Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spiral Out wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Are you denying then that abstract time can exist?

Please clearly and concisely define what "abstract time" is.

And take all the fun out of this thread! Seriously we know so little that I doubt it can be defined. Yet we must establish that it does exist, otherwise other things (e.g. time measurement) have no philosophical basis.

PhilX

-- Updated July 5th, 2014, 10:05 pm to add the following --

Misty wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Several threads about time have run. Yet we haven't gotten down to the nitty gritty, does time exist? Makes no sense to try to define time with measuring devices like clocks or calendars without first determining if time exists because if it doesn't exist, then with or without those measuring devices (including calendars), we may be wasting our time trying to define time on the basis of measuring devices and time-explicit and time-implicit equations may have no backbone to them if we don't know whether time exists.

PhilX

How can one waste time that no one knows exists or not? What does it mean to 'use ones time wisely'? Maybe, use ones existence wisely? Don't waste your existence? don't waste your life. Dictionary meaning of life: 1) period of existence - meaning of exist: 1) have real or actual being, meaning of being: 1) existence 2) living thing, meaning of abstract: 1) expressing a quality apart from an object, meaning or object: 1) something that may be seen or felt, 2)purpose. Does abstract time exist. Seems so.

I shall answer on the basis of abstract time. Abstract time may not have an independent existence due to the concept a spacetime continuum (which Einstein talked about and I think Leo supports - if I'm wrong, please correct me). So without abstract time, then how can measured time have a philosophical basis? And how can time equations, whether explicit or implicit, have full theoretical justification?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And take all the fun out of this thread! Seriously we know so little that I doubt it can be defined. Yet we must establish that it does exist, otherwise other things (e.g. time measurement) have no philosophical basis.

If you refuse to define your terms then I call foul. This thread is a ruse.

Spiral Out wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And take all the fun out of this thread! Seriously we know so little that I doubt it can be defined. Yet we must establish that it does exist, otherwise other things (e.g. time measurement) have no philosophical basis.

If you refuse to define your terms then I call foul. This thread is a ruse.

You must know that every branch of science relies on undefined terms and axioms so no foul here. What must be determined is whether abstract time is one of those basic undefined terms and more so, does it exist?

PhilX

PhilX,

If you won't define your specific understanding of what "abstract time" is then give us your understanding of what "abstract" is and also of what "time" is and then how you understand the two terms to relate to each other. If you cannot at least do this then you yourself must not even know of what you're attempting to discuss.

Otherwise, nobody will be discussing the same concept and this thread will be utterly pointless.

Spiral Out wrote:PhilX,

If you won't define your specific understanding of what "abstract time" is then give us your understanding of what "abstract" is and also of what "time" is and then how you understand the two terms to relate to each other. If you cannot at least do this then you yourself must not even know of what you're attempting to discuss.

Otherwise, nobody will be discussing the same concept and this thread will be utterly pointless.

Abstract means not having a physical or concrete existence while time on this thread can be described as meaning change so if I see a car move, e.g., I'm just concerned with its movements, not how fast is it moving or if I hear my heart beat, then for this thread, I'm not concerned with how fast it beats.

So the trick is to determine if abstract time can exist? It would seem not due to the concept of the spacetime continuum which holds sway in physics.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Abstract means not having a physical or concrete existence while time on this thread can be described as meaning change

Great, so we've now established by your own expressed understandings of "abstract" and "time" that you're basically asking "does change that has no physical or concrete existence exist?", which appears to be an absurd question.

So now, by virtue of your question being somewhat odd, we must ask you to explain what your understanding of "exist" is.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Abstract means not having a physical or concrete existence while time on this thread can be described as meaning change so if I see a car move, e.g., I'm just concerned with its movements, not how fast is it moving or if I hear my heart beat, then for this thread, I'm not concerned with how fast it beats.

IMO time is the 4th spatial dimension. It is a true orthogonal dimension because it separates things occupying the same location in the 3-dimensional space. As a dimension it is a human construct and thus abstract like the other three (I agree with Kant). In that sense it's not linear, not even continuous.

Our methods to measure time are generally based on the definition above. A unit of time has passed when a pendulum has returned to the same location, or an oscillating crystal has returned to the same state, or sun is again seen in the same direction, etc.

Spiral Out has misquoted my post #20. Now let me quote Spiral Out:

"'does change that has no physical or concrete existence exist?',"

Are you saying that abstract time has physical properties such as taste or smell? Can we see it or hear it or even feel it? What do you think is a good definition? Can you explain it?

Rilx, can you answer Does abstract time exist?

PhilX

Material changes occur, the changes are sequential and cyclical, we measure the rate of these changes, and call that measurement "time." If you're asking if the changes that we measure would occur if we did not perceive and measure them, we can suppose they would, Nature doesn't need our consent to operate. So in that sense, "abstract time" exists.

RilX said: "It is a true orthogonal dimension because it separates things occupying the same location in the 3-dimensional space."

Why do you say that things are "occupying the same location"? If that were true, we would not perceive them as separate changing/moving things and be able to measure them.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Spiral Out has misquoted my post #20.

Nope. I've used your exact understandings as you've expressed them in order to reveal the fundamentally illogical nature of your question.

Your question is: Does change (which is your expressed understanding of "time") which has no physical or concrete existence (which is your expressed understanding of "abstract") exist?

Your question is based on your (mis)interpretation and/or (mis)understanding of the definition of time that I had given in the "Does time move?" thread.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Are you saying that abstract time has physical properties such as taste or smell? Can we see it or hear it or even feel it?

Did you read my initial response?

Here it is again in case you missed it: (but we know you didn't miss it)

Spiral Out wrote:Time is the abstract Human construct used as a measure of our perception of the process of change of states. Time does exist, yet only as a representative measure of something. Time itself is not an existent process, simply a measure of a process.

As an abstract system of measure, time exists. As the OP indicates with the inclusion of the "(abstract)" qualifier, then it is assumed that it references this concept of time as an abstract construct.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:What do you think is a good definition? Can you explain it?

I already have, remember?

Here it is again in case you missed it: (but we know you didn't miss it)

Spiral Out wrote:Time doesn't move. What "moves" is the process of the change of states (∆S). Time is a measure of ∆S.

The reason we cannot use time to measure (the movement of) time is primarily because time doesn't move, and also because time is merely a measure and not itself a process. Without the process of a change in state then time would be imperceptible. So we could measure time with ∆S.

So then the question is "what units of measure would we use"? Well since all other units of measure are arbitrary constructs, we could use any unit of measure we wanted. We could call them 'seconds'. But now we're right back to "time".

"Measuring time" is a redundancy.

To which you had responded:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You mean to say that my clock measures a change in entropy (which, if my memory serves me right, is what the delta S stands for. BTW where did you get that delta from?) Now since there is a change in entropy, isn't it true the only way that can happen is when there's a change in time? I seem to recall from my physics class that's the way it works. Otherwise you seem to have come up with a new definition so I guess it's in order to ask you what your definition of time is.

I had just given you a definition of "time" (Time is a measure of ∆S.) but then you proceeded to ask me for my definition of time. Obviously there was a fundamental problem in comprehending my response.

Spiral Out quote:

"Philosophy Explorer wrote: You mean to say that my clock measures a change in entropy (which, if my memory serves me right, is what the delta S stands for. BTW where did you get that delta from?) Now since there is a change in entropy, isn't it true the only way that can happen is when there's a change in time? I seem to recall from my physics class that's the way it works. Otherwise you seem to have come up with a new definition so I guess it's in order to ask you what your definition of time is."

Which thread and post # does this come from? I know this doesn't come from this thread. It's poor manners to quote from other threads without revealing the source which can confuse the reader because taking out of context can change the meaning of the quoted material.

Which thread are you quoting from?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Which thread and post # does this come from? I know this doesn't come from this thread. It's poor manners to quote from other threads without revealing the source which can confuse the reader because taking out of context can change the meaning of the quoted material.

Which thread are you quoting from?

Posts #225 & #226, pages #15 & #16 respectively, in the "Does time move?" thread in the Philosophy of Science section. It's your own thread.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Rilx, can you answer Does abstract time exist?

Rilx wrote:As a dimension it is a human construct and thus abstract like the other three.

As others have said, time is a measure of change. If nothing changes, time doesn't exist. So it's a relation between other entities with no existence per se.

-- Updated 06 Jul 2014, 22:50 to add the following --

Felix wrote:RilX said: "It is a true orthogonal dimension because it separates things occupying the same location in the 3-dimensional space."

Why do you say that things are "occupying the same location"? If that were true, we would not perceive them as separate changing/moving things and be able to measure them.

I guess you couldn't think it as simple as it is.

Two things can occupy the same location, but not in the same time. You may be sitting in a chair but after you have risen someone else can occupy it.

We give time and we take from it, but moments like in dreams although far from reality can not be measured in the same way as that which we measure through our time in reality...yet those moments can have profound effect upon us, and for better or worse, change this reality. Science does not simply bob around in reality unperterbed by what takes place outside time, rather it too is under such influence. If such things are beyond reality, beyond measure.. their effects are not, and whether we can give them our time or not, these things must needs be. Ours is but an act, played out in a sometimes cruel reality, where moments like these present hell, or heaven, whichever you make believe. I guess.

Representing time as a spatial dimension orthogonal to an arbitrary three is metaphysical hogwash and a complete explanation for why the current models used in physics make no sense. Minkowski has a lot to answer for with his nonsense because a dimension is nothing more than a co-ordinate system for the taking of measurements and is therefore bi-directional. This leads to the absurd conclusion in physics that the physical laws themselves are time invariant where all the evidence clearly shows that the arrow of time points in one direction only, as mandated by the second law of thermodynamics. Special Relativity is a maelstrom of logical inconsistencies, but its Parmenidean insistence on the non-physicality of time was comprehensively disproven by General Relativity, which proved beyond doubt that time was intimately interwoven with gravity, as our GPS toys have subsequently demonstrated. Thus if time is not physical then neither is gravity, which would be a difficult argument to sustain in the light of the evidence.

Those who continue to insist that time does not exist may reflect on how they would answer this question. Is it the case that the universe did exist yesterday, is existing today, and will exist tomorrow? Minkowski says that this is not a true statement and that the different tenses of the verb "to exist" have no meaning. I regard Minkowski as a jackass of lofty calibre but I'd be curious to know if anybody feels up to the task of defending his position. Tread cautiously because the study of this question has been my life's work and I wait to pounce on the unwary.

Regards Leo