Time

[JDaniel]

All:

I am trying to define time in order for it to be a little more explicatory than perhaps St. Thomas’ definition. Thus:

Time is the symmetrical progression of the motion and change of all of the reality within the universe. All change and motion occur within a context of time. Time is not itself causal.

Does this work?

God bless,
jd

 

[Wesley7]

That sounds pretty complex. I thought the last word of your sentence definition was “casual” .

 

[tonyrey]

All:

I am trying to define time in order for it to be a little more explicatory than perhaps St. Thomas’ definition. Thus:
Time is the symmetrical progression of the motion and change of all of the reality within the universe. All change and motion occur within a context of time. Time is not itself causal.Does this work?

God bless,
jd

I’m not sure about the function of “symmetrical”, jd. Does it apply to the relation between motion and change?

The progression could be regarded as asymmetrical because the future is not the same as the past - but I’m sure that is irrelevant!

 

[levinas12]

I’m not sure about the function of “symmetrical”, jd. Does it apply to the relation between motion and change?

The progression could be regarded as asymmetrical because the future is not the same as the past …

According to Heidegger, without our sense of impending death, we would not be aware of time at all … so the past is always coming towards us out of the future … we move into the future as “having been” … as if we were walking on a moebius strip … I don’t know if this makes time symmetrical or asymmetrical …

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure about the function of “symmetrical”, jd. Does it apply to the relation between motion and change?

The progression could be regarded as asymmetrical because the future is not the same as the past - but I’m sure that is irrelevant!

What I was attempting to convey, with that word, was that in the progress of time, there are no glitches, no faults, no lack of an inexorable, steady pace. In other words, taking the entire universe, as a whole, from farthest reach to farthest reach, the universe marches forward to a time as a unified whole - along with everything in it.

Does it work under that definition?

jd

 

[Kismetji]

What I was attempting to convey, with that word, was that in the progress of time, there are no glitches, no faults, no lack of an inexorable, steady pace. In other words, taking the entire universe, as a whole, from farthest reach to farthest reach, the universe marches forward to a time as a unified whole - along with everything in it.

Does it work under that definition?

jd

So it is as though I took a fish net and, walking along a tank, scooped up all of the fish inexorably. Sounds like death. Could death and time be the same thing seen in two different modes: one mode that of progression, the other as a final, irremediable event.

But, that would mean even as we speak, we are dying! This would not seem so obvious unless it was revealed that a purely physical description of time is, I heard, free of indexical terms like now. So, there is just this one moment, and it is death, and it is now. The goal is to break free of the present.

 

[Kismetji]

Time is the symmetrical progression of the motion and change of all of the reality within the universe. All change and motion occur within a context of time. Time is not itself causal.
jd

I find it limiting to think that change and motion cannot occur outside a context of time. That may sound odd, but it shouldn’t have to.

Killing may necessarily entail dying, but it isn’t at all obvious that motion must necessarily entail time. We see motion in time, but does that mean there can’t be motion outside of time? Have you been able to falsify such a conclusion? Please tell me how? You don’t even know what time is, and are questioning it. So what makes you think something which bears a resemblance to time and houses motion, must be time?

 

[inocente]

JD, here’s a cool definition:

Time – a dimension that allows two otherwise identical events that occur at the same point in space to be distinguished. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

 

[Kismetji]

JD, here’s a cool definition:

Time – a dimension that allows two otherwise identical events that occur at the same point in space to be distinguished. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

Very nice! Though, I’m not sure if that would count as an exhaustive definition of time. I’m sure you would need to account for at least some more necessary conditions.

 

[JDaniel]

So it is as though I took a fish net and, walking along a tank, scooped up all of the fish inexorably. Sounds like death. Could death and time be the same thing seen in two different modes: one mode that of progression, the other as a final, irremediable event.

But, that would mean even as we speak, we are dying! This would not seem so obvious unless it was revealed that a purely physical description of time is, I heard, free of indexical terms like now. So, there is just this one moment, and it is death, and it is now. The goal is to break free of the present.

Kismetji:

The Now was considered, at least by St. Thomas and others, not to be a part of either continuum. Time was considered to be more or less two continuums: a past continuum and a future one. They are separated by the Now. As the two continuums touch, the Now is the outermost surface of each (analogically) which permits them continuity but keeps them unjoined, in that sense. The Now separates yet “joins” them, as one might follow closely on the heels of the person ahead. And, it must be so, as we seem to recognize that we are temporarily “outside of time” at every moment we find ourselves in the Now.

Furthermore, it can’t truly be said that we are not “in time” when in the Now. There is no perceived continuum, at that moment. And, it is neither Past nor Future, neither does it drag the Past into the Future, nor somehow pull the Future into the Past. The entire Past continuum ends at the Now while the entire Future continuum begins there.

Nevertheless, time is absolutely symmetrical, no bumps, no lurching forwards, no stumbling slow-downs. No matter what speed matter is traveling at, in the physical realm of the universe, time is consistent. And, since the entire cosmos is a unified whole, it all already marches forward simultaneously, and at the same pace.

Space warps, for example, around a large mass, such as a planet or star. I know its said that time follows space by also warping, but, I’m not so sure, despite the maths.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

All:

I am trying to define time in order for it to be a little more explicatory than perhaps St. Thomas’ definition. Thus:

Time is the symmetrical progression of the motion and change of all of the reality within the universe. All change and motion occur within a context of time. Time is not itself causal.

Does this work?

God bless,
jd

Put simply; change is the actualization of potentiality. It is the realization of some possible event. It is to take on a form of being which is not intrinsic to the essential whole of a thing. Change can also be described as constituting that which is contingently true; but that definition is not so helpful because a thing can be contingent upon something and yet not be in the same class as changing things.

 

[JDaniel]

I find it limiting to think that change and motion cannot occur outside a context of time. That may sound odd, but it shouldn’t have to.

Kismetji:

On the contrary: they should occur within the context of time. How could they not? If able to move or change outside of the context of time, they would be moving instantaneously, faster than the speed of light. How would anyone know that motion was taking place? It would be occurring so fast that our senses would not perceive it. For all we would know, no motion was taking place at all, as though we were slipping in and out of consciousness.

Killing may necessarily entail dying, but it isn’t at all obvious that motion must necessarily entail time.

Killing is not an instantaneous event, even though we sometimes hear that it is, particularly on TV. Get a good, medical definition of death. You will notice that it is not necessarily what you think it is.

We see motion in time, but does that mean there can’t be motion outside of time?

Quite true: angels move outside of time. And, perhaps, leaving all of the physical interactivity residue behind, the instant, which is motion, or coming to be, may be outside of time.

Have you been able to falsify such a conclusion? Please tell me how?

Probably, many years ago, but I can’t remember how, now. Time has inexorably slipped on by.

You don’t even know what time is, and are questioning it.

Yes I do! I have a watch!

Aquinas defined time simply as a measure of motion. The Earth revolves around the sun once every 365 days, and a day is the time it takes for the Earth to make one revolution on its axis. From an astronomer’s point of view, the Earth ends up at virtually the same aspect - as regards the sun - every 365 days (+ or - a tiny bit).

So what makes you think something which bears a resemblance to time and houses motion, must be time?

Because I am in more than tacit agreement with the clear majority of the rest of the world. At this point, we get into defining “truth,” which takes us off topic.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JD, here’s a cool definition:

Time – a dimension that allows two otherwise identical events that occur at the same point in space to be distinguished. – Oxford Dictionary of Physics

Hello, inocente! How on earth are you!

It is a cool definition. Is it a dimension, though? Do we ever leave it? When we’re asleep, others are awake. They report their findings to us, which invariantly agree with our own. However, a definition of time must take that codicil into consideration.

Just a question.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

No matter what speed matter is traveling at, in the physical realm of the universe, time is consistent. And, since the entire cosmos is a unified whole, it all already marches forward simultaneously, and at the same pace.

Space warps, for example, around a large mass, such as a planet or star. I know its said that time follows space by also warping, but, I’m not so sure, despite the maths.

Space and time are linked (space-time) so when one warps the other must as well.

Also, time passes at different rates depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to another, so clocks in satellites tick at a different rate than on Earth, and this has to be taken into account to make GPS work, otherwise it would become wildly inaccurate within a matter of hours (for more, google words like relativity and time dilation).

This means we can’t speak of simultaneity, or even the order of events, unless they are related by cause and effect. From what you said, Thomas seems to be giving more of a psychological than an objective definition.

 

[JDaniel]

Kismetji:

Furthermore, it -]can’t/-] CAN (is what I meant!) truly be said that we are not “in time” when in the Now. There is no perceived continuum, at that moment. And, it is neither Past nor Future, neither does it drag the Past into the Future, nor somehow pull the Future into the Past. The entire Past continuum ends at the Now while the entire Future continuum begins there.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

No matter what speed matter is traveling at, in the physical realm of the universe, time is consistent. And, since the entire cosmos is a unified whole, it all already marches forward simultaneously, and at the same pace.

Space warps, for example, around a large mass, such as a planet or star. I know its said that time follows space by also warping, but, I’m not so sure, despite the maths.

Space and time are linked (spacetime) so when one warps the other must as well.

Also, time passes at different rates depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to another, so clocks in satellites tick at a different rate than on Earth. This has to be taken into account to make GPS work, otherwise it would become wildly inaccurate within a matter of hours (for more, google words like relativity and time dilation).

This means we can’t speak of simultaneity, or even the order of events, unless they are related by cause and effect.

Hello, inocente! How on earth are you!

Great, thanks for asking. Yes it’s been a while, how are you?

It is a cool definition. Is it a dimension, though? Do we ever leave it? When we’re asleep, others are awake. They report their findings to us, which invariantly agree with our own. However, a definition of time must take that codicil into consideration.

A dimension is something involving coordinates. Spacetime has four dimensions, three of space, one of time - to meet up with someone we need to agree the place and the time. We’re prisoners of spacetime, the whole of creation is, and can never physically escape (except maybe for a little thing called eternal life ).

On top of all the above, for us time zips by when we’re having fun, drags when we’re bored, stops when waiting for a kettle to boil, and as you say disappears when in the Now. From what you said, is Thomas giving more of a psychological than an objective definition?

 

[JDaniel]

Put simply; change is the actualization of potentiality. It is the realization of some possible event. It is to take on a form of being which is not intrinsic to the essential whole of a thing. Change can also be described as constituting that which is contingently true; but that definition is not so helpful because a thing can be contingent upon something and yet not be in the same class as changing things.

MoM2:

Exactly. It is the act of the potential precisely as potential. It is a way of viewing that aspect of the state of potentiality in an actualized state as actualized. It is the point in time from immediately prior to the time of movement until it ceases. Providing, I suppose, that motion is not instantaneous.

Thank you for reminding me.

God bless, MoM2
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Space and time are linked (spacetime) so when one warps the other must as well.

Besides the maths, why? That would imply that parts of the universe are able to arrive at a locus before (or, after) the rest of contiguous space. I realize that many physicists say “space-time” in the same breath. I wonder how the detractors say it?

Also, time passes at different rates depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to another, so clocks in satellites tick at a different rate than on Earth.

That would imply the same as above. If a metal ship could be constructed so that it is large enough to allow part of it to rest within a warp and part of it outside of the warp, would Time rip the ship in two? When the universe reaches the point of maximal entropy (perhaps a time-boundary when there is more of the universe in disorder than in order), will some parts of the universe arrive there before the rest of it. I am having a problem, as you can no doubt see, with tying Time to Space.

Also, do you think “time passes at different rates,” or is it that different material exigencies decay and change at different rates, i.e., speeds, independent of the Time continuum yet within the context of it? At an automobile race, one car will move faster than another, but their time does not change. Driver two can look at his previously synchronized (to driver one’s) watch at the moment driver one, ahead, crosses the finish line and it is precisely the same time as it is on driver one’s watch.

This has to be taken into account to make GPS work, otherwise it would become wildly inaccurate within a matter of hours (for more, google words like relativity and time dilation).

I have in the distant past, but perhaps its been updated. I will look at it again.

This means we can’t speak of simultaneity, or even the order of events, unless they are related by cause and effect.

Theoretically. But, because there is nothing perfect in reality, I’m not sure that perfect simultaneity is necessary in order to talk about it.

Also, an experiment can be set up wherein two similar events are made to take place simultaneously, though they may be separated by space. Even a millimeter of space apart is a separation in space. This can be made to happen precisely because Time and Space are different contiguities. What I am saying is that, in the absence of all mobile beings, Time does not exist while Space can.

Great, thanks for asking. Yes it’s been a while, how are you?

And right back at ya!. I’ve been great, too.

A dimension is something involving coordinates. Spacetime has four dimensions, three of space, one of time - to meet up with someone we need to agree the place and the time. We’re prisoners of spacetime, the whole of creation is, and can never physically escape (except maybe for a little thing called eternal life ).

Oh, that little thing?

But, I have a problem with dimensions, too. They are far too easy to postulate into existence, as is everything when one is imprisoned by a point of view.

On top of all the above, for us time zips by when we’re having fun, drags when we’re bored, stops when waiting for a kettle to boil,

Well, at least it seems to. But that’s again a point of view colored by impatience! Are they the fault of Time, or are they mental distractions?

and as you say disappears when in the Now.

Yes.

From what you said, is Thomas giving more of a psychological than an objective definition?

He is coming at it from both, most likely. There’s not enough time to fully explain Aquinas’ concept of time within the confines of this forum. But I will attempt to give some of the more important points as we go along.

Aquinas defines space in terms of a body (which may include, for our purposes, the universe) as its internal extension. Newton defined it similarly as the space of the world is the sum of the extensions of all of the bodies in the world (-in The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). But, of course, that definition does not help the physicist.

St. Thomas saw it as a mathematical, rather than a physical, entity (Commentary on the Physics, Bk. IV, les. 11, n. 992). He viewed place as physical, as the term (stopping point) of local motion. Space he viewed as that which must be considered only as mathematical, only as metrical.

God bless,
jd

 

[Kismetji]

Kismetji:

On the contrary: they should occur within the context of time. How could they not? If able to move or change outside of the context of time, they would be moving instantaneously, faster than the speed of light. How would anyone know that motion was taking place? It would be occurring so fast that our senses would not perceive it. For all we would know, no motion was taking place at all, as though we were slipping in and out of consciousness.

Amazing isn’t it? And yet, that is just what I believe God is capable of. Otherwise, there would be no variegatedness in what you’d call “Heaven.”

Killing is not an instantaneous event, even though we sometimes hear that it is, particularly on TV. Get a good, medical definition of death. You will notice that it is not necessarily what you think it is.

I was merely trying to align the necessary conditions of death by hitching it to another word which necessitates death. You can do so with death and killing, but not with motion and time. This is because killing presupposes dying.

Quite true: angels move outside of time. And, perhaps, leaving all of the physical interactivity residue behind, the instant, which is motion, or coming to be, may be outside of time.

In my opinion that instant doesn’t even exist. It is forged by the mind. Neuroscientists have capped it to about 500 milliseconds. How can anyone idolize a mere infinitesimal space and say it is the All??

Yes I do! I have a watch!

Excellent! So all of us can know things without having a precise definition. This is what I was trying to say earlier.

Aquinas defined time simply as a measure of motion. The Earth revolves around the sun once every 365 days, and a day is the time it takes for the Earth to make one revolution on its axis. From an astronomer’s point of view, the Earth ends up at virtually the same aspect - as regards the sun - every 365 days (+ or - a tiny bit).

…And I say that view to time is inadequate. There is no reason to think motion cannot occur outside of time. Sure, it’s difficult to imagine, but not impossible. We simply do not know enough, and cannot wrap our heads around something so abstract.

Because I am in more than tacit agreement with the clear majority of the rest of the world. At this point, we get into defining “truth,” which takes us off topic.

God bless,
jd

The majority of the rest of the world takes God to be a Creator. I think that is a mistake. Go to India and you will find maybe a handful of temples (of the thousands) dedicated to the Creator. More important are the Preserver and Annihilator.

 

[Kismetji]

Kismetji:

The Now was considered, at least by St. Thomas and others, not to be a part of either continuum. Time was considered to be more or less two continuums: a past continuum and a future one. They are separated by the Now. As the two continuums touch, the Now is the outermost surface of each (analogically) which permits them continuity but keeps them unjoined, in that sense. The Now separates yet “joins” them, as one might follow closely on the heels of the person ahead. And, it must be so, as we seem to recognize that we are temporarily “outside of time” at every moment we find ourselves in the Now.

In a sense you are right, I think. Your description of an “outermost surface of each” I found confusing, but I can agree that at some moments (like intense pain or pleasure) time appears to cease and it is solely the one moment that is being felt, not the passage of time. I suppose my concern here, would be the inclusion of variegatedness in this constancy. Can one be in the now while laughing, active and doing various tasks? I think all those temporal events themselves help to transcend time.

Furthermore, it can’t truly be said that we are not “in time” when in the Now. There is no perceived continuum, at that moment. And, it is neither Past nor Future, neither does it drag the Past into the Future, nor somehow pull the Future into the Past. The entire Past continuum ends at the Now while the entire Future continuum begins there.

Quite right. At least, phenomenologically speaking.

Nevertheless, time is absolutely symmetrical, no bumps, no lurching forwards, no stumbling slow-downs. No matter what speed matter is traveling at, in the physical realm of the universe, time is consistent. And, since the entire cosmos is a unified whole, it all already marches forward simultaneously, and at the same pace.

Space warps, for example, around a large mass, such as a planet or star. I know its said that time follows space by also warping, but, I’m not so sure, despite the maths.
God bless,
jd

In any case time would not “lurch” given the correctness conditions at point a or b in space. There would simply be constancy but those constancies would be relative to each other. That is at least how I imagine it.