Talk:Time

Please add all new material at the bottom of this page. New material placed at the top is likely to be ignored by regular readers because they look for the most current stuff at the bottom where it belongs.

Time is an intersection between 3 dimensional space and the 5th dimensional information field

What is this supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.126.183 (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi. I think it's a good idea to add the following links (under the ISST -International Society for the Study of Time- link):

• Institute for Time Nature Explorations : http://www.chronos.msu.ru/eindex.html
• CEITT - Time and Temporality Research Center : http://ceitt.com/index-en.html

My first reaction was to say no, because the external links section is a real mess; however, I agree that those two specific sites appear to be genuinely revelent, and also in the interests of avoiding bias, I've added them. Cheers!

 Done  Chzz  ►  10:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them. Those particular pages do not even discuss the topic - but only announce upcoming events &/or ask for feedback. Other pages at sites deal with topic of time - but are only in the form of speculative, introductory questions about time --JimWae (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Time is change.

     Linear time is accelerated by motivation. This manifests itself as change of velocity of the flow of time resulting from change of magnitude of the unit of measurement. The observer of the change is only conscious of that change if the change is the difference between observations of the contents of two units 'now' or of the comparable magnitude of two units 'now'. The observer is then in the boundary between the two moments 'now'. Change of a static unit 'now' cannot be observed because the change is within the static unit. The unit 'now' is an interval of time of magnitude which is specific for the particular oberver and is a cycle contained between two limits of the 'beginning', symbolised by '0', and the 'end' symbolised by '1'. Seen as one, the duality of (0<1), is a static interval of time, containing observer's consciousness of the external world. It also contains consciousness of the 'self' and of the memory. Since 'now' is static it can change for the next 'now' only quantitatively and outside of the observer's consciousness, in which case the boundary is too small to accommodate the unit 'now' containing consciousness. There is no observable transformation from one magnitude of the 'now' to a different magnitude or transformation in the difference between parts within the 'now' itself. When the variable boundary is at its maximum the 'now', contained between the 'beginning' and the dynamic 'end', is contradiction of Nothingness and it is of unlimited magnitude. Change is then perfectly continuous and unlimited, so that the medium of the largest 'now' is the Nothingness of unlimited plurality of the 'units' of Nothingness

     To change from one 'now' to the next 'now', whether continuously, using the smallest 'now, or quantitatively, in the case of the largest 'now', or by a combination of the two, there must be motivation for the change. The units of Nothingness change continuously, making the medium of unlimited plurality of identical units of Nothingness, dynamic. The medium of Nothingness is unlimited, static and therefore eternal but it contains all the possible units of limited plurality and of variable organisations. This is possible only if there is a conscious observer motivating and organising the medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.36.126 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Apology, I forgot to sign the above contribution. I want to add that time has no spatial magnitude because it is rotation of the point. But the point can rotate with vartiable velocity thus creating organisations outside of space. Points of variable velocity of rotation can interact but only points with identical velocity of rotation unite and double the velocity. Manifestation of time is 'energy' or 'motivation'. We experience it as the material or immaterial space times. KK (213.158.199.139 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Time is not a unit

The second paragraph states that "... time is considered one of the few fundamental units." It even cites a source that is supposed to back this up. But it isn't correct. Time is not a unit; a second is a unit, and it is a unit of time. The cited source includes a quotation that talks about units of time or units of length, not the concepts of time or length being units in themselves. In general, a unit is an agreed-upon quantity of measure, not the abstraction being measured. I want to either fix this sentence or remove it. I think the intent was to indicate how important the concept of time is in physics; it is perhaps better to say that time is one of the fundamental quantities that can be measured in the International System of Units: length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, luminous intensity (which is actually a human perceptual unit, not a physical unit), and "amount of substance" (actually just an atom- or molecule-count). If nobody objects, I will change this in the next day or two. CosineKitty (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it surely souds odd. Perhaps writing it as fundamental quantities helps. DVdm (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, "a fundamental physical quantity", since there is an article for that? CosineKitty (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and then we might even drop the reference altogether. No problem with me. DVdm (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. CosineKitty (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from commencement of second paragraph as of today 2010 February 06: Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities ...

Time a Quantity? We have concepts for time but that is all, surely? There can be an infinity (almost) of metaphysical approaches to defining time but all definitions are prone to fail: "Time is the vessel of deeds — no deed done, no time consumed — philosopher’s conundrum." And so on ...

For practical purposes we have working systems for time measurement, for example "mean solar time", "sidereal time" and so on. Fundamentally time is a unique abstraction in that its invariance is beyond challenge. I am open to challenge myself on this one! Wilberfalse (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The current opening sentence needs to be replaced. Time is not primarily "part of the measuring system used to sequence events ...". Like distance or mass it can be measured but that does not make anz of them primarily part of a measuring system. Something like, "Time flows, separating and sequencing the past from the present and the present from the future." A far more general 1st statement. Also Time is not a quantity. It can be divided up and numbered or counted. But that does not make Time a quantity. A count of time gives a quantity. Not Time itself. Just like Mass is not a quantity. It can be counted but again its the count that is the quantity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.131 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying what "time is", is probably the most impossible thing humankind has invented.

I think we only find solid agreement over the (operational) definition of time among physicists, engineers and John Doe: "Time is what we read on clocks" (see also http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html). For philosophers o.t.o.h. the opening sentence will never be acceptable. I think that's just one of those facts of life :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine Part

"In Book 11 of St. Augustine's Confessions, he ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He settles on time being defined more by what it is not than what it is,[23] an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions."

If you are going to keep that quote from Augustine's Confessions we need to elaborate on the relevance of it to the article and how it relates to Augustine's inquiry on the subject. The setence that follows the quote is also pointless and sounds like their knowledge of Augustine's position on the issue is limited to that quote. In my opinion the quote does not adequately represent his analysis of time and some of the acute inferences he makes. I suggest someone with adequate knowledge of Augustine try and fix this becuause his contributions to the subject matter are notable and have had a wide spread influence toward the western conception of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.50 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

This quote is a witticism, said as a kind of semi-joke - and it is only part of the quote. It is something interesting, but I do not see any reason to take it so seriously as to assign it as a principle of science. It does not say anything specifically about cause and effect, though causal events are, of course, included among the events it can refer to. If only causal events were intended, then everything else MIGHT happen and the same time.

Some events DO happen at the same time in the same reference frame. Some effects can occur at the same time as the cause - it all depends on how the event is defined and WHERE it is located. Though the sunshine is about 8 minutes old, the change from day to night has a cause in the simultaneous rotation of the Earth. Lightning is caused by a static discharge - but in a sense IS just a manifestation of a static discharge - the only time delay is the result of needing to be far enough away to see it and survive. The requirement is not that the cause precede the effect, but that the effect cannot precede the cause.

If every event happened at once, there would be only one event. --JimWae (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim, concerning the bottom-change of this, cause and event are always separated by time - by definition. Two events can happen at the same place and time, so not all events are separated by time.

Now just compare:

• Google search the original cause and effect version: 5760 hits
• Google search your events version: 1 hit

I know it's a semi-joke and I know google search is not authoritative, and we are not dealing with academic sources, but your change is just WP:SYNTH. Time is not what separates events. It is what separates cause and effect, semi-joking or not. Therefore I have changed it back to the original version, with the google search added as a reference, but while retaining your top-change (with which I fully agree). If we find a more authoritative source for this, we can always add it. DVdm (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I cannot believe you think such a search would settle this. Did you not notice how most of the links were to articles with paragraphs identical to the wp article? They are wp mirror sites - and there were only 73 of them (and only 20 not counting duplicates). I am deleting the quote to avoid wasting any more time on this. Read Causality - there is no requirement that the cause be before the effect. The static discharge, the lightning, and the thunder are not 3 separate events - there is one event and the manifestations of the static discharge take time to propagate over distances. --JimWae (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I noticed how most of the links were to articles with paragraphs identical to the wp article. Anyway, I have added the somewhat famous sentence with two sources to the end of the lead. It was indeed not sitting at its proper place in the time dilation section. I have also left out the speculations about causality. Let's indeed stop wasting time on this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The quotation is not partial, but it is misattributed and slightly corrupt. The correct quotation is:

“Time is that great gift of nature which keeps everything from happening at once.” —C. J. Overbeck

Biographical Encyclopedia of Scientists wrongly cites a 1978 American Journal of Physics issue attributing the quotation to John Archibald Wheeler. The quotation does appear in issue 46(4) at page 323, but unattributed. Look instead at “What does a man possess?”, a 1973 article by physicist C. J. Overbeck which appears in the August issue of The Rotarian at page 47. The quotation is from paragraph 3, the first column. Verify this online at <http://books.google.com/books?id=vjUEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false>. I am sorry I am unfamiliar with the CITE tag and the citation markup in general and have not corrected the article myself, but I hope I have sufficiently informed someone with the necessary know-how. Cheers, MetaEd (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for having dug this up. I have changed the article. Feel free to hone. DVdm (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, even more thanks to you for having found and inserted the Cummings quote. In answer to your recurring edit summary question ("WHY do we keep it?"), I'd say, well... let's keep it because (1) it is catchy, funny and to the point, (2) it is all over the place and everyone seems to have said it, (3) it is bound to reappear in this article anyway, and (4) our Wikipedia article might be (or become) the only place that's got it right. Good job :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Now we've got Bergson saying it in French

• Le temps est ce qui empêche que tout soit donné tout d'un coup. [Time keeps everything from happening all at once.] -- Henri Bergson
• http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=bergson+%22time+keeps+everything%22
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=time+%22keeps+everything+from+happening%22+bergson&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
• http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=12&as_brr=0&q=%22Le+temps+est+ce+qui+emp%C3%AAche+que%22&btnG=Search+Books
• http://books.google.com/books?id=qprjifRX9WsC&pg=PA74&dq=%22Le+temps+est+ce+qui+emp%C3%AAche+que+tout+soit+donn%C3%A9+tout+d%27un+coup%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&cd=12#v=onepage&q=%22Le%20temps%20est%20ce%20qui%20emp%C3%AAche%20que%20tout%20soit%20donn%C3%A9%20tout%20d%27un%20coup%22&f=false

I do not read French, but apparently the last one gives a date of 1930--JimWae (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Bergson wrote "Duration and Simultaneity" in 1921, but this does not show the quote & here's his bibliography--JimWae (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Time

It may be just me, but it seems that a page on time should have a current time. I don't know how to put such a thing on there (html?), but I think something at the top that said The current time is: XX:XX:XX (UTC) would be really nice.--E♴ (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: found T:Time Cell which I think could be modified for this... looks like this:

The time is now:

14:19

Wednesday

10

July 2024

--E♴ (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT2: how about this? User:E2eamon/sandbox I am going to add it per WP:BOLD If anyone wants to revert, go ahead and post a comment here. --E♴ (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT3: I moved the template to the template namespace at Template:current time box--E♴ (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I removed it. I doubt anybody is going to come to this article to find out what the time is - not even people in the UTC timezone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a newspaper, and not an applet--JimWae (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's true...I just did a google search for time, and this article is #7. Anyone who wanted to know the current time would have gone to an earlier result. I guess it's just people like me who start by searching wikipedia, instead of google...--E♴ (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonce introduction

JimWae reverted my changes to the lede (diff), commenting "this IS an operational def. other appears to be a string of words with little sense that makes time an agent." JimWae has for a while now defended NONCE at this article, meaning a lede paragraph without a definition, or else one that prefaces the topic with a kind of disclaimer saying "there is no one agreed upon definition," rather than finding language that people can agree on. The current version reads:

Time is an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

This entire first part of the sentence is problematic, and, combined with the next sentence add up to NONCE. In my comment I wrote: "opening sentence - pls avoid WP:NONCE - time is not "the essential part" of "a measuring system." On the positive side, I can say that the lede overall covers a lot of ground and thus isn't so bad. So while I appreciate the good hard work that JimWae and others have put into it, I must point out that time is not "an essential part" of "the measuring system" that's "used for sequencing events." Time is time —not that. My edit added an actual lede sentence that said something like:

"Time is the transformation or change that acts upon all of reality, in accord with constraints that connect states in the present to events in the past and to a projection of the future. It is described variously in philosophical and physical contexts as measuring system or dimension used to sequence events..." (diff)

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 15:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the existing 1st paragraph: 1) there is nothing at all in that first sentence that mentions any problem in defintion, 2) you have not touched anywhere on any reasons to support your claim that the first sentence is problematic 3) It would be uninformative to not mention in the lede that defining time has challenged the greatest scholars. But this does not begin the article -- it is at the end of the first paragraph. 4) A defintion in terms that do not already involve temporal concepts is impossible, so a certain amount of circularity is unavoidable (see Definition#Limitations_of_definition) 5) the def that has been accepted on this page for years now, presents the range of concepts that function to make up our notion of time. It gives a conceptual definition for time, expressing the contexts in which the base notion of time would apply. An operational definition of the units in which time is "measured" is then possible.
• Regarding your proposal: 1) you have not mentioned any reasons supporting any way in which it would be an improvement 2) It personifies (or, at least, reifies) time, making it an agent of change 3)it refers to some constraints, but nowhere does the article cover that 4) it externalizes the connection between events in the past & the future - making time the origin of the connection (taking the POV that it is time that connects events rather than something else such as energy or causality) 5>the existing lede does not say time is a measuring system, but that it is an essential component of a measuring system. Other components (especially regarding the quantification of motion) would be space & number 6) What does "Time is the transformation or change that acts upon all of reality" tell the reader? Besides personifying time as an agent, what more is it than a string of words that says nothing specifically at all about time? 7) Other than that the terms past, present, & future are temporal words, what does "in accord with constraints that connect states in the present to events in the past and to a projection of the future" tell the reader about time?
• Regarding sources: I can find reliable sources that support every part of the existing lede sentence. I did not see in my search any such complete support for your proposed sentence. The closest I found to anything that supports any part of your wording was that the *concept* of time is a way we have of speaking that links the past, present, and future, as in: "the *system* of those *sequential* relations that any *event* has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous *duration* regarded as that in which events succeed one another". They mostly supported use of "continuum" as a concept -- and not as any objective external reality. There were a very few that spoke of time as an objective substratum (aether) that is part of the underlying structure of the universe - but to have wikipedia state that as the definition would be to take sides on an issue about which a profound disagreement is covered in the article, and thus would violate NPOV. I think NPOV is an additional problem for your proposal.
• More later JimWae (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• The NONCE template & the WP:NONCE article have been created & worked on only by yourself, and are in no way any wp guideline. Nevertheless, I submit that WP:NONCE does not apply to this article. It is not the case that this article "only reveals and discusses a concept's ambiguities or peculiarities". It begins with about as good a definition as possible for such a term. Furthermore, to not mention in the lede that definition has been difficult would be uninformative. Additionally, your proposal, since it "begins with non-definitive or otherwise vague language", is far more an example of your version of NONCE than the lede that has begun this article for nearly 2 1/2 years now.--JimWae (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your points - the fact that the current "working definition" represents a compromise for what was previously a rather contentious philosophical article, and that this version has sufficed for quite a while now. Full disclosure, I agreed at the time that the current version was adequate to our needs, and stepped back with an understanding that it would work for a while. It has, and I think the rest of the article has developed quite well because of it. Nevertheless, I have returned for a reason, because the language "an essential part" is not what time is. It would be better to state that time is a dimension or even a force that acts upon particles, than it would to keep the current version. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see you have repeated your assertion that "time is not an essential part of a measuring system" - but I see no argument for your position. Do you disagree that "a measuring system [is] used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects"? Do you disagree that time is an "essential component" of that measuring system? Perhaps you disagree that these activities capture the primary usages we have for the word time? Surely you must have some familiarity with Definition#Limitations of definition. Some circularity is inevitable with basic concepts. Sometimes, as here, there is no other definition possible than a conceptual one. The "working" conceptual definition leaves aside the question whether there is some entity called time, apart from the activities we carry out to which we attach the term. Do the activities include too much? Are there other activities that have been left out? If we cover all the main activities "time" applies to, haven't we given a comprehensive context for the usage of the term?
• Do you have some other NPOV definition in mind besides the idiosyncratic & unsourced ones that "Time is a force" OR that "Time is the transformation or change that acts upon all of reality, in accord with constraints that connect events in the past to the state of the present and the projected future (which 2nd also has all the problems mentioned above)?
• Would it make a difference if the lede began:

Time is a dimension of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

• Sure, the word "dimension" is a more familiar term to apply to time, and it would not be absolutely terrible if that is what was there. However, because "dimension" is so familiar, it would just hide the emptiness of applying it to the only dimension used for all the activities except the last. Furthermore, a focus on dimension would overemphasize the other associated dimensions (of space) and screen over the other essential component of the measuring system, ie: number.

• You have not made your case for tagging the article with the template that only you have ever worked on and that is neither a wiki policy nor guideline. You disagree with the lede - but have not proposed any alternative that you can show has any support. Disagreeing with a lede does not justify tagging it with your own personal template without making the a case for what your template says it means. Offer a better lede if you can. If you cannot, isn't it appropriate to remove your template? JimWae (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Time is an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects."

Can I add my own objections to the first sentence. Time is something that can be measured, and so is not just part of a measuring system (as "second" or "inch" could be said to be). Secondly, time measurements do not quantify motions, measurments like velocity do. 1Z (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OPh, and I don't like this either

"Time is the transformation or change that acts upon all of reality, in accord with constraints that connect events in the past to the state of the present and the projected 'future. "

Time is not change. Changes occur accross time; time is what change occurs accross. 1Z (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Jim, the issue that I raise and which Peter adds to is simply that time is not "a measuring system" nor is it "part of" such. Time is time, and it exists independently of human measurement or for that matter, observation. Granted, philosophers into subjectivist worldviews can experience a warm and fuzzy feeling if they wade deep into the idea that everything disappears when they close their eyes, but that's not how the real world is understood, and that's not the way encyclopedia articles approach a topic. We defer to objective viewpoints.

Jim, you asked: "Do you disagree that time is an "essential component" of that measuring system?" - In a certain context, that is what time is, but in objective contexts time is quite not that at all. You could for example look at physical descriptions of time - all the way up to computational/holographic conceptualizations - and you might consider these a better generalization of what time actually is. Jim you wrote: "Perhaps you disagree that these activities capture the primary usages we have for the word time?" - Your language does indeed get to a serious idea about how we conceptualize time and how we contain it (the concept), but it does not rise to the level of a general definition that says what it (the concept) actually is. Granted, its not easy, and I appreciate your take on it enough to consider as a secondary statement in the lede. Regarding my wording:

"Time is the transformation or change that acts upon all of reality, in accord with constraints that connect events in the past to the state of the present and the projected 'future. "

Peter wrote: "Time is not change. Changes occur accross time; time is what change occurs accross." - Understood, though from a certain perspective, time and its effects can be thought of as inextricable. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Time as configuration

I believe a good way to think about time is to think of a "moment in time" as a certain configuration of the universe. This configuration would include things like the locations of the universe's objects and also things like the momentums of the objects and in which direction the objects are "currently" moving. In my view, time is a much more encompassing dimension (piece of information) than width, length and height. If you know what time it is, you'll know the current configuration of the universe and therefore, the width, length and height of all the objects.

If a moment in time is a configuration of the universe, then time travel is possible. Clearly, the configuration of the universe is always changing. Going "back" to a certain moment in time, according to my definition of time, would mean changing the configuration of the universe to it's configuration in the given moment in time. Of couse, it will be quite difficult to travel "back" in time if the configuration of the universe you wish to achieve is quite different from the current one, as almost any two universe configurations are likely to be.

But, if you're content with changing your "local time" - the configuration of the universe in a local area - well, at least getting it to match to a high enough degree, then it appears that you can travel to (change to) a time (configuration) that is sufficient for your purposes. For example, if you wanted to bring someone back to life, you'd have to reconstruct their body with their DNA sequences, etc... okay, it can be difficult! But, you can construct a clock that at least appears to cycle through the same local times. Using System Restore on a Windows machine is another example - the settings get changed back. It appears that you've gone back in time.

Do these definitions of time and time travel make sense enough to include a new section on them in the article? What do you think? Synesthetic (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and OR. The idea of time as a configuration has some insight in it, meaning that's generally how time is handled locally (as a state), but that's not what time actually is. You seem to be shaping your conjectures to match your original premise about time travel, which, as with most T-symmetry transforms, is not actually possible due to entropy. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Synesthetic:Off topic and OR. The idea of time as configuration has been fully developed into an eliminative theory Julian Barbour's End of Time, which you might care to look at.

Steve: There is no straightforward fact to the effect that entropy defeats time symmetery. See Huw Price's Time's Arrow. -1Z (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

?!? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede

" Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —according to dimensional constraints and orthographies at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection."

Given that Jim and other mainstay custodians of this article have not vocalized any issue with the criticisms listed (in above sections), I have gone forth and added a new lede sentence (above) expanded from my earlier edits and with consideration of the criticisms given to it by thoughtful co-editors. For future reference, I encourage everyone to consider WP:CONCEDE and what its essential idea, if implemented, can do for any article discussion. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already expressed numerous problems with the reification of time, and/or making it into a force, as well as the lack of meaning in the wording that you have proposed. It is not until the 32nd word that you touch on anything clearly identifiable with time. You repeatedly say "that is not what time is" as if you have found a better def, when you have neither sourced nor found anything approaching a def, and what you present does not even clearly distinguish time from things such as motion or causality. --JimWae (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment that time does not depend on us, but that does not make time an entity. We are simply unable to conceptualize the universe, even a universe without humans, without temporal concepts - but that does not demonstrate that time IS a force of the universe or something that objectively "exists".

If we cannot resolve this without reifying time in the lede, then perhaps we will need to return to a lede that says there are two views on what time is JimWae (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We also cannot conceptualize a universe without number, but that does not make "a force that separates things" a definition of number. Some scholars claim that the best def of time is "what a clock says", and that the question of what time "really is" is unanswerable. Not all concepts are as amenable to definition in simpler terms the way rectangle is -- and if you look at the rectangle article, you will see that even defining rectangle has some complications. Some concepts just cannot be defined in terms of simpler concepts (there have to be some simplest terms). When this happens, the best we can do is delimit the contexts in which we use the term that signifies the concept. That is what the lede has done for 2 1/2 years, and adding your jargony tag neither improves the article nor helps the reader understand why it is there. (One of the examples of the limitation of definition used by Wittgenstein turns out to be number, and he spoke of family resemblance as the way out of the limitation.) Look at the distance article and the number article - the same limitations of definition apply. JimWae (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have another sentence I am working on:

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to compare and quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to compare and measure the motions of objects.

OR

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to compare and measure the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to compare and measure the motions of objects. JimWae (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OR

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using standardized units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days) JimWae (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "I appreciate the comment that time does not depend on us, but that does not make time an entity. We are simply unable to conceptualize the universe, even a universe without humans, without temporal concepts." - Jim do you understand much about holographic theory/paradigm, QC, etc.? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Physicists identify FOUR fundamental forces. They do not include time as on of those forces. In order to put your supposed text in as a defintion of time you will need to provide extensive reliable sourcing beyond speculative determinism and ideas about many-worlds being a reality. You have not replied to the several objections I have raised to your text - nor to my points about the limitations of defintion.-- JimWae (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that I have "identified" time as a "fundamental force." I have not. Can we please drop the rhetoric and deal with substance. You have conceded that the previous definition, which you once staunchly defended, is in fact inadequate. In other words, what you once thought was stellar writing was not, and you were not correct in defending it. So though I diregard your adversarial tactics, I greatly appreciate your progress. Now if we can now project a future course of where this discussion is going, you may find forthcoming trends to be similar. Let me start off by apologising for using similar rhetoric to yours. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim proposed

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to compare and quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to compare and measure the motions of objects.

Time is not a "one-dimensional quantity." Putting aside that time may in fact at certain very small scales be a one-dimensional operation (on one-dimensional objects), time is not a "quantity," and nor is it in larger scope "one-dimensional." In fact the idea that time is one-dimensional is itself asserting a kind of POV from the standard model that doesn't deal with time in a very rigourous way except to categorize it as functionally single-dimensional and objectively relativistic, and rejects many-worlds (the basis for quantum computing) and other insights that are massively "dimensional." -SV

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to compare and measure the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to compare and measure the motions of objects.

In addition to the criticisms above, linking "used" to quantification is an non-helpful easter-egg. The rest is material I keep in my version as a secondary explanation, and so the only issue I have with it is that it doesn't actually explain what time is (a conceptualization for change), and therefore is unsuitable as a first sentence. -SV

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using standardized units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days)

The above criticisms still apply. Times numerical quantification is relevant, but inessential to a grand unified definition. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Time is not just about change - it is also about duration & sequencing. It is not just about the unspecified past - it is also about sequencing the past. Your text is vague - it does not distinguish time from causality or motion or change. With all its vague vagaries, your text does not, in the end, do what you keep asserting we must do - define what time "really is". (Here's a relevant essay that has been worked on by more than one person.) Your text does not define time at all; it is closer to a definition of change. It speaks of time vaguely and figuratively as some kind of "force". It speaks vaguely of some kind of all-encompassing deterministic causality. Along with lame links such as state, your text has several serious Easter eggs - such as projection linking to Many-worlds interpretation. We are not here to provide new "intuitive insight" or original research. We are here to summarize what the best reliable sources have to say. Perfection is a goal we can only hope to get close to. Text that substantially satisfies the desire for definition should not be substituted out just to say anything/something that pretends to be a complete definition but is jargony vagueness that pays no attention to sources. The text that has been here 2 1/2 years may be imperfect, but your text is still no improvement --JimWae (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See when you say things like "jargony vagueness" what you are really doing is showing a total and complete lack of good faith or a willingness to find consensus. Very little of what I write can be described as such, and in reality you are just violating both CIVIL and OWN. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "Time is not just about change - it is also about duration & sequencing. It is not just about the unspecified past - it is also about sequencing the past." - Duration and sequencing are objective concepts related to measurement (and not dimension itself) which are not fundamental to time itself (in the way dimension is). I like the formulation you wrote, but it serves best as a secondary sentence - one which opens up the door to objective concepts.

JimWae wrote: "Your text is vague - it does not distinguish time from causality or motion or change." - Causality is of course relevant, and can be added to my wording.

JimWae wrote: "With all its vague vagaries, your text does not, in the end, do what you keep asserting we must do - define what time "really is"." - Again time is not "an essential part" of "a measuring system" and it is not "a measuring system" - that is a strict utilitarian way of looking at it. Time is a fundamental physical transformation. It is the "essential part" of "reality" itself, not just "a measuring system." You defended the earlier wording and I appreciate that you have since shown some understanding that it was not sufficient.

JimWae wrote: "Here's a relevant essay that has been worked on by more than one person." - I appreciate some of the main points in that and I appreciate your mentioning it. But you seem to be under the impression that taking a strict utilitarian view is best, and more suitable for "the reader." You now agree that the previous version is inadequate, and have suggested some new alternatives - but again time is not "a one-dimensional quantity" either.

JimWae wrote: "Your text does not define time at all; it is closer to a definition of change. It speaks of time vaguely and figuratively as some kind of "force". It speaks vaguely of some kind of all-encompassing deterministic causality." - Your commentary comes not just from the point of view of an adversarial editor who has an invested OWNership of the article, but someone who thinks that they have mastered the concept and whose explanations are superior to mine and probably anyone else's. But I shown now how about five different versions you've proposed have fatal inaccuracies in them, and I think it wise that we not continue repeating this pattern.

JimWae wrote "Along with lame links such as state, your tex1t has several serious Easter eggs - such as projection linking to Many-worlds interpretation." - I noted this easter egg in the comment line and kept it contained as a separate edit. Note that your usage of "lame" here is a pejorative and adds nothing to your argument. I don't understand why you can't just correct these minor issues yourself rather than make a bigger issue out of them than they actually are and rigorously wave your hands claiming them to be fatal flaws in my version.

JimWae wrote: "We are not here to provide new "intuitive insight" or original research. We are here to summarize what the best reliable sources have to say. Perfection is a goal we can only hope to get close to." - It is not that perfection cannot be achieved, its that you don't actually understand what the concept is as well as I do, and you therefore can't actually write about it at the level I or anyone who is not a subjective utilitarian can.

JimWae wrote: "Text that substantially satisfies the desire for definition should not be substituted out just to say anything/something that pretends to be a complete definition but is jargony vagueness that pays no attention to sources." - You are citing V without yourself actually using it. You are referring to "sources" but not stating what those sources are or that the sources you cite are low level. You are easter-egging the "Sokal affair" from a pejorative and acting as if its an actual argument.

JimWae wrote: "The text that has been here 2 1/2 years may be imperfect, but your text is still no improvement." - I appreciate the concession, but how can you draw an equivalence between what you write and what I write? It is an apple and oranges comparison your are making here. There is no equivalence between my general and conceptual overview, and your version which is best usable as a secondary sentence. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert report

I'm experimenting with a certain tit-for-tat/adversarial way of dealing with Jim, who mistakenly regards himself as an WP:OWNer of this article. Comments welcome.

• 4 (cur | prev) 19:25, 12 July 2010 Stevertigo (talk | contribs) m (75,622 bytes) (Your text is less than adequate - it is unsourceable philobabble without the merit of even an intuitive insight, let alone a source. "Time is a one-dimensional quantity..." Ha.) (undo)
• 3 (cur | prev) 18:40, 12 July 2010 JimWae (talk | contribs) (75,269 bytes) (your text is more than debatable - it is unsourced jargon that sheds no light on the topic in a general- purpose encyclopedia. It is also POV) **
• 2 (cur | prev) 15:56, 12 July 2010 Stevertigo (talk | contribs) m (75,609 bytes) (Undid revert based on asshat ownership of article) (undo)
• 1 (cur | prev) 04:42, 12 July 2010 JimWae (talk | contribs) (75,063 bytes) (rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese) (undo)

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

** THIS (#3 above) WAS NOT A REVERT - (JimWae) re-signed JimWae (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• That was the wrong link. Fixed. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is announcing that one is "experimenting" with other editors assuming good faith? How are announcing such experiments and claiming that I am guilty of "asshat ownership of article" helping to improve the article? Is anyone who prevents you from conducting and publishing original research guilty of "asshat ownership", or is it just me? --JimWae (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The issue was is that you don't seem to be acting in good faith yourself in this context. I think you are intelligent and reasonable, but have to some degree exercised a concept of ownership over this topic - to the disregard of any improvement which might come from someone such as me. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible To Verify Negative Statements

"Travelling backwards in time has never been verified, presents many theoretic problems, and may be an impossibility."

"Has never been verified" is an impossible to prove claim. How does one know, for example, that the Tibetan philosopher, Sum Sing Wing Wong, who flourished in 1850 in the Fling Flong Province did not verify traveling backwards in time? (EnochBethany (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Omnibus first ref

The first ref tag (from Jim?) is an omnibus citation of about ten different dictionary sources. The current lede sentence comes from the fifth source down:

"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future."

I used it here, and I am happy with the fact that its general and usable. But its not our own writing as it should be, and I want to change it. But I'm hesitant to change this wording given JimWae has yet to respond to the above critiques, and that it seems to be adequate. There are other definitions of "time" in the AHD version which are just as superb and have relevance for our article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede issues (2)

Of the many definitions of time that there are, there is no indication why that particular one should be the one wikipedia uses. At present the article is self-contradictory. The lede twice takes note that there is no consensus in the literature on definition, yet picks one that is not neutral with respect to the disagreement. A more neutral one would substitute "in which events are located" instead of "in which events occur" - but there is no source for that one. We will probably have to go back to beginning with something like "There are 2 distinct views on how to define time."--JimWae (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "The lede twice takes note that there is no consensus in the literature on definition, yet picks one that is not neutral with respect to the disagreement." - It is a textbook example of a WP:NONCE introduction where, because of some "neutrality" between good and mediocre sources, a "there is no consensus" version is produced. Nonce introductions are to be avoided.

In my view, there is no comparison: The AHD definition excels for each and all definitions beginning at the most general (a1) to the most mediocre (11). There is no other definition which gets to the substance of the concept at the same high-level. It also subsequently treats the dimensions of time you appear interested in, and as I said above, your writing is essential to a continuation from a general definition. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is policy. Your NONCE is not. The lede touches on the debate over how to define time. Wikipedia cannot take sides JimWae (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference between NPOV and what you state to be reality. In addition to violating OWN, stop violating CIVIL. There are no "sides" - only arguments of different conceptual depth. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I said this before - insisting on observing the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS in the face of repeated violations exhibits neither OWN nor being uncivil.--JimWae (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone who has dealt with you knows the difference between what you do and civility. But I appreciate you taking it down a notch to label the current lede according to certain criticisms. Now can you please explain what you mean by "vague" tag? It does not appear to be warranted in that case as "[[physics|physical]] process" seems adequate. I would not mind it linking to something more relevant and specific. What article would you suggest?

The "failed verification/not found in source" tag does not appear to be warranted either, as the lede sentence seems in large part to echo exactly the source. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have added a significant number of phrases that do not appear in the source - nor in any known source. You are reifying time & you are doing WP:OR JimWae (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In source

• non-spatial dimension
• past
• present
• future.

NOT in source

• physical process
• in which reality
• is macroscopically transformed

Paraphrased from source but attached to unsourced phrases

• in continuity

-- JimWae (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, thanks for responding. You list four things which are "NOT in source" and "Paraphrased from source but attached to unsourced phrases":

• physical process
• ..in which reality
• ...is macroscopically transformed
• ...in continuity

Can you explain how or why any of these basic concepts are in the least controversial or controvertible? I mean, can you explain in some general objective way what is problematic with each of them? - Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned anywhere in the article, nor in any of the refs I've checked, defines time as a process, yet you've made that the primary descriptive phrase. The closest is language like "Time heals all wounds", but that is figurative language - nobody thinks time is the main cause that results in healing. You are treating time like a force or some kind of application of energy - but time is not "measured" in Newtons nor in Joules. This is your own research, not anything you have presented a single source for. --JimWae (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Time is also not JUST about transformation, it is also about endurance and duration. We do not need "As conceptualized by human beings< !-- as opposed to what???-->" because, like it or not, unless we hear from ET, OUR conception is all we can ever talk about. The first sentence does us no good, it is original research which detracts from the value of the article. We can very easily begin with the well-sourced 2nd sentence (without the "As conceptualized by human beings")--JimWae (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• JW wrote: "The first sentence does us no good, it is original research which detracts from the value of the article." - Can you substantiate your view with a clear, bulleted point-by-point commentary on the four listed items?
• JW wrote: "Nobody mentioned anywhere in the article, nor in any of the refs I've checked, defines time as a process," - The word "process" indicates two things: "procession" and "function." Is "procession" irrelevant to a physical paradigm which "proceeds" sequentially from past to present to future? Is "function" irrelevant to a physical paradigm which the formentioned "procession" occurs in an orderly way bound by physical laws, as described in physics in accord with mathematical "functions?"
• JW wrote: "The closest is language like "Time heals all wounds", but that is figurative language - nobody thinks time is the main cause that results in healing." - Your comparison here is insufficient.
• JW wrote: "You are treating time like a force or some kind of application of energy - but time is not "measured" in Newtons nor in Joules." - These (force and energy) are two different things. In physical terms, time has properties which resemble that of a force, and hence might use similar terminology in their description. At no time did I suggest that time be treated as some kind of "application of energy" or that it be "measured in Newtons or Joules."
• JW wrote: "Time is also not JUST about transformation, it is also about endurance and duration." - Am I to understand that you are now trying to be constructive here, by saying that 1) transformation is now somehow relevant to time, and that 2) we need to consider "endurance" (huff!) and "duration" in the first sentence? "Endurance" is clearly a typo —you must instead have meant "persistence." And you already did a stellar job of indicating "duration" in the second sentence. I could not do better than you already have at dealing with this secondary concept.
• JW wrote: "We do not need "As conceptualized by human beings" because, like it or not, unless we hear from ET, OUR conception is all we can ever talk about." [..] "We can very easily begin with the well-sourced 2nd sentence (without the "As conceptualized by human beings")" - I don't know where you are quoting this from, or why you are raising this issue. I see now what you are referring to. When going from a very general, abstract, and objective look at time as in the first sentence, some transition is required when going into how it is used in special, objectified, and subjective contexts. I agree that its not beautiful, but some transition is required, and I think its acceptable. The word "conceptualized" does confine the context how people percieve and use time - which are what your secondary treatment gets into.
• Jim could you now deal with the four issues you raised in detail (there are only four of them, and its YOUR list), and explain why they are irrelevant or else unsuitable to the lede. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not really matter what we agree or disagree about. You have made the very first sentence of the article one that is mostly unsourced. Without sources, this is original research. Encyclopedias are not places to introduce one's own pet ideas & definitions, and on wikipedia, the policy is to remove such material.--JimWae (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

JW wrote: "You have made the very first sentence of the article one that is mostly unsourced." - It is sourced, and my writing complies with that source. Its the best dicdef from among the dictionaries you listed. So what you now seem to be saying is that:

"it does not really matter" 'what I [you] argued before' 'that there were four specific terms which I [you] claimed were irrelevant or inappropriate for the definition

Ostensibly these "[do] not really matter" anymore because you realize (now that youve had time to think about it) that there's nothing at all wrong with these four items ( 1)...physical process.. 2) ..in which reality 3) ...is macroscopically transformed, 4) in continuity..) or my overall formulation. A formulation which, again, is fully compliant with the source. Note, we can't simply quote a dictionary - we have to rewrite things. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source for anything, much less one that defines time as a "process" or "transformation" -- or even speaks of it in such a way. "Reality" is also unsourced & vacuous. Sorry, Steve, it has to go --JimWae (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"You have not provided a single source for anything" - I provided the AHD source. Next. "..much less one that defines time as a "process" or "transformation" -- or even speaks of it in such a way." - This criticism has some validity. Lets do a quick search for some sources which deal with time as a process, or use "process" analogies with reference to time:

• "Space time physics and fractality."
• Aristotle
• Itzhak Bars
• Whitehead
• stochastic processes

I suppose you will now try to suggest that all of these be cited in the passage, and that every word I write have a separate citation. Jim wrote: "Reality" is also unsourced & vacuous. Sorry, Steve, it has to go." - Im quite familiar with "reality," and though I understand some people (such as yourself) have a different sense of things, I still think "reality" is relevant to the concept (time) and I think it should stay.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not provide the AHD source. I provided it and you "appropriated" it. There is nothing in any source presented that supports "Time is a process that transforms reality" nor "time is a process in which reality is transformed", nor "time is a process". If you can find something in Whitehead or Bergson saying that, then provide it and that can stay in the article. For it to be acceptable as the lede sentence will require much more. An encyclopedia must rely on sourced material, not unsourced speculative metaphysics of its editors --JimWae (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, removing tags and radically altering ledes of articles are NOT minor edits, as has been explained to you already. It is very inconsiderate of the collective process to continue to mark nearly every edit you do as "minor edit".--JimWae (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

JimWae claims: "You did not provide the AHD source. I provided it and you "appropriated" it." - I understand. So you "provided" the source, meaning you did the hard work of looking up the AHD and copying and pasting its content here. After which I then "appropriated" the content by 1) actually reading it, 2) deciding it was a good source with a good conceptual take on how to write a definition, and 3) moved it out separately from the 19 dic-def omnibus citation you "provided" and 4) used it to substantiate the first sentence wording I wrote. The one you dislike so much. You have yet to deal with the four basic 'problem' concepts you yourself raised:

• "physical process" - (links to physics of time - debatable, but what would you prefer? "Paradigm?"
• "..in which reality" - Do you have a problem with reality?
• "...is macroscopically transformed" - You appear to have conceded that time has something to do with transformation (JW: "time is not just about transformation..")
• ...in continuity - (linked to continuum) - You appear to have conceded that the AHD source supports this term at least "partially."

I feel as if I am sometimes repeating myself with you. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on "Time is a... process"

There is a dispute over how to begin the article. An editor has persistently added unsourced material of this sort to the very top of the article

Time is a physical process and non-spatial dimension in which reality is macroscopically transformed in continuity from the past through the present and on to the future.

The cited source was appropriated from a citation that was previously further down in the lede. THe cited source does not contain words supporting "Time is a... process in which reality is transformed" or any such thing. Editor has repeatedly removed tags applied to the text - with edits marked as minor. Editor is altering pages linked to in his construction in a manner to bolster his argument, but it all appears to be the same original research kind of editing. Editor has attributed WP:OWN to me because I will not allow him to add this unsourced material. There are 4 Qs that could be addressed. 1> Is the sentence properly sourced? 2> Does it belong in the lede? 3>Is it good enough to be the first sentence of the lede? 4> In its present state, does it even belong in the article?

This is a recent previous edit from 2010-JUL-12 along the same lines, also marked minor:

Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and orthographies at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection.

--JimWae (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that per our discussions I changed "process" to "paradigm." I made this change to the article at 02:18, 1 August 2010. Your comment above was made (first saved version) at 02:24 1 August 2010 ([1]), minutes after I had made the above change. It may appear that you were beginning your comment here just as I was making the change.

It also may appear to be a red herring. Though it was difficult to separate your rants from your actual arguments, the issue of "process" is something I said above was "debatable." After my responding comment in the above section, I decided that though your other three points were lost, your first point about process was relevant. Note that if you had removed hyperbole from your argument and confined your approach to finding consensus between us (instead of being adversarial), you might have simply stated that "process" does not work to indicate "procession," the relevant concept, and that "process" has semantics which localize it to deliberate functions or applications. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

PS:Note also that you have yet to respond or else concede to my points at Talk:Time_in_physics. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following in the section below, but somehow it got edited out: ----

In the first place, please do not label a section with my user name. It is inappropriate, and it can be construed as trolling. The statement I removed was not supported by references. The statement I replaced it with is supported by references. There is no requirement to "vet" a statement not supported by references, and hence is considered WP:OR. Furthermore, the WP:OR over - wrote the original sentence that was also supported references. References are required to say that time is a paradigm and the rest of the incomprehensible verbiage in that sentence. Also there was no discussion that was ongoing regarding this matter, just edit histories. Pardigm, and transformation, is not backed up by references, and therefore cannot be used. It is simply OR. My statement in its place, is supported by references already in the article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the commentary, but I think it is a matter of WP:OR vs. WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and cited references. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Nevermind OR vs VERIFY. It appears the discussion in this section, and the discussion in the next section, may lead to consensus. I didn't see that before. So I am all for consensus, as well as balance. What's next? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using something like a WP:CLOUD, which is why I wrote that essay. We start with brainstorming a cloud of relevant concepts, put them in a order in terms of their relevance to the subject (time), and write them into phrases and passages that connect them. In this case we're already halfway done - JW, you, and I have all contributed whole versions and we've critiqued most of these independently. What we can do now is just list all of the relevant concepts. I'll try this out now. Note that Peter (1Z) below has confined his approach to just knocking out concepts which he believes don't work, and that approach I think works and keeps us focused on writing for consensus. Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, be careful here, not to go too far into unsourced material here. It is possible that this is overcomplicating a simple deal, here. I have done some further reading on the problem here, and I have to admit I jumped into the conversation too soon. One problem is placing unsourced material in the lead, having it challenged and removed, and still replacing it in the lead. The other solution I see is this entire article covers the aspects and views of time, very well. In fact it is a former WP:GA. Having said all that I am thinking that WP:OR is not well understood. Furthermore...

Previously, this article had its lead as follows (which is perfect):

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days). Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.

This lead is clear, succinct, and broad all at the same time. It actually has said it all. I think the above should be the leading lede of this article. Especially, that it is a "one dimensional quantity" relfects the current physics. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed". Neither are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that. We do not need the first sentence at all. The 2nd sentence is well-sourced & covers aspects of numerous sources--JimWae (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Wae makes a good point here, and I have to agree. Neither are supported by the references cited and should not be in the aritcle at this point. I prefer the lead I just posted above. However, the first sentence is not even needed. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JimWae occasionally does make a good point, but he has also obstitudiously objected to any compromise on the matter of what he claims to be neutral writing. Still, in our discussions over the last week, I've been able to find fatal flaws in every single proposed writing he has submitted. When it gets down to finding any fatal errors in my writing, he changes tactics and tries a red-herring argument focusing on items that I've already agreed to compromise on.

Of course its a fair argument that I provide sources, but that's not been JimWae's argument, and he himself has not objected to using dicdefs as a source. In fact he "provides" us with an omnibus 10 dicdef reference. All this did was show that most dictionaries are written at a basic English level and that the AHD alone had the sense to provide a general statement of what time is.

Consider the argument for example, that though there is a source that says that "time is a one-dimensional quantity," we can ask "is that what time really is? A 'one-dimensional quantity?'" It is not. Time is 1) an English word, used a) to conceptualize a physical phenomenon of change b) to refer to that physical phenomenon, or c) refer to the concept of the phenomenon. Out of all of the dicdefs JimWae "provided," only one, the AHD had the temerity to offer a high-level overview.

Consider what 1Z says below, that of all of the writing I've "provided" the only things he found unlikeable are the concepts of "paradigm" and "macroscopic," neither of which are fatal, and both of which can be changed - to "physical phenomenon" and "universal" for example. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do think the article was generally better before you started "improving" it. 1Z (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical paradigm... in which reality is transformed" or "time is a physical phenomenon... in which reality is transformed" NONE are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that.

Fatal flaws.... ???? Though you occasionally extend a compliment my way, they seem usually to be part of an effort to compliment yourself. We are not here to discuss whether you have explored fatal flaws in what I wrote, nor in what is presented in dictionaries... AND encyclopedias. You have not provided a source for your preferred "insight" into what time "really is". We are not even here to discuss what time "really is". We are here to present what the best reliable sources have to offer. We are not here to argue about your "insight" into what time "really is". You have not shown any effort to source your material. There's really nothing more that should need to be said. --JimWae (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Editors on Wikipedia are not tasked with getting into deep philosophical discussions regarding time, or any other subject. Anything produced from such a discussion is not material that could be placed in an article, besides the fact that we wouldn't get anything else accomplished. Material presented in articles has to be based on reliable sources. It is a really good system. In any case, I can provide a link for a wiki where articles comprised of POV and original works are allowed, if anyone is interested. It has editing tools just like Wikipedia and there is no stringent requirement for WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does consensus matter here? Instead of agreeing to kill any wording I come up with, you two can instead suggest better alternatives - alternative which then have to stand up to my scrutiny. Calling for RS is only valid if you yourself provide such sources in your own proposals. Neither of you did this, and yet now you both (even newcomer Steve) are claiming that RS is now the relevant concept. Keep in mind that WP:CONsensus is far older than even RS, and is still just as relevant here. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. You are never going to get this right for everyone. As the article says, defining the concept of time has eluded the greatest scholars. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Forget that. The lead changed as I was writing this.

I think that editors here need to concentrate on writing something as non-contentions as possible so that the lead will be stable, maybe along the lines of, 'time is the concept that separates the past from the future' or whatever. Maybe even start with the fact that there is no definition, 'Time is a concept which all humans seem to understand but for which there is no adequate definition'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Time

Steve Quinn came by and offered us the above writing:

Time is a continuum that runs from the past, through the present, and into the future. Within this continuum events occur one after the other and these events cannot be reversed. In light of this, time is an expression of an interval between two points, each marked by an event which lasts a duration (of time). Hence time is measured, as with years, days, minutes, seconds, or fractions of a second. Furthermore, time can be viewed as system containing measured intervals.

There is much to like about it, but nevertheless just like anything it must go through a vetting process here on talk. I will make some specific plaudits and critiques shortly. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Plaudits

• SQ's intro is high-level, that is to say it takes a step back and looks at a large field of relevant concepts to "time" including ways by which time is objectively conceptualized as days, months, and years. JimWae's version, which is very usable as a secondary sentence, already did the second part, as seen in the second paragraph of SQ's version. The first goal - a broad view - has been the entire focus of my writing, and has been something that JW has rejected. SQ appears to understand the necessity of a high-level overview, and as such I think we can find a good balance between the three of us.
• Time has a continuum aspect. This is a concept provided by the source, and one which I used. But there are problems, per below.
• Time does "run" from "the past through the present and into the future." Again this is wording found in the AHD source which I wrote into my version.
• The idea of no T-symmetry is of course relevant, and I don't have much of an issue in treating it objectively as Steve has done here.
• "Time can be viewed as a system.." - ie. time can be viewed in different ways..

Criticisms

• Time is not an "expression of an interval" as much as it is a physical process or paradigm. Even saying time is a continuum has problems in that time is more than just that. The idea of a continuum also has subjective semantics which parsing presents us with the problem that its usage infers a subjective viewpoint. JimWae has issues with the concept that time is a process, and so simply saying it is a "paradigm," seems necessary.
• Stating what time is is the essential essence here, and getting into colloquial measurements seems necessary, but I dislike writing in which the colloquialisms have undue weight relative to more formalistic concepts such that come from physics. In essence the ideal lead will be something along SQ's direction, but IMHO it needs trimming to avoid redundancy with JW's extant text involving objectified concepts such as measurement, sequencing etc.
• SQ does not mention either "change" or "transformation." He only says time "runs from the past through present, etc.
• Time from a certain picture is a "system," but it does not "contain" measured intervals, except in the conceptual sense. From a physical perspective, it is that which "provides" or "generates" measured intervals, perhaps, from another particular picture.

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am all for balance. Stevertigo, appears to have a good view of what's intended and what is needed. The first sentence, as it stands, is really not understandable, and needs to be simplified. I reccomend breaking it down into several sentences, similar to what I had. Also, what I wrote is not to be taken as "written in stone. " It was a first draft which was summarily "thrown out". In any case, compare reference number 1 to what I wrote and you will see these are very similar. This is not my original writing, but a reflection of reference number 1. Also, I have verified this reference because the link provided goes right to it.

One more thing. It appears the original first sentence that was there two or three weeks ago was also supported by the first reference, but has now been changed to something unrecognizable. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this version:

"Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and orthographies correspondences at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection."

.. which I wrote previously? JW disliked that version as well, just as I found fatal errors in his proposed versions, and that's how we came to the current version. We here run into the editorial problem that saying "time is a concept," is just as true as saying "time is a physical phenomenon" or "time is a physical process." Please see Time in physics and offer a physicist-oriented critique of my writing there. JW has had issues with that overview as well. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like "paradigm" and I don't like "macroscopically". 1Z (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The interesting thing about "macroscopically" (ie. time's "macroscopic" aspect) is that while time has a linear function at the particulate level, its generalization to fields and even entire reference frames is constant, mod the influence of mass vis-a-vis relativity. So while its true that time has a "microscopic" aspect, its "macroscopic" effects cannot be dismissed. In fact time has universal aspects (cosmology) albeit modified vis-a-vis some geometry governing how reference frames relate.
• The issues with "paradigm" I agree with —its main meaning is conceptual and this does not translate to real phenomena. What about simply "physical phenomenon?" Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a degree in physics yet I couldn't understand your first comment. 1Z (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I say for example, that 'time acts like a force upon a particle,' this would not evoke a concept that we were confining our thoughts to the "microscopic?" If I then say time acts upon all of the universe, would this not evoke the idea that the scope of the concept is "macroscopic?"

To make this simple, would you prefer, instead of "paradigm" and "macroscopic," we simply use "physical phenomenon" and "universal?" Or just the earlier version minus "macroscopic," hence:

"Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and correspondences at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection."

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Time is the (non-spacial) distance between two events. (Jijil Ramakrishnan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.52.74 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Concept cloud

See WP:CLOUD and WP:CONCEPT.

The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head):-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cloud

(add/annotate at will)
reality physical, physics transformation, change phenomenon continuum, continuity progression, procession dimension measurement scope, macroscopic, microscopic past, present, future day, month, year after 6) process after 7) function

Comments

1) Reality is essential to a colloquial definition and probably negates the need to indicate scope ("macroscopic"). 4) Phenomenon works with "reality." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede sentence

We are making progress. I restored an older version of the lede that I wrote:

Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that transform reality in a continuum from the past to the present and on to the future.[ref=AHD]

Modocc (following me here across topics from Talk:Universal reconciliation, and without commenting here on talk) changed the wording to:

Time is the continuum in which events occur in apparent succession from the past to the present and on to the future.[ref=AHD]

"Apparent" could do with some qualification: otherwise that is an improvment. There is no notable opinion to the effect that time is a force or mechanism or anything that makes something happen. 1Z (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The main thing that stands out with Modocc's rewrite is the language "in apparent succession." If time has illusory qualities which make it substantially different from its "apparent" forward direction, these should be stated. The language gets to the topic of the perception of time (redirects to sense of time - should be "perception" as time is not "sensed"), which is probably relevant, and perhaps should be linked. But the language "apparently" is based in an idea that time's perception could be fundamental to time itself, and while this idea is an advanced one, its best formulations get into Orch-OR territory and other quasi-scientific conjectures about how the mind works at perceiving nature. But even these generally don't negate the idea that time is a continuum, and that its continuous - ie. its forward moving (or in physics terms, its non-symmetric). So, theres little doubt that time moves forward in a procession or succession, and thus the caveat hinted at with the word "apparent" seems unnecessary. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed apparent because none of the sources but the first one cited used it. I had included it as part of the paraphrase of the cited definition, for generality sake,but its too inclusive per NPOV. --Modocc (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I want you to note also that though the AHD dicdef says 'time is a continuum', we can do the same only if "continuum" itself actually means something. In our case continuum is a disambiguation page, and continuum (theory) is a stub, and a theoretical one at that. Still Im not unhappy that, after pages of talk, we've arrived at the amazing conclusion that vast concepts like this one might best be introduced in general terms, and that time itself is not merely what clocks report. Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link to the disambiguation page. I didn't realize it would be pointless goose-chase. But a temporal continuum, especially the spacetime continuum does have meaning, as do all the sourced definitions, including the fact that clocks report a continuum and are designed to do so with regularity. I'd also like to point out that time is not a concept either, anymore than I am. Its this reality of events we experience that defines time. Time is not just a continuum or any continuum, its the continuum of events. As long as the lede remains focused on the occurrence and measurement of events its fine. --Modocc (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) Fair point. But the "as long as the lede remains focused on" appears superfluous. We shouldn't tie ourselves down just because the current lede has a particular slant toward time's mechanical/measurements dimensions. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, there is a very simple definition that works for everyone, and that is used in physics (see article Time in physics): Time is what we read on a clock, and an ideal clock is a counter of certain atomic events. This is how every physicist, every engineer, and every man in the street defines time. It can also be sourced. It works perfectly, it is unambiguous and it is operational. Actually, present day physics, engineering and life in general would hardly be possible without this definition. Only philosophers seem to have a problem with this. Perhaps it's a remnant from the pre-relativity "absolute-time" days. So perhaps we should have yet another article (say, like Time in philosophy) to accomodate for all the ideas going beyond science, technology and our wristwatches. Just a thought. - DVdm (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, that "very simple definition" might belong at simple:Time. I have not checked that wiki in years, but you can take a look if you like. The target audience are people under 10 and ESL students, (though they both are moreoften encouraged to tackle more advanced material to grow their vocabulary). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuum in which events occur

1. A great many of the defs that are referenced in the article do not use the term "continuum". The meaning of the "continuum", whether technically correct or not, is not transparent to the reader, and the function of definitions in general-use encyclopedias is to explain things in simpler terms, not in more complex terms. Does saying time IS a continuum say more about time or more about quantification in general? I'm not sure it has been determined yet that time IS a continuum, though we have determined that there is no reason yet that we cannot consider time as a continuous quantity.

2. Saying time is "something" "in which events occur" suggests that time has some sort of ontological precedence over events - that time is some kind of aether that events depend on for their existence. This tends to "reify" time in a way that is open to question. Another valid way of looking at it is that time depends on events. As it says later in the lede: Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence...

3. How do we decide what defs to use to say what time "is", and what defs to use to say how time "has been defined". Isn't it taking sides to choose some and not others for saying what time "is"?

4. Maybe I missed it - was there a discussion about why we need any part of this new first sentence? I am going to remove it and see if others agree it is not needed. I know Steve does not agree, but Steve has not concerned himself with sources so far, and wants to insert his own unsourced insights as what time IS, so there is not likely any way he will be satisfied with WP standards regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and original research.--JimWae (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I need to retire now, because its late here. But the short answer is that the scope of the first definition is broader and both definitions are true and compliment each other without any need for qualifications. The sourcing (see below) is impeccable too. Also, it doesn't matter semantically if time turns out to be a grainy continuum. Similarly, its not relevant whether only events define a continuum or whether the continuum actually has an independent existence. Same goes for spacetime and space. These are just different considerations that certainly have important implications as to how each continuum is viewed though. Here are the current cites with this term and very similar expressions of the concept highlighted in bold, I did this quickly so take note of, or highlight any omissions I might of missed:

References presently cited

"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time." ). "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2010. http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/. "Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last.... Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question "What is physical time?" is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime." "MacMillan Dictionary". 2010. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/time. "the quantity that you measure using a clock" "The American Heritage® Science Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated." "Collins English Dictionary". HarperCollins. 2003. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time. "2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms.... In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event. See space-time continuum." "Eric Weisstein's World of Science". 2007. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html. "A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one even preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension." "Glossary for Extragalactic Astronomy". CalTech. 2005. http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_T.html. "A dimension distinguishing past, present, and future. In relativity, time is portrayed as a geometrical dimension, analogous to the dimensions of space." "Merriam Webster Online Dictionary". 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time. "1a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration; 1b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future; 2: the point or period when something occurs : occasion" "Encarta Online Dictionary". 2010. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861720331. "1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events." "Webster's New World College Dictionary". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be... a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval" "Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on Random House Dictionary". 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.... 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.... 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? ... 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right." "The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary @dictionary.com". 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?r=66. "A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years." "Collins Language.com". HarperCollins. 2010. http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=time. "1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole,... 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atoms" "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia". 2010. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596034/time. "Measured or measurable period. More broadly, it is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions." "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language". 2010. http://www.yourdictionary.com/time. "1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading. 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes. 1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M. 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.... 11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time."

One huge benefit of the new addition is that we now have tangible links to the notable and highly relevant articles on the past, present and future in our first sentence, which certainly helps with asserting the topic's notability as required. I need to take a wikibreak, and I'm not sure for how long, but I'll try to respond further sometime tomorrow if necessary. --Modocc (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You've come a bit late to this discussion, Modocc, so you might not be aware that every one of those refs was added by me (hence I am already pretty well aware they are there), that AHD is now cited twice in there, and that it was mostly myself who composed one of the sentences. Only 3 of the 13 sources define time with "continuum" (one more presents it as somebody's view) and only one says "continuum in which...". We could say it is a "continuum", a "linear continuum", a "one-dimensional continuous quantity", or we could say it is a "quantity" - THe last is more general than "continuum". I think we can find other ways to include links to past, present, and future than taking sides in a great philosophical debate (of realism v idealism v nominalism). --JimWae (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have said above that the objective of the opening sentence should be to be as non-controversial as possible, mainly in the interests of stability. To achieve this aim it is likely to be a bit bland, saying little about time except that it separates the past, present, and future. We should not try to explain what time is any further that most people intuitively know, simply because there is no scholarly agreement on the issue.

On the above basis, the current sentence looks good to me, except, as JimWae's comments, for the word 'continuum'. The more general and uninformative we can make that word the better in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. How about having no word at all and replacing 'the continuum' with 'that'? Martin Hogbin (talk)

"in which events occur" is also a matter of some controversy. I will think about a way to work in past present & future. But it gets a bit long for one sentence.

Time has been defined as a one-dimensional quantity[2] used to sequence events (separating events in the past, present, and future), to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with other quantities such as space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes.[3] --JimWae (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's leaning towards non-realism again 1Z (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The realist version is controversial. Non-realist accounts are minimalist - just what we need to avoid controversy. Realist accounts could maybe come afterwards. Anyway, perhaps this will work better (it certainly is better syntax):

Time has been defined as a one-dimensional quantity[1] used to sequence events and position them in the past, the present, and the future. It is also used to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (together with other quantities such as space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes.[2] Time has also been defined as a continuum in which events occur in an apparently irreversible succession.[3]--JimWae (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that 'one-dimensional' is too technical for an opening sentence and therefore possibly controversial. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversies and technicalities can be confronted with sources though. The sources indicate that the quantity definition is more specific to physics, but the concept of a continuum is germane to both physics and general usages. Quantity is a more generic and minimalist approach yes, but there is the downside of what it does not say given these sources. We can certainly avoid the "something" "in which events occur" construction and perhaps avoid too the minimalist approach. Perhaps:

Time is the continuum of events which occur in succession from the past, to the present and on to the future. Time is also a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with other quantities such as [[space]) to quantify and measure the motions of objects and other changes.

Given the listed sources, I don't quite see a need to qualify either of these two definitions with the verbose "has been defined"... if we can get this right. --Modocc (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a single controversial realist definition of time, there are muliple controversial realistic definitions. Leaving them all out leans toward the antirealist position which is controversial as well. 1Z (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, for the opening sentence, give a simple, maybe even naive, but indisputable description of what time is so that nobody can disagree with it. Sources are of no use here. You can probably find a source to say anything you like about time.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, "simple" + "maybe even naive" = simplistic. This is not the simplistic.wikipedia, and even simple.wikipedia uses used (until JimWae messed with it) a general, non-simplistic definition for time (simple:Time).

Note, I think JimWae is being unncessarily argumentative here. The lede as it is is quite simple and to the point. The issue which JimWae centers in on here is the word "continuum," which is a point I raised near the end of the previous section. Instead of arguing here between using "continnum" and "something simple", we could be working to bring the continuum / continuum (theory) articles up to par. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We are talking about the first sentence of the lead only here. There is simply no way you will ever get agreement on anything other than a simple, non-contentious description. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is simple and it is where it should be at. We are not the simplistic.wikipedia. If you and JimWae are thinking of alternatives, propose them, but don't make an argument against "continnum" by saying that 'all the other dicdefs were written by third graders, and therefore our lede should be written similarly.' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

JimWae did propose an alternative, this. But only four of the thirteen sources state that time is a quantity. And of those, two place it under "(physics)", and another is a physics reference. The forth also happens to say its a continuous quantity. Thus defining time simply as a quantity has limited usage, so must it really be at the top? Regarding Jim's initial concern about not saying time is continuous, six sources explicitly give this general understanding. In addition, another source gives a view that it is continuous. Several of the sources only define time with a period or duration which for all practical purposes, given that events are random, is a continuous quantity. In short, the notion that time IS, in a general sense, "something" that is continuous is easy to verify. That something is called a continuum and in physics its an integral part of the spacetime continuum. Thus there is no need to obscure the fact that time is considered a continuum too (last I read, there was some agreement on calling the theory of relativity a fact, but that's getting into wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory). I've suggested changing the "the continuum in which events occur" to "the continuum of events which occur" so as to make it more explicit that the continuum is a relation regarding events. Saying something IS defined a certain way in the top of the lede favors it of course, but not to the exclusion of other definitions. For example, Blue is one of the three primary colors. It is also a perception of the visual senses. Hence, this "has been defined" is unnecessary verbiage as long as we assure that these definitions convey, in a respectable manner, the essential topic here which is time. --Modocc (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer stating that "time Is a continuum", rather than what is presently in the first sentence "Time has been defined as the continuum in which...". I don't see this as overly controversial. Especially when many sources also describe time as such. Also, continuum is easy to understand - in that it is describing a "continous succession", rather than a succession that is comprised of discrete parts, or that is comprised of partitioned increments. The partitioned increments, or discrete parts, are more likely related to seperate events, which occur inside the continous succession of time (inside the continuum).

At the same time, it may appear there is a continuum of events, but this is probably not the case. It seems that each event is described in discrete terms. For example: On any given day "Event A" precedes "Event B", which precedes "Event C" and so on. In fact it could be that events do not really exist, because events only exist in our languaging, or descriptions. Events do not actually exist in physical reality the way the moon, trees, or a pond exisist in physical reality. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor does time "exist" the same way trees do. I would prefer saying "time is" too - if it were possible for humans to agree on what time is - but that is a goal, not an achievement. I have more concerns with saying "time is a continuum in which events occur" (like time is an "aether"), than I am with saying "time is a continuous quantity" (vs. discrete). There are, however, some few who maintain time could be discrete. Though I do not agree with them, I do NOT think it has been determined that time is continuous, just that WE regard it as continuous, and no reason has yet been found to stop us from regarding it as continuous. Perhaps it was a mistake to change from a treatment similar to that in 2007 - though now modified somewhat. One distinct view of time is that it is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension *in which* events occur.... --JimWae (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim, looking at this 2007 introduction (all four paragraphs) I am wondering why anyone changed it. It is well written and seems to cover most of the bases, if not all of the bases. I wish we could put a lock on some articles, or some parts of articles, when a certain degree of clarity and a proficiency of wording has been attained. Not to detract from our energetic efforts here, but we are becoming the architects of an introduction that was already written in 2007, more or less. In fact the lede paragraph that you wrote just recently was, as I said, a perfect lede for this article. But instead of just keeping that we are here, again working on - once again - the perfect lede. I would not have a problem with going back to the 2007 lead.

To discover what time is I am attempting to peruse this book online at the moment: Physics and the ultimate significance of time... by David Ray Griffin. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You will not find the answer there. Physicists do not purport to be able to answer questions of philosophy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Its probably not a bad idea to look at what physicists actually do think about time. Physicists tend to regard time as just an extension of the dimensions required to define a space, but implicit in that definition is of course the agnosticism that Martin refers to in which physicist deny making qualitative judgments about anything. But that's not to say that some physicists haven't looked at time itself and what it actually is. Itzhak Bars, for example, conjectures "time" to be best represented as two distinct dimensions (2T), not just one. In any case, the idea of a unified spacetime seems to answer the question well enough.

JimWae wrote: "Nor does time "exist" the same way trees do." - One could say that 'light does not "exist" in the same way trees do' and I wonder if JimWae would argue so forcefully against a "real" notion of light in the way he argues for an "unreal" notion of time. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Off topic

Time is the fourth dimension.Think about it for a minute when someone gives you a date or an appointment there are three things to consider length,breadth,and altitude but even with these coordinates there is one last thing to consider and that is of course time.Where would you be knowing where to go but not knowing when to arrive somewhere?~~lightbeamrider

But keep in mind special and general relativity - someone may be late to the luncheon, and still be on time to the funeral. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoctosecond

Just for the record, yoctosecond, is correct and yactosecond is incorrect. However, I don't understand the editing of the word "common" for the table. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I hit undo instead of rollback. It was my intention to delete the 2 entries that are finer than any measurable time, which are not COMMON units of time. It was not my intention to change the spelling. This article is not the article to provide ALL the prefixes that can be put in front of second. Such is perhaps even of limited use in the second article. I cannot see any point to including yottasecond either.--JimWae (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had never seen these units before, so I went looking for them in the literature, and thus their presence was useful to me. I think that is a point for having them in the table, and surely I'm not the only one to frown upon them. Is that sufficient as as point? I think so, but if others don't, I will not lose any sleep over it. DVdm (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim, maybe you would be interested in a poem where the topical coverage is the yoctosecond.

In other words, it is about the yoctosecond  ; > ) BTW, does this demonstrate notability? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Time|p005465z}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Lead in of article

Some days ago I placed the {{Lead too long}} template on Time. I would have edited the lead myself, but my current internet connection has considerable problems to load the article. In the meantime Steve Quinn did some work there. He also asked for my opinion. Now, here it comes, applying to the current version:

The third paragraph referring to Ray Cummings should be moved to a new art-about-time section. It is a nice illustration of the sequencing concept, but it definitly does not belong in the lead. Also there is a lot of redundancy and undue elaboration within the other two paragraphs.

Generally the lead section should introduce and summarise the article using introduction style of language. That means for example: being short, having short sentences, no explanation, no history (if not being about history), naming the most important concepts, thereby possibly referring major point of views. Also the lead should start with some kind of definition, due to the article being an encyclopaedic one.

I already have some ideas for a rewrite. Here a first structured list of concepts:

paragraph 1

• sequence of events
• distance between events, duration

paragraph 2

• speed, rate, more general: derivation in time
• measurement (eventcounting = equal-distance-counting), natural "instruments" (moon), clocks
• codependence of time and space dimensions (sequence is different for each position [more precise: phase position=position now-before-after])

paragraph 3

• medium conception, flow
• dimension conception, independence of dimension, perambulatability

paragraph 4

• from-birth-to-death impression
• circle idea
• idea of opportune moment
• unreal-idea

Lastly I would like to state that there is no need to rush: The lead has issues, but it is not wrong. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but it would help if someone placed a new version of introduction here for discussion. I also see a couple of minor obvious issues that can be easily fixed right now (see my comments below).Biophys (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your comments and edits in the section below. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Time and troubles

I think indeed that the main problem should be: split the contribution.

The time, time inversion and relationships of time with modern theories is not that clear yet to even the top guy in physics. I would create a further, Time (disambiguation): Time (history of the term) Time (Measures) Time (in physics) Time (in IT: Time zones to start with)

How to get back them together? no clue.. just time.

But definitely, if classical time apply: I revert you to a baby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Time in IT as a variable

I would propose such a section. Because most of our perception of time depend on a computer giving us the time. The computer being a phone, the desktop or a complex alarm-clock.

But in particular because I need to sort time events and I want to use the unix sort -n facility. I can do it if time is given as: YYYY.MM.DD.HH.mm.ss.Decimals Or in numbers: 20101011212200.milliseconds this format has the precision of milliseconds (at least) on a 32 bit machine.

Because this number is not a problem for modern machines, I would propose this format for time events. This will cover any Y2K troubles until year 9999. Scientific experiment with sub-time measures can be connect to this time scale (They typically will use their own time scale anyway).

Of course the time shift is still in place: but it is typically on the hours with a precision of a second.

This is the simplest, organic, number ordered unit of time with the precision of milliseconds on a modern computer. It can be used for any life time event.

Beside the proposition of the time variable: I strongly recommend a section about IT time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW: the Y2K problem should be mentioned. Why we had a "time" problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

It tells: "Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars". What? As long as time is defined by a measurement, it is indeed unequivocally defined for any practical or theoretical purposes. Yes, this applies everywhere. There are many questions about time, but they are not related to the physical definition. Right? Biophys (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, this: "so defining time in terms of such quantities [sch as velocity] would result in circularity of definition". Well, this is quite obvious and does not belong to Introduction.Biophys (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another quick random comment: "Time travel at different rates into the future, known as time dilation". But time dilation is not a travel to the future.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I will just make a quick comment here. What "was" in the lede is derived from sources. So, the statement "defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars " is accurate, and relevant. This has already been throughly discussed in some of the above sections. Since, this is an encyclopedia article, we must paint with a broad stroke. And this especially includes philiosphical views and conclusions. I don't know how "circularity of definition" appears obvious to you, but this is not an obvious circumstance of using language. So this will also have to be added back into the article. Sorry to say, it appears that your wording over-complicates descriptions that have been designed to be simple. Your efforts are appreciated. At the same, time all edits must be based in reliable sources, and it appears that yours may not be. Please don't take this personal, it just how Wikipedia is designed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, could you please direct me to the previous discussion? First of all, my changes just made is shorter for clarity [2] and I did not insert anything new (hence I am not making any OR). Second, what exactly source are you talking about (defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars)? The source is not there. Third, it's fine to mention that velocity (and a lot of other quantities) are defined by using time, but not vice versa. Would that be OK? Biophys (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify this a little. Please read the phrase: "Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars." Word "study" assume science rather than religion, and there is a clear scientific and widely accepted operational definition of time.Biophys (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More about sources. Quote 4 in Intro is wrong. It tells [3] about measuring all physical quantities in "natural" or dimensionless units based on the three fundamental constants of Nature (c, gravitational constant and Plank constant). Yes, that's an important and correct concept, but it has little to do with "circular definition of time" as described in introduction.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am very busy, at the moment, so for now I direct you to this section Nonce_introduction above. Read from there, all the way down. This may answer at least some of you questions. Hopefully some other editors that have been working on this article will jump in here as well. Regards. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let's dismiss completely all arguments by Stevertigo, just to save some time; no one takes them seriously. I made a few minor non-controversial changes, to simplify the introduction per reasons explained in this section. If you do not like them, that's fine, let's come up with something better.Biophys (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially a consensus lede, structured by some knowledgeable people, hopefully you can respect that. I am waiting some of the other editors to become available. However, I don't expect to be available until next Monday. I would prefer some of us get together then. So, I hope you don't mind - you will have to be patient. In the meantime, I reccomend reading this - Time (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I think you will find it illuminating. Also I reccomend reading the details in the subsections for which links are provided. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pertaining to one of your comments above - it may be that the references and citations got a little jumbled with the recent back and forth this article had experienced. I appreciate this feedback. Hopefully, now that problem has been fixed, as I just did a major copy edit of the lede.

Also I understand skewing toward a scienctific definition, rather than a philosophical, or religious definition. I admit that I am biased toward this sort of thing. However, it is a bias. Since a definitive description of time has not been established, which can put to rest the differences between scientific, philosophical, and religious disciplines, it is not for me to decide. The proof would be in the pudding. In other words, if such a description existed, we would know of it. Furthermmore, based on the long history of attempting to define, or describe "Time", how can I possibly say that one description is valid, and others are not. I hope this makes sense to you. Regards - ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, some sections may still need references. I have been so focused on getting the lede to be correct these past months that I haven't scrutinized the whole article. I agree the blurb and section on time travel may not be needed in this article. At least not from the view of time travel. Time dialation might be worth mentioning if we steer away from any science fiction aspect. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You said: "This is a consensus version of introduction. Let's keep it". Yes, I agree. But instead you unilaterally changed it completely by bringing some stuff from "Philosophy" section. Old version was much better, I only made a couple of cosmetic changes. It was not bad at all. You gave me the link here. That's fine. First phrase: "Time is what clocks measure." Right, exactly. I would not mind if this article started from such phrase. Besides, do you know enough about views of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant to oppose them to views of Isaac Newton? Biophys (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the old version, before all the turmoil of the recent past (with Stevertigo) [4]. You might have to scroll down a bit, to see it. We could shift things around like this, if you want, and then get feedback from the other editors. You can see I have pretty much the same information, just in a different order. Why is the order, which this is placed important to you? And what is this anathema toward philosphy? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anathema toward philosphy? What are you talking about? I even respect religion [5]. I only fixed wrong statement that Lebniz did not know how to measure time [6]. Biophys (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are the one complaining, so I fixed it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not complaining but suggest improvements. I made a new subsection below to make this discussion more constructive.Biophys (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious issues

1. The quote from Ecclesiastes is not about time, but about timing and therefore does not belong here.Biophys (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Second coming does not mean end of time because God is eternal according to Christian beliefs. This should be fixed.Biophys (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction, take 2

We first must provide definition of the term per WP:MOS. Here we must give priority to the only scientific/physical definition of time: Time is what clocks measure.[7]. Why? Because this is "majority view". If there are any other philosophical or religious definitions (rather than interpretations or discussions) of time, for example, by Leibniz or Kant, let's provide them too per sources. This is first problem that needs to be resolved. Let's do one thing at a time. Any comments? Biophys (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are many problems in the current version of the introduction, including WP:SYN about Newton and Lebniz. However main problem is this: "Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time". Wrong. "Time is what clocks measure." This is the only definition of time, one that was used by Newton, Lebniz and everyone else since the invention of clocks. Only interpretations differ. They may be included in the introduction, but only after providing the definition.Biophys (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am so meticulous because such things really matter when it comes to special relativity. What changes depending on the frame of reference is not the absolute "time", but only something that clocks show. Biophys (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

First let me say, about what you are doing in this section, good job!

Second, how do you know that the "scientific" definition of time is the majority view? Are there sources that say this is so? I think philosophical inquires, and the definitions derived from these are probably just as valid. Just look at the list of unresolved issues in the first paragraph here [8]. And looking at the second paragraph "Some of these issues will be resolved by scientific advances alone, but others require philosophical analysis." I could possibly say that both philosophical and scientific have equal weight.

What do you mean WP:SYN about Newton and Lebniz, regarding this article?

Also simply stating "time is what clocks measure" may be problematic. There was a time when clocks, as we know them today, did not exist.

I think you are misunderstanding this statement "Many fields avoid the problem of defining time itself by using operational definitions that specify the units of measurement that quantify time." This means rather than define time by some abstract theory or argument, it is defined by some measurable, and repeatable phenonemna, such as counting something, or units of something. It is very scientific (that's my POV talking). Hence, "regularly recurring events and objects with apparent periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, and the swing of a pendulum."

Hopefully other editors will weigh in. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think there are any alternative definitions (rather than interpretations) what time is, let's provide them per sources. So far, I do not see them.Biophys (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)