about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[ThePhy]

I don't care about the rest of the thread. I've not read it either.

Does time exist ontologically or only within a thinking mind? That is, is time an actual thing or an idea?

Based on your answer above it would seem you think it to be the latter, an idea. You said, in so many words, that it is the duration of (or between) events and that it is a mathematical construct, both of which plant it firmly in the category of an abstraction rather than an actual thing. Would you agree with that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I have seldom found much need to approach the study of time as a philosophical exercise. I think most scientists are perfectly comfortable working with the ideas of time, whether relativistic or Newtonian, without agonizing over how to categorize it within philosophy.

As to the reality of time, I am firmly in the relativistic camp. I think of time in much the same way as I do any of the other spatial dimensions. Both time and space exist independent of any cognitive recognition of their existence, in the same way sound (pressure waves in air) exist in a forest when no one is there.

 

[Clete]

I have seldom found much need to approach the study of time as a philosophical exercise. I think most scientists are perfectly comfortable working with the ideas of time, whether relativistic or Newtonian, without agonizing over how to categorize it within philosophy.

And interestingly, they alter their philosophy by doing so.

As to the reality of time, I am firmly in the relativistic camp. I think of time in much the same way as I do any of the other spatial dimensions. Both time and space exist independent of any cognitive recognition of their existence, in the same way sound (pressure waves in air) exist in a forest when no one is there.

The reason I ask the question is because you are having a philosophical discussion while attempting to avoid philosophical issues such as the ontology of time. In effect, you are arguing over issues that you've, by your own admission, spent no effort attempting to define. Impasse is the inevitable result.

I submit that if you spent the 'time' to define just what time is instead of blindly accepting what the physicists all assume, you'll find that there's very many more problems with your philosophy than you would otherwise expect.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ThePhy]

And interestingly, they alter their philosophy by doing so.


The reason I ask the question is because you are having a philosophical discussion while attempting to avoid philosophical issues such as the ontology of time. In effect, you are arguing over issues that you've, by your own admission, spent no effort attempting to define. Impasse is the inevitable result.

I submit that if you spent the 'time' to define just what time is instead of blindly accepting what the physicists all assume, you'll find that there's very many more problems with your philosophy than you would otherwise expect.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The wonderful thing about science is that it pays no heed to philosophical arguments, no matter how adamantly some people say they are crucial. As touched on in this thread, there are numerous scientific applications that depend for their correct functioning on time being relativistically adjusted. I’m having a problem knowing how a deep philosophical conversation will make GPS systems, or particle accelerators, or gravitational lensing, etc, work. They work just fine without the philosophical agonizing.

 

[Clete]

The wonderful thing about science is that it pays no heed to philosophical arguments, no matter how adamantly some people say they are crucial.

Any attempt to "pay no heed to philosophical arguments" is itself a matter of philosophy.

You cannot escape your own worldview, whether you're a scientist or not.

As touched on in this thread, there are numerous scientific applications that depend for their correct functioning on time being relativistically adjusted.

I don't care about the rest of the thread and relativity is irrelevant to the question I've asked you.

I’m having a problem knowing how a deep philosophical conversation will make GPS systems, or particle accelerators, or gravitational lensing, etc, work. They work just fine without the philosophical agonizing.

You're wasting my time.
If you can't or won't answer the question just say so, okay?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ThePhy]

Any attempt to "pay no heed to philosophical arguments" is itself a matter of philosophy.

You cannot escape your own worldview, whether you're a scientist or not.


I don't care about the rest of the thread and relativity is irrelevant to the question I've asked you.


You're wasting my time.
If you can't or won't answer the question just say so, okay?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sure you can define philosophy in such a way that the moment I say almost anything about anything I can be accused of engaging in philosophy. That means absolutely squat to the vast majority of scientists. With equal veracity I can accuse you of engaging in areas of science you may not be qualified in the moment you post a message on TOL. Such posting involves myriads of types of electronics, message routers, power generating systems, atomic interactions, etc. etc.

You asked how I define time. I responded with my answer from my viewpoint within science, but apparently you want to examine time from a philosophical perspective. Then go find a philosopher and have at it.

Running like mad,
ThePhy

 

[Clete]

Sure you can define philosophy in such a way that the moment I say almost anything about anything I can be accused of engaging in philosophy.

Philosophy is what it is. I'm not defining it in any unusual way.

That means absolutely squat to the vast majority of scientists.

You're either blind or stupid if you don't think scientists are philosophical creatures. Most of them (well, most in positions of influence anyway) are not only philosophical, they're political to boot.

With equal veracity I can accuse you of engaging in areas of science you may not be qualified in the moment you post a message on TOL. Such posting involves myriads of types of electronics, message routers, power generating systems, atomic interactions, etc. etc.

I've not accused you are engaging in an area that you are not qualified to comment on. I've ask you a question. A question that is as much scientific as it is philosophical because the philosophical answer will have a profound effect on the direction any scientific endeavor proceeds on the subject.

You asked how I define time. I responded with my answer from my viewpoint within science, but apparently you want to examine time from a philosophical perspective. Then go find a philosopher and have at it.

Running like mad,
ThePhy

You have not answered the question at all.

Is time a thing or an idea? Your own answers seem to imply the latter but you seem also to want to cling to the former.

Which is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Stripe]

Phy is just happy to have you help bury me showing him up, Clete. :chuckle:

 

[Memento Mori]

Phy is just happy to have you help bury me showing him up, Clete. :chuckle:

Revolutionary!!

 

[Stripe]

What, MM?

 

[Memento Mori]

What, MM?

That's a hyperlink... I thought the comic could pick our spirits up.

 

[ThePhy]

Is time a thing or an idea? Your own answers seem to imply the latter but you seem also to want to cling to the former.

Which is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I already said I view time as real as position. I don’t see how just an idea can define whether or not something happens at a particular time.

Running like mad,
ThePhy

 

[Stripe]

That's a hyperlink... I thought the comic could pick our spirits up.

Yeah, I know it was a hyperlink. I just thought you might have something useful to say.... :idunno:

Why is your spirit in need of lifting?

 

[Memento Mori]

Yeah, I know it was a hyperlink. I just thought you might have something useful to say.... :idunno:

Why is your spirit in need of lifting?

I think the commic makes my point.

All our spirits could use some rejuvination especially when it comes to 37 pages of scientific dissonance.

 

[Stripe]

I think the commic makes my point.

Will it correct your spelling as well? :chuckle:

All our spirits could use some rejuvination especially when it comes to 37 pages of scientific dissonance.

Did you just read 37 pages of scientific dissonance?!?

I didn't know Phy was that prolific nor you that devoted.

 

[Memento Mori]

Will it correct your spelling as well? :chuckle:

Sorry. These school computers don't have spellcheck for online text boxes.

Did you just read 37 pages of scientific dissonance?!?

I didn't know Phy was that prolific nor you that devoted.

Well, I have been in this debate for a while. I have read most of these pages at one time or another...

I can't speak for the Phy...

 

[Stripe]

Sorry. These school computers don't have spellcheck for online text boxes.

Try reading what you write. :up:

Well, I have been in this debate for a while. I have read most of these pages at one time or another...

Oh. So you do nothing in between those times to lift your spirit?

I can't speak for the Phy...

Perhaps he wishes you would. He certainly isn't getting much right. :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

I already said I view time as real as position.

Equivocal. Time, depending on your answer, would be a position, or an aspect of it.

Why can't you just answer the question.

I don’t see how just an idea can define whether or not something happens at a particular time.

Well, for one thing, (presuming for the sake of argument that time is merely an idea), the concept of time conveys information concerning an event's duration and sequence relative to other events. It can perform its intended purpose just like a dozen other abstract ideas do. Its called language.

For example, TWO does not exist. Two is a number but it doesn't exist ontologically. It is an idea, mathematical concept that does not exist outside of an intelligent thinking mind.

So, I ask you once again, does time exist or is it merely an idea?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ThePhy]

Equivocal. Time, depending on your answer, would be a position, or an aspect of it.

Why can't you just answer the question.

I’m not trying to be obstinate.

In the world we often conceive of objects have a position that we specify by 3 spatial coordinates, say x, y, and z. But then we can rotate our coordinate system so that (unmoved) object has new x, y, and z coordinates. Even though the (x,y,z) values have changed, it is still a perfectly valid way of telling where the object is.

Part of Einstein’s contribution was the realization that time can be similarly treated. Specify where an event happens (x, y, z), and when. There are other ways in which that identical event will have different (x,y,z) coordinates, and it happened at a different time. But again, even though the time at which it happened has changed, that is only because of the coordinate system being used. It is still the same event.

I don’t mean to present an elementary primer on relativity, but to answer your statement about time being a position, in a 4-dimensional (space-time) coordinate system, it is a “position” in that system.

Well, for one thing, (presuming for the sake of argument that time is merely an idea), the concept of time conveys information concerning an event's duration and sequence relative to other events. It can perform its intended purpose just like a dozen other abstract ideas do. It’s called language.

For example, TWO does not exist. Two is a number but it doesn't exist ontologically. It is an idea, mathematical concept that does not exist outside of an intelligent thinking mind.

So, I ask you once again, does time exist or is it merely an idea?

Resting in Him,
Clete

The number system is a mental abstraction. If I combine a pile of 6 rocks with a pile of 9, I will have 15. If some aboriginal who has no counting system does the same, the resulting pile will still be the same.

But if a meteor has to be in a specific place at a specific time to impact the earth, the “time” is as crucial as is the mass or speed or composition of the meteor. The impact can be altered by varying anyone of these quantities.

Running like mad,
ThePhy

 

[Newman]

Relativity plays no significant role in the original thought experiment with the clocks and the mountain. Gravity may affect the clock, but as far as I know gravity does not affect time for an observer.

The only way relativity would be slightly involved in this altitude experiment is if you had two clocks, one at the top of a mountain, and one in the lowest valley of the earth. They will be going at different speeds because one clock has a larger circumference to travel in the same amount of time.

There's my two cents.

 

[ThePhy]

Relativity plays no significant role in the original thought experiment with the clocks and the mountain. Gravity may affect the clock, but as far as I know gravity does not affect time for an observer.

What is the difference between time as measured by a clock, and time as sensed by an observer?

The only way relativity would be slightly involved in this altitude experiment is if you had two clocks, one at the top of a mountain, and one in the lowest valley of the earth. They will be going at different speeds because one clock has a larger circumference to travel in the same amount of time.

OK, then what would happen if the earth were to stop rotating? Would the two clocks then keep identical time?