Philosophers which is purer? Time is a process? Or time is an interaction?

[Gottservant]

Hi,

If I could just get your thoughts on this:

Which is purer? Time is a process? Or time is an interaction?

Clock or atomic relationship?

Thanks.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I'd say time is a sense of perspective. That's an opinion, I'm not sure where purity comes into it.

 

[Gottservant]

I'd say time is a sense of perspective. That's an opinion, I'm not sure where purity comes into it.

Oh okay, something different.

Hmmm... but the perspective is not physically something or based on something that changes physics?

Can you explain that to me?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Oh okay, something different.

Hmmm... but the perspective is not physically something or based on something that changes physics?

Can you explain that to me?

The perspective is physical, I experience it through my senses. I don't think physics needs to change from that statement. But you could say I'm experiencing a process (time) within that sensory perspective and that I interact with it.

 

[Gottservant]

The perspective is physical, I experience it through my senses. I don't think physics needs to change from that statement. But you could say I'm experiencing a process (time) within that sensory perspective and that I interact with it.

Ok so you go with process, after all?

But it is subservient to perspective? Is that a paradox or an enigma?

 

[scientia]

Time is an exchange of energy limited by the speed of light.

 

[loveofourlord]

Time doesn't exist, and is a byproduct of how we percieve the world and a consequence of this. There is no true past, we just remember a past because we have the ability to remember past states of matter, but doesn't mean there is a actual past you can go back to, or a future you can go towards. We think of life as a movie were recording, that some where there is always the past we've experienced.

Hmmmm let me try this new anology :>

we think of life as a movie of a action figure toy. You play the movie as it walks around does it's things, you can go fowards and backwards and see the past and the future of the events.

But to me, I see it as, just the action figure no movie. Your seeing the action figure move about just like the movie, but there is no past/present/future, just changes in the state of the action figure, it's just moving around, not through a movie, but a ever changing single state. We percieve something we call time, because were able to remember the past states something was in, these build up as the state our brain acumilates memories of past states. But I think this is a illusion, and were simply seeing a dimension that isn't there.

 

[Chesterton]

Time is a commodity like any other. It could be traded on the NYSE except that it's utterly worthless. There's such an infinite supply of it that it can be wasted posting and responding on internet philosophy forums. It's a dark liquid-like substance and smells of burnt plaid.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Ok so you go with process, after all?

process- a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

So when I experience time from my perspective it does feel like a process of sorts, ending at sleep that day, ultimately ending at death. But then I'm not looking to achieve the end of the day or death, they are just inevitable . That's why I didn't really agree with your original statement.

But it is subservient to perspective? Is that a paradox or an enigma?

Are you asking if time was subservient to perspective? as in relation to it being a means to an end?

 

[Gottservant]

Are you asking if time was subservient to perspective? as in relation to it being a means to an end?

I suppose in a way I am wondering how something that is infinite, can be a means to an end, yes.

But not just that, how it is a means to an end (if it is infinite).

Wait, did I just say that twice with almost no difference, I think I did.

In the second case I mean, whether time is something that can "be" or not (as opposed to being what is).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time is change through an entity's own nature and its interactions with other entities. It is both process and interaction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Time is change through an entity's own nature and its interactions with other entities. It is both process and interaction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, but which is purer? Process or interaction?

That was the question?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, but which is purer? Process or interaction?

My answer is neither. It's both.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

From A to not A.

A relational property.

Therefore moments are concrete (A, B , C etc), but the process is abstract (before, after, from, to etc are I think relational properties).

Buddha said IIRC that all composites are impermanent. Maybe composites are impermanence...

Inrteraction and process are a myth? All that is are atomic-indivisible "moments", and process and change are synthetic and need a mind to regard or connetc the dots. Experience is no myth tho'., so maybe the truth is time is emergent...

 

[Gottservant]

From A to not A.

[...]

so maybe the truth is time is emergent...

Fascinating, I think perhaps you may be right.

Certainly if one has mastery of time, it is possible to cause things to emerge (from that which is (in the moment)).

I still would like to know what is "pure" about that, though?

 

[Gottservant]

My answer is neither. It's both.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Both are pure?

Great?

But the question is specifically which is purer? And they cannot be equally pure without being less pure than possible?

 

[variant]

Hi,

If I could just get your thoughts on this:

Which is purer? Time is a process? Or time is an interaction?

Clock or atomic relationship?

Thanks.

Purer in what sense?

 

[Gottservant]

Purer in what sense?

Good question.

Feel free to change this, but for me it means "more effective (at refining)"

In the sense of becoming purer - like, if I were to choose one approach or the other to my time, which would make me the most refined?

 

[variant]

Good question.

Feel free to change this, but for me it means "more effective (at refining)"

In the sense of becoming purer - like, if I were to choose one approach or the other to my time, which would make me the most refined?

We refine things when we describe them? We're looking to remove iron from the slag of ideas?

It's good poetry but I still don't have a clue how to answer your question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But the question is specifically which is purer? And they cannot be equally pure without being less pure than possible?

IMV, neither one is purer. Neither question is more fundamental on this issue. The answer involves both equally, since they are tied together in one concept. Your question is faulty.


eudaimonia,

Mark