Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[TimMcCollum]

If time simply measures motion, like Earth's orbit and rotation, then wouldn't that make time a concept of imagination. By this I mean, wouldn't time be a human concept? It wouldn't exist at all!

What do you think of this?

 

[JackRT]

I think that a more acceptable definition of time is that it is a measurement of change. That, being said, most timekeeping methods do involve motion --- the pendulum of a clock, the coil spring of a watch, the vibrations of a crystal, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

If time simply measures motion....

I dont understand.

What do you mean time measures motion? Measuring is an investigatory activity.

 

[zephcom]

If time simply measures motion, like Earth's orbit and rotation, then wouldn't that make time a concept of imagination. By this I mean, wouldn't time be a human concept? It wouldn't exist at all!

What do you think of this?

Sorry. I don't have time to think about it.

Actually, the entire universe is just a figment of my imagination. If I stop thinking about the universe, it all goes away.

Seriously, as I recall what I've read, science isn't quite sure what time is. But clearly it is something.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If time simply measures motion, like Earth's orbit and rotation, then wouldn't that make time a concept of imagination. By this I mean, wouldn't time be a human concept? It wouldn't exist at all!

What do you think of this?

Time is man's way of conceptualizing the motion of the heavens, which is God's Creation.

 

[TimMcCollum]

I think that a more acceptable definition of time is that it is a measurement of change. That, being said, most timekeeping methods do involve motion --- the pendulum of a clock, the coil spring of a watch, the vibrations of a crystal, etc.

That's an interesting take on it. Wouldn't the change be the motion?

 

[JackRT]

That's an interesting take on it. Wouldn't the change be the motion?

See post #3.

 

[Jonaitis]

The eleventh book of Augustine's Confessions is very entertaining on the subject...

 

[TimMcCollum]

I dont understand.

What do you mean time measures motion?

The use of time is meant to keep chaos organized, like the changing of the seasons. It is used to help us predict and manipulate our surroundings, however, the actual idea of time is simply a measurement of how long a day is (Earth's rotation), how long we have to work (how long it takes us to complete our duties), and how long we live (how many cycles around the sun have we gone).

 

[TimMcCollum]

Time is man's way of conceptualizing the motion of the heavens, which is God's Creation.

Love your response! Time is a concept we derived from misunderstanding reality, as we typically do as humans. God doesn't exist inside time, and that's the very point I'm trying to solve. Time only exists inside humans. Dogs know when the sun goes up and down, but they don't know what 3 o'clock is. They wouldn't care.

 

[durangodawood]

....however, the actual idea of time is simply a measurement of how long a day is (Earth's rotation)....

When I break this down, it essentially says: time is a measurement of time.

 

[TimMcCollum]

See post #3.

I guess what I'm saying is time is simply based on a measurement of Earth's cycles, motion. This would mean it's a human concept, or imaginary. Nothing imaginary is real, at least by my definitions.

 

[TimMcCollum]

When I break this down, it essentially says: time is a measurement of time.

There should be a disconnect between the actual rotation of the Earth, motion, and time, the human concept. I'm not sure how else to describe it.

 

[TimMcCollum]

The eleventh book of Augustine's Confessions is very entertaining on the subject...

That's a lot of reading haha.

 

[Jonaitis]

That's a lot of reading haha.

No, actually it isn't. Here's a taste:

And yet we say, “a long time” and “a short time”; still, only of time past or to come. A long time past (for example) we call an hundred years since; and a long time to come, an hundred years hence. But a short time past, we call (suppose) often days since; and a short time to come, often days hence. But in what sense is that long or short, which is not? For the past, is not now; and the future, is not yet. Let us not then say, “it is long”; but of the past, “it hath been long”; and of the future, “it will be long.” O my Lord, my Light, shall not here also Thy Truth mock at man? For that past time which was long, was it long when it was now past, or when it was yet present? For then might it be long, when there was, what could be long; but when past, it was no longer; wherefore neither could that be long, which was not at all. Let us not then say, “time past hath been long”: for we shall not find, what hath been long, seeing that since it was past, it is no more, but let us say, “that present time was long”; because, when it was present, it was long. For it had not yet passed away, so as not to be; and therefore there was, what could be long; but after it was past, that ceased also to be long, which ceased to be.

Let us see then, thou soul of man, whether present time can be long: for to thee it is given to feel and to measure length of time. What wilt thou answer me? Are an hundred years, when present, a long time? See first, whether an hundred years can be present. For if the first of these years be now current, it is present, but the other ninety and nine are to come, and therefore are not yet, but if the second year be current, one is now past, another present, the rest to come. And so if we assume any middle year of this hundred to be present, all before it, are past; all after it, to come; wherefore an hundred years cannot be present. But see at least whether that one which is now current, itself is present; for if the current month be its first, the rest are to come; if the second, the first is already past, and the rest are not yet. Therefore, neither is the year now current present; and if not present as a whole, then is not the year present. For twelve months are a year; of which whatever by the current month is present; the rest past, or to come. Although neither is that current month present; but one day only; the rest being to come, if it be the first; past, if the last; if any of the middle, then amid past and to come.

See how the present time, which alone we found could be called long, is abridged to the length scarce of one day. But let us examine that also; because neither is one day present as a whole. For it is made up of four and twenty hours of night and day: of which, the first hath the rest to come; the last hath them past; and any of the middle hath those before it past, those behind it to come. Yea, that one hour passeth away in flying particles. Whatsoever of it hath flown away, is past; whatsoever remaineth, is to come. If an instant of time be conceived, which cannot be divided into the smallest particles of moments, that alone is it, which may be called present. Which yet flies with such speed from future to past, as not to be lengthened out with the least stay. For if it be, it is divided into past and future. The present hath no space. Where then is the time, which we may call long? Is it to come? Of it we do not say, “it is long”; because it is not yet, so as to be long; but we say, “it will be long.” When therefore will it be? For if even then, when it is yet to come, it shall not be long (because what can be long, as yet is not), and so it shall then be long, when from future which as yet is not, it shall begin now to be, and have become present, that so there should exist what may be long; then does time present cry out in the words above, that it cannot be long.

 

[durangodawood]

There should be a disconnect between the actual rotation of the Earth, motion, and time, the human concept. I'm not sure how else to describe it.

Why should there be that disconnect?

To me, the human concept of time is well and properly connected to the actual motion of things.

 

[Jonaitis]

If time is past, and time is present, and time is to come...how do we measure anything except what is happening in the present, since the past is gone and the future is yet to be? But even then, how long is the present before it becomes the past or the future? Augustine discusses time beyond the movements of the sun, and goes into deeper into the question of what time is in substance.

What defines the present?

 

[TimMcCollum]

No, actually it isn't. Here's a taste:

…

But see at least whether that one which is now current, itself is present; for if the current month be its first, the rest are to come; if the second, the first is already past, and the rest are not yet. Therefore, neither is the year now current present; and if not present as a whole, then is not the year present. For twelve months are a year; of which whatever by the current month is present; the rest past, or to come. Although neither is that current month present; but one day only; the rest being to come, if it be the first; past, if the last; if any of the middle, then amid past and to come...

No, it wasn't too hard of a read. This section I especially agree with! Past and future (I would argue present itself (i.e. conditional/imaginary)) to be concepts of thought happening Now. Now is a state of mind outside the confines of time. I believe you already know this, it's cool isn't it!

 

[TimMcCollum]

Why should there be that disconnect?

To me, the human concept of time is well and properly connected to the actual motion of things.

It's nearly perfect. It's flawed, because humans made it, but we can agree to disagree on that if you want. For all intensive purposes it works wonders and won't be going away anytime soon, but it isn't real. It's a concept.

 

[durangodawood]

...What defines the present?

It might be a sort of axiomatic concept. A shared intuition that we cant explain in other terms and just have to agree-to.

Or perhaps I need to think harder about it....?