Time probably doesn't exist as we culturally conceptualize it

[onesteptwostep]

24 hours in a day. 365 days in a year. 12 hours in the sun, 12 hours in the dark.

All of this quantification of time, of seconds, minutes, hours and days and years are simply due to the Earth's rotation around the Sun in our solar system. There really is no conception of "second" that exist beyond our own perception. Time, as we conceptualize it, only exists for our aid, to organize the time in which we work, play, use leisure and to make note of the cycle of the day.

Basically, although we move through each moment without discontinuation, from one moment to the next, seamlessly, when we look at the orbit of the Earth from afar, there really is no objective marker for time. In some ways, time is human-centric, or Earth-centric. The unit of time for another non-earthian civilization may not use our 'seconds', but rather an increment based on their own rotation of their own planet. There could be 3.14 seconds in their "seconds", and 5 "seconds" in their minutes and so on. To them, our conceptualization of time will be 1/3.14 of their "seconds", because it will be mathematically inverted from our 'seconds'.

Basically, time is relative to the planet on which we live, and has no actual correspondence to reality save for the aforementioned relation. Time as a philosophy in relation to its measurement doesn't exist.

 

[Thurlor]

Unless you are willing to factor out constants isn't this true for all units of measurement?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Er.. then what are 'true' measurements? I don't follow.

 

[Black Rose]

comparisons

 

[Cognisant]

Imagine an alien world where the day/night cycle is 120 Earth-hours, would it affect their psychology, would they be more laid back than us or frantic? Do they sleep 30Eh all at once or is their culture accepting of midday naps? What would life be like on a planet with such widely varying day/night conditions?

 

[Hadoblado]

Yep, so a universal measurement would be derived from constants.

Perhaps time spent for light (in a vacuum) to pass a distance equal to the length of a particular stable and common materials in a very specific molecular formation dictated by the precise number of molecules?

Presumably, there's still some instability in this measure, so you'd then average the variance over a great many trials, or derive it from an understanding of physics.

The length of the object would perhaps be dictated by what a practical unit of time is, but this again would be relative.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Misleading title. Basically flow of time exists, is real, but is measured in units that differ between civilizations.

It wouldn't be difficult to convert between unit systems if we ever had to communicate a more universal meaning of time with super advanced space unicorns.

Also time isn't cyclical and repetitive. Using earth's orbit around the sun gives that impression. Each event is unique, each earth's orbit is different (every time there is a shift in eccentricity, axial tilt, etc). The solar system orbits the galactic center of Sagittarius A* in ~230 megayears. Milky Way galaxy will merge with several others that will take gigayears to complete and will be different each time.

So there are lots of past and future events that clearly show a different before and after state of the universe that are objective. The universe as a whole has a well defined beginning state and a theoretical end state. It is also possible to define a far future era when time will measurably stop as there will be no particles or events that occur or differ in each time frame at any scale.

 

[BurnedOut]

Paragraph 1: Time is an abstract aid that humans use.

Paragraph 2: Time differs across universe's terrains. Therefore a second for one species in one galaxy may not be the same for another species in another planet. Therefore time does not have an objective marker and depends completely on the loci of the observer.

Paragraph 3: Time is relative to the terrain it is in. Therefore time is abstract.
Read my reflections on the assumption you made while writing this.


I see three disjunct arguments which are independently correct.

When you say time as a human aid, that's correct but it's not just an aid for humans but for the relative terrain too. It is just that we have quantified it. However if another species residing in the same terrain would have derived their time unit, i am sure it will be convertible from theirs to ours and ours to theirs. The same goes for other species in other plants looking at our times. The units are still convertible. Why? Let's examine that in the second point of mine.

What do you mean by objective marker of time? You actually answered your own question with two points -
1. Loci of the observer is important.
2. Different units of time exist which are dependent on different kinds of matters.
Therefore, I think that you were talking about this whilst making an assumption that any species cannot compare their times without being able to understand their constituent terrains - the kind of matter cannot be found and hence time will seem completely nonconvertible and arbitrary to those observers.

You need to confirm if this is really the case because this assumption seems like a valid one to keep your logic coherent.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Paragraph 1: Time is an abstract aid that humans use.

Paragraph 2: Time differs across universe's terrains. Therefore a second for one species in one galaxy may not be the same for another species in another planet. Therefore time does not have an objective marker and depends completely on the loci of the observer.

Paragraph 3: Time is relative to the terrain it is in. Therefore time is abstract.
Read my reflections on the assumption you made while writing this.


I see three disjunct arguments which are independently correct.

When you say time as a human aid, that's correct but it's not just an aid for humans but for the relative terrain too. It is just that we have quantified it. However if another species residing in the same terrain would have derived their time unit, i am sure it will be convertible from theirs to ours and ours to theirs. The same goes for other species in other plants looking at our times. The units are still convertible. Why? Let's examine that in the second point of mine.

What do you mean by objective marker of time? You actually answered your own question with two points -
1. Loci of the observer is important.
2. Different units of time exist which are dependent on different kinds of matters.
Therefore, I think that you were talking about this whilst making an assumption that any species cannot compare their times without being able to understand their constituent terrains - the kind of matter cannot be found and hence time will seem completely nonconvertible and arbitrary to those observers.

You need to confirm if this is really the case because this assumption seems like a valid one to keep your logic coherent.

That's not exactly the main thrust of the notion I'm putting out. I maybe have not made it clear enough, but my argument is that time being linear and exclusive- that a moment never repeats itself, (no river is the same) is not special by any means, and that the conception of time is not so special as humanity underscores.

We place some kind of unique stamp on things being 'timeless' (or 'time is money') or have an incredible interest in the beginning of the universe (thus time itself), but my suggestion is that that isn't so important. Time as we culturally conceptualize it is void of value, so to speak. It has value in its utility, but that's as far as we should go.

There is a 'flow of time' in the sense of time being continuous, but not a flow in time as in there is a teleology behind it. It is a unit of measurement and nothing more.

 

[sushi]

you might be right, past present future is just an illusion created by our mind.
also the fact we grow old could be an illusion and so is the concept of age.

age is a quantification//measurement of how long an object have existed, and could also be perspective dependent.

you have some things to prove to support your conjecture that time doesnt exist and that time is relative to perspective. same as saying time is inherently subjective depending on our experience and perception.

like you have some things to prove to support your conjecture that objective time exists in universe outside our perception.

 

[sushi]

Imagine an alien world where the day/night cycle is 120 Earth-hours, would it affect their psychology, would they be more laid back than us or frantic? Do they sleep 30Eh all at once or is their culture accepting of midday naps? What would life be like on a planet with such widely varying day/night conditions?

you can already feel that living in mars or pluto

 

[Hadoblado]

That's not exactly the main thrust of the notion I'm putting out. I maybe have not made it clear enough, but my argument is that time being linear and exclusive- that a moment never repeats itself, (no river is the same) is not special by any means, and that the conception of time is not so special as humanity underscores.

We place some kind of unique stamp on things being 'timeless' (or 'time is money') or have an incredible interest in the beginning of the universe (thus time itself), but my suggestion is that that isn't so important. Time as we culturally conceptualize it is void of value, so to speak. It has value in its utility, but that's as far as we should go.

There is a 'flow of time' in the sense of time being continuous, but not a flow in time as in there is a teleology behind it. It is a unit of measurement and nothing more.

It's still kind of unclear what you mean. You've put a lot of emphasis on measurement and quantification not having meaning beyond function but that's sort of obvious. You talk about time not being special but it's not clear what position you're responding to.

The origin of the universe is about time, but also... literally everything else. Inquiry into origin is not special treatment for time. 'Time being money' is a devaluation of time, because it implies that time is not valued unless it can be converted to money which is valued. 'Timeless' is not really about time but about context, implying a more objective value that does not rely on cultural acceptance. A piece of art that is timeless could also be considered placeless, in that it can be appreciated outside the culture that produced it.

The position you describe doesn't really seem coherent and I've never heard anyone glorifying time the way you imply they do. It's treated merely as a frame of reference for most if not all.

You might have a point, I just don't think you've made it yet.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think generally, progress in itself is meaningless.

Lifeforms form and build civilizations, and create technology for a good life, and ultimately we'll defeat Earthian issues such as living together harmoniously, but being able to balance and exercise enough freedoms. We would be under great leadership and many lives will become prosperous, and happiness will be generally attained throughout the 7 continents.

Through all this, time will pass, and the Earth will rotate the Sun many times, and our species will thrive on this planet. "Time" will pass, "progress" will come to pass, but this would all be meaningless from the perspective of the particular, from one persons.

I guess the philosophical notion I'm trying to get at here is that, progress, through it's a natural course of the political and societal life of a planet with sentient beings, is ultimately meaningless. "One huge step for mankind". Progress, and the advancement of human time, doesn't hold that much weight.

There is not much allure in the cycle of life and death.

 

[washti]

And in a few months you will build a pyramid of things that 'don't matter' here. (with size making Cheops turn in his grave...) And each will be posted in new thread. Solemnly.

You seems to value God as experienced transcendence or something iirc. I think homily about it could be less dull than what you have just offered.

 

[Black Rose]

Time is Perception. Perception is a model of internal and external "worlds". What separates us from coherent, nonrandom integration is trama. Trama and randomness break down cohesion. the world must be stable to operate in. Time is seen in the events that happen as the world model is updated.

As for progress. A world must be stable and updated. Neurons must work together through self-regulation to keep stable and update simultaneously. There is a way to optimize self-regulation. The first stage is neurochemical. Allow growth to flow easier. The second state is artificial neuronal systems. Neurons made of carbon nanotubes that integrate into the brain system. This increases the surface area 100 fold. More wires means more complex world-building. It is also durable because of artificial nanotechnology which improves the biology. The brain can now last millennia.

Perception folds inwards. Time becomes self-referential and fractal.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your actions are in conflict with your stated view. You progress your perspective on the page with your fingers. You progress your thoughts through your engagement. In so far as progress is change over time, it sounds like you yearn for the static everscape of death, but would find yourself in conflict once more if you progressed toward it.

Things get weird when theists turn nihilistic.

 

[onesteptwostep]

And in a few months you will build a pyramid of things that 'don't matter' here. (with size making Cheops turn in his grave...) And each will be posted in new thread. Solemnly.

You seems to value God as experienced transcendence or something iirc. I think homily about it could be less dull than what you have just offered.

I offered something?

Glad I've harped on your soul-strings.

 

[BurnedOut]

So this is basically murked with some kind of nihilism. I am not sure whatever anybody tells you will defeat or explain your view on time - based in science at first and then suddenly metaphysics ornated with existentialism.

Your views are correct but since (it seems like) you were writing it in a flow state or some kind of trance, the logical coherence of your arguments is not clear.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't see how this is nihilistic. A little projection on your part maybe?

 

[BurnedOut]

I guess the philosophical notion I'm trying to get at here is that, progress, through it's a natural course of the political and societal life of a planet with sentient beings, is ultimately meaningless. "One huge step for mankind". Progress, and the advancement of human time, doesn't hold that much weight.

There is not much allure in the cycle of life and death.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Progress being meaningless is quite different from life being meaningless.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Time as we culturally conceptualize it is void of value, so to speak. It has value in its utility.

Omegalul

I think generally, progress in itself is meaningless.

Gigalul

Wouldn't time hold intrinsic value for a christian? The time allotted to a mortal life is the only chance to act faithfully and morally. Thus time is literally money (aka eternal salvation) for christians, jews, etc.

An optimal christian agent should spend every second of their life looking for opportunities to increase their virtue and piety. If you don't optimize for virtue per second then you are a terrible christian, git gud.

Similarly, progress should have intrinsic value to christians and muslims. If people live better lives they have less excuses distracting them from living virtuous lives. If everything is provided for, there is no resource scarcity, no war, there is nothing else to do but be virtuous and devote fully to one's faith or beliefs.

If time and progress are meaningless, isn't the existence of god also meaningless? One doesn't need god to be virtuous or pious.

If you compare two virtue optimizing agents and one believes in god and rewards waiting in afterlife and the other has no concept of afterlife and both act equally virtuously then I'd say it's pretty clear that the individual who had no idea that all their virtue will be rewarded is overall more virtuous as they acted without incentive.

 

[onesteptwostep]

God is an entity beyond time, so I don't see how time would be some kind of dimension which is fundamental to Christianity. Jesus dying as a human on the cross was a timeless event, that it absolved all sin, from both past and future. Plus, I'm not sure whether or not faith in itself requires time to function. Same with love.

 

[Black Rose]

Calvinism

 

[ZenRaiden]

Time is real. So are all other things we can measure.
It does not matter what instruments or units you use to measure something.
Only issue is that all instruments and units have limitations.
There is a whole discipline that is dedicated to measuring stuff.

Metrology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sushi]

you have to prove the law of time and its effects wrong and irrelevant, if you want to prove the inexistence of time

just as you have to prove the law of time right, and its effects, if you want to prove time exists
the law of time exists just as the law of gravity, such as increase in entropy, its part of nature.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Time is real. So are all other things we can measure.
It does not matter what instruments or units you use to measure something.
Only issue is that all instruments and units have limitations.
There is a whole discipline that is dedicated to measuring stuff.

Metrology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What does time is real mean? Can you prove the flow of time?

 

[onesteptwostep]

you have to prove the law of time and its effects wrong and irrelevant, if you want to prove the inexistence of time

just as you have to prove the law of time right, and its effects, if you want to prove time exists
the law of time exists just as the law of gravity, such as increase in entropy, its part of nature.

You have to take ESL.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What does time is real mean? Can you prove the flow of time?

In simplest of words if we ignore time much of the world as we know it would not make much sense. That is what I mean by time is real.
Can we prove the flow of time.
We cannot prove something that does not exist. There is no flow of time.
The word is reserved for water and maybe figuratively for current or whatever.

However in a way motion is related to time and space.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The phrase "flow of time" is a metaphor, but the question still stands. Can you prove that time is a flow of continuous moments, something that has a constant? You claimed that time is real. Can you back up your statement?

 

[crippli]

For me, time seems to be a form of force, that on ongoing, and will not give up.

Just this this summer I had to legimatize when bying beer. The clerk didn'y think I was 18.

To the ultimate question. Does it exist? up til now I dont feel it. But I suppose the lession will be pushed through at some point.

 

[sushi]

The phrase "flow of time" is a metaphor, but the question still stands. Can you prove that time is a flow of continuous moments, something that has a constant? You claimed that time is real. Can you back up your statement?

I already said it. Time is real because the law of time is real. A day passes, things go from young to old, entropy increases etc. The only credible argument you have is that time is only relative to human life and perception. Likewise a reverse day could theoretically happen but we dont have to the technology and capability to make it possible.

If you want to negate its existence, then you have to prove the law of time is false.

One property of the law of time is that you cant have the exact same experience at the same reality /moment happening twice in your life. you cant re-experience the same day and its events twice.

I am not going to be anal about grammar details and spelling as long as general meaning is communicated.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The phrase "flow of time" is a metaphor, but the question still stands. Can you prove that time is a flow of continuous moments, something that has a constant? You claimed that time is real. Can you back up your statement?

I already said it. Time is real because the law of time is real. A day passes, things go from young to old, entropy increases etc. The only credible argument you have is that time is only relative to human life and perception. Likewise a reverse day could theoretically happen but we dont have to the technology and capability to make it possible.

If you want to negate its existence, then you have to prove the law of time is false.

One property of the law of time is that you cant have the exact same experience at the same reality /moment happening twice in your life. you cant re-experience the same day and its events twice.

I am not going to be anal about grammar details and spelling as long as general meaning is communicated.

That is what you call a tautology. A tautology is a logical fallacy.

I am not arguing whether time isn't real, I am asking for a proof which demonstrates that time is real.

I know just as the other person that time exists because I subjectively experience it. But subjective experience does not mean I can provide a proof for the existence of time, (or/and the 'flow of time' or 'flow of continuous moments'.)

Have I made myself clear?

 

[Black Rose]

The fundamental flaw in science.
"Time" is in my experience but I cannot prove it.
Many things in a person's experience cannot be proven scientifically.

The question is, can anything be proven scientifically.
A flaw exists where real proof is said to be only in experience.
Real proof is said to be unproven. A flaw indeed.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Welcome to epistomology.