How do we experience time?

[Jknifeman]

Until the day I die that clock has meaning. I’m late for work otherwise.

 

[STT]

No. Time does not cause change.

I didn’t say so.

Time is the means through which we experience change. It is not a ‘variable’, or an ‘entity’.

Time is a variable. Have you ever hear of gravitational wave? Time can curve therefore it is a thing.

It is merely the way we can conceptualize (and describe) the changes that we experience.

No.

 

[STT]

Lightwaves are continuous.

Unfortunately, they are the same.

Think of watching a movie. You focus on it and we know that the frames are discrete yet movie seems continuous to you. How such a thing is possible when the memory you make is discrete, frames.

In what way?

Each concept has separate meaning and identity.

Memories need not be, though the discussion of them may require discretion. But even if we break a memory for analysis, it may still persist as a continuous memory.

Yes, I agree with what you stated.

 

[STT]

How could that be possible? You asked “How do we experience time?” You then defined time as “a variable entity which allows change to happen.” I then asked if you’ve experienced change. You said you had. You therefore, by your own definition of time, have experienced it.

There is difference between experiencing change and time.

 

[Dovekin]

Time is a variable. Have you ever hear of gravitational wave? Time can curve therefore it is a thing

Spacetime curves; time, a variable that measures spacetime, “curves” in the sense that it accurately reflects the curvature of spacetime.

Think of watching a movie. You focus on it and we know that the frames are discrete yet movie seems continuous to you. How such a thing is possible when the memory you make is discrete, frames

Most movies I watch are now digitized, using compression algorithms that record changes and show them on screen. This is different from the old frame by frame process. The brain probably uses a more advanced process; i doubt the frame by frame model is up to the job of explaining the brain.

BTW, my point was that photons and lightwaves are the same thing, described as discrete or as continuous depending on context. “Photons are discrete” is a wholly inadequate way of describing light; it means you are leaving out its essential nature as both particle and wave.

 

[Gorgias]

Time is a variable because it is relative, when a jet moving at Mach 1.2 has a clock onboard that clock and the entire jet themselves are farther in the future than a man sitting on a bench watching the jet because of time dilation. Therefore time is a variable in so much as time dilation.

“Time is a variable” and “time is variable, based on perception” are two distinct concepts; they do not mean the same thing.

Whether time is a an entity depends upon how you perceive it and or measure it. It can be seen as a medium or it can be seen as a differential.

Again, if you’re saying that it’s possible to conceive of a frame of reference in which time appears as an entity, then I can buy that, since that’s just a question of perception – but, if you’re saying that the nature of time is “entity”, then you’re on more shaky ground.

No. Time does not cause change.

You said that without time, there is no change. In other words, time has a causal relationship with change. I disagree. Time does not cause change. It is merely the medium in which change is observable.

Time is a variable. Have you ever hear of gravitational wave? Time can curve therefore it is a thing.

Of course I’ve heard of them. The fabric of space itself can deform. When it does, the medium through which we experience change – that is, ‘time’ – itself correlates to the space. However, that doesn’t prove that “time is a variable”. Time itself doesn’t ‘curve’, since it doesn’t have physical extension. However, the measure of time stays in sync with space. No brainer.

[Time] is merely the way we can conceptualize (and describe) the changes that we experience.

So, we’ve gone from unsubstantiated assertions to simple negation? Whatever…

 

[Jknifeman]

You confused my meaning lol.

Time is a variable because a variable is something whose quantity can change, Google definition “not consistent or having a fixed pattern; liable to change.” But besides that you’re entirely correct.

 

[STT]

Most movies I watch are now digitized, using compression algorithms that record changes and show them on screen. This is different from the old frame by frame process. The brain probably uses a more advanced process; i doubt the frame by frame model is up to the job of explaining the brain.

BTW, my point was that photons and lightwaves are the same thing, described as discrete or as continuous depending on context. “Photons are discrete” is a wholly inadequate way of describing light; it means you are leaving out its essential nature as both particle and wave.

The question is how we could experience time considering the fact that we only receive change whether change is discrete or continuous.

 

[STT]

You said that without time, there is no change. In other words, time has a causal relationship with change. I disagree. Time does not cause change . It is merely the medium in which change is observable.

Your second sentnece doesn’t follow from your first sentence.

 

[Gorgias]

Your second sentnece doesn’t follow from your first sentence.

Of course it does. If change cannot happen without the presence of ‘time’, as you claim, then time is (at least one of) the causes of change. How would you argue otherwise?

 

[Dovekin]

The question is how we could experience time considering the fact that we only receive change whether change is discrete or continuous.

If we receive “change” then we perceive time as passing. If there is change from S to S’, then we say S is past because we see it as prior to S’. Time is in the relationship between S and S’ and not apart from it.

Time is part of the larger system Z which contains both S and S’. Z enables S to change into S’. Within Z we can compare S to S’ and name a difference associated with them as time.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

Change is experienced in time.

 

[STT]

Of course it does. If change cannot happen without the presence of ‘time’, as you claim, then time is (at least one of) the causes of change. How would you argue otherwise?

You can have time but no change.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Of course it does. If change cannot happen without the presence of ‘time’, as you claim, then time is (at least one of) the causes of change. How would you argue otherwise?

You can have time but no change.

No, you really can’t. All material things are in a constant state of change.

 

[goout]

Yes, time is an entity as it is described in this link. http://space.mit.edu/LIGO/more.html

So when you are dead, is time still an entity?

 

[STT]

If we receive “change” then we perceive time as passing. If there is change from S to S’, then we say S is past because we see it as prior to S’. Time is in the relationship between S and S’ and not apart from it.

Just close your eyes and ears. You don’t receive anything yet you could experience time.

 

[STT]

Change is experienced in time.

That is correct but that does’t negate my sentence: There is difference between experiencing change and time.

 

[STT]

No, you really can’t. All material things are in a constant state of change.

Ok! For change you need an agent with ability to cause. Change can also be a part of a chain of causality.

 

[STT]

So when you are dead, is time still an entity?

Yes, but not psychological time.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok! For change you need an agent with ability to cause.

Absolutely! I didn’t say that time was the sole cause of change!