Talk:Time/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial comment

4.63.59.107, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for miscellaneous philosophical rambling. If you think there's something wrong with the simple operational definition given here, say so on this talk page and make a case. And you should also consider logging in with a real name. --LDC

Perception of Time

Time is also suspected to be perceived differently by people, due to neurological differences. This is believed to be the result of the differences between the various ways people tend to perceive their own world. The term 'absent-minded' carries with it the connotation of being chronically late or unaware of the "correct" passage of time on a more general scale, or, in other words, the passage of time as it is more generally perceived. The term itself, however, has nothing to do with a perception of time, and it simply is a descriptor applied to a person who is introverted. Since human thoughts often flow faster than the observable events of the world outside (human neurons spike in electrical activity 200 times every second), introverted individuals who are more focused on what happens within their own minds may find themselves unaware of and often completely disinterested in time as perceived by extroverted individuals, because mental events occur at a much more rapid pace than external events.

Thusly, introverted people often measure large periods of time happening in very short periods of time, in relation to the measurements which might be derived if one were to focus on the outside world as a means of time measurement. Because of this, introverted people are prone to 'losing track of time', as they may perceive that, on a general basis, large amounts of time pass between events in 'reality' which most people would consider to be temporally significant but which they themselves would not find any significance, relative to their own perception of the passage of time. Therefore, introverted people are more likely to spend ages thinking about 'something else' and to not realize when a large amount of time has actually passed in terms of a system of temporal measurement they have no interest in maintaining. If a large amount of time spent thinking is equal to a short amount of time in 'outside reality', then it becomes difficult to distinguish at which point a large amount of time has transpired in 'reality' without counting, equating and making differences with the apparent time-frame of outside reality. However, no experiments confirm or discount this hypothesis so far.

what the ...? where does that hypothesis come from then? it's basically a lot of blah, closing with "it's possibly not true anyway". Can we all now append our random stream of thoughts to articles? Please remove this, unless the source of that theory can be named. -- Paniq 03:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reorganized sections

I've done some reorganising and rewritten the intro a bit. I hope it looks better now, although I realise it is far from finished. Basically I see the importance of this article as providing an overview of all aspects of time, or ways of viewing time, and then leading people to appropriate other articles for more detail. There's no point duplicating here loads of stuff that is in measurement of time or intellectual history of time. On the other hand, we don't want simply a list of links. --FrankP 16:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've incorporated the following two suggestions of yours Jim:

Units

The article says

The standard unit for time is the SI second, from which larger units are defined like the minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, and century.

I believe it is impossible to define month, year, decade, century, or millenium in terms of seconds, no? Week is also not one of the "official" derived non-SI units. I think even day is questionable, though it does remain an official non-SI derived unit.--JimWae 21:56, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Yes, all the units from day upwards can have varying numbers of seconds. I guess the standard day of 86,400 seconds is OK, although you do get complications like sidereal days entering in. The official calendar is now worked out so that every year is an integer number of seconds, so the second is still the basic unit (just not the same number of seconds from year to year). Above the day level, we are out of the realm of physics definition and into the calendar. --FrankP 15:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Engineering, physics, etc

It seems to me that everything in the Engineering section - except the links - belongs in the theoretical section--JimWae 21:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

When I got to the physics section, I moved some to philosophy and other places, and discovered that there's not much physics left. Furthermore, I don't consider this very accurate either, so I've taken it out completely and left the link to physics of time:

"In physics, time is defined as the distance between events along the fourth axis of the spacetime manifold. Special relativity showed that time cannot be understood except as part of spacetime, a combination of space and time. The distance between events now depends on the relative speed of the observers of the events. General relativity further changed the notion of time by introducing the idea of curved spacetime. An important unit of time in theoretical physics is the Planck time – see Planck units for more details."

---

Looks good Frank. I've made a few more changes today too. --JimWae 01:48, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

---

Simple sequencing (before, after) is a simple kind of quantification. I wonder if we've covered that clearly. I have edited quantity slightly too --JimWae 05:29, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

---

Project Time

I think that all the info in Intellectual history of time is extremely relevant to a discussion of Time in general and should be merged into this article. Whatdo you say? 212.25.69.29 18:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has been suggested also by fishal, who marked this page as needing attention. I quote from msg to me:

That IP address was me. Forgot to sign on. Oops! Fishal

I listed Time as needing attention because right now the page is really confused. It doesn't really help the reader answer the question, "So what is time anyway?" I think a good first step would be to merge Intellectual history of time into it; that would really convey relevant info. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Fishal 16:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To this end, I have started a project, Project Time to help not just with this page but to look into time-related issues across wikipedia and get some sort of consistency. Perhaps the question of merging Intellectual History can be decided in a larger context having looked at what other articles and issues are involved. All help appreciated. FrankP 17:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Talk to me

Causality

"The common way of defining the idea of 'before' and 'after' is based on the assumption of causality. One can typically say that a particular event "occurs" after another event, and one can apply the extra-contextual relative metric of "time" to gauge the interval between the two. The term "time", however, describes both the measurable interval between two (perceived or conceived) events, and implies the truth of a continuous measurable system as the purposeful metric for conceptualizing relationships between the forementioned two events and all other events within the same universe."

I take exception to the following from the article:

The common way of defining the idea of 'before' and 'after' is based on the assumption of causality.

It is not obvious that this is common, nor does it seem to add anything to the discussion. It gives some kind of ontological/ psychological/ epistemological primacy to causality over time, whereas it seems to me the opposite is more apparent. We can experience before & after WITHOUT ascribing causality, and furthermore understanding how to use the term causality presupposes an understanding of before & after. --JimWae 09:58, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

I completely agree with JimWae, I've moved the whole para here. If anyone thinks this says something useful and is not patent nonsense, I suggest you edit it here and see if there is agreement. Otherwise, why not drop the whole thing? --FrankP 17:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

J.W.Dunne

The stuff with J. W. Dunne is one of the larger pieces of nonsense I have ever seen. Seeing the future with dreams is not a widely held idea and should either be deleted or a very large warning be placed in that paragraph.

"The engineer J. W. Dunne developed a theory of time whereby he considered our perception of time like notes being played on piano. Having had a number of prescient dreams, he monitored his dreams and found that they generally included as many past as future events. From this he concluded that in dreams we escape linear time. He published his ideas in An Experiment with Time in 1927 and followed this with other books."

--ShaunMacPherson 17:09, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Backwards Time

I (Hadal) have moved the following paragraph and commentary (by User:Wikisux) from the article:

Paragraph:

Amazon resident Dr. Neil Grant came up with the philosophical idea of Backwards Time. Since the first appearance of this theory in August 1998, it has been endorsed by many prominent scientists, including a personal letter of recognition from Stephen Hawking. See Philosophy of time.

Wikisux's commentary:

Despite having gone untouched for over two weeks, this paragraph, along with the related article Reverse Time Ideology, appears to be pure crap--further evidence that Wikipedia should never be trusted as a reliable source. Can someone verify?

I must agree that the whole thing looks dodgy (but don't appreciate the commentary's unnecessary abrasiveness). While the paragraph was added to this article by User:Jarjar, comparing his contributions with those of the related article "Reverse Time Ideology"'s author, shows they're probably working together (e.g., Jarjar edited Soilguy5's userpage). I can't find any corroborating evidence to support these supposed philosophical theories. -- Hadal 03:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Fixed point in time

Try this one on for size. A fixed point in time is merely a point within the frame of wholeness, oneness or completeness within which everything that can happen has happened and is going to happen all at the same time. Once youve got your head around this one then you are getting somewhere. Time can not have a starting point because something prior to that point must have occured to cause a start, therefore the argument that time must have had a beginning is in itself ludicrous and self destructive.If time did not have a beginning then it naturally follows that all possibilities have already unfolded or occured and we as life forces are simply re-living them.We do appear have infinite choices about were we can go in the frame provided they are "possible". If time had no beginning then it follows quite logically that it can not have an end either and so if any kind of symbolic representation of time were to exist then in its simplest form it must surely be a multidimensional circle. We are somewhere in the circle but bear in mind its one helluva big circle!Eastern phillosophy would seem to suggest that we can evolve to the extent that we can step outside the circle and "see" the whole thing at once.They call this state of being enlightenment. Not a bad place to be I might add!

This page doesn't seem to me like it needs attention I just skimmed it quickly, but it seems fine to me please point out anything I might have missed

Time as time or time as clock

Time as defined in this article is a value that span all elements: second, minute, hour, day, month, year etc. As I know "Date" it spans the elements day, month and year. If we want to unmistakable express the second, minute, hour -part of the time, what word should be used?

"Time" is often used for this but I feel that it breaks the generic definition of time. "Clock" could be another but will this be correct as many see the clock as the instrument measuring time, or for others just displays a value of the time on the wall where the time measuring device itself is located somewhere else?

The device called clock is often referred to as the instrument displaying the time, but is also defined as a device measuring time. In modern system design, we often seperate the measurement from the presentation of its value. In such systems, where will be clock be, and what do we call the other?

---

Japanese watch

The picture of the Japanese watch is a poignant reminder of one significant moment (time) in history. However the caption to the watch is, IMO, too cryptic. I think it should have a brief explanation of WHY the picture is there - I just can't think how to desdcribe that succinctly. -- SGBailey 12:56, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

why time only progresses never reverses

1. the universe contains one set and one set only of all that exists... matter, energy, other. the conservation rule: nothing can be created nor destroyed only transformed. 2. the contents at the quantum physical level appear to be random and cause/effect emerges from this randomness in a statistical fashion of large numbers of elements... 3. each individual element can be considered completely time reversable... meaning whatever it can change to can change back. 4. what causes the perception of irreversible time is not the individual elements but their group behavior.

  The likelihood of any particular element reversing its present course exactly is just one out of all possible courses... hardly zero.
  The likelihood of any two elements reversing is still no where near zero... but the odds are getting higher...
  The likelihood of the entire universe reversing is not zero, but so improbable as to be considered zero for practically any event... and considering that each of these events happens at the quantum scale in plank time....the odds of enough of these events occurring in a large enough scale for any human to even notice is astronomically remote... 

Thus novel patterns of all the elements has a [close enough to] 100% probability to guarentee that all events will appear as different from any prior event... thus by comparison to memories of all prior patterns, time will be seen as only progressing. by Jiohdi@gmail.com

• because, though a noun, the word time does not refer to an entity. Time is an intellectual construct, not a substance that can flow in any direction at all. See Ontology.--JimWae 21:49, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

I dispute the conservation law (created by Thales of Miletus) in relation to time. Conservation laws, which relate to energy and matter, are "intellectual constructs", as you say, not time. Time is novel information; noise, and as such is ontologically inextricable. (information may be used to describe energy distributions.) Every nonlinear dynamical system produces information (ergo has time), and is therefore irreversible. Also, every nonlinear dynamical system is, by definition (of nonlinear) not conservative. RE:not a substance. By stretch of imagination one might think of information as a substance, such as "bits" or "variety". However, time is not information, time is the production of information, which is divergence, not flow. Kevin Baas^talk 01:43, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Is time even real?

• Is time real (or a physical entity) or is it just a human construct?

Time is one of the topics i never understood much. Many people consider time to be another dimension. The question is whether time is only description of events according to the deception of our senses (sight is the most effective one) or is it really implemented in our physical universe?

Now this brings me to the question of FTL and time travel. No matter (or subatomic particle) was yet observed in quantum mechanics (or particle physics), which can trasmit information faster than the speed of light. A wavefront for example can move faster than light in the eyes of a moving observer but there is no transmission of information. Therefore it's an optical illusion. (See also special relativity, causality and tachyon).

However even if it is possible to trasmit information faster than light why do people think it will cause a regression of time? According to Lorentz factor the result will be undefined. -- Orionix 23:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Time & space are both real, but neither are physical entites nor are they deceptions. A bank is real - but the bricks of the bank are the physical entities. Banks are social constructs. Time & space are either socio-linguistic constructs or just part of how our brains work -- without which we likely could not say much of anything, much less true things--JimWae 18:03, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

• I know see that time and space are abstract mathematical entities, not physical ones. See also abstract algebra.

In general relativity, space and time are combined to form a 4-dimensional structure. Spacetime is the alternate name that physicists have given the gravitational field of the universe. There is no mathematical difference between the thing that we call 'spacetime' and the other thing that we call the gravitational field. Spacetime is the manifold and the curvature is the metric tensor. Because gravitational fields that act like the ones we know about cannot exist in more than four dimensions, this also means that spacetimes that lead to our kind of world cannot exist in other than four dimensions. -- Orionix 10:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seeing how time ISN'T a physical entity, then what's all the nonsense in event horizon and black hole that say spacetime expands? If it's not a physical entity, gravity has no effect on it!

• "Time is a straight plantation." - James Morrison. The new distinguishes itself from the old by negating that which is. In other words, time is novelty. Time is white noise; the production of new information; the happening of that which could not be predicted. (like the weather) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:50, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• you can also say that time is real and measurable... the increase in entropy in the universe is one key characteristic of time (and also one key argument against the feasability of time travel) Feco 18:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

graffiti

it says "I love David Friedman." after the third paragraph.

Removed current time

I removed the current time section as it was not functioning and irrelevant

• People have said this before, but it has ALWAYS worked fine for me, except
  • it does not auto-update
  • it is UTC, not local
• Perhaps if it said "Current UTC is xxxx - UTC is certainly an important part of the article--JimWae 02:47, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Operational definitions of time and time perception

Operational definition of time #1: Time is what a clock measures.

Operational definition of time #2: Time is measurement of monotonic foliation of energy-matter in space.**

Note 1: Time perception is like color perception, which is neurons reacting to light. Clocks substitute for direct perception of time like color photographs substitute for direct perception of object colors.

Operational definition of time perception: Time perception is measurement of complex reactions in neurons to various changes of energy-matter in space.**

Note 2: Past, present and future are constructs of cultures and societies provided to enhance individual perceptions of time for the purpose of survival.

**Note 3: Strictly speaking, these are not operational definitions. However, if you were clever enough, you could find ways to take measurements of monotonic foliation or complex neuron reactions.

--john 19:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Time

At 20:06 on 25th of may I submitted the following definition of time:

"Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."

31 minutes later Rasmus Faber-Aspensen deleted this definition without giving reasons for its inadequacy or suggesting a better alternative definition based on his knowledge of physics. Is this in the spirit of Wiki?

I am sorry if I was a bit abrupt in deletion your definition. While I do not feel it was against the 'spirit of Wiki' - which is after all to be bold in ones edits, it was probably against some other guidelines.

Nevertheless, I still don't believe that the definition belongs in the article. And certainly not in the top of the article, and without attributions. Time is difficult to define, and many people have disagreed on the proper definition. I do not believe that it would proper for us to start the article by claiming that this is the definition of time. The article already begins with an introduction, which, while doing a bit of hand-waving, adequately gives a non-exclusive explanation of the concept of time.

Rasmus (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(In response) The article begins with an extremely misleading statement:

"Time quantifies or measures the interval between events, or the duration of events."

In fact Time doesn't quantify or measure anything; Time just 'IS'. It is People who try to measure and quantify time using mechanical or atomic clocks. So before launching into the existential aspects of the matter it is appropriate to establish a clear definition of 'WHAT' time 'IS'. This is what I attempted to do, based on forty years professional experience as a geologist, when I had many opportunities to contemplate the vast extent of time (4.6 billion years) since the earth was formed.

I can see what you mean. You feel that the leading sentence defines "time" as the measurement, rather than the thing that is being measured. As if the article on "space" began with the definition of "distance". Unfortunately, as far as I know, in English, "time" is the word used for both the dimension and the measurement (please correct me if I am wrong - I am not a native English speaker). The second sentence describes "time" as the dimension, but in think you are correct when pointing out that the current introduction gives prefererence to the "measurement" definition.

However, I do not believe that the solution is to replace the current introduction with your definition. There is no universally accepted definition of time (as the dimension) at the moment. While some might accept your definition, many others would have problem with your definition being dependent on the existence of particles and space. Would there be no time, if there were no particles that change positions in space? And how do we decide whether a particle has changed its position?

This probably does not resolve your objections, but I hope it explains my objections to your definition.

Rasmus (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

PS. Please consider getting an username. It is much easier to follow a conversation, when it is not with an IP-address, and you can still be as anonymous as you want (in fact you are much more anonymous with an username than without, since your IP-address no longer will be public).

Fine. I'll use name "geologician". User:geologician

I did not set out to establish a universally acceptable definition for Time, merely a prototype that other Wikipedians would hopefully consider, and if desirable, refine into a rigorous, scientifically acceptable paradigm. This possibility was precluded by Rasmus's deletion of my definition before other Wikipedians had an opportunity to consider it. To judge from the lack of other participants in this discussion it appears that other readers do not feel as strongly opposed to it as does Rasmus.

In English grammar, (which is extremely precise in its application) Time is the subject of that first sentence. 'Quantifies' and 'measures' are both transitive verbs so the sentence implies that it is Time that is 'doing' the measuring, not that it is the object being measured. I don't know whether the Danish language makes a similar distinction between the subject and object of a grammatical sentence, but that is what an English reader would understand.

I propose to leave this matter unsettled for a week or so to see if others have strongly held views on the matter. If not, I propose to reinstate my definition as before, and to delete the first paragraph, inserting instead:

"In everyday experience one's awareness of time depends upon a perception of motion. That perception can be visual (movement of a shadow), auditory (music), or tactile (a pulse).

It is assumed, but cannot yet be proven, that the passage of time is now, and has always been uniform.

Accepting that proviso, people have sought reliable ways to measure the passage of time by devising various forms of mechanical and atomic clocks. Such clocks measure the interval between events, such as sun's daily passage though the noon azimuth, or the duration of events, such as the swing period of a pendulum or the vibration period of an atomic standard."

Great! Please press the login-button and register the name. Once you have done that, you can sign your messages by typing ~~~~.

Please don't reinstate your definition without reading the Manual of Style and this first. Also, if the definition is your own, I am afraid this applies. But I will post this on Request for comments, so hopefully we can get a third opinion. Rasmus (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• It is kind of awkward. Definitions ideally help a person understand a word, not make it more difficult to understand - & I think that definition is mired in its own words - which would not be insurmountable if it led to a greater understanding, but it does not do that either because -- it is also incomplete. It defines time (awkwardly) in terms of motion & omits any mention of duration. --JimWae 20:19, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• The new definition given is terrible. Everyone knows what time is, so there's no need to complicate things. I've had experience fretting over the intro to Mathematics, and people seem to think that writing the absolute most formal definition possible is benificial. Wikipedia is not here to be absolutely, formally true, but a legible encyclopedia. —Sean κ. + 21:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to agree the new definition is far too awkward to be the opening sentence of this article. It is best worked into the main article somehow, perhaps, if this is a scientific definition, within a scientific section? Hiding 21:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• The "time is a degree of freedom" definition seems way too focused on high-level math/particle physics... there's a place for that defintion, but not as the definition in the first line. Feco 18:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space is wrong, so that should not be used. Since quantum physics allows for a particle to essentially occupy two positions at once... 132.205.45.148 15:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • would that be just 2 positions or 2 or more? Would there be a way to tell the difference between it actually being in 2 or more positions from our inability to measure its position to a certain degree of accuracy - such as a Planck length? --JimWae 23:19, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • This is covered in more detail at uncertainty principle, among other places. Capsule summary is that a particle has a probability distribution smeared over all of space. It usually has a maximum in one location, but under some conditions (e.g. double-slit experiment) it can have a maximum in two or more locations, usually described as "being in several places at once". When particles interact (exchange energy and momentum) they act as if this interaction occurred at some specific point, with the probability of that point being at any given location being a function of the wavefunctions of the particles. The degree to which you can localize a particle's position depends on how much you're willing to sacrifice about knowing its momentum, and vice versa. This is covered at uncertainty principle. Measuring one perturbs the other in such a way as to prevent you from learning its value beyond a given precision. As for the planck length and planck time, these represent the smallest units of distance and time that it is possible (or meaningful) to measure by any means. See derivations at those articles. With respect to defining time, I'd suggest rephrasing that entire definition, and also explicitly dealing with classical mechanics (vs. quantum mechanics) when making the definition. Much easier to produce easily-understood definitions under those conditions. --Christopher Thomas 23:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment about recent changes to this article

Time is one sort of interval between things or events, distance being the other.

Comments?? Banno 21:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Let us talk about this at Talk:Distance, as that article is also involved. Oleg Alexandrov 22:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

it's worse than what was there before - it ignores duration. how is time an interval between "things". I think it would be better to just revert to yesterday's version --JimWae 23:14, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

I agree. Oleg Alexandrov 23:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly helpful comments, folks. Just take out "things" if you wish - it was a rhetorical twist. But which is "yesterday's version"? And why is duration problematic? Banno 23:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

time as concept

In reference to the version:

The concept of time functions to sequence events, and to quantify or measure the interval (or separation) between events or their duration.

• that time is no more than a concept is one view among many, and appears to me to be precisely the point of contention.
• One accepted opinion is that time does not function to sequence events, but is that within which events occur
• Time does not quantify or measure anything, although it can be quantified.

This version doesn't work.

What is needed is a paragraph that encompasses both psychological and the ontological ideas about time.

We can measure the length of a room, but does it make any sense at all to talk about measuring length itself? Is it not the same situation with time? Whenever I try to express time as some "thing" that could be measured, I find I cannot elaborate in any meaningful way on what this "thing" is. The closest I can come to talking about "measuring time" is to raise questions about the regularity of time - but this becomes the same as the question about whether everyone who measures the time between events would get the same results - and we know that this is not the case if there are different inertial frames of reference --JimWae 06:37, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

The idea that every noun refers to an entity is Platonic. It seems to me that this idea is covered in the article in several places - but evey time it gets elaborated on, it just sounds like more words are piled on without any improvement in explanation.--JimWae 06:44, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

That lead does not say that time is "no more than a concept". I have tried to straddle both views by giving a functional definition. Ultimately though, all we can talk about is our concepts. In some cases it is agreed that our concepts have referents, but with "time" not only is there no such agreement, but it seems impossible to say anything sensible about what the supposed referent might be --JimWae 06:48, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Coming from a philosophical background, I perhaps understand your perspective. But we are, unfortunately, here not to have a philosophical debate, but to report one. Am I correct in thinking that there are three approaches: Time is a concept, without mind-independent existence, as perhaps in Kant; time is a dimension, with its own ontological status alongside space and mass, as in Einstein; and the functionalist definition. The introductory paragraph might best simply state these three. What do you think? Banno 07:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's very clear that we can sequence events, measure the duration of events, and compare the times between events. In an effort to help the reader understand a topic, it makes sense to talk about the more easily understandable things first. It is not at all clear that we can measure time itself. Nevertheless I have tried to incorporate both views.

The intro that goes ---

Time is fundamental to the way in which we experience the world. It can be seen as one way in which the elements of our world are separated - the other being distance. It has been thought of as fundamental to the structure of the universe, and as no more than a mental construction. Time can be quantified or measured by observing the interval between events or their duration.

seems to make little advance in pinning down the meaning at all.

"Time is fundamental to the way in which we experience the world" - certainly somewhat poetic & may even be true, but delays definition

True - a bit of froth Banno

"It can be seen as" - only one view follows this

"one way in which the elements of our world are separated - the other being distance"? - How about "one way in which the elements of our world are sequenced, the other being number"?

Here, perhaps, is the nub. As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events. Both views need to be expressed. Banno

"and as no more than a mental construction" - deprecating (unless strengthened later)

"Time can be quantified" - takes the strictly Platonic ontology again

"Time can be quantified or measured BY observing the interval between events" - gives no merit to the view that time IS the measuring system

I hope we can settle on something soon. --JimWae 08:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

So do I. But: I cannot make sense of the idea that "Time is a system of measurement". Metric and Imperial are systems of measurement; time is a thing to be measured. (This is my realist POV; it needs to be expressed in the paragraph, but it perhaps should be accompanied by alternatives) So, two questions: If time is a system of measurement, what is it that it measures? and, can you provide a reference to some reasonable source that supports your contention that time is a system of measurement?

Nor does "time is used to talk about a dimension" actually help. It is not a way to talk about a dimension - it is a dimension. Stating that it is one way in which the elements of our world are separated is I think much clearer; and on a par with definitions from els were. It also does not take sides on realism/idealism. which I begin to suspect underpins our differences.

I will insert: "As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". Banno 19:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would be thankful, Jim, if you avoided reverting and left me with a bit more info on what you see as the problem. You said:

• article should on time - not our experience.

Isn't it?

• 2nd sentence is incomplete def.

So? do you propose to offer a complete, neutral definition in one sentence? Perhaps you should go and re-read J. L. Austin.

• does not mention time.

Yes it does - duration is certainly a temporal term. The phrase "Interval between events" is also temporal. Besides which, it is for the most part your sentence, I think.

• Your def should not take precedence, esp it clears up nothing.

Perhaps not. So come to the talk page and tell me what it is that needs clearing up.

• Stop downplaying ordinary meaning

In what way did I do this? What is the "ordinary meaning"?

Also, you might answer my previous questions. Together I'm sure we can find an agreeable introduction for something so simple. Banno 02:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Again, Jim, you have not come to the talk page. So, I'll move your comment to here:

• The term "space" is used for the quantification & measurement of objects (note: no sequence). To lump events & objects together as "elements" makes definition of either unnecessarily vague &, frankly, pointless

No more so than your claim that space "has three aspects or dimensions" (my emphasis). But your present version has some merit. Unfortunately, it is about the word "time" rather than about time. Hence my insertion of quotes.

And again, "time" is not a quantity, nor is it a quantification. Also reference to duration and intervals is circular, since these are themselves temporal. The sentence "As space has three aspects or dimensions, time is frequently spoken of as being the fourth dimension" is curios as well, since there is no obvious reason for the "as", unless you mean to imply that time is a dimension because space has three dimensions - But I'm sure you do not mean to imply something so strange.

I repeat, the view that time is the way we sequence events and nothing more is POV. It implies that time is an aspect of our understanding, without distinct existence apart from the mind - an idealist perspective. Realism and Physics tell us that time is much more than that - it is a fundamental component of the universe, along with space and mass/energy. Both views should be present inthe introduction. The views of Kant and Leibniz present only part of the story, but your intro does not present the other side. Banno 07:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Where did it ever say "and nothing more"? You came to this page with a pet theory that you could define both space & time not only with the same terms but with exactly the same sentence. You did not get away with it at "distance" nor will you here. Find ONE dictionary that defines space & time exactly the same way.

Not quite what you asked for, but see http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SOU_STE/SPACE_AND_TIME.html Banno 07:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

You do not want to help define time, you want to push your POV. I have wasted too much time with you already--JimWae 07:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I came here after reading a request in Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and without any pet theory to push. It appears that you still carry the idea. You are breaching Wiki etiquette by not assuming good will on my part. I did try out a sentence in both time and distance, just for fun, and dropped it after Oleg pointed out a few problems. Banno 08:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sequence is probably fundamental to our notion of time. (And even if time were somehow "out there", it is only our notion of it that we could ever speak of.) There's before & after (not so with spatial distances). Then we compare EVENTS (apparently a dirty word for you) - some last longer than others (longer than 2 Sesame Streets) - thus we quantify events with a unit (which later becomes more standard). We call this system of quantification AND sequencing "time" - We cannot measure "time", but it is indubitable that we do time (or measure) events - this is the part that belongs in an encyclopedia (and that makes sense). Your pet theory is speculative philosphy & does not merit predominance in the lead section--JimWae 08:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

But, my friend, we do measure time. that's what clock and watches do. Time is an aspect of reality, as well as an a framework for conceiving the world. It is you, not I, who are pushing a POV. Banno 08:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just two points:

1. The concept 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. This is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. It seems desirable to describe the fundamental physical characteristics of any parameter before launching into its existential aspects, such as separation, duration and interval.

2. If Wiki is to have any value as a reference work it must respect the basic rules of English grammar in its definitions. Thus Banno's definition: ("As a dimension, time and distance separate the elements of the world. As an experience, time sequences those events". ) fails that test, as separate is a transitive verb and 'time and distance' are subjects of his first sentence. Obviously time and distance cannot separate anything, they just ARE. It is the observer who separates time and distance parameters by making his observation. Geologician 08:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geo, My first sentence is cognate with "time and distance are dimensions which separate the elements of the world". What exactly is supposed to be the problem with its grammatic structure? You didn't actually say. Banno 18:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

And so I disappear in a puff of Grammar? Banno 08:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. For all I know, Banno could be one of those artificial intelligence programs that is still being taught to think like a human being.

Geologician

(Damn, he's on to me....)Banno

To draw attention again to two statements from my interlocutors. Jim: "Time cannot be measured". Geo: "Time and distance cannot separate anything". Gotta keep smiling.... Banno 21:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Trolling? --JimWae 21:22, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I do indeed troll on occasions. But not in this case. I'm drawing attention to the way in which you are using "time". It is rather different to the way it is usually used. Time and distance do separate things, and time is measured. Banno 21:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, physicists consider that things exist in relativistic Spacetime. It requires at least four things to define the existence of three spatial dimensions and at least one of them must move to be certain that a time dimension exists. Time cannot be measured in an absolute reference frame as atomic clocks at Boulder and Greenwich diverge by microseconds because of differing gravity due to their respective elevations. For these reasons it is all the more important for Wiki to provide a clear and rigorous definition of what time IS, that omits human impressions of simultaneity, interval and duration. Geologician 23:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what? Time and distance do keep things apart. Your statement "Time and distance cannot separate anything" is simply incorrect. I don't see the point of your digression into relativistics, nor do I see any point of disagreement between relativistics and my position. On the contrary, Jim's suggested intro relies on the "human impressions of simultaneity, interval and duration" that you abhorrer, which should place you in agreement with me. If "Time... refer(s) to the sequence of events"(Jim), what are we to make of those relativistic situations in which the sequence is changed? Banno 18:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar & such

Assuming that you were using 'separate' as a transitive verb and not as an adjective, (although your sentence is ambiguous as it stands) you are still misusing language as I have tried to point out in previous comments, to which you seem impervious. The point is that time is an abstract concept. It does not participate actively in anything. It participates passively when people attempt to measure the time that elapses between events, the duration of events, or the simultaneity of events. All those activities are ultimately futile if extreme precision is required, as there is no absolute reference frame for the calibration of each person's measurement. This may all seem a bit pedantic to the non-scientist.

However people look up encyclopedias to gain a better understanding of difficult ideas. Wiki is not providing a useful service if it does not attempt to give some insight into difficult concepts like the real nature of time. The current (3/6) Wiki intro states "Time" is the word we use to refer to the sequence of events, and to quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them." A person wanting to understand the real nature of time will already be yawning, as this is common knowledge to every child from the age of about three.

My definition was intended to give the curious reader pause for thought and perhaps to prompt him or her to read some of the linked articles that address various subjective difficulties with aspects of time. There is a place for subjective impressions of time but it is not in the introduction to a major Wiki topic that is likely to be referred to by people who want to read objective information.

Geologician 21:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you mean it is ungrammatical in the same way that "Time separates a man from his youth" is? Is that all? I doubt that any of the readers here will care about such a pedantic point. Compare it to the way Jim is attempting to use "time" as both a verb and an adjective in the same sentence in his present version.

Nor can I see how the sentence is ambiguous.

Much of what you have written reads as a philosophical argument rather than a grammatical one. Banno 08:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

You are right that no particular sequence of events is to be preferred to another. But this seems to me to be a reason for rejecting Jim's first line: '"Time" is the word we use to talk about the sequence of events'. This is an unsatisfactory definition precisely for that reason - the sequence of events is not a defining characteristic of time.

The questing is, what is the true nature of time? I must have missed your definition - I;d like to see it, just plonk it into the article. Banno 09:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Time revisited

In Index 13 above I commented anonymously on the deletion by Rasmus of my definition in the Time article as follows: "At 20:06 on 25th of May I submitted the following definition of time: "Time is that degree of freedom which allows a particle in space to occupy more than one position in space."

Later I explained Degree of Freedom as follows: 'Degree of Freedom' is fundamental to the clear definition of both time and distance. It is defined as 'one of the minimum number of parameters needed to describe the state of a physical system'. A 'Particle' for present purposes is understood to be the smallest entity that has the characteristic of mass.

The following allegory explains Time in more detail: 'Suppose you have discovered a parallel, completely empty, universe and have the power to make a few changes in it. You decide to begin by inserting a single particle. No matter which way you look at it, it always appears the same, a single, apparently stationary, particle in an empty universe. You decide to provide it with an identical, companion particle. Immediate dilemma—where does it go? You place it arbitrarily anywhere else in the universe and watch what happens. The two particles move towards one another through some unexplained mutual attraction. You have just observed motion in a straight line, so you deduce that one-dimensional time exists in your parallel universe. The straight line can be extended infinitely to form a one dimensional spatial axis through your universe. You add a third particle at a point not immediately between the first two particles. The first two are attracted by the third and move away from their straight line converging path. You deduce that Time has two dimensions, and notice that the three particles define a two dimensional plane in space that could be extended infinitely to divide your universe into two parts. You add a fourth particle somewhere away from that dividing plane. The first three particles converge with the fourth particle, moving away from the dividing plane. You deduce that Time now has three dimensions, and notice that four planes in space could be formed by extending infinitely each of the four triangles whose corners are defined by the four particles. As these triangles enclose a volume you deduce that your parallel universe, like ours, is capable of sustaining three dimensions of space. You reflect that you have not yet established whether all of the three dimensions of Space or all of the three dimensions of Time have identical characteristics. You decide that to simplify matters you will assume that measurements made in space with the same ruler will not vary with direction, even though the ruler itself might be affected by those possible directional differences. To simplify matters still further, you assume that time has just one dimension, and any measurement of it can neglect directionality.' You have already become biased by what we do in our own universe. Is this valid? Geologician 11:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to your previous posts - I hadn't noticed the sig.

Your argument is striking. But the Wiki has guidelines against publishing original research. Can you site a verifiable source for this idea?

Also, to fill out Rasmus' objection a bit, one might present an allegory similar to yours, but without the requirement for a particle or particles, simply by constructing an empty 4-space. One can at least conceive of an empty universe, each point of which is none the less defined by three spacial and one temporal co-ordinate. Time in such a universe exists without invoking particles. A definition of time should therefore also not need to invoke particles. (putting the same point more technically, there is no requirement on a Minkowski space that it actually contain a particle. The degree of freedom of any particle must therefore be irrelevant to the definition of time in such a manifold. Dimensionality is, i think, what counts, rather than degree of freedom.)

Having said that, the idea of using degree of freedom in place of dimensionality is interesting; If you can point to a verifiable definition of time using degrees of freedom, I would be interested.

But as it stands, I don't think your definition usable. Banno 12:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can have motion without something to move, therefore time depends on the existence of matter.

I am unconvinced by the Minkowski space argument because:

1. It assumes that all spatial vectors occur in a space that is uniformly permeable in all directions. Homogeneous space is a theory, not a fact.

2. It assumes that time has directionality, probably because the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows are pointing in the same direction.

However, if the red shift itself is an illusion caused by a change in the rate of passage of time over the course of astronomical time then we can safely revert to the Newtonian lack of directionality. — Remember: Time just IS.

Your concept of dimensionality depends on homogeneous space and unidimensional time. These are commonly held beliefs but have not been proven.

Geologician

Well, the fact of disagreement means that your theory cannot be used in the Wiki unverified or without citation.

I would say that you have the logic of space-time reversed; Time is a necessary presuposition of motion, but I don't think that it follows that motion is a necessary condition for time. In an empty Minkowski space, time, but niether matter nor motion, exist. It follows that time does not presuppose matter or motion.

To your (1) I think we could easily imagine a system with three spacial and one temporal dimension, but which was not homogeneous. Say the system started at a single point at t(zero), but expanded outwards from that point infinitely over time thereafter. Such a space would not be homogeneous, and would involve motion, but would still not contain any particles.

Similarly, for (2) we could imagine a space in which the fourth dimension did not have directionality. But in this case I wonder what reason we could provide to call the fourth dimension "time" I suspect that directionality is essential to time; rather than an assumption, it is something to be explained. A theory of time that did not explain its directionality would be inadequate.

So I disagree; dimensionality does not depend on homogeneous space; unidimensional time is not an assumption but something needing to be explained by any adequate theory.Banno 21:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now we come to the really interesting part of my argument. Suppose that time is actually an inherent quality of matter, and inseparable from it. So in my allegory the parallel universe really WAS empty. It contained space but no time. When you introduced the first particle, it instantly radiated its presence throughout the universe. Remember, previously there was no time, but when it arrived you knew it was there. How did you know? —because time itself instantly informed you of its presence. When you inserted te second particle, it too radiated its presence using time as the medium. Thus it was time that caused the two particles to be attracted to one another. Remind you of anything? Of course, Time and Gravity are the SAME THING. Geologician 05:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the point about citation (and precedent) much of what I have been saying follows from the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence.

For example, Leibniz' 5th letter, para 62: "I don't say that matter and space are the same thing. I only say, there is no space, where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality. Space and matter differ, as time and motion. However, these things, though different, are inseparable." Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-definition

In the absence of agreement on a simple definition, perhaps we could try listing the possibilities. My version contrasts the idealist and realist approaches - the source of my POV complaint. Someone with more wit might be able to contrast relative and absolute approaches. In any case, I hope that we can have some discussion here and avoid a revert war. Banno 13:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Idealism/realism

Kant's Transcendental Idealism is not the only one to advocate of the idea that that time is a framework, and not a part of the world. Perhaps it would be better not to name him here, so that the more general principles can be suggested, rather than let the article digress into yet another example of Kantian cant. After all, there is space to put the detail int the article. Banno 06:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)