What is Time? | General Physics Discussion

[Drachir]

What Time Is

In his book Time, Matter, and Gravity (copyright 2004), Morris G. Anderson points out that the word ‘time’ has two different meanings. For clarity he refers to one meaning as ‘TIME’ (uppercase), and the other meaning as ‘time or Time’ (lower case). ‘What TIME is it?’ and “How much time will it take to get there?’ illustrate those two different meanings. The first meaning or usage is existential, the second quantitative.

Anderson defines TIME as where something is, was, or will be: e.g., where the hands are on a clock, where the sun is in the sky, and where the Earth is in its solar orbit. He identifies time as a change of TIME (a change of where something is): e.g., from four o’clock to six o’clock, from sunup to sundown, from winter solstice to summer solstice.

Using Andersons nomenclature then, TIME is an abstraction we make from the positions of things, while time is an abstraction we make from the motions of things. Since time is defined in terms of things, TIME or time without things can have no meaning for us; neither can have existence independent of things. Therefore the notions of TIME itself or time itself are meaningless.

 

[moving finger]

In his book Time, Matter, and Gravity (copyright 2004), Morris G. Anderson points out that the word ‘time’ has two different meanings. For clarity he refers to one meaning as ‘TIME’ (uppercase), and the other meaning as ‘time or Time’ (lower case). ‘What TIME is it?’ and “How much time will it take to get there?’ illustrate those two different meanings. The first meaning or usage is existential, the second quantitative.

Anderson defines TIME as where something is, was, or will be: e.g., where the hands are on a clock, where the sun is in the sky, and where the Earth is in its solar orbit. He identifies time as a change of TIME (a change of where something is): e.g., from four o’clock to six o’clock, from sunup to sundown, from winter solstice to summer solstice.

Using Andersons nomenclature then, TIME is an abstraction we make from the positions of things, while time is an abstraction we make from the motions of things. Since time is defined in terms of things, TIME or time without things can have no meaning for us; neither can have existence independent of things. Therefore the notions of TIME itself or time itself are meaningless.

a simpler way of saying this is:
Time is the way that we measure change. If there is no change, then there is no time (ie it makes no sense to talk of time in absence of change). Time "exists" only because there are changes in the world about us - it is the way that we measure such changes. In this sense, time is indeed an abstraction.

 

[Rade]

In his book Time, Matter, and Gravity (copyright 2004), Morris G. Anderson points out that the word ‘time’ has two different meanings.

Well then, if true, then the claim of Anderson is false because there are not two meanings of "time", only one. Time is that which is intermediate between moments (Aristotle, Physica). For a "thing" to be in "time" between moments means that BOTH the (1) essence of the thing, and the (2) motion of the thing ARE MEASURED BY TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY between the moments. Where Anderson is confused is that it is not "time" that has two meanings, but the concept of a thing being "in time" between moments that has two meanings--(1) as when we say that a thing exists when time exists, and (2) as when we say that a thing exists as a number which is a measure of motion of the thing between the two moments. Thus, things that are in time are contained by time in the same way that things in place are contained by place, and as "place" has meaning, so too "time"

We see also that this claim of Anderson is false...:

... Using Anderson's nomenclature then, TIME is an abstraction we make from the positions of things, while time is an abstraction we make from the motions of things. Since time is defined in terms of things, TIME or time without things can have no meaning for us; neither can have existence independent of things. Therefore the notions of TIME itself or time itself are meaningless.

...for, as stated above, time is that which is intermediate between moments (NOT THINGS). Time is not defined in terms of things, but in terms of moments, but the essence AND motion of things are measured simultaneously by time in relation to moments (= the present, the now). Where Anderson errors is that he fails to understand that it is the concept of "thing" that is meaningless to us without time, for it is only via time that we can measure if a thing has its existence in motion or in rest. If time does not contain a thing, then the concept of thing neither "was" nor "is" nor "can be", but then do we say that the concept of things is meaningless ? --of course not--things and time both derive meaning from their dialectic relationship.

 

[Drachir]

Aristotle's definition

Rade, in #54 you wrote:

Well then, if true, then the claim of Anderson is false because there are not two meanings of “time”. Only one.

Do you mean that in the statements “The time is ten o’clock.” and “One hour is not a long time to wait.” ‘time’ has the same meaning?

You also wrote:

Time is that which is intermediate between moments (Aristotle, Physica).

My dictionary defines the word ‘moment’ as an indefinitely short period of time. Substituting that meaning of ‘moment’ into Aristotle’s statement yields – Time is that which is intermediate between indefinitely short periods of time – a failed definition since a word cannot be defined in terms of itself. Does ‘moment’ have a definition, in the present context, where ‘time’ does not appear? Without such a definition of 'moment' Aristotle’s definition of ‘time’ is meaningless.

 

[moving finger]

My dictionary defines the word ‘moment’ as an indefinitely short period of time. Substituting that meaning of ‘moment’ into Aristotle’s statement yields – Time is that which is intermediate between indefinitely short periods of time – a failed definition since a word cannot be defined in terms of itself.

in simplistic terms, yes this is true - but in reality the fundamental meaning of all words is grounded in other words... if one looks hard enough, one is bound to find circular definitions because there is no ultimate definition of any word except in other words...

 

[octelcogopod]

in simplistic terms, yes this is true - but in reality the fundamental meaning of all words is grounded in other words... if one looks hard enough, one is bound to find circular definitions because there is no ultimate definition of any word except in other words...

The reason for this is because we can never explain anything physical in reality without using other words that explain the individual parts of what we're explaining.
Everyone knows what an apple is, but an apple is also a lot of other things combined, of which there are words for as well (green, round, hard etc), if there were no words for the individual parts then we would have to find out what it is.

I find that an interesting thought concept.

 

[Drachir]

The meanings of words

moving finger, if your claim that

there is no ultimate definition of any word except in terms of other words

were true, there could be no languages since it would be impossible to learn the meaning of one’s first word. When a toddler points to the moon and a parent says “moon”, the toddler knows the meaning of that word without reference to other words. The fundamental meanings of all words are grounded in the words representing things outside the mind. Sunrise, the sun at its zenith, sunset, sunrise to sunset, and a series of heartbeats -- good enough for timing swinging candelabras – are some of the real world bases for our subsequent notions of time.

My position regarding circular definitions is that the circle can usually be opened with some etymological analysis. Some circular definitions arise from use of metaphors that fail to carry over sufficient meaning.

I think that Anderson’s position definition of time, and his attention to the two distinctly different uses we have for the word ‘time’ (particular time, and time duration) are noteworthy clarifications. His definitions of time enabled him to develop a theory uniting gravity and the wave behavior of objects that gives accurate predictions of phenomena including the bending of starlight by the sun, the advances of the precessions of the planetary orbits, the velocity dependency of the periods of clocks, and the gravitational redshift of light. These remarkable results affirm the correctness and utility of his definitions of time. The Anderson theory also avoids the singularities that mar GR.

 

[Rade]

... Does ‘moment’ have a definition, in the present context, where ‘time’ does not appear? Without such a definition of 'moment' Aristotle’s definition of ‘time’ is meaningless...

Yes, Aristotle defines the "moment" as being outside of time--for the obvious reason you raise--so his concept of time holds within the constraints of his definitions. Of course he logically argues why moments are outside of time, a good read.

Do you mean that in the statements “The time is ten o’clock.” and “One hour is not a long time to wait.” ‘time’ has the same meaning?

Yes, of course they do. When you state that the time is ten o'clock, you claim that which is intermediate between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock where the latter at two moments. When you claim one hour is a long time, the 1 is intermediate between say 1/2 and 2, thus you claim a length of time that is intermediate in magnitude between two magnitudes. Now, you raise a point addressed by Aristotle, that time can be "described" as being "continuous" (long vs short) and as "number" (many vs few)--but it only has one meaning (one definition), as I previously posted.

 

[Rade]

...These remarkable results affirm the correctness and utility of his definitions of time. The Anderson theory also avoids the singularities that mar GR.

But now I am confused, because I responded to this statement you claimed to be from Anderson:

Therefore the notions of TIME itself or time itself are meaningless

So, how can he claim that he uses a meaningless concept to derive remarkable results ? Also, as I posted above, Anderson can make no claim of some new understanding of time, what he claims (continuous vs number aspect of time) has been around for > 2000 years. But, perhaps Anderson has used Aristotles definition of time for new understanding of physics--this would not surprise me at all--only confirms that Aristotle was a pretty smart fellow indeed.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger, if your claim that were true, there could be no languages since it would be impossible to learn the meaning of one’s first word. When a toddler points to the moon and a parent says “moon”, the toddler knows the meaning of that word without reference to other words.

And if the poor toddler is born blind? This argument leads to the conclusion that a blind person could never understand the meaning of the word "moon"

Sunrise, the sun at its zenith, sunset, sunrise to sunset, and a series of heartbeats -- good enough for timing swinging candelabras – are some of the real world bases for our subsequent notions of time.

And each of these can be defined in terms of other words (this is just what a dictionary does). I do not need to be able to see a sunset in order to understand what a sunset is.

 

[Drachir]

moving finger, your last sentence above

I do not need to be able to see a sunset in order to understand what a sunset is.

contradicts your second sentence above

This argument leads to the conclusion that a blind person could never understand the meaning of the word "moon"

All of our words ultimately lead back to things that we can sense. Langauge begins when we recognize the correlation of a symbol (spoken word, printed word, or language sign) with something that we can sense.

Your understanding of an unseen sunset is only possible because we define things we cannot sense in terms of what we can sense.

We cannot sense time. Anderson has defined it in terms of the positions and the changes of positions of things that we can sense.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger, your last sentence above contradicts your second sentence above.

That's because the second sentence is not supposed to agree with the first sentence - rather it follows logically from the argument in YOUR earlier post, which argument I believe is false (hence my second sentence would also be false - therefore no reason why it should agree with my first sentence).

All of our words ultimately lead back to things that we can sense. Langauge begins when we recognize the correlation of a symbol (spoken word, printed word, or language sign) with something that we can sense.

I agree that humans develop their language in conjunction with sensory input (sensory input is how we normally learn a language in practice), but I do not agree that sensory input is a necessary pre-requisite for the in-principle acquisition of knowledge of a language.

 

[Drachir]

moving finger, I referred to your second and last sentence.

 

[petm1]

I can give you what I think time is exactly, it is only one dimension that is smooth, curved, has a intrinsic motion of dilation, and is always measured as a constant locally. Planck named it the smallest common denominator of reality, and I think we measure it relative to ourselves, starting at one Planck’s time after the big bang.

 

[Moridin]

Time is what you read of a clock.

 

[petm1]

I say that time is what clocks measure, and that is all it is.

Time is what you read of a clock.

A atomic clock measures the intrinsic motion of a cesium 133-isotope, a light clock measures the intrinsic motion of a photon between mirrors, so if time is what a clock measures or what you read of a clock, does it mean that time is intrinsic motion? Can I think of a cesium 133-isotope as a little bundle of time? Can I think of a photon as a little bundle of time? If I think like this doesn’t it seem to make time the anther, with everything that exists with intrinsic motion being the motion of time?

 

[Rade]

with everything that exists with intrinsic motion being the motion of time
Time is not motion--time is the MEASURE of motion and of being moved, time is the "number of motion". Time is a type of number. Time is what is counted, not that which with we count [Aristotle, Physica, Book IV]

 

[moving finger]

moving finger, I referred to your second and last sentence.

sorry, my typo. What I should have said was:

That's because the second sentence is not supposed to agree with the last sentence - rather the second sentence follows logically from the argument in YOUR earlier post, which argument I believe is false (hence my second sentence would also be false - therefore no reason why it should agree with my last sentence).

 

[Shooting Star]

Time is what you read of a clock.

Does this sound familiar to anybody who has read the full thread? The clock hand has turned a full circle...

 

[John Richard]

Could it be that time is two things?

Why can't time be both the screen and the moving images?

Without the images the screen of time is blank, and can't be represented to the senses

Without the screen there is nothing on which to show the moving pictures?

Perhaps the two things cannot be separated!

Like the thread, thought I'd muscle in