Time, Memory and Change: A Philosophical Exploration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the philosophical implications of time, memory, and change, examining how these concepts interrelate. Participants delve into the nature of time measurement, the perception of time, and the role of memory in understanding change, with a focus on both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that time is defined by what clocks measure, leading to questions about the rate at which time passes and the circularity of this definition.
  • Others argue that everything is spatially stationary with respect to itself, while temporal movement is inherently different, suggesting that change is a constant in closed systems due to increasing entropy.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the definition of time relies on the synchronization of clocks, yet even synchronized clocks may not measure the same thing due to their individual environments and components.
  • Some participants express confusion over the distinction between spatial and temporal stationarity, questioning whether experienced time differs from movement in the time dimension.
  • One participant suggests that time can only be measured through actions or events occurring, emphasizing a perception-based understanding of time.
  • Another perspective posits that a true definition of time must account for relativity, as time measurement varies depending on gravitational effects and relative motion.
  • There is a discussion about the fundamental nature of time, with some suggesting that it could be defined by the transmission of energy through a medium, such as photons in a granular space.
  • Participants note that a clock measures its proper time and that there is no global definition of time that is Lorentz invariant.
  • Memory is highlighted as crucial for perceiving the passage of time, with one participant stating that without memory, the concept of time would be absent.
  • Some participants introduce the idea of three basic states of time: the past, the future, and the present, prompting questions about the complexity of these states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of time, its measurement, and the role of memory. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the definitions or implications of the concepts presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on individual interpretations of time, the unresolved nature of how memory influences the perception of time, and the varying definitions of time based on different theoretical frameworks.

  • #31
jcsd said:
Time is what a clock measures. It may be frame depedent, but so what? It doesn't mean that the clock is not measuring time.

Doesn't it?

If a clock is in greater motion through space than another, then the time that it measures is slower. Clocks do not measure motion through time, they measure motion through space-time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
RAD4921 said:
All measuring devices of "Time" (whatever that is) measures movement.

I agree with this statement. However, I do not agree with your examples.

All of your examples of motion are motion through space. You use time as a measure of motion through space. This is a Newtonian usage of time, and does not take into account motion through space-time.
 
  • #33
Prometheus said:
Doesn't it?

If a clock is in greater motion through space than another, then the time that it measures is slower. Clocks do not measure motion through time, they measure motion through space-time.

I'm not sure 'motion through spacetime' could be given a reasonable definition. Personally if I had to give a defitnion tho' it would be the velocity 4-vector which is not analogus to time and always has a square norm of c^2 (so you could say that we move through spacetime at the same 'speed'). Also remember there is certainly no such thing as a 'greater motion' as all motion is relative as is time dialation.

So time is what a clock measures and what a clock measures is not Lorentz invariant, but that shouldn't be suprising as time isn't Lorentz invariant.
 
  • #34
Hmm I suppose you could say that the proper time of a clock between two events local to the clock relates to the 'length' of that clocks worldline between those two events.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
jcsd said:
IAlso remember there is certainly no such thing as a 'greater motion' as all motion is relative as is time dialation.

Huh?

There is greater motion through space and there is greater motion through time.

There is no such thing as greater motion through space-time, as there is only one rate of motion through space-time.

How can you say that there is no such thing as greater motion? or, what do you mean?
 
  • #36
Prometheus said:
Huh?

There is greater motion through space and there is greater motion through time.

There is no such thing as greater motion through space-time, as there is only one rate of motion through space-time.

How can you say that there is no such thing as greater motion? or, what do you mean?

What I mean is that 'motion' (i.e. velcotiy) is reative, so it is impossible to order it in such a manner that is frame invariant. i.e. in one frame my speed is greater than yours, but there must also exist another frame where my speed is less than yours. Think of the twin paradox and how both twins observe each others clocks to be slowed.
 
  • #37
jcsd said:
What I mean is that 'motion' (i.e. velcotiy) is reative, so it is impossible to order it in such a manner that is frame invariant.


I still do not understand what you mean by motion. Do you mean motion through space or motion through space-time?

If we race, and I run faster than you, am I or am I not in greater motion than you? I do not understand your perspective.


jcsd said:
Think of the twin paradox and how both twins observe each others clocks to be slowed.


OK. Think of a clock, and two observers observing the clock. How can they relate themselves to each other on the basis of observing some clock?
 
  • #38
Prometheus said:
I still do not understand what you mean by motion. Do you mean motion through space or motion through space-time?

If an object is in motion it means that it changes it's postion as I said earlier it doesn't mean to much in terms of spacetime, so I mean motion through space (which in can be transformed away by choosing the apporpoiate refernce frames).

If we race, and I run faster than you, am I or am I not in greater motion than you? I do not understand your perspective.

No, because in your rest frame your speedis zero whilst mine is non-zero. This is a key point in relativity, whetehr it be Einsteinian or Galiliean


OK. Think of a clock, and two observers observing the clock. How can they relate themselves to each other on the basis of observing some clock?
Assuming all clocks are equal they could work out their relative velocities.
 
  • #39
Prometheus said:
You ask about the error in the measurement of the clock. I ask about the value of it.

As far as clocks are concerned, yours is an excellent example. Let us consider two observers, you and me. You body is in motion through space. Consider that chemical processes are going on within your body, metabolism, etc. My body is in motion through space, in the same way. They are not moving through space at the same rate of time. How is it relevant that we can use some objective third object to measure time? My rate of motion through time is different from your motion through time, as my body interacts with space in a manner different from yours. Using a light clock, or a mechanical clock, or watching the sun rise and set is very useful to create an objective time for us to share. However, how can you consider it completely applicable to either of us, let alone to both of us? Where is the effect of the interaction of space-time? If you are searching for a close approximation, as close as is possible given that you must use a clock, then I accept your example as close, forgiving the fact that you must use a clock.

If you use a clock as an objective way to relate your motion through space-time with mine, then you are ignoring the fact that each object has a unique relationship to space-time.

How can you compare two unique objects in space-time by relating them to a third, irrelevant object in space-time? What is the value of your comparsion. It does have value, I admit. Do you recognize its limitation?

I see your point. However, I think the limitation applies to large objects. For example when I'm walking, my feet experience time a bit differently than my brain. But let's go to smaller scales. Say, we have two electrons stationary wrt each other. Can they not experience the same time, as measured by light clock? I don't know if an electron has smaller particles in it moving (or something). OK, what about a muon? Does its decay time depend on any movement inside itself? (not sure if that make sense, don't know really what I'm talking about)
 
  • #40
Yep, I think it's careful you shouldn't get confused the time-depedency of motion with motion actually being time itself.
 
  • #41
For example the unitary evolution of the wavefuction in the Schroedinger equation is time-depednet but actually assigning this time-depedncy to motion in the classical sense is something that you can't or will have great problems doing.
 
  • #42
jcsd said:
If an object is in motion it means that it changes it's postion as I said earlier it doesn't mean to much in terms of spacetime, so I mean motion through space


Are you saying that an object cannot be in motion through time. It seems that you deny that there is motion through time. How can you say that it doesn't mean much that there is motion through space-time? I think that this is a big point of disagreement between us.


jcsd said:
No, because in your rest frame your speedis zero whilst mine is non-zero.

By this standard, no two objects or people can ever have the same frame, and so any measurement is meaningless.


jcsd said:
Assuming all clocks are equal they could work out their relative velocities.

An impossible assumtption, in my opinion.



Do you consider that the speed of light is constant? If so, is it constant in space, in time, or in space-time?
 
  • #43
wespe said:
Say, we have two electrons stationary wrt each other.


What is the duration of this stationary relationship? I think that this is not a valid or realistic assumption.


wespe said:
Can they not experience the same time, as measured by light clock?


What does time reflect in this case? They cannot experience the same time. However, as measured by a clock, they can be related, assuming that the value of the creatd relationship is what is important, and what is ignored is not valued.
 
  • #44
Prometheus said:
Are you saying that an object cannot be in motion through time. It seems that you deny that there is motion through time. How can you say that it doesn't mean much that there is motion through space-time? I think that this is a big point of disagreement between us.
what is motion through time tho'? dt/dt? (though the time component of the velcoity 4-vector can be thought of as dt/dT mutplied by c and relatvistic gamma where T is the proper time)



By this standard, no two objects or people can ever have the same frame, and so any measurement is meaningless.

This is relativity, two objects share the same rest frame if they are at rest to each other if they're not they have different rest fra,es; it's simple as that. Spacetime wouldn't be so useful if this wasn't the case.

An impossible assumtption, in my opinion.

Not really, clocks that measure the time perfectly are not disallowed in this model.

Do you consider that the speed of light is constant? If so, is it constant in space, in time, or in space-time?

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames this is a postulate of relativity.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Does a truly static "Block Universe" allign with "experience" aspect?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
300
Undergrad "Exploring Time Perception Across Different Regions of Space"
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Musings, seeking opinions about the nature of time
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Is Write-Only Memory a Real Thing in Hardware Design?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate How do you convert the Pound–Rebka redshift into time variation?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
935
High School Relativistic simultaneity and effects on time
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
543
Undergrad Feynman's derivation of average square distance variation in Brownian motion
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate How Does a Clock Measure Time?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
15K
Undergrad Black hole and coordinate time from the perspective of Alice outside
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K