Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Philosophical definition of time

  1. Oct 8, 2005 #1
    Time is a dimension of matter as opposed to a
    changing or flowing entity. Nothing can exist
    outside of the present in real terms, which
    encompasses the immediate sum of existence and
    is always now. As time does not flow or change,
    however, concepts such as past and future
    events do not exist. In abstract logic only,
    the past has had an effect on the present which
    in turn creates future probabilities. What the
    observer sees as the flow of time is really
    only a change in position relative to some
    other change in position.

    As a dimension, however, the present by
    definition can be represented as a range of
    possible values. The apparent contradiction of
    an existence with no past or future is the fact
    that an object moving near the speed of light
    ages at a slower rate when compared to a
    stationary object. Another rationalization of
    this effect is that the time dimensional value
    of each object can be influenced by their
    respective velocities. Take an example of two
    stationary objects in close proximity. At this
    point, each may have an equivalent time
    dimensional value equal to some arbitrary number.
    Apply the argument above and the faster object
    will begin to age at a slower rate. As the
    present has no single value, however, what is
    occurring is not time travel as described above
    but rather the divergence of each object’s time
    dimensional value. As the two objects return
    to close proximity, each again appears to
    an observer to be in the present although
    with noticeable differences, proof of a range
    of possible time dimensional values. This
    concept is analogous to altering the length of a
    steel rod by changing its temperature.

    The connectivity of matter is revealed in this
    dimensional view of time. There is little
    difference between establishing a standard of
    length which can be applied anywhere in the
    universe and an object's time dimensional
    value. In other words, events occurring at
    separate locations are inexorably linked by the
    immediate present, just as the length of two
    rods may be certainly equivalent. An explanation
    of why matter can neither exceed the speed of
    light nor cease all movement could be this aspect
    of matter.

    Accelerating an object past the speed of light,
    however, may be no different than heating the
    steel rod past its melting point. Time travel
    may in fact be no more than a change in state
    much like this example.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2005 #2
    waaaaaay too much text.

    "time was"

    "Space Is"
     
  4. Oct 21, 2005 #3
    ? Are not space-time entangled in such a way that space may be represented as related to time in three constrained views ?:
    1. space is - time is now (think time independent wave function)
    2. space was - time was
    3. space will be - time will be
     
  5. Oct 21, 2005 #4
    ... what?

    no, really... what?
     
  6. Oct 22, 2005 #5
    Space always IS. Time always was.

    Time was when i was not AWARE of space, and i spent "time" thinking about...anything.

    A true individual is AWARE that they are a soul inside of one physical body, both held together with their spirit, and that one complete unified unit, being ALWAYS AWARE of that combination, is able recognize the difference between thought and perception, and is able to perceive that they are simply riding the planet like a surfer rides a wave. That individual knows it was not possible to be mentally attached to any particular thing, and is enlightened.

    His priority is to not think about any particular thing, much less discuss it, for the very process of thinking had previously prevented him from conquering time/thought so as to BE in space. He disdains thought, although attaining rightperception was possible only because of the shear high volume of thought invested into the concept of 'rightperception' and space/time.

    Thought always was and always shall be 2D; Rightperception is ONLY 3D, in the "first-person".

    Until an individual realizes the difference between thought/2d, and perception/3d, that individual will not be able to "see" anything as it truly is, because that individual has not realized what they truly are.

    After realizing what they truly are, that individual will always be AWARE of their physical presence on the planet and the proportion of their physical body is to all other physical things in space. That individual is truly integrated with all things and is beyond "time/thought".

    Of course, to attain rightperception, i had to let go of every thought i ever thought, including what i 'thought' rightperception was/is.

    Anyway, just a thought. :smile:

    "I" hope that helps.

    o:)
     
  7. Oct 23, 2005 #6
    Are you sure that you are aware that you are a soul, or do you just think that you are aware?
    And how would you tell the difference?

    may your God go with you

    MF
     
  8. Oct 23, 2005 #7
    I KNOW that I am a soul and physical body and a spirit, and I KNOW the difference between 'thinking' I know and knowing I know because I have objective, rightperception.

    o:)
     
  9. Oct 25, 2005 #8
    I find that when trying to communicate the answer to, "what is Time?" The answer has to be as subtle and as simple as possible, to be Truth.
    all answers reduced to simplest terms result in the Realization that time is a consequence of having spacial dimensions. This anwer is very subtle, and the realizations that result from pondering it are significant. :!!)
     
  10. Oct 27, 2005 #9
    A Layman's Try

    How about this definition... (edit: Hey Dexperience, it sounds like we agree?)

    Time: the oscillation of existence itself between the forms matter and energy.

    Further, time slows down as the oscillation becomes "imbalanced" due to local
    accumulated velocity, mass, or charge. Time couldn't be "sped up" unless the
    "dimension" in which existence itself exists within became "superconductive"...


    Does any of that sound :cool: or does it just sound :confused: ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  11. Nov 6, 2005 #10
    "Nothing can exist outside of the present in real terms..."

    I agree that this statement is true in a sense, but isn't this statement a little hazy since it's contingent on several different definitions (which are themselves contentious), namely "exist" "present" and "real"?

    If you believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I think that's the one) that speaks on the conservation of energy, then how is this idea unambiguously true?

    An argument could be made that there is only many variations on a small number (even one) of truths/forces/whathaveyou and if this were to be the case, the idea of a present - and time in general - is in some sense thrown on its head. The reason for this is that, if it is possible to describe many various features in several terms, then that in some way reduces those figures to one of a vast number of combinations and chance events (which may themselves be able to be understood in a reductionist view of existence), but only do not differ in the sense that one is composed via distinct truths from another that are merely mixed in different ratios.

    If that were to be the case, then "time" itself would simply be an observed - whatever that means - transition from one phase to another.

    The whole idea stumbles on that "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound" problem. How can time be considered outside of a relativistic sense? If it can't, then the above quote is untrue, as no "real" can exist (in any way that we understand real).

    It would be as if you had a computer that had a certain matrix set of numbers and it computed them in every possible way and combination. It then printed it out in on several sheets of paper in the exact way it was constructed. One might thus look at the paper and say that each sheet was a layer of time.

    But although the numbers might be logged in a particular pattern, the ordering of that pattern has no bearing on the combination of a certain fixed set of numbers - just like a matrix doesn't really have a beginning and an end, but simply a list of all the possible probabilities.

    Of course, that argument might only fly if the second law of thermodynamics is to be believed. Personally, I think that all we are is a bubble on top of a giant boiling pot that holds the stew of the past and also a lot of lobsters - who feed on the stew of the past, naturally. The entire cauldron is called Hell: the L's in Hell stand for Lobsters (there are 2 L's because the lobsters are numerous) and the H is for humans - the E is a different story though. The E is the mark of the beast (as it has 4 lines and 2 spaces which adds up to six, plus the two more sixes from somewhere I guess - maybe Queens).
     
  12. Nov 9, 2005 #11


    Well, that's like saying humans can fly if they just flap their arms faster. It makes sense, but how are you gonna get the energy to do it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2005
  13. Nov 29, 2005 #12
    "waaaaaay too much text."

    ++

    I thought time was simply change (defined as the fact that things are not constant), no more and no less. No change happens without time. No time passes unless something changes. The concepts are equivalent.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Philosophical definition of time
  1. Jobs for Philosopher? (Replies: 80)

  2. Philosophical Poems (Replies: 4)

  3. Favorite Philosopher (Replies: 36)

Loading...