What is time?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » What is time?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:46 am
Time the most fascinating cocept in the world, yet many people still claim that it's objective and NOT subjective.

I would like to see the perspective of this forum on time? Do you think it exists? Is it subjective or objective? Do you think the past and the future is real?

Do you think only the present is real or do you think there is no difference between the past,present and the future(my point of view).

Have a read of this article which goes in great depth in discussing time among many great philosophers from ancient times till modern.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:20 am
@ikurwa89,
It might be a linguistic mistake to think that lived time (subjective) and objective time (the clock at work) are different perspectives about the same thing.

The triadic separation of (human) time may be arbitrary, since in one sense neither the present nor the future can be said to exist in the same way that a historical event can. Moreover, any discussion or understanding of "present" events inevitably puts them in the past or that what we mean by "present" is just an arbitrary line we draw between the past and the future because we have a certain picture---analogous to a spatial one--- of how time operates. Predicating actual existence to the "present" in this view would be a linguistic mistake.

Even the duration of the "present" is open to different interpretations, and by failing to distinguish these, without a phenomenological investigation of all the different examples, we really are unable to say much of anything, at least clearly.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 06:25 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;145498 wrote:
Time the most fascinating cocept in the world, yet many people still claim that it's objective and NOT subjective.

I would like to see the perspective of this forum on time? Do you think it exists? Is it subjective or objective? Do you think the past and the future is real?

Do you think only the present is real or do you think there is no difference between the past,present and the future(my point of view).

Have a read of this article which goes in great depth in discussing time among many great philosophers from ancient times till modern.


I know you will think this weird, but when someone does not ask me what time is, I know what time is; but when someone asks me what time is, all of a sudden, I don't know what time is.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 12:48 pm
@ikurwa89,
Kennethamy makes an interesting point. As long as we don't have to really explain what time is, we can talk about it in a very general way and make sense. But the more one thinks about it and attends to all the various ways we use the word, for example its many applications in different spheres of understanding, the less clear and distinct our idea of time becomes. We have lived time and scientific time and utilitarian time and so forth, and we generally mean different things by time in each area; these shades of meaning illuminate different ways we think of time in different situations. Some can be measured precisely, others cannot.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:21 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;145692 wrote:
Kennethamy makes an interesting point. As long as we don't have to really explain what time is, we can talk about it in a very general way and make sense. But the more one thinks about it and attends to all the various ways we use the word, for example its many applications in different spheres of understanding, the less clear and distinct our idea of time becomes. We have lived time and scientific time and utilitarian time and so forth, and we generally mean different things by time in each area; these shades of meaning illuminate different ways we think of time in different situations. Some can be measured precisely, others cannot.


Actually, I am afraid I was making a bad joke. Actually, I was repeating what St. Augustine says in (I believe) his Confessions. This passage from Augustine is cited by Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations and I thought that it was well-known enough (from Wittgenstein) that it would get a smile. I suppose I was wrong.

In any case, I think that Wittgenstein cited the passage from St. Augustine, to point to the fact that we can very well understand a concept (like that of Time) and use it perfectly well without being able to give a philosophical analysis or accounting of it.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:21 pm
@ikurwa89,
Time is component of the intelligent sphere and is only introduced into the physical sphere through the minds of individuals.

Time is only a way of delineating two or more moments. It is no more concrete than an inch. Just as inches don't exist in the physical sphere neither does time, rather an accepted distance is called an inch or a minute depending on the context.

Likewise, circles do not exist in the physical sphere. A circle is a concept of the intelligent sphere and imperfect examples are either created or found in the physical realm to represent the idea of a circle.

Of course, I should not have to say, "in my opinion", but I will.

Cheers.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:58 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;145705 wrote:
Time is component of the intelligent sphere and is only introduced into the physical sphere through the minds of individuals.

Time is only a way of delineating two or more moments. It is no more concrete than an inch. Just as inches don't exist in the physical sphere neither does time, rather an accepted distance is called an inch or a minute depending on the context.

Likewise, circles do not exist in the physical sphere. A circle is a concept of the intelligent sphere and imperfect examples are either created or found in the physical realm to represent the idea of a circle.

Of course, I should not have to say, "in my opinion", but I will.

Cheers.


WRONG PILLS:whistling:
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:15 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;148363 wrote:
WRONG PILLS:whistling:


I really don't understand why you continue to embarrass yourself.
If you have no intellectual abilities what are you doing in a philosophical forum?

I don't think you understand just how truly pathetic you present yourself. You really should try consciously contemplating what actions you've taken to bring you to such a low place in your life.

I hope you get better soon, and keep taking your meds.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:24 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148591 wrote:
I really don't understand why you continue to embarrass yourself.
If you have no intellectual abilities what are you doing in a philosophical forum?

I don't think you understand just how truly pathetic you present yourself. You really should try consciously contemplating what actions you've taken to bring you to such a low place in your life.

I hope you get better soon, and keep taking your meds.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 02:47 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;148594 wrote:
My friend ignore the ignoramus he is full of more than his own importance and as the days go by his foul mouth will fester and consume him. He boasts of being the bullies enemy but in fact he is their show piece, their best example. Your friend Xris
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:03 pm
@xris,
xris;148621 wrote:
My friend ignore the ignoramus he is full of more than his own importance and as the days go by his foul mouth will fester and consume him. He boasts of being the bullies enemy but in fact he is their show piece, their best example. Your friend Xris


[CENTER]I yust do not like any-one being rude and insulting.

If he were a loud British tourist in my street I would call him.

:perplexed:
[/CENTER]
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:32 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;148594 wrote:



.........................................hmmmm.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:46 pm
@ikurwa89,
I like Pepijin's style. He's coming from a more poetic playful angle than most, but the tone is bright and kind.

Philosophy is arguably a sort of meeting place of poetry and math. It aspires, in many cases, to the rigor of mathematics, but this is impossible, as it is made of words.

Which ties into the issue of time. We can't have a rigorous conception of speed until we think of time in numerical terms. This also applies to dynamics in general. F =ma. If force equals mass times acceleration, and acceleration is the rate of change of speed, and speed is distance over time, then time-as-number becomes utterly necessary to conceive of force in Newtonian terms. If time were not a number in the context of physics, I don't see how we could understand gravity. And yet what is this number based on but memory and perception of change. A counting of sunrises and finally strange devices like atomic clocks.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:01 am
@Reconstructo,
Your so right you need a certain intelligence to appreciate our Dutch friends input. He makes my day brighter.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;145538 wrote:
I know you will think this weird, but when someone does not ask me what time is, I know what time is; but when someone asks me what time is, all of a sudden, I don't know what time is.


That is not weird at all, it is characteristic of many difficult philosophical topics. Things that everyone thinks they know perfectly well, until they are asked to explain them.

(This is not really a comment, it is a meta-comment:-)

---------- Post added 04-07-2010 at 08:33 PM ----------

I suppose I should say something about the topic as well. According to Bertrand Russell, Augustine's discussion of time is one of the very highest points of Western philosophy.
 
adampearson
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:46 pm
@jeeprs,
hey this is my first post so hello all Very Happy

Frankly when i think of what is time, i think well who made it.... the answer to this to me is no one. it simply exsists, no one created it yet humans can recognise it and record it, prima facie it is something bigger than the human mind can comphrehend. based upon this we must ask ourselves what time is; resulting in the thought that it is bigger than us, so we must ask what did we not create but can recognise that constantly moves us foward in itself. perhaps the whole human conscience within itself? ie, belief that we are moving foward in time?

thanks for reading Smile

Adam
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:51 pm
@adampearson,
adam.pearson;149412 wrote:
hey this is my first post so hello all Very Happy

Frankly when i think of what is time, i think well who made it.... the answer to this to me is no one. it simply exsists, no one created it yet humans can recognise it and record it, prima facie it is something bigger than the human mind can comphrehend. based upon this we must ask ourselves what time is; resulting in the thought that it is bigger than us, so we must ask what did we not create but can recognise that constantly moves us foward in itself. perhaps the whole human conscience within itself? ie, belief that we are moving foward in time?

thanks for reading Smile

Adam



Welcome to the forum! I would have to say that many forms of time are indeed human creations. And arguably all of them are.

If we really think about it, time is based on change, and change is based on memory. If we had absolutely no memory, we could not perceive/think change, and therefore time. Or so it seems to me.
 
adampearson
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
Time is irrelavant to the human conscous however as time existed before the human conciousness came into being; we can only recognise the concept of time and times passing: therefore even though we could not think change; time existed. to me the more important question is not what is time but who created it
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:06 pm
@ikurwa89,
actually it is not nearly so simple as you might think, you know. Time definitely requires the awareness of duration and such awareness is always structured around the facts of existence. We earthlings naturally perceive time in relation to days and nights, which have a particular duration, and also other measures, such as months (lunar) years (solar) and lifetimes. With no consciousness of duration, there is no time in any meaningful sense. In quantum cosmology, it is necessary to introduce the viewpoint of an observer, or else the time dimension is not represented in the equations. So far from time being 'irrelevant to human consciousness' in fact time is intrinsic to consciousness, and consciousness is intrinsic to time. They are both intertwined.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:33 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;149465 wrote:
actually it is not nearly so simple as you might think, you know. Time definitely requires the awareness of duration and such awareness is always structured around the facts of existence. We earthlings naturally perceive time in relation to days and nights, which have a particular duration, and also other measures, such as months (lunar) years (solar) and lifetimes. With no consciousness of duration, there is no time in any meaningful sense. In quantum cosmology, it is necessary to introduce the viewpoint of an observer, or else the time dimension is not represented in the equations. So far from time being 'irrelevant to human consciousness' in fact time is intrinsic to consciousness, and consciousness is intrinsic to time. They are both intertwined.


I'm glad you mentioned it like this jeeprs. It reminds me of some biblical ages that you find documented there. I always found it funny that some of them said that they were nine hundred years old. The interesting thing is that they didn't know that we calculate a year by the time it takes for the earth to circle the sun. They only had a different approach, either through seasons or by shadow casting. But something interesting happens in my opinion if they were wrong with what a year was. If they mistook a year to be only one month in length then you multiply that by say seventy then you get roughly just shy of nine hundred years. I would not be surprised if they figured a year to be only as long as what we consider a month.

For all the people who lived over two hundred years ago, I can't imagine what they filled up their day with. We have so many distractions and yet probably the most precise time measuring tools, and the ability to be awake when people normally would sleep.

Time to me is completely relative. I also think it was not created. I feel that the time was not the product of the bb but instead time is a constant. Yes matter and velocity effect time but I think it could just be warp of it and not actually impact it. Just like light can be bent or curved even with its high velocity it seems to be practically unaffected by the change in course. I feel that time is similar, it is just matter is in a sense bending time or curving time. Same for velocity.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » What is time?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 09:04:24