User:Wordfa/timetalk
People Arguing About Time
This page contains notes for research into the Talk page on the Time wiki.
I am not sure how to edit this project but I think some form of script would be interesting.
I will start by attempting to copy relevant stuff here.
Meta Note
Wiki talk page is a nightmare to read.
Notes
Editorial Comments and Ideas
What is Realism?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teLsXczfeNM
They thing chairs, number, moral values exist and they exist independently from us, and our concepts. Whether or not we are thinking about it. Tree falling in the woods???
How do I edit/transform this?
play but which parts, which contexts are removed
shakespear
Act 1 - Lead Section (Formally titled: Jim)
Black screen Digital clock, It ticks over to 21:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Jim's been playing with the intro again, and it needs some work. Perhaps, rather than edit it outright, some comments might attract him to the talk pages...
- "Time is often considered..." - a weasel: How often? Tuesdays and Thursdays, or twice a day except on Sundays?
- " ...dimension in which each event has a definite position in a sequence." - this is simply wrong, since one of the main claims of relativistic physics is that the sequence of events is not definite but relative; something that is indeed mentioned in this very paragraph!
- "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't.
- "time itself appears to be uniform" - if Jim is still talking about perception, then this is also not the case; one has days that pass slowly, others flash past. This is commented on in the article itself.
- "This is the view held by many philosophical realists" - another weasel: Can you name a philosophical realist who does not hold this view? Then say "this is a view held by philosophical realists"!
- "Modern physics considers time and space to be inseparable features of spacetime" - a poor, redundant construct; what else would time and space be but part of spacetime? the previous, "Modern physics treats time as a feature of spacetime" was the better.
But apart form these few issues, the paragraph is excellent. Comments?
Banno 21:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Please check the edit history before making accusations of "playing" ;) - you'll find User:Geologician responsible for several of these changes. I think they make it worse too. Some people are stuck with a kinematics view of the world. But, since I never claimed the realist view made any sense, it is up to you guys to fix it
if you can
JimWae 01:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Good to hear from you, Jim.
My apologies; some of those points do indeed owe their presence to Geo. Also, the Wiki is the place to report arguments, not to have them. If by "you guys" you mean any lurking realists, then they would answer the call just by sharing their perspective, not by proving it. And finally, the intro should surly be an outline of things inthe article proper, rather than a place to present detailed arguments.
Banno 07:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Where do you find I have advocated having an argument within the article, or proving realism? What I am requesting is that someone who takes that realism viewpoint present a relatively clear outline of what it is. I cannot make sense of it & disqualify myself as the final presenter of it (lacking evidence of any aether and all that). Is time in any way an entity (physical or otherwise), or is it more like scientific laws (which are easier to see as human constructs)?
JimWae 21:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
What did you mean by "-- if you can --", if not an intent to take issue with realist accounts? I assumed you where being candid! But if you disqualify yourself, then I guess you do not intend to edit that paragraph?
Banno 06:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? Can we somewhere have mention in the realist position whether time is some kind of medium (like water or the aether)? Does "time" refer to some entity or substance - some "fabric of the universe"? Does realist view not imply a preferred frame of reference for time? Can time really be divided indefinitely, or is the smallest unit we can usefully speak of subject to the limits of possible measurement - such as Planck time? What does it mean to say "something" is "part of the fundamental structure of the universe" other than what it means when we speak of entities (like atoms, protons,...). Is time not more like scientific laws - which are more easily seen as conceptual constructs - than like entities?
JimWae 00:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
I can answer the physics part of this, though not the philosophical part. The term "time" as used by physicists refers to a measurement metric which does seem to be an intrinsic property of the way the universe is structured. While the invention of the metric and the models used to express it are arguably arbitrary constructs, the same can be said of an "electron". Just as with electrons, we use the model because it's a very clean, elegant way of expressing the way the universe seems to work, that appears to be congruent with its underlying structure (though these appearances can turn out to be approximations). So I'd argue that "time" as it's presently understood is as much a fundamental part of the universe as an "electron" is. Regarding measurements, the laws of the universe seem clear - "time" as used by physicists has a granularity, and any events that occur will always be measured either to occur at the same time, or to be separated by a time interval exceeding the Planck time. In mathematical models of the universe it is often useful to think about durations shorter than the Planck time (for instance, when dealing with virtual particles), but the statement about observed/measured events still stands. As far as I can tell, the other uses of the term "time" described in the article aren't tied to the physical world, so it would seem to me that you could ascribe whatever properties you please to them (as long as they're consistent with the rest of the framework you're building). Philosophy is not my field.
Christopher Thomas 06:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What happened to philosophical realism in the lead? The paragraph in question is not just an account of time from a philosophical realist position, but an outline of the common physical view - as Christopher has explained. So the reference to philosophical realism seems misleading.
Banno 07:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's still philosophical realism - just as presented by SOME physicists too. I guess I should avoid multiple questions if I expect to get a response to any but the simplest. So, is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws?
JimWae 07:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Why ask those questions? how are they pertinent to the article? That is, are you asking my opinion - which is irrelevant - or are you asking for someone to write a defence of realism for the timearticle - which seems inappropriate. I think Christopher's answerer was rather neat. But in addition, "is time more like water, atoms, numbers, or scientific laws?" is rather like "is democracy more like cheese, money or terrorism?"
Banno 09:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I am "stuck with a kinematics view of the world" but ad hominem comments have no place in civilised discussion. To set the record straight, I have made only two changes to the Article. I suggested a clear-cut definition of time on 25th May and suggested minor tidying up of the second para. on 7th June. I cannot understand why "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion," is unacceptable in an introduction. Perhaps this is because we realists have not had access to the transcendental understanding of the vagaries of Time claimed by some wikipedians.
Geologician 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was not attacking you other than the position you took. Your suggestion has merit, but it does not get us very far in terms of definition
- "passage of time", while fine for figurative language, is problematic & in dispute
- "perception" gets us into all the subjective/psychological pudding
- while I agree that motion is very important to our conception of time, duration & especially sequence are also fundamental to our conception of time & to our developing (& learning about) that concept
What you considered "tidying up" was construed as more than that by others - and Banno had attributed those changes to me
JimWae 20:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Geo, as I said above: ' "In everyday human experience the passage of time depends upon a perception of motion" - if this were so, then when one closed one's eyes, so that one no longer "perceived motion", time would stop. It doesn't, so it isn't '. Also, the manifold arguments above showed that it is conceivable to have a space with time but without motion.
Banno 20:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, Jim, I accept your point about the possible figurative sense of "passage of time". How would "elapse (v.i.) of time" or "lapse (n) of time" do instead? Perception, on the other hand, seems to me to be unambiguous; but to reply to Banno's point, if perception seems to infer sight (although it could refer to any of the senses) then could we use "apprehend" instead? Even with eyes closed in a silent room one can still apprehend ringing in the ears and apprehend one's heartbeat, both unambiguous effects of motion. The passage would then read "Everyday human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion."
Geologician
Time passes while I sleep. I think your line of argument pointless.
Banno 21:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Banno unconsciously confirms my line of argument. My point about everyday experience is clear. But to clarify absolutely lets try "Conscious human experience of the lapse of time depends upon apprehending motion."
Geologician 22:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
to Geo, Your addition is about awareness, not about definition
JimWae - No Time
Who said that introductions should ignore and avoid clarifying ordinary human experience?
Geologician - No Time
Your addition is also not accurate
JimWae - No Time
What is inaccurate about it?
Geologician - No Time
"waking" - being an event - implies time - not movement
"waking" is a series of physiological events, involving motion to a greater or lesser extent, which occupy a period of time not an instant.
lack of motion in the room will not tell you you did not sleep (See previous)
digital clocks change, they do not "move" - just in case you plan to go there (Light is a vibration)
Geologician - No Time (possible
Your addition also has no support in the literature - is original "research"
JimWae - No Time
My statement has the support of Leibniz, as I said above in 'Definition revisited'. To reiterate:
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." Thus the connection between time and motion is not my original idea.
Geologician 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have already included motion in 2nd view - to include your view
JimWae - No Time
I saw that and appreciate the attempt to compromise, but the connection with motion deserves better treatment in the introduction.
Geologician - No Time
We can vote anytime, you want - You know you are already outvoted
JimWae - No Time
but it would be better to first deal with ALL objections to your inclusion, not just one. Geologician - No Time you have accept neither compromise nor argument
JimWae - No Time
I do not believe that it is in the spirit of Wiki to blank out a constructive suggestion before the wider world has had time to consider it. It seems to me that my suggestion is in conflict with some deeply held quasi-religious belief of yours that bears no contradiction.
Geologician - No Time
you have reverted 3 times now, any more reverts by you in next 24 hours puts you in violation of 3RR
JimWae - No Time
What about your reverts?
Geologician - No Time
your own insertion says "commonplace" - not universal - your own words show you are offering it only as an rough example, not as a definition
JimWae - No Time
Commonplace means ordinary human experience.
WE seem to be rum=nning out of space.
Geologician - No Time
I said: waking does not necessarily imply motion & that it DOES imply time
Geo replied: Waking involves time
Are you sure you are awake now?
JimWae 23:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
You seem to have abandoned claim that your insertion is a definition - how about removing it from the section on definitions then?
JimWae 23:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)--JimWae 23:17, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) Regarding Jim's point that I have abandoned my claim that it is a definition. Far from it. If Jim has access to the Oxford English Dictionary (Full version) he will discover that the word "Commonplace" when used in a rhetorical sense (Which is what Wiki is all about), means "A passage of general application, which may serve as a basis for argument: a leading text cited in argument". Thus the word, in use since the 16th century, has precedence over the word "definition" in its logic application, first used by Milton in the 17th century. Geologician 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) a passage of general application - in this case, a hasty GENERALIZATION JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Leibniz argues that motion implies time, NOT that time implies motion - actually, in what you quote, he does not even say "implies" and is arguing about space & matter, He says:
there is no space where there is no matter; and that space in itself is not an absolute reality"
This is a poor quote for a source about Leibniz on time, since he only says time & motion are LIKE space & matter, but you are jumping to
there is no time where there is no motion; and that time in itself is not an absolute reality.
but you have NOT presented anything in definitional form - only in terms of human awareness. Leibniz is not talking about awareness. Perhaps if you could find a passage where he might very well say:
without motion, there would be no time
Leibniz is not making a logical nor a definitional point, but some kind of cosmological/metaphysical one which is far different from your insertion, but is a counterfactual assertion that I could agree with - and is not just about motion & time, because without motion there would be also no events
remove your insertion from section on definition & find another spot
STOP removing sections from the Talk page - that is VERY BAD etiquette
JimWae 00:13, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Leibniz just says that time and motion are inseparable. (Like yin and yang.) Jim is distorting the sense of my quotation. If one ignores human awareness, Wiki will quickly become a high-falutin' retreat for elitists, rather than a useful source of information. Perhaps that is Jim's objective? If I had not removed those sections I would have been unable to respond to Jim's points late yesterday, as Wiki flagged that this discussion page had exceeded its kb allowance.
Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jim, I removed your proposed compromise. A nice try, but I think it too controversial to go inthe intro. Perhaps you would like to make the same comment further on inthe article?
Banno 21:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've probably reverted his inclusion 3 times now, so perhaps we could work together on this - you have 2 reversions left. If you choose to use one more, the text would be immeasurable improved.
JimWae 22:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Nice teamwork. But have either of you wondered, can there be two Lords of Time"? Please allow the wider community to see my suggestion for long enough to form a view. Then we can have a realistic vote.
Geologician 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to theoretical physics, Time is simply nothing more than one of the four metric variables not subject to macroscopic compactification, which are identical in all respects except for their values. The mysterious, and not properly understood Wick Rotation, is responsible for the difference observed between time and space, i.e. the fact that the Minkowski metric describes space, rather than it being Euclidean geometry. All differences between time and space can ultimately be put down to the Wick Rotation. Entropy appears to point in one direction through time (toward the future), because it is a measure intimately connected to Energy, which is the time component of momentum (see special relativity if how this can be is not understood). Our observation of time is ultimately connected to the fact that microscopically, we are observing physical interactions, which obey such essential physics rules. It is a bit technical, but I still hope this helps sort out the intro (N.b. I wouldn't ask me to explain much further, as this comes from my brother, who is a physicist, wheras I research linguistics).
~~~~ 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest leaving the philosophers to argue, as long as the "time in physics" section stays acceptable, and the introduction doesn't downplay it appreciably.
Christopher Thomas 07:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the contrast works better as originally set - conceptualist position is explained in contrast to the realist position. Perhaps you'd like to contrast the realist position from the conceptualist, however? (I also think point form -as in space works better to keep reader's attention AND eliminates the single sentence paragraph problem)
JimWae 22:45, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)