What is time?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Michael 345, Nov 14, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spencer666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    167
    Is time a measurement constructed by humans ?

    Relative to a monkey , the measure does not exist !

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It seems to me that you only started this thread to re-hash a conversation we've already had, here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/does-time-exist.152720

    Your claim that time does not exist is ridiculous, for reasons I pointed out in that thread.

    I don't think I need to add anything else in this thread. You're not bringing anything new.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    This is a new topic of discussion, and completely off topic for the the current thread.

    Please recall that you are posting to our Science forums, here. This is not your blog.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I have taken the unusual step of moving this thread out of the Physics forum, despite it being on an eminently debatable topic in physics.

    The problem starts with the opening post, which offers next to nothing to get the discussion going. Apparently, members are supposed to decide the course of the thread, rather than being guided to a topic of debate or discussion by the opening poster. I have to ask the opening poster: is this really the best you can do?

    Secondly, I am aware, as noted above, that the opening poster's personal view is that time doesn't exist. Therefore, the only reasonable assumption to make is that the intent of this thread is to attempt to re-start a discussion that is still open in a different thread, regarding the opening poster's opinions about time, only under the pretense of an honest - if very lazy - inquiry.

    sciforums is a science forum, among other things. We're pretty liberal in the discussions we allow here, but we do have some standards we try to uphold, at least in our Science subforums. Honest questions are welcomed from those who truly want to learn something. Interesting debates are welcomed about real science. But I think we need to set a minimum standard of discourse in the Science sections, lest they become indistinguishable from the rubbish we get in Pseudoscience and Free Thoughts. We are very unlikely to attract new members to our forums if all they see in our science sections are half-baked opinions that don't really engage with any actual science.

    It seems to me that lately on this forum we've been seeing as opening efforts the kinds of half-assed posts that we see in the current thread. The sad thing is that what usually follows is this: some dedicated, serious posters attempt to elevate the thread content by defining an actual topic of discussion, posting useful explanations and actual scientific content. Meanwhile, the opening poster often fails to engage in any meaningful way with any of those responses. At the same time, the thread becomes populated by off-topic diversions posted by people who have a trouble marshalling a coherent thought about the topic. Some of these diversions unfortunately lead to the well-meaning posters responding, taking the entire discussion off topic. After a while, the meta stuff creeps in, and the thread becomes primarily about personalities and agendas rather than any ostensible topic.

    Thinking on my feet here, I am coming around to the view that our moderations standards for 2020 might need to change a little. The kind of mindless lowest-common-denominator stuff we see in this thread (just taking it as the example at hand) does not set good expectations for the quality of the forum as a whole. Potential new members are unlikely to stick around long enough to wade through all the time-wasting effortless nonsense to notice the high-quality responses that appear occasionally amongst the dross.

    Bringing this post back to where I started, the bottom line is that we, the sciforums community, ought to be able to produce better content than this, and it has to start with more focused and thoughtful opening posts, especially in our Science subforums.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    time as a perceptional reference to the selfs ability to interact with its dynamic perception of quantitative values to the self.

    spacial quantitative definitions of self reference to objects inside a parameter of perceptional qualitative actuation.
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    That makes 10 definitions

    Not counting mine and one other saying basically non existent

    It was suggested I start a thread to discover What is TIME. The suggestion was put to me in the thread Does TIME exist

    While I expected various definitions to be put forward I am disappointed at the quality of submission

    I had hoped something along the lines of

    Definition
    TIME is ....​

    Properties of TIME
    TIME has the following properties....​

    Where found
    TIME can be found....
    Measurement of TIME
    TIME is detected by and measured with....
    Since 10 looks like the end of the definitions I suggest the thread be closed along with Does TIME exist

    From what I am reading more effort is being put into TIME related fields

    If I find a more definitive explanation of TIME not existing will consider redoing

    Perhaps give this thread another month to see if any post appear follow the outlay I suggested

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Or perhaps you need to pay your assistants more.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    If you are referring to the ladies in Bali

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    they are nice assistants but only help at holiday season and are well compensated for driving me around the island tourist attractions

    Try not to think about TIME in their company

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    Michael345, TIME is only relevant if we die. To have time simply means you haven't died yet.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I have NOW

    The exact same NOW as the rest of the Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Actually, you do not have the same NOW as the rest of the universe. Or, in fact, almost any other person who is in motion relative to you.

    Relativity is very clear on this. Two observers, moving wrt each other will not agree on what events are simultaneous. Thus, their experiences of NOW are demonstrably different.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Thus, their experiences of NOW are demonstrably different.

    Agree

    Their experiences are perceived as being different. However only perceived

    If you consider each has their own reality you appear to be contending one can be either ahead or behind NOW, ie one is operating either in the future or the past of NOW

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So, you assert some sort of objective "now"?

    Clocks, plants and atoms also experience these different slices of "now".

    Are you suggesting the people, the clocks, the plants and the atoms are delusional, and that relativity is merely an illusion?

    Who gets to see this objective "now"? How might one arrange it so they are not seeing this illusion?


    Whose "now", exactly? Mine or yours?
    Are your atoms having a more "real" experience than mine?
     
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This looks like it is just semantics. What most people call the moment, you for some reason (philisophical I suppose) choose to call time and what the rest of us call time you say doesn't exist. Time (t) as understood by the rest of the world is used by you all the time (no irony intended). You make appointments that are set at a later time. You will pick up pizza you ordered at an earlier time. You drive at a certain speed (distance/time).

    That fact that you refuse to call that 'thing' time is a little cute and a lot odd, but hey whatever!
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    i generally avoid the subject as it tends to often attract those whom seem more interested in trolling other people than discussing the subject.
    there is a lot of people who want to go about telling everyone what time is not
    like a child banging on a tin-pot with a stick just to listen to the sound
    they are welcome to their tin-pot orchestra
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Well, he's stepped it up a notch by making an even more demonstrably false claim:

    He's claiming there is one absolute "now" to the universe - which goes directly against relativity.

    He's gotten caught in the 19th century with a Newtonian absolute universe.
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Can you explain how please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    You make appointments at a future arbitrary marked NOW

    Yes it is called time in every day conversation. This thread is about TIME ie the aspects of TIME science is interested in

    You are welcome to put your definition of TIME as "the appointment I have made next week" but I don't think science would be interested

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yes. Read up on "relativity of simultaneity".

    Now, can you explain how - there is one same moment in the entire universe - in the context of relativity, whose core tenet is in direct contradiction to your (unfounded) personal assertion?
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397

    If that's what you wanted, you should have set out your requirements clearly at the start of the thread.

    Try this:

    TIME is the continuum of experience in which events pass from the past through the present to the future. It is also the fourth coordinate required to specify a physical event in spacetime.

    TIME has many properties, some objective and some subjective. It seems like you're asking for a detailed account of how time works, but it is not clear what you want to hear about, so I will wait for your clarification before expanding.

    TIME can be found everywhere.

    TIME is detected by conscious beings who are interested in detecting things and is measured with clocks of various types.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page