What is Time

[pgp_protector]

What is Time, and what is Now ?

Is your Now the same as My Now ?

 

[billwald]

Time is something that clocks measure. There is no such thing as "now." Everything is past or future. We think there is a "now" because our senses are slow and mush things together. <G>

 

[michabo]

Time is a dimension, just as length, width and height. Movement and gravity affects these dimensions, so our "nows" will be subtly different, but in our familliar day-to-day lives this difference is not meaningful.


And for the future, in English only proper nouns are capitalized. That means "time" is different than "Time". I have no idea what Time or Now mean. If you wish to discuss "time", don't capitalize it.

 

[BobbieDog]

What is Time, and what is Now ?

Is your Now the same as My Now ?

Time allows us to manage not-all. Now is us, as we manage not-all.
Where we embrace all, time dissapears: we have eternal; the us that was now, is displaced by God as the source of all.
The Bible as Word, as sustained and systemic understanding, through which we live: sees us straddling time and the eternal; as an exigency explained as falleness and redemption.
In Jesus we transcend time: in taking on a faith which cleaves to the eternal; where now becomes this faith matter, essentially of approach to God.

In Judaic ontology: where we are in, and thereby have time; we stand at some remove from God.
Although an inescapable condition: this temporality has its status qualified for the Jew; by the promise of what is to come, if only the Jews truly become and remain God's people.
With Jesus, the temporal circumstance is overcome under a new dispensation, where loving your neighbour becomes integral to that cleaving to God, which gives entree to the eternal.

Practically, your now is not my now. Where I love you as myself, your now and my now become equivalent: and what either has in God, becomes available to the other.
Communion offers the same prospect.
Crucifixion can, and possibly invariably does accompany such transcendance of time: we partake of the eternal, and transcend time, as we serve the other in God, as did Jesus; and in such moment we probably have to accept collective "sin" as our own lot, without personal response.

Where we take up God's work: take up being fulcrummed in the understanding of God proffered by Jesus; then there is no time. Such work is wholly and absolutely demanding, and needs be done immediately: in which we fail; but the effort is important, and the failing forgiven.

Time as in the physical sciences, or much of everyday life: falls into the category of what the Bible calls the earthly; and we perhaps know as the temporal.
Initially, or impressionistically, time seems to be different in this frame of reference: but ultimately, with explanation such as Einstein's, and others; time becomes relativistic, relational, interchangeable with other fundamentals.
It begins as something linear which regulates change, and within which we find ourselves: but it moves on to become a plastic part of understanding and explanation; at which point it partakes of what the Bible calls the eternal.

Both the Bible, and the physical sciences: begin with the time understanding and sense, of the everyday; and take them through refinement, where eventually some new "time", gives us entree to a fresh universe.

Time is the relational sense and regulator of our "natural" being.
As we move towards grasping the "all", our time sense and conception fundamentally transmutes: to the Eternal with the Bible, and the relativistic with Einstein and others; such that fresh universe opens to human occurrence, where this transmuted time is the relational sense and regulator of that fresh universe.

So time is some fundamental and primal quality in our epigenetical metabolism. Through altering our posture in that metabolism, crucially through altering our time sense and quality: we alter what being obtains for ourselves; through management of this epigenesis.

 

[Redneck]

They say time is the fire in which we burn.



/me switches of the Trekiness

 

[michabo]

Wow, that's a lot.

I wonder: why would you (or anyone) turn to the bible for an understanding of time? Our understanding of time has changed radically over the last one hundred years - what do you think has changed over the last two thousand?

 

[BobbieDog]

They say time is the fire in which we burn.

I like that.

 

[BobbieDog]

Wow, that's a lot.

I wonder: why would you (or anyone) turn to the bible for an understanding of time? Our understanding of time has changed radically over the last one hundred years - what do you think has changed over the last two thousand?

Our context, our human given context has changed.
How and what we imagine and concieve, think and feel, has so changed.
Those changes have driven changes to our material and social arrangements: and they in turn have driven changes in how we think and feel.
Now we have a new phase and moment in this, which we call globalisation.

The Bible is always a handy resource box, because its conceptions have been worked out and sustained over such long time period.
As ontology it is probably unsurpassed: although clearly the books of Eastern society make other seminal contribution; and offer their alternate systemic understandings.
The Bible deals centrally with time and its transcendance. It deals with before-time, using the notions of Genesis; which in Jesus really become epigenesis.
What has opened up during the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment, and been cemented in the general emancipation of populations: is the massive increase in temporality; we have today, in science and technology, a numerical and temporal universe, of ineffable scale and wieght.

Whatever time transcending understanding you bring into play: now has to engage with, and transcend all that; and that is maybe the most massive change in the last two thousand years.

 

[michabo]

No offense, but you sound like a philosopher. And I don't think that began to address the question. Gallileo said that we should turn to scripture to tell us how to go to heaven, not to know how the heavens go. And that is true to this day.

Time is not a philosophical construct, but has physical properties and an independent reality. What makes you think that the bible should tell us anything about this?

 

[BobbieDog]

No offense, but you sound like a philosopher. And I don't think that began to address the question. Gallileo said that we should turn to scripture to tell us how to go to heaven, not to know how the heavens go. And that is true to this day.

Time is not a philosophical construct, but has physical properties and an independent reality. What makes you think that the bible should tell us anything about this?

Time is an element in human understanding; an element in the human activity of explaining.
Before all else, time is indeed a philosophical construct.
Two of our most comprehensive and sustained projects are religion and science. These are our two primary philosophies. They are now specialised and insititutionally separated, but at their heart they remain projects of striving and understanding.
Both Einstein and the Bible would have it that time is not independent, that time varies and transmutes with holistic factor. Both would have it that the reality of time is contingent, that it depends on what frame of reference is applied.
We can of course have the philosophical disagreement: about whether time is an element of explanation and understanding, or alternately a substantive and independent reality; but a question arises about what you are dealing with, in such disagreements.
The Bible can tell us much about the matter of exploring time: simply because it records the finding of a vast body of people; who have been exploring time and related, for perhaps six thousand years.
Personally, while embracing the contribution of science, I would not be prepared to abandon the field of understanding and explanation, exclusively to them.

So to repeat: it seems that, while you would argue for time as an independent substantive reality; I would argue that time is an element in human projects of understanding and explanation.

Likewise with the question of now. I would not be prepared to surrender to a universe that was objective. I see everyhting we experience as phenomenal. We create it in our epigenetical process, our self creating. We can take charge of it, and manage it, absolutely.
The question of "shared now" is open to our own efforts: and I take the Biblical understanding to make suggestion as to those conditions in which we can share one now; whatever significance such sharing might be held to have.

 

[michabo]

Before all else, time is indeed a philosophical construct.

Philosophers have attempted for millenia to explain time. Time is a measure of change between two movements, so no movement, no time. Time is an illusion of our perception. Time is an arrow. Time flows. Time flies. Time is independent. Time is dependent. Fire pithy comments out and see what sticks.

Let's face it, none of these comments mean anything. Philosophy can not give us anything concrete to really understand time which is why our first glimpse had to wait until Newton. He introduced the concept of "absolute space" against which all movement must be measured. He backed this up with equations, but even this was deeply unsatisfying because it offered no means to detect absolute space. Einstein refined this by integrating time with space and showing how space and time would be affected by motion or gravity. For the first time in history, we finally began to understand what time really was.

For all of your hedging, the bible doesn't offer anything which might give us any understanding of time itself. Philosophy (and theology as a subset of philosophy) can teach us how to appreciate the time in our lives and our history, but it tells us nothing about time itself.

Both Einstein and the Bible would have it that time is not independent, that time varies and transmutes with holistic factor. Both would have it that the reality of time is contingent, that it depends on what frame of reference is applied.

And these clear statements in the bible were the reason that it took two thousand years of christian society to reach this conclusion? Show me the people that thought that time was dependent and used the bible as inspiration. I might believe that you can reconcile Einstein with the bible, but then that's the advantage of vague wording.

So to repeat: it seems that, while you would argue for time as an independent substantive reality; I would argue that time is an element in human projects of understanding and explanation.

And how would you go about empirically defining it? How can you defend it? How can you falsify it? If you can't, you're just navel gazing.

 

[BobbieDog]

Firstly, michabo, we must be clear about the degree to which your own philosophy is grounded in violence: not thereby to be discredited; but sufficiently intrinsic to your philosophy, that it demands that we understand what part it plays in enabling your philosophy, or mediating its empiricality.

You say: "Fire pithy comments out and see what sticks"; "none of these comments mean anything"; "Philosophy can not give us anything concrete to really understand time"; "For the first time in history, we finally began to understand what time really was"; "For all of your hedging, the bible doesn't offer anything"; "that's the advantage of vague wording"; "you're just navel gazing".

These are not elements of reasoning or argument, but expressions of pre-judgment: not thereby nullified in being so; but not having prospect of becoming more.

It would seem that we can both appreciate what was introduced by the deeply Christian Newton, and the Jewish Einstein.

What we seem to disagree on, is your implicit contention: that once science spun off as a somewhat independent philosophical project; that it came to have some monopoly on the matter and question of time.

I'm not sure why you bring in the matter of what use other people made of the Bible. I speak for myself, in the reference I make to the Bible, and my arguments stand independently of any use another might put the Bible to.

The principal of falsifiability finds its meaning within the project of empirical science. The deeply spiritual Descartes, devoted himself much more time to alchemy, than he did to that part of his work on which science is now grounded.

Empiricality is an epiphenomenon of a degree of collective consensus. Alter the paradigm informing that consensus, and you alter the concrete detail of any empiricality. The notion that there is one empiricality is a political illusion.

Philosophy can continue with sub-constituencies and communion groups, which self manage their grounding consensus: thereby seeing some degree of escape from the empiricality of a contextual collective; giving rise to the Biblical notion of "being in the world, but not of it".

Here the principle of falsifiability no longer has remit.

Wherever you deal with theorising which could entail paradigm shift, such that one concrete empiricality is displaced by another: then the principle of falsifiability is not longer relevant or useful: and we require another basis on which to judge propositions.

Here religious and science have the same problem: heretical suggestion which breaches an orthodoxy, can be difficult for any collective or institution to deal with. Religious collective and scientific collective, can here both make the call of false teaching.

The heretical demands of the orthodox that they space walk. That they step into the ferality that their philosophical project nominally deals with. Few like doing that.

Generally an orthodoxy will choose the path of violence. Its adherents choosing to seek to nullify the elements of heretical proposition.

 

[Kripost]

"Time is money" -- Business Axiom

 

[michabo]

Firstly, michabo, we must be clear about the degree to which your own philosophy is grounded in violence: not thereby to be discredited; but sufficiently intrinsic to your philosophy, that it demands that we understand what part it plays in enabling your philosophy, or mediating its empiricality.

Red in tooth and claw?

I do not believe all ideas are of equal merit. If we wish to understand and gain knowledge, we must eliminate some ideas. If you see this as violent, then so be it.

You say they are pre-judgement, but this is wrong. They are conclusions. It is meaningless (yes "meaningless") to speak using terms which have no definition. If we say something, and we cannot say what we have said and what we have not said, than we have no meaning. Not a prejudgement, not violence. I'm sorry if I do not validate your argument, but this is not my responsibility.

It would seem that we can both appreciate what was introduced by the deeply Christian Newton, and the Jewish Einstein.

Einstein was not Jewish. He did not believe in any god except a version of Spinoza's god which is not consistent with Judaism.

that once science spun off as a somewhat independent philosophical project; that it came to have some monopoly on the matter and question of time.

It isn't "science", and it isn't an us-and-them division or some sort of turf war. Quite simply, if philosophy is not able to say anything meaningful about the nature of time, then it should not say anything at all. The question posed is "what is time", not "what should we do about time" or "how should we regard time" or even "how should the passage of time affect our views". The first must be answered empirically if it is to have any meaning. In this, you've singularily failed. For the others, I leave that squarely in your camp, and philosophy in general.

Empiricality is an epiphenomenon of a degree of collective consensus. Alter the paradigm informing that consensus, and you alter the concrete detail of any empiricality. The notion that there is one empiricality is a political illusion.

A lot of claims, but I ask myself "what do you mean"? Can you provide any examples which might support these statements? Can you tell me how one can go about verifying anything you have said?

Wherever you deal with theorising which could entail paradigm shift, such that one concrete empiricality is displaced by another: then the principle of falsifiability is not longer relevant or useful: and we require another basis on which to judge propositions.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

I would say that the world view (paradigm) itself is not falsifiable. However, any statements made within that paradigm must be empirical if they are to have meaning.

Here religious and science have the same problem: heretical suggestion which breaches an orthodoxy, can be difficult for any collective or institution to deal with. Religious collective and scientific collective, can here both make the call of false teaching.

What is a scientific heresy?

 

[BobbieDog]

Time and space are powerful concepts, when we seek to understand and explain most any part of human occurrence and existence.

They also mediate almost all such occurrence and existence, with which we are generally familiar.

But, they are not substantive realities in some world independent of our own activities.

Time and space are, rather, intrinsic to a fundamental human reflex to epigenesis. They characterise that activity in which we naturally engage. They are fundamental to that existence and occurrence we seek for ourselves. As fundamental as is seeking a place in the sun.

Time and space are reflective of the architecture of the metabolism of human epigenesis.

It is hard to contemplate human occurrence and existence, which extends to any context of setting we might have in this, which is not characterised by space and time.

Yet such occurrence and existence does occur, or is suggested.

Amongst those which the Bible terms "poor in spirit", which we often term as of "special need" or "mentally ill": we do encounter human occurrence and existence, where space and time are in some way absent; or take forms hard for us to register.

Main stream religions, on their Gnostic, mystic and esoteric boundaries: see sustained spiritual discipline, where adherents explore a varying of both time and space.

Buddhism is often taken as a seminal expression of comprehensive mastery over both space and time.

Life philosophies, such as existentialism and surrealism, see space and time subject to a whole life analytic scrutiny; where orthodox verities are hard to sustain.

Music and much of literature and the theatrical, see the binding circumstances of history, yield to the evocation of sound and word. Time becomes timing, within an artistic event: space becomes some ground for the determination of the human spirit.

Educationally, we have in the ADD child, evidence of a human occurrence, metronomed by a time frequency, which is not as the contextual collective time.

In the Autistic, we have a spatial sense, almost defying analysis and characterisation.

In the dyslexic we have a routine and habitual relativity, that sees time and space as ever varying dimensions, of a plastic experientiality.

In poetry we have always had time and space fixed in their true nature: as seeming substances, always yielding that substance when placed in largest context.

The time and space which seems to us most resistant, is that which is manifested in the concrete details of our actual lives: reflected in our achievements of technology and science; regulating of the economy of our way of life.

This time and space to, is never as substantive as it first appears. If we are willing and able to entertain varying of our way of life and its economy: raising the revolutionary perspectives that might mediate that varying; then even the concrete details of our way of life can change. When we change these details, then we vary the time and space we have.

There are two aspects to this. One we find it very difficult to entertain such revolutionary perspectives. Invariably collective forces act to inhibit and suppress such change: so much so that it is difficult even to contemplate them abstractly.

Perhaps, taken in practical aspect, such varying of time and space: which people might tend to speak of as freedom; is mediated by changed regulation of deep emotionality.

The place of the specifically scientific grasp and use of time and space, is complex to deal with: not because it is unduly complex theoretically; but because it has become so embedded in our way of life. What many Christians complain of as secularization, is simply this process of progressive embedding. To challenge scientific time and space, is to challenge our very current way of life.

This challenge is easier for Islamic society. Such that the current conflict with Islam: where the USA as representative of science informed technological society, chooses to go head to head with Islam, in competition for a global hegemony; sees a sub-textual, and largely ignored battle over time and space.

That battle is ignored by us, largely because in our ethnocentricity, we simply do not have the perspectives in which to register it. We view the conflict purely from the point of view of those perspectives sustaining our own ethnicity: and simply discount what a disinterested observer might see.

This, again, indicates just when and where time and space can be varied: time and space can be varied, as dimensions of existentiality and occurrence; when the whole in which any given time and space is embedded, is comprehended.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so

 

[Andy Broadley]

Time travel

A word of caution on the subject of time travel. This was the incident that led to the fromation of the 'campaign for real time' many yaears ago.

In a distant part of the galaxy, on a world greatly more advanced than our own, and where time travel was commonplace, stood the great cathedral of Balzink.

The cathedral had stood for thousands of years, but was finally demolished to make way for a new photon drive factory. As with most large building projects, problems and delays occurred frequently. In order to avoid the huge penalty clauses in the contract, the builders used time travel to move the start of the building back in time so as to complete it on the scheduled date.

Unfortunately, the delays where so common, and the start date moved so far back in time, that eventually the great Cathedral of Balzink was never built in the first place.

Picture postcards of the cathedral suddenly became immensley valuable.

This caused such outrage that the campaign for real time was set up to stop this gratuitous mucking around in time and space.

.

 

[BobbieDog]

We perhaps more generally seek "now", presence, than we seek to escape time by transcending it to, say, eternity.
Perhaps the seeking of the unending, secure moment: is much more what we seek in our societies; than we seek to escape its implications through religious salvation.
The stoned hippies of the sixties, perhaps sometimes sought immersion in an infinite now: where they exploited the time transcending, but did so with the consumerist goal of a personal immortality, in a boundless now.
LSD, and perhaps drug use more generally: see time and space much varied; and perhaps the high that the user continues to seek, is that initial, oceanic belonging, where time and space dissolve into all else, and into one another.
Current drug use, as reflected by changes in the popular music associated, has a very different existential rythm, from these hippy days.

 

[michabo]

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so

Very deep. You should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Very deep. You should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you.

And we've got a whole thread for people like us, why not pay us a visit

http://www.christianforums.com/t1163612-the-hitch-hikers-guide-to-the-galaxy.html