What is time?

[henry quirk]

Yep. In a different universe it very well may be.

In this one, however, things always move from 'bad' to 'worse'.

[Speakpigeon]

we experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of our life

We do not know if time is continuous or discrete and so you cannot be certain about this
If it is continuous then there are no individual moments entirely separate from all others
Now we can of course separate them subjectively but objectively it is simply not possible

???
We experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of our life...
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Yep. In a different universe it very well may be.

In this one, however, things always move from 'bad' to 'worse'.

Maybe in this very universe.
How would you know that's not true. You do it from bad to worse but maybe somebody else is going from worse to bad?
If not, why not?

[Speakpigeon]

What is time?
What it is which we measure with a clock.

Movement.

Suppose the movement in question is whatever happens now for a few seconds and then goes backward for the same few second to the initial state and then move again forward, and this forever, back and forth. Suppose you're looking at a clock during these few seconds. What you would ever see as measured by the clock is at most a few seconds of time. Yet, all the time the universe would be movement just as much as what it does in fact. And this would last forever! So, I don't think we can quite think of time as movement.
Also, how time being movement could possibly explain that it takes the same time for two people grow-up or for two ice-cubes to thaw?
What about time dilation due to a difference in gravity?
EB

[surreptitious57]

We experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of our life

Less you can objectively determine how long a moment actually is then it is completely arbitrary
A moment could therefore be anything at all including the entirety of a life or even the Universe
There is no temporal definition of a moment for it can be as long or as short as you want it to be

[henry quirk]

"How would you know that's not true. You do it from bad to worse but maybe somebody else is going from worse to bad?"

Yeah, but I'm not talkin' about me or you but Reality: as I say, the arrow points in the direction of degradation, uniformity, cold. We get these seeming enclaves of increasing complexity, places were entropy (apparently) ain't king of the dung heap, but these places are fleeting mayfly things (from a certain wide perspective).

As for knowing: it's entirely possible, I guess, for the 'rules' to be different on the other side of the universe, but -- seems to me -- such disparity would make for another universe entirely. No, shoddy though it may be (according to some), the universe is, at least, consistent: the arrow points in one direction (the grave).

[Speakpigeon]

"How would you know that's not true. You do it from bad to worse but maybe somebody else is going from worse to bad?"

Yeah, but I'm not talkin' about me or you but Reality: as I say, the arrow points in the direction of degradation, uniformity, cold. We get these seeming enclaves of increasing complexity, places were entropy (apparently) ain't king of the dung heap, but these places are fleeting mayfly things (from a certain wide perspective).

As for knowing: it's entirely possible, I guess, for the 'rules' to be different on the other side of the universe, but -- seems to me -- such disparity would make for another universe entirely. No, shoddy though it may be (according to some), the universe is, at least, consistent: the arrow points in one direction (the grave).

No, the idea is that some subject would be conscious first of what we call future events and move into what we call the past. Events would be exactly the same as we see, only the subject would experience them in reverse. Why not? And if it's logically possibly, why aren't we doing it like this? Happenstance?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

We experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of our life

Less you can objectively determine how long a moment actually is then it is completely arbitrary
A moment could therefore be anything at all including the entirety of a life or even the Universe
There is no temporal definition of a moment for it can be as long or as short as you want it to be

Sure, and I might well be a flying pig in a green bomber jacket but the fact is that as things appear, I experience one moment after another rather than the whole block of my life.
You know, well, no, you don't, obviously, but we can't possibly be talking here about what we know. We wouldn't need to discuss what we know. If you know that God exists, what's the point of discussing it? We can only discuss our beliefs and our justifications for them. I call "life" what seems to be life to me and I call "moment" what seems to be a moment to me. Or rather, when I use the word "life", I mean precisely what seems to me to be life and I'm confident I understand the word like most people do. If you mean something else with "life", well, I won't be able to understand you.
And I don't.
EB

[Logik]

Less you can objectively determine how long a moment actually is then it is completely arbitrary
A moment could therefore be anything at all including the entirety of a life or even the Universe
There is no temporal definition of a moment for it can be as long or as short as you want it to be

The opposite approach is easier.

You can define what a moment ISN'T.

Lower bound:
1. Definition of a clock. Any wave with a fixed wave-length (regular frequency/period) is a clock.
2. The shortest possible wave-length is determined by Planck length.

Plug in the numbers to get the shortest possible "moment". Anything that takes "less time" than that is not a moment.

Higher bound:
Same definition of a "clock"
The longest possible wave-length is determined by the size of universe.

[Dontaskme]

Time is movement.


.

[attofishpi]

We do not know if time is continuous or discrete and so you cannot be certain about this
If it is continuous then there are no individual moments entirely separate from all others
Now we can of course separate them subjectively but objectively it is simply not possible

I think we can look at time objectively by understanding that time is simply the occurrence of an event, no event, no time - a true moment in time.

So what we are looking at, objectively, is the most finite point in 3D space - where, either an event occurs or it doesn't. Binary reality.

[Speakpigeon]

I think we can look at time objectively by understanding that time is simply the occurrence of an event, no event, no time - a true moment in time.
So what we are looking at, objectively, is the most finite point in 3D space - where, either an event occurs or it doesn't. Binary reality.

But this contradicts our perception of time. One moment, no or very few events. Another moment, a furious myriad of events. I don't think anyone believes time actually slows down or speeds up with the number of events.
We even had to devise special contraptions, clocks, to produce special events occurring at regular time intervals, tick·tacks, to tell us time.
And even if nothing happens around you, your own body is doing all sorts of things and your brain makes sure you have a notion of the passage of time.
A moment in time isn't an instant. "Moment" is just another word for "period of time", only suggesting something shorter. A moment is just a short period of time, say from less than a second to more than one minute. It really doesn't mean anything to ask for a precise duration. How long is a moment? It depends... It was supposed to take just a moment but we waited instead a long moment in silence...

If time was the occurrence of an event, or the succession of events, there would be no reason for similar processes to take the same amount of time.
Instead, if you think events occur in time, in some sort of preexisting time, then events will take a certain time to unfold according to their nature.
Unless, if there is just one fundamental type of event. The time for a macroscopic event to unfold would depend on the fundamental events it is made of. In fact, I can't see any other explanation.
This explains clocks without having to resort to the metaphysical concept of time.
EB

[attofishpi]

I think we can look at time objectively by understanding that time is simply the occurrence of an event, no event, no time - a true moment in time.
So what we are looking at, objectively, is the most finite point in 3D space - where, either an event occurs or it doesn't. Binary reality.

But this contradicts our perception of time.

So what? Our perception is also because of events occurring in the sub atomic fabric of our brain.

One moment, no or very few events. Another moment, a furious myriad of events. I don't think anyone believes time actually slows down or speeds up with the number of events.

Yes, it does. Gravity and the speed one has through space affects the events.

We even had to devise special contraptions, clocks, to produce special events occurring at regular time intervals, tick·tacks, to tell us time.

Yes, time is the measurement of events that man has attuned clocks to.

And even if nothing happens around you, your own body is doing all sorts of things and your brain makes sure you have a notion of the passage of time.

As above RE our perception.

A moment in time isn't an instant. "Moment" is just another word for "period of time", only suggesting something shorter. A moment is just a short period of time, say from less than a second to more than one minute. It really doesn't mean anything to ask for a precise duration. How long is a moment? It depends... It was supposed to take just a moment but we waited instead a long moment in silence...

As I said, at its most finite a moment in time is binary, either there is an event in 3D space, or there isn't - yes, this includes the events occurring within the 'fabric' of our brain.

If time was the occurrence of an event, or the succession of events, there would be no reason for similar processes to take the same amount of time.

Similar is a massive word in the context of time.

Scientists have for the first time been able to measure something in a zeptosecond, or a trillionth of a billionth of a second.
An attosecond is even larger but is 1×10−18 of a second (one quintillionth of a second). For context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years. The word "attosecond" is formed by the prefix atto and the unit second.

Instead, if you think events occur in time, in some sort of preexisting time, then events will take a certain time to unfold according to their nature.

No, I don't think you are quite getting this. Events ARE time.

Unless, if there is just one fundamental type of event.

The events that make up our reality - at the binary most finite scale - possibly well beneath the planck scale, may be related to other events in 3D space, but not necessarily in a causal relationship.

The time for a macroscopic event to unfold would depend on the fundamental events it is made of. In fact, I can't see any other explanation.

Such as the huge amount of events that must occur for a second hand to move a second.

This explains clocks without having to resort to the metaphysical concept of time.

Clocks don't have to do anything that humans apply metaphysical concepts to.

[henry quirk]

"No, the idea is that some subject would be conscious first of what we call future events and move into what we call the past. Events would be exactly the same as we see, only the subject would experience them in reverse. Why not? And if it's logically possibly, why aren't we doing it like this? Happenstance?"

Livin' in reverse: temporal dyslexia. Maybe all schizophrenics have that...

[henry quirk]

Time is movement, sez the man with a poop as his avatar...HA!