Thread: what is time?

What is time?

Do clocks measure time or do they actually measure change in the physical nature of the universe? If so what is time, does it even exist or is it a made up word to describe change and motion? I know it is now, it has been now my entire life and I know everything else exists at this one moment, but change happens at different rates for different things as described in SR so it seems now exists at different times also.

When I say, “now exists at different times” I am using the word time to describe when now exists as opposed to its traditional description of change and motion. Time in this case is relativity, the now actually existing at a moment in time, is this time, what are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by firebird

What is time?

Do clocks measure time or do they actually measure change in the physical nature of the universe? If so what is time, does it even exist or is it a made up word to describe change and motion? I know it is now, it has been now my entire life and I know everything else exists at this one moment, but change happens at different rates for different things as described in SR so it seems now exists at different times also.

When I say, “now exists at different times” I am using the word time to describe when now exists as opposed to its traditional description of change and motion. Time in this case is relativity, the now actually existing at a moment in time, is this time, what are your thoughts?

See here

I read the link which basically says time is a measurement. Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. This measurement is from now to a future now which is an oxymoron. Seeing how time is of fundamental importance to all empirical evidence in science shouldn't this warrant a more accurate explanation?

Originally Posted by firebird

I read the link which basically says time is a measurement. Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. This measurement is from now to a future now which is an oxymoron. Seeing how time is of fundamental importance to all empirical evidence in science shouldn't this warrant a more accurate explanation?

The explanation is quite accurate.

Just about all scientific understanding is based on what time actually is, i understand and appreciate the convenience of the term with regard to measurement but are you really happy with the definition? I may as well ask the next person i sit next to on the bus.
Is time the gap between now and and a future now or is time when now exists?

Originally Posted by firebird

Just about all scientific understanding is based on what time actually is, i understand and appreciate the convenience of the term with regard to measurement but are you really happy with the definition? I may as well ask the next person i sit next to on the bus.
Is time the gap between now and and a future now or is time when now exists?

In Physics I understand time is defined in a way that allows one to make accurate predictions.

If you want to understand what "time actually is" then this is not any help

As you say you might get as good an answer to your question from your fellow commuter.

Apparently Stephen Hawking has an idea that an imaginary (in the mathematical sense) time may have existed before the Big Bang (according to a few reports out today)

If you want to understand what "time actually is" then this is not any help

Sure i agree, as i said i appreciate the convenience of using time as a measurement but it still makes no sense as a definition. I would probably not agree with Hawking about time existing before the Big Bang, even imaginary, because he probably defines it like everyone else. I would say it is always now and ask does always include before the Big Bang?

The most important definition in history.

Measurement is an imaginary way to describe an actual thing; it doesn’t actually exist so to describe time as measurement is to define time as imaginary.

To use an analogy or two, a beach is not an imaginary thing because the grains of sand that are the constitute parts are actual things and a forest is not an imaginary thing because the trees are also actually real.

Time is made of moments and the moment is now, perhaps someone can explain to me how it does not actually exist seeing how everybody seems so confident in spite of the fact it actually is now.

A gate has been left open and the horse has bolted, a workable explanation is accepted and further interest is lost but it seems like more than just a lack of interest, it seems like denial, like saying there never was a horse to begin with but if there actually is that is upsetting.

Time, like the terms beach or forest is more than just an imaginary measurement if the constituent moment is real, now is actually dimensionless and i appreciate why the horse bolts and how it seems like now doesn't really exist but the moment now has features that cannot be denied. Now is the vantage point of everything that exists including our own personal experience, it is the dimensionless border which surrounds every point that exists somewhere, like cutting a string now is never in the same place twice, each cut creates both a beginning + and an end - and when now| cuts nothing 0 at different times > it creates unique dimensions of space and time |0>, is this the true definition of time?

I don't think anyone is an idiot for not getting this right, perhaps it is me who is mistaken, please let me know what you think.

I may be wrong but this site was set up to provide a space for hard science and I doubt you will get much uptake here.

My own take is that with philosophy (which I think this is) you can "prove" anything but with science you can "prove" nothing**.

In order to adequately address your propositions I would have to be in a position to understand them in their entirety -something I cannot do even though I have them before me in black and white on the page.

I can only guess at what you are trying to say (and whether you are succeeding in expressing your thoughts so that the failure would be mine in that case)

I don't see any merit in trying to constructively criticize your position if I don't feel comfortable in understanding them in the first place.

I am sure there may be others ,here or elsewhere who do ,but not me.

**I am unclear as to whether either discipline can show that a second proposition can follow logically from another so that ,if the first is accepted as true then the other can be accepted with 100% certitude.(talking axioms)

Is hard science concerned with being accurate or is close enough good enough, an ain't broke why fix it attitude? I want to discuss the evidence for time existing but it would appear your doubts about uptake are well founded.

Yes asking if something exists is philosophy but hard science assumes things exist or not all the time, i totally agree with your, "prove anything" "prove nothing" statement so, "does now actually exist?" is a philosophical question and "what evidence is there for now actually existing?" is a scientific question.

When I don't understand something in its entirety I don't guess at it, I ask, so perhaps in this case the failure is yours, i am doing my best here but i am not a mind reader. I appreciate and consider it intelligent to want to understand before criticizing but i see this will be left to others, here or elsewhere, not you.

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, am i saying that if now actually exists that something else must? I am only asking if now exists, what other, do you mean time?

There is a ton of evidence for time actually existing, i think understanding this is key to a theory for everything but so far i have only been asking if time could be more than just a measurement, one step at a time my friend.

Apparently Stephen Hawking has an idea that an imaginary (in the mathematical sense) time may have existed before the Big Bang (according to a few reports out today)

Since the Big Bang we know every point in the universe is existing now but what about before? The moment now |, being a dimensionless point in a dimensionless nothingness 0 is really all that could exist, |0 or just | is the ONLY thing that always exists, it is always now.

Now is a moment in time; the analogy of now is like cutting a string which can't be done twice in the same place highlights how now must cut nothingness at different times |0|0|0.... or |0>, time is simply all the cuts like a forest is all the trees.

There is only one now but existing at different times it gives unique boundaries to nothingness as different places in space, the Big Bang would be the sudden appearance of these different places although this suddenness may just be a procession, a turning point from deflation to inflation where time is but one moment for only an instant. ADD EDIT: always has no beginning or end.

trashed without a word, that's rude, goodbye and good luck.