Talk:Time

Back on the first sentence again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISO 8601

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

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

newtonian time

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

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

Einstein name not mentioned in the main description??

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

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

Section on time perception

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

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