I was reading my Operations Research Textbook and came across the concept of dummy variable. They are variables which don’t have any value and are included in equations to make solutions easier.

Now I have always wondered about time. A clock on the wall doesn't measure time. We "feel" it does but IMO, its just distance.

I dunno if it exists or not coz we can’t see time as we can see distances and light, neither can it be heard, smelled or tasted :). How do I then get myself to believe that time exists? The only glitch in this thinking is the concept of speed and power and acceleration.

So could time be a dummy variable?

There are more senses than the standard five. We have a sense for the passage of time. If we didn't we wouldn't be able to tell if it's been 5 minutes since we woke up or 5 hours.

There are more senses than the standard five. We have a sense for the passage of time. If we didn't we wouldn't be able to tell if it's been 5 minutes since we woke up or 5 hours.

I wouldn't say that. Unlike, say, smell there are no nerve endings that pick up the passage of time. So I don't think it is legitimate to call our ability to detect the passage of time a sense.

I don't think time is just a "dummy variable" (if I understand what you mean by that). Time is a very important factor in things involving light for example.

I wouldn't say that. Unlike, say, smell there are no nerve endings that pick up the passage of time. So I don't think it is legitimate to call our ability to detect the passage of time a sense.


Are you disagreeing with the phenomenon or are you nitpicking on the word "sense"?

Are you disagreeing with the phenomenon or are you nitpicking on the word "sense"?

I don't disagree that we are aware of the passage of time, but if you are making our "sense" analogous to the five senses that we have to perceive the natural world, as if we had an antenna that detects the passage of time.

I think it is an internal chronometer rather than some external sense.

I don't consider it nitpicking, because it matters that it is not being "detected" so much as "clocked". The only time we cease to measure time is when the clock breaks (i.e. concussion or some other traumatic brain injury).

How are you defining a "sense"? We have additional senses e.g., balance and proprioception. Balance has a known sense organ, proprioception does not.

How are you defining a "sense"? We have additional senses e.g., balance and proprioception. Balance has a known sense organ, proprioception does not.

Sure it does. Golgi tendon organs are one and they work together with muscle spindles.

I wouldn't say that. Unlike, say, smell there are no nerve endings that pick up the passage of time. So I don't think it is legitimate to call our ability to detect the passage of time a sense.

I don't think time is just a "dummy variable" (if I understand what you mean by that). Time is a very important factor in things involving light for example.

a sense to measure an unseen variable?

I don't disagree that we are aware of the passage of time, but if you are making our "sense" analogous to the five senses that we have to perceive the natural world, as if we had an antenna that detects the passage of time.

I think it is an internal chronometer rather than some external sense.

I don't consider it nitpicking, because it matters that it is not being "detected" so much as "clocked". The only time we cease to measure time is when the clock breaks (i.e. concussion or some other traumatic brain injury).

Could you give me some example that the sense of time really is inborn? I mean it could be just social programming - a meme that we inherited and got habituated with.

I do agree there are glitches in this line of thinking, like light, speed, acceleration and power. Its difficult to account for them in a world without some concept of time.

I mean it could be just social programming - a meme that we inherited and got habituated with.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

St. Augustine really started the question of time, at least in western philosophy. He couldnt grasp it because he said something to this extent: "The past does not exist, the future does not yet exist, so neither the past or future exist. All that leaves us with is the now, the instant at which we are in. But this is immeasurably small, and if something cannot possibly be measured, how can it be said to exist." Then there was Newtonian time which made it possible to chart the movement of bodies through "time." Then there was Einstein's static time he used to make general relativity work. Now today there are popular theories such as quantum relativy, string theory, and so on that need to cancel out time to make the equations satisfied, which the denies the existence of any concept of time. These are just a few examples of theories on time. Look into things like presentism, 4 dimensionalism, eternalism, and others.

I haven't come to any conclusions on time, but its also hard for me to decide anything because i doubt so much, and currently it is really an irrelant discovery to me, there are many things i spend my time (its strange how we have to use inadequate language many times{here's the word again, and still .... what does it mean} because its our only means of conveying meaning, if thats even possile). Nevertheless, the metaphyics of time interests me greatly.

You can slow and speed time up as well.

Fuck yeah time distortion.

Fuck yeah humans.

thermodynamic arrow of time ftw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

The reason why time seems so real to us is because we have been trained to acknowledge its presence. That's what I was trying to say.

But as I said before, I was merely speculating. I still cannot reconcile with phenomenon like speed, power and acceleration existing without time.

The reason why time seems so real to us is because we have been trained to acknowledge its presence.

Acknowledging something already assumes its existence. Concepts of time are build into how we think about the world. Moreover, these concepts are familiar to others when we have discussions. I could go to Papua New Guinea and find some of those tribes that have never had contact with Western civilization before and assuming I had learned their language, I could say "Meet me in the middle of the day at this tree", and we would both come back to the tree at roughly the same time.

When we talk, we have certain concepts that are already build into our understanding of the world. These concepts are cross-cultural. Indeed, even animals have a conception of time. Every time my dog wakes up in the morning, she goes to get her medicine and then goes to the door to pick up the paper.

It is quite reasonable to accept that this is simply the way the world is, rather than something unique about humans.

Acknowledging something already assumes its existence. Concepts of time are build into how we think about the world. Moreover, these concepts are familiar to others when we have discussions. I could go to Papua New Guinea and find some of those tribes that have never had contact with Western civilization before and assuming I had learned their language, I could say "Meet me in the middle of the day at this tree", and we would both come back to the tree at roughly the same time.

When we talk, we have certain concepts that are already build into our understanding of the world. These concepts are cross-cultural. Indeed, even animals have a conception of time. Every time my dog wakes up in the morning, she goes to get her medicine and then goes to the door to pick up the paper.

It is quite reasonable to accept that this is simply the way the world is, rather than something unique about humans.

Your dog is following a pattern to exist. Existence doesn't imply time, so is your dog just supposed to stop existing? Waking up in the morning or meeting a Papau New Guinean in the middle of the day are all things influenced by our percieved movement of the sun and the earth and so on... they don't necessarily mean that anything known as time is actually working. The Newtonian sense of time was created and used to express the movement of these bodies in a meaningful way, although there were other methods before this used with the same intent. So the question still goes back to the same question aman raised about reconciling the movement of any bodies (planets, people, dogs ...) with the nonexistence of time.

An example of an early argument against time was given by Parmenides. He argued that nothing could ever move, because it would have to move into a void, and Parmenides equated the void with nothing, so by definition it does not exist. He believed that the world of sense perception was illusory and that our senses could not grasp reality.

An example of an early argument against time was given by Parmenides. He argued that nothing could ever move, because it would have to move into a void, and Parmenides equated the void with nothing, so by definition it does not exist. He believed that the world of sense perception was illusory and that our senses could not grasp reality.

Could you elaborate/explain this part. I'm interested.

P.S. Past too wouldn't make any sense if time didn't exist.

"I have neither the time nor inclination..."

If Jack said it then it exists.

Just joking. I like this thread and have read it before but Amanamagus was telling me to check it out.

I think a lot of this is just labeling. How do we label what we percieve. If you labeled it differently it would not change but our perception of it might.

But I like your guys' deep thoughts posts better than mine so carry on.