What is time? I'll tell you later.

This sounds like a Buddhist type anecdote I love it.
"So then the student asked the buddha what time is"

Whatever it is, we enrich it by experiencing it. Presumably - or factually - time was "happening" or "going on" before we were born. So we came out of it, somehow. But I can't make sense of the concept of time, before my birth.

My experience of life doesn't apply beyond my life.

I completely agree. Time indeed "must" have been just a conceptualized "state" pre-existence. Since time can also be described as the motion which objects are involved in, and we know that motion is magnificently old.

Objects in motion take place within time, as it were. It's a very strange concept if you examine it from our perspective. Like the typical situation: two people may be at a party, one of them has fun and time goes by very quickly, the other one is bored beyond words and is amazed time isn't "flowing". And many more such examples.

More problematic is what you seem to hint at, which is how to think about such matters such as a stone falling off a cliff before we existed.

> Would it be clear to say that time is the experience of synthesis between man and the Exterior world.

I would say no because time would then be a personal thing based on personal perception.
However time is constant regardless of observer.

For example a car might pass by you very fast, but if I watch the car from helicopter 2km above it then our perception of time may not be the same.

Likewise if one of us is drunk, then our perception may also not be the same.

----

If we don't take into account the past, present and future then I would say time has no meaning such that it is present only (there is no future time or past time)

I think it might actually be a particle that we can't see because it goes away too fast and gets here too soon.

I think it might actually be a particle that we can't see because it goes away too fast and gets here too soon. — James Riley

So, a particle of time has speed, which is defined by the particle of time?

Time, like space, simply is. How we perceive time can vary dramatically, however. And what of time dilation in special relativity? That goes beyond perception and is registered by clocks or machinery.

The greatest minds have pondered this question.

So, a particle of time has speed, which is defined by the particle of time — jgill

Too fast or too soon could be instantaneous. Like something being over here and over there at the same time. It's all over my head but I like to pretend I'm smart. Like maybe the past is dark matter and the future is dark energy and, where energy and matter can morph into each other, so too time can morph into energy or matter, depending upon perspective from the front or back or side. Or maybe, like a wave, they are all the same thing.

What is time? I'll tell you later. — Banno

I think it’s time

If time actually existed, it would take an infinity of time to get to the present moment.

Why?

Two points - it's not clear what it means to claim time exists, or does not exist. Could you mean that it doesn't exist in the way unicorns don't exist? Or square circles don't exist?

And secondly, why shouldn't time be finite? IS there some logicla contradiction here that prevents it?

Time passes, to be sure; so there's that.

Like the time that passed between your reading this and my first post on this thread.

You already understand what time is. Does that make it "beyond a concept"? Depends what a concept is. If a concept must be definable in words, then perhaps.

If we intuitively understand what time is and yet are not be able to define it, does that make it more of an idea than a concept? A logical and qualitative structure that exists relative to a localised flow of energy/entropy, or distribution of attention and effort?

A logical and qualitative structure that exists relative to a localised flow of energy/entropy, or distribution of attention and effort? — Possibility

A what now?

Sorry, just throwing together ideas...

The concept of time, how would one best describe it? — unintelligiblekai

To say that time is a concept would imply a definable structure that universally applies. But the relativity of time disputes this. Common language use stretches the term ‘concept’ to apply to indeterminate structures such as time, emotion, beauty, etc, yet on closer inspection (eg. Kant’s aesthetics) they are ideas that form concepts under localised conditions of experience.

What is consistent, however, is an underlying quality with a logical composition. Or, perhaps, an underlying logic with a qualitative structure - like a mathematical equation. These two structures - one quality-based, one logic-based - are interchangeable in this form, in the same way that every fundamental equation of physics is essentially reversible. Except for time, which must include a directional flow of energy/entropy in a localised relation.

Incidentally, most ‘Western’ philosophy struggles to allow for this relativity of time, but I have found that the Chinese or Laozi model can be aligned perfectly with a triadic relation between logic, quality and the directional flow of energy (chi), all potentially inclusive of a temporally-located observer (rather like QM).

Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ is a useful exploration of time in relation to the quality of our experience and the quantification of time in physics.

Very well said. I did indeed not imply that time is a just-perceptional phenomena but I conceptualize it as you said: An ongoing one that is described as "A or B" by agents such as us.

The term "Directional force of energy" sounds really fit for a "clear" conception of time. If I understood you correctly, This is related to motion and it's necessary function of being dynamic?

Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ is a useful exploration of time in relation to the quality of our experience and the quantification of time in physics. — Possibility

:up:

What is time? I'll tell you later. — Banno

Never mind.

The term "Directional force of energy" sounds really fit for a "clear" conception of time. If I understood you correctly, This is related to motion and it's necessary function of being dynamic? — unintelligiblekai

More to do with heat:

In the elementary equations of the world, the arrow of time appears only where there is heat. The link between time and heat is therefore fundamental: every time a difference is manifested between the past and the future, heat is involved. In every sequence of events that becomes absurd if projected backwards, there is something that is heating up.
If I watch a film that shows a ball rolling, I cannot tell if the film is being projected correctly or in reverse. But, if a ball stops, I know that it is being run properly; run backwards, it would show an implausible event: a ball starting to move by itself. The ball’s slowing down and coming to rest are due to friction, and friction produces heat. Only where there is heat is there a distinction between past and future. Thoughts, for instance, unfold from the past to the future, not vice versa - and, in fact, thinking produces heat in our heads...
Clausius introduces a quantity that measures this irreversible progress of heat in only one direction and... he gives it a name taken from Ancient Greek, entropy...

Clausius’ entropy, indicated by the letter S, is a measurable and calculable quantity that increased or remains the same but never decreases, in an isolated process....

Within the reflections in a glass of water, there is an analogous tumultuous life, made up of the activities of a myriad of molecules - many more than there are living being on Earth.
This tumult stirs up everything. if one section of the molecules is sill, it becomes stirred up by the frenzy of neighbouring ones that set them in motion, too: the agitations spreads, the molecules bump into and shove each other. In this way, cold things are heated in contact with hot ones: their molecules become jostled by hot ones and pushed into ferment. That is, they heat up.
Thermal agitation is like a continual shuffling of a pack of cards: if the cards are in order, the shuffling disorders them. In this way, heat passes from hot to cold, and not vice versa: by shuffling, by the natural disordering of everything. The growth of entropy is nothing other than the ubiquitous and familiar natural increase of disorder.
This is what Boltzmann understood. The difference between past and future does not lie in the elementary laws of motion; it does not reside in the deep grammar of nature. It is the natural disordering that leads to gradually less particular, less special situations. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

This was more than a pleasure to read and I will get the book. Thank you.

So then when we think of time, The typical understanding of it is primarily Psychic and unconscious. It is popular to describe time as a concept but it seems to me that when I hear that statement from the regular crowd, they do not portray signs of contemplation of what they mean by that. — unintelligiblekai

I think most people understand time in different ways at different times. Mostly, I think, consciously in practical terms. A time to sleep, a time to dream, time to eat and so on.
Some rely entirely on watches as to when any activity is undertaken. Midday lunch. Others rely on their feelings - rightly or wrongly assuming they are 'hungry' and need food when it might be thirst and the need is for water.

Time to contemplate on time. Not everyone has time for this - in either quantitative or qualitative terms.

Is time merely a concept or the interpreted signals of what the world may be like to the senses? and by the world I mean experiences of physics in motion. — unintelligiblekai

Time is not merely a concept to be discussed at length by philosophers or represented in the arts.
Time is something we experience as passing. Is that the same as your interpreting signals of experiencing 'physics in motion' ?
We talk about 'time management'...how best to make use of time.

You already understand what time is. Does that make it "beyond a concept"? Depends what a concept is. If a concept must be definable in words, then perhaps. — Banno

I think our common understanding and use of 'time' is different from, if not beyond, any philosophical concept and discussion of. The study of what a concept is - well, is it worth the time ?
I guess so, for some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

Recently, I've been looking outwith texts for inspiration - in music or art.
Looking at paths not usually taken...by me, at least...
For example:

https://www.dalipaintings.com/

The Persistence of Memory contains a self-portrait over which is draped a 'soft watch'. For Dali, these 'soft watches' represent what he called the 'camembert of time', suggesting that the concept of time had lost all meaning in the unconscious world. The ants crawling over the pocket watch suggest decoy, an absurd notion given that the watch is metallic. These 'paranoid-critical' images reflect Dali's reading and absorption of Freud's theories of the unconscious and its access to the latent desires and paranoia of the human mind, such as the unconscious fear of death alluded to in this painting...

...The watches, which he says are:"nothing more than the soft, extravagant, solitary, paranoiac-critical Camembert cheese of space and time... Hard or soft, what difference does it make! As long as they tell time accurately.
The Persistence of Memory alludes to the influence of scientific advances during Dali's lifetime. The stark yet dreamlike scenery reflects a Freudian emphasis on the dream landscape while the melted watches may refer to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, in which the scientist references the distortion of space and time.

...The pocket watches are not the only references to time in the painting. The sand refers the sands of time and sand in the hourglass. The ants have hourglass-shaped bodies. The shadow that looms over the scene suggests the passing of the sun overhead, and the distant ocean may suggest timelessness or eternity.

...Three of the clocks in the painting may symbolize the past, present and future, which are all subjective and open to interpretation, while the fourth clock, which lies face-down and undistorted, may symbolize objective time.
...The denuded, broken branch in the painting, which art experts identify as an olive tree in the context of other Dali artworks, represents the demise of ancient wisdom as well as the death of peace, reflecting the political climate between the two World Wars as well as the unrest leading to the Spanish Civil War in Dali's native country.

Wasted your time ? Time to buy and sell.
See 'Cartoon of the Day'...right now :cool:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/527606

Is time merely a concept or the interpreted signals of what the world may be like to the senses? and by the world I mean experiences of physics in motion.

Then again with my own word. The concept of time, how would one best describe it? — unintelligiblekai

I think it's both, much like the notion that time is eternity, eternity is time. Time has a paradoxical element(s) to it. Consider simple time travel from east coast to west. When one loses 4-hours, they don't get it back. It is lost in time.

Also, consider the common definition of time; past, present, future. What slice or sliver of time does the present actually represent, atomic/planck time? The present only seems to suggest a separation between past and future. Also remember, it takes time to cognize a something. Being and becoming are not in unison.

And secondly, why shouldn't time be finite? IS there some logicla contradiction here that prevents it? — Banno

If time were finite, it would have to have a beginning and an ending. Since time is only a measurement taken from now, to as far back or forward as one likes, there is no end to how far back or forward one may go.

Our subjective experience of time is highly variable depending on mood and activity. Watching a good film hours pass in moments - whereas waiting ten minuets in the rain takes forever! All the while, the clock measures out the seconds relentlessly; while physically, causal energy events proceed entropically from before to after.

Time feels fluid. The time between falling asleep and awakening, feels instaneous. Time seems to be missing while asleep. When recalling past events, time feels compressed. When experiencing time as acting upon some present activity, there doesn't appear to any time, but only in comparison do we become aware of the time that has passed. The future may feel very far way, or it may feel far too close.

Time is what we have to discover, experiment, create, and learn. It is not long or short. It is the memories were have, what we are having, and what may be, or might have been. We are time, and it never ends.

Fantastic reply thank you. I agree that the contemplation of time can be the subject that can to a degree affect our "productivity" per se.

Could you describe what you mean by being and becoming?

I like how you said "we are time" because indeed time is imbedded in us.

Yes. :)

Since time is only a measurement taken from now, to as far back or forward as one likes, there is no end to how far back or forward one may go. — Present awareness

A non sequitur.