Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality. — aletheist
How could there be change without time? What does it even mean to talk about anything happening "before" there was time?something had to change before time was created. — 3017amen
It does not beg those questions, it prompts them.That idea alone I think begs at least two questions — 3017amen
This still makes no sense to me. Cognition cannot receive past or future input, only present input, although it is sometimes about the past (memory) or future (anticipation).Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. — 3017amen
As a proponent of the "growing block" theory of time, I deny the existence of the future; only the past and present exist. Specifically, the present is when future possibilities and conditional necessities become additional past actualities.All three are dependent upon each other for their existence. — 3017amen
Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time. — christian2017
Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...Time is the iteration of events. — christian2017
Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence. — Peirce, c. 1896
Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time. — Peirce, c. 1905
Nice handle, but you spelled it wrong--merkwuerdigliebe, German for "strange love." Anyway, please see this thread on "The Reality of Time." — aletheist
universe is just another phrase for the known matter and energy, so if you have an extremely condensed universe one end and then trillions of miles away you have the clock that "mad_guy" was talking about, yes these terms do have meaning. — christian2017
I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog. — christian2017
if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this. — christian2017
Where there is no heat, there is no movement, where there is no movement there is no time.
— christian2017
Time is the iteration of events.
— christian2017
Those are two possible definitions of time, but certainly not the only ones. For example ...
Time is that diversity of existence whereby that which is existentially a subject is enabled to receive contrary determinations in existence.
— Peirce, c. 1896
Time is a certain general respect relative to different determinations of which states of things otherwise impossible may be realized. Namely, if P and Q are two logically possible states of things, (abstraction being made of time) but are logically incompossible, they may be realized in respect to different determinations of time.
— Peirce, c. 1905 — aletheist
Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum."I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took. — christian2017
What gives? — TheMadFool
I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.
— christian2017
No, I really can't see how anyone can make sense of the concept of a clock outside the universe. It seems inherently contradictory.
if the universe was just two black holes really far apart from each other and then that hypothetical clock, was really far apart from the black holes, it would be the same situation. The hypothetical clock was put forth by another user. But there is no reason a hypothetical clock can't be used in an argument like this.
— christian2017
Again, I don't see how the concept "far apart" can be applicable outside the universe. The hypothetical clock in the example must be outside the universe. But "universe" is defined as the collection of all existing things, so how could a clock get outside of this? It's pure contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think Peirce is taking more of a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach such as what Einstein and later Physicists took.
— christian2017
Of course he is, because time is a metaphysical concept. Defining it as "the iteration of events" is no less philosophical. Besides, this is "The Philosophy Forum," not "The Physics Forum." — aletheist
Where have I ever implied otherwise?Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ... — christian2017
Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses?... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess). — christian2017
Well now that you finally acknowledged this is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum, thus implying that most of us are arm chair quarterback physicists ...
— christian2017
Where have I ever implied otherwise?
... i agree, your guess (guess) is probably only slight better than my guess (guess).
— christian2017
Are you suggesting that only physicists are qualified to provide definitions of time that are more than guesses? — aletheist
That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy.As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics. — christian2017
As for the other question, i agree philosophy does atleast play some small role in physics.
— christian2017
That is beside the point. Time has mathematical, phenomenological, logical, and metaphysical aspects. It does not belong exclusively (or even primarily) to the subject matter of physics, but rather falls squarely within the purview of philosophy. — aletheist
You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me — christian2017
You should understand now, why a hypothetical clock can be used in an argument like this." -me
— christian2017
No, I just don't know what is meant by "a hypothetical clock". Either the clock is supposed to be a real clock, keeping time as a real part of the universe, or it's a fictional clock, in which case it's irrelevant to the universe, as fiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
I always thought the idea of time being a dimension was flawed.
Anyone else has more to say about this, or any physicist? — Shawn
This doesn't address the problem, which is the logical impossibility, of a clock which is outside the universe. A hypothetical, or hypothesis, which involves something that is logically impossible because of self-contradiction, ought to be rejected as worthless. — Metaphysician Undercover
TMF!
In your scenario, I think about the concept of change.
1. Change and Time: what is the nature of these things...whether it is the idea's of time zones, planck time, being and becoming, cosmology, etc., something had to change before time was created. Like the laws of thermodynamics, something was causing emergent properties to come into existence. That idea alone I think begs at least two questions; is change synonymous with time, and is time a human construct that arbitrarily measures same (AKA: the paradox of time zones).
When we talk about the beginning of time, I think it is just an arbitrary construct that creates an illusion. The concept of change is what should be considered.
2. Consciousness and Time: Can we remove time and change from our process of actual thinking itself(?). The answer of course is probably not. However, what if we thought that we could remove one of the three properties of time (past, present and future), what would that look like... . Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. For instance, you can't stop the present, otherwise you stop the future. And you can't stop the past because the present and future relies on the past. All three are dependent upon each other for their existence. — 3017amen
Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation. — christian2017
2. If the universe was changeless we wouldn't perceive the passage of time — TheMadFool
Reread the previous posts or i can re-display them. I never said this hypothetical clock was not apart of the universe in this hypothetical situation.
— christian2017
But then it's not consistent with TheMadFool's hypothetical clock, which is running when there is no universe. That's the hypothetical clock which I had the problem with. — Metaphysician Undercover
there's this intuition that time flies by even in a world without change. — TheMadFool
Change, on the other hand, is, quite literally, chained to time for without time, there can be no change. — TheMadFool
Not true, reread what he wrote. — christian2017
Metaphysical questions: Can you observe change, or can you observe time? During such observations, which is more abstract and which is more concrete? And finally, did time cause change, or did change cause time? — 3017amen
Not true, reread what he wrote.
— christian2017
Sorry, I already read it two or three times, and it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's quite plausible that my interpretation is "not true", but that's because I can't make any sense of it. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.