Abubakar Surajo Ibrahim Kirare

Abubakar

Are you seeking a scientific definition of time or a philosophical understanding?

The scientific view of time is defined by events. In this understanding time is simply the measurement of consistently repeated events. Our current measurement is based on the decay of Caesium 133 atoms under controlled circumstances. In times past it was based on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun or burning candles or a host of other determined events.

In philosophical terms, the scientific definition is simply a definition of how we measure time and represents a mental fudge.

However, the reality is that our perception of time is based on measurement between events and most philosophical definitions end up in circular arguments that simply repeat the 'measurement of consistently repeated events' in differing words - IE it quickly becomes sophistry.

Our classic way of measuring time is to measure a movement in our 3 dimensions, hourglass, wristwatch etc, simulate that it is a 4th dimension and compare it "perpendicularly" with our 3 dimensions, such as speed for example.

Notice that any REAL movement perpendicular to our 3 dimensions can be considered as time

Sergio Garcia Chimeno

Hi Sergio.

How then would you measure a non-movement event where there is no change in any of the three linear dimensions ?

Let us say for example, the change of colour of a leaf in the autumn, a computer calculation or thought? These are all events where there no visible movement but require time to occur.

I agree it can be argued that there is some internal movement of chemical or electrons or whatever but how can they be measured or described as 'perpendicular to anything?

Regards

Ian

Hi Ian Proffitt ,

Without being an expert, the change of color of a leaf in the autumn I suppose that it is due, like the aging to some process of oxidation, that is not more than "movements" between particles.

a computer calculation is a movement of electrons.

a thought, also a similar electron movement, but through the neurons.

Notice that all those movements in our 3 dimensions are being compared with a "simulated" movement and perpendicular in a 4th dimension.

That is why in my work I completely change the concept of time, which gives many advantages and many explanations to things that currently do not have it.

the answers are astonishingly simple! There are neither any acurate definition of time nor any easy way to describe time! a good article about the subject is Questions"About time", by St. Augustine( a classic one!), reproduced, for example(english translation) in J.J.C. Smart, Problems of Space and Time, Mac Millan, 1979, pag. 58

I agreed with you @J.A souza

I read so many articles but I'm yet to see any logical explanation. I'm with you.

Before someone chimes in with something like "time isn't real", I want to suggest that time is what we experience when we decide to remove our hand from a hot stove as fast as possible.

Time or pain? @James Arnold

Both. Presumably, pain is not in question.

The Time is non-material substance which creates every moment the material world. The Time is the energy : the material world is the result of changes by energies between energetic (non-material) world and material world where energetic world is the Cause and material world (Consequence). Energetic world (the Time) possesses fractal structure as it is shown by professor Shnoll. Microbes, people, planets, stars,... the Universe are fragment of the Fractal Infinity.

“…The Time is non-material substance which creates every moment the material world…..”

Time absolutely fundamentally isn’t some “substance”; and absolutely fundamentally cannot create anything.

“…The Time is the energy …”

And Time absolutely fundamentally isn’t “energy”.

The phenomena/notions “Time”, “Space”, and “Energy” can be, and are, precisely defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904:

All these, and number of others absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions are members of the set of the absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, Actions, etc. “Logos”, which are necessary for any informational pattern could exist at all. Or, by other words, the members of the “Logos” set “make” something to be some information;

When in the conception above it is rigorously proven that there don’t exist anything else then some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, which are members of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

Including “simply fundamental” for humans “Matter”, and humans themselves, are only some informational systems.

“Space” and “Time” are the Rules/Possibilities that are always necessary: “Space” – for existence of any information at all, and “Time”, additionally to Space, for some information can also change.

So for dynamical systems Space and Time form “spacetimes”, where they, as the possibilities, are realized as spacetimes’ space and time dimensions; where time dimension(s) is (are) “the space for changing states”.

The possibility/dimension “Time” is necessary because of the main absolutely fundamental property of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information”: any/every information[al pattern/system] absolutely fundamentally, logically, cannot be non-existent.

Thus, e.g., if some pattern/system changes its intrinsic states, when is in the same space point, then these states, because of that they ansolutely fundamentally cannot “to erase” previous states must be placed in next and next different time’s, and so corresponding spacetime’s, points.

Besides, the absolutely fundamental Action “Change” is logically self-inconsistent: at every change the changing state is simultaneously prior, current, and future states, when all these states are different by definition of the change.

And to overcome this logical prohibition of changes it is necessary to pay by two points: it is necessary to spent some portion of Logos set’s Quantity “Energy” [that is so a definition of “Energy”], and, if this portion isn’t infinite, on some level of the changing of some pattern’s state the state becomes be “illogical”, i.e. uncertain. Just therefore in Matter quantum effects exist; and that was quite clearly clarified in outstanding Zeno’s aporias 2500 years ago, when Zeno predicted the quantum mechanics.

Etc. more see the link above.

Cheers

Let's try to formulate the definition.

Time can be defined as a universal scalar potential: for example, to one particle, t=t(x,y,z) and ∇t is the instantaneous vector of its change.

But usually they identify t with the values on the real axis, and all the coordinates of the object are concerned as functions on this t. In this case it is assumed that these functions (coordinates) are smooth and obey to definition of function. But it can happen that neither the first nor the second is true. If time is potential, then at each point there is a direction in which the system evolves. For example, for a material point it will be:

∇t=(∂t/∂x,∂t/∂y,∂t/∂z)=(kx ,ky ,kz ), k is some constant,

if we still assume that the coordinates are smooth functions on time. But then

dt=∂t/∂x dx+∂t/∂y dy+∂t/∂z dz

and

∂t/∂x x +∂t/∂y y +∂t/∂z z =1

x ^2+y ^2+z ^2=1/k

It is exactly law of conservation of kinetic energy. Once we deal with just the only particle, no more kind of energy appears.

This definition implies that the system of n particles has 3n coordinates and the scalar potential should be considered in a space of 3n coordinates. There are many particles in the whole universe, and therefore the dimension of the coordinate space is very large, rather infinite one. Therefore, time from a scalar potential becomes a functional over the space of smooth functions defined on a compact set in R. In physics, not the very time, but time intervals are considered. Therefore, it is not the time itself has the basic value for the description of phenomena, but the absolute value of the vector of its gradient or a function on this value. These functions themselves are functionals and are considered as Lagrangians or Hamiltonians. Usually they are given a physical sense of energy, and time is considered as a parameter valued in R. But this parameter is nothing else than the scalar potential in the functional space.

Correction: in my previous post the dots over coordinates disappeared when copied: in the last two formulae there must be derivatives on time.

Thank you for you contribution @Sergei Zuev

It seems it is worthwhile to add some points to the SS post above, where the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are correctly defined: “Space” and “Time” are the Rules/Possibilities that are always necessary: “Space” – for existence of any information at all, and “Time”, additionally to Space, for some information can also change.

So for dynamical systems Space and Time form “spacetimes”, where they, as the possibilities, are realized as spacetimes’ space and time dimensions; where time dimension(s) is (are) “the space for changing states”.

As the Rules both, Space and Time, establish absolutely obligatorily in every informational system, including in the informational systems “Matter” and human’s consciousness, that:

- the Rule “Space”: between different informational patterns must be some “space intervals”, which must not be equal to zero exactly. If between words there are no spacing, the text will be non-understandable, i.e. it will not be some informational pattern. As well as like Space

- the Rule “Time”: between different states of changing informational patterns must be some “time intervals”, which must not be equal to zero exactly. If between reading words there are no “time spacing”, the text will be non-understandable, i.e. it will not be some informational pattern. Though Time differs from Space in that at writing a text, i.e. when the text is changing, the time spacing occurs inevitably also.

As the Possibilities both, Space and Time, form:

Spcae - for every informational pattern/system some space. To write a text is necessary to have some space – paper sheet, a stone, etc. These spaces are different, what is determined by method - how a text will be written, in this case – by a pencil or by a hammer and chisel; the space can be two-dimensional, if some letters are used, or one-dimensional, if, say, the Morse code is used, etc. Though since everything what a human can write happens only in the 3D Matter’s space, all spaces above are included in this space.

So every of absolutely infinite number of elements in the absolutely fundamental and infinite “Information” Set has own space, which the element “selects” from the Set’s space, which contain all [seems absolutely infinite number of] dimensions of all elements.

The Possibility/dimension “Time” is necessary because of the main absolutely fundamental property of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information”: any/every information[al pattern/system] absolutely fundamentally, logically, cannot be non-existent. If some element is dynamical one, i.e. changes, the changed states of the element, even when the element remains be in the same space place cannot “erase” the previous state, and so its changing states are placed in different points in time. Thus every dynamical element always exists and changes in some “spacetime”.

Unlike Space, all dynamical elements in the Set are changing at least in one - “true time” absolutely universal dimension. Correspondingly Matter has this dimension also in its absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where X,Y,Z – are space dimensions, “ct” is just the Set’s “true time” dimension.

Besides Matter’s spacetime has another “time” – the “coordinate time”, “ct”, which is specific “time dimension” just for the concrete informational system/element of the Set, “Matter”. More about Matter, including why its spacetime has the metrics above see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494.

Again – see the SS post above, neither Space nor Time are some “substances”, “fields with some potentials”, etc. Every spacetime of every element in the Set is nothing else that logical “empty container”, where element exists and changes, and nothing else. Emptiness cannot be changed/contracted/dilated, it doesn’t flow anywhere, etc.; including there cannot be some “arrows of time”, which would be some intrinsic effects of the time itself.

However in mainstream science theories, first of all in physics, to the phenomenon “Time” [and Space, though] indeed some concrete properties are assigned, mostly in accordance with Newton’s definition of time more 300 years ago:

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…, etc.”

From this definition it follows that the flow of this independently on humans “equably flowing” time can be measured by some equably changing instruments, i.e. clocks. Thus all – theoretical and experimental problems for using the variable “time” in “Newton’s” physics were solved by this definition.

And this definition is used in the mainstream physics till now, however with “fundamental” corrections in the SR/GR, where to Time [and to Space] were assigned rather strange “fundamental properties”: in these theories Time flows “of itself” also, however at that Time by some magic way governs by processes in Matter, including forces clocks to show time, and, when a clock is at rest in some “stationary” [italic Einstein’s 1905 paper] inertial reference frame, it ticks with maximal rate; if some frame moves in the “stationary” frame, then in the moving frame “time is dilated” by some magic way; and this magically “dilated time” forces, again by using some magic, clocks in this frame to slow their tick rates correspondingly. Just that the famous Einstein’s definition of time “time is what clocks read/show” implies.

What is incorrect - see above.

Cherrs

Hello Abubakar,

There are two papers at OSF Preprints that report the discovery of the intrinsic nature of time. One paper is mostly about the discovery itself, and the other paper is a description of time with comments about the role of time in the universe.

Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time.” OSF Preprints. July 26. osf.io/gqxjy.

https://osf.io/gqxjy

Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Basis of Time in the Universe.” OSF Preprints. July 24. osf.io/q4ntk.

https://osf.io/q4ntk

People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. There have always been the questions:

What is time?

Why does time occur?

Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?

No one has ever been able to provide realistic answers to these questions. Because no one knew what time was, all the proposed answers were speculative, just guesses.

These two papers are not speculative. Nor do they provide a definition of time. They are descriptions of the nature of time and its role in the universe, and thus provide the answers to the three questions.

@Vincent Vesterby

Thank you very much.

Hello all

Why we have to choice one of them

Both of these two views or methods are needed.

We have a triple issue

Time in everyday life face us with the meaning of physics theory + analytic philosophy and psychology to understanding our differential conceptions of time.

with the point of view of cognitive science we cannot solve any problem without considering all areas belonging to Time.

but I think we must very careful to observe the borders or categories.

there is not any fundamental or pivotal idea including all...

when we speak about Now or Present, we can use the Eddington two tables to realize meaning of time and with attention to scales we must separate our subjective time and time as parameter in a objective or international view.

perhaps we can say :

time in philosophy as objective time is related to physics ( SR theory).

and time in philosophy in related to psychology and the one kind of phenomenology approaches is the thing that we called subjective time.

But yet it is an open case...

Sergey Shevchenko

Abubakar Surajo Ibrahim Kirare

“…We have a triple issue

Time in everyday life face us with the meaning of physics theory + analytic philosophy and psychology to understanding our differential conceptions of time.…”

- there cannot be more than one indeed scientifically [including philosophically, if that is indeed philosophy and not any mainstream philosophical branch, including so called “analytic philosophy”] definition of anything, including, of course, of the phenomenon/notion “Time” – and similar phenomenon/notion “Space”, and just such definitions can be, and are only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, more see the couple of SS posts above.

And seems all/every humans with normal psyche know that, and, say, have quite similar clocks, which all show the same one time; and if somebody attempts to use in practice some “differential conceptions of time”, his everyday practice rather quickly will explain him, that some, say, his “psychological time” isn’t adequate to the reality, when is used at communications in society and with Matter.

Correspondingly that

“…with the point of view of cognitive science we cannot solve any problem without considering all areas belonging to Time…there is not any fundamental or pivotal idea including all...”

- in any science, including “cognitive science” only correct definition of “Time” can be “pivotal” one.

When, say, that

“…when we speak about Now or Present, we can use the Eddington two tables to realize meaning of time and with attention to scales we must separate our subjective time and time as parameter in a objective or international view.…”

- has no relation to the “Time problem”; and to anything in science practically no relation also. “the Eddington two tables meaning” was used by the Eddington in 1920-th years at some lecture for students, see, say, https://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/05/20/quote-eddingtons-two-tables , when only a little more than 20 years passed after outstanding Rutherford discovery that atoms consist of very small nuclei and very small electrons, when all the rest is a “void”, and in those time this fact was indeed very fundamental, surprised, and even marvelous, for humans, including for students.

Now this fact is banal and is known for scholars, which, also well know that in atoms there is no “void”, it is filled by [mostly] EM fields/photons, and just therefore the “practically void 2-th table” is used by humans as the solid “1-th table”.

To that it can be noted also, that Eddington didn’t understand – what “Time” is, he was a true believer in the SR/GR, when the SR/GR use rather “strangely upgraded” Newton’s definition of Time [see the SS posts above], and so, say,he invented “Eddington’s arrow of time”, which fundamentally doesn’t exist – Newton was incorrect postulating that the “time [always] flows of itself, and from its own nature”. Just of itself, and from its own nature time doesn’t flow to anywhere.

As well as that [again see the SS posts above]

“…time in philosophy as objective time is related to physics ( SR theory).…..”

- is “correct” only in the mainstream philosophy, where practically all publications about ontology of time are nothing else than some texts where the authors only tell how they are admired by “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime” and “fundamental relativistic effects” “that are discovered in the relativity theories”. When all these “properties” and “effects” are nothing else than some fantastic conjectures of the SR/GR authors, who simply didn’t understand – what really Space and Time are.

As to

“…But yet it is an open case...…”

- again, here is no now an “open case”, the ontology of Space and Time is practically completely clarified in the conception above, and, say, application of correct definitions of these [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions in physics allowed to develop the basic model of mechanics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, which is based on quite rational consistent with the experimental data postulates, and form which no any – in contrast to, say, the SR [and to the GR, though] no any absurd consequences follow; besides in the model a number of other Meta-physical problems are solved/clarified.

Though yeah, the ontology of Space and Time, though is rather simple – in the “The Information as Absolute” conception – however isn’t trivial, and if these phenomena/notions are considered beyond the conception, any strange mental constructions are possible, as, say, the recent series in “Scientific American”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/store/books/a-question-of-time-the-ultimate-paradox/?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=november-multiproduct&utm_content=button&utm_term=SA-EB-Time_CVP_v1_s1_____OptinYes&spMailingID=60913427&spUserID=MzQ4MTgyMTA0ODU1S0&spJobID=1760657319&spReportId=MTc2MDY1NzMxOQS2

- where the authors discover a lot of rather strange marvelous properties of Time…

Cheers

I must be glad for your delicate attention to my note

Je suis nouveau à l'heure :)) please accept my apology for my Lack of knowledge and I will read SS above soon...

But some points:

I use Eddington s two tables as an example just or in other hand as a metaphor to convey my view in perception of time for micro world or in small measurements vis-a-vis macro world as universal time or communal state. and not in way, I didn't mean to refer his paper or lecture...

And as a physicist I believe time is lost in SR theory and physics alone cannot solve or impression the meaning of time or our conception of time...

About psychology, No I believe when we speak about o'clock our mean refer to static state of time as time series in name of interval time.

But when we speak about time in perception of human we want to point out the dynamic state of time that belonging to events that include matters and context, in name of duration...

Sergey Shevchenko

By Regards

“…please accept my apology for my Lack of knowledge….”

- in this case there is no necessity in some apologies, that is result of that information about the “The Information as Absolute” conception and the informational physical model is blocked everywhere is possible, and, say the submitted SS&VT corresponding papers were rejected by editors of a number of tens of official philosophical and physical journals without peer reviews.. When the “official” journals, etc. are filled by some rather “questionable” “findings” of mainstream philosophers and physicists; the last example see the SS post above, and the authors of the papers in the example all are some editors of some journals.

“…and I will read SS above soon....”

- well, if some questions will appear – welcome. And if some concrete questions appear, that usually means that the human starts to understand…

A few notes that could be useful:

“…But when we speak about time in perception of human we want to point out the dynamic state of time that belonging to events that include matters and context, in name of duration.. …”

- in science to speak about anything “in perception of human” isn’t correct, perceptions can be both, adequate to the objective reality and illusions. And indeed

“…time is lost in SR theory and physics alone cannot solve or impression the meaning of time or our conception of time....”

- the postulated in the SR – and in the GR – “relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime” are nothing else than some fantastic illusions, which, nonetheless, in many cases are adequate to the reality, because of in the SR the Galileo-Poincare relativity principle is postulated also.

That is very mighty principle, and, say, in the Lorentz-Poincare theory, which appeared just because of evident necessity to implement the Galileo principle outside mechanics of slow moving bodies and for developed already Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics,

since they also didn’t understand – what are “Space” and “Time”, the Lorentz transformations are derived for some ad hoc “local space” and “local time”. What these notions are - the authors correspondingly don’t explain; they simply made that by the standard physical procedure – introducing something that fits a theory with experiment.

Again, that is standard practice, and, say, the rest official physics till now operates with “particles”, “bodies”, “fields”, etc., when nobody outside the conception/model above knows – what are “particles”?, etc. – but that fits theories with reality.

So the difference between Lorentz theory and the SR is just in that Minkowski, in contrast to Poincare and Lorentz, “explained” what are letters “x” and “t” in the transformations, postulating for that absolute mighty power of the relativity principle, claiming it “World law”, and “discovering” at that the “fundamental properties and effects” above.

Einstein completely believed in the Minkowski’s “discovery”, and never objected when in numerous publications it was/is claimed that is discovered in “Einstein’s special relativity theory”. And further “developed” them postulating not only Minkowski’s magic powers of inertial frames, which by using some magic forces really “contract” and “dilate” indeed fundamental phenomena “space” and “time”, and further these contracted/dilated space and time again by some magic forces really contract real bodies lengths and slow tick rates of real clocks, but also some magic “bending” of the spacetime and that this bended spacetime, again by some magic forces, forces, say, Earth to rotate around Sun. Etc.

And all that is in spite of that for postulating of existence of such strange properties and effects it was necessary to postulate that there is no absolute Matter’s space/time/spacetime, and that so all/every inertial reference frames are completely equivalent and legitimate [that was indeed in 1905], when from the last postulates any number of meaningless logical, physical, etc. consequences directly and unambiguously follow. The simplest and evident are the Dingle objection to the SR, “twin” and “Bell” “paradoxes”. About the first couple see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.34064.51201/1;

about the Bell paradox see, for example, a few last SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/And_if_quantum_gravity_was_taking_the_wrong_way#view=5d39d687661123453721285a

So, to begin with physics it is necessary to understand, first of all, that from the bold passage above by the rigorous proof by contradiction rigorously follows that Matter’s space/time/spacetime is absolute; and further from existent experimental data follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, etc. – see the SS&VT model linked in the SS post above.

Though to undertstand physics it is very desirable to understand Meta-physics, and to learn the the conception is rater useful also.

Cheers

Doppler shifts are older than relativity. Ifthey change observed frequencies in a vacuum thaty chang observed time(=1/frequency).

Each of the linked three files prove that for all Doppler shifts axial and transverse from the behavior of Fourier series. Relativity says only the transverse does.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u4nLUIav_TqifWPa_-ODXkM80PigLjoI

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ha24QHwfRzZAMV47_48Qt7Hs3LQVuDcb

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kAoRybHCyq_v_x_IvPuFlZxw7Dg8HK_P

"Doppler shifts are older than relativity"

Well, the theories may be...but the reality?

(Sorry...in a trivial mood today!)