The discussion centers around the concept of time, its origins, and the question of who can be credited with its discovery. Participants explore the philosophical and scientific implications of time, its measurement, and its fundamental role in the universe.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of time, its discovery, or whether inquiries about its essence are scientific or philosophical. Multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.
Participants express various assumptions about the definition and understanding of time, and there are unresolved questions regarding the philosophical implications of its nature.
From a scientific perspective every single observation of every single physics experiment which is consistent with any theory containing time (which is all of them) is scientific evidence of the existence of time. That is simply how science works. You have a model, the model makes experimental predictions, you preform the experiments, if the experiments are consistent with the prediction then you accept the model.DAC said:So what is the evidence it exists?
Probably the first person to wonder how long between Sun up and Sun down, how far one could go and be able to return to the cave before night fall. Note the two words (concepts) which in this context would have no meaning without a basic notion of time, even if one hasn't consciously become aware of it yet. But that's philosophy.DAC said:Hello PF.
Given time is a fundamental part of the universe, who discovered it? Assuming it exists doesn't count.
And per post #2, fairly scientific investigation into the concept of time predates the development of science itself by many thousands of years. Early "scientists/engineers" built fairly good instruments for measuring/using the passage of time - Stonehenge and the Mayan/Aztecs, for example.DaleSpam said:From a scientific perspective every single observation of every single physics experiment which is consistent with any theory containing time (which is all of them) is scientific evidence of the existence of time. That is simply how science works.
I was with you until this last part: it's a self contradiction.newjerseyrunner said:You can define it mathematically, but not really describe it.
You can describe it mathematically, but you can not describe it in terms of something familiar.russ_watters said:I was with you until this last part: it's a self contradiction.
On the contrary, I think we all have some sort of intuitive concept of time as ... well ... time.newjerseyrunner said:You can describe it mathematically, but you can not describe it in terms of something familiar.
While I agree with Orodruin, being able to describe something mathematically is far superior to a qualitatively description when it comes to describing/defining what something is.newjerseyrunner said:You can describe it mathematically, but you can not describe it in terms of something familiar.
I tend to think that all questions about "what X actually is" or "what X really is" tend to be non-scientific. Usually, those questions are asked of a perfectly well-defined quantity (like time or energy) in a scientific model with lots of corresponding experimental validation. I have yet to find anyone who asks the question with a proposed experiment in mind, so it seems that the question itself is a philosophical question.newjerseyrunner said:Trying to identify what time actually is is new.