Talk:Time
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Time. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Time at the Reference desk. |
Time is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
Incorrect phrasing (31 July 24)
Hello. I'm not used to complex modifications in Wikipedia, so I prefer to put my remark here.
In the "Definition" section, it is written that "Events can be separated in many directions in space, but if two events are separated by time, then one event must precede the other, and all observers will agree on this."
This seems to be incorrect, or at least misleading for a non-expert. Indeed, the time-separation claim is correct only for two events which are in their respective light-cones, for which the notion of past an future is unambiguous. I.e., if they are separated by a time interval. This is not anymore the case if they are out of their respective light-cone, i.e., separated by a space interval.
2A01:CB18:92E:2E00:7591:83A:C2DA:FF73 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change Current View to Submitted View:
Current View: The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time.
Submitted View: The operational definition of measured time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The operational definition of measured Time does not address why changes/events can happen, or whether they can happen forwards and backwards in spacetime. Physicists operationally define measured time as the progression of changes/events from the past to the present into the future. Change is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for measured change.
However the fundamental nature of Time is best expressed as the providing for the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a constituent of spacetime and it is all around us. Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. Yet it is not something we can see, touch, or taste, but we can measure its passage. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence.[1]. Sjbauer121552 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Sjbauer121552 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter:Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-4020-1201-3.
{{cite book}}
: Check|author-link=
value (help); External link in
(help)|author-link=
- Not done: That is too much detail for the lead. Further elaborations exist in the body of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- When will the edit be published in Wikipedia?
- If it its is too much detail, the second paragraph can be moved to be a separate subsection [The Nature of Time] under either the section of Philosophy or Perception.
- If so, do I have to provide for another edit? How do I proceed? Sjbauer121552 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Add new subsection "The Fundamental Nature of Time" under section "Philosophy"
Please Add Submitted View to 'Philosophy' section:
Submitted View: The Fundamental Nature of Time The operational definition of measured Time does not address what the fundamental nature of Time is. The fundamental nature of Time is best represented as the allowance/potential of change. Basically, Time is a dimensional constituent of the modeling for spacetime and it is all around us. Dimensionally modeled Time is considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe changes/events in three-dimensional space. And while we can indirectly experience the reality of temporal differences, the nature of Time is not something we can immediately comprehend via our five senses. The approach of philosophy to Time differs from that of physics. Whenever these differences are disregarded there is a danger to use the same term for differently perceived phenomena and then false conclusions may be drawn. In general, physics operates with actual time concepts, whilst philosophy generally considers time as a potential form of existence.[1]
The dynamic of 'change' is all about the comparison of something made different to what it currently is; the act or instance of making or becoming different, whether physically or temporally respectively. Consequently, if a system is changing, it has an operational measure of time. In our world the happening of changes/events assumes that there is an 'arrow of time'. You cannot change something backwards, due to the theory of causality. Operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for a measured change. However, the measured change/event only happens within the calculable measure of our conscious memory.
Alternatively, if a system is unchanging, it has no operational measure of time. Non-operationally, Time can be best expressed as providing for the allowance/potential of change. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential transition does exist. The definition of potentiality is the ability to develop or come into existence. Therefore, the nature of Time is its relative potentiality; potential to transition into a Present Time existence from a Past Time reality. Also referred to in philosophical presentism, reality can only be realized as existent in Present Time, it is only the duration of measured Time that is the illusion.Sjbauer121552 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Buccheri, R. (2003). The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Chapter: Potential and Actual Time Concepts: KJuwer Academic Publishers. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-4020-1201-3.
- B-Class level-2 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-2 vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class Time articles
- Top-importance Time articles
- B-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class metaphysics articles
- High-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- High-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Former good article nominees