Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hillecke et al.,

One of the best answers to the question "What is time?" comes from Einstein, who said that time is what clocks measure. Correspondingly, one might hold that space is what meter sticks can measure. It is a virtue of such approaches, I believe, that we get a distinction between space and time on the one hand, and measurement of them on the other. Time may pass and space persist without being measured. While this idea, that "time is what clocks measure" may seem trivial, from long consideration of other approaches and variations, it seems to me that this is a very good place to start.

The idea that time is what clocks measure is by no means as simple as it may appear. One may ask, for instance: Which clocks? This brings up the fact that we regard some clocks as less accurate (they "gain time" or the opposite) and others as more accurate. How do we know this? Well, it seems clear that we compare one clock to another. But how do we know which clocks are more accurate? Basically, I suspect that we look into their physical mechanisms and check out possible sources of irregularity in their counting of time. We may find, for instance that the gears in the old "grandfather" clock have worn down, and this has effected the movement of the hands as they trace their course around the numbers on the face of the clock. That suggests that the mechanism of a good clock must be quite regular for the clock to be accurate. To build more regular and accurate clocks, then, one naturally looks for more regular and dependable physical mechanisms. In contemporary physics, highly accurate clocks are built to record or keep time in accordance with the regularity of some physical frequency, which is supposed to depend more directly on physical laws, e.g., "cesium clocks."  Might some irregularity be eventually found even in such clocks? Well, it may seem unlikely, but it can't be ruled out a priori. To find out, we are left comparing one clock to another and investigating their physical mechanisms. 

The idea, then, is that time is what clocks measure, and that measuring time requires recourse to some physical regularity to beat off units of time. Without recourse to "clocks" (of some sort or other), of course, we can't measure time, and this essentially involves comparison of rates of change. This has always suggested to me that time itself is essentially bound up with change; no change, no time. But it seems, on the other hand, that if all change were very irregular, then we couldn't build accurate clocks. 

To go a step further, we might think to compare the concepts of space and time, and doing so, it stands out that though we may think of both as "extending" or having measurable extension, the extension of time, in contrast to dimensions of space, seems to have an intrinsic direction to it. Time flows, or goes, as we say, from the past into the present and on into the future. While we can move back and forth in spatial dimensions, we can't seem to move back in physical time. We can only move forward--at a single pace.  Accounting for the directionality of time is one of the most fascinating problems. 

One might go on to consider time in relativity theory or in quantum mechanics. Perhaps the central point in this is the modern rejection of a single uniform and universal (Newtonian) conception of time. Time becomes somewhat fragmented and intertwined with space. This is also a fascinating sub-topic. But I will stop here, and wait for replies or alternative approaches. 

H.G. Callaway

Space and time are mathematical concepts that we, the human beings, have created in order to put a frame for our scientific researches. We have not any guarantee that our creations are valid or even approximate reality. For example all our space math tools are linear based objects (even topological spaces have linearity embedded on them). So, what if our constructions are simply the first, linear, term of a more complicated reality?

Look a similar discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Time

and:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Space

As for cosmology, my view is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264537258_A_new_cosmological_paradigm_universal_locality

Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Perhaps an issue with your answer dear Sayed, is that the retina, the brain, etc. must exist within space to begin with?

I think the answer may be approached by mathematical analysis - examine all the possible genesis modes - space time as a dimension, as an emergent phenomenon, etc. and see where the math leads. If you do that for time alone, you're soon ineluctably led to the notion that time is an epiphenomenon arising out of something deeper . Now if space and time are fully equivalent the analysis would lead to the same answer where space dimensions are concerned, but that would bear in-depth analysis.

Incidentally a number of theories squarely gainsay that time or spacetime were created at the Big Bang. Some (Bojowald et al.) calculate that the pre-existence of Time was a necessary condition for the BB to occur, others (Tryon, et al., Penrose et al.) hint that a BB can only happen from a pre-existing spacetime, etc.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hillecke et al.,

One of the best answers to the question "What is time?" comes from Einstein, who said that time is what clocks measure. Correspondingly, one might hold that space is what meter sticks can measure. It is a virtue of such approaches, I believe, that we get a distinction between space and time on the one hand, and measurement of them on the other. Time may pass and space persist without being measured. While this idea, that "time is what clocks measure" may seem trivial, from long consideration of other approaches and variations, it seems to me that this is a very good place to start.

The idea that time is what clocks measure is by no means as simple as it may appear. One may ask, for instance: Which clocks? This brings up the fact that we regard some clocks as less accurate (they "gain time" or the opposite) and others as more accurate. How do we know this? Well, it seems clear that we compare one clock to another. But how do we know which clocks are more accurate? Basically, I suspect that we look into their physical mechanisms and check out possible sources of irregularity in their counting of time. We may find, for instance that the gears in the old "grandfather" clock have worn down, and this has effected the movement of the hands as they trace their course around the numbers on the face of the clock. That suggests that the mechanism of a good clock must be quite regular for the clock to be accurate. To build more regular and accurate clocks, then, one naturally looks for more regular and dependable physical mechanisms. In contemporary physics, highly accurate clocks are built to record or keep time in accordance with the regularity of some physical frequency, which is supposed to depend more directly on physical laws, e.g., "cesium clocks."  Might some irregularity be eventually found even in such clocks? Well, it may seem unlikely, but it can't be ruled out a priori. To find out, we are left comparing one clock to another and investigating their physical mechanisms. 

The idea, then, is that time is what clocks measure, and that measuring time requires recourse to some physical regularity to beat off units of time. Without recourse to "clocks" (of some sort or other), of course, we can't measure time, and this essentially involves comparison of rates of change. This has always suggested to me that time itself is essentially bound up with change; no change, no time. But it seems, on the other hand, that if all change were very irregular, then we couldn't build accurate clocks. 

To go a step further, we might think to compare the concepts of space and time, and doing so, it stands out that though we may think of both as "extending" or having measurable extension, the extension of time, in contrast to dimensions of space, seems to have an intrinsic direction to it. Time flows, or goes, as we say, from the past into the present and on into the future. While we can move back and forth in spatial dimensions, we can't seem to move back in physical time. We can only move forward--at a single pace.  Accounting for the directionality of time is one of the most fascinating problems. 

One might go on to consider time in relativity theory or in quantum mechanics. Perhaps the central point in this is the modern rejection of a single uniform and universal (Newtonian) conception of time. Time becomes somewhat fragmented and intertwined with space. This is also a fascinating sub-topic. But I will stop here, and wait for replies or alternative approaches. 

H.G. Callaway

Thanks a lot for interesting statements,

in my opinion in thinking of time and space as a product of electrical processes within the brain two aspects also have to be discussed.

- One is that electrical processes/conceptualizations itself depend on concepts of space and time. Herein lies the danger of a circulus vitiosus. We explain space and time by using explanations which imply space and time.

- The other one is a kind of evolutionary approach in which the function of the brain that underlies space and time as dimensions of experience is seen as a result of a phylogenetic adaptation, as Konrad Lorenz argued. This leads to the question: an adaptation to what?

I like the concrete approach of H. G. Callaway. It brings to the point the measuring problem of time. Associated with it in my opinion is the question about the phenomenon of time.

Time in philosophy is discussed in existentialism, philosophy of science, phenomenology and other theories or approaches. I remember an interesting idea of MacTaggert, who compared Series A and Series B concepts. He came to the conclusion that time must be unreal, because the before-after concept (scientific concept of time) does not fit with the past-present-future concept of time.

There are some really bad problems in conceptualizing time, they bring up question about the state of reality of the past and the future, and as stated by H.G. Callaway, the problem of the direction of time.

We also have problems to understand space. Descartes talked about res extensae. But without time extension seems problematic because measuring spatial dimensions depend on time. Often we mix time and space, we use a line or an arrow in coordinate systems that symbolize time.

So far, some additional ideas.

Regards Thomas

To continue the discussions from the past:

1) Time does not physically exist.

2) Time is a human invention measured via physical change.

And of course, physical change is also reflected in the physical movement of the human invented/chosen clock

Let me try an other approach: Is it possible that time and space are primitive concepts (philosophical use of the term primitive) as e.g. truth is seen in many approaches.

Alltogether these three concepts are necessary to define reality. So realism is a combination of the constituents time, space and truth?

What do you think?

Regards Thomas

The following paper:

Leibniz's place in the history of physics by Joseph Agassi.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~agass/joseph-papers/Leibniz.pdf

is very interesting.  It is an historical account of the debate debate between Leibniz and Newton and the later influence the Lebiztian relational conception of space and time on later philosphers , geometers and scientist up to Einstein.

@Valentin: Time: is (or means) a sequence of changes which we compare to other periodical changes which we name clocks. Now the question is - what exactly changes in a "change"? And the answer: one or more attributes of the objects or phenomena which we observe. As we can notice, those attributes always appear, change, or disappear within a region of space. And that's the point where the concept of Space is inevitably linked to the concept of Time.

OK to me

From a psychology point of view, there has been debate in the past over whether space or time are actually perceivable. For an interesting argument you might want to check out James Gibson's article "Events are perceivable but time is not" where he puts forward the argument that both space and time are not what we directly experience in our encounters with the environment. Rather, the environments layout (i.e. the position of objects, the textures of the medium) and the changes that take place within the environment (i.e. events) constitute our perceptions of "space" or "time". I am probably not doing his explanation justice however. You can find the article here: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-50121-0_22

Unless we are able to explain why space was created , we won't be able to define what is space time.

Both have to coexist as of now, as per me space has two made up of two kinds of space , these 2 spaces  interaction gives rise to illusion of time. 

If we had only one space we would have not got matter and antimatter.

Key is understanding basic concept why space exists.

As Marcel pointed it out time is periodicity of something.

Time is inverse of frequency.

Our space has some resistance , because of this speed of light and everything is finite.

If there was no resistance there would be no time because frequency would have been infinite.

Resistance comes due to interaction between 2 kinds of spaces which I mentioned in my previous post.

Hello Marcel + all,

one term shaped by russian literature is 'oblomowism'. You could translate it with a physical slothfulness which from a subjective perspective nullifies itself by a very animated mind. Also a person might seem like he is totally not interacting with the world at all this person might be very active inside. But those attributes cannot be observed because they are not shown. They are hidden and so to say not developed. In a way they are still ascending but not clear enough yet to produce action. Which leads to almost unendingly and deadly boredom when it comes to the scene. Totally nothing happens. It might be the most boring thing to observe a person suffering from oblomowism. An oblomowistic person is more a stone than a human being. However we know it is a human being we know this person has the attributes to be active. But this person is like waiting for a reason to be active.

Marcel, you were asking about changes. And I must say I was always wondering about this topic. When it comes to sciences we know we got (to make a classical destinction) two different ways: Observing or experiment. When it comes to observing we meanwhile know that observation is nothing which is like totally objective and independent from the object. And I think it is justified to ask the question if observation in itself might not be a treatment altering objects and making them change. What we know too is that time and space are constructs. However I agree with what you wrote. But I am wondering: Let's say there is something which unites every possible attribute in itself (even the possibility of materia). And when we speak of nothingness (let's say time and space at this point don't exist) if this might in fact not be something like 'oblomowism'. Which would indeed be indicative for mind as the basic of everything. Even for space and time...

If "all is perception" as Tomas de Aquino said, then there is no need of existence of space and time beyond or outside this perception (so space and time would remain just philosophical concepts but not "physical realities")

But pragmatically, IMHO, and I am not an authority in that matter which is way out of my expertise, "Space is the property which allows me to distinguish here from there, and time is what lets me distinguish between now and then".

However, actually what allows me to distinguish is not the space and time, but again perception, so my statement is ill-posed

Rewritten

"Space is the property which allows to univocally determine here and there, and time is what lets univocally determine now and then".

It seems pretty much a version of Kant for Dummies... sorry!

More formally space is the general framework of distance and direction, and time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future.

So I do not know what they are (and this was ultimately the question), but they are convenient entities...

actually recall the definition of Minkowski space:

It is the mathematical space setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated.

An exnegativo definition could be:

Time is the property which opens the possibility to avoid simultaneity

Time would not exist without change.  Space would exist without change.  Space and Time are frameworks of measurement.  A clock do not measure time.  A clock is a cyclic phenomena, a spatial change that is cyclic.  A clock counts the cycles, so it is a constructive procedure for the creation of a time-dimension out of clock.   So we can maps any variable that are changing to this time-dimension as we maps them to the other spatial dimensions and by this procedure maps every variable in space-time.  It is a spatialization of changes.  Space dimensions as well as the time dimensions are constructed frameworks for measurements and for modelisation.  When we look at a model which is often a set of differential equations with various variables in space-time, there is no privilege NOW as there is no privilege spatial positions.  And there is no time flow, as there is no spatial flow.  The very structure of differential equations make every position and every time the same, only one position and one generic time are specified in the equations.  Everything is specified on the paper and is not changing so obviously there can be no change in any fixed expression and now NOW into a fixed expression that has be printed on the page maybe 20 years ago.  A model, any model implicitly assume that the aspect of the world described is not changing in spacetime. We do not have to worry about this as long as there is no departure from the model.  It is why Bergson criticized the time of physics as not able to capture real change and so is not the real time or duration or real evolution.   In a world that is exactly as what is written on the page then there is nothing more and in fact that part of the world in frozen and existed in the platonic world of the page.  This constructed time is very similar to the constructed narrative time of human consciousness.  Humans are the only animal whose consciousness can be about other time and other places.  All other animal consciousness is only about here and now.  So our mathematical modeling procedure of construction a space and time of referencing is similar to our capacity to create narratives.  We can time travel in narrative but we cannot time travel in our animal consciousness of the here and now.   

Well, my definition of physics, is simply the science that tries to explain and describe the knowledge of the world through formal models typically reduced to the form of mathematical equations.

Physics means etymologically "knowledge of nature", so it is the general analysis of nature, conducted to describe how the universe behaves.

Also, I am a physicist, although I can be nuts, but I hope it is not so hard to talk to me... beyond my limitations in english... So I think it happens to my peer physicists (most of them way humbler than me)... ;-)

In my sentence formal shall be understood as a calculation which is systematic, but without a rigorous justification.

In my sentence mathematical equations are relationships (in general, equalities) containing one or more (typically more than one) variables (parameters, entities, typically measurable ones).

And yes, probably, I have little understanding on what Newton did, but please do not condemn me (us) for that. Open your mind, and let us positively understand it, and we will be all very pleased.

"Kant also said that there are only two things which do not need to have meaning in order to give us deep pleasure: Music and Laughter."

And if Kant ("can't" would have been more proper) said "Jump out of the window, it will not harm you." would you think this is true? I do not know why obviously wrong statements get repeated over and over and over again as if they were true. "I do not know what laughter means!!! And music makes no sense to me!!!". I am wondering here if he maybe was suffering from autism.

"If we can progress from a state of contradiction to one of acceptance"

Now that sounds like a masterplan.

"We can say that if two lines pass through the same two points, then they are the same line."

Generalized: Yes. In reality: Well... No.

"The statement does however raise questions of both simultaneity"

Synchronicity... if I may correct you.

"Or another generation will have the faculty of imagining an unknown standard of measurement."

I somehow love the absurdity how you are digging your own rational grave encrasing yourself in concrete anxieties about death using so many words to finally end your motivation while struggling for pleasure. Truely an art of its own.

Space time are imaginary concepts superimposed on energy in motion. They must co-exist. One cannot exist without another. For example particle energy can be described in terms of space time parameters which are wavelength and period. Details of this theory could be found in the article:

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-11.PDF

And I ask Akira,

you Show you have a deep knowledge in mathematics, logic and physics.  And it may well be, that you are right in all your objections to modern physics.

But don't you think it is unfair to treat this way all physicists?  Such generalizations never hold true, or do you think that all Spaniards in the XVI century were involved in the masacres to the american Indians, or all Germans involved in the Holocaust?

Even if you would accept that they did not do much to avoid the Situation (and again generalization is unfair), in most of the cases they just did not know better.

So, I wold try to avoid attacking those who have less knowledge, and invest the effort in creating better proper physics.

In some other thread I have said, from my superficial knowledge, that the Beauty of physics (and this is the most imprtant I was told during my University times), is that we know they are wrong, but they hold conventionally true, as Long as they can describe the observations made in nature, i.e. until they proof to be wrong.

And we like it!

Sorry, and please do not Interpret this as a personal attack,

Thanks,

sam

I do not think those geniuses Claim themselves to be one, and similar I think we can agree upon that Euler, Gauss, Pythagoras, Euclid, were geniuses...

I tihnk it is "beautiful", that altough we know (or actually since we know) that all we know is wrong, we Keep on searching for a better conventional truth (which is again wrong)

And I agree that my esthetics-sense is odd

In metaphysics there have been various causal theories of time. Priority in time is associated to a causal relation.  Let be a set whose elements we'll call "events," endowed with a partial ordering that is non reflective, asymmetric and transitive.  A light cone structure might be defined for which if an event is in the light cone of another, then there is an order relation between them, and conversely. So time is associated to the length of the causal chain, while space is associated to the inverse of the amount of causal relations.

Dear Professor Hillecke

Perhaps can be said: the concept of space, thus expanding the concept of time has been created.

For this reason, time is a multiform process. And after the start, the conversion from one form to another could range to form and create space. We have a repeatable cycle starts from the beginning point and again would go to the point. So, these two processes are not created at the same time and at the moment of the Big Bang.

This theory is a combination of the application of Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean.

This new approach will allow us not only to understand the spiritual concepts like time, creating understandable definition of physical instruments, So that we will can make these concepts more applicable in our daily life.

This concept could be closer to reality.

With best

R.labbafi

I think MacTaggert was an overrate boor... As far as Kant goes, I mean really? That's what space and time are - constraints for the mind for the construction of reality? That would mean that without the mind, there's no reality. Just another reason I hate scientific philosophers...

Marshall,

Kant did not think that without mind, there's is no reality.  THere is surely no reality for a rock that has no mind.  The rock exists but it is not aware of it or of anything else and so there is no reality for the rock.  But living organisms interacts with the world and all of them are thus aware to a certain extend allowed by their body of the world.  If a creature has no eyes, it cannot be aware of aspects of their environement that eyes allows to be aware.  Kant considers that space and time where not reality out there but that each organism , given ist type of body physiology, will be aware of objects certain ways which are spatio-temporal geometries determined by their bodily interaction.  In physics, Newton assumed that space and time were existing out there as containers of events but he was challenged at the time by Leibniz who saw space and time are being relations between events.    Kant generalizes that and later Mach and Einstein moves in this relational direction where we do not consider spation temporal geometries that we used to model the world as belonging to the world but instead as being our model to predict our interaction (our scientific experiment) .  So instead of projecting our predicting apparatus onto the world as being the world, we just say that it is OUR predicting apparatus distinct form the world.  The same attitude is seen in quantum physics where quantum theory is not a theory of the world but a predicting tools without any assumption on what the world is.

Newton was correct, not Leibnz. I'm a staunch antagonist of phiiosophy of science.