Any definition is essentially descriptive, therefore a matter of what we see, what we want to see, and why we want to see it that way. And these a matter of functionality over the what-it-is. Do you say that there is a what-it-is that is time?

Two questions: How can time singular be systems plural? By "self-coordination" do you mean inter-coordination?

How can time singular be systems plural? — tim wood

Basically, its a general definition of every phenomenon that can possibly be considered temporal.

A stopwatch can coordinate (synchronize) laboratory observation with rate of reaction and allow mathematical translation of the macroscopic data into a model of what small quantities of atoms are doing, the disjunction being between human minds and the quantum scale.

Spacetime dimensionality can synchronize astronomical observations with phenomena such as light speed, the disjunctions being between human minds, photons and the galactic scale.

The circadian clock in brains synchronizes need for sleep with days and nights, the disjunction being between unconscious homeostasis and conscious awareness.

I can't think of a contradicting instance, so this seems to me like a comprehensive definition of time, which is essentially an emergent property of complexity in substance, any mechanism that reintegrates as diversification happens. In this view, temporality is simply a natural, inevitable outcome of evolution.

systems cannot be independent and fully isolated form one another. All information must be connected - there cannot be a lack of continuity between information as energy can’t operate in isolation from from itself. No matter how far systems are from each other they are inextricably linked by time and space to one another. The speed of light connects Two determined locations in space time as at the speed of light time dilation is profound as is spatial contraction. For a particle travelling at the speed of light distance and time are no object at all as all is instantaneous.

Therefore systems that sculpt coordination cannot be removed from those that destroy coordination. It Is simply a matter of entropy if the system. Some systems such as “life“ are negatively entropic - they creat order and structure out of chaos but they are firmly located within larger chaotic systems from which they can gather and order information.

Time must then be a process that connects systems of order and chaos. Just as gravity “slows” down time yet generates order or “aggregation of matter” and a lack of gravity permits the existence of pure space or “void” is unhindered by the resistant effects of mass.

This is shown by the fact that the larger a mass the more momentum is required to maintain the same degree of rate of change or “speed” - something proportional or equivalent to time over distance.

Yes, that isn't a definition of time.

Time consists of the properties of pastness, presentness and futurity. Some would add that it must also include the relations of 'earlier than' 'later than' and 'simultaneous with'. Indeed, some would say that those relations are the more fundamental, with others saying the reverse.

There's a question, of course, about exactly 'what' those properties might be more fundamentally. The tendency today - and it is quite confused - is to think of time as being a kind of soup in which events are suspended, with the properties of 'earlier than', 'later than' and 'simultaneous with' then denoting relations one event stands in to others in the soup. A major problem with that analysis is that it seems unable to make sense of the properties of pastness, presentness and futurity, which is quite serious given that they're the more fundamental properties.

There's also a tendency for people with no philosophy training confusedly to think that this is a topic in physics, rather than philosophy, even though it is squarely philosophical and has nothing to do with physics whatsoever. These same people will start saying ridiculous things about time being relative and tell you about how one twin will age faster or slower or something than another if they set off in a spaceship that is traveling incredibly fast (which isn't evidence that time is relative, whatever that would mean). All very confused.

I am not sure that I understand. You mean that any process that coordinates the progress of other processes is the embodiment of time? I fail to see periodicity here. I know that the definition is intentionally abstract, but time is very essentially endowed with periodicity, in our universe at least. Also, no distinction is made between time and space coordination here. Time has asymmetries, particularly in connection to the thermodynamic, weak force, and spatial indeterminacy qualities of matter, which have no equivalent for space. Thus, for example, we are making choices for the future based on past experience, and not choices for the past, based on future experience. We have no preferred orientation in space. Another distinction between time and space is that, spatially, the "wave packets" of particles are identical for each type of particle with the same momentum in a given reference frame, yet, the temporal form of any particle is unrestricted and potentially indefinite. Lastly, matter acts in innate natural periods. The frequency of electromagnetic emission from an excited electron that recedes from a higher to a lower energy level is the same for those energy levels, independent of the location in which this occurs. Meaning, that the clocks in nature are tied to fundamental rhythmic qualities that define temporal distance, even if various forms of synchronization to other events are not obviously related (daylight, a traffic conductor signal). I am not sure if I am picking up the scope and intent of the definition. It appears to be divorced from the physical origin of the concept of time. You want to maximally abstract, but it seems to me that you are defining coordination, not temporal synchronization.

Time: systems primarily sculpted towards the role of coordinating systems that are divergent enough to be deficient in self-coordination. — Enrique

Given your subsequent elaboration, I guess what this horrible mess is trying to get at is a notion of a clock, in its most general sense. In other words, time is what clocks measure. This isn't wrong, but like all other attempts at bootstrapping the notion of time, it does not escape circularity.

that isn't a definition of time.

Time consists of the properties of pastness, presentness and futurity. Some would add that it must also include the relations of 'earlier than' 'later than' and 'simultaneous with'. Indeed, some would say that those relations are the more fundamental, with others saying the reverse. — Bartricks

Earlier and later can be described as a special case of my definition, a synchronization of representational memory with the sense-perceptual phenomena that laws of classical physics describe, the disjunction being between the body's cellular structure and the influence of Earth's gravitation on macroscopic objects.

Earlier and later are an ancient form of perception even in the context of all Earth's biology, mediated for hundreds of millions of years by sense organs and fundamental body awareness, so seem extremely intuitive, but an organism such as a bacterium for instance may not experience them in a way analogous to humans if at all, and there could be more borderline cases in animals such as worms perhaps. Earlier and later as we know them are probably relative to fairly advanced brain function parameterized by a narrow portion of the gravitational/particle spectrum.

The frequency of electromagnetic emission from an excited electron that recedes from a higher to a lower energy level is the same for those energy levels, independent of the location in which this occurs. Meaning, that the clocks in nature are tied to fundamental rhythmic qualities that define temporal distance, even if various forms of synchronization to other events are not obviously related (daylight, a traffic conductor signal). I am not sure if I am picking up the scope and intent of the definition. It appears to be divorced from the physical origin of the concept of time. You want to maximally abstract, but it seems to me that you are defining coordination, not temporal synchronization. — simeonz

Traffic signal patterns synchronize driving behavior with roadways, the disjunction being between as many as millions of motorists and the flow of vehicles at an individual intersection.

Perhaps day and night, to the extent that they are temporal, amount for humans and similar species to my description of earlier and later, with vastly discrepant organisms having differing emergent mechanisms for synchronization as per my definition.

You got me with photon absorption and emission from electron orbitals, I'm not familiar enough with the very latest science to even make a confident claim. As far as I know current knowledge is relative to techniques for deriving atomic theory in likeness to those I already referenced when mentioning the synchronization between mathematically recorded chronology and reaction rate. The photoelectric effect is defined in association with quantum mechanics and chronological math as well, and I think investigation of entanglement and quantum coherence will fundamentally change our image of what subatomic particles do within atoms and elsewhere. Modeling quantum mechanisms may make our assumptions about electron orbitals obsolete and completely revise comprehension of their temporal properties. Maybe absolute parameters of temporality exist, but I'm not aware that we've even come close to reaching them yet.

The way periodicity appears depends on frame of reference, and science has no prospect of accounting for every possible frame of reference at this point. But I doubt any frames of reference exist so far that counter my definition of temporality, and if they did it would be because a timing mechanism is not required due to intrinsically sufficing coordination. A phenomenon of this kind would be effectively independent of the need for temporality as an evolutionary function, conceivable as holistically outside of time. When I put it that way, it seems improbable a system could be so ideally coordinated that temporality doesn't obtain.

Time has asymmetries, particularly in connection to the thermodynamic, weak force, and spatial indeterminacy qualities of matter, which have no equivalent for space. Thus, for example, we are making choices for the future based on past experience, and not choices for the past, based on future experience. We have no preferred orientation in space. Another distinction between time and space is that, spatially, the "wave packets" of particles are identical for each type of particle with the same momentum in a given reference frame, yet, the temporal form of any particle is unrestricted and potentially indefinite. — simeonz

I'm failing to fully grasp this, could you elaborate some?

Given your subsequent elaboration, I guess what this horrible mess is trying to get at is a notion of a clock, in its most general sense. In other words, time is what clocks measure. This isn't wrong, but like all other attempts at bootstrapping the notion of time, it does not escape circularity. — SophistiCat

All definitions are tautologously circular, that's not a flaw, but I think my definition's strong point is that it is maximally generalized. No instance of time escapes the definition, and a system that does elude the definition is temporally ideal, like an ideal black body, an ideal gas, an ideal conductor, etc.

I think investigation of entanglement and quantum coherence will fundamentally change our image of what subatomic particles do within atoms and elsewhere. Modeling quantum mechanisms may make our assumptions about electron orbitals obsolete and completely revise comprehension of their temporal properties. Maybe absolute parameters of temporality exist, but I'm not aware that we've even come close to reaching them yet. — Enrique

Exactly, only science can give us an answer. All the rest is pure solipsist speculation.

All definitions are tautologously circular, — Enrique

Not really, at least in mathematics and within science definitions frame categories and are not tautologously circular but they create linearity towards progress in understanding and knowing.

ridiculous things about time being relative — Bartricks

General relativity is ridiculous? all the technologies built thanks to relativity like internet and the computer you're using are ridiculous?
I think they show a factual, successful and trascendental understanding of time.

this seems to me like a comprehensive definition of time — Enrique

If you want to define time you have to contextualize it.
You can find in here a great and serious work that summarizes how we humans deal with the definition of time:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TimePhys

All definitions are tautologously circular — Enrique

You are misusing both words. "Ps are Qs" is a definition, it is not a tautology (it isn't true by definition), and it is not circular (it does not rely on the meaning of the definiendum). A definition reduces a concept to one or more independently known concepts. The problem with defining time (real, physical time, not a mathematical abstraction) is that any other concepts to which you attempt to reduce it already depend on time for their understanding. So the best you can do is contextualize time, connect it to related concepts. It won't be a definition though. But then why do you need to define time anyway?

my definition's strong point is that it is maximally generalized — Enrique

Your definition is incomprehensible. I guess you started with an idea of a clock and then tried to compress it into something that sounds like fancy academic-speak.

Your definition is incomprehensible. — SophistiCat

:up:

The problem with defining time (real, physical time, not a mathematical abstraction) is that any other concepts to which you attempt to reduce it already depend on time for their understanding. — SophistiCat

My assumption is that temporality "is" something, that it exists as somehow instantiated in substance, not an empty, null set concept, and hence not any more "circular" than matter. The same issue comes up with qualia: some philosophers assert the term is vacuous, but the phenomenon it is used to label exists nonetheless and requires an explanation, which I and probably more ponderers have arrived at. The kind of argument you make will probably lead to the proposition that time does not exist, in my opinion clearly false. "Real, physical time" refers to (not is "reducible" to) real, physical objects, and those objects are going to be like a clock, sure, but matter can perform the functions of a clock in multifarious ways, so its not a trivial idea, as the examples I provided make apparent.

You may want to read The Measure of Time by Poincaré. It's a bit dated but still solid. Searches for the definition of simultaneity, and only finds rules of convenience.

My assumption is that temporality "is" something, that it exists as somehow instantiated in substance, not an empty, null set concept, and hence not any more "circular" than matter. — Enrique

I am OK with the idea that time is immanent in the physical world, whether we think of it as fundamental or (as some hypothesize) emergent. But that doesn't avoid the issue of circularity, which refers to attempts to define time in terms of other, non-temporal concepts. It seems that all such concepts through which we try to define or explicate time are already entangled with temporality in our understanding: clock, process, change, rate, periodicity, simultaneity,synchronization (obviously), coordination.

It seems that all such concepts through which we try to define or explicate time are already entangled with temporality in our understanding: clock, process, change, rate, periodicity, simultaneity, synchronization (obviously), coordination. — SophistiCat

Those terms are derived from observations of real events in the material world. Perhaps it can be said that the concepts are abstracted from layers of timing mechanism embodied primarily as an emergent property of substance, mechanisms making orderliness amongst differentiation as we know it possible, giving rise to many anthropic and theoretical intuitions that physics is beginning to augment and alter. Difficulty in exceeding our established intuitions, some of which are deeply biological, to attain the progressive is probably this entangling problem you're referring to. Circularity amounts to unexamined assumptions that lead to unnecessarily constrained conclusions. You don't like my definition of temporality, but I think it fully translates time into the domain of objective reality.