Time thread

>>7935985

>We can measure time with a clock but not explain it


We can use time to measure speed,acceleration,velocity,gravity etc (i ran out of ideas), and we can also measure time based from the given above. why did you tell that anon?

>>7936065
Measured time is useful. But what is time?

Was time created? Was there a time when time didn't exist, as in before time was created, but how could there be a before if there's no time?

You can't explain that.

>>7936089
It's difficult. Perhaps better if I ask about about spacetime.

time is a social construct

>>7936089
>Was time created? Was there a time when time didn't exist, as in before time was created, but how could there be a before if there's no time?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Time is motion, without matter there is no time.

>>7936157
What is time in the present? Not measured time or the question whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end.

>>7936180
The present is the sum of all physical reactions in the universe thus far.

>>7936186
If you disregard the past and the future. What is time, not the measured time unit, in the present now as a phenomena in the present.

>>7936200
It's the current position of all particle in the universe.

>>7936200
There is no "time in the present", you're confused
That's kind of a fallacy of misplaced concretion as whitehead would have called it
Time is not one concrete phenomenon "in the present"

>>7936225
>It's the current position
position? isn't that a property of space?

>>7936225
That's completely bullshit

>>7936248
If the present change place in the only available direction of time there should be a way to describe time aspect in(or of) the present.

>>7936249
All relative to each other of course.

>>7936251
How so?

>>7936261
>All relative to each other of course.
Do you know about Special Relativity? Because it says 'all' can't be relative to each other at a present time.

>>7936261
>How so?
Well, maybe because time is not the current position of all particles in the universe?
If you'd take the current state of all particles in the universe, that's not time, but just the current state of the universe.
What you said doesn't make sense at all, with any common definition of time.

If we take time to be a space like dimension through which we move, we'd never define a dimension by a single point in it. Because a point in a dimension is not the dimension. A moment in time is not time and a position in space is not space.

>>7936259
no. A moment in time (like the present) is not time, like a position in space is not space.

File: 1456598875527.png (205KB, 322x276px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 322x276px

Time is what gives us the ability to order observed states into sequence. How could anon call OP a faggot if the thread has not already been posted?

>>7936278
I'm not saying a position will be the same for all frames of reference. You can still obey relativity in an instantaneous state. The present is the current position for all frames of reference.

>>7936290
>current state of the universe
AKA the present? That's what I was defining, not time.

>>7936299
Interesting. Though I think the present is not just a moment in time among other moments, remembered past or speculated future.

Is there a smallest unit of time? Is there a smallest unit of distance? Like, on a macro scale, when an object moves, it appears to move smoothly. That is, it doesn't hop around. But if you zoomed in far enough on a subatomic particle, would you see it also move smoothly, or at the smallest level is there like a "grid" where an object can't exist between gridlines. That distance between gridlines would be the shortest possible distance.

Thinking about this stuff is confusing.

File: 4L_wi5kLRU9.jpg (377KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1440x1080px

>>7936089
>Was there a time when time didn't exist, as in before time was created