In effect, the philosopher thinks of time as transcendent. Time is something above and beyond this world, something objective, by means of which events in this world can be measured — Agustino
In effect, the philosopher thinks of time as transcendent. — Agustino
Yes, that's why in my second repetition I said:Duration (real time) from a Bergsonion perspective, would be actual evolution as experienced. It is not transcendental, but rather the actual. I'm v would be continuous (indivisible) and heterogeneous (feels as though it is moving faster or slower). — Rich
The prior conception you quoted wasn't of the Bergsonian notion. This one is, and since time is relative to our conscious experience it can't be transcendent to it. Hence why I said "agree with the 'materialist'"What about the philosophical idea that time is heterogeneous? This idea seems to suggest that time does not always flow the same way. It seems to agree with the 'materialist' view that time is not absolute but rather relative but places the relativity of time within conscious experience rather than within what we call the objective world. — Agustino
That's a one-sided view. It's also a method for judging how fast an event happens compared to a fixed standard.Time, for science, is a method for judging simultaneity of events based upon some standardized rhythm of a chosen standard. — Rich
I don't buy this.Special Relativity contains the standard time that we know of in school, and is used to explain why two observers may c disagree on the simultaneity of two events as they experience it. Beyond this Relatively time is given some ontological significance which begins to produce paradoxes which are always red flags, especially since Special Relatively can only be applied to a non-accelerating environment, e.g. one that is not within a gravitational field. Time in General Relativity is defined differently than in Discussing Relativity because the measurement problems are different. — Rich
Why? And how come you say we "experience" time while asleep or unconscious? I don't experience anything while asleep or unconscious.It one is inquiring into the nature of life, then understanding philosophical time is crucial, including the time we experience when we are asleep or unconscious. — Rich
You have yet to show this.They do not grasp the full meaning or experience. To substitute equations for life just leads to mass confusion which generally reveals itself as paradoxes. — Rich
That's a one-sided view. It's also a method for judging how fast an event happens compared to a fixed standard. — Agustino
No it's not. Simultaneity is ultimately a fake concept because physical time itself is relative. Simultaneous in one reference frame isn't simultaneous in another. The very concept of simultaneity presupposes some objective time, some transcendent time, that can encompass both events and say that the clock striked 12 at the same time the spaceship passed by us. But if time is immanent, then simultaneity is relative.This would be another way of saying the same thing. There is a standard which is used for measuring simultaneity with some event (with the standard) and then there is another event being used to measure simultaneity. The two events can then be judged against each other. — Rich
Who is he and what are his credentials? By the looks of his website he is a retired amateur with a hobby interest in Bergson.Stephen Robbins — Rich
The 'materialist' view of time does render out of time an entirely relative phenomenon. There exists no absolute time, time itself is immanent within the world. I am reminded of 180 Proof asking rhetorically "what is north of the North Pole?" when asked "what happened before time began during the Big Bang?". — Agustino
The difference which exists between past and future is likely the most important aspect of our living experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
An essential feature of the clock (whether it is the sun moving, an atomic clock, or a light clock) is that it requires something - a phenomenon - that is taken as a reference point. Namely, one day corresponds to one appearance and disappearance of the sun, and it does so all the time. If it doesn't, then time cannot be measured anymore.
This means that physical time is always relative, and in a certain sense immanent. — Agustino
Theoretical problems can be brought against this scientific conception of time. Namely, what happens if everything, as it were, speeds up in equal proportions, including the phenomenon that we take to be the stable unit of time? It would seem that if that is the case, then scientific time cannot tell us. For our festival that we took 5 days to complete, will still take 5 days now, only that the former 5 days aren't the same as the latter. Clearly, physical time will never be able to capture this occurrence. But is this phenomenon a chimera of our imaginations? — Agustino
Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. No one experiences the future. What we do experience is some action that we imagine as a possible future. Possibilities, however are not future time. Imagined possibilities are not duration. — Rich
Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. — Rich
Have not read all the replies, but the language in the OP is summarized by that snippet. One is a materialist or a philosopher. It seems that materialism is not presented as a philosophical stance.A materialist would probably answer yes, rendering the conception of the philosopher moot.
In effect, the philosopher thinks of time as transcendent. — Agustino
Obviously, the time in question would not be the time physics and the materialist deal with. Before the creation of the Universe there was no time for the physicist/materialist because there were no phenomena that could be used to measure time. Acts of creation are not acts in time. They are events. But events are not necessarily linked by any flow of time in particular. Think of it as the still frames in a movie. Each frame is an event as it were. Time is only that which links them, we could imagine the same frames changing faster or slower. So having events is not sufficient to have a notion of a moving time.This is one of the questions I have regarding cosmological arguments. In what sense are we to understand God "causing" the universe (and time) to exist, if there was no time before hand? — darthbarracuda
Yes, and our notion of causality, as we scientifically understand it, is also immanent and with reference to the world. No world, no causality as understood by science.Our concept of causality seems to me to be intrinsically tied to time. Things change because of certain causes, and this takes time to happen. — darthbarracuda
First, the Prime Mover argument isn't even that. The Prime Mover argument is that every second God is causing the Universe to exist.So if time did not exist "before" (what does that even mean, though, "before time" - was there a time before time?), in what sense is God "causing" the world to exist? — darthbarracuda
The notion of past and future are tied to memory though. We know about the past, and by extension the future because we have memory. Without memory, there would be no notion of past and future, just the present.I think your op misses the most important aspect of time. Time exists as the separation, or division, between past and future. The difference which exists between past and future is likely the most important aspect of our living experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think we experience such a separation, as much as we construct it.We experience a separation between past and future, and there is something about this separation which is always changing, the anticipated future comes to pass, so there is always becoming a new past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Meaning? What is this that stays the same?But there is also something about the separation between past and future which seems to always stay the same, and this is what allows us to measure time. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't follow you here. What do you mean time holds no real significance? And what does this have to do with time dilation?Proper time measures this distance so to speak between two events as though a clock had passed through it and enables a causal connection. Coordinates are essentially used as labels in science that help us identify spatial events and time actually holds no real significance in the physical sense; take time dilation, for instance. — TimeLine
Hmm yeah, agreed.The propagation of information cannot move faster than the speed of light and it is why we have the theory of special relativity. — TimeLine
:-O That's not at all obvious. I would say we only experience the present directly, and the future/past indirectly via our faculty of memory.No one experiences the present. It is only future and past. — TimeLine
we also anticipate the future, — Metaphysician Undercover
The point I am trying to make though, is that in the more primordial sense, time appears to us as this separation between things experienced and things anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover
Special Relativity is a very simple theory, the only additional assumption compared to classical mechanics is that light travels at a fixed speed everywhere. Nobody with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity. — Agustino
The notion of past and future are tied to memory though. We know about the past, and by extension the future because we have memory. Without memory, there would be no notion of past and future, just the present. — Agustino
I don't think we experience such a separation, as much as we construct it. — Agustino
Meaning? What is this that stays the same? — Agustino
Yes, we imagine possible actions, but this is done in memory, not in the future.[ — Rich
No, the imagination is not the memory. And as much as our anticipation of the future is not "in the future", this does not mean it is in the past. Likewise, our memories are of the past, they are not in the past — Metaphysician Undercover
Nobody with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity. — Agustino
I do not know of how to conceive of a possible future without it being in memory. — Rich
I am not talking about conceiving of a possible future, I am talking about anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, when discussing time (duration) as we experience it, I believe what we are experiencing is a possibility that we create in memory as opposed to an experienced future. — Rich
In the primordial sense time appears to us as a past and a future, the two being fundamentally different — Metaphysician Undercover
We all experience life, and I'm all about describing experience as precisely as we can by direct observation.
I can say on my behalf, that the duration that I experience is all in my memory. This is my experienced time. — Rich
With this said, if you experience time differently, then I cannot deny your experience. — Rich
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.