Talk:Time/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: intro

message: 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)
thread_title: Funniest Philosophy Joke?

message: Has anyone read the article about this? If someone has, could s/he please post a link here or to my talk page? I seem to have lost it. It was written by or about a scientist who had converted some equations in physics so that they didn't require time as a component. He also believes that time doesn't exist as an objective dimension - that it is merely a subjective perception of ours. While it seems to be useful it misguides us from the true physics and because of this erroneus concept the current equations don't fit the experimental results one to one. I don't know what is the experimental truth behind him or if his calculation/equations are plausible but the article was interesting. Khokkanen 20:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found at least one of the articles; it is of sstyle but not the one I read earlier (months ago). Timeless is a general description of physics without time. Here's Julian Barbour's homepage. Khokkanen 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Here are some works of theirs from Spires: Brendan Foster, Julian Barbour and Niall O'Murchadha. Could someone who actually understands these matters look into it? The interesting ones (at least to my untrained eye) are RELATIVITY WITHOUT RELATIVITY and  DYNAMICS OF PURE SHAPE, RELATIVITY AND THE PROBLEM OF TIME. I'd of course appreciate any insight and explanation about the other documents too. Khokkanen 20:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics without time 

message: The new additions state there are 5 theories, yet describe TWO at the MOST. Wikipedia is not a portal to other sites - and this seems to have Wikipedia: No Original Research problems.--JimWae 01:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "R-theory" paragraph also needs to be edited for neutral tone, but that would be better done by someone who can do a proper literature search on how notable it is (philosophy is not my field). --Christopher Thomas 16:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've cut the R-theory of time stuff. It's something invented by a grad student named Jeffrey Grupp (his vanity bio was speed deleted a few days ago). The other guys, Ned Markosian, Ted Sider, Quentin Smith, and L. Nathan Oaklander, are probably established academics. Grupp has been busy promoting himself in various articles, at first anonymously and now under the name User:Atomist. I've put R-theory of time and abstract atomism on afd. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: For reference, if you don't want to create an account, you can still datestamp your comments by putting five ~ marks (~~~~~) after them. Four ~ marks adds your username (or IP address) and the datestamp. I encourage you to create an account, as you seem to be interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and this will also help other users get ahold of you (by giving you your own "user talk" page). --Christopher Thomas 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  December additions: R- theory 

message: (moved from the article)
What do you think of this definition?
Time is the interval between one occurance and the following occurance.
(forgive me for my bad english, you might put it better than me)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.150.129 (talk • contribs) on 23:14, 11 January 2006
::This definition itself presupposes knowledge of time. An interval is a time between two instants of succession. So, your sentence would read: "Time is an interval of time between one occurrence and the following occurrence." This presupposes what it is trying to prove. Kant and Schopenhauer asserted that time is subjective, not objective. That is, it is an activity that occurs in a brain. It is not an object that exists outside of the brain. To prove this, try to understand time without supposing a brain which is measuring or experiencing succession. This cannot be done. In other words, a brain necessarily experiences inner or outer succession, one thing after another. This is time.Lestrade 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, nothing appears to an observer, in the way that it appears, without an observer. The way that the observer's mind is organized determines the way that the world appears. See Berkeley, Kant, and Schopenhauer. What an object is in itself, that is, other than as being an appearance, is different than the object as it is witnessed.Lestrade 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of time

message: Recently, a section called "The meaning of time" was added. I have concerns about this for several reasons:
*It breaks into its own section content that would probably be better off folded into "time in physics" and "measurement of time".
*It reads like it was copied from somewhere.
If anyone wants to sanity check and re-edit this, it's probably not a bad idea. --Christopher 
Thomas 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The meaning of time"

message: Time is a by-product of matter.
It is not an entity of itself. It only exists, and can only be measured because matter changes.
What do you think?
Ron
There are 2 opposing views - one that "time" refers to something - some sort of container or framework or something that "flows" or that things "happen in". The other view is that time is a way to measure events (motion, duration, etc) -- and does not have a "nature". Another way to frame this is to ask, "Can time itself be measured, or is time part of the measurement system?" I am thinking we need to put the basis of the controversy back in the intro - if only to explain WHY there is no definition given -- & prevent people inserting "definitions" that do not respect the controversy. --JimWae 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A definition of time

message: More information should be provided on the distortion of time through gravity and acceleration, such as the influence of gravitational fields on clocks and electromagnetic waves in relation to time, as well as the slower decay of particles both when accelerating closer to the speed of light, most of which can be found in the theory of relativity.
:::It is obvious that Kant wasted his time when he wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. If, in 2006, people still think that time is an object that can be distorted, instead of being the mind's way of perceiving succession, then humanity deserves its puzzles, paradoxes, and occult imaginings.Lestrade 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lestrade, I suggest you go and study special relativity or at least read a wikipedia article on time dilation if someone has actually written such an article.  The person who wrote the above comment is correct in suggesting that objective measurements of time can be different if one clock is accelerating relative to the other clock or is in a different gravitational field.  Many experiments have confirmed this.  Time may well be the minds way of percieving succession, but most people also consider that it can be measured by clocks. Mostly Zen 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Distortion 

message: What is the difference in time during the existance of the universe as we know it today and since the Big Bang and anytime prior to the Big Bang? -- PCE 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do points exist in a singularity? I think not so on the basis of points (be they aleph-0 or aleph-1) I say time would be different prior to the Big Bang than after. As for Democritean time atoms, i.e. time which is indivisible I would expect that a single time atom could exist before the Big Bang but many more than one afterwards (although not divisible perhaps multiple) but I will not speculate as to their size or number. Rephrasing my question then let me ask if the single Democritean time atom that would exist prior to the Big Bang be timeless, i.e. unchanging? The answer I come up with is "yes" because there is only one and it is not divisible. What about after the Big Bang? Perhaps if "new" Demo time atoms are being constantly created then individually they would remain unchanged so to that degree they would be the same (not considering the possibility of a difference in size from a pre-BB Demo time atom) So to answer my own question based on these ideas I would say that there is a difference and this difference is the absence of the passage of time prior to the BB but the passage of time after the BB due to replication(?) of the Demo time atoms. Please don't quote me on this though. I still feel that I have not achieved the best or even a satisfactory (much less suitable) answer. -- PCE 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in Time  

message: It is an invention by humans to better organize our lives. Before the atomic clock, people would say "we shall meet at the river at the new moon," etc. Then there were astronomers, who realized that the sun rises/sets on 365 occassions in one rotation around the sun (in most places) - the basis for a year. After many of these years, scientists eventually came to the conclusion that one second is equivalent to 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133caesium (Cs) atom.  Outside of the rotation of the earth, movement of the stars, etc, and of course, biological aging (of cells, thus we age, etc, etc), time does not exist. The day is moderated by the rotation of the earth, year is based on rotation of the sun, and the second is based on 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133caesium (Cs) atom (obviously, human observations.) We age because cells grow and die(and so forth). Without factors like death and changing of the seasons/night&day, what is time? Unfortunately, the factors mentioned above do exist, and we have time ;). --Jay(Reply) 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is time? 

message: Was there time before the Big Bang? This is equivalent to asking: Is there a human observer whose mind can experience successive changes in objects that existed before the Big Bang? It's too bad that Kant and Schopenhauer wasted their efforts. People today are too lazy and/or too illiterate to read them and try to understand their claim that time is merely the possibility of an observing subject's experience of succession.Lestrade 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time & Big Bang

message: I've just done a considerable rearrange of the article, along with a fair bit of rewriting. The article as it was did not cover much of the interpretations of time, and hardly any of the 'every-day' time (what happened to time zones, or even definitions of the calendar, outside the see also section?). The goal I'm aiming for is a page which gives a summary of the different views and measurements of time, with links to more in-depth articles on each subject. I'll continue the rewrite over the next couple of days. Mike Peel 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully the change I've just made (removing the definition section, and merging its content into the Measurement and Interpretations section) satisfies this concern. Mike Peel 07:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The following text was added to the article by . I've moved it to the talk page, as it needs heavy editing for tone before being merged. --Christopher Thomas 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this actually a proper theory of time, or just something the anon has made up? I've done a quick google search, and came up with nothing. Mike Peel 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like original research to me. -- Karada 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kept archived as OR, then. --Christopher Thomas 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribution by 68.36.42.110

message: I'm unsure about the change of the 'Imaginary time' section to 'Philosophical views of time'. Although I admit that 'imaginary' is probably not the best word to use, I'm sure that not all philosophers have postulated that time is something that is imagined, and is not something fundamental, which is what that section is geared towards discussing. Other views of time by philosophers would go into other sections, depending on what their views were (e.g. if you have a philosopher who believes that time is quantized, like a movie, then it would go into the 'quantized time' section). Mike Peel 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Imaginary time' 

message: When a user comes to this page, is it because he/she wants a deep philosphical debate about the nature of time, or because they just want to check their watch? How about adding the following line to the beginning of the article:
The time now is  UC
possibly with a link to somewhere showing different time zones.
--Tivedshambo (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this is an encyclopedia, not a clock, I'm pretty sure they _are_ looking for a "deep philosophical debate about the nature of time". --Christopher Thomas 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Time zone should give you conversion information, but a utility of the kind you describe seems out-of-scope for Wikipedia. I'm sure there are a few online versions, though (probably a few linked from time zone). --Christopher Thomas 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is time 

message: Some time ago, I noticed that the article alluded to "definitions", without providing one, so I provided the one from The American Heritage Dictionary, which is "a nonspatial linear continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession."  Someone then moved down into the body of the article, and put a citation tag on it (I neglected to mention the source).  But why can't it be in the Intro?  Why does it say that definitions are "controversial?  What I found in the Intro in its place was this poorly-written, unencyclopedic passage:
:Time can be the time on a clock, as in "the meeting starts at 12:45", or the length of an interval, as in "the meeting lasted 3 hours", or a sum of lengths of intervals, as in "I spent 20 hours on this project". In the latter case time is often seen as a commodity ("I have little time.")
I'm sorry, no offense to the contributor who added that, but that's a poor choice to lead off an article about time. Shouldn't the lead-off state what time is, rather than a vague, decontexualized pondering about what it "can be"?  It reads like the definition a grade schooler would give.  Any thoughts?  Why is it controversial? Why should the Intro not have the dictionary definition? I'd like your input.  :-)  Nightscream 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly it's because there are many ways of looking at time from a philosophical point of view, and the article mainly discusses these. A definition of "time" as used in physics would be shorter, but it'd still need a surprisingly long definition to avoid loopholes. --Christopher Thomas 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dictionaries are targetted at non-scientists. Thus, they make approximations that result in a non-rigorous definition if you're looking for the scientific one. Similarly, an exhaustive list of the ways philosophers have looked at time is beyond the scope of a dictionary entry - but not of an encyclopedia entry. The reason the philosophical views are emphasized in this article is twofold. First, there are more such views (there are only about three mainstream scientific views that I know of, though at least one fringe view got mentioned). Second, the main people editing have been philosophers. I'm not saying the article couldn't stand cleanup. On the contrary, I think that it should be condensed and sanity-checked (especially after User:Geologician's recent editing spree). I just don't see a problem with presenting a more extensive list of definitions than you'd find in a dictionary. Check some of the older threads to see the debates that went into producing this list. --Christopher Thomas 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are definitions of time controversial?

message: I removed the new lead sentence:
:Time is known as measure of movement or measure of changes. 
since movement is the change of position with time and we have clarified nothing. --Michael C. Price talk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular definition removed

message: Schopenhauer gave a very precise and uncomplicated definition of time. Of course, it is probably incomprehensible to most people. He said that time is the organization of the brain that allows it to experience succession.Lestrade 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So "no brains" ==> "no time"?  I don't think so.  The article has it right -- no easy definition is adequate, although Schopenhauer's "Simple" Definition should appear somewhere.  --Michael C. Price talk 11:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can conceive of time in any fashion, you will also have to conceive of a brain that experiences it. Even if you can imagine time occurring before the appearance of any animals on this planet, the very picture in your mind of such a time depends on the organization of your mind.Lestrade 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The laws of physics do not require us to be aware of them in order to function. Our _concept_ of time requires a brain in order to exist, but the phenomenon we're trying to use that concept to describe certainly doesn't. --Christopher Thomas 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christopher Thomas, you are saying that a phenomenon can exist without a brain in which it appears as a phenomenon? That would be a non-phenomenal phenomenon. Time, though, is not a phenomenon. Time is the possibility of an animal brain's experience of the succession of phenomena.Lestrade 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's pretty much the core assumption behind all of physics (that an objective universe exists, independently of our subjective perceptions of it). --Christopher Thomas
As Einstein said, the way that objects are known to exist is relative to an observing subject. We don't know what things are in themselves, that is, other than as objects for a subject. Time is the way that an observer experiences the succession of perceived objects. When physicists start thinking that objects exist, in the manner that they present themselves to our minds, without reference to an observing subject, then they are left with paradoxes.Lestrade 14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  We are still arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin before we even define what an angel or a pin is. Please consider the introductory definition that I supply below, or something like it, for the introduction of the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schopenhauer's Simple Definition

message: Time is not conceptual. It is a relationship of perceptions. The "framework" metaphor does not communicate any clear, sensible thought. Otherwise, the definition is very good in that it defines time as an activity within the mind of the subjective observer.Lestrade 11:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get that definition into even one general encyclopedia with a professional editorial board as an introduction, I'll take this statement seriously. Otherwise, it's pointless pontification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even worse than the "framework" metaphor is the "fabric" metaphor, which is a great favorite among physicists. To speak of the fabric of the universe is to use unintelligible words. But the thought that human observers sequence events and quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them  is very good. It reflects the actions and operations of subjects . This is in opposition to the current popular notion that time is an external object that, in unison with space, can be warped and curved.Lestrade 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: These unsourced opinions are still too abstract to start with. It appears we will have to compile introductory statements from several existing general-purpose encyclopedias into a well-sourced, properly cited introduction in order to quash the effort to stuff the intro full of impenetrable philosophical discourse that, in trying to satisfy everyone, fails in its primary purpose. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JimWae's Conceptual Framework

message: In the article section "Galaxies Observed Moving Backward in Time," it is stated that a galaxy is seen to be moving backward in time. You will notice that it is not asserted that the galaxy is moving backward in time. That is because the statement only describes the way that external objects (galaxies) are perceived from the point of view, or reference frame, of an observing subject. We can only talk about what has been given to our brains and eyes. That is, we can only say what is observed or is seen, not what simply is. The moving galaxies exist relative to an observer. How the galaxy is moving, apart from its appearance in the mind of an observing subject, is not known and has no existence for us. The time in which the galaxies appear to be moving backward is a relationship in the mind of the observing subject.Lestrade 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Backward in Time

message: The current Wikipedia entry on the nature of time is extremely useful and thorough.  That having been said, however, I believe there is still room for improvement.  Toward that end I would like to offer some additional thoughts on the topic for the consideration of the authors and/or editors of that entry.  A gist of my thinking on the topic can be found at http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time.
Although I have long been a "user" of Wikipedia, I have only registered with the site today and have never previously tried to contribute to the community effort.  Hence, I have no idea about the best, most appropriate way to do so (please see below for update).  If I have already wandered far off course, I hope that perhaps some helpful Wikipedia veteran will gently steer me onto the right path. 
Added later:
Having now gone through the Wiki introductory/tutorial pages, which I had not done when the above lines were written, I have a somewhat better idea of the Wiki landscape, including its "no original research" rule.  Nevertheless, I would welcome suggestions from Wiki veterans regarding my interest in contributing to the Wiki entry on Time. 
Thank you.
JCNSmith
JCNSmith 12:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on Time 

message: I have just made a small, hopefully non-controversial substantive revision to the section on Measurement devices.  Being very much a "newbie" to the Wiki environment, I hope I have not commited any irretrievable faux pas by doing so.  If I have, I apologize in advance and trust that a veteran will gently instruct me on more appropriate etiquette.  Thank you.
JCNSmith 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Your contribution looks just fine. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Sandstein 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement devices revision