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

[Star Adept]

Ooh, this is a good schizo/philo question.

I will loosely agree on interaction.

Time is the perceptive recognition of change. It is purely intrinsic but does not require consciousness. It has no definitive process as it is subjective to all forms of life.

As a schizophrenic, who slips into the fantasy of his mind and perceives that fantasy as having passed for 2 hours, I recognize that only 2 minutes of the defined measurement of time on a clock has passed.

A plant perceives the change in weather/sunlight and therefore recognizes, unconsciously, that it is time to bloom.

A rock perceives nothing and thereby recognizes no time.

Change is the basis of time. It exists as a universal force. Without change, there would be no recognition of time (all of everything would be frozen still -- the universe as a picture but nobody to look at it). Without any way of perceiving (and therefore my loose basis of interaction) any life form would not know that a change occurred, thus time would not be recognized

An Alzheimer's patient's brain does not perceive the change from one moment to the next through a gap, therefore recognizes no passing of time. Yet, their body perceives all the things in that gap and recognizes when food has entered the stomach and therefore it is time to produce more acid. The hotdog he/she ate recognizes nothing and only has forces act on it.

Hm, the hotdog gives me another definition that seems a bit more appropriate.

Time is the unconscious reaction of a living things to changes in its environment. The length of time is the conscious, perceptive analysis of the speed at which change takes place.

Edit: To be fair, I still like my original definition, having posted both.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

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).

As you can see there are many opinions on the subject of time. You can give an objective understanding of what that is, but time as the subject is something we perceive. So time can 'be', when we are conscious of it, and it can also 'not be' when we are awake and aware but not aware of time, it is in 'the now' kind of situation. Certainly in my meditation I have experienced a timeless space where I no longer perceived time, but my body was still subject to it. I'm not sure I have answered your question.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If things interact they change, therefore they are made of parts. Hence atoms (simple unchanging things) are impossible, because change occurs. Therefore all matter changes, and is made of further parts. So the universe is infinite, because for every zoom in there are further parts - because if we discovered atoms at one zoom level they would "spoil" change...

 

[Eudaimonist]

If things interact they change, therefore they are made of parts.

I don't see how that follows. Why should change imply parts?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If there are no parts, then how can the object or aggregate change, which is either an rearrangement or dissolution? If therre is change, you can always demand "which part changed and how"? You cant say the whole changed and the parts remained the same.

I think only "nothing" is partless. All things have parts. "Nothing" is permanent... loosely speaking. All else is in transition.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If there are no parts, then how can the object or aggregate change, which is either an rearrangement or dissolution?

What is the problem here? I can't imagine why something needs parts in order to change into something else.

If therre is change, you can always demand "which part changed and how"?

One can always demand anything, but I don't see why this would always make sense here.

You cant say the whole changed and the parts remained the same.

You are assuming that there are parts to begin with, which is not something I would assume.

I think only "nothing" is partless. All things have parts.

Even quarks? I don't see why all things should have parts. Must a part itself have parts ad infinitum?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

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

Time happens so that light can do its thing.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Even quarks? I don't see why all things should have parts. Must a part itself have parts ad infinitum?

Thats my conjecture.

What is the problem here? I can't imagine why something needs parts in order to change into something else.

If time is change, I would have thought that it leads from x to non x. But if x is simple, then non-x cannot come from x (be an extentsion of x's being) because being simple it can only "give birth" to itself.

Imagine a russian doll without parts, where would the babies come from? Except by "magic"?

So simple things cannot change, and add a simple into a system than the whole "freezes", by the weakest link principle. Just brainstorming, first time I have discussed this.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thats my conjecture.

Okay.

If time is change, I would have thought that it leads from x to non x. But if x is simple, then non-x cannot come from x (be an extentsion of x's being) because being simple it can only "give birth" to itself.

I don't see why x can only give birth to itself. Why can't x change into non-x?

Imagine a russian doll without parts, where would the babies come from? Except by "magic"?

I don't understand the point of your question.

So simple things cannot change

Assuming for the moment that electrons and positrons are simple, why couldn't an electron change into a positron? That's just an example. Insert any other pair of simple particles.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Star Adept]

Assuming for the moment that electrons and positrons are simple, why couldn't an electron change into a positron? That's just an example. Insert any other pair of simple particles.


eudaimonia,

Mark

As a simple particle, the properties of the particle are what change an election into a positron. Those properties need not a part to act upon, necessarily.

Prior to the knowledge of those simple particles, the atom was a simple particle and did not necessitate that the property-difference in atoms were a function of smaller parts.

A simple particle is that in which the substructure is unknown, as of yet. To deny that its change in properties cannot be a function of distinctive parts acting as properties is to warrant no further investigation into the substructure. To claim that it must be made of parts in order to change properties is presumptuous.