Time?

[JDaniel]

My question is: What is time?

I propose that “time” is the measure of motion. It does not matter to me whether or not it can be slowed down by relative speed. It does not matter that time-deflation exists, it is still the measure of motion.

Some want to call time another, or 4th, dimension. I’m not so sure that this can be said, for the following reasoning:

If I perceive a rectangular box moving through space on a straight line, at some relatively constant speed, the bow of the box will continuously be entering the present - at least for it. The stern of the box will also be continuously be entering the present, for it, while simultaneously passing through time slices of the past.

But, the present cannot be anything but the mind’s conception of an exigency that we call the “present”. The time-slice we call the present, is of such short duration as to not exist, for the intents and purposes of dimension. The time-slices of the past would seem to perhaps have more solidity, but, they too only exist in our mind. And, of course, the future is nothing more than incredibly good prediction, but, also exists only in the mind.

Regarding the other three dimensions, we can easily see that they are real. We can easily feel that they are real as properties of real things. Height, width and length possess not only the universals that allow for the abstraction of them, but also, they are grounded in something outside of the mind.

There is an apparent disparity here.

Now, regarding the singularity (and whether or not time began with the Big Bang): we have a pretty good concept of it from the traces of it left behind. Heretofore, we have not been able to conjecture an exigency to have had being behind the stern of the singularity at least from science. Science posits hyper-compressed energy between the bow, the stern, the port, and the starboard sides of this singularity. If the singularity did, in fact, consist of super-compressed energy (mass or masses), would it/they have been completely at rest, perhaps due to its compression, or, would there have been any waggledance of the energy mass, or masses? If there was some waggledance, then, time started within the singularity.

Now, let’s consider what might have been behind the stern of the singularity. For all of the obvious, logical reasons, the singularity could not have always existed. It could not have eternally existed either. It had to have come to be. But, it did not come to be ex nihilo.

OK. Now, if it did not come to be ex nihilo, then there may have been energy masses floating around in the pre-universe void. That would make the pre-universe void another universe of sorts. This presents us with two problems: (1.) that the void always existed, or, (2.) that some exigency existed that gathered up all of the energy masses and compressed them into the one singularity.

But, the void could not, for all of the obvious, logical reasons, have always existed. Furthermore, the second solution could not have have been, as a self-composed exigency of energy, such as the singularity is thought to be, would have violated laws of thermodynamics. Thus, we are left with the ultimate dilemma: who caused the compression of those energy masses, or that one huge energy mass? And, if there was a gathering up of energy, then there was motion. If there was motion, then there was time. Time, then, could have started at the moment of the very beginning of the gathering process and that would proclaim a whole lot more than some loosely thought-through concept that the universe just simply started.

What does the matter of time have to do with the matter of the singularity? Only this: they both are nothing more than rumors and these rumors point to traces of themselves and what they were. The rumors are so old that man cannot - perhaps, never - fully comprehend them or understand what took place at the stern of the singularity, or on the boat that was the singularity. Yet, we are confident that something along these lines took place. Physics and metaphysics both seem to join together here to prove out the rumors. They seem to point to there being more than just “nature” pulling it all together.

The rumor of “God” is like the rumors of “time” and “the beginning of the universe.” Unprovable by science, unprovable by the senses, and unprovable as existing exigencies from the intellect. It is impossible to say that either rumor is the better rumor, or the saner rumor. Both require, but more than that, they actually demand, an acceptance based upon “faith”. Faith in the validity of the rumors and faith in the truths of their foot print in the sand, washed away by time and the trillions of particles of sand evolving and coming to be.

It would seem to me that all three are the ultimate and absolute requirements of all of this. Does anyone else see these rumors as relationships that have projected themselves into reality? Relationships that cannot not coexist?

jd

 

[CTA1967]

“Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?..”

… But anyway, here is the OCE article on time. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Time

I don’t know if it will help, but it was the first thing that came to my mind.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Ah, yes, I’ve always find myself pondering this on my long walks home from school. Lately, Time seems to be all too similar to the concept of Death. I’ve noticed that Death’s portrayal on the media always controls Time, and that’s rather interesting, considering Time’s relationship with the “Father”-- you know, “Father Time”?

So, perhaps there is no God, but Death, or Time.

These topics have certainly crossed my mind more than once, and of course, they are far more complex than what I have explained.

:twocents:

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[JDaniel]

“Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?..”

… But anyway, here is the OCE article on time. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Time

I don’t know if it will help, but it was the first thing that came to my mind.

Thank you, CTA. That is a great and concise definition. Still sounds like I was right on it.

Thanks,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ah, yes, I’ve always find myself pondering this on my long walks home from school. Lately, Time seems to be all too similar to the concept of Death. I’ve noticed that Death’s portrayal on the media always controls Time, and that’s rather interesting, considering Time’s relationship with the “Father”-- you know, “Father Time”?

So, perhaps there is no God, but Death, or Time.

These topics have certainly crossed my mind more than once, and of course, they are far more complex than what I have explained.

:twocents:

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Blade:

I’ve always liked your handle . . . sounds like an Edward Albeeian relationship with a lawn mower.

Intersting point. Would you mind giving me one, little example of Death “controlling” Time, per the meda? You may be on to something.

Thanks,
jd

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

time time time…we never have enough of it.yet theres so much of it!!!it was here before us and it will be here long after we gone.but…what is time?how can 1 tell that time exists?is it real?or a concept?time in the science field is a part of the mechanics of the universe.time in religion is something different.in relation to us as humans it reminds us that life is definite.that there is a beginning and there is an end!in relation to God well He is not subject to time but time is subject to Him!
time does have a connection to motion.the faster 1 goes the slower time is.infact time and the speed of light is related.if 1 was to travel faster than light then 1 would peer into the future or even travel back into the past!!ofcause space time and matter are all related and affect eachother.
God has no matter.He is not part of space and he does not move.but then He exists being God Having no form or substance.he is not confined to any particular place.but He is everywhere at once.time does not affect Him because He does not need to move from any where to anywhere because he is everywhere at once!!
time we can never escape…yet we can never say here it is…

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Blade:

I’ve always liked your handle . . . sounds like an Edward Albeeian relationship with a lawn mower.

Intersting point. Would you mind giving me one, little example of Death “controlling” Time, per the meda? You may be on to something.

Thanks,
jd

The movie, Click: Christopher Walken played Death, who gave the main character (played by Adam Sandler) a universal remote that controlled Time.

Family Guy: one episode which featured “Death” also featured him sending Peter through Time.

The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy: The main character, named Grim (short for “Grim Reaper”), has had a couple episodes in which he was able to control Time.

Ironically Yours.

 

[JDaniel]

The Big Bang, as a actual occurence, is now so popular that it has almost rendered the occurence as proof that the rumor is no longer just a rumor. How is that possible?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The movie, Click: Christopher Walken played Death, who gave the main character (played by Adam Sandler) a universal remote that controlled Time.

Family Guy: one episode which featured “Death” also featured him sending Peter through Time.

The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy: The main character, named Grim (short for “Grim Reaper”), has had a couple episodes in which he was able to control Time.

Ironically Yours.

Do you think the writers of these movies are of the school that Time requires an actually existing, perceiving being? Do they hold an idealist view of time?

jd

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Do you think the writers of these movies are of the school that Time requires an actually existing, perceiving being? Do they hold an idealist view of time?

jd

The personification of Death helps with comic relief. Plus, it would make it easier on the audience.

As far as idealism goes, I’m afraid I couldn’t tell you. I don’t watch enough TV to say. Then again, this is the media we’re talking about; there’s bound to be some writer who would appreciate such idealism as you seem to.

Ironically Yours.

 

[JDaniel]

The personification of Death helps with comic relief. Plus, it would make it easier on the audience.

As far as idealism goes, I’m afraid I couldn’t tell you. I don’t watch enough TV to say. Then again, this is the media we’re talking about; there’s bound to be some writer who would appreciate such idealism as you seem to.

Ironically Yours.

Actually, I don’t believe in the idealistic notion of time. I most loudly proclaim that time exists whether of not I do. If that’s not the case, then you guys better keep me around for as long as you can!

jd

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Actually, I don’t believe in the idealistic notion of time. I most loudly proclaim that time exists whether of not I do. If that’s not the case, then you guys better keep me around for as long as you can!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The Big Bang, as a actual occurence, is now so popular that it has almost rendered the occurence as proof that the rumor is no longer just a rumor. How is that possible?

jd

“Energy mass, or masses, in the void”? Seems that they would be antithetical to each other. Unless, the undulating theory of universes has some iota of possibility. If it is, then we’re back to the supposition that we came about by pure chance, at the nearly infinity:1 odds that warpspeedpetey keeps talking about.

jd

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Regarding the other three dimensions, we can easily see that they are real. We can easily feel that they are real as properties of real things. Height, width and length possess not only the universals that allow for the abstraction of them, but also, they are grounded in something outside of the mind.

You may be misunderstanding the idea of time as the fourth dimension. All this means is that an object’s position in space must also be considered with respect to time. This doesn’t suggest that time is an actual physical dimension; in fact, it doesn’t suggest anything at all about the nature of the time. It’s just another charateristic of an object’s position.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to demonstrate with your box-in-space example. The point seems to be that the box occupies different points in space at any instant. That just shows the necessity of using time as a fourth descriptive dimension. When you start talking about how we perceive the present, you’re talking about perception. The way we perceive the passage of time may or may not give any useful insight into the nature of time itself.

As for the three physical dimensions being “real” because we can perceive them, I’m not sure that can be said, either. We can conceptualize direction, but we don’t really know what “space” is, so we’re not really sure how beholden space is to our perception of direction. If Einstein is right about the relationship between gravity and space, gravity bends space. Buh? Space, which we perceive as having no mass, no dimension, no…anything? It’s getting bent by gravity (about which we also know next to nothing)?

If space, whatever it is, is subject to whatever gravity (whatever it is) field happens to be passing through it, then we may have lost the reality of our first three dimensions, too.

I think we’re bumping into Plato, here. We can invent terms for things so we can discuss them, but those terms do not affect the nature of the things described.

 

[JDaniel]

You may be misunderstanding the idea of time as the fourth dimension. All this means is that an object’s position in space must also be considered with respect to time. This doesn’t suggest that time is an actual physical dimension; in fact, it doesn’t suggest anything at all about the nature of the time. It’s just another charateristic of an object’s position.

So, insofar as position is concerned, an object in space is relative to other objects in space. and, since everything in space is in motion, its relative position is constantly changing. Perfect. Thanks.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to demonstrate with your box-in-space example. The point seems to be that the box occupies different points in space at any instant. That just shows the necessity of using time as a fourth descriptive dimension.

What I was attempting to show is that time as abstracted from the example is so fleeting that it has no reality outside of the mind. Of course, one could say that that is not true, as the relative position of the rectangular box is spacially relative to both place and time. But, I will counter that we only get a momentry glimpse of that. Then, that becomes a rumor.

When you start talking about how we perceive the present, you’re talking about perception. The way we perceive the passage of time may or may not give any useful insight into the nature of time itself.

I was not so concerned as to how we perceive the passage of time as I was with the sizable abstraction we extract for the present. I mean, the being-ness of the present exists only idealistically.

As for the three physical dimensions being “real” because we can perceive them, I’m not sure that can be said, either.

We can hand a box or a ball to a blind man and he can describe the dimensionality of each.

We can conceptualize direction, but we don’t really know what “space” is, so we’re not really sure how beholden space is to our perception of direction.

Captain Kirk had no problem with it.

If Einstein is right about the relationship between gravity and space, gravity bends space. Buh? Space, which we perceive as having no mass, no dimension, no…anything? It’s getting bent by gravity (about which we also know next to nothing)?

Space is that room in which objects can move. Apparently, it does have a minute mass, if you consider the quantum particles within it as belonging to it. I guess the question is, does space really bend, or do the quantum particles move due to gravitational pull, such that it appears that space has moved as well?

If space, whatever it is, is subject to whatever gravity (whatever it is) field happens to be passing through it, then we may have lost the reality of our first three dimensions, too.

Unless it is merely the appearance of a shift of space.

I think we’re bumping into Plato, here. We can invent terms for things so we can discuss them, but those terms do not affect the nature of the things described.

So true.

thanks,
jd

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I think the interesting thing about discussions like this is that they continually expose the reality that we really don’t know what we’re talking about. We observe things and put labels on them, but we don’t know what they are. Gravity, time, and space are excellent examples here.

It’s also interesting to see how the theoreticians come up with guesses that come a hair’s breadth from attributing creation to God and then give Him another name, like “The Big Bang” or “Evolution”. Evolution is so frequently described as though it is a providential intellect that I often wonder why there’s a debate between intelligent design and evolution to begin with. And The Big Bang’s even worse! All of the matter in the universe exploded out of a tiny point much, much smaller than a single atom? And that’s not supposed to sound like a conscious act of will on the part of a Creator?

It’s hilarious to watch people so desperate to deny God come so close to naming Him while trying to explain him away.

 

[JDaniel]

I think the interesting thing about discussions like this is that they continually expose the reality that we really don’t know what we’re talking about. We observe things and put labels on them, but we don’t know what they are. Gravity, time, and space are excellent examples here.

It’s also interesting to see how the theoreticians come up with guesses that come a hair’s breadth from attributing creation to God and then give Him another name, like “The Big Bang” or “Evolution”. Evolution is so frequently described as though it is a providential intellect that I often wonder why there’s a debate between intelligent design and evolution to begin with. And The Big Bang’s even worse! All of the matter in the universe exploded out of a tiny point much, much smaller than a single atom? And that’s not supposed to sound like a conscious act of will on the part of a Creator?

It’s hilarious to watch people so desperate to deny God come so close to naming Him while trying to explain him away.

I feel as though you are pointing a gun at my head for I am compelled to agree. :yup:

jd

 

[Nebogipfel]

Well, according to relativity theory (of which I do not pretend to have any grasp except 20-year old undergraduate study), space and time are intextricably interlinked, so much so that physicists usually talk about spacetime as a single concept, rather than two distinct things.

Look out into space, and you look back into time. Bend space, and you slow down time too. These effects - such as time dilation, Lorenz contraction, and gravitational lensing - were predicted by general and special relativity, and have been observed empirically.

So time would appear to be as much a property of the physical universe as space
and gravity, even if we have no clue about what it actually is.

Oh, and the “Big Bang” and “Evolution”, are “God”? Are you kidding? Would you pray to a change in alelle frequency over time? Would you pray to a collapsing quantum probability function? Sorry - complete non sequitur, and from where I’m standing, it’s hilarious watching people so desperate to cling on to the idea of God, that they’ll go through any kind on intellectual gymnastics to make their religious beliefs fit with scientific knowledge.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, according to relativity theory (of which I do not pretend to have any grasp except 20-year old undergraduate study), space and time are intextricably interlinked, so much so that physicists usually talk about spacetime as a single concept, rather than two distinct things.

Look out into space, and you look back into time. Bend space, and you slow down time too. These effects - such as time dilation, Lorenz contraction, and gravitational lensing - were predicted by general and special relativity, and have been observed empirically.

So time would appear to be as much a property of the physical universe as space
and gravity, even if we have no clue about what it actually is.

Oh, and the “Big Bang” and “Evolution”, are “God”? Are you kidding? Would you pray to a change in alelle frequency over time? Would you pray to a collapsing quantum probability function? Sorry - complete non sequitur, and from where I’m standing, it’s hilarious watching people so desperate to cling on to the idea of God, that they’ll go through any kind on intellectual gymnastics to make their religious beliefs fit with scientific knowledge.

Thus far, I have not insulted you. Neither do I intend to insult you. But if insulting me makes you feel better, go right ahead.

Why do you think physicists speak of time and space together? Could it be because they think doing so works better for their theoretical models and calculations?

When I look out into space, I do not look back in time. I see an anomaly. I see the light from objects, once out there in space, that has finally arrived due to distance and the speed of light. This is a very important distinction. All that my eyes can see is as far as the present. The stars I think I see are just the rumors of the stars that were.

Yes the relative slowdown of time, by the force of the gravity of relative nearby objects, on moving objects in space, is no doubt an observable effect. But that means that it is a property of the combination of distance, speed and gravity and is only analogously a “property” of space.

Since your final paragraph is nothing more than an out-lashing of poorly disguised rudeness, it doesn’t deserve a cordial reply.

I was asking for help. I was asking for persuasive arguments that might solidify my desire to return to non-theism. I get more of the same. Months ago, I summed up the positions like the one you just gave me. It goes like this, “I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know.” Very presumptuous.

jd

 

[Katholish]

JDaniel,

I do not believe your definition is precise enough. Instead of saying time is a measure of motion, you would need to say that time is a measure of change. Time can exist for immaterial things (such as angels), and while it is possible to define motion such that it includes all forms of change, (i.e. a “movement of the intellect”) I don’t think most people would natually think of such a meaning. Saying “change” on the other hand is very precise, and besides the traditional definition of time is: “a measure of change”.