What is time?

[McCulloch]

What is time?

Is it finite or infinite? Does it flow or is it a path? Is there a minimum possible time interval or is it continuous? What is now? Did time begin? If so, what came before time?

Does religion aid at all in answering these questions?

[Goat]

Surely time exists independent of our ability to sense it.

Not so surely Shirley. Time exists independent of our ability to sense just as much as the same cat is simultaneously alive and dead. There is much to be said on the observer and the observed

Time as motion or change in relationship at planks time was surely here "Shirley"(?) before humans arrived, even if time as a measurement is our invention.
All there need be is any observer which need be no more then one relationship and any change. But the universe doesn't seem to have one observer and everything we see, measure and experince is relative.

The important part about the concept of 'observer' is that it does not have to be an intelligence. Two atoms interacting with each other are 'observing' each other.

[Sir Rhetor]

Surely time exists independent of our ability to sense it.

Not so surely Shirley. Time exists independent of our ability to sense just as much as the same cat is simultaneously alive and dead. There is much to be said on the observer and the observed

Ah, so you're not a realist. And I'm not so sure I like your metaphor. The cat is alive or dead, independent of our ability to observe it. Time works in the same way, and it could be proposed that we now know that time "travels" at the speed of light. In this sense, reality also does. Astronomically, a lot of the stars we can see in the night sky tonight may have already supernova'd. We say that they have not only because it is impossible to know if they have no matter what we do, without violating the light speed-limit.

In the same way, if the cat is a considerable distance away (so that there is a noticeable delay in the time it takes for the light to reach you), you cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead in its reference frame without being there.

[youranilldonkey]

Before there was an observer for time everything happened all at once.

If time out dates human life then there must have been an observer before we came along.

I think we're working around this the wrong way.

When the universe ends do you think time will still exist?

[youranilldonkey]

Before there was an observer for time everything happened all at once.

If time out dates human life then there must have been an observer before we came along. If two atoms observe each other what observes atoms that exist away from anything?

I think we're working around this the wrong way.

When the universe ends do you think time will still exist?

[youranilldonkey]

Ah, so you're not a realist. And I'm not so sure I like your metaphor. The cat is alive or dead, independent of our ability to observe it. Time works in the same way, and it could be proposed that we now know that time "travels" at the speed of light. In this sense, reality also does. Astronomically, a lot of the stars we can see in the night sky tonight may have already supernova'd. We say that they have not only because it is impossible to know if they have no matter what we do, without violating the light speed-limit.

In the same way, if the cat is a considerable distance away (so that there is a noticeable delay in the time it takes for the light to reach you), you cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead in its reference frame without being there.

Realist: the term changes when we realize what is real and what isn't.

The metaphor has nothing to do with frame of reference. I was alluding to Schrodinger's Cat, and the paradox that happens when your bring the quantumworld into the Macroworld.

Time is observed on both the macro and quantum level this is a rarity in physics, which would lead some people to believe there is a lot more to time then meets the eye. To assume time always existed is one direction as a way of nature is closing your mind to other possibilities we've yet to discover.

[Sir Rhetor]

Ah, so you're not a realist. And I'm not so sure I like your metaphor. The cat is alive or dead, independent of our ability to observe it. Time works in the same way, and it could be proposed that we now know that time "travels" at the speed of light. In this sense, reality also does. Astronomically, a lot of the stars we can see in the night sky tonight may have already supernova'd. We say that they have not only because it is impossible to know if they have no matter what we do, without violating the light speed-limit.

In the same way, if the cat is a considerable distance away (so that there is a noticeable delay in the time it takes for the light to reach you), you cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead in its reference frame without being there.

Realist: the term changes when we realize what is real and what isn't.

No, the term does not change definition, but our perception of reality is contingent on the accuracy of our tools. Furthermore, reality can never be perfectly accurately known, because we only can measure the past. Linguistically, I think there is little differentiation between past and present realities, but there is a big difference. For example, if the sun were to disappear, we would not know for 8 minutes: no information can go faster than light, including space-time curvature.

The metaphor has nothing to do with frame of reference. I was alluding to Schrodinger's Cat, and the paradox that happens when your bring the quantumworld into the Macroworld.

Time is observed on both the macro and quantum level this is a rarity in physics, which would lead some people to believe there is a lot more to time then meets the eye. To assume time always existed is one direction as a way of nature is closing your mind to other possibilities we've yet to discover.

It actually have everything to do with the frame of reference. The paradox of Schrodinger's Cat stems from the fact that it makes a Boolean result (dead or alive) out of a probability.

Time is a dimension. Dimensions are also observed on the quantum level; it's just that the quantum world may have many more than the macroscopic world. So the unanimity of the observation in quantum and relativistic is not surprising.

Time may be like a tree, with our reality simply being one path from the beginning to the end. A new branch is made, then, when a quantum probability is realized.

So the cat may be alive in one branch, but dead in another. What confuses me is what decides what branch we realize (we only remember one history).

[Grumpy]

Time is like the frames of a movie. Each frame is unique, it could even be viewed in 3D, but when viewed sequentially in the fourth dimension(time)give us motion and a steady increase in entrophy that determines the only possible vector we can move through time with. And there is no rewind button, once experienced that "timeframe" is forever gone, each coming frame has not yet been "filmed". Matter and energy move through time just like they do in the 3 spatial dimensions, except it is a one way trip.

Time is tied together with light(radiation/energy), space and gravity(mass)in such a way that a change in any of them affects all the others.

Light does not experience time(in it's own frame of reference), but in our frame of reference it has a certain speed. And it is also the same in all other frames of reference. This speed is how far(distance in space)a photon travels in a unit of time in a vacuum.

Energy and matter are really two different forms of the same thing(E=MC^2). Energy has gravity just like mass. Gather enough of either together and time will slow to a stop, like on the event horizon of a Black Hole. So gravity is tied with time. When the escape velocity is faster than lightspeed, time stops.

Movement through space also slows time. Any movement at any speed between two "stationary"(in our own frame of reference)points will slow the time experienced by the moving object. Even waving your arms about will slow(infinitesimally)the time experienced by your hands. Faster speed=more of this effect. Light speed=zero time.

Time is duration, how long an event takes.

Grumpy

[tickitytak]

Time is an infinite number of infinitesimal moments. Since moments are contingent upon interaction, time is contingent upon interaction. Strangely enough, existence is contingent upon interaction as well (with another or oneself), so the notion of a conscious God outside of time is illogical.

[McCulloch]

Time is an infinite number of infinitesimal moments.

Quantum theory suggests otherwise.

Since moments are contingent upon interaction, time is contingent upon interaction. Strangely enough, existence is contingent upon interaction as well (with another or oneself), so the notion of a conscious God outside of time is illogical.

The rest of this is good. When pressed, most theists who argue that God exists outside of spacetime, are forced to admit some kind of timelike dimension in God's realm.

[Cathar1950]

Time is an infinite number of infinitesimal moments. Since moments are contingent upon interaction, time is contingent upon interaction. Strangely enough, existence is contingent upon interaction as well (with another or oneself), so the notion of a conscious God outside of time is illogical.

The measurement of time might be theoretically infinite but what is being measured is discrete and the limit seems to be Plank's time.