I would say that the clock actually IS time, just as all processes (all change/motion) are. — Terrapin Station
A thermometer measures temperature and perhaps represents a conception of temperature, but in no way can you say a thermometer *is* temperature. — hypericin
Of course. I am asking why, if time really *is* every process, how is it possible that it's state can be communicable with a single number? For instance, seconds since the big bang? Or, from the discussion with apokrisis, 2.725K? — hypericin
But a process is an unfolding causal pattern. So it involves changes, but also materiality and location. — apokrisis
rather than something transcendent of existence itself (in the way Newtonian time is). — apokrisis
In modern physics, the Planck scale triad of constants gives us that kind of fundamental dimensional yardstick. — apokrisis
For "time" to "pass", there must be an effective distance as scaled by the relation: h x G/c. Or more accurately, a unit of Planck time is t = square root of h x G/c^5. — apokrisis
Yeah, processes are of material, and they have locations. That's not an objection to my view (in my opinion (re your "but")). — Terrapin Station
I don't buy that anything is "transcendent of existence itself." That idea is incoherent on my view. — Terrapin Station
So you accept my "but" in the sense of dropping the claim that "time just IS process"? — apokrisis
At most, time is just one of a combination of abstracted limits we use to describe the Cosmos as a dynamically-evolving process - the others being principally space, matter and energy? — apokrisis
Yes. But it is useful also to mention that to explain the Cosmos, we have to imagine standing outside it. — apokrisis
It is about the possibility of history. Things change in some global (entropic) direction. — apokrisis
What?? No. That processes are "of material" and have locations doesn't amount to time not being process(es). — Terrapin Station
I wish I could somehow ban all "explanation" talk. ;-) I don't know if I agree with your comment there, but "explanation" is vague. — Terrapin Station
I don't at all agree with tying time up with entropy. If entropy didn't obtain, or if it were different than it obtains, that wouldn't affect time in any way. — Terrapin Station
So you choose incoherence? — apokrisis
You are not even wanting to say time is a property of a process. or some such.
You are simply conflating terms in way that makes no sense of a relation about acts of measurement and what is claimed to be measured.
Explanation is causal talk. We construct models of causal relations that are meant to describe the esssence of the structure, process or system in question. And from those models, we know what to measure so as to particularise those models. We know how to plug numbers to make the equations do something useful.
So proper explanation is the least vague of human activities. — apokrisis
Yes. If things were different, then they would be different. — apokrisis
Now show me why one would believe entropy doesn't obtain — apokrisis
Time doesn't imply anything about entropy. — Terrapin Station
That's right, because it IS process(es). It's identical to that, identical to process/change/motion. — Terrapin Station
Yep, the Big Bang exactly represents the situation of a wind up toy. Your argument is devastating. — apokrisis
You keep asking about "time itself", as if that notion made sense. It doesn't. It's the philosophical equivalent of the sound of one hand clapping. — apokrisis
Well, you haven't answered the question, how does it get up to speed, so that it can start slowing down? A wind up toy accelerates rapidly until it reaches peak speed, then it starts its steady decline. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is the rapid acceleration supposed to be prior to the Big Bang? — Metaphysician Undercover
We can conceive of time passing without any change occurring, yet we cannot conceive of change occurring without time passing. — Metaphysician Undercover
So why do you say "time itself" makes no sense then? Can't we conceive of the backdrop without the events in the foreground? — Metaphysician Undercover
So I am wasting my time because any argument I offer is going to be "rebutted" by your un-argued assertions of personal belief? — apokrisis
That's my point. No I can't. An absolute lack of change makes no sense to me. What kind of thing is that? — apokrisis
Well, time is just duration, so every change requires a duration of time which is appropriate to that change. Now, imagine a period of time which is a lesser amount of time than that required for the fastest change. In other words, imagine a period of time which is so short that no change could possibly occur in that very short period of time. Then you have conceived of time without change. — Metaphysician Undercover
If time is every process in the universe, then how is a single number sufficient to tell us the current state of time? — hypericin
But that is precisely the argument by which talk about durations less that the Planck time is considered to be physically meaningless. The Planck scale tells us what the smallest possible unit of change is. And its already "larger than zero". — apokrisis
For this reason, I reject the idea that Relativity in any form has any ontological basis. All they do is resolve some measurement problems with the Lorentz Transformations. — Rich
Time itself has no speed. — hypericin
Such a radical change in the speed of time would be both irrelevant and undetectable. — hypericin
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.