speed of a person walking through a moving train from the reference point of the tracks themselves, my assertions are only valid on the basis that they are made with reference to those the tracks, and this applies, generally, to every circumstance (with the exception of light, which travels [in a vacuum] at an absolute speed). Kant's and Einstein's theories represent the two antitheses of this sort of thinking (the absolute and the relative). And Kant's was ultimately really failed undertaking, a tower of Babel, so to speak.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I see you guys are intent on debating 'time', as opposed to time.

Good luck with that, then -- given the fact that traditional philosophy like this has not solved a single 'problem' in over 2400 years.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

I see you guys are intent on debating 'time', as opposed to time.

Good luck with that, then -- given the fact that that traditional philosophy like this has not solved a single 'problem' in over 2400 years.

I don't know if the purpose of such philosophy is to solve problems as such.
I don't what life would be like if you never did things that had no purpose. :scared:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Number16 Bus Shelter:


I don't know if the purpose of such philosophy is to solve problems as such.

In which case its demise will not be missed.


I don't [know] what life would be like if you never did things that had no purpose.

Like watching paint dry, a much more useful activity?

[Hit The North]

Rosa, surely the uses of the word time in ordinary discourse are not unconnected to the more abstract inquiry into what 'time' is as a function of reality and/or cognition?

I don't see how you resorting to ordinary language arguments does anything except just bracket off and avoid the more difficult questions that No.6 Bus Shelter raises.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Rosa, surely the uses of the word time in ordinary discourse are not unconnected to the more abstract inquiry into what 'time' is as a function of reality and/or cognition?

You are, I think, assuming that time is a necessary component here.

Of course, if you are talking about 'time', a technical notion (that has yet to be clearly defined), then all well and good, but then this will bear no relation to our ordinary use of this word, and you'd be no further forward.

The problem is that many run these two together, talking about 'time' imagining this tells us about time. And this is where the confusions and the insoluble 'problems' begin.

It's as if you were to talk about, say, the Queen in chess and imagine you were speaking about Qeeen Elizabeth 11.


I don't see how you resorting to ordinary language arguments does anything except just bracket off and avoid the more difficult questions that No.6 Bus Shelter raises.

Well, what it does do is label all these sorts of 'problems' non-sensical, and for reasons I have outlined many times --, for example, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1596520&postcount=20

Which is why I wrote this, too:


For over two thousand years traditional Philosophers have been playing on themselves and their audiences what can only be described as a series of complex verbal tricks. Since Greek times, metaphysicians have occupied themselves with deriving a priori theses solely from the meaning of a few specially-chosen (and suitably doctored) words. These philosophical gems have then been peddled to the rest of humanity, dressed-up as profound truths about fundamental aspects of reality -- peremptorily imposed on nature, almost invariably without the benefit of a single supporting experiment.

In fact, traditional theorists went further; their acts of linguistic legerdemain 'allowed' them to uncover Super-theses in the comfort of their own heads, doctrines they claimed revealed the underlying and essential nature of existence, which were supposedly valid for all of space and time. Unsurprisingly, discursive magic of this order of magnitude meshes rather well with ambient ruling-class forms-of-thought (for reasons that are outlined here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1349779&postcount=2)) chief among which is the belief that reality is rational.

Clearly, the idea that the world is rational must be forced onto nature; it cannot be read from it, since nature is not Mind. Nevertheless, it is far easier to rationalise the imposition of a hierarchical and grossly unequal class system on 'disorderly' workers if ruling-class ideologues can persuade one and all that the 'law-like' order of the natural world actually reflects, and is reflected in turn by the social order from which their patrons just so happen to benefit --, the fundamental aspects of which none may question.

Material reality may not be rational, but it is certainly rational for ruling-class "prize-fighters" to claim that it is.

And:


Alas, for all their claims to be radical, when it comes to Philosophy, Marxist theorists are surprisingly conservative -- and worryingly incapable of seeing this, even after it has been pointed out to them....

Hence, in spite of frequent claims to the contrary, Marxist Philosophy has from its inception been remarkably traditional, if not disconcertingly conservative. Instead of trying to bury traditional theory, comrades have in fact done the opposite, indirectly praising it by emulating it. Hence, they have been happy to accept traditional philosphical 'problems' at face value, and then attempt to concoct their own a priori solutions to them (none of which work, which is not surprising since all such 'problems' are based on lingusitic distortion and misuse -- so no wonder they have remained unsolved for over 2400 years, and we are no nearer a solution that was Plato).

While they claim they want to smash the state, they are content to accept theories that have always been used to rationalise and justify it -- political reformism is unacceptable, but philosophical reformism, it seems, is fine.

[mikelepore]

Clocks don't measure time. Clocks only measure themselves.

I would think the opposite is the case, considering the fact that we can take the same readings from mechanical clocks, electronic clocks, atomic clocks, pendulums, oscillating springs, and vibrating strings. When they all mark off the same intervals, they seem to be measuring an independent variable that is outside any one of them.

[mikelepore]

Every time two moving objects collide, it means their trajectories put them in the same place at the same time. A bat hits the baseball. If they don't collide, then we know that their paths didn't pass through the same place at the same time. A bat misses the baseball.

All the craters on the moon are the marks of the trajectories of objects taking them through the same point in space at the same time.

When we walk across the street we must share the same place with a lot of traffic, but we make an effort to see to it that it won't occur at the same time.

[blake 3:17]

I think the debate should be chronos v kairos.

EP Thompson on clock discipline: http://libcom.org/library/time-work-discipline-industrial-capitalism-e-p-thompson

[Die Rote Fahne]

Time is the human conception of change/movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^That's not what our many and varied uses of words for time suggest, as my examples above show.

[Calmwinds]

Number 16:

Now, if you are not referring to the above use of words associated with time, then you must be referring to 'time', which would leave the ordinary use of such words unaffected.

The same comment, with a few adjustments, applies to scientists who use a typographically identical word "time", which bears no relation to time as it features in everyday discourse.

In short, there is no problem about time (since we all use the above words without any such problems), while there might be one or more about "time" or even 'time'. The first is best left to scientists, the second is best thrown on the scrap heap of history, since it is based on a systematic misuse of the language of time -- which explains all those 'paradoxes' of 'time' travel.

So are you saying things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox are not true? That ones age would remain the same, and that "time passed more slowly" is incorrect usage? I am having a difficult time seeing what are the differences in the usage of time between scientific and ordinary language use.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm saying that this alleged paradox is based on confusing the ordinary use of "time" with a technical use of the 'same' word.

There is no paradox, in other words, not that it is false. It can't be false if there is none.


That ones age would remain the same, and that "time passed more slowly" is incorrect usage? I am having a difficult time seeing what are the differences in the usage of time between scientific and ordinary language use.

The scientific use of this word is based on an analogical extension of the usual spatial axes (x,y,z) so that mathematicians and physicists could model the universe, but this extension suggested to them that 'time' (this new, orthogonal axis) was also spatial, and hence that we should be able to travel along it.

But, that makes no more sense than would the supposition that in linear algebra, where we use upwards of a million extra axes to analyse optimality, etc., these axes can all be given a physical interpretation, and are not just devices we use to solve problems more efficiently. Anyone who thought there were a million dimensions, one for each variable in linear algebra, would be radically confused.

A similar confusion has led to all the paradoxes of time travel.

Now, the way that clocks behave if you accelerate them to close to the speed of light is just a way of saying that clocks behave in odd ways if you speed them up. It has no bearing on how we speak about time, since there is no one thing that we call "time" in ordinary discourse. Nor are we clocks.

But, even if we were, our use of words for time is not based on this metaphor either. So this novel use of 'time' would have no bearing on the ordinary use of words for time, and hence, modern physics presents us with no new philosophical 'problems'.

[Meridian]

When you are looking at a clock, seeing "what the time is", what are you actually seeing? To me, it seems the concept we base our concept of time on is rhythm. A predetermined rhythm (such as the length of one second (which, to determine, again must be based on physical rhythm)) that, according to the logic of organisation and number, allows us to make statements regarding other lengths in time.

This is similar to looking at a ruler and seeing how long, in inches or centimetres, something is. Or, if you are on the road, how far off in kilometres or miles your destination is. It is, basically, an application of geometry.

[Hit The North]

Time is the human conception of change/movement.


^^^That's not what our many and varied uses of words for time suggest, as my examples above show.

Nevertheless, Propagandhi is correct. Time is a function of material change. The fact that in ordinary speech it may be employed flexibly doesn't change that. Plus, in most of your examples, merely asking the question 'what do you mean by "time"; or "next time"; or "earlier"; or "before?"' leads to a contemplation of these more abstract or general questions about what we mean by "time". Or am I missing something?

[Belisarius]

i wouldn't say time is just a function of material change, but a fundamental concept of human live. Human being-in-the-world is always a being-in-time. it is a time of which we know nothing except the end: death. Death is what gives meaning to life, it is because our lives our finite that we want to make something of it (what is the purpose of a choice when we have infinity to reverse it?).

of course we don't live in time all the time as i just explained. most of the time we don't think about our deaths, we just live our lives. in this way of life time is a bundle of protentions (projections in the future) and retentions ( projections in the past) and just a little point we call the present. this point we call "a moment/instant". at every instant we are planning our future and reflecting on our past. ths means every moment is a dynamic element. dynamic, because it destroys the past "in an instant" and paves the way to the future.

so we shouldn't view time as a function of a relation between a subject, the viewer, and a object (that is changing in physical time). Time is a purely subjective being, because the object is timeless. it doesn't care about its dynamic change.

[Revy]

I'm saying that this alleged paradox is based on confusing the ordinary use of "time" with a technical use of the 'same' word.

There is no paradox, in other words, not that it is false. It can't be false if there is none.



The scientific use of this word is based on an analogical extension of the usual spatial axes (x,y,z) so that mathematicians and physicists could model the universe, but this extension suggested to them that 'time' (this new, orthogonal axis) was also spatial, and hence that we should be able to travel along it.

But, that makes no more sense than would the supposition that in linear algebra, where we use upwards of a million extra axes to analyse optimality, etc., these axes can all be given a physical interpretation, and are not just devices we use to solve problems more efficiently. Anyone who thought there were a million dimensions, one for each variable in linear algebra, would be radically confused.

A similar confusion has led to all the paradoxes of time travel.

Now, the way that clocks behave if you accelerate them to close to the speed of light is just a way of saying that clocks behave in odd ways if you speed them up. It has no bearing on how we speak about time, since there is no one thing that we call "time" in ordinary discourse. Nor are we clocks.

But, even if we were, our use of words for time is not based on this metaphor either. So this novel use of 'time' would have no bearing on the ordinary use of words for time, and hence, modern physics presents us with no new philosophical 'problems'.

We are not clocks, yes, but motion occurs in the same way. Aging depends on motion at the microscopic level. It has been proven with experiments of clocks in airplanes that an object's speed (i.e. motion) slows down motion within it. The motion of a clock depends merely on the movement of a hand, or if some other internal movement, if it's an LED clock.

Would you say there's a difference between the bright disc in the sky (the Sun) and the star that our planets orbits around (the Sun)? I wouldn't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Nevertheless, Propagandhi is correct. Time is a function of material change. The fact that in ordinary speech it may be employed flexibly doesn't change that. Plus, in most of your examples, merely asking the question 'what do you mean by "time"; or "next time"; or "earlier"; or "before?"' leads to a contemplation of these more abstract or general questions about what we mean by "time". Or am I missing something?

Well, you need to say what you mean by "Time is a function of material change", and why that means that ordinary speech cannot capture this, and indeed why this is the only (or perhaps the "real") meaning of "time".

And, I am not too sure what you mean by "more abstract or general questions about what we mean by "time""? Are you suggesting that there is in our use of "time" a hidden set of meanings about which we have hitherto been unaware? But this is to fetishise this word: that is, it suggests that this word controls what we mean by it, making this word the agent not us.

[This is apparent whenever we try to speak about the 'real meaning' of a certain word -- as if words carry these about with them wherever they go, dictating to us what they mean --, but, about which we might be unaware until someone does a little 'philosophising'...]

Of course, if we decide that we mean something new by this word, no problem. But then this will apply to this new, technical use of the word, not "time" as we ordinarily use it.

In which case, the original philosophical 'problem' will not have been addressed: What do we mean by our use of "time"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Human Condition:


We are not clocks, yes, but motion occurs in the same way. Aging depends on motion at the microscopic level. It has been proven with experiments of clocks in airplanes that an object's speed (i.e. motion) slows down motion within it. The motion of a clock depends merely on the movement of a hand, or if some other internal movement, if it's an LED clock.

Yes, I am aware of these experiments, but I fail to see what they have to do with this. Has anyone been able to show that the processes you mention slow down? But, even if they did, what has this got to do with time travel, a confused metaphorical notion based on a reification of some abstruse mathematics, as I mentioned.


Would you say there's a difference between the bright disc in the sky (the Sun) and the star that our planets orbits around (the Sun)? I wouldn't.

But, of course there is a difference -- if we are speaking scientifically --; the sun you see is a retarded image of the sun, retarded by at least 8 minutes. It's a matter of inference that we relate this image to the 'scientific sun'.

Of course, you might not be speaking about the 'scientific sun'. If so, we do no see a disc in the sky, but the sun. If you want to call it a disc then that is naturally up to you. Anyway, it would make no more sense to say that this disc was identical with the sun than it would be to say that a disc is identical with a sphere, or, indeed, that your two dimensional shape is identical with you.