Talk:Time/Archive 5

I don't agree with JimWae's edit and edit summary, so I undid it:

1. Since we are leaning toward the scientific viewpoint here, and since in physics events are defined as having no duration, I had replaced events with processes.
2. I don't agree with the objection that some processes would have no beginning or end: that would mean that the process would just have an unknown, or even infinite, duration.
3. I don't see what would be problematic about processes.
4. The addition of the phrase ""and other changes.<!-- such as radioactive decay-->" seems problematic:
   1. radioactive decay is already included in "intervals between events",
   2. the reader just sees the phrase "... and to quantify the motions of objects and other changes," and will likely frown, wondering either "huh, motions of changes?", or "witch other changes?"

We could take the view that many people look at events as having duration, and find that not everything that has a duration should be called a process, and decide to restore that part, but I definitely think we should leave out that phrase ""and other changes.<!-- such as radioactive decay-->"

Any seconds? Thirds? Other thoughts? DVdm (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Many processes are ongoing - they endure, but have no duration. What is the duration of processes such as deforestation, evaporation, erosion, melting? Events have starts and ends, thus have durations that we can time. Many processes are not timed - though they may be interrupted. As for the other, the simple fix is to reverse the order (see article). 2>I do not recall any consensus to "lean toward the scientific viewpoint" as opposed to having a general-use encyclopedic definition--JimWae (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with Jim) Generally speaking if Jim Wae is the author of such statements, then these are derived from the sources, and he didn't make them up. I really don't see the phrase, "... and to quantify the motions of objects and other changes," as confusing. It makes sense to me. Also, because this is (or was) in the lede, then its intent is general coverage, or a general overview. Hopefully, the article will get more specific about this in some other section.

Also, although I tend to lean toward the scientific viewpoint myself, this article is meant to be broader than just that viewpoint. I have not seen a consensus that says we (the editors) are leaning toward the scientific viewpoint. That is why editors such as Jim Wae are very important in this instance. He has deep knowledge of the philosophical view point. Let me share an personal anecdote, which is only indirectly related. I use to think Aristotle was irrelevant for anything related to the physical sciences. Then I read some of his stuff that surprised me. He did have some ideas that are still relevant today. I don't know if this helps, but there it is.

Apparently I was writing this while Jim was writing his response above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I think most all of us in the physics community are familiar with the insightful work of Democritus (an atomic theory). So let's not dismiss the philosophers who have contributed much throughout our history. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Remarks:

• As I already said, the duration of processes such as deforestation, evaporation, erosion, melting is unknown. That does not mean that it is non-existent. We can always say that, for instance, this deforestation, evaporation, erosion, melting has been going on since many years. So we are talking about the duration of these processes. So in my opinion, this is not a valid objection against using the process concept in the lead.
• Jim says that events have starts and ends. I say that events mark the starts and ends of processes. That's how these concepts are defined in physics and I think that the scientific viewpoint of the lead is obvious from the current wording of the lead: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the Interval (time)|intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.<!-- and, also, changes such as radioactive decay-->)". I think this is even heavily "leaning toward the scientific viewpoint", so I really think we should have it right.
• Furthermore, having it "right" in this sense does (I.M.O.) no harm to our intent of providing general coverage, or a general overview.
• We also cannot buy these two arguments from authority ("Generally speaking if Jim Wae is the author of such statements, then these are derived from the sources, and he didn't make them up" and "That is why editors such as Jim Wae are very important in this instance. He has deep knowledge of the philosophical view point.") Really, Steve, I'm surprised (if not shocked) that you bring these up.
• The current wording also says: "... to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects." This sounds a bit awkward. I propose we change that to "..to quantify rates of change to describe phenomena such as motions of objects." Again, we really should leave the HTML-comment about radioactive decay out, since radioactive decay is characterised by the average time interval between individual discrete decay events.

So I think a good and balanced opening statement would be:

• "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events and establish intervals between them, to compare the durations of processes, and to quantify rates of change to describe phenomena such as motions of objects.

It certainly is correct from the physics/scientitic point of view, and I really don't see what would be wrong, unclear or ambiguous about it from the general or philosophical point of view. Perhaps there's some kind of compromise I didn't think of? DVdm (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• DVdm - as I review my statements, and your comments, I don't know what I was thinking, when I wrote that. I wasn't intending to assert arguments from authority. Apparently, somehow, I was trying to impose my point of view. And it was unintentional. I will have to look at this some more, and I will get back to you on this other stuff, hopefully soon. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, don't lose too much sleep over it :-) (This is also an opportunity to correct a little typo in my comment) - DVdm (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Processes have no location in time (except that processes invented by humans have a start year). Processes are descriptions of the dynamics of events. The ordinary meaning of "event" includes things like concerts, foot-races, eclipses, airplane flights, earthquakes, blackouts, meals, hang-time. These are the kinds of events to which we assign numerical durations. You say "events mark the starts and ends of processes". I say events are what we choose to pay attention to and how we choose to describe them. Events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes BECAUSE events can be assigned a temporal location - whereas processes do not. Perhaps it would help if you could provide a few examples of processes you would say have a duration -- and events without duration--JimWae (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Every example of a process you have provided has a possible start and a possible ending event, and thus a duration. Take your examples like deforestation, evaporation, erosion, melting. Instances of such processes have a clearly definable starting event and ending event. The difference between the times of these events defines the duration of the process.

Anyway, you just wrote: "Events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes BECAUSE events can be assigned a temporal location - whereas processes do not.". There you confirm exactly my point. If indeed, like you say, "events can be assigned a temporal location whereas processes do not," and "events can be used as markers for the start and end to processes," then I think we are on the same line. What you say here seems to me to be 100% compatible with my proposed opening sentence. The only point of discussion that remains between us is that you also use the word event for things that have a duration. You call an earthquake an event, I call it a process - ok, I have a math/phys background and I assume you have a philosophy background. No problem. Surely there must be a non-confusing way to combine us in the wording of the lead? DVdm (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one "compare the durations of evaporation"? When does evaporation start? When does it end? A towel drying up (after a rainstorm, say) is an event. It is not itself a process (distinct from the same towel drying up the next day). The process of evaporation happens to the towel, but the process we know as evaporation continues throughout the world even after the towel is "dry". Otherwise we would end up identifying the process of evaporation from a towel as a distinct process from the evaporation that happens to a sponge, or the same towel the next day.

Just because we can identify the start of an event does not mean that there is something odd about speaking of the duration of an event. Perhaps someone speaks of events as it they were dimensionless instants, but even the start of what are ordinarily called "events" also have durations. The start of a movie includes the time it takes for the projectionist to flip the switch, for the projector to light up and the time for the light to reach the screen. The sources:^[2] (which need to be re-inserted into the article) speak about the duration of events AND refer to processes (n.b. periodic processes) when discussing the development of the units of temporal measurement. Some processes, such as electrolysis, can be stopped and started in a designated spatio-temporal location, but this does not give a duration to the process of electrolysis itself - it gives duration to the event of, say, electroplating a spoon in preparation for sale. This round of edits started because you considered it wrong to speak of events having duration. I see no source for such an assertion - and several sources that do support events having duration. --JimWae (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, yes, these are the sources I was thinking of pertaining to my last reponse. The sources support events, durations of events, and intervals between them. I see processes as cyclical. Geological processes are a succession of events, but do appear to be cyclical. There is no real beginning or end. There is perhaps a beginning with the formation of the Earth, but after that geological processes come into play, and these are cylical. ^[1]

• Textiles are made from the " basic processes of spinning and weaving, [which] have not changed "...^[2]

• I don't know if this helps with "processes", but what about Process philosophy to express a cyclical series of changes. I am not saying that there is anything more real than the physical universe. I merely present this reference to depict "processes". ^[3]

• DVdm, I will email you as before. I am unable to provide a password, and I will explain it in the email. I have tried to solve this so that you may also have a password, but I am unable to come up with a solution. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just two remarks:

• To Jimwae: "How does one "compare the durations of evaporation"? When does evaporation start? When does it end?" You have a liquid in a sealed jar. Evaporation starts when you open the jar. Evaporation ends when all the liquid is gone (or when you close the lid). Write down the times of these two events, calculate the differerence, call that the "duration of the evaporation process" and write it down. Repeat the experiment on top of a mountain. Compare the two durations. That is how one compares the durations of evaporation processes. The fact that I have to explain this, tells me that there is some kind of obstacle preventing us to meaningfully communicate. I don't know what it is, but it might be related to something (iirc) Feynman once said about the difference between physical and metaphysical thinking. So I won't comment any further, since doing so seems to be a waste of both our "times". No offence, and I hope that is mutual. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, if indeed many standard dictionaries and some academic sources talk about durations of events, then so be it. I find it very silly, but that shouldn't matter here, so I'll leave it at this.
• To Steve: Thanks for having taken the trouble to send me the emails. I'll have a look at them later, although I'm pretty pretty sure I will not bother with the process philosophy stuff — for obvious reasons ;-)

Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize we've been around the houses on this one, but the lead to this article is focused too strongly on time as a concept in the natural sciences, and in particular on the idea of quantification (the words "quantity" and "quantify" appear rather clumsily three times in the first sentence). This is not in itself wrong, but the article needs a more general working definition before it focuses on how time has been quantified/measured. After all, human beings have traditionally had concepts of time that are not quantifiable.

Contrast the French version of this page (which is much more philosophy-based, incidentally), where the first sentence is: "Le temps est un concept développé par l'être humain pour appréhender le changement dans le monde" ("Time is a concept developped by human beings in order to apprehend change in the world"). While I might argue with aspects of that (for example, "duration" and "repetition" seem at least as important as change in basic human conceptions of time) at least the French sentence is much more readily comprehensible to someone who wants a quick check on the concept than the current "Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes" (2010-11-16). The existing sentence could be the second sentence of the article, perhaps prefaced with "As a system of measurement, ". And why introduce the idea of "one-dimensional" so early on? The idea of time as a dimension pertains rather specifically to physics (and to science fiction). IMOHOO, it would make more sense to mention everyday measurement of time (e.g., in terms of natural cycles/rotation of the earth/moon and mechanical equivalent in clocks) *before* introducing the idea of time as a dimension in physics. In other words, the lead should work from the general and the everyday to the specific and specialized. --GKantaris (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

When one says "time is a one dimensional quantity", one is not taking a viewpoint that is best described as specifically scientific or "physicsistic". If we say "X is bigger than Y", we could mean at least 5 different things - its length, width, depth, area, or volume. If we say "X took more time than Y", we need not be concerned with which dimension we are talking about - there is only one dimension we would be discussing --JimWae (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We can also quantify non-numerically - with terms such as bigger, longer, faster. But the present text uses "compare" -- which also works, and reduces repetitiveness.--JimWae (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about??!!?? --JimWae (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it is seems to be unsourced, original research --JimWae (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. There are scholars who say that time BEGAN with the big bang. Nobody disputes that we can never know anything about anything that might have happened "before" (if that has any meaning here) the big bang. IF we provisionally accept that it makes sense to talk about "before the big bang", we certainly cannot say there were NO events then.
2. Sequence is not always apparent. Some events seem to occur simultaneously and do not. Some event-orders need to be reversed from our perception of them (if, for example, they happen light-years apart). In that case, we USE time to sequence them - we assign a sequence different from the apparent one, we insert an event into our sequence of past events
3. whether we "create the relation" or the relation exists apart from us is a matter of contention that we cannot take sides on in the article
4. as already stated, the article does not attempt to define "time" in terms of other "simpler" things, it defines time according to the most basic ways we use the term - and has sources to back it up
5. we can speak of time without bringing in "quantity" - when we speak of "before" and "after", which are clearly temporal concepts --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir don't mind that I'm talking two way but what my concept is that time is neither a part of any system nor it is quantifiable and as you said events are not always apparent they may occur simultaneously will you please explain this with example and as said events may b simultaneously then there might be a universal time all over the entire universe??? will you tell me what is universal time and its relation with events???

and talking about the article I myself m trying to improve the article as ir is very important topic (Raza536 (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)).

1. @Raza536: Per WP:NOR, encyclopedia articles are not the place to try to present your own ideas about time or any other topic. Encyclopedia articles focus on information that has already been published in sources that meet the guidelines given in WP:RS. Additionally, your entries have not been good English & do not make sense to other readers. Find reliable sources for anything you want to add to the article, post it here on the talk page first, then wait for feedback here from other English speakers.--JimWae (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Btw, if you read carefully, you will notice I did not say (nor imply) events actually DO occur simultaneously.--JimWae (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well sir if something published should be written here then what's the reason of wasting time here its not my personal thought or any personal observation its a research apart from english is good or not

now talking about the topic you talked about simultaneous events what's the concept here will you elaborate??? and since time is one dimensional quantity and cannot be plotted on graph so how could you compare the time as in your definition you have used the word "compare" (Raza536 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)) well I have a better definition if you allow to write in the article???Raza536 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Better to write it here on talk first -- include your reliable sources also--JimWae (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

see definition on my topic in this talk page What is Time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time#What_Is_.27TIME.27.3F Raza536 (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if this has been touched on, but wouldnt supertasks negate the possibility of time existing in a linear fasion that makes any sense in any scenario beyond subjective view? The idea is that there is basically an infinite amount of potential time units between any two other time units, such that to reach any other point in time would be logically impossible.

But then Im terrible at math and actual numbers. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia could touch on these. No original research. 92.7.169.0 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

well guys no original rsrch can be made on the unrecognizeable behaviour of time since time "flows" & is one dimensional quantity nothing accurately can be said or written on time(Raza536 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

I propose deleting the subsection Time as "unreal". I would propose a copy edit, but both the title and contents are worthless.

My paraphrases from the subsection are in both quotes and italics "like this".

The title says "Time is unreal", but the content says "Time is real". The title Real and unreal might work, but the title Reality might better provide a single, balanced section.

Antiphon the Sophist. The direct link to sophistry confuses the issue. The paraphrase with the link to Sophism reads "The book On Truth, whose main theme was that time is unreal was written by a "sophist who used a specious argument to deceive its readers." — CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Balance paradox. "Time as illusion/unreality leads to a paradox". Yes. But so does time as reality :-) — CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Balance the view of physicists. "Modern physicists generally consider time is as real as space." Yes. But space is not very real to physicists either :-). In a related article Block universe, a citation there reminds us, concerning the presentation of the reality of time, "Even though equations of physics do not imply that time lapses, they also do not imply that time does not lapse." — CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy. The subsection is supposed contain philosophy, but the contents of that subsection are, rather, 1)history of philosophy 2)references, and 3) an ambiguous suggestion about scientists' "scientific" opinions of time.— CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Represent the reference. 1)The reference 35, by Foundalis properly as saying "Time is real, but [...] the flow of time is a cognitive illusion." Yet it is supposed to support "If time is held to be an illusion, then this belief will lead to a paradox." The cite does not say "illusion leads to paradox", but only that claims were made that time is an illusion. Here's the quote from foundalis:

2)"Time as unreal is a common theme in Buddhism." Yes and No. A "theme" is a unifying subject or idea of a story, but the philosophy of Buddhism's common theme is not unreality of time. Rather say: A minor aspect of Buddhism is the unreality of all existence, and a common aspect of Buddhism is the reality of existence. 3)Antiphon the Sophist's book On Truth, according to my research on its description is mostly about politics and law. — CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

With the understanding that moving rather than deleting, is preferred, I submit that that subsection should be carefully deleted for the above reasoning. Can someone point out some worth in that subsection? — CpiralCpiral 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Time as Unreal" is a perennial topic in philosophy. An encyclopedia does not need to present the details of everyone's arguments for this view, but, btw, the links will help one to find these. Deleting the section is not an option, but it does need some rewriting.--JimWae (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Time as unreal" turns up many times. Thank you. The section Philosophy needs to be called Time as unreal or Metaphysics because a philosopher would expect to find the logic and ethics of time, and the aesthetic aspects of these, and the epistemology of those. As other readers have complained on these talk pages, there is no philosophy in the philosophy section. I note there is a simple list of names and books, many of which are of relevance only to the history of philosophy. — CpiralCpiral 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be re-written. I'll add templates with the understanding the rewriting is preferred, philosophy is preferred, and that there is bias:"Sophistry", "story", and "leads to paradox". — CpiralCpiral 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I advocate for a more structured content of the philosophy section. I advocate for content, not the feigning deference of mere lists of books, and the starting each "philosophical knowledge" statement with the name of a human personality; rather the rewrite should make statements of truths that represent the metaphysical assumptions that time is real, and make other statements of truths that represent the metaphysical assumptions that time is unreal. The personalities are irrelevant except as notable references. Each explanation is a separate metaphysical personality, each with it's own hairstyle. The Buddha, and Antiphon and Perimides did not have the tools of today's scientific discoveries that must be expected by modern convention of the meaning of the word philosophy, or any other informed worldview outside of history.— CpiralCpiral 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the common theme of Barbour's book is "time as unreal", it is a rigorous tome. The entire field of popular, modern physics' search for the TOE, is available to "time as unreal", although perhaps more focused on subjects revolving around the reality of time. Deutch, Wolf, Einstein, Greene, Davies, and so on, might, in worse case, all have their own metaphysics.— CpiralCpiral 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• The section is NOT called "Time is unreal"; it IS called "Time as "unreal"" - with scare quotes. You deleted the search for The many who've discussed this subsection before - presumably because you realized that talking about it does not always mean a complaint. Yet you bring it up again above ("As other readers have complained on these talk pages") calling them complaints. I do still agree the "Time as "unreal"" section needs work, however.

• I have difficulty seeing how the section will be balanced if we try to do "the rewrite should make statements of truths that represent the metaphysical assumptions that time is real, and make other statements of truths that represent the metaphysical assumptions that time is unreal" as you suggest. The authors (let's use that term rather than "personalities") are needed to give context & prevent WP:OR. I do still agree the "Time as "unreal"" section needs work, however. --JimWae (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you are scaring me, sir. Please forgive me for whatever. Whatever! — CpiralCpiral

Truths that are social realities, wikibro, are objective realities that remain only if and because they are, in Searle's terms "institutional facts" that only persist because we repeat them. Let's repeat them. But lets try to look at it objectively, understanding (finally) that WP is not able to be objective in presentation of truth statements. It is only able to be neutral. Each truth statement is a presentation of a bias. Therefore, any analysis into parts shows bias, and bias. We are both passionately holding the "truth" that we are constructing reality 2.0. In order to succeed, we need to understand both our differences and the construction of a harmonious presentation as seen from an objective view of the whole read of the article.

I deleted The many who've discussed this subsection before because, after perusing it myself, not only did I find it to be placing a difficulty readers to follow the links intention, but I found no link supported my presupposition. I therefore called it an error in the edit summary. I do feel free to express my mistaken bias, although it hurts when others do the same as I do and fail to assume good faith. Forgive me. I will not remove or change content that has been discussed on a talk page. But I may do so if and until I get a discussion to start.— CpiralCpiral 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that we're on the same page, the reason I, as you say "brought it up again above ('As other readers have complained on these talk pages') calling them complaints" was, as it turns out not valid for complaints about "time as unreal". But that simple, well-intentioned mistake uncovered for me a useful tool for my general attack on the section as it is currently written, namely therein it's lack of philosophy.— CpiralCpiral 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Haste makes as much waste as procrastination, so by moving forward carefully, in good faith, overcoming our difficulties and the friction that must slow things but imperil said things to the undoing of beautiful stories by the brute fact of the drive of time's progressive trait—its demand that threatens difficult final endings and leaves them imperfect—we can avoid the following need that now hovers above us:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

.

We share at least one thing - esteem for John Searle, whom I have met & engaged in philo talk. I am sure, however, he still gives sources for when he writes about what others have written. more later --JimWae (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome!

Sorry, but your source fails verification - a source that does not even mention TIME cannot become the source for text of one of 2 MAIN positions on time--JimWae (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the failure please? — CpiralCpiral 07:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You were complaining that there was no philosophy in some section or other, yet the very first thing you changed was the part that was one of the most expansive in terms of philosophy. What's up with that?--JimWae (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I sense a general unhappiness and a willingness to engage in the irrelevant. What specifically might I have I written, or not written? (Time slows down when your not having love of wisdom and love of sharing specific objective knowledge.) My subjective feelings may be irrelevant, but honestly, your Way is scaring me, Jim Hoppe, AKA cpiral, Hoping there is a Wae to discuss specific article improvements. — CpiralCpiral 07:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple: a source for an article (e.g. Time) needs to be discussing the topic of the article, viz. time.
• I thought you said above you had ideas for the "Time as "unreal"" section.
• As others have suggested elsewhere to you, it could be a very good idea to present your proposed changes on the talk page here first--JimWae (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• You just reverted to what is in many ways just unsourced WP:OR, (the rest is just gibberish) and said see talk page. There's nothing here to see. Please consult WP:BRD. It is up to you to make the case for your changes, especially when you have NO sources. You are not working co-operatively, and I doubt you will ever be happy at wikipedia if you proceed as you have been--JimWae (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the recent reverts... Main point of contention: is time "an intellectual concept" or this is something very much real? The scientific answer is unequivocal: yes, time and space are very much real, and not just a "concept". Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Whether time is real or not is something each editor may wish to decide for themselves, but cannot decide for wikipedia. However, the question at issue on 3rd party is whether the proposed change (see next section too, especially) is original research or is it true to the source. --JimWae (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I believe your change (the diff) was improvement. Intro is definitely better than it was a few moths ago.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A footnote and some minor rewording made, but JimWae removed them saying there was no source, but there were sources. 1) The definitions were interwikied to Wiktionary, a reliable source. The word wikt:event was "temporal" as required, and the word wikt:phenomenon was absent of the concept of time, as required by the context of that paragraph. 2) The changes from "intellectual concept" to "brain workings" were linked to the Edge.org article of a neuroscientist explaining the same thing that was already there in the article, but with an extra component called "symbol manipulation". (Edge.org is an esteemed forum for the highest intellects on the WWW.) There was also a link directly to the author of the cited article on our Wiki. I undid the revision because I think the reason in the edit summary was invalid. I am willing, however, to consider specific facts proving that I am clueless and out of line as to my understanding of the context of the paragraph we're working on here. But certainly there were the proper cites. If there is anyone of this articles several hundred watchers, please weigh in. Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The word "time" does not appear in the edge article, nor is time discussed. It cannot be a source for any article on time. The paragraph (in our article) presents the view as in the tradition of Leibniz & Kant. They did not use language anything like that for ANY topic, much less time. Please see WP:BRD and revert yourself until you have made a case that supports your changes--JimWae (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• It is more courteous to have already made comments on talk when you say "see talk" - especially since I had already given my reasons for removing your edit. Please see WP:BRD --JimWae (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what you attribute to your source:

  "time is... the way the brain works its intuition of space and number sense together with a symbol-manipulation subsystem that allows us to sequence and compare phenomena

• Here is what your supposed source actually says:

  "Our mathematics, for instance, is founded on a small set of basic objects: a number sense, an intuition of space, a simple symbol-manipulation system..." [ellipsis is in source]

• ....nothing about time, nothing about phenomena, nothing about sequence, nothing about compare - none of these words even appear on the page. And do note the 3 dots. The source is not presenting a complete exposition --- AND the topic is mathematics not time. Plus: Not even any mention of brain in that sentence. --JimWae (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog where one gets to muse online about one's own theories--JimWae (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Now that you have put a POV tag on a section, please indicate what sentences present what POV, else the tag needs to go--JimWae (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another constructive way to handle it would be to use the { {NPOV-inline|date=April 2011|reason=this sentence says position X is the truth} } template --JimWae (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

TIME:-

"The Time is one dimentional quantity,it is used to determine the period or duration of the events and periods or duration of interval of periods or duration of events or between events"

NOTE: Time is the basic and different physical quantity which is not comparable with other physical quantity but it is used to determine the other physical quantity by which these quantity are defined Such as Velocity"distance covered in unit TIME". It is just a relation between space and numerics to measure the rate of flow of any event and the interval between these events and their duration

Raza536 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are considerable problems with your English syntax in the above, but besides that it says some of the same as the present 1st paragraph. It differs by 1> leaving out sequencing (before and after), which certainly involves time (I have already mentioned this before) 2> leaving out change & motion - also concepts which are temporal at a basic level 3>Durations are not just "determined", they are sometimes simply compared - without assigning determined numbers (times) to them. (One event takes [an undetermined amount] more time than another) 4> it adds "one-dimensional quantity" . We have already discussed how "quantity" is somewhat inadequate, for quantities such as mass, space are not assigned positions on a scale. When we say event A will happen at 4:30, we are not assigning it quantitative value, we are putting that event in an ordered set of events - a sequence. The usage of time for quantifying is already in the 1st paragraph, explicitly with respect to motion and change, and implicitly with respect to "comparing". I have considered beginning with "Time is one dimension of a measuring system...", but that makes the sentence more complicated to parse & makes discussion of the other dimensions of the measuring system (AND any other other components) more urgent, which would remove the focus from time. If others think that is a better 1st sentence, we can all discuss it more.

Besides not citing any sources, you have not shown how what you want to put in the article is any improvement to the article or to the 1st paragraph. You have not provided any reason to change the existing lede. --JimWae (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is done, it should be - and especially the lede and perhaps the opening paragraphs should be - in as clear English as it is possible to achieve without being greatly inaccurate. (This is a general encyclopedia, and time is a subject of subject of general interest. Some more esoteric subjects - let's say Vanna Volga pricing for a random example - are mainly of interest to specialists and may be expected to jump into some fairly difficult terms and concepts right off. But time is not a subject like that). I'd be willing to offer some give in terms of absolute accuracy (probably not totally attainable anyway) in exchange for some in gain in comprehensibility, at least in the opening parts.

This got me wondering, What does Britannica say? which is sometimes a useful question. It's here, and it is pretty heavy stuff, but maybe there's a bit or two that could demonstrate some useful ways of approaching the subject. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596034/time has Britannica concise too. Britannica differs from wikipedia in that it does not have a set guideline of always beginning with a sentence of definition. Often it gives a kind of dictionary definition in the form of an incomplete sentence, then goes on from there - sometimes never giving a "final" or "conclusive" definition at all.

The Britannica article says "One of the features of time that puzzled the Platonist Augustine, in the 5th century ad, was the difficulty of defining it. In contemporary philosophy of language, however (influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, a Cambridge philosopher), no mystery is seen in this task. Learning to handle the word time involves a multiplicity of verbal skills, including the ability to handle such connected words as earlier, later, now, second, and hour. These verbal skills have to be picked up in very complex ways (partly by ostension), and it is not surprising that the meaning of the word time cannot be distilled into a neat verbal definition. (It is not, for example, an abbreviating word like bachelor.)" [emphasis mine, italics in original]

The full EB article gets right into whether time flows or not, then into process philosophy (even after casting doubt on "flow"), then fatalism. It is a quite a long read before it deals with sequences (earlier, later) or gets back to "period" (durations & intervals) or deals with motion & change & temporal units (seconds)--JimWae (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SimpleWiki covers much of the same ground as this article: "We use time to sequence events, to compare their durations and the intervals between them, and to quantify the speed at which objects move and things change" -- but that has taken Wittgenstein to heart & abandoned "defining time".--JimWae (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

well there is no english language problem in my definition and as you said that the article support to define time in easier and basic way and my definition is much simpler

OBJECTIONS ON YOUR DEFINITION:-

1>you worte in your definition that we compare events then on what scale is used to compare event??? 2>to sequence events(before and after)well time starts with the starting point of universe and ends with the end point of universe that's why we draw straight line with arrow there is nothing to before the universe as time started with bigbang 3)according to you time is a part of measuring system on what basis time is being measured? if time is a part of measuring system what is that system and then it has no link with other systems? 4>your definition provides no information about time machine! and it talks about only one frame of refrence it doesn't supports any external frame whereas my definition can talk on many frame of refrence at a time Raza536 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. One way we compare the duration of events is when 2 start at roughly the same time & one finishes much before the other. We do not need a scale to do that
2. we do not need to know anything about when time may have started or will end to sequence 2 events as one came before the other
3. I have recently outlined above - and moreso in the next section -- several of the other components of the measuring system we use. The system is very much linked with other measurements
4. time machines are not part of any reliably sourced definition of time--JimWae (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1)why should event start rougly at the same time? there should be a scale to in which these events which are campared should be measured 2)we certainly do need to know that"what was before time"? or "when there was no time what was there" such question also need to be sequenced 3)ok systems might be linked with each other but what about the frame of reference ? your definition talks about only one frame of reference whereas according to theory realtivity there are many frame of reference of time. 4)since time machine is linked with past and future and they act as a film strip there might be a possible way to approach into future and to go back into past??? so its also a part of time Raza536 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. One way we compare the duration of events is when 2 events just happen to start at roughly the same time & one finishes much before the other. We do not need a scale to tell which one finished first or took less time, just as we do not need a scale to tell which of 2 pretty identical glasses has more water when one is full & the other only half full
2. If all we are interested in is how to sequence 2 events as "event A came before event B", we do not need to know anything about when time may have begun (with the Big Bang) or may end. The "beginning and end of all time" may be important/interesting, but we do not need to know it in order to know, for example, which of my children were born first.
3. I have recently outlined above - and moreso in the next section -- several of the other components of the measuring system we use. The system is very much linked with other measurements
4. time machines are not part of any reliably sourced definition of time. There are not any time machines. It is very dubious there ever will be any way to "visit the past". Time as a film strip is just one (somewhat presumptuous) way of thinking about time. Definitions of time cannot presume that time travel is a reality.--JimWae (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

CONCENTRATE ON TIME ONLY 1)let suppose two events start or begun at roughly the same time one is raining and other is thunderstorm and as coincidence both stops or end also at the same time now how could we campar both the events??? 2)we certainly do need to know the origin,nature and its reality you may do not need to know which of your children born first because you know which one was born first but you also want to know that which one is male and female same implies with time?what was there before time if time started with bigbang how?and why? 3)if system are are very much linked with each other then why there is change of time in one frame of reference and another time in other frame of reference??? 4)car,aeroplane,rocket etc are all time machine in a sense they are time saving let suppose a person on foot takes 1hr to cover 1km by car it would take 5min only in this way he has saved his time 55min are extra for him as campare to the pedistrain. another esxampl;e could be of twin paradox that if person travels with speed of light he just lives 10min while other lives 100yrs why there is such great change of time??? there might be a possible gate to enter in future or past???(apart from its not reality)Raza536 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1> We do not need to be able to compare ALL events to be able to compare (some) events. However, in the example you give, we could easily say they both lasted about the same length of time

2> Whether time begins with the Big Bang or not is an interesting question. That Q is dealt with later in the article, and there does not appear to be agreement on an answer. However, we do not need to know what the answer is to be able to say intelligible things about time in the lede - such as that events can be sequenced (such as which of 2 people were born first, or finished a race first)

3a> Having something be part of a system does not mean EVERYTHING is directly linked to it - nor that nothing can be distinct from it. 3b> People travelling in different reference frames may never agree on the simultaneity of events, but they can still agree that some events came before other events

4> Time machines that can travel into the past do not exist. We do not need to discuss time dilation to say some intelligible things about time. Time dilation is covered later in the article.

We began by discussing what to put in the introduction to the article. Not everything can be fully explained in the introduction - that is what the body of the article is for--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1)we certainly do need to for how long both of they lasted 2)nobody is interested in knowing which of his child was born first as everybody already know that who was born first 3)But it do mean that they are linked somehow???they do agree but time is all different for them 4)ok then leave this topic

and than tell me what's problem in my deinition as your definition talks on the intervel between events and their duration as events do not have any duration and stationary things also feel time??? Raza536 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The blurb pertaining to the book Being and Time by Martin Heidegger is not really clear. Furthermore, since the source is the actual book itself this paragraph may be an original interpretation. Therefore it may contradict WP:NOR. A source that directly supports the material as presented may be needed. Moreover, Jim Wae has tagged this paragraph for further clarification, and I agree. So, I am moving this paragraph with the clarification request to this section for more discussion.

• In his main work Being and Time, the phenomenologist Martin Heidegger introduced three-dimensional, ecstatic time, thus breaking both with what he terms the "vulgar conception of time" descended from Aristotle's Physics, according to which time is a continuous flow of 'now-instants' passing through presence, and with the modern mathematical conception of time as a one-dimensional, continuous, real variable, t, derived from time conceived as consisting of 'now-instants'.^[1]
  • clarify|date=April 2011|reason=so, it seems this describes (vaguely & awkwardly, it seems) time in 2 ways (unless they are not really 2 *different* ways) Heidegger disagrees with, but says nothing about what he considers "time" to be. Without some clarification of what "ecstatic" time is supposed to be, how does this paragraph do anything more than drop a name? Perhaps it would help to give some explication of how time could "be" 3-dimensional.

---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • It seems Steve Quinn has problems with an alternative conception of time as ecstatic time, as laid out in copious, detailed analyses in Heidegger's Being and Time. The reference I made to ecstatic time is brief, i.e. the Wikipedia user has to follow the ref. to Being and Time for more detail. An "explication of how time could be 3-dimensional" would burst the framework of an encyclopaedic entry, but I can provide further references if asked to do so. The scepticism of a physicist unacquainted with phenomenology is more than apparent in Steve Quinn's remark. Michael Eldred 16 April 2011 I don't know how to use talk pages properly or sign them. Please excuse.Artefactme (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artefactme (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing at Being and Time that discussed time as three dimensional & there is no explanation of ECSTATIC time there (though the word is used twice within a single quote). Neither is it clear what the 2 views the edit claims he opposes means. Readers should not have to read a reference to make any sense of what is in the article. Right now it is just a string of English words strung together, reminiscent of the Sokal affair --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Other apparently original research says the 3 dimensions are past, present, and future. If that is what is intended, then 1>say so 2>give specific source with page number in Heidegger 3a>give an example of using 3 dimensions to locate an event in time - OR 3b>explain how the term "dimension" is being used COMPLETELY differently -such that a different [translated] word would convey a different meaning. Otherwise, it is misleading to use the word dimension here, as if it has its ordinary meaning.--JimWae (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• There's still the lack of context for any plausible meaning to be attached to "ecstatic"--JimWae (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Still other "sources" say MH saw time as 4-dimensional--JimWae (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Section 82 of Being and Time is about Hegel's view of [t]ime. The word "dimension" appears once, and does relate to past & future, but does not support 3-dimensionality in the way space is 3D. The word "ecstatic" does not appear - at least not in the pages viewable. This encyclopedia is not the place to advance original research that one has presented on one's own website. The paragraph is also just too obscure and jargony as it stands. I am re-removing the paragraph until issues are resolved here on the talk page. --JimWae (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph is at best dense and not easily comprehended, especially for the general reader. The general reader is part of the target audience for Wikipedia articles. In addition, according to my own preliminary research on this topic it appears that Three-dimensional time and ecstatic time are simply related to past, present, and future. Therefore, I agree that this use of the word dimension is misleading (as if it has its ordinary meaning). Also, I have come across mention of 4 dimensions - but have not delved into this. But, this still seems to point toward a misinterpretation of Heidegger's work. Especially since he is credited with being influential across disciplines in philosophy as well as beyond philosophy ; theology, the humanities, literature, psychology, and artificial intelligence (modern science). Overall, there does not seem to be contradiction between his leading edge philosophy and modern thought in many areas. I don't see evidence that Heidegger eschews the concept that time is one dimensional. Finally, I don't think this paragraph gives an accurate summation of Aristotle's work pertaining to this topic. I agree with the removal of this paragraph from the article until issues are resolved. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• To claim "Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time.", as the article does -- given that Heidegger is a prominent philosophy, Being and Time is one of the major books of Western philosophy, and that even its title shows it deals with time -- shows bias and ignorance of Heidegger's shake-up of the Western conception of time, especially in its mathematized guise. The use of the jargon "presentist" is dense and unhelpful, and plays only within a certain camp of philosophy that knows nothing of Heidegger's thinking. In other words, it represents an "original interpretation" purportedly not allowed at Wikipedia. The reference to Heidegger's dimensions of time should include also his late 1962 paper 'Time and Being' in which the three (and also a fourth) dimensions and ecstacies of time already explicitly analyzed in Being and Time are also approached from another perspective. A superficial skim of Being and Time at Google books is hardly adequate to decide these questions. I gave a reference to Section 82 only as a starting-point (the preceding Sections 78-81 are just as important), and this is now being used as an excuse against my addition. The elimination of three-dimensional ecstatic time and its replacement by "presentism", a term not to be found in Heidegger at all, amounts to a suppression of a major position in the philosophy of time that has been largely ignored in Anglo-American philosophy. Nevertheless, the texts by Heidegger are there and should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia users, to provide a signpost beyond provincialism. The entry on Time is no place to explicate and debate the issues as the objectors seem to want to do, as if they themselves needed convincing and were the 'experts' and 'umpires' to decide what is comprehensible (to themselves). If I provided an explication of 3-D ecstatic time in extenso, I would be accused of presenting self-promoting 'original research' -- and, of course, of employing jargon. At least I know what I am talking about, and am an expert that could add something essential to a woefully inadequate article on Time, whose inadequacies I would not want even to begin to make an attempt at improving. E.g. the account of Aristotle, who is the starting-point for ALL Western thinking on Time, is worse than kindergarten style, and shows one more major gap in the knowledge of this article's surveilling authors. Michael Eldred Artefactme (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2 views are 2 contrasting views. The paragraph does not say there are ONLY 2 views on time. The contrast is between those who say time is an entity-in-itself and those who say it is not an entity. Since MH was also into ontology, on which side does he fall? Your text is still impenetrable for general readers -- & even for those with graduate degrees in philosophy. This is not an encyclopedia for those familiar with the translated vocabulary of Sein und Zeit. There are plenty of other views on time - another being that it is an illusion. We can easily revise the wording on "2 views" to emphasize that it is the contrast that is being covered - not the men. As your text stands there is no apparent distinctness presented. It just says it is not like the others, but does not say HOW it is unlike--JimWae (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• It appears the latest addition by User:Artefactme is not a unique "third view". This is another expression of the first view of time in this article. "Four dimensions", "counted time", "one-dimensional", "continuous real time", place this paragraph with the first view. I moved the paragraph down in this section.

Also, the first sentence is full of technical terms, raises the question - derivative of what?, and is essentially misleading and incompressible. Three dimensions means past, present, and future. "Original time" originates from when or where?

This paragraph appears to be an amalgam of disparate thoughts strung together. It makes more sense, right now, without the first sentence (which I altered to meld into the second sentence). However the last sentence once again forays into an unintelligible jargon. It reads as follows: From "time as it is usually imagined in the sense of the succession of a calculable sequence of nows", Heidegger distinguishes "time proper" which is ultimately "four-dimensional". It seems that User:Artefactme wrote that the "sequence of nows" is not calculable back in September 6, 2010 .

In any case I am trying to determine if this paragraph contradicts WP:SYN. It appears to be compiled from three different sources. If none of these sources reflect the synthesis of this paragraph, then the paragraph is original synthesis. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding: This "vulgar conception of time", descended from Aristotle's conception of counted time, became mathematized in the Modern Age with Newton, Leibniz and others as one-dimensional, continuous, real time.

Time was already considered one-dimensional and continuous before Aristotle. Look at Zeno's arrow paradox and you will see a pre-Socratic already presenting arguments which challenge continuity, but accept one-dimensionality. As for "real", well, does anyone know what it's supposed to mean there? Additionally, if I say my daughter is 25 years old, have I "mathematized" her life more than I would have if I had said she was younger than I, and by so doing have I vulgarly deprived her of something? Maybe MH said something like this, maybe not. If MH attacks people for whom only the present "now-instants" are real, why cannot his admirers of a certain philosophical bent communicate with linguistic labels (e.g. Presentism, [I acknowledge that term would never have been used by MH, but introduced it in an attempt to spark some attempt at clarity, meaningfulness, & cross-communication - and explained its meaning immediately ]) that are used by philosophers of a different philosophical bent. Why cannot we try to compare "a continuous flow of 'now-instants' passing through presence" with McTaggart's A-series? Is it because MH thought philosophy could only be done in German & Greek? --JimWae (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• My second sentence, "From "time as it is usually imagined in the sense of the succession of a calculable sequence of nows", Heidegger distinguishes "time proper" which is ultimately "four-dimensional"" is straight-talk from a single source in Heidegger's original, primary text (namely: pp.12, 15f of 'Zeit und Sein'), not any fanciful synthesis on my own part. There is an egregious bias in this article on Time toward the the measurable, real time of modern mathematical physics. To claim that MH "argued against presentism", as Jim Wae formulated it, is untenable. One has to be prepared to see something new in MH's thinking on time, and not slap the label of 'incomprehensible jargon' on thoughts with which one is unfamiliar and which are systematically suppressed in the hegemonic Anglo-American philosophy. The temporal ecstasies laid out in detail in Being and Time have a close relationship with MH's recasting of human being itself as "Existenz". Both "Ekstase" and "Existenz" say in their Latin etymology 'standing-out', and in the context of Being and Time this means specifically 'standing-out-temporally-in-the-world'. This structure gives the "original time" of B&T, as developed slowly and in detail in that book. If one proceeds from the subject/object split of modern philosophy, this is incomprehensible. B&T represents inter alia precisely a critique and deconstruction of modern subject/object ways of thinking that have today become habitual and regarded dogmatically as self-evident. Parmenides' denial of the possibility of movement altogether, and the 'frozen arrow' paradox of his disciple, Zeno, both went into the mix in Aristotle's thinking on time and movement, along with Plato's attempt to think movement in The Sophist through a critique of Parmenides. Hence, to regard Aristotle's thinking on time and movement in Physics and in Book Theta of his Metaphysics as the culmination of Greek thinking on time and movement is not amiss. The very term 'energy' is Aristotle's neologism, coined to come to terms with the phenomenon of movement. Modern mathematical physics no longer knows this, and is entirely arrogant in its ignorance. Newton, however, forged his fundamental concepts of force, energy and work from Aristotle Met. Theta and Physics. Today, the term 'energy' is unthinkingly accepted as self-understood, as plain as day, whereas a term such as 'ecstatic time', which demands thinking, and rethinking, is rejected as incomprehensible jargon. That's a cheap excuse. I don't agree with MH's predilection for German and Greek, and think and practise philosophizing in English, which has many possibilities for thinking. At the same time, one could regard MH as a Greek philosopher, since his very German is often forged from the Greek. Since philosophers these days rarely know their Greek, modern philosophy is cut off from its roots and adrift. This loss is turned on its head as the 'success' of clear, logical ways of thinking that serve as a handmaiden to -- likewise successful -- modern mathematical science, occasionally providing also a little ethical supplement. One has to return to the Greek to gain even an inkling of what λόγος is and to re-question it. Michael Eldred Artefactme (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• But what is "time proper"? And how is a calculable sequence different from a sequence? And how is time multi-dimensional? The 3D of space have names - what are the names of the supposed 3Ds or 4Ds of time AND how do we use these "dimensions" AND are they "dimensions" in the same way space has 3 dimensions? And does MH use "now-instants" or is that a new "translation"?
• When we say time is one-dimensional all we mean is that if someone tells us "it's been a long time since I saw you", there is no question about which dimension of time they mean (is it time-height or time-width or time-length).
• This article begins, very intentionally, talking about time in terms of non-mathematical "measurements" that are "used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them..." Times and rates of change can be quantified non-mathematically in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical, mathematical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days). The non-mathematical comparisons may be more "primitive", but that does not mean that there's something wrong with the mathematiccal expressions
• MH seems to do a lot of compaining about math, but the math has been there pre-Socrates. He complains, but so far, our readers have no idea what's wrong with their vulgar notions other than that they are modern & mathematical. Nor has there been any clear exposition of what he would put in its place - not even in the article on Being and Time.--JimWae (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  It appears "original time" is simply the original measure of time, as in dark = night, and light = day. Then the demarcation of light into sunrise, midday, and sunset is a furtherance of the original measure of time. One occurance of light & dark = one unit called "day". So why not say it in plain english like that, or say the original measure of time (which is such & such).

It appears that there is still no explanation for temporal ecstasies (in this discussion} other than this is still related to "being" or "existing" in past, present, and future. So, all this seems simple. There is probably no mystiscm involved where jargon is the only acceptable form of presentation in this article. In addition, the "throwness" seems to simply mean we wake up into our existence with no plausible explanation. The first awareness of our existence as a person, or as a species, is the progression of days and nights. This then means that awareness of our existence is intimately enveloped in a temporal awareness or, in other words, enveloped in temporarilty. This seems to be what MH is getting at. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is no bias toward a mathematical explanation of time in this article. The opening of this article - the way it is written - is evidence of this. The opening succintly describe two ways that time is commonly expressed, i.e, in ordinary terms. Also it seems that there is no way to get around the fact that four dimensions sooner or later means 3 dimensions of space and one dimenstion of time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• "now-instants"? That would be "Jetzt-Augenblicke". I don't find this term in the article. Heidegger speaks of a "Jetzt-Folge" which I rendered appropriately as "sequence of nows" For you to find out what "time proper" is and what MH means by the temporal dimensions, and how he thinks the fourth dimension of time, you would have to do a lot of work. MH's ideas are simple, but it takes a lot of time to work one's way out of the theoretical constructions we have boxed ourselves into, especially since the 17th century. Without launching into lengthy exegesis, I can say here only negatively, that temporal dimensionality cannot be thought like 3D Euclidian spatial dimensionality nor like 3D Cartesian co-ordinates. The clue is to reflect on what dimension means in Latin and the original Greek: 'to measure through' e.g. by pacing through a room. How many paces? But this 'how many' presupposes that you pass through the space. With regard to time, MH thinks of time being "reached" out to human being in three distinct dimensions, one of which is the granting of presence (the present), the second of which is the withholding of presence (the future) and the third of which is the refusal of presence (the past). The unity of these three dimensions is then the reaching-out of the unity, which is the fourth dimension. I refer you to 'Time and Being' and to my Time of History Section 9.2 http://www.arte-fact.org/untpltcl/tmhstry1.html#9.2
• "how is a calculable sequence different from a sequence?" The calculability of the sequence of nows comes in when we start reckoning with time by planning occurrences in relation to it. This is dealt with in B&T as "world-time" (Section 80) and counted "clock-time" (Section 81). Ultimately, this reckoning becomes mathematized when equations of motion can be written. It's all laid out in those Sections 72-82 for those willing to slowly work through it.
• Your example, "it's been a long time since I saw you", would fall under what MH treats in B&T Section 79 as "dateability" and the "stretchedness" of time. For a recap of how "originary time" progressively becomes a mere sequence of nows, as developed in B&T Sections 72-82, see my Time of History Section 6 http://www.arte-fact.org/untpltcl/tmhstry1.html#6.0. Already with innocuous dateability, the ek-static temporal standing-out in the world has been lost sight of.
• The article on Time very well may start by "talking about time in terms of non-mathematical "measurements", but that presupposes that time is measurable and does not say AT ALL what time is in itself, nor why it is measurable, nor what its measure is. B&T, however, does do this in a painstaking step-by-step phenomenological derivation. Without taking pains, no insight. The phenomenon of time itself is not originarily something quantitaive at all, which is presupposed when talking of shorter and longer durations, etc. So the article fails to say what time itself is; it skips over the phenomenon of time itself. The best the article does is say that time is "a dimension in which events occur in sequence." According to this definition, time is one-dimensional, i.e. a "time-line", as the article says. That is already a levelling of the ecstatic three-dimensionality of time-space as unfolded systematically in B&T. Therein lies also the kernel of a critique of Kant's subjectivist conception of time, for a subject does not stand-out in the world, but rather, is confronted with objects. Aristotle's counted time according to his famous formula is also merely one-dimensional.
• MH himself says that the various vulgar conceptions of time have their justification, especially for everyday living. It's just that these notions cover up what originary, ecstatic time is as a 3D time-space (that should not be confused with mathematical physics' space-time). Furthermore, the mathematization of time in modern physics (the final step in the vulgarization of the conception of time) serves the modern will to power over movements of all kinds that got well under way with Newton. Mathematical calculability of movement and change becomes the ideal of so-called 'objective' truth, i.e. the 'gold standard' of rigorous, precise truth aspired to by all the sciences.
• I'm sure the Wikipedia article on Being and Time is inadequate. I'd hate to look.
• "original time" is not "simply the original measure of time, as in dark = night, and light = day". That is "world-time" (B&T Section 79).
• "the math has been there pre-Socrates" Yes. Therefore the issue at stake is an ancient one that is still with us in another guise today. The Pythagoreans influenced Plato's thinking on the ideas in proximity to mathematical number -- which are time-less. Aristotle succeeded in giving a better account of movement than Plato with his conception of en-ergy, but stuffed it up again by thinking time as a counting number lifted off movement. Time as counted provides the germ for Newton's mathematization of motion in equations. And today, one believes absolutely in access to the 'objective truth' of the world through the mathematical models of scientific method.
• "awareness of our existence is intimately enveloped in a temporal awareness or, in other words, enveloped in temporarilty. This seems to be what MH is getting at." This is quite a good formulation as long as one takes care to think of awareness not as 'a subject's consciousness', i.e. as being located 'in our heads'. The world can only become present to us in three distinct modes (two of which are modes of absence), because we are always already out there -- hence ek-sistence and ek-stasy, which, of course, are nothing mystical, just unfamiliar. The envelope is 3-D, i.e. ek-static temporality. MH's thinking is largely a matter of clearing away the rubble of layers of notions that obscure the view and have collected over millennia. It's not his fault the rubble is so thick. What we finally get to see, after the hard work of clearing, is something simple, but decisive.
• The article lacks any account of Aristotle's thinking on time. You threw out my summary of that last September (cf. Section 2.9 'Time and movement in Aristotle's thinking' of my Digital Cast of Being http://www.arte-fact.org/dgtlon_e.html#2.9. ). Instead you showcase a mathematical physicist like J. Barbour. Barbour is a neo-Parmenidean who misconceives himself as a neo-Platonist. Plato never denied time and movement; Parmenides did. Likewise, the Further Reading list showcases a whole series of mathematical physicists and philosophers of science beholden to them, as if they held the holy grail of truth regarding time.

Michael Eldred Artefactme (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• You introduced now-instants with your first recent edit
• If I have to do a lot of work to find out what "time proper" is, how does it help the ordinary reader to even mention it? An ordinary reader would not be unjustified in saying its some mystical jargon & end up dismissing the whole article & philosophy itself.
• If we are going to briefly use "dimension" in a different way from the ordinary way, we owe it to the reader to say so. Pointing to its etymological roots is fine, but committing the Etymological fallacy by giving precedence of meaning to the "old ways" is not. Nor are editors entitled to tell readers that their ordinary concepts are inadequate & not provide a clear alternative
• To introduce MH into this article, I think the "less is more" adage applies - Introduce as little special vocabulary as possible. Consider what you would write if you were writing for 14 year-olds & people who are just learning English - (tho more than is there today)
• We do not need to "calculate a sequence" of events to make an appointment for next week. We can even go to sleep during the interval. We do not need to inventory & track all the events that will come before the appointment. All we need is a way to co-ordinate time with others.
• There's nothing wrong with math. It's not all there is, but that's no reason to be knocking it all the time.
• Regarding "dateability": A & B race, & A finishes before B. We do not need a calendar or a clock to say A ran the distance in less time than B. We do not even need to count our heartbeats or see how far through a song we get. That is a very primitive example of temporality - and the only involvement of a "sequence of nows" is that you have to stay conscious through the whole race to be sure B didn't lap A - and consciousness is no doubt important in phenomenology too.
• The article carefully does NOT say that time is measurable. We do not measure time, much like we do not measure a metre. Time is part of a system we have to compare & measure events
• Nobody has defined time in simpler terms. Primitive concepts have no more primitive terms in which they can be defined. Using multisyllabic words like "the polymolecular topographic concoction that fractionally facilitates respiratory functionality" is not a helpful definition of "air" even if technically correct. But, at least it uses words with their ordinary meaning, without stipulative definitions or appeals to etymology.
• I have had nothing to do with Barbour being in this article
• Your September edit was rightly removed under WP:PROMO by someone else. It included your name & links to your website. It began by briefly discussing Aristotle, Husserl, & MH, but more than half of the almost 3,000 characters was a quotation of your arguments, mostly against Barbour
• Writing for the WP encyclopedia is not the same as writing essays & articles for journals. Per WP:NPOV, the editor's voice should not be apparent in the text, AND WP does not take positions on where modern science has "gone wrong", nor on any issue on which reliable sources disagree. --JimWae (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• 'now-instants' was not a quote from MH at all and was in single scare quotes, not in genuine double quotation marks. This is usual convention. I speak of 'now-instants' in preference to speaking of 'nows'. MH speaks often of "Jetzt" in the plural, i.e. "nows".
• If the reader wants not just to find out about philosophy in a superficial way but to find a way into it, then s/he has to (learn to) think. Otherwise, the precious reader can forget philosophy, and most readers do. Philosophy is only ever for the few, as all the great philosophers knew. Nevertheless, philosophical ideas, including on time, shape the world -- behind people's back, whether they know it and like it or not.
• If you or the imagined reader wants to find out an alternative understanding of 'dimension' then they have to do some learning. If I give some exegesis, then you tell me I'm presenting 'original research'. What's in the article on Leibniz and Kant, for instance, is only the barest indication, and the reader has to follow up with further reading of primary texts, whose references should be provided. In general I regard it as healthy to be confronted with something you don't understand. That is a challenge. And most of the time, what we think we understand, we don't properly. The phenomenon of time is a prime example, as the famous quote from Augustinus says. Nobody complains about the use of the word 'energy', and it is understood in a way sufficient for everyday living. Ditto for time. But if you really want to know, do some work.
• As soon as a sequence of planned events becomes complicated, we start calculating, e.g. when we have a complicated travel itinerary where, say, train and plane timetables have to be co-ordinated. Then you start calculating, 'Do I have time to get that train?', etc. And as soon as there are many people involved, such as planning timetables in schools, then the calculations get very complicated. Not to mention the logistics of supermarket chains.
• Of course there's nothing wrong with maths. I spent years studying maths, loved it and have two science degrees with a maths focus. For seeing the phenomenon of time, however, mathematics is a blinkered point of view. Mathematical physics, which is given the prominent position in the article, must work with a one-dimensional conception of time, for otherwise it would lose its equations of motion.
• The very first sentence of the article reads: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events,...". You assert, "We do not measure time, much like we do not measure a metre." But we certainly do measure time, say, in minutes, hours and days. If you say, time itself is the measure, that still does not say what time is.
• You write, "Nobody has defined time in simpler terms." It's not merely a matter of primitive definitions, but of learning to see one of the simplest of phenomena that eludes us precisely because it is so fundamental and simple.
• The article continues to lack any account of Aristotle's germinal thinking on time. All the worse for Wikipedia.
• MH's thinking on time cannot be assimilated to the two positions you present, both of which 'imagine' a one-dimensional time. MH inverts the whole of Western thinking on being and time. Hitherto, time has been thought from being: the 'now' is said to be the only part of time that properly exists; past and future are merely negations of now with respect to earlier and later, as the article itself propagates by speaking of the "time line". Heidegger unearthed that being itself was tacitly understood already by the ancient Greeks as presence, which is a temporal determination. So instead of time being truncated, or rather squashed, to one-dimensional, sequential presence, being itself is thought as three-dimensional temporal presencing.
• Barbour is showcased in the article with his 'original research', and I provided a counter-view to it. Why should his work be showcased, and my published work not even mentioned?
• Wikipedia's policy on not presenting 'original research' is a sham in practice, and tacitly supports an orthodoxy of currently accepted notions. E.g there is a long article on string theory, even though not even one per cent of Wikipedia readers could even start to follow the mathematics that underlies it. Of course, 'explaining' things popularly in terms of usual everyday notions, that amount to prejudices in thinking, is relatively easy. So readers will prefer to swallow Stephen Hawking rather than really learn something from Martin Heidegger.

Michael Eldred Artefactme (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jim makes a good point that we need only stay conscious to ensure that "B" did not lap "A" during the race, which A won. No clock or measure of time is required. We do not need to calculate a sequence of events to know that "A" deservedly won, nor go get to our next appointment. Reliable sources are needed to say "calculate a sequence of events." The point is we don't measure time all the time to achieve the desired results. It would have to be shown that in every case we measure time to see that "A" wins, that we have to chronicle and time every event as the pot of water boils, and that we have to be awake through the night (measuring time) to make it to that appointment on time tomorrow.

This is also related to the argument against specialized language. That argument is valid, in that this is an encyclopedia article, not a philosophy course. The intent is to communicate to the reader what is available pertaining to the topic of time. And that availability is based on what has been reported on reliable sources. "Communication" is discouraged with the use of mystical language that is specialized or technical. Communicating to the reader is actually part of the guidelines and polices.

Furthermore giving precedence to etymological roots over the words' modern meaning is inappropriate. Doing so may be viewed as pedantic, and even perhaps as a kind of intellectual snobbery. Editors for Wikipedia are not in the business of impressing people by showing off their depth and grasp of technical terms within a given field. According to the five pillars:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

Please note Wikipedia is not a philosophy textbook, and not a philosophy lecture. Readers are not required to to find a way into it, and thereby she or he learns to think. Wikipedia is not in the business of training people to think. Wikipedia disseminates information in a manner similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, or Encyclopedia Americana, or other encyclopedias. In this venues if specialized terms are used then they are explained.

So far I don't see any feedback from Jim being taken onboard. Mostly what I see is defense of point of view, which includes presenting material in this article that is not acceptable. Is there any consideration of writing so that a 14 year old may understand? Or writing in a way that would be acceptable for Simple Wikipedia? No matter the opinion, original research, and original interpretations are not aceptable for Wikipedia.

The comment below continues in the fight for a just cause, rather than agreeing to tone down the jargon in the article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• With Wikipedia's guardians of comprehensibility for users' minds, one doesn't need any thought police, does one? Never forget that 'they' executed philosophy's most famous philosopher. Today such executions of thinking assume a new, 'democratic' quise different from Athenian democracy's.

Michael Eldred 84.63.117.97 (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re calling Nagarjuna's argument logical. Let's take it step by step

1. If the present and the future Depend on the past, Then the present and the future Would have existed in the past.

   if a future (or present) table depends on a past tree, then does the table exist in the past? Saying it does or must have is metaphysics, not science & not logic.

2. If the present and the future Did not exist there, How could the present and the future Be dependent upon it?

   if the future (or present) table did not exist in the past, how could the future (or present) table depend on the past tree? An obvious reply is "by being made of the same material"

3. If they are not dependent upon the past, Neither of the two would be established. Therefore neither the present Nor the future would exist.

   if future (or present) tables are not dependent on past trees....? Well, it has not been shown that they are not!

I have demonstrated that the premises of the argument are false - or at least not generally accepted as true. I have demonstrated that the argument is not sound. It is generally agreed that the following arguments are "logical" - though not "sound".

All monkeys are fish. All fish are ants. Thus all monkeys are ants.

All monkeys are fish. All fish are mammals. Thus all monkeys are mammals.

The argument is in the form of a syllogism,(All X are Y; all Y are Z; thus all X are Z) but it would be misleading & unfair to say it was a "logical" argument (even though it is). Logic does not decide whether an argument is correct; it only "decides" if an argument is incorrect. The premises must also be true for an argument to be sound. Even illogical arguments can have true conclusions: All monkeys are mammals; All monkeys have vertebrae; All mammals have vertebrae.

That Nagarjuna's argument resembles a syllogism & resembles a reductio ad absurdum does not make his argument any more "logical" than any another unsound argument. The dependency of the present upon past events is not an argument from logic, it is an argument about causality. Arguments about causality are either scientific arguments or metaphysical arguments. There is no indication that N's argument is meant as a scientific argument. Arguments that attempt to deduce a "new insight" into "the nature of reality" from causality or other metaphysical principles, using only a priori methods, are metaphysical arguments.

My prior presentation of Nagarjuna's argument is the clearer and better supported version --JimWae (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An additional problem with Nagarjuna's argument is his using the vocabulary of reification for past, present, & future - and for time itself. When we say the present depends on the past, we are using a kind of shorthand idiom that means that past events have consequences on present and future events. We do not MEAN that "the past" is itself an entity that has agency.

Furthermore, he *gives* an argument against the existence of the present & the future. He does not *give* any argument against (the existence of the) past, though he waves a few words in that direction. Let's just leave the text as "he gives an argument against the existence of the present and the future, and of time itself".--JimWae (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Jim. I agree. Furthermore, the concept presented by the previous edit appears to be unclear. In contrast, Jim's edit is simple, clear, and to the point. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're arguments are right, the three stanzas I quoted from the text aren't a coherent argumentation. Apart from that, in the chapter about time there are three more stanzas which I want to mention for completion:

4.

By the same method,

The other two divisions—past and future,

Upper, lower, middle, etc.,

Unity, etc., should be understood.

5.

A nonstatic time is not grasped.

Nothing one could grasp as

Stationary time exists.

If time is not grasped, how is it known?

6.

If time depends on an entity,

Then without an entity how could time exist?

There is no existent entity.

So how can time exist?

The argument in stanza 6, that there is no existent entity is explained in the text earlier. That is not a metaphysical supposition, but also a conclusion by a logical refutation of the assertion, that entities have an inherent existence. By taking this chapter out of it's context, it becomes incoherent. But what becomes clear is, that Nagarjuna refutes the assertion that time has an inherent existence no matter if you reificate it or say that it depends on entities and events as you described.

The notion of causality must rather be understood as "dependent arising", since Nagarjuna also refutes the assertion of inherent causality. See here: Dependent_arising#Madhyamaka_and_Pratityasamutpada

Finally, Nagarjuna actually doesn't assert any standpoint, but only refutes assertions about the nature of reality that were present during his time. So instead of giving a wrong impression about Nagarjuna or the Madhyamaka in general, I took the passage out of the article. • Madden (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The lede begins presently as:

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

Lets suppose a measuring system, say the use of my watch and a wall calendar. Now according to the definition given, time is some part of this system, but what or which part of the system it is left undefined. For instance, conventionally, "the clock" is "...a part of the measuring system used to sequence events...". Even my left thumb can be a part of such a system. Furthermore, time existed before we evolved and started measuring it, hence existing independently of any measuring systems. Even more revealing is what we would have if we defined space similarly, such as: "Space is a part of the measuring system used to map the relative positions of objects in three-dimensions." Although not incorrect in anyway, its way off the mark, lacking in definition; the essential information of "what part" and clarity (see the space article for a better description that does not invoke measurement). I know getting consensus wording has been difficult, but I'd surely like to see something else written. Perhaps we can work on something like this:

Time is a one-dimensional succession of events or instants that occur in the universe's past, present and future. Time is recorded and quantified with clocks, which are used to measure the relative duration of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as velocity, power and frequencies.

Note: With only instants existing, current events have no duration, so durations are an illusion (events with duration don't exist). To deny both instants and events, though would either venture into old fallibilistic speculation or unfruitful research that involves some form of substitution (such as substituting space and space-time concepts for those of time, thus "denying" time exists), but since a succession of instants is the same as a succession of events with no duration we could drop "instants" although I think the concept of instants may be important enough to include. Thoughts. --Modocc (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's just a lede. "Time is a part of the measuring system..." is only a problem if the rest of the article doesn't then go on to later describe in more detail how "time" is different from "a clock" etc, and how and it what ways time is independent of its measurement (if it even is) and so forth, which it does do. Thus I don't personally have a problem with that lede. Your suggested lede is also good, though. I'd still leave it as is. I'm not an expert on time and not a regular editor of this article, though. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1> I do not see how that proposed lede is really better as a definition (nor do I see it reflected in any of the sources, though I do see "system" repeatedly in sources). You have identified time with the succession of events. But to say events are successive, one must already have a notion of a temporal order. (A succession of events is a succession of events, it is not "time itself". We also reorder the apparent succession based on our knowledge of the time it takes for us to perceive events - we have control over which event we designate to be successive to another.) 2> To be clear, I think it impossible to give a single definition of the sort like "a rectangle is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles". Defining time in simpler, non-temporal terms is elusive because it is fundamental to our understanding of all our experiences. On a Kantian view, time is not something we can passively observe, it is the framework we involuntarily give to all our experiences - even our notions about the pre-human past. I won't deny that "time existed before we evolved", but whenever we think about the pre-human universe, we bring to it our own mental framework. 3> Time is also quantified without clocks, we quantify it when 2 events start at roughly the same time & one completes before the other 4> Other dimensions of the measuring system are the 3 dimensions of space. Other (non-dimensional) components of the measuring system are a>our system of numbers, b>the units we use to quantify time (seconds, days, years,...), and c>the devices we build to indicate time (clocks, calendars) and measure space (rulers) d> our own sense of rhythm & regularity (such as beats - musical & biological). e>Identifying all these sources goes beyond the focus of a lede, but, sourced, would help the article 5> My goal in the lede has been to give as comprehensive as possible exposition of the fundamentsl ways that the word time is used, bearing in mind that"Learning to handle the word time involves a multiplicity of verbal skills, including the ability to handle such connected words as earlier, later, now, second, and hour" and "the meaning of a word is how it is used" not how it can be narrowly defined. I do not mean to say nothing could improve the lede, but I think it important to lay aside any attempt to give the necessary & sufficient conditions for the use of the word "time". We will never get a definition that is simpler & non-circular. Proposed definitions that treat time as if it were something independent of "the way our brains are wired" will never comprehensively cover the usage of the word--JimWae (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that descriptions of time are inherently circular, but I have not attempted nor do I believe I suggested unraveling that paradox. The scope of my suggested introductory sentence was deficient though. For instance, "Event B occurred during the clock event C, and at time C the event C occurred." Since self-referencing is not a succession of two independent events, it was not included in my description. I am tempted to suggest a better description, however I will refrain until I can return to discuss it at a latter date when I have more time. --Modocc (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should be prefixed with "Measurements of ..". 1Z (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)