Talk:Time/Archive 7

A thought just occurred to me. Our first sentence currently reads:

Time is the continuing sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them.

This can be broken up into a conjunction of two claims:

Time is the continuing sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

and

Time is a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them.

I wonder if some people here who are more partial to the old "Time is part of a measurement system" first sentence might like the current first sentence better if those two claims were reversed (no change of content, just presentation), something like:

Time is a measure of the durations of events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them; and the continuing sequence of them in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

That last part seems long and awkward to me though and if we're going back to "sequence" I think "continuing" loses its value (of clarifying the meaning of "progression"), so I might trim it down to something like:

Time is a measure of the durations of events, the intervals between them, the rates of changes occurring in them; and the apparently irreversible succession of them from the past through the present to the future.

On a slightly different note, I wonder if anyone would object to changing "rates of changes occurring in them" to "frequency of them", since every change is an event in itself and so a rate of change can be stated as a frequency of events (both have the same form of units, something-per-time). If that was OK, I would simplify further to:

Time is a measure of the durations and frequencies of events and the intervals between them; and the apparently irreversible succession of them from the past through the present to the future.

Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I like what you have here Phforrest, and I will be glad to try to select later. Good job! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. Since I haven't heard any further comment from anyone on either this or my earlier suggestions (in re Tigo's "Secondary" concerns) in a few days, I've gone ahead and implemented them. I welcome criticism and suggestions on these edits; I believe they are mostly organizational and don't change any substantial claims, but everyone please say so if you think otherwise (or dislike this reorganization).

Steve, one thing you may be able to help with: the references on the first sentence seem an odd jumble of individual references and two strange amalgamated references named DefRefs01 and DefRefs02. It seems like if things are going to be amalgamated they should all be amalgamated together into one set of dictionary definitions, otherwise they should all be split up, but I don't know much about the technicalities of writing inline citations on wiki. That seems like it's more your forte though, can you maybe help sort that out? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Below, I like these two the best -- I they are a decent compromise. And I find myself liking the second one the best out of the two:

• Time is a measure of the durations of events, the intervals between them, the rates of changes occurring in them; and the apparently irreversible succession of them from the past through the present to the future.
• Time is a measure of the durations and frequencies of events and the intervals between them; and the apparently irreversible succession of them from the past through the present to the future.

Am I correct in assuming that "frequencies" and "rates of change occurring in them" are considered interchangeable? Pertaining to the refs -- I will have a look but JimWae may understand the reasons for the configuration of these particular references better than I. Perhaps he will have a look and see what needs to be remedied. Also, I think it will be easier now that we seem to be settling down. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pf, the "compromise" lede is no good. It's a big run-on sentence that actually makes little sense since it first describes time as a measurement and then fails to lay down any concept of what is being measured. The whole problem that started this is the highly non-neutral POV that time is primarily a measurement. Time existed long before anyone was around to measure it or to care about the measurement and time exists in all sorts of contexts where there is no measurement of it and time will exist long after there is any measurement of it. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is a mis-reading. I did not and would not put that time is a measurement; I put that time is a measure, as in, something by which something else is measured, ala "courage is the measure of a man" again. I would say very well that "space is a measure of the size of objects and distances between them", without implying that space is only a measurement; space is whatever is measured when you measure the size of objects or distances between them, whatever it is by which sizes and distances are measured. Likewise the intention with the lede I had in place was to state that time is that by which durations of events and the intervals between them are measured.

Note that the lede that you reverted to says exactly the same thing still, just in a different order. It says time is a measure right now. And my version also said that time was an apparently irreversible succession of events from past to present to future, much like this one. You seem to be objecting "Q and P, not P and Q!" when they are logically equivalent; and the only reason I suggested P and Q was because other people were apparently making the opposite lapse of thought and crying "It's not Q and P, it's P! And also Q."

Also, the first sentence you reverted to is more of a run-on sentence than my version, which also trimmed down the language used on the (what is now) second half. Since your concern seems to be that 'your' half comes first and is worded exactly how you want, I'm going to be bold and reinstate the changes I made to the second half, which will make it less of a run-on sentence again.

Also you reverted a lot more than the parts you objected to; there's a reason I made the edits one part at a time, so you could have undone just the first-sentence change or the first-paragraph change or whatever and not the whole thing. I'm going to restore the rest, which no one has yet raised any objections to, and leave the first sentence and NPOV tag as they stand. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think Pfhorrest is presenting some good reasoning here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be that most of the defs that are referenced in the article do not use the term "continuum". Even if we just use the ones that Rick posted above there are only four defs out of about nineteen or twenty that use the word continuum. And those that do use the word continuum also add words that the other defs use such as: "measure, duration, a period, interval, measured or measurable period, period of... (existence, world, humanity) and so on. These defs are populated with such words. A form of the word "measure" is used 13 times, "period" is used eight times. It seems to me that the broadest, or the most useful, definition of time available is that it is a "measure" of durations, frequencies, events, intervals, periods, and rates of changes. Isn't it really the conglomeration of these words that expresses what is intended? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So I mean to say I think what Phorrest just had up in the lede is the best one, with the best coverage. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steve.

On a slightly tangential note, it occurs to me that a big feature of this issue is (to slightly abuse some mathematical terms) ordinality vs cardinality. Time has both senses: it is both ordinal, about what kind of order (series, sequence, progression, succession) things are in; and cardinal, about "how big" things (durations, intervals) are. The lede both as it stands now and my version as of yesterday covers both of those senses ("Time is a progression/succession/sequence/etc..." and "Time is a measure..."), and I think it's important that it continue to do so. What order those senses are mentioned in is not important to me as I think they are equally important. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pf, listen, before your edit that created the run-on lede, I presume outa a sense of making compromise (BTW, thanks for deleting SQ's attempt to inject his editorializing in the lede of the previous edit; "copy edit", yeah right), I warned about it [20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)] and lamented it [06:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)], so please do not pin that mistake on me. I did not change it, because run-on sentences in the lede are less of a problem than naked POV and can be dealt with later when things really settle down. I do not own the article (SQ and JW do), so I do not sit here and pounce on every edit that I might not agree with. But I am going to try to hold down the fort against naked POV pushing. When we can get to some agreement about the principal elements of the lede, we can copy edit (and not the kinda sneaky "copy edit" that JQ does). I only reverted to the most current version that did not have the objectionable POV lede. There is lotsa cruft in there and I surely don't mind if cruft is removed or fixed.

My concern is that we do not, as Wikipedia editors, count ourselves as more knowledgeable about the common meaning of words of widespread use than the dictionary. If anyone wants to accuse me of POV pushing, I'll cop to the notion that I am pushing the POV of the English-language dictionary. That's different than pushing the POV of Sean Carroll (it's a good POV, BTW) or experimental physicists or some airhead philosophers or whatever specific discipline. We begin with the most widespread perspective of what time is, not just what time is "used for" or "measured" by beings like us. 13.6 billion years ago there was time and it wasn't a measurement. 15 billion years in the future there will almost certainly be a Universe with time existing and likely no one around to be measuring or experiencing it. Even today, other places in the Universe (like 99.999999999999% of the Universe) there are objects and events that exist in time and there is no one there to measure it. The measurement POV is an extremely salient POV. It needs to be right up there in the article. Very important.

But it is clearly not the widest nor most inclusive POV. Since "time [as] the indefinite continued progression of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" has meaning, accuracy, and applicability for all scenarios and since "time [as] a measurement used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience" has meaning and applicability only to a subset of scenarios, reversing the order in the lede definition not only doesn't make syntactical sense, to insist on doing so is evidence of non-neutral POV.

As I said at the outset, we can identify three really important POVs to get in here for the lede: The principal dictionary POV (time as a notion or phenomenon or concept) worded in such a way that the lay person has the least trouble with it (this is why I would leave out the word "continuum", but I am not demanding that since it is clearly in the dictionary), the measurement POV ("time is what clocks measure"), and the experiential POV (beings like us "feel" time flowing by, etc.). Let's get them in, in two sentences, both supported by correct citations, and in an order that makes conceptual sense (define what it is before the measurement or experience of it) and that has widespread POV to the common reader and is NPOV. That's what we have to do. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this week PBS Nova had re-run Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" episode called the "Illusion of Time" and it was very good. Still doesn't support ranking the measurement definition as conceptually more fundamental than the primary dictionary definition. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tu quoque. Read what I said about "a measure of" vs "a measurement" again. 6'2" tall, 220lbs are some measurements of a man; but courage (some say) is the measure of a man, i.e. proportional or identical to manliness, the more courageous one is the more manly he is. Likewise, 3 mins 14 seconds is 'a measurement of time, but time is a measure of a duration, i.e. proportional or identical to duration, the longer the duration the longer the time. But of course that is not the only sense of time; 3AM, July 25, 1982 is a time, but it is not a measure of anything and it is not a duration, it is one in a sequence (or series or progression or succession) of points in time, time being (in this other sense) identical to that sequence (or series or progression or succession). Both of these different but related senses are important and well supported by dictionary definitions. On that note, also reread what I wrote in reply to Steve above, about ordinality and cardinality. The problem with splitting them up into two sentences is we then have a first-sentence definition that says that time is one thing, period; and then we have another sentence that says, what, time is another thing? Our first sentence has to be a complete statement of the uncontroversial definition of time (i.e. that minimalist definition which doesn't say anything against any notable points of view). Consider if we said something like "Space is the arrangement of things in relation to each other, principally in three dimensions. Space can be used to tell how big things are and how far apart from each other they are..." That doesn't work because space is just as much about how big and far apart things are as where they are in relation to each other, and each of those facets can be used to tell something about the other; neither is more primary. Likewise time's ordinal and cardinal senses; it is both about the sequence that things happen in, and about how long they happen and how far apart they happen, equally.

As to your three POVs, your phrase "principal dictionary POV (time as a notion or phenomenon or concept)" seems to confuse several different things together. One is that, one way or another, we are trying to agree on a first sentence definition for this article and so are inherently dealing with the notion or concept of time, whether that notion or concept be of time as a measurement or as a dimension or as an experience or as more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff, any way you cut it we're dealing with a notion or a concept of time as something; we're just trying to fill in the 'something' there. Throwing "phenomenon" into that mix makes no sense because a phenomenon is an empirical occurrence, something which can be observed, an event or object of some kind, a happening or, more etymologically, a "seeming" or "appearance", and so is in no way even roughly synonymous with notion or concept, so I'm not sure what you're going for with that there. And lastly, I think we have all agreed that dictionary definitions are a good place to source the first-sentence definition of time, and we are trying to work out the details of that now. As I said to Steve earlier, and to you some time before that, I think things common to dictionary definitions are a great place to start, but then we have to take away things which would pronounce some viewpoints as wrong by definition; and aside from that, there is also the issue of how best to phrase it. That is what we are trying to work on now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It may not seem that way to some folks here, but I don't reply to absolutely every point that someone makes because to do so, either I have to copy their point over and "gi" it to reference it, or I commit the unforgivable sin of inserting an answer right after the point (usually not midsentence). And we have done that at many many talk pages, especially, when there are lotsa points flying back and forth. With meaningful indentation, it is trivial to see who says what. I respond to points that I thought are directed at me or points that I might have something to respond with.

To say that "courage is the measure of a man" is a measurement. It doesn't have meaning without first knowing what "courage" is and what a "man" is. It's not that I didn't hear it, it's that I didn't get it. And I still don't. It frames the subject in terms of measuring it, whereas in the very first sentence of the lede it needs to say what it is, in the context of our common and lay understanding. And for that, we go to the general-purpose dictionary and not the glossary of a physics textbook or some other physics lit.

I am not suggesting (and never had) that we use the word "phenomenon" (or "concept" or "notion") in the lede text. Never said that at all. It is for communication with people here about what we are trying to do about separating these notions or concepts of what time is. Time, space, life, culture, etc. are all phenomena. We observe them, we sorta think we know for sure what it is, but phenomena often are hard to pin down the definitions thereof. Probably a better word is noumenon. Doesn't matter. Neither word should be going into the lede.

I think things common to dictionary definitions are a great place to start, but then we have to take away things which would pronounce some viewpoints as wrong by definition... Well... that's what this NPOV thing is all about, Pf. Who is to say that these "some viewpoints" are correct (neutral) when they contradict the dictionary definition? As to the common or lay definition of the word, what is the most NPOV source of the meaning of the word? So some editor has some viewpoint that is contradicted (or at least not indicated) by the dictionary definition? Does that mean that the dictionary has a non-neutral POV or the editor? Is this editor's authority about the word greater than that of a long-standing and highly regarded dictionary?

I saw them do this at the Marriage article. Several editors do not like the dictionary definition for the lede because it doesn't support their viewpoint. Then the common lay-person comes across the article and reads it and they think that the common meaning of the word isn't what they had understood all their life (and what is the primary dictionary definition) what the word meant, and there is either confusion, or if the lay-reader is savvy, they will understand that someone is using Wikipedia to try to sell them something. We must not use Wikipedia to sell people the experimental physicist's POV of time in the lede. Time means more than measurement.

Please, all of us, we need to all consider WP:IDHT in these discussions. I could come down with a litany of what some editors are ignoring (and I suspect, they are ignoring it because it's inconvenient to their POV, which is intellectually dishonest), and I do repeat some of these points. But instead of bringing up IDHT, I'll just wait until people do hear it. And I'll repeat the points occasionally, but not every time. Eventually they might hear it (and acknowledge it) on their own. Dunno. We'll see. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the comments I wrote above, because I wanted to spend more time thinking about the issues involved. 70.109.178.39 undeleted them. I really wish he/she had respected my wishes, but since they've been up all day, I suppose the best thing is to leave them. I'm still thinking and reading and have not reached any final conclusion. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As an aside the IP seems to have unilaterly stuck his "newest" comments in between Phforrest's and mine . This is not correct. For one thing I was responding directly to Phforrest's comments with my first statement. The second are more general comments but they still build on Phforrest's comments. It seems to me that this takes my comments out of context.I would like to take a vote that we move those "new" comments down in the correct order. The IP claims to have been here since 2004 and does appear to know what is kosure and what is not. Please also note I have had to stop now for about 10 or 15 minutes, distracted from ten main conversation. Also please note, it is not necessary to correct my spelling on a talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wanting to fix that myself, both because it's out of order and the wrong level of indentation. It's another reply to the same message of mine you're replying to and so should go after yours on the same level of indentation. I didn't want to fix it because of the hubbub over moving his talk page comments before, but since I'm not the only one bothered by it I'll do that in a moment. (Also your own indentation here is confusing, and I'm correcting that with this reply as well). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that-- I thought I indented correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs)

BTW guys, Indentation is not policy, but there is an essay about it, and if you look at Indentation example #3, it says that my insertion was correct. When I do that, I add more colons to make sure that it appears as inserted. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That essay says that indentation is an enforced behavioral guideline (and the essay is just an elaboration on that guideline), and example #3 is someone replying to an earlier comment; in our conversation, my comment you and Steve both replied to is like "Example"'s comment there, Steve's comment is like "Place holder"'s comment, my reply to Steve is like "Example"'s reply to "Place holder", and your comment is like "sandbox"'s comment (except, unlike their example, you didn't post it before I replied to Steve; but the structure is still the same, if I hadn't have replied to Steve yet your post should have gone under him like in their Example #2, and then my reply to him would have gone between his comment and yours, indented an extra level, which is what their Example #3 shows). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not policy. It says so. It is not enforceable in the same sense of, say, WP:3RR. And my use is precisely the same. I was answering your comment, not SQ's comment to your comment, nor SQ's comment to the one preceding. The inserted comment came in chronologically (speaking of "Time") later than the comment below the inserted point. I'm outa here for tonight. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The example page is an essay, but it links back to an enforce guideline, and says "Although this example page about how to indent is an essay, it should be noted that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow. Such guidelines may be enforced by administrative action, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. The guideline should never be used to bite newcomers who don't know how to indent properly, but experienced users are expected to comply with it, to facilitate threaded discussion on talk pages."

Example #3 there isn't saying to always insert newer comments above older comments, it's saying not to insert them after other comments of the same level. So if someone else replies to your comment which I am replying to now, they comment should go below this one, indented on the same level; as your should have gone after Steve's reply to me, and on the same level as Steve's. Then if you come along, even after that, and reply to me here, your reply should go directly below this, even if that means being above the earlier-posted comment on the same level as this. That is what example 3 is saying. I will self-demonstrate in a moment. In case it's not clear from the time stamps, I posted this paragraph first. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I will self-demonstrate in a moment I posted this paragraph third. Pretend I'm you, replying to my own paragraph above. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The inserted comment came in chronologically (speaking of "Time") later than the comment below the inserted point I posted this paragraph second. Pretend I'm a different person replying to you. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back on track here -- I can see that Rick has a point about "continuum". I also see that it stands out in the dictionary definitions. Also, I want to compliment Rick on coming up with that parphrase. In addition, Phorrest's reply to me and the other editor shows a grasp of the subtle distinctions involved here, (and anchored in the sources too). Therefore I can really appreciate what I am seeing here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, 70.109.178.39 has taken my comment out, after it I said above to leave it in, and after it had been responded to above, said responses now not makeing any sense. I've left a message to him on his Talk page, but let me reitterate here: 70.109.178.39: Do not edit other people's posts. Don't put them back. Don't take them out. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean you do want me to remove the <!-- ... --> "comment" characters or not? With as much effort, you too can remove that, then your wish is unambiguous. But I try to reverse mistakes when I make them, but it is unclear which direction the car is facing and whether putting it in "R" or "D" will drive the car outa the ditch. Rick, please include or remove your comments so that we (or I) know. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is time to move on, and focus on editing the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve, regarding this edit, my intention in "some sense of time" was to be "time, in some sense of the word"; a segue from the preceding sentence which says that precise definitions of time across all fields are contentious... nevertheless many fields just pick one and use it. A word sense. I'm not sure if that was clear and you still object to it or if you didn't see that that's what was meant. Maybe we should wikilink "some sense of time", or just say "time, in some sense of the word"?

I see your point. You intended "sense" in the sense of "meaning of the word", not in the sense of "sensation". The question of whether we experience a sensation of passing time (independent of its measurement) is very controversial. For what it's worth, I know what time it is without looking at a clock, within about fifteen minutes, and can wake myself up for any time I desire without an alarm clock. But that's a personal anecdote, not evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was these entities agree on using time as a measure, and that would be (in essence) what a clock says. For instance, according the sources -- the speed of a baseball pitch is measured in relation to fractions of a second, efficiency in a work place is in relation to increments such as minutes or hours, winning an olympic race is in terms of a "clocked" time. It is specific how these examples (or entities) use time in the same way. Therefore there does not appear to be any "sense of the word" or "sensation" involved. See what I am saying? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a point we have been discussing for some time. What you say above is in agreement with the point of view that there is no "sense" of time, that measurement is all there is to time. Several sources agree. But other sources see time as the thing being measured, and we need to express that view as well. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. According to our discussion the lede presents two or more signifigant definitions of time. In contrast, this is not the lede sentence. This is part of the first paragraph, and part of the four paragraphs. If it were the lede, yes, it might be a problem based on our discussion. Acording to our discussion I thought we had decided to carry the most notable views in the lede sentence, which appears to be so. Ater the lede sentence, there is no reason that the first paragraph, and the four paragraphs of the introduction, cannot be populated with one sentence saying "time as a measure" while another says "time -/- the thing being measured". And other sentences might state other views, which they do already, throughout the introductory four paragraphs.

In addition, this serves as a description of how time is used as a measure. Secondly, this is how time is applied in these fields. I don't think there is any way to get around the use of time in this context. This is also consistent with the second part of the lede already. In other words, it does not conflict with the lede and our discussions. As an aside, I like that you placed the word "incorporate" into this sentence. I found it to be very useful.

Furthermore, we don't seem to be discussing time as a "sense" or "experience" at the moment. However it is already covered in the introduction and laid to rest. This is because it is in agreement with with the sources that say this issue has not been resolved. I actually think it is profound to have that sentence bcause it shows we have been doing our homework. The last thing is I think this should be moved back to the first paragraph. It seems to be an important issue. It is one that came up early in our discussions, and it is one that seems to rear its head frequently enough. Hence, I think it deserves to be placed in the first paragraph -- even the last sentence would work. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

--- In the above I wrote "...seems to rear its head frequently enough." I meant to say "...seems to rear its head every now and then". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve. From your deletion of "Nevertheless", as well as the "sense of", I think the relation between the 2nd and 3rd sentences I intended in my reorganization is maybe not clear. What I was going for was:

• 1st sentence: time is something more or less like this;
• 2nd sentence: but anything more specific than that is highly contentious;
• 3rd sentence: nevertheless people make practical use of definitions more specific than that all the time.

"Nevertheless" and "some sense of" are in reference to the preceding (2nd) sentence, saying that, although any sense (as in meaning, understanding, notion, concept, definition) of time more specific than the vague one we open with in the first sentence is contentious, all kinds of fields use some such sense (meaning, understanding, notion, concept, definition) of time to get practical things done all the time.

I'm not trying to say anything about whether or not (or if so how) we experience time; you'll note none of our recent first sentences say either anything about whether or how time is subjectively experienced, or whether or how time is objectively realized. We are silent and thus neutral on the matter. Then in later paragraphs we talk about those issues more. I don't think we want to get into either of those issues in the first paragraph, which is about definitions; but they do definitely need to be touched on somewhere in the lede (i.e. everything before the first section break).

I'm going to put "Nevertheless" back in and a different phrase ("some notion of time") to keep that segue, for now, but if you really object go ahead and remove them again and I'll leave them out until we settle it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea that I was messing up your work. Presently "nevertheless" is quite a good fit now that I see the relations between the sentences ( ah enlightenment ! ) And let me just leave ""some sense of"" in their for a few days. There is a certain elogquence to it, compared to what I had there earlier today and what I had originally, when I first constructed the sentence. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(In case you're wondering what I am responding to, count the colons. I'm afraid that if I put the comment where it really belongs and makes the most sense, someone here will take offense and move it to the bottom.) It still returns us to what I had been saying all along. We need to think about this with an outline. Before telling the reader about what is being measured and what is being experienced, the article needs to tell the reader what it is (from the most NPOV). we don't seem to be discussing time as a "sense" or "experience" at the moment... The fact is this measurement is simply an extension of this experience; a technological extension. This is quite the same for measuring (or experiencing) any other physical quantity. Rick Norwood's internal clock is just one example. This is why I suggested dealing with both concisely in one compact sentence. 71.169.179.128 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I counted the colons but I am still not sure which response. Also, I am sure there are other responses with this many colons, how do we know whether or not one of these is the preferred reference? In addition, there is a space between the succession of colons and the beginning of the above response. This seems to further confuse the issue. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Steve, here I am following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it, as was demanded of me. And I am not taking the blame for the ambiguous result. 71.169.179.128 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is unhelpful. Also please note that my internal clock is a) anecdotal and therefore not evidence and b) almost certainly chemical in nature. Let's stick to academic sources that assert a subjective component to time. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not taking any blame for "unhelpful" either. It's simply about the consequences of getting what one wishes.

About the topic at hand: I never said that your experience is evidence of anything other than your experience. I agree. But your experience is likely shared by others with similar experience. Pretty much all of us and all of the readers of the article experience time going by, and most of us have some sense of measurement of time solely from our own experience of it: "Back in five minutes... About a half-hour ago... We did that last week..." Our measurement of time with clocks of increasing precision is an extension of our measurement of time solely from our experience. That's why they are two sides of the same coin. One clock perhaps is more "chemical in nature" (but I would use the word "biological" or "physiological"). There is an "operational" aspect of time in the measurement of time with clocks and there is a very similar operational aspect of time in the measurement of it solely from our experience of time.

Now, what I am asking, for the sake of the lede, is what other major POVs of time are there to get into the lede so that it includes all of them and thus does not betray neutrality of POV? There is:

• Time as a notion in and of itself. What time is when and where there is no one around to be measuring nor experiencing it. The Wheeler quote: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once."
• Time as measurement in physical systems. The Einstein quote: "Time is what clocks measure. Nothing more."
• Time in the experience of humans and other conscious beings. Closely related to "whether or not time ... exist[s] independently of the mind".

Are there there other major POVs of time that encompass broad epistemological understandings or usage of the word? If there are only these three, it doesn't seem hard to me to get this down concisely, still in two sentences (to avoid the big run-on sentence).

Pf, ...you'll note none of our recent first sentences say either anything about whether or how time is subjectively experienced, or whether or how time is objectively realized... I'm trying to get us to focus on this. About your "P and Q", I am saying that time has to have some definition (and the dictionary is the NPOV place to get it) of what before we include that this what is measured and/or experienced (and to include either of these measured or experienced aspects of what before the what is not NPOV). And you have made no case that they have to be in the same sentence. There is nothing wrong with saying "Light is a wave and has these wave-like properties. Light is a particle and has these particle-like properties." Do they contradict? Some might say so, but the physics is that light displays both properties in different contexts. They need not be in the same sentence if doing so makes for a cumbersome run-on sentence. 71.169.179.128 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found a source claiming that Einstein believed that time is what clocks measure, nothing more. I have not found a source for that as a direct quote of something Einstein wrote. Have you? The other quote, "Time in what keeps everything happening at once," is from an old science fiction novel, and is quoted more as a joke than anything else, though it has been cited often enough to keep it in the article, correctly attributed. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my unhelpful comments. That did not forward the conversation. As an aside -- I think we can leave the lead and the first paragarph alone. It seems that an agreement has been reached. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The other paragraphs in the intro appear to be just fine, as well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we have covered all the bases. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve (and everyone else), why quit here with a mediocre, designed by committee intro paragraph for a topic as salient and fundamental as this? Wikipedia need not be mediocre, it can have some real art and style in the construction and writing, be informative and NPOV to boot. This is why I am trying to solicit participation about what are the most fundamental perspectives to consider for the article. I still think it's those three, but I might have missed something salient.

It's in layers. Lede sentence with time in the broadest POV possible. Then we bring in this more anthropocentric POV, time as measurement and time as something that is experienced. Then we bring in the major classic disciplines that consider time (science, religion, philosophy, maybe history). Then what people do with time in business, industry, sports, and performing arts, music, dance, and the live theater. Connect to some of those relevant quotes to give it a little more style. And eventually someone will call it an encyclopedia article of a widespread and important article.

It doesn't have to be an encyclopedia of the mediocre. Crowdsourcing need not be the least common denominator. 71.169.179.128 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The beginning section seems a bit wooish and metaphysical...

We should keep both relativity and quantum physics in mind, For instance: "Time is a measure of observed electromagnetic change in a locally defined area"

In this way we have both the requirement of an observer which is necessary for both relativity and quantum physics and we have also taken into consideration that time progresses differently in a gravitational field. All biological processes actually slow in colder weather, and we have been able to slow light in certain circumstances by cooling gasses. By this I am inferring that time is actually changed when energy level is changed. This agrees with all modern science that I am aware of. The reason we use calculus in physics is because change defines physics.

The sentence above, however, is just an example of one formulation that I believe concisely and non-circularly defines time. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed definition is circular, as electomagnetic phenomenon require a time dimension to produce observable effects. I don't agree that the current version is circular, as its quite general. How do you think its circular? Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, there is a Time in physics article where you can put it in purely the physics POV without violating NPOV. But not here. That's what started this whole little hubbub a while back in the first place. 71.169.179.128 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say time is a measure of intervals you are stating that time is measure of time, and there are other poorly or circularly defined sentences as well IMO. It's absurdly difficult to concisely define time without being self-referential. However, as you pointed out, electromagnetic phenomena require a time dimension. We call it space-time because in modern physics time has a physical existence instead of just a conceptual one. Einstein often even referred to it as an aether. By referring to this physical existence, I believe we can avoid circular definitions. A fair way to visualize the dimension of time is (first, recognize there are infinite moments to split the universe into so even this visualization lacks something.) to imagine every moment as a new copy of the universe that is completely stationary and then take these multiple universes as though they were in boxes set next to each other and flatten them into slices or pages stacked against each other. Then time occurs like a flip-book, it is a perspective shift from one universe to the next. You can visualize an object travelling through the papers but truthfully it's simply the focal point that is changing. Since there are more universes in the future than in the past because of more quantum possibilities, it's much like (or perhaps directly is) a gravitational pull so therefore time moves forward instead of back. So when we talk of time we must intrinsically or contextually include the perspective of the observer because it is an observation that requires a perspective. If we say "observed change in a defined area" we imply a variety of things that are typically implied but hidden from immediate view. We are saying that there is an observer who is moving through the time dimension and observes this to be true by the change observed in some area they have defined. All this is necessary to avoid getting too deeply into the fact that time occurs differently in different places but still keeping that consideration in mind. Time could be defined in terms of dimensional travel of an observer but then I think the wording has become too arcane.

Perhaps what we could add is a differential perspective as well. If an observer can compare electromagnetic events in different gravitational fields they will find a difference in the progression of well defined electromagnetic events such as the cycle of a cesium 133 atom. IE the atomic clocks on GPS satellites run faster. So when we say "electromagnetic change" I suppose we could say progression instead but that implies positive time. I guess we could add an additional perspective for differentiation but that is why I added "in a locally defined area". Ultimately I'm just trying to add another perspective to the debate along with a suggestion of how to do it with the hope that someone can take what I've added and make it better, but as it stands, I still have to say that I believe my first suggestion takes much into account that has otherwise been ignored and it does so with as little self-reference as possible. But perhaps the one thing wrong with it is that it is too concise and requires additional expounding? Nemesis75 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is not bad,

"Time is the continuing sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future..."

but it contains the word "sequence," which is rather an objective observable of time, and not actually an intrinsic aspect. Something like this..

"Time is [the name given to] the continuing progression of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future..."

would work better. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"the name given to" doesn't really add meaning, IMO. Then it should say "Time" is the name given to... But we don't need to relegate it to the word "time", but it should be about time. The notion of time.

"Continuum" is in the dictionary. It's okay, I guess, but I thought it was both a little pretentious and stuffy (or dorky, like "duh, what'sa 'continuum'? Sounds like Star Trek and the 'space-time continuum'."). And it might not be accurate. As far as we can tell, time could be quantized to a really small sampling period (like the Planck time or something bigger). But, as people mentioned, it is ordered on a single dimension of stuff. It is both ordinal and cardinal.

And what do you mean by "objective observable" vs. "intrinsic aspect"? 71.169.179.128 (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

An observable is just a property of something which we can see in some way, and though appearance may contribute to the overall picture of something, its not often the case that such appearances actually define what something is. So for example a cat may have hair, but that doesn't mean that's what a cat is, that is we don't define a cat as "a thing with hair." In this case, defining time itself as a "sequence" creates the impression that time is not actually a thing itself, but a term for any series of observables. The point here is that time is not a sequence, or rather that's not the most substantive definition of time. It would be more accurate to say that time is what's *inbetween those sequential events, but that definition too has the problem of leading us to think of time as simply a measurement concept, which we all by now seem to have deprecated.

The best thing to do here is to use the term "continuum," because it indicates the two prime ideas underlying time: continuity, and dimension. I will reserve comment about the issue of whether time is quantized, but I will state that its not improper in some articles (where the definition is undeveloped or controversial) to state that [term] (the name of the article) is a *name given to a concept... which we then define in some way. All words are simply names in a certain respect, and long before we developed any scientific intuition about time we had the concept of time, and most (or all) languages give that concept a name. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the "Time is the continuing sequence of events ..." phrase, either. But I don't own the article and I don't assume ownership.

I think that the word "continuum" is both a little pretentious (even if it's in the dictionary) and might be inaccurate. I really don't see the need for it, but I do recognize the dictionary as the arbiter of what is NPOV in the lede. "Continuing progress of existence and events" is much better and is what I have always been advocating since it is well-supported by the dictionaries and the meaning is clear to the laity. "Sequence" has the connotation of discreteness, and that also might be inaccurate. It can't be both continuous and discrete. We'll see if and how other editors feel about it, but I don't like "sequence" either. 71.161.192.63 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jacksmart99 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Time has, I believe, two core, very simple, though subtle, definitions. It is not a phenomenon, nor a force, nor a dimension, nor a flow. Time doesn't "cause" anything, it merely measures the effect that other change agents have. It has two distinct usages. Firstly it is a measurement. Time measures in the same sense that distance measures. Distance measures the gap between two points. Time measure the gap (interval) between two events. (From this core usage, as a measurement, time also has some subsidiary usages as a calibration, referenceing and indexing system). The question is, what is it measuring? Distance measures space. Time measures..? Well, event to event is a reference to change (change occurs when events occur). So time is a measure of change - perhaps more accurately, change rate. Change can either be grouped change, as in a composite object, or specific. So, for example, the Human Body is a composite object. It has an age, as a composite, despite the fact that, for instance, hair and brains - two of the bodies components, age differently - so change s grouped. Or Time can be specific to , say, a quantum particle (i.e non-composite). Each particle will have its own unique event horizon, or change stream. Time, as a measurement, is speficic to each event then, it is not a universal (it might CALIBRATE as a universal, but that's subsidiary and arbitary). Time doesn't cause change. Things don't age because of time. Time merely measures change and change rate.

The second usage of Time is as a collective term. All events and intervals that occur (all change that happens in other words) are grouped together and Time is used as their collective. The idea that "time moves on", is actually describing change as happening. So time is a collective, the underlying element of time being change-events and duration. These, again, are specific, not universal. So the definition of Time, based on these usages, should be:- 1. A measurement of change; 2. A collective term for all change. I have expanded on the reasoning behind these definitions on www.thisistime.co.uk

Time is not measurement - that leads to a reification fallacy. And while defining time as macroscopic change, time is not itself change, because change cannot exist without time. Physics treats time as a dimension or dimensions within spacetime. What exactly is wrong with this rather widespread idea? -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jacksmart99 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)I disagree. Time is measurement. The idea that “change cannot exist without Time” is like saying length cannot exists without distance. It doesn’t say anything. Change doesn’t need time. Change may occur over a duration, but that duration is NOT a dimension set, or phenomenon. Change happens (Julian Barbour in The End of Time (Phoenix, London, 1999), says (p231) "All true change in quantum mechanics comes from interference between stationary states with different energies. In a system described by a stationary state, no change takes place".

And you measure the change duration using a calibration system (Time). IF change doesn’t happen, Time doesn’t exist. Change causes time. This is the subtle understanding that I believe you are missing.

Time as a dimension? Mmm. I’ll be bold here...this is where physicist have put up their own red-herring which has become a barrier to clear understanding. The problem is that every event to event happening has its own change characteristics, unique and independent. We use Time to measure these. But each one is unique to the event to event occurence. Like distance is unique to every point to point. You could call each a (time) dimension. There are therefore as many time dimensions as there are event to event occurrences. Time is specific (to every event to event), not general. Which is why Spacetime is, at best, a poor approximation.Jacksmart99 (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the idea that change creates time, and I agree with it in a certain way. If space and time cannot be extricated from each other, the flow of time can be thought of simply as a kind of change, with little difference from simple motion. I would have little problem with stating that time itself is a name given to a certain kind of change. (Of course we would need to *source that - do you know of any?) But even beneath that level, there is the issue of whether change - any kind of change - requires something called time in which it can occur. Doesn't change require time? Hence you might start to understand the idea of dimension, and how its not invalid. That's not to say that we truly understand time yet - we understand holography now - perhaps time is simply a kind of computation, a la digital physics. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack, while I agree that time as a dimension may not actually be true, we can't just impose our opinions willy-nilly. Until science has come around to a different way of thinking we must describe what is the accepted version, not our own opinions on the subject. Personally I feel very strongly that time is not truly a dimension but you'll find in my post above about electromagnetic definition, that I've provided a very good explanation of current accepted theory which is actually quite in opposition to my personal opinion on the subject. I agree with you in essence that time and change are inextricably linked but I find it my duty to present this truth only within the framework of modern accepted science. Nemesis75 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't go looking for sources to support our own ideas, but should report what the sources say, quoted extensively above. The two common views are that time is a continuum, (in mathematics an axis at right angles to three spatial axes) or that time is a measurement. It's fun to talk about, but the article needs to stick closely to the sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and that gets to the issue I presented in the above section, where I criticized the usage of "sequence" in the lede sentence as inaccurate. I too support the usage of "continuum" in spite of arguments which claim the term has a vague meaning. In my understanding, "continuum" simply means 'something with *dimension and *continuity.' Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While "continuum" is more common, more than one cited source uses "sequence" and others use "progress" or "progression". The objection to "continuum" was not that it is too vague, but rather than it is too specific, implying that time is continuous rather than discrete. "Progress" was objected to on the reasonable grounds that it suggested "improvement". That left "sequence" and "progression". In my view, either of those words is preferable to "continuum" because of the problem I mentioned. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Given a choice between "sequence" and "progression" there is no choice - "sequence" is unusable and "progression" is quite apt. The issue of whether time is continuous or discrete is not fatal for the usage of "continuum," which you and I both note is used in several dicdefs. The reason its not a big deal is that time is clearly not quantized in the macroscopic sense, even if its possible that time is quantized at the quantum level - ie. for individual particles, or rather the constituent information of those particles. Hence what may be quite quantized at the microscopic level becomes a smooth continuous phenomenon when those particles interact with others. The debate about whether nature is "stuff like" or "thing like" applies even to time. Hence its reasonable to think that there are dualities with regard to how we think of time, ie. a discrete-continuous duality, along the lines of wave-particle duality. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you change it to "progression" or even "progress", I won't revert it. I won't even revert "continuum" even though I don't particularly like the word because I know it's in the dictionary. I would disagree with you about using the latter and assuming it does not fatally contradict discreteness. I think, as far as we know today, that time is fully continuous and thus that "non-spatial dimension" is a continuum. That's just as much certain as the indefinite property which is also in at least one dictionary (as the primary definition) but was objected to by someone (I forget who) here. I don't think that "continuum" is necessary, but it isn't a blatantly POV word like "measurement" is (for the primary def in the lede) and it's in the dictionary in the primary definition.

I still think the article needs a lede paragraph that touches on all of the major POVs and sets up the concept from those major (and possibly conflicting) POVs. 71.161.192.63 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have "the continuing progression of events ..." "Continuum" is not mentioned specifically, but the disamb page is linked to with "continuing progression". Now, if you hit that link and look at the disamb page, there are two plausible articles where to go from there; Continuum (theory) and Continuum (set theory) and perhaps Linear continuum, and all imply continuous as in the opposite of discrete. "Continuum" is, as best as I can tell, the same as the real line or is mappable to the real line in a one-to-one manner. Continuous and continuing are not the same meaning. Not at all. So let's not migrate any dictionary reference of "continuing" to "continuous". "Continuing" is closer to "indefinite" which is also in the dictionary, but some folks objected to (to which I don't see why).

Now, as far as human beings know at present, time is continuous, and if the article is to assume such, let's just put in "continuum". But it might not be and if we are to broaden the POV to include the possibility that time is discrete (and if Nature's sampling period were as small as, say, the Planck time, I doubt that mortal beings will ever know the difference). As far as I can tell, we have no more evidence to refute or confirm "continuous" or "continuum" than we have evidence to refute "indefinite". In fact, since we pretty much know that, in the direction of the past, time is not indefinite, then we know that time does not map directly to the negative real axis. So, I just don't know why we would want an oblique reference to continuum, especially if we're not going to say it explicitly.

The other issue that I will revisit is that of leaving out existence. It's in one of the dictionaries (in the primary definition) and I cannot understand why anyone would say that time and existence are not directly connected to each other. To say that it's continuous and it's about the progression of events leaves unclear about what time is between events. Events happen at certain particular times (from the POV of a particular frame of reference), and there are periods between such events and not time progressing during such periods? Time exists even when no particular events exist, but there is always existence during those periods. So I would like to see someone justify leaving that out, considering it's in a reputable dictionary. And I would like to see someone justify leaving out "indefinite", yet keeping the reference to "continuum", while both in the dictionary. I am still convinced that the strongest synthesis of the various primary dictionary definitions is:

Time is the indefinite continued progression of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

You can slice and dice this and no key word is without support from the primary definition of some reputable English language dictionary. I am unconvinced that any case has been made to exclude any key word and I am unconvinced that this can be made either more neutral or broad in its POV nor more concise in its wording. Remember "continued" or "continuing" are quite different than "continuous" or "continuum". 70.109.178.7 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "existence" or "reality" are the relevant objects which time influences, and would not object to putting them in. Others though may take issue with this, and prefer to limit the influence of time to just events. I can understand their view, and how its influenced by relativity, which pretty much destroyed the idea that time flows the same for everyone. But the key to understanding that idea is not that time negates any concept of real existence, rather it just means that different objects experience a different rate of time, not that objects exist in different times.

Naturally one may misinterpret relativity to mean that there is no real concept of reality and everything is simply an illusion or some relativistic mishmash, but that's just a misunderstanding of relativity. I think some of that sort of thing goes on here and in other time discussions. Hence yes, I view the concept of time in broad terms ("reality" and "existence") as well as microscopic terms (quantum "events"), and understand that the word "time" may mean somewhat different (but quite related) things for each of those pictures.

All that said, I'm reluctant to change the current wording at this moment, though I will probably feel differently tomorrow. Try addressing the potential concern that others might raise against the idea of time as a macroscopic phenomenon - how would you answer such an objection? I'll check in mañana and see what your answer to that is. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe time is specifically macroscopic in scientific terms. Though there is currently a mild schism in physics between the macroscopic and microscopic, there is still a philosophy of unity of the two regardless of the incompatibility of the theories. I believe time, or the multiple dimensions we refer to as time, is actually a point at which the two theories tend to cross; especially when considering the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. As I said above in another post, the real physical existence of space-time as something that can be traversed may be the critical component that is missing from the discussion. I can, at the very least, refer to Einsteins multiple references to space-time as an aether and a real substance but the concept of "space-time" and the fourth dimension all come from the idea that time has a real physical existence, not just a conceptual one. This is an intrinsic part of the 20th century scientific revolution. Nemesis75 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The planet is in a accelerated state of decay due to the emissions of fossil fuel. This issue being how Time is measured is dependent on isotope decay. You know the saying that Time is money? That is a problem because the more debt we accumulate, the faster the decay. Swiss time is slower than isotope decay, which is an reason the valuation of the dollar is diminished. We know that our planet (and solar system) is moving really fast. Really I care more about the future, and less about the past. Science is experimental. They measure time by cesium isotope decay which is an environmental issue, and has little to do with our velocity. I believe the atomic clock is destructive to the planet, our safety and well being. Whomever controls the definition of Time, ultimately controls the Money. Science does nothing, and neither does the government. It a Global issue that needs to be fixed else we will destroy ourselves. There may be no solution, but slowing time back to Swiss movement would slow that tempo of life and the way we work. I opine that the faster we manipulate time the worst the economy gets. The data from NOAA shows our environment is changing, so we know what we need to do. How do we actually make the world change for the better? Humanity is a slave to time, and there is no freedom. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Interesting viewpoint Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry I've been absent so long, had a ton to catch up on when I got back from vacation.

On the wording that currently stands, I think it's a bit verbose and can be made a little more concise, and that this will resolve some of the above issues. Namely, "progression" and "succession" seem to be redundant, both suggesting a march of one thing after another. Since there has been misinterpretationof "progression" as meaning "improvement" here previously, I would suggest we pick the latter of the two, "succession", and consolidate it down to that: "Time is the apparently irreversible continuing succession of events..."

That gets a little heavy on the adjectives being piled onto "succession" though, which brings us to the issue of "continuing". I understand that this is intended not to mean "continuous", but rather "ongoing" or "indefinite". But whichever of those it is taken to mean, that quality of time is not a defining characteristic of it, but a merely incidental feature, as evidenced by the (minor and very specialized) debates over whether time really is continuous and over whether time really is indefinite. I think it does no harm to remove the word "continuing" (saying less rarely hurts, even if what's omitted is widely accepted), and does the small good of slightly improving neutrality and of streamlining the prose, so I would suggest we remove it, leaving us with the much more concise "Time is the apparently irreversible succession of events..."

As far as the suggestion to add "existence" back in there, I think the debate on that is getting highly tangential. My objection to reinserting it is this: what is a "progression of existence"? (or "succession of existence" if we change the phrasing as I suggest above). A progression or succession of events makes obvious sense; one event follows after another. But what "progression of existence" is intended to mean eludes me. I am not making any statement here about whether or not time exists or whether things exist in different times or anything like you're all discussing above; I think just the words do not convey any coherent meaning.

From the anon's comments above, I think the intended meaning is the same as that captured by the second half of the current first sentence: a measure of the durations of events and the intervals between them. Just preemptively I want to emphasize that that "a measure of" language is not to say that time is a measurement, but rather it is whatever is measured; and I'm happy to work on some other phrase to use there to convey the idea that time is whatever durations span, be they durations of events or of the 'empty' intervals between them as the "progression of existence" phrase apparently intends to convey.

To reiterate my earlier comments on my intended connection between the two halves of this sentence: the first is intended to describe time's role in ordering, arranging, or sequencing things, about pastness vs futureness and so on; the second is intended to describe time's role in (I really can't think of a suitable synonym here) measuring things, about how long events and the gaps between them last. To make the analogy with space again, it would be like saying "Space is the arrangement of objects around each other, and a measure of the size of those objects and the distances between them." --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a big problem with the word "apparently" here, namely that the very idea of time reversal (T-symmetry) is just not possible. Period. There is no T-symmetry, for all objects larger than the theorized tachyon, because of plain and simple thermodynamics. There is just no such thing as going backwards in time, except in speculative models which would violate WEIGHT to mention here in the lede. Hence the word "apparent" or "apparently" is just unnecessary. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "apparently" has undue weight issues, because it is not claiming that time might be reversible; it is merely softening the claim that time is irreversible. We are still only stating that time is irreversible; we are just stating it less forcefully. That exact phrasing is supported by the sources cited too, so I think that counts against due weight as well.

I really want to use a better lay synonym for "anisometric" here anyway (as discussed above) to get more to the heart of it (the important point is that the past and future are fundamentally different directions in time, even if you could get back to the past from the future; unlike say left and right are completely arbitrary directions in space, but much like up and down were considered fundamentally different directions in space by Aristotelian mechanics). But we couldn't find such a synonym when we looked earlier.

Honestly I wouldn't object to removing "apparently irreversible" completely, as "from the past through the present to the future" does a pretty good job of establishing that anisometry, and it would streamline our prose. That is, I'd be fine with just "Time is the succession of events from the past through the present to the future...". --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Will comment more tomorrow. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To say that time is a succession of events seems to me to be saying that a stage is the action that takes place upon that stage. The missing word is "continuum", but we have seen problems with that. I suggest: "Time is the dimension along which events occur in apparently irreversable succession." References: "Newton did for time what the Greek geometers did for space, idealized it into an exactly measurable dimension." About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, Paul Davies, p. 31, Simon & Schuster, 1996, ISBN-13: 978-0684818221; "It was the minute hand that would in fact propel human time into a new dimension...", About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang, Adam Frank, p. 77, Free Press, 2011, ISBN-13: 978-1439169599; "We might also add: time is the dimension of change...", "Time's Square", Murray McBeath, in The Philosophy of Time, edited by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray McBeath, Oxford University Press, 1993, ISBN-13: 978-0198239994. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I agree that "continuum" works, but can we go over the issues with "continuum" and see if these issues are actually fatal for its usage? Pfhorrest and I seem to agree that the word "apparently" is not necessary, because time is just not reversible in all but the most outlandish proposals. Hence mentioning these in the lede, even tangentially via usage of "apparently," gives undue weight to such theories. We can however treat the issue of T-reversal in the bottom lede paragraph which deals with time travel.

The problem with calling time a "dimension" is that in extra dimension theories of spacetime like 11D or 12D string theory, time exists in more than just one dimension - it is regarded as essentially inseparable from space, hence the term "spacetime." Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually said that I don't think there is a problem with "apparently" being attached to "irreversible", but that I didn't think "irreversible" was necessary at all (so "apparently" is fine to go with it). Whether or not time is reversible is not something we really need to talk about in the first sentence; but if we are to talk about it, I think "apparently" softens "irreversible" to the right degree. --Pfhorrest (talk)

The problem is that it isnt even an issue of "apparent" phenomenon, or lack thereof. Every serious inquiry into the idea of time travel runs into major snags, thus there is no issue of any "apparent" phenomenon to say otherwise. There unfortunately is just no such thing as time travel or time reversal except in fringe theories or science fiction, and that basic fact doesn't need to be "softened." -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the words "apparently" and "irreversible" should remain. Anti-particles have this property called T-symmetry, but the arrow of time is still the apparent reality. Please don't take this as an indication of consensus. 71.169.181.254 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo: the issue with "continuum" is highly technical: quantum time may be discrete rather than continuous. The objection to "dimension" is similarly technical. But these are the two words used most frequently by the sources, and I think the article should use one or the other. I agree with 71.169.181.254 and Pfhorrest that "apparently irreversible" is a good choice. "Apparent" not only softens "irreversible" but also has the sense of "to all appearances" time is irreversible. "The moving finger writes and having writ..." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, words like "apparently irreversible" (or "existence" for that matter) are "good choice[s]" not simply in a vacuum. It's because they are in the primary definitions in widely-used dictionaries. Now "continuum" is also in some of those dictionaries, but both because it might be problematic, and it's not really necessary (when the word we might need is "continuing" or "continued"). However, our attitude should be to show great deference to dictionary definitions lest our own personal POV slip in without notice. 71.169.181.254 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My argument in favor of trimming out other parts (like "apparently irreversible") is exactly what you say about "continuum": "it might be problematic, and it's not really necessary". Omitting it doesn't add any bias toward any POV, it removes a slight bias against some POVs. The fact that those POVs are minority POVs doesn't matter, because by omission we are not pushing for them; we are simply not pushing against them. It is not enough to have sources backing a POV, or for a POV to be a majority POV. "The dictionary says so" is a good reason to include a point of view, but not a good reason to exclude contrary points of view.

You have still not answered my comments about "existence" above. What is a "progression of existence" supposed to mean, and how are the gaps of time between events not already covered by the second half of our current first sentence? --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, my main concern about non-neutral POV was that of insisting that the lede for Time be principally of the POV of measurement or of experience of beings like us since 1. it is certain that time existed and had operational effect before there were anyone anywhere measuring it or experiencing it and 2. the primary definitions in the three salient dictionaries of the English language has the broader definition. It's not about "my" POV or "your" POV or anyone else's POV unless we witness an obstinate insistence of either of these less broad definitions (that's when I suspect it's some physicist or physics major having some trouble believing that there are other ways to view and interpret the reality that they find themselves in). So far, as best as I can see it, leaving religion out of it for the moment, there are still 3 major POVs (and none are bad, but not all are general): time as some facet of reality that transcends any beings measuring it or experiencing it, time as something that someone measures in physical reality, and time as something that someone experiences. All three are very important but the latter two are not as broad and thus not as neutral. Time is not like culture or society or justice or love. The latter doesn't really exist outside that of beings (normally human beings) experiencing it. But it is silly to deny the existence of time outside of the existence of beings like us that measure and experience it. That is my sole specific POV concern and always had been.

Now, about my general POV concern that applies to any article (including this one) and any editor (including myself) is that for a fundamental concept, the source of NPOV in the lede comes from the reputable and widely-used dictionaries. If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. I hope we can agree on that. I continue to assert that the NPOV source of concise definitions are the dictionaries. Now, "concise" does not simply mean short. It needs to be complete (to what extent is possible) and short. Again, the dictionaries do a better job of that than do I or anyone else here, unless they count themselves a lexicographer. I just do not understand the hesitancy to draw from the dictionary regarding this.

The words "progress of existence" is OED. I don't really understand why the objection to "progress" stuck after it was explained that it doesn't always mean "getting better", but changing it to "progression" seemed to be an acceptable compromise if that is what it took to get something resembling the dictionary definition into the very first sentence. "Progress of existence" is English. Like other definitions in the dictionary, I guess you would have to look up those words and put together meaning with the syntax, but we all know that sitting down with a dictionary and using it as a self-contained source of definitions will eventually lead to circularity. I dunno how it begins other than someone picking up a rock and saying "rock". And the burden of proof (or of explanation) is really on you to show that the gaps between events are somehow covered with other words in the lede sentence. They're not. "Existence" or "reality" exists (as does time) between events. But if you don't believe me, please at least believe the dictionary.

Lastly, this "Ruler of Wikipedia" editor was a piece of shit. I don't know how you saw anything useful coming out of him/her. One look at the contribs shows that. And now they blocked him/her indefinitely. So I am, again, returning it to the "LGV", that is fully justified by the dictionary and am asking you to explain how the dictionary is wrong from the NPOV. 70.109.185.99 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel like you are talking past me, as you keep putting forth "its in the dictionary" against my specific rebuttal of that justification, without addressing that rebuttal directly. I am not saying that dictionaries are not reliable sources, and I am not saying that I or anyone else knows better than the dictionary; I am saying that dictionaries report a wide variety of common, usually rough and lay understandings of words; while if we are to give one definitive statement in the lede of a more extensive encyclopedia article, we need to be more sophisticated than that. Being in the dictionary is a good argument for a viewpoint being notable; but it is not a good argument for a viewpoint being definitive. I am saying, to maintain NPOV for viewpoints not covered in the dictionary's rough treatment, we sometimes need remain silent on matters that the dictionary would coarsely take a definitive stand on.

Let me relate an analogous case: defining "person". If you look up most dictionary definitions, one definition of "person" will be "a human being". However, there are very notable viewpoints according to which not all and only human beings are persons; some nonhuman things may also be persons, and some biologically human things may not be persons. So to have the article on Person begin with "A person is a human..." would be biased, despite the fact that dictionaries often include that definition, and that when most people talk about persons, they are usually talking about humans.

I am saying that likewise, just because lots of dictionaries say "continuum" or "indefinite" or things like that about time, does not automatically make those claims NPOV. It would be undue weight if we were to go into detail in the lede about how time might be discrete or finite or whatever; but simply not asserting that it is a continuum or indefinite solves the issue by not taking a stand on it. Continuousness and indefiniteness and so on may be very common to ordinary people's notions of time, and the dictionary including them is a good argument for that point, but that point does not establish that they are either necessary to any complete definition of time, or that they are neutral to all competing definitions of time. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Time is the succession of events isn't great, since it could be read as a definition of history. Time is more like the successiveness of events, the tendency of one event to succeed another. Also the "references" generally don't mention "succession". 1Z (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Time...is the succession of events..." (or sequence of events or progress of events) confuses the events with the dimension (or continuum) along which events happen. My suggestion opened to mixed reviews, but I'm going to suggest it again: "Time is the dimension along which events occur in apparently irreversable succession." References: "Newton did for time what the Greek geometers did for space, idealized it into an exactly measurable dimension." About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, Paul Davies, p. 31, Simon & Schuster, 1996, ISBN-13: 978-0684818221; "It was the minute hand that would in fact propel human time into a new dimension...", About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang, Adam Frank, p. 77, Free Press, 2011, ISBN-13: 978-1439169599; "We might also add: time is the dimension of change...", "Time's Square", Murray McBeath, in The Philosophy of Time, edited by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray McBeath, Oxford University Press, 1993, ISBN-13: 978-0198239994. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Time is an aspect/feature of events. It is an aspect that can be modelled on a number line - a dimension. To avoid taking a POV on the substantivalist-relationist issue, something like this:

Time is a dimension of events — in which events can be sequenced, their duration and the intervals between them can be compared and quantified, and with which rates of change can be measured.

Saying time is "a dimension of events" does not imply the realist-substantivalist-Newtonian position that such a "dimension" exists independently of the events. I think it is wise to heed the caution contained in the first paragraph that defining time is a challenge, cease trying to begin "Time is the...", and return to begin by giving a broad description of the basic temporal concepts.

Time is not "the sequence of events" - a sequence of events is simply a sequence of events. Events only have sequence because by "an event" we already understand that a temporal component is involved. Nor is time "the sequence of ALL events" - as some events cannot be established to have a definite sequence.

While "succession" is an exceedingly better term than "progression", for the same reasons as above, time is still not identical to any "succession of events", but rather events are successive because events are already understood to have a temporal component, and not all events are located at the same place on that dimension.--JimWae (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Dimension" also does not imply a continuum. --JimWae (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peterdjones that "Time is more like the successiveness of events, the tendency of one event to succeed another"; that is the intended reading of the wording as it stands now, and a reason why we changed away from "sequence", but I can see how it could still seem to be talking about the set of events, and not the order of that set. So how about an older suggestion that never made its way into the article: "order". Time is the order of events from past to to the present to the future..."? This really makes explicit what I intended the two halves of the first sentence to accomplish together: time is both an order and a measure, it's both about what events come before and after which, and about how long and how far apart those events are. Again, just like space is about both position and size/distance. I'm going to be bold and change that now, but if anyone takes offense go ahead and revert. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Phorrest, I think "Time is the order of events from past to to the present to the future..." doesn't actually solve the problem. With this statement Time equals "order of events...". More likely the "order of events" is given by "time". It seems to me, realizing a temporal component precedes the "order of events" or "sequence of events". I think saying "Time orders and sequences events from the past to the present to the future..." comes much closer to solving the problem. Or else try "Time orders or sequences events from past to present to the future...". Please notice that "order" and "sequence" have their own shades of meaing. Or we could throw out one of those words. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood wrote: "Stevertigo: the issue with "continuum" is highly technical: quantum time may be discrete rather than continuous." As I said before, this issue is not fatal for the purpose of using the term "continuum" - time very well may be quantized at a microscopic scale, but as those particles interact with others, what may be a discrete phenomenon becomes continuous through the sheer complexity of these interactions. Hence, "continnum" can fit. "The objection to "dimension" is similarly technical. - Can you explain the difficulty with "dimension." The only real apparent snag is in limiting time to a single dimension. But these are the two words used most frequently by the sources, and I think the article should use one or the other." - Yeah, that seems to be my conclusion as well. I lean towards "continuum," over "dimension." -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with dimension is the one you noted. There may be more than one time dimension. Which is why I wrote "Time is a dimension..." rather than "Time is the dimension..." Between continuum and dimension I have no strong preference. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Should not this page refer / link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2018:0:0:0:207 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My only issue with this is that ISO 8601 is a human based system to represent the recording of time. In other words data format. Whether time is recorded in 24 hour format or 12 hour format really does not add to the discussion on this "time" wiki page. This page is more focuse on what is time as opposed to what is the best way to write time references. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does searching for "newtonian time" bring you to "time", when they just aint the same thing??? Newtonian time is where it is universally constant, while this time is in reality a relative quantity. New article needed? I decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.254.178 (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Newtonian time now redirects to Absolute time and space --JimWae (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite strange if not downright wrong that Einstein name is not mentioned in the main description of time which is often the only portion of text that most people read. From the start "Time is a dimension ..... " until ".....and in human life spans" Einstein name is not mentioned once whether other scientists are mentioned (Newton, Kant, Leibniz). Einstein has completely changed the way we look at time not in a theoretical way but in a measure proven scientific way. Without Einstein's work we wouldn't be thinking of time the way we are now. He has fundamentally transformed the conception of time itself. Unless his theory of relativity is proven wrong at some point, I believe his name cannot be omitted from the main description of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadio2007 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, feel free to suggest here what to add and where to add it. Be careful about being wp:bold, since it is very difficult to get several editors here to even agree to putting in the dictionary definitions of time in the lede. But I would be interested in seeing a good one-sentence reference to how Einstein's perspective of time contrasts with those of Newton's, Leibniz, and Kant's. 71.169.184.73 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This wiki section on time makes no mention of the concept of time presented by Aristotle, in his work titled 'Physics'. In Book IV, Aristotle states that 'we want to know what time is and what exactly it has to do with movement". He reaches a number of conclusions (1) "time is not movement, but only movement in so far as it admits of enumeration"; (2) "time then is a kind of number"; (3) "every simultaneous time is self-identical; (4) "if there were no time, there would be no 'now', and vice versa"; (5) "time then also is both made continuous by the now and divided by it"; (6) "time is number of movement in respect of the before and after, and it is continuous since it is an attribute of what is continuous; (7)"time is not described as fast or slow, but as many or few and as long or short" (8) :there is the same time everywhere at once, but not the same time before and after"; (9) "not only do we measure the movement by time, but also the time by the movement, because they define each other"; (10) "time is a measure of motion and of being moved, and it measures the motion by determining a motion which will measure exactly the whole motion"; (11) "to be in time means, for movement, that both it and its essence are measured by time"....clearly then to be in time has the same meaning for other things also, namely, that their being should be measured by time", (12) "since time is number, the 'now' and the 'before' and the like are in time, just as 'unit' and 'odd' and 'even' are in number; (13)"to be in time does not mean to coexist with time, any more than to be in motion or in place means to coexist with motion or place; (14) "since what is in time is so in the same sense as what is in number is so, a time greater than everything in time can be found"; (15) "a thing then will be affected by time, just as we are accustomed to say that time wastes things away, and that all things grow old through time..."; (16)"things which are always are not, as such, in time, for they are not contained by time, nor is their being measured by time"; (17) since then time is the measure of motion, it will be the measure of rest--indirectly, for all rest is in time"; (18)"time is not motion, but number of motion: and what is at rest,also, can be in the number of motion"; (19) "neither will everything that does not exist be in time, i.e., those non-existent things that cannot exist, as the diagonal cannot be commensurate with the side"; (20) the 'now' is the link of time (for it connects past and future time), AND it is a limit of time (for it is the beginning of the one and the end of the other); (21) in time all things things come into being and pass-away".

In book VI, Aristotle offers this operational definition of time: "that which is intermediate between moments is time". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.50.151 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The section on time perception was titled as "judgement of time" (and later "temporal judgements" by User:JimWae), but this phrasing is inappropriate and seems rather based on pedantry. What's wrong with simply titling it as "time perception" or "perception of time"? The majority of readers are more familiar with that phrase than one that attempts to achieve a more specific definition of which the difference is trivial at best, and only serves to confuse and be preoccupied in pedantry. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also think "== Time perception ==" is better. It's now in line with the main article Time perception to which it refers. - DVdm (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it surprising that someone like (Redacted), who has no energy for (Redacted) as he calls it, would concern himself with articles on the == Perception of Time == Yanickborg (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)